Rohingya issue: Bangladesh caught in its short-sightedness
Published: 00:05, Nov 29,2017 | Updated: 01:15, Nov 29,2017
WHY no one seems to be too enthusiastic about the recently signed MoU between Bangladesh and Myanmar on Rohingya repatriation is best explained when our foreign minister says that it has been drafted as Myanmar desired. He added that Bangladesh is happy that Myanmar has agreed to take some of them back.
But Myanmar may be comfortable that the heat will be low now after the MoU and, of course, it can send more refugees any time and Bangladesh can do little about it. Rohingya situation/status has not changed since 1977 and Bangladesh remains at the mercy of Myanmar’s political will.
The facilitator appears to be China who was beginning to feel the heat internationally and knew that at some point of time, the United States might offer something to Bangladesh or do something that could make China uncomfortable.
China’s stake in Myanmar is high and it can still call the shots there and that is what mattered in the end. It came to Bangladesh and reduced the multi-lateral directions that Bangladesh was being forced to take and made it firmly bilateral under Chinese supervision. It was what both China and Myanmar had wanted knowing from the past that Bangladesh’s capacity to diplomatically handle the Rohingya on its own is limited.
Does the MoU mean much?
THE MoU basically takes the heat off Myanmar and gives China more space to pursue OBOR and other economic priorities. But it leaves Bangladesh as vulnerable as before. Given that the MoU follows the 1992 framework closely, the flaws of that one remains. It appears hurriedly cobbled together but as pro-Bangladesh government analysts are saying, It is a beginning at least.
A critical part of the MoU say, only those who came after the alleged ARSA attack will qualify to be considered for repatriation. By doing so, Bangladesh has endorsed the Myanmar, China and Russian position that all of this was due to Rohingya insurgency and not Myanmar army activities.
This also means that the Rohingya refugees before the alleged attack have lost the right to return as the MoU specifically denies/ignores the existence of any such people making the return of all Rohingyas impossible. Thus, about 4,00,00 are now here to stay as Myanmar wanted. It also relieves itself of any accusation that an ethnic cleansing took place.
Ethnic cleansing was actually used by the United Nations which has said that the situation in Myanmar is not fit for the refugees to return. Our media also report that most Rohingyas now in the camps are also not willing to return either. Where does the situation go from here now?
Will refugees return if they at all go back?
IT IS certainly not in favour of the refugees because they are not even a party to the discussion. It is an MoU between Myanmar, which does not recognise the Rohingyas as its citizens, and Bangladesh, which does not accept them as refugees. In this strange quandary, the Rohingyas have no role to play. They are not just victims but invisible too.
But several issues have been mentioned regarding their return to Myanmar which may mean that this is just a time-buyer and another deluge is possible in future. This is apart from the fact that many may not be able to prove their status as residents of Myanmar as mentioned in the MoU.
The 1993 term was vague on their status and the citizenship or associate citizenship is not about to be returned to them; so, even if they do return, they will be housed in temporary shelters and camps which many fear will be used to coerce them again. In that case, what guarantee is there that they will not escape back to Bangladesh? Commenting on the MoU, the Australian web site ‘Conversation’ which has covered the issue since the crisis says:
‘The idea of voluntary return stems from a 1993 agreement between Bangladesh and Myanmar, under which those Rohingyas who can prove their identity must fill in forms with the names of family members, their previous address in Myanmar, their date of birth, and a disclaimer that they are returning voluntarily. But those who do choose to return will face extortion, arbitrary taxation, and restrictions on freedom of movement. Many will be required to undertake forced labour, and some will face state-sponsored violence and extrajudicial killings.’
Given this scenario, how far will the MoU guarantee a safe repatriation?
It is admitted by all that China has played a critical part in getting the MoU signed as all the negative publicity was hurting China’s image as the prime vendor in the region. China needs aggressive marketing stances which have stumbled a bit recently in the region. However, it remains strong enough to push Myanmar and Bangladesh to a MoU and in this equation the Rohingyas are not a factor.
The problem is that an MoU that was signed and admitted by the foreign minister was largely done as sought by Myanmar. The world has cited evidence of ethnic cleansing and the people responsible are still in power. No dates and guidelines, no guarantee of safety, no involvement of the United Nations — barring consultation with the UNHCR — if and when Myanmar decides, and, of course, no mention of any long-term plan that leaves Bangladesh as vulnerable as before to a fresh exodus.
Will Bangladesh force the Rohingyas to return if they refuse as it looks like? Will they erect fences to prevent another exodus? At this point, it seems more like a victory for China followed by Myanmar and a helpless Bangladesh caught in the trap of its own short-sightedness.
Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist and researcher.
http://www.newagebd.net/article/29354/rohingya-issue-bangladesh-caught-in-its-short-sightedness