Latest news with #ASEANWay
The Star
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Comment: A cautionary tale for Asean from the Middle East
(A commentary by Dr Julia Roknifard, a Middle East expert and a Senior Lecturer for the Bachelor's program on Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) at Taylor's University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of BERNAMA.) As the Middle East remains in a state of dangerous instability, Asean presented with an opportunity to examine the causes of these conflicts and draw valuable lessons. While taking pride in its longstanding neutrality and consensus-building, which have underpinned its regional stability, Asean must adapt to emerging geopolitical realities. For the grouping to maintain its relevance and agency in a contested multipolar world, it must avoid the strategic fragmentation that has plagued the Middle East and strengthen its own framework for collective security. Asean's fragile consensus Asean, in contrast, has often been lauded for its cautious but sustainable approach to diplomacy, with principles of non-interference, consensus, and neutrality at its core. The "ASEAN Way' of informal dialogue and mutual respect has helped prevent open conflict among its members for decades. There are challenges, however, with great power rivalry over the South China Sea, which has exposed Asean's internal divisions as just one glaring example. While Vietnam and the Philippines seek stronger resistance against encroachments, others like Cambodia and Laos often take a more accommodating stance. This divergence threatens to paralyse the grouping when collective action is most needed. Furthermore, Asean faces growing pressure from external powers such as China, the United States, India, Japan, and the European Union, all vying for influence in the region. The Quad, AUKUS (Australia, the UK, and the US), and increased US military presence signal a securitised Asia-Pacific that could soon drag Asean into rivalries it has long sought to avoid. Without greater strategic cohesion, Asean risks repeating the Middle Eastern pattern of division and dependency, becoming an arena for power projection rather than an actor shaping its own future. Key lessons and the way forward for Asean The Middle East demonstrates that a lack of regional unity leaves individual nations vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation. Asean must recognise that its strength lies not in the sum of its parts, but in its ability to act with a unified voice. While complete consensus may be elusive, a flexible core group of willing states could lead on issues of regional security without waiting for unanimity. Asean's commitment to neutrality has served it well, but in a more polarised world, neutrality must evolve into proactive non-alignment. This means not only avoiding entanglement in great-power blocs but also taking a firmer stand on regional security issues, particularly in maritime disputes, cross-border security, and transnational crime. It is important to note that these very criminal networks that operate along porous borders are often exploited to traffic arms that could be used by non-state actors to create instability. Unlike the Middle East, Asean has an advantage through its institutional foundation, which could facilitate a multilateral defence or security coordination framework. While a full military alliance may be unrealistic, a regional maritime coordination centre, joint patrol arrangements, or a rapid response force for non-traditional threats such as disaster relief, piracy, and cyberattacks would enhance Asean's credibility and security. Asan should adopt a more robust position against the militarisation of its region by external actors. Just as foreign bases and arms deals in the Middle East have entrenched foreign influence, Southeast Asia must guard against becoming a base for great-power military logistics or surveillance. Transparency, dialogue, and clear regional red lines can help manage this risk. Institutions such as the Arab League have been ineffective in part due to a lack of enforcement capability and legitimacy. Asean must avoid the same fate by streamlining decision-making, empowering its secretariat, and reducing the influence of members who act as proxies for external interests. To secure its future, Asean must begin a serious conversation about regional defence autonomy. This doesn't mean cutting ties with the US or China or other blocs, but rather strengthening the grouping's collective bargaining power and ability to shape outcomes in its own neighbourhood. South-East Asia's economic dynamism and strategic location give it leverage, but only if wielded with strategic intent. Asean could develop a code of conduct not only for the South China Sea but for all foreign military activity in Southeast Asia. This would require transparency on base agreements, arms transfers, and intelligence-sharing with external powers. This must be paired by expanding the Asean Défense Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) to include a permanent crisis monitoring centre capable of early warning and real-time coordination. Intelligence sharing and surveillance coordination, which are currently fragmented, will be far more effective and successful through this. The grouping must also reinforce its political values. Non-interference must not become a shield for impunity. Myanmar's crisis is a test of Asean's will to uphold basic norms of governance and order. If unresolved, it threatens to erode the region's moral authority and cohesion. Asean must shape its own trajectory The Middle East did not descend into chaos overnight. It unravelled through decades of missed opportunities, broken alliances, and dependence on foreign patrons. For now, Asean is in a far better position as it can either build on its history of cautious cooperation to become a more resilient, strategic actor, or it can cling to an outdated consensus model and become another arena for global competition. Asean's future as a stable, independent regional bloc depends on whether it can draw the right lessons from the Middle East and act on them before the storm arrives. - Bernama
Barnama
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Barnama
CPR Key To ASEAN Unity, Say Experts
By Wan Muhammad Aslah Wan Razali KUALA LUMPUR, May 24 (Bernama) -- The Committee for Permanent Representatives to ASEAN (CPR) plays a vital role in ensuring member states remain united and move in tandem towards regional integration despite their diverse political systems, national priorities and varying levels of development, said two academic experts. Prof Dr Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani, senior lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), said that since its establishment in 1967, ASEAN has expanded from just three to 10 member states united by shared interests. 'It is certainly not easy to unify all ASEAN countries given their differing national interests, fiscal economies, cultures and languages. 'However, the strength of this region lies in its vast market potential, with over 680 million people and an economic value reaching trillions of dollars,' he said during a special broadcast on Bernama TV last night in conjunction with the 46th ASEAN Summit. He said the ASEAN Way, which emphasises non-interference and consensus-based decision-making, remains relevant despite frequent criticism. 'For example, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's efforts to address the Myanmar crisis do not equate to recognising the junta, but are aimed at seeking a solution to the humanitarian issue,' he said. He added that the CPR plays a critical role in bridging decisions made at the highest levels of ASEAN leadership with implementation at the domestic level in each member state.
