ASEAN Urges Hormuz Access, Renews South China Sea Code Goal

ASEAN foreign ministers used meetings in Manila from July 21 through July 23, 2026, to link two separate maritime-security concerns: hostilities involving the United States and Iran in the Middle East and unresolved tensions in the South China Sea.

In the chair’s statement of the 33rd ASEAN Regional Forum, held in Manila on July 23, the forum called for utmost restraint, genuine dialogue and diplomacy, and a complete and immediate cessation of hostilities across all fronts in the Middle East. It also called for safe, unimpeded and continuous passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

The statement did not say that Hormuz had reopened, nor did it announce an operating agreement or enforcement mechanism. It was a collective diplomatic appeal issued as ASEAN governments assessed the effects of the conflict on shipping, energy markets, food security and supply chains.

Why ASEAN focused on Hormuz

ASEAN said continuing Middle East tensions could affect regional trade, energy and food security, energy markets, agricultural production and the stability of agricultural-input supply chains, particularly fertilizer. The forum also noted preliminary recommendations developed by ASEAN to reinforce regional energy security, safeguard food security, maintain trade, supply-chain and market stability, and strengthen financial resilience.

The recommendations still require follow-through. Their significance is that ASEAN is treating disruption around a distant shipping chokepoint as a regional economic-security problem, not only as a Middle East diplomatic matter.

For Southeast Asian economies, prolonged uncertainty can raise the cost of fuel, freight and farm inputs. U.S. readers may see similar effects through energy prices, shipping costs and prices for goods that depend on global transportation or fertilizer markets. The ASEAN statement does not establish a specific price impact or forecast; it identifies the channels through which a prolonged crisis could spread.

A separate China-ASEAN diplomatic track

China’s Foreign Ministry said the China-ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in Manila on July 22 adopted a joint statement on the evolving Middle East situation’s impact on the region and on strengthening regional energy cooperation.

That meeting gave the broader ASEAN response a separate China-ASEAN track. China’s readout confirms the meeting, its participants and the joint statement, while the ASEAN Regional Forum chair’s statement records the collective language adopted by the forum. Neither document shows that every participating government shares the same interpretation of the conflict or of maritime law.

The South China Sea goal remains under negotiation

The ASEAN Regional Forum statement reaffirmed the importance of peace, security, stability, safety and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. It also called for continued efforts to conclude an effective and substantive code of conduct with China, consistent with international law and particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, “within this year.”

That wording sets a negotiating goal for 2026, not a completed treaty or a guaranteed deadline. The eventual result will depend on continuing talks over the code’s substance, legal effect and application.

The Manila discussions took place amid renewed friction between China and the Philippines. Reuters reported that the Philippines accused Chinese Coast Guard personnel of striking a Philippine navy member near Second Thomas Shoal. China’s Coast Guard called the accusation false, and Beijing said it had summoned the Philippine ambassador. Those competing accounts do not establish an agreed factual record.

Rubio’s warning was separate from ASEAN’s statement

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in Manila on July 22, warned that an Iranian demand to control and collect tolls in the Strait of Hormuz would threaten the global economy and create a precedent that could be repeated elsewhere. His comments reflected the U.S. position and should not be treated as language adopted by ASEAN.

The diplomatic overlap was nevertheless significant. ASEAN was connecting freedom of navigation, energy security and preventive diplomacy across two different flashpoints, while the United States was warning that control of an international waterway could have wider consequences for maritime order.

What to watch next

The immediate test is whether ASEAN’s preliminary energy and supply-chain recommendations produce concrete measures. Other indicators will include follow-up statements on Hormuz passage, progress in China-ASEAN code-of-conduct negotiations and developments affecting commercial shipping.

ASEAN’s Manila diplomacy cannot by itself reopen a contested waterway or settle the South China Sea dispute. It can, however, define the risks governments are trying to manage: freedom of navigation, energy security, food and fertilizer costs, and the resilience of trade routes that connect distant conflicts to households and businesses around the world.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.