Thai-Cambodia Border Resolution Eludes ASEAN – Analysis

The Ta Moan Thom Temple (Prasat Ta Muen Thom) on the Cambodia–Thailand border. Photo Credit: Ddalbiez, Wikipedia Commons

 October 27, 2025  0 Comments

By Gateway House

By Dipannita Maria Bagh

The decades-old dispute of the Thai-Cambodia border that erupted on July 24, displacing 172,000 people within both countries internally[1] is still on-going, with no resolution in sight.

The Prasat Ta Muen Thom, a Khmer-era Hindu temple, now rejoins the list of five others along with Chong Bok, Ta Krabey, Ban Hat Lek-Cham Yeam and the Prasat Preah Vihear. Despite several international dispute resolution mechanisms and regional institutional frameworks, Thailand and Cambodia’s difference on the means of resolving the dispute reflects their respective political ambitions. For Thailand, it advances the cause of reunifying former Thai territories to its modern state, potentially adding heritage sites to its tourist destinations. For Cambodia, it is crucial for retaining its sovereign territorial rights on heritage sites and preserving public trust.

The present territorial conflict with Cambodia dates back to 1954, when Thailand took control of Cambodian territories based on the Franco-Siamese treaty of 1904. This was one of the several Franco-Siamese treaties to resolve the 1893 crisis between the Siamese (Thai) kingdom and French colony in Indochina encompassing present-day Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

The contestation is the outcome of significant territorial concessions made by Siam to neighbouring European colonial powers in the 1890-1900s. To preserve its independence, it ceded Battambang, Siem Reap, and Sisophon provinces to the French colony in the east, while transferring Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, and Terengganu to the British colony in the south. These historical territorial adjustments have established the foundation for two of modern Thailand’s most persistent border challenges: territorial disputes with Laos and Cambodia along its eastern frontier, and ongoing separatist tensions along its southern border with Malaysia.

In 1962, the matter of contestation over Prasat Preah Vihear was brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by Cambodia. The ICJ awarded territorial rights of the temple to Cambodia[2] based on Thailand’s longstanding ‘recognition and acquiescence’ of maps that followed the 1904 treaty and subsequent Siam-French Mixed Commissions for border settlement. In international law, ‘recognition and acquiescence’ refer to the unilateral discretionary act or implied consent to a situation of claim through diplomatic recognition. The state’s silence or lack of protest on border settlements is reflected as its tacit consent and interpreted as acceptance.

In stark contrast to its verdict, the ICJ additionally acknowledged that the border demarcated by the commissions failed to fully comply with the territorial settlements as per the 1904 treaty. This is what bears full responsibility for the festering of the border issues.

For nearly two decades, tensions have resurfaced periodically on the Thai-Cambodia border, exacerbated by domestic leadership challenges and nationalism. This included street demonstrations in Bangkok in 2008 in response to Cambodia seeking UNESCO World Heritage status for Preah Vihear, with border skirmishes following from 2008 to 2011. In 2013, Cambodia requested the ICJ to interpret the 1962 judgement,[3] this time securing the territory surrounding the Preah Vihear to Cambodia,[4] as a concrete step towards preventing future conflicts.

The present conflict has since evolved beyond a bilateral territorial dispute; it underscores the limitations of existing international legal frameworks and institutions in resolving complex historical boundary questions, particularly those involving cultural and religious heritage sites.

Southeast Asia’s latent territorial contestation requires a political resolution through a regional mechanism, whilst observing international norms. Cambodia holds the ICJ ruling at the core of its argument, and backs the July 2025 U.S-initiated ceasefire mediated by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as the way forward. Thailand rejects the ICJ award and ASEAN mediation, insisting on resolving it bilaterally. Therefore, a major hurdle in resolving the border issue is modern Thailand’s political will to rectify its own historical concessions.

The border tension serves as a critical test for ASEAN’s regional dispute resolution. Malaysia has iterated ASEAN centrality, mediating the conflict to contain potential spillover effects on other regional cross-border disputes.[5] However, it has failed in forging a durable consensus among the conflicting parties, thereby weakening ASEAN’s conflict resolution mechanism. A successful resolution could have established a precedent for managing similar regional and global conflicts on heritage sites, and elevated Malaysia’s role as a power-wielding member in Asia. The burden has now been shifted to the Philippines as new chair.

The inability to move beyond short-term stabilisation to resolution underscores the ongoing challenges facing the ASEAN, including its capacity, and the individual political will of member states over the collective. It raises questions about the organisation’s ability to address contentious bilateral conflicts that threaten regional stability and cohesion.

Unless resolved, the present conflict will keep evolving beyond flashpoints of nationalist sentiments and bilateral territorial disputes. Political use of history will continue to override treaty mechanisms, underscoring the shortcomings of existing international legal frameworks and regional institutions in resolving complex historical boundary questions, particularly in implementation and enforceability of norms in situations involving cultural and religious heritage sites.

• About the author: Dipannita Maria Bagh is a Senior Researcher, Southeast Asia Studies Programme.
• Source: This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References:

[1] World Health Organization, “Cambodia: Conflict on Thai border: Public Health Situation Analysis,” August 19, 2025, https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/2021-dha-docs/phsa-cambodia-190825.pdf

[2] International Court of Justice, Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 1962, https://www.icj-cij.org/case/45

[3] International Court of Justice, “Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand),” 2011, https://www.icj-cij.org/case/151

[4] United Nations, “UN court rules for Cambodia in Preah Vihear temple dispute with Thailand,” November 11, 2013, https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/11/455062#

[5] Association of Southeast Asian Nations, “ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute,” July 28, 2025, https://asean.org/asean-foreign-ministers-statement-on-thailand-cambodia-border-dispute/

GatewayHouse

Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations is a foreign policy think-tank established in 2009, to engage India’s leading corporations and individuals in debate and scholarship on India’s foreign policy and its role in global affairs. Gateway House’s studies programme will be at the heart of the institute’s scholarship, with original research by global and local scholars in Geo-economics, Geopolitics, Foreign Policy analysis, Bilateral relations, Democracy and nation-building, National security, ethnic conflict and terrorism, Science, technology and innovation, and Energy and Environment.

 

US–Pakistan Ties Are Quietly Redrawing South Asian Geopolitics – Analysis

President Donald Trump meets with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir of Pakistan, Thursday, September 25, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

 October 27, 2025 

By Geopolitical Monitor

By Ishaal Zehra

The US–Pakistan relationship is thawing after years of mistrust. The two nations are rediscovering each other through energy, technology, and minerals, and appear to be building something that neither quite dared before: a partnership designed to last beyond crisis cycles.

This new phase of the partnership was marked by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief General Asim Munir’s recurring meetings with President Donald Trump, signaling Pakistan’s return to Washington’s strategic radar after nearly a decade on the sidelines. The transition from counterterrorism and wars to investment and interdependence is striking.

Commerce Drives the Revival

For decades, Pakistan–US ties were a study in volatility—alternating between cooperation and confrontation. Yet this time feels different. Washington is seeing Islamabad not merely as a security client but as a potential economic ally in the race to reshape global supply chains.

The breakthrough came when US Strategic Metals (USSM) pledged $500 million in Pakistan’s critical minerals—one of the largest US industrial pledges to Islamabad in recent years. The MoU focuses on exploring and processing rare earths, copper, and lithium—vital to electric vehicles and defense manufacturing.

Weeks later, Pakistan shipped its first batch of rare earth elements to the U.S., turning talks to trade. Reports suggest that both countries are negotiating trade and investment frameworks, including tariff relaxations and incentives for US companies in Pakistan’s mining and tech sectors.

Turning Resources into Geopolitical Power

For Islamabad, the minerals deal was more than an export milestone; it was a geopolitical message. By positioning itself as a new source of critical minerals, Islamabad is staking a claim in one of the most competitive arenas of modern-day economics.

Pakistan sits atop vast, largely untapped reserves of copper, gold, and rare earths—that could reshape its global standing. As Washington looks to reduce dependence on China, which currently controls 70 percent of global rare earth processing, Pakistan offers an alternative supply route connecting South and Central Asia to Western markets.

The equation is pragmatic: the United States gets diversification; Pakistan gets investment, recognition, and leverage. For Pakistan, the symbolism is deeply satisfying—a diplomatic return to South Asia’s strategic equation after years on the margins.

The Regional Chessboard

But this revival does not exist in a vacuum. China, Pakistan’s long-time strategic partner, is closely watching Washington’s return. With over $60 billion investments, Pakistan is a key player in China’s global Belt and Road Initiative, and now the US capital and mining interests are entering the same terrain. Yet Pakistan seems focused on diversification, not replacement— aiming to leverage both Chinese infrastructure and Western capital to overcome its economic challenges.

For India, the optics are troubling. After years of enjoying Washington’s near-exclusive attention in South Asia, particularly under the Indo-Pacific strategy and the Quad framework, New Delhi now needs to contend with Pakistan’s re-entry into Washington’s regional calculus. For New Delhi, this signals that the U.S. is willing to look beyond India in its regional balancing act, especially after the diplomatic fallout from Operation Sindoor.

Afghanistan, rich in lithium and copper, will be a key player in this mineral landscape—either driving a trilateral cooperation, complementing Pakistan’s reserves, or fueling competition, given the Taliban’s unpredictability and political leverage.

A New Triangular Order: U.S., Gulf, and Pakistan

In the Gulf, the revival of US-Pakistan ties fits neatly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s own deepening partnerships with Pakistan. Reports from Deloitte and S&P Global Market Intelligence indicate that Gulf sovereign wealth funds are increasingly targeting emerging mining and extractive industries in Asia, presenting opportunities for co-investment with US firms in Pakistan’s resource sector.

Riyadh’s Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) with Islamabad further complements Washington’s interest in securing energy and mineral corridors across the Arabian Sea. This could evolve into a triangular economic corridor linking US technology, Arab capital, and Pakistani resources. Further north, the resource-rich Central Asian states of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are also exploring connectivity through Pakistan’s ports for their exports to the West—reviving trade routes unseen since the Silk Road.

The opportunity, however, comes with risks. Pakistan’s mineral zones, particularly in Baluchistan, remain volatile, plagued by sporadic unrest and infrastructural fragility. Political instability and regulatory uncertainty could deter foreign investors. Then there’s the trust deficit that has long haunted Islamabad and Washington. The current US–Pakistan minerals MoU is, in many ways, a trial run for rebuilding trust after decades of broken promises and political friction. And this time success will hinge not on diplomacy but on delivery.

Economic Diplomacy Replaces Dependency

Yet the tone in Islamabad is cautiously confident today. The country is not seeking a bailout—it is offering business. Washington, too, is recalibrating its perception—seeing Pakistan less as a geopolitical burden and more as a potential partner in diversifying global supply chains.

Reports suggest US mineral investments could exceed $1 billion in the coming years, as Washington races to secure critical inputs for its weapons, robotics, and electric vehicles. To capitalize, Pakistan is hosting an investor conference in Washington this October. If the momentum holds, this partnership could become a defining chapter in US–Pakistan relations.

The US-Pakistan minerals deal may be worth half a billion dollars on paper, but its symbolic worth is far greater. The partnership could complement projects like CPEC, CASA-1000, and TAPI, enhancing Pakistan’s role in the global energy market. If handled pragmatically, Islamabad could leverage both Chinese infrastructure and Western capital to integrate regional economies, turning geography into genuine geo-economic strength.

• This article was published by Geopoliticalmonitor.com

Geopolitical Monitor

Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an open-source intelligence collection and forecasting service,

 providing research, analysis and up to date coverage on situations and events that 

have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs.

 Guinea Baboons Share Meat According To Fixed Social Rules

A good catch. This adult Guinea baboon (Papio papio) just caught a young bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Photo: Lauriane Faraut

 October 27, 2025

By Eurasia Review

The quality of relationships and the social organization of a society, influence the transfer of valuable resources not only in humans but also in other primates. Researchers at the German Primate Center (DPZ) – Leibniz Institute for Primate Research in Göttingen have discovered this using the example of Guinea baboons (Papio papio), which distribute meat according to patterns similar to those of human hunter-gatherer groups.

The team analyzed 109 meat-eating events and combined these records with behavioral data from nearly a decade of field research. The closer the relationship between two animals, the more likely and peaceful the transfer of meat was. In contrast, theft occurred among less closely related group members (iScience).

The sharing of a valuable resource, such as meat, is considered a key driver for the development of complex, multi-level societies among humans. The varying success of hunting, combined with the high nutritional value of hunted animals, led early humans to develop networks between households to ensure a regular supply of meat. In human hunter-gatherer societies, meat is an essential food source that is rarely available and is widely shared according to the community structure, first within households and then within camps. However, the distribution of essential goods within human social structures is accompanied by culturally determined social norms and traditions. To better understand how a multi-level social organization influences the sharing of resources within a society, it is of great value to study other multi-level social systems among our closest relatives.

Tolerant sharing at the base of the society

To address this question, researchers from the Cognitive Ethology Laboratory at the German Primate Center spent nine years observing Guinea baboons in Senegal. These animals live in a multi-level social system. The smallest social unit is the “unit,” consisting of one male, one to several associated females, and their offspring. Three to four “units” together form a “party,” which is connected by long-term bonds between males often underpinned by kinship. Finally, the two to three parties together form the third level – the “gang.” Relationships between individuals tend to be stronger at lower levels of the society.

