The refugee resettlement deal with Cambodia goes against our reputation as a responsible international citizen and respecter of international norms, writes Tim Mayfield.

The Abbott Government's prioritisation of asylum seeker policy over Australia's role as a regional leader and human rights advocate is once again on display via the soon-to-be consummated arrangement with Cambodia to resettle refugees from Australia's offshore processing centre in Nauru.

Indeed, this is just the most recent chapter in the history of foreign policy misadventure that has occurred as a result of Australia's narrow approach to border security since Kevin Rudd announced his "regional resettlement arrangement" with Papua New Guinea prior to the 2013 Federal Election.

The long line of missteps since the election includes timidity in Sri Lanka, overzealousness in India, and benign contempt for Indonesian sovereignty.

The latest deal, in which asylum seekers who are found to be genuine refugees will be voluntarily resettled in Cambodia no doubt in exchange for bucket-loads of cash, is indicative of a repositioning of Australia's foreign policy that is grounded in notions of realpolitik and a more narrowly defined understanding of the national interest.

This is because such an agreement will inevitably compromise Australia's ability to exert pressure on the authoritarian rule of prime minister Hun Sen and undermine Australia's aspirations to regional leadership.

To anyone who doubts this claim, consider this: on January 28 this year, Australia publically castigated Cambodia at the United Nations for human rights abuses, "particularly the disproportionate violence against protestors, including detention without trial". Less than a month later, Julie Bishop was in Phnom Penh proposing the plan that is about to come to fruition.

I seriously doubt the world will be hearing from Australia on Cambodia's deteriorating human rights record again anytime soon.

The Cambodian announcement follows on in the same spirit as the last major immigration controversy, in which 157 Tamil asylum seekers were moved to offshore detention in Nauru after being held at sea for almost two months.

That move followed Scott Morrison's dubious request to the Indian government that it accept the repatriation of all those aboard the ship on the basis that their boat embarked from India. Unsurprisingly, the appeal was rebuffed by New Delhi in all cases except where the individuals were proven to be Indian citizens.

One can only imagine what the Indian government (and the rest of the region for that matter) made of Australia's overtures given their own substantial refugee flows.

The above episodes demonstrate the incongruity between the external manifestations of Australia's 'stop the boats' policy and our reputation as a responsible international citizen and respecter of international norms.

Not only are Government delegations such as the one that made its way to India increasingly futile and counter-productive, they also represent an increasing preference by the Abbott Government for unilateral action and narrowly-focused bilateral negotiations over multilateral engagement in the region.

Nowhere has this shift been more evident than in Australia's burgeoning relationship with Sri Lanka. Right from the beginning of his tenure as PM, Tony Abbott's approach to this bilateral relationship has been problematic.

For example, his failure to even raise the question of human rights at the 2013 edition of CHOGM held in Colombo (while his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper boycotted the meeting and UK PM David Cameron toured the war-torn north of the country), undermined Australia's reputation as a nation committed to speaking out on abuses wherever they occur.

This was followed by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's trip to Sri Lanka for the commissioning of two patrol vessels donated by Australia to assist with local anti-people smuggling efforts. In making this gift, Australia has provided material support to a regime tainted by its brutal response to the Tamil separatist movement while countries such as the US and UK are working with the UN Human Rights Council to establish an international inquiry into the conflict.

While treating Sri Lanka as a pariah state is no way to bring it back into the international fold after its bloody civil war with the Tamil Tigers, neither is the opposite action of uncritically pandering to the government of president Mahinda Rajapaksa on the basis that any criticism might reduce Sri Lanka's cooperation in reducing refugee flows.

While our actions in Cambodia, India and Sri Lanka may be justifiable in the pursuit of short-term tactical victories over people smugglers, they represent a potentially damaging shift away from Australia's traditional emphasis on multilateral organisations such as APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum.

Australia will no doubt continue to participate enthusiastically in these gatherings and advocate the merits of regional consensus on matters such as trade and security. However, our partners in the Asia-Pacific will be taking note of the disparity between our words and actions.

The message here is that Australia's domestic interests, including the maintenance of secure borders, can be achieved without unnecessarily championing cynical bilateral relationships over multilateral engagement. Cutting a deal with Cambodia, one of the poorest nations in our neighbourhood, only serves to damage our reputation abroad.

Tim Mayfield is the executive officer to the Chancellor of the ANU. He previously worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Department of Defence. View his full profile here.