DAWN – Many countries are calling for a mediator to oversee discussions between Myanmar and Bangladesh in hopes to begin meaningful resettlement of the thousands of displaced Rohingya Refugees. The mediator would also help conduct a “fact finding mission”, parallel to negotiations talks, in order to investigate claims of ethnic cleansing and violence against the Rohingya. Frustrations are arising out of the fact that no one can decide who should be the mediator of such talks and investigations. Meanwhile, the Rohingya remain in limbo unsure of when they can return or if their safety is guaranteed as they await in crowded Bangladeshi camps.
Proposals of using non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights lawyers as mediators have been supported by Ukraine, United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK). The delegate from the USA states that NGOs are best suited to take on this role because they are in a “neutral position by being able to understand the complex situation” and are not state affiliated. Other countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia warn that NGOs are biased and may undermine the negotiation process. While a mediator may not be found in the immediate there are existing plans such as the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State that need to be worked towards and not creating new resettlement plans. The human rights atrocities will require more than just NGOs and will need the guidance of trained human rights lawyers to fully investigate the issue.
Some delegations believe that economic incentives will help bring Myanmar to the table, overstepping the need for a formal mediator. By forgiving certain debts the delegates of France and the UK believe Myanmar would be willing to stop military actions. This solution may not be sound enough to bring concrete action and requires other ideas to be explored more fully.
An alternative solution such as the one brought up by Egypt, USA and Kazakhstan proposes a “neutral zone” in which a ceasefire would be negotiated and treaties be created in order to protect returning Rohingya. Kazakhstan emphasizes that the council needs to work “actively to create a solution” starting at the security council. They also stress that creating a neutral zone could effectively buy time for governments agreements to come to fruition while humanitarian groups to begin aiding in resettlement plans. China and Russia hesitate to accept this proposal and maintain that state sovereignty should come above all else and the imposition of a neutral zone may not be in the best interests of the council. While this is not a popular option perhaps it is the better of the other solutions.
It is unclear whether on or not a mediator can be agreed upon or what steps should be taken to compel Myanmar to take meaningful action. What is clear is that talks need to focus on easing the humanitarian pressures on the Bangladeshi Government and NGOs. It is also vital that a fair and thorough investigation into the events leading up to and during the violence taken against the Rohingya People in order to target the systemic issues that lead to this crisis in the first place.
International Press Corps 