[COLUMNIST] ASEAN and Myanmar quagmire

A quote from a consummate ASEAN diplomat, the late Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, encapsulates well the state of the region with the Myanmar quagmire in the background: “If ASEAN could take care of itself, the world would have one less region to worry about.”

These words strike through across Southeast Asia as Myanmar's issue invariably gains traction in regional conversation.

As ASEAN leaders convene in Jakarta earlier this week, the bloc has indeed deliberated on the Myanmar issue, which remains high on the agenda.

As it may, the Myanmar quagmire casts hollow hope in the wake of the military coup in February 2021. What ensued is troubling for the country and the region - as violence escalates, causing widespread humanitarian suffering with Myanmar’s economy on the verge of collapse.

It is all rooted after the military junta, infamously known as the Tatmadaw and later the State Administration Council (SAC), engineered a coup against the civilian-led government. It has since brought a downward spiral situation in Myanmar.

Delving into the Myanmar conflict map, which the International Institute for Strategic Studies developed to assist analysts in contextualizing the conflict in Myanmar better, one would not lend such high hopes, especially when Myanmar’s military junta appears abrasive and shows no sign of heeding to ASEAN Five-Point Consensus (5PC).

Moreover, throughout 2020 up until July 2023, 1,522 attacks or armed clashes were recorded in Myanmar. At least more than 4,000 have been killed, and more than 24,000 have been detained since the coup.

With its 5PC as the peace plan in place, ASEAN calls for an immediate cessation of violence, inclusive peace dialogue, and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid.

However, the bloc’s displeasure is palpable when there is no substantive progress in the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus.

Concerted efforts needed

Currently, there is mounting international pressure for ASEAN to reprimand Myanmar further, and the bloc’s reputation is now at stake.

Herein lies a paradox: should ASEAN pursue a hardline approach to Myanmar, it might risk closing the door of negotiations, and the country's humanitarian state would further deteriorate.

One might posit that it is about time that Myanmar’s intransigence be castigated, which has been holding the region’s progress thus far. Furthermore, the ruling junta must adhere to the conditions set for the region to move forward.

To ensure that, there is a need for concerted and collective efforts to make informed decisions. Continuous engagement with both sides of the aisle is vital, as it is an invaluable platform to build mutual trust and understanding.

Only then will ASEAN be able to make informed decisions in resolving the quagmire in its own backyard.

It is also pertinent to note that the recent ASEAN Summit has delved into the issue of Myanmar by putting forth the Troika mechanism proposal.

In the words of Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, “Because everyone understands that the situation cannot change in a year. And because of ASEAN’s commitment to continuously help the people of Myanmar, the implementation of a troika (mechanism) between current, previous and future chairs (is needed),”.

Indeed, the ASEAN Troika is akin to a preventive diplomacy mechanism that would allow the immediate past, current, and incoming ASEAN chair to address the Myanmar issue together. The ASEAN Troika also acts as a mechanism that shall monitor the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus.

After all, the troika mechanism is invoked primarily to solidify regional response over crises that escalate the conflicts. In essence, the troika mechanism applies more pragmatism in mitigating the Myanmar quagmire, given that it provides more space without hindrance from the bureaucratic processes of the bloc.

In other words, the mechanism will enable ASEAN to respond swiftly to urgent regional problems.

Indeed, given the political weightage to resolve this issue, the troika mechanism will possess greater flexibility for more coordinated and multi-level approaches through various stakeholders. Currently, the special envoys dispatched by the United Nations Secretary-General and from the European Union would be further engaged.

Another feasible alternative to be considered is an intermediary role. Other stakeholders' recommendations for peacebuilding and sustaining peace would be welcomed in a situation such as Myanmar quagmire.

Norway, which has played a pivotal role of facilitator in peace and reconciliation efforts for decades, could also be considered. This may also include other non-state actors, for instance, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. As of now, Yohei Sasakawa, Japan's special envoy for national reconciliation, has a network within Myanmar, and he sees that it is pivotal to maintain a line of dialogue to resolve the country's political

crisis.

Indeed, it is high time to leverage the synergies and complementary together with the international communities to resolve the crisis.

---

* Dr Abdul Razak Ahmad is the Founding Director of House of Trust (Bait Al-Amanah), an independent research institute that promotes policy and decision-making through sound, independent, and multidisciplinary analysis in governance and democracy, economics, security, and issues of national importance.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.