After all, ASEAN operates on consensus-based decision-making. So, any ASEAN-wide effort to end the crisis in Myanmar must account for the views of Myanmar’s representatives—whose own legitimacy remain in doubt.

Indonesia made valiant diplomatic efforts nonetheless to engage all the salient parties—both within and outside of Myanmar—to end the month-long crisis that threatens ASEAN centrality and regional security. Unfortunately, only Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei appear to be fully on board with the goal of getting Myanmar’s military regime to open up, release prisoners and begin dialogue, while ensuring the people of Myanmar that their aspirations will not be ignored.

It remains unclear to what extent the current ASEAN chair, Brunei, and the secretary-general can and will play a role in the ongoing efforts. It also remains unclear whether ASEAN members are willing to invoke the so-called ASEAN Troika—the foreign ministers of the previous, current, and next ASEAN chair—or the ASEAN High Council in engaging Myanmar.

The lack of common views among ASEAN members are to be expected given the political-security diversity of the region. But the lack of an ASEAN institutional mechanism to address a common regional crisis should not be. Indeed, one of the strategic rationales behind the ASEAN Charter and the ASEAN Political Security Community project was to ensure ASEAN-wide institutions can help member states address pressing challenges.

But the challenges we now face in Myanmar highlight the need to revamp the ASEAN Charter.

For one thing, since the charter came into effect over a decade ago, there has not been a single review of the document, even though Article 50 allows for such a review five years after it came into force.

Popular

Leaving Indonesia, loving Indonesia: A path for diaspora

Press unions demand apology from Prabowo for denigrating comments

Indonesia seeks better US tariff terms after 10% forced-labor duty