ASEAN amidst Sino-US conflict

(1) “A fundamental question arises from such a comparison: Does political unity strengthen a bloc’s resilience amidst a 2-sided conflict? To answer this question, one must understand the reasons for such aversion of ideological unification. Firstly, one might attribute it to the various historical differences and differences in political development in ASEAN. While the majority of the countries in the EU are… flourishing democracies, the same cannot be said of ASEAN. In fact, it is difficult to triangulate whether democracy has been proved successful in the region. While Malaysia may seem like a democracy, corruption runs rampant in the political elite… Singapore, on the other hand, offers a paternalistic account of a democracy, trending towards “authoritarianism” by liberal Western democracy standards, yet has emerged as perhaps the most economically successful country of the 10 ASEAN member states. The seemingly universal truth of “democracy is good” has been blurred in ASEAN. Democracy and its success [in ASEAN] has not [proliferated as extensively as] in the EU. An appreciation of the blurring of such political axioms in ASEAN would offer an explanation for the lack of shared political values.”

(2) “Another reason would be a divergence in the integration of the EU and ASEAN. ASEAN is ostensibly less economically integrated than the EU. It has not attained the economic integration displayed by the European Union, in the form of free movement of labour, capital etc. Such economic integration precedes political integration, as seen by the EU utilising economic tools such as the adoption of the Euro as currency, in order to achieve political and ideological integration. Recognisably, ASEAN is at its nascent stage of development. This early stage of integration (should they even aspire to achieve EU levels of integration), allows for differences in ideology and political values. Free movement of labour for example, would inadvertently lead to permeation of shared values among its countries. Conclusively, we can see that the ideological disunity in ASEAN is due to structural differences between ASEAN and EU.”

(3) “The key to China’s strategic approach in the region lies exactly here…. Regional contention has shown China’s emphasis on [a “divide and conquer” approach], where in dealing with disputes over the South China Sea (SCS). China compelled… ASEAN members, to handle ties bilaterally, stating that the imposition of a unilateral approach would be wrong. In other words, China [realizes] that the SCS conflict must not be a point of unification for ASEAN; that they must not provide such a catalyst to solve the existing ‘consensus dilemma’. Recognising the strength of a unified ASEAN, to 'divide and conquer' will be [China’s strategy]."

"ASEAN's Organisation Structure in the face of the Sino-US Conflict" compares the structural differences between ASEAN and the EU to account for their respective responses to heightened US-China competition. The paper explores the different historical contexts behind ASEAN and the EU's founding to explain the two blocs' varying orientations to China and the US, especially in accounting for the hetereogenity in responses amongst Southeast Asian countries. The project argues for the need to review and adapt ASEAN's fundamental principles for SEA to remain resilient and united in an increasingly mercurial world.