From periphery to permission: What CEE and Southeast Asia reveal about a fracturing global order
Working between Central and Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, I often see both regions described through their proximity to somewhere considered more important. CEE is viewed through Western Europe and Russia. Southeast Asia is framed through China, Japan, India and the United States. This is not a comparison of similar regions. It is a thought […] The post From periphery to permission: What CEE…
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Southeast Asia have undergone significant transformations in response to globalization, foreign capital, and integration into value chains. While both regions initially benefited from participation in global value chains, they have now found themselves in a new position where their strategic value is increasingly dependent on the permission granted by a more powerful global order.
The analogy of peripherality is used to describe the position of these regions within the economic system. A country can achieve success in producing goods and services while still remaining peripheral if the most valuable assets and strategic decisions are controlled by foreign entities. This makes their economic performance reliant on the goodwill and policies of those foreign owners.
The success of these regions in joining foreign-owned value chains demonstrates the importance of connecting to existing systems with capital, technology, and markets. However, achieving ownership and agency over these systems is a more challenging third step. Companies like Grab, Skype, and Bolt have shown that regional companies can become global consolidators, but this success comes with the risk of losing control over their strategic assets.
The global system is becoming more selective in granting permission to access, own, and deploy critical technologies. Advanced AI chips, for example, are now being treated as strategic capabilities rather than ordinary products. The US AI Diffusion Rule, although temporarily rescinded, highlighted the possibility of restrictions on advanced computing capacity based on geopolitical considerations.
This trend is now taking shape in Southeast Asia, where countries like Singapore and Malaysia face scrutiny over potential diversion of technology to China.
The new architecture of access to advanced AI systems raises questions about trust and governance. Anthropic's release strategy for Claude Mythos demonstrates how access to powerful AI models can be controlled through a trusted-access model. This raises concerns about who decides which companies, institutions, or countries are trustworthy enough to access the most capable AI systems.
The answer to this question may shift from private laboratories to governments, further entrenching the divide between those trusted to access these technologies and those who are not.
For CEE and Southeast Asia, the emerging architecture of access and ownership presents both challenges and opportunities. While connectivity remains crucial for attracting investment and building infrastructure, it is not enough to ensure strategic autonomy. CEE and Southeast Asia must strive for strategic optionality by reducing dependency on external control of critical compute, technology, capital, and platforms.
This requires building local capital, strengthening technological capabilities, and fostering a diverse range of external relationships to mitigate the risks of strategic vulnerability.
Written by urgent.news from e27's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
