º£½ÇÖ±²¥

There is an unshakable sentiment in the world today that something is loose. There is an unshakable feeling that the world is in a state of freewheeling. This is not new but has been going on for the past decade.
One indication of this situation is the undeniable fact that the frequency of military border clashes between countries is increasing. And this signals a period where issues could become bigger and more dangerous. While all eyes are locked on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, as well as Iran’s proxies and Israel, other conflicts are sprouting up across the globe, but mainly in Asia.
Nothing comes out of a void and these conflicts have historical roots; clashes have taken place throughout previous decades. Yet, this time, and despite past skirmishes at the border, the evolution is less controlled. The most recent was the one between Thailand and Cambodia. There is now a real trend of countries taking matters into their own hands, as the existing global order seems unable to resolve issues decisively.
If we dig into the history of this conflict, it was born, like so many other border conflicts, from lines being drawn on maps by former colonial powers such as France and Great Britain. They carved out territories and left issues to linger as modern states gained their independence. This situation and many others like it also show that the global institutions conceived at the end of the First World War and born after the Second World War are no longer capable of meeting the challenges of today’s world. While states accepted the status quo for decades, there is now a clear willingness — or window of opportunity — to take matters into their own hands.
When it comes to the situation between Thailand and Cambodia, the border dispute was supposedly resolved with rulings from the International Court of Justice in 1962 and 2013. This should have ended the Preah Vihear temple dispute between Phnom Penh and Bangkok. But these rulings have been considered ambiguous because, while they confirmed Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple itself, they did not clearly define the surrounding territorial boundaries.
In 1962, the court ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia but did not specify who controlled the adjacent 4.6 sq. km of land, which Thailand continued to claim. In 2013, following renewed clashes, the International Court of Justice reaffirmed Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple and the land on which it stands. It also commanded Thailand to withdraw troops from the area. Nevertheless, it still did not provide a precise demarcation of the border or resolve the competing interpretations of colonial-era maps.
This is where the main issue probably lies: global institutions are only able to give broad and often vague decisions, leaving many issues on hold. It is a side note, but this is reminiscent of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s ruling in the case of the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which gave a half-guilty verdict and never brought the real culprit to justice.
When it comes to Thailand and Cambodia, this legal vagueness has maintained both claims and this has, in turn, increased nationalist sentiments, leading to recurring tensions and military confrontations. Yet, even if this is not the first time the two countries have clashed, this time the tone is different, even as they agreed to a ceasefire. While there is clear agency from these countries, there is also a change in the world order, as well as proxy conflicts and proxy resolutions.
The deadly border conflict that erupted between Cambodia and Thailand was the most serious escalation in more than a decade. While the fighting began in late May near Chang Bok and intensified around the Prasat Ta Muen Thom and Preah Vihear temple areas, it escalated with the use of heavy artillery, as well as the deployment of Thai F-16 jets. This resulted in at least 43 deaths and displaced more than 300,000 people. A ceasefire was brokered on July 28 and has largely held, although the situation remains fragile.
Further negotiations are scheduled for Aug. 4, as both sides seek a long-term resolution. Media reports have blamed recklessness by both political leaderships, with domestic issues having an impact. Yet, there is inherently a failure of the global system.
There is also an undeniable undercurrent of shadow war between the US and China. Cambodia maintains close ties with Beijing. Like a growing number of countries in the region, China is its main investor as well as a key military partner. Phnom Penh has been historically close to Beijing for economic support and regional backing. On the other hand, Bangkok is a long-standing US ally. This is why America and China both intervened diplomatically during the crisis.

There is a real trend of countries taking matters into their own hands, as the global order seems unable to resolve issues.

Khaled Abou Zahr

While this resolution supports Association of Southeast Asian Nations-led peace efforts — the bloc promotes economic cooperation, political stability and peaceful dialogue among its members — there is little chance of this regional institution stepping in to palliate the global system’s failure. At least not today.
The Cambodia-Thailand border conflict echoes that of Armenia-Azerbaijan, but with China and the US in the background instead of Russia and the US (via Turkiye). While Azerbaijan’s military dominance led to a rapid change in the regional balance in the South Caucasus, the situation in Southeast Asia is more uncertain. The global system’s failure to resolve conflicts could lead to more frequent confrontations as regional powers test the emerging order.
It is also clear that, as Russia remains stuck in Ukraine, China is increasingly replacing it on the global stage, with a shadow war emerging with the US. This situation worryingly resembles the end of the interwar period. It feels increasingly uncontrolled and with a domino effect in play.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.