*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
When I started teaching Research and Doctrine Development at
the Philippine Public Safety College in 1999, I, a very boyish-looking educator, never imagined that border conflicts—especially those occurring far from our shores—would profoundly shape my understanding of national sovereignty. The events
unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia over their border dispute may seem
geographically and politically distant from the Philippines, but as I watch the
ongoing tensions in the West Philippine Sea, the parallels are both instructive
and urgent.
Before rummaging through these lessons, allow me to lay some
groundwork. When we talk about border conflicts, we refer to disputes over the
physical delineation between two or more nations—often complicated by history,
politics, and differing interpretations of international treaties. When these
disagreements reach waters—like our situation in the West Philippine Sea—they
evolve into maritime disputes, which involve overlapping claims of sovereignty
over islands, fishing grounds, and exclusive economic zones (EEZs), as defined
under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And in the
modern world, one of the few peaceful tools smaller nations like ours have in
these disputes is arbitration—a legal mechanism where an international tribunal
issues a binding ruling, such as the 2016 Hague decision, which invalidated
China’s sweeping claims in our waters.
Now, the Thailand–Cambodia conflict is primarily land-based,
revolving around areas like the Preah Vihear Temple, whose ownership was
muddied by colonial cartography and later decisions by the International Court
of Justice (ICJ). Yet what resonates with me is not just the geography but the
human behavior, the political miscalculations, and the institutional weaknesses
that led a manageable disagreement into armed confrontation.
As a dedicated advocate of public safety, peacebuilding, and internationalism
as the highest form of nationalism, I see a mirror image in the Philippines’
struggle in the West Philippine Sea. We, too, face a larger, more powerful
neighbor. We, too, have turned to legal mechanisms—our landmark arbitration
victory in 2016—only to face rejection by China and ambivalence from many in
the international community. What valuable insights can we gain from the experiences of our neighbors?
Lesson One: Legal Clarity is Non-Negotiable
Upon studying the Thai-Cambodian case, the first thing that struck me was the potential consequences of ambiguous or politically manipulated historical documents. Despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 1962 favoring Cambodia’s sovereignty over Preah Vihear temple, the court did not settle the territorial status of the surrounding lands. The result? Ten years of simmering mistrust culminated in conflicts, leading to the reassertion of the ruling in 2013 and its subsequent contestation in 2025.
In our case, we must treat the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling
under the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) not merely as a trophy of legal
victory, but as a cornerstone of enduring national policy. It defines our
maritime entitlements and delegitimizes China’s expansive and historically
unsound “nine-dash line.” Yet, I have told many young scholars, police officers, and policy students that if a ruling is not asserted, it is wasted. Cambodia maintained the legal clarity of its ICJ victory until it gained both verbal and practical recognition. Likewise, the Philippines must integrate the arbitral
ruling into every level of statecraft—from bilateral engagements to UN speeches
to educational curricula. Our laws, media narratives, and even community-level awareness must reflect this clarity.
Clarity must not be confused with rigidity. We
must defend our claims without becoming diplomatically immovable. We should
remain open to collaborative arrangements on resources or scientific
research—but these must always proceed from the baseline of our legal victory.
As history shows, clarity in claim allows flexibility in cooperation. Ambiguity
breeds conflict.
Lesson Two: Guard Against Nationalism Turning into
Demagoguery
I have seen how nationalism, when anchored in dignity and
truth, is a source of strength. But I’ve also seen how, when weaponized by
politicians or media, it becomes a reckless force.
In the Thailand–Cambodia conflict, nationalism became a
convenient tool for political survival. Leaders in both countries, especially
when facing domestic unrest or electoral instability, revived historical
grievances to rally support. What followed were armed skirmishes, border
closures, and widespread displacement—all in the name of patriotic assertion.
In the Philippines, we follow a similar path. Chinese incursions justify our collective outrage, particularly when they ram our coast guards or harass our fishermen in their ancestral waters. But as an international diplomacy researcher, I’ve seen how unfiltered rhetoric
can backfire. Public statements that provoke rather than persuade can trap us
in a cycle of escalation. Foreign policy must be grounded in strategic
nationalism—not performative outrage.
We must also be wary of political actors who use sovereignty
issues to distract from governance failures. True patriotism involves
supporting our military and fisherfolk not just through words, but by
strengthening our maritime capabilities, our legal diplomacy, and public
awareness. Our leaders must rise above using nationalism as fuel for popularity
and instead wield it as a compass for prudent, long-term action.
Lesson Three: ASEAN Must Grow Up
The impotence of ASEAN during the Thai–Cambodian conflict
was one of the most disappointing revelations in my research. Despite its
mechanisms—like the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the ASEAN Regional Forum,
and the High Council—ASEAN failed to mediate effectively. The principle of "non-interference" resulted in paralysis for ASEAN's ability to act.
In our context, this notion is dangerously relevant. ASEAN’s muted
response to China’s aggressive behavior in the West Philippine Sea is not just
disappointing—it weakens regional solidarity. The Philippines must be bold
enough to lead—not by issuing ultimatums, but by pushing for institutional
reforms.
We should champion a “Code of Conduct with Consequences” in
the South China Sea, strengthen the ASEAN Secretariat’s authority to mediate
maritime conflicts, and encourage Track 1.5 and Track 2 dialogues that allow
experts and civil society to keep communication channels open when diplomacy
stalls. In an era of transnational threats—climate change, terrorism, illegal
fishing—ASEAN cannot afford to be merely ceremonial. Today, functional institutions, not just flags, defend sovereignty by speaking and acting when one of their own is in danger.
