Border tensions between Cambodia and Thailand have resurfaced repeatedly for decades, particularly around the Preah Vihear temple, ranging from military clashes in the late 2000s to recent incidents that led Cambodia to withdraw its athletes from a regional sporting event.
Despite various legal rulings and diplomatic efforts, the dispute continues to re-emerge, underscoring how fragile peace remains in Southeast Asia even among ASEAN member states.
What makes the situation especially revealing is ASEAN’s consistently restrained response, as the organization has largely relied on cautious statements rather than firm mediation, reflecting a deeper structural limitation rooted in its long-standing principle of non-intervention.
Non-Intervention as the Core of the ASEAN Way
The doctrine of non-intervention is central to what is commonly known as the ASEAN Way. Codified in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, it emphasizes respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in domestic affairs. This principle emerged from a historical context in which Southeast Asian states, newly independent and politically diverse, needed a framework that prioritized trust and stability over coercion.
For decades, non-intervention has helped ASEAN survive. It prevented ideological divisions during the Cold War from tearing the organization apart and allowed countries with vastly different political systems to sit at the same table. By avoiding public confrontation, ASEAN fostered a culture of consensus that enabled economic cooperation and regional confidence-building.
However, the same principle that preserves unity also constrains action. When disputes escalate between member states, ASEAN’s institutional reflex is to step back rather than step in. The Cambodia–Thailand conflict illustrates how non-intervention, while effective at preventing fragmentation, limits ASEAN’s capacity to act as a proactive peace broker.
When Facilitation Is Not Enough
In moments of heightened tension, ASEAN often positions itself as a facilitator rather than a mediator. This distinction matters. Facilitation allows dialogue to continue but avoids proposing binding solutions or exerting pressure. In the Cambodia–Thailand case, this approach has meant encouraging bilateral talks while refraining from stronger collective involvement.
On the ground, this restraint has consequences. ASEAN lacks the mandate to deploy peacekeeping forces or issue enforceable resolutions without the explicit consent of both parties.
Even joint statements tend to be carefully worded to avoid assigning responsibility. As a result, external actors such as the United Nations or major powers have sometimes played more visible roles in de-escalation than ASEAN itself.
Critics argue that this undermines ASEAN’s credibility as a regional political actor. If the organization cannot effectively address conflicts between its own members, questions arise about its relevance in managing larger regional challenges. The silence surrounding sensitive disputes risks being interpreted not as neutrality, but as institutional paralysis.
Between Sovereignty and Credibility
The dilemma facing ASEAN is not easily resolved. On one hand, non-intervention remains essential to maintaining trust among members. Many governments continue to view sovereignty as non-negotiable, particularly in a region shaped by colonial histories and internal diversity. On the other hand, repeated conflicts expose the limits of a doctrine designed for a different era.
Some ASEAN members have begun testing the boundaries of non-intervention through quieter forms of engagement. Countries like Indonesia have occasionally taken on informal facilitative roles, using diplomacy behind closed doors rather than public pressure.
There have also been discussions about evolving toward more flexible interpretations, such as enhanced consultation or constructive engagement, especially when disputes threaten regional stability.
The Cambodia–Thailand conflict underscores the urgency of this debate. As ASEAN grows more integrated economically and socially, the costs of unresolved bilateral tensions increase. Regional credibility now depends not only on respecting sovereignty, but also on demonstrating an ability to preserve peace among members.
A Persistent Dilemma at ASEAN’s Core
The enduring tensions between Cambodia and Thailand are more than a bilateral issue. They reflect a structural challenge embedded within ASEAN itself. Non-intervention has long been the glue holding the organization together, yet it also acts as a ceiling on collective action.
As Southeast Asia navigates an increasingly complex geopolitical environment, ASEAN will continue to face the same question: how to protect sovereignty without sacrificing relevance.
Until this balance is recalibrated, conflicts like Cambodia–Thailand will likely be managed quietly through bilateral channels, while ASEAN remains present, but restrained, at the margins of its own regional disputes.
