Welcome to Shaping Tomorrow

Global Scans · Shifting Institutions & Governance · Signal Scanner

The Rise of Personalized Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia: A Weak Signal with Disruptive Potential

In the evolving geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia, a subtle but significant shift is emerging: the increasing adoption of personalised foreign policies by key regional leaders, diverging from established multilateral frameworks. This trend, illustrated by Indonesia’s pivot under President Prabowo Subianto and electoral uncertainties affecting larger ASEAN states, represents a weak signal that may fundamentally disrupt regional cooperation, trade, and security dynamics over the next decade. Understanding this movement and its broader implications provides strategic planners, businesses, and governments with an early opportunity to anticipate shifts that could reshape economic and political alliances in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

What’s Changing?

Several recent developments point to the rise of personalised foreign policy as a disruptive force in Southeast Asia’s traditional multilateral settings. Indonesia’s strategic direction under President Prabowo Subianto exemplifies this trend, where bilateral negotiations increasingly supersede ASEAN-centric multilateralism. Prabowo’s administration has been pursuing tailored diplomatic and economic agreements that reflect national priorities rather than regional consensus, signaling a recalibration of Indonesia’s global engagements (Source).

This trend coincides with domestic political turbulence in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. Electoral uncertainty in these countries is redirecting leadership focus inward, further straining ASEAN’s capacity to act cohesively on international platforms. Internal instability reduces commitment to regional cooperation mechanisms, which historically have facilitated coordinated stances on trade, security, and diplomatic relations. The weakening of ASEAN as a unified bloc could remove a layer of stability critical to balancing competing influences within the region.

Parallel to these political shifts, the broader global governance environment is tightening regulatory frameworks across multiple sectors, including technology, health, and finance. Enterprises face constraints imposed by instruments like the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act and the United States Food and Drug Administration oversight protocols. These simultaneously raise the stakes for countries in Southeast Asia to negotiate terms that safeguard their strategic autonomy while maintaining access to global markets (Source).

The convergence of regional political realignments with evolving global regulatory landscapes suggests a fragmentation of traditional multilateral rules-based approaches. Instead, a patchwork of bilateral deals, customised to national strategic interests and regulatory contexts, is likely to gain momentum. This could reshape ASEAN’s role and introduce complexities to trade relations, supply chains, and diplomatic negotiations.

Why is this Important?

The potential erosion of ASEAN-centred multilateralism poses significant risks and opportunities across multiple domains:

  • Trade and Economic Stability: ASEAN has long provided a platform for stable, predictable trade frameworks. Moving away from this could increase transaction costs, introduce political risks, and undermine regional economic integration. Exporters facing diverging bilateral requirements may encounter higher compliance burdens, impacting cost structures and market access (Source).
  • Security and Diplomatic Balance: ASEAN has contributed to regional peace through consensus-based conflict resolution. A shift to personalised foreign policies may embolden unilateral actions and bilateral power plays, raising unpredictability in strategic alliances and regional security architecture (Source).
  • Governance and Regulatory Compliance: Countries may leverage bilateral negotiations to shield themselves from stringent global regulatory frameworks or to tailor regulations to attract specific investments. This could create regulatory fragmentation and complicate multilateral cooperation on issues such as AI governance or drug safety (Source).

Beyond Southeast Asia, this trend reflects a global recalibration of multilateralism itself, challenging business models, diplomatic engagements, and research collaborations dependent on stable, rule-based frameworks.

Implications

The fragmentation of ASEAN-centric approaches due to personalised foreign policies could reshape geopolitical and economic landscapes in several profound ways:

  • Decentralization of Regional Influence: Nations in the region might pursue tailored agreements based on immediate national interests, leading to a mosaic of bilateral pacts replacing consolidated multilateral deals. This would demand enhanced due diligence by businesses and governments to navigate bespoke agreements with diverse rules and standards.
  • Increased Political Uncertainty: The erosion of consensus-driven governance risks unpredictability. Decision-makers should expect rapid shifts in alliances and priorities, necessitating agile strategies and continuous scenario planning for disruption risks.
  • New Diplomatic Balancing Acts: Countries like Indonesia could emerge as issuer or broker of deals with extra-regional powers, including China, the United States, or the European Union. Businesses and governments will need heightened geopolitical literacy to align operations and policies accordingly.
  • Regulatory Complexity and Compliance Costs: Enterprises operating across borders in Southeast Asia are likely to encounter a patchwork of overlapping or competing regulations emerging from bilateral agreements. This could increase compliance costs and slow innovation adoption, especially in regulated sectors such as technology, finance, and healthcare.
  • Strategic Intelligence and Monitoring Needs: The subtle shift from multilateralism to personalised deals acts as a weak signal demanding early detection and deep analysis. Organizations should invest in horizon scanning and strategic foresight to identify emerging disruptions and opportunities.

In response, stakeholders may need to rethink engagement models, prioritise flexibility, and build partnerships that can adapt to a more fragmented yet dynamic geopolitical environment.

Questions

  • How might organisations revise their risk assessments and scenario planning frameworks to incorporate fragmented regional political landscapes and personalised foreign policies?
  • What capabilities must governments and enterprises develop to navigate an increasingly patchwork regulatory and diplomatic environment in Southeast Asia?
  • How can ASEAN member states balance national interests with the benefits of multilateral cooperation to prevent weakening the bloc’s collective influence?
  • What role can strategic intelligence play in detecting early shifts in political alignment that could signal major disruptions to trade and security?
  • How might the shift toward bilateralism impact global supply chains connected to Southeast Asia, and what contingency measures should be considered?

Keywords

Personalized Foreign Policy ; ASEAN ; Bilateral Agreements ; Multilateralism ; Geopolitical Risk ; Trade Integration ; Regulatory Compliance ; Southeast Asia Politics ; Strategic Intelligence

Bibliography

Briefing Created: 21/02/2026

Login

REMIND ME