Consensus a must to channel aid to Rakhine

The concept of a humanitarian or aid corridor is something relatively new to most people in Bangladesh. Yet, it has emerged as a central topic of national discussion following a recent UN-initiated proposal to channel aid to the famine-stricken Rakhine State in Myanmar, using routes that would traverse Bangladeshi territory. While on the surface, the humanitarian urgency of the matter cannot be understated, the nuances, implications, and possible fallout from such a decision merit careful scrutiny and, more importantly, broad-based national consensus.

There is no universally accepted definition of a humanitarian corridor. However, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) provides a broadly accepted framework: such corridors are usually agreements between warring parties to allow for the safe passage of civilians, humanitarian aid, or the evacuation of the wounded and sick during armed conflict. In this context, corridors can offer temporary relief and help prevent large-scale humanitarian disasters. However, their use must be carefully negotiated and monitored to avoid potential misuse or exacerbation of existing tensions.

Amid the growing debate in Bangladesh, the interim government has issued clarifications, drawing a clear line between a "humanitarian corridor" and a "humanitarian channel." While they maintain that Bangladesh has not entered into any agreement regarding a humanitarian corridor, they admit to being in negotiations with the United Nations regarding the possibility of an aid channel to Rakhine State.

Government officials argue that establishing such a channel could be instrumental in promoting conditions conducive to the repatriation of Rohingya refugees currently residing in Bangladesh. The logic is straightforward: if aid is delivered effectively, and if both the Myanmar government and the Arakan Army uphold their reported agreement to cease hostilities during the aid distribution period, it might foster a fragile but necessary peace. This, in turn, could provide the Rohingya population with the security and basic services necessary to consider returning to their homeland voluntarily and safely.

To that end, Bangladesh has reportedly laid out several non-negotiable conditions for the aid channel: cessation of hostilities in Rakhine during the aid period, unimpeded access to aid, non-discriminatory distribution, and a guarantee that aid will not be weaponised. These stipulations are not only reasonable but essential. In the volatile context of Rakhine, where ethnic and political conflicts remain entrenched, even well-intentioned aid can be diverted or manipulated for political or military advantage.

Nevertheless, this issue is far from straightforward. Critics of the aid channel proposal raise valid concerns that should not be overlooked. Chief among them is the security threat such a channel might pose to Bangladesh. If appropriate monitoring mechanisms are not in place, aid could be weaponised or diverted to fuel further conflict between the Arakan Army and the Myanmar military. Such a scenario would not only defeat the humanitarian purpose but could also embroil Bangladesh in a conflict beyond its borders, damaging bilateral relations and exposing the country to retaliatory actions.

There is also the danger of setting a precedent. Agreeing to such an initiative without robust oversight could be interpreted by internal or external actors as a sign of weakness or naïveté in Bangladesh's foreign policy and national security strategy. Moreover, even with a temporary ceasefire, there is no guarantee that hostilities will not resume once aid has been delivered. Without sustained peace, the long-term objective of Rohingya repatriation will remain as elusive as ever.

An additional layer of concern surrounds the issue of national sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. Many political parties and civil society leaders have questioned the legitimacy of such negotiations taking place under the auspices of a non-elected, interim government. They argue that decisions involving foreign aid operations, especially in a region as sensitive as Rakhine, must be taken by an elected parliament that represents the collective will of the people. This is not an issue to be handled in isolation by bureaucrats or unelected officials, no matter how well-intentioned. At the very least, there must be consultations with political parties across the spectrum to reach a national consensus.

This scribe does not oppose the idea of extending humanitarian assistance to suffering civilians in Rakhine. On the contrary, we affirm that as a responsible regional actor and a compassionate nation, Bangladesh should do everything within reason to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. However, such actions must be taken in a manner that preserves national security, respects domestic political processes, and ensures accountability and transparency.

The government's rationale -- that preventing another influx of Rohingya refugees is a national priority -- is entirely valid. Bangladesh already shoulders a disproportionately large burden of hosting over a million Rohingya refugees. A fresh wave would stretch the country's already limited resources and further complicate an already difficult situation. However, using aid as a strategic tool to prevent refugee inflow is not a guaranteed solution. If mismanaged, it could provoke new tensions with Myanmar or with internal political stakeholders, further destabilising the region.

The proposed aid channel must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and built on solid guarantees from both the United Nations and all stakeholders involved. The international community must play a proactive role not only in delivering aid but also in ensuring that it is used appropriately and that ceasefire commitments are upheld. Aid without peace, after all, can only be a band-aid on a festering wound.

Most importantly, this initiative must not proceed without a national conversation. The people of Bangladesh have the right to know what is being negotiated in their name, especially when it pertains to national security and international relations. We urge the government to initiate open dialogue with political parties, civil society groups, and experts in foreign policy and humanitarian law. Holding parliamentary debates or at least convening a special consultative committee could ensure greater transparency and foster public trust.

In conclusion, while the idea of channeling aid to Rakhine is rooted in humanitarian urgency and regional stability, it carries serious implications that demand consensus, caution, and comprehensive oversight. Bangladesh must balance its compassion with caution, its pragmatism with principle. Only through national unity and international cooperation can such a sensitive mission succeed.

Let us not forget that humanitarian intentions, however noble, can falter without a framework grounded in transparency, security, and accountability. For the sake of national security, regional peace, and democratic integrity, consensus must come first-before the first truckload of aid crosses the border into Rakhine.

mirmostafiz@yahoo.com