There’s much the Arabs can learn from Asean

 Inclusion, institutionalised dialogue and diplomacy — long an Asean tradition — can help these nations come together even in times of conflict.

The possibility that Saudi Arabia may eventually convene a summit involving Arab states and Iran is an encouraging sign. Yet no date has been announced, no agenda finalised and no participation list confirmed.

That uncertainty says much about the strategic environment in West Asia today.

The region has entered a period where trust is scarce, and security concerns have multiplied.

Even countries that suffered relatively fewer direct attacks during the recent conflict have emerged with a profound sense of vulnerability.

Saudi Arabia itself may have escaped some of the destruction experienced elsewhere, but its confidence in the regional order was nevertheless shaken.

Whatever trust had been built following the 2023 rapprochement with Iran has clearly diminished. Diplomatic understandings are easier to negotiate than strategic confidence is to restore.

Economically, the kingdom benefited from higher oil prices and stronger demand during disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. Yet economic gains should not obscure the strategic lesson.

Even with alternative export routes to the Red Sea, geography continues to impose limits on energy security.

The larger concern for Malaysia is not oil prices but geopolitics.

West Asia is once again drifting towards bloc politics.

Countries are increasingly being pressured to define where they stand, whom they support and which strategic camp they belong to. Such pressures rarely remain confined to military affairs alone.

Trade, investment, energy cooperation and diplomacy eventually become entangled in questions of political loyalty. This is where the danger begins.

Bloc politics creates an international environment where compromise is viewed with suspicion and dialogue mistaken for weakness. History offers many warnings.

The alliance systems of Europe before the First World War transformed local disputes into global catastrophe.

During the Cold War, countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America became theatres of proxy competition rather than beneficiaries of peace and development.

Medium-size powers suffered the most.

Malaysia cannot afford such an outcome.

Its prosperity depends on diversified relations with all major partners simultaneously.

Malaysia has important relationships with the Gulf states, Iran, China, Japan, Europe, the United States and fellow Asean members. Its economic and diplomatic interests are too broad to be confined within any single geopolitical camp. This is not neutrality born of indecision.

It is strategic autonomy born of necessity.

Fortunately, Malaysia already possesses a diplomatic tradition capable of navigating such complexities.

That tradition is the Asean way of diplomacy.

Unlike alliance systems that divide states into permanent categories of friends and adversaries, the Asean approach begins with a different assumption: countries with different political systems, strategic alignments and historical experiences must nevertheless continue speaking to one another.

Geography cannot be altered.

Neighbours cannot be replaced.

Dialogue therefore becomes a permanent necessity rather than a temporary convenience.

This diplomatic culture emerged from Southeast Asia’s own difficult experiences with insurgencies, ideological competition, territorial disputes and great power rivalry during the Cold War.

Asean members had every reason to drift into opposing camps.

Instead, they institutionalised consultation. Ministerial meetings became routine.

Security dialogues became regular. Leaders met even when disagreements remained unresolved. Rivals were brought into the same room rather than excluded from it.

The process was often slow and frustrating. Yet the results speak for themselves.

Southeast Asia avoided becoming permanently divided into hostile blocs despite the rise of China, the enduring presence of the United States and the growing interests of Japan, India, Australia, Russia and European Union in the wider Indo-Pacific.

Institutions such as the Asean Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit and the Asean Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus were built on the assumption that inclusion contributes more to stability than exclusion.

The lesson is simple.

Countries that stop talking eventually start confronting one another.

Malaysia has long practised this diplomatic philosophy.

It maintains close ties with the Gulf monarchies while preserving communication with Iran.

It deepens engagement with China while sustaining strong relations with the United States, Japan and Europe.

Such flexibility is not ambiguity.

It is strategic maturity.

For medium-size powers, the ability to speak to all sides often becomes more valuable than the ability to command any side.

West Asia does not need to become another Asean.

Its history and political realities are fundamentally different. Yet it can still learn from one important Asean instinct: institutionalise dialogue before conflict erupts rather than after it has already begun.

Summits after wars matter.

Mechanisms that prevent wars matter even more.

As West Asia drifts towards blocs, Malaysia should not follow.

Malaysia should offer an alternative.

Malaysia should offer the Asean Way, which means the need for three principles to operate concurrently.

One, no open and covert support of any opposition movement in any member state of any bloc; two, no open or non-stop criticism of any member states’ military alliance; finally, neither can member states allow real or AI social influencers to comment on the politics of any member state in a pejorative manner indefinitely. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.