The recent decision by China and Russia to block a consensus statement of Southeast Asian nations at the East Asia Summit (EAS), primarily over language related to the contested South China Sea, highlights the growing geopolitical friction in the Indo-Pacific region.

According to a US official, the main point of contention was the language addressing the South China Sea disputes, where several Southeast Asian nations, as well as the US, Japan, South Korea and Australia, have expressed concerns about China’s increasingly assertive stance.

This development carries significant repercussions for the ongoing tensions in the disputed waterway and raises questions about the future of regional cooperation.

China’s claim, known as the “nine-dash line,” covers almost the entirety of the South China Sea, including areas claimed by Southeast Asian nations. China has reinforced its territorial ambitions by building artificial islands, militarizing them, and conducting regular military exercises.

Efforts to resolve these disputes have long been hampered by China’s unwillingness to negotiate on what it sees as its sovereign territory. While ASEAN countries, backed by external powers like the US and Japan, seek to maintain freedom of navigation and a rules-based order, China continues to assert its dominance through coercion and a military presence. Russia’s support of China’s stance further complicates any regional consensus on addressing the dispute.

China’s and Russia’s veto of the consensus statement reflects their broader foreign policy objectives. For China, the South China Sea is crucial to its strategic military ambitions and economic security, and any diplomatic language that challenges its claims threatens its position.

Russia, while not a direct stakeholder in the South China Sea, sees value in aligning with China, particularly as both nations face increasing pressure from the West. This partnership is part of a larger geopolitical alignment between the two countries to counterbalance US influence globally.

The repercussions of blocking the statement are significant for regional diplomacy. The inability to issue a consensus statement on such a vital issue weakens ASEAN’s centrality in dealing with regional security concerns.

ASEAN’s unity is often seen as a counterbalance to major powers like China, and the failure to come to an agreement suggests that the organization may struggle to manage disputes involving external powers. The division created by China and Russia could lead to a more fragmented ASEAN, with some members leaning towards China for economic or security reasons, while others align more closely with the US and its allies.

The US, Japan, South Korea and Australia, all of whom expressed support for the draft statement, see freedom of navigation and adherence to international law in the South China Sea as paramount to maintaining regional stability. The US in particular has repeatedly conducted “freedom of navigation operations” (FoNOPs) to challenge China’s claims, sailing naval vessels through contested waters to assert that they are part of international maritime territory.

By blocking the EAS statement, China and Russia are signaling their opposition to these efforts and their desire to set their own terms for regional order. This move will likely lead to a further deterioration of US-China relations, as well as strained ties between China and US allies in the region.

The US has sought to build stronger security partnerships with nations like Japan, South Korea and Australia, as well as bolster its presence in Southeast Asia to counter China’s growing influence. China’s defiance in the South China Sea only strengthens the resolve of these nations to work together, potentially escalating military and diplomatic tensions.

The breakdown in consensus at the EAS is also indicative of a larger geopolitical realignment. As China and Russia continue to assert their positions, the US and its allies are likely to increase their strategic engagements in the Indo-Pacific region. This could manifest in more military cooperation, joint naval exercises, and a greater emphasis on multilateral forums like the Quad (comprising the US, Japan, India and Australia) to address regional security challenges.

For Southeast Asian nations, this poses a dilemma. They rely on China for economic growth but look to the US for security guarantees. The inability to issue a consensus statement on the South China Sea may push these countries to recalibrate their foreign policies, seeking a delicate balance between economic cooperation with China and security alignment with the US and its allies.