The political landscape of Southeast Asia changed when Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim met Myanmar Senior General Min Aung Hlaing on April 17 in Naypyidaw in his power as ASEAN’s 2025 circular seat, albeit only slightly and with significant tension.
The conference, which was allegedly centered on humanitarian assistance following the devastating earthquake that struck Myanmar’s northern and central parts on March 28, was the first official ASEAN party’s attend to the military dictatorship since the Five-Point Consensus was overthrown.  ,
Anwar shakes the hands of a general whose government has killed, displaced, and dismembered the very idea of a consolidated Myanmar in a time that does come to define Malaysia’s ASEAN leadership after staging a democracy-suspending revolt in 2021.
There is no disputing the metaphoric significance of the face. ASEAN had previously avoided high-level engagements with Min Aung Hlaing to prevent ratifying the Tatmadaw’s rule of law after years of intentional political mileage to prevent legitimacy.  ,
Anwar’s choice to change that pattern has rekindled questions about ASEAN’s commitment, coherence, and credibility, regardless of humanitarian justification.
Unintentionally, the gathering gave the junta a much-needed photo opportunity to sign local recognition, if not acceptance, despite its philanthropic nature.  ,
Anwar and Min Aung Hlaing were swiftly featured in Naypyidaw’s meticulously choreographed media coverage, confirming the claim that the junta is Myanmar’s only genuine ruler.
However, portraying the conference as a political capitulation would be exceedingly straightforward. The attend of Anwar immediately produced beneficial results.  ,
First, it authorized the ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management ( AHA Center ) to coordinate the delivery of humanitarian aid through secure corridors.  ,
Teams from Malaysia are now gaining exposure to earthquake-hit areas that had formerly been closed off as a result of the ongoing legal conflict through international and local NGOs.
Second, Anwar insisted in public and private on the necessity of a ceasefire and unrestricted access for aid workers, particularly in disputed areas held by ethnic armed organizations ( EAOs ) and People’s Defense Forces ( PDFs ).  ,
The Tatmadaw has hesitantly agreed to a momentary cessation of hostilities in some areas, according to diplomatic resources in Putrajaya and Jakarta, though the validity and viability of this promise are still uncertain.
Third, Anwar used the situation to give what observers characterized as a “polite but company” censure of the military regime.  ,
Anwar emphasized in a media briefing following the visit that democratic legitimacy is not a prerequisite for ASEAN’s charitable problem. This support does not make you recognize. He continued,” It shows how concerned we are for the citizens of Myanmar.”
However, the visit did not include any significant omissions, much like diplomatic missions that are gentle. Most strikingly, Anwar did not meet with members of the human government-in-exile, the National Unity Government ( NUG), which enjoys growing international acclaim and domestic allegiance.  ,
He also did not speak with representatives of civil society or cultural groups from the Karen, Shan, or Rakhine communities, who are now in charge of sizable stretches of country and whose participation is essential to any successful peace process.
However, some of these organizations have connections to international crime syndicates. Evidently, Anwar was not required to meet them, particularly given how acidic their actions have become along Myanmar’s edges with Thailand and China.
These organizations are operating fraud towns, cybercrime hotspots, and trafficking networks, many of whom operate with tacit or strong protection from neighborhood militias.  ,
Although Myanmar’s internal collapse caused these syndicates to rise unchallenged, these organizations may function as a scapegoat for a while and then receive a reward for it.
However, the inability to bring the visit together with non-junta voices and organizations gave the impression that ASEAN may be drifting up to its old ways of favoring state-centric politics over inclusive dialogue, whether fair or not.  ,
This could stifle the pro-democracy actors and reinforce the tale that ASEAN is unable to defend its own consensus-based principles.  ,
However, a large study would also be mistaken. On August 8, 1967, ASEAN was established to address issues relating to non-traditional protection. It still has a long way to move despite years of progress.
Additionally, the attend took place in the midst of growing local unrest. Anwar’s meet must now be viewed in relation to Donald Trump’s growing price war with China, which has always been the catalyst for the post-Cold War order’s collapse.
Trump’s disruption has redefined world trade, not by creating new regulations, but by creating new contradictions. Southeast Asia has become a new frontline of corporate vulnerability as a result of the financial fragmentation, which has fueled authoritarian regimes and increased global South dependency.
Myanmar is the canary in this collapsed world management system. Anwar’s explore may be seen in this political environment as a military necessity rather than an ASEAN retreat, a step to stop Myanmar from completely descending into a failed state.  ,
Anwar, who chairs ASEAN, might have guessed that alienation may lead to more violence, deeper Chinese penetration, and unregulated criminal syndicates.
In this way, the conference was both a political risk and a humanitarian need, indicating that ASEAN, while inadequate and divided, is never completely paralyzed. In the face of military cruelty and local decay, it also highlighted the limitations of peaceful politics.
What comes next is crucial. Anwar has now strike a balance between this intense social inclusion push and the above-mentioned high level engagement. He must unite ASEAN to mobilize both to provide support and to start creating a peacefulness framework that includes all of Myanmar’s actors, not just those who own airports and capital cities.
In more ways than one way, the Anwar-Min Aung Hlaing conference was required to improve conditions for the distribution of humanitarian aid and demonstrate that ASEAN also has a signal in the face of severe human suffering.  ,
The Tatmadaw and Min Aung Hlaing are presiding over Myanmar’s collapse at a time when Trump’s trade war and unilateralism are causing the conventional world attempt to collapse.  ,
In a world like this, solitude is collusion. When done with discernment and discernment, proposal is the lesser evil.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is an assistant professor of ASEAN research at the Malaysian International Islamic University. He regularly writes about regionalalism, safety issues, and politics in Southeast Asia.