Peacekeepers, symbolism, and the fragile ceasefire on the Thai–Cambodian frontier
By Dr Mohd Safar Hasim
A Summit Framed by Fragility
As Kuala Lumpur prepares to host the ASEAN Summit, the region’s attention is fixed not only on the glittering halls of diplomacy but also on the rugged terrain of the Thai–Cambodian border.
There, a fragile ceasefire has been stitched together after months of deadly clashes. The anticipated signing of the Kuala Lumpur Accord, to be witnessed by U.S. President Donald Trump, will be staged as a triumph of ASEAN diplomacy.
Yet beneath the ceremony lies a sobering truth: ASEAN’s peacekeepers are holding together a truce that could unravel as quickly as it was forged.
General Hazani Ghazali at the Border
Former Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM) chief Datuk Seri Hazani Ghazali, a career police officer who later served as Sabah Police Commissioner and Director of Internal Security and Public Order at Bukit Aman, has retired after 38 years of service in the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM).
The image of Hazani, Malaysia’s seasoned officer and coordinator of the ASEAN peacekeeping mission, clasping a weathered border stone alongside Thai military officers, has become emblematic of this moment. The gesture was more than symbolic. It was a reminder that borders in Southeast Asia are not abstract lines on a map but living scars of history — markers of sovereignty, pride, and sometimes bloodshed.
Hazani, who most recently held the post of Director-General of the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (MCBA), stepped down in February 2025. His tenure was marked by a focus on strengthening border security and coordinating inter-agency efforts to curb cross-border crime.
By physically holding the stone, Hazani embodied ASEAN’s attempt to “hold” the peace between two neighbours whose mistrust runs deep. The presence of Thai officers at his side was equally significant. It suggested a cautious willingness to allow ASEAN into a space traditionally guarded jealously as a matter of national sovereignty.
In a region where non-interference has long been ASEAN’s mantra, this was a small but meaningful concession.
The Ceasefire’s Fragile Foundations
The ceasefire, agreed on 28 July 2025 after five days of intense clashes, halted the bloodiest fighting in years. At least 43 lives were lost, and more than 300,000 civilians were displaced. The truce terms were straightforward: freeze troop movements, halt the use of heavy weapons, and protect civilians.
Yet the ceasefire remains fragile. Isolated skirmishes continue, and both Bangkok and Phnom Penh accuse each other of violations. The truce is less a resolution than a pause — a breathing space carved out by political necessity and international scrutiny.
ASEAN Peacekeepers: Symbolism and Limits
ASEAN’s peacekeeping mission, coordinated under Malaysia’s chairmanship, is unprecedented. Unlike UN peacekeepers, ASEAN observers are lightly equipped and politically constrained. They cannot enforce peace; they can only monitor, verify, and report.
Their strength lies in symbolism and political signalling:
* Verification: By documenting troop movements and alleged violations, they reduce the risk of escalation through misinformation.
* Confidence-Building: Their presence reassures civilians and displaced communities that ASEAN is engaged.
* Political Leverage: Their reports provide legitimacy to the Kuala Lumpur Accord, giving both sides a face-saving way to claim compliance.
But the limitations are clear. ASEAN peacekeepers cannot stop artillery fire, nor can they resolve the underlying disputes over territory, resources, and national pride. Their role is to buy time for diplomacy, not to impose solutions.
Malaysia’s Moment of Stewardship
For Malaysia, chairing ASEAN and leading the peacekeeping mission is more than a diplomatic duty; it is a chance to demonstrate stewardship of Southeast Asia’s collective credibility. Hazani’s leadership on the ground complements Malaysia’s mediation at the table. His presence at the border, holding the stone, symbolised Malaysia’s willingness to shoulder responsibility for regional stability.
If the ceasefire holds through the summit, Malaysia will have delivered ASEAN a rare diplomatic win.
But if it collapses, Malaysia’s credibility— and ASEAN’s — will be called into question.
The Kuala Lumpur Accord: Ceremony and Substance
The expected signing of the Kuala Lumpur Accord during the ASEAN Summit, with Trump as witness, will be rich in optics. It will project ASEAN as capable of managing its own disputes while still engaging global powers. For Washington, Trump’s presence ties the ceasefire to broader U.S. strategic interests in Southeast Asia.
Yet the danger is that the ceremony becomes the end point rather than the beginning of a durable peace. Without sustained political will, the Accord risks becoming another “frozen conflict” agreement—celebrated in the moment, but quietly eroded by mistrust once the cameras leave.
A Positive but Critical View
On the positive side, ASEAN has demonstrated that it can act collectively in the face of intra-regional conflict. The deployment of peacekeepers, however limited, is a breakthrough in ASEAN’s security culture. Malaysia’s leadership, embodied by Hazani’s presence at the border, has given the region a neutral mediator with credibility. The symbolism of holding the border stone is powerful: it shows ASEAN’s willingness to shoulder responsibility for its own peace.
Yet a critical lens reveals the fragility of this achievement. The ceasefire remains vulnerable to isolated clashes, nationalist pressures, and unresolved grievances. ASEAN’s peacekeepers, for all their symbolism, cannot substitute for political courage in Bangkok and Phnom Penh. Nor can they address the deeper issues—landmines, displaced villagers, and illicit networks — that fester along the border.
Three Possible Futures
The post-summit trajectory could unfold in three ways:
1. Sustainable Peace: The Kuala Lumpur Accord becomes a foundation for reconciliation, with ASEAN peacekeepers evolving into trusted guarantors of stability.
2. Frozen Conflict: The ceasefire holds formally, but low-level skirmishes persist. ASEAN avoids embarrassment but achieves only conflict management, not resolution.
3. Renewed Clashes: A serious border incident undermines the truce, collapsing the Accord and damaging ASEAN’s credibility.
The most likely outcome is the second: a frozen conflict. The ceasefire will hold long enough for the summit and signing ceremony, but the underlying mistrust and unresolved territorial claims will prevent lasting peace.
The Real Test
The true measure of ASEAN’s maturity will not be the applause in Kuala Lumpur but the months that follow. Can ASEAN peacekeepers evolve from symbolic observers into trusted guarantors of stability? Can Malaysia leverage its mediator’s role into a framework for long-term reconciliation? Or will the border once again descend into cycles of accusation and bloodshed once the cameras leave?
ASEAN’s Test of Maturity
Hazani’s gesture of holding the border stone alongside Thai officers is a metaphor for ASEAN’s role: holding together a fragile peace, knowing it could crumble at any moment. The Kuala Lumpur Accord, witnessed by Trump, will be a milestone — but whether it becomes a foundation for lasting peace or just another stone in the long wall of unresolved disputes depends on what happens after the summit.
ASEAN has shown it can choreograph ceremonies. The real test is whether it can sustain peace once the ceremonies end.
The views expressed here are entirely those of Dr Mohd Safar Hasim, a Council Member of the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI)
WE