By Fauzan Luthsa, Analyst at the Indonesia Democracy Bridge Research Institute (Ind-Bri)
LENTERAMERAH – Global upheavals have often begun in Europe. And amid today’s mounting geopolitical turbulence, the idea of an Eurasian Charter is finding its relevance.
Proposed by Belarus, the Eurasian Charter seeks to break the deadlock of regional geopolitics by offering a fresh framework for security and cooperation built on multipolarity, diversity, and respect for sovereignty. It stands in sharp contrast to supranational entities such as the European Union (EU), which have been criticized for reducing the sovereignty of their member states.
The roots of this idea trace back to 2005, when Belarusian President Alexandr Lukashenko addressed the 60th UN General Assembly and launched the “diversity” initiative. The concept of a Charter of Eurasian Diversity and Multipolarity for the 21st century was later introduced at the Eurasian Security Conference in Minsk in October 2023.
This represents the next phase in consolidating a region-wide strategy—a counterpoint to America’s post-Cold War doctrines, such as Anthony Lake’s Enlargement or Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Geostrategy for Eurasia—seen by many as destabilizing. By contrast, the Eurasian Charter aims to serve as a long-term strategic guide, seeking to move beyond the dysfunctional global order and toward a multipolar world that is more just and balanced.
Belarus and Eurasia
As the initiator of the Charter, Belarus positions itself as a neutral state capable of communicating across divides and offering constructive ideas for regional stability. Despite U.S. sanctions, Minsk has reopened lines of communication with the Trump administration while maintaining composure during tensions on its border with Poland.
Championing the Charter is, in essence, an exercise of Belarus’s soft power—a way of asserting neutrality while maintaining close ties with Russia.
The Charter emerges as an alternative at a time when the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has lost much of its credibility, and when many European states feel constrained by a liberal order that no longer reflects their principles. Beneath its inclusive language of diversity and equality, the Charter also has clear strategic aims: to create new diplomatic space, expand maneuvering options, and secure global legitimacy. One manifestation of this is the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which today includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia.
Intra-bloc trade has grown rapidly, while external partnerships—such as with Indonesia—show impressive gains. In the first quarter of 2025, bilateral trade between Indonesia and the EAEU surged by 84.4 percent, reaching USD 1.57 billion. Compared with EU trade figures, this trajectory offers promise and room for further expansion.
The EAEU has proven its viability by opening new pathways for interregional cooperation, including free trade negotiations with Indonesia and ASEAN, as well as deepening ties with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This suggests a pivot away from a stagnating European Union toward dynamic Eurasian-centered growth.
Turning Toward ASEAN
While Eurasia is exploring new frameworks through its Charter, Southeast Asia already has a similar instrument: the ASEAN Charter, which came into force in 2008. Anchored in principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, equality, and consensus, the ASEAN Charter was born not from global ideological struggles but from the need to strengthen regional institutions.
Even after four decades, ASEAN only recently established a legal foundation to bolster its “centrality” amid external rivalries. Unsurprisingly, despite overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea, ASEAN and China remain committed to finalizing a code of conduct.
For Southeast Asians, the spirit of the Eurasian Charter resonates with memories of the ASEAN Charter signed in Singapore in 2007. The contexts differ, of course—geography and challenges are not the same. Yet both charters emerge from a shared anti-hegemonic spirit: the desire to shape regional order on their own terms, without being served up as a dish on someone else’s geopolitical table.
Both the Eurasian and ASEAN charters converge on the principle of regional autonomy: the refusal to let external upheavals dictate regional affairs, and the insistence on self-determination. The echoes of Bandung’s Ten Principles of 1955 and the Non-Aligned Movement of 1961 are unmistakable.
For ASEAN, autonomy means maintaining balance between the U.S., China, and Russia. For Eurasia, it means freeing itself from the transatlantic security architecture long viewed as biased and repressive.
Regional Autonomy as Strategy
This article draws inspiration from Belarusian Foreign Minister Maxim Ryzhenkov’s recent opinion piece on the Eurasian Charter. His message was clear: the Charter is an invitation for regional states to build a stable, sustainable order in Eurasia.
Belarus and Russia have already outlined their “preliminary views” in a 21-paragraph document titled Common Vision of the Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. The text lays out how both nations perceive diversity and multipolarity, the importance of Eurasia globally, and the commitments needed to realize this vision.
Notably, the Charter does not seek to build an exclusive ideological fortress. Instead, it embraces inclusivity, inviting cooperation with other regional organizations and extending an open hand to all Eurasian states. It is an ambitious attempt to chart a multipolar future—an aspiration that feels particularly bold against today’s troubled European backdrop.
Time to Move Beyond Europe
The Eurasian Charter arrives at a moment when U.S. unipolar dominance is waning and regional blocs are rising. The timing could not be more apt: the world is undergoing a transformation unprecedented in two centuries. Artificial intelligence is disrupting civilizations, liberal ideology faces a crisis of legitimacy, globalization is in decline, and regional blocs are filling the vacuum.
In this new reality, Eurasia is no longer just a contested space but an autonomous geopolitical actor. Challenges remain: the Charter will face resistance from pro-Western states in the region.
But the fundamental question is this: can the Eurasian Charter gain acceptance among regional states, and can they together navigate the storm of global change already looming on the horizon? ***
