In October 2003, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) proposed the establishment of a security community for Southeast Asia by 2020. This proposal, if successful, will involve the implementation of a substantial level of integration in the security, economic, and sociocultural spheres of the ASEAN member states. As reflected by the scholarly literature on a security community, the outcome of such integration would be the establishment of a “secure” region where the Southeast Asian states (and the communities they embrace) would reflect the degree of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation witnessed by (perhaps arguably) the nascent security community of the European Union (EU). No country in Southeast Asia challenges the emergence of this security community in the region more than Myanmar, a country that has been plagued by the consequences of instability and poor governance for over half a century. Furthermore, and despite considerable pressure and attention by the international community, Myanmar's economy continues to slide into ruin, the generals remain in power, and the ethnic minority groups are subjected to human rights abuses. These circumstances have contributed to, and been caused by, the long period of instability that Myanmar has endured, instability that continues to test the comprehensive security environment of Southeast Asia. Examples of these transnational effects include the multifaceted consequences of large-scale narcotics production and, at least until recently, the occurrence of armed conflict along Myanmar's territorial boundary with Thailand because of armed border incursions. Equally important has been the challenge that Myanmar presents to the operative norms of ASEAN. Twelve years of “constructive engagement” by ASEAN has done little to alleviate the situation, and recent events concerning Myanmar (for example, the potential chairmanship of ASEAN) have seen various ASEAN elites, at a multitude of levels, directly or indirectly, challenge the continued applicability of ASEAN's non-interference principle. The desire by some states and elites to modify the operative norms of ASEAN has, in turn, contributed to a growing fissure between the more democratic ASEAN members and those that are relatively more conservative and authoritarian in nature. Nonetheless, and as this case study will substantiate, ASEAN will need to resolve these divisions in identity should the organization wish to tackle its “Myanmar crisis” successfully and thereby move ahead in its pursuit of a security community.