No signs, Cambodia suddenly "turned against" and openly stated that it would not rely solely on China, and had the intention to move closer to the United States. Although it claims to be "neutral," its idealistic wishes may be difficult to achieve.

Sun Zhantuo

Recently, a series of public statements by Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sun Zhantuo have drawn widespread international attention. This key figure in the Cambodian political arena made unexpected remarks, stating, "Thanks to Trump, we have realized the need to reduce our reliance on China," and boldly declared that Cambodia would take a "neutral" approach, avoiding the "fighting of elephants" in the Sino-US great power competition.

Sun Zhantuo's comments are not baseless. The direct trigger was the "Trump shock wave" in international trade. In April this year, the US imposed a threat tariff of 49% on Cambodia, which is a fatal blow for an export-oriented economy like Cambodia's.

Although Sun Zhantuo led his trade team through arduous negotiations, finally reducing the tariff rate to 19%, bringing it in line with Southeast Asian neighbors, this "shocking moment" completely shattered Cambodia's sense of security. Sun Zhantuo's concerns are not without reason. Cambodia's economic structure is inherently vulnerable, like a "sandwich": the upstream capital and raw materials are highly dependent on China, while the downstream export markets are heavily reliant on the US.

Trump mediates the Thailand-Cambodia conflict

To implement so-called "diversification" and "neutrality," Sun Zhantuo has recently been making frequent visits to the United States, Canada, Japan, and South Korea, trying to attract capital from these countries to balance China's dominant investment. Especially when dealing with the US, he has shown a lot of "friendship" gestures, leading to speculation that Cambodia might shift its allegiance towards the US.

However, declaring "neutrality" is one thing, actually achieving it is another matter, especially for Cambodia. In the real rules of international politics, a small country's "neutrality" cannot be achieved by mere wishful thinking. "Not taking sides" often means "offending both sides," and the US's methods are far harsher than Cambodia could imagine.

Chinese enterprises' production bases in Cambodia

Cambodia is trying to walk a tightrope, but the pressure on both ends of the balance beam is not equal, and its potential risks may be underestimated. The US's methods are far more complex and profound than simple tariff threats. On one hand, the US's "cooperation" often comes with harsh political conditions. On the other hand, the US is skilled at using "non-traditional security" issues to exert pressure.

The most critical point is that the core goal of the US strategy is "competition" and "containment." When the US sees Cambodia attempting to balance, it will not be satisfied with just obtaining some commercial opportunities. It will continue to pressure Cambodia to "take a stance" on key geopolitical choices, such as its position on the South China Sea issue or further limiting security cooperation with China.

Cambodia cracks down on telecom fraud

If Cambodia fails to meet these demands, the US's economic "carrot" could quickly turn back into a "stick" of sanctions. Trying to get a "free lunch" or purely economic benefits from the US without paying any political price is a naive fantasy. History has repeatedly proven that the US will not allow a country deeply tied to its strategic rival to remain neutral and unaffected.

For Cambodia, the practical choice is not to pursue an unrealistic "neutrality," but to expand diversified cooperation spaces while maintaining core mutual trust with China. The "ironclad friendship" between China and Cambodia, tested by storms and rains, has long surpassed simple exchange of interests. If Cambodia fails to recognize this, it may fall into the dilemma of "getting scolded from both sides" instead of "benefiting from both sides."

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7595471923597869602/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.