Relocating refugees to Bhashan Char: Will coercion suffice or could collaboration be more sustainable? PART II

Part II

While the cost of the refugee situation to Bangladesh may be material, financial and environmental, the more grievous price of this crisis is paid for by the Rohingya in lives and livelihoods. In the humanitarian response, delays in registration and refugee status conferral translate to critical protection and life-saving support being deferred, a ban on livelihoods is leading to crippling idleness and aid dependence, limiting food assistance causes irreversible malnutrition among children, withholding of basic education leads to widespread hopelessness and negative coping mechanisms, and a lack of vision of hope and peace in the future can push even the most timid refugee towards life-threatening journeys at sea at the hands of traffickers, before reaching a state of complete destitution. Some of these problems inside the camps have become entrenched because they were not anticipated, or handled timely with adequate expertise or resourcefulness. With each policy decision aimed to abbreviate the refugees’ asylum and the services they enjoy, we incur real human costs.

The majority of the nine lac Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar cannot foresee any viable solutions to their situation. We are continuously pointing to the refugee camps as the cause of myriad issues; however we have not sought supplementary international assistance to devise innovative solutions for the Rohingya’s stay to be harmonious and non-deleterious for Bangladeshi host community. It is simply not practical to place our bets on when they will just leave and await these problems to subside. The problems that have appeared may not leave with the repatriating population – it is important to devise robust solutions with assistance from engaged donors, including the World Bank, so the quality of life of refugees and the host community are equally enhanced in the interim. The refugees do not want to remain here, but they do not have a choice; they deserve a range of different types of solutions and we must be liberal enough to negotiate it for them on their behalf.

To be theoretical, all possible solutions to refugee crises can be neatly summed up into three broad categories, which are voluntary repatriation to their country of origin which means they go back ‘home’ if home can be made to exist again, local integration in their country of asylum which means they continue to stay where they have sought asylum, albeit with some modified legal and material provisions, or resettlement in a third country, often far from the crisis, that is willing to welcome a small number of individuals who cannot avail of the first two solutions for any number of reasons. Therefore once people cross a border and become refugees, there is at least three ways that they can stop being one, and for each of these outcomes deep consultations, collaboration and innovative thinking is required on the part of every stakeholder. Achieving any of these solutions take genuine will, geopolitical mobilization and tenacious advocacy.

This is where we stand. Voluntary repatriation, though touted by Bangladesh and discussed in bilateral meetings with Myanmar at least four times since the latest exodus in 2017, does not seem to have any credible counterpart across the border or is a concept that is too soon to be embraced for the Rohingya and the Myanmar government. Local integration is a politically taboo topic for discussion in the policy spheres in Bangladesh and third country resettlement is an option that Bangladesh has firmly set aside as undesirable, claiming it creates a pull-factor.

The possibility of relocating part of the Rohingya population from camps in Cox’s Bazar to new satellite settlements on a remote island on our Bay of Bengal could be an innovative interim solution resulting in decongestion in the existing camps and a wider choice of agro-fishery based livelihoods on the new island Bhashan Char, but with no easy access or existing connections of trade, commerce, road communication, basic services and security, Bhashan Char continues to sound like a veritable open-air prison. Humanitarians and rights activists may question the motivation behind its development, but in this scenario where the crisis appears to be stagnant, and dialogue with Myanmar and regional counterparts appear only half-hearted, a satellite camp at Bhashan Char and its massive investment by Bangladesh and partners could be a promise of temporary relief to refugees and the host community rather than the final nail in the coffin of the forgotten Rohingya. With the resources that have already gone behind this project, some additional expenditure to bring all stakeholders to the table will surely be win-win in the long run.

Discussions about the Bhashan Char island surfaced in the media on December 2017 but without an associated plan. While regional diplomacy and solutions were palpably being chased, the Government has simultaneously invested in this costly option that even bona fide partners were not engaged in. The Government did not invite stakeholders into consultation thereafter, who are now naturally intimidated by the unforeseen progress of this rather significant piece of an interim solution. This is now causing a misunderstanding and experiencing conditionality from refugees and the humanitarian community, which could cause the entire investment to go to south. This option must be openly discussed with the necessary stakeholders to reestablish credibility. Unilateral measures in a multistakeholder problem can never be anything but counterproductive.

The confusion and defiance met by the fait accompli offshore satellite camp is to be partly blamed on the quiet way – absolutely sans broader consultations – that the char or riverine island was reclaimed. Its quiet development, its triumphant unveiling, and the forced relocation there of some refugees rescued at sea against their will, casts an unfavourable light on the Government’s intentions and stokes continued fears and uncertainty among the refugees. Some claim that if refugees are transferred there with sufficient humanitarian services, then it would be tantamount to wilful abandonment of the refugees by Bangladesh. This may have been easily avoided if open and consultative discussions had been held from the beginning with stakeholders – civil society and aid organizations – who work with the refugees on a regular basis and could not only be their voice but also their explainer. To recast Bhashan Char from being the ‘great unknown’ it must be rolled out voluntarily and inclusively. The Government must quickly arrange and invest in comprehensive dialogue with refugees and the humanitarian community through a phased approach so that they willingly join and wilfully participate in the solution and Bangladesh leaves this track record of forced relocation and captivity of refugees far, far behind.

The refugee issue does not rest on the Government alone but to all Bangladeshis as a whole, and most importantly, though stripped of their entitlements and dignity, the Rohingya still retain their right to be included in the decision-making surrounding their own fate. We cannot co-opt their will though they may be captive on our territory. If we do not address their concerns at the outset, it may encourage them to circumvent or undermine any solutions we put forth. To truly progress the Bhashan Char solution as an interim mechanism to serve Cox’s Bazar refugee and host communities, we must reject coercion and set up a consensus-based mechanism to transfer a willing group of refugees to the island. A recent ‘go and see’ visit to Bhashan Char organised by the Government may have been a first step towards partnership with refugees.

It is a reality that the Cox’s Bazar camps are overcrowded, shabby and high risk but that is where the Rohingya have felt comfort because of the sense of reassurance that emanates of being close to their ‘homes’. They yearn to be near the border because it connects them to their left-behind family. We have to anticipate that any attempt to forcibly remove them from the border would be met with an emotionally loaded reaction to undermine it. The camps in Cox’s Bazar, no matter how marginalized, offers solace as a familiar and collective place of suffering.

The panicked reaction of the Rohingya to deny relocation to Bhashan Char settlement is more from a feeling of anxiety rather than a rejection of accommodations that have ostensibly been developed keeping their livelihoods in mind. The practice of decisions being frequently imposed on the Rohingya has to be forsaken in favour of participatory decision-making which has proven to offer greater robustness, sustainability and troubleshooting capacity in any long-term refugee situation. If presented rationally, refugees should be able to realize by themselves that a problem that promises to linger for another decade need not mean that time has to be spent perishing in small crowded rooms with little option for livelihoods or self-improvement.

The Bhashan Char satellite settlement could be made more attractive if a comprehensive plan of operations, maintenance and humanitarian service delivery was outlined because the touted amenities of embankment, shelters, houses, solar lights that are now brand new will soon wear down and there would be a recurring need for repair and replenishment or else the island will soon become a forgotten dead-end for the refugees. The size of the budget and its execution was not done through Parliament or any other transparent forum, surprising concerned experts and activists such that since the very beginning, they focused on critiquing the matter rather than trying to contribute to trying to troubleshoot shortcomings and make it holistic and acceptable.

The more the Bangladesh authorities try to exclude others in policy decisions, the more they risk alienating all parties into rejecting its proposed solutions, most significantly by the Rohingya refugees themselves. If Bhashan Char is a dignified interim solution for them, then let them and the Bangladeshi people be presented with complete information so that we may combine efforts of the refugees, civil society and experts to achieve the goal of partial relocation. For refugee rights activists to support what is arguably a positive alternative to Cox’s Bazar camps, there is no alternative to a clear and transparent policy for the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, and a corresponding strategy for how Cox’s Bazar and Bhashan Char would be funded and administered in the medium and long terms.

In this crisis, those we have granted asylum must not be held liable as they did not exercise their own choice to leave home, and have come to Bangladesh as victims and not as colluders. As we ask them to relocate, let us solemnly remember that the last time they had to leave their homes and loved ones was due to the ‘genocidal acts’ of a brutal militarized government, that the ICJ has now instructed to save the evidence from. Let us then not bring back echoes of that violation with our efforts to uproot and scatter them once again through our actions, rather join hands with them to secure medium term solutions in an inclusive and respectful way that is worthy of Bangladesh’s moral authority in hosting the world’s largest population of Rohingya, and of the enshrined rights of refugees.

Farheen Khan
Farheenk7@gmail.com
01817584393

"Farheen is a humanitarian worker and refugee rights activist who has worked on refugee issues in Asia and Africa.”