SEPTEMBER 8 — The tableau in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on September 3, 2025, was choreographed with almost cinematic precision. President Xi Jinping, President Vladimir Putin, and Chairman Kim Jong-un stood together at the heart of China’s grandest military parade to date, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Behind them rolled an arsenal of hypersonic missiles, nuclear-capable underwater drones, stealth aircraft, and AI-enabled combat systems. For Xi, the message was as important as the hardware: China and its allies could no longer be dismissed as marginal actors.

This spectacle was not simply a commemoration. It was an assertion of an alternative order. In the company of Putin and Kim, Xi presented a symbolic counterweight to the U.S. and its allies. To some, this was the emergence of an authoritarian bloc defined by defiance, willing to openly challenge the legitimacy of the US-led system. Yet beneath the surface of unity lies fragility.

The optics of a “new bloc”

The optics of three nuclear-armed leaders marching in lockstep are unsettling. For audiences in Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo, the parade conveyed a deliberate challenge. If China showcased its capabilities, Russia demonstrated its resilience despite economic sanctions, while North Korea projected relevance far beyond its borders. Taken together, they seemed to declare: “We are here, and we are united against Western hegemony.”

Yet this unity is more symbolic than structural. China and Russia share common ground in their desire to weaken U.S. primacy, but their interests diverge. Russia fears being reduced to a junior partner to Beijing, especially in Central Asia where both seek influence. North Korea, meanwhile, is less a stabilizing force than a disruptive one — its provision of military support to Russia in Ukraine complicates Beijing’s careful diplomacy. What we saw in Tiananmen was less a cohesive alliance than a calculated performance.

Western anxiety and overreaction

Nevertheless, perception is power. The spectacle stoked anxiety across Western capitals already rattled by domestic political fractures and economic stagnation. The US faces ongoing battles over the legality of its tariffs, Europe is struggling with internal divisions, and Nato remains stretched by commitments in Ukraine and beyond. The appearance of a rival bloc feeds a sense of encirclement and risk. In such circumstances, hysteria can easily translate into overreaction — new sanctions, heightened military deployments, and sharper rhetoric. These measures, in turn, fuel Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang’s narratives of encirclement, creating a spiral of confrontation.

It is in precisely this volatile moment that Asean, under the leadership of its current Group Chair, must assert itself as a voice of reason and restraint.

Asean’s strategic mandate

Asean was built on neutrality, consensus, and dialogue. For decades, its role has been to keep South-east Asia from being consumed by great-power rivalry. The region lacks the military capacity to counterbalance either bloc, but it has something equally valuable: convening power. When Asean speaks as a collective, it creates space for dialogue that neither the US nor China can easily dismiss.

The Group Chair in 2025 holds a particularly crucial role. With Kuala Lumpur hosting the East Asia Summit and other high-level meetings, Asean has a platform to transform frenzy into structured conversation. The chair can steer the narrative away from confrontation, emphasising that military parades should not be mistaken for declarations of war. Asean can remind all sides that displays of capability do not automatically signal aggressive intent.

Preventing polarisation

The risk facing South-east Asia is clear. If Asean remains passive, member states will be pulled into rival blocs. Some will lean toward China for economic reasons; others will depend on US security guarantees. The result would be a fragmented Asean unable to act collectively. The chair’s responsibility is to prevent this polarization by asserting Asean’s identity as a neutral, rules-based community.

This requires more than rhetoric. Asean must propose mechanisms to de-escalate tensions — confidence-building measures, maritime dialogues, and perhaps even new codes of conduct covering cyber and AI weapons. The chair should convene side-meetings that include both bloc members and Western partners, not to resolve disputes immediately but to ensure communication remains open.

Asean as shock absorber

History offers guidance. During the Cold War, Asean functioned as a shock absorber, insulating the region from being a battleground between superpowers. It did this not through military might but through diplomacy — building habits of consultation, non-alignment, and incremental trust. In today’s fractured environment, Asean must reprise this role. Its relevance depends on it.

The spectacle of Xi, Putin, and Kim was designed to provoke fear and admiration. Asean must neither succumb to hysteria nor ignore the symbolism. Instead, the chair must position Asean as the fulcrum between power blocs, demonstrating that Southeast Asia will not be reduced to a pawn in someone else’s struggle for global order.

A moment for leadership

This is the moment for the Group Chair to exercise statesmanship. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, as Asean Chair, has already taken bold steps in mediating the Thai-Cambodian ceasefire and proposing an Asean-GCC-China economic summit. These initiatives show how middle powers can play outsized roles in stabilising turbulence. The same resolve must now be directed toward defusing the frenzy sparked by Beijing’s parade.

Conclusion

The gathering of Xi, Putin, and Kim in Tiananmen Square projected unity but revealed fragility. It was theatre as much as strategy. Yet the frenzy it generated carries risks of miscalculation and escalation. In this climate, Asean’s chair cannot afford silence. By drawing on its tradition of neutrality and its convening power, Asean can temper anxieties, preserve regional stability, and remind the world that South-east Asia is not merely a stage for great-power rivalries but an active participant in shaping peace.

In an era when optics threaten to overwhelm substance, Asean’s steady hand may be the only safeguard against frenzy becoming conflict.

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is the Professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.