KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 14 — When bombs fall on Kyiv or Kharkiv, Southeast Asia may seem distant — geographically insulated, politically cautious, and economically preoccupied with its own recovery. Yet, the war in Ukraine is not merely a European tragedy; it is a global stress test of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the credibility of international law. Asean cannot afford to treat it as a peripheral issue.

A distant war with direct consequences

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, global supply chains have been repeatedly disrupted. Fertiliser shortages have affected Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil yields. Rising wheat prices have strained food security in the Philippines and Vietnam. Energy costs have soared across the region, forcing countries to re-evaluate subsidies and long-term energy transitions.

These are not abstract problems. They demonstrate that the erosion of sovereignty anywhere reverberates everywhere. If the international community normalises the annexation of territory by force, smaller states — especially those in Southeast Asia — will face a future where might once again makes right.

Asean, born from the trauma of Cold War interventions, should understand this more than most. The region’s peace and prosperity rest on the sanctity of borders and the principle of non-aggression. Ukraine’s ordeal is therefore a mirror of what Asean must never allow to happen within its own neighbourhood.

Neutrality should not mean indifference

Asean’s collective response to the war in Ukraine has been cautious, even timid. Statements have expressed “concern,” but avoided naming Russia as the aggressor. This reflects Asean’s doctrine of non-interference and its aversion to taking sides in global conflicts. Yet, neutrality is not the same as moral blindness.

Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore have individually condemned the invasion.

Vietnam and Laos, traditionally closer to Moscow, have preferred silence. This divergence reveals an uncomfortable truth: Asean’s consensus model, once celebrated for its inclusivity, now risks paralysing its moral compass.

If Asean remains silent on Ukraine, it weakens its own ability to demand restraint in the South China Sea, Myanmar, or anywhere else sovereignty is threatened. The principle of non-interference was never intended to shield aggression. It was designed to preserve peace among equals.

Parallels between Kyiv and Southeast Asia

Ukraine’s struggle is not foreign to Asean’s experience. Both regions emerged from the ruins of empire, navigating between larger powers that see them as buffers or bridgeheads. Ukraine stands between NATO and Russia; Asean stands between the United States and China.

Just as Ukraine sought strategic autonomy without provoking either camp, Asean has long pursued “centrality” — the ability to convene rather than to choose sides.

But centrality requires credibility. If Asean refuses to speak clearly on the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, it risks losing moral legitimacy to act as a convener in its own region.

Imagine a future where a Southeast Asian state faces similar encroachment. If Asean’s precedent is silence today, it will have no grounds for solidarity tomorrow. Kyiv’s suffering is thus not only Europe’s warning — it is Asean’s rehearsal.

The economic stakes of distance

Even beyond the moral imperative, Asean’s economic future is entangled with the fate of Ukraine.

Both regions are linked through global markets for grain, energy, and rare metals essential for green technologies. Ukraine is a major supplier of lithium and nickel — resources crucial to Asean’s electric-vehicle ambitions.

The reconstruction of Ukraine, once peace takes hold, will open vast opportunities in infrastructure, energy transition, and digital innovation.

Asean, through its experience in post-conflict recovery and regional institution-building, could offer valuable partnership. A coordinated Asean–Ukraine framework on reconstruction, possibly under the aegis of the Asean–EU Dialogue Partnership, would signal that Southeast Asia contributes not only to peace in Asia but also to global recovery.

Russia, China, and the strategic equation

Asean’s hesitation also stems from geopolitical calculus. Russia remains a major defence supplier to Vietnam, Myanmar, and Indonesia. China’s alignment with Moscow adds another layer of complexity. Yet, over-caution risks portraying Asean as a bloc that bends to pressure rather than principles.

During the Cold War, Asean managed to balance superpowers through engagement and dialogue — not silence. It invited both Washington and Moscow to the table. It created forums like the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and Asean Defence Plus Meetings precisely to institutionalise communication in times of conflict.

The Ukraine war, therefore, is not a reason for Asean to retreat into neutrality but an opportunity to revive its diplomatic agility.

Malaysia and Indonesia could jointly propose a Special Asean Session on Conflict Resolution and Reconstruction to explore how lessons from Ukraine might inform peacebuilding in Myanmar and beyond. In doing so, Asean would transform distant tragedy into regional learning.

Humanitarian solidarity as strategic diplomacy

Ukraine’s humanitarian catastrophe — millions displaced, families divided, cities erased — should resonate with Asean’s own history.

From the Vietnamese boat people to the Rohingya crisis, Southeast Asia has known the pain of forced migration. Asean’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), often dismissed as toothless, has a long way to go before it can find renewed purpose.

That is becoming a coordinating humanitarian outreach. Without local regional practices, Asean would not understand the plight of the Ukrainian refugees.

Such gestures need not be grand. Scholarships for displaced Ukrainian students, medical relief missions, or technology assistance through Asean’s science cooperation frameworks would all signal moral leadership without provoking geopolitical backlash.

Compassion, after all, is not interference; it is humanity.

Lessons for Asean’s security outlook

The Ukraine war underscores a timeless lesson: security guarantees are fragile, and alliances are conditional. When deterrence fails, survival depends on national resilience and regional cooperation.

For Asean, this means accelerating its own security and defence dialogues — from joint maritime patrols to cyber-defence frameworks — under the Asean Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus).

Ukraine’s tragedy demonstrates that political sovereignty without credible defence capacity invites coercion. But defence without diplomacy risks escalation. Asean must strengthen both — building deterrence while keeping dialogue open.

Reclaiming the moral voice of the Global South

Finally, Asean should see Ukraine not through Western or Russian lenses, but through its own experience as part of the Global South. The principles at stake — sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination — are the same principles that gave birth to Asean in 1967.

When Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore co-sponsored the 1955 Bandung Conference’s call for peace, they affirmed that neutrality must serve justice, not indecision. That spirit must return.

A joint Asean statement reaffirming the inviolability of national borders and rejecting unilateral annexation — without naming any country — would reaffirm Asean’s moral agency. It would show that regionalism can coexist with universal principles.

Conclusion: Distance does not mean detachment

Ukraine may seem far from Asean’s daily concerns, but the erosion of international norms anywhere weakens peace everywhere.

Just as the Gaza ceasefire teaches the value of human restraint, Ukraine reminds us of the cost of strategic silence.

Asean’s relevance depends not on its size or its statements but on its capacity to act when values are under siege. To ignore Ukraine is to forget what made Asean credible in the first place: the belief that peace is indivisible.

If Asean wants the world to stand with it in times of peril, it must first show that it stands with the world when principles are violated — even when the battlefield lies thousands of miles away. 

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is a professor of Asean Studies and director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies (Iintas) at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Luthfy Hamzah is a research fellow, and Rahmah Azizan is a research associate at the same institute.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.