ASEAN‘s Myanmar Dilemma: Navigating Inaction Amidst Institutional Drift

Jakarta – The Association of Southeast asian Nations (ASEAN) finds itself at a critical crossroads regarding the ongoing crisis in Myanmar, grappling with internal disunity and institutional weaknesses that threaten its credibility and the very foundation of its regional project.The bloc’s approach, characterized by a lack of a coherent strategy and enforceable mechanisms, risks perpetuating the conflict rather than resolving it.

the emergence of disparate informal engagement mechanisms, such as Indonesia’s Jakarta Club and Thailand’s Bangkok Process, signals both a desire for innovation and a profound lack of a unified approach within ASEAN. These ad-hoc efforts, frequently enough engaging simultaneously with both the military junta and pro-democracy actors, illustrate a worrying drift. Without a clear political roadmap, this parallel diplomacy risks entrenching stalemate rather than fostering genuine progress towards peace and reconciliation.

This incoherence is partly rooted in ASEAN’s institutional structure. The rotating nature of the Special Envoy position, changing with each ASEAN Chair, substantially undermines the continuity and long-term strategic planning necessary to navigate such a complex crisis. Moreover, the sidelining of minister-level envoys further curtails the bloc’s capacity for decisive action, revealing a limited political will and uneven commitment among member states to addressing the crisis effectively.

A significant structural flaw lies in ASEAN’s absence of a clear, enforceable mechanism to address unconstitutional changes of government. This institutional gap not only allows for continued impunity for perpetrators but also, by its inaction, makes the bloc inadvertently complicit in democratic backsliding. Without the courage to confront member states that demonstrably violate core democratic norms, ASEAN risks further straining its already fragile regionalism project.Divisions within ASEAN have been starkly evident in member states’ responses to Myanmar’s planned 2025 elections. While countries like Malaysia and Singapore have rightly questioned the legitimacy of a vote held under current conditions, Thailand maintains a neutral stance, and Cambodia has even offered to send observers.This divergence highlights ASEAN’s chronic inability to present a united front on basic democratic principles, a weakness that erodes its credibility and emboldens authoritarian tendencies within and beyond Myanmar’s borders.

The humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Myanmar, marked by widespread violence, displacement, and the obstruction of essential aid, has already spilled across borders, contributing to regional instability and the rise of transnational crime. While some advocate for the utilization of all diplomatic tools, including parallel engagement tracks, the author cautions that innovation without principled leadership and a unified strategy risks becoming a mere smokescreen for inaction.

ASEAN’s true test of “centrality” is no longer its ability to project a singular voice, but its capacity to harmonize diverse perspectives without losing sight of its core objectives. Centrality must transcend mere procedural prominence; it must embody strategic coherence and moral leadership.The Myanmar crisis has exposed troubling signs of institutional drift, and without corrective action, ASEAN’s foundational claims to unity and purpose risk becoming increasingly hollow.

Ultimately, ASEAN must summon the courage for moral clarity. Leading with conscience necessitates explicitly naming those responsible for atrocities,offering genuine support to the victims,and unequivocally rejecting impunity when it masquerades as diplomacy.**

The writer is executive director of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).*

How does the principle of non-interference within ASEAN complicate its response to the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar?

ASEAN’s Fractured Response to Myanmar: creativity Over Coordination

The Five-Point Consensus – A Stalled Initiative

The February 2021 military coup in Myanmar threw ASEAN into a crisis. The response, largely centered around the Five-Point consensus (5PC) – cessation of violence, constructive dialog, ASEAN special envoy access, humanitarian assistance, and the envoy’s visit to Myanmar – has demonstrably failed to yield important progress. while lauded initially as a bold attempt at regional intervention, the 5PC has been consistently undermined by the junta’s intransigence and a lack of unified pressure from within ASEAN itself. The core issue isn’t necessarily the plan’s content,but the implementation and the diverging approaches of member states.

