Strengthening East Asian Cooperation via ASEAN?

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Oct 14 2025 (IPS) - Global South cooperation arrangements must evolve to better respond to pressing contemporary and imminent challenges, rather than risk being irrelevant straitjackets stuck in the past.

Southeast Asia

In 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established, initially to address regional tensions following the formation of Malaysia in September 1963.

The creation of Malaysia had led to problems with the Philippines and Indonesia, while Singapore had seceded from the new confederation in August 1965.

ASEAN was not a Cold War creation in the same sense as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO), one of several regional security arrangements established by the Americans in the early 1950s, the only significant one remaining being NATO.

ASEAN’s most significant initiative was to declare Southeast Asia a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1973, two years before the end of the Indochina wars.

Regional economic cooperation

The region has since seen four major economic initiatives, with the first being the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).

AFTA was established at the height of the trade liberalisation zeal in the early 1990s. Beyond the initial ‘one-time’ trade liberalisation effects, there has been little actual economic transformation since then.

Trade liberalisation mahaguru Jagdish Bhagwati’s last (2008) book, Termites in the Trading System, saw preferential plurilateral and bilateral FTAs as ‘termites’ undermining the WTO promise of multilateral trade liberalisation.

While seemingly mutually beneficial, such FTAs are akin to termites that surreptitiously erode the foundations of the multilateral trading system by encouraging discrimination, thereby undermining the principle of non-discrimination.

Naive enthusiasm for all FTAs has thus actually undermined multilateralism, also triggering pushback since the late 20th century.

Following the 2008-09 global financial crisis, the G20’s developed economies all raised protectionist barriers, confirming their dubious commitment to free trade.

Meanwhile, US trade policies since the Obama presidency, and especially this year, have made a mockery of the WTO’s commitment to the multilateralism of the 1994 Marrakech Declaration.

Asymmetric financialization

The 1997-98 Asian financial crisis should have served as a wake-up call about the dangers of financialization, but the West dismissed it as simply due to Asian hubris.

Under Managing Director Michel Camdessus, IMF promotion of capital account liberalisation even contravened the Fund’s own Articles of Agreement.

When Japanese Finance Minister Miyazawa and Vice Minister Sakakibara proposed an East Asian financial rescue plan, which was soon killed by then US Treasury Deputy Secretary Larry Summers.

Eventually, the Chiang Mai Initiative was developed by ASEAN+3, including Japan, South Korea, and China as the additional three. Ensuring bilateral swap facilities for financial emergencies have since been multi-lateralised.

ASEAN+3 later led the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), still conceived mainly in terms of regional trade liberalisation.

Non-alignment for our times

Developing relevant institutions and arrangements in our times requires us to pragmatically consider history, rather than abstract, ahistorical principles.

2025 marks several significant anniversaries, most notably the end of World War II in 1945 and the 1955 Bandung Asia-Africa solidarity conference, which anticipated the formation of the non-aligned movement.

The world seems to have lost its commitment to creating the conditions for enduring peace. Despite much rhetoric, the post-World War II commitment to freedom and neutrality in the Global North has largely gone.

The world was deemed unipolar after the end of the Cold War. However, for most, it has been multipolar, with the majority of the Global South remaining non-aligned.

As for peace-making, the US’s NATO allies have increasingly marginalised the United Nations and multilateralism with it. Already, the number of military interventions since the end of the Cold War exceeds those of that era.

While ASEAN cannot realistically lead international peace-making, it can be a much stronger voice for multilateralism, peace, freedom, neutrality, development, and international cooperation.

East Asian potential

The world economy is now stagnating due to Western policies. Hence, ASEAN+3 has become more relevant.

Just before President Trump made his April 2nd Liberation Day unilateral tariffs announcement, the governments of Japan, China, and South Korea met in late March without ASEAN to coordinate responses despite their long history of tensions.

ASEAN risks becoming increasingly irrelevant, due to the limited progress since the Chiang Mai Agreement a quarter of a century ago. Worse, ASEAN’s regional leadership has rarely gone beyond trade liberalisation, now sadly irrelevant in ‘post-normal’ times.

Rather than risk growing irrelevance, regional cooperation needs to rise to contemporary challenges. Working closely with partners accounting for two-fifths of the world economy, ASEAN countries only stand to gain from broader regional cooperation.

President Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ tariffs and Mar-a-Lago ambitions clearly signal that ‘business as usual’ is over, and Washington intends to remake the world. Will East Asia rise to this challenge of our times?

Related IPS Articles

• No African Development from Western Trade Policies

• Trump Undresses Rival Trade Myths

• Can East Asia Show the Way?

• Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs

• IPEF: New Cold War Weapon Backfires

• Weaponizing Free Trade Agreements

• Trade Liberalization for Development?

