Developing a Way to Influence the Conduct of the Government in Intrastate Conflict: The Case of Myanmar

  • Mikio OishiEmail author
  • Nina Ghani
Part of the Asia in Transition book series (AT, volume 3)


This chapter examines ASEAN’s role in the settlement of Myanmar’s long-standing political conflict between the military government and the pro-democracy movement. This settlement was achieved by the military government gradually accommodating its political position to that of the pro-democracy Opposition. In this political shift of the Myanmar authorities, ASEAN played a crucial role by effectively influencing the former’s domestic behaviour, despite the regional bloc’s decades-long and firmly entrenched non-interference principle. To understand how ASEAN developed the capability to influence, the chapter looks at several developments within ASEAN including its initiatives. These are ASEAN’s transformation from an elite-centred organisation to a more people-oriented one, its successive policies towards Myanmar and the development of instruments to influence. After conducting five case studies to acquire a grounded understanding of ASEAN influencing work towards Myanmar, the chapter finds that ASEAN was successful in forging what can be called a “mediatory structure” between Myanmar and the international community, in which international pressure on the country was effectively turned into ASEAN’s influencing work.


Non-interference principle Constructive engagement Enhanced interaction Foreign Ministers Retreat Influencing Mediatory structure 


  1. ABS-CBN. (2008, August 28). Santiago: Senate to ratify ASEAN Charter before end of 2008. Accessed January 12, 2015.
  2. Acharya, A. (2012). ASEAN and Burma/Myanmar: Past and prologue. Sigur Center for Asian Studies policy brief. George Washington University. Accessed January 12, 2015.
  3. Agence France-Press. (2004, January 7). ASEAN must reinvent itself, loosen non-interference policy: Alatas.Google Scholar
  4. Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma. (1998). Report card: Burma’s regime on the edge. Bangkok: Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma.Google Scholar
  5. ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus. (2005). The Depayin massacre 2 years on, justice denied. Accessed January 7, 2015.
  6. ASEAN Secretariat. (2003a). Joint communiqué of the 36th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. Phnom Penh. June 17. Accessed on April 3, 2015.
  7. ASEAN Secretariat. (2003b). Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II). October 7, Bali. Accessed April 3, 2015.
  8. ASEAN Secretariat. (2003c). Press Statement by the Chairperson of the 9th ASEAN Summit and the 7th ASEAN + 3 Summit. October 7, Bali. Accessed April 3, 2015.
  9. ASEAN Secretariat. (2007a). Statement by ASEAN Chair Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo. September 27, New York. Accessed April 5, 2015.
  10. ASEAN Secretariat. (2007b). ASEAN Chairman statement on Myanmar. November 2007, Singapore. Accessed April 5, 2015.
  11. ASEAN Secretariat. (2008). The ASEAN Charter. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Google Scholar
  12. ASEAN Secretariat. (2009). ASEAN Political Security Community Blueprint. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Google Scholar
  13. ASEAN Secretariat. (2010). Compassion in action: The story of the ASEAN-led coordination in Myanmar. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.Google Scholar
  14. ASEAN Secretariat. (2012). Chairman’s statement of the 11th ASEAN Summit “One Vision, One Identity, One Community”. December 12, Kuala Lumpur. Accessed April 5, 2015.
  15. Asian Tribune. (2003, July 21). Myanmar might have to be expelled from ASEAN: Mahathir. Accessed April 1, 2015.
  16. Askandar, K., Bercovitch, J., & Oishi, M. (2002). The ASEAN way of conflict management: Old patterns and new trends. Asian Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 21–42.Google Scholar
  17. Aung, H. T. (2005, March 30). Singapore, Myanmar PMs meet, reform pressure grows. Reuters.Google Scholar
  18. BBC News. (2008, February 9). Burmese junta sets voting dates. Accessed April 6, 2015.
  19. Bellamy, A. J., & Drummond, C. (2011). The responsibility to protect in Southeast Asia: Between non-interference and sovereignty as responsibility. The Pacific Review, 24(2), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burma Center Prague. (2010). The “Saffron Revolution”. Accessed January 14, 2015.
  21. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2005). Regional security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN way. Singapore: Institution of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  22. Collins, A. (2013). Building a people-oriented security community the ASEAN way. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gaens, B. (2013). Political change in Myanmar: Filtering the murky waters of ‘disciplined democracy’. FIIA Working Paper No. 78. Helsinki: The Finish Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  24. Haacke, J. (2005a). ASEAN’s diplomatic and security culture: Origins, development and prospects. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
  25. Haacke, J. (2005b). “Enhanced interaction” with Myanmar and the project of a Security Community: Is ASEAN refining or breaking with its diplomatic and security culture? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27(2), 188–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haacke, J. (2010a). The Myanmar imbroglio and ASEAN: Heading towards the 2010 elections. International Affairs, 86(1), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haacke, J. (2010b). China’s role in the pursuit of security by Myanmar’s State Peace and Development Council: Boon and bane? The Pacific Review, 23(1), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Ibrahim, A. (1997, July 21). Crisis prevention. Newsweek, 13.Google Scholar
  30. Ismail, R. (2002, November 11). An interview with UN special envoy to Burma Razali Ismail: Part 1. The Irrawaddy. Accessed March 20, 2015.
  31. Jones, L. (2010). ASEAN’s unchanged melody?: The theory and practice of ‘non-interference’ in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review, 23(4), 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keva, S. (2008). Human rights and Burma/Myanmar in the ASEM dialogue. In B. Gaens (Ed.), Europe-Asia interregional relations: A decade of ASEM (pp. 69–84). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Marfil, J. O. (2002, February 17). ASEAN asked to help resolve Kashmir issue. Manila Standard. Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2005). Remarks to the media by Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo following the ASEAN FMs’ retreat on April 11, 2005 in Cebu, Philippines. Government of the Republic of Singapore. Accessed March 22, 2015.
  35. Mitton, R. (1998, July 31). Divided we stand. Asiaweek Com. Accessed March 15, 2015.
  36. Nishikawa, Y. (2010). Human security in Southeast Asia. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Oishi, M. (2002). Creating a ‘ripe moment’ in the Burmese conflict through nonviolent action. Social Alternatives, 21(2), 52–60.Google Scholar
  38. Rüland, J. (2000). ASEAN and the Asian crisis: Theoretical implications and practical consequences for South Asian regionalism. The Pacific Review, 13(3), 421–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Severino, C. R. (2006). Southeast Asia in search of an ASEAN Community. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  40. Sigur Center for Asian Studies. (2012). ASEAN and Burma/Myanmar: Past and prologue. Policy Brief April 2012. Accessed April 13, 2015.
  41. Steinberg, D. I. (2010). The United States and Myanmar: A ‘boutique issue’? International Affairs, 86(1), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Than, M. (2005). Myanmar in ASEAN: Regional cooperation experience. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  43. Zartman, I. W. (1995). Dynamics and constraints in negotiations in internal conflicts. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), Elusive peace: Negotiating an end to civil war (pp. 3–29). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universiti Brunei DarussalamBandar Seri BegawanBrunei Darussalam

Personalised recommendations