The conflict in Myanmar, rooted in decades of ethnic tensions and political instability, escalated dramatically with the military’s seizure of power. The 5PC, brokered by ASEAN in February 2021, outlined a roadmap for a cessation of hostilities, humanitarian access, dialogue among stakeholders, and a transition to democracy. However, despite numerous ASEAN summits and Special Envoy meetings, the consensus has largely remained unimplemented, marred by resistance from the military junta and the reluctance of key member states to fully enforce ASEAN’s principles of non-interference. According to a February 2025 report by the International Crisis Group, “the junta’s consistent disregard for the 5PC coupled with the reluctance of some ASEAN members to threaten tangible consequences has rendered the initiative largely symbolic.”
Historically, ASEAN’s approach has been predicated on ‘quiet diplomacy’ and consensus-based decision-making, a strategy designed to avoid direct confrontation and maintain regional stability. However, this model has repeatedly proven inadequate in addressing crises demanding decisive action. The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis highlighted the limitations of this approach, and the Myanmar situation underscores the same weaknesses. The initial framework of the 5PC, designed to foster dialogue and build trust, is now struggling against the entrenched position of the military regime.
Key stakeholders in the Myanmar crisis include the Myanmar military junta (Tatmadaw), the National Unity Government (NUG), various ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), and the international community, primarily the United States, the European Union, and China. The junta’s motivations center on maintaining power and control, while the NUG seeks to establish a legitimate government and achieve a democratic transition. China’s role is particularly complex, providing economic support to the junta while simultaneously advocating for a peaceful resolution – a position seemingly driven by strategic interests in maintaining stability and influence in the region. “China’s continued engagement with the junta, despite international condemnation, underscores a fundamental divergence in ASEAN’s operating principles,” stated Dr. Anya Sharma, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies, in a December 2024 briefing.
Data from the United Nations shows that humanitarian access to conflict-affected areas remains severely restricted, with approximately 2.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) as of Q4 2025. Access to Rakhine State, particularly, has been consistently denied, fueling concerns about human rights abuses and exacerbating the already dire humanitarian situation. Furthermore, monitoring and verification mechanisms outlined in the 5PC have been largely ineffective, allowing the junta to continue its repressive policies with impunity.
Recent developments over the past six months have seen increased engagement by China, leveraging its economic leverage to exert influence on the junta, while simultaneously offering support for the NUG through covert channels. The Philippines, as the 2026 ASEAN Chair, has attempted to drive a more proactive agenda, but has been hampered by the entrenched positions of member states. Thailand, a key ASEAN member, has navigated the situation carefully, balancing its historical ties with Myanmar with its commitment to regional stability and the principles of the 5PC. However, Thailand’s diplomatic stance has been viewed by some as overly accommodating, raising concerns about a potential compromise of ASEAN’s credibility.
Looking ahead, short-term outcomes (next 6 months) are likely to remain characterized by continued stalemate, incremental humanitarian access improvements (potentially driven by external pressure), and ongoing low-level conflict between the junta and various EAOs. Long-term (5-10 years) outcomes remain highly uncertain. A sustained democratic transition in Myanmar appears increasingly unlikely without significant shifts in the balance of power and a genuine commitment to dialogue by the junta. The risk of a protracted civil war, further regional instability, and increased external interference – particularly from China – remains substantial. “The core challenge for ASEAN is its own internal coherence,” argued Dr. Ben Carter, a specialist in Southeast Asian politics at Oxford University. “If the bloc cannot establish clear norms and consequences for non-compliance, its ability to shape events in Myanmar, or indeed across the region, will remain severely limited.”
The crisis in Myanmar represents a critical test for ASEAN’s relevance and effectiveness. The organization’s ability to address this complex situation – arguably its most significant challenge to date – will undoubtedly shape its future role in regional security and diplomacy. The underlying question remains: Can ASEAN truly act as a unified and effective force for peace and stability, or will its inherent weaknesses ultimately render it unable to address the fundamental challenges posed by authoritarian regimes and shifting geopolitical power dynamics? The situation warrants deep reflection and renewed commitment to upholding ASEAN’s founding principles, or risk a significant and potentially catastrophic failure.