This fractured response highlights a basic tension within ASEAN: the principle of non-interference versus the responsibility to protect. The long-held tenet of non-interference, a cornerstone of ASEAN’s operating philosophy, has historically prioritized sovereignty and internal affairs. Though, the escalating humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, coupled with regional security implications, challenges this traditional stance.

diverging National Interests & The limits of Consensus

Several factors contribute to ASEAN’s internal divisions regarding Myanmar.

Economic Ties: Countries like Thailand and Singapore maintain significant economic relationships with Myanmar, creating a disincentive for overly aggressive measures that could harm their own interests. these economic links complicate the submission of sanctions or robust pressure tactics.

Border Security: Nations bordering Myanmar – thailand, India, and Bangladesh – are especially concerned with the influx of refugees and the potential for spillover effects from the ongoing conflict. Their priorities lean towards stability, even if it means engaging with the junta to manage the situation.

Political Alignment: Differing political systems and foreign policy orientations within ASEAN influence perspectives on the coup and the appropriate response. Some members are more inclined towards dialogue, while others advocate for stronger condemnation and sanctions.

Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: ASEAN lacks a robust enforcement mechanism to compel member states to adhere to collective decisions. This allows individual nations to pursue their own agendas, weakening the overall impact of ASEAN’s actions.

This internal discord has manifested in several ways: inconsistent messaging, limited sanctions implementation, and reluctance to exclude the junta from regional forums. The recent statement by Singapore’s Foreign Minister Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, emphasizing the need to deepen ASEAN integration amid global uncertainty (Malay Mail, July 12, 2025), implicitly acknowledges the need for stronger internal cohesion, but doesn’t directly address the Myanmar impasse.

The Rise of “ASEAN Minus X” & Parallel Diplomacy

Given the limitations of a fully coordinated approach,a more pragmatic strategy is emerging: “ASEAN Minus X.” This involves sub-regional groupings within ASEAN taking independent initiatives on Myanmar, bypassing the need for unanimous consensus.

Examples include:

1. Indonesia’s Leadership: Indonesia, as ASEAN chair in 2023, took a more proactive role in engaging with all stakeholders in Myanmar, including the National Unity Government (NUG) – the shadow government formed by ousted lawmakers. This demonstrated a willingness to move beyond solely engaging with the junta.
2. Informal Dialogue Channels: Several ASEAN members are maintaining discreet communication channels with various actors in Myanmar, including civil society organizations and ethnic armed groups, to gather information and explore potential solutions.
3. Bilateral Humanitarian Aid: Individual ASEAN countries are providing humanitarian assistance directly to communities affected by the conflict, circumventing the junta’s control over aid distribution.

This parallel diplomacy, while potentially creating further fragmentation, allows for more flexible and targeted interventions. it acknowledges the reality that a unified ASEAN response is unlikely in the near term.

Creative Solutions: Beyond Traditional Diplomacy

Addressing the myanmar crisis requires a shift towards more creative and unconventional approaches.

Targeted Sanctions: Moving beyond broad sanctions to focus on individuals and entities directly responsible for human rights abuses and undermining the democratic process.

Support for Civil Society: Providing financial and technical assistance to Myanmar’s civil society organizations,which are playing a crucial role in documenting atrocities,providing humanitarian aid,and advocating for democracy.

Engagement with Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs): Recognizing the complex political landscape of Myanmar and engaging with EAOs as potential stakeholders in a future peace process. This is a sensitive issue, but ignoring these groups is not a viable option.

International Collaboration: Strengthening collaboration with international partners, such as the United Nations and individual countries, to increase pressure on the junta and provide support to the people of Myanmar.

Digital Activism & Information Warfare: Supporting independent media and digital activists in Myanmar to counter the junta’s propaganda and disseminate accurate information.

Increased Versatility: Allows ASEAN to respond to evolving circumstances without being constrained by the need for unanimous consensus.

Enhanced Effectiveness: Enables targeted interventions that are more likely to achieve tangible results.

**Greater Resilience