Category World News

President Donald Trump presided over the signing of a peace declaration between Thailand and Cambodia, beginning his weeklong, high-stakes diplomatic tour of Asia in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.

Trump had flown to Malaysia to attend the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), where he also signed separate trade deals on Sunday with Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia as well as agreements on critical minerals with Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.

A peace declaration between Cambodia and Thailand, which expanded on a ceasefire agreement reached in July, which brought deadly border clashes to an end, was the highlight of his appearance.

The agreement was overseen by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who currently chairs ASEAN, and the prime ministers of the ASEAN neighbors, Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet.

While the regional leaders hailed the ceasefire as “historic”, the differences between them run deep with decades-long disputes over their border and temples claimed by both sides.

What’s the deal, then, and is there a guarantee of a ceasefire?

What do we know about the peace agreement?

The neighbors’ “unwavering commitment to peace and security” and “unwavering commitment to an immediate halt to hostilities” were reiterated in a joint statement released on Sunday by the leaders of Thailand and Cambodia, confirming their earlier commitment to refrain from using force and respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The most thorough attempt to put an end to the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia along their disputed border has been made by Trump, as Trump has called it.

At the core of the deal is a plan for military de-escalation under ASEAN members ‘ supervision. With the approval of a new ASEAN Observer Team (AOT), the two parties agreed to remove large weapons from border areas and return them to their regular bases.

The agreement addressed a “information war” that has recently erupted and heightened tensions in both nations, in addition to military measures. Bangkok and Phnom Penh pledged to refrain from spreading false or inflammatory claims through official or unofficial channels.

Both countries have agreed to resume normal diplomatic relations and coordinate local-level discussions through established bodies like the Joint Boundary Commission and the General Border Committee.

One of the key factors leading to the recent round of fighting was the commitment to coordinate and implement humanitarian de-mining in the border regions.

Upon fulfilment, Thailand has undertaken to release 18 Cambodian soldiers captured during this year’s fighting.

Which response has the other side given?

Anutin said Bangkok stands for peace and “this declaration, if fully implemented, will create the building blocks for a lasting peace”.

Hun Manet referred to the joint declaration’s signing as a “historic day.”

According to Anutin, “it will kick off the restoration of our ties,” adding that “innocent civilians have suffered significant losses.”

Anwar said the agreement “reminds us that reconciliation is not concession but an act of courage”.

Trump has the longest speaking career.

Trump said, “Everyone was sort of surprised that we got the [the ceasefire] done so quickly,” while seated with the regional leaders in front of a backdrop covered in the words “Delivering Peace.”

“My administration immediately began working to prevent the conflict from escalating”, he added, recalling how he had learned of the fighting while visiting his Turnberry golf course in Scotland in July.

Trump continued, “I said this is much more important than a round of golf,” noting that “I could have had much fun doing this, saving people and saving countries.”

Trump bragged that there has never been another war like the eight that my administration has ended in eight months. “It’s like, I shouldn’t say it’s a hobby, because it’s so much more serious, but something I’m good at and something I love to do”.

What was the fighting about?

Thailand and Cambodia have had the worst relations in decades.

The conflict between the Southeast Asian neighbors has long been a source of tension due to its 800 km (nearly 500 km) border. Both sides dispute demarcations drawn in 1907 during French colonial rule in Cambodia.

The border regions are home to numerous ancient temples, some of which both sides claim. Communities on both sides of the border that share ancestry and heritage also reside in the conflicted areas.

In February, a dispute over Prasat Ta Moan Thon, a Khmer temple, flared up after Thai police reportedly stopped Cambodian tourists from singing their national anthem at the contested site.

After a Cambodian soldier was killed in a border dispute in May, there were more escalations and a full-fledged diplomatic crisis.

The fighting then grew even more severe in late July, with numerous fatalities reported on both sides over the course of five days. At least 300, 000 people were displaced on both sides.

Trump contacted both leaders, saying he would not negotiate trade deals with them if the fighting continued. Both nations’ export markets are dominated by the US.

