In February 2021, Myanmar has been facing a transforming a period of political unrest and widespread human rights violations, creating an urgent need for peace. In response to this crisis, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has taken an active role. By adoption of the Five-Point Consensus and the establishment of the Trioka Mechanism ASEAN involving to address the Myanmar crisis.
The ASEAN Five-Point Consensus for Myanmar’s stability:
This is a strategic framework of ASEAN Five-Point Consensus with five key elements, including an immediate end to violence, constructive dialogue, the appointment of a special envoy, humanitarian assistance, and engagement with relevant stakeholders. The primary goal of this consensus is to stop the violence and bring stability to Myanmar by fostering constructive discussions, offering humanitarian aid, and engaging with Myanmar’s stakeholders. However, despite initial optimism, there have been significant challenges. Not all relevant stakeholders were included in the discussions, raising concerns about representation. Some critics argue that there was not enough pressure on Myanmar’s military junta to comply with the proposed solutions and engage in meaningful dialogue. Overall, ASEAN’s approach emphasizes constructive dialogue over punitive measures, aiming to restore stability to Myanmar’s complex political landscape.
Uprising the informal dialogues to address Myanmar’s issue: “Trioka”
Unfortunately, even though people were hopeful when they first tried to make the Five-Point Consensus work, there were big problems that made it not work so well. Some people said that there wasn’t enough pressure put on Myanmar’s military leaders to follow the ideas that were suggested and have real conversations. The consensus wanted everyone to talk nicely and work together instead of punishing Myanmar. Following the difficulties encountered in implementing the Five-Point Consensus, ASEAN initiated the establishment of the Trioka mechanism as an informal means to address the complex regional issues, particularly the situation in Myanmar. The Trioka Mechanism consists of three key figures within ASEAN: the Current Chair, the Incoming Chair, and the Secretary-General. It serves as a platform for dialogues and coordination among ASEAN member states concerning critical regional security issues. The mechanism aimed to facilitate dialogue between conflicting parties while upholding the principle of non-interference in each other’s affairs. Furthermore, it sought to work towards national reconciliation and democratization processes that would ultimately lead to lasting peace and stability in Myanmar.
ASEAN’s Success, Challenges and Evolving approach in addressing previous decade Through “Trioka”
This mechanism reflects ASEAN’s commitment to peaceful conflict resolution and was initially formed during Cambodia’s chairmanship in 2012-2013. The Trioka Mechanism has achieved successes, such as facilitating humanitarian assistance during natural disasters. However, it faces challenges, including ensuring inclusivity and representation of all stakeholders, particularly marginalized ethnic minorities. Balancing non-interference principles with addressing human rights concerns in Myanmar remains a challenge.
One critical challenge is ensuring inclusivity and representation in its engagement efforts. While commendable progress has been made in engaging various stakeholders within Myanmar, concerns persist regarding whether all voices, especially those belonging to marginalized ethnic minorities, are adequately heard. Another challenge lies in striking a balance between upholding the non-interference principles enshrined within ASEAN’s foundational documents and effectively addressing human rights concerns in Myanmar.
Moreover, ASEAN’s approach to Myanmar has evolved beyond merely establishing the Trioka Mechanism. The bloc has issued statements strongly condemning violence against civilians while urging all involved parties to exercise restraint and engage in dialogue (Shukri, 2021). Notably, external actors such as the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) have played a significant role in shaping ASEAN response to the Myanmar crisiss. The EU activity promoted security cooperation between ASEAN and Myanmar through technical assistance and capacity-building program. This external support has reinforced ASEAN’s efforts in addressing the crisis.
Is it the right way the “Trioka Mechanism” to address for Myanmar Issues?
