The announcement that Bangladesh has agreed in principle to allow a ‘Humanitarian Corridor’ into Myanmar’s Rakhine State under UN supervision should evoke more than polite nods from international observers. It ought to trigger a serious debate about the unintended consequences of well-meaning interventions, especially when geography, geopolitics, and internal instability intersect so precariously.

Bangladesh, long a reluctant host to over a million Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar’s military persecution, now finds itself in the eye of yet another humanitarian cyclone. This time, however, it risks shifting from passive recipient to active conduit. And that transition—however noble it might appear—carries layers of risk that Dhaka must confront with eyes wide open.

To begin with, the corridor isn’t just a road to deliver aid. It is, by design or default, a channel of political signal and strategic influence. The argument for the corridor is steeped in immediate humanitarian need: famine-like conditions in Rakhine, the collapse of local economic structures, and the prospect of a fresh wave of refugees pouring into Bangladesh. The United Nations and various rights groups have painted a grim picture—one where food is scarce, access blocked, and despair growing. Under such urgency, the call for humanitarian corridors often becomes irresistible. But history tells us that these corridors rarely remain confined to their original mandate.

Consider Grozny in Chechnya, Aleppo in Syria, or Donbas in Ukraine. Humanitarian corridors in these conflict zones were not insulated highways for aid but rather became contested spaces—rife with manipulation, militarization, and in some cases, covert arms trafficking. Even the most benevolent intentions are vulnerable to strategic abuse. Why would Bangladesh’s experience be........

© Blitz