The clashes between Thailand and Cambodia have intensified, leading to concerns. As per the reports of the BBC and CNN, conflicts erupted in early December with air strikes and exchanges of artillery fire, leading to around 50 deaths and the displacement of around 1 million people from the border. Both parties accuse each other of firing first in the latest round of conflicts, which erupted within a few months of the earlier cross-border clashes that left several deaths. But — more importantly — how much the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, which raises concerns from the UN, the member states of ASEAN, and other international actors, will end remains uncertain.
The ceasefire deal, the Kuala Lumpur Ceasefire Deal, reached on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit held in October this year in Malaysia, helped end the earlier conflicts immediately due to both international pressure and the commitment of the parties to it. The deal that aimed to cease hostilities, halt the movements of troops along the border and scale down the deployment of heavy military weapons near controversial areas gradually could have been the foundation for a broader roadmap to a durable ceasefire between the parties. But as per the reports from several sources, Thailand later suspended the deal in November, accusing Cambodia of laying landmines anew along the disputed border, leading to renewed conflicts in December between the two sides.
Credit: https://pixabay.com/.
But the ceasefire deal was rather more a temporary show of goodwill to stave off international pressure and a mere declaration by the Prime Ministers of Thailand and Cambodia, not a durable ceasefire. The Joint Declaration is unsurprisingly less likely to durably end conflicts for inherent causes as it lacks legal enforceability of ceasefire terms and robust enforcement mechanisms, along with a lack of a comprehensive approach to addressing the underlying causes of conflicts. The joint declaration is, moreover, often temporary arrangements and, due to the lack of structural support, tend to be violated especially when there are significant power interests of the parties involved. There are no differences with these in the Kuala Lumpur declaration.
There is a presence of ambiguity on ceasefire compliance — which led to different interpretations of what compliance meant in terms of troop postures and patrol rights — and disputed borders and unresolved historical claims remain unaddressed in the ceasefire deal that have played a vital role in its violation on the ground and the resumption of hostilities within a short period. Pertinently saying, the poorly defined border between Thailand and Cambodia that resulted from early 20th-century maps drawn by the then French officials which left behind ambiguous lines and controversial claims led to conflicts in the past too. Moreover, mutual suspicions ingrained in the security establishments of Cambodia and Thailand remained unattended in the ceasefire deal.
But optimistically saying, both parties, after several days of fighting, have agreed to hold ceasefire talks on December 24, increasing the possibility of de-escalation and reaching a durable ceasefire. Peace talks are supposed to be held today. But there are various challenges that can hinder reaching an effective and durable ceasefire deal. This is largely because of the difficulty in resolving border disputes, which include many areas. Both Bangkok and Phnom Penh are probably unlikely to foot back from some of the areas including the Preah Vihear temple due to their economic value and cultural significance. The resulting enmity and the lack of trust, among others, can put hindrances to a durable ceasefire between the two parties.
Measures are needed to address the challenges and mitigate conflicts between the parties. But it is vital to move beyond military interest and/or domestic politics-driven temporary truces and seek a durable solution through addressing the underlying territorial issues with clear border demarcation and identity issues. The heavy presence of armies along the border between the two nations also needs to be addressed. But binding measures are needed to increase the chance of the implementation of the ceasefire — more effectively. A transparent monitoring mechanism is needed to implement the ceasefire agreement.
But growing nationalism and its associated national narratives, along with the domestic political grounds where the leaders are incentivized to appear strong on both sides, can not only put further hindrances to reaching a durable ceasefire deal but also may make maintaining a ceasefire difficult. But a genuine political will from both parties can help address challenges, resolve historical grievances and maintain a ceasefire once reached. Trust-building measures between the parties will also be helpful.
