Baby steps can lead the way to peace in Myanmar

 While gains may be incremental, if it is genuine, verifiable and sustainable, it is still progress.

Diplomacy is not always measured by grand agreements, historic handshakes or comprehensive peace settlements.

Sometimes, its effectiveness is demonstrated through small but tangible improvements in human lives.

The recent decision by Myanmar’s military authorities to begin releasing ethnic Rakhine deportees following Malaysian diplomatic pressure is one such development.

According to The Irrawaddy, the releases followed Malaysia’s intervention over the detention of individuals deported from Malaysia to Myanmar.

This is hardly a diplomatic breakthrough. Yet it is not insignificant.

It demonstrates that Putrajaya’s decision to maintain engagement with Nay Pyi Taw, despite international criticism, can produce limited but measurable results.

More baby steps are needed.

First, engagement must never be confused with endorsement.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has faced criticism for engaging Myanmar’s military leadership, particularly Senior General now President Min Aung Hlaing.

Critics argue that such engagement risks legitimising a regime responsible for widespread displacement, military violence and the destruction of democratic institutions.

These concerns are valid.

However, refusing to communicate with the authorities exercising power in Nay Pyi Taw would make it harder for Malaysia to secure detainees’ release, negotiate humanitarian access or protect vulnerable returnees.

Diplomacy requires contact, even with governments whose conduct one fundamentally opposes.

The purpose is not to confer legitimacy but to influence behaviour.

Second, the releases demonstrate the potential value of sustained diplomatic pressure.

Malaysia raised concerns about the treatment of its deportees. Foreign minister Mohamad Hasan sought clarification. Myanmar subsequently began releasing those detained.

Although this sequence does not prove that Malaysian pressure alone led to the releases, it suggests that diplomatic intervention mattered.

Malaysia did not merely accept Myanmar’s treatment of the deportees. It demanded accountability.

This is how engagement should function: dialogue accompanied by expectations, verification and humanitarian safeguards.

Third, piecemeal progress must not conceal Myanmar’s larger humanitarian catastrophe.

Without a doubt, Myanmar remains deeply fractured.

The military authorities do not exercise uncontested control over the entire country.

Ethnic armed organisations and resistance forces remain powerful actors.

Rakhine State is particularly complicated because of the continuing conflict involving the Arakan Army and Myanmar’s military.

Repatriation cannot automatically be considered safe merely because some detainees have been released.

Malaysia must distinguish between voluntary returns and deportations that expose vulnerable people to persecution, detention or forced recruitment.

The principle of non-refoulement must remain central.

Fourth, Malaysia needs stronger mechanisms to monitor returnees.

Diplomatic assurances are meaningful only when independently verified.

Malaysia should work with relevant UN agencies and humanitarian organisations to establish procedures for monitoring the welfare of those returned.

Such arrangements should protect family contact, freedom from arbitrary detention and access to humanitarian assistance.

Without verification, Malaysia risks celebrating releases without knowing whether those individuals subsequently enjoy meaningful security.

Fifth, Asean must translate Malaysia’s incremental progress into collective diplomatic action.

To be sure, the Asean Five-Point Consensus has struggled to end Myanmar’s conflict.

Nevertheless, its fundamental objectives remain relevant: reducing violence, encouraging inclusive dialogue and facilitating humanitarian assistance.

Malaysia’s bilateral engagement should complement these objectives, not replace them.

The Philippines, as Asean Chair in 2026, should consider how such diplomatic openings can strengthen regional cooperation.

Asean needs more than repeated expressions of concern.

It needs Asean’s resolve to translate principles into practical humanitarian outcomes.

Sixth, engagement must extend beyond Myanmar’s military leadership.

Malaysia should maintain communication with the National Unity Government (the Myanmar government-in-exile), ethnic armed organisations, civil society and humanitarian networks.

Myanmar’s fragmentation makes broader engagement indispensable.

A settlement negotiated exclusively with military authorities cannot guarantee acceptance throughout the country.

Malaysia must broaden and deepen its diplomatic channels without abandoning humanitarian principles.

Finally, Anwar’s approach should be judged by outcomes rather than appearances.

Malaysia cannot single-handedly resolve Myanmar’s civil war.

But neither should it abandon opportunities to secure modest improvements in human security.

The release of Rakhine deportees is encouraging, although it does not establish that Myanmar has fundamentally changed.

Further progress requires humanitarian access, independent monitoring, safeguards for returnees and eventually inclusive political dialogue.

Myanmar’s crisis cannot be resolved overnight. Yet diplomatic paralysis is not a strategy.

Malaysia must remain principled without becoming immobilised by the complexity of Myanmar’s conflict.

The journey towards peace may begin with small humanitarian concessions rather than spectacular diplomatic breakthroughs.

More baby steps are needed. But genuine, verifiable and sustainable piecemeal progress is still progress.

For Myanmar’s long-suffering people, even modest improvements in human security matter. - FMT

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