To effectively address the ongoing Myanmar crisis and foster a sustainable path towards stability and democratic transition, ASEAN should formulate a comprehensive strategy. It is crucial for ASEAN to maintain active engagement with all pertinent stakeholders in Myanmar, encompassing ethnic minority groups, civil society organizations, and a spectrum of political entities representing diverse interests. Nevertheless, the “Trioka Mechanism,” while historically effective, has recently encountered challenges considering the military regime unwillingness to engage constructively with ASEAN leadership. Regrettably, the military government has not shown the expected commitment to the dialogue process as previously agreed upon, hindering its overall effectiveness.
As point of my view, ASEAN’s significant role in addressing the Myanmar crisis, focusing on its adoption of the Five-Point Consensus and the establishment of the Trioka Mechanism. While the Five-Point Consensus aimed to address the crisis by promoting dialogue and humanitarian assistance, challenges like inclusivity and insufficient pressure on the military junta have limited its effectiveness. Let’s considering this dialogue ends with this question “Is the “Trioka Mechanism” truly effective in resolving the complex issues facing Myanmar?” The Trioka Mechanism, on the other hand, demonstrated ASEAN’s commitment to peaceful conflict resolution but also faces challenges related to inclusivity and balancing non-interference principles with human rights concerns. In the future, ASEAN must develop thorough plans that include ongoing dialogue with all relevant groups like EROs, NUG, and CRPH. It’s crucial for member states to work together and build agreement to establish lasting peace in Myanmar. Most importantly, it’s essential to heed the wishes of the public to ensure a more enduring peace in Myanmar.
All of us already know that ASEAN’s foundational principles, notably “consensus” and “noninterference” in member states’ internal affairs, have proven counterproductive in addressing the Myanmar crisis. The consensus-based decision-making process often leads to stalemates and ineffectual joint statements, as any member can wield a veto. Meanwhile, the principle of noninterference has enabled ASEAN to sidestep human rights abuses in the region. Even the ASEAN Chair era during the Military coup like Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, and now Laos involved, ASEAN has struggled to play a constructive role in resolving the Myanmar crisis. While countless lives are lost daily in Myanmar, ASEAN’s efforts appear to legitimize the military council’s rule through various means. So, I think this crisis has become a litmus test for ASEAN’s principles and centrality, necessitating a reevaluation of its approach in light of the evolving situation in Myanmar.
I think many people see what is happening in Myanmar today. And also what has done and what is doing ASEAN for Myanmar Crisis. It’s evident that ASEAN’s principles and initiatives for Myanmar are falling short in addressing the crisis. Non-interference, the Five-Point Consensus, and the Trioka Mechanism appear to be more about paper and showmanship than effective action. Recent actions, like Thailand inviting the military leader to BIMSTEC meeting and engaging with the military regime, raise concerns about ASEAN’s commitment to solve Myanmar Crisis.
Some ASEAN countries such as Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, by associating with the military regime, seem to compromise their values. While they may not directly engage with the military, their behind-the-scenes connections are troubling. ASEAN’s approach to solving Myanmar’s crisis appears stagnant, as they seem to wait for time to bring change without considering the desires of the Myanmar people.
Myanmar’s citizens are living in daily anxiety, insecurity, and challenges, but ASEAN seems more focused on engaging with the military than understanding the people’s aspirations. Meetings, diplomacy, and statements for show don’t seem to be working, and ASEAN is aware of this. Action is what’s needed, and if half of ASEAN members took a stand like Timor-Leste, the crisis could potentially be resolved more swiftly. Prolonging the story without meaningful action only exacerbates the situation.
