Myanmar Junta’s Summit Exclusion: a Wedge in ASEAN’s Consensus Based Unity?

Article thumbnail of first ASEAN-Australia Summit with Myanmar simply listed in the call after refusing to attend, 27/10/2021, courtesy of ASEAN

Overview

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) annual summit went ahead without Myanmar, after the military boycotted the summit following the exclusion of their top general Min Aung Hlaing. This marked a rare bold stroke for ASEAN, typically known for its principles of consensus and non-interference, as they elected to invite a non-political representative, and bar the junta’s general.

Since the military’s coup d’etat on February 1st, security forces in Myanmar have killed over 1,000 civilians and arrested thousands more. The decision was subsequently made by ASEAN foreign ministers at an emergency meeting on October 15th, in response to the junta’s continued failure to uphold the conditions of the five-point consensus. The consensus, agreed upon back in April following the coup, marked one of the few outcomes of ASEAN’s heavily criticised engagement with the humanitarian crisis. The agreement outlined a plan for a cessation of violence, initiation of dialogue, humanitarian support, and allowing a special envoy full access to the country. Since April however, the junta has failed to meet these terms, as violence and human rights abuses have continued.

The move to bar Min Aung Hlaing has likely helped ASEAN restore some of its credibility, arguably damaged by their previously hesitant approach to the crisis. However, the continuing escalation of violence, compounded by rising COVID-19 infections and economic downturn, exacerbate Myanmar’s risk of becoming a failed state. This leaves a lot more ground to be covered if ASEAN is to earnestly commit to restoring stability, whilst posing concurrent risks to the blocs identity, as the decision seemingly infringes founding principles of non-interference.

What are the potential consequences of this exclusion?

The decision risks becoming the beginnings of a wedge within the ASEAN community, both in the obvious sense in antagonizing Myanmar’s military, but also stirring division amongst the wider community. 

ASEAN’s decision to exclude the junta is a departure from characteristic policies of non-interference into domestic affairs and consensus-based decisions. Alongside Myanmar's objection to the decision, other member countries, including Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, had argued to abide by these central principles and allow Min Aung Hlaing to attend the summit. On the other hand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines all argued in favour of exclusion. While an eventual compromise of inviting a non-political representative was reached, the move has illustrated a divide in opinion between member nations.

Within the ASEAN camp, there are already signs of possible change, with members such as Malaysia calling for the bloc to rethink their policy of non-interference with regard to Myanmar. This poses a threat to ASEAN’s identity, and subsequently unity, as the bloc is often divided on issues, especially regarding internal affairs. The absence of the buffer of non-interference could exacerbate tensions previously avoided. A change as significant as this to the core policies of the bloc could cause some nations to rethink their level of involvement to avoid being exposed to foreign pressures, both within and without.

With regard to Myanmar itself, the decision has obviously angered the junta. The military expressed this clearly, stating: “Myanmar is extremely disappointed and strongly objected to the outcomes of the Emergency Foreign Ministers’ Meeting as the discussions and decision on Myanmar’s representation issues was done without consensus and was against the objectives of the ASEAN, the ASEAN Charter and its principles.” The junta’s statement is clear in citing ASEAN’s characteristic policies and principles to contest the legitimacy of the decision. 

The coup government has also accused ASEAN, in arriving at this decision, of succumbing to external pressures. A spokesperson blamed foreign intervention from the US and EU for their exclusion. An ASEAN diplomat somewhat echoed this notion in a statement, explaining: “We essentially faced the choice of sacrificing ASEAN’s credibility and possibly its highly valued East Asia Summit with dialogue partners in order to protect a coup leader in a failing state.” This indicates an acknowledgement of, and acquiescence to, the pressure from external actors to take a more assertive approach towards the coup government. While these pressures appear appeased for now, their effect signals the weight of foreign pressures as a possible threat to the bloc’s (and individual nations’) autonomy. This signals a risk that will likely be considered by not only Myanmar but also other, more authoritarian, members of the bloc, who may like to avoid similar exposure to these pressures.

Forecast

Myanmar’s exclusion shows the willingness of ASEAN to act against its characteristic policies of non-interference and consensus in the face of a grave humanitarian crisis. This demonstrates a competency to adapt and shoulder the weight of international responsibility, criticized as lacking in past months, cementing a more significant place on the world stage. However, despite positive perceptions internationally, this decision may still have consequences for the group's identity and unity going forward.

Despite the ameliorative effect barring the junta chief has had on ASEAN’s international reputation, it still faces calls to further these efforts by suspending or even expelling Myanmar. Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, the summit host, looked to quash these concerns, remarking: “Myanmar is an integral part of the ASEAN family, and their membership has not been questioned,” framing this decision as a move to give Myanmar time and political space to deal with its challenges, whilst offering verbal support.

However, the incoming ASEAN chair Cambodia has been less conciliatory, stating: “This is not because of ASEAN but because of Myanmar itself… [the junta] abandoned its rights with a boycott,” applying more pressure to military officials. This either demonstrates a deft two-pronged diplomatic approach or an incongruence in ASEAN voices. The latter would further suggest a potential divide between member states. This division could contribute to further disagreements around key ASEAN policies such as consensus-based decision making and non-interference, as well as risk the potential exit of Myanmar as a member all together. Therefore, while a reputational win for ASEAN with regard to external powers, in threatening the centrality of ASEAN principles, the move presents some internal turbulence with regard to unity and stability among members moving forward.

As of now, it remains unclear how long Min Aung Hlaing will remain barred for. However, Myanmar’s renewed commitment to honoring the five-point consensus in response, despite disputing and expressing disappointment at ASEAN’s decision, indicates this may have been the more substantial diplomatic engagement many onlookers believed was missing from ASEAN’s initial response.