Commentary | Soksamphoas Im, Performing Peace Through Conflict: Cambodia’s “Thank You Peace” Rhetoric and the 2025 Border Clashes with Thailand
In May 2025, tensions reemerged once again along the contested Cambodia–Thailand border near Preah Vihear temple, where a Cambodian soldier was killed during a military clash with Thai troops. What began as a deadly encounter evolved into an escalating confrontation involving artillery exchanges took place from July 24 to 28, 2025 – and, most notably, a leaked 17-minute phone call between Cambodia’s Senate President and former Prime Minister Hun Sen and Thailand’s suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. This call, in which the two former leaders discussed political turbulence and the border closure, quickly went viral after Hun Sen publicized it on social media, further stoking nationalist fervor on both sides.
While these developments reignited regional concerns about the fragile peace in mainland Southeast Asia, many commentaries have remained narrowly focused on Thailand’s domestic political instability or Hun Sen’s reputation as a political tactician. These interpretations are not without merit. However, they fail to fully account for the deeper symbolic logic that shapes the Cambodian regime’s response to external conflict: the ideological consolidation of “peace” as both a sacred achievement and a legitimizing narrative for authoritarian rule. In this light, the 2025 skirmish should not be seen as a separate discourse from Cambodia’s “peace at all costs” rhetoric but rather as a performance that paradoxically reinforces it.
Manufacturing Peace, Performing Power and Justice
At the heart of the Cambodian People's Party (CPP)’s claim to legitimacy lies its carefully curated image as the guardian of peace. After more than three decades in power, former Prime Minister Hun Sen has sought to cement his legacy as the leader who brought Cambodia out of decades of civil war, culminating in the defeat and reintegration of the Khmer Rouge remnants in 1998 through his much-touted “win-win policy.” In the years since, this narrative has not only been enshrined in public monuments – most prominently the 54-meter-high Win-Win Monument unveiled in 2018 – but also embedded in public discourse through a ubiquitous slogan: “Thank you peace” (Arkun Santepheap).
Introduced formally in January 2020, the “Thank you peace” campaign calls upon Cambodians to appreciate the sacrifices that led to the nation’s stability and to remain vigilant in its defense. The slogan has since been plastered across ministries, hospitals, schools, and public billboards, becoming a daily mantra of political loyalty. It is a reminder that peace is not merely a historical event, but a present condition maintained by the CPP, and by extension, Hun Sen himself. As peace is turned into a commodity and a brand, dissent becomes not just politically dangerous but morally suspect.
This domestic mythology raises a critical question: if peace is such a foundational narrative for the CPP, why risk a conflict with Thailand that threatens to unravel it? Why would a country with limited military capability, economic dependency, and diplomatic vulnerability provoke a skirmish it can scarcely afford?
Conflict as Continuity
It is precisely this paradox that reveals the regime’s deeper political strategy. Rather than contradicting the peace narrative, the border clash with Thailand functions as an instrument to reassert and dramatize it. Peace, in this schema, is not merely the absence of war – it is a condition that must be perpetually defended. Conflict, when framed correctly, reinforces the myth of peace as a fragile and hard-won prize that only the ruling elite can secure.
In this sense, the 2025 conflict is a continuation, not a departure, from the regime’s ideological project. The “enemy at the gate” – whether it be domestic dissidents, foreign critics, or rival neighbors – becomes a rhetorical device to solidify internal unity. The border becomes both a geographical frontier and a symbolic line separating chaos from order, the past from the present, and, most critically, Hun Sen’s Cambodia from the one that came before.
This framing helps explain why Hun Sen’s decision to publicize the phone call with Paetongtarn Shinawatra was not a diplomatic faux past but a calculated strategy of irregular warfare. It externalized Cambodia’s grievances, redirected domestic anxieties toward a foreign adversary, and cast the Cambodian leadership as transparent and resolute in the face of foreign aggression. Even critics within Cambodia found it difficult to openly oppose the government's handling of the crisis, lest they appear unpatriotic.
A Calculated Risk Amid Economic Headwinds
That said, the risks of confrontation were real and potentially costly – especially in economic terms. In April 2025, the Trump administration announced a 49% tariff on Cambodian exports to the United States, citing trade imbalances. This decision struck a major blow to Cambodia’s already fragile economy, particularly its textiles and apparel sector. Yet rather than retreat into isolationism in the global economy, the Cambodian government quickly initiated diplomatic negotiations with Washington D.C. The first round of trade talks was held in May in Washington, D.C., resulted in a gradual easing of the tariff – first down to 36%, and then to 19% as announced on August 1, 2025 – making Cambodia becoming a competitive trade partner like its regional neighbors.