At the DPZ field station in Simenti, the scientists analyzed a total of 320 instances of meat transfers, mostly by male baboons with females in their units or with other males in the same party. The stronger the relationship between two animals, the greater the chance of meat transferring between them. Tolerant transfers, in which animals took pieces of meat without conflict (“passive sharing”), occurred almost exclusively within the closest social units. Further up in the hierarchy of social levels—between different units or within the gang—the transfers became less frequent and less tolerant.

“We were able to show that Guinea baboons pass meat along their social bonds,” explains William J. O’Hearn, lead author of the study. “This form of tolerant sharing is reminiscent of the behavior of human hunter-gatherer groups, where meat is first distributed within the family and only then reaches more distant acquaintances or neighbors.”

Social relationship strength determines who gets what

For their analysis, the researchers combined direct behavioral observations with statistical models to calculate the strength of the relationships between the animals. The results showed that the probability of getting a piece of meat increased significantly with the strength of individuals’ relationships to the “owner.”

Interestingly, Guinea baboons do not actively share their meat—they do not deliberately offer pieces of meat to others. Instead, meat is usually passed on “passively”: one animal eats, leaves the carcass behind, and the next socially proximal animal takes over. This observation suggests that social tolerance is a crucial prerequisite for the exchange of meat among baboons.

Significance for understanding social evolution

The study provides important evidence that complex social structures—i.e., societies with nested multiple levels—can have similar effects on the exchange of resources, regardless of the species. “This suggests that certain social patterns may have developed independently in humans and non-human primates, but in comparable ways,” says Julia Fischer, head of the Cognitive Ethology Laboratory at the DPZ.

 

Proper Processing Is Key To Pathogen Control In Recycled Manure Solids Bedding on Dairy Farms

Research from across 27 Midwest farms found pathogen levels in recycled manure solids bedding varied depending on their processing approach, with combined processing showing the lowest levels of pathogens. (Credit: iStock.com/JackF)

 October 27, 2025

By Eurasia Review

Bedding choice is a crucial factor in both cow comfort and udder health, and dairy farms in the Midwest are increasingly turning to recycled manure solids (RMS) as a cost-effective and readily available option. But because RMS originates from manure, questions remain about whether it can harbor mastitis-causing bacteria or other pathogens.

A new cross-sectional study in JDS Communications, published by Elsevier, explores how different processing methods affect pathogen levels, giving producers clearer insight into the benefits and limitations of RMS bedding.

“Recycled manure solids, obtained by separating the solids and liquids from manure slurry with and without further steps, are increasingly popular as bedding because they are comfortable for cows, economical, widely available, and support circular waste management systems that can help farms boost sustainability,” explained Felipe Peña-Mosca, DVM, MSc, PhD, postdoctoral associate at Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) and lead author on the study. “But questions remain about their potential to harbor bacteria that affect udder health and spread pathogens when RMS are shared between farms.”

The study, led by primary investigator Sandra Godden, DVM, DVSc, professor at the University of Minnesota and co-primary investigator Dr. Peña-Mosca, examined 27 dairy farms across Minnesota and Wisconsin that used different RMS preparation systems, including raw or green solids, digester-only using anaerobic digestion without additional treatment, secondary processing only using composting or drying methods, and lastly, processing that used a digester plus a secondary method of composting or drying. The team sampled slurry and bedding materials—before and after each step in processing—and analyzed them for mastitis pathogens as well as Salmonella spp., Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis, and Campylobacter jejuni.

They found that the single-step treatments—digester only and secondary processing only—could reduce bacterial levels of both mastitis and nonmastitis pathogens compared with raw or green solids, but both were still detectable in the final bedding product in many cases. Instead, the clearest improvements came from farms that combined anaerobic digestion with a secondary treatment step, such as composting or drying. In these systems, the researchers saw lower counts of mastitis pathogens, and importantly, did not detect any Salmonella spp. or Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis in the ready-to-use bedding samples.

“Our findings suggest that combining digester systems with secondary processing can help reduce pathogen risks more effectively than single methods alone,” said Dr. Peña-Mosca. “This approach could help lower the transmission risk not only of mastitis-causing bacteria but also of other highly prevalent pathogens on dairy farms.”

The authors note that the study was observational and limited to summer months, so further work is needed to assess consistency across seasons and farm sizes, along with the economics of these processes for farms. Still, the findings add valuable evidence for producers weighing the tradeoffs of different bedding systems.

“This study provides important information for producers and veterinarians as they evaluate bedding options,” said Dr. Godden. “It highlights how processing choices can influence pathogen levels and, ultimately, udder health.”