Written by: Han Noy, a 2rd-year student majoring in International Relations at Paññāsāstra University of Cambodia. Edited by: Heng Kimkong, a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at Cambodia Development Center and a Ph.D. Candidate in Education at The University of Queensland, Australia. Monks at Angkor Wat in Siem Reap province, Cambodia. (Eugene Hoshiko / Associated Press) Introduction Buddhism came to Cambodia in the early 5th century when Hindu trading merchants brought it from India to the Mon kingdoms (present-day Myanmar and Thailand). Since then, Buddhism has played a significant role in Cambodian society. As the nation embraces it as the state religion, Cambodian Budhhist monks have been very active in taking part in their country’s social, economical, and political affairs. During the period of the French colonization (1863-1953), Khmer people were living under control, oppression, and sorrow. The liberty and rights were snatched away, and heavy taxes were required, making it virtually unendurable for Cambodian people. Within this context, Buddhist monks played a critical role in Cambodian society. They contributed to the cultivation and promotion of Khmer values and Khmer nationalism. They tried to preserve Khmer culture and bring the country out of danger of cultural extinction.  In 1942, after the arrest of Achar Hem Chieu, one of the prominent monks who was leading people against the French colonization, there were between 1000 to 3000 monks, lay people, and the laity who participated in a demonstration, led by monks from all pagodas in Phnom Penh. At the time, about 500 monks carried umbrellas, an event known as an “ Umbrella War”.     Our history suggests that Cambodian politics and Buddhist monks have been intertwined with each other for centuries. There are, however, still some critiques and praises from people regarding the involvement of monks in political activities, particularly as regards demonstrations and other forms of public gatherings. Today monks’ political activism has been labeled as improper, resulting in monks being arrested, defrocked and/or accused of violating monks’ code of conduct by the Cambodian authorities. Essentially, these have demotivated many monks from participating in their country’s public affairs, and the role of monks in Cambodian society seems to have faltered. So is it wrong that monks participate in politics or exercise their political activism? What should be the proper ways for monks to participate in politics? Is it wrong for monks to participate in politics?   Before knowing whether it is right or wrong when a monk participates in politics, we need to define the term “politics'' first. In a general view, politics is the art of competing for power to lead a state based on our own political vision. It is the goal and ambition of politicians to compete in politics and to govern a country. As Hans Morgenthau, an influential realist, once said, politics is “the struggle for power.” In this regard, it is not a duty of Buddhist monks to engage in politics to gain power to control the state just like what politicians do. In the Cambodian context, when people think of monks in politics, they generally picture monks joining public gatherings or assemblies only; they do not see anything beyond this. Nobody ever stops and thinks whether it is against monks’ discipline or not that Buddhist monks join demonstrations. The answer to this can be yes or no. It is a yes, if monks adhere to good and quiet manners by respecting the value as a monk, while it is a no when monks scream, yell, raise hands, and use any other inappropriate gestures which are considered illicit in monks’ code of conduct. Thus, even though it may not be right for monks to participate in politics, they still can do so as long as they can comply with the monks’ codes of conduct. In fact, monks can take part in politics to show their care about their country's public affairs in a similar way as lay people and other citizens do. In a democractic society, everyone has equal rights to participate in politics. Monks can therefore do so as long as they do not violate monks’ codes of conduct.  In fact, the goal of Buddhist monks is enormous; being monkhood is not for gambling, entertaining, avoiding housework, saving wealth, and seeking for ranks, but it is about digging out the truth of life to alleviate all suffering and to ultimately save and free the world from misery. In addition, they have the very significant responsibilities to help their people from any sorrow through preaching Dhamma, and participating in politics when people and country face danger, injustice, and/or instability. If we look at the Dhamma, there is no statement from Buddha which prevents monks from associating with political, social,and economical affairs but only advises them to assist and extricate people out of crisis and hardship. In addition, as stated in Article 31 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia, “ Every Khmer citizen shall be equal before the law, enjoying the same rights, freedom and fulfilling the same obligations regardless of race, color, sex, language, religious belief, political tendency, birth origin, social status, wealth or other status.” Likewise, Article 35 states that “Khmer citizens of either sex shall have the right to participate actively in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the nation.” Based on the Cambodian Constitution, Cambodian citizens have the right to participate in politics for the sake of national development. Thus, in accordance with our country’s Constitution and the Buddhist principles of the middle path, it seems that monks are not prohibited from participating in politics to contribute to the development of their nation.  Furthermore, Article 15 of the 1997 Cambodian law on political parties states that “Religious priests, members of judiciary, members of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (R.C.A.F) and National Police Forces may join as members of political parties, but they must not conduct any activity for supporting or opposing any political party. A political party must not organize its organizational structure inside the religious bodies, Royal Cambodian Armed Forces and in the National Police Forces.” This means that the law does not exclude anyone, particularly Buddhist monks from society; everyone has an equal opportunity to be members of any political parties, although the law does not allow religious priests to conduct or organize any activities to oppose any sides or parties. In this sense, monks are authorized to be in any political group, but they cannot explicitly proclaim which parties they are in and criticize another side. Buddha once said, “living in a suitable place is the blessing.” Monks will be living in happiness, tranquility, and peace when their country is prosperous, peaceful, stable, and just, but all of these will be taken away, including a chance to chant Dhamma and do meditation, when there is no peace, prosperity, stability, and justice in their country. As we can see, during the Khmer Rouge regime, when the country was in darkness and crisis and people experienced starvation, torture and death, monks suffered and were targeted for execution as well. Achar Hem Chieu used to say that “The monks’ rice pot remains with the people, if the people are miserable, have nothing to eat, so do the monks.” This indicates that when people live under slavery, oppresion, and starvation, monks will also suffer. Hence, they need to find a way to help, guide, and encourage their people​​ to fight for freedom, independence, and total peace. They cannot just eat, stay, and chant Dhamma in pagodas seeing their country going to collapse and people living in misery. They need to do whatever they can to bring their country and people out of despondency and suffering. The proper ways for monks to participate in politics. Buddhist monks have played important roles contributing to national evolution. There are still, however, some bad views regarding monks' engagement in politics. Thus, I wish to offer three possible means for them to take part in politics. First, preaching Dhamma. It is an effective way to spread knowledge, philosophy and Buddhist concepts that are helpful for our people since monks are oftentimes invited to give sermons when Cambodian Buddhists conduct any ceremonies inside and outside of pagodas. Hence, it is a great chance for them to talk about the real Dhamma left by Buddha comprising a lot of good advice which can be applied to build a prosperous country and promote good governance in our country as well.​ Additionally, they can extend their talk beyond Buddha's theory and speak about Khmer identity, culture, democratic principles, and Cambodian laws because these are very important knowledge that must be cultivated and shared to Cambodian people, especially youth. Buddha spent 45 years after enlightenment to focus on teaching, explaining, and addressing Dhamma to people. His teaching is extremely impactful, not just for ordinary people but also for kings or country leaders. Second, writing and publishing articles and/or books. Writing is an art to disseminate our vision, perspective, and Buddha’s philosophy to the public. It is helpful and influential, especially when our ideas are written down, it is very critical and lasts a long time; it can be passed from one generation to another. For instance, we can take a pattern from monks during the French colonization, the Sangkum Reastr Niyum, and the Khmer Republic; they have done a very good job related to this, and their concepts and opinions continue to exist and have influence on our recent time and in the future. Unfortunately, as not many Cambodian Buddhist monks spend time to write academic papers or books, their perspective, and Buddha's concept have not been promulgated widely to people even though Cambodia people are 95% Buddhist.This is the real problem that must be fixed and keep improving in the field of academic writing. Likewise, according to Yos Hut Khemacaro, head of the Khmer Buddhist Foundation in France, in order for monk’s contribution to be constructive “they require greater education on the teachings of Buddhism as well as a more sophisticated awareness of the world outside the monastery. Only then can they effectively instruct and provide guidance to the people'' and contribute to social progress .This can be a good way for them to indirectly play a role in politics without violating monks’ code of conduct.  Third, participating in politics by adhering to non-violence and the middle path. As Cambodian monks participate in political activities to challenge injustice, human rights violations, and rampant corruption are mostly seen as partisans by the authorities, it is crucial that monks be strategic and follow the middle path. Perhaps non-partisan activism is the way forward. Monks need to ensure that their activism does not appear to be linked to any party or political ideology. Importantly, monks need to help promote peace and the principles of the middle path. For example, there was a Dhammaryietra peace march in 1992  guided by Venerable Maha Ghosananda to bring the message of hope and motivation to all Cambodian people after decades of civil war. This massive peace demonstration was well received by the public and even the government officials. This event proves to us that through the power of universal values of compassion, non-violence, and solidarity, monks can play a crucial role in promoting peace and harmony in society.   Conclusion  Cambodian monks do distribute significantly to Cambodia's social, political, cultural, and economic development. Therefore, monks’ roles in society and in politics should be supported, not undermined. Moreover, the government and concerned stakeholders need to empower, support, and cooperate with monks; All stakeholders must ensure that there is no excuse to prevent monks from participating in politics since sometimes it is not about monks violating their code of conduct but rather about fear of monks mobilizing political dissent. Allowing Buddhist monks to enjoy civil rights and decide on matters of general concern would be greatly essential for the country's development. Limiting their rights and roles to only religious affairs and preventing them from public affairs are not a smart choice since monks’ roles go beyond what happens in pagodas. They can also contribute to ensuring that the government implements its policies effectively. However, Buddhist monks themselves must be aware of who they really are. Their participation and contribution need to be balanced between religious virtue and the country's laws. Monks can be part of the solution, not the problem! When everyone can play their part in contributing to national development, our country would be more prosperous, democratic, and civilized.