Nikkei Asia
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Nikkei Asia
Can consensus still save ASEAN?
Azry Almi Kaloko is Head of Strategic Policy and Research at the ASEAN-UK Business Forum and contributes regularly to public discourse through The Jakarta Post and other regional publications. ASEAN has long been viewed as Southeast Asia's stabilizing factor, promoting harmony in politically diverse and previously tense surroundings. Its "ASEAN Way" of nonconfrontation and consensus is used to hold postcolonial countries together and prevent conflict. But today, this approach has become a barrier to quick and collective action in response to urgent challenges.
Barnama
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Barnama
Malaysia Leads AICHR In Shaping Future Human Rights Plan
KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 -- Chair of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and Malaysia's Representative to AICHR, Edmund Bon Tai Soon (second from right), during AICHR Regional Consultation to support the development of the AICHR Five-Year Work Plan (2026-2030), today. -- photoBERNAMA (2025) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED KUALA LUMPUR, April 29 (Bernama) -- The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is in the final stages of drafting its Five-Year Work Plan (2026-2030), aimed at strengthening the protection and promotion of human rights across Southeast Asia, amid evolving regional and global challenges. Chair of AICHR and Malaysia's Representative to AICHR, Edmund Bon Tai Soon, said the new work plan, once finalised, would serve as a strategic framework guiding AICHR's activities over the next five years, in line with the ASEAN Community Vision 2045 and various Strategic Plans of Action under the ASEAN framework. He said that the rapidly changing global landscape has made it imperative for the new work plan to address emerging non-traditional security threats such as artificial intelligence (AI), climate change, forced migration, statelessness, and refugee crises, all of which have significant human rights implications. bootstrap slideshow 'This work plan is very important because it will shape the direction and future of human rights in the region. 'It forms part of the ASEAN architecture, and once adopted, it will be submitted to the ASEAN foreign ministers at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting (AMM) this July in Kuala Lumpur," he told reporters here on Tuesday. Bon said the new plan would also focus on strengthening AICHR's institutional capacity and governance, enhancing cooperation with national bodies, and ensuring better policy implementation and monitoring, while respecting the ASEAN Way of consensus and non-interference. He also stressed the importance of securing political will across ASEAN member states as well as to mainstream human rights into ASEAN sectoral bodies in order to ensure success and continuity of human rights initiatives beyond Malaysia's chairmanship. Meanwhile, the programme director for the Secretariat for the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Maria Paula Villarin, in welcoming Malaysia's leadership, expressed optimism that the new work plan would include stronger measures for transparency, civil society engagement, and structured communication mechanisms. She highlighted that despite operating informally, the Working Group has been advocating for a credible human rights mechanism in ASEAN since 1996, working closely with various ASEAN bodies, including AICHR, the ASEAN Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM), and the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM).
