The boats that carried the Rohingya across the Naf River in 2017 did more than ferry desperate families into Bangladesh. They carried an indictment of Southeast Asia’s conscience. More than 742,000 Rohingya fled Myanmar’s Rakhine State in the space of a year, according to UNHCR estimates, joining earlier waves of displacement to form one of the world’s largest stateless populations. 

Nearly a decade on, between 150,000 and 630,000 Rohingya remain inside Myanmar, many effectively confined to what rights groups have described as detention camps and ‘open prisons’, stripped of citizenship, movement and dignity. 

As of 2026, Myanmar faces more than 3.5 million internally displaced people — including over 1.4 million uprooted in 2025 alone — alongside 1.3 million refugees abroad, with more than one million stateless Rohingya still crowded into the vast camps of Cox’s Bazar. No one has been held accountable for the mass killings, rape and village burnings that UN investigators say may amount to genocide.

This is not merely a humanitarian crisis. It is a test of ASEAN’s moral architecture.

For years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has responded with careful words and carefully calibrated silences. Humanitarian assistance has flowed. Shelters have been funded. Meetings have been convened. Yet the deeper questions — citizenship, accountability, justice — have been treated as too combustible for a bloc built on consensus and non-interference. An ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights report observed that the organisation allowed Myanmar to set the parameters of engagement. The result has been a diplomacy of symptoms rather than causes.

Meanwhile, nearly one million Rohingya refugees remain in Cox’s Bazar, living in overcrowded camps vulnerable to disease, fires and monsoon floods. Bangladesh shoulders a burden that would strain far wealthier nations. The World Bank and UN agencies have repeatedly warned of dwindling funding and rising frustration among a generation growing up without formal education or legal status. The longer this limbo endures, the greater the risk of radicalisation, trafficking and regional instability.

Myanmar’s military authorities continue to frame the 2017 operations as a counter-terrorism response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. The very word ‘Rohingya’ is rejected in official discourse, replaced with ‘Bengalis’, as if erasing a name might erase a people. Yet human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have been unequivocal: Eight years after the atrocities, there has been no justice and no freedom for the Rohingya.

ASEAN’s dilemma is structural. Consensus decision-making, once celebrated as the ‘ASEAN Way’, has historically constrained decisive action in moments of crisis. To criticise a member is to risk fracturing unity. To isolate Myanmar is to unsettle a region already navigating great power rivalry between China and the United States. And yet, the cost of inaction is also strategic. A regional organisation that cannot respond meaningfully to allegations of genocide within its own ranks risks eroding its credibility — not only in global forums but in the eyes of its own citizens.

Into this uneasy landscape steps Timor-Leste, ASEAN’s newest member.

Formally acceding to ASEAN in October 2025 as its 11th member, Timor-Leste arrives with a political history etched in struggle. After 24 years of Indonesian occupation and a UN-backed referendum in 1999 that unleashed violence, Timor-Leste emerged as a sovereign state in 2002 under the watchful eye of international peacekeepers and tribunals. Its leaders carry the memory of international solidarity not as an abstraction, but as a lived experience.

Freedom House scores place Timor-Leste ahead of every other ASEAN country on civil liberties. Analysts have described its entry as a potential boost for democratic norms within a region that has trended increasingly conservative. President José Ramos-Horta, a Nobel laureate, speaks of a foreign policy defined by ‘excellent relations with all nations’ and ‘no enemies’. It is a gentle formulation, almost pastoral in tone. Yet beneath it lies a quiet audacity.

In early 2026, Timor-Leste’s chief prosecutor initiated an inquiry into alleged war crimes by Myanmar’s junta, following a complaint lodged by a Myanmar exile group. The reaction from Naypyidaw was swift: the expulsion of Timor-Leste’s representative, denounced as interference. Within ASEAN, such legal action by one member against another is virtually unheard of. It signals a willingness to test the boundaries of non-interference in favour of accountability.

The move does not occur in isolation. At the global level, The Gambia’s case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice, backed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, continues to wind its way through legal proceedings. Provisional measures have already been ordered, requiring Myanmar to prevent acts of genocide and preserve evidence. The possibility of an eventual finding of genocide carries immense symbolic weight. It would affirm that the suffering of the Rohingya is not a matter of narrative contestation, but of legal fact.

Timor-Leste’s stance reflects an understanding that sovereignty and responsibility are not mutually exclusive. In 1999, it was international intervention — authorised and multilateral — that prevented further catastrophe in Dili. Later, UN-supported mechanisms sought to address crimes committed during the independence referendum. The lesson drawn in Dili is not that sovereignty must be guarded at all costs, but that it can coexist with international norms designed to protect human life.

There is a quiet moral clarity in this position. It does not demand grandstanding or megaphone diplomacy. It suggests instead that ASEAN’s centrality in the Indo-Pacific must be anchored not only in economic integration and strategic balance, but in a shared commitment to human dignity.

The Rohingya crisis intersects with broader regional currents. Conflict between Myanmar’s military and the Arakan Army has intensified, rendering parts of Rakhine State a war zone. Repatriation schemes have stalled. China and India pursue their interests through infrastructure projects and security engagement, often insulated from human rights considerations. Western sanctions, while symbolically potent, have yet to alter the junta’s calculus decisively.

In this crowded geopolitical theatre, the Rohingya risk becoming a footnote — invoked in speeches, sidelined in negotiations.

Yet history has a way of returning unfinished business to the centre of the stage. Southeast Asia’s own narrative is one of anti-colonial struggle, self-determination and regional solidarity. To allow an entire community to remain stateless and confined is to fracture that narrative.

A more imaginative ASEAN response need not abandon consensus, but it could reinterpret it. Humanitarian missions in Rakhine, drawing on ASEAN’s disaster-response mechanisms, could be expanded to include protection monitoring. Regional scholarship programmes could offer Rohingya youth education pathways across Southeast Asia, investing in a future that does not depend solely on camps. 

Quiet conditionality — linking deeper integration benefits to measurable human rights improvements — could be explored without public theatrics. Such steps would not resolve the crisis overnight. They would, however, signal that ASEAN’s unity is not a shield against scrutiny but a platform for collective responsibility.

Timor-Leste cannot transform ASEAN alone. It is a small nation with limited economic weight. But moral authority does not always correlate with size. In diplomatic circles, the presence of even one persistent voice can alter the tenor of discussion, shifting what is considered sayable and eventually, doable.

The Rohingya crisis is now measured in staggering figures — more than 742,000 who fled in 2017, up to 630,000 still confined inside Myanmar, and over a million surviving in the vast camps of Cox’s Bazar as part of 1.3 million refugees abroad — yet behind every number is a life suspended between memory and uncertainty, and ASEAN must decide whether those lives remain peripheral to its regional order or finally integral to it.

If Southeast Asia is to claim centrality in the Indo-Pacific century, its credibility will depend not only on trade volumes or summitry but on whether it can reconcile sovereignty with solidarity. Timor-Leste’s emergence within ASEAN offers a glimpse of a different equilibrium — one in which friendship with all does not preclude speaking for the silenced.

In the end, the boats that crossed the Naf River are still sailing in the region’s political imagination. They ask, quietly but insistently, whether Southeast Asia will be defined by the limits of non-interference, or by the courage to ensure that no community is left without a name, a home, or justice.

---