Freeing Cambodian POWs a step in the right direction

While Thailand has taken a step towards rebuilding trust, it is now up to Kuala Lumpur to help Manila fulfill the promise of Asean as a platform for negotiating peace.

The decision by Thailand to release 18 Cambodian prisoners of war (POWs) at the close of 2025 marks a rare but significant moment of strategic restraint and symbolic reassurance in mainland Southeast Asia.

While modest in material terms, the gesture carries disproportionate political and regional weight.

As Cambodia’s defence ministry has rightly observed, the release is intended to help rebuild mutual trust. In a region where trust is often thin and crises escalate quickly, such confidence-building measures matter.

For months, the detention of Cambodian troops — captured during border clashes last year — stood as a lingering reminder of how fragile neighbourly relations can become when nationalism, historical grievances, and unresolved demarcation disputes converge.

Many in Cambodia actually believed the Thais had poisoned all 18 of them, which was not true.

Their release is therefore not simply a humanitarian act.

It is a calibrated political signal that Bangkok understands the costs of prolonged grievance and the benefits of de-escalation.

The Cambodia–Thailand border has long been susceptible to periodic tension.

Colonial-era maps, ambiguous boundary markers, and domestic political pressures have repeatedly transformed local incidents into national flashpoints. In 2025, these dynamics re-emerged with force.

Ceasefires were declared, violated, re-declared, and questioned. Public opinion in both countries hardened.

Against this backdrop, the continued detention of these soldiers became a symbol of mistrust — an open wound that complicated diplomacy and risked further escalation.

Thailand’s decision to repatriate the 18 soldiers therefore represents a turning point. Strategically, it removes a potent trigger for retaliation.

Detained soldiers can easily become martyrs-in-waiting, their captivity used to justify renewed military posturing.

By releasing them, Thailand lowers the emotional temperature and narrows the space for nationalist escalation on both sides of the border.

More importantly, the move operationalises a principle often invoked but rarely demonstrated in Southeast Asian security politics: confidence-building before conflict resolution.

Too often, governments in the region insist on settling “core issues” first, postponing gestures of goodwill until after disputes are resolved.

The result is a stalemate. In this case, Thailand has reversed the sequence — offering trust first in the hope that trust will generate momentum for dialogue.

This approach aligns closely with the normative instincts of Asean.

While Asean is frequently criticised for its caution and consensus-driven style, its security culture has always emphasised incrementalism, restraint, and non-use of force.

The release of the soldiers functions as a textbook confidence-building measure: limited in scope, reversible in theory, but powerful in signalling intent. It gives practical meaning to Asean’s oft-repeated commitment to peaceful dispute settlement.

The symbolic dimension of the release should not be underestimated.

Symbols matter in diplomacy, particularly in societies where history and honour remain politically salient.

In the case of Cambodia, the return of its soldiers restores a sense of dignity and reassures the public that diplomacy can deliver tangible results.

For Thailand, the gesture projects maturity and regional responsibility, countering narratives that portray force as the default instrument of border management.

There is also a humanitarian and legal subtext.

By framing the release as an act of goodwill rather than concession, Thailand reinforces the norm that detained combatants should not be used as bargaining chips.

In an era where conflicts elsewhere — from Eastern Europe to the Middle East — are marked by prolonged detentions and hostage diplomacy, Southeast Asia’s quieter adherence to restraint deserves recognition.

Yet this breakthrough must be understood for what it is — and what it is not.

The release of 18 soldiers does not resolve the underlying border dispute. Maps remain contested.

Patrol patterns remain sensitive. Domestic political incentives to appear “tough” have not disappeared in either country.

History cautions against excessive optimism: previous ceasefires have collapsed when confidence evaporated and verification faltered.

This is precisely why the moment should be seized, not merely applauded. Trust, once partially restored, must be institutionalised.

Joint border committees, transparent communication channels between local commanders, and third-party verification mechanisms can transform a symbolic act into a durable process.

Asean, as a collective, has a role to play in encouraging these steps — not by imposing solutions, but by providing platforms, observers, and quiet diplomatic support.

The release also carries broader regional implications, especially a border riven with forced labour and human trafficking in scam compounds.

At a time when Southeast Asia is increasingly shaped by major-power rivalry, internal cohesion is no longer a luxury.

Border conflicts among Asean members weaken the organisation’s credibility and distract from larger strategic challenges.

When neighbours demonstrate restraint and reciprocity, they strengthen Asean’s claim to centrality in the regional security architecture.

For medium-size powers such as Cambodia and Thailand, strategic autonomy depends as much on internal stability as on external balancing.

Preventable conflicts along shared borders only create openings for external influence and pressure.

By choosing de-escalation, Thailand has contributed — perhaps unintentionally — to Asean’s collective resilience.

Ultimately, the release of the 18 Cambodian soldiers should be read as an invitation rather than a conclusion.

It invites Phnom Penh to reciprocate in spirit, Bangkok to follow through in policy, and Asean to remain engaged beyond statements and summits. Trust, once extended, demands stewardship.

In Southeast Asia, peace is rarely built through grand bargains. It is assembled patiently, through small but meaningful acts that change expectations and behaviour over time.

Thailand’s decision to release the detained soldiers is one such act.

If nurtured wisely, it could mark the beginning of a more stable chapter in Cambodia–Thailand relations — and a reminder that, even in a turbulent region, restraint remains a strategic asset rather than a weakness.

While the Kuala Lumpur Accord can be celebrated at the end of 2025, Manila has to take over the arduous task of the Chairmanship of Asean and Related Summits.

Yet the fact is Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim who oversaw this has to continue to back President Ferdinand Marcos Jr to make more progress. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.