A

fter its success under the chairmanship of Indonesia in 2011, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) now faces a serious setback after the 45th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, ended in a diplomatic disaster, carrying serious strategic consequences for both the grouping and the region.

For the first time since its establishment in August 1967, ASEAN failed to reach a consensus on the issuance of a joint communiqué that has always served as an important hallmark of ASEAN foreign ministers’ gatherings.

The circumstances surrounding the failure are well known. Cambodia, as the 2012 chair of ASEAN, managed to thwart the wishes of the other nine ASEAN members to include a reference to the South China Sea dispute into the final communiqué. Some ASEAN countries and “anonymous” diplomatic sources, as reported by the media, have blamed Cambodia for acting on behalf of China. There are also those who blame China for using Cambodia as its proxy to block consensus and create disunity among ASEAN members.

But, ASEAN and its principle of consensus are also to blame. While in many past cases this principle has served ASEAN well, there have also been times when ASEAN’s credibility was undermined by the principle. Whatever differences it encountered, ASEAN has always managed to find common ground, even on the most difficult issues, such as in the case of Indonesia’s opposition to the weak terms of reference (ToR) for the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) back in 2009. Therefore, the failure at the 45th AMM is unprecedented and an embarrassment for ASEAN.

Indeed, ASEAN should have just gone ahead with issuing the communiqué even without the consent of the ASEAN chair. Unfortunately, however, there is no mechanism within ASEAN to make such an action possible. Moreover, the protocol and tradition within ASEAN prevented that course of action as the chair, which is also the host, usually exercises the role and is given the authority “to represent” and “act on behalf of” the association. In that position, any ASEAN chair, as demonstrated by Cambodia, can exercise a veto power of sorts to the detriment of the larger interests of the grouping.

Therefore, it is time for ASEAN to once again reconsider its rules and procedures in decision making. If ASEAN wants to be a force for the 21st century, it should have left the principle of absolute consensus behind in the 20th century. The principle of ASEAN-X should be revived. Furthermore, ASEAN should not allow this kind of problem to occur again in the future. ASEAN should never allow itself to be held hostage and intimidated by anyone, be it its own chair, any other member state or any extra-regional power in particular.

The failed 45th AMM, while it once again reveals the inner weakness of ASEAN’s decision-making mechanism, also points to two strategic challenges facing ASEAN.

First, the prospect for an amicable negotiation and early conclusion of the Code of Conduct (CoC) on the South China Sea between ASEAN and China is now uncertain. Without ASEAN speaking with one voice on the issue, it will be difficult to reach an agreement with China. China itself, amid differences between Cambodia and other ASEAN countries on the issue, has returned to its previous habit of saying that talks on the CoC can only proceed “when the time is ripe”.

Second, the differences in strategic orientation and interests among ASEAN member states have begun to point to the grouping’s fear: the polarization of ASEAN. It is very hard to believe that such polarization has nothing to do with the differences in ASEAN member states’ relationships with extra-regional powers.

The greatest challenge for ASEAN in this regard is to prevent this emerging polarization from marginalizing ASEAN itself within the emerging major power rivalries in the region.

Failing to address these challenges would mean the end of ASEAN’s centrality and role as the manager of regional order. Worse, it could also mean the beginning of a post-ASEAN regional order where Southeast Asia once again becomes an appendix to great power politics. Indonesia, as the most committed ASEAN member, should step forward and remind ASEAN that without unity, there is no centrality.

If other ASEAN countries do not share Indonesia’s passion for and commitment to ASEAN, then it is indeed time for us to start another round of debate on the merits of a post-ASEAN foreign policy. We have many other important foreign policy agendas to attend to other than just whining and agonizing over ASEAN’s failures.

The writer is executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta