2. Chief Advisor: Prof. Dr. Anek Laothamatas
Editor : Ms.Yuwadee Kardkarnklai
Editorial team : Panat Thongpoung and Thitirat Rusangiam
Cover image: https://www.shutterstock.com/th/video/clip-18787589-flags-countries-around
-world-flying
Published : December 2018
Find more at www.rsu-brain.com
Contact us
Klangpanya Institute for National Strategies, College of Government, Rangsit
University 637/1 Prompun 1 Building, Fl.4, Ladproa Rd., Jatujak District, Bangkok,
10900 Tel. (+66) 2933-8826 Fax. (+66) 2938-8864
3. Editor’s Talk
As diversed as our international system is, this issue of “World Think
Tank Monitor” has specially wide range of contents, spanning from theoreti-
cal discussion to issue-based analysis, covering from Alexander Wendt’s
neorealism concept of anarchy in IR to the issues of Rohingya in Myanmar
and China-African countries relations. In the issue we are not only present
analyses of world important events from the eyes of world think tanks as
usual, but also the academic papers from the minds of Chinese scholars
from prominent Chinese university.
Please enjoy our content.
Yuwadee Kardkarnklai
Editor
4. CONTENTS
Page
Editor’s Talk 3
Anarchy is What States Make of It 5
Man Fu ( ), College of International Studies, National University of
Defense and Technology. Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Singapore's Strategic Thinking and Its Defense Culture 12
Xiaodong Yang ( ), College of International Studies, National University of
Defense and Technology. Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
The Main Reasons of the Rohingya Crisis and Its Influence
on Myanmar 16
Yuqiao Nie ( ) and Qun Yu ( ), Nanjing Normal University, Jiangsu, China
The Importance of Eurasia in the 21st
Century (Thai) 21
Panat Toungpoung, Klangpanya Institute for National Strategies and Rector
RCEP: ASEAN Centrality :
the way out from China-US trade war? (Thai) 24
Plaifah Bunnag, Klangpanya Institute for National Strategies and Rector
The 2018 Beijing Summit of Forum for China-Africa
Cooperation and the catching up of the US (Thai) 26
Khobtham Neelapaijit, Klangpanya Institute for National Strategies and Rector
The Economic shift of Central Asia
from Russia towards China (Thai) 28
Panat Toungpoung, Klangpanya Institute for National Strategies and Rector
Japan vs. China Investment in the Mekong Region (Thai) 31
Thitirat Rusangiam, Klangpanya Institute for National Strategies and Rector
5. 5 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
ทีมา ภาพ
http://
Anarchy is What States Make of It
Man Fu
College of International Studies,
National University of Defense
and Technology
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
1. Introduction
Alexander Wendt is a leading
representative theorist of constructivism,
whose constructivist ideas originated in the
late 1980s, and drew the attention of
different schools of international politics in
the 1990s. In his 1992 essay Anarchy is
What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics, Wendt put
forward the famous proposition “anarchy is
what states make of it”, which means “the
states decide what anarchy will be
like” (Weber, 2014, p68). According to
Wendt, “anarchy is neither necessarily
conflictual nor cooperative. There is no
nature to international anarchy” (ibid). “It
is only through the interaction of state
agents that the structure of the international
system is produced, reproduced and
sometimes transformed.” (Wendt, 1999,
p366)
Alexander Wendt is right that
“anarchy is what states make of it”. To
defend this proposition, the first part of the
essay will be devoted to examining the
reason in Wendt’s claim that states can and
do shape the international structure of
anarchy and investigating the most
differentiating highlight of constructivism
separating it from the previous
methodologies. The second part
investigates the contribution and limitation
of Wendt’s thesis. The last section looks far
ahead into the future landscape of
international system in Wendt’s
constructivist perspective.
2. Anarchy in the perspective of Wendt’s
constructivism
A social structure provides states
more space to influence their environment,
and states in turn will be influenced by en-
vironment. Alexander Wendt’s prominent
myth “anarchy is what states make of it”
catches this thought. States in anarchy can
not change their circumstances out of a
sudden. Instead, relationships among states
develop and evolve over a period of time.
6. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 6
ทีมา ภาพ
http://
States are not necessarily conflictual or
cooperative. The USA and the UK have
developed as companions and partners,
whereas the USA and the DPRK are
adversaries. Many of the member states
inside the EU are previous foes having
figured out how to coordinate. Relationship
are a result of an historic procedure and
interaction after some time (Dunne, Kurki
and Smith, 2013).
To demonstrate this, Wendt illustrates
with an instance of two actors without
earlier social contact, both of whom want
to guarantee their persistent survival. His
case is two space aliens’ arrival to earth.
Wendt asks, “Would we assume, a prior,
that we were about to be attacked if we are
ever contacted by members of an alien
civilization? I think not” (Wendt, 1992,
p405). Of course, we would be wary, he
contends, however we would presumably
not have any desire to give off an
impression of being threatening to the
outsiders unless we sense menace from
them first, as we want “to avoid make an
immediate enemy out of what may be a
dangerous adversary” (ibid). Through a
series of social signals and gestures, we
would figure out if the aliens are
conflictually or cooperatively.
