This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on June 23, 2025 - June 29, 2025
Asean is almost seven decades old. The wish to get along despite cultural diversity and political differences is a value in itself. One should ask why the regional bloc has survived so long despite an underwhelming track record. What is it that its founding fathers understood, and how precious are the lessons learnt by those who followed?
It would have been obvious to the founding fathers of most Southeast Asian nations that the nationalist context in which their countries as post-colonial entities was being born was very much a contingent one. The borders they inherited had resulted from colonial expedience and opportunism. Not only that, the colonialists were hardly leaving on their own free will. Many had to be driven out — and the way they were expelled contributed to how the ensuing country would develop. Others had a better time of it, like the British in Malaya, Borneo and Singapore, which for various reasons had time to plan their departure.
The geopolitical situation of late colonialism and early nationalism was always a poignant factor influencing how these nations in the region were formed, how they developed (or not) and how much stability they could enjoy. Whether they like to think so today or not, the geography of these nations was not inherent but contingent, just like the political system they ended up with. A matter of conflict and chance.
These nations soon became cognisant of the fact that their long-term security was too much for each of them to guarantee. Those in the north had quickly become buffer zones in a hot war while those in the south, under geopolitical pressure, found it wise to establish Asean.
Putting this fundamental insight front and centre today in our national consciousness allows us, at a time of great geopolitical changes, to reconsider possibilities for achieving a future stable order — socio-cultural, geo-economic and strategic. And hopefully with Asean driving the process.
Discomfort in Southeast Asia over being part and parcel of Cold War alignment was balanced by the formulation of principles of neutrality and non-alignment in a polarised world.
When the Bandung Conference took place in 1955, Malaya was not yet independent. That conference morphed into the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961, and Malaysia joined it in 1970.
That year, Malaysia succeeded in getting Asean to adopt its proposal (first raised in 1968 by Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman) for Southeast Asia to become a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). Also in 1970, again as a clear reflection of geopolitical upheavals across the world, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was established. Malaysia, seeing its rightful seat to be among institutions founded by post-colonial countries, joined in 1970 and succeeded in lobbying to have its first prime minister, the recently retired Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, made the first secretary-general of the OIC.
This tradition of peaceful coexistence and inclusive dialogue was formalised at the First Asean Summit held in Bali in February 1976 as the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). Since then, this legally binding code for inter-state relations has been amended to allow for extra-regional states and state-based organisations to join. As at October 2024, there were 55 so-called High Contracting Parties who had signed the TAC.
The heritage of multilateralism on international security is therefore a veritable one which now characterises the regionalist ambitions of Asean’s member states, and their partners. Given the great geopolitical shifts the world has experienced in recent years (or days), this deep tradition of patient diplomacy, mutual respect and shared understanding calls out to be cherished, publicised and given international relevance.
What stands in the way, I suspect, is the excessive focus on national interests and sovereignty which overshadows the fact that national concerns are born of regional and geopolitical exigencies.
Locating a nation within concentric circles of relevance and possibilities on the one hand, and realising on the other that a nation is constituted of layers of differing socio-cultural and socio-economic interests, allows new perspectives to appear and be considered on how humanity in all its diversity can be effectively and peacefully organised, without one layer overshadowing other layers.
What Asean has also learnt, alongside its tradition of security multilateralism, is that economic ties are the most promising path towards regional integration. Economic integration also involves mobility — of people, of goods and of capital. That mobility in turn brings knowledge about the region and beyond, and about how geo-economics beats geopolitics every time in bringing people together.
What we also learn from Asean’s unique history of institutional expansion is that the small steps it is prone to take, because of the consistency in honouring principles of consensus and maximal mutualism among its members, do often mature over time — as conceptual milestones and institutional aspiration.
A present case in point is the “Asean Geo-economics Task Force” established at this year’s Asean Economic Ministers’ Retreat held in Desaru, Johor. While considered a “new tool” for Asean “to navigate external shocks with greater coordination, strategic foresight and resilience”, its relevance lies in the fact that this initiative provides a new platform for regionalist forces to accept the transition between an old world order and a new one in which Asean’s inclusive regionalism can foster stable geo-economic collaboration in place of dangerous geopolitical contests.
Datuk Dr Ooi Kee Beng is executive director of Penang Institute and senior visiting fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.