A recurring criticism of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is how its propensity toward consensus-building and non-confrontational engagement has achieved little for the region. But 50 years after the five founding nations gathered in Bangkok in 1967, the bloc’s longevity—and the region’s relative stability—is itself a testament that one of the world’s oldest regional organizations is actually doing something right.
From five, membership in Asean has expanded to 10 states, each with its own culture, languages, history, and even form of government. Diversity has always been the hallmark of this gathering of nations, unique in how it hosts all of the world’s major religions and legacies of major civilizations. It is this same diversity that contextualizes its successes and also underpins the challenges it has faced in carving out a stronger sense of shared identity.
As it enters its second half-century, high-profile Asean leaders, including top diplomats as well as policy experts and business leaders, gather in Manila for an international conference. The assembly organized by the Carlos P. Romulo Foundation and the think tank Stratbase ADR Institutes saw a constructive examination of the relevance of Asean in a changing and highly volatile world. A world, in some ways comparable to the Cold War era that gave birth to it in 1967 but in other ways so different
Today the dynamics animating global geopolitics are not so well-defined, including the relationship between the major and middle powers. Almost 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, capitalistic globalization had failed to bring prosperity to all, and there is a feeling of discontent across large swathes of society. Its attendant mode of diplomacy—multilateralism—predictably also suffered, and many of the rules in the 1960s and 1970s seem simply untenable.
Asean is implicated in this change. Originally established to solve inter- and extra-regional political and security concerns, the bloc has shifted its focus almost exclusively to the realm of economic cooperation. This seems to be a productive direction. Despite the slowdown in global economic growth, Asean economies, led by Indonesia and the Philippines, remain as among the most dynamic in the world, and today ranks as sixth largest in the world in terms of gross domestic product.
These couldn’t have been possible without Asean’s unique approach toward cooperation, which has made possible such landmark achievements as the establishment of the Asean Free Trade Area in 1992 and the Asean Economic Community in 2015. Could the pace in which such reforms were achieved be improved? For sure, but the so-called “Asean way” exists for a reason, and the organization’s longevity and continuing relevance is a testament to its soundness.
Perhaps what the framers of Asean in 1967 couldn’t have foreseen was the rapid rise of China’s stature as a global power. And it is this new factor that demands a recalibration of the bloc’s usual approach. For countries like the Philippines, in particular, China’s increasing and nearly unopposed brazenness in the South China Sea signals the need for a similarly sterner approach for Asean.
The threat that China represents, after all, is not limited to security; it also undermines the group’s internal cohesion and quest for centrality in East Asian affairs. For small countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, which have competing claims against the Asian power, there is no other route except banking on a region-centered approach to diplomacy, an approach that is propped up by an abiding faith on the rule of law and a sense of community among Southeast Asians.
Fortunately, there is little indication that China’s provocative acts in the South China Sea can escalate into full-blown military conflict, mainly because the economic costs for China is simply too high. Over 65 percent of its GDP depend on foreign trade, while imported oil accounts for half of its needs. Any attempt to monopolize control of the all-important South China Sea lanes can translate to injurious counter-measures, which can lead to it losing areas which it has little control, like the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Malacca, both of which are dominated by US naval positions.
Even so, taking stock of Asean’s first half century should perhaps emphasize that it has done its historical role of contributing to political and economic stability in the region. Dynamism and adaptability have always been the mark of effective institutions, and Asean will similarly need to constantly revisit the spirit of its existence vis-à-vis the region’s fast-changing geopolitical configuration. For a group like Asean, staying relevant, whether via new ways of thinking or new solutions, is the only viable step forward.
