The Philippine ASEAN Chairship: The positive side of detours

By Josue Raphael J. Cortez

WHEN the Philippines formally assumed the ASEAN Chairship in January, it unveiled three cross-pillar goals it aspires to achieve within the year — security anchors, prosperity corridors, and people empowerment. Undoubtedly, all these are aligned not just with the regional pillars comprising the ASEAN Community, but also Manila’s very own pillars of foreign policy. The very fact that these pathways are strategically designed to make the bloc more adept, with the call of the times, made the country’s hosting more highly anticipated.

Things, however, gradually changed when the armed tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran unfolded. The month-long conflict, currently halted by a ceasefire whose viability remains uncertain, seemingly changed both the geopolitical and geoeconomic landscapes. Sudden shifts to how we do things, similar to what transpired amidst the global pandemic, occurred.

Hence, a rebalancing of ASEAN’s priorities also had to be facilitated in an instant. Hundreds of preparatory meetings, which were slated to be hosted in various parts of the Philippines, had to be transitioned to virtual modality, so as to address rising fuel costs and a looming energy emergency. Safety of navigation and overflight also had to be taken into account, as attacks nowadays are both unpredictable and cataclysmic.

The sudden shifts in priorities and discussions at the regional level were met with mixed perceptions. Some acknowledged that it is a way for the bloc to show its responsiveness and agility to trends needing collective action, while others viewed it as a pivot that would debilitate regional efforts to address perennial matters, including the much-awaited binding document on the South China Sea — among the primary flashpoints in the world today.

On a brighter note, however, the bloc’s decision — with the Philippines as primary steerer of regional conversations this year — to tweak its order of discussions in light of recent circumstances, does not veer away from the three priority areas Manila has espoused early this year. Instead, it can be appreciated as a change of focus to issues that may have more impact on regional stability and order, if left unaddressed. The challenges of our times, which we ought to respond to, on the other hand, also allowed the 11-member organization to further intensify its efforts to integrate economies and decision-making. This is something that could not have occurred without the presence of perils and threats. Indeed, it has always been a part and parcel of ASEAN’s nature to work ever closer in times of crisis.

Although such nature or tendency in regional dynamics can be gleaned as a weakness, there is a big possibility that the recent events have resulted in the reshaping of how we collaborate with our neighbors. Our shared challenges now may have been an impetus to the revamping of collective thinking among regional elites. The Philippine Chairship may have taken a sudden detour, but potentially, the road we are now jointly traversing may provide the building blocks for the betterment of our region for the years to come.

Josue Raphael J. Cortez is a full-time faculty member of the De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde School of Diplomacy and Governance. Aside from teaching, he also serves as the practicum coordinator of its Diplomacy and International Affairs Program. He specialized in the European Union and ASEAN for his further studies at the Ateneo de Manila University, and his research interests include regionalism, discourse on collective identities, and efforts on artificial intelligence in regional blocs.