When two Thai soldiers were injured by a landmine blast along the Thai-Cambodian border on Nov 10, it was more than an isolated tragedy — it was a warning.

The explosion, the seventh in just two months, forced Thailand to suspend the fragile peace accord that had been painstakingly brokered in Kuala Lumpur earlier this year.

The suspension marks a major test of Asean’s ability to manage its own conflicts, particularly at a time when the region is being watched closely by the world.

Invariably, Malaysia’s chairmanship of Asean and related summits will officially conclude on Dec 31, 2025, yet the responsibility for sustaining peace in Southeast Asia must continue.

The onus now rests on Asean and its eleven strategic dialogue partners — from the US to China, Japan, the EU, India, and beyond — to ensure that calm, not conflict, defines the Thai-Cambodian frontier.

When old hatreds explode anew

The landmine that maimed the two Thai soldiers was buried deep not only in soil but also in history.

The contested borderlands around Si Sa Ket and Preah Vihear have long been symbols of unfinished business — traced to colonial-era maps, Cold War mistrust, and the painful residue of decades of conflict.

The Kuala Lumpur Accord, reached in August and October 2025 respectively, with Malaysia’s facilitation and US’s active advocacy, was supposed to mark a turning point.

At least that was how President Donald Trump wanted it when he flew to Kuala Lumpur to witness the signing of the ceasefire agreement on Oct 26, 2025.

Cambodia and Thailand agreed to withdraw heavy weapons, demarcate sensitive zones, and begin joint mine-clearing operations.

Those images of Thai and Cambodian officials shaking hands in Kuala Lumpur were meant to symbolise Asean’s maturity as a peacemaker.

They embodied the region’s collective determination to handle its own problems without external imposition.

Instead, the repeated explosions have frozen progress. Thai PM Anutin Charnvirakul’s declaration that “everything we have been doing until now will be stopped until there is more clarity” reflects frustration and fatigue on both sides.

Each blast now echoes the old mistrust Asean had hoped to bury for good.

Malaysia’s role and Asean’s responsibility

To frame this suspension as Malaysia’s failure would be mistaken.

On the contrary, Kuala Lumpur’s diplomatic efforts — backed discreetly by Washington and Tokyo — brought both sides to the table after border clashes in July displaced more than 300,000 people; with 140,000 people on the Thai side alone.

Without Malaysia, indeed, the US’s role as the sherpa, there would have been no framework for peace at all.

However, the next phase must be collective. The principle of “Asean centrality” demands that peacekeeping evolve from bilateral goodwill to institutional strength.

The region must now turn the Asean Way — consultation and consensus — into the Asean Will — the conviction to intervene diplomatically and technically when peace begins to fray.

Asean already has mechanisms such as the Asean Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus) and the Regional Mine Action Centre in Phnom Penh.

What is needed is the political will to activate them and to coordinate their work effectively in the field.

Thailand is a treaty ally of the US. Bangkok can leverage on the experience gained from the annual Cobra Gold Military exercise with the US to defuse the tension.

The landmine as a metaphor

To be sure, each explosion tears open not only the ground but the delicate fabric of regional trust.

Landmines are remnants of older wars, but they continue to claim new victims because political will lags behind moral responsibility. Especially new mines.

Demining must now be treated not merely as a humanitarian task but as a confidence-building measure. An Asean-led demining mission, with observers from neutral member states like Indonesia, Laos, and Malaysia, could verify progress and report transparently.

Such steps would restore trust not only between Bangkok and Phnom Penh but also among Asean’s dialogue partners, who are closely watching for signs that the region can truly manage its own peace.

The civilisational dimension

The Thai-Cambodian border is not just a line — it is a shared landscape. Ethnic Khmer and Thai families live side by side, trading, farming, and worshipping together.

For them, peace is not a diplomatic abstraction; it is the basis of their livelihoods.

Asean must view this crisis through a civilisational lens, one that understands peace as harmony between communities, not just governments.

Malaysia could take the lead in convening a “civilisational dialogue for border harmony”, bringing together monks, educators, and youth leaders from both sides.

Such soft diplomacy, rooted in shared values and respect, complements the hard work of border demarcation and demining.

The wider geopolitical context

Trump’s return to the White House introduces a more transactional era of diplomacy.

Yet this realism can work in Asean’s favour if guided properly. The Trump administration does not want renewed instability in Southeast Asia that could disrupt supply chains, trade routes, or regional cooperation.

Hence, Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Brussels all share an interest in maintaining peace.

The Thai-Cambodian accord, though brokered during Malaysia’s chairmanship, must now be safeguarded by Asean’s eleven dialogue partners collectively.

The region’s stability cannot depend on one summit or one mediator. It must rest on shared responsibility among friends and partners who value a peaceful Indo-Pacific.

From Asean Way to Asean Will

As Malaysia prepares to hand over the Asean chair to the Philippines in early 2026, it does so knowing that Asean’s credibility hangs in the balance.

The Thai-Cambodian crisis is not merely a border issue — it is a referendum on Asean unity and purpose. If Asean cannot preserve peace among its own members, how can it claim leadership in resolving wider regional disputes?

The timing could not be more crucial. The world is watching how Asean responds before Myanmar’s military regime proceeds with its planned election on Dec 28, 2025 — an election that risks deepening division and discrediting Asean’s standing if seen as unopposed.

Asean must therefore succeed in stabilising the Thai-Cambodian frontier to demonstrate that it is not failing away. It is evolving. It is learning. And it is capable of standing firm.

All sides — within Asean and among its partners — must reject the easy temptation of doing nothing. Inaction would be a form of capitulation, signalling that Asean has lost its will to shape peace in its own neighbourhood.

A call to action

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s tireless efforts to plant the seeds of peace should not be blamed or dismissed.

He deserves support from every Asean capital and from each dialogue partner to ensure that those seeds grow into something lasting.

The Nobel Peace Prize of 2025 may not have gone to Trump, but the true prize is regional peace sustained by mechanisms, not miracles.

The Thai-Cambodian border will determine whether Asean has matured beyond declarations into deeds — beyond the Asean Way into the Asean Will.

The mines buried beneath the soil are dangerous. But the apathy buried in diplomacy is deadlier still.

Peace in Southeast Asia must not depend on luck or restraint — it must rest on shared resolve. The time to act is now, before another blast buries both lives and hopes under the rubble of inaction.

Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia and a director of its Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.