Since then, ASEAN has driven cooperation between these 10 countries. Given the diversity in their demography, histories, cultures, languages, religions, economies, political systems and economic bases, it is extraordinary that this association has held together at all.

In one sense, the aspirations of establishing the ASEAN economic, political and social communities have been realised. In the 50 years since its creation, ASEAN has facilitated a massive rise in intra- and extra-regional trade along with a commensurate rise in prosperity and security. ASEAN now stands with a GDP of US$2.5 trillion. Intra-ASEAN trade stands at over US$545 billion and extra-ASEAN trade at US$1.76 trillion. Australia–ASEAN trade in 2014 amounted to over US$100 billion, which is more than Australia’s trade with Japan, the EU or the United States.

In spite of this success, critics of ASEAN abound. They argue that ASEAN is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of pressures from China and problems in Europe, with some even predicting its demise. Are these conceptions valid? And does the ‘ASEAN way’ of consensus-based policy choices remain relevant today?

ASEAN has long looked to the European Union as a source of inspiration. Until recently, the EU model seemed so promising for many within ASEAN who aspired to a greater level of centralisation, integration and commonality across economic, socio-political and security issues. Important distinctions include the lack of a common currency in ASEAN and the absence of a central EU-like federal bureaucracy or government. But after the fallout from the global financial crisis, the flight of refugees flooding Europe and the apparent unravelling of the EU model as exemplified by Brexit, Europe fails to inspire ASEAN’s leaders the way it used to.

But before prematurely announcing the demise of ASEAN, it is important to think about what a world without ASEAN might look like. After all, ASEAN has enabled and continues to enable a remarkable amount of interaction between key government officials, ministers and business leaders on a range of security, economic, social, environmental and other matters that likely would not happen were it not for the existence of ASEAN and its associated forums.

To extrapolate a fatal disease within ASEAN from the decline in enthusiasm for greater centralisation is to conflate issues. Without question, China looms large for ASEAN. Its economic campaigns, of which the Belt and Road Initiative is a notable example, are hard to resist. Further, its security policies have been hard to counter, with its strategy of co-opting Laos and Cambodia to prevent ASEAN summits from issuing joint declarations critical of China’s policy, particularly concerning the South China Sea.

Critics look at this apparent dominance and argue ASEAN has passed its prime and is at least partly in retreat. Observers attending the occasional ASEAN-related senior officials’ meeting or workshop often express frustration at the glacial pace of progress. Yet few step back to appreciate the amount of progress that has been achieved. Given the inherent fragility of such a disparate grouping of nations, the issues that ASEAN has been able to address in the last two decades is extraordinary.

Open Map

Part of the reason for the enduring utility and centrality of ASEAN is because of what Indonesian President Joko Widodo described as the ‘maritime fulcrum’. He was referring to Indonesia, but it is perhaps more apt as a description of ASEAN itself. Much of the world’s trade transits through Southeast Asian waters, and the region is the key gateway between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Besides that, ASEAN continues to provide a useful platform for intra-regional cooperation on a wide range of issues. It also continues to serve as a medium through which extra-regional powers can continue to engage, discuss, negotiate and avoid undue escalation of tensions.

ASEAN member states appreciate the role ASEAN has played and continues to play in fostering regional security, stability and prosperity. ASEAN has never conformed with Western aspirations for it to act with great resolve, purpose and decisiveness. Perhaps this is the very essence of the strength and enduring utility of ASEAN. In the face of growing great power competition, this versatile platform should be fostered and not condemned.

John Blaxland is Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies. He is Director of the ANU Southeast Asia Institute and Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. You can follow him on Twitter at @JohnBlaxland1.