Despite its geopolitical weight, Southeast Asia has rarely been more divided. In separately seeking tariff relief from the US, nations from Malaysia to Indonesia have undermined their collective leverage. They have a chance to present a united front at a regional forum this weekend — a move that would ensure they remain credible as a bloc capable of charting its own future.
US President Donald Trump is attending the 10-member ASEAN meeting in Malaysia, which began yesterday. Sitting at the heart of the Indo-Pacific — a zone central to both US and Chinese strategic ambitions — the region is vital to global trade and security, with a combined GDP of about US$4 trillion.
ASEAN is not living up to its unity in diversity motto. Trump’s “art of the deal” thrives on bilateral bargaining, and many leaders seem eager to play along in the hopes of securing short-term gains.
In the run-up to the summit, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim personally extended an invitation to Trump in an attempt to secure preferential trade terms, despite domestic opposition. Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto was caught on a hot mic asking the US leader if he could meet his son, discussing what reportedly appeared to be a business venture. Thailand and Cambodia, locked in a volatile border dispute, credited Trump for mediating an uneasy truce. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet even said he is nominating the US president for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Bilateral dealmaking has helped some Southeast Asian states avoid the worst-case scenario from Trump’s tariffs, but this approach is not sustainable.
Each concession chips away at the bloc’s shared influence, said Joanne Lin, a senior fellow and coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
“The absence of a free-trade agreement between the two sides does not mean there are not other ways for the region to act collectively,” she said. “Members can still coordinate positions and signal shared principles on trade. That would carry weight.”
ASEAN’s divisions extend beyond trade. The group has failed to meaningfully respond to the Thai-Cambodia dispute and the Myanmar crisis, despite various high-level meetings.
Singaporean Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan called these setbacks “not just for peace and stability, but for the credibility of ASEAN.”
The bloc remains similarly split on how to address Beijing’s growing aggressiveness on the South China Sea.
The consequences are showing up in public sentiment.
About 35 percent of respondents across the region view ASEAN as too slow to handle fast-moving crises, and fear it risks sliding into irrelevance, the institute’s State of Southeast Asia 2025 survey showed.
Southeast Asia has always been at the heart of great power rivalry, but the stakes are rising as the US and China compete more fiercely for influence. Trump’s presence in Malaysia could open the door to a broader US-ASEAN trade agreement, helping to ease the bloc’s economic anxieties. China, the group’s largest trading partner, is sending Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) as it pushes for an upgraded free trade deal before the end of the year.
Washington and Beijing are due to hold talks at the summit. Newly elected Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is expected to make her diplomatic debut at the summit. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is reportedly skipping the gathering.
The forum comes days before Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) are scheduled to meet at the APEC summit in South Korea. That encounter, if it happens, could define the trajectory of US-China relations. Any thaw or escalation is going to directly impact Southeast Asia.
To avoid being reduced to a pawn in the superpower competition, ASEAN needs to act on tariffs and territorial disputes. The bloc could present Washington with a joint tariff framework and outline shared principles. Granted, this would require coordination among states used to bilateral dealmaking, but the stakes are high enough. Malaysia, as this year’s chair, has taken a step in that direction through its new Geo-Economics Council, which is exploring ways to deepen regional cooperation.
ASEAN also has the tools to rebuild a credible way to manage border or maritime disputes. Past efforts were largely symbolic, but they proved cooperation is possible.
Trump might leave Malaysia with another headline about deals and diplomacy. ASEAN risks leaving without agency. That is far worse for its future than tough tariffs.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS