ASEAN leaders at Shangri-La Dialogue: 'We won't choose sides'
Singapore's Defense Minister Chan Chun Sing delivers his speech during the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, June 1, 2025. /VCG
In a special address to the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim - as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2025 - rejected the pressure of choosing sides in geopolitical rivalries.
Speaking at the final session of the dialogue on Sunday, Singaporean Defense Minister Chan Chun Sing echoed Anwar's stance. Out of geopolitical necessity, Southeast Asia must engage with both China and the United States as well as other nations, rather than take sides, he said.
"If we have to choose sides, may we choose the side of principles - principles that uphold a global order where we do not descend into the law of the jungle, where the mighty do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must," Chan said.
Their making clear the stance of taking no sides came after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday urged Asia-Pacific countries to increase their military spending to 5 percent of GDP to counter perceived threats from China in a speech at the dialogue.
Da Wei, director of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, said Hegseth's attempts to drive a wedge between China and ASEAN countries will not work.
"I think the U.S. attempt to divide China and Asia-Pacific countries is ineffective because it lacks persuasiveness," Da told media on the sideline of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim delivers an address at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, May 31, 2025. /VCG
No to bloc confrontation
In his first address at the the Shangri-La Dialogue, Hegseth outlined the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" of the Trump administration since the U.S. president returned to the White House in January.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry slammed his remarks, saying that he deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region, and instead touted the Cold War mentality for bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely called China a "threat."
"The remarks were filled with provocations and intended to sow discord. China deplores and firmly opposes them and has protested strongly to the U.S.," said the ministry in a statement.
Meng Xiangqing, a professor at the National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army, said the U.S. side has once again promoted its "Indo-Pacific Strategy" at the dialogue.
After years of implementation, this strategy has achieved nothing beyond provoking incidents, creating crises, and destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region, Meng told China Media Group.
The essence of America's "Indo-Pacific Strategy" is simply a tool for hegemony, he said.
Militarily, it promotes bloc formation and confrontation - establishing mechanisms like the Quad between the U.S., Japan, India and Australia, and AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation with Australia and the United Kingdom; politically, it forces nations to choose sides; technologically, it erects "small yard, high fences" barriers; and economically, its trade wars and tariff policies push for decoupling between economies, and it also imposes coercion against others based on values, Meng explained. "This has artificially divided the Asia-Pacific region into competing blocs," he said.
Shen Chen, deputy director of the Department of International Political Theory at the Institute of World Economics and Politics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), said the U.S. "Indo-Pacific Strategy" heightens regional tensions, embodying its practice of hegemonism and power politics.
"Its very purpose is to perpetuate U.S. dominance by sacrificing regional peace and stability for its own interests," Shen told CGTN.
A police officer walks on patrol during the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, May 30, 2025. /VCG
China's Asian security model: A better choice for region
Zhang Chi, a member of the Chinese delegation to the Shangri-La Dialogue, said China's Asian security model aligns with the common interests of all Asian nations and charts a practical path for the region to safeguard its prosperity and stability.
At a central conference on work related to neighboring countries in April, China, for the first time, proposed the Asian security model that features sharing weal and woe, seeking common ground while shelving differences, and prioritizing dialogue and consultation.
Shen, the CASS professor, said that the Asian security model demonstrates fundamental differences from the U.S. "Indo-Pacific Strategy."
Emphasizing win-win cooperation and equal consultation, the Asian security model is committed to safeguarding regional peace and prosperity, he said.
Aligned with the shared interests of all Asian nations, this model represents an open, inclusive, and mutually beneficial approach to security governance, Shen added.
He also criticized the U.S. demand for Asian nations to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP as "both unreasonable and unrealistic."
That would serve America's strategic self-interest, but it risks pushing Asia Pacific into an arms race, exacerbates regional tensions, and runs counter to the shared aspirations of regional countries for peace and development, said Shen.
He said while some nations might waver under U.S. pressure, most will remain clear-eyed about the U.S. demand's irrationality.
