Thailand Extends Six-Month Stay for Cambodian Migrant Workers Amid Border Restrictions, Waives Overstay Fines

Thailand’s border situation with Cambodia remains tense, marked by security incidents near the frontier, a government policy reshaping migrant labor in border provinces, and ongoing tensions that could influence regional stability. Authorities have staged high-level briefings for international defense attachés to outline recent developments after a landmine injures Thai soldiers, while Bangkok forges ahead with labor and border-control policies intended to manage cross-border movement and legal status for Cambodian workers. The intertwined security and labor dimensions underscore how border dynamics can affect regional diplomacy, local economies, and everyday livelihoods for communities on both sides.

Security briefing and border incidents drive international attention

A high-profile briefing session brought together military attachés from 47 foreign embassies at Thailand’s army headquarters to discuss the latest incidents along the Thai-Cambodian border. The gathering underscored the seriousness with which Bangkok views the cross-border situation and its potential to escalate diplomatic strains. One notable attendee was Brigadier General Hom Kim, Cambodia’s assistant military attaché, who joined colleagues in a discussion that touched on tactical developments, incident reports, and the broader security implications for both nations. The briefing followed a recent incident in which Thai soldiers from the 6th Infantry Regiment were injured by a landmine that several authorities attributed to a recently planted anti-personnel device within Thai territory.

During the briefing, Thai authorities reiterated that the explosion constitutes a breach of the Ottawa Convention, which both Thailand and Cambodia have ratified. The convention governs the conduct of war and the protection of civilians, including the prohibition or regulation of certain weapons and devices in armed conflicts. The Thai side asserted that the mine’s placement and its subsequent detonation fall under violations of agreed international norms, raising concerns about the potential for further provocations in contested border zones. The briefing also addressed what Thailand views as a pattern of disruptive actions near sensitive locations, including the site associated with temple-area tensions that have occasionally drawn tourism and local traffic into the cross-border dispute.

In parallel developments, Thai authorities signaled willingness to deploy peaceful dispute-resolution mechanisms while making clear that provocations would not be tolerated. The Second Army Region issued stern warnings regarding potential disruptions at sensitive cultural zones near the border, notably the Prasat Ta Muean Thom temple in Surin’s Phanom Dong Rak district. Officials warned that continued disruptive actions could force a temporary closure of the temple for up to seven days if Cambodia fails to curb the provocations. The announcements followed reports that Cambodian tour buses—totaling 23 in number—had arrived at the disputed site, prompting concerns among local communities and Thai authorities about the risk of unrest and the potential for wider tensions to spill over into ordinary life.

The embassy briefing and related security updates illustrate how perception of border risk can influence international diplomacy. The presence of a broad cast of international military observers reflects an effort to maintain transparency and reduce miscommunication in a fragile environment. At the same time, Bangkok’s emphasis on compliance with international agreements such as the Ottawa Convention signals its intent to anchor security measures within established norms, even as it remains vigilant against perceived violations by crossings, landings, or other border actions. The combined signal is one of cautious engagement: seeking to deter aggression and provocations while engaging with international partners to monitor developments and de-escalate potential flare-ups. The enduring question for regional observers is how sustained border tension will interact with domestic political dynamics, cross-border labor mobility, and long-standing historical factors shaping Thai-Cambodian relations.

To capture the practical implications of these events, security experts highlight the need for robust border monitoring, improved information sharing among border agencies, and continued reliance on lawful mechanisms for addressing grievances. The Ottawa Convention reference matters not only in terms of legal compliance but also in signaling international expectations about restraint and accountability in border-area actions. Analysts note that, beyond the immediate military and diplomatic dimension, the border context has a direct impact on day-to-day security for border communities, travelers, and workers who rely on predictable and orderly border procedures. The tone set by the briefing and related statements suggests a commitment to peaceful resolution while maintaining readiness to respond decisively should cross-border actions threaten civilians or critical infrastructure.

In the broader narrative, the security briefing serves as a focal point for discussions about how Thailand and Cambodia manage contested zones, how they manage the responsibilities of neighboring states in safeguarding civilians, and how regional partners weigh the risks of escalation. The incident-linked narrative—ranging from mine explosions to temple-area tensions—highlights the complexity of border governance, where security, culture, and livelihoods intersect. As authorities continue to monitor the border landscape, international observers will be attentive to any changes in operational practices at border crossings, the tempo of border-control measures, and any new steps aimed at preventing further incidents. The overarching aim remains a stable, predictable border environment that reduces the risk of miscalculation by either side while preserving avenues for dialogue and cooperation where possible.

Government extends Cambodian migrant workers’ stay in border provinces

In a move signaling practical accommodation amid growing border-control constraints, the Thai cabinet approved a six-month extension for Cambodian migrant workers employed in border provinces. This decision comes in response to recent shifts in border checkpoint operating hours across seven provinces, changes that have disrupted the routine mobility of workers who are essential to local economies in these border areas. Government spokesman Jirayu Houngsub explained that ongoing unrest along the Thai-Cambodian border and the enforcement of stricter border controls have prevented a substantial number of Cambodian workers from re-entering Thailand as needed. This reality has left many workers stranded in Thailand, complicating their legal status and the functioning of sectors that rely on their labor.

The affected workers mainly operate in districts adjacent to the border and work under the provisions of Section 64 of the executive decree on the management of foreign workers. These workers typically rely on border passes to enter and exit Thailand, a process designed to facilitate lawful labor while maintaining a secure border regime. However, the new travel restrictions have introduced a conflict between mobility rights and border security, creating a risk scenario in which workers whose permitted stay periods have already expired remain unable to depart for renewal. The result is a growing population of workers who have overstayed their visas or work permissions, creating complexities for both the workers themselves and the administrative machinery responsible for residence and employment status.

As of June, the government indicated that 47,348 Cambodian migrant workers had fallen into this overstayed category. Many among them faced imminent expirations of their work permits, with a renewal cycle approaching through the end of September. In response to these converging pressures, the cabinet approved a proposal from the Labour Ministry to grant a special exemption that would allow the targeted group of foreign nationals to remain in the kingdom for employment in border areas for an additional six months. The grace period is set to begin on June 7, the date on which the Interior Ministry’s border-control measures came into force, aligning the relief with the enforcement timeline already in motion. The exemption is designed to last for the full six-month period, or until normal border crossings at permanent checkpoints between Thailand and Cambodia resume for at least one month continuously.

Officials emphasize that the exemption is intended to reflect practical realities on the ground. The border-processing environment has become more restrictive, and the government has sought to prevent the economic and social disruption that could occur if thousands of workers were suddenly displaced. The six-month period thus provides a stable window for workers to adjust their status and for employers to plan payrolls and operations without facing abrupt labor shortages in border districts. The decision’s timing—coinciding with a tightening border regime—also underscores the government’s attempt to balance security concerns with humanitarian considerations and the economic vitality of border provinces where Cambodian workers contribute to essential sectors such as agriculture, construction, and small-scale manufacturing.

Furthermore, the cabinet approved a waiver of overstay fines for affected migrant workers whose stay in the kingdom has already exceeded the legal limit due to circumstances beyond their control. This element of the policy recognizes the exceptional nature of the border-control changes and the resulting management challenges faced by workers who found themselves unable to comply with existing deadlines through no fault of their own. The waiver aims to reduce financial penalties that could compound the hardship of those already navigating insecure legal status, potentially helping to avert mass deportations or sudden surges of repatriation that would disrupt both human welfare and local economies reliant on Cambodian labor. The combination of a six-month extension and the overstay waiver constitutes a targeted, time-bound intervention designed to stabilize labor availability in border provinces while the political and security situation remains unsettled.

These measures reflect a broader approach to border labor management that seeks to preserve livelihoods while upholding border security. In practical terms, border-area employers gain temporary assurance that their Cambodian workers can continue in their roles as border dynamics evolve. At the same time, workers gain a clearer path to maintaining lawful status during the transitional period, reducing the risk of arrest for overstays and the administrative burdens that accompany sudden status changes. For local communities, this policy provides a cushion against abrupt labor shortages that could disrupt agricultural cycles, construction projects, and daily service provision in border towns. However, the policy also places a premium on eventual normalization of border crossings, as the exemption’s existence signals that the government expects a return to more predictable mobility once the security situation stabilizes and routine cross-border traffic resumes at permanent checkpoints.

To ensure clarity and accountability, authorities stress that the exemption is time-bound and contingent on evolving border conditions. The six-month horizon aligns with a broader plan to reassess border policies as the situation on the ground changes, with the expectation that normal crossings at permanent points will resume for a sustained period before the exemption is re-evaluated. In the interim, officials say the policy is carefully targeted: it applies to Cambodian workers in border provinces who qualify under the decree and who are most affected by the altered border crossing regime. The government’s approach thus combines pragmatic labor policy with careful adherence to security objectives, seeking to avoid destabilizing labor markets while maintaining a credible stance on border control.

Looking ahead, analysts will monitor how this extension interacts with broader regional dynamics, including Thai-Cambodian negotiations, ongoing security concerns, and regional labor flows. The six-month window provides time for both sides—Thai authorities and Cambodian workers—to adjust to the new normal, while allowing employers to align their workforce planning with any anticipated policy refinements. The hope is that, once border operations normalize, the workers can re-enter normally, and the authorities can transition away from exceptional measures toward standard procedures. As the border situation remains fluid, the policy signals a cautious, incremental approach—one designed to protect livelihoods and economic activity in border provinces without compromising the core imperative of border security.

Legal framework and migrant-status implications along the border

Central to understanding the six-month extension is the legal framework governing foreign workers in Thailand, particularly Section 64 of the executive decree on the management of foreign workers. This provision delineates the authority for employing foreign workers and managing their status within the kingdom’s labor market. In practical terms, it outlines the conditions under which foreign workers can be admitted, how their work permits are issued or renewed, and the administrative processes that ensure compliance with Thai labor law and immigration policies. The current border situation has amplified the relevance of Section 64 as border control measures limit workers’ ability to travel to and from border provinces, complicating the renewal and extension of essential work arrangements. The government’s decision to rely on this legal framework to justify temporary exemptions highlights the role of statutory provisions in enabling adaptive policy responses amid security concerns.

Border passes function as the primary mechanism by which workers cross into Thailand for employment in border provinces. These passes are designed to balance mobility with security, enabling legitimate economic activity while maintaining oversight of who enters the country and under what terms. The recent travel restrictions, however, disrupted this carefully calibrated system. With border checkpoints experiencing altered operating hours, the conventional cycles of entry and exit for Cambodian workers have become irregular, producing uncertainties around status, eligibility for continued work, and the ability to renew permits. The six-month exemption therefore becomes not merely a temporary convenience but a necessary workaround to preserve labor continuity in essential sectors while border management capacity is recalibrated.

From a policy perspective, overstays occur when workers’ authorized periods of stay expire while they remain in the country due to impediments preventing timely departure or renewal. In this case, overstays have burgeoned into a significant administrative and legal challenge. The government’s plan to waive overstay fines for those affected acknowledges the exceptional circumstances created by border restrictions. This waiver serves two functions: it reduces punitive consequences for workers who, through no fault of their own, failed to comply with previously established deadlines; and it helps limit the legal precarity that can accompany large cohorts of irregular workers, which, if left unaddressed, could yield social and economic disruptions, such as heightened enforcement actions or sudden labor shortages in border districts.

The Cambodian workers’ situation is also shaped by the expiry of work permits that may occur through September. This timing creates a cascade effect: as permits expire, workers may need renewal or re-issuance to continue working legally, and any delays at government offices or modifications to border-crossing regimes can compound the risk of lapses in status. The cabinet’s decision to introduce a six-month grace period helps to bridge these gaps, providing a buffer for administrative processes to catch up and for employers to adjust their recruitment and payroll planning without triggering a wave of forced departures. The policy thus reflects a pragmatic interpretation of immigration and labor rules under stress, demonstrating how executive-level decisions can translate into immediate, on-the-ground protections for workers while the longer-term policy framework remains under review.

In analyzing the legal implications, observers emphasize that the exemption is time-limited and contingent on the border regime’s evolution. The six-month window, or until normal crossings at permanent checkpoints resume for a continuous month, creates a defined horizon for policy reassessment. Such conditionality is essential for maintaining a credible state approach that can adapt as the security environment shifts. Meanwhile, the blanket policy of waiving overstay fines applies to those whose stay exceeded legal limits because of circumstances beyond their control—this nuance matters for ensuring fairness and proportionality in enforcement. By tying relief to specific, observable conditions—border restrictions and the commencement of heightened border controls—the government signals that it seeks to preserve the integrity of the labor market and the rule of law without sacrificing humanitarian concerns for workers who have already faced disruption.

This legal architecture also has broader implications for Thailand’s labor market management and international labor mobility. Section 64 provides a framework within which authorities can implement targeted exceptions that respond to emergencies or contingencies without undermining the overarching regulatory structure. For Cambodian workers in border provinces, the policy demonstrates a willingness to balance the imperative of safe, legal labor with a recognition of the practical realities of cross-border migration in a volatile security landscape. For employer groups engaged in sectors that count on Cambodian labor, the extension offers a measure of predictability, permitting continued operations during a period of adjustment. Yet the policy also places a premium on timely administrative action, as delays in permit renewals or discrepancies in status could undermine the intended stability. In short, these measures reflect a cautious, rules-based approach that seeks to harmonize security concerns with economic needs and humanitarian considerations, all within the bounds of Thailand’s established legal framework.

The Cambodian workers’ situation, framed by Section 64 and adjusted through executive decisions, stands as a case study in how foreign labor policies can adapt under pressure. It illustrates the interplay between border security, labor rights, and the practical realities of daily life for migrant workers whose livelihoods depend on the ability to access jobs across the frontier. While the exemption and waivers offer a temporary reprieve, they also underscore the necessity for ongoing policy evaluation to ensure that the legal structures in place can accommodate unanticipated disruptions without eroding the fundamentals of lawful immigration and employment. As Thailand continues to navigate these complex dynamics, it will be important to monitor how the legal framework evolves, how border-management measures stabilize, and how cross-border cooperation with Cambodia evolves to reduce the need for ad hoc exemptions.

Security, cross-border tensions, and the broader regional dimension

Beyond the immediate incidents and policy adjustments, the border dynamics between Thailand and Cambodia are embedded in a broader regional context that includes historical grievances, competing national narratives, and ongoing concerns about security, governance, and infrastructure. The landmine incident and its framing as a breach of the Ottawa Convention contribute to a wider discourse about how both countries manage their border zones and how the international community views enforcement, accountability, and compliance with treaty obligations. The suggestion of a breach of an international accord carries implications for diplomatic communication, confidence-building measures, and the calibration of border-security policies that aim to prevent civilian harm while deterring provocative actions.

In parallel, the cultural and religious dimensions of border frictions—such as the Prasat Ta Muean Thom temple dispute—underscore how cross-border tensions can intersect with symbolic heritage sites and local identities. The temple’s location near the border makes it a focal point where national narratives, tourism interests, and security concerns collide. The threat of closure for seven days by Thai authorities if Cambodian actions persist illustrates how border-policy choices can reverberate through local communities and institutions that rely on cross-border visibility and peaceful coexistence. Reports of Cambodian tour buses arriving at the disputed site heighten the risk of renewed tensions and potential clashes, challenging both sides to manage expectations, prevent misinterpretations, and maintain civil order in a space where cultural heritage and political sovereignty rub against one another.

From a regional perspective, the border confrontations between Thailand and Cambodia contribute to a pattern of evolving security arrangements in Southeast Asia, where bilateral disputes can become flashpoints for broader geopolitical calculations. The involvement of defense attachés from dozens of foreign missions signals that the international community is closely watching how Bangkok and Phnom Penh handle these incidents, with implications for regional stability, economic exchange, and confidence in multilateral frameworks that address cross-border concerns. The Ottawa Convention reference, while primarily a legal matter, also serves as a symbolic anchor for the expectations of international partners regarding restraint, verification, and accountability in border actions that have potential civilian impact. Analysts emphasize that any escalation would attract heightened attention from regional powers and security organizations, which could stimulate diplomatic engagement, joint exercises, or mediation efforts aimed at preventing a slide toward renewed conflict.

The evolving border-management regime—comprising stricter controls, more rigorous entry and exit checks, and targeted exemptions for essential workers—also interacts with broader labor-market considerations. Cambodian migrant workers contribute to sectors that are often characterized by labor demand fluctuations and seasonality. A reduction in cross-border labor mobility can ripple through agricultural cycles, construction timelines, manufacturing outputs, and service provision in border towns. Yet, tighter border controls can also yield benefits in terms of improved immigration oversight, reduced irregular migration, and enhanced national security. The balance between these competing outcomes depends on how policies are designed and implemented, how quickly border infrastructures and processes adapt to changing conditions, and how well governments communicate with affected communities and employers.

At the same time, regional partnerships and dialogues—whether through formal bilateral channels or through regional bodies—play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable approach to border governance. Confidence-building measures, joint training initiatives for border security, standardized procedures for processing migrant workers, and transparent channels for raising concerns can help reduce the risk of misunderstandings that could escalate into confrontations. The Cambodian workers’ situation lies at the intersection of labor rights, human mobility, and national sovereignty. As such, careful, principled diplomacy, aligned with international norms, will be essential to maintaining stability while ensuring that border policies meet security objectives and respect human rights and economic needs.

Looking forward, observers anticipate a cautious trajectory in which both sides seek to maintain the status quo of coexistence along the border while gradually normalizing routine cross-border activities. The key questions revolve around how quickly border crossings can return to normal operating hours, how effectively authorities can implement the six-month exemption and related waivers, and how regional partners can support a durable solution that reduces the likelihood of future provocations. The interplay between domestic political considerations, military posture, and economic imperatives will continue to shape policy responses in the near term, with broader regional implications hinging on the success of diplomatic engagement and the resilience of border communities.

Economic and social implications for border communities

The border provinces where Cambodian migrant workers are concentrated are home to economic activities that rely heavily on cross-border labor. When border policies become more restrictive or fluctuate with changing security conditions, the local economies experience a cascade of effects. First, employers who rely on Cambodian workers may face uncertainty about workforce levels, productivity, and compliance costs associated with extended permits and waivers. In sectors such as agriculture, construction, and light manufacturing, even short-term disruptions in labor availability can delay crops, reduce output, and increase operating costs. Conversely, the easing measures, such as the six-month extension and overstay-fines waivers, are designed to stabilize the labor supply during a period of heightened border vigilance. The policy’s intention is to cushion economic shocks while security considerations are addressed through other channels.

Second, workers themselves face a mix of benefits and risks. The six-month extension provides a clearer path to continued work and wages, reducing the risk of immediate unemployment and the potential for income loss that could arise if workers were forced to leave the country. This is particularly important in border districts where families may depend on remittances to sustain livelihoods. On the flip side, extended stay without a definitive path to long-term status could create a sense of legal ambiguity among workers and their families. The possibility of renewed around-the-border travel restrictions after the six-month window could prompt concerns over whether additional extensions or alternative arrangements will be offered, particularly for workers whose permits are set to expire near the end of the extension period.

Third, border communities are affected by the changes in border crossing operations. When checkpoints operate on altered schedules, the flow of workers, traders, and customers becomes less predictable. Local businesses must adapt to fluctuations in worker presence, which in turn influences demand for housing, transportation, food services, and retail. The transport sector—taxis, buses, and small van operators—also experiences shifts in demand, which can have a positive or negative impact depending on the direction and duration of border-control adjustments. Community leaders and local authorities often become de facto managers of the social and economic consequences of border policy changes, balancing the need to maintain doors open for cross-border commerce with the imperative to uphold security and public order.

Fourth, social welfare considerations come to the fore as the policy responses interact with humanitarian concerns. The waivers of overstay fines and the exemption are meant to avoid punitive outcomes for workers caught in a difficult situation. Yet, the long-term welfare of migrant workers depends on stable access to lawful status, consistent administrative processes, and transparent information about policy timelines. Without clear guidance on how and when normal border operations will resume, workers may experience ongoing anxiety about their future, their families, and their ability to remain in Thailand to work legally. This underscores the necessity for effective communication strategies that inform workers about their status, renewal options, and the steps required to maintain lawful residence while the border regime stabilizes.

Fifth, in aggregate, the border policy measures may encourage workers to become more self-reliant in managing administrative tasks, given the potential for periodic waivers or exemptions. Employers, on their part, may invest more in human-resource planning, recruitment, and compliance systems to ensure adherence to labor laws and to sustain productivity. This shift can drive modernization efforts in border districts, with the aim of improving how cross-border labor is integrated into formal economy channels. The net effect could be a gradual transition toward more robust border labor management, even as the immediate environment remains uncertain and reactive to evolving security conditions.

Finally, the economic and social dimensions of border governance cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the local human stories behind the statistics. Families, workers, and small business owners navigate a complex landscape shaped by policy changes, security incidents, and evolving border norms. The six-month exemption and waivers are more than administrative tools; they are policy instruments that aim to preserve livelihoods, maintain social cohesion in border communities, and sustain the integrity of international labor flows. As policymakers review the results of these measures, stakeholders will be watching for improvements in clarity, efficiency, and predictability—qualities that matter deeply to people who live and work along the frontier.

Regional implications and the path toward resolution

Thailand’s approach to border governance—balancing security imperatives with economic and humanitarian considerations—offers insights into how neighboring countries might navigate similar challenges. The sequence of events, from the defense attaché briefing to movements in migrant labor policy and the escalation of border-tense episodes around cultural sites, reflects a broader pattern in which states seek to maintain sovereign control while minimizing disruption to civilian life. Cambodia’s perspective on these developments is equally important. Shared concerns about illegal crossings, the safety of border communities, and the management of cross-border labor underscore the necessity for constructive dialogue and transparent information exchange. The Ottawa Convention’s involvement in public statements adds a layer of international accountability that can shape how both sides frame their actions and respond to provocations.

From a regional security standpoint, the Thailand-Cambodia border illustrates the delicate balance between deterrence and diplomacy. On the one hand, authorities must be vigilant in preventing actions that could threaten civilians or inflame tensions. On the other hand, they must remain open to negotiation, confidence-building measures, and potentially joint mechanisms to monitor border incidents, share intelligence, and coordinate responses to irregular migrations or security threats. The international dimension—evidenced by the defense attaché briefing—suggests that regional partners are ready to observe how the two countries manage these challenges, and may offer support, mediation, or forums for dialogue if tensions escalate.

In terms of economic resilience, border provinces can be expected to benefit from a calibrated policy mix that preserves labor supply while gradually restoring border mobility. The six-month extension for Cambodian workers represents a pragmatic step toward that objective, providing a stable operational window for employers and workers while border operations normalize. The waivers of overstay fines reflect a humanitarian approach designed to preserve livelihoods rather than penalize those caught in exceptional circumstances. The long-term outlook will be influenced by factors such as the consistency of border-policy messaging, the speed at which permanent checkpoints resume full operations, and the effectiveness of communication channels that inform workers of their options and rights.

Diplomatic outreach and regional cooperation will likely remain essential components of the resolution process. With 23 Cambodian tour buses reportedly at the disputed site and ongoing warnings about potential disruption around culturally significant locations, the risk of misunderstandings remains tangible. Dialogue initiatives, joint inspections of border infrastructure, and bilateral agreements on cross-border labor management could moderate risks and provide structured pathways for addressing grievances. In such a multi-layered context, the objective is not merely to avert conflict but to craft a durable framework in which bilateral relations can progress despite periodic disturbances. The balance between national sovereignty, human rights, and regional economic integration demands ongoing effort, transparency, and a shared commitment to peaceful resolution.

As the situation evolves, policymakers, security practitioners, and business leaders will be watching closely for indicators of stabilization. These indicators include the return to normal border crossing hours, the successful implementation of the six-month exemption in a way that minimizes administrative delays, and the sustained capacity of border authorities to manage traffic and verify documentation without compromising security. Regional partners may consider offering technical assistance to streamline border procedures, support humanitarian considerations for migrant workers, and promote best practices for cross-border labor management. The aim is to create a resilient, predictable border environment capable of supporting both national security and economic vitality, while avoiding the kinds of tensions that can derail economic cooperation and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

Bangkok’s response to the Thai-Cambodian border dynamics—encompassing a high-level security briefing for defense attachés, a targeted six-month extension for Cambodian migrant workers, and related waivers to address overstays—reflects a deliberate attempt to stabilize a precarious frontier. The measures acknowledge both the security concerns that have led to stricter border controls and the economic realities of border provinces that depend on Cambodian labor. By grounding policy in the Section 64 framework, reaffirming commitments under the Ottawa Convention, and signaling willingness to de-escalate through dialogue, Thailand aims to manage a complex set of interwoven challenges. The border is not simply a line on a map but a living space where security, livelihoods, culture, and diplomacy intersect. As the region awaits further developments, the focus remains on balancing sovereignty with humanitarian considerations, maintaining open channels for negotiation, and ensuring that cross-border activity can resume in a manner that protects civilians, supports regional economic ties, and fosters long-term stability.