Myanmar presents a perplexing case of a state that played a prominent role in global and regional affairs soon after its independence from colonial rule, but today it is mired in protracted internal conflicts and struggles to remain visible internationally. There is no dearth of literature elucidating the entrenched nature of Myanmar’s complex conflict dynamics and its ties with the outside world. Despite the rich body of work on Myanmar’s prolonged conflicts and its external role and engagements, a dimension that has not received much attention in existing literature is: How the emergence of regions impacted Myanmar’s identity and its internal conflict dynamics? This article views Myanmar through the lens of ‘in-between space’ and explores the process of regionalism in the making of ‘in-between space’ and the impacts of ‘in-betweenness.’ The notion of ‘in-between space’ is employed in various disciplines such as in the field of architecture, where ‘in-between spaces’ are viewed as ‘transitional spaces’ (Tzortzi 2024, 6685-6686) that lie on the boundary of two spaces, where the edge blurs the boundary between spaces. Similarly, in anthropology, the term ‘liminality’ describes an ‘in-between state’ of an entity that transforms into a new entity. In International Relations, the notion of ‘in-between space’ is used in the context of borderlands and frontiers between nation-states where sovereignty is contested and the line dividing role and responsibility blurs (Meier 2019, 3-4).

In the context of ‘regional worlds’, the ‘in-between spaces’ are byproducts of region-making lying between proximate geographies that are divided into separate regions. By virtue of geographical location, ‘in-between spaces’ are often at the periphery of regions far from political and economic centres that also allow certain independence and options. Furthermore, the process of institutionalizing regions gives distinct regional identities and establishment of regional norms, values, and practices consolidate the ‘othering’ of proximate regions, this in turn creates the ‘frontiering’ of the ‘in-between space.’ In the case of ‘Southeast Asia’, the emergence of regional institutions in the form of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with its own norms and practices created an identity different from other neighbouring regions. This process produced ‘in-between spaces’ that can be described as outliers often characterized by fluidity and uncertainty. This process informed the nature of relations between the ‘in-between space’ and the emergent region with long-term implications. Myanmar finds itself as the ‘in-between space’ between two constructed regions––‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’.

Myanmar: The ‘In-Between Space’

Prior to the emergence of ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ as two distinct geographical spaces or regions, Myanmar (then Burma) was at the forefront in envisioning an Asian identity in international affairs. In the 1940s and ‘50s, Burma played a prominent role in the conception of new political ideas such as ‘anti-colonialism’ and ‘non-alignment’. Burma, along with India, spearheaded the Asian Relations Conferences to build Asian solidarity with its first meeting held in 1947 in Delhi (Singh 2010, 9). Burma was also one of the five states (along with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia) that formed the Colombo Powers and provided leadership in convening the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1956 (Myat 2021, 387). These pioneering initiatives laid out the groundwork for the development of the Non-Aligned Movement (Myat 2025, 123).

‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ as specific geographical categories resulted from Cold War politics as well as the establishment of area studies programmes in American universities. In the colonial period, ‘South Asia’ was more commonly known as the ‘Indian subcontinent’, while mainland Southeast Asia as ‘French Indo-China’ and maritime Southeast Asia as ‘Malay Archipelago.’ It was only in the early 1950s that the term ‘South East Asia’ began to appear in official documents. One of the early efforts towards region-making in Asia was the Colombo Plan of the Commonwealth nation-states. During this period, there was no clear distinction between ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia.’ Similarly, when the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), a collective multinational defense platform designed by the US was formed to prevent the spread of communism in Southeast Asia in 1954 (Guan 2022, 189), it included states from what came to be known as ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ such as Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand.

While ‘South Asia’ and ‘Southeast Asia’ are exogenous terms, Acharya 2016, 349-350). As discussed above, until then, regionalism projects such as the efforts to build an “Asian regionalism” led by newly independent Asian states or the US-led SEATO had no geographical marker distinguishing where ‘South Asia’ ends and ‘Southeast Asia’ begins. Myanmar was an integral part in the Asian regionalism project and found itself in the middle of the notion of ‘South East Asia’ conceived in the case of SEATO. In Southeast Asia, regionalism took shape when Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaya formed the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA) in 1961 (Wah 2008, 1). Though the grouping could not achieve much, it provided the foundation for the formation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that came into existence in 1967 with the three founders of ASA along with Indonesia and Singapore, that got its independence from Malaysia two years earlier, as members (Narine 2008, 414). Over the decades, the membership of ASEAN has expanded and is considered one of the most successful regional blocs in the world. Unlike Southeast Asia, the idea of regionalism in South Asia began only in the 1980s. Partly inspired by the success of regional cooperation projects such as ASEAN and partly to deal with the asymmetric power relations, seven nation-states came together to form the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 (Chakma, 2020). Even though SAARC did not progress........

© E-International