Highlight 29/2025: ASEAN Chair’s Special Envoy on Myanmar: Between Symbolism and Substantive Diplomacy?
Haris Azman, 13 June 2025
In March 2025, a devastating 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck central Myanmar, killing thousands and displacing many more. Amid the devastation, something unprecedented happened: for the first time since the 2021 coup, the ruling junta allowed outside humanitarian aid, enabling ASEAN, the United Nations, and other international partners to reach areas long off-limits. This disaster triggered not only a humanitarian response but also unexpectedly opened a diplomatic window, highlighting both the enduring relevance and frustrating limitations of the ASEAN Chair’s Special Envoy and the Five-Point Consensus (5PC) framework.
Despite changes in ASEAN leadership over the years, the Special Envoy’s role has consistently been hindered by limited access, short-term appointments, and insufficient authority. Brunei’s Erywan Yusof, the first envoy in 2021, was prevented from meeting key opposition leaders, signalling the military’s unwillingness to engage early on. Cambodia’s Prak Sokhonn shifted towards humanitarian assistance, avoiding direct political engagement. Laos’ Alounkeo Kittikhoun in 2024 focused on informal outreach. In 2025, Malaysia’s Othman Hashim was appointed and immediately shifted the focus towards renewing engagement, prioritising humanitarian access and inclusive dialogue.
Yet the core issues remain. ASEAN’s consensus-driven and non-interference principles often result in hesitation or inaction. On the international stage, divisions within the UN Security Council, especially among its permanent members, continue to block stronger measures such as sanctions or referral to the International Criminal Court.
At the 46th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur in May 2025, leaders adopted a statement calling for an extended and expanded ceasefire in Myanmar. A highlight was Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s, as ASEAN Chair, direct talks with both the junta and the opposition National Unity Government (NUG), an act many observers described as a significant diplomatic milestone. This engagement demonstrates that even incremental, persistent diplomacy through the envoy can open new channels for dialogue.
Yet, on the ground, scepticism remains. Civil society groups and ethnic communities, such as the Karen Peace Support Network, continue to report ongoing violence, deprivation, and displacement. Many critics see the summit’s statement as another missed opportunity, highlighting its lack of enforceable mechanisms, independent monitoring, and real accountability. The Special Advisory Council for Myanmar (SAC-M) described ASEAN’s latest efforts as lacking urgency, commitment, and creativity, and called for bolder measures such as seeking a UN Security Council-backed countrywide ceasefire.
Nevertheless, the summit brought signs of renewed momentum. ASEAN’s willingness to consider establishing a permanent Special Envoy position, independent from the annual rotation, offers hope for greater continuity, trust, and institutional memory. With adequate resources and political will, such a role could make the envoy more than just a symbolic gesture. Acting as a bridge, the Special Envoy can help deepen cooperation with the UN, humanitarian agencies, and regional partners, which will be essential to prevent the junta from taking advantage of diplomatic divisions if not coordinated well.
Ultimately, peace in Myanmar will require more than high-level meetings or declarations. In the long run, genuine security sector reform and meaningful inclusion of all parties are essential for any diplomatic process to succeed and bring lasting peace. What ASEAN does next will shape not only Myanmar’s future but also its credibility as a regional problem-solver. Strengthening the Special Envoy’s role with greater continuity, resources, and independence will help lay the groundwork for meaningful progress. While the envoy cannot resolve the conflict alone, this role remains a vital bridge and mechanism for sustained engagement, dialogue, and accountability. Only through collective efforts, genuine inclusion, and strong regional leadership can there be hope for a peaceful and sustainable resolution in Myanmar—one that is truly Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led.
Haris Azman, Highlight 29/2025: ASEAN Chair’s Special Envoy on Myanmar: Between Symbolism and Substantive Diplomacy?, 13 June 2025, available at www.meig.ch
The views expressed in the MEIG Highlights are personal to the authors and neither reflect the positions of the MEIG Programme nor those of the University of Geneva.