The Asian security model proposed by China offers a better alternative, said Shen, adding that regional countries prefer partnering with China and other major countries to uphold security through peace and collaboration - not following the U.S. down the path of military expansion.
Read more:
Shangri-La Dialogue: China says it rejects unilateralism, bullying
Experts slam Hegseth's remarks at Shangri-La Dialogue as provocative, harmful to regional stability
Source: CGTN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysia Sun
19 minutes ago
- Malaysia Sun
ASEAN's Missed Opportunity for Beleaguered Myanmar
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) once again failed Myanmar at the summit in Kuala Lumpur from 26 to 27 May 2025 with a "Peace Formula", when the country plunged into a bloody civil war with "revolutionary" armed ethnic groups. ASEAN is an intergovernmental organization of ten Southeast Asian countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Host Malaysia, as the current chairman of ASEAN, delivered a meaningless statement on Myanmar and offered no new approaches to dealing with the crisis in the country, which has been beleaguered by a military dictatorship since 2021. Instead of dusting off their hands, the summit offered a toothless Five-Point Consensus (5PC) as a road map for addressing Myanmar's tribulations. The ethnic rebels are more concerned with holding their ancestral territories and establishing regional autonomy under a constitutional government. None of the rebels has a military plan to capture Myanmar's capital. To topple the military regime in Naypyidaw and form a national democratic government, the rebel groups have placed the responsibility upon the National Unity Government (NUG), a shadow government in exile under the political inspiration of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. The ousted leader is presently serving jail terms on charges of sedition. Myanmar's capital, Naypyidaw, is besieged by ethnic rebels who have taken two-thirds of the country from the military junta led by General Min Aung Hlaing, who has ruled Myanmar as the State Administration Council (SAC) Chairman since seizing power in the February 2021 coup d'etat. In July 2024, he wore presidential robes in July 2024. To the Myanmarese, the obsession with the failed peace plan is beyond frustrating. They simply can't help wondering why ASEAN leaders remain so delusional when it comes to this "consensus", which has delivered nothing for Myanmar. Since ASEAN adopted the 5PC in 2021, the junta has never honoured it. First and foremost, the consensus calls for the immediate cessation of violence in Myanmar. This step has never been implemented by the junta. Instead of ending military rule, the regime has rained bombs on its citizens and blocked essential supplies, including healthcare facilities, not to mention the continued atrocities like arson and massacres. Over the past four years, more than 6,000 civilians have been killed by the military, including children, prompting the UN early this year to say that the junta had ramped up its violence against civilians to a level that was unprecedented in the four years since the generals launched their coup. Rather than taking the junta's total disregard for its plan as a blatant insult, ASEAN's leadership doggedly clings to the 5PC as its "main reference to address the political crisis in Myanmar," writes Hpone Myat in anti-establishment news portal The Irrawaddy. The news organization Irrawaddy, named after a yawning river in Myanmar, operates in exile in a neighbouring country for the safety and security of its staff. Myanmar has become the most dangerous place for journalists after the recent sentencing of Than Htike Myint to five years in jail under Myanmar's Counter Terrorism Law on 3 April. The military was holding 55 journalists in detention in June 2024, according to a report by the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). ASEAN's continued faith in the 5PC in the face of the regime's repeated intransigence is incomprehensible. In the light of this, the people of Myanmar are not sure whether to praise the bloc for its "consistency" or feel sorry for its naivety in dealing with the most ruthless regime on earth. Apart from the statement, remarks from the bloc's current chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, were out of context and deliberately did not touch base as the military junta is sinking into a quicksand. In April, Anwar met with junta chief Hlaing in Bangkok and held virtual talks with Myanmar's National Unity Government (NUG) in exile. Malaysian Premier Anwar Ibrahim should not have appeased Min Aung Hlaing, believing in the illusions that the General would restore peace in the country, riddled with civil strife. After a call from the ASEAN meeting in April, Hlaing promised a ceasefire by the Myanmar armed forces, Tatmadaw, and the ethnic rebels. His junta even signed an