Since taking office, Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has adopted a hardline stance against Cambodia, culminating in the move to suspend the two-week old peace agreement over the latest landmine casualties. What is behind this move? And most importantly, how much influence does a powerful domestic driver like the military have in shaping the government’s decision?

Just two weeks after Donald Trump and Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim presided over the historic Joint Declaration, known as the peace agreement, between Thailand and Cambodia, Thailand announced it was suspending its agreement after Thai soldiers were injured by a landmine on 10 November.

To explain the current situation and Thailand’s position in the conflict with Cambodia, Prachatai spoke with Supalak Ganjanakhundee, a former news editor and expert on the Thai-Cambodian border conflict and international politics in ASEAN.

In the early days of the Anutin administration, Cambodian PM Hun Manet extended his goodwill through his letter of congratulation, which Supalak said he was offering as an ‘olive branch’. However, the move proved fruitless, as Anutin took a tough stance since his first day, which was seen as a response to ‘the lingering nationalist sentiment’ among those who proclaimed themselves as ‘patriots.’

Why are other bilateral mechanisms working?

Supalak argued that the suspension of the peace agreement shut down diplomatic channels, the tool Thailand has normally used when dealing with Cambodia. In contrast, Cambodian PM Hun Manet reaffirmed his belief in a peaceful approach and the spirit of the peace agreement signed on 26 October.

Diplomatically speaking, Thailand’s current stance has allowed Cambodia to take the lead by projecting itself to the international community as the party committed to peace. 

Meanwhile, Thailand, as the larger country with a stronger military capability and greater economic power, appeared unwilling to trust even the agreement it signed itself, weakening the country’s diplomatic leverage.

Thailand and Cambodia have multiple bilateral mechanisms, namely the General Border Committee (GBC), the Regional Border Committee (RBC), and the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC). However, these mechanisms have not been employed during the current tension. Some viewed the mechanisms as ineffective and even urged the Thai government to suspend them altogether.

Supalak reiterated that these mechanisms depend on political will and leadership from both sides. They cannot function on their own. Since 28 July, the GBC, RBC, and JBC have been actively working. Yet once agreements were reached, implementation stalled. On top of that, Thailand has contributed to stalling the progress.

For instance, both sides agreed through the JBC to use LiDAR technology to determine watershed lines along the border, but domestic opposition in Thailand derailed the plan amid claims it would result in territorial losses.

Another clear example was on the day the peace agreement was signed on 26 October. Both sides agreed to symbolically withdraw troops immediately. Cambodia did so that night, but Thailand waited two days before taking action. Supalak remarked that this is not how a party committed to a bilateral agreement behaves.

The Thai side has always claimed that Cambodia lacks sincerity, but when a third party, particularly the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT), stepped in to verify facts, Thailand did not allow it to function properly. The AOT, which consists mostly of military attaches, faces limitations when operating on the Thai side, including not being allowed to wear military uniforms in designated areas. This, Supalak noted, showed that Thailand permits these mechanisms to function only under military control.

“If we hadn’t rushed to announce (the suspension of the peace agreement), we would have held the diplomatic upper hand. We would have had options for handling the problem peacefully. Instead, we went back to the choice of a hardline approach and signalled an intention to rely on military force at all times. This is definitely not good for peace,” said Supalak.

What brought Thailand and Cambodia into the Joint Declaration?

Supalak observed that external factors, such as major powers, particularly the US, could apply significant pressure which Thailand and Cambodia cannot withstand. As long as the conflict continues, the US will not lower tariffs. Pressure from the US became an important factor for both parties to return to the negotiation table, even though the Joint Declaration that they reached remains fragile and neither of them was initially willing to negotiate.

Cambodia has also long fallen under the Chinese influence in terms of military affairs. It is well known that China built the Ream Naval Base, which has raised US concerns.

At the same time, Cambodia has been aware that it has been under China’s influence for too long, and that it is time to diversify its ties. Simultaneously, the US has sanctioned people close to the Hun family network and pressed serious charges against them, which had a huge impact on decision-making in Phnom Penh, leaving the government with few choices but to drag the US in.

Regarding Thailand and China, Supalak noted that Thailand was suspicious that China would supply additional weapons to Cambodia to support the border conflict with Thailand. He observed that China was more vigilant on the matter. When The New York Times published a report in early June stating that China had sent weapons to Cambodia, China issued a strong denial.

This created an opportunity for the US to seize the moment and impose serious measures against both Thailand and China, leaving the two countries with no option but to turn to China.

Anutin plays the nationalism card

The Anutin administration has tended to play the nationalism card in this matter. While conflict negotiations were unravelling, the landmine explosion on 10 November came out of nowhere, triggering another surge of nationalist sentiment in Thailand.

Supalak observed that the Anutin government did not hesitate to ride this wave by swiftly announcing the suspension of the Joint Declaration and a postponement of the release of 18 Cambodian prisoners of war.

Some have anticipated that the ruling Bhumjaithai Party was using this sentiment to boost its popularity ahead of the next election in a few months. “Anutin’s intention might be that [to fuel nationalist sentiment]. But whether it can actually work in reality is another question, because historically, elections in Thailand have rarely been decided on nationalist issues,” said Supalak.

He pointed to the Preah Vihear temple dispute, when the Democrat Party was in power. They tried to play the nationalism card to win support in the election, but still ended up losing.

Despite this, Supalak believes that Anutin might be more hopeful this time, as the current nationalist wave is much stronger than before. Many Thais feel deeply hurt by the fighting and its casualties. With this sentiment, they want to see the government take a tough stance against Cambodia.

However, relying on this card comes with a problem, as nationalism cannot easily be transformed into tangible policies. Supalak believes that no political party would dare announce a plan to reclaim the Preah Vihear Temple, or Ta Kwai Temple, or send troops to take back Battambang, Siem Reap, or Sisophon and return them to Thailand.

Playing on nationalist sentiment alone would not be sufficient for the ruling party. It might need to fuel nationalist sentiment while simultaneously attacking former PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai Party by accusing it of causing hardship for the people due to Thaksin’s conflict with influential Cambodian Hun Sen.

Supalak remarked that this strategy might work in certain areas, such as the lower Northeast, which is the Bhumjaithai Party’s stronghold. However, it is probably futile in other parts of the country, particularly those along the rest of the border.

If the government prolongs the conflict, people will continue living in fear and losing income. People have started to speak out and complain about the conflict, which has harmed their livelihoods. Some villagers have been blocked by soldiers from entering their rubber plantations.

When asked whether the clashes might be used to justify the Anutin government extending its time in power, Supalak said it was possible but challenging, given Thailand’s economic capacity and the military’s readiness. Thailand depends heavily on Cambodian labour, and 90% of them have returned home since the clashes erupted. Border trade has been stalled for months.

In addition, Thailand is entering the harvesting season, and some local residents even urged the government to allow them to harvest their rice before any fighting occurs. Meanwhile, the Thai military itself is facing logistical difficulties.

The Thai military’s supreme influence in conflict with Cambodia under the Anutin administration

It is evident that the military has been a major force shaping the latest round of tension, and this role is not limited to battlefield operations but includes political manoeuvring on social media platforms.

Supalak asserted that the military stepped ahead of the government. It fuelled nationalist sentiment through the “Express Bomb Delivery”, a symbolic campaign using a provocative message suggesting a swift retaliation toward Cambodia, and closed Ta Kwai and Ta Muen Thom temples, the action that preceded armed clashes the very next day.

This tactic was amplified by news outlets, which relied entirely on information from the official webpages of the military and any unofficial sources which claimed to have access to the military’s “inner circle.”

Details of the most recent explosion which injured two Thai soldiers remain unclear, but the Royal Thai Air Force immediately announced that Thailand was suspending the peace agreement with Cambodia. This raises the question of who is actually in charge. Is it the civilian government or the military?

Supalak said the military can determine almost 100% whether the conflict drags on or ends, particularly in the absence of strong civilian leadership. However, under this government, the situation has changed since the military now holds even more power.

“During the Paetongtarn administration there was distrust since Shinawatra family governments had been overthrown twice. The distrust between the military and Pheu Thai was very high. They were in a state of staring at each other. But not with Anutin at all. The military can ride on his back 100%. If the military didn’t back him, his government wouldn’t survive,” noted Supalak.

He added that the latest suspension of the peace agreement implied that the conservative bloc and the military hardliners did not want the conflict to end. In addition, the military reshuffle took place in September-October. What they need now is to demonstrate toughness and refuse to compromise with Cambodia, in order to reinforce the military’s political legitimacy and maintain its dominance over the civilian government.

Supalak asserted his view that civilians and the military think differently. The military focuses solely on winning on the battlefield, regardless of how much it costs. Thai society has been trapped in this mindset for too long, and it has influenced the ideas of influencers and academics, leading them to believe that national pride means reclaiming Ta Kwai temple or evicting Cambodians in exchange for a small parcel of land along the border. Academics then framed these ideas as matters of national pride and sovereignty.

Supalak added that the military never realize that trade has been stalled for three months and never wonder how the Thai economy, which relies heavily on Cambodian labour, could survive. This military narrative has dominated public discourse to the point that it is impossible to step back, and if anyone points out the economic consequences of the conflict, they risk backlash.