Shades of hegemony:the case of Cambodia 1963-2020
This essay was produced as course work for the course in Humanitarian Leadership within the LEAP program
Introduction
One of Humanitarianism’s paradoxes (Finnemore, 2001) consists of having two contrasting guiding attitudes: one that aims at protection and control and another towards benevolence and change. These attitudes were inherited by the phenomena of imperialism and colonialism (Barnett, 2011), with the first aiming at conquering territory and people and the latter aiming at changing them and aligning to the colonial power (Arneil, 2024). This essay proposes Cambodia as an exemplary case to explore how these contrasting attitudes were applied to different forms of hegemony. What makes this case particularly interesting is the fact that since 1863, the country has been subject to different types of external intervention and influence. These took the form of patronage, as in the case of France in the late nineteen century; of humanitarian emergency response, as in 1979 in post Khmer Rouge ruling; of nation building effort in 1991 after the signing of the Paris agreement, and as development aid since the early 2000s. Despite their differences, all episodes can be interpreted through the Neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony (Cox, 1983), where the predominance is not only achieved through power but also through consent and by shaping a system where the subordinate group accepts its position. This essay argues that, despite the beginning of decolonization after WWII, the imperial-colonial mindset (Thompson, 2018) did not disappear but shifted into other practices such as humanitarian aid and development: hegemony did not disappear but simply change its form. This essay is composed of four sections, each referring to a specific historical period of Cambodian history. A brief description of the events is given and followed by a reflection on how the opposing attitudes of benevolence and control took shape. Lastly, a discussion and conclusion section reflects on the similarities found across these episodes.
Colonial time 1863-1953
The country became part of the French colonial engagement in Indo-China starting from 1863. The strategic view for this territory was to act as a buffer zone between Thailand and the already established and more lucrative business in Vietnam (Chandler, 2018). By creating a protectorate over Cambodia, France was fully acting in accordance to the doctrine colonial of Jules Ferry (Robiquet, 1897): colonial expansion for economic gain, to spread the mission civilisatrice and for patriotic reasons. Initially, this arrangement was accepted by King Norodom because it would ensure that Cambodia would remain independent and not incorporated within the much more powerful neighbours of Thailand and Vietnam (Osborne, 1969). This alignment of interests started to change when France enacted reforms that deeply undermined the existing social system of patron-client, upon which Cambodian society was built on. These reforms included the payment of duties, a change in land ownership and granting French nationals to be permanent citizens in Cambodia. Discontent generated from the reforms caused the first major rebellion in 1885 and started a process that led to independence in 1953.
The French protectorate exemplified the colonial approach to hegemony: power was not exercised solely through extraction and domination, as in the case of imperialism, but also expressed a desire to educate locals in colonial rule and values. This attitude towards the East has been described as “orientalism” by Said (1978) and, in the specific case of Indo-China, “tropicalism”(Arnold, 1998): a discourse that framed the South-East as a place with particular environmental and cultural differences that, by being inferior, were in need of civilisation. For the colonial mentality, this wild otherness acted as something that needed domestication (Bowd and Clayton, 2005) and normalisation to the universal values brought by the mission civilisatrice, but also as a source of amusement (Norindr, 1996). In summary, the protectorate period (1863-1953) operated under an ambivalent logic of control and normalisation: one aimed at serving the imperial interest and the other following the moral imperative of improving the perceived inferiority of the colonies. Colonialism will start to disappear by the middle of the twentieth century, but the two contrasting attitudes of control and benevolence survived through other mechanism of hegemony, as we will see in the coming sections.
Emergency relief work 1979-1982
The invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam in 1979 ended a three-year genocide of the Khmer Rouge . The country was in the middle of a severe humanitarian crisis that caused thousands of civilians to leave and reach refugee camps on the Thai border. This condition triggered a large-scale intervention, led by the UN with the primary aim of providing aid to as many civilians as possible, both in Khmer Rouge and government-led areas, through the help of international aid, local and international NGOs and by establishing several refugee camps along the Thai-Cambodia border. The intervention outgrew its temporary status, refugee camps reached the size of city-size settlements with their own economy with some of them remaining open until 1993.
The humanitarian intervention was motivated by the possibility of finally supporting the civilian population that had been trapped under the Khmer Rouge regime for over three years. The benevolent attitude was present and justified but it should also be noted that this was also an opportunity for the West to re-enter South-East Asia after the Vietnam debacle. In terms of control, most of the issues and downsides of the mission were linked to the need to access recipients via the armed groups and governing bodies of each region. The interference and misappropriation of resources were common and may have had a negative impact on the conflict by fuelling the existing armed groups and contributing to the stalemate that lasted until the 1991 peace agreement (Chong, 2002).
Initiating state building 1992-1993
The third episode taken into consideration is the UN mission in 1992. After over a decade of stalemate, the international community was able to get the four main armed groups to reach an agreement of ceasefire. The treaty also allowed the UN to establish the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) (United nations, 2026) to “promote national reconciliation and to ensure the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Cambodian people through free and fair election” (Metzl, 1995). The mission was the biggest and most ambitious UN operation at that time, employing around 22,000 foreign staff, and around 7000 Cambodians (Whalan, 2012) and lasted for 18 months leading to the first political election of the country with an 89% turnout.
Assessments of the mission have varied considerably, with conclusions ranging from characterisations of it as an “international triumph” to more measured judgements of partial success (Amer, 1993; Jennar, 1994; Metzl, 1995). The intervention was able to bring Cambodians to the first election in 40 years in a relatively peaceful environment, but it ran short in the military objective of disarming (Chong, 2002; Brocades Zaalberg, 2006). Additionally, for the first time, it was understood that a peacekeeping mission could have relevant negative social impacts, such as brain drain from government offices, inflation and exploitative practices such as prostitution (Chong, 2002), calling for a reflection on the code of conduct of peace keeping staff.
Probably based on the lessons learned during the 1979 emergency response, the intervention understood the importance of control for its success. The mission was never conceptualised as a colonial engagement, and UNTAC was not meant to fully substitute the existing power structure but, for the first time in UN operations, an agency was given a mandate to take direct control of several administrative functions. UNTAC acted as an international aid organisation, as a military force and as a surrogate government (Brown and Zasloff, 1998). The level of engagement was a matter of discussion between leading figures of the mission: some framed it as a peace keeping other preferred peace enforcement, this was particularly crucial in the engagement with the Khmer Rouge (Stam, 2023). Despite these efforts, the UN was never really able to directly supervise the existing government due to cultural differences, a lack of understanding to the point that the idea of a group of foreigners commanding a well-organized regime has been label as ‘absurd’ (Shawcross cited in Whalan, 2012).
Lastly, the benevolent side of the mission started a process of aid disbursement, job creation and patronage that will last until today. During the 1990s, as the country improved and the crisis became less acute, the focus of international aid shifted from relief to development (Brown and Zasloff, 1998) as dictated by the New Policy Agenda (Barter, 2025). The initial wave of aid was led by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors and the agenda of making Cambodia part of a capitalist world economy (Dal Lago and O’Sullivan, 2017) within the acceptance of liberal and democratic values (Lum, 2009; Sato et al., 2011; Sjöstedt, 2013; Becker, 2020; Var, 2020). The development bonanza turned the country in an NGO-land where the public sector relied on aid, reaching a 90% dependency in the early 2000s (Sato et al., 2011) and with consequent detrimental effects on institutions (Sophal Ear, 2012). The re-emergence of China as an international player shifted the trajectory of the country. In 1999, Cambodia was the largest recipient of Chinese Aid (Chanda, 2002) and revived a relationship that had been dormant only in recent decades (Chanda, 2002; Han and Lim, 2021). In more recent years, with the participation into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), access to resources for “infrastructure fast and quick”(Brickell and Springer, 2017; Han and Lim, 2021), Cambodia has realigned itself in the international landscape eluding the plans that the West had in mind of turning the country into a liberal democracy (Karbaum, 2011; Strangio, 2014).
Discussion and conclusion
Humanitarianism emerged from both religious compassion, imperial and colonial influences (Kohn and Reddy, 2006; Barnett, 2011; Davey, 2014), generating an almost paradoxical logic of benevolence / protection versus control / oppression. The historical moments considered in this essay span over a period of roughly 140 years during which the world’s geopolitical framework has changed from colonialism to the Cold War to globalized capitalism. In each moment, Cambodia was involuntarily part of a doctrine of control starting from Jules Ferry’s (Robiquet, 1897), then in the 1970s Nixon’s (Summers, 1973), then Bush’s “New World Order” (Martinez, 1999) to the more recent “Belt and Road Initiative” (Han and Lim, 2021). The exercise of control has drastically changed over time. While during colonialism it was explicitly enforced and legitimised by a discriminatory worldview, through the cultural changes of the XX century, it has started to be more nuanced and conditional. Scholars often refer to contemporary power as Neo-Gramscian hegemony where coercive power, discourse and international institutions work together to shape the hegemonic system (Doğan, 2021). Similarly, both the objectives and the modalities of benevolent attitudes have undergone significant transformation. The colonial coercive methods of the mission civilisatrice were transformed into conditional aid. In both cases, benevolence was intertwined with a cultural and geo-political agenda (Chanda, 2002; Becker, 2020). The disbursement of resources and capacity rapidly created patronage structures and rent-seeking behaviours by the local elites. In the case of Cambodia, “benevolence” went so far as undermining the functioning of the State by creating dependency (Gollogly, 2002; S Ear, 2012).
