• Hun Sen and Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s longstanding dynastic tensions transformed a historical Thailand-Cambodia border dispute into a political showdown.
• Both leaders used the conflict to manage internal crises: Hun Sen to distract from economic stagnation and corruption in Cambodia, and Paetongtarn to restore her credibility and the Shinawatra dynasty in Thailand.
• While Hun Sen gains a short-term political advantage, the dispute exposes ASEAN’s weak crisis management and the economic disruption it causes.

Hun Sen © WTO/Jay Louvion CC BY-SA 2.0 and Paetongtarn Shinawatra by 首相官邸ホームページ CC BY 4.0

Why is Hun Sen in conflict with Paetongtarn Shinawatra?

Answer: Hun Sen’s conflict with Paetongtarn is about reasserting his power and exploiting nationalist sentiment, transforming a border dispute into a tool for political survival and personal revenge. 

The long and porous 817km border between Thailand and Cambodia has once again become a flashpoint, reviving colonial-era tensions that date back to the 1904-1907 treaties between Siam and Indochina. The latest clashes erupted in July 2025 near the Tao Moan Thom temple, an 11th-century Khmer-Hindu site, quickly escalating into artillery exchanges, tank deployments, and the displacement of tens of thousands of civilians. 

Fighting first broke out on July 24, 2025, when clashes erupted near the Tao Moan Thom temple between Thai and Cambodian soldiers. Within hours, the clashes spread along several stretches of the frontier, with both sides deploying artillery, rocket launchers, and tanks, leading to more than a dozen casualties and displacing over 30.000 civilians from nearby villages. Despite sporadic ceasefire talks, cross-border shelling and sniper fire have continued, deepening the humanitarian toll and heightening fears of further escalation.

Once bound by a fraternal bond, Hun Sen and Thaksin Shinawatra (Paetongtarn’s father), shared years of personal and political cooperation. Hun Sen famously referred to Thaksin as his “god brother”, appointed him as an economic advisor, and provided refuge to the Shinawatra family after Thailand’s military coups. That relationship collapsed in summer 2025 after Hun Sen leaked a 17-minute private call with Paetongtarn, in which she appeared deferential to him and critical of her own generals. This disclosure humiliated the young Thai Prime Minister, fractured her coalition, and set the stage for her downfall.

Although Hun Sen denied releasing the recording, he later escalated the feud through social media, publicly branding the Shinawatras as “arrogant” and “criminals” while claiming to possess documents implicating Thaksin in lèse-majesté offences. The conflict has evolved from a traditional territorial dispute into a hybrid personal and political showdown between two dynasties. 

What does Hun Sen want?

Answer: By weaponising nationalism, Hun Sen wants to reinforce his image as Cambodia’s protector, distract from domestic crises, and preserve his family’s political legacy.

Although Hun Sen officially stepped down in 2023 after nearly four decades in power, he continues to function as Cambodia’s ultimate decision-maker, exerting more control than his son and current Prime Minister Hun Manet. By leading negotiations, visiting conflict zones, and making fiery public speeches about Thai “aggression”, Hun Sen has reinserted himself at the centre of national politics. The border conflict thus serves as a stage for his political comeback, a means of proving that Cambodia’s destiny still revolves around his leadership.

Hun Sen’s reemergence coincides with mounting domestic challenges, such as economic stagnation, US trade sanctions, and growing international scrutiny over Cambodia’s role in cyber scams, trafficking networks, and illicit casinos. By framing the border clashes as an existential struggle for national security, Hun Sen has deflected attention from these internal crises and rallied Cambodians around the flag. In doing so, he channelled public anger from corruption and toward an external enemy, using nationalism as both distraction and unifier. 

This combination of psychological pressure, disinformation, and nationalist rhetoric has revived Hun Sen’s image as “protector” while politically isolating Paetongtang in Bangkok. Beyond geopolitics, the current crisis reflects a personal vendetta. Hun Sen’s calculated manoeuvring aims both to punish a former ally and to divert Cambodians’ attention from economic stagnation and corruption scandals

Cambodian nationalism is profoundly shaped by its historical memory, a sense of loss dating back to the decline of the Angkor Empire and the redrawing of colonial borders. The presence of ancient Khmer temples such as Tao Moan Thom and Preah Vihear along the frontier lends the conflict emotional gravity. Hun Sen has skillfully tapped into this sentiment, evoking the fear of “losing” Khmer civilisation to portray himself as the guardian of the nation’s heritage. By reviving this mythos, he transforms this conflict into a civilisation’s struggle that reinforces his image as Cambodia’s saviour.

What does Paetongtarn Shinawatra want?

Answer: Paetongtarn sought to restore the Shinawatra dynasty’s political relevance and assert her own legitimacy as an independent leader through diplomatic pragmatism with Cambodia.

Paetongtarn’s goal was to prove the Shinawatra dynasty’s relevance and her personal legitimacy in one decisive move. As the daughter of Thaksin Shinawatra and the heir of a “political brand” repeatedly undone by military and royalist forces, she entered office with both a legacy to uphold and vulnerabilities to manage. Yet, this legacy came with a double burden: she was expected to both preserve her father’s political networks and demonstrate that she could lead independently as a modern and pragmatic stateswoman. Her initial handling of the Cambodian border dispute reflected this balancing act: seeking to maintain the personal relationship between the Shinawatras and Hun Sen, while projecting herself as capable of resolving a national security crisis through diplomacy rather than confrontation.

