Ok. Yhome
Download PDF
Feb 12 2026
prusaczarko/depositphotos
Myanmar presents a perplexing case of a state that performed a distinguished position in world and regional affairs quickly after its independence from colonial rule, however immediately it’s mired in protracted inner conflicts and struggles to stay seen internationally. There isn’t any dearth of literature elucidating the entrenched nature of Myanmars complicated battle dynamics and its ties with the skin world. Despite the wealthy physique of labor on Myanmars extended conflicts and its exterior position and engagements, a dimension that has not obtained a lot consideration in present literature is: How the emergence of areas impacted Myanmars identification and its inner battle dynamics? This article views Myanmar by the lens of in-between house and explores the method of regionalism within the making of in-between house and the impacts of in-betweenness. The notion of in-between house is employed in numerous disciplines corresponding to within the discipline of structure, the place in-between areas are considered as transitional areas (Tzortzi 2024, 6685-6686) that lie on the boundary of two areas, the place the sting blurs the boundary between areas. Similarly, in anthropology, the time period liminality describes an in-between state of an entity that transforms into a brand new entity. In International Relations, the notion of in-between house is used within the context of borderlands and frontiers between nation-states the place sovereignty is contested and the road dividing position and accountability blurs(Meier 2019, 3-4).
In the context of regional worlds, the in-between areas are byproducts of region-making mendacity between proximate geographies which can be divided into separate areas. By advantage of geographical location, in-between areas are sometimes on the periphery of areas removed from political and financial centres that additionally permit sure independence and choices. Furthermore, the method of institutionalizing areas provides distinct regional identities and institution of regional norms, values, and practices consolidate the othering of proximate areas, this in flip creates the frontiering of the in-between house. In the case of Southeast Asia, the emergence of regional establishments within the type of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with its personal norms and practices created an identification totally different from different neighbouring areas. This course of produced in-between areas that may be described as outliers usually characterised by fluidity and uncertainty. This course of knowledgeable the character of relations between the in-between house and the emergent area with long-term implications. Myanmar finds itself because the in-between house between two constructed areasSouth Asia and Southeast Asia.
Myanmar: The In-Between Space
Prior to the emergence of South Asia and Southeast Asia as two distinct geographical areas or areas, Myanmar (then Burma) was on the forefront in envisioning an Asian identification in worldwide affairs. In the Forties and 50s, Burma performed a distinguished position within the conception of recent political concepts corresponding to anti-colonialism and non-alignment. Burma, together with India, spearheaded the Asian Relations Conferences to construct Asian solidarity with its first assembly held in 1947 in Delhi (Singh 2010, 9). Burma was additionally one of many 5 states (together with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia) that fashioned the Colombo Powers and supplied management in convening the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1956 (Myat 2021, 387). These pioneering initiatives laid out the groundwork for the event of the Non-Aligned Movement (Myat 2025, 123).
South Asia and Southeast Asia as particular geographical classes resulted from Cold War politics in addition to the institution of space research programmes in American universities. In the colonial interval, South Asia was extra generally often called the Indian subcontinent, whereas mainland Southeast Asia as French Indo-China and maritime Southeast Asia as Malay Archipelago. It was solely within the early Nineteen Fifties that the time period South East Asia began appearing in official paperwork. One of the early efforts in direction of region-making in Asia was the Colombo Plan of the Commonwealth nation-states. During this era, there was no clear distinction between South Asia and Southeast Asia. Similarly, when the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a collective multinational protection platform designed by the US was fashioned to forestall the unfold of communism in Southeast Asia in 1954 (Guan 2022, 189), it included states from what got here to be often called South Asia and Southeast Asia corresponding to Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand.
While South Asia and Southeast Asia are exogenous phrases,Acharya 2016, 349-350). As mentioned above, till then, regionalism tasks such because the efforts to construct an Asian regionalism led by newly impartial Asian states or the US-led SEATO had no geographical marker distinguishing the place South Asia ends and Southeast Asia begins. Myanmar was an integral half within the Asian regionalism challenge and located itself in the course of the notion of South East Asia conceived within the case of SEATO. In Southeast Asia, regionalism took form when Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaya fashioned the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA) in 1961 (Wah 2008, 1). Though the grouping couldn’t obtain a lot, it supplied the muse for the formation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that got here into existence in 1967 with the three founders of ASA together with Indonesia and Singapore, that bought its independence from Malaysia two years earlier, as members (Narine 2008, 414). Over the a long time, the membership of ASEAN has expanded and is taken into account one of the profitable regional blocs on the planet. Unlike Southeast Asia, the thought of regionalism in South Asia started solely within the Eighties. Partly impressed by the success of regional cooperation tasks corresponding to ASEAN and partly to take care of the uneven energy relations, seven nation-states got here collectively to type the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 (Chakma, 2020). Even although SAARC didn’t progress the way in which ASEAN did, it exists as a regional establishment and has expanded its membership over time.
