Thailand-Cambodia Border Flare-Up: A Diplomatic Test and a Missed European Opportunity
The escalating tensions between Thailand and Cambodia over a long-standing border dispute are quickly transforming from a bilateral standoff into a geopolitical test — and so far, Europe is failing it.
What began as a minor flare-up turned into a full-blown crisis on May 28, when Thai and Cambodian troops exchanged fire in a contested area near the Preah Vihear region, resulting in the death of a Cambodian soldier. In the days that followed, both governments imposed tit-for-tat restrictions: Bangkok limited border crossings, while Phnom Penh retaliated with bans on Thai imports and cultural exports. Behind these moves lies not just nationalist posturing, but also deep mistrust — and a complex territorial legacy dating back to the colonial era.
A century-old map, a modern crisis
The roots of the current standoff go back to a 1907 map drawn by French colonial authorities, which gave Cambodia claims over temple zones that Thailand contests. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded Cambodia sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple itself, but left the surrounding territory undefined. These ambiguities have repeatedly triggered nationalist tensions — with past outbreaks in 2008 and 2011, and now again in 2025.
Hun Sen, Cambodia’s former prime minister and still the country’s most powerful political actor, has used the crisis to rally public opinion and embarrass his Thai counterpart. His recent leaking of a private conversation with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, in which she called for calm, helped destabilize her fragile government and ultimately led to her suspension. The fact that Paetongtarn is also spearheading Thailand’s international soft power strategy — including her continued role as culture minister — has only deepened the diplomatic rift.
Back to The Hague? A false solution
In June, Cambodia proposed that both countries return to the ICJ to jointly seek a ruling on the undefined segments of the border. Thailand flatly refused, citing a preference for bilateral negotiations through the existing Joint Boundary Commission.
This rejection is not without reason. ICJ processes are slow and politically delicate. A verdict might take years to materialize — and even then, enforcing it on the ground could prove nearly impossible. In the meantime, border communities suffer, trade is disrupted, and tensions fester.
A bilateral solution would not only be faster but also more sustainable — provided both sides approach the table in good faith. Yet at this stage, no neutral actor is facilitating such a dialogue. Which raises the question: where is Europe?
China leads — Europe watches
In recent weeks, China has discreetly offered to mediate between Phnom Penh and Bangkok. That Beijing has influence in Cambodia is no secret: the country is heavily indebted to Chinese lenders and has become a key node in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. But for all its strategic assertiveness, China is hardly a neutral arbiter — and its growing presence in the region is met with concern across Southeast Asia.
Europe, on the other hand, enjoys residual credibility — particularly in light of its role in the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements, which helped end decades of civil war in Cambodia. France, with its colonial legacy and strong diplomatic network in the region, could take the lead in launching a quiet initiative for bilateral talks. Brussels, for its part, continues to emphasize its Indo-Pacific Strategy, released in 2021 which promises to support ASEAN centrality and promote peace and security in the region.
Yet despite these ambitions, the EU has remained conspicuously silent throughout this crisis.
A test of relevance
If the EU wants to demonstrate that it can be a geopolitical actor in the Indo-Pacific, now is the time. The Thailand-Cambodia dispute is manageable compared to the broader conflicts that beset the region — but precisely for that reason, it offers the EU a chance to prove its diplomatic agility.
Supporting bilateral talks, offering technical support on border demarcation, or simply facilitating backchannel communications could help defuse a dangerous standoff — and prevent China from monopolizing regional crisis management.
In a region where Europe is still respected, a timely intervention could pay dividends. But for that to happen, Brussels will have to stop watching — and start acting.