Significantly, Wendt argues “we do not
begin our relationship with the aliens in a
security dilemma; security dilemmas are
not given by anarchy or nature” (Wendt,
1992, p407).
Social interactions of states are no
exception. Wendt (ibid, pp404-405)
expounds the point with the instance of
“alter” and “ego”. Wendt refers to two
states as “alter” and “ego”. It would be odd
for the two states who meet for the first
time to assume the worst mutually. “Social
threats are constructed, not natural” (ibid,
p405). Before mutual social interactions,
social threat does not exist. What generate
collective meanings such as social threats
are identities, which “are produced in and
through ‘situated activity’” (ibid).
In this specific situated activity, sup
pose states’ sole prior interest is survival,
then this implies making a social threat is
not a priori in the interest of a state. A
social threat may be chosen to make by an
“alter” state, or the action of the alter may
be interpreted by the “ego” as a menace.
Be that as it may, without preceding social
interaction, “alter” and “ego” are not in a
security dilemma. Desire for survival does
not necessarily mean states will behave
conflicually, nor does their interest for
survival ensure they will cooperate. The
interactions between states decides their
relationships, be it cooperative or
conflictual. Each exercise is a choice in the
development trend of the mutual
relationship. Choice, however, is not
boundless. “Alter” and “ego” exist together
within a framework of social relationship,
and one’s choice is somewhat subject to
the reaction of the other. The choice space
can in this manner be considered as a mu-
tual constitution. (Weber, 2014).
Instead of attaching importance to the
limitation of structures, constructivists pay
attention to the constitutive role of
collective norms and the relationship
7. 7 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
ทีมา ภาพ
http://
between states and structure (Wendt,
1987). The focus of international politics is
the characterized identity constructed by
the social, political, cultural circumstances
in which they are embedded. They are not
unalterable but they are continuously
evolving with their mutual interactions, as
well as their interaction with their
environment. (Dunne, Kurki and Smith,
2013).
For states in the anarchy, once the
signal from one state is interpreted by the
other as a threat and the other state gives tit
for tat and send a threatening signal too,
the security dilemma will be generated.
Security dilemma, however, is not inherent
in anarchy. It is also constructed by social
interactions. As Sheldon Stryker (1987,
p93) illustrates, “The social process is one
of constructing and reconstructing self and
social relationships”. “If states find
themselves in a self-help system, this is
because their practices made it that way.
Changing the practices will change the
intersubjective knowledge that constitutes
the system” (Wendt, 1992, p407).
It is from this sense of emphasizing
the initiative of the actor, Wendt draws the
conclusion “anarchy is what states make of
it”. Therefore, anarchy would include
several logic manners, rather than
presenting as a single logic manner. Since
actors’ social interaction construct their
identities and interests, which are not
unalterable. During the interaction, shared
norms on “alter” and “ego” are constructed
among actors. The mutual identity of foes
or partners are established, and then the
boundary of interests.
Different boundaries would generate
varied security systems, forming a
consecutive spectrum. In “competitive”
security system, “states identify negatively
with each other’s security so that ego’s
gain is seen as alter’s loss” (Wendt, 1992,
p400). “Individualistic” security system is
in the middle, in which, states tend to be
indifferent to the mutually security
relationship. These two forms of anarchy
are characterized with “self-help” “in the
sense that states do not positively identify
the security of self with that of others but
instead treat security as the individual
responsibility of each” (ibid). At the other
end is “cooperative” security system, in
which states attach importance to mutual
security, and consider the security of each
state as the responsibility of all states.
Later Wendt further conceptualizes
the above mentioned safety systems
respectively into three ideal modes of
anarchy, or three kinds of anarchy cultures
and there are Hobbesian anarchy, Lockean
anarchy and Kantian anarchy (Wendt,
1999, p257). Hostility is the core of
Hobbesian anarchy and therefore its logic
is “war of all against all”. Since violent
conflict is a path for survival, states
consider each other as enemies and war is
common. The orientation of enemy is
constructed by the representation of the
alter, and this kind of representation shape
the alter as an actor with the following
characteristics: reluctant to recognize ego’s
right to exist as an independent actor;
reluctant to limit the scope to use violence
8. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 8
ทีมา ภาพ
http://
on ego. According to Wendt, Hobbesian
culture had a domination among the system
of states until the 17th century (Jackson
and Sorensen, 2013, p216). The second
type of ideal culture is Lockean anarchy,
whose core is competition. According to
Lockean anarchy, states view each other as
rivals, and this is constructed thought the
representation of alter and ego’s involving
in violence behaviors. This kind of
representation, however, does not pose a
threatening gesture. Rivals, different from
enemies, do not aim at annihilating each
other, rather, they show respect for the
existence right of the other states. Kantian
anarchy, however, is characterized by
friendship and states consider each other as
friends, seeking to solve disputes in
peaceful manner, and supporting other
states at the threatening of a third party
(Wendt, 1999). Pluralistic security
community and collective security capture
this logic. In the pluralistic security
community, the collective knowledge of
mutual peace shared by states denies the
legality of war as means of dispute
settlement. Disputes should be solved in
other ways, namely, constructing the
system of collective security. In the
collective security system, military strength
of a state is not a potential threat, but the
wealth of its own security. Here,
individuality and collectivity harmonize
with each other in this system.