The emergence of two regional entities, South Asia and Southeast Asia, created an in-between house with India and Bangladesh forming the japanese flank of South Asia and Thailand forming the western flank of Southeast Asia. The institutionalization within the type of ASEAN and SAARC consolidated the regionalization course of. Located on the centre of South Asia and Southeast Asia, Myanmar/Burma functioned not a lot as separating two areas within the conventional sense of enjoying the position of a buffer, however fairly as an in-between house because it discovered itself belonging both in SAARC or in ASEAN grouping and, subsequently outdoors the newly fashioned identification of the constructed areas. One of probably the most vital political developments in Myanmar because the formation of the 2 regional establishments was the 1988 pro-democracy rebellion that resulted in 1000’s of deaths within the violent navy crackdown (Severino 2006). The response of the 2 regional establishments was one in all indifference as neither ASEAN nor SAARC issued an official assertion condemning the motion of Myanmar ruling regime indicating a way of aloofness to the developments inside Myanmar. Again, in 1990 when the Myanmar navy regime ignored the primary democratic elections in 30 years and refused at hand over energy, each ASEAN and SAARC have been discovered wanting of their response as neither criticized the navy regime. Examining ASEANs place on these developments in Myanmar, a former secretary-general of ASEAN observes that Burmas Southeast Asian neighbours, besides presumably Thailand, took little discover of all this (Severino 2006, 132).
The silence of ASEAN and SAARC over the Myanmar political disaster is commonly defined by the coverage of non-interference within the inner affairs of different states. However, a better examination signifies that the first driver of the 2 blocs was regional stability (Oishi and Ghani 2016). In the adolescence, a prime goal of ASEAN was [e]nsuring regime safety during which the incumbent authorities was shielded from inner and exterior menace and this goal was pursued on the excessive price of human struggling asregional stability in Southeast Asia was predicated on secure states, sustained by secure governments(Oishi and Ghani 2016, 91).In prioritizing order and stability, Myanmars battle was seen as a safety menace that posed a problem to regional stability. Hence, Myanmar was perceived as a possible troublemaker that wanted to be saved at a distance from regional actions. Myanmar joined ASEAN as a member in 1997 and later as an observer in SAARC in 2008, the one ASEAN member to have such a standing in SAARC.
Since becoming a member of ASEAN, the worldwide communitys focus shifted on the Southeast Asian regional bloc on its position, or lack thereof, in effecting political reforms in Myanmar. One of the explanations for giving membership to Myanmar in ASEAN was with the hope that the regional bloc may assist convey inner reforms in Myanmar. To be truthful, there have been real initiatives on the a part of ASEAN to result in change in Myanmar by its constructive engagement, however such efforts have had no vital affect (Oishi and Ghani 2016). For nearly three a long time of membership in ASEAN, Myanmars never-ending inner conflicts have strengthened the picture as an outlier and a supply of polarization amongst ASEAN member-states. The non-traditional safety threats emanating from Myanmar corresponding to outflow of refugees, human trafficking, gun working, drug smuggling and the spillover results of Myanmars conflicts additional strengthened the view that Myanmar poses regional safety and stability. This additionally strengthened the notion that Myanmar was a menace to ASEAN unity and democracy (Ryu et.al 2021). As Ryu et.al (2021) argues that the continuing Myanmar disaster is probably the most critical problem to ASEAN that threatens ASEANs long-standing objective in selling regional peace and stability and warned that the failure to resolve the present Myanmar disaster may pose a long-term existential menace to ASEAN by weakening the organizations inner unity and reducing its relevance and centrality in shaping regional affairs and order.
Implications on Myanmars Identity and Its Internal Conflict
In the post-independence period, after a quick interval of enjoying an lively position in shaping the contours of worldwide and regional affairs, Myanmar abruptly withdrew from world affairs. The coming to energy of the navy within the Nineteen Sixties and its isolationist coverage are sometimes provided as causes accountable for Myanmars gradual withdrawal from worldwide engagements. Drawing from the above dialogue, the in-between house produced a picture of Myanmar as an outlier not in conformity with the regional norms and posed a menace to regional stability and identification. The implications of this notion of Myanmar in relation to ASEAN may be assessed in three phasesprior to its becoming a member of ASEAN (1967 to 1997); as a member of ASEAN (1997-2007); and post-2007 to 2021.
