UK Support for Covert Operations in Arakan and Bangladesh
The Role of Track Two Diplomacy by Humanitarian Dialogue in Shaping Rohingya Futures

My latest op-ed for DVB explores the UK's substantial financial backing of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD), a support not limited to Myanmar and Bangladesh but extended to HD's projects worldwide. Despite HD's veiled operations and controversial methods in the Rohingya crisis and beyond, UK funds continued to flow. Worse, the UK government concedes it is challenging to evaluate HD’s work but funding was nevertheless provided because of HD’s “reputation.”
Secretive meetings, unaddressed rumours, and a history of escalating tensions raise pressing questions about the transparency and accountability of such investments.
In part one of the three part series, I discussed two of the unsavoury junta-aligned Myanmar-based organisations that participated in HD’s secret meeting in Singapore in early September, 2023. Space constraints prevented me from discussing two notable Bangladeshi organisations, which I aim to address here.
Indeed, the Bangladesh contingent presented a study in contrasts.
Faiz Sobhan
Faiz Sobhan of the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI) no doubt brought a security-focused lens to the table in Singapore, a perspective that risks pigeonholing the Rohingya crisis into a narrative of radicalisation and security threats. Much of the literature that deals with extremism in Bangladesh has been authored by Bangladeshi think tanks such as the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute.
Soon after the 2017 crisis Sobhan wrote an OpEd for Dhaka Tribune. The article positions the mass exodus of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh since August 2017 and the Holey Artisan Cafe attack ( by Bangladeshi radical islamists linked to a variety of groups including Islamic State, Al Qaedah and others) as two significant events that have shaped Bangladesh's response to the threat of radicalisation and violent extremism. For Sobhan, these events have highlighted the urgency for comprehensive strategies to address security concerns, humanitarian needs, and the broader implications of extremism within the country and the region.
This approach, aligning with the narratives of entities like the Thayninga Institute, dangerously narrows the refugee crisis and the dire humanitarian needs and human rights violations faced by the Rohingya. It reduces the complex situation of the Rohingya to a one-dimensional security problem.
The reference to Rohingya refugees in the context of security concerns is of course unacceptable. It unfairly associates a vulnerable group, fleeing genocide, with security threats. Such framing leads to stigmatisation and discrimination, undermining their rights and dignity. It is also unacceptable because it scapegoats the Rohingya for the problem of radicalisation. It is unethical too because it violates the basic human rights of the Rohingya refugees. And of course, let us not forget that such an argument is functional to the current government because it allows the government to deflect attention from its own failures to address the root causes of extremism.
This security-centric narrative presented by Faiz Sobhan finds an echo in Michael Vatikiotis’s work. Vatikiotis(Asia regional director of HD) posited in his 2017 book "Blood and Silk" — written five years after HD's involvement began in Yangon — that the Rohingya attacks in early October 2016 were likely orchestrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani Islamic extremist group. Despite dedicating only nine pages (partially) of his 340-page book to the Rohingya issue, Vatikiotis emphasises this Pakistani connection in two of those nine pages. This assertion, later proven inaccurate, shows up a troubling tendency among certain analysts to link the Rohingya crisis with global Islamic radicalism without evidence.
What was Vatikiotis’ team doing in those five years? This kind of analysis does not only mislead but also detracts from the understanding of the Rohingya's plight. Much like Sobhan’s portrayal, this kind of narrative risks stigmatising a group already fleeing genocide by unjustly associating them with international security threats.
Shamsul Bari & Dennis McNamara
In stark contrast stands Shamsul Bari, a former director of UNHCR and a leading figure in the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and (Legal Aid Worldwide (LAW), organisations dedicated to championing legal aid and advocacy for the Rohingya. However, his attendance at a meeting with Myanmar junta officials introduces a paradox. Surely there is a concern here over the ethics of such engagements? Bari's participation in these dialogues raises critical concerns about the implications of interacting with and legitimising the junta's role during a severe humanitarian crisis. His involvement also begs the question of how such dialogue aligns with the humanitarian and legal principles upheld by the organisations he is associated with.
Interestingly, despite being a fervent advocate for the Right to Information Act, a law symbolising transparency and citizen empowerment, Shamsul Bari’s own silence in response to my queries about his participation in the meeting smacks of hypocrisy. This contradiction between his public stance and personal actions not only undermines the spirit of the RTI Act but also his credibility as a defender of transparency.
The convergence of Shamsul Bari and Dennis McNamara (HD’s Senior Humanitarian Advisor) at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue's meeting in Singapore is a textbook case of the old boy's network in full swing within the echelons of international “humanitarian” circles. Indeed Dennis is a board member of LAW where Shamsul is a director. Both, with their prestigious UNHCR backgrounds and legal expertise, represent the quintessence of a closed circle where longstanding professional ties and shared histories dictate the flow of dialogue and decision-making processes.
The Singapore meeting can easily be perceived as an echo chamber of like-minded elites. The entire scenario hints at an insular and perhaps self-serving dynamic at play, where the agendas and outcomes might be subtly influenced, if not predetermined, by the personal and professional camaraderie that exists between figures like Bari and McNamara. There is the potential for insider dynamics to dominate discussions at the expense of broader, more inclusive approaches to humanitarian crises.
Interesting. It’s a shame when people won’t or can’t explain their reasons for controversial decisions. One is left to speculate.