By: Sayed Abedin (Barrister & Solicitor), Date: April 29, 2025
In a move that has sent tremors across the region, the so-called interim government of Bangladesh, led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has unilaterally decided to open a “humanitarian corridor” into Myanmar’s war-ravaged Rakhine State. Cloaked in the language of aid and compassion, this decision may well be the fuse that drags Bangladesh from the sidelines of regional instability straight into the heart of a foreign civil war. Critics argue that this is less about humanitarian aid and more about geopolitical theatre—a desperate stunt by an unelected regime seeking legitimacy at home and relevance abroad.
A Precarious Precedent
History is littered with examples of nations stumbling into chaos under the banner of humanitarianism:
Rwanda-Zaire (1994–1996): Rwanda’s humanitarian relief effort in Zaire led to refugee camp militarization and eventually pulled Rwanda into regional conflict.
Pakistan-Afghanistan (Post-1979): Pakistan’s involvement, initially humanitarian, morphed into armed support, radicalizing swathes of the population and destabilizing its own institutions.
Lebanon-Syria (Post-2011): Lebanon’s attempt to maintain neutrality while hosting Syrian refugees contributed to sectarian violence within its borders.
Turkey-Syria (Post-2011): Turkey’s humanitarian engagement evolved into military entanglement and terrorist infiltration.
Sudan-South Sudan (2011–Present): Humanitarian routes were exploited for arms transfers, intensifying the conflict.
These cautionary tales show how easily well-meaning gestures can spiral into catastrophe.
Humanitarian Corridor or Arms Highway?
It is no secret that world powers often mask covert military support behind the veil of humanitarian aid. There is no credible mechanism in place to guarantee that this corridor will not be used to funnel weapons to the Arakan Army. Many regional analysts and national security experts are raising alarm bells—suggesting that this so-called corridor may serve as a supply line under the guise of compassion. With the Arakan Army currently battling Myanmar’s military, the corridor could effectively turn Bangladesh into a logistical rear base for a secessionist insurgency.
The Government That Wasn’t Elected
Herein lies the constitutional outrage: according to Article 57 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina remains the lawful Prime Minister of the country. Dr. Yunus’s caretaker regime, which came into being after Sheikh Hasina reportedly left the country on August 5, 2024, lacks any democratic mandate or constitutional legitimacy. While the Supreme Court provided an opinion on the matter, it did not confer legal legitimacy to this unelected administration. The interim regime’s unilateral foreign policy moves are therefore not only dangerous—they are arguably illegal.
Even more perplexing is that both the Awami League and BNP, despite their historical rivalry, have publicly opposed this hazardous initiative. Their rare consensus reflects the gravity of the situation and the growing concern that this move could jeopardize Bangladesh’s national interests and regional stability.
Contrasting Approaches: Hasina’s Caution vs. Yunus’s Gamble
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had long refused to be drawn into Myanmar’s internal conflicts. Her administration balanced international pressure with national interest, offering refuge to over a million Rohingyas while maintaining a strict policy of non-involvement. Her measured diplomacy earned Bangladesh global praise.
Dr. Yunus, in stark contrast, seems eager to gamble Bangladesh’s national security on a risky venture that could turn the nation into a de facto war zone. His lack of accountability to voters makes this even more dangerous—he risks nothing, but the country risks everything.
What Lies Ahead?
Unless immediately reversed or re-evaluated under a legitimate government, this decision may:
Destabilize Border Areas: With the Arakan Army controlling large swathes of territory near the border, increased arms trafficking and militant spillover are real threats.
Jeopardize National Sovereignty: Facilitating insurgent movements under international scrutiny may invite retaliatory strikes or entangle Bangladesh in foreign military dynamics.
Strain Diplomatic Ties: Myanmar, China, and other stakeholders in the region may not look kindly on Bangladesh’s perceived partiality.
Provoke Internal Unrest: The move could intensify divisions at home, especially if arms and militants begin flowing in.
Conclusion
Bangladesh stands at a perilous crossroads. The decision to open a so-called humanitarian corridor is not merely a policy misstep—it is a national security time bomb wrapped in virtue-signaling rhetoric. Until a democratically legitimate government is restored and this reckless venture is scrapped, Bangladesh risks becoming a pawn in a geopolitical game it never intended to play.
Note: This article is a fictional analysis based on public reports and constitutional interpretations.