ASEAN–GCC–China economic summit one month after: Buffer against tariff disorder

For what it is worth, the ASEAN–GCC–China Economic Summit, held from May 23 to 27, may have appeared at first glance to be another ceremonial gathering filled with lofty declarations of partnership and prosperity.

But beneath the surface, the Summit was a sober act of collective self-preservation—a timely and calculated move to shield regional economies from the destabilizing effects of Trump’s universal tariff doctrine and the wider unraveling of global trade norms. Besides ASEAN GCC trade was growing at 30 percent per annum; although GCC remains the 7th trading partner of ASEAN. As for China, it remains ASEAN's largest trading partner since 2022. Eclipsing the volume of trade between China and European Union for the first time ever.

Be that as it may, at a moment when the Trump administration is hurtling toward its self-imposed deadline of 90 trade deals in 90 days—a goal announced by trade advisor Peter Navarro on April 9, 2025—only three vague deals have materialized: with the UK, Vietnam, and China. These agreements are thin on enforceable substance and thick with ambiguity. None signal a stable future. And yet the global consequences are already visible: rising uncertainty, frayed alliances, and fragmented supply chains.

It is in this context that ASEAN, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and China gathered—not to celebrate—but to consolidate, stabilize, and resist.

Both ASEAN and the GCC have long histories of responding to regional insecurity by building institutional buffers. ASEAN, established on August 8, 1967, emerged in the shadow of the Vietnam War and Cold War rivalries in Southeast Asia. Though the Bangkok Declaration avoided direct reference to geopolitical turmoil, ASEAN’s true goal was unmistakable: to protect regime stability and regional peace.

Similarly, the GCC, formed in 1981, was a direct response to the regional chaos unleashed by Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War. It too masked its intentions behind economic cooperation, but its essence was clear—preservation of the political order in the Gulf monarchies.

Both organizations are pro-stability alliances. No matter how aspirational their declarations on people’s welfare may sound, their default priority remains the survival of the state first and concurrent with it the people's safety and economic welfare.

China’s inclusion in the May 23–27 summit is not merely about trade volumes or diplomatic symbolism.

It reflects a shared worldview. China, like ASEAN and the GCC, places regime continuity, internal cohesion, and strategic autonomy above external validation. To ensure the well being of their people. The trilateral cooperation emerging from this summit is more than geopolitical—it is civilizational.

Both Confucianism and Islam—the dominant philosophical traditions informing China and the Islamic world—hold stability and predictability as sacred virtues.

Confucianism, as articulated in the Analects, prioritizes harmony (和, hé), hierarchical order, and moral leadership. The Confucian ruler governs not through force but through virtue and consistency.

As Confucius said, “The gentleman understands what is moral. The small man understands what is profitable.” In times of global instability, Confucianism favors a return to order.

Islam, too, is anchored in justice (ʿadl), balance (mīzān), and the upholding of contracts and social trust.

Islamic teachings, especially in economic life, prioritize justice, predictability, fairness, and collective well-being. All in proper balance and moderation.

Together, these civilizational legacies underpin the political logic of ASEAN, the GCC, and China. Their Summit was not a reaction to just another tariff regime—it was a civilizational act of reassurance against further disorder.

Sadly, the rhetoric of 90 trade deals in 90 days has not translated into economic confidence.

The UK deal is politically convenient, the China deal lacks clarity, and the Vietnam deal risks splitting ASEAN unity. Meanwhile, blanket 25% tariffs imposed on critical sectors have thrown traditional allies like Japan into political turmoil.

Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru faces domestic pressure ahead of the July 30 Upper House elections. Any appearance of capitulation to U.S. pressure could prove politically fatal. Japan’s car manufacturing sector—deeply tied to global supply chains—now finds itself in the cross hairs of U.S. tariff pressures.

The May 23–27 Summit offered a quiet but powerful counter-vision: open regionalism grounded in mutual respect, long-term cooperation, and economic multilateralism. For ASEAN, this is the reaffirmation of its foundational principle: that regional cooperation should be outward-looking, non-exclusive, and anchored in dialogue.

For the GCC, it is part of a long-term effort to diversify away from oil and reduce dependency on Western financial systems.

For China, it is a geopolitical necessity—to hedge against encirclement and technological decoupling.

This trilateral format also quietly refutes Trump’s model of transactional, coercive bilateralism.

The ASEAN–GCC–China Economic Summit of May 23–27 must be understood for what it truly was: a stabilizing summit in a destabilized world. It was not driven by ideology or aspiration, but by the cold logic of political and economic necessity.

When global systems fragment, responsible regions must re-anchor themselves—in history, in civilizational values, and in one another.

As Trump’s tariff doctrine undermines the very architecture of international trade, these three actors have signaled that they will neither submit to chaos nor surrender the norms that sustain prosperity.

The lesson is clear: civilizations that prize order must build the coalitions that preserve it. _______________________________________________________________________________________

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.