Thailand’s decision to host Myanmar’s military chief, Min Aung Hlaing, at the 6th BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok on April 3, 2025, has ignited a firestorm of criticism and raised pressing questions about the country’s foreign policy stance. The image of Min Aung Hlaing shaking hands with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra at an official dinner, released by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has become a symbol of contention. At a time when Myanmar grapples with the aftermath of a devastating earthquake alongside ongoing authoritarian rule, Thailand’s move to offer a platform to the junta leader—shunned by both the United Nations and ASEAN—has drawn scrutiny over its alignment with international norms and regional stability.
A Question of Legitimacy
The presence of Min Aung Hlaing at the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit stands in stark contrast to the positions of major multilateral bodies. Since the military coup in Myanmar in February 2021, which overthrew the democratically elected government, the UN has barred the junta from representing the country at key meetings, leaving Myanmar’s seat unresolved in the General Assembly. ASEAN, too, has distanced itself, excluding the junta leader from high-level summits while permitting lower-level representation. Thailand’s hosting of Min Aung Hlaing, therefore, appears to diverge from this precedent, prompting concerns about whether Bangkok is undermining a unified regional stance.
Critics argue that this decision risks conferring legitimacy on a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and authoritarian governance. UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Tom Andrews, recently emphasized during a seminar at the Thai Parliament the need to sever the junta’s lifelines—financial support, arms, and international recognition. Thailand’s actions at the BIMSTEC Summit, some observers suggest, may inadvertently bolster the junta’s standing at a critical juncture. 
Humanitarian Crisis Amid Natural Disaster
The timing of the summit coincides with a deepening humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, exacerbated by a recent earthquake that has compounded the suffering of millions. Before the disaster, nearly 20 million people in Myanmar required assistance, with 3.5 million internally displaced and another 2 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries. The quake has likely worsened these figures, intensifying the urgent need for aid. Yet, reports indicate that the junta has obstructed relief efforts, continuing military operations in opposition-controlled areas and blocking aid deliveries to dissident regions.
The international community has called for a ceasefire to facilitate non-discriminatory humanitarian aid distribution. Thailand, as a neighboring state and BIMSTEC member, is uniquely positioned to advocate for such measures. Instead, its hosting of Min Aung Hlaing has led to accusations of ambivalence—or worse, complicity—in the face of the junta’s alleged opportunism during this crisis. Humanitarian actors, including UN agencies and civil society groups, stress the importance of cross-border and cross-line access to deliver aid across Myanmar’s fragmented regions, a process Thailand could facilitate if it prioritized humanitarian imperatives over diplomatic gestures.
Thailand’s Policy: National Interest or Personal Gain?
Beyond the optics of the handshake, Thailand’s broader policy toward Myanmar has come under intense scrutiny. Analysts question whether Bangkok’s approach reflects a coherent national strategy or is driven by narrower, personalized interests. Historically, Thailand has balanced economic ties with Myanmar—particularly in energy and natural resources—with diplomatic caution. However, the decision to host the junta leader suggests a potential shift, raising concerns about whether Thai businesses or political elites stand to gain from closer ties with the military regime.
UN Rapporteur Tom Andrews has urged nations like Thailand to cut off financial and military support to the junta. He highlighted a positive step by a major Thai bank, which recently halted transactions with a Myanmar bank suspected of funneling funds to the military. Yet, Thai companies investing in Myanmar’s resource-rich sectors—oil, gas, and minerals—face growing calls for due diligence to avoid complicity in human rights violations. Failure to implement mitigation measures or exit strategies could expose these firms to international sanctions, further complicating Thailand’s position.
Refugee Protection and Regional Responsibility
Thailand’s role as a neighbor to Myanmar carries additional responsibilities, particularly concerning the protection of civilians fleeing conflict and disaster. The country already hosts significant numbers of Myanmar refugees, but its policies on asylum have drawn criticism. Reports of push-backs—returning refugees to Myanmar despite risks of persecution—violate international law and Thailand’s own anti-torture legislation. As the crisis deepens post-earthquake, advocates urge Bangkok to open its borders for temporary asylum, aligning with humanitarian principles over political expediency.
Moreover, Thailand could play a pivotal role in facilitating innovative aid delivery mechanisms. Civil society groups are exploring crowdfunding initiatives to support Myanmar’s desperate communities, often bypassing junta-controlled channels. As a regional hub, Thailand has the infrastructure and networks to support such efforts, provided its leadership prioritizes humanitarian access over diplomatic posturing.
A Call for Accountability and Multilateral Action
The broader issue of accountability looms large over Myanmar’s crisis. Internationally, legal proceedings are underway to address alleged atrocities committed by the junta. A case concerning accusations of genocide is before the International Court of Justice, while the International Criminal Court is pursuing individual criminal responsibility for military leaders. These developments underscore the global consensus against impunity, a stance Thailand risks undermining through its engagement with Min Aung Hlaing.
At the regional level, BIMSTEC and ASEAN offer platforms for collective action. While BIMSTEC countries have pledged humanitarian aid in the wake of the earthquake, there is a pressing need to couple such assistance with advocacy for peace, democracy, and human rights in Myanmar. Some experts propose a “Plurilateral Platform for Action,” uniting ASEAN, BIMSTEC, and other willing partners to foster new alliances for sustainable development and regional stability. Thailand, with its strategic position, could champion such an initiative if it recalibrates its current approach.
Economic Ties and Ethical Dilemmas
Thailand’s economic relationship with Myanmar adds another layer of complexity. Bilateral trade, particularly in energy sectors, has long been a cornerstone of their ties. However, the junta’s exploitation of natural resources often fuels its military operations, creating what critics call “blood money.” Thai firms operating in Myanmar must navigate the ethical minefield of potential complicity in these dynamics. Robust due diligence and transparency measures are essential to ensure that investments do not indirectly sustain human rights abuses. The international community, including potential sanctioning bodies, is watching closely, and Thailand’s government may need to provide clearer guidance to its private sector to avoid reputational and legal risks.
Looking Ahead: A Path to Redemption?
As Thailand navigates the fallout from hosting Min Aung Hlaing, the country stands at a crossroads. Will it align with the international community’s push for accountability and humanitarian relief in Myanmar, or risk further isolation by appearing to legitimize a pariah regime? The earthquake has amplified the stakes, offering a potential catalyst for constructive change—if only the junta’s obstructionism can be countered through regional and global pressure. For now, Thailand’s actions at the BIMSTEC Summit have left many questioning its commitment to multilateral standards.
Public sentiment, both in Thailand and across the region, reflects a mix of frustration and cautious hope. As one Bangkok-based activist put it, “Thailand has the chance to be a leader for peace, but it must stop shaking hands with oppression.” Whether Bangkok can pivot toward a policy that prioritizes human rights and regional stability over short-term diplomatic or economic gains remains an open question, one that will shape its standing in South East Asia for years to come.
