Guest contributor
Salai Dokhar
The recent statement issued under the leadership of the Philippines as 2026 Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has drawn significant attention and concern from the people of Myanmar.
While the statement reaffirmed commitment to the Five-Point Consensus peace plan, its overall tone and content raised questions about whether ASEAN risks unintentionally granting legitimacy to Myanmar’s military junta in Naypyidaw.
In particular, references to a planned election—widely regarded by Myanmar’s democratic forces and civil society actors as a sham election—have caused deep concern.
Without free political participation, genuine competition, and civilian oversight, elections organized under military rule risk becoming little more than a mechanism to validate continued military rule rather than a pathway toward peace and democracy.
Similarly, the selective release of certain political activists while thousands of others remain unlawfully detained risks being interpreted not as genuine democratic progress, but as a political bargaining tool.
From the perspective of many Myanmar people, this creates the appearance of political hostage-taking, where arrests and selective releases are used to gain external legitimacy and diplomatic engagement.
Internal divisions within ASEAN undermine its credibility
Ongoing divisions among ASEAN member states continue to weaken the organization’s effectiveness in Myanmar.
Different approaches toward engagement with the military authorities have created inconsistency in ASEAN’s response and raised concerns that parts of the organization are moving closer toward normalizing military rule rather than resolving the crisis.
ASEAN has a responsibility to support a genuine and inclusive political solution that reflects the will of the Myanmar people—not merely the political preferences of external powers or those who currently control the state levers of power in Naypyidaw.
At the same time, ASEAN must demonstrate independent and principled leadership. Both China and Western democratic countries have provided ASEAN significant diplomatic space to lead on the Myanmar crisis.
This is therefore a critical moment for ASEAN to show unity, consistency, and independence while upholding its own principles and commitments.
Accountability and international justice cannot be ignored
The Myanmar military, under the leadership of Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, has committed grave human rights violations, war crimes, and acts that some international legal bodies and experts have characterized as genocide and war crimes.
Moreover, numerous studies and reports indicate that Min Aung Hlaing and the Myanmar military have enabled and protected cyber scam operations and illicit business networks in Myanmar, particularly in areas controlled by pro-military militias and armed groups along the country’s borders.
Min Aung Hlaing is currently facing international legal scrutiny, including proceedings linked to a warrant issued by a court in Argentina, while the situation in Myanmar is also under examination by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
If ASEAN’s actions are perceived as legitimizing a leadership facing such serious allegations and legal scrutiny, the organization risks appearing to shield individuals accused of some of the gravest crimes under international law.
Such a perception would undermine ASEAN’s stated commitment to justice, human dignity, and the rule of law.
ASEAN must be a peacemaker, not granting legitimacy
ASEAN is an association founded on cooperation among sovereign nations and the will of their peoples. The military junta that seized power during the coup in February 2021 does not represent the democratic will of the Myanmar people.
If ASEAN does not recognize the democratically-elected government that won the 2020 general election, it should also avoid taking actions that could be interpreted as granting political legitimacy to military rule.
The right to determine who legitimately represents Myanmar belongs ultimately to the people of Myanmar themselves.
To achieve peace and political stability, ASEAN must approach the Myanmar crisis as a peacemaker and solution provider—not as a legitimacy granter for military leadership.
At present, some ASEAN member states appear to engage with Myanmar primarily based on who holds military control in Naypyidaw.
This risks intensifying armed conflict, as competing actors may increasingly believe that external recognition depends primarily on territorial or military control rather than democratic legitimacy and political dialogue.
Pressure on Naypyidaw is necessary for genuine change
Regardless of how the Myanmar crisis eventually ends, the primary responsibility for the country’s destruction lies with Min Aung Hlaing and his junta.
Meaningful political dialogue and peace negotiations can only emerge when the junta accepts a political process that the Myanmar people can genuinely trust and participate in freely.
Pressure on the junta is therefore necessary—not as an end in itself, but as a means to create conditions for accountability, compromise, and genuine political transition.
Experience over the past five years has demonstrated that Min Aung Hlaing cannot be persuaded through gentle appeals alone.
Coordinated, firm, and principled pressure remains the most realistic path toward changing the military leadership’s calculations and creating space for meaningful political solutions.
The future credibility of ASEAN
The people of Myanmar continue to closely observe ASEAN’s actions. In the future, they will remember whether ASEAN acted as a principled regional organization committed to peace and justice, or whether its actions unintentionally prolonged suffering and strengthened military rule.
ASEAN leaders must ensure that narrow national interests or geopolitical competition do not come at the expense of the future of more than 50 million people in Myanmar.
Any approach that prolongs conflict and instability will ultimately affect not only Myanmar but also regional peace and security.
The future credibility of ASEAN will depend greatly on how it responds to the democratic aspirations and suffering of the Myanmar people during this historic moment.
If ASEAN truly seeks peace and political stability in Myanmar, its approach must remain principled, consistent, and centered on the interests and aspirations of the Myanmar people.
The repeated failure of implementing the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus peace plan has demonstrated that engagement without accountability is insufficient.
ASEAN must therefore strengthen its role as a credible peacemaker by consistently upholding its commitments to human rights, justice, democratic principles, and inclusive political dialogue.
Only through such an approach can ASEAN contribute meaningfully to a peaceful and stable future for Myanmar and preserve its own credibility as a regional institution committed to peace, dignity, and the rule of law.
Salai Dokhar is an international advocate for Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement, a peace advocate for resistance groups, a leading figure in the India for Myanmar movement, and a young politician from Chin State, Myanmar.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
