Strategic Choices of Small States in Asymmetric Dependence: Myanmar - China Relations through the case of the Myitsone Dam

  • Eszterhai, Viktor (Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade) ;
  • Thida, Hnin Mya (School of International Relations and Political Science, Corvinus University of Budapest)
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31


In the transition to a multipolar international system, the literature has focused on great power competition while little attention has been given to the strategic possibilities of smaller states. However, as a result of globalization, states are so closely interconnected that the primary strategies of even major powers are not to achieve zero-sum solutions but to create asymmetric dependency through which they can influence the behavior of other states and non-state actors. States are assisted in this effort by a variety of tools, including setting up institutions, direct economic influence and through building different forms of infrastructure connectivity networks. By discussing asymmetric dependency situations from the perspective of the great powers, the literature presents smaller states primarily as passive actors, paralyzed by their dependence on great powers. Our paper argues that interdependence allows smaller states to effectively influence larger actors and examines strategies from which smaller states can choose in order to influence the behavior of larger states. Despite an extremely asymmetric relationship between Myanmar and China, actors in Myanmar have sought to influence China's Myanmar policy. We examine a case study of the Myitsone Dam, including Myanmar's strategic aims, chosen strategy and limitations in maneuvering space. Semi-structured interviews with local decision-makers and stakeholders are conducted in order to portray the full picture. Our study concludes that further research on the influencing strategies of small states in response to asymmetric dependence can contribute to a better understanding of the interdependence of states.



  1. Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic Statecraft. Princeton, New York: Princeton University Press.
  2. Barta, P. (2011, November 24). China Tests Buddha-Tooth Diplomacy in Myanmar. The Wall Street Journal.
  3. Blackwill, R. D., & Harris J. M. (2016). War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  4. Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and powers: the structure of international security (No. 91). Cambridge University Press.
  5. Chan, D.S.W. (2017). Asymmetric bargaining between Myanmar and China in the Myitsone Dam controversary: social opposition akin to David's stone against Goliath. The Pacific Review, 30(5), 674-691,
  6. Clapp, P. (2010). Prospects for rapprochement between the United States and Myanmar. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(3), 409-426. DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2017.1293714
  7. Cook, A. D. B. (2012). Myanmar's China Policy: Agenda, Strategies and Challenges. CHINA REPORT, 48(3), 269-281. DOI.10.1177/0009445512462745
  8. Genest, M. A. (1996). Conflict and Cooperation: Evolving Theories of International Relations. Belmont, CA: Thomson & Wadsworth.
  9. Haacke, J. (2011). The Nature and Management of Myanmar's Alignment with China: The SLORC/SPDC Years. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 30(2), 105-140.
  10. Harvey, R. (2011, 30 September). Burma dam: Why Myitsone plan is being halted. BBC News. Retrieved from
  11. Hirschman, A. O. (1980 [1945]). National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  12. Holliday, I. (2005). Rethinking the United States's Myanmar policy. Asian Survey, 45(4), 603-621.
  13. Htut, Y. (2019). Myanmar's Political Transition and Lost Opportunities (2010-2016). Yusof Ishak Institute. Singapore.
  14. International Rivers (2011). Myitsone hydroelectric project: An international river briefing.
  15. International Rivers (2013). Independent Expert Review of the Myitsone Dam EIA.
  16. Irrawaddy Appeal (2011, 11 August). Aung San Suu Kyi's an Open letter to President Thein Sein.
  17. Jesse, N. G., & Dreyer, J. R. (2016). Small States in The International System: at peace and at war. Lexington Books.
  18. Kachin Development Network Group. (2009). Resisting the flood: Communities taking a stand against the imminent construction of Irrawaddy dams.
  19. Kahler, M., & Kastner, S. L. (2006). Strategic uses of economic interdependence: Engagement policies on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait. Journal of Peace Research, 43(5), 523-541.
  20. Keohane, R. O., & Nye Jr, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little & Brown.
  21. Khong, Y. F. (2004). Coping with strategic uncertainty: The role of institutions and soft balancing in Southeast Asia's post-Cold War strategy. Rethinking security in East Asia: Identity, power, and efficiency, 172-208.
  22. Kiik, L (2016). Nationalism and anti-ethno-politics: why 'Chinese Development' failed at Myanmar's Myitsone Dam. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 57(3), 374-402. DOI:10.1080/15387216.2016.1198265
  23. Kuik, C. C. (2016). How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN states' alignment behavior towards China. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(100), 500-514.
  24. Leonard, M. (2016). Connectivity wars: Why migration, finance and trade are the geo-economic battlegrounds of the future. European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
  25. Li, C. (2010). 'The Politics of China and India toward Myanmar', in Lex Rieffel (ed). Myanmar/Burma: Inside Challenges, Outside Interests, 113-33. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
  26. Moe, W. (2011, September 16). Burma's Burning Issue-The Myitsone Dam Project. The Irrawaddy. Retrieved from
  27. Myoe, M. A. (2011). In the Name of Pauk-Phaw: Myanmar's China Policy Since 1948. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Singapore.
  28. Myoe, M. A. (2015). Myanmar's China Policy since 2011: Determinants and Directions. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 34(2). 21-54. Retrieved from
  29. Norris, W. J. (2016). Chinese economic statecraft: Commercial actors, grand strategy, and state control. Cornell University Press.
  30. Pape, R. A. (2005). Soft balancing against the United States. International security, 30(1), 7-45.
  31. Pempel, T. J. (2010). Soft balancing, hedging, and institutional Darwinism: The economic-security nexus and East Asian regionalism. Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(2), 209-238.
  32. Roberts, A., Moraes, H. C., & Ferguson, V. (2018). The geoeconomic world order. Lawfare blog, 19.
  33. Sidel, J. T., & Ciorciari, J. D. (2011). The Limits of Alignment: Southeast Asia and the Great Powers since 1975. Perspectives on Politics, 9(3), 755.
  34. Silove, N. (2016). The Pivot before the Pivot: U.S. Strategy to Preserve the Power Balance in Asia. International Security. 40(4). 45-88.
  35. Sun, Y. (2012). China and the Changing Myanmar. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 31(4), 51-77.
  36. Tha, C.A.C. (2017). Myanmar-China Relations: Historical Development and Strengthening Public Diplomacy. Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies.
  37. Than, T. M. M. (2003). Myanmar and China: A Special Relationship? Southeast Asian Affairs. 189-210. Retrieved from
  38. The Irrawaddy (2011, September 2). 'Save The Irrawaddy' Campaign Gains Momentum. THE IRRAWADDY.
  39. The New Light of Myanmar (2011, October 1). President of the Republic of Union of Myanmar U Thein Sein's message to second regular sessions of the first Pyithu Hluttaw and the first Amyotha Hluttaw.
  40. Wagner, R. H. (1988). Economic interdependence, bargaining power, and political influence. International Organization, 42(3), 461-483.
  41. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  42. Womack, B. (2006). China and Vietnam: The politics of asymmetry. Cambridge University Press.