Past Event! Note: this event has already taken place.
Upcoming CRS Seminar: “The curious case of Bhasan Char: Refugee relocation and the Rohingyas in Bangladesh”
January 24, 2023 at 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM
| Key Contact: | Centre for Refugee Studies (CRS), York University |
LERRN is pleased to share the following information on an upcoming online seminar hosted by the Centre for Refugee Studies (CRS) at York University entitled “The curious case of Bhasan Char: Refugee relocation and the Rohingyas in Bangladesh.”
Register in advance for this meeting:
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Event Description
Guest Speaker: Tazreena Sajjad
On October 9, 2021 the Bangladesh Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish a common framework for humanitarian services for Rohingya refugees on Bhasan Char, also known as Char Piya (previously called Thengar Char), an island 37 miles from the mainland in the Bay of Bengal. The decision to relocate about 100,000 Rohingya to Bhasan Char comes five years after Bangladesh’s official decision to ‘open its borders’ to the approximately 655,500 Rohingya who fled across Myanmar’s border following a brutal crackdown by the Myanmar military on the stateless population that amounted to allegations of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and even ‘genocide’ (Human Rights Watch 2018; Al-Jazeera 2021; ICJ 2022). By the end of August 2017, 745,000 Rohingya – including more than 400,000 children – had fled to Cox’s Bazar, joining over 300,000 people who had already sought refuge there in the past. Today, the Kutapalong-Balukhali extension site in Cox’s Bazaar is regarded to be the largest refugee camp in the world, with a population of over 920,994 and growing (UNHCR, 2022). This excludes thousands of non-registered Rohingya who live in and around the area without any formal status, and who are frequently harassed and intimidated by local authorities for living ‘illegally’ in Bangladesh (RefWorld, 2014).
Bangladesh’s most recent decision to move 100, 000 refugees is based on the assertion that living conditions in the congested camps has become untenable. The government insists-borne out with some evidence -that there is high levels of cross-border drug smuggling as well as human trafficking together with high incidences of gender-based violence (GBV), frequent fires, abductions, and murders as a result of tensions between different armed and non-armed groups inside the camps. The island relocation is further justified as the only viable option given the complexities of management in the overcrowded camps and increasing tensions in some instances between the local host community and the refugees as the situation has become protracted.
Island relocation of the Rohingya refugees presents a complex and sometimes contradictory set of considerations and host country responses. First, for many, this new policy presents a shift in the official 2017 ‘open-door’ policy of Rohingya acceptance and the warm welcome extended to the new arrivals by private citizens, the local community in Cox’s Bazar, local and national civil society organizations including NGOs, and the Government of Bangladesh (GoB). Second, unlike the instrumentalization of, for instance, Australia’s use of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Manus as off-shore detention sites, which has been heavily criticized and been recently considered illegal (Pickering, 2001; Dickson, 2015; Holly, 2020), or the use of Lindholm Island by the Danish government, the use of Bhasan Char has been formalized through the UNHCR agreement, which allows Rohingya access to international humanitarian services. Third, this specific measure emerges within a broader set of proactive measures the GoB has taken to seek a durable solution for the Rohingya including, submitting multiple proposals to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), demanding measures to ensure a safe and sustainable pathway for repatriation to Myanmar; offers of technical support to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the case of Gambia versus Myanmar (RFA, 2019); and as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) cooperating to build prosecutorial cases against the Myanmar regime.
Given such a juxtaposition, this research began with the following broad questions: How can we conceptualize Bhasan Char within the broader context of refugee camps and offshore detention sites, and the use of third countries for refugee management? Second, what could the use of island facilities – and the support they may receive for international organizations and donors as is now the case for Bhasan Char mean for the future of refugee containment in contexts of the ‘Global South’? In examining these questions, it attempts to understand how Bhasan Char is different from, or similar to, offshore detention facilities (e.g. PNG, Libya and Tunisia), how camp management in Kutapalong-Balukhali differs from Bhasan Char, and the specificities of governance on the island. Last but not the least, given that Bangladesh is a non-signatory party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and that it does not recognize the Rohingya as ‘refugees’ but as ‘Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals,’ this research reflects on the long-term implications for the stateless Rohingya remaining in remote Bangladeshi territory without any legal status and claim to rights.