Written by: Soth Chhayheng, a 2nd year student at Thammasat University, Bachelor of Political Science Program in Politics and International Relations Edited by: Heng Kimkong, a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at Cambodia Development Center and a PhD Candidate in Education at The University of Queensland, Australia Photo Credit: AFP/CAMBODIA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Cambodia’s constitution adopts the principles of liberal multi-party democracy. Since 1993, every five year Cambodian people go to cast their vote in the general election to elect their leaders. Over the past few decades, the Kingdom has changed significantly. However, if there is one thing that has not changed ever since, it is its prime minister. Prime Minister Hun Sen has enjoyed ongoing support from the supporters of the Cambodian People’s Party. While at the same time receiving harsh criticisms from the opposition over his long tenure in holding Cambodia’s highest political office. Presently, he is one of the 15 world’s longest-serving leaders. According to its constitution, Cambodia does not have a restricted term limit for the prime minister. This loophole has allowed Prime Minister Hun Sen to continue running as a Prime Ministerial candidate for the Cambodian People’s Party in every general election since 1993. “I will rule until a point that I feel I no longer want to rule,” said Prime Minister Hun Sen during a recent press conference at Calmette Hospital after getting vaccinated for COVID-19. The rationale behind the executive term limits can be traced back to ancient history. Aristotle highlighted that “no office should ever be held twice by the same person” as a key characteristic of democracy. In most democratic states and even many communist regimes, there is a clear restriction on how many years or terms one person can be the leader of the executive branch. Cambodia’s neighbors such as Thailand have set two term limits for prime ministers who shall not hold office for more than eight consecutive years. Against this backdrop, should Cambodia consider setting term limits for the Prime Ministerial position? This article aims to advance the arguments in favor of term limits, although there are other arguments that can be used to counter the arguments presented in this article. Yet, readers shall define an answer to this question on their own. This  article only offers one perspective, which may constitute a basis for informed discussion and debate on this issue.  Yes, Cambodia should set term limits for prime ministers  History has taught us that one of the major reasons that contributed to Cambodia’s decline was the unclear and turbulent transition of power from one leader or ruler to another; that is, the change of rulers often resulted in civil war and destruction of the country. During the Oudong period (1618-1863), we saw the internal struggle between several kings that fought to claim the throne, allowing the two neighboring countries to interfere. Later the country experienced  endless suffering and the loss of sovereignty, territory, and independence. After receiving independence from France in 1953, Cambodian people held high hope that peace would last under the rules of King Father Norodom Sihanouk. However, it turned out to be  another tragedy, after General Lun Nol and Prince Sisowath Siri Matak staged a coup to overthrow Prince Norodom Sihanouk in 1970. Five years after the coup, the darkest cloud flew across Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime (1975-1979). Immediately following the collapse of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, Cambodia experienced the internal struggle of power for another decade between four political factions.  Now Cambodia is finally at peace and stability – at least by the traditional definition of peace which is the absence of war. One of the most concerning questions for the Cambodian people right now is “What is next after Hun Sen?”. The Prime Minister himself had asked the same question. This question arises due to the long tenure of Hun Sen as the Cambodian Prime Minister.  Setting term limits for prime ministers is a political agenda that can determine a proper political norm for Cambodia’s future. Considerably, politicians can look at the following points. First, if five years per each term is reasonable, we shall keep it as it is. Second, as for the matter of how many terms should be set for this particular position, a two-term limit is reasonable, which should be considered.  This means that one person can have a chance to be a Cambodian prime minister for a maximum of 10 years. With this timeframe, it is more than practical for the leader to carry out efficient and effective policies to leave the office with legacy and dignity. Reasons for setting term limits for prime ministers  There are several credible reasons as to why Cambodia should set term limits for its prime ministers. First, it is a crucial step of political modernization to create a fundamental political norm that can  ensure more transparent and effective governance, increase strong accountability, decrease corruption, and strengthen the rule of law. Above all it is to ensure a predictable, stable, and peaceful transition of power. Leaders would be more likely to focus on the matter of running the country in the most efficient way to leave the position with credible legacy rather than spending much of their time thinking of ways to eliminate their potential competitors and on how to extend their time in office. Setting a clear line of tenure for prime ministership would prevent any leader from attempting to build up his/her own dynasty in the Kingdom. It would also contribute immensely to strengthening state institutions. The absence of term limits allows one person to rule for too long, which is not the best course of action for Cambodia’s prosperous and sustainable future.  Second, the term limits of the highest political position can potentially guarantee a healthier political culture in Cambodia. Setting term limits for prime ministers is an effective approach for Cambodia to achieve broader democratic reforms by widening political space for active and constructive political engagement from all levels and improving political representation. The fact that many politicians and activists have been arrested and forced to live in exile indicates the deterioration of the human rights situation which is caused by the unhealthy political culture that Cambodia has. This is not to mention that many Cambodians are afraid of talking and playing their civic duties in political engagement. All of these reflect the current development of Cambodia's political context. There have been calls for discussion and collective action to improve our political culture and political environment. As concerned citizens, we all have a part in this. But how would a clear set of term limits for prime ministers help improve our political culture? The change in the highest political office would lead to a better political environment of competition between politicians. Mutual understanding and compromise would be promoted in the political sphere. The change of political leadership would potentially encourage Cambodian people, particularly the younger generation to rise and engage in politics more actively and constructively. These groups of people will bring with them new ideas, policies, and strategies that can shape the development of the Kingdom. Thus, a healthier political culture is very much needed for Cambodian people, and setting term limits for prime ministers is a positive step toward that end. Peace and stability should be guaranteed by a democratic system, not by a person, or else it won’t last.  Third, having clear term limits for the prime ministers is a viable means to prevent Cambodia from descending into authoritarianism and to decrease structural social injustice. Countries with leaders who stayed in power longer than two decades are almost universally authoritarian. However, perhaps Cambodia has not reached that point yet, even though scholars have suggested that Cambodia is leading Southeast Asia's authoritarian ways. Authoritarianism denoted any political system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a leader or a small group of elites. Structural social injustice is very much likely to occur in an authoritarian state. The abuse of power, improper check and balance between different branches of the government, the absolute or nearly absolute power of a particular leader and group that violate the rights of the people, systematic corruption, and the drives to eliminate potential political competitor either within or outside the party are all the signs of an  authoritarian state and structural injustice in  society. These issues lead to endless deadly political rivalry among politicians and resentment toward the ruling elite from the people who suffered from the system. In the end, it will result in  a more divided society.  Last but not least, setting term limits for prime ministers would be helpful for the future of Cambodian politics. The advantages of having clear term limits for Cambodia’s highest political leader are much more than the disadvantages. For the best interest of the people and the country, politicians should seriously put their personal and group interests aside and choose what is best for the country. For far too long, the argument that there is only one capable person that can play this leadership  is not true. In fact, there are many potential capable leaders both from within and outside of the ruling party. For instance, Prime Minister Hun Sen has mentioned the current Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance Aun Pornmoniroth as his potential successor. There are also other potential candidates for prime ministership such as Deputy Prime Minister Sar Kheng and Lieutenant General Hun Manet.  So should Cambodia set term limits for its prime ministers? I hope you have an answer for this question. For me, it is a resounding yes!   

