TAEF

BACKGROUND

Global (Dis)Order?

Over the past few years, the world has witnessed an increasingly complex reconfiguration of the global order. While the global order has always been somewhat fragile, recent developments have prompted renewed scrutiny of the relevance and effectiveness of international institutions in facilitating growth, cooperation, and development. Across the globe, states are experiencing a resurgence of nationalist tendencies coupled with democratic backsliding (Bieber, 2018) that undermine the spirit of global cooperation, placing multilateralism under significant strain. Institutions such as the United Nations and regional blocs are now facing a critical “stress test” to determine whether they remain capable of addressing today’s multifaceted global challenges. This shift is further complicated by the rise and prevalence of authoritarian leaders in major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia - figures whose policy decisions often trigger a domino effect that heightens global competition and leaves smaller states with diminishing space to maneuver diplomatically and economically.

This reality is especially evident in the Indo-Pacific region, where the intensifying trade war between the United States and China, exacerbated by new tariff measures and the re-election of President Trump, has contributed to regional economic instability. Geopolitical tensions, particularly in the South China Sea involving Southeast Asian nations like the Philippines, further strain the region, revealing a landscape marked by both geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges. It is within this context that this year’s Yushan Forum is convened, underscoring the Indo-Pacific’s critical juncture. The Forum’s discussions emphasize the urgency of redefining the region’s shared vision - one grounded in mutual understanding, cooperative trade, and trust - as essential for sustained growth and resilience amid ongoing global uncertainties.

Understanding Complexities

One of the discussions during the Yushan Forum brings to the fore the complexities and internal contradictions of the Indo-Pacific as both a geopolitical construct and a regional community of diverse interests. Hon. Pita Limjaroenrat, Senior Visiting Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School, and Former Member of the House of Representatives of Thailand, underscored that the Indo-Pacific is far from united; rather, it is marked by overlapping, often competing minilateral arrangements and power blocs. This fragmentation challenges the formation of a coherent vision for the region. The ongoing US-China trade war, as highlighted during the forum, has further intensified these divisions by erecting new trade barriers and deepening geopolitical fault lines. Yet, within these difficulties lies an opportunity: the Indo-Pacific, though relatively new as a regional framework, can move toward a broader and more inclusive sense of unity that transcends ASEAN’s membership to embrace a wider constellation of states. The task ahead is to create structures that accommodate both shared and divergent interests, especially in addressing pressing challenges such as maritime navigation, crisis management, and economic coordination.

H.E. Bilahari Kausikan, former Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations and distinguished fellow at the National University of Singapore, deepened this insight by reminding us that “Indo-Pacific” is not a politically neutral term. It reflects shifting global power dynamics and attempts to force artificial uniformity would be both impractical and counterproductive. Instead, he argued that while the region should not strive for uniformity, it must cultivate resilience and strategic agency to prepare for pressures from both the United States and China. He noted that the United States, preoccupied with domestic concerns, is increasingly unwilling to uphold the day-to-day mechanisms of the global order, a reality that places greater responsibility on Indo-Pacific states to act independently and collectively.

Inclusive Trade as Common Ground

Hon. Limjaroenrat and H.E. Kausikan sketched out practical, cooperative ways forward. Both argued for a non-binary, structured coordination mechanism, one that cuts through duplication, bolsters intelligence, and maritime cooperation, and amplifies the region’s collective voice. Central to their vision is deepening economic interdependence across the Indo-Pacific. Trade partnerships, like semiconductor collaborations, show how linking economies can cushion the region from external shocks and great-power rivalries. As Kausikan observed, “defensive economics is offensive economics”: strong intra-regional trade not only guards against outside threats but also weaves the region more tightly together. When countries share economic stakes, they’re less likely to drift into conflict and more likely to invest in long-term peace and prosperity. In this way, the Indo-Pacific can chart a course defined not by superpower competition, but by shared growth and stability.

Hon. Anshuman Tripathi, of India’s National Security Advisory Board, extended this economic argument with a simple maxim that “the business of business is business.” He noted that semiconductors have become a genuine “regional pride,” blending Taiwanese hardware expertise with Indian engineering talent. He said English functions as  a practical lingua franca, helping the Indo-Pacific evolve into a “global capability center.” By leaning into technology partnerships, the region can generate what Tripathi called “shared happiness.” His idea of a collaborative ecosystem, a kind of “happy family,” shows how moving beyond ideological divides through real trade and tech projects delivers tangible benefits for everyone.

Shifting from high-tech exports to the economic grassroots, Limjaroenrat highlighted the vulnerability of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) caught in the US-China trade crossfire. Without domestic cushions such as grants, training, and policy safeguards, these firms risk collapse, which would undercut the entire Indo-Pacific endeavor. He stressed again that the region’s strength lies in its diversity: any coordination mechanism must bridge minilateralism and power blocs, align national strategies, and marshal collective energy toward resilient supply chains and inclusive growth.

From the perspective of a smaller state, Dr. Alan Bollard, Chair of New Zealand’s Economic Cooperation Council, emphasized the importance of patience and pragmatism amid global uncertainty, advocating a “keep calm and carry on” approach. With the United States retreating from agreements like the CPTPP and populism influencing major powers’ foreign policies, New Zealand is closely monitoring ASEAN’s direction, whether it gravitates toward protectionism or continues supporting open markets. Bollard recommended a strategic focus on identifying supply-chain interdependencies, sustaining traditional alliances such as with Australia, pursuing diversified partnerships, and safeguarding national interests within an increasingly unpredictable geopolitical environment. Taken together, inclusive trade can serve as the common ground the Indo-Pacific needs. By weaving tighter economic linkages, backed by technology collaboration, SME support, and strategic hedging, the region can construct a cohesive, multipolar future built on cooperation rather than coercion.

Trust as Foundation

H.E. Audrey Tang, Taiwan's Cyber Ambassador-at-Large, illustrated how trust, both online and offline, is the bedrock for any shared Indo-Pacific vision, and showed that artificial intelligence (AI) can actively build rather than erode that trust. In Taiwan, AI-facilitated “sense-making” platforms have turned mass text-message polls into real policy dialogue: by gathering hundreds of thousands of individual responses, using AI to surface “uncommon ground,” and then convening online assemblies to explore those points of agreement, citizens and policymakers have co-created solutions ranging from taxi-Uber coexistence to 4G network rollout. This model of digital democracy, where AI acts as a neutral facilitator, screens out trolls through trust architectures, and maps sentiment across cultures, has not only strengthened Taiwan’s institutional resilience against disinformation but also inspired similar experiments in Tokyo, Finland, and California.

Bringing this to the Indo-Pacific, Tang argued that equipping young people with AI-backed tools for cross-border dialogue is crucial so they can articulate shared values, bridge political systems, and “free the future” through collaborative agenda-setting. Through embedding interoperability standards among democracies and building safe, inclusive digital spaces, AI becomes the connective tissue that turns diverse minilaterals into a cohesive regional community. In this way, trustworthy AI platforms do more than manage data; they stitch together the social fabric, empower emerging leaders, and anchor a common vision of prosperity and stability across the Indo-Pacific.

INSIGHTS AND REFLECTIONS

Challenges and Difficulties:

1. Competing strategic frameworks hinder the formation of a unified Indo-Pacific vision.

While the idea of an “Indo-Pacific” region as a strategic space is gaining traction, it is being interpreted through competing lenses depending on geopolitical interests. Major powers such as the United States, Japan, and the European Union have advanced their own regional strategies, such as the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPEF), Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP), and the European Union’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, each emphasizing different priorities like freedom of navigation, connectivity, climate action, and digital governance. However, rather than forging convergence, these visions often reflect the sponsor’s geopolitical interests and preferred rules-based orders. For instance, while the FOIP champions maritime security and economic connectivity, ASEAN’s Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) focuses more on inclusivity, development cooperation, and non-alignment. These differences are accentuated by the ongoing US-China rivalry, which continues to polarize the region into spheres of influence. Without a harmonized framework that prioritizes mutual development and people-centered cooperation, the Indo-Pacific risks becoming a fragmented space of overlapping but competing regional visions rather than a truly integrated community.

2. Supply chain resiliency remains a structural vulnerability for developing Indo-Pacific economies.

Amid trade tensions and strategic decoupling between the United States and China, countries in the Indo-Pacific are attempting to diversify their trade partnerships and invest in “friend-shoring” or “near-shoring” strategies. Yet, supply chain resilience is more aspirational than actionable for many developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. SMEs, which constitute over 97% of all businesses and contribute 45% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in ASEAN alone (ASEAN, n.d.), face acute challenges in adapting to rapid shifts in trade flows, tariffs, and logistics disruptions. As global firms restructure their production lines to minimize exposure to geopolitical risks, developing economies risk being left out of high-value segments of the supply chain or becoming overly reliant on one major partner. The regional economy thus risks entering a domino cycle where weaker economies default to either protectionist policies to shield domestic industries or unilaterally liberalize markets to attract foreign capital, often without the policy infrastructure to protect workers and small producers. This can exacerbate inequality, economic dependency, and domestic political backlash, undermining long-term regional stability.

