(Phnom Penh): A small nation cannot compete with brute force through weapons. But it can use peace and law to make the world hear — and understand — the truth.
The 11-day diplomatic mission of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet to the United States, followed by visits to Switzerland and Belgium in Europe, was not a routine ceremonial tour. It was a strategic peace mission spanning tens of thousands of kilometers — aimed at demonstrating to the international community that Cambodia seeks justice, not war.
A Voice from Brussels: Cambodia Does Not Seek Conflict
In an interview with Agence France-Presse (AFP) in Brussels, Prime Minister Hun Manet stated clearly:
“Cambodians need peace. We need to solve issues by peaceful means.”
The words were few — but their weight was significant.
This was not conventional diplomatic rhetoric, nor an emotional appeal born of weakness. It was a strategic declaration of position: Cambodia does not want border tensions to escalate into armed conflict.
At a time when nationalist sentiments and military pressures can easily push disputes toward confrontation, affirming that “Cambodians need peace” places human lives at the center of political decision-making. It signals that, for Cambodia, peace is not merely one option among many — it is the highest priority.
When the Prime Minister emphasized the need to “solve issues by peaceful means,” he was articulating more than a rejection of war. He was affirming a commitment to international law, to binding agreements, and to recognized dispute-resolution mechanisms. This marks a deliberate shift from the “power of force” to the “power of principle.”
For a small country under pressure, choosing peace is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it reflects confidence in legal legitimacy and in the international order. Cambodia is sending a message to the world: defending sovereignty does not require war — it can, and should, be pursued through law and peaceful means.
When the Prime Minister says that Cambodians “need peace,” he reminds us that conflicts do not merely affect lines on a map. They affect real people — their lives, livelihoods, futures, and safety. Peace, therefore, is not a political slogan. It is a concrete national necessity.
Eleven Days of Diplomacy: Peace Requires Political Work
In today’s world, peace does not emerge from a single speech or statement. It requires sustained effort — preparation, strategy, and engagement with the right actors, on the right platforms, at the right time.
Peace, like justice, demands political labor no less demanding than military mobilization. But instead of weapons, it requires the language of law. Instead of bullets, it requires the construction of legitimacy.
The 11-day journey connected three strategic arenas into one coherent diplomatic design:
- In the United States:Cambodia’s participation in the Board of Peace was not ceremonial visibility. It was a deliberate positioning of Cambodia within a platform dedicated to peace, stability, and international order. It signaled clearly that Cambodia chooses to stand where peace is the principle — not force.
- In Switzerland:By linking Cambodia’s concerns to the heart of international institutions and humanitarian legal frameworks, the border issue was elevated beyond a mere bilateral dispute. It was placed within the broader context of the rule of law, humanitarian law, and respect for sovereignty.
- In Belgium (Brussels):Bringing Cambodia’s message to the political center of the European Union and to major international media platforms ensured that the narrative could not be shaped by one side alone. This created what might be called “legitimacy pressure” — not derived from weapons, but from international norms and global public opinion.
For major powers with strong militaries and expansive influence networks, such diplomatic travel may seem routine. But for a small country facing border pressure, it signals something critical: Cambodia is not silent, nor is it competing in an arms race. It is choosing to compete on the terrain of law and peace.
In international political thought, there are two forms of competition: the use of force and the construction of legitimacy. Force may create temporary control, but only legitimacy creates durable recognition.
This 11-day mission demonstrates that Cambodia is investing in the second form of power — invisible perhaps, but far more enduring than bullets.
Peace, in this context, is not surrender.
It is strategy.
It is the choice to prevail through law rather than through temporary dominance.
The Board of Peace: Hope in a Time of Expanding Wars
Addressing questions about the Board of Peace, Prime Minister Hun Manet clarified that it is not a miraculous forum capable of ending conflicts overnight. Rather, it is an additional mechanism to reinforce global peace efforts at a time when wars are erupting in multiple regions.
“Board of Peace, we believe it is an addition to the existing multilateral organizations… with many wars having broken out everywhere, I think the more the better…”
“The more the better” does not suggest multiplying institutions without purpose. It reflects a belief that in a world where conflict spreads and the international order is under strain, peace requires more mechanisms — mechanisms aligned toward the same objective: stability and respect for international law.
For Cambodia, this perspective acknowledges that peace cannot depend on a single forum or a single major power. It requires a network of institutions and partners capable of generating lawful pressure and encouraging disputes to be resolved through legal channels, not through armed confrontation.
In an era where small states are often the most vulnerable, adding another peace platform is not institutional complexity — it is an additional layer of protection for the principles of peace and justice.
When peace mechanisms multiply, the norms of non-use of force and respect for sovereignty gain stronger safeguards.
Why the World Should Care: When a Border Dispute Becomes a Test of Principle
If a border dispute were merely a disagreement between two countries, the world might simply advise them to negotiate bilaterally.
But when such a dispute involves:- The loss of territory,- Civilian casualties and destruction of property,- Damage to cultural heritage and ancient temples,
it ceases to be a routine disagreement. It becomes a test of where international law stands in practice.
This is no longer just about a line on a map. It is about whether the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and peaceful dispute resolution apply equally to all nations.
Conclusion
The Cambodian government’s 11-day mission was not ordinary diplomacy. Crossing continents, it can be summarized in one sentence:
Cambodia is transforming peace into a strategic instrument — not a ceremonial slogan.
When Prime Minister Hun Manet states that “Cambodians need peace,” it is not an expression of despair or a plea for sympathy. It is a sober recognition that war produces no real winners — only loss of land, loss of lives, and loss of future.
For a small nation, choosing peace is choosing long-term national protection — not capitulation to power.
And when Cambodia carries this message across oceans and continents, it is not speaking only to its counterpart in dispute. It is asking the international community:
Are peace, sovereignty, and territorial integrity universal standards — or principles applied only to the weak?
If the world believes that international law must be applied equally, then Cambodia’s search for justice is not a minor issue, nor merely a bilateral matter. It is a defense of foundational principles that allow small nations everywhere to live in peace — without being forced to accept power as truth.
In a world of rising conflict, choosing peace is not the easiest option. But it is the most enduring one.
And this 11-day journey has shown that Cambodia chooses to stand with peace and law — allowing truth to speak louder than weapons.