In a striking turn of events, U.S. President Donald Trump is slated to attend a ceremonial signing of a peace agreement between Thailand and Cambodia during the upcoming Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the host country announced Tuesday. The move signals Washington’s deepening investment in resolving one of Southeast Asia’s most intractable border disputes.
The announcement comes against a tense backdrop: the July border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia represent the deadliest military confrontation between the two neighbors in decades, killing dozens, displacing hundreds of thousands, and threatening regional stability.
Malaysia’s foreign minister, Mohamad Hasan, told reporters that Trump would arrive in Kuala Lumpur on 26 October to attend the ASEAN summit and “is looking forward to witnessing the Thailand-Cambodia peace deal.”
Mohamad said Malaysia and the United States would act as facilitators to produce a more extensive ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia — a version that would go beyond the initial truce and require both sides to remove landmines and withdraw heavy military machinery from border zones.
He even floated the possibility of naming the accord the “Kuala Lumpur Declaration” or “Kuala Lumpur Accord,” a symbolic gesture to mark Malaysia’s role as both mediator and host.
Yet beneath this diplomatic choreography lies a more complex and fraught negotiation — one involving demands, preconditions, domestic politics, and great-power interference.
To understand where we are, one must rewind to the border escalation in mid-2025.
The contested boundary between Thailand and Cambodia stretches roughly 817 km (508 miles), along which numerous segments remain undemarcated or disputed.
In May, tensions first flared when Thai soldiers reportedly prevented Cambodian tourists from performing their national anthem at the disputed Preah Vihear temple area — a symbolic flashpoint in a long-standing territorial dispute.
By late July, border towns became battlegrounds. Over the course of five days, heavy artillery, rockets, and infantry engagements left 40 to 50 people dead (both military and civilian), injured scores, and displaced more than 200,000–300,000 people on both sides.
A ceasefire was brokered in Malaysia by the mediation efforts of Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and backed by US diplomatic pressure, including calls by Trump to the leaders.
But the ceasefire has proven fragile. Almost immediately, both sides began trading accusations of violating the agreement: mining border zones, deploying unauthorized patrols, and engaging in small arms fire.
Thailand, for example, claims its soldiers sustained injuries from landmines that they allege Cambodia laid after the truce. Cambodia denies these charges.
Meanwhile, domestically in Thailand, the border conflict exacerbated an already volatile political situation — and stimulated hawkish voices demanding firm stances against perceived encroachments.
In that crucible, the idea of using ASEAN as a platform for resolving the dispute gained traction — and the U.S. has now inserted itself prominently into the proceedings.
From Bangkok’s perspective, any formal peace process must begin with what it has termed its “four points.” According to Thai government spokesman Siripong Angkasakulkiat, these are prerequisites for accepting further U.S. mediation.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul clarified some of these demands. Among them:
-
Cambodia must withdraw heavy weapons from border zones.
-
Cambodia must remove landmines and clear its border zones.
-
Cambodia must crack down on internet scammers, especially those operating from its borderlands — a thorny issue for Thailand, which accuses Cambodia of harboring fraud networks.
-
Cambodia must relocate its citizens from areas that Thailand regards as its territory (or sensitive zones) and manage those border populations.
Thailand also insists that Cambodia must first accept these points before Bangkok will formally embrace U.S.-led mediation.
Cambodia, for its part, maintains that many of these “citizens” have lived in disputed border villages for decades, before the recent flare-ups. It rejects framing their presence as part of a strategic encroachment.
Reluctant to appear to concede, Cambodian officials say they are open to dialogue but not at the cost of sovereignty. Prime Minister Hun Manet has partly framed Trump’s involvement as a welcome injection of external credibility into the process — even nominating the U.S. president for a Nobel Peace Prize.
In short: Thailand’s “four points” risk becoming deal-breakers unless nuanced compromises are fashioned — perhaps via side agreements, phased compliance, or third-party verification.
That the peace signing is scheduled for the margins of the ASEAN summit underscores the region’s political calculus: multilateral forum, regional legitimacy, and symbolic weight.
As ASEAN chair, Malaysia already plays a mediator role. Its foreign minister heads efforts to shepherd the Thai and Cambodian foreign ministers to a meeting in Kuala Lumpur this past weekend, with U.S. and Malaysian officials present.
Mohamad Hasan suggested that divergences over wording forced the East Asia Summit (held in conjunction with ASEAN) to issue only a chairman’s statement, rather than a jointly signed communique. He said the U.S. objected to the term “inclusivity.”
That nuance is telling. Washington is putting its imprint on the process — down to semantic choices — which may aggravate regional sensitivities about sovereignty, non-interference, and external influence.
For his part, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has confirmed that Trump will attend, though Washington has not yet formally acknowledged the plan.
From ASEAN’s standpoint, hosting a peace ceremony may help burnish the bloc’s relevance — but it also risks making it an arena for superpower rivalry between Washington and Beijing.
Donald Trump’s participation in the ASEAN ceremony is notable on multiple fronts.