ASEAN 5PC has already approved the lack of powerful impact on the junta to ease the current fighting. However, the ASEAN 5PC can be considered as a sole agreement made by the junta leader Min Aung Hlaing so far. ASEAN leaders’ decision to not invite the Myanmar junta to the 2021 Brunei summit is seen as a symbolic action in my understanding, highlighting Myanmar’s unstable political condition and its impact on regional stability. The junta responded by adhering to ASEAN’s founding principles of not interfering with each other’s internal affairs. Since 2021, Junta leader Min Aung Hlaing has been banned from attending summits. The ASEAN Member States look divided when it comes to ASEAN policy in regard to the State Administration Council (SAC). Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia have all lowered their diplomatic ties with the SAC and disregarded its authority. In certain circumstances, some of these Member States have also spoken with the National Unity Government. As if it were the government of Myanmar, the SAC has been interacting with Cambodia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand, and Vietnam. The junta’s legitimacy is known, however, even to some of the nations that have worked with the SAC. I think that the generating of a new approach by the ASEAN leaders, the Troika Mechanism, reveals the influence of Myanmar’s unstable political condition in the Southeast Asia region. At least any sort of action is taken, the new approach would result in acceptable conditions for all concerned parties. On the other hand, the perspective of the main problem maker, the junta, should also be accessed by means of its recent movements heading to conduct sham elections. Whether or not, I think that there is no concrete decision or agreement regarding the recognition of the expected result of that tricky election.
I appreciate your attention to the ASEAN’s role in the current political situation in Myanmar. I wholeheartedly agree that ASEAN bears a significant responsibility to actively engage and support the ongoing complexities within Myanmar at a regional level. So, I would like to contribute some additional thoughts to your post.
While recognizing the challenges ASEAN faces in providing a sustainable solution for Myanmar and dealing with the brutal military junta (Tatmataw). However, I believe there is room for them to do more or to take a stronger stance in supporting the country. Even if an immediate resolution to the current conflict is challenging, ASEAN could play a crucial role in supporting cross-border humanitarian aid to assist the civilian population in Myanmar. The ASEAN community is well aware of the dire situation in Myanmar, and prioritizing support for humanitarian aid is a pressing need that should not be overlooked.
On the other hand, the leaders and stakeholders in the current revolution, including the NUG, CRPH, and other involved parties, should underscore the importance of political will in these challenging circumstances. The situation in Myanmar demands robust support, not only from ASEAN but also from the broader international community, spanning various sectors. Therefore, both ASEAN and other international entities should prioritize immediate needs, particularly in the areas of humanitarian aid and addressing social crises.
Simultaneously, the leaders involved in the revolution should exhibit even greater political will. Myanmar has a long history of conflict rooted in issues such as inequality, lack of justice, absence of the rule of law, and failure to protect minority rights during its prolonged rule of the military for more than 70 years. Therefore, a concerted effort from ASEAN, along with stronger political will from international communities and the stakeholders within Myanmar, is essential to address the multifaceted challenges the country currently faces.
I agree with your point regarding the significance of the ASEAN five-point consensus as an exit plan for the Myanmar military and the importance of ASEAN’s distinct approach towards Myanmar’s military. It would be valuable to delve deeper into the roles of China and India within the Trioka mechanism.
China has emerged as a crucial player in the Myanmar crisis due to its geopolitical interests and extensive economic ties with Myanmar. Beijing has historically maintained a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations, a stance often reflected in its approach to the Myanmar situation. China’s economic investments in Myanmar, particularly in infrastructure projects and the energy sector, have made it a significant stakeholder in the country’s stability.
Within the Trioka mechanism, China’s role is complex. It can potentially influence the Myanmar military junta through diplomatic channels, given its historical ties and economic leverage. However, its priorities may not always align with those of Western nations or regional bodies like ASEAN, making coordinated efforts within the Trioka challenging.
India also holds a noteworthy position in the region, sharing a long border with Myanmar and having historical ties. India’s approach to the Myanmar crisis is influenced by its strategic interests, security concerns, and a desire to maintain stability in its northeastern states, where some ethnic groups have cross-border connections.
India’s role within the Trioka mechanism involves carefully balancing its regional interests, maintaining relations with the Myanmar military, and aligning with democratic principles. Its approach may involve more discreet diplomacy compared to some Western nations but remains significant in regional dynamics.
I hope this comment could be valuable for your future study.