Pseudo Neutrality in Intra-State Conflict: Myanmar’s Official Discourse on Rakhine

K. Houston
{"title":"Pseudo Neutrality in Intra-State Conflict: Myanmar’s Official Discourse on Rakhine","authors":"K. Houston","doi":"10.51870/cejiss.a140202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the most recent manifestation of conflict in Rakhine can be traced to the coordinated attack on Myanmar security forces in August 2017 by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (hereafter ARSA), it goes without saying that the problem has a longer history. For this paper a corpus of official Myanmar government sources was examined qualitatively using the critical discourse analysis (CDA) method. Within the official pronouncements of the Myanmar state since August 2017 we can discern the discursive strategies deployed to balance the competing pressures of national and international legitimation of the Myanmar government. In name and through action, Myanmar has marginalized the Rohingyas. However, beyond this obvious imperative additional and more subtle strategies have been deployed in Myanmar’s official discourse, which attempts to position the Myanmar state as a neutral arbiter in a subnational dispute and one that seeks to distance itself from previous political arrangements. The paper focuses on these other discursive strategies which evince conformity to undercurrents of socio-cultural pressures from grassroots extremist Buddhist actors within Myanmar. Ultimately, there is no escaping Official Myanmar’s responsibility for the status and plight of the Rohingya. The prognosis for external pressure to exert any normative influence on Myanmar will be limited. The official discourse betrays the ongoing attempts by the new government to balance these competing pressures at the expense of genuine neutrality and its responsibilities.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51870/cejiss.a140202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the most recent manifestation of conflict in Rakhine can be traced to the coordinated attack on Myanmar security forces in August 2017 by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (hereafter ARSA), it goes without saying that the problem has a longer history. For this paper a corpus of official Myanmar government sources was examined qualitatively using the critical discourse analysis (CDA) method. Within the official pronouncements of the Myanmar state since August 2017 we can discern the discursive strategies deployed to balance the competing pressures of national and international legitimation of the Myanmar government. In name and through action, Myanmar has marginalized the Rohingyas. However, beyond this obvious imperative additional and more subtle strategies have been deployed in Myanmar’s official discourse, which attempts to position the Myanmar state as a neutral arbiter in a subnational dispute and one that seeks to distance itself from previous political arrangements. The paper focuses on these other discursive strategies which evince conformity to undercurrents of socio-cultural pressures from grassroots extremist Buddhist actors within Myanmar. Ultimately, there is no escaping Official Myanmar’s responsibility for the status and plight of the Rohingya. The prognosis for external pressure to exert any normative influence on Myanmar will be limited. The official discourse betrays the ongoing attempts by the new government to balance these competing pressures at the expense of genuine neutrality and its responsibilities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国家内部冲突中的伪中立:缅甸对若开邦的官方话语
尽管若开邦最近的冲突表现可以追溯到2017年8月阿拉干罗兴亚救世军(以下简称ARSA)对缅甸安全部队的协同袭击,但不用说,这个问题的历史更长。在本文中,使用批判性话语分析(CDA)方法对缅甸政府官方来源的语料库进行了定性检验。在缅甸政府自2017年8月以来的官方声明中,我们可以看到为平衡缅甸政府国家和国际合法化的竞争压力而部署的话语策略。名义上和行动上,缅甸把罗兴亚人边缘化了。然而,除了这一明显的必要性之外,缅甸的官方话语中还部署了更多更微妙的策略,试图将缅甸政府定位为国家以下争端的中立仲裁者,并试图与以前的政治安排保持距离。本文关注的是这些其他话语策略,这些策略显示出与缅甸基层极端佛教行为者的社会文化压力暗流相一致。归根结底,缅甸官方对罗兴亚人的地位和困境负有责任。外部压力对缅甸施加任何规范性影响的预测都是有限的。官方的言论暴露了新政府正在努力平衡这些相互竞争的压力,而牺牲了真正的中立性及其责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS) was founded by Mitchell Belfer (Editor in Chief), David Erkomaishvili (Deputy Editor in Chief), Nigorakhon Turakhanova (Head of the Academic Centre) and Petr Kucera, in December 2006, as an autonomous wing of the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Metropolitan University Prague. The initial goal was to develop, and project globally, a uniquely Central European take on unfolding international and security issues. This entailed an initial “out-reach” programme to attract scholars from throughout the four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic – to participate in the journal as authors and members of the Editorial and (then) Advisory Boards. By the time of the first issue however, it became clear that CEJISS was also capable of acting as a platform for non-Central European scholars to present their academic research to a more regionalised audience. From issue 1:1 in June 2007 until the present, CEJISS has become, quite literally, a two-way street—it helps Central European scholars enter international academia and international scholars enter Central Europe.
期刊最新文献
Terrorism Financing Typologies: Comparison of PKK and ISIL in Turkey EU’s External Action and Russia: How Can Institutionalisation Affect Decision Making? Half-Hearted or Pragmatic? Explaining EU Strategic Autonomy and the European Defence Fund through Institutional Dynamics Transcending Two Percent: Toward a Prioritarian Model of NATO Burden-Sharing Western Orientalism Targeting Eastern Europe: An Emerging Research Programme
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1