Wendt’s proposition is insightful and
useful to throw light on normative issues
on identity, and by extension, on issues of
cooperation between states (Ruggie, 1998).
For example, US relations with Egypt and
the People’s Republic of China are quite
different from its relations with Canada and
France, which is not just for security
reasons, but because the latter two states
share a common identity with the USA
while the first two do not. (Brown and
Ainley, 2009)
To be specific, European cooperation
can serve as a vivid example in defending
Wendt’s proposition. Cooperation in
foreign policy is not solely the
consideration of national interests, rather,
social interactions are also influential
factor. “The results of national diplomacies
intentionally and unintentionally
communicating to themselves and to each
other their intents and perceptions of
political cooperation” (Glarbo, 1999,
p635). Further cooperation will be
achieved through intersubjective
knowledge established by social
interaction. Put it another way, European
Union Member States may not reach
consensus on significant issues of foreign
policy, however, common perspectives and
mutual cooperation would be promoted
through their daily practices of political
coordination. Just as Glarbon (1999, p636)
puts: “Integration does prevail within
European political cooperation, or at least
within the CFEP of recent years, even if
this does not totally refute the importance
of national interest. Despite interest,
however, constructivist theory argues that
political cooperation leaves room for a
social integration that stems from
diplomatic communication processes set up
through political cooperation history, and
which is not easily discernible from the
9. 9 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
ทีมา ภาพ
http://
intergovernmentalist formal codes of
CFSP”.
3. Contribution and Limitations of
Wendt’s proposition
By logical reasoning, Wendt falsifies
anarchy is the first push in international
relations, showing that there are no
necessarily cause-effect connection
between self-help, power politics and
anarchy. On this basis, he further points out
“anarchy is what states make of it”.
Anarchy is a category of cultural
factor, and “anarchy is what states make of
it” is an important contribution to the
development of international relations
theory by Wendt. Self-help, power politics
and anarchy are made by social practices,
which are the result of social practices.
Rationalism theory has materialized
anarchy, liberating it from materialization
and endows it with cultural connotations. It
emphasizes the social practices and
initiative functions’ making of meaning
structure as open structure, which makes
the change of this kind of meaning
structure possible.
Culture of the international system is
constructed by state actors, who plays vital
role in initiative function. Realists criticize
the idealist color of Wendt’s theory.
However, without ideals about
international relations, using our initiative
to move toward the direction diligently is
impossible. Therefore, we have nothing to
do but let the anarchy of realism to control
the fate of international relations, making
the country always wandering in the
thinking of the Cold War.
Wendt’s anarchic logic reasoning is
rigorous and careful. According to Wendt,
anarchy’s nature and contents are
constructed through interactions and
practices of actors. Therefore, Wendt put
forward the notable assertion: “anarchy is
what states make of it”. According to this
same reasoning, the three modes of
anarchy cultures should be constructed and
existed roughly in the same rate. However,
throughout the history of international
relations, realistic anarchic system with
political power as the basic characteristics
seems to be more common. According to
Wendt’s own understanding, Hobbesian
culture dominated history before the 7th
century and the world since the 7th century
has witnessed the dominance of Lockean
culture. The future world may develop to a
world dominated by Kantian culture.
Therefore, most of the time in the history
are dominated by Hobbesian culture. In
addition, even in Lockean anarchy period,
the two world wars seemed to violate the
rules of Lockean anarchy defined by Wendt
since in the two wars, states hoped to
eliminate each other and they had turned to
uncontrolled violence. Even today, though
Lockean culture dominates the world,
states still quite often “fall down” to
Hobbesian culture. May be that’s why
neorealism considers the competitive
anarchy it defines as an eternal logic in the
international system, and also the reason
for neoliberalism’s accepting this logic
without doubt. Although Wendt argues that
anarchy belongs to the category of culture,
which is a social product having more than
a single logic. However, the frequent
10. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 10
ทีมา ภาพ
http://
dominance of Hobbesian culture presents a
question: why it seems as if Hobbesian
culture is easier to make in the
international system, and self-help and
power politics are easier to be embraced?
Wendt has not made a pellucid explanation
and constructivism also lacks of empirical
research in this field. This is one of the
liabilities of Wendt and constructivism in
dealing with anarchy.
4. Conclusion
Alexander Wendt is right that
“anarchy is what states make of it”.
Through parsing anarchy, Wendt endows
anarchy with new connotations. The
original material structure building which
is considered to be unalterable and above
the actors began to shake. Anarchy which
is assumed by Neorealism as unalterable
becomes the object of questioning, and the
starting point of logical analysis. Anarchy
is the product of states’ interactions, the
consequences of which is the state’s
understanding of it. Actors’ interactions
and practices lead to different kinds of
anarchy. Self-help and power politics are
constructed by social interaction of actors,
which is not the necessary result of
anarchy, nor the unescapable doom of the
actor. The international system is not only
material, but also social. International
relations are an epitome of social relations.