Across all three historical events examined, one absence remains constant: the voice of the Cambodian people. Whether subordinated by colonialism, patronage, political ideology, or sidelined by development agenda, Cambodians have rarely been heard, consulted or meaningfully involved in shaping the futures they would choose for themselves (Metzl, 1995). The hope is that current debates on decolonisation of aid (Aloudat and Khan, 2022) will bring the necessary change and transform those who have long been the objects into the agents of humanitarian and development action.
References
Aloudat, T. and Khan, T. (2022) ‘Decolonising humanitarianism or humanitarian aid?’ , PLOS Global Public Health, 2(4), p. e0000179.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000179.
Amer, R. (1993) ‘The United Nations’ Peacekeeping Operation in Cambodia: Overview and Assessment’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 15(2), pp. 211–231. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25798193 (Accessed: 14 March 2026).
Arneil, B. (2024) ‘Colonialism versus Imperialism’, Political Theory, 52(1), pp. 146–176. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231193107.
Arnold, D. (1998) ‘India’s place in the Tropical World, 1770–1930’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 26(1), pp. 1–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03086539808583013.
Barnett, M.N. (2011) Empire of humanity: a history of humanitarianism. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Barter, D. (2025) ‘Eviscerated to revolutionary: Rethinking international aid and civil society in Cambodia and Myanmar’, Journal of Contemporary Asia [Preprint], (Query date: 2026-02-22 08:47:00). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2024.2387232.
Becker, B. (2020) ‘Colonial Legacies in International Aid: Policy Priorities and Actor Constellations’, in C. Schmitt (ed.) From Colonialism to International Aid. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Global Dynamics of Social Policy), pp. 161–185. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38200-1_7.
Bowd, G. and Clayton, D. (2005) ‘Tropicality, Orientalism, and French Colonialism in Indochina: The Work of Pierre Gourou, 1927-1982’, French Historical Studies, 28(2), pp. 297–327. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/00161071-28-2-297.
Brickell, K. and Springer, S. (eds) (2017) The handbook of contemporary Cambodia. London New York: Routledge (Routledge handbooks). Brocades Zaalberg, T. (2006) Soldiers and civil power: supporting or substituting civil authorities in modern peace operations. Amsterdam, NE: Amsterdam University Press.
Brown, M. and Zasloff, J.J. (1998) ‘Implementing the Paris Agreements, 1991–1993’, Cambodia Confounds the Peacemakers, 1979-1998. Cornell University Press, pp. 91–129. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvv4120p.11 (Accessed: 14 March 2026). Chanda, N. (2002) ‘China and Cambodia: In the mirror of history’, Asia Pacific Review [Preprint], (Query date: 2026-02-22 08:47:00). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1343900022000036043.
Chandler, D. (2018) A History of Cambodia. 4th edn. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495519. Chong, D.P.L. (2002) ‘UNTAC in Cambodia: A New Model for Humanitarian Aid in Failed States?’ , Development and Change, 33(5), pp. 957–978. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.t01-1-00256.
Cox, R.W. (1983) ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in Method’, Millennium, 12(2), pp. 162–175. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298830120020701.
Dal Lago, E. and O’Sullivan, K. (2017) ‘Introduction: Towards a New History of Humanitarianism’, Moving the Social, pp. 5-20 Pages. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13154/MTS.57.2017.5-20.
Davey, E. (2014) ‘French adventures in solidarity: revolutionary tourists and radical humanitarians’, European Review of History: Revue européenne d’histoire, 21(4), pp. 577–595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2014.933189.
Doğan, A. (2021) Hegemony with Chinese Characteristics: From the Tributary System to the Belt and Road Initiative. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003161004.
