Who came up with the idea to support the Arakan Army?

Opinion

In mid-March of this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres visited Bangladesh and broke fast with the Rohingyas while wearing a Panjabi. During this visit, what message did the UN Secretary-General deliver to Bangladesh? He stated, “When the situation in Myanmar normalizes, establishing a humanitarian aid channel from Bangladesh could be an important matter.”

Since António Guterres’s statement about launching a humanitarian aid channel to Rakhine from Bangladesh, we have been hearing about providing logistical support to the Arakan Army, reportedly as desired by America. Just as the same humanitarian aid channel could support the Rohingyas’ return and their livelihood, it could also potentially support the Arakan Army. This two-pronged strategy, whoever came up with it, clearly did not originate from a mature mind.

Humanitarian aid can be provided to civilians in a conflict zone, but providing humanitarian aid to an armed group cannot be justified—it would make one a party to the conflict. It seems as though the illegal government of Bangladesh wants to involve itself in the conflict under the pretext of opening a humanitarian aid channel to support the Arakan Army. They may think that by doing so, they can win America’s favor and stay in power for another decade without any issues.

Since the regime change on August 5, reports indicate that the Bangladesh-Arakan border is now open. A significant number of new Rohingyas have entered the country. Many claim that the border is wide open. Through this, the government seems to be sending the message that they are ready to provide all kinds of support to the Arakan Army.
But what is the Arakan Army thinking? According to BSS (Dhaka, March 15, 2025), “The visiting UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that engaging in dialogue with the Arakan Army to ensure the complete restoration of rights for the Rohingya community in Rakhine is now urgently needed.” The Global Arakan Network (GAN), an online voice for Arakanese expatriates, published an opinion piece on April 13 by GAN Warajein, stating that the United League of Arakan (ULA) and the Arakan Army (AA) have expressed their willingness to accept eligible returnees but only when the situation normalizes. The piece outlined seven conditions, describing them as essential for sustainable peace, security, and coexistence, proposed as a roadmap.

The GAN article, shared here through AI Bangla for better understanding of their sentiments, reads:

“Arakan’s Dangerous Crossroads: Caution, Memory, and Responsibility Amid Proposed Repatriation”

Global Arakan Network
April 13
By Warajein, GAN

The recent developments surrounding the proposed repatriation plan of Muslim refugees (Chittagonian) from Bangladesh to Arakan have sparked deep concerns among the people of Arakan and the leadership of the United League of Arakan/Arakan Army (ULA/AA). These concerns are not rooted in bias but in historical trauma, geopolitical complexities, and tangible threats that destabilize the region.

The State Administration Council (SAC) of Myanmar, which does not exercise effective control over the Arakan border areas, is reportedly in talks with Bangladesh to accept 180,000 refugees in the first phase. This raises questions about the intentions and possible consequences of such a move.

The Importance of Historical Memory

To understand today’s situation, the weight of history must be considered. Arakan remained a sovereign state until 1784, when it was annexed by the Burmese. Following 40 years of oppressive rule, the British annexed Arakan in 1826 and began large-scale migration of Bengali Muslims into the region for agricultural labor. Over time, rapid population growth and continued migration led to Muslims outnumbering indigenous Rakhine and other non-Muslim ethnic groups in several areas.

This demographic transformation was not without violence. In 1942, as the British retreated during the Japanese invasion, they armed Muslim militias ostensibly to resist the Japanese advance. However, these militias unleashed horrific violence against non-Muslim communities, killing thousands and displacing entire villages. This trauma still resonates in the collective memory of the Rakhine people.

In 1947, Muslims from the Chittagong area demanded the annexation of Northern Arakan into East Pakistan, a demand that was ultimately rejected but not forgotten. Since then, radical Islamic groups have repeatedly sought to seize control of the region. Terms like “Arakanistan,” coined by extremists, symbolize their long-standing goal of establishing an Islamic state.

Modern Security Threats

In the past decade, the rise of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) has posed a significant threat. Their attacks on security posts in 2016 and 2017 triggered a severe military response by the Tatmadaw, displacing an estimated 750,000 people. While the army’s “clearance operations” faced international scrutiny, ARSA’s provocations often went overlooked.

Even today, ARSA and associated extremists continue to terrorize northern Arakan. Recent incidents, including the murder of AA soldiers and four Khami civilians, as well as the resurgence of extremist rhetoric—highlighted by a massive rally in December 2024 calling for jihad—underscore the immediate threat posed by these groups.

SAC’s Strategy of Destabilization

It is widely believed that SAC, having lost control of most of Arakan to the ULA/AA, aims to destabilize the region through a premature and politically motivated repatriation process. Their promise to accept thousands of refugees without coordination with local governing authorities (ULA/AA) is both irresponsible and provocative. Analysts suspect this move seeks to create social tensions, incite unrest, and shift the narrative internationally.

A Responsible Approach: Phased and Conditional Repatriation

The ULA/AA has expressed its willingness to accept eligible returnees but only under the right conditions. These conditions are not arbitrary but essential for ensuring lasting peace, security, and coexistence. The following steps are proposed as a roadmap:

1. Stabilize Security First: All extremist and terrorist activities by ARSA and related groups must be eradicated from Arakan. Repatriation should not commence until law and order are fully restored.
2. Build Essential Infrastructure: Safe zones must be established with adequate housing, healthcare, and education facilities under international supervision to ensure impartiality and quality.
3. Vocational Training and Livelihood Preparation: Initiatives for vocational training and employment creation must be provided to economically integrate returnees and avoid dependency.
4. Foster Social Cohesion and Civic Education: Programs involving all communities should be initiated to heal past wounds, promote tolerance, and build a culture of peaceful coexistence.
5. Verification and Screening: Robust mechanisms must separate civilians from extremists. Only those with no connections to militant organizations should be considered eligible for repatriation.
6. Phased Repatriation: Repatriation must occur in small, manageable phases monitored by neutral international observers to ensure security and compliance.
7. Engage Local Communities: Local non-Muslim communities must be involved in every step of planning and implementation to build trust and mutual understanding.

Conclusion: Responsibility over Rhetoric

Arakan’s history is one of resilience, trauma, and survival. Any policy that ignores this history and the current ground realities risks plunging the region into renewed conflict. The ULA/AA stands at a difficult crossroads, balancing the need to uphold humanitarian values while protecting its people and territory from extremist infiltration. Repatriation must be conducted cautiously, with vigilance, and centered on the welfare of all communities—Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

From the above conditions stated by the United League of Arakan and the Arakan Army, it is clear that they are highly aware of the issues of extremism and terrorism. They wish to exclude the jihadi fervor that drives certain Rohingya organizations and the illegal government of Bangladesh. Many believe the source of this jihadi fervor is Pakistan. The ISI and CIA have provoked such sentiments over the past decade, leading to the jihadi influence on the Rohingyas. Otherwise, why would ARSA’s leader be the brother of a Pakistani prime minister’s driver?

However, whether the idea of humanitarian aid channels and logistical support to the Arakan Army—this two-pronged approach—originated from an immature mind or not, it could have been implemented in favor of the U.S. deep state had the Trump administration not come to power and the Biden administration continued as before.

It is now clear that the UN corridor proposal, support for the Arakan Army, and Rohingya repatriation are being entangled by the government to muddy the waters and fish in troubled waters. Some within the government have even mentioned redrawing maps. Such immature schemes are typical of Pakistani generals. We witnessed this kind of short-sightedness during the 1971 war, where the United States was dragged in and the Seventh Fleet bluff was played. The Seventh Fleet did not come. Let us hope the new U.S. administration will not assist the Arakan Army in Rakhine.

-Sirajul Hossain
Blogger and Online Activist