3. Artificial Intelligence is a double-edged sword in trust-building within the Indo-Pacific.

AI holds immense promise for advancing development goals in areas like health, agriculture, climate modeling, and disaster response across the Indo-Pacific. However, the rapid and often unregulated deployment of AI technologies has also made them powerful instruments of social disruption, particularly in the realm of information integrity. Disinformation and deepfake technologies powered by AI have increasingly influenced public opinion in key electoral moments and regional disputes. The Philippines (Break The Fake Movement, 2024) and Indonesia (Azzahra and Amanta, 2021) are particularly vulnerable due to high social media penetration and relatively weak digital literacy policies. The absence of a unified Indo-Pacific approach to ethical AI governance leaves the region exposed to malign influence operations that can deepen mistrust among states and between citizens and their governments. This weakens social cohesion, inflames historical grievances, and compromises the digital commons that a shared Indo-Pacific future aspires to build.

From the Youth Lens Perspective:

As young people from the Indo-Pacific, we inherit a region defined by both promise and precarity. The challenges highlighted at this year’s Yushan Forum such as the fragmentation of regional strategies, vulnerability of supply chains, and deepening geopolitical rivalries are not abstract problems to us. They are the backdrop of our formative years, shaping our identities as global citizens who are digitally connected, politically conscious, and deeply invested in shaping a more inclusive and resilient future.

Youth in the Indo-Pacific account for a significant proportion of the world’s population. This demographic dividend is accompanied by a unique socio-technical advantage: our generation is not only digitally savvy but also socially aware, equipped with tools that enable us to learn about different countries, causes, and issues in real-time. We do not see national borders as barriers to solidarity. Rather, we see a regional fabric of shared aspirations, such as climate action, equitable development, digital democracy, and peace. The emergence of digital technologies and AI-facilitated participatory governance, as exemplified by Audrey Tang’s work in Taiwan, demonstrates that young people can co-create transnational narratives and solutions when given meaningful platforms for engagement.

Despite differences in strategic outlook, such as ASEAN’s inclusive AOIP, Japan’s FOIP, the EU’s connectivity-driven model, or the US’s IPEF, the desire for a stable, prosperous, and cooperative Indo-Pacific is a unifying thread. From our vantage point, the region’s future cannot be constructed solely through bilateral alliances or elite diplomacy. It must involve a broader civic constituency, especially youth, whose cross-border interactions already prefigure the kind of Indo-Pacific connectivity that many policymakers aspire to institutionalize.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

A. For Regional and International Intergovernmental Organizations:

These organizations are uniquely positioned to harmonize divergent national interests and set common standards across borders. By offering frameworks for cooperation, they can help member states co-create a shared future rooted in digital inclusion, ethical governance, and sustainable development.
*　Promote interoperable digital infrastructure and connectivity across the region to reduce digital divides and enable equitable access to opportunities. For example, ASEAN’s Digital Masterplan 2025 exemplifies this by setting regional benchmarks for digital inclusion, infrastructure, and digital economy interoperability.
*　Establish ethical governance frameworks for emerging technologies like AI, digital ID, and cross-border data flow. The European Union’s AI Act offers a comprehensive regulatory model for risk-based, ethical AI governance, serving as a global benchmark.
*　Foster inclusive regional platforms for youth and civil society participation in policy dialogues. For instance, the ASEAN Youth Dialogue provides a meaningful avenue for young leaders to engage in regional policymaking and development agendas.
*　Enable cross-regional learning and cooperation on innovation, governance, and sustainable development. APEC’s cross-economy dialogues enable economies to share best practices and align policies for inclusive and sustainable growth.

B. For National Governments:

States must anchor regional aspirations into tangible local outcomes through national laws, institutions, and development agendas. Governments should empower youth, bolster MSMEs, and ensure that digital transformation and climate strategies reach all communities.
*　Invest in digital and civic literacy, especially in underserved areas. ThePhilippines’ Digital Cities 2025 initiative supports ICT training and digital literacy in rural areas to expand digital job opportunities.
*　Support MSMEs and youth-led startups through funding, training, and policy incentives. AfCFTA’s SME support hubs demonstrate how targeted capacity-building programs can empower small businesses to thrive in regional trade.
*    Institutionalize youth participation in governance via youth councils, policy consultations, and innovation hubs. The Philippines’ SK Reform Law institutionalizes mechanisms for youth to co-shape local and national policies.
*　Integrate sustainability into national development plans, ensuring alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Vietnam’s National Green Growth Strategy mainstreams sustainability into its economic development goals.

C. For Private Sector and Technology Firms:

As key drivers of innovation, technology firms and businesses must ensure their growth strategies are inclusive, ethical, and aligned with long-term regional development. Their investment in digital inclusion, data ethics, and youth innovation can shape a future-proof Indo-Pacific.
Adopt ethical AI and data governance standards. The EU AI Act sets a precedent for ethical, human-centered design in AI technologies, ensuring public trust and accountability.
*Create inclusive innovation ecosystems by supporting underrepresented innovators. Google’s Startups for Sustainable Development program helps underrepresented entrepreneurs access tools and mentorship.
*　Incorporate ESG principles in business models and value chains. B Corporations worldwide integrate environmental and social accountability into business, offering a scalable framework for responsible enterprise.
*　Engage youth in technology design and development to foster relevance and inclusivity. UNICEF’s Innovation Fund invests in youth-led digital solutions tailored to local community needs.

D. For Civil Society and Academia:

Civil society groups and academic institutions serve as watchdogs, knowledge producers, and civic educators. Their contributions help ensure transparency, accountability, and informed public debate on development policies and digital transformation.
*Translate academic research into actionable insights for policymakers and the public. ADB Institute’s policy briefs provide accessible, research-backed solutions to development and governance challenges across Asia.
*    Build regional civic and academic networks to promote collaborative research and advocacy. The Southeast Asian Human Rights Studies Network (SEAHRN) promotes academic exchange and human rights research in the region.
*    Defend civic space and counter disinformation online and offline. The Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network defends online freedoms and monitors authoritarian digital policies.
*    Expand grassroots civic education to foster political participation and democratic resilience. UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education framework encourages civic responsibility and active engagement through education.

E. For Youth and Grassroots Movements:

Young people are not just future leaders but are also current changemakers. Their digital fluency, civic creativity, and cross-border solidarity are essential for building a resilient and peaceful Indo-Pacific. Institutions must recognize and support youth as partners in governance and innovation.
*    Elevate youth-led innovations and campaigns with funding, visibility, and mentorship. The YSEALI Seeds for the Future program provides seed grants and leadership training for youth projects across Southeast Asia.
*    Mobilize youth for climate action, peacebuilding, and digital inclusion. Fridays for Future and regional youth climate coalitions demonstrate how youth can lead mass mobilizations to influence policy.
*    Use digital tools to educate and engage peers around civic issues and rights. Keep the Change: Youth Policy Lab (Philippines) harnesses social media and online education to build policy literacy and advocacy skills.
*    Build intergenerational and cross-movement partnerships to sustain impact and inclusion. The EU Youth Sounding Boards offer structured ways for youth to influence EU international partnerships alongside policymakers.

CONCLUSION

The Indo‑Pacific is a contested yet critical space, where strategic interests converge and collide, but also where cooperation is not only possible but necessary. While no single vision currently dominates the region, and despite the divergences among strategies and stakeholders, it is safe to say that all like‑minded actors aspire toward a future defined by growth, prosperity, and inclusive development. The key to realizing this vision lies in making that future feel tangible and shared, one where no country, community, or generation feels left out. In this, youth plays an important role in designing a regional vision. By leveraging their digital fluency, cross‑cultural engagement, and civic imagination, young people are already laying the groundwork for a more connected and more cooperative Indo‑Pacific. The challenge now is ensuring that institutions, policies, and power structures catch up, and create the space for all to co‑author that narrative of a positive, pluralistic future.

Across sectors, from government and international organizations to the private sector, civil society, academia, and grassroots movements, there are existing models worth scaling. ASEAN’s Digital Masterplan, the EU’s ethical AI frameworks, and the African Continental Free Trade Area’s SME hubs all demonstrate that cooperation can be operationalized when anchored in shared standards and people-centered development. To translate these into lasting impact, stakeholders must align their efforts around a common agenda: ethical digital governance, resilient supply chains, empowered youth, and interoperable infrastructure. When these priorities are pursued in concert and not competition, they create a tangible vision of regional integration that is resilient, inclusive, and future-ready.

Lastly, conflict has no place in this vision. The history of the Indo-Pacific shows that division and rivalry lead only to regression. A peaceful, pluralistic, and forward-looking Indo-Pacific demands collaboration across borders, sectors, and generations. It is only through cooperation and not conflict that the region can unlock its full potential and ensure that no one is left behind.

REFERENCES

ASEAN (n.d.). Development of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises in ASEAN (MSME). [online] asean.org. Available at:https://asean.org/our-communities/economic-community/resilient-and-inclusive-asean/development-of-micro-small-and-medium-enterprises-in-asean-msme/.

Azzahra, N.F. and Amanta, F. (2021). Promoting Digital Literacy Skill for Students through Improved School Curriculum. [online] Center for Indonesian Policy Studies. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/resrep62369.

Bieber, F. (2018). Is Nationalism on the Rise? Assessing Global Trends. Ethnopolitics, [online] 17(5), pp.519–540. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1532633.

Break The Fake Movement (2024). ASEAN Foundation Unveils Research Findings on Digital Literacy, Spotlighting the Digital Divide Across the Region. [online] Break The Fake Movement. Available at: https://btf.rappler.com/257/asean-foundation-unveils-research-findings-on-digital-literacy-spotighting-the-digital-divide-across-the-region/.