Is ASEAN a mere talk shop?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has long prided itself on fostering regional cooperation, economic growth, and political dialogue among its ten member states.

Yet, despite the annual flurry of summits, ministerial meetings, and joint declarations, critics increasingly view ASEAN as a mere “talk shop” — long on words but short on action. Nowhere is this perception more evident than in its handling of critical regional issues such as the West Philippine Sea dispute, human rights violations, and political instability in member states.

The question then lingers: has ASEAN failed to evolve into an effective bloc capable of charting a united and assertive response to shared challenges?

One of the most glaring examples of ASEAN’s limitations is its tepid approach to the South China Sea dispute, particularly the West Philippine Sea — territories claimed by China but also heavily contested by several ASEAN members.

While ASEAN has been engaging China in prolonged negotiations for a Code of Conduct (CoC) to govern activities in the disputed waters, progress has been painstakingly slow. Talks have dragged on for over two decades, with no binding agreement in sight. Drafts of the CoC remain riddled with vague language and non-committal provisions, making it unlikely to deter aggressive maneuvers or ensure maritime stability.

China’s strategy of engaging ASEAN as a bloc while simultaneously courting its individual members using economic incentives has effectively divided the group.

Countries such as Cambodia and Laos, which rely heavily on Chinese investments, have been accused of blocking or watering down stronger statements against Chinese incursions. This undermines ASEAN’s centrality and consensus-based decision-making model, revealing its structural weakness when faced with complex geopolitical tensions.

Nonetheless, ASEAN cannot be entirely dismissed as a failure. It has succeeded in promoting peace and avoiding full-scale conflicts among its diverse members, many of whom were former adversaries. It has also fostered regional economic integration through the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), reduced tariffs, and facilitated smoother labor and capital mobility.

Furthermore, ASEAN’s strategic partnerships with global powers — such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union — have elevated its diplomatic profile on the world stage.

On the West Philippine Sea issue, while ASEAN has not produced a robust collective front, it has helped provide diplomatic space for member states like the Philippines and Vietnam to air their concerns in multilateral settings.

The bloc has also been instrumental in maintaining dialogues that, at the very least, prevent the escalation of conflicts. The mere fact that negotiations with China continue, albeit at a glacial pace, demonstrates ASEAN’s potential as a convening power, if not yet an enforcing one.

However, for ASEAN to shed the “talk shop” label, it must move beyond consensus-for-the-sake-of-consensus. It needs institutional reforms that would allow for majority decision-making on urgent matters, more accountability mechanisms, and the political will to uphold international law — even if it means confronting uncomfortable truths about members’ behavior or Chinese pressure. A strong and united ASEAN must prioritize regional security and sovereignty over short-term economic gain and diplomatic platitudes.

As such, ASEAN stands at a crossroads. It can either continue its tradition of diplomatic caution and risk irrelevance, or it can transform into a more assertive and cohesive force.

The West Philippine Sea is the litmus test — not just of ASEAN’s unity, but of its credibility.

Whether it rises to meet the challenge or retreats into polite inaction will define its future in the shifting geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific.