Since its establishment as a sovereign state, Myanmar has demonstrated a firm commitment to a neutral and non-aligned foreign policy, capable of preventing the country's gradual tilt under the orbit of a great power or bloc of powers (Passeri 2020, 8–14). As such, the preservation of independence and freedom of action in the global arena has always embodied the paramount goal of Myanmar's diplomacy, pushing various generations of Burmese leaders to shy away from bilateral and multilateral security arrangements which could potentially jeopardise its non-aligned, “go alone” stance (Trager 1956; Silverstein 1982; Steinberg 2018; Passeri and Marston 2022). This is not to say, however, that Myanmar's diplomatic playbook has endured for more than seven decades without major twists and turns. On the contrary, even a cursory glance at the country's history reveals that Burmese diplomacy has constantly swung between two opposite archetypes of non-alignment, following an oscillating trend that has persisted up to present days. In a nutshell, this dilemma has revolved around the desire to implement a positive, dynamic, and proactive blend of non-alignment, aimed at expanding and diversifying Myanmar's international partnerships, and, on the other hand, the temptation of resorting to a more inwardlooking, reactive, and torpid practice of ‘negative neutralism’, conducive to a gradual retrenchment from the international dimension and to the assertion of autonomy through self-aloofness.

Unsurprisingly, the same puzzle experienced by Myanmar in selecting the most appropriate prototype of non-alignment has traditionally complicated the strategic calculus of many other small powers across the globe, pushing scholars to theorise different variants of what could be considered a neutral or non-aligned behaviour in the global arena. According to Khalid I. Babaa and Cecil V. Crabb (1965, 11–12), for example, the doctrine of ‘positive non-alignment’ entails a clear refusal to join tight and formal alignment links (e.g. alliances, stationing of foreign troops inside the national territory) with great powers, together with a deep-felt commitment to play an independent, constructive, and cooperative role in global affairs through good offices or bridge-building efforts. As such, this positive form of neutralism is often infused with moral and ethical considerations based on an active contribution to peaceful coexistence, coupled by an equally strong rejection of colonialism, imperialism, power politics, and foreign intrusions in the domestic dimension (Goetschel 1999, 120–121).