On Cambodia and Thailand conflict
I prefer not to make a political comment on the issue because I live in one mostly as a "travel hub" to neighboring countries for my researches, and live in the other occasionally to retreat in a mountain village and write. So as a "guest", I prefer not to comment deep in the specific politics of both countries. However, I strongly suggest that the approach to the event should first be in its historical context, second in connection with the current internal economic and political situations of each country, and finally, keeping in mind and thinking relative to the worldwide conflict.
1-) Most ex-colonial countries have "border disputes" due to arbitrarily drawn borders by the colonizers. When the colonizers draw the borders, they have never paid attention to the historical, ethnic and cultural factors of the regions. At best case, their self economic, political and strategical interests guided their decisions on the border, at worse case it was their arrogance and ignorance of the cultures of the regions caused the arbitrary drawing of the borders. They were self-declared "superior" human beings to dictate anything to the "others" based on their doctrine of "cultural supremacy". As Edward Said pointed out once; " It is in this abstract world of ideas that the colonizer, by creating the “other” which was to be colonized, created his own identity in opposition to that of the colonized. " In return, they created their own "supremacy" who will make decisions over the others. However, as the history has proven, the "border disputes by itself never been the underlying cause of a war but an excuse. In some countries, especially when the border divides a group of people from the same ethnicity and/or culture, if not all, the disputed borders are not even supervised, people freely travels to see their relatives in both sides, it is never a serious issue till it becomes a necessary tool or excuse for other more pressing issues.
2) As in most such "border dispute" cases has proven, I do not seriously believe that the main, underlying issue is the "border dispute". In this sense, we should look at the recent economic and political situations in each country in order to make a concrete and factual assessment. I should add that Thailand has over one million Cambodian legal workers living in ( I am not making a guess for non-legal workers and families).
The best I can do for the second item on the question is to refer you to the related Leninist theories. "Who attacked first" kind of questions and responses can only be helpful to understand the developments totally related to the event itself, not to the core reasons behind it. In most cases focusing on that type of questions makes one falling in to trap of the tactic of 'deflection", distracting the attentions from what really is going on behind the curtain in Cambodia- Thailand particular, and region in general.
The most important reactionary character of monopoly capitalism is its maintaining, protection and in some cases strengthening the existing feudal structure in countries they have sphere of influence on as long as they are inline with their interests -in this case of US. The "democracy" demagogy and hypocrisy of the US-West has been exposed so many times through their support of the ruling feudal structure, or supporting the feudal structures against the governments who are not inline with their interests.
In countries where feudal and semi-feudal structures and relations reigns, where industrial capital negligible, the bourgeois class is not developed to the level of forming a ruling class. The military establishment and the religious institution make up of the ruling elite who are subjectively comprador and anti-bourgeois despite their bourgeois ideology and direction. Imperialists, in this case US-West, always will have leverage on the military and clergy through both; with financing- corruption of the feudal elite and through having something secret on the leading figures.
So, going back to Lenin's point of the necessity of "studying the internal policies and practices of the belligerent countries prior to the event" in order to get a clear idea on the actual reasons other than the "event itself", we should follow his teaching. Actually, last six months of the developments widely published on media and commentaries can easily give us a clear idea, especially if the subject is taken in conjunction with ASEAN, BRICS and the US-West conflicts with Russia and especially China in the region. The common misconception is that Thailand is pro-US, or an ally of US, Cambodia is pro-China, others argue that Cambodia is pro-US, Thailand is pro- China. This confusion by itself reflects the existence of the problems of conflicting politics in each country, meaning that there are conflicting forces in both countries trying to pull the country to have better, primary relations either with US or China. Neither Thailand nor Cambodia is an "ally" of US, although they both have relations in different degrees with the US as well as they have with China. There are, however economic and political powers, including the USAID-NED organizations. This "skirmish", as I see it, may well be the manifestation of mentioned power struggle within both countries.
3) In addition to the external factors; Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, most importantly, we should never underestimate the "soft power" of the US-West which is unmatched by any country due to its centuries old experience, their influence through "international" institutions whether it be so-called "NGOs" or non-governmental "independent media". Economically declining, militarily declined US-West still has so many decisive cards in its sleeve. As far as the "information warfare" and its influence in manipulation and creating chaos in line with its interests are concerned is still unmatched. The indirect involvement of French, British (as the former colonizers of the region) and the US can never be dismissed in such developments.
Will it continue and escalate to an actual full blown war?
I may be wrong, however I tend to believe that it is highly unlikely because a war will impact both countries' economies in a devastating way. Both, especially Thailand heavily relies on tourism for its economy. That's why a war would be a heavy blow to its economy. Cambodia's economy is incrementally but in a fairly moderate speed growing due to Chinese infrastructure and other investments in addition to its high economic relations with Vietnam (Vietnam has an influence in Cambodia) . A war could be a huge hindrance for their economy's development. Having said that, the question of war will inevitably bring the China factor to the front. Leaving aside the billions of dollar investments in Cambodia (so in Thailand to a degree) , China cannot afford instability and especially an "Americanization" of a country or countries at its under belly. Although it is not mentioned, China already have a huge problem with what is going on Myanmar and do not need another problem- a problem as I believe and argued in few of my articles which is much more serious than the Taiwan issue. China will get involved in solving the issue peacefully either directly or indirectly- through ASEAN. ASEAN is an important target of USA to dismantle or destroy its influence in the region. US demand from the ASEAN countries to increase their "military spending" (so that they can sell guns to them) may be another external link to the developments.
As a conclusion, I do not expect that the border skirmishes, and today, bombing further inside the country will escalate to a full blown war. Both countries are heavily mountainous and forested which makes winning a war, as the history has proven, almost impossible regardless of the "military tech " superiority of one or the other- Vietnam is a great example for this fact. In this era of technological warfare any country can attack the large cities of others with drones and missiles and can cause extensive damages- that means migration and the end of tourism. A peace agreement will probably be reached but the "border dispute", like for so many ex-colonial countries, will remain for a long time.
June 25, 2025
Addition based on a comment and question;
A legitimate argument on the issue of Cambodia and Thailand; "aren't we supposed to support the bourgeoisie against the feudal ruling elite?
That is a Leninist general theory. However students of Marxism Leninism are not self-appointed "pharmacists who write prescriptions based on the pre-described recipe without examining the existing conditions and situations.
“Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relation of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation.” Marxists do not proceed from the generalized theories to assessment of a given situation which renders subjectivity and arbitrariness but proceed from the assessment of concrete situation to the application of theories.” Marx”, says Lenin, "... speaks only of the concrete situation; Plekhanov draws a general conclusion without at all considering the question in its concreteness.”
“It is not enough to learn the slogans by heart “ says Lenin, like a pharmacist memorizes the prescriptions, a Marxist however "demands a strict historical examination of the problem...to treat the problem as separate from the concrete historical situation is an error of betrayal of the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism." Marxist must proceed not from what is possible, but from what is real." “it would be absurd to concoct a recipe, or general rule... that would serve in all cases. One must have the brains to analyze the situation in each separate case.”
Here we are faced with two general theories that contradicts each other in their application to Cambodia and Thailand issue. Cambodia and Thailand are similar in the context of feudal-military structure and bourgeois-civil structure and the conflict among them. It is very easy to apply a recipe for the determination of a stand on the issue without actually studying the "actual" concrete issues. The first question should be if those countries have "political independence". If so, which section of the elite structure is fighting for the continuation of "independent political structure" against the imperialist pressures, blackmails and "use of force" in different forms, including the use of NGO's, and which section is fighting to tie its political dependence to the US-West imperialism. (I am not even going to discuss the infantile arguments about "economic" dependence equates with political dependence- US and China economically dependent each other yet they both are politically independent). The study of existing conditions reveals the fact that one side (monarchy and large section of military) is for political independence, other side (the billionaire civil clubs and the NED supported NGOs) is for being a political proxy to US. In this case the character of anti-imperialist comes to the forefront (in both countries are concerned for the fact that the conflict in both manifests a struggle for political independence).
In Lenin's paraphrased words, the evaluation of an anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist struggle should be in terms of the current results of the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism; that is, not on an individual but on a world scale." Considering the "world scale" conflicts and the provocations and plots of US in its striving to surround and weaken China through its new "proxies", the question becomes clear in our stand; which one is more important to "take a stand" for; the internal political struggle between the feudal and bourgeois elites or its international relations, its implications on a world scale, will be decisive for our stand?
On this issue, Stalin was very clear; "the struggle waged by the Emir of Afghanistan for the independence of Afghanistan, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, is objectively a revolutionary struggle because it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism "
“For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism;
whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. “
Paraphrasing the words of Stalin "every step towards political liberation, even if it contradicts the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow to imperialism.”
Those words of Stalin explains the differences of the approach between a "pharmacist" and of the students of Marxism Leninism who studies the exiting conditions and situation in order to decide for a stand with the principle of "the interests of particular always subordinated to the interests of general".
In conclusion
1-if it is a war between the two countries without any outside hand in it, due to their political structures, it would be a "reactionary war".
2- if it is a war with indirect involvement of outside forces in both, it would be a "reactionary war."
In this case none is supported but peace is called upon. (no "revolutionary" power and revolutionary situation exists to call for the defeat of its own- it would be utopian)
3- if it is a war with indirect involvement of outside forces in one, it is a "defense war- a just war" for the one that is not a "proxy", a "reactionary war" for the indirect "proxy".
In this case the "defensive war" side is supported.
However, it is not easy to determine the extent of outside involvement objectively.
Because the issue is complex internally, that is why the decision is contingent on "which side wins in internal conflict" in the short term.
Because this war is a reflection and deflection of internal conflicts and crises, exploited by outsiders. Depending on that result and its clear manifestation (based on which we can make an objective analysis) the "war" either will continue or end.
Erdogan A
June 26, 2025
Thailand