In a bold move, Thailand’s caretaker government has initiated informal talks with Myanmar’s military leaders to address the ongoing post-coup crisis in the country. The informal dialogue on Myanmar crisis was aimed to complement ASEAN’s efforts, aimed at complementing ASEAN’s efforts, has sparked controversy and raised concerns about unity within the organisation. However, the absence of key ASEAN members and scepticism surrounding the meeting’s legitimacy have further intensified the debate surrounding this significant diplomatic move between Myanmar and Thailand.
Read more at: War brings no benefit: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s bold stand for peace
The outgoing Thai military-backed government had invited Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders to an informal meeting to discuss the conflict in Myanmar. According to a statement published on Sunday, the purpose of the informal dialogue is to complement the efforts of the ASEAN to resolve the situation in Myanmar by discussing a variety of topics. The purpose of the meeting, as stated in the invitation letter from Thai Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai to the other ASEAN governments, was to “fully re-engage” Myanmar’s military authorities in order to revive the stagnant Five-Point Consensus peace plan. Myanmar has affirmed that their respective foreign ministers will attend the talks.
ASEAN’s response to the invitation
Thailand’s invitation to ASEAN foreign ministers for the peace talks was met with mixed responses. A number of ASEAN member states declined the invitation to attend the meeting, which resulted in the postponement of the meeting. Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement confirming the meeting and announcing that representatives from Laos, Cambodia, Brunei, Vietnam, India, and China would be present. This was the third independent Myanmar-related gathering that Thailand had hosted since December.
Indonesia, as the current ASEAN chair, declined the invitation and emphasised that ASEAN had not yet reached a consensus on reengaging with Myanmar. Malaysia also declined to attend, emphasising the need to demonstrate ASEAN solidarity in support of the present peace plan. The foreign minister of Singapore stated that a high-level reengagement with Myanmar’s junta was premature, and the Philippines is also anticipated to remain on the side-lines.
Undermining ASEAN unity or Prayuth’s attempt of “protecting his country”?
Thailand’s invitation to Than Swe, Myanmar’s military-appointed foreign minister, contradicted ASEAN’s established policy of excluding military-appointed political representatives from high-level meetings. This move was seen as undermining ASEAN’s efforts to broker inclusive talks between the military junta, the opposition National Unity Government (NUG), and other stakeholders, as outlined in the Five-Point Consensus. Myanmar civil society organizations and the NUG criticized the inclusion of Myanmar’s junta in the meeting, deeming it a betrayal of the people of Myanmar.
The Malaysian statement implied that the Thai initiative undermined ASEAN cooperation.
“It is important that ASEAN demonstrates its unity in support of the ASEAN Chair and ASEAN processes which are in line with the mandate and decisions made by the ASEAN leaders,” it said.
However, Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, himself a former coup leader, stated that direct negotiations were required to protect his country. “We suffer more than others because Thailand has more than 3,000-km shared land border as well as a maritime border,” Prayuth told reporters. “That is why the talks are necessary. It is not about taking sides,” he said. “We need to talk, otherwise people will be affected. Today is just a meeting, we did not agree on anything,” he added.
Myanmar’s military seized power in 1962 and suppressed all opposition for decades before a tentative opening in 2011. Its experiment with democracy, which included elections won by Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, came to an end when the military overthrew her government and suppressed pro-democracy demonstrations. Periodically, thousands of Myanmar citizens have fled across the border into Thailand due to fighting between the army and rebel groups.
Implications and divisions within ASEAN
The summit has shown how divided ASEAN is about the political turmoil in Myanmar. While some member states appear willing to accept the military coup as a fait accompli and engage with the junta, others advocate for a more robust posture against the junta. The absence of a unified ASEAN strategy hinders efforts to end the conflict and find a peaceful resolution.
As ASEAN chair, Indonesia has led diplomatic efforts to mediate a solution in Myanmar. Indonesia has proposed a five-point consensus, including the cessation of violence, the initiation of constructive dialogue, the appointment of a special envoy, the provision of humanitarian assistance, and the implementation of the consensus by all parties, in light of renewed Western condemnation and sanctions against Myanmar. Concerns have been expressed regarding ASEAN’s ability to maintain a united front in addressing the crisis in light of the Thai initiative, which appears to diverge from the consensus.
In addition, the exclusion of key ASEAN leaders from the discussions raises questions about the legitimacy and efficacy of the meeting. By not involving all ASEAN members, particularly those who have been actively engaged in promoting a peaceful resolution in Myanmar, the talks run the risk of appearing lacking in credibility and inclusiveness. The absence of countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, which have been outspoken critics of the military rebellion, indicates that ASEAN is divided and unable to present a unified front on the issue. Without a unified strategy, promoting meaningful dialogue between the military junta and the NUG, which represents a substantial portion of the Myanmar population, becomes difficult.
Questionable timing?
Concerns were raised about the timing of the meeting, given that Thailand’s government is changing in August. The progressive Move Forward Party, which is expected to form the next government, has pledged to take a harder posture towards Myanmar than the current administration. In addition, critics questioned the likelihood of progress in resolving the conflict, as Myanmar’s military has shown little willingness to negotiate with its rivals. Thailand’s risked undermining current attempts to address the problem by hosting the meeting and inviting Myanmar’s regime.
Lastly, Thailand’s attempt to host talks with Myanmar’s military leaders has caused divisions within ASEAN and prompted criticism for undermining the bloc’s unity and established policies. While Thailand argues that direct dialogue is required to safeguard its border and address the refugee crisis, other ASEAN members question the effectiveness of the meeting and its potential to undermine regional cohesion.
