The United Nations (UN) is pursuing a humanitarian corridor for individuals in Rakhine facing severe famine. This initiative is reported to aim to enhance humanitarian access for vulnerable populations in regions controlled by the military junta and ethnic armed groups, including the Arakan Army (AA) and the Karen National Union, among others.
US ambitions
With the UN, the United States (US) is actively striving to create the humanitarian corridor leading into Myanmar, due to the escalating humanitarian crisis and, more significantly, with a vested interest in regional influence.
To gain geo-political control in the region, the US has played a significant diplomatic role for many years. Under the guise of the humanitarian corridor proposal in Myanmar, the US has presumably implemented the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2022, known as the BURMA Act.
The BURMA Act enables the US government to pressure Myanmar's military junta with sanctions, support for democracy, and humanitarian aid, promoting human rights. However, the US is plausibly focused on strengthening its influence in Southeast Asia amid China's growing strategic presence.
Regional players
China and India regard the region, particularly Rakhine and the Bay of Bengal, as strategically significant.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative encompasses substantial infrastructure developments in Rakhine, such as the Kyaukphyu port. Despite its ostensibly humanitarian purpose, the humanitarian corridor may be perceived by China as a conduit for Western powers to access an area of strategic importance.
While grounded in international law and humanitarian principles, UN involvement implicitly supports the US and Western efforts to open Myanmar’s interior to external observation and access. Many analysts thought that the US’s initiative for this corridor is a strategic counterweight to China’s and Russia’s growing ties with Myanmar’s junta and a soft power initiative to deliver aid to win the hearts and minds of the people in the country.
Aid gateway through Bangladesh
The proposed humanitarian corridor into Myanmar’s Rakhine state passes through Bangladesh. Multiple reports indicate that due to ongoing conflict and military restrictions making many areas of Myanmar inaccessible, Bangladesh has been selected as a viable route for aid convoys.
However, both political figures and citizens suggest that the current interim government has invited the US and UN, or simply shown a prompt interest in establishing this humanitarian corridor, in exchange for a guarantee to stay in power with support from the US.
Many eminent politicians noted that the US has been trying to gain access to the Bay of Bengal for many years. It has also been suggested that a regime change in Bangladesh occurred in alignment with US interests to secure regional geo-political control.
Bangladesh is hosting over 1.5 million Rohingya people. Bangladesh’s current regime officials described the humanitarian corridor as an opportunity for the return of Rohingya refugees and to stop the influx; however, there is no real logic in resolving the Rohingya issues through the facilitation of a humanitarian corridor.
This could set a precedent for future external interventions beyond the humanitarian context with a major sovereignty threat
Militarization and security risks
In reality, the US and UN initiative has substantial, multifaceted security concerns, including a severe risk to sovereignty for Bangladesh and Myanmar.
There are fears that humanitarian aid could be used as a pretext for foreign influence, and this corridor could serve as a channel for military logistics or intelligence.
The humanitarian corridor likely involves land and river transport across the border of Teknaf in Bangladesh and Maungdaw in northern Rakhine. The AA serves as the gatekeeper to the humanitarian corridor in Rakhine.
The AA is an ethnic Rakhine insurgent group seeking autonomy or independence for the Rakhine people. It is part of the Three Brotherhood Alliance, which includes the Ta’ang National Liberation Army and Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army. The Myanmar military has labelled the AA a terrorist group and has conducted intense military operations in Rakhine and Chin states to suppress them.
The Myanmar junta has accused, and several reports suggest that the humanitarian corridor is likely to be “hijacked” or exploited by the AA. They could smuggle arms, medical supplies, or communication equipment through humanitarian channels. Furthermore, the AA’s control means that it would either facilitate or block humanitarian access depending on its own political and military interests, and it may seek direct control over aid distribution to strengthen its legitimacy among the local population.
The relationship between the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), Bangladesh, and the Rohingya community is entangled in security concerns, refugee dynamics, and regional geo-politics. While ARSA claims to defend Rohingya rights, its activities have increasingly jeopardized the safety of the Rohingya community and strained Bangladesh’s domestic and diplomatic positions.
Though ARSA is not officially supported by the Rohingya refugees or Bangladesh, it has reportedly operated within the refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar. It is accused of recruiting members from the camps, running extortion, smuggling, and weapons networks, and intimidating or killing Rohingya leaders who oppose them.
The relationship between the ARSA and the AA is characterized by deep hostility, ethnic tension, and territorial competition, particularly in northern Rakhine. These two groups represent opposing interests and identities, and their antagonism has intensified over the past few years.
The ARSA and the AA possess distinct identities: The ARSA’s members are Rohingya Muslims, while the AA’s ethnic background is Rakhine Buddhist. The ARSA is labelled as a terrorist group seeking to establish rights and protections for Rohingyas, whereas the AA is a politically motivated armed group. Myanmar perceives the ARSA as an external terrorist threat, while the AA is regarded as a formidable domestic adversary.
Therefore, it raises a legitimate question as to why Bangladesh, as a peaceful neighbour, engages in such a hostile situation, where achieving the UN goal of humanitarian service through a corridor is higgledy-piggledy and questionable.
Sovereignty undermined
While the UN has proposed a humanitarian corridor to address the urgent needs of civilians in Rakhine, allowing a foreign-managed humanitarian corridor could enable international actors to operate within Bangladesh’s sovereign territory, particularly in Teknaf and the Cox’s Bazar region. This could set a precedent for future external interventions beyond the humanitarian context with a major sovereignty threat.
If the corridor becomes militarized with armed escorts, foreign force protection, or non-state actors like AA and ARSA, Bangladesh risks losing control over the security dynamics in its border regions. The participation of armed groups or unplanned involvement in the Myanmar conflict could threaten national sovereignty directly. Bangladesh must safeguard its soldiers and civilians without sacrificing their safety for external interests.
An intensively monitored or internationally regulated corridor might transform into a semi-international zone within Bangladesh, functioning outside the direct control of Dhaka. Such arrangements could erode sovereignty over time.
Regarding Rohingya refugees, this corridor may function as an unofficial route for increased inflow, instead of solely aiding cross-border assistance. External powers could use the corridor to apply diplomatic pressure on Bangladesh about its domestic policies, particularly those related to border security, Rohingya rights, and its alliances with Western nations.
Damaging bilateral relations with Myanmar could destabilize refugee camps and threaten national security, particularly along the vulnerable Teknaf-Ukhiya axis. There is concern that this route might legitimize the extended presence of Rohingya refugees, conflicting with Bangladesh’s policy of providing temporary shelter until repatriation takes place.
Ezaz Mamun is a freelance contributor.
