ASEAN Matters: Epicentrum of Growth. Indonesia adopted this theme for its 2023 ASEAN chairmanship through two summits (the 42nd and 43rd); the first in Labuan Bajo, East Nusa Tenggara (May 9-11, 2023) and the second in Jakarta (September 5-7, 2023).

Yes, ASEAN certainly matters. An epicenter of growth? Factually, the region's economy has shown commendable growth. However, it is also becoming the epicenter of a duel between two powers: the Western bloc led by the United States and the Eastern bloc led by China, even escalating towards a NATO versus BRICS confrontation. NATO is led by the U.S., while BRICS is led by China.

Some observers label this duel as a "New Cold War" (Neo-Cold War). Amidst this duel, ASEAN indeed matters. However, the hope of becoming an epicenter of growth could falter and wither because the area surrounding such a major conflict will inevitably be devastated by intense clashes. Unavoidably, ASEAN is now becoming that danger zone. If ASEAN is to avoid faltering, how should it act?

ASEAN: A New Arms Race Zone?

It is increasingly evident that the U.S./West/NATO versus China/East/BRICS economic duel is leading to an arms race. Carl von Clausewitz may have been correct when he said that war is merely a continuation of (economic-political) policy by other means (Clausewitz, On War).

The situation shows that China is winning the economic duel, while the U.S. is losing its hegemonic dominance. The sketch of their rivalry is clear: the U.S.-NATO/West will not willingly relinquish their global politico-economic domination, while China will not allow its progress to be hampered by any party.

In facing China, the U.S. continues to employ Cold War-era politics. Their tools include AUKUS, the Quad, and even the rumored resurrection of SEATO by the West. The U.S.’s provision of offensive nuclear-powered submarines to Australia signifies the serious commencement of a Second Cold War against China. Regarding SEATO, during the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia (November 2022), the U.S. subtly expressed its desire for an ASEAN-U.S. pact.

The trilateral cooperation agenda of the AUKUS countries is also worth examining. Beyond economic partnerships, London and Washington have decided to bolster their military strength in the Asia-Pacific. Tangibly, Australia is being fully supported by its two partners in acquiring offensive nuclear-powered submarines. According to Will Nankervis (Australia’s Ambassador to ASEAN) and Owen Jenkins (Britain’s Ambassador to Indonesia and Timor-Leste), AUKUS claims to not only serve trilateral interests but also to help maintain ASEAN’s security and stability. But is this truly the case?

The actions of AUKUS—whether aimed at bolstering trilateral defense or confronting China—inevitably have negative implications for ASEAN. These implications are not only in the realm of security but also extend to economic and social domains. ASEAN seems to be placed in a discomforting position, coerced into forming defense partnerships, whether as an ASEAN defense bloc or by aligning with one of the power blocs: the Western bloc (AUKUS-NATO) or the Chinese bloc. ASEAN’s choice of one bloc over the other appears to mark the beginning of its own disintegration. So, what can be done?

Examine China’s Reaction

In response to U.S.-NATO maneuvers, China continues to focus on economic cooperation, particularly with ASEAN. China views Cold War-style politics as outdated. Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, even described such politics as obsolete and mentally inferior, rooted in military confrontation. For China, the Western bloc is provoking an arms race.

Two Cracks, Three Considerations

It is undeniable that with the economic war already underway and an arms race looming over ASEAN, two major fractures threaten the region: the erosion of regional independence and the collapse of economic growth. The primary disruption lies in the Western bloc exploiting the South China Sea conflict, aiming to persuade ASEAN to oppose China. However, this persuasion seems unlikely to succeed due to the deeply entrenched China-ASEAN economic relations. The allure of China lies in its economic prospects.

For ASEAN, the situation is clear. Being dragged into the conflict between the two blocs means its growth in all areas could falter, as an arms race will inevitably drain the human and natural resources of countries in the region. Instead of focusing on “basic needs,” ASEAN may be forced to engage in “military needs.”

ASEAN can still weigh the pros and cons before deciding its course of action.

First, no arms race ever leads to prosperity; instead, it brings destruction on all fronts. The wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere serve as examples. Even wars with anti-terrorism missions never bring peace to those regions but rather leave massive economic, political, social, and cultural devastation. Such conflicts only produce domestic division for the countries involved.

Second, only economic relations can lead nations toward prosperity. Rather than forming military alliances, ASEAN countries should remain steadfast in maintaining economic alliances—whether with China, the U.S., or both economic blocs, the West and BRICS. ASEAN’s growth over the past two decades has been driven by its focus on economic development through the strengthening of basic infrastructure.

Third, choosing one bloc would be counterproductive for ASEAN, risking the loss of everything. It might be wise for ASEAN—especially Indonesia—to remain consistent with Soekarno’s non-aligned doctrine, but reinforced with China’s active-defense doctrine and the NFU (no first use) principle in nuclear weapons policy.

In summary, ASEAN need not align with any bloc but should remain actively engaged in strengthening regional and domestic defense and security, prepared to face threats by any means necessary.

Global Governance and Multilateralism

Jokowi’s “Round Table” Politics

Neo-ASEAN

ASEAN May Falter

Analysis Center for BRICS+ and ASEAN