PHNOM PENH – Tensions between Cambodia and Thailand have flared again after Bangkok moved to nullify the peace accords signed in October.

Analysts say the decision, following a recent landmine blast, is seen as catering to domestic ultranationalists and risks reigniting military confrontation.

They say any reckless action could prove costly for both sides, especially when alternatives exist to address Thai concerns.

According to Thai media outlet The Nation, Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul declared the Thai-Cambodian peace declaration void, saying Thailand would act independently to protect its sovereignty.

The peace declaration was witnessed by US President Donald Trump on a visit to Malaysia.

Asked if his government had to tell Trump about the termination of the deal, Anutin said there was no reason to do so.

“Report to whom? We are a sovereign country. We don’t report to anyone. If asked, we will respond appropriately — like any ambassador would. Otherwise, we owe no explanation,” Anutin was quoted as saying by The Nation.

Such actions have created uncertainty about how the situation will unfold. Media reports indicate that Thailand has begun rearming at the border, backtracking on its earlier disarmament steps.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a professor at Kyoto University’s Centre for Southeast Asian Studies and author of Rama X: The Thai Monarchy under King Vajiralongkorn, said the unilateral decision by the Thai government and military was driven by intense domestic nationalist pressure.

The Thai military also had an institutional need to demonstrate firm resolve against a perceived breach of sovereignty — the new landmines, Pavin said, adding that the action signals the Thai military is prioritizing unilateral security logic over a regional, multilateral framework, which is a traditional pattern.

But Pavin warned that while this move provides immediate political gratification domestically, such action carries significant diplomatic costs for Thailand.

“This directly undermines the credibility of Thailand as a reliable regional partner to both Malaysia, the current ASEAN Chair, and the US, which helped broker the original deal,” Pavin argued.

Him Raksmey, executive director of the Cambodian Center for Regional Studies (CCRS), acknowledged that the recent explosion was unfortunate but said it did not justify halting the peace effort.

While recognizing that Thailand has every sovereign right to take measures to protect its national security, Raksmey said the Cambodia–Thailand peace process — encompassing the ceasefire agreement and the peace accords — goes beyond just the two countries.

“That means any unilateral decision not to implement this peace process would affect the regional and international standing of the party that pursues it,” Raksmey said.

“Moreover, while there are alternatives to address its concerns, Thailand’s decision to suspend the deal also raises questions about its sincerity in the peace process.”

Ro Vannak, a political science professor and geopolitical analyst, argued that the move reveals deep issues within Thailand’s political struggle between the royal palace–backed military, which strives for dominance and influence in Thai politics, and the civilian government, which pushes for democratization.

“The ongoing power struggle between the two has resulted in conflicting security maneuvers, with the military taking a hardline stance focused on sovereignty while the civilian leadership leans toward diplomatic efforts,” Vannak said.

“Thus, the suspension illustrates not only mutual distrust between the two nations but also the instability of Thailand’s internal political landscape, where foreign policy has turned into an arena for competing institutional interests.”

Risk of Renewed Conflict Mounts

Pravit Rojanaphruk, senior staff writer at Khaosod English, warned that the chance of a military attack by Thai forces is high in the next 48 hours.

“The Anutin administration will likely monitor Thai public reactions over the next 24 hours following his declaration that the peace accord signed in Kuala Lumpur is no longer binding,” he said.

According to Pravit, an expression of regret — without a formal apology — from the Cambodian government may help diffuse tensions to some extent.

“Still, it’s unlikely to happen, since Cambodia doesn’t want to appear the culprit,” he said.

“My warning to both Thais and Cambodians: if you only see what you expect or want to see, and there is zero trust, the worst image of one another — conflict, destruction and loss — will follow this trust deficit,” Pravit said.

Pavin of Kyoto University agreed that the precarious border situation could still be prevented from escalating with immediate diplomatic focus. “It must be on verification, decoupling and de-escalation,” he said.

ASEAN Holds Key to Avoiding Conflict

Observers noted that the move only creates a riskier environment, becoming a breeding ground for renewed violence.

Pravit suggested that at this stage, an urgent phone call or intervention by both ASEAN Chair and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, as well as senior US figures, may help thwart an imminent military conflict.

“In Thailand, ultranationalists seem to have the upper hand over those opposed to a renewed military conflict, but we shall see,” he said.

Pavin said the ASEAN Observer Team continues to play a critical role, but it must be empowered with protection and resources to conduct a rapid, forensic verification of the landmine incident on-site — providing neutral facts to de-escalate the information war.

“Concurrently, international partners must persuade Thailand to decouple the suspension of the Cambodian soldier release from the landmine dispute, as the former was a vital confidence-building measure,” he argued.

He further suggested that, as the current ASEAN Chair, Malaysia must convene an emergency trilateral consultation to stress the accord’s importance to regional stability.

“The US, meanwhile, should re-engage with both parties to offer technical monitoring support and use its leverage to ensure the ceasefire commitment is fully reinstated,” he said.

Ro Vannak agreed that Malaysia, as the current chair, should take a leading role in organizing follow-up meetings for the General Border Commission (GBC) and Regional Border Committee (RBC) while reinforcing the framework established by the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord.

“Given that Malaysia mediated the agreement and hosted the signing ceremony, it ought to propose hosting a meeting for a technical working group focused on verification, demining, and border delineation at the earliest opportunity,” Vannak said.

“It can serve as an unbiased chair for the observer mechanism, ensuring the transparency of reports and enabling trusted third-party verification.”

Aside from Malaysia, Vannak argued that the US still has a crucial role but should be supportive rather than assertive.

“It can offer technical assistance such as satellite imagery, funding for demining operations, and training for ASEAN observers,” he said. “It can also use diplomacy to motivate both governments to comply with the agreement and work alongside ASEAN instead of bypassing it.”

For CCRS’s Raksmey, an immediate step should be addressing the allegation of the mine explosion, as it remains the elephant in the room.

He said that instead of suspending the Cambodia–Thailand peace process, Thailand should have opted for alternative ways to address its concerns about the explosion.

“It is important to work in good faith with Cambodia through available joint mechanisms such as the newly formed Joint Coordinating Task Force (JCTF),” he said.

“Providing objective and irrefutable evidence to Malaysia and the US that Cambodia indeed planted new mines that caused the explosion, and finding appropriate courses of action to remedy the issue afterward, would be the more appropriate measure.”