By Kazi Mohammad Jamshed
Washington-based global lender the World Bank, through concessional lending arms, has gone to bat for Bangladesh to foster its development initiatives since 1972; committing more than $30 billion by backing priorities in economic, social and infrastructural development. Since 2018, this UN affiliated multilateral body, the largest source of financial assistance to developing nations, has committed a total $590 million grant to support Bangladesh to confront the challenges posed by the influx of the forcibly displaced Rohingya. Recently, this bank has been extensively denounced both by policy wonks and mass people after its proposal, through the “Refugee Policy Review Framework” (RPRF), on Rohingya’s integration in Bangladesh. How rational is this proposition of the World Bank?
Four years ago, in late August 2017, “breaking-news” across the world was dominated by the massive influx of Rohingyas to Bangladesh, a result of military-backed bloody “clearance operation”. A 444-page report of the UN’s Independent Fact-Finding Commission substantiated that more than 7,25,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh after this deadly crackdown. The degree of atrocities of this “campaign of terror” embarked on by the military was so intense that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to it as “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing” whilst other investigators dubbed it as “genocide”. In the first three weeks of August 2017, Bangladesh received more refugees than the entire Europe did in 2016 during the “Syrian crisis”. Since then, Bangladesh has been generously hosting more than 1.2 million Rohingyas as short-term guests ensuring a “safe haven” on humanitarian grounds. Now, Cox’s Bazar based 13 Kilometers long Kutupalong “mega-camp”, the largest refugee settlement camp in the world, is the home to this beleaguered community.
Rohingyas, living in Arakan for thousand years, have been actively involved in Burma’s politics since independence. The recognition of Rohingya as Myanmar’s citizens by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) resolves their identity crisis by providing a legal base. Besides, in the hearing of ICJ, Aung San Suu Kyi defined Rohingyas as Arakan’s Muslims. Myanmar signed two repatriation agreements with Bangladesh in 2018 and 2019 respectively giving consent to take back their citizens. Although these repatriation agreements were in vain due to the reluctance of Myanmar, still these agreements are significant proof of Myanmar’s official stance on Rohingyas’ citizenship. Though there is no light at the end of the tunnel, still Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights, in response to the WB’s framework, stated in point blank that they have no desire to receive Bangladeshi citizenship and would like to return to Myanmar.
The WB has proposed to review the RPRF for 14 member states, currently hosting refugees, including Bangladesh, for gauging the effectiveness of the grants for the refugees and host communities under its “soft-loan window” International Development Assistance. This global framework, being reviewed triennially, undertaken in cooperation with UNHCR, suggests providing refugees with the rights to procure land & property, choose a place of residence & freedom of movement, have equal access to the nation’s public service & the labour market etc. like the citizens of the host country. The WB offered $2 billion to Bangladesh if it integrates Rohingya refugees with economic & social rights. The framework is germane for Bangladesh since this move will pave the way for the Rohingyas to become permanent citizens through integration into Bangladesh’s populace. Bangladesh reiterated its stance, by rejecting the proposal outright, stating that Rohingyas are not “refugees” rather “forcibly displaced persons” to whom Bangladesh extended temporary shelter.
The study “Impacts of the Rohingya Refugee Influx on Host Communities” conducted by the UNDP expounded how the overcrowding of Rohingyas affected host communities. The major adverse impact includes price hike, an increase of poverty, rise in housing cost, reduction in wage rate, deforestation, environmental casualty etc. Moreover, the rise of intragroup and intergroup conflicts in the Rohingya camps shrunk the space of coexistence between the host communities and refugees by recasting the social makeup. This month, August 2021, marks the fourth anniversary of the Rohingya exodus to Bangladesh, but a sustainable solution is yet to be found.
The 1951 Refugee Convention suggests three way-outs to the refugee crisis: integration; settlement to a third country; or repatriation. Approximately 166.65 million population of Bangladesh, the 8th largest in the world, makes it one of the densely populated countries with 1,125people in per sq. km. This small country, 92nd in terms of land size, with a total landmass of 147,570 sq. km, slightly smaller than the US Iowa state, is hosting 1.2 million Rohingyas which is higher than the total population of Bhutan. No country in the world is bearing the burden of so many refugees as by overpopulated Bangladesh. Bangladesh, with an unemployment rate of 5.30%, exports approximately 60,000 workers abroad every year which indicates the country’s inability to create employment and struggle to generate employment for its gargantuan unemployed youths. This attracts pointed attention towards inadequate demand for labour in Bangladesh. So, the possibility of integrating the Rohingya into the local community is nipped in the bud. As the number of Rohingya refugees is gigantic, more than a million in Bangladesh and some more are living in 19 other countries and no country has shown interest in receiving them, the option to settle them in a third country seems impassable in foreseeable future. The only way out of the Rohingya crisis lies in safe repatriation to Myanmar.
As the Rohingyas also want to return to Myanmar, integration into Bangladesh, following WB’s recommendations, is like denial of their fundamental & human rights. Some local experts believe that integration may lead to a new “Palestine Crisis” by jeopardizing the sovereignty of Bangladesh and endangering the geopolitical stability of South Asia. This kind of proposal from responsible global leaders like WB will motivate Myanmar to slacken the repatriation process by increasing complexities to this multifaced dilemma. Instead of suggesting such an impracticable proposal, WB could create pressure on Myanmar to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the UN. It could offer financial incentives to Myanmar for expediting the repatriation in internationally monitored safe zones. Some international organizations are planning long-term programs for this “short-term emergency crisis” which will just linger the repatriation process.
Bangladesh is trying its level best to ensure decent arrangements for Rohingyas with its limited financial strengths. Despite not being a signatory of the 1951 refugee convention, Bangladesh complies with its conditions, i.e., not forcing any Rohingya to go back to Myanmar. Accepting WB’s proposal will add fuel to the fire by acting as a pull factor for other Rohingyas, around six lacs, to come to Bangladesh from restive Myanmar. Bangladesh has to bring substantial changes in its policy if it agrees to accept the framework, a complex & time-consuming process that will intensify the misery. Safe & dignified repatriation of Rohingyas to Myanmar is the only sustainable solution to come to an end to their plight. Bangladesh needs more support from international communities to resolve this crisis. The country may expect that the world communities will consider all the relevant issues including the socio-economic conditions of Bangladesh before making any recommendations to resolve the protracted Rohingya refugee crisis by bringing the light of hope to put an end to their struggling present.
Writer’s Bio: Kazi Mohammad Jamshed, a strategic affairs and foreign policy analyst, working as a lecturer at the Department of International Business, University of Dhaka. He can be reached at kazi.duib@gmail.com
This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. CoinCodex does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post and we are not responsible or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the article or for any damage or loss to be caused by and in connection to it.
