OCTOBER 22 — When the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean) was founded on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by five countries — Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand — it was not a grand geopolitical project. It was, instead, a pragmatic response to fear. 

Fear of communism spreading through Indochina, fear of Cold War rivalries turning South-east Asia into another proxy battlefield, and fear that newly independent states might collapse under their own internal divisions.

What began as a modest regional pact among neighbours has since evolved into one of the world’s most enduring multilateral institutions. 

Today, Asean includes ten member states, with Timor-Leste preparing to become its eleventh, representing more than 680 million people and a combined economy of over US$3.6 trillion. 

But Asean’s importance cannot be measured in numbers alone. Its real achievement lies in something far less tangible — its ability to keep a deeply diverse region at peace for nearly six decades.

Born from division, built on dialogue

The 1960s were an era of chaos in South-east Asia. Indonesia’s confrontation (Konfrontasi) with Malaysia, the US war in Vietnam, and the communist insurgencies in Thailand and the Philippines made cooperation nearly impossible. 

Yet the five founding members — each grappling with domestic instability — recognised that their security and survival depended on mutual restraint.

The Bangkok Declaration of 1967 was deliberately simple. It made no mention of alliances or military cooperation. Instead, it emphasised amity, non-interference, and consensus.

This understated approach became Asean’s signature. While Europe was integrating through institutions, Asean was integrating through trust.

When the Vietnam War ended in 1975, Asean expanded its diplomatic role. The 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), signed in Bali, codified the principles that continue to guide the organisation today: peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for sovereignty, and non-interference in domestic affairs. 

Critics, not unfairly, have called these principles a recipe for inaction, but history proves otherwise. 

They provided a formula for coexistence in a region that had known little of it especially when one recalls the “Killing Fields of Cambodia,” when it was overrun by the Khmer Rouge in the mid 1970s.

From conflict management to community building

The Cold War tested Asean’s unity, but it also revealed its strategic value. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978, Asean — still only five members strong — acted as a diplomatic bloc to keep the conflict on the world’s agenda. 

It built alliances with China, the United States, and the United Nations to pressure Hanoi and sustain the idea of an independent Cambodia. 

That experience, painful and prolonged, transformed Asean from a symbolic club into a credible regional actor.

By the 1990s, as the Cold War ended, Asean turned from conflict management to community building. 

The 1992 Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA) marked the beginning of economic integration, while the 1997 Asean Vision 2020 articulated a collective aspiration to build a “community of caring societies.” 

Even during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–1998 — when currencies crashed and governments fell — Asean resisted the temptation to fragment. Instead, it created new mechanisms for financial cooperation, eventually leading to the Chiang Mai Initiative in 2000, a regional currency swap arrangement that inspired later East Asian monetary cooperation.

The post-Cold War period also saw Asean’s boldest expansion. Vietnam joined in 1995, followed by Laos and Myanmar in 1997, and Cambodia in 1999. The inclusion of former adversaries was not merely symbolic; it reflected Asean’s belief that peace must precede prosperity, and dialogue must precede reform.

In 2003, Asean leaders committed to forming the Asean Community, structured around three pillars — Political-Security, Economic, and Socio-Cultural. While each of the pillar has their weaknesses, Asean has tried to continue its efforts to be closer together.

This was institutionalised with the Asea Charter of 2007, which transformed Asean from an informal association into a legal entity with greater coherence and global recognition. The Charter enshrined the principle of “the Centrality of Asean,” ensuring that all major regional dialogues — including the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and the East Asia Summit (EAS) — would be anchored around Asean. More importantly, it also promotes great cohesion between member states different ministries, better labour and digital connectivity.

The quiet strength of consensus

Asean’s critics often mistake its slow decision-making for weakness. Yet, consensus is not inertia; it is a deliberate act of balancing. The region’s diversity — in political systems, cultures, and economies — demands patience. 

What appears to outsiders as diplomatic delay is, in fact, a process of collective calibration.

Consensus has allowed Asean to weather crises that might have destroyed other organisations — from the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to the Myanmar military coup, and from maritime disputes in the South China Sea to the Covid-19 pandemic. Its principle of non-interference may seem outdated to some, but in practice it prevents the bloc from fracturing along ideological lines. 

Asean’s cohesion is its greatest strategic asset — and its slow pace, paradoxically, its strength.

Asean’s global relevance today

Today, Asean sits at the crossroads of every major geopolitical rivalry. The US–China competition, the Ukraine war, and tensions in the South China Sea all converge in South-east Asia’s diplomatic theatre. 

Yet Asean has maintained neutrality and dialogue. Its frameworks — from the Asean Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) — show that the region is not merely reacting to global events but shaping them.

As other institutions falter, Asean’s endurance matters even more. The UN Security Council is paralysed by vetoes; the World Trade Organisation (WTO) struggles to enforce rules; but Asean continues to convene leaders from East and West, North and South. It is not a military bloc or an ideological club, but a bridge — connecting civilisations and sustaining dialogue when the world needs it most. 

For example, Asean supports the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) too in 2018 to keep the TPP alive in March 2018 in Chile. 

Malaysia’s continuing role

For Malaysia, a founding member, Asean has always been more than a regional project; it is a pillar of its foreign policy identity. 

From Tun Abdul Razak’s diplomacy in 1967 to Anwar Ibrahim’s leadership today, Malaysia has seen Asean as both shield and stage — a platform to project moderation, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence. As Malaysia prepares to chair Asean again in 2025, the task is to renew Asean’s relevance by grounding innovation in its original ethos: dialogue over domination, unity over uniformity.

Conclusion

Asean’s history is not a story of perfection, but of perseverance. It was born from fear, matured through crisis, and survived by compromise. 

Its endurance is a quiet triumph in a region once synonymous with instability.

As the world fractures under great-power rivalry, the lessons of Asean’s history — humility, patience, and consensus — may well be what global diplomacy needs most. 

In remembering where Asean came from, we also rediscover why it still matters: because peace, however imperfect, remains the foundation of every civilisation that hopes to endure. 

Thus, be that as it may that the intra-regional trade of Asean, is less than 23 percent, Asean is still around to facilitate various leaders to meet face to face. 

Dialogue Partners such as Australia, Canada, especially Japan, has each played a powerful role to maintain the cohesion of Asean between 1973-1977. It was Japan that began an informal dialogue with Asean in 1973 before formalising it in 1977. 

As of September 2025, Japan continues to foster the best practices of a de-carbonised world through the Asia Zero Emissions Community (AZEC). 

With Australia, Canada and New Zealand, indeed, China and South Korea, not excluding India, all promoting a more resilient Asean. 

With each trying to do more and more with Asean, such joint endeavors are impressive. All is not perfect of course. Each of these countries must also end the proliferation of digital scamming, especially in Indo-China, without which the intra-regional and extra regional cohesion would be waylaid by insidious forces that try to pillage and plunder from the benefits that have been gained. 

The US and UK’s joint sanctions against the Prince Group in Cambodia is thefore a timely move to say the least coupled with China’s crackdown on these nefarious activity.

* Phar Kim Beng, is professor of Asean Studies and Director, Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS), International Islamic University Malaysia. Luthfy Hamzah is a Research Fellow at IINTAS.

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