Lesson Four: Civilian Presence is Power
One of the more constructive developments in the
Thai–Cambodian border standoff was the effort to build peace from the ground
up: joint cultural programs, shared markets, Buddhist pilgrimage access, and
community-level patrols helped cool tempers—until politics got in the way.
In the Philippines, particularly in the Kalayaan Island
Group and Scarborough Shoal, we have an opportunity to assert presence beyond
military deployments. Civilian infrastructure—such as schools, renewable energy
sites, marine research centers, and even artist residencies—can strengthen our
claim. The law recognizes effective occupation, and nothing is more effective
than life itself. Where there is family, there is sovereignty.
We should also consider governance based on ecosystems. Empower local fisherfolk cooperatives, encourage scientists to map coral
habitats, and let the islands be learning hubs for our youth. The presence of a
child in a classroom in Kalayaan sends a stronger message to the international
community than a gunboat. Soft presence, if done wisely, can be a challenging claim.
Lesson Five: Human Security is National Security
The Cambodian conflict displaced over 150,000 civilians. Homes
were bombarded, schools shuttered, and lives upended. And yet, many analysts
gloss over those events in favor of geopolitical narratives.
In our case, we often speak of the West Philippine Sea in
legal or military terms—but forget the people most affected. Filipino
fisherfolk in Masinloc, Palawan, and Pangasinan face daily intimidation. Their
boats are boarded. Their livelihoods are choked. Some have even quit fishing
altogether, migrating to urban slums or informal jobs.
Human security must be at the heart of maritime policy. We
need localized emergency protocols for harassment incidents, fuel subsidies for
distant fishing trips, cooperatives that can collectively bargain or ship
catch, and a maritime social safety net. We also need to integrate maritime
awareness into public education so young Filipinos grow up understanding both
their rights and responsibilities in defending our marine wealth.
If we cannot protect our people, we cannot protect our
territory. The map may say “Philippines,” but only when our people thrive in
those waters do we truly own them.
Lesson Six: Coalitions Are Crucial
Cambodia, for all its legal strength, struggled because it
lacked robust allies. Thailand, with a more diversified global portfolio, could
leverage economic and political alliances to its advantage.
The Philippines enjoys a strategic edge in this regard. Several key democracies, including Japan, Australia, the United States, and increasingly the European Union, align with us. The Quad and other Indo-Pacific platforms
offer support not just militarily but diplomatically and economically. These
coalitions can help amplify our legal narrative and push back against coercion.
But our partnerships must be principled. We cannot trade the
2016 ruling for promises of aid or temporary protection. Our allies must
respect and reinforce our legal foundations. Additionally, we must expand
coalition-building beyond governments: academic exchanges, joint university
research on maritime law, civil society dialogues, and diaspora lobbying are
equally powerful
I often tell my former Public Safety Directorial Staff Course students in a Viber group that their greatest ally is not always a navy; it might instead be a foreign non-government organization that cites their cause or a documentary that garners international empathy. Coalitions built
on truth, law, and trust will outlast those built on weapons alone.
Conclusion: A Call to Collective Reflection
As I reflect on these lessons, I am reminded that conflict
is never inevitable. It is made—or avoided—by the decisions of leaders, the
strength of institutions, and the vigilance of citizens. The Thailand–Cambodia
border conflict may seem like a distant matter, but its implications echo
loudly for us in the Philippines, especially as we confront our own maritime
challenges in the West Philippine Sea.
We cannot afford to wait for another flashpoint or allow
history to repeat itself due to inaction. We must strengthen our legal
position, support our citizens, reform ASEAN, and build national unity—not
through emotional outrage or performative rhetoric, but through thoughtful,
strategic patriotism grounded in truth and law.
More importantly, we must prepare our next generation of
leaders, scholars, and diplomats to understand these conflicts not just as
matters of statecraft but as human stories—stories of communities disrupted,
laws tested, and ideals defended under pressure. These are not distant
narratives; they are blueprints for future peace and justice.
In educational forums, I often emphasize that sovereignty is not about dominance, but rather about uncovering the underlying truth and conveying the enduring narrative of legitimacy and resilience.
Let us stand on that truth. Let us assert it with dignity.
And let us defend our seas not only for today, but for every Filipino child who
will one day cast a fishing line into those waters, believing—rightfully—that
they are home, protected by both history and the conscience of a vigilant
nation.
References
• ASEAN Briefing.
(2025, July 26). Thailand–Cambodia Border Clashes: Causes, Escalation, and
ASEAN Impact.
• Crisis Group.
(2011, December 6). Waging Peace: ASEAN and the Thai–Cambodian Border Conflict.
Crisis Group Asia Briefing.
• E-IR. (2025, July
4). Sovereignty Performed, Regionalism Denied: What the Thai–Cambodian Clash
Reveals.
• Emmers, R. (2003).
Maritime Security and the South China Sea: Strategic Rationale, Interests and
Approaches. Journal of Contemporary Asia.
• RSIS. (2025).
CO11021: Thai–Cambodian Skirmishes: Endangering ASEAN’s Raison d’être? RSIS
Republic of Singapore.
• Setyawati, D.,
& Nurulita, A. (2025). The Role of ASEAN in Dispute Resolution between
Thailand and Cambodia. ILDISEA, Univ. Negeri Semarang.
• The Guardian.
(2025, July 26). Cambodia and Thailand Continue Fighting Despite Trump Claim of
Ceasefire Talks.
• Time. (2025,
June–July). What to Know About the Thailand–Cambodia Border Dispute.
_________________________________________________________________________________
*About the author:
Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission
