By Dr Mohd Safar Hasim
When artillery shells echoed across the Thai-Cambodian border in July 2025, Southeast Asia was jolted into a familiar yet dangerous rhythm. Ancient grievances flared into modern conflict, threatening lives, heritage, and regional stability. Amid the chaos, Malaysia stepped forward—not with force, but with diplomacy.
As ASEAN Chair, Malaysia brokered a ceasefire, convened emergency talks, and earned the trust of both Washington and Beijing. It was a moment that tested Malaysia’s resolve and ASEAN’s credibility. And it proved that principled leadership, rooted in historical memory and institutional readiness, can still shape peace in a region too often caught between nationalism and inertia.
This was more than a diplomatic win. It reaffirmed Malaysia’s role in helping ASEAN navigate sovereignty disputes without sacrificing unity or the rule of law.
A Dispute Rooted in History and Identity
The Thai-Cambodian border dispute centres on the Preah Vihear Temple and surrounding terrain—an 11th-century Khmer monument atop the Dangrek escarpment. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded the temple to Cambodia, citing Thailand’s prior acceptance of colonial-era maps. Yet the adjacent 4.6 square km remained contested, with both sides invoking historical claims and nationalist sentiment.
Tensions resurfaced in 2008 when Cambodia listed Preah Vihear as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Thailand objected, arguing the listing implied sovereignty over disputed land. Armed skirmishes followed, culminating in a 2013 ICJ clarification reaffirming Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple and its immediate vicinity. Thailand rejected the ruling’s implications, citing domestic legal constraints and unresolved demarcation.
July 2025: A Crisis Reignited
The latest escalation began in May 2025, when a Cambodian soldier was killed near Ta Muen Thom Temple—another disputed site. Thailand called it accidental; Cambodia called it provocation.
Within weeks, both sides had deployed troops, exchanged artillery fire, and fortified positions. By mid-July, the conflict had spread to multiple sectors, with reports of airstrikes and landmine use.
Malaysia responded swiftly. As ASEAN Chair, it convened emergency talks in Putrajaya, engaged both parties through shuttle diplomacy, and secured a 13-point ceasefire agreement on July 28. The deal halted troop movements, pledged humanitarian protections, and established a monitoring framework. The United States and China attended as observers, underscoring the dispute’s geopolitical weight.
Malaysia’s Diplomatic Leverage
Malaysia’s success drew on decades of regional engagement, a reputation for neutrality, and institutional experience in conflict mediation. From its role in the Aceh peace process to its leadership in ASEAN’s political-security blueprint, Malaysia has consistently positioned itself as a stabilising force.
In this case, Malaysia:
* Convened the ASEAN General Border Committee (GBC)
* Engaged both parties through bilateral and backdoor diplomacy
* Secured international support without compromising ASEAN’s autonomy
This reflected Malaysia’s strategic balancing—assertive enough to lead, cautious enough to preserve ASEAN’s consensus model.
Legal Impasse: Cambodia’s ICJ Bid, Thailand’s Refusal
Cambodia has signalled its intent to return to the ICJ. Prime Minister Hun Manet argues international law remains the only impartial mechanism. Thailand refused, citing bias and judicial overreach.
This deadlock exposes the limits of international law when domestic politics override compliance. It also raises questions about ASEAN’s capacity to offer credible alternatives. If member states reject rulings and ASEAN lacks binding mechanisms, where does the region turn to?
ASEAN’s Institutional Gaps
ASEAN’s response was commendable—but incomplete. Malaysia’s mediation was effective, but the bloc’s broader mechanisms remain underused. The ASEAN Charter’s dispute settlement protocol offers arbitration and summit-level referral—but is rarely invoked.
The Political-Security Community Blueprint encourages joint border management and humanitarian law compliance, but lacks enforcement.
Historically, ASEAN has struggled with sovereignty disputes. In the South China Sea, its Declaration on the Conduct of Parties remains aspirational, while the Code of Conduct remains elusive. In Myanmar, ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus has failed to restore democratic governance. The Thai-Cambodian dispute joins a growing list of crises exposing ASEAN’s structural limitations.
This episode offers several lessons for Malaysian foreign policy:
1. Institutional Leadership Matters
Malaysia’s credibility stemmed from its readiness to convene, mediate, and monitor—built over years of investment in ASEAN’s security architecture.
2. Legal Literacy is Strategic
Familiarity with ICJ precedents and treaty law enabled Malaysia to navigate the dispute’s legal dimensions.
3. Multilateralism Requires Flexibility
Malaysia balanced ASEAN’s consensus model with pragmatic engagement of external powers. The US and China’s presence reinforced—not diluted—ASEAN’s role.
4. Civil Society Can Amplify Diplomacy
Malaysian academics, media, and youth organizations helped shape public discourse, strengthening Malaysia’s soft power and legitimacy.
Towards a Regional Solution
To prevent recurrence, ASEAN must evolve beyond passive diplomacy. Malaysia can lead by proposing reforms such as having a:
* Permanent Border Monitoring Missions under the ASEAN Secretariat
* Binding Arbitration via the ASEAN Coordinating Council
* Joint Heritage Management Zones to depoliticise sacred sites
* Youth and Media Engagement to counter nationalist rhetoric
* ASEAN-UNESCO Cultural Diplomacy to reframe contested sites as shared legacies
These reforms would not only address the Thai-Cambodian dispute but strengthen ASEAN’s overall capacity to manage sovereignty conflicts.
Conclusion: Malaysia’s Role in ASEAN’s Future
The Thai-Cambodian border dispute is more than a bilateral quarrel—it is a test of ASEAN’s maturity and Malaysia’s leadership. As the region grapples with overlapping crises—from Myanmar’s political collapse to maritime tensions—Malaysia must continue to assert its role as a principled mediator and institutional innovator.
This is not just about resolving a dispute. It is about shaping a regional order where diplomacy, law, and cooperation prevail over nationalism and militarism. Malaysia has shown what is possible when history, strategy, and civic trust converge.
The challenge now is to institutionalise that success—so ASEAN’s next crisis finds not just a mediator, but a region prepared to lead itself toward lasting peace.
(The views expressed here are entirely those of Dr Mohd Safar Hasim, currently a Council Member of the Malaysian Press Institute, and previously an academic at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and a senior journalist at BERNAMA)
WE