Thayer Consultancy

ABN # 65 648 097 123

Background Brief: Cambodia: Chinese and U.S. Defence Assistance Carlyle A. Thayer November 12, 2012

[client name deleted] US defense aid to Cambodia has ballooned in the past couple of years (roughly $3 million in 2010 to $6 million in 2011 to $18 million this year). What are the trends in military aid and how do they fit with the West's counter-China policies? The US has been developing defence relations with Cambodia since in a major way since 2009 when their defence minister visited Washington. China is reportedly the largest donor of military aid to Cambodia. It provided $60 million in soft loans for the purchase of 9 naval patrol boats in 2007. In 2010 when the US cancelled a dlivery of 200 military trucks to Cambodia in response to the expulsion of Uighur refugees, China stepped in and donated 257 military trucks. In June 2010, cambodia's deputy defence minister Moeung Samphan was quoted as saying, "What Cambodia has requested, China has always provided us with whatever it could" (AP, June 23, 2010). Last year China let Cambodia $195 million to purchase Chiese Zhishengji-9 twin engine light utility helicopters. In May this year China and Cambodia signed a military cooperation agreement to support capacity building and training. What is your assessment of the following? Question: do you think this trend [Chinese and US defence spending] is likely to continue? Or was Cambodia tapped for the massive gifts it got this year from both China and the US because it was ASEAN chair? How much does the US (and China for that matter) really get out of its military aid investment in a small/powerless country like Cambodia once it's no longer holding the chair? ANSWER: While Cambodia may not be the "great game" that Afghanistan was in the 19th century, it is the subject of Sino-American rivalry. Their attempt to gain influence in Cambodia goes beyond its chairmanship of ASEAN. But Cambodia's stint as ASEAN Chair paid off handsomely for Beijing. China give aid for big high profile projects, the U.S. does not as Secretary Clinton said in reply. She said something to the effect that you couldn't see U.S. aid the way you could Chinese projects because it was targeted at improving public health, education, governance and gender equality.

2 China seeks deference to its "core interests" from client states like Cambodia. It seeks access to Cambodia's natural resources. Cambodia, in turn, seeks Chinese aid and investment, and the Hun Sen regime seeks to benefit from Chinese largesse through paybacks and institutional corruption. Neither China nor the U.S. are providing really massive military aid. The U.S. has a longer term strategy of drawing Cambodia into engagement. The most successful program has been assisting Cambodia in demining and service with UN peacekeeping in Africa (southern Sudan, Central African Republic, Lebanon). The bottom line is that China, and Chinese businessmen, reap the benefits of aid (soft loans) and investment. The U.S is in the game to offer each ASEAN member an alternate to dependency on China.

Suggested citation: Carlyle A. Thayer, Cambodia: Chinese and U.S. Defence Assistance, Thayer Consultancy Background Brief, November 12, 2012.

Thayer Consultancy
ABN # 65 648 097 123

Background Brief: Cambodia: President Obamas Visit Carlyle A. Thayer November 11, 2012

[client name deleted] Regarding President Obama's visit to Cambodia later this month and the letter to the President from some high-profile US lawmakers including John McCain: how much of a difference will this letter make, if any, in getting Obama to raise these issues with Hun Sen? How will America's regional interests regarding China affect that decision? Considering the US pivot to Asia, for example, are those interests too large for the US to significantly press Cambodia on human rights issues? The Cambodian opposition and rights groups say Obama's visit will help to legitimize the government's rights abuses? How much truth do you think there is in that, and how dangerous would it be? ANSWER: President Obamas trip to Cambodia does not include a separate official or even working visit to Cambodia. Human right issues of this nature at not really appropriate for a summit of state leaders at the East Asia Summit. The issues raised in letter from US congressmen should have been raised - continually raised - by the US Ambassador to Cambodia. They are also legitimate questions for the Secretary of State. If Obama meets with Hun Sen privately his raising the issue would convey that the highest level of the US government is concerned, thus backing his Secretary of State and his Ambassador. Every head of state who visits Cambodia for the ASEAN and related summits could be accused of "legitimizing human rights abuses" by their very visit, not just President Obama. The central point to be grasped is should human rights by the center point of bilateral relations to the detriment of all other issues? What about labor rights, and textiles getting special access to the US market? And if human rights activists want to press this issue, are they prepared to take the possible consequence of a deterioration of US-Cambodia relations and a rise in Chinese influence over the Hun Sen regime? This is a delicate matter. The President should raise his concerns. The US should see how Hun Sen responds and work out a policy to rectify his behaviour. But there are other issues at stake including US-Cambodia defence relations, which is about the only major conduit of US influence that has over China.

2 US defence cooperation is the only major conduit of US influence over Cambodia that is greater than Chinese influence via defence cooperation over Cambodia/

Suggested citation: Carlyle A. Thayer, Cambodia: President Obamas Visit, Thayer Consultancy Background Brief, November 11, 2012.