What ASEAN Must Do Now: Reclaim Credibility, Address Burma, and Break Free from China’s Shadow
As the world watches Southeast Asia navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) finds itself at a crossroads. Long praised for fostering peace and economic growth in the region, ASEAN now faces mounting criticism for its inability to respond effectively to the Burma (Myanmar) crisis and its growing economic dependency on China. If ASEAN is to reclaim credibility, protect regional stability, and maintain autonomy, it must act boldly—and rethink its outdated policy of non-interference.
ASEAN’s Dilemma: Paralysis in the Face of Atrocity
Since the 2021 military coup in Burma, which led to mass killings, displacement, and a collapse of democratic governance, ASEAN has failed to enforce its own Five-Point Consensus—a roadmap it established to end violence and engage in dialogue. The Burmese junta has ignored these points without consequences. This has exposed ASEAN’s biggest structural weakness: its consensus-based, non-interference principle, which prevents effective action even in humanitarian catastrophes.
Meanwhile, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines have advocated for tougher stances, while others like Thailand and Cambodia have engaged directly with the junta, causing internal fragmentation. The result? Inaction and loss of moral authority.
Non-interference in the face of genocide and oppression is not neutrality—it is complicity.
China’s Growing Grip on ASEAN
While ASEAN hesitates, China has rapidly deepened its influence, becoming the region’s top trading partner with over $975 billion in two-way trade in 2023. Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Digital Silk Road, China has flooded ASEAN countries with infrastructure loans, technology, and political backing—often with few conditions related to governance or human rights.
By contrast, the United States, though a strong security partner and the largest foreign investor in ASEAN, has no formal trade agreement with the bloc. While the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is a start, its non-binding nature makes it less attractive compared to China’s comprehensive Free Trade Area (ACFTA).
Despite America's appeal in education, innovation, and defense, China's economic leverage and diplomatic agility dominate ASEAN’s agenda.
The Path Forward: ASEAN Must Reform to Survive
ASEAN has the potential to regain its leadership role, but only if it adopts a bolder, more strategic stance. Here’s what must be done:
1. Rethink the Non-Interference Doctrine
Shift to a model of “non-indifference”, allowing case-by-case engagement in crises like Burma.
Empower the ASEAN Secretariat and AICHR (human rights commission) with authority to act when governments fail their people.
2. Establish Penalties for Non-Compliance
Develop internal mechanisms that sanction member states that violate ASEAN’s core principles.
Align with international human rights standards, or risk becoming irrelevant.
3. Deepen U.S. and Multilateral Engagement
Pursue a formal ASEAN–U.S. trade agreement or binding digital pact to counterbalance China’s economic hold.
Align more closely with Quad partners (U.S., Japan, Australia, India) for diversified investment, especially in clean energy, supply chains, and education.
4. Support Civil Society and Democratic Movements
Include opposition groups, ethnic minorities, and youth voices in ASEAN summits and policy consultations.
Use initiatives like YSEALI and regional youth parliaments to develop a new generation of engaged Southeast Asian leaders.
5. Take a Stand on Burma
Suspend Burma’s military government from ASEAN until the Five-Point Consensus is honored.
Recognize and engage with ethnic organizations and the National Unity Government (NUG) to promote an inclusive solution.
Ethnic Resistance and the Fight for Genuine Autonomy
ASEAN’s credibility on Burma is not just about condemning the junta—it’s also about recognizing the reality on the ground: Burma is not a monolithic nation, but a mosaic of oppressed ethnic nationalities who have endured decades of marginalization, broken promises, and military violence.
Key Ethnic Resistance Movements:
Karen (Kawthoolei)
Karenni (Kayah)
Kachin
Shan
Chin
Mon
Arakan (Rakhine)
These groups are not merely resisting tyranny; they are building parallel governance structures, providing health, education, and justice systems in the areas they control—proving they are capable of self-rule.
Why Statehood is More Viable Than Burman-Led Federalism:
1. Federalism Has Been a Trap
Every promise of federalism by Burman-led governments—civilian or military—has been a political delay tactic.
In practice, the Burman elite retain centralized power, while ethnic groups are expected to surrender arms and autonomy.
2. Ethnic Groups Already Govern Their Own Territories
Many ethnic organizations have functioning governments and military structures (e.g., KNLA, KIA, Arakan Army).
They have popular support in their communities and are often better trusted than the central government.
3. The Demand is for Equality, Not Integration
These groups are not asking to be integrated into a Burman-dominated union—they seek equal footing or full independence.
4. A Burman-Only “Federal Union” Ignores Generational Trauma
Genocides, scorched-earth tactics, and mass displacement committed by the Burma Army are not forgotten.
Without justice and recognition of these atrocities, any federal system run by the same power base is illegitimate.
ASEAN’s Missed Opportunity
ASEAN has continued to engage only with the junta, while ignoring ethnic governance structures that could offer a more legitimate foundation for peace. By doing so, it perpetuates a false narrative that unity can be achieved without justice or real power-sharing.
A Credible Path Forward:
ASEAN must include ethnic resistance voices in diplomatic engagement.
Support international frameworks that recognize the right to self-determination.
Advocate for a pluralistic political settlement, not a recycled military-dominated federal system.
Bold regional leadership requires the courage to break from old diplomatic habits. ASEAN must stop engaging only with power and start listening to people.
Take a Stand on Burma
Suspend Burma’s military government from ASEAN until the Five-Point Consensus is honored.
Recognize and engage with ethnic organizations rather than assume the National Unity Government (NUG) is the authority, as they too will continue to dominate the ethnic people. to promote an inclusive solution.
Conclusion: ASEAN’s Credibility Is on the Line
The time for passive diplomacy is over. If ASEAN wants to remain relevant, credible, and respected, it must show moral courage and strategic clarity. That means addressing the Burma crisis head-on, rebalancing its relationship with China, and modernizing its internal rules for a more just and secure Southeast Asia.
Failure to act boldly will not only embolden dictatorships like Burma’s junta but also cement China’s dominance over a region that once prided itself on independence, dignity, and cooperation.
References:
ASEAN Secretariat. (2022). ASEAN-U.S. Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Joint Statement.
U.S. Department of State. (2023). U.S. Engagement with ASEAN.
ASEANstats Data Portal. (2023). ASEAN Key Figures on Trade and Investment.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2023). China’s Influence in Southeast Asia.
CSIS. (2022). The Future of ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Human Rights Watch. (2023). ASEAN and the Failure to Hold Myanmar Accountable.
TNI. (2023). ASEAN’s Dilemma: China, Burma, and Regional Instability.
