The Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia has issued a clarion call for ASEAN and broader Asia-Pacific states to abandon their traditional posture of reactive adaptation and instead assume commanding control over their strategic destinies. Speaking at the opening of the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah, executive chairman of ISIS Malaysia, articulated a vision where the region moves from managing external pressures to actively authoring the architecture of regional order. This conceptual shift—from passive adjustment to dynamic agency—strikes at the heart of contemporary debates about how mid-sized powers and developing nations can maintain strategic autonomy in an era of intensifying great-power competition and fragmenting global governance.
Mohd Faiz's argument fundamentally challenges the conventional wisdom that has long governed Southeast Asian strategic thinking. Rather than measuring agency by how effectively states absorb and respond to external shocks, he proposes redefining the concept around deliberate choice-making, purposeful collective action, and the capacity to shape outcomes rather than merely survive them. This distinction carries profound implications for Malaysia and neighbouring countries seeking to navigate an increasingly unpredictable international landscape. The executive chairman stressed that agency should not be the exclusive prerogative of major powers; indeed, for many regional actors it represents a necessity born of competing pressures and limited resources. By recasting agency as a strategic imperative rather than a luxury, ISIS Malaysia implicitly endorses a more assertive regional posture.
The foundation for this enhanced agency, according to Mohd Faiz, rests upon strengthening internal capacities and resilience at both national and regional levels. This framework acknowledges that external influence can only be resisted or leveraged effectively if countries possess robust institutional mechanisms, diversified economic structures, and coordinated regional responses capable of delivering public goods during turbulent periods. The emphasis on resilience transcends mere economic stability; it encompasses institutional integrity, social cohesion, and the political will to maintain strategic coherence despite mounting geopolitical pressure. For ASEAN members, this prescription suggests urgent need for deepening intra-regional cooperation, harmonising policy frameworks where possible, and building redundancies into critical supply chains and security arrangements.
The 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable, held from June 30 to July 2 under the theme "Accelerating Agency and Action," represents a deliberate pivot in regional strategic discourse. Previous iterations of this influential forum centred predominantly on how Asia-Pacific nations could navigate an uncertain geopolitical environment—implicitly accepting fragmentation as inevitable and focusing on defensive measures. This year's programme instead elevates the question of how regional actors can collectively construct their preferred futures despite, rather than because of, global uncertainties. This represents more than rhetorical repositioning; it signals growing confidence among regional strategists that ASEAN possesses sufficient collective weight to influence outcomes rather than merely accommodate external forces.
The conference agenda systematically addresses four interconnected strategic challenges that will define Asia-Pacific affairs in the coming decade. The China-India axis has emerged as perhaps the most consequential bilateral relationship affecting regional stability, with implications ranging from trade patterns to security architectures. ASEAN's institutional relevance faces genuine questions as major powers increasingly conduct parallel diplomatic forums, potentially marginalising ASEAN-centred mechanisms. The resurgence of nuclear considerations in strategic thinking reflects shifting security calculations and arms-control dynamics. Critical minerals and supply-chain geopolitics have transformed from economic sideshows into frontline strategic competition, with profound consequences for industrial capacity and technological sovereignty. Each domain presents opportunities for regional collective action, yet also vulnerabilities to external manipulation and internal discord.
Mohd Faiz articulated a particularly important perspective on the function of track-2 diplomacy within this broader strategic framework. He positioned ISIS Malaysia's roundtable as more than an academic exercise or ceremonial gathering, but rather as a space where established assumptions can be interrogated and inconvenient truths can surface without immediate policy consequences. This framing reflects the distinctive value that semi-official dialogues provide: they permit candid conversation that official channels cannot accommodate, precisely because participants are not bound by governmental positions or public rhetoric. For Malaysia's foreign-policy establishment, this suggests that forums like the Asia-Pacific Roundtable serve essential functions in stress-testing strategies and identifying emerging consensus before formal negotiations commence.
The calibre of participation reinforces the roundtable's strategic importance for regional deliberation. Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani attended the opening dinner, signalling high-level government engagement. Australian High Commissioner Danielle Heinecke's participation in fireside discussions on middle-power agency reflects growing interest among comparable nations in collective strategies for maintaining influence. Most significantly, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's scheduled keynote address on the final day elevates the forum's profile and suggests that the Malaysian government views the roundtable's conclusions as informative for forthcoming policy decisions. This senior-level participation distinguishes the forum from purely academic or think-tank exercises.
The specific focus on middle-power agency resonates particularly for Malaysia's strategic positioning. Unlike great powers that can unilaterally shape outcomes through military or economic coercion, middle powers must rely upon institutional innovation, coalition-building, and strategic narrative-setting. Malaysia's role within ASEAN, its participation in numerous regional mechanisms, and its economic interdependencies with both established and rising powers create complex incentive structures that reward both cooperative and competitive strategies. The roundtable's discussion of how middle powers like Australia exercise agency suggests pathways relevant to Malaysia's own strategic calculations.
The thematic emphasis on translating agency into action addresses a chronic gap in Asian strategic discourse. Intellectual frameworks and policy visions frequently remain abstractions if institutional mechanisms for implementation prove inadequate or if political will falters. By centering the roundtable around concrete action, ISIS Malaysia acknowledges that agency divorced from effective execution becomes merely aspirational. This observation holds particular weight for ASEAN, an organisation often celebrated for its diplomatic sophistication but sometimes criticised for institutional limitations when confronting major powers or internal divergences. The question of how ASEAN can convert collective positions into meaningful outcomes directly affects the organisation's credibility and relevance in the Asia-Pacific system.
The critical minerals and supply-chain dimension of the roundtable's agenda reflects genuinely novel considerations in Asian geopolitics. These domains were historically treated as technical or economic matters falling outside high strategic discourse. Contemporary great-power competition, however, has militarised industrial competition and weaponised supply chains, transforming minerals and manufacturing capabilities into strategic assets equivalent to military hardware. For Southeast Asian nations with mineral endowments or manufacturing capabilities, this transformation creates both opportunities and vulnerabilities. Collective regional action on supply-chain resilience and critical mineral sourcing could enhance ASEAN's bargaining leverage with major powers while insulating members from coercive economic pressure.
The roundtable's timing proves significant given the broader trajectory of Asian regional architecture. Multiple forums now operate simultaneously—the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, bilateral arrangements—creating opportunities but also potential fragmentation. ISIS Malaysia's emphasis on strengthening ASEAN's institutional relevance and collective action implicitly addresses whether ASEAN can remain the central coordinating institution for Asia-Pacific affairs or whether major-power bilateral relationships will supersede it. This question preoccupies Southeast Asian strategists acutely, given that ASEAN's central role has underpinned the region's relative autonomy for decades.
Looking forward, the roundtable's deliberations will likely influence Malaysia's diplomatic positioning on several fronts. The government's efforts to mediate between major powers, strengthen economic resilience, and maintain ASEAN unity all connect directly to the concepts of agency and collective action that ISIS Malaysia emphasises. The Prime Minister's keynote address will provide an opportunity to signal how the Malaysian government interprets these strategic concepts and intends to operationalise them in forthcoming policy. For regional observers, the roundtable serves as a window into evolving strategic thinking among Asia-Pacific elites regarding how the region can exercise greater self-determination in an era of increasing external pressure and internal complexity.
