Civil wars, insurgencies, religious and ideological movements, and social and political tensions exist in all 11 nations of Southeast Asia and among the many communities they contain. However, since the end of the Cold War, the region has largely avoided one particular type of conflict: interstate war. It is unsurprising then, that when airstrikes and artillery barrages erupted along the disputed border between Thailand and Cambodia in late July, it made global headlines. The scale and intensity of the fighting was markedly different from that of the skirmishes that took place during the last border dispute from 2008-2011.
While many factors have been observed as the roots of the war, what has been less explored and analyzed is the pre-existing tensions that exist between each state’s ordinary citizens, especially following the border skirmish in May, who have rallied to their respective governments as the dispute has intensified, particularly on social media. From TikTok to X, Thai and Cambodian netizens have been waging a different kind of war, one based on insults, nationalistic hyperbole, and historical and cultural nostalgia. This has created echo chambers where an imagined sense of one’s perceived innocence and superiority over the other justifies hatred and war. At a time of fragile peace, this sort of collective mentality remains a constant threat to the safety and security of thousands on both sides of the border.
A History of Territorial Disputes
The recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia is a manifestation of the complicated relationship between the two countries. In 2008, a dispute over Preah Vihear temple, an 11th Century Angkorian temple situated on the border between the two countries, resulted in a standoff between Thailand and Cambodia that escalated into military conflict. A French colonial map of the area placed the temple on the Cambodian side of the border, but Thailand believed that this deviated from the terms of border treaties signed between French Indochina and the Kingdom of Siam in 1904 and 1907, and claimed it had never officially accepted the map. Although the International Court of Justice ruled in Cambodia’s favor in 1962, giving it ownership over Preah Vihear, disputes persist over this and other surrounding parcels of land.
The most recent incidents erupted from a minor skirmish at the border, resulting in the death of a Cambodian soldier on May 28; both countries blame the other for initiating the clash. Tensions escalated further on July 23, when Thai soldiers triggered a landmine, injuring five, following a similar incident a week earlier. Accusations once again flared, and Thailand recalled its ambassador from Phnom Penh. Early the next morning, fighting broke out at Ta Moan Thom, another temple along the border, which was followed by four more days of large-scale exchanges of firepower and air strikes, which ultimately killed at least 43 people, including civilians, and displaced more than 300,000. On July 28, both countries agreed to “an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.” However, about eight hours after the newly implemented ceasefire, 20 Cambodian soldiers were detained by Thai forces for crossing the border, only two of which have since been returned.
Nationalism and Social Media Before the Five-Day War
Social media has long acted as a battleground in the everyday lives of Thais and Cambodians, with nationalist sentiments bashing one another being a common sight. A quick search on any social media platform showcases many examples of defamation and nationalist pride that have garnered much attention and hatred even before tensions poured into a war.
Well before the war, Cambodian netizens had accused Thailand of the cultural theft of music, ancient temples, and food, as well as rewriting or faking history to erase “Khmer glory” from the Thai education system. This has led some to refer to it as “Copyland.” Comments from various social media platforms have labelled Thailand as a “bully,” claiming that Cambodians living in Thailand are treated without respect, abused without protection in the workforce, and that their children are denied rights. Alongside the bashing of Thailand, a recent upsurge of a TikTok trend of users dressed in Cambodian uniforms dancing to the song “Weapons,” by Cambodian Artists La Cima Cartel, All3rgy, and Hasha had obvious undertones of nationalism that propelled many Cambodians to rally around their government following the initial clash in May.
Conversely, hostile discourse by Thais is not uncommon. “Scambodia,” “CampuChina,” “Xi Jinping’s playground,” and “mini China,” are all derogatory nicknames that Thai social media users have given to Cambodia in the comment sections of various social media sites before the events of July 24. This phenomenon has created a foundation of mistrust on platforms that are less visible to outsiders yet extremely influential in an age of digital technology, creating the conditions for an explosion of online animosity after the conflict broke out.
Continuing Tensions
#Save Thailand, #ThailandOpenedFire, “Angkor Wat will belong to Thailand,” “Cambodia Attacking Hospital.” These are just a few of the many recent comments under a TikTok video of two Western travel-vloggers who shared their experiences having visited Cambodia weeks before the war began. There is no doubt that the preexisting adversity between the two states before the outbreak of the conflict blew into a massive social media battleground still active a week after the ceasefire.
Many themes that dominated the social media tug-of-war before July 24 — moral superiority, cultural history, good governance, respectable royalty — became sharper and more pronounced afterwards. Recent social media posts include comparisons of royal family members, a favorite target of Cambodian users being Thailand’s Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti who has been frequently contrasted against Cambodia’s Princess Norodom Jenna, usually subjected to shameful emojis and captions. Thai netizens are no better, posting edits of their air force’s military gains during the clashes or the country’s supposed help toward Cambodian refugees in 1979. Even against the backdrop of a nominal ceasefire, the generalization and abuse of issues as trivial and mundane as the two prime ministers’ English accents during the ceasefire agreement have become weapons disrupting an atmosphere of stability on the internet. AI tools have been used extensively to serve up the same propaganda and slander, for instance, to reimagine a false, glorified conclusion to the conflict.
In addition to amplifying the existing social media animosity, the outbreak of war has also led both sides to accuse each other of firing the first shot. This has been followed by a flood of tit-for-tat requests for justice and accountability, veiled in self-righteousness. On X, Cambodian op-eds from their national newspapers and captioned images still condemning the Thai military for “a calculated act of intimidation against a peaceful neighbor” have been posted as recently as August 4, while pro-Thai posts have similarly pictured Cambodia as a false victim of a war it started. Nationalist social media posts continue to be uploaded ambitiously. Videos of both sides accusing each other of breaking the ceasefire have also surfaced well into the first week of August. The constant animosity on social media between politicians from both countries, including big names such as Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen, only increased tensions, rallying nationalistic crowds, rallying nationalistic crowds, both to agree and add insults, under every post.
A Mentality of Conflict Persists
While social media banter and its influence on nationalistic and jingoistic rhetoric is not new, its effects have created a collective opposition to lasting peace between Thailand and Cambodia. As part of a reply on a TikTok video posted a few days ago — “just protect and fight back” — connotes, the desire for conflict has not been quelled. While there have been calls for peace and stability in the region, such optimism is usually overshadowed by unresolved grievances and a confused need for netizens to fulfill their own definitions of justice, created in an echo chamber of like-minded people. Social media users on both sides continue to justify the violence as a necessary reaction to aggression from each other, rather than calling for the two nations to transcend their dispute in the interests of reconciliation and cooperation.
On the ground, as the ceasefire remains fragile, both militaries are on high alert, and distrust between the two governments runs deep. “It can erupt at any time,” one Thai politician commented, on the possibility of renewed conflict. Online, the social media war shows no signs of slowing down. It is important to recognize that one of the contributors to a lack of widespread opposition to the war from both sides has been the fact that social media had already laid the groundwork of distrust and antagonism. If cool-headed leaders on both sides are unable to rise above the online noise, the continuing tug-of-war on social media may pull the two nations into yet another series of border clashes.