_edited.png)
Making Professor Yunus’s Seven Points Plan for Repatriation More Logical and Pragmatic
- globalarakannetwork
- Oct 7
- 5 min read
Kyaw Zan, Opinion
Global Arakan Network October 7, 2025
In the shadowed corridors of international diplomacy, where rhetoric often eclipses resolve, Professor Muhammad Yunus's Seven Points Plan, unveiled at the United Nations Conference on Rohingya and Minorities in Myanmar on September 30, 2025, emerges as a beacon of intent amid the protracted Rohingya crisis. Echoing his earlier invocation of the auspicious numeral seven at the Cox's Bazar gathering in August, Yunus once more deploys this framework to chart a course for sequential refugee repatriation from Bangladesh.
Yet, where his prior proposal leaned toward conciliatory overtures—fostering dialogue and mutual concessions—the latest iteration veers into prescriptive territory, demanding roadmaps, pressures, and presences that strain against the geopolitical fault lines of the region. This evolution, while ambitious, betrays fissures: a mosaic of aspirations that, without refinement, risks fracturing under the weight of its own inconsistencies.
To render it truly efficacious, the plan must transcend lofty declarations, embracing a pragmatic calculus that distinguishes allies from adversaries, local realities from imported ideals, and repatriation's allure from the imperatives of integration and accountability.
At its core, Yunus's blueprint hinges on seven interlocking imperatives: forging a detailed roadmap for repatriation; exerting calibrated pressure on both the Myanmar junta and the Arakan Army; deploying an international civilian monitoring presence in northern Arakan; weaving Bangladeshi-origin Rohingya—here termed Bangagya—into the fabric of Rakhine governance and society; mobilizing funds to underwrite returns; championing accountability and restorative justice; and eradicating the narcotic undercurrents fueling transboundary crimes.
Noble in aggregate, these pillars falter when scrutinized through the lens of strategic coherence. What Yunus proffers is less a strategy—a dynamic interplay of tactics attuned to shifting sands—than a checklist prone to self-sabotage. Contradictions abound: equating the junta's iron-fisted depredations, reviled by Myanmar's populace for atrocities that have scarred the national psyche, with the Arakan Army's ascendant role as a bulwark against tyranny, endorsed by Arakanese and Burmese alike.
This false equivalence not only muddies moral waters but undermines tactical efficacy. As a Nobel laureate whose genius lies in microfinance's quiet revolutions rather than the rough-hewn arena of statecraft, Yunus's oversight is forgivable yet consequential; it elides the chasm separating the junta's ossified brutality—rooted in a legacy of genocidal excess—from the Arakan Army's emergent legitimacy, forged in resistance and rooted in a vision of equitable federalism.
Consider the call for "equal pressure" on these disparate actors. The junta, a pariah ensnared in cycles of violence that have displaced millions and ignited civil war, merits unrelenting isolation: sanctions that bite, coalitions that coerce. The Arakan Army, by contrast, embodies a people's mandate, its forces intertwined with the United League of Arakan's governance blueprint, which promises inclusive administration amid northern Arakan's kaleidoscope of ethnic tapestries. To yoke them in symmetric censure is not diplomacy; it is diplomatic myopia, inviting backlash from those who view the Army as liberator.
Equally quixotic is the advocacy for international civilian oversight in northern Arakan, a region where communal harmony endures, punctuated only by sporadic incursions from Bangladeshi soil—acts of desperation or design that belie the area's relative equilibrium. Yunus's gaze fixates northward, yet it averts from the inferno raging southward: the Chittagong Hill Tracts, where indigenous ethnic and religious minorities endure massacres, land grabs, and cultural erasure under Dhaka's watchful eye.
If civilian monitors are to don the mantle of impartiality, their deployment must commence in these beleaguered tracts, where violence festers unchecked, not in Arakan's contested but cohesive north. Such a pivot would not only rectify geographic blindness but signal a broader ethos: justice as universal, not selective.
Moreover, Yunus laments the exclusion of Bangagya from Rakhine structures, yet omits a burgeoning reality—their incremental incorporation into United League of Arakan frameworks, where dialogues on resource-sharing and dispute resolution are yielding nascent social cohesion. To ignore this momentum is to prescribe repatriation as panacea, disregarding how forced returns could unravel these fragile threads, breeding resentment rather than reconciliation.
