Bangladesh stands at a critical juncture in its enduring struggle to resolve the Rohingya crisis. With over a million displaced Rohingya still confined to overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar and Teknaf, a contentious new term briefly dominated regional discourse: the “humanitarian corridor.” Introduced as a possible conduit for aid delivery and phased repatriation, the concept quickly ignited intense debate. Yet almost as swiftly as it surfaced, the government distanced itself from the phrase, walking back its position amid mounting scrutiny and confusion.
What exactly was this corridor? Could it have marked a bold humanitarian shift—or was it merely a calculated gesture wrapped in the language of compassion?
As Bangladesh prepares for another round of repatriation talks—this time under the stewardship of Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, Chief Adviser to the interim government—the corridor concept arrives with more questions than answers. With Myanmar engulfed in internal conflict and its military junta still entrenched in power, observers warn that any proposal bypassing the realities on the ground may do little to ensure the safe, dignified, and voluntary return of the Rohingya.
This article draws on research and analysis to examine the potential consequences of starting negotiations with an insurgent group while excluding Myanmar’s military junta from the process. It suggests that sidelining the junta in such talks could increase tensions between Bangladesh and Myanmar.
Rakhine civilians remain trapped in deadly clashes between the Arakan Army and Myanmar’s junta, facing severe shortages of food, medicine, and shelter. As the crisis deepens, the UN has called on Bangladesh to allow aid delivery through its territory.
On April 27, Foreign Affairs Adviser Md. Touhid Hossain said that Bangladesh had agreed in principle to allow a “humanitarian corridor” for aid delivery under certain conditions.
This statement led to confusion and debate within the country, with many unclear about the details and implications.
The interim government later clarified that no formal talks on a “humanitarian corridor” had taken place. Instead, Bangladesh agreed to consider a limited “relief channel” for aid delivery near the border, following a UN request. National Security Adviser Dr. Khalilur Rahman also confirmed there were no discussions about a corridor.
Still, the key question remains: Is this corridor a solid path to justice and reintegration, or merely a political tactic to buy time and ease international pressure?
Broken Promises
The Rohingya crisis is one of Bangladesh’s most pressing humanitarian challenges. Since August 2017, over 750,000 Rohingya fled violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine State—now under investigation by the International Court of Justice. Today, more than one million Rohingya live in overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar, stateless and struggling with trauma and shrinking aid.
Despite multiple repatriation efforts led by Bangladesh, Myanmar, and regional partners, progress remains elusive. These efforts have repeatedly stalled because Myanmar has not guaranteed citizenship, security, or basic rights for the Rohingya. From Bangladesh’s perspective, the lack of trust and unchanged conditions in Rakhine explain why refugees refuse to return under current circumstances.
The Corridor Concept: Hope or Hollow?
The idea of a humanitarian corridor has slowed but not stopped entirely. The Bangladesh Army said it holds no conflict with the interim government but will firmly protect Bangladesh’s national interest. The Army also confirmed no direct contact exists between it and the Arakan Army.
In theory, the corridor would provide a safe, internationally supervised route for Rohingya returnees, possibly involving ASEAN or the United Nations to protect them from the very military forces responsible for past atrocities.
Supporters view the corridor as a practical alternative after stalled negotiations, offering a phased approach to repatriation. For Bangladesh, burdened by the economic and social impact of hosting refugees, the corridor could represent progress toward a lasting solution.
However, serious concerns remain.
First, Myanmar’s military remains in control—the same institution responsible for grave human rights violations against the Rohingya. Can any return be truly safe if this power structure remains unchanged?
Second, the legal status of returnees is uncertain. Will they be granted citizenship, or remain labeled as “Bengali foreigners”? Will they regain their homes and land, or be confined to poor camps in Rakhine?
Third, without full involvement of the UN and international observers, how can transparency and accountability be guaranteed? A corridor without proper monitoring risks becoming another form of hardship rather than relief.
Bangladesh’s Diplomatic Tightrope on Rohingya
Bangladesh’s cautious diplomatic approach is understandable. As host to the world’s largest refugee population, Dhaka faces pressure from donors, rising local tensions, and waning global attention. In this context, exploring every possible option for Rohingya return is reasonable.
Yet Bangladesh’s past experience advises caution. The Rohingya have endured broken promises—agreements signed but not honored, and repatriation lists that excluded many rightful refugees. The phrase “voluntary, safe, and dignified return” must be more than rhetoric; it must be a reality.
Some experts believe symbolic returns through a corridor could help rebuild trust,but partial repatriation without meaningful reforms in Myanmar risks enabling the junta to claim progress while the Rohingya continue to live in danger.
Bangladesh’s goal must remain balanced—open to new ideas but firm in demanding genuine safety, rights, and justice for the Rohingya community.
What Would a Real Solution be?
For Rohingya repatriation through so called humanitarian corridor now being promoted as Humanitarian aid/relief to be credible and effective, it must meet five essential conditions.
These include international oversight by UNHCR or an ASEAN-led mechanism, legal guarantees such as citizenship, land rights, and freedom of movement in Myanmar, and acknowledgment of war crimes and human rights abuses. They also stress the importance of including Rohingya voices in all planning and ensuring sustainable reintegration through community rebuilding, education, and livelihood support.
Without these safeguards, analysts warn the corridor, aid and repatriation could become another unfulfilled promise.
Rohingya Return: Mirage or Mandate for Justice?
Anhonest plan of a humanitarian corridor to repatriate Rohingyas could offer a hopeful path in a difficult situation. But if used only as a political tool to ease regional tensions or reduce Bangladesh’s refugee burden, it will fail once again.
The world must not mistake movement for progress.
Rohingya repatriation is not just about logistics—it is a test of moral and political will. Any real path home must begin with respect for rights, not just routes.
The writer is a Senior Newsroom Editor, (Diplomatic) and Researcher working on International Affairs.
