On 23 July, the 33rd ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was held in Manila, Philippines, as part of the 59th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. During the meetings, ASEAN members reiterated the need for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Middle East and emphasized the importance of ensuring maritime safety and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The forum also took place amid renewed US warnings over Iran’s potential disruption of the Hormuz Strait and heightened China–Philippines tensions following a confrontation at Second Thomas Shoal.
The following are six major takeaways from the ASEAN Regional Forum.
1. South China Sea tensions become the focal point despite dialogue and mechanisms
The confrontation between China and the Philippines at the Second Thomas Shoal occurred shortly before the ARF. As the 2026 ASEAN Chair, the Philippines was in a stronger position to influence the ARF agenda and was able to leverage it to address the issue. It continued to anchor key legal basis for the Philippines’ maritime position in the 2016 arbitral award, while China disputes this ruling. The ARF has not been able to quell these tensions. Although ASEAN and China support finalizing a Code of Conduct by the end of the year, China has said that the Code will not settle bilateral territorial disputes.
2. Hormuz disruption raises domestic economic pressures
The Hormuz crisis featured prominently at the ARF as ASEAN countries assessed its potential economic consequences. The economic effects of the war have directly impacted ASEAN countries due to their dependence on energy imports and maritime trade. According to the ASEAN Centre for Energy, a prolonged closure of the strait could affect 28 percent of final oil consumption in the region. Similarly, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has increased its inflation forecast for developing Southeast Asia. This has meant that ASEAN countries must face domestic impacts. This has turned the war into an economic and social issue for ASEAN governments.
3. ASEAN consensus limits collective action
The ASEAN model of consensus-based decision-making continues to limit its ability to respond collectively to regional security challenges. Although all the organization’s countries would benefit from predictable shipping, there are several divisions. ASEAN countries have different sovereignty claims, security relationships, and views of the arbitral award. They also have different security relationships and views on China. These differences result in cautious language, a focus on restraint, and an absence of collective enforcement.
4. The ARF remains a valuable platform for crisis diplomacy
Despite the institutional constraints and the non-binding nature, the ARF continues to facilitate communication. Following the 20 July maritime confrontation, the Philippines and China held ministerial-level discussions. The forum is a non-binding arena for engagement that leaves diplomatic channels open despite bilateral tensions. While the meeting did not produce any concrete resolution or binding outcome, it helped preserve diplomatic channels, reduce the risk of miscalculation, and sustain communication between the parties.
5. The Hormuz crisis could accelerate ASEAN energy-security cooperation
The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Petroleum Security is already exists. The crisis in the Middle East could develop this further. Although the ARF itself did not produce any outcomes on energy cooperation, the shared concern around the crisis may take existing arrangements further. Indonesia had already proposed an ASEAN oil-storage hub. Possible developments could include coordinated strategic reserves, joint procurement, and emergency-sharing rules. The consensus model makes any concrete outcome regarding energy security more complex.
6. ASEAN is more united on Hormuz than on the South China Sea dispute
Although both issues involve maritime transit, the South China Sea is much more difficult for ASEAN to agree on. This was seen in the difference between statements made during the ARF, where there was a clearer common position on Hormuz, without a similarly strong consensus on the South China Sea. Competing sovereignty and maritime claims combine with security partnerships to make the South China Sea much more difficult for ASEAN to agree on.
