The recent ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, brokered by Malaysia in its role as ASEAN Chair, is a critical step in regional peacebuilding. The deal, which took effect at midnight on July 28, 2025, was announced following high-level talks in Putrajaya, where Malaysia brought both parties together for urgent dialogue.
This development comes as a
much-needed de-escalation after renewed clashes along the Thai-Cambodian
border, which have long been a flashpoint for nationalist tension and military
posturing.
Malaysia’s leadership in the
process has once again demonstrated its unique role in Southeast Asia as a
credible mediator, committed to regional stability and peaceful dialogue. This
role is not new as Malaysia has previously played a significant part in
resolving long-standing internal conflicts in both southern Thailand and
Mindanao in the Philippines.
In southern Thailand, where
ethnic Malay-Muslim insurgents have waged a low-intensity rebellion in the
Patani region since the early 2000s, Malaysia has facilitated peace talks
between insurgent groups such as the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) and the Thai
government.
While these talks have not yet
produced a final resolution, they have created channels of communication and
periods of reduced violence. Malaysia’s involvement is seen as both culturally
and geographically appropriate, given its shared ethnic and religious ties with
the southern Thai provinces.
The Malaysian government has used
this proximity to build trust with insurgent leaders while maintaining
diplomatic relations with the Thai state. This balancing act has helped prevent
further regionalization of the conflict and reflects a model of conflict
management that is pragmatic and sensitive to local dynamics.
Similarly, in Mindanao, Malaysia
played a pivotal role in the peace process between the Philippine government
and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Acting as a neutral facilitator,
Malaysia hosted peace talks that led to the signing of the Comprehensive
Agreement on the Bangsamoro in 2014, ending decades of armed struggle.
Malaysia also led the
International Monitoring Team (IMT) that ensured compliance with the ceasefire
and supported confidence-building between the parties. This initiative remains
one of the most successful examples of ASEAN-led mediation, offering a model of
how persistent diplomacy, regional ownership, and non-coercive facilitation can
bring sustainable results.
Malaysia’s role in these peace
processes gives it not only experience but also moral authority in mediating
the current Thailand-Cambodia standoff.
The ceasefire between Thailand
and Cambodia, while bilateral in nature, has broader regional implications. It
comes at a time when the Indo-Pacific is under increasing strain due to the
strategic rivalry between the United States and China.
Their trade war and military
posturing, especially in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, have
heightened geopolitical tension across Southeast Asia. ASEAN, situated at the
crossroads of these global currents, faces the real risk of its internal conflicts
becoming arenas for proxy competition.
Localized disputes like the one
between Thailand and Cambodia can quickly draw in external powers, either
through military cooperation, economic leverage, or political influence.
This is why the question of
whether the U.S. and China should be included, at least as observers in
ceasefire verification or implementation mechanisms is both relevant and
delicate. On the one hand, ASEAN has always prioritized regional solutions to
regional problems, emphasizing non-interference and consensus.
However, as seen during the
Vietnam War and throughout the Cold War, Southeast Asian conflicts can easily
be co-opted by larger global struggles. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam all
experienced devastating consequences when superpowers used their territory for
ideological and strategic contests.
The lesson for today’s ASEAN is
clear: excluding great powers entirely may not insulate the region; instead, it
may create a vacuum that invites unilateral action or covert influence.
Therefore, ASEAN should consider
limited, clearly defined roles for external powers in regional peace processes.
Their inclusion such as in observer or technical advisory capacities, can serve
as a transparency mechanism that reassures all parties and limits
behind-the-scenes manoeuvring.
However, the process must remain
under ASEAN’s leadership to preserve regional autonomy. Malaysia, as Chair,
must lead in crafting a ceasefire verification and monitoring system that
includes input from ASEAN dialogue partners without ceding control. This
balance is critical to ensuring that peace efforts are not hijacked by
competing agendas.
Malaysia’s diplomatic
credibility, built over years of involvement in Mindanao and southern Thailand,
gives it a strategic advantage in guiding ASEAN through this challenge.
Its current stewardship of the
Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire provides a chance to set a precedent: regional
conflict resolution must not only address immediate violence but also
anticipate the strategic consequences of great power rivalry.
The ceasefire monitoring mission,
coordinated by Malaysia, should serve not only to ensure compliance but also to
reaffirm ASEAN’s role as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific.
Ultimately, the Thailand-Cambodia
ceasefire should be seen as more than a bilateral agreement as it is a test of
ASEAN’s ability to safeguard its region from becoming a pawn in a global
contest.
By learning from its own
successes in Mindanao and southern Thailand, and by navigating the pressures of
U.S.-China competition with strategic foresight, ASEAN can protect its vision
of a peaceful, independent Southeast Asia.
Malaysia, with its proven
mediation track record, must ensure that this vision does not falter under the
weight of global tensions.
Kuala Lumpur.
28.7.2025
© All rights reserved.
https://focusmalaysia.my/safeguarding-asean-peace-amid-superpower-rivalry/#google_vignette
Comments