The German parliament has recently set a historic overhaul in lifting the country’s constitutional strict debt limit. With majority votes, the Bundestag agreed to amend the ceiling of 0.35% of GDP for deficit spending, primarily to fund the defense sector. The security rejuvenation is following France and the UK’s commitment, in particular by reallocating foreign aid to its defense budget. These moves signify a deliberate effort to reduce the decades of dependency and influence of the United States’s umbrella.
Following the President Trump-Zelensky fiasco, the U.S. has cast the butterfly effect on its foreign policy that is indefinitely on track to the decline of U.S. hegemony. From the hostile threats to the country’s closest and largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, and to the aluminum and steel tariffs that sparked retaliation by the EU, President Trump has isolated the U.S. on its own in the international political dynamic.
One might wonder, if the U.S. can abandon the long-standing strategic European alliance, what about the developing countries that have fewer ties, such as the ASEAN and its member states?
International relations is at risk of going down the rabbit hole. Liberal democracy, which has been the global platform of political and economic progress championed by the U.S., is in deliberate difficulty with the downplayed political and security support on the eastern front of Europe. Meanwhile, the quid pro quo uncertainties can be withstood by developed countries, but the tumultuous situation is more precarious for developing countries like ASEAN member states.
It is a major concern for countries that have extensive linkages with the global value chains and high reliance on foreign investments, such as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Indonesia, the largest economy in Southeast Asia and arguably highly dependent on foreign direct investment, experienced $153 million of capital outflow—a 7 percent drop from the Indonesia Stock Exchange, marking the steepest decline of the index since the Covid-19 pandemic. These factors altogether show the fragility of the region amid the uncertain global politics.
In retrospect, a major rift in the landscape of international order is not new, and countries have shown agility and bandwidth to withstand the pressure of externalities. In fact, two centuries back, the “Concert of Europe,” a nearly century-long period of peace in Europe, is reflective evidence. Means of conflict and dispute resolutions after the Napoleonic Wars are moderated by a set of rules and principles that are agreed upon by European great powers. Inconveniences and disagreements were raised and discussed in a high-level conference. Both approaches brought moderation of a variety of interests and prevented millions of casualties from another military conflict for nearly a century.
An example that is more relevant today that represents diverse, yet identical, circumstances is the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In 1955, the Bandung Conference successfully established an unequivocal belief among Asian and African countries that global injustice is the ramification of colonialism and imperialism, and collective solidarity among ex-colony countries is the only way to restore global justice. The latter commenced NAM as a platform to converse unity for self-determination in-between the theatrics of great powers, whereby it is increasingly more relevant today with the prominent discourses in the past years on the interest of the Global South.
From these two consequential events in history, there are two key variables that need to be deeply pondered and ingrained in ASEAN and its member states, amid global political uncertainty: effective consolidation and cooperation.
If ASEAN member states aspire to ASEAN as an institution that becomes a determinant actor with a breadth of influence, the current chair, Malaysia, has to rally the unity of ASEAN to build its own capability and capacity to set its own terms and geopolitical derisking. “Inclusive and Sustainability” has to transcend beyond a jargon, as the effectiveness of ASEAN political and economic maneuvers can only be materialized with ASEAN principles and priorities in mind and not separated by singular interests of respective member states.
Unresolved conflicts and geopolitical partisanship are a few of the examples that prevent ASEAN from establishing an expression of political unity. Thus, the ASEAN Community Vision 2045, the blueprint for ASEAN development in decades to come, needs to embody the foundational principles of ASEAN: non-alignment and non-interference. Nonetheless, these principles do not necessarily shape the union to be passive; instead, they trigger proactivity as an economic and socio-political union that welcomes multilateralism across spectrums.
As the current chair of ASEAN, Malaysia requires the member states to recall the foundational principles that have delivered peace and stability for decades in the region and underscores the importance of the agility of ASEAN in navigating global political turbulence in the upcoming blueprint to come. More importantly, with its precedent of political and economic prowess, it is a golden opportunity for ASEAN to act as the interlocutor of the Global South. Collectively, this will bring a more solidified entity of ASEAN while further consolidating through reconciliation of interests between ASEAN member states for the benefits of ASEAN and the symbol of progress of the Global South.
The addressed variables in scaling up the strategic role of ASEAN eventually will transcend the union’s means in promoting and elevating economic development. Regardless of U.S. protectionism, it is an opportunity to uphold multilateralism and promote free and fairer trade. These are tested and successful means to move forward with global security, political stability, and economic development.
In the absence of unipolar power, countries or socio-political and economic blocs have the incentive to explore the broad prospect of cooperation. As Chinese influence is gaining ground, fostering deeper cooperation between ASEAN and U.S. allies, such as the EU, Japan, Korea, and Australia, offers a promising opportunity to commence partnerships with equitable and mutually beneficial terms. And this can only be materialized if ASEAN is demonstrating unity, stability, and trust of a non-aligned institution.
It is a redefining moment for the future trajectory of ASEAN. As unipolar power wanes, the upcoming ASEAN Community Vision 2045 needs to imprint the ambition to become a strategic international actor and orchestrator of regional politics. Ultimately, the success and relevance of ASEAN are for the member states to decide.
