Before ASEAN’s formation, Southeast Asia saw the establishment of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954, a Western initiative aimed at containing communism that included the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and regional members like Thailand and the Philippines. However, SEATO’s internal divisions led to its dissolution in 1977. The earlier Malayan Emergency (1948-1960), a communist insurgency in British Malaya, led the region’s vulnerability to communist influence and the need for cooperation. This context set the stage for the founding of ASEAN in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand through the Bangkok Declaration, with goals of preventing communism, promoting economic growth, and ensuring regional peace. Today, ASEAN faces a new set of challenges, including territorial disputes, economic disparities, and the influence of external powers, all of which test the organization’s ability to maintain regional cohesion and stability. Let’s get into the detail of it.
The Historical Context and Evolution of ASEAN’s Security Landscape
ASEAN’s origins are rooted in a period of intense ideological conflict, where its founding members aimed to protect their independence from global power struggles. As the organization expanded to include Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia, its focus shifted from ideological concerns to economic cooperation and regional integration. However, security has remained a critical issue, particularly as Southeast Asia has emerged as a focal point for great power competition. The South China Sea disputes have highlighted ASEAN’s security challenges, with overlapping territorial claims involving China and several ASEAN member states testing the organization’s cohesion and conflict management abilities. The South China Sea, a vital maritime region, represents broader security concerns, including economic vulnerabilities, military imbalances, and the influence of external powers like the United States and China.
Internal Divisions and Historical Grievances Among ASEAN Member States
ASEAN’s efforts at promoting regional cooperation are often hampered by internal challenges rooted in historical disputes and national pride. These tensions not only strain bilateral relations but also weaken ASEAN’s collective bargaining power, undermining its ability to present a unified front against external threats.
Malaysia and the Philippines: The Sabah Dispute
The territorial disagreement between Malaysia and the Philippines over Sabah is one of ASEAN’s most enduring disputes. The Philippines bases its claim on historical ties to the Sultanate of Sulu, while Malaysia asserts its sovereignty over Sabah, which was incorporated into its territory in 1963. Despite various diplomatic efforts, the issue remains unresolved, straining bilateral relations and complicating ASEAN’s quest for unity.
Cambodia and Thailand: The Preah Vihear Temple Dispute
The conflict over the Preah Vihear Temple between Cambodia and Thailand is another example of intra-ASEAN tensions. Despite the International Court of Justice ruling in favor of Cambodia in 1962, disputes over the surrounding territory have led to periodic military skirmishes. This ongoing conflict highlights how national pride and historical grievances can overshadow regional stability, challenging ASEAN’s capacity to maintain harmony among its members.
Cambodia and Vietnam: Maritime Boundary Dispute
The maritime boundary dispute in the Gulf of Thailand between Cambodia and Vietnam, involving overlapping claims on fishing rights and oil exploration, further illustrates ASEAN’s challenges. The inability to address such disputes effectively, due to ASEAN’s principles of consensus and non-interference, undermines the organization’s credibility and cohesion.
Indonesia and Malaysia: The Ambalat Dispute
The Ambalat dispute over oil-rich waters in the Celebes Sea between Indonesia and Malaysia reflects the broader challenge of managing resource-related conflicts within ASEAN. Despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations, the lack of resolution continues to strain bilateral relations and test ASEAN’s ability to mediate internal disputes.
Myanmar and Bangladesh: The Rohingya Refugee Crisis
While not a territorial dispute within ASEAN, Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya minority, leading to a massive refugee influx into Bangladesh, has strained relations within the bloc. This crisis raised critical questions about ASEAN’s principle of non-interference and its ability to address serious human rights concerns while maintaining regional stability. The situation exposed the limitations of ASEAN’s ability to manage internal conflicts and uphold its values.
Territorial Disputes and Overlapping Claims
The South China Sea is a flashpoint for regional tensions, with China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan all laying claim to parts of this critical maritime region. China’s expansive claims, encapsulated by the “New Ten-Dash Line,” overlap with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of several ASEAN countries, leading to frequent confrontations.
Incidents of confrontation between Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels have escalated tensions. Diplomatic efforts, such as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed in 2002, have sought to prevent conflicts, but a binding Code of Conduct (COC) remains elusive. ASEAN’s inability to present a unified front has allowed China to assert its claims more aggressively, leading to the militarization of disputed features and an increased risk of conflict.
Economic Interests and Vulnerabilities
The South China Sea is a vital artery for global trade, with nearly one-third of the world’s maritime traffic passing through its waters. For ASEAN member states, the SCS is crucial for trade routes, fisheries, and potential energy resources. However, these economic interests also represent a source of vulnerability. The region’s dependence on these waters for economic prosperity has made it a hotbed for geopolitical competition.
China’s economic influence in the region complicates ASEAN’s security dilemma. As the largest trading partner for many ASEAN countries, China wields significant economic power, which it has not hesitated to use as leverage in territorial disputes. For instance, in 2023, China imposed trade restrictions on Vietnam in response to Hanoi’s increased maritime activities in the disputed Paracel Islands, targeting Vietnamese exports such as seafood and rice. These trade restrictions had a significant impact on Vietnam’s economy, highlighting the challenges ASEAN member states face in balancing their economic relationships with China while also protecting their territorial and security interests.
Economic disparities among ASEAN member states exacerbate these vulnerabilities. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia have relatively advanced economies, while others, such as Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar, are still developing. This disparity affects ASEAN’s collective bargaining power and creates divergent interests among its members, making it difficult to form a cohesive strategy in dealing with external pressures.
- Singapore, the most advanced economy within ASEAN, has a nominal GDP of approximately $673 billion in 2023 and a per capita GDP of $82,807. As a global financial hub, Singapore’s economic strength lies in its advanced services sector, particularly in finance, trade, and technology. Its high level of development allows it to play a leading role in ASEAN, often driving regional initiatives and economic integration efforts.
- Brunei Darussalam, though smaller in economic size with a nominal GDP of around $15 billion, enjoys a high per capita GDP of $37,152, largely due to its abundant oil and gas resources. However, its economy is heavily reliant on hydrocarbons, making diversification a pressing challenge.
- Malaysia, with a nominal GDP of $399 billion and a per capita GDP of $11,933, has a well-diversified economy that spans manufacturing, services, and commodities. It is a middle-income nation striving to transition into a high-income economy, facing challenges in ensuring inclusive growth and reducing income disparities.
- Thailand and Vietnam are significant players in the region, with nominal GDPs of $543 billion and $433 billion, respectively. Thailand’s economy is driven by its manufacturing sector and tourism, while Vietnam’s rapid industrialization has turned it into a crucial link in global supply chains, particularly in electronics and textiles. However, both countries face challenges such as infrastructure gaps, skill shortages, and economic dependency on external markets, particularly China.
- Indonesia, the largest economy in ASEAN, has a nominal GDP of $1,371 billion. Its vast natural resources, large domestic market, and young population present significant growth potential. However, Indonesia still grapples with infrastructure deficits, regional inequalities, and the need to diversify its economy away from a reliance on commodities.
- The Philippines, with a nominal GDP of approximately $437 billion, is characterized by a young, growing population that fuels domestic consumption. However, it also faces significant challenges such as high unemployment, economic vulnerabilities, and the impact of climate change.
- Cambodia and Laos, with nominal GDPs of around $31.77 billion and $15.84 billion, respectively, are among the least developed in ASEAN. These countries rely heavily on agriculture, tourism, and, increasingly, Chinese investment and aid. Their economic dependency on China, coupled with underdeveloped infrastructure and low levels of industrialization, leaves them vulnerable to external pressures and economic shocks.
- Myanmar, with a nominal GDP of $64.82 billion, has been hindered by political instability and economic sanctions. The manufacturing sector, which accounts for a significant portion of its GDP, struggles with inadequate infrastructure, a lack of skilled labor, and ongoing internal conflict.
These economic disparity among ASEAN member states creates a complex environment where national interests often clash, making consensus-building within the organization challenging. These economic differences also lead to varying levels of dependency on external powers like China and the United States, further complicating ASEAN’s ability to present a unified front in regional security matters.
Military Capabilities and Asymmetries
The disparity in military capabilities among ASEAN member states also contributes to the region’s security dilemma. While some countries, like Singapore, have advanced and well-equipped armed forces, others, such as Laos and Cambodia, have relatively modest military capabilities. This asymmetry affects the ability of ASEAN to coordinate joint security initiatives and response to external threats.
Singapore is known for having one of the most advanced military forces in Southeast Asia. Its defense budget, which stood at approximately $19.76 billion in 2023, allowed it to maintain a highly modernized and technologically sophisticated military. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are equipped with cutting-edge weaponry, including F-35 fighter jets, advanced naval vessels, and a robust cyber defense unit. Singapore’s strategic location and military prowess make it a critical player in regional security.
Indonesia, with the largest population in ASEAN, also has the largest military force. Its defense budget of around $9.2 billion in 2023 supports a sizable army, navy, and air force, although it lags in technological sophistication compared to Singapore. Indonesia’s military focuses on securing its vast archipelagic territory, including critical maritime chokepoints such as the Malacca Strait.
Vietnam has a defense budget of approximately $5.8 billion, with a strong emphasis on its army and navy, given its proximity to the South China Sea. Vietnam’s military capabilities are enhanced by recent acquisitions of advanced Russian-made submarines, fighter jets, and coastal defense systems. The country’s military strategy is shaped by its historical experiences with external aggression and its ongoing territorial disputes with China.
Thailand allocates around $6.9 billion to its defense budget, focusing on maintaining a balanced military force capable of addressing both conventional and unconventional threats. Thailand’s military, which has historically played a significant role in domestic politics, is equipped with a mix of Western and Chinese military hardware.
Malaysia spends approximately $4.1 billion on defense, with a focus on securing its maritime boundaries and addressing non-traditional security threats such as piracy and terrorism. Malaysia’s military, though smaller than those of Indonesia and Vietnam, is relatively well-equipped and plays a key role in regional security initiatives.
The Philippines has a defense budget of about $4.3 billion, which is modest given its extensive territorial claims in the South China Sea. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) have been undergoing modernization efforts to improve their capabilities, particularly in maritime security and counter-terrorism. However, the military still faces significant challenges in terms of equipment and training.
Myanmar, with a defense budget of around $2.4 billion, maintains a large army but faces challenges related to outdated equipment and ongoing internal conflicts. The military’s focus has been on domestic security, particularly in dealing with ethnic insurgencies and political unrest.
Brunei, despite its small size, spends a significant portion of its budget on defense, amounting to around $615 million. Its military is small but well-trained.
Cambodia and Laos have relatively small defense budgets, at approximately $500 million and $100 million, respectively. Their militaries are modest in size and capability, with a focus on internal security rather than external defense.
The military asymmetry within ASEAN creates challenges for joint defense initiatives and hampers the organization’s ability to present a united front in response to external threats. The disparities in defense capabilities also contribute to differing threat perceptions among member states, making consensus on security issues difficult to achieve.
ASEAN and the Great Power Dynamics
ASEAN’s unity is increasingly being tested by the growing influence of external powers, particularly the United States and China.
US-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia
The US-China rivalry is a defining feature of the current geopolitical landscape in Southeast Asia. As China’s influence grows, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the United States has sought to counterbalance this influence through initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Strategy and by strengthening alliances with regional powers like Japan, Australia, and India. This great power competition puts ASEAN in a difficult position, as member states are often forced to navigate balance between maintaining economic ties with China and security partnerships with the United States.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative has made significant inroads in Southeast Asia, with billions of dollars invested in infrastructure projects across the region. Countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar have become increasingly dependent on Chinese investment, creating a situation where their foreign policy decisions are heavily influenced by Beijing. This growing dependence on China has raised concerns within ASEAN about the potential for Chinese economic leverage to translate into political influence, undermining the organization’s unity.