However, this reliance on personal diplomacy quickly backfired. Believing she could de-escalate tensions through informal dialogue, Paetongtarn reached out privately to Hun Sen, addressing him as “uncle” and attempting to appeal to his past loyalty to her father. The leaked 17-minute call, in which she criticised a Thai general, shattered her credibility and enabled Hun Sen to publicly humiliate her. What she intended as a calculated act of pragmatic statecraft became a symbol of weakness and nepotism, fuelling national outrage and leading to her suspension by the Constitutional court.

Behind this miscalculation lay systemic pressures rooted in Thailand’s nationalist political culture. The country’s public discourse remains haunted by myths of “lost territories”, such as parts of Cambodia and Laos that were once under Thai rule. In such a context, even limited gestures of conciliation risk being framed as betrayal. Paetongtarn’s attempt at reconciliation was thus read not perceived as a clever attempt of leadership, but rather as capitulation to Cambodia. 

Moreover, her coalition’s survival depended on cooperation with conservative and royalist factions that historically ousted her family. When the scandal broke, her political isolation reflected even more Thailand’s entrenched power asymmetry, which eventually led to the opportunity to dismantle her authority. Ultimately, Paetongtarn sought to achieve a dual goal: to restore the Shinawatra dynasty and credibility, and to establish herself as a legitimate, independent political actor. Her decision to rely on personal diplomacy was a high-stakes gamble to show that she could achieve what her predecessors could not. Yet, her ambition collided with Thailand’s systemic militarism and nationalist sentiments. 

What is Paetongtarn doing?

Answer: Paetongtarn escalated the border conflict to shift focus from scandal to sovereignty, using controlled military responses to restore her credibility and project authority.

Following the leak of her private call with Hun Sen, Paetongtarn pivoted sharply from diplomacy to controlled escalation. What began as an attempt at personal diplomacy turned into a test of political survival. In the aftermath of the scandal, Paetongtarn authorised increased troop deployments and limited retaliatory strikes after Cambodia shelling near the Tao Moan Thom area. The decision was designed not only to restore deterrence, but also to reframe her image: from a naive negotiator outmanoeuvred by Hun Sen into a decisive leader defending Thai sovereignty.

This shift represented a calculated bid to restore legitimacy. By invoking national defence, Paetongtarn strategically redirected public attention away from the embarrassment of the leaked call and toward a unifying nationalist cause. In the Thai political context, where leaders are often measured by their ability to assert strength against external threats,  escalation became a form of reputational repair. As domestic critics accused her of jeopardising national dignity, Paetongtarn’s controlled military response allowed her to reassert authority as commander in chief and temporarily stabilise her standing within the military hierarchy.

Publicly, Paetongarn framed her actions within a moral and defensive narrative. She repeatedly asserted that Thailand “never wanted this situation to arise” and had “acted only in response” after Cambodian forces allegedly opened fire. This rhetorical emphasis on self-defence allowed her to reclaim moral authority and align her government’s stance against the accusations of recklessness. The message was aimed at both the Thai and the international community, arguing that Thailand was the victim, not the aggressor. Simultaneously, Paetongtarn engaged in symbolic diplomatic retaliation. In response to the leaked recording, her government expelled Cambodia’s ambassador and recalled Thailand’s envoy.

These gestures had little strategic effect but served a domestic purpose: they projected authority, appeased nationalist sentiment, and reinforced the image of a government still in command despite Paetongtarn’s suspension by the Constitutional Court. Ultimately, Paetongtarn’s actions illustrate the intersection of personal vulnerability and structural constraint. Her escalation of the border conflict was less about military objectives than about political survival. By externalising her crisis through a show of force, she momentarily regained control over Thailand’s political narrative. But in doing so, she deepened regional instability and confirmed the fragility of leadership in Thailand’s populist military power cycle.

Who is winning, and what about you?

Answer: In the short-term Hun Sen is “winning”; however, the border conflict has exposed the fragility of Southeast Asia’s political systems, where nationalism masks domestic weakness, destabilising the regional balance.

In the immediate term, Hun Sen appears to have won the political battle. By weaponising the border conflict, he has reasserted himself as Cambodia’s indispensable power broker, humiliated the Shinawatra dynasty, and successfully railed nationalist sentiment at home. Paetongtarn, in contrast, has suffered a rapid political downfall: her credibility shattered, her premiership suspended, and her family’s political brand once again entangled in Thailand’s cyclical elite pushing back. 

Yet, Hun Sen’s short-term gains mask deeper vulnerabilities that could erode both his legacy and Cambodia’s stability. Despite escalating rhetoric and border clashes, both sides understand the cost of full-scale war: for Thailand, the risk of Western backlash; for Cambodia, the likelihood of military defeat and domestic destabilisation.

Ultimately, the conflict underscores the limitations of ASEAN’s crisis-management framework, as two member states are locked in confrontation with minimal effective mediation. At the same time, China’s quiet support for Cambodia positions Beijing as both mediator and beneficiary, reinforcing its strategic leverage in mainland Southeast Asia.