Humanitarian Corridor: Are We Digging Our Own Graves?

Bangladesh is a country of 170 million people. There are countries with a larger population but Bangladesh is unique in one respect. Here, as many men, so many minds – all feet tread not in one shoe.

It is good to have different opinions, and it may help to arrive at the right opinion if there is a way to reconcile different opinions and minds. Unfortunately, this polemics is largely absent in Bangladesh. Whoever goes to Lanka becomes Ravana. As a result, the opinions of different sages do not come together. There is division in society. Therefore, foreign countries get benefit from this division.

Bangladesh is about to take a very terrible decision recently. I wrote Bangladesh because whatever decision the interim government takes will be Bangladesh’s decision. There is very limited room for dissent here. The disastrous decision is to use Bangladesh as a corridor to send humanitarian aid, like food and medicine, to the Rakhine region of Myanmar. Though not supported by international humanitarian laws, the use of such humanitarian corridors is a novel invention of the 21st century. We have seen enough of these in many places recently, including Syria, Gaza and Ukraine. Although it is a humanitarian corridor in name, this is essentially a military corridor.

First of all, if the question of such a humanitarian corridor comes up, it means that there is such an extremely uncertain war situation that there is no way to reach humanitarian aid. When does this kind of situation occur? This occurs when one or two parties to the conflict intentionally create a famine situation and block the way for aid to survive the famine. Therefore, no matter how humane the act of dealing with famine may sound, in reality it means taking a stand against one or more parties to the war. Therefore, establishing a corridor in the midst of a war can never be an innocent corridor.

What if the Myanmar government, the Arakan Army or any other armed group obstructs this humanitarian aid? Clearly, they have been obstructing it for so long. For this, the question of establishing a humanitarian corridor has arisen. In this case, establishing a corridor ignoring the conflicting parties is tantamount to taking a stand against all the conflicting parties. Or maybe this corridor is a way actually to assist one of the non-state actors! Is this a strategy to bypass the Myanmar government and support an armed group? Isn’t Bangladesh itself becoming a party by getting involved there in such a manner?

The question of this corridor had arisen before the UN Secretary-General’s visit to Bangladesh. Why did Bangladesh suddenly get involved in this issue? Wasn’t it better to have discussions with the Myanmar government, the Arakan Army or other armed parties to establish this corridor? If humanitarian aid is the only objective, can those parties have such a reason to object? Let’s assume that the Myanmar government does not have absolute authority over the area in question, but the aid will reach Myanmar’s land. We all, including the UN, respect Myanmar’s sovereignty. Those who will go to provide aid will need a visa or permission to enter Myanmar. This needs to come from the Myanmar government. The UN may require coordinating with other conflicting parties as well.

On the other hand, humanitarian aid can be sent violating this sovereignty, ignoring permission and even without coordination. However, in such a case, a decision by the UN Security Council will be required. Let us see first the decision of the Security Council, where China and Russia are sitting. The matter is complex on many levels. What if humanitarian work is hindered? What if humanitarian workers are attacked? Then the Security Council can, if necessary, deploy armed guards for their safety. War upon war. Even a fool knows his business. Unfortunately, the Bangladeshi officials are not!

The political parties of Bangladesh are now behaving somewhat rationally. BNP has opposed it very loudly, and said that it will also woo other political parties to its side. Jamaat-e-Islami and NCP have not yet taken a clear position. Why the government wants to take such a big decision on its own is also a mystery.

Everyone is sure that Myanmar, Rakhine, the Arakan Army and the Rohingya were on the plate during the recent visit of two middle-ranking officials of the US State Department to Dhaka and Cox’s Bazar, and earlier during the meeting of a military officer of the US Pacific Command with the army chief. Recently, has the hasty establishment of Starlink in Bangladesh also become an urgent necessity for communication facilities in the bordering hilly areas? Was there a need for such a network that the government would not have control over? The fact that other leaders, starting from the prime minister of the previous government, repeatedly said that the US wanted to set up a military base here, or create a separate state in this region, is now also coming to the fore.

India has investments in the Rakhine region. It wants to reach the northeastern states through the Kaladan River. China also has investments. It is building a seaport and a gas pipeline there. Several separatist armed groups are active in the Rakhine region. Among them, the Arakan Army has taken control of a large part of the state. The Arakan Army is known to be hostile towards the Rohingya community. On the other hand, the crisis in Bangladesh is multifaceted. Over a million Rohingyas have taken refuge in Bangladesh after being expelled from Myanmar. The influx of refugees has not stopped.

They are still crossing the border into Bangladesh every day. It is feared that the remaining Rohingyas in Myanmar will also proceed to Bangladesh sooner or later. I do not understand why we are opening such a charitable umbrella! Are we not playing with fire? We shot ourselves in the foot by allowing refugees to enter Bangladesh in 2017. We have brought about a terrible calamity with our own imprudence. In Bangla, we often say that by cutting a canal, we bring in deadly crocodiles. Now, by deciding to join the humanitarian corridor, we are reaching the full extent of that disaster.

The chief adviser once said about Donald Trump that he was interested in business deals. That is why he asked him to come to a deal. We do not know if any such deal was made then. Now, if we try to put two and two together, we are worried. Are we going to make another historical mistake?

For geopolitical reasons, there is no shortage of interest from the US or China in the Rakhine region. India also has its own interest. Maybe at this stage, it can complement the US interest. The fate and interests of Myanmar and Bangladesh are also linked to the political geography of this region. That is why any decision regarding the Rakhine or Rohingya is sensitive for Bangladesh. Here, national security and national interests deserve more consideration than emotions, humanity or ideology. As our proverb says, self-preservation is the first law of nature - every man is for himself. It means that under any circumstances, you must protect your own interests first.

Are we doing that? My request to the interim government, get out of the Rohingya-Rakhine trap of the previous government. Establish credibility by holding closed-door tête-à-tête with the head of the Myanmar government. Establish trust and confidence. Send the refugees back. Refugees will not be repatriated in any way other than by establishing trust and credibility.

Are we looking for an alternative path? Are we complacent about it? The alternative path is dangerous, bloody and just like gambling. Whether Bangladesh has such competence is a big question, and whether we will have the capability to handle the scenario if the complexity upsurges, and we become a pawn in the game of the big guys is the even bigger question. Remember, when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers the most.