AUKUS and Southeast Asia's Ontological Security Dilemma
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00207020231197767 |
| Author | Ahmad Rizky M. Umar,Yulida Nuraini Santoso |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
AUKUS and Southeast Asia’s
Ontological Security
Dilemma
Ahmad Rizky M. Umar
University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
Yulida Nuraini Santoso
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta,
Indonesia
Abstract
What does AUKUS mean for Southeast Asia? While some Southeast Asian countries
are critical of the new pact, others appear to be more positive or, at least, neutral
towards it. We argue that Southeast Asian responses to AUKUS are characterised
by a new ontological security dilemma with three different characteristics. First,
Southeast Asian countries—particularly Indonesia and Malaysia—face the dilemma
of maintaining a balance of power and regional stability amid an environment of
increasing engagement with extra-regional actors. A second dilemma relates to the
region’s need for security against extra-regional threats, primarily from China,
which led several Southeast Asian countries—such as Singapore, Vietnam, and the
Philippines—to support AUKUS, either explicitly or implicitly. Third is ASEAN’s
organisational dilemma of how to strategically utilise its regional frameworks to
respond to AUKUS amid the divergent views of major Southeast Asian countries.
We then address efforts to mitigate the regional security dilemma by reconsidering
ASEAN regional frameworks and rethinking the role of the ASEAN chairman to
deal with major regional security issues.
Corresponding author:
Ahmad Rizky M. Umar, School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland,
St Lucia QLD 4072, Australia.
Email: a.umar@uq.edu.au
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2023, Vol. 78(3) 435–453
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00207020231197767
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Keywords
AUKUS, Southeast Asia, regional security identity, security dilemma, ASEAN
Introduction
This article aims to understand the responses of major Southeast Asian countries—
particularly Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines—to the
AUKUS partnership. According to several scholars and analysts, there is no consensus
on AUKUS in Southeast Asia.
1
Indonesia and Malaysia, on the one hand, are con-
cerned that AUKUS’s proposed nuclear submarines will fuel an armed race and indi-
rectly proliferate nuclear-related cooperation in the region. Three other major powers
—Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines—are more neutral towards AUKUS, with
several hoping that the agreement will balance security concerns in the region, partic-
ularly to reduce maritime territorial disputes and tensions in the South China Sea. In
addition, while ASEAN—Association of Southeast Asian Nations—has opened dis-
cussions with AUKUS members, particularly Australia, it has not released a formal
response to AUKUS and its nuclear-powered submarine programme.
2
This article discusses the divergent Southeast Asian responses to AUKUS. We
argue that the absence of a coherent regional response to AUKUS reflects a new secur-
ity dilemma. Southeast Asian countries face a conflict between preserving regional
norms and identities—which would imply holding reservations towards AUKUS on
the ground of non-intervention—or, on the other hand, increasing national security
to contain potential extra-regional threats. Different from the old security dilemma
that was centred on geopolitical uncertainty during the Cold War, this new dilemma
is shaped by ontological security, in which Southeast Asian countries face a weakening
collective identity. The new security dilemma is not only shaped by material and geo-
political factors, but also identities and norms states in a particular region uphold as a
means of existence. Southeast Asian countries face this ontological security dilemma
due to their different levels of engagement with extra-regional great powers (particu-
larly China and the US), as well as ASEAN’s relative lack of institutional capacity to
manage great power relations.
1. For some analyses that try to capture divergent responses from Southeast Asian countries to AUKUS,
see Dino Patti Djalal, “Asian review: Diplomatic caution: ASEAN responses to AUKUS security
dynamic,”East Asia Forum Quarterly 13, no. 4 (2021): 16–18; William Choong and Ian Storey,
“Southeast Asian responses to AUKUS: Arms racing, non-proliferation and regional stability,”ISEAS
Perspective 134 (2021); James Chin, “Why is Southeast Asia so concerned about AUKUS and
Australia’s plans for nuclear submarine?,”The Conversation, 20 September 2021, https://
theconversation.com/why-is-southeast-asia-so-concerned-about-aukus-and-australias-plans-for-
nuclear-submarines-168260 (accessed 6 August 2023).
2. In this article, we refer to Southeast Asia as a geographical region stretching from the Indochinese
peninsula to the Indonesian archipelago, which comprises both Southeast Asian nation states and
ASEAN as a regional organization. For an overview, see Donald K. Emmerson, “‘Southeast Asia’:
What’s in a name?,”Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 15, no. 1 (1984): 1–21.
436 International Journal 78(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial