SEPTEMBER 11 — The temperature of world politics is rising. From Ukraine and Gaza to the simmering border between Thailand and Cambodia, the international order today feels like a pressure cooker. Against this backdrop, the Asia Zero Emissions Community (AZEC) cannot afford to be a footnote. It must be at the very centre of how Asia, and indeed the wider world, responds to the defining challenge of our century: climate change.
When great powers exchange sharp elbows — whether over sanctions, tariffs, or territorial disputes—smaller states are often forced to pick sides.
For Asean, which has prided itself on “centrality,” the danger is that neutrality in geopolitics could be confused with passivity in climate cooperation. That would be a grave mistake.
Climate change is not a distant abstraction. South-east Asia is one of the most climate-vulnerable regions. Rising sea levels threaten to swallow parts of Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, which feeds tens of millions.
Typhoons grow stronger every year, battering the Philippines. Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country, has already made the extraordinary decision to move its capital away from sinking Jakarta.
These realities mean that as the geopolitical mercury goes up, so must the urgency of regional climate action.
AZEC was conceived as an answer to this reality — a forum where Japan, Asean, and like-minded partners commit to zero emissions and a green transition.
Its promise lies not in rhetoric, but in its potential to pool technologies, mobilize financing, and create cross-border green supply chains that lower costs and widen access.
Yet AZEC faces a dilemma. Climate partnerships are being dragged into the whirlpool of geopolitical competition.
The United States and China are racing to dominate renewable technologies, from solar panels to electric vehicle batteries. The European Union sets green standards that affect trade patterns worldwide.
For Asean states, participation in Asian Zero Emissions Community (AZEC) must therefore navigate three competing imperatives: energy security, strategic autonomy, and developmental needs.
South-east Asia remains heavily dependent on coal and natural gas. Any transition must safeguard affordable access to energy, or risk public backlash from communities that cannot afford rising costs.
At the same time, joining AZEC should not be perceived as endorsing one camp over another in the geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Equally pressing, the region’s middle-income economies must continue to grow while greening their output. The balancing act is delicate, but Asean, if it succeeds, can demonstrate to the world that climate cooperation does not have to be a zero-sum game.
Japan, as AZEC’s primary sponsor, has both moral and strategic reasons to ensure its success.
It has historically financed coal projects abroad, especially in Asia, and now faces international pressure to pivot towards cleaner alternatives. Tokyo also seeks to maintain its influence in a region where China’s Belt and Road Initiative has poured billions into energy and infrastructure.
By investing in decarbonization, Japan can reposition itself as a trusted partner. Its technologies in hydrogen, ammonia co-firing, and carbon capture can provide transitional pathways for Asean economies reluctant to leap immediately from coal to renewables.
More importantly, Japan’s convening role at AZEC reassures smaller Asean states that this is not another geopolitical tug-of-war, but a cooperative platform aimed at securing their future.
The greatest challenge, however, is financing. Transitioning to clean energy requires trillions of dollars, and South-east Asia cannot bear this burden alone.
Domestic budgets are constrained by debt and development needs, while private investors demand risk guarantees.
AZEC should therefore evolve into a financing hub, mobilizing blended finance that combines public funds, private capital, and multilateral loans. Japan’s partnership with the Asian Development Bank could be pivotal here.
If structured properly, AZEC could help lower the cost of capital for green projects, making solar farms, offshore wind, and electric vehicle infrastructure commercially viable in countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Still, AZEC must avoid two pitfalls that have plagued similar initiatives. The first is over-promising and under-delivering.
Countless climate frameworks have been launched with great fanfare, only to stagnate due to lack of follow-through. AZEC must deliver tangible, near-term projects — such as regional power grids or joint solar manufacturing — rather than distant pledges.
The second is greenwashing. Asean states cannot afford to rebrand coal as “clean” or overstate the role of carbon capture.
While transitional technologies have a place, AZEC must keep its eye on the true goal: a steady decline in fossil fuel dependence.
The credibility of Asean itself is at stake. The region is already criticized for being slow and divided on issues like Myanmar or the East China Sea. If it fails to lead on climate — an existential issue for its peoples — its claim to centrality will be further eroded.
By contrast, if AZEC succeeds, Asean can position itself as a bridge-builder between competing powers, showing that cooperation is still possible in a fractured world. It can prove that the rise of geopolitical temperatures need not doom humanity to literal planetary overheating.
As Asean Chair in 2025, Malaysia has a special role to play.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has already been thrust into crisis diplomacy, from mediating Thai-Cambodian tensions to balancing US and Chinese pressures on trade. But climate diplomacy cannot be sidelined.
Come this October 2025, Kuala Lumpur should use its convening power to push AZEC beyond pledges into action.
Similarly, Japan, as AZEC’s architect, must sustain momentum, offering not only technology but also financing and political guarantees. The US, China, and the EU must be engaged not as rivals, but as stakeholders in Asia’s green future.
Above all, the peoples of Asean — its farmers, fishers, youth, and urban poor — must be placed at the centre of this transition.
They will bear the brunt of climate shocks, and they will also power the green transformation if given the chance.
The world is entering an era of sharper geopolitical rivalry, but climate change is the one arena where cooperation is not optional.
It is existential. AZEC represents a chance for Asia to show leadership, pragmatism, and moral responsibility.
If the geopolitical mercury keeps going up, so too must our determination to cool the planet through genuine climate cooperation. The time for posturing has passed. The time for action is now.
*Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalisation 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.