Given these efforts to reduce economic pressure and rehabilitate ties with the United States, it would be politically and financially counterintuitive for Cambodia to instigate a war merely to distract from domestic challenges. Contrary to accusations by Thai commentators such as Thanachate Wisaijorn and former Ambassador Pisan Manawapat, the Cambodian government’s actions suggest a dual strategy: using conflict as a unifying nationalist spectacle while simultaneously pursuing pragmatic diplomacy to stabilize external relationships.
Nationalist Mobilization in the Social Media Age
What is especially noteworthy about the 2025 skirmish is how it catalyzed an emotional and symbolic response among younger Cambodians – many of whom were born after the war and raised in the relative stability of the post-Khmer Rouge era in the 1990s and 2000s. For this generation, the border conflict was a jolting reminder of the fragility of peace. The images of displaced civilians, wounded soldiers, and cratered landscapes went viral on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X – sparking a wave of patriotic sentiment rarely seen in recent years.
Actors, influencers, and civil society groups joined the call to “stand with our troops,” organizing donation drives, posting messages of solidarity, and even boycotting Thai businesses. A Cambodian famous rapper, VannDa, arguably Cambodia’s most popular contemporary music artist, released a song title, “We Will Never Forget” on August 1, 2025, amassed over 350K views in less than 10 hours after its release. Some young entrepreneurs and content creators such as Pich Pisey pledged to shift their supply chains to local Cambodian producers. Others invoked history, recalling past struggles for territorial sovereignty, to amplify the stakes of the moment.
This groundswell of emotion, while partly organic, was also subtly orchestrated. Government-aligned media outlets and social media campaigns highlighted heroic narratives, emphasized unity, and framed criticism of the conflict as ungrateful to the sacrifices of those defending the nation. In doing so, the ruling CPP effectively turned a geopolitical crisis into a reaffirmation of national purpose – at least for the moment.
Strategic Diplomacy and the Rebalancing Act
Perhaps one of the most surprising developments of the 2025 conflict was the role played by President Donald Trump in brokering a de-escalation agreement between Cambodia and Thailand. While Trump’s return to the White House had initially raised concerns about renewed U.S. disengagement from Southeast Asia, his administration seized the opportunity to mediate the border crisis. The result was not only a cessation of hostilities but also a soft reset in the U.S.-Cambodia relations.
For Cambodia, this presents a pivotal opportunity. Long seen as leaning heavily toward China, the country can now pursue a more balanced foreign policy – leveraging renewed ties with the U.S. to diversify its economic dependencies and enhance its regional standing. The model is not unprecedented. Singapore, another small state in a geopolitically tense region, has long managed to maintain strong ties with both superpowers. If Cambodia were to truly aspire to become a middle-income country by 2030 and a high-income one by 2050, such balancing acts will be essential.
Of course, this will require more than strategic diplomacy. Structural reforms must follow – serious efforts to combat corruption, invest in education and healthcare, and reduce economic inequality. The lesson of the border conflict is clear: peace is not just a slogan to be performed, but a condition that must be earned anew, especially in times of uncertainty.
Conclusion: Peace, Not as a Destination, But a Discourse
The 2025 Cambodia–Thailand border skirmish has revealed much about the performative nature of politics in Southeast Asia, especially within regimes that fuse stability with authoritarianism. In Cambodia’s case, peace is not simply the absence of war – it is a living narrative, constantly invoked, curated, and sometimes paradoxically defended through acts of confrontation.
By framing the conflict not as a contradiction of peace but as its reaffirmation, the Cambodian government has effectively deepened its ideological hold and legitimacy. At the same time, it has managed to navigate a delicate diplomatic path, reduce economic pressure, and reenergize national sentiment. This is seen with the recent endorsement for national unity over territorial defense by the opposition party, the Cambodian National Rescue Party’s leaders – through patriotic actions by both the exiled Sam Rainsy and house detained Kem Sokha. Whether this moment will translate into genuine political and social reform or merely reinforce the status quo of the ruling regime remains to be seen.
But one thing is certain: in Cambodia, peace is no longer just a memory of what was lost and re-attained– it is the embodiment of the Cambodian everyday body politics and social actions running on parallel paths towards an evolving idea of peace.
Soksamphoas Im, Ph.D. is Associate Director of the Asian Studies Center at Michigan State University. She is also an Affiliated Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on authoritarian governance, social policy, and Southeast Asian politics.
To cite this essay, please use the suggested bibliographic entry below:
Soksamphoas Im, “Performing Peace Through Conflict: Cambodia’s ‘Thank You Peace’ Rhetoric and the 2025 Border Clashes with Thailand,” criticalasianstudies.org Commentary Board, August 16, 2025; https://doi.org/10.52698/BVBG6235.