Geography itself becomes a daily reminder that imperial frameworks still shape how the world sees itself
At the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim used a pointed critique of the term 'Middle East' to illuminate something far older and more consequential: the enduring power of colonial frameworks to shape how the world perceives itself. The conference, organized around the theme of accelerating agency and action, gathered middle powers — Malaysia, South Korea, Australia, Canada — who are no longer content to have their realities narrated by others. What is unfolding across the Indo-Pacific is not a revolt, but a quiet and determined insistence on self-definition.
- Middle powers across the Indo-Pacific are growing restless with a global order that consults them last and names their world from someone else's vantage point.
- PM Anwar Ibrahim's challenge to the term 'Middle East' cracked open a deeper tension: colonial-era language still quietly governs how power, geography, and legitimacy are distributed worldwide.
- The Asia-Pacific Roundtable has become one of the few forums where regional leaders speak candidly, away from the choreography of great-power summitry.
- Nations like Malaysia, South Korea, and Australia are actively seeking to shape trade, security, and diplomatic frameworks rather than simply inherit the terms set by larger powers.
- The trajectory is toward a rebalanced Indo-Pacific — not through confrontation, but through the steady accumulation of regional voice, institutional presence, and self-determined narrative.
At the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim paused during a Q&A session to raise an objection that was small in form but large in implication. Why, he asked, does the world still call that region to his west the 'Middle East'? From Southeast Asia, it is neither east nor middle — it is West Asia. The naming convention, he argued, reflects a worldview still anchored in European imperial geography, one that quietly positions the West as the center of all reference.
The observation was a fitting provocation for a conference built around the theme of 'accelerating agency and action' — a phrase that asks, in plain terms, how countries in the middle tiers of global power can gain genuine influence over the decisions that shape their lives. Malaysia, South Korea, Australia, and Canada are the kinds of nations the roundtable had in mind: significant actors with real diplomatic and economic weight, yet still operating within structures designed around the priorities of larger powers.
The Asia-Pacific Roundtable has earned a reputation as one of the most candid venues in the region — a space where policymakers and strategists speak more freely than they do in formal multilateral settings dominated by great-power performance. What emerges from those conversations is a portrait of middle powers increasingly unwilling to be passive recipients of others' decisions.
When Anwar Ibrahim corrected the geography, he was doing something more than flagging a naming convention. He was asserting that Southeast Asia holds its own legitimate perspective on the world — and that this perspective deserves to be centered, not accommodated as an afterthought. Multiplied across the dozens of leaders and thinkers gathered in one room, that assertion suggests the distribution of influence across the Indo-Pacific is quietly, but meaningfully, shifting.
Last week, during the question-and-answer session following his keynote address at the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim paused to air a grievance that had clearly been sitting with him for some time. He objected to the way the world's geography gets named—specifically, the insistence on calling a particular region the Middle East.
The problem, as he saw it, was simple enough: that part of the world isn't east of Malaysia, and it certainly isn't in the middle of anything from a Southeast Asian vantage point. For people in his region, it makes far more sense to call it West Asia. The observation might have seemed like a small linguistic quibble, but Ibrahim was pointing at something larger. Every time Western media outlets reflexively use the term "Middle East," they're reinforcing a worldview that treats Europe and North America as the center of reference—a habit of mind that traces directly back to colonialism. The geography itself becomes a daily reminder that imperial frameworks still shape how the world sees itself.
It was a fitting moment for a conference organized around the theme of "accelerating agency and action." That phrase, stripped of jargon, means something straightforward: how do countries that occupy the middle tiers of global power—not superpowers, but significant regional and international actors—increase their actual influence over the decisions that affect them? Malaysia, South Korea, Australia, and Canada are the kinds of nations the conference had in mind. They have resources, diplomatic reach, and regional importance, but they operate in a world still largely structured by the priorities of larger powers.
The Asia-Pacific Roundtable has become, in many ways, the single best venue for understanding what's actually on the minds of regional leaders when they step away from formal state visits and prepared remarks. The conference draws together policymakers, analysts, and strategists from across the Indo-Pacific, creating space for the kind of candid conversation that doesn't always happen in multilateral forums dominated by the usual great-power posturing. What emerges is a picture of how middle powers are thinking about their own position in a world that feels increasingly contested and unstable.
Anwar Ibrahim's complaint about geography was really a complaint about power—about who gets to define the terms through which the world understands itself. For Southeast Asia, that question has become urgent. The region sits at the intersection of major power competition, economic flows, and strategic interests that extend far beyond its borders. Yet for decades, the narrative about Southeast Asia has often been written elsewhere, in the capitals of larger nations, filtered through frameworks designed for different purposes.
The conference's focus on agency and action reflects a shift in how middle powers are thinking about their role. They're not content to be passive recipients of decisions made by others. They want to shape the regional order, to set the terms of engagement, to ensure that their interests and perspectives are central rather than peripheral. That ambition runs through everything from trade negotiations to security arrangements to the way conflicts in neighboring regions get resolved.
What makes the Asia-Pacific Roundtable valuable is that it captures this moment of assertion—not as confrontation, but as a quiet insistence on being heard and taken seriously. When Anwar Ibrahim corrects the geography, he's doing more than pointing out a naming convention. He's saying that Southeast Asia has its own way of seeing the world, its own legitimate perspective, and its own stake in how regional and global affairs unfold. That claim, multiplied across dozens of leaders and thinkers gathered in one room, suggests something significant is shifting in how power and influence are being distributed across the Indo-Pacific.
Citas Notables
That part of the world isn't east of Malaysia and isn't in the middle of anything from a Southeast Asian perspective—it should be called West Asia— Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter what we call a region? Isn't that just semantics?
Because naming is how we organize power. When the world calls something the "Middle East," it's implicitly saying Europe is the center. Southeast Asia doesn't experience that region as east of anything—it's west. The terminology itself encodes a hierarchy.
So Anwar Ibrahim was making a point about more than geography.
Exactly. He was saying that Southeast Asia has been operating inside a framework designed by and for Western powers. The conference was about changing that—about middle powers claiming the right to define their own region and their own interests.
What does "accelerating agency" actually mean in practice?
It means countries like Malaysia and South Korea want more say in decisions that affect them. Not just reacting to what superpowers do, but actively shaping the regional order.
Is this a challenge to the existing system, or just a request for a seat at the table?
It's both. They're not trying to overturn everything, but they're saying the current arrangement—where larger powers set the terms—doesn't reflect the reality of who actually lives in and depends on this region.
And the Asia-Pacific Roundtable is where this conversation happens openly?
It's one of the few places where regional leaders can speak candidly about what they actually think, without the formal constraints of state diplomacy. That's why it matters.