Asean in a quandary over Myanmar

 Malaysia’s delicate diplomatic effort to get the various factions in the former Union of Burma to the table is a reflection of the regional grouping’s deepening dilemma.

Myanmar remains the single greatest strategic and moral challenge confronting Asean.

More than five years after the military coup of February 2021, the country has descended into a prolonged and fragmented conflict involving the Tatmadaw, ethnic armed organisations and newly formed resistance groups that emerged after the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

What initially appeared to some observers as a temporary military intervention has instead evolved into a nationwide struggle that threatens not only Myanmar’s territorial cohesion but also Asean’s credibility as the organisation representing Southeast Asia.

Against this backdrop, Malaysian foreign minister Mohamad Hasan’s recent visit to Naypyidaw after the “bare boned” Asean Summit on May 6-8 in Cebu, carries significance far beyond routine diplomacy.

Coming immediately after the Asean Summit, Mohammad’s visit reflected Malaysia’s attempt to navigate one of the most difficult diplomatic equations in contemporary Southeast Asia.

How to engage Myanmar without legitimising the continued failure of the junta to comply with Asean’s Five-Point Consensus.

That consensus, agreed upon by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing himself, now President of Myanmar, during the special Asean summit in Jakarta in April 2021, called for an immediate cessation of violence, constructive dialogue among all parties, humanitarian assistance and mediation through a special Asean envoy.

Yet five years later, little of substance has materialised.

Instead, violence has intensified. Airstrikes, armed clashes and humanitarian displacement have become deeply entrenched realities across large parts of Myanmar.

The military regime continues to face coordinated resistance from both longstanding ethnic armed organisations and newer people’s defence forces aligned with the broader anti-coup movement.

This explains why Myanmar’s military leadership remains barred from high-level Asean meetings.

Asean’s refusal to invite junta leaders is not merely symbolic punishment. It is an attempt by the regional bloc to preserve a minimum level of institutional credibility.

If Asean were to abandon its own five-point consensus without any measurable implementation, it would undermine the organisation’s standing and weaken its long-held principle that agreements among member states must carry political weight.

At the same time, however, Asean also understands that completely isolating Myanmar may worsen the crisis.

Malaysia’s diplomatic outreach therefore reflects a deeper Asean calculation: engagement must continue even amid frustration. Diplomacy cannot simply cease because progress is slow or inconsistent.

This is particularly true because Myanmar’s instability increasingly threatens the wider region.

The prolonged conflict has generated refugee flows, cross-border crime, arms trafficking and growing humanitarian pressures affecting neighbouring states such as Thailand and Bangladesh.

It has also heightened the risk that Myanmar could become an arena for intensified strategic competition among external powers.

For Asean, this is deeply worrying. The organisation was established in 1967 precisely to prevent Southeast Asia from becoming consumed by proxy wars, ideological confrontation and chronic regional fragmentation.

Asean’s success over nearly six decades has rested on its ability to cushion tensions, maintain dialogue and prevent intra-regional crises from spiralling beyond control.

Myanmar now tests all those assumptions simultaneously.

The regime’s recent criticism of Asean for maintaining the diplomatic snub demonstrates how strained relations have become.

Yet Asean itself is also internally divided over how firmly to pressure Naypyidaw.

Some member states favour stronger isolation measures. Others prefer quiet engagement and pragmatic dialogue.

Countries sharing borders with Myanmar naturally prioritise stability and refugee management over rhetorical confrontation alone. Thailand cannot be blamed for trying to engage Myanmar.

Malaysia, meanwhile, occupies an increasingly important pivotal position in this debate.

Under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and foreign minister Mohamad, Malaysia has attempted to preserve Asean’s normative position while still recognising geopolitical realities.

The reality is that the likes of China, India and Russia may want to burrow in Myanmar.

Kuala Lumpur understands that no sustainable solution can emerge purely through coercion or diplomatic ostracism. Malaysia has to engage Myanmar too.

But Malaysia has also been careful not to endorse the junta’s political roadmap uncritically.

Elections conducted amid widespread violence, mass displacement and the exclusion of key political actors risk deepening Myanmar’s fragmentation rather than resolving it.

The deeper tragedy is that Myanmar’s crisis no longer resembles a conventional political impasse alone. It increasingly reflects the collapse of national trust across multiple levels of society.

The junta continues to tolerate the existence of scammers in its midst for instance despite claims of massive crackdown.

This makes Asean mediation extraordinarily difficult.

Nevertheless, abandoning diplomacy altogether would be even more dangerous.

Asean therefore requires greater strategic patience, stronger humanitarian coordination and more innovative forms of quiet diplomacy.

Engagement should not only involve the military authorities but also broader stakeholders capable of contributing to eventual national reconciliation.

The longer the conflict continues, the more difficult Myanmar’s reconstruction will become.

For Asean, the stakes extend beyond one member state.

The regional organisation’s long-term relevance increasingly depends on whether it can demonstrate an ability to manage severe internal crises without descending into paralysis.

Malaysia’s engagement with Naypyidaw thus reflects not weakness, but recognition of a painful reality.

That Asean cannot save Myanmar overnight, but neither can it afford to lose Myanmar completely.

The future credibility and stability of Southeast Asia may depend on sustaining that delicate balance. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.