Bangladesh's Three Missed Opportunities in Rohingya Repatriation

Analysing Lt. Gen. Mahfuzur Rahman's Perspective on the Rohingya Crisis

Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mahfuzur Rahman recently delivered a speech in which he outlined what he believes are “four chances” Bangladesh has missed - or is about to miss - regarding the repatriation and resolution of the Rohingya crisis. Below is a quick summary of his remarks and then a few comments on his position.

1. First Chance (2017):
   Mahfuzur Rahman argued that, upon arrival in 2017, Rohingya refugees could have been kept in “No Man’s Land.”

“We could have kept them in No Man’s Land… The UN and INGOs…they could have been kept there.”
He drew a comparison to the Gaza situation, where neighbouring Egypt - despite sharing a border and language - does not open its doors fully to fleeing Palestinians:
“Why are the Palestinians not going there? Why is Egypt not opening its doors? … They know if once they open the doors… the Jews will never take them again.”

1. Second Chance (2022):
   He claimed the leader of the Arakan Army (AA) sought humanitarian aid and sympathy from Bangladesh in return for taking the Rohingya back.

“In 2022, the Arakan Army chief wanted support. Not weaponry. But humanitarian support. He wanted sympathy. In return, he expressed agreement in taking the Rohingya back.”

1. Third Chance (February 2024):
   Mahfuzur Rahman stated that in February 2024, Myanmar’s Border Guard Police, and even some military personnel, escaped into Bangladesh, leaving a 200-mile border “absolutely open for three weeks.”

“We could have exploited it. We could have taken some Rohingya. We could have created the safe zone we wanted… once we got them there, they could not be evicted.”

1. Fourth Chance (Ongoing):
   He suggested that Bangladesh is about to squander the goodwill of Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUG).

“The NUG is showing good faith… They are begging to have a relationship with Bangladesh… We will miss this again.”
Additionally, he warned that if circumstances stabilise in Myanmar, they might push “the rest of the Rohingyas” into Bangladesh.
“When the dust settles down, they will send the rest of the Rohingyas.”

He further commented on Aung San Suu Kyi, describing her as:

“A power-hungry racist politician infected with the notion of Bamar superiority!” He also said, “She does not see Rohingya as citizens of Myanmar.”

Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mahfuzur Rahman's outspoken remarks raise significant moral, legal, and pragmatic concerns. Let me make some quick comments:

First, his No Man’s Land proposal. As someone who has spent several days filming in No Man’s Land, I can tell you it is the harshest containment strategy you can imagine. From Palongkhalli to Tombru to Naikongchari, it is awful. A lot of it is hilly or boggy with raised slippery embankments and waterways that make the terrain completely unsuited to habitation. Even the No Man’s Land in Tombru would be annually flooded. To imagine 700K+ human beings shoved and kept there is just beyond belief.

The camps are bad enough with all the infrastructure and so on. Even there, the refugees receive limited oversight, protection, and access to vital resources. International law rightly rejects indefinite 'containment' in areas with no clear sovereignty or infrastructure, as it often leads to dire humanitarian conditions. And yet this ex-general thinks that would have been a good opportunity…words fail me.

Regarding cooperation with the Arakan Army (AA), seeking a deal solely because it made some noises to "take the Rohingya back" overlooks the complexity of the AA's own stance on the Rohingya. Human rights groups have highlighted that the AA's relationship with various ethnic and religious minorities can be fraught. With the Rohingya, it has been catastrophic. Aligning with an armed group that is not internationally recognised or widely trusted might do little to guarantee the safety or rights of Rohingya returnees. But the ex-general is not interested in their safety or rights.

The third idea of exploiting a war zone to create a 'safe zone' - it is purely and simply a contradiction in terms. A safe zone carved out in the middle of a conflict would presumably require strong international consensus, logistical capability, and monitoring to ensure civilian protection. How was the general going to achieve that? Bangladesh acting unilaterally would have undoubtedly escalated tensions along the border and placed Rohingya directly in harm's way. Any unilateral military or quasi-military initiative would also invite censure from the global community. It would have been a recipe for complicating the Rohingya crisis rather than resolving it.

The fourth 'missed chance' - he believes it will be missed - involves the unclear motives of the National Unity Government (NUG). Rahman suggests the NUG is "begging" for a relationship with Bangladesh. While the NUG has indicated a willingness to address the Rohingya issue more fairly than the junta, the actual scope of their intentions remains unclear. There is also an implied suggestion that Bangladesh's ties are more with the current military junta (not least because it allows the use of Rohingya against the AA).

Finally, Mahfuzur Rahman's outspoken comments on Aung San Suu Kyi may not go down well with the current leadership of the NUG…although his words are justified given her government's handling of the Rohingya crisis!

In conclusion, Mahfuzur Rahman's proposals revolve around forceful containment, opportunistic alliances, and unilateral border strategies. These are measures that are ethically and legally unacceptable. His emphasis on 'missing chances' suggests he believes in bolder, more assertive actions by Bangladesh. He himself calls it “brute force.” Towards the end of his speech, he discusses how the military generals in Myanmar only understand brute force. And that Bangladesh should respond similarly and develop the necessary “credible deterrence.”

Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mahfuzur Rahman likes to call himself a storyteller, often sharing his go-to tale about a traumatised 12-year-old Rohingya child. As he did at the above meeting. To me, this story lays bare the brutality of his mindset. If you're interested, you can read more about it here: