Is ASEAN Still Relevant in an Age of Persistent Disputes?

Agung Setiyo Wibowo is a Jakarta-based CEO of the Pandita Institute and the author of more than 100 bestselling books. Supplied

#opinion

More than half a century after its founding in 1967, ASEAN continues to present itself as a cornerstone of regional stability in Southeast Asia. The organisation was born out of a desire to prevent conflict, promote cooperation and ensure that newly independent nations would not become arenas of great power rivalry.

Yet today, as territorial disputes resurface and geopolitical competition intensifies, an uncomfortable question emerges: Is ASEAN still relevant?

Recent tensions between Cambodia and Thailand over historical temple sites, recurring sensitivities between the Philippines and Malaysia regarding Sabah, and maritime disputes in the South China Sea remind us that regional harmony remains an ongoing process rather than a permanent achievement.

These disputes are not new. Many predate ASEAN itself, rooted in colonial-era boundary demarcations, competing national narratives and unresolved questions of sovereignty.

From one perspective, the persistence of such disputes may appear to signal ASEAN’s limitations. Unlike supranational organisations such as the EU, ASEAN operates on the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.

Its consensus-based decision-making process prioritises stability over speed, dialogue over coercion. Critics argue that this approach produces diplomatic caution but limited enforcement capability.

However, judging ASEAN solely by the absence of conflict resolution risks overlooking its more subtle contribution: conflict management.

International relations theory offers useful insight into this distinction. Liberal institutionalist scholars such as Robert Keohane have argued that institutions do not eliminate conflict entirely; rather, they reduce uncertainty and create frameworks through which disputes can be managed without escalating into violence. In this sense, ASEAN’s success lies less in eliminating disagreements than in preventing them from becoming armed confrontation.

Consider the broader historical context. Southeast Asia during the Cold War was marked by proxy conflicts, ideological polarisation and fragile state formation processes. The Vietnam War, tensions between communist and non-communist governments, and internal insurgencies created a volatile regional environment.

ASEAN’s early contribution was to create habits of dialogue among political elites, reducing the likelihood that bilateral tensions would escalate into wider regional instability.

Constructivist scholars emphasise the role of norms in shaping international behaviour.

Over time, ASEAN has developed a shared diplomatic culture often referred to as the “ASEAN Way,” characterised by consultation, informality and consensus-building. While sometimes criticised as slow-moving, this norm-building process has helped cultivate expectations of peaceful dispute resolution.

The Cambodia–Thailand dispute over the Preah Vihear Temple, for example, has periodically generated diplomatic tensions and military incidents. Yet despite moments of escalation, both countries have repeatedly returned to negotiation frameworks and international legal mechanisms. Similarly, sensitivities surrounding Sabah continue to shape relations between the Philippines and Malaysia, but diplomatic channels remain open.

Realist theory reminds us that sovereignty disputes are common in international politics. Borders, particularly those drawn during colonial periods, rarely align perfectly with ethnic, historical or cultural realities. Such tensions are therefore not unique to Southeast Asia. What distinguishes the region is the relative absence of large-scale interstate war among ASEAN members over the past five decades.

In an era increasingly defined by multipolar competition between major powers, ASEAN’s relevance may lie precisely in its ability to provide a platform for smaller and middle powers to preserve strategic autonomy. ASEAN centrality allows regional states to engage global partners without becoming fully absorbed into competing geopolitical blocs.

Geopolitical developments in the Indo-Pacific underscore this point. Strategic competition between the US and China increasingly shapes regional dynamics, from trade policy to maritime security. Without a platform such as ASEAN, individual Southeast Asian states may face greater pressure to align explicitly with one major power or another.

ASEAN’s role as convener of forums such as the East Asia Summit and ASEAN Regional Forum demonstrates its continuing diplomatic utility. These platforms allow competing powers to engage within structured dialogue processes, reducing the risk of miscalculation.

At the same time, ASEAN faces legitimate internal challenges. Differences in political systems, economic development levels and strategic priorities can complicate consensus-building. The ongoing crisis in Myanmar, for instance, has tested ASEAN’s ability to balance non-interference with the need for credible regional leadership.

The question, therefore, is not whether ASEAN is perfect. No regional organisation is. The more relevant question is whether Southeast Asia would be more stable without it.

Regionalism remains a pragmatic response to structural realities. Southeast Asian states share geographic proximity, economic interdependence and overlapping security concerns. Climate change, supply chain resilience, digital transformation and energy transition are transnational challenges that no single country can address alone.

ASEAN’s future relevance will depend not on eliminating disagreement, but on strengthening institutional capacity to manage complexity. This may involve enhancing dispute resolution mechanisms, strengthening economic integration and reinforcing norms of peaceful dialogue.

Regional organisations evolve gradually. The EU itself took decades to develop deeper institutional integration. ASEAN’s incremental approach reflects the diversity of its members and the sensitivity of sovereignty concerns in postcolonial states.

For Cambodia, ASEAN membership has provided diplomatic visibility, economic integration opportunities and participation in regional decision-making processes that would be difficult to achieve individually. Ultimately, ASEAN’s value lies not in the absence of disagreement, but in the presence of dialogue.

Conflict among neighbours may be inevitable. Escalation is not.

As global geopolitics becomes increasingly uncertain, Southeast Asia’s ability to maintain stability will depend on institutions capable of balancing national sovereignty with regional cooperation.

ASEAN may sometimes appear slow, imperfect or overly cautious. Yet its continued existence reflects a collective recognition that cooperation, however gradual, remains preferable to fragmentation.

In a world where geopolitical rivalry is intensifying, relevance may not require perfection. It requires persistence.

Agung Setiyo Wibowo is a Jakarta-based CEO of the Pandita Institute and the author of more than 100 bestselling books. The views and opinions expressed re his own.

-Phnom Penh Post-
——————-