Suchergebnisse

Cover page -- Halftitle page -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Dedication -- Contents -- List of Illustrations -- Acronyms -- INTRODUCTION Bamboo, Tarpaulin and Mud -- 'We are Rohingya' -- Burma or Myanmar? -- 1 Rohingya Roots in Ancient Arakan -- First millennium Arakan -- Islam's arrival in Arakan -- Slavery and forced migration from Bengal -- 2 British Colonial Rule and Rohingya Identity -- Arakan's Rooinga community in 1795 -- Arakan's pre-colonial population -- Colonial Arakan -- 3 Citizenship Laws: Making Rohingya Stateless -- Independent Burma's citizenship regime -- Citizenship after the 1962 coup -- 1982 Citizenship Law -- 4 Myanmar's Failed Political Transition -- Political change in the Golden Land -- Words as Weapons -- This is what genocide looks like -- A politician not an icon -- A new insurgency -- A political problem with a political solution -- 5 Conflicting Historical Narratives -- 6 People Would Like to Demolish Our History -- 7 We are Rohingya -- A genocidal military campaign -- The Mother of humanity -- 8 Seeking Common Ground -- A renewed domestic focus -- The Tatmadaw's 'unfinished job' -- A broken system -- Future hopes -- Acknowledgements -- Bibliographical Survey -- Notes -- Index.

This article considers the role of the state authorities in perpetrating extreme speech and the processes by which state power is used in normalizing hateful expressions against minoritized communities. Drawing attention to Myanmar's 2017 Rohingya crisis, a human rights and humanitarian catastrophe, the article examines how the state media publication, the Global New Light of Myanmar newspaper, has actively produced anti-Rohingya speech in its editions and influenced violent narratives about the Rohingya Muslims circulating on social media. It shows how official media contributed to a political environment where anti-Rohingya speech was made acceptable and where rights abuses against the group were excused. While regulators often consider the role of social media platforms like Facebook as conduits for the spread of extreme speech, this case study shows that extreme speech by state actors using state media ought to be similarly considered a major concern for scholarship and policy.

This article argues that Myanmar's authorities subject the Rohingya to human rights violations that can be accurately described as the crime of apartheid. Myanmar's discriminatory application of its citizenship laws and processes is central to this crime, yet while Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the court's jurisdiction remains limited. However, Myanmar's government has brought this crime to the territory of International Criminal Court (ICC) member state Bangladesh. Because Myanmar's government insists upon Rohingya participation in discriminatory citizenship processes as a precondition of refugee repatriation to Myanmar, this presents the ICC with an opportunity to assert its jurisdiction. While current ICC investigation focusses mostly on alleged crimes committed by the Myanmar military, crimes associated with Myanmar's citizenship processes would likely be the responsibility of Myanmar's civilian government, including State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, making Myanmar's civilian political leaders liable for the first time to ICC prosecution.