Malaysia’s Active Nonalignment

If you want a positive vision for a peaceful future, look Southeast. Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim explains why and how ASEAN contributes to global prosperity through active nonalignment.

I must admit, I am jealous. Jealous of Malaysians and ASEAN citizens because they have what we Europeans lost decades ago; leaders that are also independent thinkers—true intellectuals—with strategic visions toward peace, reconciliation, and prosperity. Visions that do not rely on manufactured external enemies, violent interventions, militarism, or Orwellian slogans (“weapons are the way to peace”), but pragmatic realism that balances military security with all other dimensions of human well-being, like economic prosperity and individual development.

On May 31,[1] Anwar Ibrahim, the prime minister of Malaysia, gave a wonderful speech at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, culminating in a farsighted definition of “active nonalignment” as a tool to not just stay out of conflict but to positively contribute to the stability and prosperity of the globe. Ibrahim, with an eloquence I haven’t heard from Western leaders in decades, masterfully makes the case for peace through neutrality. I encourage everyone to watch it in full or read it here. Nevertheless, here is a brief discussion of his talk and why it matters.

Prosperity Through Connectivity, Not Conflict

Since Malaysia, in 2025, holds the rotating presidency of the ten (soon eleven) member club of ASEAN countries, Ibrahim’s speech oscillates continuously between visions for the entire block and the foreign policy of his own country. At the core of it lies the observation that “Southeast Asia is holding its ground through cooperation, collective resilience, and the steady exercise of our own agency.”

The last part is key to his vision. Maintaining agency, Ibrahim stresses, is what gives his country and ASEAN the ability to pursue what’s good not for one or the other faction, but to balance out interests—within ASEAN and worldwide—to engage partners rather than confront enemies. For instance, his comments on the grave situation in civil war-ridden Myanmar (an ASEAN member) speak volumes:

The situation in Myanmar remains grave, but we are not standing still. ASEAN does not seek to engineer outcomes in Myanmar. (…). Myanmar’s nationhood must be forged through inclusion, not erasure.

Can you imagine any EU leader speaking like this? Can you imagine Kaja Kallas calling for the resolution of conflicts through the inclusion of the parties rather than outside interventionism? Of course not.

But that is the “ASEAN way.” Long criticized as an ineffective talk-shop, ASEAN’s model of coming up with basic common principles—you could call it smallest common denominators—rather than top-down enforceable rules makes it possible to simultaneously criticize the military dictatorship in Naypyidaw but also maintain a working relationship with them. And this is not just the approach since Malaysia took over the chairmanship. In 2021, right after the military coup and outbreak of mass violence in Myanmar, ASEAN invited the Junta leader, Min Aung Hlaing, to talks at the bloc’s headquarters in Jakarta—and he came! ASEAN enjoys an unheard-of level of trust precisely because it is not a threatening club of militarists, but a forum for reconciliation. And yes, the civil war in Myanmar didn’t stop. But it also didn’t escalate into a regional war.

Security Through Prosperity—Not The Other Way Around

Back to Ibrahim’s speech. In the next section, he lays out why we shouldn’t think of trade as the result of dominance and deterrence, but itself a cornerstone of building security:

We warned of the dangers of unilateral actions, retaliatory tariffs and the growing risk of global fragmentation. We affirmed ASEAN’s commitment to an open, predictable and rules-based trading system – not because it is expedient, but because it is existential. (…) Economic openness is not just about creating prosperity and growth. It is a source of equilibrium, both between nations and within them, to deal with pressing issues that affect the people, such as poverty, social inequities, or even digital divide. Open markets create the kind of mutual exposure between nations that encourages caution, not confrontation.

While there are certianly elements of neo-liberal ideology burried in these lines, I would like to stress that Ibrahim does naturally not see open markets as a strategy to exploit other countries but that trade is a necessity for states and hence a fair and equitable system that fosters also the prosperity of the lower classes within them is the goal we should strive for—all while using mutual engagement for building even more bridges among nations. This “source of equilibrium” is what finally creates stability and, hence, security.

Active Nonalignment is Pragmatic Realism

Ibrahim is not a hopeless Kumbaya-Pacifist. Not at all. The severity of the current moment actually informs a central part of his analysis: “All this talk about trade does not mean we are oblivious to the hard security challenges facing our region.” It is the realities of this cruel world that must inform policy-making. But what he talks about are the “actual” realities, not the fake narratives and make-believe spin that have lulled Europe and North America into warmonger vassalage within their spider-webs of alliances.

We do not object to like-minded partners talking amongst themselves. But coalitions that build walls instead of bridges, stoke arms competition, or undermine the legitimacy of multilateralism should give us pause. A stable region is not one braced for conflict, but one grounded in openness, transparency, and habit-forming cooperation.

Nevertheless, we understand that nations need a degree of control over their defence industries and critical infrastructure. We recognise that a measure of deterrence helps keep all parties honest. It is with that realism in mind that Malaysia adopts a posture of active non-alignment, to preserve our ability to act on our own terms. It is a deliberate way to remain outward-facing, connected, and in control of our strategic space.

This active nonalignment doesn’t mean one doesn’t speak about ongoing conflicts. Ibrahim courageously names the genocide in Gaza as “a test of our collective conscience.” And as an example of a challenge closer to home, he cites the South China Sea Dispute as something Malaysia and ASEAN are naturally very worried about. However, this is also a conflict that he says needs to be resolved through engagement and based on the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—a clear rejection of China and the USA, which both have tried (in different ways) to evade UNCLOS provisions. Ibrahim cites this independent and critical policy toward all foreign powers as proof that “the suggestion that if we do not align fully with one side, then we must have capitulated to the other, is untenable.” Bravo! Yes, that is completely correct. ASEAN can be neither on one side nor the other, but oppose both while working with all. That is true independence and true Active Nonalignment.

I’ll close this essay with Ibrahim’s words, as I find them full of wisdom and reason for hope that, at least in Southeast Asia, there is still positive visionary statesmanship left.

Malaysia does not believe in spheres of influence. History has shown that when major powers attempt to divide the world into exclusive zones of control, smaller nations are often left voiceless. Stability does not come from carving up the map, but from creating space for all to participate meaningfully in shaping the order we live in.

Our approach is one of active non-alignment. We will engage all who are willing – major powers and middle powers alike – not to set one against the other, but to maximise our own strategic space. Indeed, while we welcome a strong and enduring US presence in the region, towards fostering peace, we also value our vibrant and firm ties with China, and our robust partnerships across Asia, Europe and the Global South.

What Southeast Asia needs is a dynamic equilibrium that enables cooperation without coercion, and balance without bloc politics. For Malaysia, this is a deliberate and strategic posture: to help preserve an open region, to assert our sovereignty, and to make our own choices–on our own terms.

---

[1] This is a bit of «old news» but I didn’t see this speech until recently. Thank you VERY MUCH to my reader G.L. (@gaelinrefira) for pointing this speech out.