JULY 13 — As Asean approaches a more uncertain and multipolar world order, the time has come for the bloc to reconsider and recalibrate its list of strategic partners.
Among the candidates that merit serious attention is the Republic of Turkey — a country with a distinct geostrategic identity, a growing economic and technological footprint, and a track record of mediating complex international crises.
Turkey, in short, is a power that Asean can no longer ignore. It is time that Turkey be recognized formally as a Strategic Dialogue Partner of Asean, and be included in the East Asia Summit (EAS) framework. It should not remain as a Sectoral Partner of Asean anymore.
A strategic middle power bridging continents
Turkey sits at the crossroads of Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, a geography that lends it significant strategic depth.
Bordering eight countries — including Greece, Bulgaria, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia — Turkey has proximity to nearly all the major conflict zones and energy corridors of the world. Its ability to interface with NATO, the Arab League, the Organization of Turkic States, the European Union (as a customs union partner), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) illustrates its omni-directional diplomacy — precisely the kind of adaptable, multipolar foreign policy orientation that Asean itself aspires to embody.
In the words of former Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkey practices a “zero problems with neighbors” policy. Even when this doctrine has been tested by regional upheavals — from the Syrian civil war to tensions with Greece — Ankara has adapted with strategic restraint rather than hegemonic ambition.
In this regard, it mirrors Asean’s ethos of non-interference, consensus-building, and respect for sovereignty. The current Foreign Minister Dr Hakan Fidan, not excluding Dr Ibrahim Kalin the Chief of Turkish intelligence, are two of the leading figures in the inner circle of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who have more than 25 years of impressive experience with the Global North and South.
President Erdoğan’s ability to speak directly with Presidents Putin and Zelenskyy, while simultaneously working with Western allies, is a testament to Turkey’s status as a credible bridge-builder in an increasingly polarized world. ― Reuters pic
Turkey’s role in global and regional stability
Turkey’s growing reputation as a global mediator is another critical asset. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Turkey has played a pivotal role — hosting rounds of peace talks, brokering the Black Sea Grain Initiative, and serving as one of the few NATO members that maintains a functioning relationship with both Kyiv and Moscow.
President Erdoğan’s ability to speak directly with Presidents Putin and Zelenskyy, while simultaneously working with Western allies, is a testament to Turkey’s status as a credible bridge-builder in an increasingly polarized world.
For Asean, which has often been caught between competing major powers — the United States and China, or Japan and South Korea — Turkey’s calibrated diplomacy offers a valuable template and support structure.
As and when Turkey can successfully balance its NATO obligations with cordial ties to Russia and China, its presence in the East Asia Summit would offer new dimensions of multilateral engagement, especially in times of crisis.
Soft power and technological diplomacy
Turkey is not merely a military or diplomatic actor. Its soft power has expanded through Turkish television dramas, cultural centers, humanitarian diplomacy, and public education initiatives in Africa, the Balkans, and Central Asia. In East Asia, Turkish Airlines is already a household name, connecting multiple Asean capitals with Istanbul and beyond.
TİKA, the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency, has quietly engaged in development and humanitarian projects in the region, further laying the groundwork for deeper cooperation.
Moreover, Turkey’s rise as a drone superpower — especially with the globally recognized Bayraktar TB2 drones — has implications for the growing security-industrial aspirations of Asean member states.
Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam are already in the process of modernizing their maritime and aerial defenses. Turkey’s unmanned aerial and maritime systems offer cost-effective, reliable alternatives to Western or Chinese technologies, without the geopolitical strings often attached.
Realist grounds: Strategic balancing and security architecture
From a realist perspective, Asean should include Turkey as a strategic dialogue partner to enhance its options in balancing external powers.
Realism acknowledges that international relations are dictated by national interests, military capabilities, and the anarchic structure of the international system.
In a context where China’s influence is rising and U.S. commitment is questioned cyclically, Turkey provides Asean with another central-power actor capable of serving as a buffer and a balancer.
Its NATO membership ensures it remains committed to a rules-based order, but its independence in foreign policy ensures that it does not automatically follow Washington’s line.
Turkey also commands one of the largest standing armies in the NATO alliance and maintains strong defense-industrial ties with South Korea, Pakistan, and increasingly with Southeast Asia.
For a region like Asean that has been careful in not aligning militarily with any great power, but still needs to modernize its capabilities, Turkey offers a partner that is both capable and careful.
Liberalist justifications: Trade, investment, and institutional partnerships
From a liberal internationalist standpoint, the inclusion of Turkey serves Asean’s goals of expanding open markets, rule-based institutions, and economic interdependence. Bilateral trade between Turkey and Asean exceeded USD 12 billion in 2023, with Turkey maintaining embassies in nearly all Asean capitals and free trade agreements in negotiation with Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia.
Turkey has also expressed keen interest in joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest free trade agreement centered around Asean.
Institutionally, Turkey already has experience in regional multilateralism through its longstanding membership in the [G20], the D8 Organization for Economic Cooperation (with Malaysia and Indonesia), and as an observer to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Asean meetings.
With diplomatic missions to the Asean Secretariat in Jakarta, and its constructive role in the [Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)], Turkey’s entry into East Asia’s top diplomatic forum is a logical next step.
Constructivist approach: Shared norms and civilizational bridges
Constructivist theory in international relations emphasizes the role of ideas, identities, and norms. In this light, Turkey and Asean share important normative commitments. Both champion multilateralism, sovereignty, and dialogue over coercion.
Turkey’s strong Islamic heritage also makes it a natural partner for Muslim-majority Asean states like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, while its secular governance structure provides a bridge to non-Muslim Asean members.
Culturally, Turkey’s historical engagement with Southeast Asia dates back centuries — through the Ottoman Empire’s ties with the Sultanates of Aceh, Patani, and Johor. These enduring civilizational linkages remain untapped reservoirs of shared memory that could be revived and institutionalized. Turkey’s emphasis on intercivilizational dialogue, as seen in its promotion of the “Alliance of Civilizations” initiative at the United Nations, aligns with Asean’s aspirations to be the convener of diverse global powers.
Institutionalism: Embedding Turkey into Asean’s multilateral norms
Institutionalist theory argues that international institutions are essential in shaping the behavior of states through norms, rules, and repeated interaction.
By including Turkey in the East Asia Summit and recognizing it as a Strategic Dialogue Partner, Asean can embed Ankara into its institutional fabric. This would allow Turkey to adapt to Asean’s core norms — non-interference, peaceful dispute settlement, and decision-making by consensus.
Furthermore, Turkey can contribute to regional initiatives on disaster relief (via the Asean Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance), counterterrorism cooperation, and public health diplomacy.
Without a doubt, Turkey can play a proactive and productive role in Asean’s comprehensive security agenda.
Turkey’s Omni-Directional Foreign Policy: A Complement, Not a Contradiction
Lastly, Turkey’s omni-directional foreign policy — its ability to pursue multiple and sometimes contradictory alignments — is not a liability but a strength.
Rather than viewing Turkey as “Janus-faced,” Asean should see Turkey as embodying precisely the kind of agility that is needed in today’s fragmented global order.
Asean itself has long practiced an equidistant diplomacy between the U.S., China, the EU, and other powers. Turkey’s inclusion would only reinforce this balanced approach.
Indeed, Turkey’s relationship with China, Japan, and South Korea — three Asean Dialogue Partners — are all on solid footing. Ankara’s ability to maintain working ties with Beijing on the Belt and Road Initiative, while opposing Chinese policies in Xinjiang on human rights grounds, reflects the kind of normative pragmatism that Asean itself often deploys.
Conclusion: A case for inclusion, not exclusion
As Asean reconsiders its diplomatic architecture in an era of power transition and fragmentation, Turkey stands out as a compelling candidate for Strategic Dialogue Partnership and East Asia Summit inclusion. Its geographic centrality, military and technological capabilities, cultural and religious affinities, as well as its record of responsible diplomacy, all make it an indispensable partner for Asean’s future.
The question is no longer why Asean should engage Turkey, but how soon. Waiting any longer would be to miss the opportunity to bring a rising and responsible power into the fold — one that can help Asean navigate a world increasingly defined by uncertainty, rivalry, and complexity.
* Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies 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.
