A ceasefire agreement was reached on Monday, with the help of United States President Donald Trump and Chinese leaders.

It should be obvious for regional leaders to try to ease tensions and calm the situation. The way the Southeast Asian bloc chose not to immediately react to what was happening on the Thai-Cambodian border clearly shows that the principle of non-interference, a fundamental pillar of ASEAN, is not just outdated but also dangerous.

If Myanmar had been officially sanctioned by the bloc, perhaps even temporarily suspended from ASEAN activities, would its civil conflict have been less severe than the current bloodshed?

Maybe ASEAN’s vast, yet still untapped, potential should be reevaluated downward. Would it not be better to adjust our expectations and finally accept that the region will never achieve the best examples of regional integration?

It is not enough to simply cooperate at a regional level, ASEAN has pursued this path for decades with moderate success. But we are now in a different era where geopolitical rivalries are gaining unprecedented momentum, and there is a real risk that ASEAN will be squeezed out of the equation.

The European Union recently concluded a successful summit with Japan. The positive outcomes of those talks in Tokyo are not surprising given the historical alignment between Japan and Europe.

In Beijing, where China and the EU held their bilateral summit, it was clear from the start that the atmosphere was not ideal for celebrating 50 years of relations between the two blocs. Whatever new trade understandings they achieve, we will see how both try to maintain a positive, constructive and civil relationship.

Meanwhile, the months and years ahead will remain complex. China will continue to display magnanimity and farsightedness on one hand, while on the other, proving to be aggressive and dominating when provoked.

The future of US foreign policy will remain an enigma, while Japan, amid its unpredictable political instability, will do its best to stay anchored to the West. South Korea, with a new administration, is trying to move away from hawkish stances that put Seoul in confrontational mode with Beijing and Moscow.

Australia’s labor government seems content to have reset its relationship with China, but it will not be easy for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to truly maintain an amicable rapport with Beijing when China deals with Australia from a position of strength.

There are three scenarios for ASEAN’s future. First is ASEAN as a group of nations that models itself after the old European Economic Community, the EU’s predecessor. The clear difference is that European nations, despite their usual disagreements, never abandoned their goal and ambition to become something bigger and more united.

In this status quo option, ASEAN clearly lacks any overarching goal. Cooperation rather than integration is the mantra. It is a situation where the principle of noninterference becomes synonymous with impotence, and crises cannot be defused or solved, regardless of the rhetoric.

Second is the creation of a vanguard of nations who, unsatisfied with the first option, will want to do more together. While they will not openly embrace the spirit of integration, they will keep the door open to the idea of some forms of light integration. This scenario would build on the existing framework.

Imagine nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, who, to varying degrees, have embraced a more democratic ethos, working together at a higher level. To start, such deeper and higher ambition will not require new common institutions.

Imagine a sort of Southeast Asia’s five group of nations with regular government-level meetings. Yet, in the medium and longer terms, the SEA 5 might feel the need for some kind of institutional framework. If this happens, then Southeast Asia will become a very interesting region to follow because a group of nations will have decided to truly forge a common path.

The third scenario builds further on the option just explained. Imagine a country like the Philippines willing to forge a much higher degree of cooperation with Japan and South Korea. There is tremendous scope for better and stronger partnerships between Tokyo and Seoul.

It is extraordinary, if you think about it, that these two nations haven’t managed to build the trust that France and Germany achieved since the end of World War II. It could make complete sense to create a new political entity led by Japan and South Korea that would not shy away from dealing with geopolitics.

While primarily an economic and trade bloc, I can envision a common parliament, a common secretariat, and a defense mechanism attached to it. The Philippines, at least under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, would be the most suitable partner to co-create this new mechanism. Manila could be a perfect host for such institutions, otherwise, Japan should allow South Korea to establish the institutions in Seoul.

In developing these scenarios, let us not forget that Timor-Leste will soon join ASEAN. Yet, a recent speech by Prime Minister José Alexandre "Xanana" Gusmão at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore was disappointing. Perhaps it was a tactical move to address some last-minute concerns against Timor-Leste’s full membership in ASEAN. But Xanana simply highlighted and praised the sacred principles underpinning ASEAN, principles that, as we know, are not working at all.

Timor-Leste in ASEAN should instead bring determination and a visionary role in pursuing democracy and human rights, regardless of the unfavorable environment within the bloc. If Dili completely succumbs to the ASEAN spirit and way of doing business, then it will be a huge waste.

Unfortunately, "business as usual" in the region is a very high probability, almost a certainty. The leaders of the ASEAN nations might not realize it, but they are sleepwalking into oblivion and indifference.

***

The author is a freelance writer who focuses on human rights, democracy and regional integration in the Asia Pacific.