Diverging Response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis since 2017 Military Crackdown: Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia

IF 0.1 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Korean Journal of International Studies Pub Date : 2021-04-30 DOI:10.14731/KJIS.2021.04.19.1.133
Y. Jeong
{"title":"Diverging Response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis since 2017 Military Crackdown: Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia","authors":"Y. Jeong","doi":"10.14731/KJIS.2021.04.19.1.133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I examine the diverging responses of neighboring countries in response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis in order to answer the question of what made Bangladesh more accepting of Rohingya refugees. In light of the existing literature, two tentative explanations are proposed. One concerns the external economic inducement, and the other focuses on the political leeway enjoyed by the incumbent. Drawing on the comparative analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia, I find support for the political leeway explanation. Bangladesh has accepted the Rohingya refugees as its political leeway allowed the government to turn the crisis to its political advantage. Bangladesh’s domestic political environment, including a robust ruling party and a weak opposition party, has ensured the government to dominate the issue framing of Rohingya refugees that benefits the government’s position. On the other hand, Malaysia’s political environment limited its government’s ability to influence the issue framing; facing domestic political opposition, it hardly accepted the Rohingya refugees.","PeriodicalId":41543,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14731/KJIS.2021.04.19.1.133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the diverging responses of neighboring countries in response to the Rohingya Refugee Crisis in order to answer the question of what made Bangladesh more accepting of Rohingya refugees. In light of the existing literature, two tentative explanations are proposed. One concerns the external economic inducement, and the other focuses on the political leeway enjoyed by the incumbent. Drawing on the comparative analysis of Bangladesh and Malaysia, I find support for the political leeway explanation. Bangladesh has accepted the Rohingya refugees as its political leeway allowed the government to turn the crisis to its political advantage. Bangladesh’s domestic political environment, including a robust ruling party and a weak opposition party, has ensured the government to dominate the issue framing of Rohingya refugees that benefits the government’s position. On the other hand, Malaysia’s political environment limited its government’s ability to influence the issue framing; facing domestic political opposition, it hardly accepted the Rohingya refugees.
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
2017年军事镇压以来对罗兴亚难民危机的不同反应:孟加拉国和马来西亚的比较分析
在本文中,我研究了邻国对罗兴亚难民危机的不同反应,以回答是什么让孟加拉国更容易接受罗兴亚人难民的问题。结合现有文献,提出了两种初步的解释。一个关注外部经济诱因,另一个关注现任者享有的政治回旋余地。通过对孟加拉国和马来西亚的比较分析,我发现对政治回旋余地的解释是支持的。孟加拉国接纳了罗兴亚难民,因为其政治回旋余地使政府能够将危机转化为政治优势。孟加拉国国内的政治环境,包括一个强大的执政党和一个软弱的反对党,确保了政府在罗兴亚难民的问题框架上占据主导地位,这有利于政府的立场。另一方面,马来西亚的政治环境限制了其政府影响问题框架的能力;面对国内的政治反对,它几乎不接受罗兴亚难民。
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
Korean Journal of International Studies
Korean Journal of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
CRUDE POWER: How Oil Affects Military Capacity and Institutions The Moderating Effects of Official Development Assistance on the Relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and Human Development The Nord Stream pipe dream: How an outdated Ostpolitik misguided Germany’s foreign policy toward Russia Why Restrict Emigration: Autocrats’ Economic Ideas in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan Supply Chain Security in the Age of Techno-Geopolitics: ‘Fab 4’ Case in the Semiconductor Industry
×
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