The Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia has issued a clarion call for ASEAN and the broader Asia-Pacific region to abandon a reactive posture and instead take decisive control of their own strategic futures. Speaking at the opening of the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, executive chairman Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah articulated a fundamental reorientation in how regional nations should approach the turbulent geopolitical environment unfolding around them. Rather than simply adapting to a fragmenting global order driven by major powers, he argued, countries must develop the internal capacity and collective will to author their own outcomes through deliberate strategic choices and coordinated action.
The distinction Mohd Faiz drew between passive adaptation and active agency carries particular weight for smaller and medium-sized regional powers that lack the economic or military dominance of China, the United States, or India. Agency, he emphasized, should not be measured by how effectively states respond to external pressures imposed upon them, but rather by their capacity to shape events and define outcomes through conscious, strategic engagement with one another. This reframing transforms agency from an attribute exclusive to superpowers into a necessity and achievable goal for nations determined to preserve their autonomy and expand their policy options despite the constraints and competing demands placed upon them by rival major powers.
Central to this vision of enhanced regional agency is the imperative to strengthen internal capacities and institutional resilience at both national and regional levels. Mohd Faiz contended that countries must be capable of consistently delivering public goods—whether economic stability, security, or social welfare—regardless of external shocks or the particular configuration of geopolitical competition at any given moment. This focus on resilience represents a pragmatic acknowledgement that the region cannot insulate itself from global forces, but can build sufficient institutional depth and economic diversity to absorb shocks and maintain strategic continuity even as international alignments shift. A resilient region, operating from a foundation of domestic and collective strength, can engage with major powers from a position of genuine negotiating leverage rather than from a posture of vulnerability.
The 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable, held from June 30 to July 2 under the thematic banner "Accelerating Agency and Action," signals a deliberate shift in the intellectual and policy discourse surrounding regional challenges. Previous iterations of this influential forum have concentrated extensively on how ASEAN and other regional states might navigate or manage geopolitical uncertainty—essentially asking how the region could best accommodate itself to forces beyond its control. This year's configuration represents a more proactive framing that seeks to move discussion beyond accommodation toward the generation of ideas and strategies that could genuinely shape the emerging regional order. The presence of Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani at the opening dinner, and the scheduled keynote address by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the final day, underscores the significance Malaysian policymakers attach to this reorientation.
The substantive agenda of the roundtable encompasses four critical strategic fault lines that will define regional dynamics for years to come. The first concerns the deepening competition and rivalry between China and India as they vie for influence and resources across Asia. The second addresses ASEAN's institutional relevance and capacity to maintain cohesion and effectiveness as its member states face competing pressure from rival great powers. The third examines the resurrection of nuclear security considerations in strategic calculations, a concern that has moved sharply back into focus given technological developments and regional tensions. Finally, the fourth pillar addresses the geopolitical dimensions of critical minerals and supply chain security, recognizing that control over rare earths, lithium, and other essential materials is becoming as strategically significant as traditional security concerns.
Mohd Faiz articulated a vision of the roundtable as fundamentally different from conventional academic or diplomatic forums. Rather than serving as an echo chamber where participants reinforce existing assumptions and official positions, he positioned the gathering as a space for rigorous intellectual challenge and the generation of uncomfortable insights. Track 2 diplomacy, he noted, derives its value precisely from its freedom to ask difficult questions and pursue analysis unconstrained by the diplomatic protocols and political sensitivities that govern official state interactions. This intellectual independence enables participants to examine challenges more systematically and develop policy options that might eventually migrate into official consideration once political circumstances permit.
The geopolitical context underlying these discussions cannot be overstated for Malaysian and Southeast Asian observers. The region finds itself compressed between expanding Chinese influence, renewed Indian strategic ambition, American efforts to maintain its Indo-Pacific position, and the emergence of other secondary powers with their own regional interests. Within this environment, the question of whether ASEAN can maintain effective collective agency—the ability to define problems and propose solutions rather than simply reacting to initiatives imposed by external actors—becomes existentially important. A fragmented ASEAN, unable to develop consensus positions and coordinate action, inevitably becomes an arena for competition among major powers. Conversely, an ASEAN that strengthens internal institutional capacities and demonstrates capacity for independent strategic action becomes a consequential player capable of shaping outcomes.
The inclusion of Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia Danielle Heinecke in a fireside chat on building middle-power agency reflects recognition that Australia, like Malaysia and other regional states, faces similar structural challenges in preserving strategic autonomy. Middle powers cannot compete with great powers in raw military or economic capacity, but they can develop sophisticated diplomatic strategies, build coalitions with like-minded partners, and leverage technological and institutional advantages to expand their influence and protect their interests. For Malaysia specifically, strengthening regional agency through ASEAN collective action aligns with its historical commitment to the organization as the primary mechanism for regional cooperation and conflict management.
The timing of these discussions coincides with a broader reassessment within Southeast Asian capitals of how to balance competing interests and preserve strategic flexibility. The collapse of the Cold War bipolarity that long structured regional politics has given way to a more complex multipolar environment where no single external power can claim hegemonic dominance but several compete vigorously for influence. In this context, regional agency becomes not merely desirable but operationally necessary. States that lack the capacity to shape outcomes face not a manageable choice between alignment with one or another major power, but rather the prospect of being shaped by external forces beyond their control.
The intellectual framework articulated by ISIS Malaysia leadership—emphasizing agency, resilience, and collective action—offers a potentially productive direction for regional strategic thinking. It moves beyond the false choice between isolation and subordination by suggesting that careful institutional development, regional coordination, and strategic deliberation can enable smaller states to exercise meaningful influence over their own futures. Whether ASEAN as an institution can translate these conceptual insights into effective collective action remains an open question that will significantly influence the region's trajectory over the coming decade. The roundtable discussions themselves, and the policy conversations that follow from them, will represent crucial steps in determining whether the region can chart a course that reflects its own interests and values rather than merely accommodating itself to the preferences of distant powers.
