Why Philippines as Asean chair may leave Thai-Cambodian peace problem to US, China

The Philippines as Asean chair for 2026 will have to decide how much to intervene in the Thailand-Cambodia row. However, observers warn that the bar for the bloc in conflict-resolution “is not very high”. Analysts expect flare-ups throughout the year between the Southeast Asian neighbours due to long-standing historical differences, despite attempts to establish a truce last year. These include a deal brokered by US President Donald Trump in October in Malaysia, and a meeting on December 29, between Thai and Cambodian officials in China’s Yunnan, where they yet again agreed to rebuild mutual trust. On Friday, Cambodia accused Thai forces of “annexing” a village along a disputed border area, marking no end in sight to a festering row that has displaced millions and led to more than 50 deaths. Last year’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, was heavily invested in brokering peace between the two countries. The Philippines, however, will have domestic interests to consider. “The top priority will still be … its own national interests, particularly in ensuring that any Code of Conduct in the South China Sea finalised this year, binding or not, remains aligned or at the very least supportive of broader Philippine interests and positions in the ongoing maritime territorial dispute,” Enrico Gloria, an assistant professor of political science at the University of the Philippines, told This Week in Asia. “That alone is already a demanding task for Manila because it has to assert its position without undermining Asean neutrality, which is a difficult balancing act in itself.” Long-standing issues Gloria said tensions between Thailand and Cambodia were likely to linger into 2026 due to “long-standing historical issues and colonial-era border arrangements that have never been fully resolved, which makes ceasefires inherently fragile”. “Unless both sides move towards more lasting arrangements such as clearer border management, sustained confidence-building measures or a mutually accepted technical or legal process for disputed areas, then the region should expect periodic flare-ups. They will continue to test bilateral relations and require ongoing diplomatic management.” Apart from the border dispute, Manila would have to navigate the South China Sea code, ongoing civil unrest in Myanmar, and rivalry between the US and China, according to Julio Amador, interim president of the Foundation for the National Interest and founder of the non-profit policy advisory firm FACTS Asia. One problem with dealing with the tensions is that Bangkok sees the dispute as a bilateral issue, while Cambodia views it as multilateral. Cambodia wants to bring the issue to the international stage to win sympathisers, including Asean. Thailand considers it a dispute between the two countries, stemming from Cambodian president Hun Sen’s actions, particularly a leaked phone call with former Thai prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra that threw Bangkok into political disarray. “The dilemma for the Philippines is how do you mediate this issue? How do you put this on a regional agenda if one country believes that this is not a regional agenda?” Amador told This Week in Asia. Asean would also have to balance the different approaches between the US and China in mediating the conflict. Under Trump, Washington has taken a more punitive approach through the threats of raised tariffs, while Beijing has opted for a softer, diplomatic stance. “The Thais are saying publicly China is telling them it’s bad, but then privately China is telling them, ‘Look, let’s work on this together’,” Amador said, adding that Beijing’s approach had enabled the Chinese to “exercise diplomatic leadership”. “This is something that the Philippines also has to consider. Where does it step in? Does it have to step in? Considering that China is playing a leadership role, does the Philippines want to match that? Does it want to let China take the lead?” Amador said. Manila will have to decide on its priorities soon as it rolls out its agenda in the coming weeks. While the ceasefire deserved Asean’s attention, it was “unlikely to outrank the Philippines’ core strategic priorities”, Gloria said. “Considering current incentives and the presence of other actors, there is less pressure for Manila to force a decisive solution. Both the US and China are already actively engaged in keeping negotiations on track, with China in particular playing a hands-on role in facilitating dialogue between Thailand and Cambodia through processes and mechanisms consistent with Asean’s institutional role,” he told This Week in Asia. In addition, Asean’s track record in resolving intraregional conflicts “has never been spectacular”, he said. “The bar is not very high, largely because Asean continues to prioritise consensus-building and non-interference over decisive intervention.” From Manila’s perspective, “it is rational to allow better-positioned external actors to continue carrying much of the diplomatic weight”.

Why Philippines as Asean chair may leave Thai-Cambodian peace problem to US, China

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Given Asean’s policy of non-interference, the Philippines may be better off leaving peace negotiations to the US and China, experts say

Given Asean’s policy of non-interference, the Philippines may be better off leaving peace negotiations to the US and China, experts say