Forum: As Asean turns 58, don't write it off just yet
S ingapore's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan wasn't wrong when he called the recent Thai-Cambodian border clash 'a major setback' for Asean's credibility (
Cambodia-Thailand border clash a setback for Asean: Vivian Balakrishnan , Aug 6).
The deadly confrontation indeed revealed cracks in Asean's unity. But as Asean marks its 58th anniversary on Aug 8, it remains South-east Asia's most crucial mechanism for maintaining peace and preventing the region from becoming a battleground for global powers.
Imagine a South-east Asia without Asean. A conflict like the one between Thailand and Cambodia could easily have escalated into a full-blown proxy war, with the US and China rushing in to 'mediate' while advancing their own interests.
Asean, with all its flaws, is what keeps such worst-case scenarios in check.
True, Asean didn't prevent the violence. But it helped stop further escalation. That's no small feat.
Asean's long-established habits of dialogue, backchannel diplomacy, and its preference for consensus over confrontation played a key role in cooling tempers.
Malaysia, as Asean chair, acted swiftly. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hosted emergency talks in Kuala Lumpur and brokered an 'immediate and unconditional' ceasefire. It wasn't flashy, but it was effective – and most importantly, it kept the resolution within the Asean framework, away from external manipulation.
Mr Anwar managed to include the US and China as participants without surrendering control. His diplomatic finesse turned them into supporters rather than decision-makers – no small achievement in today's tense geopolitical environment.
Asean's consensus model is often mocked for being slow and ineffective. And yes, getting 10 (soon 11) nations to agree is always hard.
But Asean ministers did speak with one voice after the clash, affirming their commitment to non-interference and peaceful dialogue. That unity – even if fragile – matters.
Compared with other regional blocs, Asean's performance holds up. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation hasn't met in years. The EU is dealing with the aftermath of Brexit.
Meanwhile, Asean is expanding – welcoming Timor-Leste, pushing forward with the Asean Economic Community, and working towards its 2045 vision of a resilient, inclusive and people-centred region.
Still, there's room for serious improvement. Asean must respond faster to crises, strengthen preventive diplomacy, and empower its rotating chair to act more decisively. Social media-fuelled nationalism also needs to be curbed to preserve diplomatic space.
Younger generations may take Asean's presence for granted, but without it, regional disputes would be mediated in Washington or Beijing – not in South-east Asia.
On its 58th birthday, Asean may be showing its age. But it has also shown remarkable staying power, keeping the peace in a region marked by immense diversity for over half a century.
Minister Balakrishnan's warning should be taken seriously. Asean must evolve. But don't write it off just yet.
In a world increasingly defined by great power rivalry, Asean's quiet strength may be South-east Asia's best chance to shape its own destiny.
Piti Srisangnam
Executive Director, Asean Foundation
Suthichai Yoon
Co-founder, Nation Group, Thailand
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
27 minutes ago
- Straits Times
From Van Cleef to Vacheron, luxury gifts at center of probe into South Korea's former first lady
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Lavish items allegedly gifted to South Korea's former first lady Kim Keon Hee include a diamond necklace, a high-end watch and designer shoes. SEOUL – The special counsel investigation into former first lady Kim Keon Hee has turned the spotlight on lavish items allegedly gifted to her during her husband's rise to the presidency and his time in office, including a diamond necklace, a high-end watch and designer shoes. Among the most notable luxury items is a Van Cleef & Arpels diamond necklace, which Ms Kim wore while accompanying then-president Yoon Suk Yeol on their first overseas trip as the presidential couple to the Natosummit in June 2022. The Snowflake Pendant, crafted from 18K white gold and set with brilliant-cut diamonds, is currently listed on Van Cleef & Arpels' official website for approximately 83.5 million won (S$77,400), but at the time Ms Kim wore it, it reportedly sold for 60 million won. Yoon's office initially claimed that Ms Kim had borrowed the necklace from an acquaintance. However, in a written statement to prosecutors in May, Ms Kim said the necklace was a counterfeit. During questioning by the special counsel team on Aug 6, Ms Kim claimed she had purchased the fake in Hong Kong in 2010 as a gift for her mother and later borrowed it for the Nato trip. On Aug 12, the special counsel team revealed that it had obtained testimony from Seohee Construction confirming that the company had purchased the necklace and gifted it to Ms Kim. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Sengkang-Punggol LRT line back to full service: SBS Transit World US trade team will meet Chinese officials in two or three months, Bessent says Singapore From survivable to liveable: The making of a green city Asia DPM Gan kicks off India visit in Mumbai as Singapore firms ink investment agreements Multimedia World Photography Day: Celebrating the art of image-making Business CDL H1 profit rises 3.9% to S$91.2 million; declares 3 cent per share special dividend World Ukraine, sidelined in Trump-Putin summit, fights Russian grab for more territory Singapore SG60: Many hands behind Singapore's success story The investigators have also secured the necklace itself, they added. Also under scrutiny is a Vacheron Constantin watch. Investigators suspect that a Historic American 1921 model from the high-end brand, valued at approximately 54 million won at a Seoul boutique in September 2022, was allegedly delivered to Ms Kim by a businessperson surnamed Seo. He claimed to have purchased the watch at a discounted price of 35 million won through a 'VIP discount'. While Mr Seo claims he was simply running an errand for the former first lady, investigators suspect the luxury watch may have been given in exchange for a business favour. The main reason the special counsel team suspects a quid pro quo is the deal Mr Seo's company signed with the presidential office in September 2022, which was for a pilot program using robot dogs for security. It was found that the Presidential Security Service had allocated 800 million won to buy robot dogs — a plan that was scrapped after it was revealed by the local daily Hankyoreh. Raids on the homes of Ms Kim and her family have also uncovered other luxury items, including shoes from Chanel. The shoes are suspected of having been gifted by people related to the religious group Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. But questions remain over the shoe size, as the Chanel shoes allegedly intended for Ms Kim were size 39 (European), equivalent to about 245mm to 255mm. This is smaller than Ms Kim's reported shoe size of 260mm. Ms Kim was previously embroiled in controversy after accepting a luxury Christian Dior handbag , valued at 3 million won, from a Korean American pastor in 2022. Their meeting was secretly recorded on a hidden camera, and the footage was released by an online media outlet in November 2023. Prosecutors concluded there was no basis for a criminal charge in the case. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
White House will ‘definitely' host a UFC fight next July 4, UFC chief Dana White says
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox UFC's chief executive Dana White said that he spoke with Mr Trump on the evening of Aug 11 and that he intended to visit Washington this month to discuss details. US President Donald Trump is moving ahead with plans to hold an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event on the White House grounds next July 4, the UFC's chief executive, Dana White, told CBS on Aug 12. 'It is definitely going to happen,' he said on the CBS Mornings programme. A White House official who asked not to be named to discuss plans that were still in their early stages confirmed that the event was expected to happen on July 4. Mr White is a longtime supporter of Mr Trump, even introducing him at the Republican National Convention last July, and the president has attended three UFC events since his election in November. July 4, 2026 is the date of a long-planned national celebration of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The non-profit planning the celebration, did not respond to questions about what role the fight would play in the festivities. A UFC spokesperson declined to comment about the details of the event, including how many fights would be on the bill. Mr Trump raised the idea of a UFC event at the White House last month, saying at a kick-off event in Iowa for the national celebration that the White House would host a 'full fight' as part of the festivities. In his interview with CBS, Mr White said that he spoke with Mr Trump on the evening of Aug 11 and that he intended to visit Washington this month to discuss details with the president and his daughter, Ivanka. 'He said, 'I want Ivanka in the middle of this,'' White said. 'So Ivanka reached out to me, and her and I started talking about the possibilities.' NYTIMES
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
California says Trump sent military to ‘silence' LA protests
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox This comes as Mr Trump said he was taking the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to fight crime in Washington. LOS ANGELES - The US government's unprecedented use of National Guard troops in Los Angeles to protect officers carrying out President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown was illegal and should be ended, a lawyer for the state of California told a federal judge on Aug 12. The lawyer said evidence presented from the landmark trial that began on Aug 11 showed that soldiers had violated a 19th century law that bars the military from civilian law enforcement. 'The government wanted a show of military force so great that any opposition to their agenda was silenced,' said the lawyer, Ms Meghan Strong of the California Attorney General's Office. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton countered that there was 'substantial violence' in Los Angeles meriting military intervention and that the troops were only there to protect federal agents and property. Mr Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to days of unrest and protests sparked by mass immigration raids. California's Democratic governor, Mr Gavin Newsom, opposed the move and sued, alleging it violated prohibitions on the use of the military in law enforcement. US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine whether the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Sengkang-Punggol LRT line back to full service: SBS Transit World US trade team will meet Chinese officials in two or three months, Bessent says Singapore From survivable to liveable: The making of a green city Asia DPM Gan kicks off India visit in Mumbai as Singapore firms ink investment agreements Multimedia World Photography Day: Celebrating the art of image-making World Ukraine, sidelined in Trump-Putin summit, fights Russian grab for more territory Opinion Singpass use in dating apps raises difficult questions Singapore SG60: Many hands behind Singapore's success story Judge Breyer will also hear arguments on Aug 13 on Mr Newsom's legal right to bring the case. The judge has not said when he will rule. The trial comes as Mr Trump said he was taking the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to fight crime in Washington and suggested he might take similar actions in other American cities. In the California trial, the administration sought to prove that the military was only used to protect federal personnel or federal property, which the administration said are permissible exceptions to the PCA. California, meanwhile, sought to convince Judge Breyer that troops crossed the line by setting up roadblocks, diverting traffic and making arrests, which Ms Strong described as prohibited policing actions. Government witnesses testified that although those actions are generally prohibited, there are exceptions when federal agents or property are in danger. Judge Breyer appeared sceptical at times of the government's assertion that Mr Trump had sole discretion to decide when troops were needed. The president said in June the protests amounted to a rebellion against federal authority. 'Is it a 'rebellion' because the president says it is a 'rebellion'?' Judge Breyer asked Mr Hamilton during the government's closing argument. Many of the troops have been withdrawn from Los Angeles, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Aug 11 that 300 National Guard members are still going on immigration raids and restricting civilian movements in the state. The trial before Judge Breyer will have limited impact on Mr Trump's plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington. REUTERS
