The brief but deadly eruption of violence between Thailand and Cambodia last week jolted Southeast Asia. During the fighting, over 250,000 people were displaced, at least 35 people were killed, and cultural heritage sites once again became collateral in a nationalistic tug-of-war.
But beyond the bullets and borderlines lies a deeper story: one of geopolitical performance, transactional diplomacy, and the lingering question of who truly gets to shape peace in Southeast Asia.
The rapid announcement of a ceasefire today, brokered in Putrajaya with Malaysia as mediator, offered a welcome pause. Yet the dust had barely settled before the shadow of great power rivalry reemerged. Both the United States and China issued statements during the crisis.
U.S. President Donald Trump, ever theatrical, claimed credit for pushing leaders toward dialogue, declaring himself the “the President of PEACE” and claiming to have “saved thousands of lives.” China, predictably circumspect, spoke in favor of restraint and regional process. But it was Malaysia that stepped up as a peacemaker.
Is ASEAN shaping its own future, or is it merely navigating the crossfire of bigger players?
Fighting erupted on July 24 along the Cambodia-Thailand border, marking the most serious escalation between the two countries in over a decade. Rooted in longstanding territorial disputes and political tension, the clashes quickly intensified into a broader military confrontation involving airstrikes, artillery, and retaliatory fire. Both sides accused each other of targeting civilians, while tens of thousands of residents were displaced amid growing regional concern.
Amid this impasse, Malaysia, currently chair of ASEAN, offered to mediate. Within days, both the Cambodian and Thai governments agreed to meet in Putrajaya. The ceasefire was announced shortly after – a diplomatic win for Malaysia, but one that glosses over the unresolved grievances beneath the surface.
The involvement of external powers quickly followed. Trump, with his characteristic bluster, claimed he had personally warned both Bangkok and Phnom Penh to halt hostilities, or risk losing U.S. trade incentives. While the U.S. State Department took a more measured tone, Trump’s statement revealed something deeper: that peace, in the eyes of some, is a commodity to be bargained, not a principle to be upheld.
After the ceasefire was announced, Trump took full credit, posting on social media: “Just spoke to the Acting Prime Minister of Thailand and Prime Minister of Cambodia. I am pleased to announce that, after the involvement of President Donald J. Trump, both Countries have reached a CEASEFIRE and PEACE. Congratulations to all!”
He added, “I have instructed my Trade Team to restart negotiations on Trade,” furthering his previous assertation that he had made tariff talks contingent on a ceasefire.
China’s involvement was more nuanced. Beijing issued a general call for regional restraint and respect for ASEAN processes while deploying diplomatic observers to the talks. “China is deeply saddened by the casualties inflicted on both sides and expresses heartfelt sympathies,” a Foreign Ministry statement on July 27 said. “China will maintain its fair and impartial position and continue having close communication with both sides, actively facilitate talks for peace and play a constructive role for a ceasefire.”
But when pressed for details on “what help China offered” during a press conference the next day, the ministry spokesperson only repeated the previous statement.
Unlike the U.S., Beijing did not frame its influence in terms of coercion or trade. Instead, it reinforced its long-standing posture: appearing neutral while carefully aligning with Cambodia’s preference for legal arbitration. China, after all, has growing stakes in Cambodia’s infrastructure and political economy, and its subtle leanings did not go unnoticed.
The contrast is telling. The U.S. wants quick fixes and leverage; China prefers slow influence and presence. Both great powers, however, seek to shape the regional order, and both were watching closely as Malaysia facilitated the talks.
For ASEAN, this is both an opportunity and a warning.
Malaysia’s diplomatic choreography demonstrated that ASEAN can still act meaningfully when conflict erupts. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s move to host the talks and bring both parties to the table was bold and necessary. The ceasefire might not have materialized without such intervention. Yet the cracks are clear. ASEAN’s vaunted principle of “noninterference” is increasingly untenable in the face of humanitarian crises and militarized nationalism. More importantly, ASEAN is at risk of becoming a theater for external powers rather than a platform for internal solidarity.
Trump’s performative diplomacy, pressuring Southeast Asian leaders through trade threats, is transactional peace-building at its worst. It may deliver immediate results, but it undermines local ownership of conflict resolution. If peace is the result of external pressure, not internal dialogue, it is fragile by design.
China’s quiet confidence and preference for legalism might appear more respectful of sovereignty. But let’s be clear: Beijing’s role is also strategic. The more it can embed itself in ASEAN’s processes without seeming coercive, the more China can extend its influence under the radar.
So here we are: a ceasefire, yes, but one negotiated under the watchful eyes of two superpowers and held together by the thinnest of diplomatic threads.
Thailand’s skepticism, accusing Cambodia of not negotiating in good faith, speaks to deeper trust issues. Cambodia’s call for international legal processes reflects a desire to internationalize the issue, while Thailand wants to keep it bilateral and away from judgment. These divergent instincts remain, complicating a lasting solution to the border issue.
Southeast Asia has witnessed many ceasefires. Some held. Some didn’t. The one announced between Thailand and Cambodia on July 28 was remarkable not for how it ended the fighting, but for how it revealed the architecture of influence shaping peace today. The U.S. and China are both present in Southeast Asia. One shouts, the other whispers. One offers deals, the other offers frameworks. Both are watching, waiting, calculating.
Meanwhile, Malaysia has stepped into the spotlight. Its role as mediator shows that ASEAN can be more than a bystander. But while the shooting may have stopped, the questions remain. Can ASEAN resolve its own conflicts on its own terms? Or are regional disputes now destined to be settled only when Washington or Beijing say so?
