As the crisis in Myanmar continues to escalate, with the military junta cracking down on pro-democracy protesters, ASEAN’s unity is being tested. Indonesia, as the bloc’s largest economy and a champion of democracy in Southeast Asia, is facing growing pressure to take a more assertive role in responding to the situation. However, deepening fissures within ASEAN over how to approach Myanmar are complicating Indonesia’s efforts to broker a peaceful resolution to the crisis. In this article, we delve into the challenges facing Indonesia as it navigates ASEAN’s fractured response to the Myanmar crisis.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is facing unprecedented disunity as they prepare for their summit in Indonesia from May 6 to 10. Two years ago, ASEAN leaders gathered in Jakarta to forge a consensus on the Myanmar crisis. However, the spiraling violence in Myanmar, under a savage military regime and determined resistance forces, has opened diplomatic and political fault lines, undermining the group’s international image. Differences over attitudes to China and the US, as well as issues such as refugees and human rights, are also threatening ASEAN unity.
According to one regional diplomat, the “tail wagging the dog” dynamic is at play, with the Myanmar crisis taking center stage and dictating ASEAN’s actions. In a recent statement, the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) warned that “ASEAN must not look the other way as the people of Myanmar are massacred.”
Since the military coup in February, the situation in Myanmar has deteriorated rapidly. The military has responded with brutal force against pro-democracy protests, killing over 700 people, including women and children. The ongoing violence has led to a flood of refugees across the border into ASEAN member countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
The ASEAN response to the Myanmar crisis has been uneven, with member states adopting different approaches. Indonesia, for example, has taken a more proactive stance on Myanmar, calling for an immediate end to the violence and a return to democracy. Meanwhile, Thailand has maintained a more cautious approach, arguing that the situation in Myanmar is an internal matter and that ASEAN should respect the principle of non-interference.
The differences in ASEAN’s response to the Myanmar crisis reflect broader divisions within the group. There are those who advocate for a more proactive approach to human rights and democracy, and those who prioritize economic stability and non-interference. These competing interests are also playing out in ASEAN’s relations with external powers, such as China and the US.
China’s growing influence in the region is another source of tension within ASEAN. Several member states, including the Philippines and Cambodia, have close ties with China, while others, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, are wary of Beijing’s expanding influence. The South China Sea dispute, where China claims almost the entire sea as its territorial waters, has also exacerbated tensions between ASEAN member states.
The US, on the other hand, is seen by some ASEAN members as a counterbalance to China’s influence. The Biden administration has made a concerted effort to re-engage with ASEAN, but it remains to be seen how this will translate into policy. The recent decision to send an envoy to Myanmar has been well-received by some ASEAN members, but others have criticized the move as interfering in the country’s internal affairs.
The disunity within ASEAN has implications for the group’s international image and ability to play a meaningful role in regional affairs. As the Myanmar crisis continues to unfold, ASEAN’s credibility is being called into question. The group’s reluctance to take a stronger stance on human rights and democracy is also raising concerns about its commitment to these values.
Moving forward, ASEAN will need to address these internal divisions and develop a more coherent and proactive approach to regional issues. This will require a willingness to engage in difficult conversations and make tough decisions, even if it means challenging the principle of non-interference. Only then can ASEAN fulfill its potential as a regional leader and promote stability, prosperity, and peace in Southeast Asia.
