Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
For decades, ASEAN has been described through familiar binaries: mainland versus maritime, authoritarian versus democratic, China-leaning versus US-aligned. These frames once helped outsiders make sense of Southeast Asia’s diversity. Today, they obscure more than they explain.
A quieter but more consequential divide is emerging, one that cuts across ideology and geography alike. It is not about which great power ASEAN states prefer, but how much strategic risk they are willing to absorb. In effect, Southeast Asia is increasingly split between risk-takers and risk-avoiders.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the contrasting trajectories of the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
The Philippines: Choosing Exposure Over Ambiguity
The Philippines has become ASEAN’s most visible risk-taker. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Manila has decisively stepped away from its earlier hedging posture and embraced strategic clarity. Expanded defence access agreements, more frequent joint exercises, and vocal alignment with the United States and Japan signal a willingness to absorb both deterrence benefits and retaliation risks. The logic is straightforward: ambiguity no longer protects Philippine interests in the South China Sea; it only invites encroachment.
This posture carries costs. Economic retaliation, diplomatic pressure, and the possibility of becoming an early crisis flashpoint are real risks. Yet Manila appears to have calculated that the dangers of inaction outweigh the dangers of exposure. Strategic certainty, in this view, is not escalation, it is insurance.
The Philippines is betting that being explicit about red lines, partners, and expectations reduces the likelihood of miscalculation. It is a gamble rooted not in ideological alignment, but in threat proximity.
Indonesia: Strategic Patience as National Doctrine
Indonesia represents the opposite end of ASEAN’s risk spectrum. Jakarta has long framed itself as the region’s natural balancer, too large to be ignored, too independent to be absorbed.
Despite growing Chinese assertiveness around the Natuna Islands, Indonesia has resisted militarized signalling or alliance-style commitments. Its response has been deliberate, procedural, and legalistic: renaming maritime zones, conducting limited patrols, and reinforcing diplomatic messaging without dramatization.
This is not indecision; it is strategic risk avoidance by design. Indonesia’s leadership views overt alignment as a net liability, one that could undermine ASEAN centrality, provoke economic consequences, and constrain Jakarta’s diplomatic autonomy.
Indonesia is betting that time, institutional legitimacy, and regional consensus still matter. The risk, of course, is that restraint may be interpreted as permissiveness in an era where faits accomplis outpace formal processes.
Vietnam: Calculated Ambiguity With Sharp Edges
Vietnam occupies the uneasy middle ground between these two approaches. Like the Philippines, it faces direct pressure in the South China Sea. Like Indonesia, it remains deeply allergic to alliance entanglements.
Hanoi’s strategy blends military modernization, quiet security cooperation with multiple partners, and ideological continuity at home. Vietnam is strengthening deterrence without crossing the threshold into formal alignment, engaging the United States, Japan, India, and even Russia while maintaining stable ties with China.
This calibrated ambiguity is itself a form of risk management. Vietnam accepts tactical friction but avoids strategic exposure. It invests heavily in resilience, naval capabilities, domestic legitimacy, and economic diversification, while keeping escalation ladders deliberately unclear.
Yet this balance is increasingly difficult to sustain. As regional polarization sharpens, ambiguity itself becomes riskier. The more clearly others choose sides, the more Vietnam must work to preserve its room for manoeuvre.
What This Means for ASEAN, and Japan
These diverging choices reveal ASEAN’s real fracture line. The region is not splitting over values or camps, but over how much uncertainty each state is willing to live with. Risk-takers prioritize deterrence clarity over flexibility. Risk-avoiders prioritize autonomy over immediacy. Both strategies are rational responses to different geographies, histories, and domestic constraints, but they are pulling ASEAN in different operational directions.
For Japan, this distinction matters more than simplistic alignment charts. Tokyo’s partnerships in Southeast Asia cannot be one-size-fits-all. Supporting the Philippines requires reassurance and capacity-building. Engaging Indonesia requires patience and respect for process. Working with Vietnam demands quiet, long-term trust rather than public symbolism.
Most importantly, Japan must recognize that ASEAN’s unity will increasingly be procedural rather than strategic. Consensus may persist in statements, but divergence will define action. The question is not whether ASEAN is fragmenting, it already is, in practice. The question is whether this fragmentation can be managed without eroding regional stability.
In Southeast Asia today, the most important choice is no longer who to align with, but how much risk to accept. And on that question, ASEAN is quietly, but decisively, divided.
Siddhartha Arora is a mechanical engineer and MBA based in Japan who works in AI-enabled product development and writes on geopolitics and international affairs. Siddhartha.arora102@gmail.com
These pieces are being published as they have been received—they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.