Skip to main content

Sino-US conflict: M’sia and Asean need a paradigm shift, commit to neutrality

PREVIOUSLY, we spoke about how the US and its allies were deploying strategic military assets to the Far Eastern region, leading to speculation that they were beefing up measures to counter an increasingly assertive China in the region.

Now, let us look at how Malaysia and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) could move away from this potential conflict, by taking a firm stand on its neutrality since the Cold War era.

The Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) is a proclamation made in 1971 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, by the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN member states including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

The parties openly announced their intention to preserve Southeast Asia “free from any form or manner of foreign influence” and “broaden the areas of cooperation” in the declaration.

Based on the Bandung Principles agreed upon at the 1955 Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was formally created in 1961 at the Belgrade Summit.

One of the ten principles of Bandung Principles is non-use of collective defense pacts to benefit the specific interests of any of the great powers and it further emphasised that non-use of pressures by any country against other countries.

Despite the fact that ASEAN has developed close political and economic ties with China, Japan and the US, it must proclaim that, in accordance with the ZOPFAN and Bandung Principles, the area is non-partisan in any current or future conflicts.

Conflicting countries cannot utilise ASEAN as a launch pad for attacks on other countries.

For instance, the current maritime territorial dispute between China and three ASEAN countries (Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines) remains unsolved. Despite the fact that the Philippines won a case against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration for its rights in the South China Sea, China has branded the verdict “ill-founded” and has stated that it would not be bound by it.

In addition, the tribunal found that China had infringed on the Philippines’ sovereign rights. Unfortunately, the Philippines’ current president, Rodrigo Duterte, regards China as a “good friend.”

The question now is whether a Government can pawn its own territory for economic gain, and if so, any country that does so will be in grave danger.

In terms of collective response to China, ASEAN has recently grown powerless and divided. Is overwhelming economic participation a fundamental reason why some ASEAN countries are hesitant to voice their opposition to China’s actions in the South China Sea?

Malaysia’s response

Malaysia is a trading partner of China, Japan and the US, with the former investing heavily in our country. Since 2016, China has remained Malaysia’s largest foreign investor, according to the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA). During that time, MIDA approved 172 projects totalling RM43.6 bil in investment.

Even if Malaysia has recently leaned toward China for economic reasons, this should have no bearing on Malaysia’s decision to support it in the event of a future conflict. As it is, Malaysia is bound by the ZOPFAN and Bandung Principles and it should maintain its neutrality.

Now is the moment for Malaysia to take the lead by pressing ASEAN to state its position on the impending major power confrontation.

We understand that Malaysia is concerned about the surge of COVID-19 cases, the economic slump the rise in employment and political instability.

However, the nation’s sovereignty must be protected at all costs. Therefore, the current administration must pay close attention to the looming hostility between China and the US, which will take place in Asia in the near future. – July 25, 2021

Source: https://focusmalaysia.my/sino-us-conflict-msia-and-asean-need-a-paradigm-shift-commit-to-neutrality/.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Smart Security, Free Society: Malaysia’s Data Dilemma

In today’s digitally driven world, national security is no longer confined to borders or traditional threats. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and asymmetric warfare have become the new frontiers of conflict. Malaysia, strategically located in Southeast Asia and increasingly exposed to regional tensions and internal vulnerabilities, must strengthen its security apparatus. However, doing so must not come at the cost of civil liberties. Malaysia can enhance its security strategy by leveraging insights from advanced data platforms like those pioneered by Palantir Technologies, while maintaining strong democratic oversight to safeguard the fundamental freedoms protected by the Federal Constitution. Palantir Technologies, a U.S.-based company, gained prominence in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its core software, Gotham, was designed to integrate fragmented intelligence and provide real-time, actionable insights to military and intelligence agencies. Over the years,...

Syringe Attacks in Malaysia and France: Random Violence or Terrorism? - Part 3

The syringe attack on the 12-year-old son of Pandan MP and former Economy Minister, Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, has shaken Malaysia. What initially appeared as a rare and bizarre incident now echoes a disturbing pattern witnessed abroad, notably in France. In June 2025, during the Fête de la Musique festival, over 145 people across France reported being pricked with syringes in crowded public areas. In both cases, the weapon of fear was not a gun or bomb but a syringe. When viewed together, the Rafizi incident and the mass needle attacks in France reveal an alarming global trend of unconventional, psychological violence that leaves behind not just physical uncertainty but emotional trauma. The question we must now ask is: are these acts simply random criminality, or should they be treated with the gravity of terrorist attacks? A Pattern Beyond Borders In France, the attacks spanned multiple cities, with 13 confirmed cases in Paris alone. Victims included women, men, and even min...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.