Author: Vann Bunna, a Co-founder of The Thinker Cambodia and a Research Fellow at Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace (CICP). All views expressed are his own. Editor: Heng Kimkong, a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at Cambodia Development Center and a PhD Candidate in Education at The University of Queensland, Australia. Photo Credit: Asia Time Cambodia has been increasingly seen as a centre point of the US-China competition for influence in Southeast Asia. The recent allegation of China’s potential military presence in Cambodia is a critical point to test the Kingdom’s resilience and capability in navigating contemporary international politics of great power rivalry. Amid the US-China geopolitical competition, the issue of the Ream Naval base seems to be a matter of great concern that can trap Cambodia in the middle of great powers’ geopolitical and geostrategic struggle, potentially turning it into a battlefield. Cambodia’s tragedy in retrospect Cambodia’s tragedy in its modern history occurred when Cambodia abandoned its neutral foreign policy during the Cold War. It is worth remembering that after gaining independence from France in 1953, King Norodom Sihanouk had adopted a determinedly neutral foreign policy, aligning neither with the US-led liberal bloc nor the Soviet-led communist bloc. To King Sihanouk, the neutral policy was the best diplomatic stance for Cambodia to prevent itself from being caught in the Cold War. Unfortunately, Cambodia was no longer able to maintain its position of neutrality. It gradually engaged with the Communist bloc as evidenced by the visits of King Sihanouk to Moscow and Beijing. In May 1965, King Sihanouk cut off diplomatic relations with the United States. In so doing, he abandoned Cambodia’s neutral international course to establish alignment with communist China. Remarkably, that became a turning point in Cambodia’s history – the country flung into a proxy war and protracted civil war for a few decades. Some scholars argued that King Sihanouk’s decision to break Cambodia-US relations to align with China gave the latter leverage to pressure Phnom Penh to allow Viet Cong to build routes along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. The result of this unbalanced foreign policy was the bombing by the US which killed around 500,000 civilians. Consequently, as King Sihanouk was heavily aligned with China, the US supported General Lon Nol and Prince Sarik Matak to stage  a coup to oust Sihanouk from power in March 1970. After seizing power, Lon Nol and his associates established a pro-liberal bloc Khmer Republic in October 1970. The Khmer Republic pursued a bandwagoning foreign strategy towards the US amid the Cold War. The US later used part of Cambodia’s territory as a battleground to contain Communist influence in Southeast Asia, especially to fight against Vietnamese communist Viet Cong in the Indochina war. Between 1965 and 1973, the US dropped 2.7 million tons of explosives on Cambodia - more than the bombs that the Allies dropped during World War II. Tragically, hundreds of thousands of civilians lost their lives. Their houses and properties were damaged. More unfortunately, the US-backed Khmer Republic collapsed when the US lost the Vietnam war and withdrew its troops from Southeast Asia in 1975. The US -  at the end of the day - abandoned Cambodia and handed it over to the butcher –  the Khmer Rouge. Prince Sirik Matak was very disappointed with how the US treated Cambodia. In a letter to the US Ambassador John Gunther Dean, he wrote: As for you and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection and we can do nothing about it. You leave us and it is my wish that you and your country will find happiness under the sky. But mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans. After the US left Cambodia, Khmer Rouge took control over the country on April 17, 1975. Democratic Kampuchea led by Pol Pot was officially established. This genocidal regime supported communist ideology and was aligned with the Communist bloc during the Cold War. The Democratic Kampuchea gradually isolated itself and pursued the isolationist foreign policy towards the outside world – having relations only with a few foreign countries, one of which was China, its strategic partner and major ally.  