Has ASEAN been effective in maintaining regional peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region?

This essay focuses on intra-ASEAN relations and the broader Asia-Pacific region which involves the United States and China. It argues that ASEAN has been generally effective in keeping peace and stability in Southeast Asia, but it has limited impact on the broader Asia-Pacific region.

ASEAN was expected to fail when formed in 1967. Its member countries were and continue to be some of the most diverse globally in terms of religion, income, political systems, etc. Yet, the region has enjoyed stable growth and stability where ASEAN has been credited with stabilising tensions after the Cambodian-Vietnamese War or guiding Myanmar’s partial transition from military dictatorship to democracy in 2015.

This success is partially due to the ASEAN Way, whose fundamental tenets are the seeking of mutual views (musyawarah) and consensus (mufakat). Members have regular interactions and build up personal rapport, nurturing trust and cooperative attitudes to ensure that problems can be managed, albeit in a time-consuming manner. ASEAN has also maintained a balance of power in Southeast Asia, preventing powerful actors like the Cold War superpowers from dominating ASEAN and turning its member states into tools serving individual interests.

However, intra-ASEAN problems are managed but not resolved where members have not availed themselves to the conflict resolution mechanism provided by the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. This was seen in Malaysia’s unilateral extension of its Johor Bahru port limits which encroached into Singapore’s territorial waters off Tuas. Malaysia sent its Marine Department ships into these waters, which was countered by deploying Republic of Singapore Navy and Police Coast Guard assets. The crisis only abated when both sides suspended their claims in 2019. In addition, ASEAN has been unable to move beyond the bedrocks of sovereignty and non-interference, as seen in its inability to intervene in the Rohingya refugee crisis or the recent military coup in Myanmar.

ASEAN’s relative lack of political, economic, and military power clearly means that it has little influence over the key flashpoints centred on the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, East and South China Seas in the wider Asia-Pacific region. This essay will centre on ASEAN’s response to the South China Sea which a number of the member states are disputants and the situation has become part of the broader US-China tensions.

China’s 9-dash line claim in the South China Seas has been challenged by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei which also have their own rival claims. This crisis came to a head when China’s 9-dash line claim was rejected by the 2016 Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling. Due to the growing geopolitical influence of China in the region, ASEAN unity has unravelled, as seen in the unprecedented inability of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting to issue a communique in 2012 and 2016 over the South China Sea dispute. This was mainly due to Cambodia’s heavy dependence on Chinese financing. China opposes ASEAN’s efforts to take a unified position against China and rejects ASEAN’s attempt to internationalise the situation. This has threatened the organisation’s consensus-conscious culture and unity. The US further intensified the situation as it is determined to reject the expanding Chinese influence in the region. This can be most clearly seen in the growing number of military confrontations like the sharp rise of US spy plane missions and US Navy freedom of navigation operations in Southeast Asia.

Former Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan has rightly noted that it is beyond ASEAN’s ability to resolve the South China Sea dispute which has become a proxy for the US-China contest. As he pointed out, ASEAN’s vital mission now is to make clear to both sides its red lines and to play a limited but vital role in keeping the peace in the region.

At the heart of the matter, members must support ASEAN and be committed to its unity and cohesion. Former Singapore’s Foreign Minister S Rajaratnam rightly pointed out that ASEAN leaders need to govern with a two-level mindset; not just thinking about national interests but ‘posit them against regional interests’. ASEAN succeeded in the past due to their cooperative leadership, but this has been challenged increasingly by increased domestic populism. ASEAN needs to enhance its people-centric and people-relevant outlook by widening its engagement and involvement with relevant stakeholders in policymaking and policy implementation to develop ownership and participation in ASEAN’s endeavours. At the grassroots level, an example would be Singapore’s Ministry of Education’s goal of infusing greater interest in ASEAN in the teaching and learning of the Humanities.

In addition, ASEAN must sustain its creative and active diplomacy to ensure that it is in the driver’s seat in shaping the region’s architecture and ensuring that it remains a multipolar region. ASEAN has initiated forums like the ASEAN Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, the Asia European Meeting and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus. These initiatives aim to anchor multiple major powers in the region to act as counterbalances to each other. More significantly, the ASEAN Way of quiet diplomacy and constant consultation can be utilised to convince all sides of the benefits of coming to an agreement.

A possible application can be seen in ASEAN’s efforts to prevent the military confrontation in the region from escalating into war. It has promoted military forums for commanders to discuss and engage in trust-building. A recent product was the creation of a Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea which establishes rules of engagement for unexpected military encounters to avoid open conflict. This has been extended to the airspace in the region. ASEAN can utilise its many forums to encourage the US, China, and the regional powers to accede to these confidence-building measures.

In conclusion, ASEAN may be condemned as a talk-shop but that is to misunderstand the constraints it faces and its working methods. It has played a significant role in ensuring peace and stability among its member states. Despite its relative weakness vis-à-vis the US and China, ASEAN still can remain relevant and aid the process in ensuring peace and stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region.

Daniel Chua