However, tensions came to the fore again in August when Thai soldiers were injured by landmines while patrolling a buffer zone between the countries. Cambodia allegedly laid new mines in violation of the ceasefire, a claim that Phnom Penh vehemently refuted.

De-mining along the border and the elimination of heavy weapons are now included in the expanded peace agreement.

What is the current situation on the ground?

The current truce is still fragile because of local disagreements and conflicting political views in both nations.

Both of their prime ministers thanked Trump for his actions at the ceremony on Sunday. Hun Manet also reminded Trump that his government had nominated the US president for the Nobel Peace Prize, an international recognition that Trump campaigned for&nbsp, but did not get when this year’s prizes were handed out this month.

The countries’ land border crossings were closed as a result of the tensions, which still impede bilateral trade, which reached $ 10.45 billion last year.

Hun Sen, Cambodia’s former longtime leader, and Hun Manet’s father, filed a complaint with the UN earlier this month about “intense, high-pitched noises” being broadcast across the border.

The still powerful Hun Sen said Thailand was broadcasting ghost-like sounds from its Sisaket province, and the Cambodian Human Rights Committee accused Thailand of “engaging in psychological warfare”.

Since October 10, the committee has blasted high-decibel sounds from “ghosts,” wailing children, howling dogs, and roaring helicopters through loudspeakers at night.

According to The Nation newspaper, Thai social media activist Kannawat Pongpaibulwech, also known as Kan Chompalang, is responsible for the nightly sound explosions at Ban Nong Chan and Ban Nong Ya Kaew in Sisaket province.

Kannawat, who had received permission from the Thai army regiment overseeing security in the border province to carry out the campaign, said he aimed to drive out Cambodian settlers encroaching on Thai territory.

Anutin claimed that the tactic violated no fundamental human rights. He claimed that we had to defend our sovereignty.

The ceasefire will it continue?

The joint declaration, according to Chheang Vannarith, a political analyst and the head of Cambodia’s National Assembly Advisory Council, is “a positive, significant step toward the restoration of peace and normalcy” in the area.

“The ceasefire will hold, but the international community must keep closely monitoring the implementation”, Vannarith said, adding that Trump’s role has been “decisive” in brokering the deal. He continued, “He has a lot of weight.”

However, he claimed that Bangkok’s tensions could be changed by domestic political manipulation.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor and senior fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, said that post-summit, the ASEAN bloc would have to contend with the lasting effects of the Thai-Cambodian conflict over the coming years, “spilling into the Philippines’s turn to chair next year and possibly Singapore’s in 2027 when ASEAN turns 60”.

The respective governments of Thailand and Cambodia “appear intent and incentivized to stoke the flames of nationalism for domestic political gains,” he said despite progress being made in negotiations to lower the tensions and restart border talks.

Anutin, according to Thitinan, “will likely try to use domestic anti-Cambodian feelings and reactions to gain electoral advantage ahead of a new poll by the second quarter of next year.”

In Cambodia, Hun Manet could rally anti-Thai grievances and resentments to maintain political control and divert attention from allegations involving scam centres and transnational crime based in Cambodia, Thitinan said.

According to Thitinan, “the Thai-Cambodian conflict has become ASEAN’s albatross, and bilateral, ASEAN mechanisms urgently need to be focused on mitigation and resolution.”

After opposition candidate Issa Tchiroma won an election with no results, violent clashes have erupted in Cameroon. After 43 years in power, Tchiroma urged his supporters to demand that President Paul Biya, the oldest serving ruler in the world, step down.

The embattled first vice president and opposition leader of South Sudan, Riek Machar, was welcomed into a barred holding cell as he was led into a barred holding cell in a courtroom converted to an events hall in mid-October, betraying both the seriousness of the charges against him and the country’s immense stakes.

In September, Machar and 20 co-defendants from his Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-in-Opposition (SPLM/A-IO) party were indicted on charges of terrorism, treason, and crimes against humanity for their alleged role in a March attack on a military garrison that the government says killed more than 250 soldiers.

The SPLM-IO has called the accusations “baseless” and “politically motivated,” while Machar has refuted them.

As more than 1, 000 people streamed into the venue to watch the proceedings – which began in late September and have been open to the public – several observers told Al Jazeera they were concerned by what they saw as the government’s weaponisation of the justice system to sideline President Salva Kiir’s chief political rival. They warned that the trial would exacerbate the violence already roiling rural communities across the nation and would cause the violence to grow even more severe.

“This is a political trial. Lincoln Simon, a 37-year-old nonprofit director who claims he has been to every session out of a sense of civic duty, claimed that the state is using the court to prosecute its opponents. He thinks Machar is being scapegoated to hide broader government failures, like spiralling inflation. Our leaders have failed, and they are now looking for someone to blame them.

William Tong, 62, a retired factory worker, is a longtime supporter of Machar’s opposition party who has also been attending the proceedings. He continued, “We are watching this trial to see whether or not this is a country run by the rule of law,” adding that he is keeping an open mind but hasn’t yet seen compelling evidence. “The people are eager to see evidence. We may be persuaded, but we are still in the process.

Others, like James Majok, support the trial. According to Makok, the trial’s proponents and opponents have been divided into their respective groups in his hometown of Aweil, which is located about 780 kilometers (500 miles) north of Juba. For Majok, it is a first step towards broader accountability for public officials.

The 37-year-old added that defendants should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, adding that “anyone that is accused should be tried should be tried.” “Our hope is that this is the first but not the last. Everyone should be subject to the law.

The three men, like other members of the public who spoke to Al Jazeera about the trial, provided a pseudonym out of fear for their safety. Joseph Geng Akech, the justice minister, has warned that making a statement about Machar’s and his accusers’ ongoing trial could result in court contempt.

While Machar, 73, cannot legally face the death penalty – the constitution bars capital punishment for individuals older than 70 – many of his co-defendants are eligible, and Machar faces life in prison and disqualification from holding political office.

However, according to analysts, the wider implications are likely to extend far beyond the court.

In many ways, the trial marks the end of Machar and Kiir’s decades of mistrust as they led opposing armies during a civil war that reportedly resulted in the deaths of 400, 000 people. A peace agreement brought the two men into a unity government, but its provisions have gone largely unimplemented while economic and humanitarian crises have expanded in the years since.

Many people believe that the trial has had ethnical significance, just like that war. Kiir and much of his inner circle are Dinka, the largest of the country’s 60-plus ethnic groups, while all 21 of the accused are Nuer, the second largest ethnic group. Simon thinks the trial will “divide the country along ethnic lines” in the wake of recent bloody intercommunal conflict.

The trial also comes amid renewed fighting between an array of armed groups, including Machar’s forces, government soldiers, and community-based militias across the country, prompting warnings from the United Nations and conflict monitors that the 2018 peace deal is collapsing.

According to Daniel Akech, an expert on South Sudan for the International Crisis Group, “the stakes of this trial are existentially high for South Sudan.” “If the process is not managed with extreme political care, the fallout could shatter the country’s fragile cohesion and trigger a collapse of the state”.

a conflicting character

Through decades of armed rebellion and reconciliation, Machar has become both a political institution and one of South Sudan’s most divisive figures.

Before Sudan’s independence from Sudan, Machar served as a senior commander in the rebel movement known as the charismatic US-educated economist John Garang, who had waged decades-long civil war against the country’s government.

In 1991, at 38 years old, Machar split from the SPLM and formed his own faction. He turned to Khartoum for military assistance and called Garang a “dictator,” asserting that the Dinka ethnic group dominated the movement. Garang, a Dinka, said Machar would “go down in history as the man who stabbed the movement in Southern Sudan in the back”, and many of his critics still regard him as such.

At least 2, 000 civilians were massacred in the town of Bor, a population center of Dinka close to Garang’s birthplace, in the same year. This atrocity has continued to afflict Machar’s reputation despite public reprimands.

After more than a decade, Machar reconciled with Garang – who died in a helicopter crash in 2005 – rejoined the movement, and became South Sudan’s&nbsp, vice president in 2011, the year the country gained its independence.

Two years later, the SPLM engaged in a power struggle that turned into a war. After Machar was sacked and government troops massacred more than 10, 000 Nuer civilians in Juba, Machar rebelled under the banner of a new group, the SPLM-IO, that fought a five-year war against the government. In that conflict, both sides committed numerous atrocities, often along ethnic lines. Machar framed his movement as a fight for more inclusive governance.

Machar resuming his role as the most senior vice president under the 2018 peace agreement to join a unity government.

The agreement – named the Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, or R-ARCSS – set out benchmarks intended to shepherd the country to national elections.

According to analysts and supporters of the opposition, Machar maintained what support he had left by casting himself as a democratizer and bulwark against Dinka nationalism as Juba’s politicians lost legitimacy amid persistent insecurity, economic crisis, and virtually noexistent service provision after the war.

“Machar represents the face of resistance”, said Paul Bayoch, a cultural historian and community leader from Akobo, an opposition stronghold about 550km (350 miles) from the capital. He appears to be a victim of the Juba regime today. The same suffering that people are feeling, now they see Machar being victimised in the same way”.

Although Machar’s popularity has declined over the past few years as a result of what some perceive as his abandoning the grassroots in order to pursue personal political objectives, he is still widely regarded as the face of Nuer in South Sudan and the only opposition leader with the necessary political stoke to put into action the peace agreement. His prosecution, some analysts say, has buoyed his support once again.

According to independent South Sudanese researcher Joshua Craze, Machar’s arrest has in some ways renewed his legitimacy. “I say to some extent because many people might not be willing to fight over the fact that he’s been detained. However, it could spark more extensive fighting if something bad happened to him.

A peace agreement on trial

Questions about the viability of the 2018 agreement, which is widely regarded as the glue holding the state together, are at the center of the trial.

Analysts have long criticised the peace deal for sidelining grassroots institutions and consolidating power within a small class of armed elites. Although crucial provisions, such as the formation of forces into a national army, have not been implemented, it’s supporters assert that it has slowed down conflict between the main signatories and continues to be the best path to stability.

During early sessions, Machar’s defence argued that the trial was unlawful under conditions in the peace agreement and should be stopped. According to them, the attack on the garrison was a ceasefire violation that needed to be investigated by a neutral monitoring body run by an East African bloc, as stipulated in the agreement.

According to the government, domestic law provides that the special court has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes. It says it plans to present forensic and financial evidence and call more than two dozen witnesses to show how the defendants incited and aided the attack.

However, according to several attorneys, civil society representatives, and trial observers who spoke to Al Jazeera, President Kiir is abrogating the agreement by trying Machar in a South Sudanese court.

“It is not just the defendants that are on trial, but the entire peace agreement”, said a lawyer working on Machar’s defence team, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to Remember Miamingi, a South Sudanese legal scholar and former advisor to the African Union’s political affairs, peace, and security department, charging Machar while he is still occupying his constitutionally recognized office of first vice president violates the agreement’s fundamental equilibrium.

He added that the effect of the government’s unilateral action could also deter opposition groups from participating in future peace talks. He said, “If former insurgents understand that participating in government exposes them to prosecution by institutions controlled by their rivals, they will rationally choose to continue fighting.”

But even as observers debate whether the peace agreement is alive or dead, relations between the government and opposition have already deteriorated into open conflict across at least half of South Sudan’s 10 states.

According to the UN, there were 59 percent more deaths from conflict between January and September than during the same time last year. Approximately 321, 000 people have been displaced by violence this year, it said, including more than 100, 000 into war-ravaged Sudan. Food security experts have warned about famine in areas that have been cut off from humanitarian aid by aerial bombardments, putting tens of thousands of people in danger of starvation.

Analysts say it’s unclear whether a guilty verdict would translate immediately to an uptick in fighting. Many of the Machar-linked opposition forces, which have recently been weakened, are already engaged in multiple fronts and may not have enough resources to commit. Yet such a verdict could still drive greater antigovernment sentiment, spur opportunistic pacts and push aggrieved community militias into the opposition fold.

New alliances between long-distance adversaries show how unpredictable South Sudan’s front lines have changed. In September, forces loyal to Machar – now under the interim leadership of deputy SPLM-IO chairman Nathaniel Oyet – entered a military alliance with the National Salvation Front, a rebel movement that rejected the 2018 peace deal and has been waging a guerrilla rebellion ever since. The two organizations have launched coordinated hit-and-run attacks on government buildings and equipment in recent months.

This month, a prominent member of the ruling SPLM, Nhial Deng Nhial, defected to form his own party, the South Sudan Salvation Movement, saying the party had “betrayed its founding ideals”. His departure may indicate that the SPLM itself is fracturing.

“The best case scenario is for the parties to restart dialogue”, said Edmund Yakani, a prominent civil society leader, in a call that has been echoed by regional leaders. In the worst case scenario, he continued, referring to the conflict that broke out between South Sudan’s northern neighbors in April 2023.

messages that are contradictory

Government officials have framed Machar’s trial as the beginning of a new chapter in South Sudan’s history, one in which no individual is above the law.

At a recent news briefing, Akech, the justice minister, stated that “this case sends a clear message.” “Those who commit atrocities against the people of South Sudan, our armed forces, or humanitarian workers will be held accountable, regardless of their position or political influence”.

Given that a large portion of South Sudan’s political elite has been implicated in the theft of billions of dollars in public funds, as well as a number of other human rights violations, as documented by UN commissions and advocacy groups, that claim seems hollow to many South Sudanese.

Others point to the long-promised but never-established hybrid court set out in the 2018 peace agreement. The African Union-led body was created to look into and punish atrocities committed during and after the war, including those committed by elected officials. Government and AU officials have blamed the delay in its formation on procedural and financial obstacles, often pointing fingers at one another.

In a report released in 2022, the UN stated that nearly universal impunity existed for sexually violent perpetrators during the civil war. A more recent UN report alleged that $1.7bn allocated for the construction of roads was unaccounted for, likely funnelled into companies linked to Second Vice President Benjamin Bol Mel, a close ally of the president.

Civil society leader Yakani remarked that the trial of Machar is “deeply hypocritical” while other officials, including the president, have never been tried in court.

“If a hybrid court is established, it will not be the]first] vice president alone who will go there”, said Simon, one of the court observers. The entire leadership will be involved.

Miamingi, the former AU adviser, called the trial “weaponised justice” and warned that it could become a motor for future ethnic strife. Without adequate accountability for Dinka political and military figures, Riek Machar’s trial runs the risk of being interpreted as ethnic reprisal through law, he said. “The result is not accountability but renewed confrontation under a legal guise”.

Succession politics

Many people interpret the trial as a political score-settling exercise that advances President Kiir, 74,’s succession plan, whose rumored health is in decline.

If Machar is convicted, he will be a felon and barred from holding political office, as stipulated by the country’s provisional constitution. Many in his camp think the trial is intended to prevent him from running in the first round of national elections to be held in the nation in 2026.

Late in 2024, Kiir began dismissing powerful officials in what some saw as an effort to clear the way for Bol Mel, a US-sanctioned businessman with close ties to the president, to assume more powerful roles in the government.

Bol Mel received his third promotion in less than a year by the president to the position of general in the national intelligence service in September.

Bol Mel, in his 40s, is also a Dinka and hails from the same region of the country as the president. Some view his swift ascendancy within the SPLM party as evidence of Kiir’s ethnic group’s power consolidation.

His rise has also divided the party itself. According to analysts, he is widely perceived as an undeserving upstart without any military experience, a trait that even the president’s camp holds holds for those who support the independence struggle and who regard themselves as the party’s legitimate heirs. Several high-ranking officials were notably absent from his swearing-in as party deputy, local media outlet Radio Tamazuj reported.

The fear of a Bol Mel presidency extends far beyond one community, according to South Sudan expert Akech. “A majority of Dinka elites, in particular, would rather not see Machar defeated if it means Bol Mel becomes president”.

Given Kiir’s track record of growing and then abruptly sacking close allies, Bol Mel may not ultimately win the presidency. Yet any course of succession runs the risk of fracturing the SPLM and triggering more widespread fighting, including in the capital.