SEPTEMBER 30 — Myanmar has become one of Asean’s most difficult diplomatic challenges. 

More than five years after the military takeover of February 2021, violence continues, millions have been displaced and the Asean Five-Point Consensus has yet to produce the political breakthrough that many had hoped for.

But Malaysia should not conclude that diplomacy has failed and engagement should therefore stop. 

The opposite is necessary. Malaysia has to engage Myanmar more consistently, carefully and realistically. 

The immediate objective should not be a grand settlement. It should be incremental progress.

Myanmar’s conflict has become too fragmented and deeply entrenched for Asean to expect comprehensive national reconciliation through a single diplomatic initiative. 

The more practical approach is to identify areas where measurable progress remains possible: humanitarian access, localised ceasefires, protection of civilians, refugee management, border security, suppression of transnational crime and, eventually, the creation of conditions conducive to broader political dialogue.

Asean’s Five-Point Consensus must remain the principal diplomatic reference. Its objectives — cessation of violence, humanitarian assistance, constructive dialogue and engagement with the relevant parties — remain valid. 

Yet diplomatic frameworks cannot implement themselves. Diplomacy requires contact, persistence and the willingness to communicate even with parties whose actions Asean strongly disagrees with.

This is why engagement must not be confused with endorsement. Dialogue does not automatically confer political legitimacy. 

Nor does diplomatic contact require Malaysia to abandon its insistence that violence must end and that the people of Myanmar should ultimately determine their own political future.

Malaysia needs what can best be described as incremental diplomacy for incremental progress. 

Humanitarian assistance must increasingly reach communities isolated by fighting. 

Temporary and localised ceasefires should be encouraged around hospitals, schools, markets and densely populated areas. Arrangements to protect displaced communities should be strengthened, while Malaysia works more closely with Thailand, Bangladesh and other affected countries on refugees, trafficking and border security.

At the same time, Asean must preserve channels of communication with Nay Pyi Taw while maintaining contact with opposition forces, ethnic armed organisations and other important stakeholders. 

No single political or military actor presently represents the entirety of Myanmar. Any diplomatic strategy that assumes otherwise risks misunderstanding the complexity of the conflict.

Each achievement may appear modest. But diplomacy frequently advances through accumulated gains rather than spectacular breakthroughs. 

A humanitarian corridor that remains open constitutes progress. A local ceasefire that prevents civilian casualties constitutes progress. 

A functioning mechanism against human trafficking and scam syndicates constitutes progress.

A dialogue between previously hostile parties is another step forward.

None of these measures constitutes peace. Collectively, however, they can become building blocks towards it.

This matters because Malaysia cannot isolate itself from the consequences of Myanmar’s instability. 

Refugee movements, human trafficking, narcotics, cybercrime and organised scam networks do not respect national borders. 

The longer Myanmar remains unstable, the greater the danger that its internal disorder becomes an increasingly permanent regional security problem.

The Rohingya issue makes sustained engagement even more important. Malaysia has carried a considerable humanitarian burden. 

Yet any durable solution ultimately requires conditions inside Myanmar that permit displaced communities to return voluntarily, safely and with dignity. Security, citizenship, documentation, livelihoods and protection against renewed displacement cannot be addressed through diplomatic isolation alone.

Asean therefore needs patience without passivity.

The Asean diplomatic approach has never depended primarily on coercion. 

Its strengths have traditionally rested on consultation, persistence, diplomatic access and the gradual creation of political space where previously none existed. This approach can be frustratingly slow.

Nevertheless, years of conflict have demonstrated the limitations of expecting maximal political outcomes when the principal actors remain fundamentally divided over the structure and future of the Myanmar state itself.

Malaysia should consequently adopt a calibrated strategy. 

It should engage the authorities in Nay Pyi Taw without automatically legitimising their political claims. 

It should maintain contact with opposition forces without assuming that they constitute a single political entity. 

It should engage ethnic organisations because durable peace cannot emerge without addressing the political aspirations of Myanmar’s diverse nationalities.

Regional diplomacy is equally important.

Thailand is indispensable because of geography, border security and refugee movements. 

Bangladesh remains essential because the Rohingya crisis cannot be separated from Myanmar’s wider instability. 

Asean must remain at the centre because no other regional institution possesses the same combination of proximity, diplomatic access and long-term interest in preventing Myanmar from becoming permanently fractured.

Malaysia must nevertheless avoid confusing incrementalism with complacency.

Incremental progress requires benchmarks. Humanitarian access should expand. 

Violence against civilians should decline. Channels of communication should widen. 

Local ceasefires should become longer and geographically broader. Political dialogue should gradually encompass more stakeholders. 

These are practical indicators through which Asean can determine whether engagement is producing results.

Myanmar’s tragedy developed over decades. It will not disappear through one summit, one special envoy or one diplomatic declaration. 

Malaysia should therefore resist the false choice between isolating Myanmar completely and accepting everything that occurs there.

There is a more practical middle course: engage without capitulating, communicate without automatically conferring legitimacy, and pursue incremental progress without surrendering the larger objective of an inclusive and durable peace.

Asean cannot solve Myanmar in one diplomatic stroke.

Malaysia can, however, help prevent diplomatic paralysis from becoming the new normal. International diplomacy sometimes advances through historic agreements. 

In deeply entrenched conflicts, it more often advances through smaller successes that gradually alter conditions on the ground.

Myanmar is presently in the latter category. Malaysia should therefore keep diplomatic channels open. 

Beyond returning 1,476 Myanmar nationals back to their own country, Putrajaya has to safely repatriate a total of 200,000 Rohingya back to Myanmmar in due course.

This requires the maintenance of due engagement with all relevant stakeholders in and beyond Myanmar.

A larger political settlement can emerge only when enough smaller steps have created the political conditions to make it possible.

* Phar Kim Beng is professor of Asean Studies and director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia.

** This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.