The United States, meanwhile, has sought to strengthen its presence in Southeast Asia through various initiatives, including the Indo-Pacific Strategy, which emphasizes the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The US has also deepened its security partnerships with key ASEAN member states, such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, through joint military exercises, arms sales, and defense cooperation agreements. These efforts are aimed at countering China’s growing influence and ensuring the US remains a key player in the region’s security architecture.
The competing interests of the US and China have created divisions within ASEAN, with some member states aligning more closely with one power over the other. These divisions are further exacerbated by differing threat perceptions among member states, with some prioritizing economic ties with China, while others are more concerned with security threats and maintaining strategic autonomy.
Pathways to Resolution: Cooperative Security Frameworks
ASEAN’s security dilemma is compounded by the lack of a cohesive and effective regional security architecture. The existing security frameworks, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), have been criticized for their inability to address the region’s most pressing security challenges effectively.
The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), established in 1994, was designed to promote dialogue and cooperation on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the ARF has often been criticized for being a “talk shop,” where discussions are held without concrete actions being taken. The forum’s consensus-based decision-making process has also been a significant impediment to addressing contentious issues, such as the South China Sea disputes.
The ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), established in 2006, serves as a platform for ASEAN defense ministers to discuss security and defense cooperation. While the ADMM has made some progress in promoting confidence-building measures and joint exercises, it has been less effective in addressing the region’s more significant security challenges, such as territorial disputes and the influence of external powers.
To overcome these challenges, ASEAN may need to explore new cooperative security frameworks that go beyond the existing structures. One potential pathway could be the establishment of a more robust and binding Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea, which would include mechanisms for dispute resolution and conflict prevention. However, achieving such a framework would require overcoming significant internal divisions within ASEAN and securing the buy-in of external powers, particularly China.
Another potential pathway could involve greater engagement with external partners through mechanisms such as the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) and the East Asia Summit (EAS). These forums could be leveraged to address broader security challenges in the region, including non-traditional security threats such as cyber threats, terrorism, and climate change. However, for these efforts to be successful, ASEAN would need to strengthen its internal cohesion and present a more united front in dealing with external powers.
Future Prospects and Challenges
The future of ASEAN’s security landscape is fraught with challenges, as the region continues to grapple with internal divisions, economic disparities, military asymmetries, and the growing influence of external powers. However, ASEAN’s ability to navigate these challenges will be crucial in determining the region’s stability and prosperity in the years to come.
One of the key challenges for ASEAN will be maintaining its unity and cohesion in the face of increasing external pressures. This will require addressing the internal divisions and historical grievances that have often hampered the organization’s ability to present a united front. ASEAN will also need to find ways to manage the growing influence of external powers, particularly the US and China, while maintaining its strategic autonomy and ensuring that its member states are not forced to choose sides.
Another challenge will be the need to develop more effective security frameworks that can address the region’s most pressing security challenges. This will require ASEAN to move beyond its current consensus-based decision-making process and adopt more flexible and pragmatic approaches to conflict resolution and security cooperation.
Finally, ASEAN will need to address the economic disparities and vulnerabilities that have often undermined its collective bargaining power. This will require greater efforts to promote economic integration and development within the region, while also ensuring that the benefits of growth are more equitably distributed among its member states.
End Note
ASEAN’s security dilemma is a complex and multifaceted issue that reflects the broader geopolitical dynamics of Southeast Asia. The organization’s ability to navigate this dilemma will be crucial in determining the region’s stability and prosperity in the years to come. While ASEAN faces significant challenges, including internal divisions, economic disparities, military asymmetries, and the growing influence of external powers, it also has the potential to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of Southeast Asia. To do so, ASEAN will need to strengthen its internal cohesion, develop more effective security frameworks, and find ways to manage the growing influence of external powers while maintaining its strategic autonomy. Ultimately, the future of ASEAN will depend on its ability to adapt to the evolving security landscape and ensure that its member states can navigate the complex geopolitics of Southeast Asia in a way that promotes peace, stability, and prosperity for all.
