Three days of fraught negotiations between Cambodia and Thailand have failed to bring an end to the escalating conflict along their shared border, even as both sides face mounting international pressure to halt the violence. The joint border committee (GBC) meetings, which began on December 24, 2025, were convened with hopes of restoring stability after a dramatic flare-up of hostilities earlier in the month. Yet, as of the evening of December 26, Cambodia continued to reject Thailand’s ceasefire proposals, leaving the region on edge and the prospect of peace uncertain.
According to The Nation, the latest round of talks took place at the immigration management office in Ban Phakkad, Chanthaburi province. The atmosphere was tense from the outset. On the first day, the meeting lasted a mere 30 minutes, with the Thai delegation presenting three key proposals: Cambodia must declare a ceasefire first, the ceasefire must be genuine and sustained, and Phnom Penh must cooperate sincerely in landmine clearance operations. These points, as reported by Khmer Times and The Nation, quickly became sticking points, with Cambodia refusing to accept them outright.
Negotiations on the second day, December 25, saw some movement—Cambodia tabled counterproposals, but the day was marred by repeated postponements. Meetings were pushed from morning to evening, and by 7:40 p.m., the full Cambodian delegation finally arrived to resume discussions. Still, no breakthrough emerged. Thailand, for its part, remained firm. Thai Defense Minister Natthaphon Narkphanit was unequivocal, stating, “If our proposals are not accepted, we will not attend any further GBC meetings or sign any agreements with Cambodia.”
As the talks dragged on into December 26, the impasse persisted. The Thai delegation reiterated that Cambodia had yet to accept any of the three proposals. Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, facing mounting frustration, convened an emergency meeting with the National Security Council to determine next steps should Cambodia continue its refusal. The stakes were high: just hours before, reports surfaced that approximately 40 bombs had been dropped from Thailand into Cambodian territory within the span of an hour—a dramatic escalation that stoked fears of a broader conflict.
The Cambodian side, meanwhile, was equally adamant. The Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) issued a blistering statement accusing Thailand of violating Cambodian sovereignty and territorial integrity. According to Khmer Times, the CPP charged Thailand with using heavy weapons—including F-16 fighter jets and multiple rocket launchers—to attack Cambodian soil, targeting not only military positions but also civilian areas and advancing more than 90 kilometers into Cambodia. The party described these actions as “war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international humanitarian law, and breaches of conventions protecting civilians and cultural heritage.”
The origins of this most recent escalation date back to December 7, when border skirmishes erupted between Cambodian and Thai forces. What began as small-scale clashes quickly intensified, with both sides deploying heavy weaponry and accusing each other of further attacks even as negotiations were underway. According to The Nation, the GBC meetings were supposed to provide a forum for de-escalation. Instead, each round of talks seemed only to harden positions.
On the ground, the human toll was becoming apparent. Images circulated by AFP showed wounded Cambodian soldiers, a stark reminder of the conflict’s cost. Cambodian military spokesman Lieutenant General Maly Socheata told Khmer Times, “The GBC discussions on December 25 continued to focus on specific measures to end the fighting and restore stability between the two countries.” Yet, despite these efforts, the violence showed no signs of abating. Cambodia also denied reports that it had itself proposed a ceasefire to Thailand, refuting claims made by some Thai officials.
International actors have begun to take notice. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a phone call with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet to discuss the border situation, offering American mediation to facilitate dialogue between the two neighbors. According to The Nation, Rubio expressed Washington’s readiness “to serve as a mediator for talks between the Southeast Asian countries.” Prime Minister Hun Manet, for his part, urged an immediate ceasefire and emphasized the urgent need for peace.
Despite the deadlock at the negotiating table, there were flickers of hope. Just three hours before the evening of December 26, Thailand and Cambodia reportedly agreed to a 72-hour ceasefire and prisoner exchange—though details remained murky, and the agreement was described as a trial period with no guarantees of long-term peace. The Thai Prime Minister voiced optimism that a more comprehensive ceasefire could be reached by December 27, but given the history of failed negotiations and ongoing accusations, skepticism lingered on both sides of the border.
The broader context of the conflict is complex, rooted in longstanding disputes over territory, national pride, and historical grievances. For years, the border region has been a flashpoint, with sporadic clashes erupting over competing claims and the presence of landmines left from previous conflicts. This latest crisis, however, appears to have been triggered by a combination of local incidents and broader strategic calculations, with both governments under pressure to assert their authority and defend their national interests.
Observers note that the use of heavy weapons and the targeting of civilian areas represent a dangerous escalation, one that risks drawing in outside actors and destabilizing the wider region. Calls for restraint have grown louder, with the international community urging both sides to return to the negotiating table and abide by international law. Yet, as the events of December 26 made clear, finding common ground will not be easy.
As the sun set on another day of tense diplomacy and sporadic violence, the people living along the Cambodia-Thailand border could only hope for a respite from the conflict. Whether the 72-hour ceasefire will hold—and whether it can serve as a foundation for a more durable peace—remains to be seen. For now, the situation remains precarious, with both nations standing firm and the world watching closely.
