The Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia has called on ASEAN and broader Asia-Pacific nations to abandon a reactive posture and instead embrace a more assertive role in determining their own geopolitical trajectories. Speaking at the opening of the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah, executive chairman of ISIS Malaysia, framed the region's contemporary challenge not as merely balancing competing principles with practical interests, but rather as maintaining meaningful control over strategic outcomes amid deepening geopolitical volatility. This distinction carries significant implications for how regional powers approach partnership architecture, economic integration, and security cooperation in an era marked by intensifying great-power competition.
Mohd Faiz's remarks signal a conceptual shift in how influential regional think tanks view ASEAN's position within the international system. Rather than measuring agency through how states respond to external pressures exerted by major powers, the ISIS Malaysia leadership advocates measuring it by the deliberate choices governments make, their capacity to build coalitions around shared interests, and their willingness to engage strategically despite conflicting demands. This reframing matters considerably for smaller and medium-sized economies across Southeast Asia, which have traditionally navigated between larger neighbours through diplomatic finesse and institutional balancing. The implication is that genuine autonomy extends beyond avoiding subordination to any single power; it encompasses the ability to expand policy options and pursue purposeful action even when confronted with competing geopolitical pulls.
The foundation for this enhanced regional agency, according to the ISIS Malaysia assessment, rests upon strengthening internal capacities and building resilience at both national and regional levels. This emphasis on domestic institutional strength and coordinated regional mechanisms reflects recognition that external pressures will only intensify as the global rules-based order fragments further. Countries that invest in robust public institutions, diversified economic relationships, and functional regional frameworks will better position themselves to weather geopolitical shocks and engage from positions of relative strength. For Malaysia and other ASEAN members, this suggests that deepening integration within the bloc and maintaining institutional relevance should rank alongside bilateral relationships with major powers.
Mohd Faiz stressed that resilience enables states to shape rather than merely adapt to an evolving international order. This distinction proves critical in a region where multiple powers maintain competing strategic interests. When countries develop genuine economic independence, institutional capacity, and political cohesion, they reduce their vulnerability to external coercion and expand their negotiating leverage. This resilience extends beyond military capabilities to encompass economic diversification, technological self-sufficiency, and social stability. For the Southeast Asian context, where smaller economies often serve as battlegrounds for great-power competition, building such resilience represents both a defensive necessity and an offensive opportunity to influence regional rule-making.
The 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable, which runs from June 30 to July 2 under the theme "Accelerating Agency and Action," deliberately repositions regional discourse away from mere uncertainty management toward proactive resilience-building and collective strategising. Previous iterations of this flagship event have largely emphasised navigating geopolitical tensions and preserving the balance between major powers. The current edition suggests a maturation of regional thinking, acknowledging that defensive posturing alone proves insufficient when the international order itself undergoes fundamental restructuring. The conference framework identifies four critical fault lines demanding regional attention: the China-India strategic axis, ASEAN's institutional resilience amid major-power rivalry, the resurgence of nuclear security considerations, and the geopolitical competition over critical minerals and supply chains.
Each of these themes carries immediate relevance for Malaysia and the broader Southeast Asian community. The China-India competition increasingly manifests through economic initiatives, technology standards, and regional partnerships that ASEAN members must navigate. ASEAN's institutional future depends on whether the grouping can maintain consensus while accommodating diverse member interests and external pressures. Nuclear security concerns resurface as regional powers develop enhanced military capabilities and strategic doctrines. Meanwhile, control over critical minerals and supply chain architecture directly affects economic sovereignty and development trajectories across the region. Addressing these issues requires not merely rhetorical commitment to ASEAN centrality but genuine strategic coordination and willingness to take positions that reflect collective rather than individual interests.
Mohd Faiz articulated a vision of track 2 diplomacy—informal, unofficial dialogue between policy experts and practitioners—as uniquely positioned to generate actionable insights. Unlike official government channels constrained by diplomatic protocols and public positions, track 2 forums can openly question prevailing assumptions, explore unconventional options, and develop creative responses to intractable challenges. The ISIS Malaysia platform explicitly rejects functioning as an insulated academic exercise divorced from policy relevance. Instead, it aspires to generate difficult questions that yield inconvenient answers, challenging conventional wisdom and pushing regional thinkers beyond comfortable consensus. For Southeast Asia, where consensus-building within ASEAN often obscures underlying tensions and prevents bold strategic decisions, such candid forums serve an important function.
The conference agenda will examine how regional agency translates into tangible action across multiple dimensions. Discussions will address the evolving strategic roles of China and India, reassess ASEAN's institutional capacity and relevance in a multipolar environment, explore how nuclear deterrence and security dynamics reshape regional calculations, and investigate supply chain resilience and competition for critical mineral resources. High-profile fireside chats will feature Australian High Commissioner Danielle Heinecke discussing middle-power agency—a concept particularly relevant for Malaysia and other ASEAN members seeking to punch above their individual weight while avoiding full alignment with any single great power. These conversations will help regional leaders understand how countries of similar structural position exercise influence and maintain strategic autonomy.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's scheduled keynote address on the final day carries significance as a signal of Malaysia's commitment to rethinking regional strategy. His participation in a forum explicitly centred on enhancing ASEAN agency and accelerating collective action suggests governmental openness to bolder regional initiatives. The keynote provides an opportunity for Malaysia's leadership to articulate its vision for ASEAN's future role and to signal whether Kuala Lumpur is prepared to champion more assertive regional approaches to contemporary challenges. Given Malaysia's historical position as a consensus-builder within ASEAN and its current emphasis on shared prosperity and stability, the Prime Minister's remarks will likely illuminate Kuala Lumpur's perspective on balancing regional cohesion with the assertiveness required in an increasingly contested geopolitical landscape.
The broader implications of the ISIS Malaysia intervention extend beyond the conference itself to shape thinking in Southeast Asian policy circles more generally. By emphasising agency, resilience, and collective action rather than reactive adaptation, the institute contributes to intellectual repositioning of how the region conceptualises its role. This shift reflects maturation in regional self-perception—moving from viewing ASEAN as a mechanism primarily for conflict avoidance and economic cooperation toward recognising it as a potential author of regional order. Whether this intellectual framework translates into coordinated policy changes depends upon whether individual ASEAN members prove willing to sacrifice some autonomy in service of collective objectives and whether the grouping can develop institutional mechanisms capable of binding members to common positions.
For Malaysia specifically, the emphasis on strengthening agency carries particular resonance. As a middle power with significant economic resources, technological capacity, and diplomatic experience, Malaysia possesses genuine leverage within both ASEAN and the broader region. However, realising this potential requires moving beyond bilateral relationships and reactive responses to external pressures. It demands commitment to deepening ASEAN integration, investing in regional public goods, and championing institutional innovation. The 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable therefore represents not merely an academic gathering but a critical moment for regional elites to reassess strategic assumptions and chart more purposeful courses amid fundamental shifts in global order.