MOU with some rebels, but that ceasefire was broken within days. Hlaing's air force continued to bomb civilian areas, causing immense suffering, pain, and agony for the villagers. At the summit, he (Anwar) described those talks as "significant", saying both sides were open to engagement while highlighting Gen Hlaing's supposed willingness to engage in peace efforts despite dubbing NUG as a "terrorist organization". In his opening remarks to the summit in Kuala Lumpur, Anwar said ASEAN had been able to "move the needle forward" in its efforts to achieve an eventual resolution to the Myanmar crisis, adding that the steps may be small and the bridge may be fragile, but "even a fragile bridge is better than a widening gulf." There is not even a "fragile bridge", given his dishonesty and insincerity. His willingness to engage in peace talks is merely fictional and a hollow promise; Myanmar's generals have historically never been known for sincerely engaging in peace efforts. They only engage or join dialogue as a pretext to ease external pressures. No such talks have ever borne fruit. Ask any ethnic armed resistance organization or opposition politician in Myanmar, and they will enlighten you as to how historically untrustworthy the previous generals and Min Aung Hlaing are, laments Hpone Myat. ASEAN members have univocally urged the regime in Naypyidaw to extend a temporary ceasefire and engage in peace talks with its rivals at the summit, but did not spell out a timeline. Instead, the ASEAN urged that negotiations were needed and that Malaysia's Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan would visit Naypyidaw in June regarding the mitigation of the crisis. Furthermore, the regional leaders' statement on an extended and expanded ceasefire in Myanmar can only be greeted with dismay. The leaders further called for "the sustained extension and nationwide expansion of the ceasefire in Myanmar," but the reality is the ceasefire has never existed on the ground, as the junta has consistently violated the truce from the very start, wrote The Irrawaddy. Instead of being unrealistic about the reality of present-day Myanmar, ASEAN should have adopted a serious resolution against the regime. Such moves would have put pressure on the junta by making it harder for it to survive, but also would have helped move the currently stalled resolution mechanism for Myanmar's crisis forward. To make that happen, the bloc must first drop its empty rhetoric and take meaningful steps, concludes Hpone Myat. Last week, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) raised concern over the deteriorating human rights situation and economic collapse in Myanmar, with violent military operations killing more civilians last year than in any year since the 2021 coup. The military operations have sparked an unfolding humanitarian crisis. "The country has endured an increasingly catastrophic human rights crisis marked by unabated violence and atrocities that have affected every single aspect of life," said Volker Trk, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. Myanmar's economy has lost USD 93.9 billion over the last four years, with inflation surging and the kyat (local currency) losing 40 per cent of its value. Over half the population now lives below the poverty line, facing food insecurity and soaring prices, which has worsened since the March 28 earthquake, according to the U.N. Possibly, ASEAN has lost all moral position to pressurise the military junta, since Justice for Myanmar accused 54 companies in Southeast Asian countries ASEAN of supplying the regime with funds, jet fuel and technology. "ASEAN's failure to address corporate complicity has allowed the [regime] to intensify its brutal campaign of terror that has killed thousands of civilians and displaced millions with total impunity," said Yadanar Maung, spokesperson of Justice for Myanmar, while calling on the leaders of ASEAN to end their support to the regime in Naypyidaw. First published in the Stratheia Policy Journal, Islamabad, Pakistan on 03 June 2025 Source: Pressenza
Malaysia Sun
19 minutes ago
- Malaysia Sun
China is building a power triangle to change the world
A recent summit between Beijing, ASEAN, and the Gulf Cooperation Council shows the potential future of Asia The final week of May marked a significant political development with the potential to reshape Asia's geopolitical landscape. Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, hosted the inaugural summit involving China, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). While signs of deepening engagement among these three actors had surfaced in preceding years, the establishment of a formal trilateral cooperation mechanism is a recent development. This event did not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. The region is increasingly exposed to intensifying rivalry among China, the US, and other global powers. In April, Chinese President Xi Jinping embarked on a Southeast Asian tour - visiting Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam - to consolidate Beijing's influence. Almost simultaneously, an envoy dispatched by US President Donald Trump toured Cambodia and Vietnam and met with representatives from all ASEAN member states in an effort to repair relations damaged by Trump's tariffs and to reaffirm the commitment to a 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific'. Meanwhile, the US president visited three Gulf states, making new deals and publicly denouncing the longstanding American policy of mentorship and interference in regional affairs. By the end of May, French President Emmanuel Macron also entered the scene, visiting Indonesia, Singapore, and Vietnam to remind Southeast Asian counterparts that the EU still exists and remains a potential alternative to both Beijing and Washington. It is no coincidence that the China-ASEAN-GCC summit was convened in Malaysia. As the current chair of ASEAN, Malaysia plays a pivotal role, and its prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, is a vocal proponent of regional integration and innovative partnerships. Ahead of the trilateral summit, ASEAN members gathered in Kuala Lumpur to chart their future course. On this occasion, the ten member states adopted ASEAN's first 20-year vision - ASEAN 2045 - articulating the ambition to position Southeast Asia as a global growth engine aligned with other dynamic actors. Among them, China and the GCC member states - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates - stand out prominently. Together, they represent a quarter of the world's population and contribute nearly the same proportion to global GDP. Their economic linkages are already well-established: China is the top trading partner for both ASEAN and the GCC. ASEAN has surpassed the EU as China's foremost economic partner, and Beijing imports over one-third of its crude oil from GCC states. The summit in Kuala Lumpur brought together the world's second- and fifth-largest economies - China and ASEAN - along with key suppliers of energy and raw materials. The leaders did not conceal their optimism. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim advanced a vision of intercultural dialogue between Confucian and Islamic civilizations, aligning with China's Global Civilization Initiative. Chinese Premier Li Qiang envisaged a 'big triangle' as a pillar of global security and prosperity, invoking the 'shared Asian values' of openness, cooperation, and integration in contrast to perceived Western norms. Notably, Beijing's official discourse increasingly emphasizes these 'Asian values'. This narrative underpins a renewed focus on neighboring states. In April, Xi convened a rare high-level conference on relations with the 'near abroad', characterizing it as essential to China's development, security, and diplomatic priorities. Among other regional actors, this recalibration may evoke concerns about a resurgence of a modern-day 'Pax Sinica'. However, Beijing refutes these interpretations, instead invoking alternative historical models such as the Silk Road, which emphasized connectivity, integration, and equality. The China-ASEAN-GCC summit was no exception: Beijing proposed extending the existing China-ASEAN Free Trade Area to include the GCC, a suggestion welcomed by Southeast Asian leaders. This could accelerate China's bid for trade liberalization and amplify the benefits of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership - the world's largest free trade zone, which includes all ASEAN nations. The summit's agenda focused heavily on economic issues, reflecting ASEAN's strategic orientation and the interests of Gulf states. Over the past decade, China has launched numerous projects with ASEAN members under the Belt and Road Initiative. Cooperation with the GCC is also expanding beyond traditional sectors such as raw materials to cutting-edge areas including artificial intelligence, the digital economy, and 5G technology. This economic emphasis is strategic, enabling stakeholders to bypass contentious political and security matters. And these contentious issues abound. While China maintains robust ties with both ASEAN and GCC members, bilateral frictions persist. Within ASEAN, territorial disputes and sovereignty concerns - particularly in the South China Sea - complicate trust-building. China's disputes with Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam are longstanding and strain regional relations. Perceptions of Chinese assertiveness also fuel anxieties over economic overdependence, potential 'debt traps', and Beijing's political leverage. These factors have prompted leaders such as Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to move closer to the US in recent years. The broader China-US rivalry remains a defining dynamic. Both ASEAN and GCC nations have historically strong ties to the US. The US remains ASEAN's largest export