Menavigasi Badai Minilateralisme di Indo-Pasifik: Implikasi AUKUS dan QUAD terhadap Sentralitas ASEAN dalam Perspektif Neorealisme dan Realisme Neoklasik
Keywords:
AUKUS, QUAD, ASEAN Centrality, Minilateralism, Neorealism, Neoclassical Realism, Security Dilemma, Indo-PacificAbstract
The rise of minilateral security pacts such as AUKUS and the QUAD in the Indo-Pacific poses fundamental disruptions to ASEAN Centrality within the regional security architecture. This study analyzes the strategic implications of AUKUS and QUAD on ASEAN's strategic autonomy and explains the internal fragmentation among its member states. Integrating Structural Neorealism (balance of power and security dilemma) with Neoclassical Realism (domestic intervening variables), this qualitative-explanatory study relies on library research and defence policy analysis. The research reveals three principal findings: first, minilateralism constitutes a hard external balancing strategy by the US and its allies against Chinese assertiveness, reflecting systemic frustration with ASEAN's sluggish, consensus-based mechanisms. Second, these minilateral coalitions intensify regional security dilemmas, exacerbating internal fissures between neutrality-oriented states (Indonesia and Malaysia), frontline claimant states embracing military deterrence (the Philippines), and mainland states economically tethered to Beijing (Cambodia and Laos). Third, ASEAN centrality faces functional marginalization, relegated to consultative dialogue while actual deterrence architecture shifts to minilateral pacts. Preserving ASEAN centrality necessitates operationalizing the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) supported by institutional flexibilities such as the ASEAN Minus X formula.
Downloads
References
Acharya, A. (2014). Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Acharya, A. (2017). The Myth of ASEAN Centrality? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 39(2), 273–279.
ASEAN Secretariat. (1976). Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC). Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
ASEAN Secretariat. (2019). ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). Bangkok: 34th ASEAN Summit.
Ba, A. D. (2009). [Re]Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bisley, N. (2018). The "Indo-Pacific" and the Uncertain Future of Asia's Regional Order. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 72(4), 312–320.
Bitzinger, R. A. (2021). AUKUS, Nuclear Submarines, and Regional Security in Southeast Asia. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) Policy Brief, 1–6.
Creswell, J. W. (2016). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Emmers, R. (2010). Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia. London: Routledge.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goh, E. (2007). Meeting the China Challenge: The Limits of Southeast Asian Hedging. Washington, D.C.: East-West Center.
Haacke, J. (2003). ASEAN's Diplomatic and Security Culture: Origins, Development and Prospects. London: Routledge.
He, K. (2008). Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and China’s Rise versus the Western Order. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), 489–518.
Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2013). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
Kuik, C.-C. (2008). The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 159–185.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.
Schweller, R. L. (2006). Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Severino, R. C. (2006). Southeast Asia in Search of an ASEAN Community: Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary-General. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Smith, S. (2022). AUKUS: Strategic Implications for the Indo-Pacific and ASEAN Centrality. Asia Policy, 17(2), 13–21.
Snyder, G. H. (1984). The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461–495.
Sukma, R. (2014). The ASEAN Political-Security Community: Challenges of Implementation. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25(2), 135–144.
Tan, S. S. (2020). Consumed by Ambition? The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. The Diplomat, June 2020.
Tow, W. T. (2019). Minilateralism: A Redirection of Asian-Pacific Security? Australian Journal of International Affairs, 73(4), 317–324.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Weatherbee, D. E. (2019). International Relations in Southeast Asia: The Struggle for Autonomy (3rd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Alviandra Akbar (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
