ASEAN currently stands at a decisive crossroads. On one side, the region faces intensifying external pressure from great-power rivalry in the South China Sea. On the other, it remains burdened by unresolved internal problems: the border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand, the humanitarian crisis of the Rohingya in Myanmar, and the maritime dispute over the Ambalat Block between Indonesia and Malaysia.
External powers shaping
ASEAN’s dynamics.
The South China Sea is a vital
international trade artery worth over US$3 trillion annually, and equally rich
in energy and natural resources. China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim,
struck down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016, remains rejected by
Beijing, fueling ongoing tensions. Since 2002, ASEAN and China have been
negotiating a Code of Conduct (COC), yet progress has been painstakingly slow.
Disagreements over scope and legal standing remain unresolved. Meanwhile,
aggressive maneuvers at sea, such as “ramming” incidents and harassment of
Philippine vessels by Chinese coast guard ships, have created tangible risks of
escalation. In a recent development, a U.S. destroyer was forced out of the
Scarborough Shoal area following a confrontation with Chinese patrols,
underlining the volatile and layered tensions in these contested waters.
Competition for influence in Southeast
Asia has also intensified with the entry of European actors, particularly
France, which has sought to expand its strategic footprint by offering
economic, technological, and defence benefits. Indonesia’s multi-billion-dollar
purchase of French Rafale fighter jets illustrates this shift. For Jakarta, the
deal is not only about modernising its military arsenal but also about
broadening strategic partnerships and diversifying security support beyond the
traditional poles of the United States and China. France’s presence highlights
a new layer of geopolitical rivalry in ASEAN, where member states must
carefully balance short-term benefits with long-term consistency in upholding
collective principles.
Without
a unified stance, ASEAN risks losing momentum in shaping the narrative and
outcome of this dispute, as well as those to come.
The necessity of
collaboration
A shared ASEAN perception would
strengthen collective legitimacy in upholding UNCLOS and the arbitral ruling.
By speaking with one voice, the bloc would enhance its moral and political
leverage in pressing parties to respect international law. This cohesion is not
only about legal principle but also about preventing dangerous miscalculations
that could spiral into armed confrontation.
A significant moment in regional
security cooperation occurred when the Philippines and India held their
first-ever joint naval exercise in the South China Sea, signalling a collective
effort to uphold maritime sovereignty and international law through security
partnerships. Similarly, Exercise “Alon 25” involving Australia, the United
States, Canada, and the Philippines, took place near Scarborough Shoal,
symbolising collective deterrence against unilateral aggression.
The Ambalat dispute: a
framework for diplomatic cooperation
In the broader context of peaceful
resolution, the dispute over the Ambalat block between Indonesia and Malaysia
offers a valuable lesson. While both nations lay claim to the resource-rich
territory, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto and Malaysian Prime Minister
Anwar Ibrahim have openly committed to resolving differences through dialogue
and peaceful means. This bilateral understanding demonstrates that when there
is political will at the highest level, potential disputes can be contained
without sacrificing bilateral ties. Nations, particularly in the ASEAN region,
should look to Ambalat as a concrete precedent that a peaceful resolution is
both possible and practical. Such a framework could be used in Myanmar’s
Rohingya crisis and the Cambodia–Thailand border tensions, or the broader South
China Sea issue. Nevertheless, the challenges to consensus remain formidable.
National interests vary widely. The Philippines and Vietnam are taking a more
assertive stance against China, while Malaysia has opted for pragmatism to
preserve its economic ties. The absence of a shared spirit has often been
evident in ASEAN’s reluctance to issue strong collective statements at
international forums. Meanwhile, Philippine officials have stressed that
Beijing must address the “trust deficit” caused by its aggressive actions at
sea while also warning that diplomacy alone is insufficient without credible
deterrence measures.
The path forward
Moving forward, ASEAN must take
several critical steps. First, it should formulate a binding consensus that
commits all members to international law, including the recognition of UNCLOS,
the renunciation of force, and strong support for accelerating the COC
negotiations. Second, ASEAN needs to institutionalise platforms for discussing
not only the South China Sea but also other pressing issues—such as Myanmar,
Ambalat, and the Cambodia–Thailand border—so that peaceful resolution becomes a
norm, not an exception. Finally, the bloc must strengthen transparency and
crisis management mechanisms, such as coast guard dialogues or hotlines, to
reduce the risk of miscalculation.
ASEAN’s relevance in the eyes of the
world depends on its ability to speak with one voice. The South China Sea is
the stage upon which this credibility will be tested. Suppose ASEAN can
transcend its internal differences and unify around the principles of
international law. In that case, it will enhance its bargaining power with both
Beijing and Washington, while preserving the integrity of the regional order.
Success in forging a common stance on the South China Sea will create momentum
for resolving Ambalat peacefully, reviving dialogue on Myanmar, and providing a
model for Cambodia and Thailand. Failure, however, risks further fragmentation,
diminished global credibility, and an ASEAN that drifts toward irrelevance. The
choice before the bloc is stark yet simple: unify perceptions, or succumb to
fragility.
0 coment rios: