The Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia has issued a stark call for ASEAN and broader Asia-Pacific nations to abandon a purely defensive posture and instead become architects of their own regional destiny. Speaking at the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur this week, executive chairman Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah challenged the prevailing assumption that countries in the region must simply react to external pressures and shifting global power dynamics. Instead, he argued, ASEAN states must demonstrate meaningful agency through deliberate strategic choices, strengthened internal capacity and coordinated regional action that defines rather than merely follows the international order.
The framing represents a notable philosophical shift for the influential think tank. Rather than focusing on how ASEAN navigates between competing powers or balances competing principles, the conversation has pivoted toward a more empowering narrative: that nations possess the capacity to determine their own futures despite formidable external constraints. This distinction matters considerably for Malaysia and its peers. The argument posits that strategic agency is not the exclusive preserve of major powers but rather a fundamental necessity for regional states seeking to preserve autonomy, expand policy options and maintain influence in an increasingly contested geopolitical landscape.
Mohd Faiz articulated a multidimensional understanding of what agency actually means in practice. He rejected the notion that agency should be measured simply by how effectively states respond to external pressures, instead proposing that true agency emerges through a combination of strengthened national and regional capacity, deliberate strategic engagement, and the ability to generate desired outcomes through purposeful action. This interpretation has direct implications for how Southeast Asian leaders should approach regional architecture, economic integration and security cooperation. Building resilience at both national and regional levels becomes not merely a defensive mechanism but a prerequisite for engaging with major powers from a position of relative strength.
The roundtable gathering, organised by ISIS Malaysia and running through July 2, is deliberately structured around the theme "Accelerating Agency and Action". This nomenclature signals movement away from the more cautious language of adaptation and navigation that dominated previous years. The shift reflects growing recognition that ASEAN faces a pivotal moment: it must either consolidate institutional relevance and demonstrate concrete capacity to shape outcomes, or risk marginalisation as China, India and other major powers increasingly pursue bilateral arrangements that circumvent traditional regional mechanisms.
Four strategic fault lines anchor this year's discussions, each reflecting genuine challenges to regional stability and ASEAN cohesion. The evolving China-India competition presents perhaps the most immediate test, as these powers increasingly compete for influence across Southeast Asia through economic investment, military engagement and diplomatic positioning. Simultaneously, ASEAN's institutional resilience is being tested by internal divisions on issues ranging from Myanmar's political crisis to sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea. The return of nuclear considerations to strategic planning, largely driven by geopolitical tensions involving the United States, China and North Korea, introduces security dimensions that complicate ASEAN's non-aligned positioning. Finally, the geopolitical competition over critical minerals and supply chain resilience has transformed economic interdependence into a strategic weapon, with regional states increasingly caught between competing powers seeking to secure supplies or establish technological advantage.
Mohd Faiz emphasised that meaningful discussions require interrogating prevailing assumptions rather than reinforcing them. He characterised track 2 diplomacy—informal dialogue between academic and policy experts not representing official government positions—as uniquely valuable precisely because it operates outside the constraints of official diplomacy. In an environment where governments must maintain consistent public positions, such forums permit candid exploration of difficult questions and unconventional policy solutions. For Malaysian participants and regional stakeholders, this intellectual space becomes crucial for developing innovative approaches to persistent challenges that bilateral or traditional multilateral channels may not adequately address.
The participation of high-level officials underscores the roundtable's significance within Malaysia's diplomatic calendar. Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani attended the welcoming dinner on June 30, while Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is scheduled to deliver the keynote address on the final day. This executive engagement reflects the government's view that regional agency and ASEAN institutional strengthening align with Malaysia's core strategic interests. The inclusion of Australian High Commissioner Danielle Heinecke in a fireside chat on middle-power agency signals broader Indo-Pacific engagement, acknowledging that agency-building discussions extend beyond ASEAN to include aligned partners like Australia seeking to preserve strategic autonomy amid great-power competition.
The timing of this conference assumes particular relevance given ongoing regional developments. Myanmar's political instability continues to fracture ASEAN consensus, while ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea test the association's commitment to peaceful resolution. Economic pressures, including inflation and supply chain disruptions, have exposed vulnerabilities in regional resilience. Simultaneously, growing United States engagement in the Indo-Pacific through initiatives like the Quad and AUKUS partnership suggests that major powers are increasingly willing to establish alternative forums rather than working exclusively through traditional ASEAN mechanisms. This context makes ISIS Malaysia's call for greater ASEAN agency particularly urgent.
Building resilience requires concrete action across multiple dimensions. At the national level, member states must strengthen governance institutions, diversify economic partnerships and invest in human capital and technological capacity. Regionally, ASEAN must enhance institutional effectiveness, streamline decision-making processes and ensure consistent implementation of agreed commitments. Trade integration through mechanisms like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership offers opportunities to build collective economic strength, though member states must manage concerns about unequal benefits and protect domestic interests. Security cooperation, from maritime domain awareness initiatives to disaster management frameworks, demonstrates ASEAN's capacity to generate public goods despite political differences.
The concept of strategic autonomy, increasingly discussed throughout Asia-Pacific policy circles, lies at the heart of ASEAN's agency challenge. Member states face genuine pressure to align with either the United States or China, with India and other powers offering alternative partnerships. Yet genuine autonomy requires demonstrating that ASEAN can function as a credible counterweight to great-power pressure and that membership in the association provides tangible benefits not available through alternative arrangements. This necessitates not merely symbolic commitments to ASEAN centrality but substantive institutional reform and demonstrated capacity to deliver security, economic and developmental benefits to member populations.
Mohd Faiz's invocation of the principle that "states are not merely passive subjects of history; they are also its authors" carries particular weight for Malaysian and Southeast Asian leaders grappling with external constraints. The statement rejects a deterministic view of regional development and asserts instead that deliberate choices, strategic investments and coordinated action can meaningfully alter trajectories. For Malaysia specifically, this perspective suggests that rather than viewing regional development as determined by great-power competition or technological forces beyond government control, national and ASEAN leadership possess agency to shape outcomes. Whether this optimistic framing translates into concrete policy adjustments and institutional reforms remains to be seen, but the intellectual framework articulated at this roundtable will likely influence regional strategic thinking in coming months.
