Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • ASEAN’s Special Summit: Can It Resolve the Myanmar Crisis?
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO21071 | ASEAN’s Special Summit: Can It Resolve the Myanmar Crisis?
Joel Ng

29 April 2021

download pdf

SYNOPSIS

The ASEAN special summit outlined a set of initial, necessary conditions to the resolution of the Myanmar crisis, but it is only the start of a long and difficult process.


Source: Unsplash 

COMMENTARY

THE ASEAN special summit in Jakarta on 24 April 2021 has concluded with a five-point consensus on the Myanmar crisis. It called for cessation of violence, commencement of political dialogue, a constructive role for ASEAN including an opening for an ASEAN delegation, and the allowance of humanitarian assistance.

At first glance, analysis of the Chair’s statement showed signs of division – for instance, a lack of consensus on the release of political prisoners, a necessary precondition for dialogue to begin. Activists criticised that the statement did not go far enough, appearing to show that the summit achieved little. Yet if politics is, to quote the German statesman Otto von Bismarck, about the ‘art of the possible’, then it is necessary to set the outcome against a context of impossibilities, dead ends or worse, into which ASEAN did not throw itself.

Difficulties with Intervention

Disappointment with the summit may be seen in the context of calls for external intervention in Myanmar. This desire to remove the Tatmadaw should be tempered by the reality that this would be costly, risky, and no guarantee of a solution. Nevertheless, criticisms have continued about the failure to take a harder line against the junta, either through the UN or ASEAN, with neither path opening after the summit.

The UN Security Council is deadlocked, where China and Russia would likely block moves by Western powers. While some therefore conclude that the UN system is broken, one should think about the scenario where a liberal intervention proceeded without other states’ consent:

Myanmar could well become the first proxy battleground in a new front of an emerging “Cold War 2.0”, with the conflict sharpening and possibly accelerating US-China confrontation. Mainland Southeast Asian states are not unreasonable to baulk at suggestions in this direction, given their experiences during the Cold War.

At the regional level, ASEAN’s options are tempered by the political diversity of its membership and its own historical experiences. When Western powers intervened in post-colonial times, they never did so purely for the sake of democratic values, but always when there was a convergence of material interests to do so, with a barely-concealed desire to secure those interests in-country for themselves. Iraq, Libya, Syria, and others provide a litany of examples of long, costly, and complex crises, with the West’s own role itself intrinsically linked to the continuation of those conflicts.

In each case, domestic divisions interwove with foreign interests to amplify the conflicts. Roll back further in time and one finds the price of intervention was to have to accept brutal military leaders for whom loyalty to their patron was the primary factor for their grip on power. Post-colonial states in Southeast Asia rightfully reject this option.

One thing ASEAN has done well is ensure that cultural and ideological diversity among its members did not lead to conflict. Breaking that formula in order to “fix” Myanmar risks opening Pandora’s Box for ASEAN member states, and this dismal conclusion unites them notwithstanding sometimes diametrically opposed political systems.

Summit’s High Points

Within these constraints, therefore, ASEAN has little room for manoeuvre. Yet it managed to accomplish several key things at the summit.

First, Tatmadaw Senior General Min Aung Hlaing attended, which was uncertain even days before the summit. He chose to talk to ASEAN and virtually no one else, providing a necessary opening from which a solution must be found. Under the gaze of ASEAN leaders, he could not decline ASEAN’s offer, something which he would have de facto accomplished by simply failing to show up.

Second, he met UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit. While what transpired has been kept under wraps, the mere fact of meeting would have been impossible without his arrival in Jakarta.

Third, on ASEAN’s part, it presented one of the most public and interventionist outcome statements the regional grouping has ever delivered to another member state. This represented a big step beyond ASEAN’s usual practices and demonstrated their view of its potential impact on regional security and the importance they have placed on resolution to the crisis.

Next Steps

While critics lambasted the lack of details, this is overstated. There are few details because ASEAN is in uncharted waters, never having done such action before – itself a sign of how far ASEAN went to secure this outcome. ASEAN does not commit to things it does not believe it can do. Implementation details will be hammered out in ASEAN capitals and the ASEAN Secretariat soon. However, this is just the start of a long process.

While the outcome was a big step for ASEAN, the path out of crisis for Myanmar will be a much longer journey. ASEAN has led the figurative horse to water, but it cannot make it drink. During Myanmar’s short-lived democracy, the National League for Democracy (NLD), failed to resolve federal questions about the country and the Tatmadaw did not learn the soft skills it needed to become a guardian of the country’s future.

The Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw has taken first steps to build a more inclusive framework and draw in allies through the new National Unity Government (NUG).

While the NUG has the soft power, it is the Tatmadaw with the hard power. Both are necessary elements for governance in Myanmar, and only when the parties are willing to begin dialogue will a sustainable solution to the Myanmar crisis become possible.

About the Author

Joel Ng is a research fellow at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Regionalism and Multilateralism / Country and Region Studies / International Politics and Security / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global / East Asia and Asia Pacific / South Asia
comments powered by Disqus

SYNOPSIS

The ASEAN special summit outlined a set of initial, necessary conditions to the resolution of the Myanmar crisis, but it is only the start of a long and difficult process.


Source: Unsplash 

COMMENTARY

THE ASEAN special summit in Jakarta on 24 April 2021 has concluded with a five-point consensus on the Myanmar crisis. It called for cessation of violence, commencement of political dialogue, a constructive role for ASEAN including an opening for an ASEAN delegation, and the allowance of humanitarian assistance.

At first glance, analysis of the Chair’s statement showed signs of division – for instance, a lack of consensus on the release of political prisoners, a necessary precondition for dialogue to begin. Activists criticised that the statement did not go far enough, appearing to show that the summit achieved little. Yet if politics is, to quote the German statesman Otto von Bismarck, about the ‘art of the possible’, then it is necessary to set the outcome against a context of impossibilities, dead ends or worse, into which ASEAN did not throw itself.

Difficulties with Intervention

Disappointment with the summit may be seen in the context of calls for external intervention in Myanmar. This desire to remove the Tatmadaw should be tempered by the reality that this would be costly, risky, and no guarantee of a solution. Nevertheless, criticisms have continued about the failure to take a harder line against the junta, either through the UN or ASEAN, with neither path opening after the summit.

The UN Security Council is deadlocked, where China and Russia would likely block moves by Western powers. While some therefore conclude that the UN system is broken, one should think about the scenario where a liberal intervention proceeded without other states’ consent:

Myanmar could well become the first proxy battleground in a new front of an emerging “Cold War 2.0”, with the conflict sharpening and possibly accelerating US-China confrontation. Mainland Southeast Asian states are not unreasonable to baulk at suggestions in this direction, given their experiences during the Cold War.

At the regional level, ASEAN’s options are tempered by the political diversity of its membership and its own historical experiences. When Western powers intervened in post-colonial times, they never did so purely for the sake of democratic values, but always when there was a convergence of material interests to do so, with a barely-concealed desire to secure those interests in-country for themselves. Iraq, Libya, Syria, and others provide a litany of examples of long, costly, and complex crises, with the West’s own role itself intrinsically linked to the continuation of those conflicts.

In each case, domestic divisions interwove with foreign interests to amplify the conflicts. Roll back further in time and one finds the price of intervention was to have to accept brutal military leaders for whom loyalty to their patron was the primary factor for their grip on power. Post-colonial states in Southeast Asia rightfully reject this option.

One thing ASEAN has done well is ensure that cultural and ideological diversity among its members did not lead to conflict. Breaking that formula in order to “fix” Myanmar risks opening Pandora’s Box for ASEAN member states, and this dismal conclusion unites them notwithstanding sometimes diametrically opposed political systems.

Summit’s High Points

Within these constraints, therefore, ASEAN has little room for manoeuvre. Yet it managed to accomplish several key things at the summit.

First, Tatmadaw Senior General Min Aung Hlaing attended, which was uncertain even days before the summit. He chose to talk to ASEAN and virtually no one else, providing a necessary opening from which a solution must be found. Under the gaze of ASEAN leaders, he could not decline ASEAN’s offer, something which he would have de facto accomplished by simply failing to show up.

Second, he met UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit. While what transpired has been kept under wraps, the mere fact of meeting would have been impossible without his arrival in Jakarta.

Third, on ASEAN’s part, it presented one of the most public and interventionist outcome statements the regional grouping has ever delivered to another member state. This represented a big step beyond ASEAN’s usual practices and demonstrated their view of its potential impact on regional security and the importance they have placed on resolution to the crisis.

Next Steps

While critics lambasted the lack of details, this is overstated. There are few details because ASEAN is in uncharted waters, never having done such action before – itself a sign of how far ASEAN went to secure this outcome. ASEAN does not commit to things it does not believe it can do. Implementation details will be hammered out in ASEAN capitals and the ASEAN Secretariat soon. However, this is just the start of a long process.

While the outcome was a big step for ASEAN, the path out of crisis for Myanmar will be a much longer journey. ASEAN has led the figurative horse to water, but it cannot make it drink. During Myanmar’s short-lived democracy, the National League for Democracy (NLD), failed to resolve federal questions about the country and the Tatmadaw did not learn the soft skills it needed to become a guardian of the country’s future.

The Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw has taken first steps to build a more inclusive framework and draw in allies through the new National Unity Government (NUG).

While the NUG has the soft power, it is the Tatmadaw with the hard power. Both are necessary elements for governance in Myanmar, and only when the parties are willing to begin dialogue will a sustainable solution to the Myanmar crisis become possible.

About the Author

Joel Ng is a research fellow at the Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Regionalism and Multilateralism / Country and Region Studies / International Politics and Security

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info