US President Donald Trump has an ego that is sky-high. He has stated unequivocally that he will attend the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur from October 26 to 28, insisting on chairing the signing ceremony of a “peace agreement” between Thailand and Cambodia.
Lest we forget, he promised the ASEAN chair at the end of July that he would join the event. At the time, Trump believed that a ceasefire between these two neighboring countries would serve as a good segue to counter China’s regional influence.
At a hush-hush meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly last month, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told the foreign ministers of Malaysia, Thailand, and Cambodia point-blank that Trump would attend the upcoming summit — but only if the president were able to sign a “peace agreement” between Thailand and Cambodia.
Immediately, the 1993 historic photo of the “Oslo Peace Process,” showing former President Bill Clinton witnessing the handshake between Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House, came to mind. The meeting with Landau was brief, serving merely to convey Trump’s intention.
In the history of ASEAN–US relations — especially at the summit level — scheduling has always been complicated, as the White House frequently changes its plans until the very last minute.
That helps explain why US leaders seldom attend ASEAN summits, except during the Obama administration. Trump also missed the 23rd ASEAN Summit in Brunei Darussalam due to the US government shutdown.
Trump’s ego-centered approach has stirred up controversy at many levels.
First, many quarters in Malaysia would like the ASEAN chair to withdraw the invitation to Trump because of his support for Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip. Humanitarian campaigners and civil society groups in Malaysia are very active in supporting the Palestinians.
During a recent flotilla effort to provide aid, 34 Malaysians took part. The ASEAN chair has also strongly condemned Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, and Malaysia has sought to establish both maritime and land humanitarian corridors into the territory.
Secondly, the US deliberately excluded China from this initiative, which Washington claimed as its own. It is abundantly clear that this is a regional effort — under ASEAN — to facilitate dialogue between its two member states.
If the White House wants to help ease tensions and contribute to peacebuilding, it is welcome to do so. But Washington must not monopolize the process. Under the Trump administration, however, the president’s words are final — even though he can change them at any moment.
China’s role in the region, directly or indirectly, cannot be ignored. The region’s trade, investment, and other non-traditional areas of cooperation require close coordination with the world’s second-largest economy. Washington’s attempts to divide ASEAN will not succeed.
Finally, ASEAN must retain control of the process — not the US Trump continues to see himself as a global catalyst who can effect sweeping change, whether through tariff hikes or cutting aid to developing countries.
This upcoming summit will be a consequential one, with an unprecedented gathering of world leaders, especially from BRICS member states. At least five of the ten BRICS top-level representatives are expected to attend. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa will join the other three BRICS leaders from China, Russia, and Indonesia.
It remains to be seen how Trump will react to these leaders if they meet in the corridors during the summit. Trump is scheduled to attend both the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN–US Summit on October 27. After Kuala Lumpur, he will travel to Gyeongju, South Korea, for the next APEC conference.
In Southeast Asia, Trump’s diplomatic demeanor is often viewed as childlike — driven by personal prestige and his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize rather than genuine concern for peace or reconciliation. Such stage management should have no place in his diplomatic playbook, especially when engaging with ASEAN frameworks.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul was quick to respond, outlining four conditions that any negotiation must follow according to established principles. Thailand, he reminded, has been a victim of aggression.
These conditions include the complete withdrawal of Cambodian troops and weapons from disputed zones, the removal of all intruders from Thai territory, the clearance of dangerous materials, and respect for Thai sovereignty.
As the summit approaches, it is imperative that Thailand intensify its efforts to explain the complex realities to the international community. The Thai army must be confident and fact-based in responding to Cambodia’s narratives and actions.
Furthermore, the prime minister must assert his authority. With a functioning government now in place, the time is right. Thailand’s activities at Ban Nong Chan in the coming days will require further explanation and transparency; otherwise, they risk being misconstrued and condemned.
Local police and authorities must also take greater responsibility for ensuring security and safety.
Likewise, Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow must send a clear message to ASEAN’s dialogue partners that this is a bilateral issue that should be resolved directly between the two parties. Others can help facilitate and foster an atmosphere conducive to normalization — but should avoid adding fuel to the fire.
Trump should be reminded that ASEAN and Asia’s diplomatic traditions value discretion over optics and substance over showmanship. It is condescending for Trump to believe he can “force” Thailand and Cambodia into peace by dangling his own presence as a prize.
It remains unclear what the ASEAN chair and the conflicting parties will ultimately agree to.
For nearly six decades, ASEAN diplomacy — based on consensus, quiet negotiation, and mutual respect — has valued face-saving and gradual trust-building. Trump’s brash, zero-sum, “I-tell-you-to-do-so” approach is not the ASEAN way. Imposing an external mediator — especially one who insists on excluding China — would only inflame tensions and undermine regional mechanisms that ASEAN has carefully nurtured since its inception.
