By: Yan Ardian Subhan (Analyst on ASEAN Issues and Lecturer at Universitas Pamulang)
On Wednesday, a photojournalist from Myanmar named Sai Zaw Thaike received a harsh sentence of 20 years in prison with hard labor. His supposed “crime” was the act of capturing images to document the aftermath of a deadly cyclone earlier this year. The country’s oppressive military junta accused him of incitement, sedition, and spreading false information. He was sentenced without a fair legal proceeding and lacked any legal representation.
This sentence, believed to be one of the longest ever imposed on a journalist in Myanmar, solidifies Myanmar’s notorious reputation as one of the world’s most prolific violators of human rights. Since the military coup in February 2021, which triggered an ongoing and bloody civil war, over 4,000 people have lost their lives, and an estimated 20,000 individuals have been imprisoned for opposing the military regime. There are fears that dozens of prisoners have gone missing and are presumed to have been murdered by the regime. In June, approximately 50 people were arrested simply for posting anti-regime messages on social media.
During the same period when Sai Zaw Thaike received his unjust sentence, leaders from neighboring countries of Myanmar gathered in Jakarta, Indonesia, for the annual summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. Notably, Myanmar’s ruling State Administration Council (SAC) was not invited to this summit. This meeting presented an ideal opportunity for the regional forum to strongly condemn the ongoing atrocities committed by the Myanmar regime and formulate a concrete plan involving economic pressure to reverse the coup and end the suffering.
Unfortunately, the outcome of the Jakarta summit highlighted the impotence and growing irrelevance of the regional forum. Instead of presenting a united front, the summit underscored the inability of the nine diverse ASEAN members (excluding Myanmar) to unite around a common policy to address one of the world’s gravest human rights crises.
The most ASEAN could muster was a statement once again condemning the violence and urging the “Myanmar Armed Forces in particular, and all related parties concerned in Myanmar, to de-escalate violence and stop targeted attacks on civilians” and non-military infrastructure. The statement also called for a return to ASEAN’s 2021 “five-point consensus,” which called for all parties involved in the ongoing civil war to cease violence and engage in “constructive dialogue.” Predictably, Myanmar’s generals dismissed this latest statement as “one-sided,” just as they had disregarded the 2021 “consensus.”
The failure of this summit cannot be attributed to Indonesia, which held the rotating chairmanship of ASEAN at the time. Instead, it lies with ASEAN itself, a primarily economic and trade-oriented group whose member states have little in common.
ASEAN was originally established in 1967 by a group of five countries—Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines—with the aim of countering the spread of communism during the Vietnam War. The organization’s decline into paralysis and ineffectiveness can be traced back to the mid-1990s when it decided to admit three Communist-run countries from Indochina and later Myanmar, without considering the new members’ adherence to democratic norms or human rights.
Vietnam and Laos are governed by two of the world’s last remaining Leninist-style Communist parties. Cambodia is under the rule of a long-serving dictator, Hun Sen. Brunei is an absolute monarchy led by the sultan. In Thailand, a recent election was overshadowed by the military and the monarchy, which still wield significant influence. Singapore can be described as a benevolent quasi-democratic autocracy. Only Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines can truly be called democratic.
ASEAN’s guiding principles are “consensus” and “noninterference” in each other’s internal affairs. These principles, however, promote inaction. Consensus gives any single member country veto power, resulting in joint statements that are often bland and devoid of substance. Noninterference has allowed ASEAN to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses over the years.
The issue of Myanmar has divided the bloc, with some countries like Thailand having direct contacts with the military regime led by Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, while Malaysia and Indonesia have engaged with the self-declared National Unity Government opposing the junta.
Certain ASEAN members, notably Laos and Cambodia, and increasingly Myanmar itself, are economically reliant on China. Beijing has expanded its influence in Myanmar as the country faced isolation from the United States and Europe. China’s former foreign minister visited Myanmar in May.
ASEAN’s system of rotating the presidency annually based on the alphabetical order of each country’s English name is another constraint. Next year, the presidency falls to Laos, which is China’s primary proxy state in Southeast Asia.
The sole tangible action resulting from the Jakarta meeting was the decision to deny Myanmar the rotating presidency when its turn comes in 2026, which amounts to a symbolic reprimand.
Myanmar is arguably the least developed country in Southeast Asia, and ASEAN could wield significant economic leverage through a collective embargo on oil and palm oil exports to Myanmar, sanctions on the state-owned oil company, and targeted sanctions against the junta leaders and their assets in Southeast Asian countries. ASEAN could also engage in a dialogue with the National Unity Government in exile, recognizing it as the legitimate representative of Myanmar’s people.
However, such measures would necessitate a unified purpose, akin to the European Union’s response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Unfortunately, such unity is lacking within ASEAN, and until it is achieved, the organization risks becoming increasingly irrelevant.