Foreign Policy Strategies of Bhutan and Myanmar: Balancing Regional Powers

In the complex web of Asian geopolitics, small nations often face the challenge of balancing relationships with powerful neighbors. Bhutan and Myanmar exemplify two distinct approaches to this diplomatic tightrope walk. While Bhutan has cultivated a special relationship centered on India, Myanmar has navigated a path from strict neutrality to deepening ties with China, before seeking to diversify through regional partnerships. These contrasting strategies offer valuable insights into how geography, history, and strategic interests shape foreign policy choices.

Bhutan’s strategic partnership with India 🔗

Bhutan’s foreign policy has been fundamentally shaped by its geographic reality-a small landlocked kingdom sandwiched between two Asian giants, India and China. The country’s dependence on Indian territory for access to the sea and the outside world has naturally oriented its external relations toward New Delhi.

The foundation of this relationship was laid in the 1949 Indo-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, which established that India would exercise no interference in Bhutan’s internal administration while Bhutan agreed to be guided by Indian advice on external relations. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru articulated India’s commitment clearly, stating that the protection of Bhutan’s borders and territorial integrity was India’s primary responsibility.

However, as Bhutan matured as an independent nation, the relationship evolved. In 2007, a revised treaty granted Bhutan greater autonomy in external and military affairs, removing the provision requiring Bhutan to take India’s guidance on foreign policy. This modernization of the relationship reflected mutual respect while maintaining the special bond between the two nations.

Economic interdependence through hydropower 🔗

The India-Bhutan relationship goes far beyond political cooperation. Economic ties, particularly in the hydropower sector, form a crucial pillar of this partnership. India has financed major hydroelectric projects in Bhutan, including the 336 MW Chhukha project commissioned in 1987, the 60 MW Kurichhu project in 2001, and the massive 1,020 MW Tala project completed in 2007.

These projects serve multiple purposes. They provide Bhutan with clean electricity for domestic use while generating substantial export revenue through surplus power sold to India. The electricity trade reached approximately 5,600 gigawatt-hours in 2021, making hydropower a cornerstone of Bhutan’s economy and a symbol of mutually beneficial cooperation.

Beyond energy, India serves as the main market for Bhutan’s agricultural exports including apples, oranges, cardamom, and timber. This economic integration has created deep interdependence that strengthens the bilateral relationship.

Diversifying regional connections 🔗

Despite its close ties with India, Bhutan has gradually diversified its regional engagement. The country became a member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in 1985, joined the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation in 2003, and signed the South Asian Free Trade Area framework in 2004.

Bhutan’s relationship with China remains carefully managed. In 1998, the two countries signed an interim agreement to maintain peace and tranquility in border areas, addressing contentious zones. However, Bhutan continues to balance this engagement with its security considerations and relationship with India.

Myanmar’s journey from neutrality to China dependence 🔗

Myanmar’s foreign policy trajectory presents a stark contrast to Bhutan’s approach. Under democratic rule from 1948 to 1962, Burma (as it was then known) pursued a policy of neutrality and became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. This reflected the country’s desire to maintain independence from Cold War power blocs.

The 1962 military coup fundamentally altered this approach. Under General Ne Win, Myanmar adopted isolationist policies that severed many international connections. This isolation deepened after the violent repression of pro-democracy protests in 1988, when the military junta moved to establish closer relations with China.

China became Myanmar’s major supplier starting in 1990, providing consumer goods and weapons valued at over one billion US dollars. Chinese firms became increasingly important in Myanmar’s timber industry, and Chinese currency became widely accepted in various regions. The relationship grew so extensive that concerns emerged about Myanmar becoming overly dependent on its northern neighbor.

ASEAN membership and constructive engagement 🔗

Myanmar joined the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1997, as member countries sought constructive engagement with the military rulers to prevent total Chinese dependence. Thailand emerged as an important protagonist of this constructive engagement approach and became a major source of foreign investments after 1988, receiving logging licenses for teak exploitation.

ASEAN membership provided Myanmar with an alternative diplomatic framework and economic opportunities beyond its bilateral relationship with China. It represented a recognition by regional powers that engaging Myanmar was preferable to isolating it, which would only deepen Chinese influence.

India’s Act East Policy and Myanmar connectivity 🔗

India’s approach to Myanmar has evolved significantly, particularly through the Look East Policy (later renamed Act East Policy). The India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway aims to bolster regional economic integration and expand India’s influence in Southeast Asia, though the project has faced significant delays due to political instability and security concerns.

India has been developing various transport links including the Indo-Myanmar Friendship Road and establishing border trade centers in Moreh, Manipur. The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project represents another crucial initiative, connecting the eastern Indian seaport of Kolkata with Sittwe seaport in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, providing an alternate route for shipping products to India’s landlocked northeastern states.

India has also pursued strategic cooperation in exploring oil and gas resources and promoting collaboration in the Andaman region. These initiatives aim to strengthen people-to-people contacts between the two countries while advancing India’s broader strategic interests in Southeast Asia.

The Tibet dimension: government-in-exile diplomacy 🔗

The Tibetan government-in-exile, headquartered in Dharamshala, India, adds another layer to regional dynamics. Under the Dalai Lama’s leadership, this administration mobilizes international support for Tibetan self-determination through demonstrations, seminars, and workshops to keep the movement alive.

The Dalai Lama’s office articulates Tibetan responses to Chinese policies and maintains connections with organizations globally dedicated to the Tibetan cause. The large concentration of Tibetan refugees in India helps preserve Buddhist tradition and culture while intermittently exposing Chinese actions to international scrutiny. This presence creates a unique diplomatic consideration in India-China relations.

Lessons in strategic balancing 🔗

The foreign policy approaches of Bhutan and Myanmar reveal how smaller nations navigate relationships with regional powers. Bhutan’s strategy of deep partnership with India, combined with gradual regional diversification, has provided stability and economic development. The trust built through the hydropower partnership and the 2007 treaty revision demonstrates how relationships can evolve while maintaining core strategic alignments.

Myanmar’s path has been more turbulent. The shift from neutrality to isolation to China dependence created vulnerabilities that ASEAN membership and engagement with India and Thailand have only partially addressed. The ongoing political instability and civil conflict continue to complicate infrastructure projects and regional integration efforts.

Both cases underscore the importance of economic integration, infrastructure connectivity, and regional multilateral forums in shaping foreign policy options. They also highlight how geography, historical relationships, and domestic political systems influence the choices available to smaller nations in managing relationships with larger powers.

What do you think? How can smaller nations like Bhutan and Myanmar best balance relationships with powerful neighbors while maintaining their sovereignty and pursuing economic development? What lessons do their experiences offer for other countries facing similar strategic dilemmas?

References

1. https://www.mea.gov.in/images/pdf/india-bhutan-treaty-07.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan–India_relations
3. https://www.mfa.gov.bt/rbedelhi/bhutan-india-relations/bhutan-india-hydropower-relations/
4. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/comments/india-bhutan-hydropower-cooperation
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/indo-bhutan-relations
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Myanmar_relations
7. https://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/ir/isaru/assets/file/raris/raris-01-3shee.pdf
8. https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/08/07/trilateral-highway-is-the-road-to-regional-economic-connectivity/
9. https://www.sylff.org/news_voices/32125/
10. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/india-s-act-east-ambition-must-navigate-myanmar