At the time, China’s aid to the Khmer Rouge was around 90% of the regime’s foreign aid. Interestingly, Andrew Matha – author of Brothers in Arms: China’s Aid to the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979, noted that “Without China’s assistance, the Khmer Rouge regime would not have lasted a week.” More remarkably, because of China’s aid, the Khmer Rouge could extend its purge campaign to eliminate people they considered as internal enemies of the regime. The purge campaign targeted the intellectual, monks, urban bourgeois and officials from the previous regime. Within a few years, the Khmer Rouge regime pushed Cambodia to the brink of extinction, killing around 1.7 million Cambodian people. After the Khmer Rouge collapsed in 1979, a successor regime, called the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, was established. This new regime was always distrustful of China’s intentions as China was a key ally of the Khmer Rouge. As Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen used to say, “China was the root of all that was evil in Cambodia”. Will tragedy return to Cambodia? Our history has taught us that tragedy occurred when our country heavily relied on or depended on a single great power. A small and weak state like Cambodia should never over depend on one great power, at the expense of its relations with the other major power. Any unbalanced alignment with great powers warrants vulnerabilities and risks. Cambodia can and should learn from its past lessons to avoid repeating its strategic mistakes. Amid the great power rivalry, Cambodia is seen as China’s closest ally in Southeast Asia. China is now Cambodia’ increasingly significant trading partner, largest aid donor, major foreign investor, and key supporter of the current regime. Since 2010 when both countries established their Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, Cambodia has increasingly become dependent on China economically, politically, and strategically.  Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan has enthusiastically praised China, saying that “Without Chinese aid, we go nowhere.” Recently, at Nikkei’s Future of Asia Conference, Prime Minister Hun Sen bluntly emphasised Cambodia’s reliance on China, saying that “If I don’t rely on China, who will I rely on?” This statement is worrying as it indicates a clear trend that Cambodia is falling into China’s orbit.  While Cambodia enjoys its honeymoon relations with China, its bilateral ties with the US face challenges. In addition to the deterioration of Cambodia’s democracy and human rights record, rumours and allegation of potential Chinese military presence at Cambodia’s Ream Naval base has further weakened Cambodia-US relations. At a recent meeting with Prime Minister Hun Sen in Phnom Penh, for example, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman expressed serious concerns about the Chinese military presence in the Kingdom and urged Cambodia to maintain an “independent and balanced foreign policy”. This statement indicates the US’s views of Cambodia, seeing it as China’s close ally. The US is clearly not pleased with Cambodia’s increasingly tight alignment with China. In the midst of the increasing geopolitical competition between the US and China, Phnom Penh’s heavy reliance on Beijing does not bode well for Cambodia’s future. The Kingdom seems to play a risky game that might lead it to tragedy again if its strategic calculation fails.  The recent allegation of the Chinese military presence on its soil serves as a sign indicating that Cambodia could gradually become a battleground of great power rivalry as seen in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite this, some may argue that this line of thinking is only a Cold War mentality that does not reflect the current world situation. Of course, King Sihanouk, Lon Nol or Pol Pot might have thought the same, arguing that their alignments with a single great power were right in their circumstances; unfortunately, they had brought unforgettable tragedy to the country in the end. More importantly, either in Cold War or at any time, great powers always fight for their supremacy. As a renowned neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer convincingly argues, “great powers always compete with each other” to be the number one in the system. The concept of Thucydides trap also reminds us that a rising power always threatens to displace an established power, which will result in a major war. Thus, to minimize the possibility of any tragedy happening again, Cambodian leaders and policymakers should be mindful of Cambodia’s tragic past and must try to avoid repeating the same strategic mistakes that made the country become a victim of great power rivalry. Cambodia, as a small state with limited resources and leverage power, should embrace multilateralism and regionalism as a policy option. It should try its best to pursue a “balancing” and “hedging” foreign strategic approach rather than adopt a “bandwagoning” foreign policy towards great powers. The Kingdom must also adhere to the principle of “permanent neutrality and non-alignment” enshrined in Article 53 of its Constitution. It is crucial that Cambodia should carefully calibrate its foreign policy to avoid falling victim to great power competition and to achieve its development vision to become an upper-middle income country by 2030 and a high-income country by 2050.  

Written by: Houy Sivly, a 3rd year student majoring in Political Science and International Relations at Paragon International University Edited by: Sao Phal Niseiy, Editor-in-Chief at The Cambodianess and Deputy Editor-in-Chief at Thmey Thmey News (Photo Credit: This photo was posted on ASEAN Facebook page.)   On 30th April 1999, Cambodia was admitted into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Since then, the country undertook the role of ASEAN chairmanship twice, the first in 2002 and the second in 2012. With the chairmanship experience, I can observe that Cambodia did not perform well. One of the most commonly raised examples is ASEAN, under Cambodian leadership, failed to deliver the joint communique for the first time in 45 years after its establishment.  And in less than six months from now, Cambodia will once again take the ASEAN helm. Many expect the country to take its leadership role to promote ASEAN unity and solidarity while working closely with all member states to address the complex regional issues. Besides, Cambodia will act in accordance with the ASEAN Principle of non-interference and respect sovereignty while concurrently pursuing the national interest, particularly in the economic sphere. But personally speaking, what is more important is that Cambodia's chairmanship will encounter many critical issues such as regional and international health crises, regional intra-states conflicts and great-power rivalries in Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific. Some daunting challenges Cambodia will handle  As the ASEAN chair in 2022, Cambodia will face many complex and identical challenges, but I want to highlight a few. First is the South China Sea dispute, which has been hampering ASEAN unity for many decades.  In addition, assuming that the political crisis in Myanmar will prolong without parties reaching any agreeable solutions, Cambodia will likely have to navigate the regional grouping in dealing with this complicated issue. This crisis, if not managed well, could jeopardize the ASEAN credibility, unity and values. The stake is extremely high as currently, anti-Junta protestors and members of the National Civil Disobedience Movement have repeatedly lambasted ASEAN's slow action and even spoken out of leaving the bloc.  Another challenge is the COVID-19 pandemic. As the chair, Cambodia also needs to ensure that all members in solidarity can set out a clear path toward recovery. Therefore, the region can effectively deal with all adverse economic and social impacts and other arising post-pandemic challenges. What should Cambodia prepare for 2022 ASEAN chairmanship?   Speaking of South China disputes, Cambodia should always clearly identify its national interest and work in parallel with the ASEAN principles, be they the basic principle of state sovereignty and consensus. Even though Cambodia is not a claimant state, Cambodia arguably has been caught between the United States and China amid the great power competition.  Therefore, the country must retain a balance and neutrality to avoid losing friends and benefits. In light of the recent concern over the potential Chinese military presence at the Ream Naval base, Cambodia must also prioritize its stance in strictly upholding its constitution while pursuing a smart and flexible foreign policy amidst the fast-changing regional security landscape. As Prime Minister Hun Sen already declared, Cambodia should never take any decision that appeases any country, eventually causing detrimental effects to the nation and the people. By mentioning neutrality, given that Cambodia is a small and developing nation, it can demonstrate its eagerness and perform the role of the mediator, encouraging all parties to move forward with consultation and negotiation to maintain regional peace, security, and stability. As the current chair, Brunei is unlikely to bring the Code of Conduct for the South China Sea to a conclusion this year, one of the main goals during Cambodia's chairmanship would be achieving it.  Meanwhile, Cambodia should also seek to promote ASEAN-led rule-based regional order while strengthening its economic diplomacy to promote diversification of its trading partners and comprehensive economic cooperation within the region. Concerning the Myanmar political crisis, Cambodia should recognize that attaining a balance between the national interests and ASEAN Principle on mutual respect to avoid offending any parties is very critical. As the chairman, Cambodia should proactively support the solution-seeking process for the Myanmar situation in a position and format that are consistent with the ASEAN principles, and doing so will be acceptable and fair for all parties involved and prevent any regional disunity. It also has to bear in mind that any acts that appear to be taking sides will risk the region's unity and stability. Besides, the Cambodian government should also seek out opportunities that allow the country to engage constructively with relevant parties at bilateral and multilateral levels and in formal and informal ways. Given that the crisis in Myanmar is intricate and Cambodia is small, as long as Cambodia is genuinely keen on helping Myanmar find a way out, there will always be a possibility. Then, it will eventually deliver better resolutions, which can guarantee win-win results once and for all.  Last but not least, it is undeniable that addressing the COVID-19 pandemic impacts will be one of Cambodia's top priorities. Therefore, it should take the initiative to discuss and develop practical action plans and policies to address the current economic and social problems driven by the pandemic. Not only the current problems the bloc has to pay attention to, but it also has to be prepared in responding to the rising impacts in the post-pandemic time.  Tackling the impacts driven by the COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented work. Therefore, Cambodia should underline these three important tasks that all members must prioritize and work to achieve. These include delivering effective and speedy recovery, developing a regional public health system that can withstand public health shocks and strengthening regional resilience and competitiveness.  *This blog is produced with the financial support from the European Union and The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency through Transparency International Cambodia and ActionAid Cambodia. Its contents do not reflect the views of any donors.