Interactions among people can establish
different social relations. “States are people
too” (Wendt, 1999, p215), which also have
aspirations and beliefs. This kind of social
categories has a reflective mode of
thinking. Therefore, Wendt brings the
actor’s motivation theory lacking by the
neorealist into the international system.
The international system is activated
through the internalization of the
motivation. Anarchy is not the
constitutional characteristic of the
international system, but the social
characteristic. World system’s landscape is
no longer drab, pessimistic, rather, it has
been endowed with several possibilities.
Neorealism’s depiction of the international
system is just a small part of the picture
scroll of the history of international system.
A panoramic view of the international
system is the space combination of
Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian anarchy
cultures, which is evolved through the
transformation of system.
11. 11 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
Bibliography
Brown, C. and Ainley K. (2009).
Understanding International Relations, 4th
ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan Press.
Dunne, T, Kurki, M and Smith, S. (2013).
International Relations Theories:
Displacing and Diversity, 3rd ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Glarbo, K. (1999). Wide-Awake
Diplomacy: Reconstructing the Common
Foreign and Security Policy of the
European Union. Journal of European
Public Policy, 6 (4), 634-652.
Jackson R. and Sorensen G. (2013).
Introduction to International Relations:
Theories and Approaches, 5th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). Constructing the
World Polity. London: Routledge Press.
Silberstein S. (2002). War of Words:
Language, Politics and 9/11. London:
Routledge Press.
Stryker, S. (1987). The Vitalization of
Symbolic Interactionism. Social
Psychology Quarterly 50 (3), 93.
Wendt, A. (1987). The Agent-Structure
Problem in International Relations.
International Organization, 41(3), 335-370.
——(1999). Social Theory of International
Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
——(1992). Anarchy is What States Make
of It: The Social Construction of Power
Politics. International Organization, 46(2),
391-425.
Weber C. (2014). International Relations
Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York:
Routledge Press.
12. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 12
Singapore's Strategic Thinking
and Its Defense Culture
Xiaodong Yang
College of International Studies,
National University of Defense and Technology
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Despite its short history as an
independent state, Singapore, the “pocket
country” of ASEAN——has scored
remarkable and unique achievements in
national development and foreign relations.
This paper intends to conduct a brief
analysis of Singapore's unique strategic
thinking and the characteristics of its
diplomacy.
Strategic thinking refers to the thinking
process (analysis, synthesis, judgment,
foresight, and decision-making) of an
individual or group concerning the overall,
long-term, and fundamentally important
issues . Its formation is a very complicated
process, and influenced by many factors. In
general, geographical environment,
historical memory, political culture, etc. are
the main factors that influence the
formation of strategic thinking.
Michael Leifer, an authority on
Southeast Asian studies , believes that "due
to Singapore's geography, history and the
particularity of its environment, when
discussing its foreign policy, it cannot be
regarded as a 'small country' diplomacy in
the general sense. The innate vulnerability
borne out of its geopolitical environment
has set the tone of its foreign policy since
its independence."
Singapore's geography proves a
priceless asset though it also begets trouble.
The founding of the country was full of
hardships and twists and turns. Located on
the southernmost tip of the Malay
Peninsula, the Republic of Singapore is
made up of Singapore Island and 57 nearby
islands with a total area of 647.5 square
kilometers. It faces the Malay Peninsula on
the north side of the Johor Strait, the
Singapore Strait across the south, Sumatra
on the south, the South China Sea on the
east, and the Indian Ocean on the west via
the Straits of Malacca. Because of its
strategic location, it is the hub of traffic
between the Pacific Ocean and the Indian
Ocean. It controls the shipping line through
the Straits of Malacca. It was chosen by
Thomas Stamford Raffles in 1819 to set up
a commercial base, which started its history
of 140 years as a British colony.
The special geographical location,
coupled with the British free trade policy,
has jointly promoted Singapore as an
important port city and a trade hub between
east and west, attracting a large number of
Chinese, Indians and Malays to settle here.
After decades of development, Singapore
has developed from a sparsely populated
island to an open and diverse immigrant
society dominated by Chinese, Malays and
Indians.
13. 13 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
In July 1826, Singapore, Malacca and
Penang formed the British Straits
Settlements. In 1867, the Straits
Settlements became a royal colony. In
1941, due to its important strategic
position, Singapore became the target of
the Japanese army's southward campaign.
However, Singapore is small in size and it
is said that the aircraft will take only three
minutes to travel through Singapore.
Moreover, resources are extremely scarce.
"In addition to air being self-sufficient, all
resources, including freshwater, are
dependent on imports." After Japan’s
occupation of Malaya, it cut off the Johor
water supply to Singapore, forcing 130,000
British troops to surrender to 60,000
Japanese troops . From 1942 to 1945, the
Japanese army occupied Singapore and
changed its name to "Showan Island."
After the Japanese surrender, the UK
returned to Singapore. Given that
Singapore is the seat of the empire's Far
East Command, it has the largest and most
complex military vessel maintenance base
in the Far East, and can provide base
services for the British Air Force and Army
in any part of the Far East. Maintaining a
military presence in Singapore is to ensure
that the United Kingdom is in the Far East,
a prerequisite for its strategic status."
Therefore, the British government wants to
maintain the identity of the Singapore
colony forever, making it a permanent
military base in the Far East. However, the
anti-colonial sentiment in Singapore Island
was soaring and the UK was forced to give
in. Since 1956, Singapore and the United
Kingdom had been holding negotiations
on independence. In 1959, the United
Kingdom agreed to establish a limited
autonomous government in Singapore. In
May 1962, Singapore and the Malayan
government reached a merger agreement.
In September 1963, Singapore became one
of the 14 member states of the Malaysian
Federation. However, because Singapore
had joined the Malaysian Federation with a
history of too independent and too
deep-rooted social and political traditions
to adapt to the role of a subordinate state
controlled by Malaya, so a mere 23 months
later, Singapore and Malaysia parted ways.
On August 9, 1965, it left the Union of
Malaysia and became an independent state.
“An unpleasant merger with Malaysia
is the background and constraint for
Singapore’s independence as a new
independent country.” Singapore’s
independence is not based on its own
efforts, but is “kicked out” from Malaysia
Federation. This has given Singapore, a
young country, a stronger sense of
independence and sovereignty than other
countries. In order to gain the recognition
of the international community, since its
establishment, Singapore has actively
demonstrated itself on the international
stage, so that it often appears as an ASEAN
spokesperson. During Vietnam’s invasion
of Cambodia, Singapore played a leading
role in ASEAN, the United Nations and the
Non-Aligned Movement to mobilize
international public opinion against
Vietnam. As for the violation of the
sovereignty of other countries in
international relations, Singapore feels the
same and does not fear power. Singapore is
the most determined opposition to
Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the
invasion of Grenada by the United States,
and the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam.
Due to lack of resources, Singapore's
survival after independence is very
difficult, and its economic lifeline relies
mostly on entrepot trade. In order to
maximize economic benefits and maintain
its own survival, Singapore does not
distinguish friend and foe by ideology.
Instead it maintains a non-aligned position,
and avoids involvement in any conflict.
14. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 14
During the Cold War, Singapore did not
join either bloc and maintained a relatively
good relationship with the East and West
camps. Singapore attaches great
importance to its relationship with big
powers. It believes that multiple powers
appear in Southeast Asia, which can
balance each other and limit the countries
with regional ambitions. Therefore, the
existence of power in Southeast Asia is a
guarantee for regional and national
security.
Since Singapore cannot escape the
“geographically harsh reality”, relations
with Malaysia and Indonesia “are always
placed at the highest political level” in
Singapore's foreign relations. The
resentment between Singapore and
Malaysia determines the particularity of
the relationship between the two. The Sin-
gapore-Malaysia relationship is the most
important part of Singapore’s foreign poli-
cy and the basis for its participation in re-
gional affairs. In the geographical position
of Indonesia, the largest country in South-
east Asia, Singapore attaches great im-
portance to the relationship between Sin-
gapore and Indonesia, and sometimes even
beyond the relationship between Singa-
pore and Malaysia. For example, on the is-
sue of establishing diplomatic rela-
tions with China, Singapore made it clear
that it must establish diplomatic rela-
tions with China later than Indonesia.
Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of
Singapore for thirty years, is undoubtedly
the pioneer and founder of Singapore’s
political culture. Lee Kuan Yew grew up in
the atmosphere of traditional culture, and
because of his education experience in the
west, he is strongly influenced by western
culture. He enabled Eastern and Western
cultures to blend in Singapore and gave
birth to Singapore’s unique strategic
thinking. Influenced by the Confucian
culture, Lee Kuan Yew's style of
administration can be summed up as
practical and rational. In addition,
Confucianism has always advocated
“thinking of danger in times of peace”, and
the sense of concern is not only the
spiritual support for the continuation of the
People’s Action Party’s governing status,
but also the inner basis of the Party's
ruling idea. Lee Kuan Yew is also a
pragmatist who is convinced of power
politics. He believes that international
politics follows the “law of the jungle”, so
in order to seek Singapore’s space for
survival and development, it must achieve
the balance of power in the region by
introducing various big countries outside
the region. Lee Kuan Yew once said: “We
must position ourselves properly, and at the
same time encourage the influence of
major powers to be in balance and give us
the maximum space for action and choice.”
Meanwhile, he believes that Singapore
must combine flexible and pragmatic
foreign policy with the strengthening of its
power because only when its foreign policy
is supported by its national power can
Singapore achieve real diplomatic success.
Under the influence of the
above-mentioned strategic thinking,
Singapore's defense strategy is unique and
can be summarized as “deterrence” +
“cooperation”, namely the famous
“poisonous shrimp theory” and “fish school
theory”.The "Poisonous Shrimp Theory"
represents the deterrent view of Singapore's
strategic culture. Due to Singapore’s
important strategic position, it is inevitably
threatened by external forces. However,
there is no strategic depth in the land of
Singapore. No matter how advanced the
economy is, how powerful the military is, it
is actually vulnerable. Therefore,
Singapore believes that "we should be like
a poisonous shrimp, with bright colors to
warn others: we are poisonous." That is to
say, Singapore must strengthen its military
15. 15 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
power to effectively deter the enemy. “Fish
Group Theory” is a concept of cooperation
in Singapore's strategic culture. Singapore
believes that the international community is
like the sea, the big countries in the US and
Russia are big fish, and Singapore is a
small fish. The best way to avoid being
eaten by the big fish is to seek refuge in a
group of fish. In the practice of Singapore's
"Fish Group Theory", the five-nation joint
defense organization and the ASEAN
organization constitute the two major fish
groups.
16. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 16
The Main Reasons of
the Rohingya Crisis
and Its Influence on Myanmar
Yuqiao Nie and Qun Yu
Abstract: In recent years, the prob-
lem of the Rohingya people in Rakhine
State in Myanmar has become more and
more prominent and has rapidly risen to
become a major political security issue in
the Indo-Pacific region. The Rohingya
issue has a profound background. In the
colonial period, the history of Britain's
Burmese ethnic policy was the historical
reason. It also contributed to the extreme
national policy of the successive govern-
ments of Myanmar. More importantly, the
current democratically elected government
of Myanmar continued the national poli-
cy of the military government. The Roh-
ingya issue has an all-round impact on
Myanmar's internal affairs, diplomacy and
security.
Keywords: Myanmar, Rohingya,
national transformation
In recent years, Myanmar has
successfully held two general elections and
achieved peaceful power takeover, but
ethnic conflicts have always plagued
political reconciliation and national
development. Since 2017, the Rohingya
crisis in Rakhine State has been rapidly
upgraded and become a major worry for
the Myanmar government. It has also risen
to a regional and even global hotspot.
1. The profound and complicated
background of the Rohingya crisis
The Rohingya Crisis integrates
historical grievances, ethnic contradictions,
religious conflicts, interest disputes and
many other factors into one, which is
intertwined and complicated. The root
cause can be summarized as the
following reasons:
1.1 During the colonial period, the
use of Muslims against Buddhists in the
Rakhine region is the most important his-
torical reason.
The Rakhine area was an independent
Arakan kingdom before it was
17. 17 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
incorporated into the Burmese territory.
Thanks to its important geographical
location, the Kingdom once controlled the
maritime trade in the Bay of Bengal,
attracting a large number of Arab and
Persian Muslims to move here. These
Muslims are the ancestors of the Rohingya
people.
In 1785, Myanmar annexed it. In
1824, the United Kingdom launched the
first British-Burmese war, occupying the
Rakhine region and the Tanah Sarin region.
British colonists moved from the
Chittagong and other areas to the
wasteland of the Bengali reclaimed area,
and hoped to change the local population
structure and facilitate colonial rule by
supporting the new immigrants to the
Muslims to compress the living space of
the Buddhists. This policy has received the
expected results. In the past 100 years, the
Muslim population in the Rakhine region
has increased tenfold, and the Buddhists
have been forced to migrate a lot.
The British policy has laid the seeds
of ethnic conflicts in the Rakhine region,
and the conflicts during the Second World
War began to intensify. In order to prevent
Japan from attacking India through the
Rakhine region, the British organized an
armed force composed of Rakhine
Muslims to fight against the Japanese.
However, this Muslim army not only
targeted the Japanese army, but also
pointed the gun at the Rakhine Buddhists
and used the war to destroy the Buddhist
ruins. This made the conflict between the
Buddhists and the Muslims worsened.
1.2 The extreme ethnic policies of the
successive governments of Myanmar and
the Rohingya separatism are also
important reasons for the intensification of
this problem.
Although the founding father of
Myanmar, General Aung San, did not
invite the Rohingya who had been enemies
with him when he held the Panglong
meeting, according to the idea of Aung
San’s national state, Rohingya should have
equal status with other minorities. In 1947,
General Aung San was assassinated. In the
early days of his administration, Wu Nu
recognized that the Rohingya people were
one of the inhabitants of Burma, giving
them certain political power and status, but
gradually changed their positions. After
Ne Win took office in 1962, the Rohingya
people were alleged to be Bangladeshi
Illegally emigrated to Burma during the
British colonial rule.The government
refused to recognize their citizenship and
took measures to expel them. In March
1978, Myanmar launched an illegal
immigration check-up codenamed "Naga
King". Rakhine Rohingya was the first to
be driven away. About 200,000 people fled
to Bangladesh in a month. In 1982, the Ne
Win government promulgated the new
Burmese Citizenship Act, which was not
legally recognized as a citizen of
Myanmar. Since then, the Burmese
government has taken various enforcement
measures to limit the scope of Rohingya
activities, daily life, and religious
activities.
The reason why the Burmese
government adopted an extreme ethnic
18. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 18
policy for the Rohingya people was both
"Big Burmese" and also because of
concerns about the Rohingya separatism.
After the Second World War, Rakhine
Muslims demanded that the United
Kingdom classify them as Muslim SARs.
Later, when the British allowed Burma to
be independent, the idea of establishing a
"Arakanistan" state was also raised, but it
was not supported.
