Increased geopolitical conflict, economic nationalism, and fear of supply chain disruption are making it more difficult for the globe to work together in the face of the COVID-19 epidemic, at a time when it is sorely needed. Despite the fact that international collaboration is essential in the face of the COVID-19 epidemic, rising geopolitical conflict, economic nationalism, and concerns about supply chain disruption are making it increasingly difficult to achieve.

The economy has the ability to recover, but any recovery will be highly contingent on widespread access to vaccines. The recurrence of the pandemic might be exacerbated by a lack of timely vaccination. Because of this, it has become more difficult to begin the process of recovery, especially in developing nations that have less resources for stimulating their economies. As with the prisoner's dilemma in game theory, vaccine nationalism leads to a Catch-22. In the end, individuals may decide against working together, even if doing so might lead to more favorable results. Global cooperation, particularly economic integration, is now much more vital and crucial for solving these problems than it was before. Cooperation on a global scale is essential, and the G20 provides a potential platform for this.

In addition to causing disruption in supply systems, this event has caused many to doubt the reliability of economic interconnectedness. It was easier for Asian nations to withstand the global economic slump if local demand remained stable or expanded as a share of GDP throughout the Global Financial Crisis. When compared to other export-oriented nations in the area like Singapore or Taiwan, Indonesia's level of economic integration with the rest of the world is lower. It is not possible to overcome issues with the supply chain by turning inward. The majority of countries in the Asia–Pacific area do not have sufficient natural resources inside their borders to support their economies on their own. Yet even if they are successful, the overall cost of production will go up for everyone.

Inasmuch as the opportunity cost of interdependence decreases the chance of conflict, economic integration plays a crucial role in supporting peace and security. According to research by World Bank economists Cali and Oliver, governments are less inclined to forego rising profits brought about by trade in favor of waging war. By examining a large panel data set of 243,225 country-pair observations from 1950 to 2000, Lee and Ju demonstrate that enhanced bilateral economic interdependence is significantly beneficial in fostering peace. Peace may be encouraged via increased global economic openness and bilateral interdependence.

Without a coherent security framework, how can we address rising tensions in East and Southeast Asia? There is now just a little amount of multilateral collaboration in the area of security. As a group, ASEAN is weaker when dealing with superpowers when its members work together bilaterally. Given these factors, it seems that ASEAN's centrality and economic integration provide the greatest option for preserving regional peace and security.

The difficulty that ASEAN has is that its member nations have different political and economic priorities, which creates tension within the organization. Here is where ASEAN's leadership is most crucial. The importance of Indonesia's contribution cannot be overstated. When Indonesia hosts the G20, as a country of its size and political standing, it will be expected to play a pivotal leadership role. Indonesia's efforts to establish the RCEP in 2011 were indicative of this. If East Asian nations, and especially ASEAN, want to promote peace and geopolitical stability, yet military cooperation is not an option, economic integration provides a viable alternative.

Since its founding, ASEAN has proven to be an important force in preserving stability in Southeast Asia. During the Cold War, ASEAN worked to reduce the fallout from escalating tensions between the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. In the 1990s, ASEAN was able to successfully recruit Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar. Trust and economic cooperation in the area are now key to conflict resolution. At the moment, ASEAN is striving to revive its tried-and-true strategy for fostering security in the area.

How long will this approach last, and is it possible to keep geopolitical tensions in East and Southeast Asia under control with this approach? As an example, consider the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Because ASEAN plays such an important role in resolving geopolitical problems and conflicts between the United States and China, RCEP may help ease security concerns. However, the United States plays a crucial role in preserving the region's geopolitical equilibrium.

Peace and security may be fostered by RCEP because of its cooperative nature and the impartial stances of its members toward the United States and China. Geopolitically speaking, RCEP is an ASEAN proposal that was suggested by Indonesia when it took over the ASEAN chair in 2011. Since it was not started by China, it is less contentious internationally. In terms of maintaining the region's geopolitical equilibrium, RCEP is "politically acceptable" to the United States and has a "neutral" impact. The RCEP is also the first trilateral economic alliance between China, South Korea, and Japan.

The success of RCEP might lead to not just more chances for regional economic cooperation and integration, but also to increased peace and stability in the area if its members work together to create trust and confidence. The geopolitical difficulties caused by the conflict in Ukraine and the urgent need to work together to contain the COVID-19 pandemic both serve to underline the significance of RCEP's role in ensuring the safety of the Asian area.