ASEAN can—and must—do better on Palestine

In a world fractured by conflict and muted by fear, Palestine has become a mirror of our moral priorities. And last week in Kuala Lumpur, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) showed that while it is willing to speak, it still stops short of saying what the moment demands.

From July 9 to 11, ASEAN hosted its most important annual diplomatic events: the 58th  ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the 15th  East Asia Summit (EAS) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. These are not symbolic gatherings — they are ASEAN’s key platforms for shaping the region’s political-security agenda, engaging world powers, and addressing urgent global issues. One of those issues, inevitably, was Palestine.

The Joint Communiqué of the AMM acknowledged the worsening situation in Gaza. It expressed “grave concern,” called for “maximum restraint,” reaffirmed support for humanitarian aid, and invoked the long-standing two-state solution. It also noted — though stopped short of endorsing — the July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which found Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory to be illegal under international law.

This language is not without meaning. It reflects the difficult balance ASEAN must strike among member states with different foreign policy priorities. Some, like Malaysia and Indonesia, have long championed the Palestinian cause. Others, including Singapore, Vietnam, and Thailand, maintain trade or defence ties with Israel. ASEAN operates by consensus — any one country can shape or soften the final message.

But this same structure also limits ASEAN’s voice when moral clarity is most needed. Nowhere in the Joint Communiqué is Israel named as the occupying power. The word “genocide” is never mentioned. And while ASEAN welcomes international efforts for peace, it avoids confronting the central question: Who holds the power? Who is responsible?

Two days after the communiqué was released, Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Mohamad Hasan — speaking on behalf of ASEAN at the East Asia Summit — offered a more direct message: “Eighty years of impunity have emboldened Israel to the extent of openly committing genocide,” he said. “It must not be allowed to continue.”

His words were courageous, unflinching, and rooted in international legal discourse. But they were not reflected in the official Chairman’s Statements issued after the EAS and ARF meetings. Instead, those documents repeated much of the cautious language from the Joint Communiqué: calls for peace, support for humanitarian assistance, and broad appeals to international law. The sharper truths were left implied, or left out altogether.

READ: UNRWA warns of soaring levels of poverty and malnutrition in Gaza

ASEAN deserves recognition for keeping Palestine on the agenda and for sustaining a unified regional voice in an increasingly polarised world. But more is possible — and more is necessary.

This is not simply a question of diplomatic style. The stakes are far too high. Since October 2023, more than 50,000 Palestinians — the majority of them civilians — have been killed in Gaza, according to UN estimates. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. The ICJ has found the occupation unlawful. Major human rights organisations have accused Israel of apartheid. And the humanitarian catastrophe continues to deepen.

In this context, words matter. Statements from ASEAN — home to over 650 million people — shape regional and global perceptions. They send signals to other powers. They lend legitimacy to legal norms. When ASEAN chooses caution over clarity, it doesn’t just reflect internal consensus. It risks reinforcing a broader international pattern of evasion.

To be fair, ASEAN was never meant to act like a Western-style political bloc. Founded in 1967, it is grounded in principles of non-interference, mutual respect, and consensus-building. Its strength lies in its ability to bridge deep political differences and bring adversaries into dialogue. The ARF, launched in 1994, was explicitly designed to foster confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific. The EAS brings ASEAN into direct conversation with major powers like the US, China, India, and Russia.

But these strengths need not come at the expense of moral courage. ASEAN’s unified voice does not have to be a muted one.

Even the most carefully worded statements carry weight. ASEAN’s support for humanitarian access, the work of UNRWA, and international legal mechanisms shows that the bloc is paying attention — and that it understands the gravity of the crisis. But it also knows, as the Malaysian foreign minister made clear, that the scale of the violence demands more than concern. It demands responsibility.

Reaffirming the two-state solution is a diplomatic default, but it risks sounding disconnected from reality. That vision, once widely accepted, is now undermined by continued settlement expansion, annexation, and fragmentation of Palestinian land. What future does that promise offer if one party holds nearly all the power, and the other is buried under rubble?

What’s needed now is not for ASEAN to abandon its principles — but to apply them with greater urgency. The bloc has shown that it can be consistent, cooperative, and constructive. But consistency cannot replace clarity. Cooperation cannot replace accountability.

The people of Gaza do not expect ASEAN to resolve the conflict. But they — and the world — have every reason to expect it to name injustice when it occurs, and to support international law not just in spirit, but in substance.

ASEAN has taken important steps. Now it must take bolder ones. Because in moments like this, quiet diplomacy can easily sound like quiet permission. And history will remember who spoke clearly — and who chose to whisper.

OPINION: ASEAN’s statement on the Middle East is complicity in disguise

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.