BY TENGKU NOOR SHAMSIAH TENGKU ABDULLAH
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 29 — The 47th ASEAN Summit and Related Summits concluded in Kuala Lumpur with high-profile participation, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese Premier Li Qiang, and the historic accession of Timor-Leste as ASEAN’s 11th member. Yet, beneath the surface, ASEAN’s credibility and decision-making capacity remain under question.
According to Dr. James Gomez, Regional Director at Asia Centre, the outcomes were mostly symbolic, echoing a long-standing critique of ASEAN’s summitry.
Symbolism Over Substance
“Mostly symbolic, as with most ASEAN summits,” Dr. Gomez observed. “While the meeting produced some visible outcomes — Timor-Leste’s accession, statements on Myanmar and the Five-Point Consensus, and new documents on online scams — there was little that changed ASEAN’s decision-making or crisis response capacity. Even the Cambodia–Thailand peace deal, though announced during the summit, was not an ASEAN achievement.”
ASEAN Centrality: Convenor, Not Leader
With the simultaneous presence of Washington and Beijing, ASEAN’s oft-repeated centrality was put to the test.
“Centrality, only as a convenor of the ASEAN Summit, not in any real political sense,” Dr. Gomez explained. “ASEAN came across as a platform to have the U.S. and China present, even if India was absent. But what was not publicly discussed was Malaysia’s centrality behind the scenes to ensure Timor-Leste formally became a full member of ASEAN. This effort by Malaysia must be recognised even if it’s not spoken.”
Cambodia–Thailand Declaration: Symbolic, Not ASEAN’s Win
On the widely publicised Cambodia–Thailand joint declaration, Dr. Gomez was cautious.
“Symbolically important for both countries but not for ASEAN as a whole. The declaration was brokered and publicised as a sideline event promoted mainly by the U.S., with little ASEAN involvement. Especially so, from the Thai side, there was resistance in engaging ASEAN and using its platforms and mechanisms to solve the conflict. Even Malaysia’s role as the ASEAN chair brokering the peace deal appeared minimal. The key is to monitor the concrete outcomes of the ‘declaration’ that will actually follow.”
India’s Absence and Limited “Act East”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence was noticed, though he joined online.
“Although he joined online, Modi’s absence slightly weakens optics for India’s ‘Act East’ policy and reinforces perceptions that India’s engagement with ASEAN remains limited,” Dr. Gomez said. “That said, the timing coincides with key state elections in India, and domestic priorities took precedence. ASEAN summits by themselves do not shift the needle in regional geopolitics, and there are other opportunities for Modi to engage ASEAN. Trade volume with India is generally lower than with the U.S. and China. When this picks up, so will India’s presence at future summits.”
Myanmar: Shrinking Diplomatic Space
Dr. Gomez did not mince words on ASEAN’s handling of the Myanmar crisis.
“ASEAN continues to review implementation but has offered little new direction. Keeping Myanmar excluded from high-level meetings and from assuming the chairmanship next year maintains symbolic pressure but no real leverage. With China, India, Bangladesh, and Thailand (all direct neighbours) unlikely to intensify pressure, ASEAN’s diplomatic space is shrinking.
“Action on transnational crimes such as online scams could be a potential pressure point, but it remains to be seen if this translates into real action on the ground. When Myanmar’s ‘partial’ elections are held, there is a risk of normalising the junta back to ASEAN meetings.”
EU: Limited Pillar in Southeast Asia
While Europe has increased outreach, its role remains constrained.
“The EU remains a useful but very limited third/fourth pillar, but engagement is mostly bilateral and technical, not ASEAN-level,” Dr. Gomez noted. “Trade cooperation progresses country by country, but its high regulatory and human rights standards also limit how far ASEAN governments are willing to align. The EU is not yet a geopolitical counterweight in Southeast Asia, though ASEAN countries are looking to make deals with weapons manufacturers in Europe more and more.”
Inclusivity and Sustainability: Rhetoric Over Reality
The official theme of the Summit, “inclusivity and sustainability,” received a critical assessment.
“Both themes are largely rhetorical,” Dr. Gomez said. “‘Inclusivity’ often serves to justify inaction under ASEAN’s consensus model. Meanwhile, governments sideline opposition voices and civil society engagement, resulting in false inclusiveness.
“As for ‘sustainability’, members still depend heavily on coal, deforestation and extractive industries. In a broader sense, ASEAN’s own sustainability as a relevant actor is also in question. The bloc has shown little capacity to sustain a unified or strategic response — whether on the Myanmar conflict, the Cambodia–Thailand conflict, or South China Sea issues.”
Philippines Chairmanship: Firmer Tone, Limited Breakthroughs
Looking ahead, Dr. Gomez predicted Manila will take a tougher stance, especially on the South China Sea.
“Expect Manila to take a firmer stance on the South China Sea and possibly push for a more binding Code of Conduct, while maintaining close ties with the U.S. and economic engagement with China,” he said. “However, given ASEAN’s persistent internal divisions and weak consensus, the Philippine chairmanship is unlikely to produce major breakthroughs. Continued inaction and inability to address regional issues will likely define its leadership.”
Looking Ahead
Dr. Gomez’s analysis paints ASEAN as a bloc still trapped between symbolism and limited substance. While Malaysia deserves recognition for ensuring Timor-Leste’s entry, and while side deals like the Cambodia–Thailand declaration added colour to the Summit, the larger picture remains one of weak cohesion and shrinking diplomatic space. The test now shifts to the Philippines, but without stronger political will, ASEAN risks being seen as convenor rather than shaper of the region’s future. – TNS NEWS