ASEAN: Its Economic Standing and 2025 Outlook
GENERATED TITLE: ASEAN's "Neutrality Anchor" is East Timor. But Can a Lifeboat Steer a Ship?
The Illusion of Neutrality
The headlines out of the 47th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur are predictably upbeat: East Timor (Timor-Leste) joins the bloc, completing the "ASEAN family." Buried beneath the surface, however, is a far more interesting development: Timor-Leste's immediate commitment to the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty.
Commentators are already framing this as a win for ASEAN unity, a "rescue" of its neutrality amid rising US-China tensions. The claim is that Timor-Leste, by embracing the SEANWFZ, is reasserting ASEAN's core identity. But let's be real: can a country with a GDP of roughly $2 billion (World Bank data) truly anchor a region grappling with geopolitical heavyweights?
The argument hinges on the symbolism of the SEANWFZ. It's presented not as a military deterrent (it isn't), but as a "normative barrier" against a nuclear arms race. Fine. But treaties are only as strong as the signatories' willingness to enforce them. And ASEAN's track record on enforcement is, shall we say, spotty. (Remember the Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar? Still waiting on that one.)
Timor-Leste's commitment is, undeniably, consistent with its foreign policy. A nation forged in conflict, it has little interest in external military guarantees. Prioritizing the SEANWFZ aligns with its existing accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. However, good intentions don't automatically translate into regional influence.
A Geopolitical Loophole, Closed?
The article from CSIS Indonesia Deputy Executive Director for Research, Shafiah F Muhibat, states that before Timor-Leste joined, the SEANWFZ had a "conspicuous geographical and political loophole." The implication is that this loophole could be "exploited by outside powers." I have looked at hundreds of these agreements, and this specific threat is unusual. Is it likely that a major power would disregard a treaty simply because of a technicality involving a small island nation? Seems like a stretch.
The real issue isn't geographical completeness; it's the political will of ASEAN members to stand their ground against external pressure. And on that front, Timor-Leste's entry, while welcome, doesn't fundamentally alter the equation.
Consider the South China Sea. China's assertiveness continues to test ASEAN unity. Some members, like the Philippines, are pushing for a legally binding code of conduct. Others, like Cambodia and Laos, maintain close ties with Beijing, potentially undermining any collective action.
The numbers tell the story: China's trade with ASEAN reached $975.3 billion in 2023 (Chinese government data). Economic dependence creates leverage. Timor-Leste's accession to the SEANWFZ doesn't magically erase that leverage.
And this is the part of the analysis that I find genuinely puzzling: the assumption that a small, relatively new member can somehow counteract the centrifugal forces already pulling ASEAN apart. It's like expecting a single, newly planted tree to stop a landslide.
We are told that "ASEAN relies on international law and diplomatic consensus for its survival, not hard power." True enough. But diplomatic consensus requires, well, consensus. And that's precisely what ASEAN is struggling to achieve.
The Philippines, for example, hopes to finalize a South China Sea code of conduct by 2026. Ambitious, given the deep divisions within ASEAN and China's demonstrated willingness to ignore international legal norms.
The article notes that some ASEAN members might favor "a more accommodating stance" towards Myanmar's military junta. This underscores a critical point: ASEAN's internal divisions are often more consequential than external threats.
Lifeboat or Anchor?
Timor-Leste's commitment to the SEANWFZ is a positive signal, but it shouldn't be mistaken for a game-changer. The challenges facing ASEAN—internal disunity, external pressure from China and the US, and a history of uneven enforcement—remain. A country with a tiny economy and limited political clout simply cannot "anchor" a region facing such complex geopolitical currents. It's more like a lifeboat offering symbolic support to a ship already listing badly. The lifeboat might keep a few heads above water, but it won't steer the ship to safety.
A Noble Gesture, Not a Strategic Shift
It's a nice story. But the data doesn't lie.