Myanmar is commonly described as a blackhole owing to problem in accessing data (Selth 2018). This is commonly defined by the lens of historic isolation because the Nineteen Sixties when the navy regime adopted an inward-looking coverage. However, as mentioned above, the emergence of regional establishments and the necessity to protect its identification meant that ASEAN was extra involved about regional stability and Myanmars issues have been considered as not in alignment with the regional pursuits. This negatively impacted Myanmar because the regional bloc closest to it was not inclined to acknowledge and perceive Myanmars issues, fairly its strategy was pushed by the will to restrict Myanmars conflicts to forestall it from affecting the broader area (Severino 2006, 132). Moreover, because the regional establishment turned the point of interest of worldwide engagements, Myanmars place progressively receded into the background. The consequence was that it additional remoted Myanmar and contributed to creating Myanmar and its issues invisible to the skin world.
Since becoming a member of the regional grouping, Myanmar earned the repute of being the black sheep of the ASEAN household (McCarthy 2006, 8-10). Myanmars poor human rights data and the shortcoming to maneuver ahead in its democratization course of triggered inner division inside ASEAN on the query of the best way to take care of Myanmar. This strengthened the already held view that Myanmar was a menace to ASEANs unity and democracy (Ryu et.al 2021). The tag of being the black sheep was an consequence of ASEANs concern with regard to the potential affect on its inner cohesion and worldwide picture and fewer about discovering an answer to the Myanmar disaster. For occasion, Myanmar needed to forfeit its flip to be the chair of ASEAN in 2006 due to its poor human rights document. While this was interpreted as a artistic diplomacy (Severino, 2006), the truth that Myanmar was pressured to forgo its flip was a results of ASEANs concern over its convening energy and defending its pursuits. As Yadanar-Aungminim (2021, 97) argues; ASEANs official interference and disrespect for Myanmars inner affairs happens on a case-by-case foundation, relying on the extent to which ASEANs worldwide credibility and repute are undermined.
Since the late 2000s, main occasions in Myanmar drew the worldwide communitys consideration together with the Saffron Revolution in 2007 (Selth, Andrew 2008), the dealing with of Cyclone Nargis in 2008 (Papp 2023), the Rohingya disaster in 2016-17 (Jeong 2021), and the 2020 elections adopted by the coup dtat in 2021 (Lin & Thuzar 2022) that triggered a nation-wide civil struggle. These occasions turned a supply of embarrassment and an irritant for ASEAN as its position in bringing about change in Myanmar met with little progress (Choong 2025). The regional blocs incapability to impact modifications in Myanmar and the worldwide communitys elevated deal with the deteriorating state of affairs in Myanmar additional pushed ASEAN to be on the defensive in safeguarding its worldwide standing. Thus, ASEAN has been extra involved with the institution of a typical place in direction of worldwide strain at crucial moments than the implementation of a constant strategy to Myanmars political transition (Yadanar-Aungminim 2021, 101). However, such an strategy neither served the will to keep away from Myanmar as ASEANs disgrace nor helped result in optimistic change in Myanmar.
To view Myanmar solely within the ASEAN context by its norms, rules and practices could subsequently not totally clarify or assist outline Myanmars identification nor discover a decision to its inner drawback as its in-betweenness imposes limitations on ASEAN. This is as a result of the extent of Myanmars dependency on ASEAN is influenced by the character of its in-between house. For occasion, regardless of turmoil in Myanmar, ASEAN thrives economically. As a frontier member-state of ASEAN, Myanmar shouldn’t be a barrier to regional connectivity networks or regional provide chains. Furthermore, as an economically weak state, Myanmar doesn’t endanger the financial prosperity of ASEAN and its member-states. This may very well be an element that disincentives ASEAN to take a position long-term political and financial capital find an answer in Myanmar. On the opposite hand, Myanmar enjoys a sure diploma of autonomy by advantage of its strategic location as an in-between house, it’s not fully depending on ASEAN for its survival because it has choices to hyperlink itself with different states and areas, limiting ASEANs position. The argument that Myanmars hyperlinks with China and India weakens ASEANs position (Egreteau and Jagan 2008) is one such instance. Myanmars authoritarian state has mastered in leveraging its place as an in-between house and enjoying one towards the opposite (Egreteau and Jagan 2008).Myanmars authoritarian state tends to fallback on the qualities of in-between house, what Egreteau and Jagan (2008) known as the coverage of isolationism with out isolation, that the authoritarian state derives from its strategic location.
