Myanmar occupies a unique position between South and Southeast Asia, a geopolitical location that has shaped its identity and contributed to its ongoing internal conflicts. The emergence of distinct regional identities and institutions in both regions has resulted in Myanmar being perceived as an outlier, impacting its international standing and hindering efforts to resolve its internal challenges.
Myanmar: The ‘In-Between Space’
Prior to the solidification of ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ as distinct regions, Myanmar, then Burma, was a key proponent of Asian identity in international affairs. In the 1940s and 50s, Burma spearheaded initiatives like the Asian Relations Conferences and the Colombo Powers, laying the groundwork for the Non-Aligned Movement (Singh 2010, 9; Myat 2021, 387; Myat 2025, 123).
The categorization of ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ arose from Cold War politics and the development of area studies programs. Initially, there was no clear distinction between the two regions, as evidenced by the inclusion of states from both in organizations like the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954 (Guan 2022, 189).
The formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967, and later the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985, solidified these regional identities. This process created an ‘in-between space’ for Myanmar, situated between the two regions and not fully integrated into either (Wah 2008, 1; Chakma 2020).
As a result, Myanmar functioned as an ‘in-between space’ rather than a buffer, finding itself outside the established identities of both SAARC and ASEAN. The 1988 pro-democracy uprising and the subsequent violent military crackdown were met with indifference from both regional institutions, with neither issuing official condemnations (Severino 2006).
Similarly, when the Myanmar military regime refused to hand over power after the 1990 elections, both ASEAN and SAARC remained largely silent. This response was driven by a focus on regional stability rather than human rights concerns (Oishi and Ghani 2016).
Myanmar joined ASEAN in 1997 and became an observer in SAARC in 2008, highlighting its unique position. Since joining ASEAN, international attention has focused on the bloc’s role in promoting political reforms within Myanmar, with limited success (Oishi and Ghani 2016).
Implications on Myanmar’s Identity and Its Internal Conflict
After a period of active engagement in global and regional affairs, Myanmar gradually withdrew from international engagements following the military’s rise to power in the 1960s. The perception of Myanmar as an outlier, not conforming to regional norms and posing a threat to stability, contributed to this isolation.
Since joining ASEAN, Myanmar has been labeled the ‘black sheep’ of the family due to its human rights record and lack of democratic progress (McCarthy 2006, 8-10). This reputation has caused internal divisions within ASEAN and reinforced the view that Myanmar is a threat to the bloc’s unity and democracy (Ryu et.al 2021).
Recent events, including the ‘Saffron Revolution’ in 2007, Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the Rohingya crisis in 2016-17, and the 2021 coup d’état, have drawn international scrutiny and further embarrassed ASEAN (Selth 2008; Papp 2023; Jeong 2021; Lin & Thuzar 2022).
ASEAN’s response has been hampered by its policy of ‘non-interference’ and a prioritization of regional stability. The bloc has been more concerned with maintaining its international standing than with effecting positive change in Myanmar (Yadanar-Aungminim 2021, 101).
Myanmar’s strategic location allows it a degree of autonomy, as it is not entirely dependent on ASEAN for its survival and has options to engage with other states and regions, including China and India (Egreteau and Jagan 2008). This ability to leverage its position as an “in-between space” has been a key characteristic of its foreign policy.
The prospects of Myanmar shedding its ‘in-between space’ status appear limited, as the underlying ideational, structural, and institutional factors shaping the constructed regions are unlikely to change in the near future. The emergence of subregional frameworks like the Mekong Ganga Cooperation and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation have not fundamentally altered this dynamic.
References
Acharya, Amitav. 2016. “Studying the Bandung conference from a Global IR perspective.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 70, no. 4: 342–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1168359.
