Practical Feasibility of Durable Solutions Through the Lens of the Rohingya in Bangladesh.
Title Photo is from Dar Yasin, an Associated Press photographer, in a TIME photo article on the Rohingya, “Hanida Begum kisses her infant son, Abdul Masood, who died when their boat capsized near shore in Shah Porir Dwip, Bangladesh, on Sept. 14.”
Introduction: Definitions and Criteria
The concept of durable solutions in international refugee politics is multifaceted and its effectiveness varies based on circumstances of the crisis. The intention of these solutions is to provide long-term and stable solutions for refugees and asylum seekers, that provides them with adequate living standards and dignity. Ideally these solutions should also allow refugees to continue rebuilding their lives with the help of the international community, through efforts like providing education, healthcare, and job opportunities. However, these criteria are rarely met in any refugee crisis, as seen in the Rohingya refugee crisis of Myanmar. To understand the demands of these different solutions it’s important to consider them through the lens of the refugees, the organizations who represent them, and the host countries. The practical feasibility of these solutions relies on all parties involved to be cooperative and having the means necessary to provide such needed resources. Some criteria that should be considered for each solution are as followed:
Ensures relocation will be done safety and in dignity.
Continual effort by the community to meet the essential needs of refugees, these include efforts to provide education, healthcare, and job opportunities.
Pathway for citizenship, and or political participation/representation in country of settlement.
Furthermore, I’d like to stress the importance that these solutions should not be viewed as options, as from a catalog. Depending on the crisis, it is likely only one solution will be feasible and if there are multiple choices, the one best fitted to the needs of the refugees should always be followed. However, given the demands of all actors involved, this does not always happen either. To better understand why this is and the practicality of each solution, this essay will critically analyze the Rohingya refugees displaced to Bangladesh. Using the criteria already defined above, I’ll describe how each of the three durable solutions have been considered for the Rohingya. Then I will offer my own ideas and policy recommendations given the research found. By the conclusion I aim to have fully examined, compared, and critiqued each solution through the lens of the Rohingya in Bangladesh to argue that some crises, particularly those that are ongoing, most solutions are not practical or feasible, and alternative solutions should be considered along with the official ones.
Voluntary Repatriation
Currently, the most popular solution among the international community is voluntary repatriation back to their original country of birth, provided they can return safely and with dignity. In the situation of the Rohingya this option is not at all feasible any time in the near future. One reason for this is the continuous persecution from Myanmar since 2017. Part of this persecution involves the strict denial of Rohingya as citizens of Myanmar despite many being born and living their entire lives there. This is a strong indicator that repatriation will not be safe or in dignity, so should not be considered an option. In a publication from Brian Gorlick at the University of London, he states “History risks repeating itself. Although the UN and international community place much emphasis on ‘lessons learned’, the current scenario of the Rohingya crisis with its strong emphasis on repatriation requires critical examination.”
“Rohingya refugees shout slogans against repatriation at Unchiprang camp near Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, November 15, 2018. © 2018 AP Photo/Dar Yasin”
Negotiations of repatriation have been conducted between Bangladesh and Myanmar, however refugees from Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh have stated to Human Rights Watch that they were told by officials they must attend interviews for resettlement to a third country, only to find out they were put on an identified list of refugees for repatriation. This blatant disregard for transparency is very worrisome and not a good indicator of a safe, dignified, and voluntary choice of the refugees. Furthermore, refugees have said in these interviews that questions about potential citizenship and measures for safety were not adequately acknowledged or answered. Given the ongoing persecution that’s still active in the Rakhine state, where most Rohingya originate from, and the inadequate preparation for their safe and dignified return, repatriation is not a practical solution. This is why it is necessary to remember that the most feasible option, often favored by states, is not always the most practical as in this case it is a solution with no evidence of safety measures to ensure further persecution or secondary displacement in the future.
