On Myanmar, ASEAN should brace for the long road ahead

IISS  |  Morgan Michaels

On 12 July 2026, Association of Southeast Asian Nations foreign ministers held an informal meeting in Bangkok with Myanmar counterpart Tin Maung Swe, attempting a calibrated re-engagement to advance the Five-Point Consensus diplomatic roadmap. However, Naypyidaw continues to reject the peace framework while consolidating domestic authority under Min Aung Hlaing following elections recognized by regional partners including China and Russia.

Senior military officials prioritize neutralizing internal adversaries over securing international legitimacy. Ground-level conflict de-escalation requires bilateral ceasefires between the Tatmadaw and key ethnic armed organizations before broader political talks can proceed. The regime's insistence on separate negotiation tracks severely complicates inclusive dialogue with anti-junta coalitions like the Steering Council for the Emergence of a Federal Democratic Union. Belligerents maintain a fight-and-talk strategy, continuing remote airstrikes and humanitarian blockades during active bargaining. Violence will persist despite diplomatic efforts. Consequently, ASEAN must recalibrate its compliance benchmarks to reflect non-linear domestic negotiations rather than expecting immediate diplomatic concessions from Naypyidaw.

Comment

The Tatmadaw's adherence to a bifurcated "fight and talk" framework demonstrates how military counter-insurgency doctrine prioritises tactical leverage over external political consensus. Under the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement process initiated in 2015, the Myanmar military systematically separated bilateral military ceasefires from broader political dialogues to fracture armed opposition networks. This procedural sequencing enables the regime to maintain coercive pressure through remote strike assets while offering isolated negotiation channels to select ethnic armed organisations.

This operational approach mirrors the Sri Lankan Armed Forces' sequential engagement strategy during the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement, where bilateral talks were leveraged to isolate front-line insurgent factions. Splitting military ceasefires from political settlements ensures that Naypyidaw retains operational initiative while preventing unified political opposition. Consequently, diplomatic frameworks like the Five-Point Consensus fail when regional mediators treat political dialogue and battlefield cessation as simultaneous objectives.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor presents a greater structural barrier to the Five-Point Consensus — the Tatmadaw's doctrinal reliance on bilateral ceasefires inherited from the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, or the Steering Council for the Emergence of a Federal Democratic Union's demand for collective negotiations?

The Tatmadaw's entrenched preference for bilateral sequencing represents the primary structural obstacle because it directly serves the regime's battlefield survival strategy. The pattern of Myanmar's internal conflicts suggests Naypyidaw will not abandon divide-and-rule military tactics simply to accommodate ASEAN's multilateral preferences. Consequently, collective bargaining frameworks like the SCEF will likely fragment long before the junta accepts unified political negotiations.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here