The Myanmar military staged a coup against the elected civilian government in February 2021. Since then, the country has been in a state of emergency and ruled by a military junta. Resistance to the coup was swift and widespread, beginning with the Civil Disobedience Movement that has now morphed into the People’s Defense Forces. A state of civil war has remained for well over two years now, reversing the previous trend toward democratic transition. Nonetheless, the democratic interlude has spawned strong resistance to military rule. The armed conflict and contestation for power looks set to continue into the medium term and may eventually lead to domestic political changes toward democratization.

With around 34,000 North Korean defectors having arrived in South Korea (as of June, 2021), perceptions toward them remain ambiguous and unbalanced. The dominant discourse about North Korean defectors centers on adaptation, and cultural difference is often identified as one of the most challenging obstacles. This article examines how a specific conceptualization of culture is utilized to alienate North Korean defectors, while securing the belief in a single ethnicity of all Koreans. As a result, North Korean defectors are rendered as cultural other in South Korean society. While cultural difference is often believed to be the basis of discrimination for North Korean defectors, this article argues that social prejudice and discrimination reproduce and reinforce the discourse about cultural difference of North Korean defectors.

Set amidst growing global challenges and great power politics, this article asks how middle powers might best promote global collective action. Adopting a historical approach, it explores four case studies on middle power multilateralism in (1) post-1974 UN New International Economic Order; (2) post-1989 Bretton Woods institutions; (3) post-1992 European Union expansion; and (4) post-2003 UN South- South cooperation. These inform a policy framework and an ensuing alternative termed “resilient multilateralism.” Adopting a foreign policy standpoint, this alternative entails principles on context specificity, complementarity, consensus building, and non-confrontation. By opening space for global action, it offers a timely approach to countering future shocks and coordination failures—whether wrought through nature or through hands of our own.

This study illustrates collaborative platforms and diversifying partnerships for South-South and triangular cooperation in development. The English School’s pluralism-solidarism spectrum is applied as a tool to explain transformative features of the changing international society in times of crisis. The study focuses on the intermediary pluralist-solidarism phase that shows dynamics of middle power coalitions using nation branding and collaborative governance as key strategies. The transitional phase is exemplified by two approaches. One is the bilateral approach to coalition shown through the case of China, whereas the other is the inclusivemultilateral approach demonstrated through the case of South Korea. Implications are given toward relatively loose networks that have the potential to evolve into platforms with institutional grounds, especially for middle powers seeking opportunities in the new normal.

This special issue discusses, in-depth, the embedded conundrum of South-South and triangular cooperation (SSTC) whose frontiers are shifted from collaboration to contention within the United Nations (UN) development system and beyond. This introductory article provides the conceptual framework—the contentioncollaboration spectrum—that guides all the contributors and serves as the collective starting point for this project. The moving frontiers of SSTC reflect the shifting historic relationships between the global South and North as well as Southern partner countries. The framework enables the six articles of this special issue to investigate the paradoxical structure of contrasting dynamics of SSTC, which has always been exposed to historical transformations at multi-levels of analysis: global governance, regional engagements, middle power perspectives, and the UN development system and beyond.

Myanmar has undergone democratic transition since 2010 when the country introduced elections and a parliamentary form of government. The country has now had two successive governments, the first led by President Thein Sein and the second by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. Both governments have made the ethnic peace process, based on the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, a key policy issue. Nonetheless, only limited success has been obtained thus far, and important structural and agency factors inhibit greater progress. These factors, termed “democracy deficits” in this article, suggest that the peace process has limited scope for further success in the medium term, and that the interactions between these two factors has only worsened the situation. A postscript brings the article up to date.

The transitional justice policies employed in Timor-Leste are among the most multifaceted and comprehensive ever attempted. However, what these mechanisms have collectively accomplished has not been adequately evaluated. The long-term effectiveness of transitional justice should be judged in terms of the multidimensional relationships between the many policies and programs relevant to redressing the legacy of the past. The impunity of those most responsible for human rights violations casts a sizable shadow over the transitional justice efforts; however, analysis of the establishment of the Chega! National Centre (CNC) shows that the gradual development of transitional justice in Timor-Leste has broken through a structural bottleneck. This is due to persistent calls for transitional justice from civil society and the slow but steady implementation of relevant programs.

Several jihadist groups sought a safe haven in the Sahel region following the defeat of Daesh in Syria and Iraq, making it a hotbed of terrorist activities. These groups have relied on crime, amongst other strategies, to survive and expand. Such strategies serve as the groups’ lifeblood and help them forge alliances with local actors. The appeal of radical jihadist discourse capitalizes on human insecurities as manifested in political, environmental, and demographic challenges. This article considers not only the new threats to human security in the Sahel, but also the need for a multidimensional, inclusive, dialogue-based solution. Promoting development and social cohesion centered on human security could achieve better results in the region than resorting to external military intervention.

