Inside the Thailand–Cambodia Dispute Fueled by Family Rivalry
Introduction
The July 2025 border crisis between Thailand and Cambodia marks the bloodiest clash in over a decade. Beyond artillery fire and airstrikes, at its heart lies a bitter personal feud between two political dynasties that have played pivotal roles in Southeast Asian politics for decades.
Historical Roots of the Dispute
The border conflict trace its origins to colonial-era border agreements between France and Siam. The Franco‑Siamese treaties of the early 20th century established boundaries that remain ambiguous today, particularly around culturally significant temple sites like Preah Vihear. Though the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Cambodia in 1962 (reaffirmed in 2013), Thailand has repeatedly rejected the court’s jurisdiction and insists on bilateral negotiations.
Repeated flare-ups—including a major crisis from 2008 to 2011—demonstrate that nationalist sentiment and unresolved boundary demarcation continue to destabilize bilateral relations.
Political Families at the Center
The diplomatic crisis took a deeply personal turn this year due to the involvement of two powerful political lineages:
- Thaksin Shinawatra, former Prime Minister of Thailand, enjoyed a close relationship with Hun Sen, Cambodia’s longtime strongman. Hun Sen provided refuge to Thaksin during his years in exile and even appointed him as an economic advisor in Phnom Penh.
- Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Thaksin’s daughter and Thailand’s Prime Minister, sought to leverage this historic bond by privately calling Hun Sen in June to de-escalate tensions—referring to him as “uncle” and expressing distrust in Thai military leaders involved in the border zone.
What followed was a political earthquake: Hun Sen publicly released the recording of the call, framing it as a routine transparency measure. Domestically in Thailand, it was seen as a calculated political blow. Critics accused Paetongtarn of calling Cambodian policy into question and showing disrespect to the military that once ousted her family.
As a result, Paetongtarn was suspended pending an ethics investigation. Her coalition unraveled, and public protests erupted, demanding leadership loyal to national sovereignty, not family connections.
Hun Sen’s decision to leak the call sent a strong message: proximity to Thaksin would not shield against criticism or political manipulation.
Power Plays in Phnom Penh
Although Hun Sen stepped down from the premiership in 2023, he continues to exert immense influence over Cambodian politics. His son, Hun Manet, now holds the prime ministership but remains politically tethered to his father’s legacy.
By taking a nationalist stance and escalating the border dispute, Hun Sen reinforced his relevance while boosting his son’s standing amidst domestic unrest. Accusations of appeasement and corruption have dogged the younger leader, making border-related nationalism a convenient distraction that also bolsters regime legitimacy.
Broader Impact and Stakes
The personal rivalry between these political giants has complicated what was already a volatile land dispute:
- Negotiations over unmapped border territory stalled once more, even as Cambodia formally petitioned the ICJ.
- Thailand refused outside mediation, insisting on bilateral talks—a stance shaped at least in part by suspicion of Cambodia’s leverage through familial bonds.
- Nationalism surged on both sides: Cambodian leaders positioning themselves as sovereign defenders, and Thai conservatives weaponizing anti-Shinawatra sentiment.
- International actors—including ASEAN, China, and the U.S.—have offered to mediate, but Thailand has rebuffed most overtures in defiance of external involvement.
Conclusion
What began as another outbreak in the long‑running border dispute has transformed into a contest not only over territory, but over trust, loyalty, and dynastic power. The historic bond between Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen has become a lightning rod, weaponized by both sides to justify bold political action.
The current crisis starkly illustrates how personal relationships at the top echelons of power can influence international relations, challenge national institutions, and even trigger regional security breakdowns. As tensions persist, the resolution—or escalation—will likely hinge on whether these entrenched political families can disentangle personal history from national sovereignty.
