For the past eight years nearly one and a half million Rohingya refugees have placed a crushing burden on the southeastern coast of Bangladesh. The region has been pushed into a fragile and troubled reality where security threats, drug and human trafficking, deforestation and landslides, the declining livelihoods of fishermen and the downward pressure on wages and prices in local markets have left communities bewildered and exhausted.
In search of a sustainable solution and in order to ensure the safe, voluntary and dignified return of the Rohingya refugees, the United Nations General Assembly has decided to convene a high-level conference on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar at its headquarters in New York on 30 September 2025, with three declared objectives: to maintain international attention on the crisis, to identify the root causes and frame a political pathway to resolution and to integrate human rights, security and development into a practical roadmap for implementation. With the participation of member states, relevant regional bodies and leading international human rights and humanitarian organisations, this gathering will undoubtedly be global in both scale and significance.
Even in the depths of despair, it is possible to treat this initiative as a glimmer of hope. Bangladesh’s National Security Adviser, Khalilur Rahman, told foreign diplomats in a briefing that at one point, the Rohingya issue was on the verge of disappearing from the global agenda, and following Bangladesh’s call at the United Nations last year, 106 countries agreed to sponsor the conference and that arrangements are being made to bring the voices of Rohingya themselves to the forum. All of this points to an accumulation of political support. At the briefing were representatives from 50 missions, including the United Kingdom, the United States, China and the European Union. This may suggest that these powers could treat the upcoming UN conference as a genuine platform for exerting meaningful pressure on Myanmar to enable the return of the refugees.
The persistent use of veto power in the Security Council has not only paralysed decisions in one humanitarian crisis after another but has also stripped away the lofty slogans of humanity and democracy often proclaimed by the great powers. What does the world see today? The UN has failed to restrain Israel or halt the genocide in Gaza. It has failed in stopping Russia’s war in Ukraine. These failures serve as stark reminders that the same frustrations may haunt any attempt to resolve the Rohingya crisis.
UN policy statements of condemnation or the creation of commissions of inquiry have their place. However, they do not change the conditions on the ground. Without guarantees of citizenship, security, the restoration of land and homes, and accountability for those responsible for genocide in Rakhine state, there is no reason for Rohingyas to choose to return voluntarily. Any attempt at coercion or the deployment of peacekeepers ultimately collides with the dirty wall of veto politics.
In the face of this impasse, one must ask why Myanmar feels emboldened to resist so completely. The answer lies in geopolitics. Along Myanmar’s borders, China exercises its greatest strategic and economic influence. Energy pipelines, financial flows, corridors and vast infrastructure investments tie Naypyidaw closely to Beijing. This is why China rarely supports harsh sanctions against Myanmar.
India, on the other hand, places priority on the security of its shared border and the balance of power in its northeastern states. From the ground, this is the unavoidable reality for India, and so it has traditionally pursued a policy of balance with Myanmar. Even during the long years of Sheikh Hasina’s tenure in Dhaka, Delhi refrained from applying strong pressure on Naypyidaw.
What then of the Western powers? The United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada calculate their actions through the lens of their own interests. They may impose controls on financial flows or seek to isolate Myanmar diplomatically, but beyond that their leverage is limited. The current American approach signals that Washington is reassessing its priority steps in the Indo-Pacific security calculus. But Myanmar still remains under the protective support of both China and Russia, and this complicates any hope that Western measures alone could alter its course. Under sustained pressure from the West for a long time, Naypyidaw pursued an isolationist foreign policy and found a willing partner in Moscow. That relationship has given Naypyidaw strategic breathing room.
So, where should Bangladesh turn, and from whom can it expect help? At home many respected elders and retired military officers argue for a robust military posture as the solution to the repatriation crisis. Translated into operational terms, that argument can sound like an invitation to arms. It is important to be clear about what that implies on the ground. The geography and geopolitics themselves work against such a simplistic calculus.
Therefore, the first task is to build coalitions across platforms and turn the Cox’s Bazar dialogue into a structured agenda. The second is to reopen dialogue with China and India, focusing on economic and security concerns. The third is to put pressure on Myanmar through legal channels at the ICJ and ICC. The fourth is to insist on conditional repatriation. The fifth is to establish a donor consortium. And the sixth is to maintain preparedness and expand services in the camps.
Diplomacy must focus on micro design, addressing specific questions about Myanmar’s agreements, pilot returns, observer placements, security incident reports and land disputes. These details will determine if promises are fulfilled.
In the end, the priority must remain the security and livelihood of local families in Cox’s Bazar and Teknaf. The burden of geopolitics cannot be carried by those who are already victims of persecution. The hope must be that the conference in New York delivers a collective and time-bound roadmap that ties regional interests to a rational settlement. Only then will a real light of hope break through and the path to a durable solution for the Rohingya refugees begin to open.
