In the light of this, centrality must first be seen as a discipline of cooperation that has enabled Southeast Asia to stay the meeting point of converging interests as opposed to the temptation of slouching towards a battleground of competing powers. While not quite the tenacity of a lobster, its endurance is substantive enough to ensure that the region remains an anchor of stability and dialogue in an increasingly polarised world.
Asean centrality has never been about dominance or exclusivity, but about cohesion, agency and autonomy. Yet these principles are now tested to the core.
The multilateral trading system stands paralysed, its rules-based foundations hollowed out and the predictability it once guaranteed laid to waste. In response, some have begun to champion alternative frameworks that reflect the fractured realities of the global economy. Nevertheless, the anxiety surrounding this moment should not push Asean inward, hiding in its womb of insularity. On the contrary, the region has to awaken from the slumbers of convenient narratives and use its diverse engagements to redefine the meaning of centrality in a more complex era.
Centrality must now be understood as a living concept, shaped by political, economic and technological realities. It manifests in infrastructural connectivity through the Asean Power Grid, in economic interdependence through integrated production networks and in political influence through the Asean Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). These initiatives give Asean the legitimacy to convene and connect. Sustaining that legitimacy requires stronger institutions and a culture of adaptability.
This adaptability is crucial as minilateral arrangements such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and Aukus (a security pact between Australia, the UK and the US) continue to shape the strategic environment, fomenting a winter of discontent for some quarters and certainly not made glorious summer by the equatorial sun. While these groupings focus on specific objectives such as security or technology, or ostensibly on universal rights of free navigation, Asean’s strength lies in offering a broader, more inclusive platform. It should act as the connective layer that brings coherence to this growing ecosystem, ensuring that minilaterals complement rather than compete with Asean-led mechanisms.
Yet, even this might not be enough. We need to be adept by taking on a proactive stance.
Institutional renewal and strategic coherence
Hence, to remain credible, Asean must modernise its internal machinery. We need to move ahead. Decision-making processes designed for an earlier era have not kept pace with technological disruption or geopolitical flux. Centrality cannot rest on tradition alone; it must be anchored in being adept at responding with strategic foresight. Strengthening coordination, improving institutional capacity and developing more flexible methods of consensus must be done before, not after, the fact. This is essential to preserve Asean’s relevance.
Flexibility is not just about reacting to the winds of change, but about pressing into operation built-in, well-structured anticipated responses. This is about as close as we can get to a future-proof protocol. While the Asean-minus-X formula, which allows willing members to move forward while keeping the door open for others, does provide a practical model to advance cooperation without compromising inclusivity, it is only scratching the surface on regional strategic sagacity. Leadership to advance a grand strategy is crucial.
The growing participation of member states in frameworks such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) illustrates both opportunity and challenge. These engagements expand Asean’s reach but also call for greater internal coherence, which requires the conviction of regional leadership.
During the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) talks, Asean members who were parties to the talks used sideline meetings to informally update others, while maintaining the confidentiality of the negotiations. Granted this practice worked because it promoted transparency and mutual understanding, but being merely ad hoc, it runs the risk of fracturing under the weight of volatile circumstances. Hence, institutionalising such a mechanism is crucial to enable regular information sharing across platforms and fostering greater trust, towards helping Asean to maintain unity even as its members pursue diverse alignments.
Such coordination would allow Asean to speak with one voice while navigating multiple partnerships. Participation in other groupings should not be seen as diluting Asean’s primacy, but as extending its influence, provided that communication and coherence are maintained.
In any event, such a proactive approach is not entirely novel. Collective openness has long been Asean’s strategic advantage. The principles of the Zone of Peace Freedom and Neutrality (Zopfan) and the AOIP affirm that neutrality and inclusivity are strengths, not weaknesses. Asean’s task is not to exclude but to connect, ensuring that engagement with all partners is guided by confidence and clarity rather than dependence or detachment.
At its core, centrality must remain people-centric. Economic integration, whether through trade, connectivity or digital partnerships, must drive inclusive and sustainable growth. It bears reiteration that deepening trust and ensuring that a rules-based order continues are imperative to serving regional interests. Centrality, therefore, extends beyond institutions to shared values and the discipline of collective action even when national interests may diverge.
From vision to action
Asean Vision 2045 sets out four long-term priorities: supply chain resilience and connectivity, digital transformation and future skills, security and trust in the digital economy, and inclusive and sustainable growth. These priorities provide the scaffolding for a modernised understanding of centrality, linking resilience with inclusion and institutional coherence. The path to 2045 will test Asean’s ability to act collectively, but it also offers a chance to translate aspiration into action.
The world around Asean is shifting. Great-power rivalry has intensified, multilateral institutions are under strain and new partnerships are redrawing boundaries of influence. The answer cannot be isolation. Asean’s relevance will depend on how effectively it manages these intersections, renewing its mechanisms while reaffirming its role as the region’s central node of stability and cooperation.
As Malaysia’s chairmanship draws to a close in a matter of weeks, it has shown that Asean’s strength lies not in the aspiration towards uniformity but in the conviction to cohesiveness. The challenge now is to build on that foundation: to institutionalise cooperation, manage multiplicity with confidence and ensure that centrality remains Asean’s true compass.
Multiplicity need not mean fragmentation. If Asean can forge coherence while embracing flexibility, it can turn diversity into strategic advantage, keeping the region’s centre of gravity steady in a sea of shifting tides.
This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on October 27, 2025 – November 2, 2025