Rohingya repatriation: can it be made sustainable?

Amir M. Sayem

Repatriation of Rohingya, one of the most persecuted and helpless ethnic populations in the world, is rendered as the preferred solution. But repatriation is still uncertain though Rohingyas were forced to leave Rakhine more than three years ago facing persecution – termed by the UN as ‘genocide’ and some organizations as ‘ethnic cleansing’ – by the Myanmar Army in response to an attack on a security outpost. Amidst the uncertainty, the trilateral meeting virtually held among Bangladesh, Myanmar and China on January 19 seems optimistic, at least somewhat, as Myanmar expressed its willingness to take back Rohingya. But an important question remains on whether sustainable repatriation will be a reality at all.

Undeniably, Myanmar did not show any real interest in taking back Rohingya to their home lands earlier. For several times since the forceful displacement, Naypyidaw denied Rohingya population its citizens.

In 2018, Myanmar and Bangladesh made a memorandum of understanding – rendered as the most significant advancement – for step-wise repatriation in a voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable manner; at the initial phase, 1500 Rohingyas were supposed to go back to Myanmar but the repatriation process was stopped.

The bilateral deal was not yet implemented and Myanmar delayed the so-called verification process and repatriation for quite a lot of times. Even if Myanmar agreed for Rohingya repatriation, its efforts do not seem convincing and sustainable by any means.

In fact, Myanmar has not made conducive environmental needed for sustainable return to Rakhine. As is criticized, Naypyidaw has steadily constructed military base in Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships and some other establishments – helipads, fencing, roads and extensions of non-Rohingya villages – on the top of Rohingya villages that were razed to the ground after August 2017 and later bulldozed. Till now, there is no remarkable initiative for changing its policy for the return of Rohingya to their households and original places of residence. Moreover, there is no actual advancement on providing citizenship status, important for living as natural citizens with the enjoyment of economic, political, social and cultural rights and avoiding future possible forceful displacement.

Amidst the uncertainty of quick return, or based on the convincing perception of delayed repatriation, Bangladesh has in the mean time arranged a temporary shelter in Bhasan Char – an island near to Noakhali district – for the accommodation of 100000 Rohingya out of a total of 1.1 million currently living in Cox’s Bazar. This is obviously a good initiative as it provides upgraded housing conditions, some income generation opportunities and some other better facilities, but it is not the preferred solution to the displacement crisis and does not provide rights as citizens. Given resource constraints and some other limitations, integration of Rohingya as citizens is not a feasible option for Bangladesh at all.

The relevant question is why Myanmar delays repatriation. Of course, there are varied reasons but ineffective and scant international and regional efforts are mostly responsible. Up until now, one of the most important international initiatives is Gambia’s move to bring Myanmar to justice by opening a case in the International Court of Justice in 2019. But this aims at preventing or punishing acts of genocide against Rohingya, instead of securing the highly sought after solution – sustainable repatriation.

The United Nations, the EU, the USA and some other countries have also made some efforts, but these are mostly characterized by occasional pressure upon Myanmar for repatriation and sanctions on some military personnel responsible for killings and forced displacement of Rohingya ethnic group.

On the other hand, regional countries including China, Japan, India and Russia sometimes assured Bangladesh regarding their supports for repatriation of displaced Rohingya. But there was no notable regional effort for years. Of regional countries, China has obviously very close and effective relationships with Myanmar in terms of not only economic but also militarily strategic. But China – widely rendered as a strong supporter to the Military of Myanmar – and Russia opposed resolution efforts of the UN aiming at the Rohingya issue earlier. Despite the fact that China made some initiatives earlier, it is only its latest effort – the trilateral virtual meeting – that bears some potential for repatriation; yet, this brings no concrete and decisive outcome for sustainable repatriation.

As it appears, more effective international and regional efforts are important for repatriation in peaceful manner. Of course, the United Nations needs to play crucial roles, but powerful countries – both Western and Asian – have some undeniable roles to play to peacefully repatriate Rohingya population to their home places in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. In my opinion, international and regional efforts need to be made sustainable repatriation oriented. While increased pressure upon Myanmar is needed from Western countries, reflection of earnestness is crucial from Asian counties including China, Russia and India. Of course, China has something more to do for sustainable and peaceful repatriation at the earlier possible time, given that it has the most significant influence on Myanmar.

Not less important is the fact that Bangladesh, as the host country, needs to continue bilateral diplomacy with Myanmar and strengthen its efforts at regional and global level for peaceful and sustainable repatriation. In my opinion, Bangladesh should realize the fact that international organizations and third party states may not make required efforts on their own for repatriation without its consistent approach.

Along with the engagement of the UN in the repatriation process, Bangladesh should strengthen its diplomacy with Western countries for putting pressure on Myanmar and Asian countries for generating earnest and proactive roles. Given that there are some positive changes, concrete challenge-oriented diplomacy can play effective roles for sustainable repatriation in the coming days. Of course, Myanmar has some undeniable and earnest roles to play to sustainably repatriate its own citizens.

In my opinion, Myanmar should realize that taking back displaced Rohingya in 1978 and 1992-93 is clearly indicative of its willingness as sufficient for the repatriation at this time too, and that persecution can only make it a more isolated country in the future too. Moreover, it needs to leave the controversial national verification card process, identify an acceptable pathway and continue talks with Bangladesh. Simultaneously, Myanmar should provide full citizenship rights to Rohingya as opposed to temporary citizenship and ensure repatriation to their own lands instead of temporary shelters.