Funding repatriation, too, warrants scrutiny beyond its fiscal veneer. Resources funneled solely toward exodus overlook the human calculus: Bangagya communities, long entwined with Chittagong's socio-economic weave, possess ancestral ties that render Bangladesh not mere host but homeland. Integration here—via vocational training, equitable land access, and participatory governance—could transmute refugees into assets, bolstering a labor-starved economy without the perils of reverse migration.
Yunus's nod to accountability and restorative justice rings theoretically resonant, yet it founders on partiality. Pursuing redress for 2017's horrors demands confronting not only Myanmar's architects of clearance operations but the shadowy perpetrators within Bangladesh's camps: documented cases of hundreds of Bangagya slain in internecine clashes, often abetted by unchecked militancy. Dhaka's pursuit of justice must commence domestically, sidestepping junta entanglements to first heal internal wounds—through independent probes and survivor reparations—before venturing abroad.
The plan's capstone, combating the narcotic economy and transboundary depredations, strikes a chord of urgency, unmasking a pernicious nexus: Burmese naval elements colluding with Bangagya insurgents like the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO), who coerce ordinary refugees into trafficking pipelines, lubricated by bribes to Bangladesh's Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).
Dismantling this syndicate demands bilateral resolve—enhanced patrols, intelligence fusion, and asset freezes—yet Yunus halts short of implicating Dhaka's complicity. The BGB's facilitation of ARSA/RSO forays—raids that claim non-Muslim lives along the frontier—sows seeds of reciprocal terror, perpetuating a cycle where drugs and death flow unchecked. Pragmatism here insists on Dhaka's introspection: prosecute complicit officers, fortify borders against ideological exports, and redirect refugee youth from radical madrassas toward deradicalization curricula that envision shared prosperity, not sectarian strife.
To transform Professor Yunus’s vision into a coherent and actionable framework, the following seven-point strategy recalibrates his proposals, prioritizing pragmatism, regional stability, and equitable integration. Each point addresses critical gaps, aligning with the imperatives of survival, sovereignty, and mutual prosperity.
Dismantle Militant Support Networks
Dhaka’s military intelligence and Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) must sever all ties with militant groups such as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO), Arakan Rohingya Army (ARA), and Rohingya Islami Miza (RIM). These groups, operating from refugee camps, fuel cross-border terrorist attacks, destabilizing both refugee communities and regional security. Cutting their covert lifelines will curb volatility and rebuild trust.
Ensure Unimpeded Humanitarian Aid
Remove barriers to the delivery of UN and NGO assistance, including medicines, shelter materials, and agricultural resources. Current restrictions choke vital aid flows, exacerbating suffering and transforming humanitarian corridors into bottlenecks of despair. Unobstructed access will alleviate immediate crises and foster resilience among refugees.
Facilitate Cross-Border Trade
Lift restrictions on trade critical to northern Arakan’s Muslim communities, whose economic isolation drives displacement. By enabling commerce in essential goods, Dhaka can reduce desperation, promote self-reliance, and cultivate interdependence, stemming the refugee influx into Bangladesh.
Counter Extremist Propaganda
Halt inflammatory rhetoric in refugee camps that vilifies the United League of Arakan (ULA) and Arakan Army (AA). Replace extremist curricula with educational programs that promote tolerance and coexistence, equipping children with skills for integration rather than ideologies of conflict.
Provide Equitable Livelihood Opportunities
Offer fair employment and entrepreneurial grants to refugees, leveraging their potential to bolster Bangladesh’s economy in sectors like textiles, fisheries, and technology. Transforming refugees into economic contributors will shift perceptions from burden to benefit, fostering sustainable livelihoods.
Integrate Bangagya into Chittagong’s Civic Fabric
Facilitate the inclusion of Bangagya refugees into Chittagong’s society through electoral quotas, cultural councils, and heritage initiatives. Recognizing their ancestral ties to the region, integration should be framed as a voluntary return to their homeland, making repatriation a choice rather than an obligation.
Enforce Accountability for Internal Malfeasance
Launch thorough investigations into BGB complicity in supporting terrorist groups and enabling narcotics trafficking. Prosecute culpable officials, deliver justice for victims of camp violence, and strengthen border security to curb illicit flows. This commitment to reform will restore institutional credibility and signal Bangladesh’s resolve to uphold regional stability.
This seven-point strategy reframes repatriation as part of a broader vision for integration, accountability, and economic vitality, ensuring a sustainable path forward for all stakeholders.
