A yellow press card recalls 1998, when globalisation promised prosperity. Today, tariffs, China's rise and the Gulf crisis challenge that promise. Brunei embraced free trade, yet remains dependent on oil and gas. Can a small nation prosper in an increasingly protectionist world without first strengthening its economy at home?
In London in 1998, Asia and Europe pledged to resist protectionism. Twenty-eight years later, tariffs, China's rise and war in the Gulf are testing whether that promise still holds.
By Malai Hassan Othman
KopiTalk with MHO | 11 October 2026
An old yellow press card turned up among my belongings recently. It carried my photograph, my name, the Borneo Bulletin and an assignment I had not thought about in years.
The card was issued for the Second Asia-Europe Meeting, or ASEM 2, held in London on 3–4 April 1998. I was 41, one of the accredited correspondents covering the summit.
The face in the photograph belongs to a younger reporter. He was there to record a summit at which Asia and Europe pledged to keep their markets open while much of Asia was in deep economic trouble.
Twenty-eight years later, that promise is under strain. Washington has made tariffs a central tool of policy. China has become an economic superpower. War in the Gulf has put ships and energy supplies at risk.
The world is still trading. What has weakened is the confidence that open markets would, by themselves, deliver security and prosperity.
When the world was opening up
The 1990s were years of great expectations. The Cold War had ended, and governments were seeking new economic partnerships in a changing international order.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) came into being in 1995. Trade liberalisation, foreign investment and international cooperation filled political speeches across Asia and Europe.
In Brunei, ministers and senior officials of the period often reached for one phrase: “Think Global, Act Local”. It was never an official national slogan, but it captured much of the thinking at the time.
We were a small country, increasingly aware that our economic future would be shaped by developments far beyond our shores. Globalisation promised markets, investment, technology and opportunities to participate in international production networks.
There were warnings too. Critics questioned whether the benefits would be shared fairly and whether smaller economies could withstand international shocks. But the prevailing direction was towards openness.
ASEM grew out of that climate. Singapore championed closer relations between Asia and Europe, leading to the inaugural summit in Bangkok in March 1996.
The idea was straightforward. Ties across the Atlantic and Pacific were already well established. The relationship between Asia and Europe was seen as the missing side of the triangle.
By the time leaders met again in London two years later, much of Asia was in crisis.
I travelled to London on assignment for the Borneo Bulletin. Memory keeps less than a press card does, and I will not pretend to recall every briefing. The record of what the leaders decided, however, is clear.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired the meeting. Leaders from ten Asian and fifteen European countries attended, together with the President of the European Commission.
Brunei Darussalam was represented by His Majesty Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Haji Omar ’Ali Saifuddien Sa’adul Khairi Waddien, Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam.
The Asian financial crisis, which began in Thailand in July 1997, hung over the summit. Currencies had collapsed, companies were failing, and public confidence had been badly shaken.
Economic interdependence, praised as a source of opportunity, had demonstrated how quickly financial trouble could cross borders. The temptation was to retreat behind national barriers.
London chose another course.
ASEM leaders agreed to resist protectionist pressures and maintain open markets. Their trade and investment pledge committed them, at a minimum, not to make market access more restrictive than existing levels.
The commitment was accompanied by practical initiatives. Leaders adopted plans to facilitate trade and promote investment, while welcoming an ASEM Trust Fund administered by the World Bank to support financial-sector restructuring and measures addressing the social consequences of the crisis.
These commitments were recorded in the summit's official statements. The message was that economic difficulty called for cooperation rather than withdrawal from international trade.
For a reporter from Brunei, there was another lesson. Our country was represented alongside Britain, France, Germany, China and Japan in discussions affecting the international economy.
Size did not exclude Brunei from participation. International cooperation offered smaller nations opportunities to be heard on matters that could shape their future.
That principle remains important today.
When open markets meet national interests
Brunei did more than participate in international discussions. It also became involved in shaping regional trade arrangements.
In 2005, Brunei joined Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in signing the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, commonly known as the P4 agreement.
Four relatively small, open economies sought to demonstrate what a wider commitment to trade liberalisation could achieve.
The P4 helped lay the groundwork for the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Following Washington's withdrawal in 2017, the remaining participants concluded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
Brunei is also a party to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which entered into force in 2022 and connects ASEAN with China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
These agreements reflect Brunei's longstanding commitment to international economic cooperation.
They also underscore what is at stake when trade rules become less predictable.
The United States helped shape the post-war international trading system. Today, it has increasingly turned to tariffs, industrial subsidies and restrictions on strategic technologies.
Under President Donald Trump, tariffs have again become a central instrument of American economic policy, affecting competitors and longstanding trading partners alike.
Washington argues that such measures can protect domestic industries, address unfair competition and reduce dependence on foreign suppliers in strategically important sectors.
Those concerns deserve examination. Open trade has not always delivered equal benefits, and governments face genuine questions about industrial competitiveness and national security.
For trading partners, however, higher barriers create uncertainty. Businesses must reconsider supply chains, investment decisions and market access when trade rules can change abruptly.
China's emergence has complicated the picture further.
When I covered ASEM 2, China was still more than three years away from joining the WTO. Today, it is a leading manufacturing, trading and technological power.
Its economic transformation has created substantial opportunities for international commerce. It has also intensified competition over manufacturing capacity, advanced technologies, subsidies and critical minerals.
Washington and Beijing increasingly treat parts of their economic relationship as matters of national security. Both seek the benefits of international markets while protecting industries they consider strategically important.
The vocabulary has changed accordingly.
Where governments once spoke enthusiastically about removing barriers, they now emphasise resilience, self-reliance, economic security and reducing dependence on particular suppliers.
Every government has a responsibility to safeguard its national interests. The difficulty arises when restrictions accumulate across major economies, weakening the predictability on which international trade depends.
The danger is not that free trade has disappeared. It is that openness is increasingly conditional on political and strategic calculations.
Another Gulf crisis, another test
The Gulf has a way of marking turning points in the international order.
ASEM was established in the years following the 1990–1991 Gulf War, amid the broader changes that followed the end of the Cold War. Economic integration was becoming an important feature of international policy.
The earlier war was not the reason ASEM was created. But it formed part of the geopolitical landscape from which a more interconnected economic order emerged.
Today, another Gulf crisis is testing the resilience of that order.
The conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel has threatened commercial shipping around the Strait of Hormuz, placing vessels, crews and energy supplies at risk.
This is a different kind of threat from tariffs.
Governments can negotiate market access or reduce import duties. Those agreements provide limited protection when commercial vessels cannot pass safely through a vital shipping route.
International trade depends on more than favourable rules. It requires secure sea lanes, reliable transport, functioning supply chains and confidence that goods can reach their destinations.
Energy markets have been particularly exposed.
According to the WTO's Global Trade Outlook released on 8 October 2026, crude oil exports from the Middle East fell by approximately 24 per cent in the first half of the year. Liquefied natural gas exports from the region declined by 47 per cent.
Those figures describe regional exports, not global supply. Increased shipments from other producers helped cushion the worldwide impact.
Nevertheless, higher energy, freight and fertiliser costs can travel far beyond the conflict zone, affecting factories, farms, businesses and household budgets thousands of kilometres away.
Yet global trade has proved more resilient than many expected.
On 8 October, the WTO raised its forecast for world merchandise trade growth in 2026 to 3.9 per cent by volume, compared with its earlier projection of 1.9 per cent.
A significant contribution came from investment in artificial intelligence. According to the WTO, goods associated with AI infrastructure, including semiconductors and servers, accounted for 47 per cent of the increase in the value of global merchandise trade during the first half of 2026.
The distinction matters. Trade growth measured by value is not the same as growth measured by volume.
The figures also tell a more complicated story than one of globalisation simply going into reverse.
International supply chains have adapted to disruptions. Trade continues, and new technologies are creating demand across borders.
Economic interdependence remains powerful. What is increasingly uncertain is whether governments can preserve the rules and security arrangements that allow it to function.
Where does Brunei stand?
For Brunei, these developments raise questions extending beyond the daily movement of oil and gas prices.
As an energy exporter, Brunei may benefit from higher international prices under certain conditions. But temporary price gains cannot substitute for sustained economic diversification.
Wawasan Brunei 2035 sets out the ambition of building a dynamic and sustainable economy. Nearly two decades after its introduction, hydrocarbons remain central to the country's exports and government revenue.
That dependence deserves attention, particularly when external events temporarily improve energy earnings.
A rise in oil and gas prices can strengthen revenue in the short term without necessarily indicating progress towards a more diversified economic structure.
Food security presents another exposure.
The Department of Agriculture and Agrifood's 2024 statistics recorded Brunei's rice self-sufficiency at 7.55 per cent, meaning that more than nine-tenths of consumption depended on imports.
That figure illustrates the country's exposure to international supply conditions. Even where food shipments do not pass through the Strait of Hormuz, higher energy, transport and agricultural input costs can influence import prices.
Brunei cannot determine the trade policies of Washington, Beijing or Brussels. Nor can it resolve a conflict threatening a major international shipping route.
What it can do is strengthen its capacity to withstand external shocks.
That brings me back to the familiar expression of the 1990s: Think Global, Act Local.
Brunei embraced the global dimension through international agreements, diplomatic engagement and participation in regional economic partnerships.
The more demanding question concerns the local results.
To what extent have these arrangements helped Bruneian businesses enter new markets, develop competitive products, attract productive investment and create skilled employment?
How much progress has been made in building export industries beyond oil and gas?
These questions should be answered through measurable outcomes rather than the number of agreements signed or meetings attended.
For smaller economies, a predictable rules-based trading system provides an important safeguard against a world in which economic relationships are determined mainly by bargaining power.
That is why institutions such as the WTO and dialogue forums such as ASEM continue to matter.
ASEM has expanded from 26 founding partners to 53, with cooperation extending across political, economic, educational and cultural fields.
Its continued existence demonstrates a willingness to maintain dialogue. But dialogue alone cannot establish whether the partnership is meeting the expectations that accompanied its creation.
The more difficult test is whether its members can use that relationship to preserve cooperation, manage disagreements and defend predictable international trade.
For Brunei, international engagement should also produce benefits visible beyond the conference hall: investment, skills, market access and partnerships that strengthen industries at home.
A promise worth remembering
I look at the yellow press card with nostalgia, and with some unease.
It belongs to a time when an overseas assignment meant a notebook, a deadline and the duty to explain distant events to readers back home.
Globalisation was never a guarantee of peace or prosperity. Its benefits depended on governments respecting agreed rules, honouring commitments and maintaining sufficient trust to keep markets open.
My press card has survived 28 years. The pledge it witnessed has had a harder life.
In 1998, the question was how to bring economies closer together. In 2026, it is whether governments still have the will to keep them connected.
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment