Should U.S. be Involved in So Many Foreign Quarrels?

 By Henry Srebrnik, Fredericton Daily Gleaner

Recently, we have seen a struggle within the MAGA movement between the isolationist “restrainers” and the newer version of the so-called “neocons” over American foreign policy in the “Trump 2.0” presidency.

The restrainers opposed the president’s involvement in the Iran-Israel “Twelve Day War,” and in turn their Republican opponents suggested there was a whiff of antisemitism involved. The  neocons claimed the isolationists came close to suggesting that Israel, and perhaps American Jews, had a disproportionate and dangerous influence on U.S. foreign policy.

But, retorted the isolationist restrainers, Trump himself, after all, had promised to put an end to the “forever wars” set off by 9/11 and pursued with disastrous results. The president, they felt, was rejecting the faction of the MAGA coalition that sees the use of American power abroad as illegitimate and a danger to the American people. Many of them also oppose the administration’s increasing involvement in the Ukraine war.

Should Washington’s involvement in the world be an all-or-nothing proposition? Let’s look at another case in point, the recent mini war involving a boundary dispute between two southeast Asian countries, Cambodia and Thailand. Unlike the Middle East conflict, this one has few ramifications beyond the region, economically or geopolitically, and certainly one with little affect on the national security interests of the United States. Yet Trump took on the role of mediator to bring about a fragile ceasefire.

At least 33 people were been killed and thousands displaced since July 24, when fighting escalated following months of tension. The rift led to the worst violence in more than a decade. In 2011, similar clashes killed 20 people and drove thousands on both sides of the border from their homes.

The dispute dates back over a century, when their borders were drawn in a 1907 treaty, following the French occupation of Cambodia, which had become part of French Indochina. Before colonial-era borders reshaped Southeast Asia, power in the region was based on fluid suzerainty rather than fixed national boundaries. Thailand, though a sovereign nation, felt pressured by this major European power.

Why has the border been such a problem? The treaty’s map differed from its text -- most notably, it left Preah Vihear, an 11th-century Buddhist temple of deep significance to both countries, in French territory. During the Second World War, Japanese-allied Thailand seized the temple after France fell to the Nazis in 1940, then surrendered it back to French Cambodia following the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945. But in1954, as a newly independent Cambodia was emerging, Thailand retook it.

Phnom Penh took the dispute to the International Court of Justice, where it argued that the 1907 French map proved its sovereignty over the temple. The court agreed, ruling in 1962 that it belonged to Cambodia. Thailand accepted the decision and withdrew its troops. In 2008, however, tensions resurfaced as Cambodia sought UNESCO recognition of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site.

The Thai government initially supported the Cambodian application but withdrew it when Thai opponents accused it of selling out Thai interests. Bangkok then deployed troops near the temple. Cambodia claimed they entered its territory, which Thailand denied. Cambodia responded in kind, bolstering its forces along the boundary.

As friction mounted, Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra called on Hun Sen, seen widely as Cambodia’s de facto leader, to de-escalate tensions. She appeared to believe that she could resolve their differences by appealing to his friendship with her father, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. However, in the past that very friendship was used by Thaksin’s opponents to charge him with putting Cambodia’s interests above those of Thailand.

So her approach had the opposite effect, angering conservative lawmakers who accused her of appeasing Hun Sen and undermining Thailand’s military. She was suspended by Thailand’s supreme court, replaced by acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai.

Thailand and Cambodia did agree to a ceasefire July 28, after five days of fierce fighting that displaced more than 300,000 people, after President Trump threatened a trade deal with them until the fighting stopped. “Trade talks are a no-go until such time as the fighting stops,” he wrote on his Truth Social website July 26. A day later, he again took to social media, saying “I called the prime ministers of each and said, we’re not going to make a trade deal unless you settle a war.”

Since both sides faced a steep import tariff of 36 per cent on their goods to the U.S., their top export market, it worked. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet said that it is was now “time to start rebuilding trust and confidence,” while his Thai counterpart, Phumtham Wechayachai, indicated his country is committed to peace and would negotiate “in good faith.”

The peace talks, arranged by Malaysia in its role as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), saw U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announce that American officials were in Malaysia to support peace efforts. “We want this conflict to end as soon as possible,” Rubio said.

We know Trump is angling for a Nobel Peace Prize this time around. But should he really involve himself in every dispute on the globe?  True, the U.S. is a global power, but this time the restrainers are right.