Cambodia's Neutrality in the South China Sea Conflict

This article discusses Cambodia's decision to remain neutral in the South China Sea conflict and the reasons behind it. It also explores the hidden imperialism in the conflict and the need for a regional response to resolve the issue.

Legal Studies 1
LEGAL STUDIES
by (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Course
Date

Legal Studies 2
Legal Studies
Cambodia is not a small nation, therefore, implies that it should not be a protagonist in an
international issue. I typically think that the country made the right decision in regards to the
conflict relating to the South China Sea. Generally, a particular chain is usually strong at its
weakest link, and this is the same case with Cambodia. China was the troublemaker, and this was
matters relating to the dispute of the South China Sea. Such a dispute was with certain other
nations who are also members of the Asean, and they included countries such as Malaysia and
Philippines. China uses the nine-dash line to seek for a section which is much of the South China
Sea, and this has been displayed by the fact that it has failed to take part in the UN arbitration
case which had been filed by the Philippines (Odgaard, 2017 p.100).
Further, I strongly support the decision which had been made by Cambodia, and this is
based on the fact that Cambodia is considered as one of the parties in the territorial conflicts. In
the past meeting, a strongly worded joint statement on the matter was withdrawn by the Asean
foreign ministers, and this also included the Chinese foreign ministers. (Raine, 2017 p.5). The
meeting was however held in Kunming, China. I tend to believe and accept the fact that
Cambodia is making the right decision for its citizens and this is unlike what others claim that
the decision sides with the policy of China in matters relating to disputed waters. Such a policy
has usually been used by China to offer loans and other aids in terms of billions of dollars.
Cambodia is just a small nation, and hence there is no reason for it to defend Asean members
because there will be no benefit that it will obtain by protecting and defending them. Also, it will
be going against the formidable China, and it should step back with the aim of helping its people.
Additionally, Cambodia has been blamed by numerous nations as being immoral and also for
betraying the Asean which I think and believe is an irresponsible claim which has to be avoided

Legal Studies 3
at all cost. Through the support of Beijing, Cambodia typically made a choice which can be
considered to be practical and this was because its economy largely relies on the country China.
The country, therefore, deserves to be praised since the decision it made was realistic for the
people of Cambodia.
The most important aspect which the globe should be worried about is the fact that there
is certain hidden imperialism in the South China Sea conflict and this is typically in the 21st
century. Over time some of the wealthiest and powerful nations have been controlling certain
small countries and hence taking advantage of them (Raine, 2017 p.5). It can be seen that such
nations use the money they have in purchasing support from certain small nations all over the
world. Thereafter, they use the weak nations as the center for international criticism which is
unacceptable, and this has to stop immediately. We cannot allow powerful nations to take
advantage of other small countries because they have amassed a lot of wealth in the past few
years. It is evident that what had transpired in the South China Sea is an exemplar of the quote
which states that the might makes right. On the basis of the dispute, it can be argued that the
most fundamental aspect which should be taken into account when a problem arises should be to
look into the particular problem instead of focusing on blame games on certain small nations.
The decision which was made in the recent meeting of the Asean foreign ministers,
Cambodia had typically acted independently and neutrally, and hence such a decision should not
be criticized. It is often believed that the weak nations have been used by various critics as
sandbags with the intention to punch them because a sandbag typically cannot respond to any
particular punch imposed on it. Also, Cambodia has typically maintained its stance on the issue
such that it will not side with any of the particular parties in the conflict (Odgaard, 2017 p.100).
Such a stand will aid in preventing an adverse situation in which the dispute of South China Sea

Legal Studies 4
could result in a deteriorated atmosphere which could be facilitated by certain other parties
involved in the particular dispute. The Philippines which won the arbitration case in its dispute
against China had accepted to help in resolving the issue. That will, therefore, create an
opportunity which will allow for a diplomatic and legal process of resolving the issue in an
amicable manner.
Further, the decision which was made by Cambodia of not issuing a statement on the
decision of the court was right since it would have complicated the issue again. However,
Cambodia should not have accepted the token which had been offered to them by China on the
basis of it being an aid and loan which was in exchange of the diplomatic support on the dispute
of the South China Sea (Raine, 2017 p.5). This is because Cambodia should be neutral in matter
hence its acceptance of the package would complicate the steps it would take to help resolve the
issue. The impartial neutrality implies that Cambodia should not have both economic and trade
partnership with China and this is because it will derail the level of independence.
The maintenance of status quo by Cambodia can be considered as one of the most
desirable options for Cambodia, and this is based on the fact that the nation will likely to be
pressurized by China and Vietnam in a foreseeable future (Fravel, 2016 p.400). Cambodia has no
intention of abandoning the country Vietnam since it is its neighbor, while at the same time, the
Philippines is its co-member in Asean. Additionally, it will not be risking the economic
partnership with China which it has had for a long period now, and therefore it is advisable that
Cambodia should remain neutral and independent about the matter of South China Sea.
Further, the stand taken by Cambodia to become the mediator of the particular dispute
should be done moderately. A key step which should be taken by the particular nation is by
joining the other Asean members and thereafter declare publicly on the fact that the South China

Legal Studies 5
Sea dispute affects all the other nations that is it a regional issue (Odgaard, 2017 p.100). Thus a
response which is regional should be taken to resolve the matter in an amicable process. The
other step which should actually be taken by Cambodia is that it should be acting a way which
indicates that the relationship with China will not come above the interest of the unity of Asean
members. Such acts could be exhibited by reassurance statements. A key example could be a
conclusion made by the officials of Cambodia on the code of conduct on the issue of the South
China Sea. Also, it should pressurize China to issue reassurance statements on the issue in some
of the meetings held to discuss the matter.
The steps which have been mentioned above would clearly indicate that Cambodia is
committed to making certain fruitful progress on the particular issue instead of inhibiting it and
therefore it will be in a position to convince the key observers both locally, atonally and
internationally its commitment (Fravel, 2016 p.400). It should, therefore, avoid being over
ambitious towards mediating on the issue of the South China Sea.

Legal Studies 6
References
Fravel, T., 2016. US policy towards the disputes in the South China Sea since 1995. In Power
Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters (pp. 389-402). Springer, Cham.
Odgaard, L., 2017. Maritime Security between China and Southeast Asia: Conflict and
cooperation in the making of regional order. Routledge.
Raine, S., 2017. Regional Disorder: The South China Sea Disputes. Routledge.