Ear, Sophal (2012) ‘Aid Dependence in Cambodia’. Ear, S (2012) Aid dependence in Cambodia: How foreign assistance undermines democracy. books.google.com (Query date: 2026-02-22 08:47:00). Available at: https://books.google.com/books?h l=en&lr=&id=PVEgv5iZHvUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=cambodia+colonial+aid&ots=deDPprson0&sig=_AcskHLd3DIaoUQc2S64F7Qb1Og.
Finnemore, M. (2001) ‘Paradoxes in humanitarian intervention’, in R.M. Price (ed.) Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics. 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–224. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755897.008.
Gollogly, L. (2002) ‘The dilemmas of aid: Cambodia 1992–2002’, The Lancet, 360(9335), pp. 793–798. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09904-X.
Han, S.S. and Lim, Y. (2021) ‘Road Initiative (BRI) in Cambodia’, International Perspectives on the Belt and Road Initiative. Routledge.
Jennar, R.M. (1994) ‘UNTAC: “International Triumph” in Cambodia?’ ’, Security Dialogue, 25(2), pp. 145–156. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44471444 (Accessed: 15 March 2026).
Karbaum, M. (2011) ‘Cambodia’s façade democracy and European assistance’, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs [Preprint], (Query date: 2026-02-22 08:47:00). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341103000405.
Kohn, M. and Reddy, K. (2006) ‘Colonialism’. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/Colonialism/ (Accessed: 28 January 2026).
Leyden, J. (1886) On the Languages and Literature of the Indo-Chinese Nations. Trübner (Miscellaneous papers relating to Indo-China). Available at: https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/Book-Detail-Page?c msUuID=e6aec6a6-a157-4eb5-80ad-024a04a7d8bb.
Lum, T. (2009) Cambodia: Background and US relations. apps.dtic.mil (Query date: 2026-02-22 08:47:00). Available at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/ADA501062/.
Martinez, A.B. (1999) ‘The New World Order and What We Make of It’, World Policy Journal, 16(3), pp. 69–78. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209647 (Accessed: 17 March 2026).
Mason, L. and Brown, R. (1984) ‘Rice, Rivalry, and Politics. Managing Cambodian Relief.’, Pacific Affairs, 57(3), p. 533. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2759111.
Metzl, J. (1995) ‘The Many Faces of UNTAC: A Review Article’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 17, pp. 85–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1355/CS17-1F.
Norindr, P. (1996) ‘Phantasmatic Indochina’, Durham: Duke UP [Preprint].
Osborne, M.E. (1969) ‘The French presence in Cochinchina and Cambodia: Rule and response (1859-1905)’, (No Title) [Preprint].
Robiquet, P. (ed.) (1897) Discours et Opinions de Jules Ferry. Armand Colin & Cie. Available at: https://archive.org/details/discoursetopinio05ferruoft/page/n7/mode/2up.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. Pantheon Books. Sato, J. et al. (2011) ‘“Emerging Donors” from a Recipient Perspective: An Institutional Analysis of Foreign Aid in Cambodia’, World Development, 39(12), pp. 2091–2104. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.014.
Sjöstedt, M. (2013) ‘Aid Effectiveness and the Paris Declaration: A Mismatch Between Ownership and Results-Based Management?’ , Public Administration and Development, 33(2), pp. 143–155. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1645.
Stam, W. (2023) The imperative of success: United Nations Peacekeeping in Cambodia (1991–1993). Leiden University.
Strangio, S. (2014) Hun Sen’s Cambodia. Yale University Press. Summers, L. (1973) ‘Cambodia: Model of the Nixon Doctrine’, Current History, 65(388), pp. 252–276. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/45312958 (Accessed: 14 March 2026).
Thompson, A.S. (2018) ‘Unravelling the Relationships between Humanitarianism, Human Rights, and Decolonization: Time for a Radical Rethink?’ , in M. Thomas and A.S. Thompson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Ends of Empire. Oxford University Press, p. 0. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198713197.013.26.
United nations (2026) UNITED NATIONS TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY IN CAMBODIA (UNTAC), Peace Keeping. Available at: https://peacekeeping.un.org/mission/past/untac.htm (Accessed: 13 March 2026).
Var, V. (2020) Assessing the Impact of China’s Foreign Aid on Sustainable Development in Cambodia: 1993-2018. unsworks.unsw.edu.au (Query date: 2026-02-22 08:47:00). Available at: https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/entities/publication/4c16d838-4b4f-4c5b-91e8-971fb9837586.
Whalan, J. (2012) ‘Evaluating Peace Operations: The Case of Cambodia’, Journal of International Peacekeeping, 16(3–4), pp. 226–251. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-1604003.