Myanmar’s ‘In-Between’ Status: A Crucible of Conflict and Identity
Myanmar’s story is one of a nation caught between worlds. Once a leading voice in Asian internationalism, it now finds itself largely defined by its position as an ‘in-between space’ – geographically, politically, and strategically positioned between South and Southeast Asia. This unique location, coupled with internal dynamics and external pressures, has profoundly shaped its identity and fueled protracted internal conflicts.
The Making of an ‘In-Between Space’
The concepts of ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ are relatively recent constructs, emerging largely from Cold War politics and academic categorization. Prior to the 1950s, the region encompassing modern Myanmar was not neatly divided. Burma, as it was then known, played a pivotal role in early Asian solidarity movements, spearheading initiatives like the Asian Relations Conferences and the Bandung Conference, envisioning a unified Asian identity.
The formation of regional institutions like ASEAN and SAARC solidified these distinct regional identities. However, Myanmar’s location meant it didn’t fully belong to either. It functioned as an ‘in-between space,’ neither fully integrated into the norms and practices of Southeast Asia through ASEAN, nor fully embraced by South Asia through SAARC. This marginalization contributed to a sense of being an outlier, impacting its internal stability and international standing.
A History of Indifference: Regional Responses to Myanmar’s Crises
The response – or lack thereof – from ASEAN and SAARC to key events in Myanmar’s history underscores this ‘in-between’ status. The violent crackdown on the 1988 pro-democracy uprising and the disregard for the 1990 election results were met with indifference from both regional blocs. This silence stemmed from a policy of ‘non-interference’ but was also rooted in a prioritization of regional stability over human rights concerns. As one former ASEAN Secretary-General observed, Myanmar’s neighbors, with the possible exception of Thailand, took little notice of these events.
This perceived aloofness reinforced Myanmar’s isolation and contributed to its problems remaining largely invisible to the outside world. Even after joining ASEAN in 1997, Myanmar earned a reputation as the ‘black sheep’ of the family, with its human rights record and unhurried progress towards democratization causing internal divisions within the organization.
Myanmar as a Strategic Lever: Isolationism Without Isolation
Myanmar has skillfully leveraged its ‘in-between space’ to its advantage. The country has practiced a policy of “isolationism without isolation,” playing different external actors against each other. Its strategic location allows it to maintain options beyond complete dependence on either ASEAN or other regional powers.
Despite ongoing turmoil, Myanmar’s economic impact on ASEAN remains limited. As a frontier member-state, it doesn’t significantly disrupt regional connectivity or supply chains, and its economic weakness doesn’t threaten the prosperity of other member states. This may disincentivize deeper engagement from ASEAN in resolving Myanmar’s internal conflicts.
Implications for Myanmar’s Identity and Future
Myanmar’s identity has been profoundly shaped by its ‘in-between’ status. The emergence of distinct regional identities has positioned Myanmar as an outlier, viewed with suspicion and often excluded from meaningful regional cooperation. This has contributed to its internal conflicts and its struggle to remain visible internationally.
The rise of subregional frameworks like the Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), which include members from both South and Southeast Asia, offer potential avenues for greater integration. However, these initiatives are complementary to existing regional institutions and haven’t fundamentally altered Myanmar’s position.
FAQ
Q: What is meant by ‘in-between space’ in the context of Myanmar?
A: It refers to Myanmar’s geographical and political position between South and Southeast Asia, not fully belonging to either region and often marginalized as a result.
Q: How has ASEAN responded to the crises in Myanmar?
A: ASEAN’s response has been largely characterized by a policy of ‘non-interference’ and a prioritization of regional stability, often leading to inaction or muted criticism.
Q: What is Myanmar’s strategy in navigating its ‘in-between’ status?
A: Myanmar has employed a strategy of “isolationism without isolation,” leveraging its location and playing different external actors against each other.
Q: Will Myanmar’s situation change in the future?
A: The prospects of Myanmar shedding its ‘in-between’ status appear limited, as the fundamental structures of regionalization are unlikely to change in the near future.
Did you know? Myanmar was a leading force in early Asian solidarity movements, playing a key role in the Asian Relations Conferences and the Bandung Conference.
Pro Tip: Understanding the historical context of regional formation is crucial to grasping Myanmar’s current challenges and its unique position in Southeast Asia.
Explore further insights into Myanmar’s complex geopolitical landscape and the evolving dynamics of regionalism. Share your thoughts and perspectives in the comments below!
