ASEAN Warns Weaponized Trade Crumbles Global Order; New Conflicts Emerge
The world isn’t ending with a bang, but a whimper — a slow suffocation masked by the low hum of “economic statecraft.” The weaponization of interdependence, once touted as a guarantor of peace, is now the defining feature of our fractured global order. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, addressing ASEAN foreign ministers in Kuala Lumpur, sees it clearly: “Across the world tools once used to generate growth are now wielded to pressure, isolate and contain.” The Phuket News reports on his blunt assessment, delivered as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives with the specter of impending levies hanging heavy in the air. But this isn’t just about the geopolitical theater; it’s about a fundamental shift in the logic governing global relations.
This isn’t merely a Southeast Asian problem, or even just a trade war. It’s a symptom of a deeper disintegration: the slow-motion collapse of the Washington Consensus that structured the post-Cold War era. Trump’s potential tariffs on Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and others, while presented as negotiating ploys, are acts of unilateralism that unravel the intricate web of commitments upon which global commerce depends. Vietnam’s tentative agreement with Washington, seemingly a win, reveals the cynical logic of a divide-and-conquer strategy at play.
“Our cohesion must not end at declarations. It must be built into our institutions, our strategies and our economic decisions.”
The news from Kuala Lumpur exposes a paradox at the heart of globalization: the very economic ties meant to bind nations are now being used as instruments of coercion. For decades, the dogma was that interdependence created mutual vulnerability, discouraging conflict. Countries wouldn’t risk billions in trade by initiating hostilities. But as Anwar Ibrahim’s speech underscores, those ties aren’t a safeguard; they’re leverage. Like a marriage turned acrimonious, the intimacy of interdependence breeds new forms of conflict.
This reflects a profound shift in national priorities. The rise of China, the decades-long stagnation of the American middle class, and the increasingly undeniable reality of the climate crisis have all corroded the foundations of the liberal international order. States increasingly perceive the global landscape as a zero-sum game, where one nation’s gains necessitate another’s losses. Consider the South China Sea dispute, a prominent agenda item at the ASEAN meeting. China’s expansive territorial claims directly challenge the sovereignty and economic interests of numerous Southeast Asian nations, a friction that could escalate into open military conflict, despite—or perhaps because of—the complex web of trade and investment linking these countries.
But is this simply a realpolitik power struggle, or something more foundational? Dani Rodrik, in “The Globalization Paradox,” famously argued that a nation can only deeply pursue two of these three things: global economic integration, national sovereignty, or democratic politics. The drive for hyper-globalization, the relentless pursuit of ever-deeper economic integration, has arguably hollowed out domestic democratic institutions, empowering populist movements demanding greater national control and protection. From Brexit to Trump’s “America First” agenda, trade has become a convenient scapegoat for broader societal anxieties — a proxy battle in a deeper struggle over sovereignty and identity. The problem isn’t just trade deals; it’s the perception that they were forged without genuine democratic consent.
Ultimately, the story emanating from the ASEAN meeting is a stark warning: the mirage of a rules-based global order is dissolving, replaced by a landscape where power eclipses principles, and tariffs are weaponized as tools of coercion. We’re not simply witnessing a reshuffling of power, but a collapse of the shared understanding that made the previous order possible. The question now is not whether globalization will continue, but what form it will take: a race to the bottom, characterized by beggar-thy-neighbor policies and escalating tensions, or a reimagined system grounded in greater equity, sustainability, and democratic accountability. The fate of ASEAN — its unity, its strategic vision, its ability to forge a common purpose — may offer a crucial preview of the answer. And, perhaps, a roadmap.
