When governments announce a peace deal during war time, most people assume the fighting will stop. Headlines suggest closure, relief, and a return to normal life. But what happens when a peace deal is signed, and the guns keep firing?

That is exactly what recently occurred between Thailand and Cambodia. Despite a US-backed agreement meant to calm tensions, hostilities resumed, leaving many observers wondering what a “peace deal” actually means, and whether signing one is enough to end a conflict.

At its simplest, a peace deal is an agreement between opposing sides to stop fighting and move toward peace. But not all peace deals are the same. Some are limited and temporary, while others are meant to end a conflict for good.

The most basic kind of agreement is a ceasefire. Ceasefires are designed to stop or reduce violence in the short term. They can stop violence, but they usually do not address the deeper causes of a conflict. An armistice goes a step further by formally halting violence, though it does not officially end a state of war.

There are also framework agreements, which set out a plan for future negotiations, and peace treaties, which are legally binding and formally end wars between states. The most ambitious agreements are comprehensive peace accords. These aim not only to stop fighting but also to address political disputes, provide monitoring, and create systems to manage future disagreements.

Among these, comprehensive peace agreements tend to be the most successful over the long term. Their strength lies in tackling the root causes of conflict, not just the violence itself. The Good Friday Agreement, for example, was a comprehensive peace agreement that ended the "troubles" between Ireland and the UK. When it was signed on April 10, 1998, it ended 30 years of violence between the two countries, a peace that has held ever since.

Still, no agreement guarantees lasting peace. Successful peace deals require time, patience, and years of follow-through. What matters most is whether the agreement creates lasting institutions and clear rules for resolving disputes peacefully.

The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has deep historical roots, mostly related to the period of French colonial rule. There was Thailand’s loss of control over Cambodia to the French in 1863. Then, the French defeat of Thailand in 1904. The French-drawn border in 1907. The Thai occupation of northwestern Cambodia during World War II, and their forced return in 1947 as a condition for entering the United Nations. The 1962 International Court of Justice ruling in Cambodia’s favor. All these events have created a deep Thai grudge over those lost territories, sometimes arousing nationalist indignation.

So, the small July 2025 clash in a disputed territory escalated into a wider conflict, disrupting lives, trade, and regional stability.

One key problem was that the agreement did not clearly declare an immediate end to fighting. Instead, it said hostilities would end only after certain measures were fully implemented.

In October 2025, Cambodia and Thailand signed a “peace deal” under US sponsorship, known as the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord. The agreement provided for de-escalation, international observers, release of prisoners, peaceful resolution of the dispute, avoiding the propagation of false information, and implementing confidence-building measures. 

Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul described the accord not as a peace treaty or even a ceasefire, but as a “joint declaration,” a statement of intent rather than a binding settlement. With Thailand’s civilian government politically weak and the military holding significant influence, the agreement lacked the support needed to survive. When new incidents occurred along the border, the deal collapsed.

If this was not a real peace accord, why call it a “deal” at all? The word sounds reassuring. It suggests resolution, clarity, and closure. But in complex conflicts, calling something a deal can be misleading. It can oversimplify difficult realities and create false expectations about how quickly peace can be achieved.

There is a lesson here for the US. Not every agreement is a real peace deal, and not every deal ends a conflict. Peace requires sustained engagement, strong institutions, and trust built over time. Public ceremonies and headlines cannot replace the hard work of negotiation and implementation. Most importantly, peace will not last unless all parties are genuinely committed to it.

Why should this matter to people in Kentucky? Because the principles are universal. Conflicts arise from real grievances, and those grievances must be addressed for peace to hold. People want their concerns acknowledged, and leaders must respond to their communities. Being a successful deal-maker means creating agreements that all sides can truly commit to, not just ones that look good in the moment.