As 2025 draws to a close, the global geopolitical temperature is reaching a fever pitch. Worldwide military spending has surged to a record-breaking $2.7 trillion this year, a grim statistic that signals a collective failure of imagination. In the Asia-Pacific, we are witnessing a dangerous “revival of militarism”, where defence budgets are ballooning, and rhetoric about “survival-threatening situations” is normalising the prospect of conflict.
For nations in Southeast Asia, and particularly for Cambodia, this is not merely a theoretical debate among Great Powers. It is an existential trap. We are being pressured to believe that security comes from the barrel of a gun, from hosting foreign assets or from aligning with security blocs.
However, specifically our own region’s history — proves the exact opposite. True national strength and lasting security have never been achieved through an arms race. They are achieved when nations have the courage to prioritise trade over trenches. As Prime Minister Hun Manet recently emphasised on the world stage, peace is not just a noble ideal; it is the absolute prerequisite for development.
To understand the path forward, we need only look at three concrete historical examples where the choice of “marketplace over battlefield” transformed nations from pariahs into powerhouses.
The Thai Pivot: 1988
The most relevant lesson lies just across our border. In the late 1980s, the Cold War had left mainland Southeast Asia fractured. Cambodia was still mired in civil conflict, and the region was divided by an “Iron Curtain” of ideology.
It was Thai Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan who shattered this deadlock. Upon taking office in 1988, he famously declared a policy to change “Indochina from a battlefield into a marketplace”.
At the time, Hawkish critics called it naive. They argued that security required containment and military buffers. Chatichai ignored them. He opened borders, encouraged Thai businessmen to trade with Vietnam and Cambodia, and prioritised bridges over bunkers.
The result was undeniable. The “marketplace” policy did what decades of military containment could not: it integrated the region. It laid the economic groundwork for the Paris Peace Agreements and eventually paved the way for Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam to join ASEAN. Today, the cross-border trade that sustains millions of livelihoods is the direct legacy of that choice. We did not secure peace by buying more tanks; we secured it by selling more goods.
The Axis Redemption: Germany and Japan
On a global scale, the lesson is even starker. After World War II, Germany and Japan were devastated, their cities reduced to rubble, their reputations destroyed by their own aggressive militarism.
Both nations faced a choice: try to rearm to regain “great power” status or reinvent themselves.
West Germany chose integration over confrontation. Instead of fighting France for the coal and steel resources of the Ruhr valley — a cause of conflict for centuries — they formed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, the precursor to the EU. Later, under Chancellor Willy Brandt, they adopted Ostpolitik (Eastern Policy), using trade and diplomacy to thaw relations with the East. They bound themselves to their former enemies so tightly economically that war became materially impossible.
Japan, under the Yoshida Doctrine, made a similar calculation. It renounced war as a sovereign right (Article 9) and focused entirely on economic reconstruction. Japan then used its wealth to become the world’s leading donor of Official Development Assistance (ODA). In Cambodia alone, Japanese ODA has built the Tsubasa Bridge, drainage systems and schools.
The result? Germany and Japan became the third and fourth largest economies in the world. They projected power not through fear, but through indispensability. They proved that a nation’s influence is better measured by its GDP and its soft power than by its stockpile of munitions.
The Trap of 2025
Yet, today, we are seeing a collective amnesia regarding these lessons. The “revival of militarism” is seducing nations back into the zero-sum mindset of the 20th century.
We see this in the Pacific, where leaders are rewriting defensive postures into offensive capabilities. We see it in the pressure placed on ASEAN states to choose sides in Great Power rivalries. The logic is that to be safe, we must be armed to the teeth.
This is a fallacy for the Global South. For a developing nation, every dollar spent on a fighter jet is a dollar stolen from a digital government initiative, a climate-resilient irrigation system or a teacher’s salary. Militarism is a luxury for the rich, but a tragedy for the poor.
A Call for ‘Neutrality of Development’
Cambodia has risen from the ashes of war precisely because we embraced the “marketplace”. We must not let the current geopolitical tides drag us back.
Our foreign policy must be aggressive — not militarily, but commercially. We must champion a “Neutrality of Development”:
- Refuse the Binary: Reject any security alliance that views our neighbours as enemies.
- Trade as Defence: Prioritise the upgrade of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (FTA 3.0) — signed just last month — and the implementation of RCEP as our primary “security” mechanisms.
- Human Security First: Define “survival” not as the ability to fight a war, but as the ability to survive climate change and economic disruption.
The Western colonisers of the past spent centuries fighting for dominance, only to find peace when they finally built a common market. We in Asia should not wait for another war to learn that integration is superior to confrontation.
“Battlefield” is a relic of the past. “Marketplace” is the only viable future.
Vichana Sar is a researcher in digital governance and geopolitical trends based in Phnom Penh. The views and opinions expressed are his own.
