In the midst of ongoing conflict between Myanmar’s military junta and the rebel group Arakan Army, security analysts have raised questions about the decision to establish a humanitarian corridor in Rakhine. They argue that without consensus among all regional stakeholders influencing Myanmar, including the junta and the Arakan Army, implementing such a corridor under UN supervision would be unfeasible.
Historically, humanitarian corridors have often expanded beyond their intended scope, intertwining with military issues over time. Additionally, making such decisions without consulting the country’s political parties could lead to negative outcomes.
When asked how Bangladesh might benefit from a corridor in Rakhine, a government diplomat responded, “Consider the Rohingyas. They fled from Myanmar and are still arriving. If a humanitarian corridor is established, they might start returning. Do you think the Rohingyas want to stay here? All Rohingyas want to go back. If anyone thinks they want to stay here, that’s incorrect. Once they start returning, others will feel the situation is favorable and might follow suit. It’s not just about calculations; there’s a lot of emotion involved.”
Another government diplomat emphasized the need for national unity, stating, “Establishing a corridor in Rakhine requires discussions among the country’s political parties. Myanmar’s government and the Arakan Army must also reach a consensus. If Myanmar agrees to take back the Rohingyas in Bangladesh through a formal agreement, a humanitarian channel could be established. However, this must involve the UN and other influential countries.”
Security analysts also highlight the significant economic investments of China and India in Rakhine. The presence of third parties around the Bay of Bengal might not be well-received by these nations. From a security perspective, China and India might oppose the idea of a corridor through Bangladesh or the involvement of any third party in the region.
+ There are no comments
Add yours