Report on the Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent escalation in the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has resulted in significant humanitarian consequences and threatens regional stability, directly undermining progress toward multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While a ceasefire has been brokered, its durability is questionable due to deep-rooted internal political dynamics within Thailand. This report analyzes the conflict’s impact on key SDGs, focusing on the erosion of peace and justice (SDG 16), the humanitarian crisis (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 11), and the challenges to economic growth and partnerships (SDGs 8, 17).

Humanitarian Crisis and Setbacks to Core Development Goals

The armed conflict has created a severe humanitarian situation, reversing development gains and directly impeding the achievement of fundamental SDGs.

Impact on Human Welfare and Community Stability

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The displacement of approximately 200,000 people from border areas has destroyed livelihoods, disrupted agricultural activities, and increased food insecurity, pushing vulnerable populations further into poverty.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The conflict has resulted in at least thirty fatalities. Displaced populations face heightened health risks due to inadequate shelter, sanitation, and psychological distress.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The fighting has rendered communities near the border unsafe and uninhabitable. Furthermore, the conflict endangers significant cultural heritage sites, including the Preah Vihear and Prasat Ta Muen Thom temples, which is contrary to the target of protecting cultural heritage (SDG 11.4).

Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The conflict and its underlying causes represent a profound failure to uphold SDG 16, which calls for peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice, and effective, accountable institutions at all levels.

Escalation of Violence and Fragile Peace

The intensification of the conflict, marked by the use of heavy artillery and airstrikes, is a direct violation of the principles of peace and security central to SDG 16. While the ceasefire brokered through international partnership (a tenet of SDG 17) is a positive step, its fragility is a major concern.

1. The ceasefire does not address the root causes, including the long-standing, poorly demarcated border.
2. Reports of continued fighting after the agreement indicate a lack of institutional control and commitment to peace.
3. Escalated nationalist rhetoric from political leaders on both sides undermines efforts toward peaceful coexistence and inclusive societies.

Erosion of Institutional Integrity in Thailand

The report suggests the border conflict is being instrumentalized to address internal political struggles in Thailand, severely weakening the nation’s institutions in contravention of SDG 16.

• Weakening Civilian Government: The conflict and a subsequent leaked phone call were leveraged to remove Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, creating a power vacuum and parliamentary chaos.
• Politicization of Justice: The revival of lese majeste charges against former leader Thaksin Shinawatra points to the use of the judicial system to neutralize political opponents rather than ensure impartial justice.
• Military Ascendancy: The conflict has empowered the Royal Thai Army, with public polling indicating greater trust in the military than in the civilian government. This shift away from democratic civilian oversight is a significant regression for SDG 16.

Implications for Economic Stability and Regional Partnerships

Undermining SDG 8 and SDG 17

The instability has negative consequences for economic progress and international cooperation.

• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The threat of withholding trade deals by the United States as leverage for the ceasefire highlights the direct link between peace and economic prosperity. The conflict disrupts tourism and cross-border economic activity, hindering sustainable growth.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): While the mediation by Malaysia and the U.S. demonstrates a positive application of international partnership for peace, the underlying political maneuvering, such as the abandonment of Thaksin by regional allies, shows the fragility of political partnerships when national interests diverge, complicating long-term regional stability.

Conclusion: Internal Politics as a Barrier to Sustainable Development

The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict is more than a territorial dispute; it is a symptom of profound institutional weakness and political strife within Thailand. The pursuit of political objectives by Thai elites and the military has fueled a conflict that directly contravenes the global agenda for sustainable development. Achieving a lasting peace, and thereby making progress on the SDGs, will require not only resolving the border issue but, more critically, fostering strong, accountable, and inclusive democratic institutions in Thailand as envisioned by SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia touches upon several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following SDGs as being directly relevant to the events and consequences described:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most prominent SDG, as the entire article revolves around an armed conflict, political instability, the role of the military, the failure to adhere to international court rulings, and diplomatic efforts to establish peace.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The conflict has led to the mass displacement of people from their homes and communities. Furthermore, the dispute involves areas containing significant cultural heritage sites, which are endangered by the fighting.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article explicitly mentions the role of international actors in mediating the conflict, highlighting the importance of global partnerships in resolving disputes and promoting peace.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed in the article, several specific targets under the identified SDGs can be pinpointed:

1. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The article directly addresses this target by describing the armed conflict, the use of “heavy artillery” and “airstrikes,” and the resulting casualties.
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” This target is relevant due to the mention of the 1962 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling regarding the Preah Vihear temple, which the article states “Thailand has not complied with,” indicating a breakdown in the adherence to international law.
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article highlights institutional weakness in Thailand, describing the civilian government and parliament as being “in chaos” and citing a poll that shows a significant lack of public confidence in these institutions compared to the military.
   • Target 16.a: “Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels… to prevent violence.” The diplomatic intervention by “Malaysian and U.S. officials” to broker a ceasefire is a clear example of international cooperation aimed at preventing further violence.
2. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.4: “Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.” The conflict zone contains “a 1,000-year-old, still largely intact Hindu temple called Preah Vihear, as well as another large and beautiful temple called Prasat Ta Muen Thom.” The fighting directly threatens these significant cultural heritage sites.
   • Target 11.5: “Significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected… caused by disasters.” Armed conflict is a man-made disaster, and this target is relevant as the article states that “200,000 people reportedly have been displaced from the areas near the conflict,” directly quantifying the number of people affected.
3. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.16: “Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development.” The successful brokering of a ceasefire by “Malaysian and U.S. officials” exemplifies a multi-stakeholder partnership working to achieve peace (SDG 16).
   • Target 17.10: “Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system.” This is connected through the leverage used by the U.S. President, who threatened “not making trade deals with Thailand and Cambodia unless the fighting ceased,” linking international trade policy to the goal of achieving peace.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several explicit and implicit indicators that can be used to measure the status of the identified targets:

• For Target 16.1 (Reduce violence and death rates): A direct quantitative indicator is provided: “thirty Cambodians and Thais have died.” This number serves as a direct measure of conflict-related deaths (Indicator 16.1.2).
• For Target 11.5 (Reduce the number of people affected by disasters): A direct quantitative indicator is mentioned: “200,000 people reportedly have been displaced.” This figure measures the number of persons directly affected by the conflict (Indicator 11.5.1).
• For Target 16.6 (Effective and accountable institutions): The article cites a NIDA poll showing that a majority of respondents lack confidence in the civilian government. Specifically, “35.42% of the respondents have little confidence in the [civilian] government and the Foreign Ministry, [and] 30.76% said they lack any confidence at all.” This serves as a proxy for Indicator 16.6.2 (Proportion of population satisfied with public services/institutions).
• For Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law): A qualitative indicator is the statement that “Thailand has not complied with the [ICJ] temple ruling,” which demonstrates a failure to adhere to international legal judgments.
• For Target 11.4 (Protect cultural heritage): An implicit indicator is the very existence of armed conflict and the use of “heavy artillery” in a region containing internationally significant cultural heritage sites like “Preah Vihear” and “Prasat Ta Muen Thom,” signifying a failure in their protection.
• For Target 17.16 (Global partnership): A qualitative indicator is the successful mediation effort mentioned in the text: “The ceasefire was brokered by Malaysian and U.S. officials.” This confirms the existence and action of a partnership for peace.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cfr.org