Adapting Trump’s transactional, deal-making diplomacy for ASEAN

Trump’s visit to Malaysia, which holds the rotating chair of ASEAN in 2025, comes at a time when the region is facing a series of challenges, from the intensifying US-China trade tensions, US reciprocal tariffs to the Cambodia-Thailand border conflict.

To its credit, ASEAN has managed to steer through a series of unprecedented challenges this year, despite scepticism about its organisational effectiveness.

In negotiating Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, the organisation projected unity by not taking retaliatory actions; though members acted independently due to the absence of any real mandate or institutional capacity for Asean, their actions remained broadly aligned with its collective stance.

In brokering the Trump-initiated ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand, ASEAN chair, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim leveraged the platform effectively, drawing credibility from being viewed both as the region’s strongman and an honest broker, which lent weight to the mediation efforts.

ASEAN'S convening power proved effective in navigating a difficult year, but the real question is whether the organisation can replicate these successes in the coming years by establishing a structured approach in navigating future unprecedented challenges.

The most frequent criticism of ASEAN is that it lacks a real mandate to act on behalf of the member states, and it is not as powerful as the European Union (EU). ASEAN'S consensus-driven structure is frequently cited as the key reason to why the organisation may struggle to overcome more severe challenges in Southeast Asia.

This perceived weakness is also ASEAN'S greatest strength; the structure allows member states at various stages of nation building to develop and strengthen their individual national institutions while simultaneously tapping into the collective strength of the organisation.

When ASEAN was founded, its five original members were at very early stages of developing their own individual national institutions and each was facing unique domestic challenges.

In the case of Malaysia, it was fighting a Communist insurgency. It would not have been practical to cede power to a new entity at that particular point in time. It remains impossible today to turn ASEAN into a powerful entity like the EU.

Rather than getting caught up in debates on whether ASEAN should be turned into a more powerful entity, the focus should remain on what matters most to the member states and on the tangible results the organisation can deliver.

What matters most for ASEAN is not the structure or the form, but the organisation’s ability to navigate future disruptions and consistently deliver results for its diverse member states while operating within constraints.

The most valuable lesson for ASEAN from this year’s unprecedented challenges has been to learn to negotiate with an assertive and transactional US presidency that has clear and firm objectives.

In negotiating the reciprocal tariffs, the US made its expectations explicit, such as strict compliance to rules of origin and to crack down on transshipment fraud.

Negotiating with a US presidency that has clear and transactional objectives enabled ASEAN members states to identify Washington’s priorities and tailor their offers accordingly.

Trump also forced Cambodia and Thailand to the negotiating table in exchange for lower tariffs, which led to both sides meeting in Putrajaya to agree to a ceasefire.

By awarding both sides with lower tariffs in exchange for a ceasefire, Trump has made clear his commitment and personal investment in the outcome of the border dispute negotiation process.

While in Malaysia, Trump is expected to preside over the signing of the Kuala Lumpur Accord, which is an expansion of the ceasefire agreement signed in Putrajaya last July.

ASEAN should embed the lessons from this challenging year into a permanent framework, creating a deal-making “Trumpian template” to navigate similar or even tougher challenges in the coming years.

For ASEAN to grow and remain relevant it can start by adapting elements of Trump’s coercive, transactional diplomacy.