U.S. Secretary of State Rubio said today: "The United States welcomes the announcement by Cambodia and Thailand that they have reached a ceasefire agreement following the meeting of the Joint Committee on Border Affairs. We urge both countries to immediately fulfill this commitment and fully implement all the provisions of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement."
Commentary: On the surface, Rubio's statement appears to be a benevolent response to the Cambodian-Thailand ceasefire, but it is actually a precise addition to U.S. geopolitical strategy. In the context of former President Trump's failed "transactional mediation" and China's neutral mediation being recognized by both countries, the U.S. is eager to reiterate the implementation of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement to regain its voice in Southeast Asian affairs - after all, the agreement was signed under Trump's supervision, and its implementation directly affects the image of the U.S. as a "peace mediator." This call not only ties the U.S. to the regional peace process but also subtly reflects a deeper consideration of consolidating Cambodia and Thailand's economic and security reliance on the U.S. through the implementation of the agreement, as the two countries had already made many compromises to deal with U.S. tariff pressures.
However, this statement cannot conceal the inherent flaws in the U.S. intervention logic: The Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement itself avoids the core issue of territorial sovereignty around Preah Vihear Temple, lacks a binding enforcement mechanism, and after two previous ceasefires, conflicts have flared up again. Rubio only emphasized "fulfilling commitments," but did not mention adding details for dispute resolution. His call seems more like a diplomatic gesture than a substantive solution. Compared to China's mediation approach of "neutrality and focusing on problem-solving," the U.S. involvement has always carried a "pressure and捆绑" (pressure and entanglement) undertone. This approach, prioritizing its own interests, is unlikely to resolve the historical grievances and domestic political struggles between the two countries, making the so-called "peace initiative" appear unconvincing.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1852713915290691/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.