Several ASEAN member states have expressed considerable exasperation with Myanmar’s military leadership, fervently calling for accountability and the reinstatement of democratic governance.
The Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) assembled in Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), on 9 October 2024, for the concurrent convening of the 44th and 45th ASEAN Summits, presided over by the Lao PDR in its authoritative capacity as Chair. Mostly emphasizing the paramount importance of interconnectivity and regional stability. ASEAN has been unsuccessful in its endeavors to instill stability and peace within Myanmar.
In April 2021, amid escalating violence and political upheaval precipitated by the military coup in Myanmar, ASEAN leaders convened to deliberate on the burgeoning crisis. The resultant Five-Point Consensus emerged as a framework designed to cultivate peace and stability in Myanmar. However, while this consensus delineated essential measures for resolution, its implementation has encountered formidable challenges, casting doubt on ASEAN’s efficacy as a regional stabilizing force.
The five point consensus.
They devised a robust framework intended to engender peace and stability in Myanmar, stipulating an immediate cessation of hostilities, the initiation of inclusive dialogue among all pertinent parties, and the provision of humanitarian assistance to those adversely affected by the conflict. Moreover, a special envoy was to be appointed to facilitate negotiations and engage with a spectrum of stakeholders, including the National Unity Government and various ethnic factions. Despite these commendable intentions, the execution of this framework has confronted substantial impediments, engendering substantial skepticism regarding ASEAN’s efficacy as a regional stabilizing authority. The significance of the Five-Point Consensus resides in its capacity to furnish a systematic approach to addressing the protracted crisis in Myanmar. It delineates a coherent framework designed to facilitate dialogue and peace, thereby establishing a strategic roadmap for navigating the intricate challenges stemming from the military coup. By underscoring the imperative for inclusive discourse among all stakeholders—encompassing the military, opposition factions, and ethnic minorities—the consensus endeavors to forge a platform for comprehensive engagement, which is paramount for the attainment of sustainable conflict resolution.
Moreover, the provision of humanitarian assistance represents a fundamental component, directly addressing the exigent needs of those imperiled by the violence. This emphasis serves to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis and signifies a resolute commitment to the welfare of the civilian populace. Additionally, the consensus elucidates ASEAN’s imperative in cultivating regional stability; by confronting the crisis in Myanmar, ASEAN endeavors to preempt spillover ramifications that could destabilize neighboring states, thereby reinforcing its mandate as a preeminent regional security apparatus.
The consensus establishes a salient precedent for how ASEAN may navigate analogous crises in the future, instituting paradigms for intervention and dialogue that can be invoked in subsequent instances of regional instability. In summary, the Five-Point Consensus is consequential not solely for its immediate ramifications for Myanmar but also for its overarching impact on ASEAN’s role in regional governance and crisis management. Its efficacy will ultimately dictate ASEAN’s authority and legitimacy in addressing multifaceted geopolitical challenges.
Complications in Operationalizing the Framework.
Divergent Perspectives Among ASEAN Member States: The principle of non-interference entrenched in ASEAN complicates cohesive action. While certain member states champion more assertive measures against the military junta, others prioritize the preservation of stability and regional diplomacy, resulting in a fragmented and disunited response. On one hand, a faction of member states champions the imposition of stringent sanctions and more coercive measures against the military junta, perceiving such actions as imperative for the restoration of democratic governance and the rectification of human rights abuses. These states contend that a steadfast stance is essential to convey unequivocal disapproval of the junta’s transgressions and to safeguard the intrinsic rights of the Myanmar populace.
Conversely, other member states espouse a more circumspect approach, prioritizing the preservation of regional stability and diplomatic engagement over confrontational tactics. They assert that an aggressive posture could exacerbate tensions, potentially precipitating further destabilization within Myanmar and jeopardizing regional security. This divergence in strategic imperatives has culminated in a fragmented response, undermining ASEAN’s credibility as a cohesive security framework and casting doubt on its capacity to effectively navigate intra-regional crises.
Consequently, the discord among member states not only impedes collective action but also undermines ASEAN’s overarching efficacy as a regional stabilizing force, accentuating the intricacies of governance within a heterogeneous coalition of nations. The failure to reconcile these disparate perspectives may perpetuate the cycle of violence and instability in Myanmar, thereby challenging the foundational tenets upon which ASEAN was established. Moreover, ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar is a toothless compromise, crippling any real action. Its reliance on non-interference empowers the military junta, allowing them to flout commitments with impunity. Rather than catalyzing change, the consensus perpetuates inaction, reinforcing the status quo and leaving Myanmar’s people trapped in a cycle of repression.
Consequences of Fragmentation.
The circumstances surrounding ASEAN’s response to the Myanmar crisis profoundly influence the internal dynamics of the nation and the broader geopolitical milieu. The discord among member states precipitates a paucity of coherent action, enabling the military junta to perpetuate its hegemony, thereby exacerbating violence and humanitarian catastrophes. This fragmentation critically impedes the provision of effective humanitarian assistance, rendering millions vulnerable to extensive displacement and acute food insecurity.
Moreover, the absence of a cohesive international posture may embolden the junta, permitting it to project an illusion of legitimacy both domestically and globally, thereby undermining endeavours aimed at democratic restoration. The failure to engage with a diverse array of stakeholders, including civil society and opposition factions, stifles democratic aspirations and exacerbates flagrant human rights transgressions.
Furthermore, the ongoing crisis precipitates substantial regional security apprehensions, with potential spillover effects jeopardizing the stability of neighbouring states. ASEAN’s inability to effectively confront the crisis diminishes its credibility as a regional security apparatus, engendering a perception of ineffectiveness among member states and external entities. Ultimately, the internecine discord within ASEAN not only perpetuates the suffering of the Myanmar populace but also jeopardizes the organization’s prospective role in regional governance and crisis management.
Nusrat Jan is a political commentator. Email: [email protected]
