THIS is undoubtedly the gravest and most urgent question facing humanity today: How can the nations of our world advance peace and development?
Amid escalating global tensions, the upcoming summits of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum could offer answers to this life-and-death issue of our time, if both groupings hold fast to their harmony-building tenets.
Consider the Asean first. Nearly six decades ago, in 1967, five Southeast Asian nations confronted the challenge of peacemaking in an ideologically fissured world. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand established the Asean as a nonmilitary grouping free from Cold War ideological leanings.
It eventually superseded the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (Seato) — an anti-communist bloc formed and led by the United States, mirroring the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ranged against the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact in Europe.
Asean’s peace-building pathBy committing to its founding vision of becoming a “Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality,” the Asean accomplished what few regions managed during and after the Cold War: peace, neutrality and “centrality” — the grouping’s term for bringing together major powers, even rivals, in productive, harmonious dialogue.
Following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, Southeast Asia avoided major prolonged conflicts, experiencing only brief, localized hostilities across half a century of broad harmony. Rather than maintaining rigid ideological walls, the grouping welcomed once-estranged socialist neighbors, beginning with its most feared former adversary, Vietnam, in 1995, followed by Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar in subsequent years.
With Timor-Leste’s accession in October last year, the 11-nation aggrupation further buttressed diplomatic “centrality” as global and regional superpowers flocked to engage its forums and frameworks, which most other regional groupings never achieved.
That centrality would never have materialized had the Asean abandoned the middle ground to align with one superpower, even though individual members are close to competing giants, from the US-allied Philippines to China-leaning Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.
The grouping aced its defining post-Cold War test in the 1990s by integrating Vietnam despite decades of bitter ideological division and Vietnam’s decade-long occupation of Cambodia until 1989.
Compare that record with Europe’s trajectory under NATO. Despite the geopolitical, economic and military collapse of Soviet communism — and despite Western leaders’ assurances against eastward expansion — NATO steadily enlarged its territorial and military footprints. Even Russia’s overtures to join the alliance from 1990s leader Boris Yeltsin were rebuffed.
Today, Europe remains split into heavily armed camps, and conflict has erupted twice in Ukraine over its bid to join NATO, a move that would place nuclear-capable Western forces within minutes of Moscow.
The Asean’s lesson for our war-torn world is unmistakable: building diplomatic and economic ties with and between rival powers, rather than lining up phalanxes of armies and armaments, is the true path to peace.
Complementary lessonAPEC offers a complementary lesson from the economic sphere. The forum drives trade, investment and practical engagement across its 21 member economies spanning Asia and the Americas.
Crucially, APEC is structured around “economies,” rather than strictly sovereign states, allowing participation from territories not widely recognized as independent nations, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan. This pragmatic design ensures that vital economic activity continues and shared commercial challenges are addressed without getting paralyzed by questions over sovereignty.
By keeping its focus squarely on economic cooperation, APEC cushions regional commerce against geopolitical and security shocks. Contrast this with the World Economic Forum, where the war in Ukraine led to Russia’s exclusion and turned sessions into platforms not merely for assessing global economic fallout but for coordinating sanctions and pressuring Moscow.
Of course, APEC is not immune to geopolitics; a direct military clash between major members would test its cohesion, and the absence of North Korea and Myanmar from its roster has undoubtedly spared the forum from acute political friction.
Still, APEC’s resilience underscores the value of preserving neutral spaces for dialogue, even as observers watch closely to see how increasingly testy relations between the US and its neighbors in the Americas might strain future summits.
Two futures for our regionLooking ahead over the next several years, however, one clear threat to both the Asean and APEC is geopolitical: the intensifying military matchup between China and a US-led coalition comprising Japan, Australia, and the Philippines.
Dubbed the “Squad” in strategic circles — effectively swapping the Philippines for India in the original Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) — this new bloc has moved far beyond diplomatic consultation. With the Philippines set to host a military coordination center and expand joint defense exercises, the Squad has taken on the unmistakable character of an armed alliance — the Asian NATO Uncle Sam has sought to revive after Seato’s long demise.
This leaves both the Asean and the Philippines at a historic crossroads. We must decide whether the regional grouping and one of its founding pillars would abandon decades of neutrality and centrality, with a key member becoming the forward hub of a military coalition squared off against China and its partners.
Asia then ponders two futures, both prefigured by historical events. One is the current direction of refusing to take sides in superpower rivalry and giving paramount commitment to long-term peace, harmony, cooperation, development and prosperity.
This direction reflects the centuries of East Asian peace before the West and Japan brought imperial and ideological divides and the region’s bloodiest conflicts: imperialist attacks on China, America’s conquest of the Philippines, two world wars, the Chinese civil war, and Cold War proxy hostilities in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.
The other path is NATO-style balance of power with the frontline bristling along the so-called First Island Chain, from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines.
While purportedly for the security of the last two lands, in fact, this American scheme to contain China gives it the very reason to take over its neighbors. And those seeking proof that superpowers would wage war if faced with nearby threats should look at the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and the two Ukraine invasions.
So, what tomorrow does Asia wish? Peace-building or arms buildup? Centrality or hostility?
