Scholarlink

Since August 2017, Myanmar’s Rohingya eviction has disproportionately directed more attention to consequences (alleviating the million-strong displaced persons in Bangladesh) than causes (for example, Rohingya persecution). Without any repatriation in 7 years (after multiple evictions from Rakhine), could the causal factors have changed? Based upon focus-group discussions, secondary sources on ‘global’/‘regional’/‘local’ rivalry, and key informant interviews, this chapter probes the roles of three external catalysts (China, India, and Japan) in isolationist Myanmar. Guided by a “third country proxy” argument (Jain and Maini in India-Japan ‘soft power’ cooperation in Myanmar, 2015. https://thediplomat.com/2015/04/india-japan-soft-power-cooperation-in-myanmar/ ), it finds that (a) ‘global’ forces (countries/companies) permeating ‘local’ terrains (indigenous communities) and (b) ‘local’ players toying with ‘global’ players each contribute to destabilizing all analytical levels and relevant players. Theoretically strengthened, the study’s Rohingya findings suggest applying this “third country proxy” argument to similar African and Middle Eastern cases.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Global” Causes and “Local” Rohingya Consequences: Rakhine’s “Rivers of Babylon”?

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Imtiaz A. Hussain

摘要

Since August 2017, Myanmar’s Rohingya eviction has disproportionately directed more attention to consequences (alleviating the million-strong displaced persons in Bangladesh) than causes (for example, Rohingya persecution). Without any repatriation in 7 years (after multiple evictions from Rakhine), could the causal factors have changed? Based upon focus-group discussions, secondary sources on ‘global’/‘regional’/‘local’ rivalry, and key informant interviews, this chapter probes the roles of three external catalysts (China, India, and Japan) in isolationist Myanmar. Guided by a “third country proxy” argument (Jain and Maini in India-Japan ‘soft power’ cooperation in Myanmar, 2015. https://thediplomat.com/2015/04/india-japan-soft-power-cooperation-in-myanmar/ ), it finds that (a) ‘global’ forces (countries/companies) permeating ‘local’ terrains (indigenous communities) and (b) ‘local’ players toying with ‘global’ players each contribute to destabilizing all analytical levels and relevant players. Theoretically strengthened, the study’s Rohingya findings suggest applying this “third country proxy” argument to similar African and Middle Eastern cases.