Why "Rohingya" Refugee Repatriation Will Never Work

Hnin Zan, Opinion

Global Arakan Network October 24, 2025

Refugee in Bangladeshi Camps (photocrd)

For years, the idea of repatriating Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh back to Arakan (Rakhine State) has been a recurring topic in international discussions. Despite multiple workshops and high-level talks, the repatriation process remains stalled. The reasons are complex and multifaceted — involving mistrust, political manipulation, and competing narratives that prevent practical progress.

The Blame Game and False Accusations on the Arakan Army

One major obstacle lies in the ongoing blame game, particularly the false accusations directed toward the Arakan Army (AA). Certain actors, especially Rohingya activists living outside the country, have portrayed the AA as a threat to the return process, labeling it as an obstacle to Rohingya repatriation and claiming that the AA is committing genocide against the Rohingya — a completely baseless accusation.

However, such claims often ignore the evolving ground realities in Arakan, where the AA has been working to establish local governance and promote coexistence between communities. This misinformation campaign not only distorts perceptions but also hinders confidence-building between groups that must coexist peacefully for repatriation to succeed.

Terrorist Networks Operating from the Camps

Another critical issue is the presence of militant elements and terrorist networks within some Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. These groups, often operating under different banners, have exploited the camps as safe bases for recruitment and fundraising. Their influence creates fear in Arakan and contributes to the local population’s deep mistrust of large-scale returns. Without addressing this issue, no repatriation process can ensure sustainable peace and security for all communities.

Lack of Genuine Representation Among Rohingya Leaders

Inside the refugee camps, there is also a vacuum of credible leadership. Many so-called “camp leaders” and representatives speaking on international stages lack legitimacy and fail to represent the diverse voices and needs of the displaced population. This leadership gap makes it nearly impossible to build genuine dialogue between camp communities, the Arakanese population, and the emerging administration under the ULA/AA. As a result, coordination, mutual understanding, and confidence-building remain at zero level.

Unconstructive Role of Rohingya Activists Abroad

Rohingya activists based outside Myanmar have often taken an unproductive stance in the repatriation debate. Instead of promoting dialogue, reconciliation, and practical solutions, many focus on blame and condemnation — targeting emerging government actors like the AA, which has been hugely supported not only inside Arakan but also by revolutionary groups across Myanmar against the military junta. While international advocacy is important, continuous blame games and one-sided narratives do little to advance the complex and sensitive process of return.

Omission of Ground Improvements in Arakan

International media and advocacy organizations frequently overlook the ongoing social changes in Arakan. Since the rise of the ULA/AA’s administrative role, efforts have been made to build more inclusive relationships among Rakhine, Muslims, and other ethnic groups. These positive developments — though imperfect — represent important steps toward coexistence. However, international discourse rarely acknowledges these changes, instead recycling outdated narratives that portray Arakan as irredeemably hostile to Muslims.

Lack of Public Trust in Repatriation

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of repatriation depends on public trust — something still largely missing. Among local Rakhine and other minority communities, memories of past violence remain fresh. Many recall the attacks and clashes associated with Rohingya militant groups in the past and present. Without sincere reconciliation, security assurances, and truth-telling processes, it is unrealistic to expect the local population to welcome mass returns.

Conclusion

The failure of Rohingya repatriation is not simply about international agreements or political will; it is deeply rooted in mistrust, misinformation, one-sided narratives, and the lack of inclusive dialogue. Sustainable solutions will require acknowledging realities on the ground, recognizing the positive roles of the emerging government under the ULA/AA, dismantling extremist networks, and fostering mutual understanding among all communities in Arakan. Until then, repatriation efforts are likely to remain a political slogan rather than a genuine path toward peace and coexistence.