In 1961, in response to the unfair ethnic
policy of the Burmese government, some
Rohingya people joined the overseas
Muslim organizations , seeking to leave the
country and join East Pakistan. The
independence of Bangladesh pushed the
Rohingya national separatist movement to
its peak in the 1970s. Armed groups such
as the " ARNO" even launched a "jihad"
against the Burmese government.
The ethnic policy of the successive
governments of Myanmar and the
independence movement of the Rohingya
people have long been opposed to each
other and even hatred. This is another
important reason for the Rohingya crisis.
1.3 That the elected government of
Myanmar continues the ethnic policy
during the military government period is a
realistic reason for this issue.
The transformation of democratization
in Myanmar in 2011 opened. Initially, the
Rakhine State Muslim community and the
international community believed that the
elected government considered
far-reaching issues on ethnic issues and
helped solve the Rohingya problem.
However, in order to gain the supports of
the Buddhist voters who are most likely to
have an absolute proportion of the
population, the participating political
parties chose to continue the military
government's national policy and refuse to
recognize the Rohingya citizenship.
In 2015, the Myanmar government
signed the Myanmar Religious and
Religious Protection Act, which aims to
curb the rapid growth of the Muslim
population and impose restrictions on its
marriage with Buddhists. The Nobel Peace
Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi and the
NLD led by her did not talk about the
Rohingya issue before the election. They
also excluded Muslims when they formed
the cabinet. When the Rohingya issue was
most intense in August 2017, Aung San
Suu Kyi not only did not stop the military's
actions, but also firmly maintained a
consistent position with it, and even
accused some Western NGOs of providing
assistance to "terrorists."
2. The multi-faceted influence of the
Rohingya issue on Myanmar
In recent years, the Rohingya issue
has gradually evolved from a domestic
contradiction in Myanmar to a regional
issue. To a certain extent, it has become a
worldwide issue, which has an all-round
impact on Myanmar's internal affairs,
diplomacy and security.
2.1 The pace of construction of the
nation-state is blocked, and the military
group cannot end.
19. 19 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
The Burmese ethnic groups are
numerous and deeply contradictory. The
outbreak of the Rohingya issue has caused
the Rakhine region to be increasingly torn
apart, and the national hatred has become
more intense. The irresistible scars in the
emotional aspects of the various ethnic
groups in Rakhine region, especially the
Rohingya people, directly led to the
blocked construction of the Burmese
nation-state. Moreover, judging from the
attitude of the NLD government, military
forces still play an extremely important
role in the government decision-making
process. The intensification of the
Rohingya issue may make the tough
military group continue to take the
initiative in the state's political power
structure, thereby weakening the authority
of party politics and even forming a
"double-headed" power structure, which is
not conducive to the complete
transformation of Myanmar's politics.
2.2 The international legitimacy of the
regime has been weakened and diplomacy
has fallen into a passive situation.
The Rohingya issue has caused the
Burmese government to be accused by
Western countries and ASEAN neighbors.
In the eyes of Western countries, Aung San
Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner,
and the "Mother of Democracy" in Asian
countries, "almost cold-blooded" on the
Rohingya issue, have scorned her.
According to reports, Aung San Suu Kyi
has seven prestige titles that have been
usurped by Western countries. In the
ASEAN countries, Indonesia, Malaysia
and other Islamic countries have repeatedly
protested against the extreme actions of the
Burmese government to expel Muslims.
Thailand, which has been plagued by the
Rohingya problem, is also very vocal about
the Myanmar government. Dissatisfaction
with the Burmese government by Western
countries and ASEAN neighbors has
weakened the international legitimacy of
its ruling. Countries in a period of political
transition have placed their legitimacy in
the most critical position. If the Rohingya
issue cannot be resolved as soon as
possible, the Myanmar government will
become more passive in diplomacy and
affect its country's transformation.
2.3 The momentum of terrorism has
gradually increased and the security
situation has worsened.
There is evidence that Rohingya
people have long been in contact with
terrorist groups. The U.S. military seized a
batch of recording materials and found that
al-Qaeda had recruited personnel from the
Rohingya refugee camp in Bangladesh and
went to Afghanistan to participate in jihad.
In 2015, the terrorist organization Islamic
State threatened to teach the Myanmar
government. Indian media reported that
some terrorist organizations, including Al
Qaeda, have been training terrorists in
Rohingya to try to turn Myanmar into a
new "terrorism center." The possibility of
the transformation of the Rohingya armed
forces into terrorist groups is increasing.
The Burmese government is still
self-sufficient in dealing with the issue of
"ethnic armed groups". If the region is
rampant in terrorism, it will undoubtedly
make the transition process of the
Myanmar government even more faltering.
20. WORLD THINK TANK Monitor | 20
2.4 The contradictions of ethnic
groups have gone from bad to worse, and
the challenges of economic transformation
are enormous.
Since the new government took office
in 2011, it has actively promoted reforms
in the economic field to improve people's
livelihood and promote employment to
strengthen the foundation of governance.