Local Integration
Ideally, local integration as a durable solution allows for refugees to be included in their host community and have access to the resources needed to rebuild their lives. However, for this to be a practical and feasible option, it needs to be fully welcomed by the host community. With the Rohingya in Bangladesh, it is not so simple. Despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Bangladesh has fully welcomed the Rohingya fleeing from Myanmar. However recent violence and claims of discrimination within these camps are alarming. Crisis Group Organization reported on “an analyst monitoring crime in the camps recorded more than 700 abductions in the first nine months of 2023, up from around 200 in 2022 and 100 the year before. A refugee told Crisis Group there were at least five armed entities, including ARSA and RSO, operating in his camp. ‘They are very active in people smuggling, kidnapping and other unlawful activities.’” Bangladesh, a country producing their own climate refugees, has had to ration humanitarian aid between their own people and the refugees they’re hosting. With funding falling and not nearly enough donations to adequately serve the needs of all refugees displaced there. In a 2023 report the UN claims, “The 2023 Rohingya humanitarian crisis response plan, which requires about $875 million to reach the nearly one million refugees in need, is only a quarter funded.” Due to these financial restraints and increasing domestic tensions from struggling Bangladeshi citizens, creates a very unstable and dangerous situation in these camps. It is also a poor indicator of a successful durable solution. This has been proven as Bangladesh has already attempted at relocating Rohingya to Bhasan Char, a remote underdeveloped Bangladeshi island that presents many safety risks. With international monitoring the situation, Human Rights Watch argues that “formed only in the last 20 years by silt deposit in the delta, its shape and shorelines have repeatedly shifted. Three to five hours from the mainland by boat, inaccessible in high winds, and lacking an airstrip for fixed-winged planes, Bhasan Char has limited capacity for evacuation in the event of a cyclone.”
From The Diplomat, “In this Feb. 15, 2021, Rohingya refugees headed to the Bhasan Char island prepare to board navy vessels from the southeastern port city of Chattogram, Bangladesh.”
This means that not only will it be nearly impossible in severe weather to evacuate, but it will be even more difficult for humanitarian aid to reach those that need it most given it’s remote location. This is not a place the Rohingya will be able to rebuild their lives safely or in dignity. Despite this concern being raised by the UN and other international organizations, Bangladesh has gone ahead with this integration scheme in what is being called “an island jail in the middle of the sea.” This should not be a solution, as firstly, it cannot be considered local integration as the Rohingya are still being segregated from the rest of Bangladeshi society. If this is to become a safe and dignified solution, many more practical measures must be taken.
From Human Rights Watch: Map of Rakhine State, Bangladesh (Cox’s Bazar) and Bhasan Char.
As seen above, Bhasan Char is indeed isolated from Bangladesh and arguably too far to host such a vulnerable group of internationally protected people. Furthermore, the Bangladesh government or international organizations must listen to the concerns of those already displaced to Bhasan Char. Refugees who have already been displaced there have claimed there is inadequate healthcare, which would require more medical supplies and support, and furthermore infrastructure on the island has only recently become a priority in 2017, with much need for improvement so that those on the island can communicate with and travel to and from the mainland. Refugees cannot rebuild their lives on land that is hardly built itself, it would be hard to have any stability in their lives when the ground they walk on and the community they’re surrounded by are unstable themselves.