Chakma, Bhumitra 2020. South Asian Regionalism: The Limits of Cooperation. Bristol: Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1453kr3
Choong, Pui Yee 2025. “Malaysia’s Chairmanship of ASEAN: Between Continuation and Adaptation of the Myanmar Crisis.” IDSS Paper. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. No. 019/2025. https://rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/IP25019.pdf
Egreteau, Renaud & Jagan, Larry 2008. Back to Old Habits: Isolationism to the Self-Preservation of Burma’s Military Regime. IRASEC. Bangkok. https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs6/Old_Habits.pdf
Guan, Ang Cheng. 2022. “History Lessons from SEATO to the Newer Regional Security Alliances.” Rising Asia Journal 2. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore Issue 1 (January to April): 180-200. https://www.rajraf.org/10282/uploads/article/1049/6_Ang_Seato.pdf
Jeong, Yoojeong 2021. “Diverging Response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis since 2017 Military Crackdown: Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia”. The Korean Journal of International Studies 19. No. 1:133-165. https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2021.04.19.1.133
Lin, Joanne & Thuzar, Moe 2022. “The Struggle for International Recognition: Myanmar after the 2021 Coup”, Perspective. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore. Issue 2022. No. 118: https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ISEAS_Perspective_2022_118.pdf
McCarthy, Stephen 2006. “The Black Sheep of the Family: How Burma Defines its Foreign Relations with ASEAN.” Regional Outlook Paper No. 7: Griffith Asia Institute. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/aa95343e-9fdf-4ab1-8f45-4d7894bc0ed7/content
Meier, Daniel. 2019. “‘Disputed territories’ in northern Iraq: The frontiering of in-between spaces.” Mediterranean Politics 25, no. 6 (October): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2019.1681733.
Myat, Sint Sint. 2021. “Explaining Myanmar’s Policy of Non-Alignment: An Analytic Eclecticism Approach.”Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 40. No. 3: 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034219920.
Myat, Sint Sint. 2025. “Myanmar and Non-Alignment Movement.” In The Rise of Asia: 60 Years After Belgrade (What Non-Alignment in a Multipolar World and for a Global Future?: Assessments and Perspective of NAM 60 Years on), edited by Darwis Khudori. Delhi. Aakar Books. ISBN: 9789350029176 123
Narine, Shaun 2002. Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia: London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. ISBN 1-58826-129-8
Narine, Shaun 2008. “Forty years of ASEAN: a historical review.” The Pacific Review 21. no. 4 (August): 411-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512740802294689
Oishi, Mikio and Ghani, Nina 2016. “Developing a Way to Influence the Conduct of the Government in Intrastate Conflict: The Case of Myanmar.” In Contemporary Conflicts in Southeast Asia: Towards a New ASEAN Way of Conflict Management, edited by M. Oishi. Singapore: Springer. Asia in Transition 3, 89-110. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-0042-3_5
Papp, Bendegúz 2023. “An Analysis of ASEAN’s Cyclone Nargis 2008 Disaster Diplomacy.” Asian International Studies Review 24: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570008400342
Ryu, Yongwook, et.al 2021. “The Military Coup in Myanmar: Time to Prioritise ASEAN Centrality and Communal Values,” Perspective. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute. Issue No. 27. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-27-the-military-coup-in-myanmar-time-to-prioritise-asean-centrality-and-communal-values-by-yongwook-ryu-bernard-minn-and-myat-myat-mon/
Selth, Andrew 2008. “Burma’s ‘saffron revolution’ and the limits of international influence.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 62. Issue 3: 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357710802286742
Selth, Andrew 2018. “Myanmar–Watching: Problems and Perspectives.” Regional Outlook Paper No. 58.
Severino, Rodolfo C. 2006. Southeast Asia in search of an ASEAN Community: Insights from the former ASEAN Secretary-General, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Singh, Sinderpal, 2010. “‘From ‘Asia’ to ‘Asia-Pacific’: Indian Political Elites and Changing Conceptions of India’s Regional Spaces.” ISAS Working Paper, Institute of South Asian Studies, No. 113 (28 September). https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/113-from-ocyasiaoco-to-ocyasia-pacificoco-indian-political-elites-and-changing-conceptions-of-indiaocos-regional-spaces/
Tzortzi, J.N & Saxena, I. 2024. “Threshold Spaces: The Transitional Spaces Between Outside and Inside in Traditional Indian Dwellings.” Heritage 7, 6683–6711. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/heritage7120309.
Wah, Chin Kin. 2008. “ASEAN: The long road to “One Southeast Asia.” Asian Journal of Political Science 5. no. 1 (June): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185379708434091
Yadanar-Aungminim, Hsu 2021. “ASEAN: Conditional Prodder to Myanmar in its Quest for Credibility?” Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies 13: 95-112. https://japan.tsukuba.ac.jp/research_r/pdf/JIAJS_Vol13_07_Aungmin.pdf
Keep reading
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.