ASEAN & the Global Abandonment of Rules

Nowhere is this erosion more glaring than in Gaza, where Israel’s sustained assault has not only devastated civilian life but also shredded the normative scaffolding of humanitarian law. At the time of writing, 55000 people have been killed, the majority women and children. Entire neighbourhoods razed. Doctors and journalists murdered. Humanitarian convoys attacked. Famine used as a weapon of war. While the International Court of Justice found plausible grounds to investigate Israel for genocide, Tel Aviv continues its campaign with impunity, backed—at least tacitly—by powerful allies unwilling to restrain it.

More recently, Israel’s brazen strike on Iranian soil—ostensibly to prevent Iran’s initiation of a war—adds another layer of volatility. It risks a regional conflagration and openly disregards the international norm against unprovoked aggression on sovereign territory. These are not isolated infractions. They signal a dangerous trend: the steady unravelling of multilateralism, replaced by an age-old doctrine—might is right.

Such a world is perilous not just for Gaza or Tehran. It is particularly threatening for regions like Southeast Asia, where small and medium powers have long relied on a rules-based order to safeguard sovereignty and sustain economic growth. As the West falters in enforcing its own values, and as global institutions like the United Nations are paralysed by geopolitics, ASEAN faces a strategic dilemma: whether to retreat into national silos or to chart a collective course in defence of shared interests.

The collapse of international restraint in the Israel-Gaza conflict is not merely a failure of Western diplomacy. It is symptomatic of a broader loss of faith in international institutions. The ICJ, ICC, UNRWA, and even the UN Security Council have been undermined or selectively dismissed. While countries like South Africa seek recourse through legal channels, the results have been largely symbolic. Powerful states—and those under their umbrella—act first and justify later, if at all.

This mirrors the double standards that many in the Global South have long observed: Russia is sanctioned for invading Ukraine; Israel receives bombs and blank checks. In both cases, the core principle—that sovereignty and human rights should not be violated with impunity—has been breached. But only one draws meaningful rebuke.

This selective enforcement fuels a shift in global sentiment. From Latin America to Southeast Asia, emerging economies are recalibrating their alliances and hedging their bets. They understand that power—not principle—is once again the primary currency in international affairs.

ASEAN finds itself at a crossroads. Its strength lies in unity, but its default mode is non-interference. While this principle has helped avoid internal fractures, it also risks irrelevance in a world where silence is complicity and fragmentation invites external meddling.

Our region cannot afford passivity. Many of its members have expressed outrage over the situation in Gaza, and rightly so. But expressions of sympathy, without strategic follow-through, achieve little. ASEAN should view the Gaza crisis not only as a humanitarian catastrophe, but also as a harbinger of global disorder that could eventually engulf its own backyard.

The South China Sea is an obvious flashpoint. China continues to challenge the sovereignty of several ASEAN members with growing assertiveness, confident that the international community will offer little more than verbal condemnation. If ASEAN cannot demonstrate that it takes international law seriously elsewhere—especially when the victims are distant and politically marginal—it loses the moral and political capital to demand respect for law closer to home.

ASEAN has options. First, it can push for a more consistent and principled foreign policy stance—particularly on matters of humanitarian law and sovereignty. Malaysia and Indonesia have shown that strong,

independent voices can garner international attention. But isolated condemnation is less effective than a coordinated front. A collective ASEAN position carries diplomatic weight and signals resolve.

Second, ASEAN can deepen its engagement with other middle powers—South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, and Nordic countries—who are increasingly aligned on the need to preserve multilateralism. These alliances can build momentum for reforming global governance structures and give ASEAN members more room to manoeuvre between superpower rivalries.

Third, the bloc should begin institutionalising responses to humanitarian crises beyond its borders. This need not breach the non-interference principle if framed correctly: as a commitment to universal values, not regime change. Joint humanitarian aid missions, support for UN agencies, and regional refugee frameworks are within reach and would burnish ASEAN’s credibility as a responsible regional actor.

History suggests that non-aligned and middle powers fare best not when they hunker down but when they act together. The Non-Aligned Movement in the Cold War, the formation of the European Union post-WWII, and even the original conception of ASEAN in 1967 were all strategic responses to global turbulence. They were imperfect, but they were rooted in a shared understanding: collective strength offers more protection than isolated defiance.

The current moment requires similar boldness. In a world where Gaza burns and international courts are ignored, neutrality is no longer neutral—it is submission. ASEAN, and countries like Malaysia, must decide whether they are prepared to adapt to a new world disorder, or whether they will help shape a new equilibrium.

Because in the end, the choice is stark: either middle powers shape the rules that protect them—or they are left to the mercy of those who ignore them.

______________________________________________________________________________________