Bangladesh's sovereignty at stake: Humanitarian corridors or geopolitical Trojan Horses?

First Post

14 hours ago

As Bangladesh grapples with Myanmar's enduring humanitarian crisis, the recent proposal for a United Nations-backed humanitarian corridor connecting Chittagong with Myanmar's Rakhine State, while outwardly noble, poses significant risks to national sovereignty and regional stability. These corridors, historically depicted as lifelines, often bear the subtle marks of strategic intervention, geopolitical exploitation, and foreign intelligence operations.
In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres proposed establishing a humanitarian corridor from Bangladesh's critical port city of Chittagong into Myanmar's violence-ridden Rakhine State. This corridor aims to deliver aid to over two million displaced persons suffering under famine conditions. Bangladesh's interim government, currently led by Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus, linked corridor approval directly to Rohingya refugee repatriation—a political quid pro quo potentially fraught with security risks. Yet, despite assurances, the corridor's broader implications remain troublingly unaddressed.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Geopolitical precedent consistently demonstrates the vulnerabilities inherent in such humanitarian corridors. Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan offer stark illustrations: humanitarian routes became pipelines for foreign military equipment, intelligence operations, and covert proxy support. The Chittagong corridor risks mirroring these patterns, transforming a vital economic hub and strategic port into an intelligence foothold or even a forward operating base for foreign powers.
Already, credible intelligence indicates that external powers are manoeuvring along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border region. Reports allege U.S. intentions to leverage humanitarian channels in support of anti-junta groups such as the Arakan Army (AA), including drone operations based near Cox's Bazar. Such actions align closely with Washington's broader Indo-Pacific strategy, which aims to counter Chinese regional influence. Conversely, China's recent joint military exercises with Bangladesh, dubbed 'Golden Friendship-2024', similarly hint at strategic positioning disguised as regional cooperation.
These manoeuvres risk drawing Bangladesh into unwanted great-power rivalries, further destabilising an already volatile region.
Compounding these threats is the alarming influence of non-state actors. The AA now exerts significant control over a 271-kilometre stretch of Bangladesh's border with Rakhine. Local reports from Bandarban reveal frequent armed AA movements, sometimes seemingly with tacit official tolerance. Should a humanitarian corridor materialise without stringent oversight, there's a genuine risk it would be hijacked to facilitate arms trafficking and insurgent financing, intensifying cross-border conflict and inviting retaliatory actions from Myanmar's junta.
Equally concerning is the role of international NGOs, some of which have previously come under suspicion. Dhaka has intensified scrutiny of NGOs after credible allegations emerged regarding espionage and anti-repatriation activism disguised as humanitarian activities. The potential exploitation of humanitarian access by NGOs for espionage purposes is a documented reality elsewhere and must not be underestimated here.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Meanwhile, domestically, Bangladesh's interim government faces growing criticism over its unilateral handling of border security policy. Decisions regarding the humanitarian corridor appear to be detached from military counsel, exacerbating civilian-military tensions and creating exploitable vulnerabilities. The disastrous 2025 BDR massacre exposed critical institutional weaknesses within Bangladesh's security apparatus, revealing precisely how foreign actors might exploit internal fractures. Regional reactions further complicate the scenario.
India has strengthened its border surveillance with Bangladesh due to legitimate fears of insurgency spillover and refugee inflows. Yet, ASEAN's continued paralysis regarding Myanmar's crisis leaves Bangladesh increasingly isolated, forcing it into risky unilateral actions. The UN's humanitarian initiative, though well-intentioned, conspicuously lacks safeguards to prevent the corridor's misuse. Without these measures, Bangladesh risks being perceived—rightly or wrongly—as aligning with specific geopolitical agendas, further undermining its diplomatic independence and national sovereignty.
Historical lessons offer grim caution. Humanitarian corridors have repeatedly been exploited as instruments of geopolitical manipulation. In Syria and Afghanistan, these corridors turned into conduits for arms trafficking, proxy warfare, and covert foreign bases. The Balkan refugee crisis vividly illustrated how corridors fractured sovereign control, fostering human trafficking and smuggling networks. Such outcomes must compel Bangladesh to reconsider the operational parameters of the corridors rigorously.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads. Genuine humanitarian needs in Myanmar must be addressed, but never at the cost of sovereignty or regional stability. Dhaka must demand ironclad international guarantees, including UN-monitored aid operations, binding agreements that prohibit foreign military assets or intelligence activities, and strict oversight of NGO involvement. Simultaneously, a transparent, inclusive national policy debate involving military, civilian leadership, and civil society stakeholders is essential to protect sovereignty, border integrity, and long-term stability.
Humanitarian initiatives should alleviate suffering—not serve as backdoors for geopolitical interference. Bangladesh must act decisively to ensure the Chittagong-Rakhine corridor remains exactly what it claims to be: a channel for compassion and not a geopolitical Trojan horse.
The writer is the Director General of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies Lt Gen Dushyant Singh (Retd) is Director General, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD