Imagine a small country with an insecure government that the past administrations have been supporting, and which has issues that you don't particularly like.
Imagine that this country is a possible ally against a much bigger threat in the region.
What do you do when the bigger threat is courting this country and is promising all sorts of boons with no strings attached?
What's your leverage? Do you engage? Do you give up? Do you continue to stand on principle?
Well, whatever the choices are in this situation, the one thing that is guaranteed not to be helpful is doing absolutely nothing and leaving it up to others to decide how things are going to work.
And that's, of course, precisely what the Trump administration did with Cambodia.
A few months ago, in the wake of the new administration's early forays into foreign policy, regional experts warned about Cambodia moving away from the West towards China, in the run up to the upcoming elections.
Cambodia was worried about losing the elections, and China was offering condition-free loan and political support. Donald Trump, not as interested in pressing for human rights and democracy as some of his predecessors, was, at that point, still an unknown quantity, and could have utilized this opportunity to woo away Cambodia from China by gauging it on other issues.
For the new administration, it would have been a mistake to rely on the passive continuation of existing foreign relations with even relatively small countries when other countries are actively moving towards engagement in whatever manner.
In bipolar or multipolar circumstances, the smaller countries will engage in maneuvering and play off the superpowers against one another to get the most benefit and influence for themselves. It's a classic Cold War tactic. The mistake the United States was making during the Cold War proxy tensions (and perhaps there were few options at the time) was to be reactive in its approach and merely throw resources as a response. But of course, the Soviet Union would then provide more goodies without any preconditions or expectations of democratization, and so forth.
The better position would have been to a better approach would be to reevaluate various pressure points of Cambodia's foreign policy and to use those pressure points as a more nuanced engagement approach to steer them towards the United States but also make clear that increased engagement with China will not come without a cost. In other words, reverse the position and cause the weak country in question to have to do the cost-benefit analysis of having to choose its allies - or else making the wiser choice, of not being played by China and engaging with both.
That approach very well may have failed. China has no scruples about backing the governments that are loyal and helpful. And interfering directly in another country's elections is also problematic. But non-interference has not helped us one bit.
Incumbent PM Hun Sen distanced himself from the US, and disregarding all international norms, threw his political opponent in prison. Earlier engagement may not have stopped this development, but perhaps it could have prevented a complete deterioration of the relationship, and would have allowed us to figure out the leverage for promoting human rights and fair elections. At the very least, we could have taken a more principled stand on this issue before Hun Sen had gone so far in the direction of authoritarianism.
And even after the fact, it is not the President of the United States who has taken an active role in countering this violation of human rights and international norms, but Senator Ted Cruz, who essentially stated that he would work on utilizing the Global Magnitsky Act to deny Cambodian human rights violators entry to the United States. That would, of course, require Congressional pressure on the administration, which has yet to designate human rights violators under that law. At this point, the White House has been put on very public notice, and has no excuse not to take decisive action, including, potentially, sanctions - which is arguably as embarrassing for us, after all the investments we have made into Cambodia, as it is for the Cambodian Prime Minister, who is impolitic reaction to Sen. Cruz's letter was very telling.
However, if US is to be taken seriously, it has no choice but to play an active role in its own relationship, particularly with countries which have been significant recipients of the US taxpayers' money. The US should not have to support corrupt regimes, which have no regard for democracy or freedom, and who are also empowering other dictatorships in order to protect their leadership - but not their people. And the US should certainly position itself in such a way that other countries should want to do business with it, because an honest relationship with a strong, fair-minded, country respectful of its partners and obligations, and expecting the same should be seen far more reliable and a far better investment than an utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt party leaders, which have been known to renege on its financial promises and will just as easily throw you to the wolves when they no longer have use for you as they back you in time of need. China has a history of dubious financial investments, which have done little for Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries. It has left projects in Latin America left unmanaged, and has become infamous for the corrupt quality of its project and "investment support"/development, amounting to little more than colonial practices, all over Africa.
Choosing to work with the US should be a no-brainer. But not if we let China do all the leadership and all the talking, and not if we show we have no interest in strong relationship with clear and coherent rules. I hope this situation wakes President Trump and the State Department to the fact that putting America first means putting in the work needed to forge relationships with our allies, partners, and beneficiaries of our investment that are based on the pursuit of mutual interests and respect. Signalling that we just don't care enough to bother with diplomacy will position us in a very weak place down the road, and one day, we may find that those who do care have taken all initiative and all leverage out of our hand. And that day, who we partner with and on what grounds will no longer be up to us.
