Rohingyas: A permanent guest syndrome?

It's been seven years since the Rohingyas arrived in their latest edition and this time caught most international attention. They had been coming here for a long time, expelled by the Myanmar authorities as outsiders historically. Various Bangladeshi regimes have responded as per their perceptions of advantages and difficulties.
However, when they arrived this time, it was a tsunami of arrival - 700,000 in number at least -and the rest is known. What we don't know is what exactly is going on there between not just the two countries directly involved but the big powers pulling the strings to make it happen for their own benefit.
Does Bangladesh matter in all this? That string pulling is happening not because Bangladesh matters but other states linked to Bangladesh do. And Bangladesh can hardly decide the drift of things. Its denial of its own limited external sovereignty and that it's not bilateral but tri-lateral and multilateral relations that decide matters has continued to weaken Bangladesh's official stances. Given the political power equation scenario at the international problem, the Rohingya problem is not just an issue of refugees but an indicator of our global political-economic status.
Humanitarian issues, IOM and other interventions are a constantly asked question. That is another dimension of the crisis which is real, humane and about human suffering that not many bother about in the issue. International relief and humanitarianism is a reality but does it stand alone from the rest of global politics?
The response to the humanitarian crisis has fewer issues that impact on internal and external policies globally so the international community has been very supportive of the problem and helping out Bangladesh with resources and support.
However, if one goes back in time, one can see that the funding countries didn't support Bangladesh in any international way for repatriation of the refugees. That is only to be expected as Bangladesh has been caught in a very uncomfortable international, diplomatic and real crossfire. So what does IOM and other's presence mean in relation to the Rohingya crisis?. It's possible they want prolonging the same as long as it suits the bigger boys. .
The IOM DG Pope recently visited Bangladesh and offered hope and promised to raise more money. She said, "I am deeply grateful to our generous donors for their support and commitment to addressing the urgent humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees and vulnerable populations in Bangladesh. Their substantial contributions will not only make a tangible difference in the lives of those in need, but they also demonstrate our collective responsibility to uphold the principles of solidarity and compassion on a global scale. Together, we are not only assisting Bangladesh but setting a powerful example for collaborative action in tackling migration challenges worldwide."
The IOM newsletter says, "In March, IOM appealed for USD 119 million to support nearly a million Rohingya refugees in what has been called the world's largest refugee settlement in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, and the vulnerable community generously hosting them. In a momentous step towards preserving Rohingya cultural heritage, DG Pope inaugurated the World Tour of the Rohingya Cultural Memory Centre (RCMC). This exhibition will showcase, in several global locations, the rich cultural heritage of the Rohingya community and raise awareness about their plight." The signal is clear. It's as far as one can go in calling the problem or situation permanent.
Permanent visitors' status is not something anyone is talking about but it's clearly there on the table. Bangladesh has no control over the problem because it's also a battle between China and the West at one level and a regional political situation that is not under anyone's control. When the Rohingya deluge came, Myanmar's boss was Suu-Kyi. She was the West's pet 'democrat" at the receiving end of unconditional support for expelling the refugees if the reality is held up.
At that point as now, Bangladesh didn't matter and doesn't now either. What was good for Suu-Kyi's continuation in power was good for the US as she was seen as a bulwark against Chinese clout.
China has meanwhile helped the Myanmar army topple Suu Kyi but the Myanmar regime is weak and not really a big help to its primary patron. At the same time they have become directly involved in the yaba trade that has created a vested interest group amongst the power structure in Bangladesh.
That has made the Chinese feel better not to mention Myanmar and of course those who matter in many parts of the Bangladeshi power structure. Most yaba is produced in the Chin state which is an "independent " state" run by the Chin Liberation Army. It may be an accident that the Chin state's biggest backer is China.
Bangladesh is not a party to the coming and going of the Rohingyas so it's basically playing the role of a forced host. And the Rohingya's living here as refugees serve most if not all the purposes. They are hated as "Muslim dark skinned Bengalis" and really don't fit into the power framework that China supports there.
The West on the other hand see it as an opportunity to argue that the West sanctioned pro-Chinese Myanmar regime is pretty awful though it had also supported Suu-Kyi when they were initially thrown out at a mass scale.
Meanwhile, the smart ones in both Myanmar and Bangladesh make serious money from the yaba trade, the most openly criminal activity possible. No one minds really. That being the case, the chances of the Rohingyas returning are slim to slimmer. Unless of course, some equations change in global politics.

[email protected]