DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.180525.1 ISSN: 2046-1402

‘Saffron Washing’ and Foreign Policy Dilemmas: Assessing the Influence of Systemic Stimuli and Sub-Unit Level Variables

Bama Andika Putra, Nguyen Tuan Binh
Show PDF Cite
Background What explains Myanmar’s contemporary alignment preferences that lean to China? The continued reliance on China is puzzling, considering that China displayed its support towards the Myanmar military’s armed opposition forces in the first two years after the 2021 coup. Framed as a foreign policy anomaly, this study aims to provide an alternative interpretation of Myanmar’s external outlook. Methods This qualitative explanatory study bridges Ripsman, Lobell, and Taliaferro’s analytical framework of the type II neoclassical realism and assesses the relevance of the following independent and intervening variables as influencing the foreign policy anomaly: 1) Systemic stimuli (power and position in the international system, structural modifiers, relative material capabilities, clarity of threat, strategic environment); and 2) Sub-unit variables (leader images, strategic culture, state-society relations, domestic institutions). The period assessed is the post-2021 Myanmar coup period through 2025. Results Systemic stimuli limit the electable foreign policy options in the case of Myanmar-China ties. The considerable differences in military and defense capacities between China and Myanmar, coupled with the growing reliance on China’s military supplies, eventually shape a unique level of interaction that leads to continued reliance on and neglect of divergent interests from the past. Meanwhile, the sub-unit-level variables reveal the unique evolution of the Myanmar leader’s image towards China, which shifted from harboring animosity to positive sentiments due to the presumption of economic and military ties after 2023. Conclusion The independent and intervening variables of neoclassical realism allow for a more nuanced interpretation of assessing Myanmar’s contemporary ties with China. However, some variables, such as strategic culture, state-society relations, and domestic institutions, have limited capacity to impact foreign policy decisions.

More from our Archive