• Belt and Road Initiative vs Washington Consensus

• Rethinking Free Trade Agreements in Uncertain Times

• Lessons for the ‘Rest’ from ersatz miracles

• 1997 Asian Crisis Lessons Lost

• East Asia’s Real Lessons

• Opinion: The Empire’s New Clothes? Conjuring Growth from the TPP

Available online at: Strengthening East Asian Cooperation via ASEAN?

A New Non-Alignment for the Global South

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

CAMPINAS, Brazil, Aug 26 2025 (IPS) - The Global South had little voice, let alone influence, in shaping the economically ‘neoliberal’ and politically ‘neoconservative’ globalisation leading to contemporary geopolitical economic conflicts. Pacifist non-aligned cooperation for sustainable development offers the best way forward.

Peace, Freedom, Neutrality

Realising non-alignment for our times should begin with current realities rather than abstract, ahistorical principles. 2025 is also the 70th anniversary of the beginnings of non-alignment, first mooted at the Asia-Africa summit in Bandung, Indonesia.

The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established in 1967 by anti-communist governments of the region. In 1973, its leaders agreed the area should be a Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN).

The world was deemed unipolar American discourse after the first Cold War. Meanwhile, most of the Global South remained non-aligned in what the Rest see as a multipolar world.

Despite critical dissent, the West seems to have lost interest in preserving peace. Unsurprisingly, the US and its NATO allies increasingly ignore the United Nations. Foreign military interventions since the first Cold War already exceed the many of that longer era.

During World War II, military production generated growth and employment in Germany, Japan and the US. But surely, development today is best achieved peacefully and cooperatively.

Pacifist non-alignment should cut unnecessary military spending. Although big powers compete for hegemony by weaponising international relations, they will still try to ‘buy’ support from the non-aligned.

Realistically, most small developing nations cannot lead international peace-making. But they can and should be a stronger moral force urging justice, peace, freedom, neutrality, development, and international cooperation.

Return of the Global South

The Group of 77 (G77) developing countries’ caucus and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) were both established in 1964. Headquartered in Geneva, UNCTAD is part of the UN Secretariat but has been steadily marginalised.

The G77 has a formal presence throughout the UN multilateral system. It now has over 130 members, including China, but its impact outside New York in recent decades has been limited.

Sustainability challenges and planetary heating are generally worse in the tropics, where most people in developing countries are. Meanwhile, hunger worldwide has worsened since 2014, while World Bank-reported income poverty has risen since the COVID-19 pandemic.

An inclusive and equitable multilateralism can better address the world’s challenges, especially peace and sustainable development – so crucial for progress in our dark times.

Global South needs better voice

While working for Goldman Sachs, Lord Jim O’Neill referred to Brazil, Russia, India, and China as the BRIC countries.

With South Africa joining, ostensibly representing Africa, they soon began meeting regularly. As members of the G20 group of the world’s twenty largest economies, the BRICS initially lobbied on financial issues.

They have since incorporated other large economies of the South, but also incurred the wrath of President Trump. While some nations have sought to join the enlarged BRICS plus (BRICS+), a few have hesitated after being invited.

BRICS has no record of strong and consistent advocacy of the interests of smaller developing economies. Most financially weak small nations doubt that BRICS+ will serve them well.

Higher US interest rates have triggered massive capital inflows, especially from the poorest countries, depriving them of finance at a time of greater need.

Meanwhile, aid levels have fallen tremendously, especially with Trump 2.0. Official development assistance (ODA) to the Global South is now below 0.3% of GDP, less than half the 0.7% commitment made in 1969.

Lowering tax rates has further squeezed the West’s already limited budgetary resources as stagnation deepens. Trump’s tariffs, US expenditure cuts, and greater Western military spending deepen worldwide economic contraction.

Non-alignment for our times

The Global South must urgently promote a new non-alignment for multilateral peace, development, and international cooperation to address Third World challenges better.

Even IMF number two, Gita Gopinath, agrees that developing countries should opt for non-alignment to benefit from not taking sides in the new Cold War.

With the exception of Brazil’s Lula, leadership by statesmen with international standing beyond their national stature largely passed with Nelson Mandela.

A few dynamic new leaders have emerged, but have not taken on the responsibilities of Global South leadership. Such leadership is in short supply despite the urgent need.

It is much easier to revive, reform, and reinvigorate NAM than to start from scratch. Although it has been less influential in recent decades, it can be revitalised.

Also, foreign policies are typically less subject to other typical national domestic policy considerations. Hence, they do not vary as much with the governments of the day.

Also, most developing country governments must appear to protect national interests to secure political support and legitimacy for survival.

Hence, conservative, even reactionary governments may take otherwise surprising anti-hegemonic positions in multilateral fora, especially with growing widespread resentment of bullying for extortion.

Related IPS Articles:

• Can East Asia Show the Way?

• Will Europe Wage Peace?

• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South

• The Global South in the New Cold War

• IMF Urges Non-alignment in Second Cold War

• Deepening Stagflation: Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire

• War or Peace, Barbarism or Hope

Available online at: A New Non-Alignment for the Global South

Bullying Southeast Asia with Tariff Threats

Admin's note: This is a corrected version of the article, which originally appeared on IPS on 29 July here.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Nadia Malyanah Azman

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 29 2025 (IPS) - US President Trump has successfully used tariff threats to achieve economic, political and even personal goals. These threats, reminiscent of colonialism, have secured submission and concessions.

Indonesian template?

After hearing the 2024 US election results, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto respectfully stood up in his Jakarta office to call to congratulate the winner.

Trump bragged about his tariff offer to Indonesia in mid-July 2025, profusely flattering its president. After initially hesitating, former General Prabowo agreed to join BRICS despite Trump’s clear disapproval.

“I spoke to their really great president, very popular, very strong, smart. And we made the deal. We will pay no tariffs … they are giving us access to Indonesia … the other part is they are going to pay 19% and we are going to pay nothing.”

An Indian commentator noted, “Those words say it all. This deal is clearly one-sided, and it should bother the whole world.” Americans, not Indonesians, will pay tariffs on imports from Indonesia.

The US is Indonesia’s second-largest export market, importing apparel, palm oil, footwear, and cosmetics. Initially, Trump had threatened a 32% tariff on such imports.

This has been reduced to 19%, still almost four times more than last year! In 2024, Indonesian exports to the US were taxed at 5% on average. The Indonesian president has not complained but instead seemed relieved.

Indonesia will lose not only exports, but also growth and jobs. As Trump loves to brag, he added insult to injury as he could not resist reiterating: “They will pay 19%, and we will pay nothing.”

Guaranteed sales

Indonesia will also buy $15 billion of US oil and gas, $4.5 billion of farm produce, and 50 Boeing jets. But the 2019 Lion Air plane tragedy, which the US plane manufacturer quickly blamed on Indonesian pilots, is still alive in the national memory.

Boeing’s reputation worldwide has not recovered from the investigation into the Nairobi air crash involving the same plane model, which led to its grounding.

Indonesia is among the US’s top 25 trade partners. The deal secures American access to the Indonesian market, allowing US goods to be sold tariff-free.

Last year, Indonesia shipped $28 billion worth of goods to the US. Higher tariffs are now expected to cut Indonesian exports by a quarter, GDP growth by 0.3%, and many jobs!

Other Southeast Asian lessons?

The Philippines’ Marcos II government is the most pro-US in Southeast (SE) Asia, hosting 11 American military bases.

Yet it was the only one without a US tariff offer before Secretary of State Rubio’s SE Asian visit earlier this month. The Philippines has since been offered a new US trade deal with the same 19% tariff rate despite its loyalty to Washington.

Loyal long-term support for the US, 11 military bases and serving as an additional ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ just south of Taiwan did not secure a better trade deal for the other archipelagic nation in SE Asia.

Trump wants trade deals even more favourable to the US than existing ones. With deadlines passing, the US is expected to announce more trade deals.

The tariff threats have been more effective for Trump, thanks to decades of trade liberalisation forced on the Global South, undermining earlier import-substituting industrialisation and food security measures.

Washington has already revised earlier demands, sometimes not just once, but typically to the chagrin of US trade partners. Vietnam’s Communist Party leader was initially thought to have negotiated a better deal than other SE Asian governments.

Lessons for others?

Will the US offer to Indonesia become a template for others? Or even for countries of comparable significance in the world economy? Nobody knows Trump’s strategy, let alone how it may still change.

Perhaps it begins with the threat of high tariffs, shock and awe. Then, a less painful deal is offered, dressed up as a concession.

This may be worse than the status quo ante, but it still seems preferable to the original threat. Nations will also be required to buy US goods that may not be needed or offer the best value for money.

Thus, US offers to SE Asia are being studied worldwide for lessons on better negotiating with Washington. Meanwhile, the US refuses to negotiate collectively except with the European Union.

All over the world, policymakers will continue to debate Trump’s tariff war strategy after Monday’s agreement in Scotland, which included a 15% baseline tariff on most EU exports to the US.

The US-EU deal makes clear the West, including Europe, has never really been committed to a rules-based international order, including multilateral trade liberalisation.

As American buyers pay the tariffs, imported goods become more expensive. US trading partners will lose exports, related growth and jobs. This will mean less expansion, employment and exports worldwide, deepening stagnation.

Meanwhile, most SE Asian governments believe they have little choice but to continue negotiating with the US, which is driving them to others willing to engage them on more favourable, if not fairer, terms.

Related IPS Articles

·                   Trump Undresses Rival Trade Myths

·                   Trump Accord Sows Discord in US Empire

·                   Trump’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Tariffs

·                   Weaponizing Free Trade Agreements

·                   Trade, Currency War Weapons Double-Edged

·                   What’s different about Trump’s tariffs?

·                   Trump’s Trade War in Perspective

Original available here: Bullying Southeast Asia with Tariff Threats