We commend PM Anwar, this year’s ASEAN chair, for acting swiftly and decisively to bring the two sides together. The agreement, reached in Putrajaya on Monday, came just as the human and political toll of the conflict was becoming impossible to ignore.

Hundreds of thousands had fled their homes, dozens had died, and trust between neighbors was rapidly evaporating. That the guns have now fallen silent is no small achievement. It was, in Anwar’s own words in Jakarta a day later, a “triumph for all of ASEAN”.

Indeed, the outcome is a reminder of what personal diplomacy can accomplish where institutional mechanisms fall short. No ASEAN conflict resolution frameworks were invoked; there was no shuttle diplomacy by the ASEAN chair’s special envoy; no invocation of the High Council under the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.

Instead, it was Anwar’s relationships, including longstanding ties to both Hun Sen in Cambodia and Thaksin Shinawatra’s faction in Thailand, that made the difference. As chair of ASEAN, it was within his prerogative to act, and act he did.

We do not view this as a failure of ASEAN, but rather as an opportunity to reflect on the limits of our current instruments.

As a community, ASEAN must not let its cohesion depend solely on interpersonal familiarity among elites. The next crisis may not afford us such good fortune.

It is our hope that President Prabowo Subianto and other ASEAN leaders take stock of this episode and commit to strengthening the region’s formal dispute-settlement architecture; not merely to avoid conflict, but to deepen our sense of shared responsibility.

For Indonesia, the implications are significant. While the conflict did not spill across our borders, the fragility it revealed is unmistakable.

ASEAN’s credibility depends on peace between its members. When neighbors go to war, even briefly, the region’s attractiveness to investors suffers, and our centrality in the Indo-Pacific order is thrown into question.

Yet even as we mark this diplomatic breakthrough, the challenges ahead remain daunting. Reports emerged barely 24 hours after the ceasefire went into effect that both sides had already accused each other of fresh violations.

This is, sadly, to be expected. Armies act according to their own logic. It is precisely why we should not entrust the burden of peace to soldiers alone. What we need is a lasting political commitment, supported by trusted civilian institutions, to make peace not just possible, but permanent.

The fragility of the current truce speaks to a broader global trend. As one analyst noted in a recent commentary on The Diplomat, we appear to be living in an “age of ceasefires”, a time when conflicts are paused, not resolved, and diplomacy seeks to contain rather than to transform.

The war in Ukraine, the unfathomable violence in Gaza and now the clashes in our own backyard, have all fallen into this pattern. The Financial Times, writing on the neighborly conflict, described it as a symptom of structural failure: A lack of shared norms, functional forums and enforceable rules. Certainly, the structures are there; they are merely left unenforced.

If we in ASEAN accept this trend as inevitable, we will only ever reach for the lowest common denominator in moments of crisis.

We will settle for fragile pauses instead of forging durable peace. This would be a disservice to the generations who built ASEAN on the promise of mutual respect, non-violence and shared prosperity.

Let us not squander that legacy. Let us use this ceasefire, not as an endpoint, but as a chance to recommit to a regional order anchored in principles, not personalities.

Only then can ASEAN truly claim to be a community, not just of governments, but of peoples.