What do you think?
Rate this book
強鄰在側：中泰邊區博弈下緬甸的國家命運
一國的失敗，往往是他國成功所造成的結果。
拉咱像個平凡無奇的中國城鎮。
主要流通的貨幣是人民幣，手機網路也是中國的網路。
拉咱隸屬緬甸領土，緬甸國家主權卻並未觸及此地—為何如此？
本書講述緬甸及其強鄰中國和泰國的近現代關係，尤其聚焦中、緬、泰三國交界的邊區。書中爬梳了各國國族建構差異的歷史發展及當代樣貌。本書突破傳統以單一國家的研究焦點，超越國界的限制，採取「鄰域效應」為理論視角，強調跨越國界的不對等國力關係，如何深深影響邊區地帶的政治結構方式，以及國家整合和國族認同的建構。對於現今緬甸國內政局及其與中、泰兩國的關係提供了重要、嶄新的理解途徑。
拉咱像個平凡無奇的中國城鎮。
主要流通的貨幣是人民幣，手機網路也是中國的網路。
拉咱隸屬緬甸領土，緬甸國家主權卻並未觸及此地—為何如此？
本書講述緬甸及其強鄰中國和泰國的近現代關係，尤其聚焦中、緬、泰三國交界的邊區。書中爬梳了各國國族建構差異的歷史發展及當代樣貌。本書突破傳統以單一國家的研究焦點，超越國界的限制，採取「鄰域效應」為理論視角，強調跨越國界的不對等國力關係，如何深深影響邊區地帶的政治結構方式，以及國家整合和國族認同的建構。對於現今緬甸國內政局及其與中、泰兩國的關係提供了重要、嶄新的理解途徑。
- GenresChina
280 pages, Paperback
Published December 1, 2021
2 people are currently reading
35 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
March 15, 2022Asymmetrical Neighbors gives a very balanced account of the Cold War years that moved beyond the usual dogmatic logics of either Marxist or capitalist political economy. Historian Han Enze sourced experiences of political actors ranging from leftist revolutionaries to KMT remnants at the borderlands. He opens most of the chapters with vignettes from interviews and combines it skillfully with the thematic organization, such as the chapter on post-World War II when the U.S. and Taiwan military supported anticommunist forces in Southeast Asia. Han criticizes the usual KMT narrative that overemphasizes their heroic sacrifices and forcefully highlights KMT’s atrocities against the borderland people and its involvement in the profitable opium and heroin trade. I was surprised to learn about the KMT’s victory over Burmese forces in the 1960s and the subsequent United Nations probe. Han also provides details of how the KMT exploited ethnic tensions between the non-Bamar and Bamar people by enlisting non-Bamar youth as well as similar tensions within the Communist Party of Thailand (which ended in their core leadership’s exile to China in 1989).
His book on Asian nations’ relations in the twentieth century moves beyond the usual personalities such as Nehru or Chou Enlai. He briefly mentions the 1955 Bandung Conference and Thailand’s reconciliatory relations with China after China proposed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. That was overdetermined since the military coup against the leader dashed any possibility of conciliation with Maoist China. He proposed his theory that Burma’s historical relationship with British colonialism and portfolio capitalist Chettiars’ moneylending gave them reason to join communism. In contrast, Thailand provided less fertile ground for communist sympathizers. The military dictator’s proposal of Burmese Socialism did not produce as much GDP and the China-Burma border trade opened again with approval of high-level leadership.
I thought of the Hui Muslims who migrated to Thailand and Burma and brought their cuisine skills with them. I checked Wikipedia and it is written that “Thailand and Myanmar are both home to Hui Muslims.” In Thailand they are called “Chin-Ho,” “Ho” being a Southeast Asian pronunciation of Hui. Han Enze could have written more about such connections. Due to the Qing governments persecution, such migrants increased in the late nineteenth century, many of them in the Panglong area of the Shan state. He does mention the Hui Muslim’s Shadian rebellion of 1975 in Yunnan against the Maoist policies of Cultural Revolution as well as the codification of Buddhist texts and laws along the Thai Theravada orthodoxy. Yet these points deserved to be elaborated. Such instances of state-supported codification possibly also occurred in 20th century Bangladesh.
Historian Hyeju Janice Jeong has argued that Korean industrialists benefited from U.S. policies of establishing military bases (e.g. the Middle East and Vietnam) in the 1970s to create car manufacturing in the same areas. A member of the USAID facilitated loans for the Korean car manufacturer Hyundai in Vietnam. One could argue for a similar model in Thailand where USAID was active. Yet Han stops short of such structural analysis on the Southeast Asia borderland trade.
His book on Asian nations’ relations in the twentieth century moves beyond the usual personalities such as Nehru or Chou Enlai. He briefly mentions the 1955 Bandung Conference and Thailand’s reconciliatory relations with China after China proposed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. That was overdetermined since the military coup against the leader dashed any possibility of conciliation with Maoist China. He proposed his theory that Burma’s historical relationship with British colonialism and portfolio capitalist Chettiars’ moneylending gave them reason to join communism. In contrast, Thailand provided less fertile ground for communist sympathizers. The military dictator’s proposal of Burmese Socialism did not produce as much GDP and the China-Burma border trade opened again with approval of high-level leadership.
I thought of the Hui Muslims who migrated to Thailand and Burma and brought their cuisine skills with them. I checked Wikipedia and it is written that “Thailand and Myanmar are both home to Hui Muslims.” In Thailand they are called “Chin-Ho,” “Ho” being a Southeast Asian pronunciation of Hui. Han Enze could have written more about such connections. Due to the Qing governments persecution, such migrants increased in the late nineteenth century, many of them in the Panglong area of the Shan state. He does mention the Hui Muslim’s Shadian rebellion of 1975 in Yunnan against the Maoist policies of Cultural Revolution as well as the codification of Buddhist texts and laws along the Thai Theravada orthodoxy. Yet these points deserved to be elaborated. Such instances of state-supported codification possibly also occurred in 20th century Bangladesh.
Historian Hyeju Janice Jeong has argued that Korean industrialists benefited from U.S. policies of establishing military bases (e.g. the Middle East and Vietnam) in the 1970s to create car manufacturing in the same areas. A member of the USAID facilitated loans for the Korean car manufacturer Hyundai in Vietnam. One could argue for a similar model in Thailand where USAID was active. Yet Han stops short of such structural analysis on the Southeast Asia borderland trade.
Displaying 1 of 1 review