Malay Mail
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
When Asean and the SCO show the world how differences can strengthen cooperation — Phar Kim Beng
APRIL 28 — In an era increasingly shaped by geopolitical polarisation, regional organisations are under pressure to evolve or risk irrelevance. Among these, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) stand out — not because they are perfect, but because they have adapted pragmatically to the challenges of a fragmented world. Despite differing origins, institutional philosophies, and geopolitical alignments, both organisations share a deep pragmatism that has preserved their cohesion. Their ability to work together, even across seemingly profound differences, offers an important lesson on the art of regional diplomacy — one that could eventually include the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as part of a broader architecture to secure and anchor Asia's future, without alienating major players like Japan and South Korea. At their core, ASEAN and the SCO are products of pragmatic multilateralism. Neither was conceived as an ideological bloc. ASEAN, founded in 1967, enshrined non-interference as a sacred principle, allowing newly independent Southeast Asian states to preserve sovereignty while promoting dialogue over confrontation. Likewise, the SCO, established formally in 2001 and rooted in the earlier Shanghai Five framework, institutionalised mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference, particularly crucial for a membership ranging from China and Russia to Central Asian republics, each with different political systems and national priorities. This shared commitment to sovereignty and consensus-building has enabled both ASEAN and the SCO to navigate internal contradictions and external pressures without disintegration. Both organisations also share a preference for what scholars call 'soft institutionalisation.' ASEAN's 'ASEAN Way' — emphasising informality, non-binding agreements, and consensus decision-making — has often frustrated Western observers expecting treaty-based enforcement. Yet, this flexible approach has proven remarkably resilient. Similarly, while the SCO possesses a Charter and a Secretariat, it emphasises voluntary cooperation over strict compliance. Whether addressing counterterrorism, trade facilitation, or cultural exchange, the SCO relies on dialogue and gradualism rather than heavy-handed enforcement. This shared operating style has given both ASEAN and the SCO remarkable staying power in a world where rigid alliances often fracture under stress. ASEAN, founded in 1967, enshrined non-interference as a sacred principle, allowing newly independent Southeast Asian states to preserve sovereignty while promoting dialogue over confrontation. — Reuters pic Moreover, both prioritise security through dialogue, not alliances. ASEAN's regional security mechanisms — the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus) — avoid mutual defence pacts, instead promoting preventive diplomacy, capacity-building, and confidence-building measures. The SCO, likewise, emphasises collective responses to terrorism, separatism, and extremism without transforming into a military bloc like NATO. Its joint exercises and information-sharing initiatives strengthen regional stability while preserving member states' strategic autonomy. Yet, it is their ostensible differences that make their partnership even more promising. ASEAN is geographically compact and focused on Southeast Asia's maritime core, whereas the SCO spans the vast Eurasian heartland, linking East, Central, South Asia, and even parts of Europe through its observer and dialogue partners. Their issue areas have also differed: ASEAN initially prioritised economic development and integration, while the SCO began with security cooperation, only later expanding into trade, finance, and cultural collaboration. Geopolitically, ASEAN maintains a careful neutrality between the United States and China, functioning as a neutral broker, while the SCO remains more centered around Sino-Russian leadership, despite the inclusion of India and others that add internal diversity. Far from obstructing cooperation, these differences create synergies. ASEAN's neutrality makes it an ideal bridge linking East Asia with Central and South Asia, where the SCO's influence is stronger. The SCO's Eurasian reach complements ASEAN's maritime focus, opening pathways for cross-regional infrastructure, digital, and energy connectivity through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, ASEAN Connectivity 2025, and emerging economic corridors. ASEAN's strength in economic integration dovetails with the SCO's growing interest in diversifying beyond security. Both organisations recognise the importance of multipolarity and regionalism in resisting the destabilising effects of great-power rivalry, making collaboration a strategic necessity rather than a luxury. Importantly, their collaboration need not be confined to bilateral channels. The GCC, representing a dynamic grouping of Gulf Arab states, is increasingly asserting its own regional and inter-regional diplomacy. Given the GCC's own emphasis on sovereignty, dialogue, and economic diversification, it is well-positioned to work alongside ASEAN and the SCO. By bridging the Gulf, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia, these three organisations can form an extended arc of cooperation that anchors the broader Asian landmass and maritime space. Such a structure could stabilise key trade routes, strengthen energy and technology partnerships, and foster cross-cultural dialogue on a continental scale. Crucially, this expanded partnership can proceed without alienating Japan and South Korea — two major economies that have deep stakes in both Southeast Asia and Eurasia. Rather than being shut out, Tokyo and Seoul can be engaged through complementary initiatives, ensuring that the broader Asian framework remains inclusive rather than exclusionary. Already, seeds of this broader connectivity are visible. ASEAN is deepening ties with the GCC through frameworks like the ASEAN-GCC ministerial meetings. The SCO is exploring more dialogue partnerships beyond Eurasia, and the GCC has increasingly participated in discussions on Asian security, energy transitions, and digital economy issues. If nurtured wisely, this evolving architecture can provide the region with new mechanisms for stability and prosperity, independent of yet not antagonistic to the existing great power system. In a world fractured by rivalries, ASEAN, the SCO, and the GCC — each with their own experiences of managing diversity, asserting sovereignty, and adapting to change — demonstrate that regionalism need not be defined by exclusion or hegemony. Their cooperation offers a quiet yet profound rebuttal to the idea that only like-minded states can work together. Sometimes, it is precisely the differences — when handled with pragmatism and mutual respect — that create the strongest foundations for peace and progress. If Asia's future is to be more stable, inclusive, and resilient, it will not come from mimicking rigid alliance systems of the past. It will emerge from flexible, pluralistic regional networks — networks that ASEAN, the SCO, and the GCC are uniquely placed to build together. As and when Asia is well represented by all these regional organisations, then extending the outreach with the European Union (EU) for that matter the Organisation of Security and Cooperation (OSCE), both in the heart of Europe, would not seem like a stretch whether it is based on Free Trade Agreements (FTA) or Digital Economic Framework Agreement (DEFA). At a time when a Trumpian world is wrecking havoc, a regional organisation by regional organisation link up is the wisest form of statecraft. It is based on mutual respect and absolute gains. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Asia Europe Institute. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
