The border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia last week brought out a discussion I deem vital for us as citizens of an ASEAN member state. This is the ASEAN Way, a set of diplomatic behaviors that include non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, consensus, and amicable ways of settling disputes. The 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation agreed upon by the five founding members lays the foundation of the ASEAN Way.

Moreover, the diverse political systems and histories, varied levels of economic development and unique histories among ASEAN member states makes it a unique melting pot in the world.

Consider that among ASEAN's five founding members, only Thailand is a monarchy with an established political culture going back centuries. The other countries were newly independent democracies transitioning from colonial rule in the aftermath of World War 2. Brunei joined in 1984. Often seen as a bulwark against communist expansion during the cold war, ASEAN took in its first socialist member Vietnam in 1995, further broadening the diversity of political cultures and diplomacy. Other countries joined in the years that followed, with Timor Leste becoming the 11th member this year.

ASEAN’s history and diversity therefore demand a diplomatic culture that emphasizes commonalities and breeds trust in order to move forward in addressing common issues and concerns. In my view, this encouraged the ASEAN Way. This diversity demanded space for discussions that do not prejudge or undermine the interests of each member state, in order for common ground to be built. This in turn, became a platform for dispute settlement and the furtherance of concerted efforts to address common challenges, including political stability. The ASEAN way, I believe, helped members navigate the diversity and forge unity with the transitions and challenges that could otherwise breed frictions.

The ASEAN way has its critics, of course, who deem it a continuous coffee table talk shop mechanism full of form with little substance. Many, I would surmise, would want ASEAN to take bold stances to “police” its members deemed errant by them. On the other hand, I believe the ASEAN Way helped members focus on long-term goals such as forging the three pillars: the ASEAN politico-security, economic, and socio-cultural communities, with plans and programs to pursue further cooperation under the umbrella of each pillar.

Looking through history, however, reveals many tests of the ASEAN Way. The 1997 Cambodian crisis, which saw three ASEAN countries, including our own, helping heal tensions in that country, is a case in point. While these issues did occur among countries that were yet to join ASEAN, the bloc's action at these times, I believe, slowly strengthened the ASEAN way as an approach to address common issues within Southeast Asia, building the confidence of countries that eventually joined ASEAN. Another is the effort to manage the transboundary haze in Indonesia and Malaysia which would often be felt in Mindanao.

With this, the current conflict between Thailand and Cambodia needs to be addressed by ASEAN, in order for meaningful multilateral facilitation of conflict resolution to take place.

With the ASEAN Way, the historical moments such as conflict situations and realities against which it is applied, we see an ASEAN that is evolving into a potent platform for regional consolidation and multilateral cooperation as we all face current and future uncertainties. How it harnesses these to address more complicated future challenges bears watching.