There are a lot of oil and gas resources in
the vicinity of the Rakhine State where the
Rohingya people live. Many
foreign-funded enterprises invest and
develop in the region. The Myanmar
Special Economic Zone, which is mainly
built by the Myanmar government, is also
located here. However, the outbreak of the
Rohingya problem has led to a greater
security risk in the investment environment
of the region. Ethnic conflicts and military
conflicts that may be aggravated at any
time have made foreign investors worried
about the fragile environment and thus
weakened their confidence. Once a large
amount of foreign capital is withdrawn, or
investment is blocked, the economic
development of the region will slow down
or even reverse, inevitably affecting
economic transformation.
The authors are teachers at
Nanjing Normal University
21. 21 | WORLD THINK TANK Monitor
ยูเรเซีย (Eurasia) คือชือเรียกผืนแผ่นดินใหญ่ที
รวมเอาทวีปยุโรปและเอเชียทังมวลเข้าด้วยกัน เพราะ
อันทีจริงยุโรปกับเอเชียคือแผ่นดินผืนเดียวกันทีไม่ได้มี
พรมแดนทางธรรมชาติกันชัดเจน แต่แบ่งกันใน
ความหมายเชิงรัฐศาสตร์ อย่างไรก็ตาม หลายครังคําว่า
ยูเรเซียยังใช้เรียกเฉพาะดินแดนของรัสเซีย เอเชียกลาง
คอเคซัส หรือบางครังก็รวมไปถึงตุรกี มองโกเลีย
รวมกัน หรือบางครังยูเรเซียก็หมายถึงเอเชียกลาง
เท่านัน
ยูเรเซียเคยเป็นดินแดนทีมีความสําคัญมากของ
โลกในอดีต โดยเฉพาะในยุคทีเส้นทางสายไหมโบราณที
เชือมจากจีนไปยังยุโรปเฟืองฟู แต่ความสําคัญทางภูมิ
รัฐศาสตร์ของยูเรเซียลดลงไป หลังจากเทคโนโลยีการ
เดินเรือข้ามทวีปพัฒนาขึน ทําให้การเดินทางทางไกล
การขยายการค้า การขยายอํานาจทางทหาร รวมทังการ
เผยแผ่ศาสนาความเชือย้ายจากเส้นทางบกมาทําผ่าน
ทางการเดินทะเลเป็นหลัก มหาอํานาจของโลกก็
กลายเป็นมหาอํานาจทางทะเล ดังเช่น โปรตุเกส สเปน
จนถึงอังกฤษและสหรัฐอเมริกาในยุคต่อๆ มา อย่างไรก็
ตาม ปัจจุบัน ยูเรเซียกลับมาสู่ความสนใจของโลกอีก
ครัง ปัจจัยสําคัญมาจากการทีเอเชียเจริญรุ่งเรืองขึนทัง
ทางเศรษฐกิจ การเมือง ปลุกให้ขัวด้านตะวันออกของ
ยูเรเซียกลับมาคึกคักอีกครัง พร้อมกันนัน จีนซึงเป็นหัว
ขบวนของเอเชียยังผลักดันโครงการเส้นทางสายไหม
ใหม่ ผลักดันการพัฒนาการเชือมโยงโครงสร้างพืนฐาน
การค้า และการคมนาคมทางบกข้ามยูเรเซียอีกครัง ทํา
ให้แผ่นดินทีถูกมองเป็นดินแดนตอนในทีโลกลืมมาหลาย
ร้อยปีกลับมาสู่จุดสนใจอีกครัง
ในบทความเรือง Eurasia, the superconti-
nent that will define our century ของ World Eco-
nomic Forum เขียนโดย Bruno Maçães ผู้เขียน
หนังสือเรือง The Dawn of Eurasia ชีว่าศตวรรษที
นีจะเป็นศตวรรษแห่งยูเรเซีย โดยได้ชีถึงความสําคัญ
ของ “ยูเรเซีย” ไว้ดังนี
ยูเรเซีย : พืนทีใหม่ทางภูมิรัฐศาสตร์
ภายหลังสินสุดสงครามเย็นและสหภาพโซเวียต
ล่มสลายเมือต้นทศวรรษ ชาวยุโรปมองกันว่าใน
ทีสุดยุโรปจะได้รวมเป็นหนึงเสียที (หลังถูกแบ่งแยกเป็น
ยุโรปตะวันตกและยุโรปตะวันออกมาในช่วงสงคราม
เย็น) หลังจากนัน จีนก็ได้เข้าสู่ระบบทุนนิยมโลกมากขึน
การเชือมต่อทางกายภาพและโครงสร้างต่างๆ จากยุโรป
ไปสู่รัสเซียและจีนเพือเปิดตลาดก็ได้ดําเนินการขึน ใน
ระยะแรกโดยสถาบันข้ามชาติและสถาบันการเงินของ
ตะวันตกก่อน และต่อมาภารกิจการเชือมโยงยุโรปและ
เอเชียนีก็ถูกรับไม้ต่อโดยโครงการ Belt and Road ของ
จีน
ความสําคัญของยูเรเซียในศตวรรษที
ปาณัท ทองพ่วง
แปลและเรียบเรียง