Myanmar occupies a unique and often overlooked position in the geopolitical landscape of Southeast and South Asia. Once a leading voice in post-colonial international affairs, the nation now finds itself grappling with protracted internal conflicts and struggling for international visibility. A key factor in this trajectory, often absent in analyses of Myanmar’s challenges, is its status as an ‘in-between space’ – geographically, politically, and strategically positioned between the emerging regional identities of South and Southeast Asia.
The concept of ‘in-between space,’ as applied to international relations, describes borderlands and frontiers where sovereignty is contested and traditional boundaries blur. In the context of regionalism, these spaces emerge as regions solidify their identities and norms, often marginalizing those that don’t neatly fit within established frameworks. The rise of distinct regional entities – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) – has inadvertently created this dynamic for Myanmar, positioning it as an outlier, neither fully integrated into nor entirely excluded from either grouping.
In the decades following its independence, Myanmar, then Burma, played a pivotal role in envisioning a pan-Asian identity. In the 1940s and 50s, it spearheaded initiatives like the Asian Relations Conferences and the Bandung Conference, advocating for anti-colonialism and non-alignment. However, the subsequent crystallization of ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ as distinct geopolitical categories, influenced by Cold War politics and academic area studies, altered Myanmar’s position. These regions weren’t organically defined. rather, they were constructed through political and institutional processes.
Initially, the lines between ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ were fluid. Early regional cooperation efforts, such as the Colombo Plan, didn’t clearly delineate these boundaries. Even the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), designed to counter communism, included states now categorized as belonging to both regions. It was only gradually that ASEAN began to solidify a distinct regional identity, while the concept of regionalism in South Asia took shape much later with the formation of SAARC in 1985.
This regionalization process left Myanmar in a precarious position. Located between the two emerging blocs, it didn’t comfortably align with either. The 1988 pro-democracy uprising and the subsequent violent military crackdown highlighted this disconnect. Neither ASEAN nor SAARC issued strong condemnations, demonstrating a sense of detachment from the internal situation in Myanmar. This indifference continued in 1990 when the military regime ignored the results of democratic elections.
The prevailing policy of ‘non-interference’ in internal affairs is often cited as the reason for this muted response. However, a deeper analysis suggests that regional stability was the primary concern. Myanmar’s internal conflicts were perceived as a potential threat to the wider region, leading to a desire to keep the country at arm’s length. Myanmar eventually joined ASEAN in 1997 and became an observer in SAARC in 2008, a unique status reflecting its ambiguous position.
ASEAN’s engagement with Myanmar, particularly after its membership, has been marked by a tension between promoting political reform and maintaining regional stability. The ‘constructive engagement’ policy, intended to encourage change from within, yielded limited results. Myanmar’s continued internal conflicts and human rights record earned it a reputation as the ‘black sheep’ of the ASEAN family, creating internal divisions within the bloc. The country forfeited its turn to chair ASEAN in 2006 due to its poor human rights record.
Recent events – the ‘Saffron Revolution’ of 2007, Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the Rohingya crisis of 2016-17, and the 2021 coup d’état – have further strained Myanmar’s relationship with the international community and placed ASEAN under increased scrutiny. The regional bloc’s inability to effectively address the crisis has raised questions about its relevance and effectiveness. ASEAN has prioritized maintaining its internal cohesion and international image over finding a lasting solution to Myanmar’s problems.
Myanmar’s strategic location as an ‘in-between space’ allows it a degree of autonomy. It isn’t entirely dependent on ASEAN for its survival and maintains relationships with other actors, including China and India. This ability to leverage external relationships limits ASEAN’s influence. The country’s authoritarian government has historically employed a policy of “isolationism without isolation,” capitalizing on its position to navigate competing interests.
Myanmar’s challenges are deeply rooted in its unique geopolitical position. Its identity has been shaped by its status as an ‘in-between space,’ caught between the emerging regional identities of South and Southeast Asia. Viewing Myanmar through this lens offers a new perspective on its internal conflicts and international isolation. The prospects for Myanmar shedding this ‘in-between’ status appear limited, as the fundamental dynamics of regionalism are unlikely to change in the near future. The emergence of subregional frameworks like the Mekong Ganga Cooperation or the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation haven’t fundamentally altered this dynamic.
The future may see new geopolitical configurations and economic integration projects transforming ‘in-between spaces’ into gateways and connectivity corridors. However, for Myanmar, overcoming its current challenges requires a recognition of its unique position and a nuanced approach that goes beyond simply applying the norms and practices of established regional blocs.