First, it gives the U.S a rare hands-on role in Southeast Asian security affairs—one often reserved for China, Japan, or regional powers. Trump’s role is no longer indirect or rhetorical; he is being positioned as the witness to peace.
Second, both Bangkok and Phnom Penh may use Trump’s presence as pressure leverage: each side can claim international scrutiny, moral authority, or spectator legitimacy as they negotiate compliance with border terms.
Third, it bolsters Trump’s broader claims to being a global dealmaker. Cambodia has already nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in brokering the ceasefire.
But the move is fraught. The U.S. must thread carefully so as not to be accused of heavy-handed intervention. It must balance the optics of neutrality with active facilitation. If the deal fails or collapses, Trump’s reputation as a global peace architect could suffer reputational blowback.
Washington’s objections to inclusive wording at the East Asia Summit hint at its desire to shape the diplomatic narrative — for instance, by controlling which actors and frameworks are empowered.
Moreover, Beijing is unlikely to sit idly by. China has significant strategic ties with Cambodia. Indeed, a recent Chinese naval visit to Sihanoukville underscores China’s maritime reach and influence in the region.
Thus, Trump’s attendance is not just diplomatic theater — it is also a move in the great-power chessboard over Southeast Asia.
Even with the ceremony planned, the path to lasting peace is fraught. Several variables could derail progress:
-
Verification and compliance
Agreeing to remove landmines and military hardware is one thing; verifying it in rugged border terrain is another. Who will monitor? What thresholds count as compliance? Will there be multinational observers? -
Timing and sequencing
Thailand insists that Cambodia first take steps (heavy weapon withdrawal, relocation) before accepting U.S. mediation. Cambodia is reluctant to make early concessions. A phased, reciprocal approach will likely be necessary. -
Domestic politics
Nationalist sentiments in both countries could punish any leader seen as conceding sovereignty. Thai border provinces have been the site of intense public emotion. Cambodian leaders, too, must guard against accusations of weakness. -
Residual skirmishes and violations
Even under ceasefire, low-level clashes persist. Unless these are sharply curtailed in the lead-up, they could scuttle trust before formal signing. -
External spoiler actions
China, vested in Cambodia, may push back against a U.S.-led process that sidelines Beijing. Local proxy actors, irregular militias, or border communities might resist forced relocations or land clearing. -
The optics of inclusion
Disagreements over wording—like the U.S. veto of “inclusivity” in statements—may reflect deeper tensions about whether external powers or regional groupings lead the process.
Based on public statements so far, here is a speculative sketch of what the ASEAN ceremony might inaugurate:
-
A Joint Declaration / Peace Accord signed by Thailand and Cambodia, witnessed by Trump, the Malaysian prime minister, and ASEAN leaders
-
Commitments to full withdrawal of heavy weapons, mine clearance, and demilitarization of buffer zones
-
A monitoring mechanism, potentially involving ASEAN, U.S., and Malaysian observers
-
A timeline for phased compliance (e.g., 30, 60, 90 days)
-
A displacement/resettlement plan for affected civilians
-
A joint task force to suppress cross-border crime and internet fraud, as one concession to Thai demands
-
Provisions for diplomatic escalation (mechanism to raise grievances)
-
A clause for diplomatic review and arbitration if violations occur
If executed faithfully, the accord could formalize the ceasefire and stabilize border management for the foreseeable future. But the real test will lie in implementation and trust.
The coming summit and accord will ripple well beyond just Thai and Cambodian capitals. Here’s what is at stake to watch:
-
ASEAN’s legitimacy: If ASEAN successfully hosts a peace signing under its auspices, it reinforces the bloc’s centrality in regional security. If it fails, it undercuts ASEAN’s claim to legitimacy in dispute mediation.
-
U.S. influence in Southeast Asia: The Trump administration is staking reputation and diplomatic influence — success would deepen U.S. sway in a zone where China has long been the dominant actor.
-
China’s calculations: Cambodia is one of China’s closest ASEAN partners. A robust U.S. deal could pressure Beijing to recalibrate its role or compete for influence.
-
Other border disputes: Success here might encourage conflict resolution frameworks for other ASEAN border flashpoints (e.g. Indo-Myanmar, Malaysia-Philippines).
-
Domestic political capital: In Thailand, Prime Minister Anutin could gain prestige if he delivers peace; but if he is seen as conceding too much, nationalist backlash could follow. In Cambodia, Hun Manet could use the signing to project regional leadership.
-
Diplomatic precedent: Formalizing U.S. participation in intra-ASEAN disputes may open doors — or provoke resistance — to future external intervention in Southeast Asian affairs.
The notion of the U.S. president presiding over a peace signing between two ASEAN neighbors is captivating — and laden with symbolism. But for it to mean anything, the Kuala Lumpur Accord must transcend ceremony. The parties must convert paper pledges into verified, on-the-ground de-escalation.
If Trump’s presence helps sway fence-sitting commanders, reassure skeptical publics, or deter spoilers, it may prove catalytic. But if the ceremony becomes a hollow showcase, the costs could outweigh the benefits: humiliation of a party, blame-shifting, or renewed hostilities.