market and top foreign investor. GCC countries, long aligned with Washington, now face the challenge of navigating a careful balance between American and Chinese interests, particularly on sensitive technologies and security cooperation. Washington opposes the adoption of Chinese 5G and AI technologies by Saudi Arabia, and similar concerns have led to the suspension of military agreements between the US and UAE. Additionally, discussions about conducting oil trade in the yuan challenge the petrodollar system and attract Western scrutiny. These geopolitical complexities could undermine trilateral collaboration, exposing fault lines and structural vulnerabilities. While sectors such as trade, energy, infrastructure, and advanced technology offer natural areas of convergence, geopolitical competition and cultural divergence present serious obstacles. Moreover, there is a pronounced asymmetry among the actors: Smaller ASEAN economies may lack the institutional and financial capacity to engage fully in this trilateral format. Nonetheless, the China-ASEAN-GCC platform represents a novel configuration within an emerging multipolar world order. It reflects the accelerating momentum of South-South cooperation, which integrates multipolarity with multilateralism and economic globalization. Trump's tariff storm served as a wake-up call for many US partners across ASEAN and the Gulf, underscoring the imperative of diversifying partnerships and embracing pragmatic alternatives. Closer ties with Beijing do not necessarily indicate a wholesale shift from one hegemon to another. Rather, ASEAN and the GCC are striving to engage both China and the US where feasible. Yet, recent developments suggest that Washington's strategy of pressuring states to reduce ties with China in exchange for benefits is losing traction. The key questions now are whether ASEAN can effectively balance great power rivalries to become an autonomous pole in a multipolar world; whether regional actors can sustain this delicate equilibrium and avoid the formation of military blocs in Asia-Pacific and beyond; and whether the trilateral framework itself can endure amid mounting geopolitical tensions. These remain open-ended questions - and the answers will emerge only with time. (
Malaysia Sun
19 minutes ago
- Malaysia Sun
ASEANs Missed Opportunity for Beleaguered Myanmar
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) once again failed Myanmar at the summit in Kuala Lumpur from 26 to 27 May 2025 with a Peace Formula, when the country plunged into a bloody civil war with revolutionary armed ethnic groups. ASEAN is an intergovernmental organization of ten Southeast Asian countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Host Malaysia, as the current chairman of ASEAN, delivered a meaningless statement on Myanmar and offered no new approaches to dealing with the crisis in the country, which has been beleaguered by a military dictatorship since 2021. Instead of dusting off their hands, the summit offered a toothless Five-Point Consensus (5PC) as a road map for addressing Myanmars tribulations. The ethnic rebels are more concerned with holding their ancestral territories and establishing regional autonomy under a constitutional government. None of the rebels has a military plan to capture Myanmars capital. To topple the military regime in Naypyidaw and form a national democratic government, the rebel groups have placed the responsibility upon the National Unity Government (NUG), a shadow government in exile under the political inspiration of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. The ousted leader is presently serving jail terms on charges of sedition. Myanmars capital, Naypyidaw, is besieged by ethnic rebels who have taken two-thirds of the country from the military junta led by General Min Aung Hlaing, who has ruled Myanmar as the State Administration Council (SAC) Chairman since seizing power in the February 2021 coup dtat. In July 2024, he wore presidential robes in July 2024. To the Myanmarese, the obsession with the failed peace plan is beyond frustrating. They simply cant help wondering why ASEAN leaders remain so delusional when it comes to this consensus, which has delivered nothing for Myanmar. Since ASEAN adopted the 5PC in 2021, the junta has never honoured it. First and foremost, the consensus calls for the immediate cessation of violence in Myanmar. This step has never been implemented by the junta. Instead of ending military rule, the regime has rained bombs on its citizens and blocked essential supplies, including healthcare facilities, not to mention the continued atrocities like arson and massacres. Over the past four years, more than 6,000 civilians have been killed by the military, including children, prompting the UN early this year to say that the junta had ramped up its violence against civilians to a level that was unprecedented in the four years since the generals launched their coup. Rather