This article looks into how media representations of North Korean defectors reproduce the images of North Korean defectors, while paying particular attention to the contrasting voices of North Korean defectors which reflect self-presentation. The media-perpetuated image of North Korean defectors as displaced victims whose memories are mostly clustered around the oppressive regime fails to grasp the intersection of aspiration, determination, and agency of North Korean defectors. The self-presentation of North Korean defectors reveals that they are eager to be in charge of constructing and controlling their own images, which goes beyond hitherto nationalized, gendered, and ethnicized identities. Self-presentation, at the same time, is a product of strategic choices conditioned by social discourse and media representation.

The definition of refugee status and the right to seek asylum is based on international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Statues of Refugees removed the geographic and temporal restrictions of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, these international conventions have been widely accepted and ratified by 147 countries(as of September 2019). While the principles were established half a century ago,the actual practice of granting refugee status has shown variability in different parts of the world, with continuous changes and transformations. Although transfigurations in the political conjuncture and changes in the implementation of international law—as well as alternating policy trends in international politics—represent significant contexts and undercurrents for migration and refugee studies, there are social practices which cannot be sufficiently comprehended exclusively with static insights on laws, rules, or principles.

The Third Panglong Peace Conference convened in Naypyitaw in July 2018 has led to the accession of two more armed groups to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement bringing the total number of signatories to ten groups now. Conversely, this development has weakened the United Nationalities Federal Council that previously housed the non-signatories collectively. There were far less agreements this time around and major sticking points include the military’s insistence that the armed groups agree not to secede from the Union of Myanmar which the latter have refused thus far. The military is also interested in discussing disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration while the armed groups are keen on broader security reforms. China again facilitated the Northern Alliance’s attendance of the meeting.

The introduction of civic education in Serbia in 2001 marked a beginning of an allencompassing reform that set the tone for future changes designed to support the country’s democratization. This article draws on documentary and elite interview data to unpack the conceptualization of this policy, revealing it to be a multi-level positioning exercise in the national and international political space. It argues that, by using favorable political and international policy conditions, Serbian policymakers created a version of civic education that significantly drew on grassroots peace education programs developed during the 1990s, recognizing the priority of needs in building a democratic society. The latter offered Serbian policymakers agency in the context of what critical literature perceives as a transfer/imposition of policies in societies facing “Westernization.”

The process of democratization that began in 2010 in Myanmar has benefitted the peace process with the ethnic insurgent groups. While the first Thein Sein government was only nominally civilian and the democratization process itself is a top down effort initiated by the military, democratization has structurally and institutionally strengthened the peace process. The new NLD government that took office in April 2016 has now taken control of the process and has earned goodwill for its efforts in dealing with the ethnic minorities. Nonetheless, there is still sporadic fighting between the ethnic groups themselves as well as between some groups and the military, even as the government works towards a more comprehensive settlement.

The process of democratization that began in 2010 in Myanmar has benefitted the peace process with the ethnic insurgent groups. While the first Thein Sein government was only nominally civilian and the democratization process itself is a top down effort initiated by the military, democratization has structurally and institutionally strengthened the peace process. The new NLD government that took office in April 2016 has now taken control of the process and has earned goodwill for its efforts in dealing with the ethnic minorities. Nonetheless, there is still sporadic fighting between the ethnic groups themselves as well as between some groups and the military, even as the government works towards a more comprehensive settlement.

On October 15, 2015, the government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar signed a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) with eight of the sixteen ethnic armed groups it had been negotiating with. The aim of the Thein Sein government had been to sign the agreement with all sixteen groups, but this was not realized. One reason why eight of the groups have been left out is the ongoing fighting between the Myanmar military and some of the groups, and the army’s unwillingness to involve them in the ceasefire process. Similarly, some of the ethnic armed groups have also indicated that they are unwilling, or not ready, to sign the NCA at this time.

The Myanmar Peace Center (MPC) is one of the newest organizations with a focus on peace in Asia. It was initially formed in October 2012 with a core group of 13 members. Since then it has gone on to become a much larger and also much more institutionalized organization. The nature of its work differs from that of most other peace research centers in that it is the organization appointed by the Myanmar President and government to bring an end to ethnic and sectarian conflict in the country.

Myanmar is currently undergoing widespread changes that are transforming the country’s political and socio-economic landscape. These changes include the newly promulgated Constitution that was ratified in 2008 and a national election held in November 2010. Additionally, by-elections in April 2012 saw the return to Parliament of the National League for Democracy and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi. The reforms under the new Thein Sein-led government include a congenial working relationship with the political opposition, freeing political prisoners and the granting of amnesty to political exiles to encourage their return, the negotiation of ceasefire agreements with almost all of the ethnic insurgent armies, and the inauguration of the Myanmar Peace Centre as a vehicle for the resolution of domestic conflict. These and related reforms are designed to secure the government’s internal and external political legitimacy which it has lacked since the fall of the previous socialist government in 1988.

It is a pleasure and an honor to be addressing all of you today. First of all, I must thank the University for conferring this honorary degree on me, and I hope that I will be able to do enough for education in Burma to deserve such an honor. There is much that we have to do and there is much support and help that we need from our friends.