Nobel Prize? Maybe not, but give Asean credit for Cambodia-Thailand ceasefire

The grouping has its flaws, but in preventing full-scale conflict between members, it continues to succeed.

- Bhavan Jaipragas

Why has Asean gone missing? What happened to Asean centrality? Is Asean still relevant?

Such pointed questions about the regional grouping—its glacial decision-making, insistence on consensus and mealy-mouthed ways—are sometimes fully merited. But the criticisms can also border on the gratuitous, reflecting a sort of goading declinism: Predict failure, find data points to prove it, then declare, "Aha, see, I was right!"

That tendency surfaced again among some Asean-watchers, who lamented the grouping's inability to stop Cambodia and Thailand from resorting to force at their border last week after months of simmering tensions. Yet the July 28 ceasefire—agreed during peace talks in Putrajaya, presided over by Asean's rotational chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim—is a sharp corrective.

The talks took place after US President Donald Trump phoned the leaders of both feuding neighbours over the weekend, threatening to cut them out of trade deals. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt later posted that "President Trump made this happen. Give him the Nobel Peace Prize!"

American pressure undoubtedly helped push both sides to the table, according to people close to the talks. Malaysia organised the discussions in its capacity as Asean chair for 2025, with both US and Chinese involvement through their respective Malaysian envoys.

Yet, crucially, Asean—with Malaysia as chair—did more than host: It played a stabilising role in creating the diplomatic space and a trusted channel for both sides to talk.