The joint statement signed by the ministers of defence of Cambodia and Thailand on Dec 27, 2025 should be read not as a routine ceasefire declaration, but as a deliberately structured attempt to arrest escalation, restore minimum trust, and re-anchor the conflict within Asean-managed restraint.
Too many ceasefires fail because they are politically vague and militarily permissive. This one is neither.
Its five core elements — taken together — reflect a conscious effort to prevent battlefield momentum from overtaking diplomacy, while reaffirming Asean’s relevance at a moment when its credibility has been repeatedly questioned.
- First, clarity of timing and immobility of forces: The ceasefire began at noon local time in Thailand and Cambodia, corresponding to 1pm in Kuala Lumpur. This precision matters.
Ceasefires often unravel in their opening hours because of confusion over timing, time zones, or local command interpretation.
By synchronising the clock, both sides minimise excuses for early violations.
More consequential, however, is the agreement to freeze all troop movements.
In military practice, ceasefires collapse less often because of gunfire than because of repositioning. Units that advance, rotate, or reinforce under the cover of a ceasefire invite suspicion and counter-moves.
By freezing movement, Cambodia and Thailand have accepted that stability begins with immobility.
In a border conflict shaped by proximity to villages and difficult terrain, this is operational rather than symbolic restraint.
- Second, no increase in troop numbers: The commitment to not increase troop levels reinforces the first provision. It addresses a core fear of limited wars: that restraint today creates vulnerability tomorrow.
By agreeing not to augment forces, both governments signal that the ceasefire is not a tactical pause to gain advantage, but a genuine de-escalatory measure.
This is particularly important in domestic political contexts where nationalism can easily frame compromise as weakness.
Choosing restraint over reinforcement is therefore a political decision as much as a military one.
For Asean, this provision buys time. Asean does not impose peace through force.
It manages peace through process. Limiting increases in troop numbers reduces the risk of sudden escalation that would overwhelm diplomacy before it has a chance to function.
- Third, the 72-hour window and the return of detainees: The ceasefire is framed around a defined 72-hour observation period.
This transforms the agreement from an abstract declaration into a testable commitment. It creates a short, measurable window during which compliance can be assessed.
Critically, this period is linked to a humanitarian outcome: the return of 18 Cambodian soldiers currently held by Thailand, to be released unharmed after the observation period.
This linkage is strategically and morally significant.
It embeds humanitarian responsibility into military restraint. It creates an incentive to maintain the ceasefire. And it establishes a norm that detainees are obligations to be resolved, not assets to be exploited.
In Southeast Asian conflicts, detainees have often become symbols of unresolved hostility. By committing in advance to their return, Thailand signals that de-escalation, not leverage, is the priority.
- Fourth, stopping the information war: The agreement to halt the spread of fake news may appear secondary, but it is in fact central. Contemporary conflicts are accelerated as much by digital misinformation as by artillery.
Rumours, exaggerated casualty figures, and manipulated videos have repeatedly inflamed nationalist sentiment on both sides of this border.
By acknowledging the danger of disinformation, both governments recognise that restraint must extend beyond the battlefield. It also endorsed the importance of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord.
To be sure, ceasefire cannot hold if people are constantly mobilised by false narratives of betrayal or atrocity.
This provision implicitly places responsibility on political leaders, military spokespersons, and media ecosystems to dampen — not inflame — public emotion. It is an acknowledgment that modern conflict management requires information discipline.
- Fifth, the return of civilians and the prioritisation of peace: The commitment to allow villagers to return to affected zones while focusing on stopping the war reflects a shift from territorial obsession to human security.
Border conflicts in mainland Southeast Asia are devastating not because of their scale, but because they displace civilians whose livelihoods depend on stability rather than victory.
Allowing civilians to return is a signal that the objective is normalisation, not domination. It also creates political pressure to maintain the ceasefire, since renewed fighting would immediately endanger returning communities.
- Finally, Asean’s role is explicitly acknowledged: Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the joint statement is the explicit recognition of the central and crucial role of the Asean Observatory Team (AoT).
This matters because Asean’s credibility has been under strain, particularly amid perceptions that it hesitates when firmness is required.
By acknowledging Asean’s monitoring role, both Cambodia and Thailand reaffirm that regional mechanisms — not external powers — remain the primary framework for managing intra-Asean conflict.
This is not a rejection of international norms, but an affirmation that Asean’s legitimacy rests on its ability to supervise, verify, and stabilise disputes among its own members.
In this sense, the joint statement is also an attempt to strengthen the references and spirit of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord.
It operationalises that accord by translating principles into procedures.
Conclusion
This ceasefire is fragile. All ceasefires are. But it is not empty.
By freezing movement, limiting forces, linking restraint to humanitarian outcomes, curbing disinformation, enabling civilian return, and reaffirming Asean’s supervisory role, Cambodia and Thailand have chosen structure over symbolism.
Whether this structure holds will depend on discipline — military, political, and informational.
But the joint statement demonstrates that even amid deep mistrust, Southeast Asian states can still choose restraint over escalation and regional stewardship over unilateralism.
In an era where wars too often spiral because no one pauses long enough to stop them, this ceasefire deserves to be taken seriously — not because it guarantees peace, but because it makes peace possible.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
