Strong but neutral: Malaysia’s key role in maintaining the Kuala Lumpur Accords
Photo: Collins Chong Yew Keat is a foreign affairs, security and strategy analyst with the University of Malaysia. Supplied
-Opinion-
The tensions that erupted again at the Thailand–Cambodia border and the decision by Thai Prime Minister Anutin to suspend the agreement that was signed during the ASEAN Summit symbolised the challenges in the peace process and also the role of external powers, especially Malaysia and the US, in ensuring the situation does not escalate. Malaysia has adopted the correct stance: consistent, grounded and continuing to maintain open dialogue channels.
Although this conflict is fundamentally bilateral in nature with a legacy of disputes spanning more than hundreds of years, because it occurs within the ASEAN framework which promotes peace, stability and diplomacy through dialogue, member states have a collective responsibility. The role of ASEAN is to ensure that this conflict does not spread and does not erode the climate of trust among regional states.
The most significant trigger in this latest incident was a landmine explosion in Sisaket that injured Thai military personnel. This changed the security calculus at the border and gave political justification to Anutin to support the military’s hard stance and freeze implementation of the peace declaration while investigations are conducted. This was widely seen as pretext to protest toward Cambodia.
This was also used as a clear internal message that Thailand under Anutin is firm and uncompromising in defending Thailand’s sovereignty and interests, and that the ceasefire and peace agreement also will not be exempt from the firmness of Anutin’s administration in defending Thailand’s interests.
This functions as a step to strengthen the image, legitimacy and political strength of Anutin’s government to the Thai people. Anutin cannot be seen as weak in defending Thailand’s rights, and must also safeguard military sensitivities toward the landmine threat.
The suspension of the ceasefire following the landmine incident shows that Bangkok is maintaining negotiation space through strategic hedging between major powers, while pressuring Phnom Penh for security concessions. However, this suspension will not last long, where Anutin will not intend to give the wrong signal to Trump, yet he also needs to be careful not to give the impression of weakness to the Thai military and Thai people by taking a soft approach. This suspension is expected to be temporary as a clear message to Cambodia.
This suspension tests the endurance and efficiency of ASEAN but does not affect the credibility of regional mechanisms. If tit for tat and tensions prolong, the risks include cycles of low-intensity conflict along the border including periodic gunfire, increased militia activity and arms smuggling, border closures and increased refugee flows. Evidence from the past months shows that border closures, trade disruptions and mass displacement when clashes peaked could be repeated if de-escalation channels fail.
Malaysia previously facilitated the ceasefire together with the US, and this record is clearly reflected in Malaysia’s legacy and credibility as a neutral external or third party, aligned with ASEAN’s stance of non-alignment and non-interference in the internal affairs of others.
President Trump becomes among the biggest factors in forcing Thailand to return to the negotiation table not only through economic pressure and a carrot-and-stick approach, but due to America’s foremost role in Thailand in terms of security guarantees and defence.
Bangkok realises that relations with Washington are as important as relations with neighbouring countries and ASEAN, and the policy that Trump implements in pushing toward peace through an economic tariff card creates a transactional framework that Thailand tries to benefit from, while being cautious of domestic costs and not wanting to bear economic consequences from Washington if it does not comply.
ASEAN usually functions through consensus, dialogue and diplomacy and not through enforcement frameworks, lacking the both capacity and the defined mechanism to do so. ASEAN, with Malaysia’s role, needs to continue intensifying efforts to ensure Thailand returns to the negotiation table and to apply pressure and diplomatic measures on Cambodia to prevent such incidents from recurring. However, effectiveness depends on the political will of Bangkok–Phnom Penh (and support from Washington) to return to negotiations. Malaysia acts within ASEAN norms and frameworks, and is consistent with its position of not aligning or interfering in the internal affairs of other ASEAN actors.
The statement by a former Thai general accusing Malaysia and Prime Minister Anwar as “enemies within the blanket” was officially rejected by Kuala Lumpur and is more domestic political rhetoric in Thailand, not the stance of the Thai government.
As emphasised by Army Chief General Tan Sri Hj Mohd Nizam, Malaysia’s role remains professional and within ASEAN frameworks. The immediate denial at the highest level reduces reputational risks and affirms Malaysia’s mandate. It reinforces the narrative that Malaysia is not easily influenced by individual rhetoric, demonstrating confidence in institutions and integrity in procedures. From a regional geopolitical perspective, Malaysia functions as a stabilising factor amid tense Thailand–Cambodia relations.
Malaysia’s calm and rational position sends the message that it is a mature actor not trapped in domestic political emotions or the internal dynamics of other countries.
Fears, suspicions, concerns and cautious wariness will always exist among all state actors, in efforts to defend sovereignty, interests and national security. However, overall relations in diplomacy and other ties including economic cooperation remain fundamental, and managing security relations among neighbouring states remains a challenge in navigating future balance.
The Malaysian Armed Forces act as the pioneer and frontline shield in this regard. In the issue of Malaysia’s role in the Thailand–Cambodia conflict, Malaysia through the armed forces has wisely provided leadership and support from outside without undermining national and ASEAN interests. Malaysia–Thailand working relations in border mechanisms and peace negotiations continue despite heightened domestic rhetoric in Thailand following the landmine incident and ceasefire breach.
The risk of regional trust deficit remains low if Malaysia stays transparent to process mandates and terms, and deals are defined through ASEAN/GBC platforms. No other ASEAN actor has the track record, negotiation capacity and mutual trust from both parties to be mediator in this conflict. This incident actually highlights why Malaysia is often chosen as facilitator – it is not only neutral but trusted based on its legacy in such roles.
Malaysia has consistent diplomatic capacity, respected defence forces in the region, successful peacekeeping records and strong military communication networks with all parties.
ASEAN states see Malaysia as a non-aligned, non-aggressive actor capable of structuring negotiation processes with discipline. This strengthens Malaysia’s status as a main player in ASEAN preventive diplomacy.
Several conventional pillars create sensitivities in conflict management and post conflict monitoring and mediation challenges that Malaysia will inevitably face and must handle well. The first is sovereignty and perceived bias – neutrality must be emphasised and statements that may be seen as siding one side over the other must be avoided. Secondly, the narrative game where information warfare can shape perceptions. Humanitarian issues and laws of conflict also form a core principle, especially involving detainees, refugees and matters requiring independent monitoring. It is equally important to shut out speculation gaps through domestic and regional management and consistent communication with ASEAN and other actors to avoid perceptions of bias.
Malaysia must remain neutral, firm and lead based on trust and its proven legacy, and maintain all actions within ASEAN frameworks while ensuring both sides feel equal access to Malaysia. It is also important to avoid statements that validate the narrative of either side and continue highlighting the importance of de-escalation, humanitarian principles and ceasefire compliance.
All in all, Malaysia is the most stable and trusted peace negotiation actor in ASEAN, with credibility as a conflict balancer due to the professionalism of the Malaysian Armed Forces and a long diplomatic track record. However, all this will not succeed without the first stage role of Washington and President Trump in providing the needed economic and security pressure card to both Bangkok and Phnom Penh, and this must continue to be maintained.
Collins Chong Yew Keat is a foreign affairs, security and strategy analyst with the University of Malaysia. The views and opinions expressed are his own.
-The Phnom Penh Post-