Resettlement
The last official durable solution is resettlement to a third country. Resettlement in the case of the Rohingya has been hesitantly approached by the Bangladesh government as it was previously worried it would become a pull factor increasing the number of refugees fleeing Myanmar looking to be resettled. This already poses a challenge as the host country’s cooperation is key to any durable solution. However, considering the practical feasibility of the first two solutions, this remains the last option that would be able to safely and in dignity fulfil the needs of the refugees. One major obstacle to resettlement schemes is the harmful rhetoric against asylum seekers and the concept of burden sharing. If refugees and asylum seekers were portrayed instead as skilled workers, diverse scholars, or simply as humans and our neighbors, perhaps resettlement would be a more sought-after solution. In a Frontiers research article, Mahanam Bhattacharjee Mithun found “In many developed countries, there is an opportunity to accommodate an additional population. Countries such as Canada, Australia, Russia, and others contain the vast majority of the Earth's land. These lands can be properly utilized if they receive an additional population. In some other nations, such as the Nordic countries, the population growth rate is negative. Therefore, the working-age population is rapidly decreasing.” While resettlement is a process that would admittedly take time and resources, it is one that has great potential to benefit host countries in return. If the funding used to relocate Rohingya to Bhasan Char was used instead to promote resettlement schemes, it would provide a much safer and dignified option to allow the Rohingya to begin rebuilding their lives and could eventually alleviate the crisis in Bangladesh. For some situations, resettlement has been a major success. For example, after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukranian refugees were welcomed with open arms in the EU with the Temporary Protection Directive, which provided housing, healthcare, the right to work and an education. This should be the standard, not just for other European refugees, but for all refugees fleeing violence and persecution. As argued above, the harmful rhetoric around refugees and asylum seekers is undoubtably responsible for some of the hesitation in adopting resettlement schemes, however it is also for this reason that a Harvard study has found that non-Europeans are accepted at a staggeringly lower rate than Ukrainians have been and treated much differently when accepted. If the EU were to agree on a temporary protection directive for Rohingya, that would be the most safe and dignified opportunity given the dire situation. However, that will require the cooperation of the EU and international community, unfortunately I do not see a future anytime soon where this would be an option they’d want to explore, at least not in the numbers that would be needed to help Bangladesh with this crisis. While I believe this remains the most practical solution currently, it is worth exploring more feasible, alternative solutions.
Alternative Solutions: Neighborhood Capacity Building and Regional Support
Another possible durable solution that should be considered is capacity building in neighboring countries of refugee producing countries. The UNHCR reports nearly 70% of all refugees around the world live in a neighboring country from where they’d fled. In the case of Rohingya in Rakhine state, Bangladesh and India are the only countries that share a border, making this the most practical or feasible solution in this certain case. Capacity building as a solution should be considered in regions that are underdeveloped and could benefit from international assistance and humanitarian aid. However the UNHCR also states in an article about strengthening protections for refugee hosting communities that, “building protection capacity can be a lengthy and complex process, particularly where initial capacity is weak. Its success hinges on a number of factors, including the need for national ownership and for strengthened coalitions between a range of partners.” Furthermore, capacity and regional building as a durable solution to refugee crises relies on the agreement of resettlement. In certain cases where countries have no interest in receiving refugees or cooperating in a resettlement program, capacity building should not be considered. In itself, capacity building is not a solution, but paired with resettlement or local integration, it can be a powerful tool to help host countries that are most vulnerable to these crises and be used as incentive to encourage other countries to host refugees. As always, this presents its own risks, and careful monitoring would be needed to ensure the safety and dignity of refugees is protected.
Conclusion
The concept of durable solutions in relation to the refugee crisis is a useful tool for analyzing different refugee situations but presents concerns for the international community. After examining and critiquing each official solution, it is evident there is no one best solution and the safest, most dignified option will likely be a hybrid of solutions with modifications in each crisis to represent the needs of each group. After analyzing the Rohingya in Bangladesh, there were multiple concerns around the morality and legality of repatriation and local integration, with resettlement proven as the most practical solution. Yet feasibility relies on the cooperation of the host countries and international community, which has proven bleak. Capacity building is an option to help better incentivize developing regions to receive refugees, given that these schemes are monitored and supported, and with the genuine intention to resettle refugees. For the future, the international community needs to do better at dismantling the harmful rhetoric around refugees and to not discriminate between different types of refugees. Only then will these durable solutions be able to see their full potential, and will refugees be able to have a chance to safely and in dignity rebuild their lives and hopefully give back to those that have helped them do so.
Disclaimer: This blog was taken by an essay written by myself, Alyssa Hockett, at Aberystwyth University in 2024, and revised for publishing on here January 2024.
