M A Hossain,
The Rohingya crisis has for years been recognized as one of the world’s gravest humanitarian tragedies. For Bangladesh, it impacts heavily on society, the economy, and the environment. For Myanmar, it remains a decades-old unresolved chapter of ethnic conflict. And for the international community, it is a man-made disaster that is met with sympathy but offers little room for resolution. About 1.3 million Rohingyas took refuge in Bangladesh, all of whom have been eking out a life between temporary refuge and permanent statelessness.
After August 2017, the political realities inside Myanmar pushed the return of the Rohingyas into uncertainty. The return of the Rohingyas became more complicated after the rise of the Arakan Army and the outbreak of a civil war. A High-Level Conference on the Situation of the Rohingya Muslims and Other Minorities in Myanmar was held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Bangladesh’s interim chief adviser, Muhammad Yunus, attempted to shift the conversation from despair to resolution. He unveiled a seven-point proposal, not only for its clarity but also for its insistence that this crisis must be solved at its origin—inside Myanmar itself.
Why has the world failed? Because geopolitical rivalry gets more priority than humanitarianism. Global powers have their own interests in Myanmar. Its neighbors are caught between geographic proximity and domestic political sensitivities, which have often led them to choose disengagement, as reflected in their absence from the conference’s opening session.
But it would be unjust to turn this crisis into a proxy battlefield for competing powers. This crisis has to be addressed as a humanitarian and regional political crisis. Before it is too late, Yunus urged the global powers, along with regional players, to find pragmatic solutions for safe and dignified Rohingya repatriation.
At the heart of Yunus’s proposal is the idea that repatriation is the only sustainable solution. Continued international protection, he argued, is both costly and inadequate. Funding shortfalls have already begun to shrink the support available for Rohingyas in Bangladesh’s camps, where over 30,000 children are born each year into lives without citizenship or mobility. Repatriation, while difficult, requires fewer long-term resources and restores to the Rohingyas the dignity of belonging to a homeland.
The seven points outlined by Yunus present a constructive roadmap:
1. Devise a practical roadmap for safe, dignified Rohingya repatriation. 2. Exert effective pressure on both the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army to cease violence. 3. Continue international support to stabilize Rakhine, including the presence of civilian monitors. 4. Support confidence-building measures to integrate Rohingyas into Rakhine society and governance. 5. Mobilize adequate donor contributions to fund the Joint Response Plan. 6. Pursue accountability and restorative justice for past atrocities. 7. Dismantle the narco-economy and combat cross-border crime.
Eventually, none of these steps would resolve the crisis overnight. Yet in concert, they would align moral obligation with cold-eyed political realism, a strategy at once humane and pragmatic.
For the United Nations, the Rohingya crisis is a test of credibility. It cannot remain a “side event” at global gatherings while louder wars dominate the stage. The UN can act decisively in three ways.
First, the Security Council should appoint a special envoy with the authority to engage directly with Myanmar’s military, the Arakan Army, and other regional stakeholders. Mediation is futile without an empowered messenger.
Second, the UN should form a joint monitoring presence including ASEAN members in Rakhine. This monitoring mission will supervise the safe and dignified Rohingya repatriation.
Third, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees should not remain confined to rhetoric only. It must scale up its technical expertise and financial lifelines, not only for the teeming camps of Bangladesh but also for Rakhine itself when rehabilitation begins. Declarations without reality bring more disaster.
But the UN needs to bank on a very influential actor in this region, China. It holds unique leverage with the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army. Previously, Beijing has mediated trilateral discussions. Bangladesh, with the help of the UN, should step up diplomatic engagement with China for repatriation as well as ceasefire.
The United States and European Union must refrain from the temptation of symbolism. Sanctions have their place, but they also push the affected nation toward the opposite bloc. So, they should commit resources for humanitarian assistance and support confidence-building projects inside Myanmar.
Other Muslim-majority states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Malaysia rallied to Bangladesh's side with constancy and carried the crisis onto the global stage. Their role now must move from words to wallets. Funding the Joint Response Plan is not charity; it is an investment in stability.
And Bangladesh itself deserves more than sympathy. It has been bearing a burden at the cost of its social and economic capacity. If world leaders continue to neglect this crisis, then the impact will not only harm the refugees but also destabilize a nation that maintains South Asia’s balance.
No one should be naïve about what lies ahead. Myanmar is fractured beyond recognition. The Arakan Army has little incentive to compromise without external guarantees. The scars of violence between Rohingyas and Rakhine Buddhists run deep. And Bangladesh’s patience, tested year after year, is not infinite.
But the stalemate of such a crisis does not remain silent; it erupts with corrosive effects. History offers a grim picture. The Palestinian camps are breeding grounds for despair and extremism; Sahrawi refugees in Western Sahara have become an oblivious issue for global leaders. The enforced displacement of any community turns into a humanitarian issue and becomes a geopolitical fault line.
In the end, the Rohingya crisis, as a persecuted minority, is a litmus test for the rest of civilization. It is an ordeal for the international community, whether it can still act collectively for a moral cause in the age of division. Can China and the West, even briefly, suspend their rivalries for a humanitarian resolution? Can ASEAN step beyond its habit of passivity? Can Muslim nations match their solidarity with substance?
Bangladesh has made its position loud and clear. It prefers solutions and cooperation. The world’s response will decide whether this crisis will remain another endless scar—or whether it becomes a success story of cooperative diplomacy. The choice is stark. The time is now.
M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com
This article published at :
1. The Jakarta Post, Indonesia: 03 Oct,25
No comments:
Post a Comment