The region's pathway forward depends not on passive adjustment to an increasingly fractured international system, but on deliberate assertion of strategic agency and coordinated regional action. This was the central message delivered by Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah, executive chairman of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia, as he opened proceedings at the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable on Wednesday. The three-day conference, running from June 30 to July 2 in Kuala Lumpur under the banner "Accelerating Agency and Action," represents a marked shift in how Southeast Asian policymakers and analysts are approaching the region's evolving geopolitical position.
The distinction Mohd Faiz drew between mere adaptation and genuine agency carries profound implications for how ASEAN navigates the intensifying strategic competition between China and India, the fragmentation of global institutions, and the emergence of new security challenges. Agency, he emphasised, cannot be measured by how quickly states respond to external pressure or which major power they accommodate. Rather, it reflects the capacity of nations to exercise deliberate choices, forge collective positions, and engage in strategic partnerships that expand rather than constrain their options. For smaller and middle-ranking powers in Asia, this concept proves especially vital—it distinguishes between leadership and subordination, between charting independent courses and being swept along by currents beyond their control.
Building the internal and institutional foundations for this enhanced agency demands simultaneous efforts at multiple levels. Mohd Faiz stressed that ASEAN countries must first strengthen their individual resilience, developing robust economies, stable institutions, and capable governance systems capable of weathering external shocks. Simultaneously, the bloc itself requires reinforced collective mechanisms and unified positions on critical issues. This dual-track approach acknowledges that regional cohesion remains fragile, with member states often divided on matters ranging from South China Sea disputes to economic priorities. Without demonstrable success in delivering public goods and managing shared challenges, ASEAN risks appearing as a forum for dialogue rather than a consequential actor in regional affairs.
The resilience imperative extends beyond economic metrics or institutional frameworks. It encompasses the political will to pursue long-term strategies that may conflict with short-term pressures from major powers. Resilient nations and regions can negotiate from positions of relative strength, resist coercive tactics, and propose alternatives rather than simply choosing between competing external demands. For Malaysia and its ASEAN peers, this resilience becomes particularly crucial as great-power rivalry intensifies and economic leverage increasingly serves as a tool of geopolitical competition.
The conference agenda itself reveals the nexus of challenges demanding this enhanced agency. The China-India strategic axis has emerged as perhaps the most consequential relationship in regional calculations, with implications stretching across maritime security, trade patterns, technology standards, and military balance. ASEAN's institutional relevance faces scrutiny as members pursue varied relationships with Beijing and New Delhi, occasionally at cross purposes. The resurgence of nuclear considerations in strategic planning—a concern once thought diminished after the Cold War—introduces additional complexity for non-nuclear nations seeking security architectures appropriate to contemporary threats. Simultaneously, competition over critical minerals and supply chains represents an emerging dimension of geopolitical power, one where Southeast Asia's resource endowments could translate into enhanced bargaining capacity if wielded collectively.
Mohd Faiz articulated a vision of track 2 diplomacy—the informal dialogue conducted by academics, analysts, and former officials outside official government channels—as a crucial complement to traditional diplomacy. These forums possess a distinctive advantage: the freedom to pose uncomfortable questions, challenge prevailing assumptions, and explore solutions that official positions might preclude. In an era of heightened tensions and competing narratives, such spaces become increasingly valuable for generating the ideas and understanding necessary for innovative policymaking. The APR, in this framework, functions not as an echo chamber validating existing approaches but as a laboratory for testing concepts and building consensus among influential non-state actors who can subsequently shape official thinking.
The timing of the roundtable, coming as ASEAN navigates multiple crises and the post-pandemic international system settles into new configurations, underscores the urgency of these discussions. Malaysian Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani's attendance at the opening dinner signalled government engagement with the themes, while the scheduled keynote address from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Thursday promises to elevate the proceedings' significance. The participation of figures such as Australian High Commissioner Danielle Heinecke, discussing middle-power agency, reflects broader regional interest in exploring how countries positioned between superpowers can maximise their influence and autonomy.
The concept of states as "authors of history" rather than merely reactive subjects carries particular resonance for Southeast Asian nations. Too often, regional narratives emphasise constraint and vulnerability—the region's exposure to great-power competition, its economic dependence on major markets, its vulnerability to security threats emanating from beyond its borders. While these realities cannot be dismissed, they risk obscuring the considerable agency Southeast Asian countries actually possess. Malaysia's diversified foreign policy, Thailand's historical survival through strategic balancing, Vietnam's careful management of Chinese relations, and Indonesia's aspirations to regional leadership all exemplify deliberate choice-making within constrained circumstances. The challenge lies in coordinating these individual strategies into coherent collective action.
For Malaysia specifically, the emphasis on regional agency and collective action aligns with longstanding diplomatic traditions while offering frameworks for contemporary challenges. As a middle-ranking power and ASEAN's current institutional anchor, Malaysia benefits from a stronger, more unified bloc capable of genuine negotiation with major powers. The alternative—fragmented responses to external pressures and competing bids for individual advantage—would undermine Malaysian interests and reduce the region's capacity to shape outcomes affecting its prosperity and security. The discussions emerging from the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable may thus prove consequential not merely as academic exercise but as catalysts for recalibrating how Southeast Asia approaches its role in an increasingly competitive and uncertain international environment.
