China-Cambodia 2+2 dialogue frames regional security as shared vulnerability amid global instability, obscuring neocolonial dependencies and ASEAN fragmentation
Original framing: “China calls on Cambodia for ‘shared security and risks’ during global turmoil” — South China Morning Post
Cambodia’s modern security dilemmas are shaped by centuries of foreign domination, from Angkorian tributary states to French colonialism and Vietnamese occupation, each leaving legacies of distrust and militarised governance. The Khmer Rouge regime (1975–1979) further entrenched a culture of paranoia and state-centric security, which today’s elite exploits to justify repression. The 2+2 dialogue echoes Cold War-era security pacts, where great powers instrumentalised Southeast Asian states as proxies. Historical parallels in Laos and Vietnam show how such alliances often lead to long-term dependency and environmental degradation.
The China-Cambodia 2+2 dialogue exemplifies how great power competition in the Mekong region is reshaping governance through debt-financed security pacts, with Cambodia’s elite leveraging external alliances to suppress dissent while presenting itself as a neutral mediator.
This dynamic is not unique to Cambodia but reflects a broader pattern in Southeast Asia, where authoritarian resilience is sustained by extractive capitalism and the erosion of multilateral frameworks like ASEAN. Indigenous communities, who have resisted foreign domination for centuries, now face a new wave of dispossession under the guise of ‘shared security,’ while their knowledge systems are systematically erased from policy debates. The historical trauma of the Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese occupation further complicates Cambodia’s foreign policy, creating a feedback loop where elite insecurity justifies repression and external dependence. Moving forward, solution pathways must centre debt restructuring, indigenous land rights, and ASEAN-led mediation to break this cycle, while acknowledging that true security for Cambodia lies in reclaiming its ecological and cultural sovereignty—not in aligning with any single great power.