Borderland Hegemony? China’s Influence and Inter-State Relations in Mainland Southeast Asia (CLMVT)

Type

Single Panel

Schedule

Session 10
Thu 10:00-11:30 Classroom NT-115

Conveners

Pei-Hsiu Chen National Chi Nan University
Shangmao Chen Fo Guang University

Save This Event

Add to Calendar

Papers

Borderland Hegemony as a Mode of Regional Power: China, Frontier Governance, and Cross-Border Ordering in CLMVT Pei-Hsiu Chen National Chi Nan University Shangmao Chen Fo Guang University
This paper proposes the concept of “borderland hegemony” as a framework for understanding China’s expanding regional influence in Mainland Southeast Asia, particularly across the CLMVT region (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand). Departing from conventional state-centric approaches to regional hegemony, the paper argues that China’s power increasingly operates through frontier spaces characterized by fluid sovereignty, hybrid governance, ethnic mediation, and cross-border connectivity. Rather than functioning solely through formal interstate mechanisms, Chinese influence in Mainland Southeast Asia is negotiated and institutionalized through border infrastructures, special economic zones (SEZs), informal economies, and security arrangements involving both state and non-state actors.
The paper conceptualizes borderland hegemony as a distinct mode of regional power that relies less on direct territorial domination and more on the management of liminal political spaces and fragmented sovereignties. In this framework, borderlands are not peripheral margins of the nation-state but strategic arenas where regional order is continuously produced, contested, and localized. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), cross-border economic corridors, frontier development projects, and ethnic governance practices have collectively reshaped political and economic relations across the CLMVT region, generating new forms of dependence, adaptation, and resistance.
As the introductory paper for this panel, the study situates the subsequent case studies within a broader theoretical discussion of frontier governance and regional ordering. The panel’s contributions—including analyses of armed groups in Myanmar’s Shan State, Chinese-led SEZ development in Laos, ethnic governance along the Sino-Vietnamese frontier, and Vietnam’s strategic adaptation to the Belt and Road framework—demonstrate how Chinese influence is mediated through locally embedded actors and multi-layered governance structures. By foregrounding the political dynamics of borderlands, this paper argues that “borderland hegemony” provides a useful analytical lens for rethinking regional power and sovereignty transformation in contemporary Mainland Southeast Asia.
Shan State’s disintegration conundrum and multi-ethnic armed groups claim Sai Tun Aung Lwin Sai Payap University Thailand
Myanmar is widely characterized as a highly fragile and politically fragmented state, and Shan State—the country’s largest and most militarized subnational unit—constitutes a critical microcosm of this condition. The province borders three countries—China, Laos, and Thailand. Moreover, Shan State serves as a key entry point for China’s peripheral foreign policy and frontier area management toward Myanmar.

This research investigates the nature and motives of inter-ethnic armed conflicts in Shan State, territorial contestation, and examines how ethno-centric enclave-building by ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) reshapes governance, conflict dynamics, and coexistence in an already fragmented region. The core puzzle guiding this study asks why, despite prolonged conflict and the erosion of central authority following the 2021 military coup, Shan State has not disintegrated into a formal breakup or full “Balkanization,” yet continues to experience chronic instability and localized violence.

Three research questions: (1) To what extent does the presence of multiple ethnic armed organizations with distinct identities increase the likelihood of Balkanization in Shan State? (2) How do underlying motives drive inter-ethnic tensions and confrontations among EAOs? (3) Why are the specific effects of efforts to establish ethnically exclusive zones of control in Shan State, where multi-ethnic communities coexist, as central power declines?

The findings suggested that post-coup weakening of Burman-centered state power has not produced a unified federal alternative but instead intensified fragmented governance and inter-ethnic competition. Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) have consolidated territorially bounded enclaves, especially in Northern Shan State, heightening tensions and sustaining localized conflicts. However, external constraints, particularly China’s intervention for border stability, have prevented large-scale territorial breakup, resulting in a prolonged political stalemate.

Methodologically, the research employs a mixed qualitative design combining exploratory and explanatory approaches with comparative historical analysis, selected case studies from Northern and Southern Shan State.
Two Zones, One System? Rethinking Chinese Development through Boten and the Golden Triangle SEZs in Laos Joseba Estevez The University of Hong Kong
This article investigates the diversity of “Chinese” development in mainland Southeast Asia through a comparative analysis of two emblematic Special Economic Zones (SEZs): Boten in northern Laos and the Golden Triangle SEZ in Bokeo Province. Based on multi-year anthropological fieldwork (2010–2020, and since 2023 on), it contends that Chinese overseas investment should not be understood as a singular model, but rather as a spectrum of coordinated yet differentiated “ecosystems” grounded in the broader logic of the “Whole-of-Nation System” (举国体制).
While Boten exemplifies a formalized, state-aligned, and highly visible extension of Chinese developmentalism — organized around infrastructure, real estate, logistics, and regulated tourism — the Golden Triangle SEZ reflects a more opaque, privatized, and clan-based modality operating within legal grey zones. Rather than being oppositional, these two forms are mutually constitutive, embodying a yin–yang dynamic within Chinese frontier capitalism.

The article advances the concept of “Chinese ecosystems of investment” to capture how constellations of actors — state-owned enterprises, private entrepreneurs, financial institutions, and informal networks — co-produce territorially embedded systems that extend Chinese economic, social, and regulatory practices beyond national borders. It further examines how these ecosystems transform local societies, reshaping labor hierarchies, gender relations, and configurations of sovereignty and governance.

By foregrounding lived experiences and local perspectives, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), emphasizing both its integrative capacities and its tendency to generate fragmented, uneven, and at times quasi-extraterritorial spaces of development.
Ethnic Governance Policies and Border Life on the Sino-Vietnamese Frontier Duy-Bao Vu Universidad de Sevilla María Gómez Perea Universidad de Sevilla
The Sino-Vietnamese border is not merely a geopolitical line: it is a historical device for the production of ethnicity. This paper analyzes how postcolonial nation-building processes in Vietnam and China have shaped and reshaped cross-border ethnic identities, taking as its case study the Tay (Vietnam) / Zhuang (China) people — a historically interconnected community divided by divergent state administrative categories and yet bound by deep cultural, linguistic, and kinship ties that persist across the boundary.

Drawing on archival and ethnographic fieldwork in Cao Bang province (Vietnam), bordering Guangxi, the paper examines three key periods: the transition from imperial to colonial order, the socialist nation-building era, and the post- 1986 reform period. The analysis reveals how ethnic classification policies have produced divergent official identities for the same population, while everyday cross-border practices have maintained cultural continuities that persistently challenge these official categorizations. Particular attention is paid to how state institutions — including ethnographic museums, bureaucratic registers, and official heritage narratives — have operated as instruments of classificatory hegemony on both sides of the border.

Far from constituting a space of unidirectional hegemony, the Sino-Vietnamese border emerges as a field of negotiation in which two states impose their own classificatory logics upon the same groups, and in which local communities develop strategies of belonging that exceed and subvert both frameworks. This case contributes to a more nuanced understanding of borderland hegemony, revealing its multilateral character and its symbolic-institutional dimension.
Between Autonomy and Integration: Vietnam’s Strategic Adaptation to China’s Belt and Road Initiative through the Two Corridors, One Belt Framework (2004-2025) James W.Y. Wang National Chi Nan University
This article examines Vietnam’s hedging strategy toward China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through the evolution of the “Two Corridors, One Belt” (TCOB) framework from 2000 to 2025. Despite Vietnam’s geographic proximity to China, shared socialist political system, and economic interdependence, Hanoi has adopted a sophisticated approach to managing bilateral relations that balances economic cooperation with political autonomy and territorial sovereignty protection. The study analyzes four distinct phases of Vietnam’s strategy: binding engagement (2000-2011), characterized by active acceptance of Chinese infrastructure financing and deepening bilateral cooperation; economic pragmatism (2011-2017), emerging after the 2014 oil rig crisis when Vietnam maintained economic ties while diversifying partnerships and strengthening security relationships with external powers; dominance-denial and risk-aversion (2017-2020), during which Vietnam selectively engaged with BRI while insisting on TCOB’s independence and implementing stringent project scrutiny; and economic diversification with pragmatic cooperation (2020- present), marked by the COVID-19 pandemic’s catalyst effect prompting selective BRI project acceptance while maintaining strategic autonomy through multilateral free trade agreements and comprehensive strategic partnerships with multiple powers. Vietnam’s insistence on maintaining TCOB as a separate framework from BRI reflects deep understanding of how institutional frameworks affect power dynamics and policy space. This experience demonstrates that secondary powers can successfully navigate asymmetric relationships with larger neighbors through dynamic hedging strategies, diversified partnerships, strengthened domestic institutions, and continuous policy adaptation, offering valuable insights for other middle powers facing similar geopolitical challenges.

Show Paper Abstracts

Abstract

This panel explores China’s growing influence in Mainland Southeast Asia (CLMVT) through the lens of “borderland hegemony”—a concept that highlights the fluidity of sovereignty, the governance of liminal zones, and the hybrid practices of regional power. Rather than viewing China’s engagement as a top-down state project, the panel examines how its influence is negotiated, localized, and resisted through cross-border infrastructures, informal economies, and cultural interactions.
By focusing on Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam, the panel illustrates different forms of China’s presence—from strategic alliance and economic penetration to cautious resistance and adaptation. Collectively, the four papers aim to deepen theoretical understanding of China’s regional order-building and contribute to comparative debates on asymmetric inter-state relations and transboundary governance in Southeast Asia.