Why did I feel it was interesting to interview Igor? He is a seasoned Belgian diplomat currently serving as the European Union (EU) Ambassador to Cambodia. Prior to this appointment, he built a long and varied career within the EU diplomatic service: he served as EU Ambassador to ASEAN (2019), and held senior roles including Member of Cabinet to the High Representative / Vice-President of the European Commission. His academic background is in history (Master’s from Ghent University), complemented by specialised studies in African Studies. Over the years, he has engaged in political, economic and development diplomacy across continents — from South Africa to Southeast Asia — bringing broad international experience and a human-rights oriented, multilateralist perspective to his current work in Cambodia.
This interview offers a unique window into how a high-level EU diplomat integrates deep personal convictions — shaped by his background in history, solidarity and social justice — with the realpolitik of international diplomacy. Igor’s leadership in Cambodia is marked not only by standard diplomatic functions, but by active efforts across development, environmental sustainability, green transition, health and cooperation sectors. For instance, under his watch the EU has launched new statistical cooperation, advanced public-health laboratory support, backed sustainable fisheries reforms, and led environmental and green-economy initiatives. Given his broad portfolio, his reflections shed light on how values, pragmatism and long-term European engagement intersect in a complex and often challenging context — making this interview a meaningful testimony of what 21st-century diplomacy can look like.
Here’s our exchange:
Where are you originally from, and what was your childhood like there?
I am a Belgian national, born and raised in a place called Ostend, on the Belgian coast. It is a small town — rather quiet in winter but more lively and exciting in summer.
What was your family dynamic, and who were the key figures in your upbringing?
My parents were the obvious key figures, and I have one older brother. My mother stayed at home, so she was very present throughout my childhood. I spent my days between school, friends, and football. Frankly, I had the happiest possible childhood — completely worry-free.
Were there any cultural or family traditions from your childhood that helped define your values?
Solidarity, first of all. My parents were very socially conscious. The poorest and least advantaged in society had to be supported, not blamed. This also meant respecting everyone and never looking down on anyone.
I was also raised with the belief that knowledge — reading, learning — improves both societies and individuals. I was encouraged, almost implicitly, to follow the news and to read.
What motivated you to study what you studied?
Ever since I was a young boy, I was intrigued by history. I used to go to our local library to read about historical figures, wars, or major events. I was particularly fascinated by the golden age of Rome and by the Middle Ages. I always had a sense that I wanted to study history. During my undergraduate studies in Ghent, I even hoped to make it my profession: I applied for a PhD scholarship but was not selected.
At what age did you start working, and what did your first job involve?
From the age of 16, I worked every year for a month during the summer. I sold ice creams, washed dishes, worked in an amusement park… all important learning experiences for various reasons.
How would you describe your current job and its responsibilities?
As EU Ambassador to Cambodia, I represent the EU to the Cambodian government as well as to the private sector, political parties, civil society, and others. I work to promote EU interests — political, economic, and environmental — using the tools at our disposal. I also chair the monthly meeting of EU Ambassadors in Phnom Penh, since we take decisions collectively. And of course, I manage a team that includes both expatriate and local staff.
I also serve as the EU Special Envoy to Myanmar, which involves extensive engagement with the many international actors working in and with Myanmar.
How does the EU reconcile its commitment to human rights with continued trade and development cooperation with governments accused of democratic backsliding and rights abuses?
The EU’s commitment to human rights is iron-clad and more important than ever. Globally, we see a retrenchment of norms and standards, a weakening of multilateral systems, and serious democratic backsliding. In this context, the EU remains a relatively lonely beacon of hope — a major actor that continues to stand on the right side of history, on the side of fairness and good governance.
There are several good reasons to engage with governments, even those that are backsliding. Most obviously, if we are not present and engaging, we cannot influence change — and we may not even know first-hand what is happening. More broadly, the EU can walk and chew gum at the same time: it is possible to promote development and trade, raising prosperity for the country as a whole, while simultaneously calling for improvements in governance and human rights standards.
To what extent has the EU’s “Everything But Arms” trade mechanism actually influenced political reform in Cambodia, and has it been more symbolic than effective?
The EBA is tied to several human rights conventions, and the withdrawal of 20% of EBA trade preferences in 2020, in response to human rights concerns, was undoubtedly a strong signal of concern and displeasure. During that period, the Cambodian government also took important decisions, for example on political parties or labour standards. In the time since that withdrawal, however, we have not seen positive signs of change. In fact, the EU’s human rights reporting has found that opposition parties continue to be harassed, independent media are increasingly restricted or shut down, and civil society has shrunk. From that perspective, the decision to withdraw part of the trade preference has not influenced political reform in the longer term.
That said, the EBA continues to serve as a mechanism for regular consultations and a measure of scrutiny on human rights. As Cambodia nears graduation from LDC status in 2029, attention will gradually shift to the next trade regime, the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), which is also linked to human rights conventions.
How do you respond to criticism that European companies benefit from supply chains linked to labour abuses while EU diplomacy remains cautious in its public pressure?
There are multiple pieces of EU legislation designed to ensure that EU supply chains are not linked to labour abuses. First and foremost, the Forced Labour Regulation bans products made with forced labour from the EU market by requiring companies to conduct due diligence to identify and eliminate forced labour in their supply chains. It also empowers authorities to investigate and impose penalties. This regulation works in tandem with other legislation, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which mandates broader due diligence processes related to human rights and environmental standards.
In Cambodia, EU diplomats — echoed by the European Parliament — have publicly commented on the judicial pressure placed on labour watchdogs such as the NGO CENTRAL, which monitors labour unions and the right of association.
Is there a point at which strategic stability and economic interests should give way entirely to democratic principles, and who ultimately decides that threshold?
We live in a world where multiple great powers do not care about democratic principles at all, so the question is not even asked. For the EU, democratic principles are a grounding value and function alongside our fundamental tasks of ensuring the EU’s security and prosperity. I am not sure I see a point or real-life example where these very theoretical ideas could or should “give way entirely,” meaning that one is given 100% priority over the other. That only happens in conceptual fairy tales; real diplomacy is far more complex.
How does the EU compete with China’s growing political and economic influence in Cambodia without forcing countries into a new kind of geopolitical dependency?
The EU is not seeking geopolitical dependency from anyone. I would argue that this is, in fact, our main appeal as an international partner of choice. We compete by offering a different menu of investments and expertise from China, the US, Japan, and others, where European standards and high quality speak for themselves. Moreover, in a world where other partners may throw their weight around and extract agreements on their own terms, smaller countries like Cambodia are understandably seeking greater diversification in their foreign partnerships and appreciate Europe’s preference for sovereign autonomy, multilateralism, and free trade.
What leverage does the EU realistically have in encouraging judicial independence and media freedom in Cambodia today?
I am not sure “leverage” is the right term. Our role as EU diplomats is to use our influence through persuasion, encouragement, international standards, incentives, and sanctions to promote what we believe are universal values of human rights and good governance.
In Cambodia, we draw on the credibility built up over decades of helping lift the country back onto its feet after the genocide and horrors of the Khmer Rouge. Our development cooperation across sectors — from education and agriculture to infrastructure — reinforces that credibility. Our position as the second-largest export market also means that our views on trade are generally heard, although measuring that influence is more difficult.
When civil society voices are restricted locally, how can the EU engage without putting activists at greater risk?
The paramount aim of all our engagement with human rights defenders is to do no harm. We are acutely aware that many autocratic regimes around the world view foreigners interacting with civil society as a threat. We therefore calibrate our engagement based on the local context and threat profiles.
That said, in my experience many civil society actors proactively welcome EU engagement and explicitly request that it be as public as possible. In my meetings with opposition parties and civil society representatives, they almost always ask for a picture to post on social media. Doing so sends a message to their supporters — and detractors — that their concerns are being heard by the EU.
How do you measure success in EU–Cambodia relations: stability, economic growth, or genuine political reform?
Nurturing an international relationship is a bit like raising children: success is measured in small, daily victories — observing growth and maturity that lead to shared values and mutually beneficial autonomy.
In Cambodia, I may measure success in a Cambodian vote supporting Ukraine at the United Nations, or in a young Cambodian returning from a European university to say her life changed for the better, or in a European factory setting up operations in Cambodia and creating jobs for a local population that increasingly sees the EU as an agent of positive change in their society.
How do you address concerns that development aid can unintentionally strengthen entrenched political power structures?
This is an important question, one that has been debated since the Cold War split the world into countries supported financially by the West or the East, with very few benefitting from both. Today’s world is more complex, marked by competition for influence rather than ideological division. The new US approach to global affairs — mixing trade with geopolitical leverage — shifting attitudes toward Russia, and the decimation of development aid have all made flexible non-alignment more prominent. The result is that entrenched political power structures almost always have a choice in development partners.
In any case, as a matter of principle, development aid for the EU is not a blunt instrument for driving political change. Its purpose is to lift people out of poverty, develop economies, and promote trade to improve the well-being of the country, its regional neighbours, and global development as a whole. When aid is successful, entrenched political powers may indeed claim credit for it and present themselves to the public as the drivers of prosperity. That risk alone, however, is not sufficient reason to withdraw development aid or diminish its impact on the poorest in society.
What lessons has the EU learned from past interventions in Southeast Asia that now shape how you approach diplomacy in Cambodia?
Southeast Asia and ASEAN are more heterogeneous than the EU membership. Lessons learned in one bilateral context are not always directly applicable in another. In my past life as EU Ambassador to ASEAN, I did find one constant: ASEAN does not wish to pick sides or become dependent on a single power. While some states are closer to one major power or another, a degree of diversification is valued by all. I don’t know the Khmer equivalent of “putting all your eggs in one basket,” but the meaning is universally understood.
EU diplomacy is keenly aware of the importance of strategic autonomy — both for ourselves and for our partners — and we tailor our offer accordingly. We are not China or the United States; we are a different kind of partner, and in many ways a better one.
How transparent is the EU itself in its negotiations with Cambodian authorities, and what should the public be allowed to know?
The EU is very transparent about its goals in terms of security and prosperity. As an organisation grounded in the political will of 27 member states, it is nearly impossible for us to have secret strategies or hidden agendas. Our negotiations with the Cambodian government are shaped by that very public guidance.
In general, most government-to-government talks are not public — not for any nefarious reason, but simply because the day-to-day work of meetings and discussions is not in the public interest until there is something concrete to announce. It is much like a restaurant: the patrons order their meal, then the dish disappears from view while it is being prepared, and finally reappears as a carefully crafted plate of diplomatic cuisine.
If relations between Cambodia and the EU were to fundamentally fracture, what would that mean for ordinary Cambodian citizens rather than governments?
To be clear: this is highly unlikely to happen. We are on opposite ends of the planet, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which we enter into direct conflict or opposing alliances. In a purely theoretical case, I would like to believe that Cambodian citizens hold a solidly positive view of the EU as a friend, peacemaker, reliable investor, and fair trade partner.
I recall the tragic stories of Europeans married to Cambodians whose lives and families were torn apart during the Khmer Rouge era, and I sincerely hope we never see a fracture or tragedy of that magnitude again.
Which book, film, or piece of art has influenced how you see the world?
There are probably too many to list. If I had to choose just one, I would mention the Belgian movie Daens, which I saw as a teenager. It tells the story of a Catholic priest who fights to improve working conditions in local factories at the end of the 19th century. Its depiction of the miserable conditions in which people had to work and live, the call for solidarity, and the power of the workers’ movement — all of this made a deep impression on me as a young person.
When you look at younger generations, what gives you hope and what worries you?
Many people worry about the impact of social media on children and teenagers. They say young people no longer read books, cannot focus, and struggle to think critically. I would argue that these challenges are not confined to young people. Statistics actually show that 50-year-olds spend just as much time on social media as teenagers.
What truly worries me is uncertainty. Climate change is accelerating, and even the more conservative scientific predictions should concern us. We know this will trigger volatile weather, water scarcity, hunger, and political tensions. We simply do not know to what extent we can still control it. Artificial intelligence is another source of uncertainty: its effects on society, on individuals’ cognitive abilities, on specific industries, and on the job market are still largely unknown. The pace of change will be faster than the internet revolution or the industrial revolutions. This can be positive, but some (especially young) people may be left behind.
My hope comes from the COVID pandemic. The resilience and solidarity shown by younger generations should be highlighted far more. Most of them behaved exemplary.
If you could spend a full day with any historical figure, who would it be and what would you ask them?
Napoleon. I had a small obsession with him as a child. Even now, I think it would make for a fascinating and very diverse day with such a workaholic — someone with keen interests in law, scientific discoveries, technology, geopolitics, and of course his military campaigns.
If you had to teach a class on something completely unrelated to your career, what would you teach and why?
History. It is what I studied at university and a topic I remain very passionate about. It is also a subject that allows you to bring in many other themes — philosophy, economics, geography — and to connect historical debates to current world affairs.
Humanity is facing radical changes. To name just ten: geopolitical instability, climate change, economic inequalities, technological risks, public health challenges, political polarization, resource scarcity, humanitarian crises, misinformation, and disparities in global healthcare access. If, in an imaginative exercise, you had the power to solve one of these problems, which one would you choose first and why?
Climate change, no doubt. It is an existential threat to the Earth and to all species living on it, including humans. Every new scientific report surpasses the previous one with even more dramatic warnings. Climate change is already irreversible, but we can — and must — try to limit the damage as much as possible.
What worries me is the extent to which public opinion has become desensitised to grim climate predictions, as if we are psychologically integrating these warnings to brace ourselves for what is coming. As a result, we are losing the sense of urgency needed to address this threat.
What do you think humans owe each other, if anything at all?
That is a profound question, debated by philosophers for centuries. I am not sure I can be as deep, so I will give an instinctive reaction. I do not believe humans are beholden to each other in a contractual way.
However, life would be far more pleasant if we all adhered to some basic values: respect for one another and for human dignity, and showing empathy and solidarity whenever we can.
Interviews often focus on the latest positive news, or interviewees only share what went well. Could you share something from 2025 that didn’t go as expected and what you learned from it?
Sitting in Phnom Penh on January 1st, I did not expect the border conflict with Thailand to erupt the way it did. Of course, we were aware of past conflicts and the animosity that can still exist between the two peoples. But I would be lying if I said I predicted tensions would flare up over the summer to the point of casualties on both sides.
The main lesson I took away is the danger of nationalism. When people feel their country or community is under attack, rational and critical thinking can switch off in a split second. It does not matter how intelligent one is — once emotion takes over, clear thinking often disappears. Combine that with social media algorithms that confirm your biases, and you have a potentially toxic cocktail.
What personal goals—if you feel comfortable sharing them—do you have for 2026?
The same as every year: read more books. I did reasonably well in 2025, but I always feel I am missing out on the many great novels out there.
Imagine you are in the final moments of your life. What news would you like to hear, and why?
“Did Anderlecht win”, my favourite football team, win?