If you had the power to decide between prioritising your country’s interests or maintaining peace in the region, what would you choose?

Although this question was implicitly posed, it was the most fundamental one to answer by participating students during a crisis simulation held at the University of Sydney on 15 September 2025.

The simulation, organised by the Postgraduate Organisation for Political and Social Sciences (POPSS) and supported by Student Life Grants, brought together students from diverse academic backgrounds and levels at the university. In a fun manner, they were assigned to grapple with a fictional but plausible emergency crisis in Southeast Asia.

As part of the planning team, my friends and I chose to create a scenario about a crisis in the South China Sea, which borders several ASEAN countries.

The scenario began with a devastating typhoon striking an archipelagic nation, causing a humanitarian crisis. Amid the chaos, a naval vessel mistakenly attacked another ship from a regional power, believing it to be linked to a terrorist group operating within the archipelagic nation. The incident escalated quickly. The regional power responded by creating disruptions to vital shipping routes in and out of the South China Sea. This retaliation then sparked diplomatic tensions across the region, particularly affecting ASEAN nations.

Under this scenario, the participating students were faced with a difficult task: negotiating and determining the outcome of the crisis. Every decision they made throughout the simulation underscored a fundamental question: should national interests or regional peace take precedence?

Protecting national interests is undeniably crucial, but focusing solely on them may lead to an egocentric approach and an intolerant attitude among countries. Meanwhile, regional stability and peace could only be achieved with mutual understanding and collaboration. And it certainly requires compromise.

Despite the simulation's fictional nature, students took the challenge seriously. Over the course of four hours, they negotiated and tried to seek peaceful solutions, even when their assigned national stances had conflicting interests.

What stood out was their collective commitment to de-escalation and dialogue, rather than prolonging and dramatising the crisis for entertainment. One of the dialogues initiated by the students even used the ASEAN mechanism, with a fictional ASEAN Chair leading the meeting.

This approach reflects a regional philosophy known as the ASEAN Way. Rooted in consensus-building and non-interference principles, the ASEAN Way prioritises harmony over confrontation. It is often criticised for being slow or ineffective, but in this simulation, students saw it as the only hope for finding a solution to the regional crisis.

The ASEAN Way stands in stark contrast with Western portrayals of conflict in Hollywood movies like Top Gun and Zero Dark Thirty, where swift action and unilateral decisions often prevail. These movies seem to highlight individual skill and daring against a backdrop of national strength and military might.

In comparison, the ASEAN Way favours lengthy, deliberative conversation. It may not make for thrilling cinema, but it offers a model of diplomacy that values patience, mutual respect and regional stability.

This is why ASEAN places a higher priority on conflict prevention rather than on conflict resolution. It is also why dialogues over dialogues are the practical highlight of the ASEAN Way. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that ASEAN usually organises over 1,000 meetings annually. It means there are around 3-5 meetings per day, deliberating various topics and in different formats.

Another striking observation was that this belief in the ASEAN Way was not limited to students originally from Southeast Asia. Other students, especially Australians, also recognised the importance of dialogue in finding a solution to the crisis. It clearly suggests a growing appreciation for regional mechanisms that prioritise peace over power, including, I believe, through the ASEAN.

One participant reflected: “As someone who doesn’t study politics, this was the first time I realised how complex a potential crisis in Southeast Asia could be. I hope it never happens in reality.”

As a PhD candidate researching Indonesian public opinion and foreign policy towards armed conflict, this simulation revealed more than just strategic thinking. It also demonstrated a shared willingness to envision a peaceful solution, a peaceful future. Observing students from different backgrounds listening to one another and compromising reminded me that diplomacy is not just for governments. Rather, it should be for all of us to practice.

And for me personally, although the crisis simulation ended indecisively, the experience has inspired me to pursue my doctoral research with a renewed determination and focus to tackle complex regional challenges.