The Rohingya: Is this the way home?

The international community has a task, should it wish to accept it, now that Myanmar and Bangladesh have announced a two-year timeframe for the repatriation of more than half a million Rohingya to Rakhine state, where they fled their homes in the midst of murderous communal conflict.
Given the conflict’s deep and complex roots, two years seems a short time to bring all the refugees home, particularly the Muslim Rohingya, let alone bring the current crisis to a satisfactory resolution. But Myanmar and Bangladesh have shown they are unwilling to wait for a full resolution, leaving open the question of the refugees’ safety on returning. A deal was signed on Tuesday and the process is to begin on January 23.
Bangladesh will establish five transit camps, from which the refugees will be sent to two reception centres on Myanmar soil. Nay Pyi Taw wants 508 Hindu and 750 Muslim refugees whose identities have already been verified in the first group to return. The distinction is telling: Many of the Hindus have said they’re willing to return – rather than waste away in the crowded camps – regardless of concerns they will again be attacked by the Muslim militant Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), as previously charged. It’s a charge the Muslim organisation has denied.
Also agreed is that Myanmar will give the returnees temporary shelter and rebuild the houses that were destroyed. Social Welfare Minister Win Myat Aye has said structures at the two receiving centres in Maungdaw, Rakhine, will be ready by January 22 to accommodate 5,000 returnees and will be expanded to eventually handle 30,000.
The neighbouring countries’ joint working group said the verification format has been settled, but fears linger over who among the refugees will be accepted as citizens. The deal applies only to the Rohingya who fled violence since October 2016, not the estimated 200,000 Rohingya who migrated to Bangladesh before then.
There were several outbreaks of violence in Rakhine in recent years. The latest wave erupted in August last year after ARSA attacked police and military outposts. The government launched a “clearance operation” to find the militants, during which hundreds of people were killed and more than 655,000 forced from their homes.
Bangladesh last month submitted a list of 100,000 names to Myanmar for inclusion in the first round of repatriation, but it is not clear whether Nay Pyi Taw has endorsed the list or how those returnees will be treated. Even the number of refugees is in question among the two governments, United Nations and other international organisations, varying from 650,000 to 673,000.
Despite its expressions of dismay at the “ethnic cleansing” of the Rohingya, the UN has remained noticeably on the sidelines of efforts to resolve the crisis. The repatriation agreement has emerged from bilateral meetings, with no outside help. This might work against good intentions. While Bangladesh urgently needs to shed the burden imposed on it, Myanmar might prove unable or unwilling to care for the returning populace. In humanitarian terms alone, both countries should welcome foreign assistance as repatriation begins, if only to make sure no one is being forced back into another nightmare.
Repatriation will not end the refugees’ woes. Everyone involved needs to understand that the factors fuelling the problem remain in place and must be addressed comprehensively and soon.