than taking the juntas total disregard for its plan as a blatant insult, ASEANs leadership doggedly clings to the 5PC as its main reference to address the political crisis in Myanmar, writes Hpone Myat in anti-establishment news portal The Irrawaddy. The news organization Irrawaddy, named after a yawning river in Myanmar, operates in exile in a neighbouring country for the safety and security of its staff. Myanmar has become the most dangerous place for journalists after the recent sentencing of Than Htike Myint to five years in jail under Myanmars Counter Terrorism Law on 3 April. The military was holding 55 journalists in detention in June 2024, according to a report by the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). ASEANs continued faith in the 5PC in the face of the regimes repeated intransigence is incomprehensible. In the light of this, the people of Myanmar are not sure whether to praise the bloc for its consistency or feel sorry for its naivety in dealing with the most ruthless regime on earth. Apart from the statement, remarks from the blocs current chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, were out of context and deliberately did not touch base as the military junta is sinking into a quicksand. In April, Anwar met with junta chief Hlaing in Bangkok and held virtual talks with Myanmars National Unity Government (NUG) in exile. Malaysian Premier Anwar Ibrahim should not have appeased Min Aung Hlaing, believing in the illusions that the General would restore peace in the country, riddled with civil strife. After a call from the ASEAN meeting in April, Hlaing promised a ceasefire by the Myanmar armed forces, Tatmadaw, and the ethnic rebels. His junta even signed an MOU with some rebels, but that ceasefire was broken within days. Hlaings air force continued to bomb civilian areas, causing immense suffering, pain, and agony for the villagers. At the summit, he (Anwar) described those talks as significant, saying both sides were open to engagement while highlighting Gen Hlaings supposed willingness to engage in peace efforts despite dubbing NUG as a terrorist organization. In his opening remarks to the summit in Kuala Lumpur, Anwar said ASEAN had been able to move the needle forward in its efforts to achieve an eventual resolution to the Myanmar crisis, adding that the steps may be small and the bridge may be fragile, but even a fragile bridge is better than a widening gulf. There is not even a fragile bridge, given his dishonesty and insincerity. His willingness to engage in peace talks is merely fictional and a hollow promise; Myanmars generals have historically never been known for sincerely engaging in peace efforts. They only engage or join dialogue as a pretext to ease external pressures. No such talks have ever borne fruit. Ask any ethnic armed resistance organization or opposition politician in Myanmar, and they will enlighten you as to how historically untrustworthy the previous generals and Min Aung Hlaing are, laments Hpone Myat. ASEAN members have univocally urged the regime in Naypyidaw to extend a temporary ceasefire and engage in peace talks with its rivals at the summit, but did not spell out a timeline. Instead, the ASEAN urged that negotiations were needed and that Malaysias Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan would visit Naypyidaw in June regarding the mitigation of the crisis. Furthermore, the regional leaders statement on an extended and expanded ceasefire in Myanmar can only be greeted with dismay. The leaders further called for the sustained extension and nationwide expansion of the ceasefire in Myanmar, but the reality is the ceasefire has never existed on the ground, as the junta has consistently violated the truce from the very start, wrote The Irrawaddy. Instead of being unrealistic about the reality of present-day Myanmar, ASEAN should have adopted a serious resolution against the regime. Such moves would have put pressure on the junta by making it harder for it to survive, but also would have helped move the currently stalled resolution mechanism for Myanmars crisis forward. To make that happen, the bloc must first drop its empty rhetoric and take meaningful steps, concludes Hpone Myat. Last week, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) raised concern over the deteriorating human rights situation and economic collapse in Myanmar, with violent military operations killing more civilians last year than in any year since the 2021 coup. The military operations have sparked an unfolding humanitarian crisis. Over half the population now lives below the poverty line, facing food insecurity and soaring prices, which has worsened since the March 28 earthquake, according to the U.N. Possibly, ASEAN has lost all moral position to pressurise the military junta, since Justice for Myanmar accused 54 companies in Southeast Asian countries ASEAN of supplying the regime with funds, jet fuel and technology. Saleem Samad
