Cambodian refugees displaced by Thai bombing take shelter at a pagoda. - Supplied
PHNOM PENH: The renewed clashes along the Thailand–Cambodia border have done more than ignite another round of regional instability. They have exposed, with unmistakable clarity, two sharply different national approaches to conflict resolution: one driven by unilateral military force, the other grounded in international law and institutional oversight.
As artillery rattles border villages and families flee once again, the deeper contrast in political character has become impossible to ignore.
Two approaches, visible at first glance
When confronted with disputes, some governments act first and justify later. Military operations surge ahead, and explanations are provided only after the facts have already been reshaped on the ground. This is not simply a tactical choice — it is a political identity, one that views force as expedient and dialogue as a hindrance.
In contrast, other governments respond by turning directly to established mechanisms. They seek arbitration, file cases with global bodies and welcome outside monitoring. They choose to manage disputes in the light rather than escalate them in the shadows. This is not a sign of weakness; it is a declaration of responsibility and respect for peace.
The current border crisis illustrates these contrasting philosophies with unusual clarity. While one side has expanded military operations, the other has appealed to the UN and regional partners to prevent further escalation. Actions, in this case, speak louder than any official communique.
Rule-based conduct vs. force-driven politics
For decades, the global order has relied on principles designed to prevent conflict from spiraling beyond control: negotiation, transparency, and adherence to international law. States that follow these pathways strengthen their legitimacy and credibility. Those that bypass them risk appearing as aggressors on the international stage.
As one regional diplomat put it succinctly:
“This conflict is showing us two different national characters — one that trusts the rules, and one that trusts the gun.”
International legal experts echo this sentiment.
“Bringing a case to the UN is a sign of confidence in one’s claims. Avoiding oversight tends to signal the opposite,” he noted.
The present escalation makes this contrast unmistakably clear.
What history and data tell us
Research by conflict-monitoring organizations consistently shows:
• States that escalate militarily without international oversight tend to prolong conflicts and heighten civilian suffering.
• States that pursue mediation, arbitration or international judicial processes experience fewer casualties and better long-term regional relations.
• Mutual accusations are common in border disputes, but what matters to global observers is conduct — who escalates, and who seeks accountability.
These patterns match what the world is witnessing today along the Thailand–Cambodia frontier.
Why the difference matters
This conflict is not merely a dispute over a line on a map. It reflects the regional order Southeast Asia wishes to uphold. Rules-respecting states signal stability, predictability and maturity. Force-driven states signal the opposite.
“When a government bypasses peaceful mechanisms once, the world expects it to bypass them again. That expectation shapes future diplomacy,” suggested an analyst.
The implications therefore extend far beyond the immediate fighting.
The world Is watching — and drawing conclusions
In this crisis, one government is strengthening its credibility by choosing transparency, legal channels and international monitoring. The other is weakening its standing by escalating militarily and explaining its actions only after the fact.
These choices matter.
They influence how the international community judges responsibility, aggression and restraint.
They shape how history will evaluate this moment.
And they determine whether future regional disputes are resolved through law — or through force.
The border fighting may eventually quiet, as it has in the past. But the divide revealed by this conflict — between rule-based conduct and force-driven politics — will not fade easily. It is now a defining lens through which the world views the two nations involved. - The Phnom Penh Post/ANN
***Tesh Chanthorn is Cambodian citizen who longs for peace. The views and opinions expressed are his own.