Conclusion
Myanmar was most lively in world and regional affairs when its identification was not tied to a selected area. Taking benefit of its strategic location, Myanmar aligned its overseas coverage with India and China in constructing an Asian internationalism as demonstrated within the Bandung Conference of 1955. From this attitude, to wholly depend on ASEAN or discovering fault with the regional groupings norms and strategy in addressing the Myanmar disaster could not clarify the elemental nature of Myanmars identification and inner challenges. It could also be extra helpful to view and strategy Myanmar by the lens of in-between house. Regionalization in South Asia and Southeast Asia resulted in Myanmar embodying the qualities of in-between house because the emergent areas acquired their very own regional identities and norms the place Myanmar was considered unfit owing to its geographic location and inner challenges. This exploratory exposition affords a brand new perspective in analyzing the correlation between region-making and Myanmars inner political conflicts and its worldwide isolation to generate debate in concretizing the preliminary observations. The prospects of Myanmar shading off the qualities of in-between house look grim because the ideational, structural and institutional notions of the constructed areas are unlikely to alter within the close to future.
Like areas, in-between areas are additionally constructed. With the introduction of the idea of subregions, the notion of areas has been reimagined as new groupings emerged within the type of the Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC) or the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), with membership from each South Asia and Southeast Asia. However, these subregional frameworks should not an alternative choice to the prevailing regional establishments; at finest they play complementary roles as land-bridges to attach the 2 areas. Hence, the existence of subregional establishments doesn’t have an effect on main modifications both on the degree of notion or on the bottom. Geopolitical modifications have the potential of re-configuring areas, and new financial integration tasks rework in-between areas into gateways and connectivity corridors. From this attitude, in-between areas are full of recent prospects and within the context of recent regional constructs such because the Indo-Pacific area, it is going to be attention-grabbing to see how such areas will form the constructed in-between areas.
References
Acharya, Amitav. 2016. Studying the Bandung convention from a Global IR perspective. Australian Journal of International Affairs 70, no. 4: 342357. 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. Malaysias 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 Burmas 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, SingaporeIssue 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 areas. Mediterranean Politics 25, no. 6 (October): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2019.1681733.
Myat, Sint Sint. 2021. Explaining Myanmars Policy of Non-Alignment: An Analytic Eclecticism Approach.Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 40. No. 3: 379399. 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 historic assessment. 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 Inuence the Conduct of the Government in Intrastate Conict: 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, Bendegz 2023. An Analysis of ASEANs Cyclone Nargis 2008 Disaster Diplomacy. Asian International Studies Review 24: 122. 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. Burmas saffron revolution and the bounds of worldwide affect. Australian Journal of International Affairs 62. Issue 3: 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357710802286742
Selth, Andrew 2018. MyanmarWatching: Problems and Perspectives. Regional Outlook Paper No. 58: Griffith Asia Institute.
Severino, Rodolfo C. 2006. Southeast Asia in quest of an ASEAN Community: Insights from the previous ASEAN Secretary-General, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Singh, Sinderpal, 2010. From Asia to Asia-Pacific: Indian Political Elites and Changing Conceptions of Indias 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, 66836711. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/heritage7120309.
Wah, Chin Kin. 2008. ASEAN: The lengthy highway 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
Further Reading on E-International Relations
- Opinion Myanmar Needs Actions, Not Words
- The Military Coup in Myanmar: Back to the Normality of Autocracy?
- Opinion Saving Myanmar?
- Opinion Myanmar, ASEAN and the Responsibility to Protect
- Opinion Beijings Position on the Myanmar Coup
- Buddhist Nationalism and Extremism in Myanmar and North America
About The Author(s)
Ok. Yhomeis Senior Fellow and Editor with Asian Confluence, a public coverage suppose tank primarily based in Shillong in Northeast India. His major analysis curiosity centres round regional diplomacy, subregionalism, paradiplomacy and borderland research with a selected deal with Southern Asia and the broader Asian geopolitics. He has revealed analysis articles in reputed worldwide journals.
Editorial Credit(s)
Manishita Das
Tags
MyanmarSouth AsiaSoutheast Asia