ASEAN: The 2025 Summit, Regional Divisions, and China's Economic Playbook

The Philippines is set to take the reins of ASEAN in 2026, and Foreign Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro has already telegraphed the country’s likely approach: continuity, specifically on the thorny issue of Myanmar. She referenced Malaysia's "117 engagements" as a foundation. But does continuity equate to progress, or just more of the same failed diplomacy? That’s the question worth asking.

The Illusion of Engagement

The ASEAN Five-Point Consensus, adopted in 2021, was supposed to be a roadmap to peace in Myanmar following the military junta's coup. But let's be brutally honest: it's been largely ineffective. Engagement, in this context, often translates to politely ignoring the elephant in the room—the junta's continued violence and disregard for democratic principles.

Lazaro's emphasis on continuity raises a red flag. Malaysia's 117 engagements, while seemingly a high number, haven't yielded substantial results. What metrics are we using to measure success here? Is it simply the number of meetings held, or the tangible improvements in the lives of the Myanmar people? I've looked at enough corporate reports to know that activity metrics don't always correlate with actual value.

The appointment of Maria Theresa Lazaro as the Philippines’ special envoy of the chair to Myanmar during the country’s Asean chairmanship in 2026 signals a degree of seriousness. But appointing an envoy and achieving progress are two very different things.

The Data Vacuum

Here's where the analysis gets tricky. We're operating in a data vacuum. There's a distinct lack of transparency surrounding ASEAN's engagement with Myanmar. What exactly do these "117 engagements" entail? What are the specific objectives, and what progress has been made against those objectives? Details remain scarce.

This lack of data makes it difficult to assess whether the Philippines' commitment to continuity is a pragmatic strategy or a diplomatic dead end. Without concrete data, we're left to speculate. Are ASEAN leaders truly committed to resolving the crisis in Myanmar, or are they simply going through the motions to maintain the illusion of regional unity? As the Philippines prepares to lead the bloc, questions arise regarding its ability to manage ASEAN's divisions, particularly concerning the Myanmar crisis, while also advancing a South China Sea code, as discussed in How Philippines might navigate Asean’s divisions as it prepares to lead bloc - South China Morning Post.

I find myself wondering if the focus on "continuity" is a way to avoid making tough decisions. Is it easier to stick to the established playbook than to risk upsetting the status quo?

The Opportunity Cost

The emphasis on Myanmar, while important, also raises the question of opportunity cost. ASEAN faces a multitude of challenges, from economic integration to climate change. Every diplomatic resource devoted to Myanmar is a resource that could be used to address these other pressing issues.

Prioritizing continuity on Myanmar might mean deprioritizing other important initiatives. What are the trade-offs? What other ASEAN priorities might be sidelined as a result of this focus? This is the part of the equation that often gets overlooked.

And this is the part of the analysis where I feel a bit uneasy. The Philippines' intentions may be good, but good intentions alone are not enough. Without a clear strategy, measurable goals, and a willingness to challenge the status quo, continuity could simply mean perpetuating a cycle of ineffectiveness.

More of the Same?

The Philippines' upcoming ASEAN chairmanship presents both an opportunity and a risk. The focus on continuity regarding Myanmar could be a pragmatic approach, building on existing efforts. Or, it could be a sign that the organization is unwilling to deviate from a failed strategy. The lack of transparency surrounding ASEAN's engagement with Myanmar makes it difficult to assess the likely outcome. Ultimately, the success of the Philippines' chairmanship will depend on its ability to translate engagement into tangible progress on the ground in Myanmar.

A Reality Check

"Continuity" sounds an awful lot like "stasis" when the status quo is a military junta terrorizing its own people. Without a radical shift in approach—backed by verifiable metrics and a willingness to hold the junta accountable—the Philippines' ASEAN chairmanship risks becoming another chapter in a story of diplomatic failure.