[🇧🇩] Insurgencies in Myanmar. Implications for Bangladesh

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Canada China Egypt Finland Germany India Iran Israel Japan Lebanon North Macedonia Pakistan Palestine Qatar Russia Syria Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States Yemen
[🇧🇩] Insurgencies in Myanmar. Implications for Bangladesh
418
18K
More threads by Saif

G Bangladesh Defense

The human cost of wasting Rohingya aid funds

Kallol Mustafa

1782952187206.webp

People queue to collect aid boxes at a Rohingya refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh on May 27, 2025. FILE PHOTO: REUTERS

The Rohingya refugee crisis remains one of the world’s largest and most protracted humanitarian emergencies. Since more than 10 lakh Rohingya fled violence in Myanmar and sought refuge in Bangladesh, the international humanitarian response has relied heavily on the leadership of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Working alongside the Bangladesh government, other UN agencies, and numerous national and international partners, UNHCR has played a central role in providing shelter, protection, healthcare, education, and other essential services to one of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

It is precisely because of this critical role that the findings of a UN internal audit recently reported by New Age deserve serious attention. The audit, conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) at the UN headquarters for the period of January 2023 to December 2024 found serious mismanagement, irregularities, and misuse of aid in UNHCR-run Rohingya relief projects in Bangladesh.

First, many relief items were purchased even though the refugees did not need them. For instance, they preferred water pitchers to jerrycans ($87,875) and had no use for cutlery ($182,028) since they eat with their hands. Despite complaints, non-food item (NFI) kits were not adjusted, leading to stockpiles of unused items, including 62,100 kitchen sets worth $1.32 million.

Second, 99 elephant watchtowers were constructed for $2.2 million. Subsequent evaluations found them to be ineffective. A further $56,025 was lost in materials, and $367,759 was spent on unsuccessful improvements. Although a 2025 evaluation recommended reducing the number of towers, only 12 had been removed by the time the audit was conducted. The removal of the remaining 37 would save a further $180,000.

Third, similar to many public development projects, UNHCR purchased unnecessary vehicles but failed to justify the need for 52 programme vehicles for 16 refugee camps and 48 administrative vehicles for which it had only 29 drivers. Also, at the time of the audit, 10 of the 104 vehicles had not been operational for an extended period, but over $80,000 was paid in rental fees for them.

Fourth, UNHCR purchased $24.2 million worth of LPG refills even though the actual requirement was worth $18.7 million.

Fifth, a new office in Cox’s Bazar was built for $240,000 without obtaining formal permission from the landowner. The project’s cost increased after a third floor was added. Upon completion, the landowner announced a rent increase despite the absence of any formal lease agreement. The new office remained vacant for five months while UNHCR continued paying $11,000 rent per month.

Moreover, some of the facilities constructed and equipment procured were not used, such as: i) a $1.5 million specialised hospital in Ukhiya; ii) a 20-bed inpatient facility in Bhasan Char after refurbishment and installation of solar equipment totalling $140,000; and ii) an X-ray machine totalling $74,301.

Sixth, between 2021 and June 2025, construction works and procurement worth $25 million were awarded to a single contractor whose prices were 26 percent higher than market rates, resulting in an estimated loss of $6.5 million.

The shelter construction programme also relied on a single contractor, even though four other prequalified firms had submitted bids at 33-43 percent lower. Contracts worth $30 million for LPG refills, stoves, igniters, pressure cookers, and training were awarded to a single supplier who was not the lowest bidder. Although LPG depot costs were contractually the responsibility of the contractor, UNHCR itself paid $1.66 million. And while accessories like spark lighters were covered under pressure cooker warranties, additional spark lighters worth $65,367 were purchased.

Seventh, the $3.9 million energy and environmental programme was implemented at rates significantly above prevailing market prices. In the 2021 solar project, contractor rates were up to 36 percent higher than market prices and comparable sector costs. In 2023, contract rates were increased by 19-25 percent without clear justification, resulting in additional expenditure of $294,840. The electrical works under the construction framework exceeded market rates by about 10 percent, resulting in a loss of $1.5 million. The same company was hired to conduct the feasibility study, prepare the design, and implement the electrical installations, despite a clear conflict of interest.

The significance of these findings extends far beyond accounting practices. Rohingya humanitarian response is going through a period of severe financial strain. International donor contributions have steadily declined over recent years; food assistance has faced reductions, healthcare services are at risk, the education of refugee children is under threat, and agencies continue to struggle to maintain even basic services inside the camps.

In such circumstances, every unnecessary expenditure represents resources that could otherwise have provided food, healthcare, education, shelter, or protection to refugee families. Waste in humanitarian operations directly affects the well-being of vulnerable people.

There is another important consequence. Humanitarian assistance ultimately depends on public trust. Governments allocate taxpayer resources to international relief efforts because they believe those funds will be used responsibly and transparently. Audit findings suggesting weak financial controls, procurement irregularities, or ineffective project management risk undermining that confidence. If international donors become less willing to finance Rohingya operations, the consequences will not be borne primarily by international organisations. They will be felt first by the Rohingya refugees, and increasingly by Bangladesh, in terms of critical gaps in food assistance, healthcare, and essential services, at a time when the country is already confronting its own economic and fiscal constraints.

Sustaining international solidarity requires maintaining the highest standards of accountability. Humanitarian organisations are rightly expected to meet standards that often exceed those applied elsewhere because they operate with public funds intended to alleviate human suffering.

UNHCR has acknowledged many of the audit observations and has committed to implementing corrective measures. That process must continue with transparency. The organisation should publicly demonstrate how procurement systems are being strengthened, how project planning is being improved, and how recommendations are being implemented.

With humanitarian funding shrinking while refugee needs remain immense, the objective should be clear: every donated dollar must reach those for whom it was intended. The people who ultimately bear the cost of wasteful spending, irregularities, and mismanagement are not donors or institutions. They are the Rohingya families whose survival depends on an international community struggling to sustain its commitment.

Kallol Mustafa is an engineer and writer who focuses on power, energy, environment, and development economics.​
 

Fresh shelling in Myanmar’s Rakhine revives fear along Bangladesh border

REUTERS

Published :
Jul 03, 2026 23:18
Updated :
Jul 03, 2026 23:18

1783131934225.webp


After nearly a year of relative calm, heavy shelling and explosions have again rattled Myanmar's Rakhine State along the Naf River, reviving fears among residents in Bangladesh's border areas.

The Myanmar military shelled parts of Rakhine on Wednesday and Thursday, with explosions clearly heard across the border in Teknaf.

Residents there believe fighting has resumed between Myanmar's conflicting groups.

The renewed violence has alarmed the millions of Rohingya refugees living in camps in Cox's Bazar, many of whom still have relatives in Rakhine.

Rakhine families living in Cox's Bazar and Bandarban are also contacting relatives across the border after reports of fresh airstrikes.

The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has stepped up surveillance amid fears that displaced Rohingya could attempt to cross the border.

Reports of Casualties

Mujibur Rahman, president of the Arakan Rohingya Football Federation (ARFF), fled Maungdaw Township years ago and now lives in a Rohingya refugee camp in Bangladesh.

He said relatives told him several Rohingya, including children, were injured in Myanmar military airstrikes on Wachila village in Buthidaung Township and Nakaka-5 village in Maungdaw Township on Wednesday.

Citing relatives, Mujibur said a military helicopter dropped three bombs near Wachila village, followed by two more on Nakaka-5 a few hours later.

He showed photographs that he said depicted a 13-year-old Rohingya girl seriously wounded in the attack.

Another 13-year-old, Md Sayedullah, was also critically injured, he said, adding that fresh airstrikes struck the area on Thursday.

bdnews24.com could not independently verify the images or the claims.

Rohingya refugees and camp leaders claim that besides the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army, several Rohingya armed groups are active in Rakhine, including the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO), the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and Nabi Hossain's group.

Camp residents said these groups are engaged in clashes with both the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army.

A member of a Rakhine family in Bandarban said casualties among Rohingya and Rakhine civilians could be higher than reported, adding that many people had fled into forests for safety, making communication difficult.

BGB on Alert

BGB Ramu Sector Commander Col Mohammad Mohiuddin Ahmed said airstrikes in Myanmar's Rakhine State could be heard from Teknaf, prompting panic among border residents.

Citing past experience, he said major attacks in Rakhine often trigger attempts by displaced Rohingya to cross the Naf River into Bangladesh, prompting the BGB to remain on high alert.

He said the situation is being closely monitored and border security has been strengthened.

Teknaf-2 BGB Battalion Commander Lt Col Hanifur Rahman Bhuiyan said, “Patrols and surveillance have been intensified along the Naf River and the border, and the situation is under monitoring round-the-clock.”​
 

Why tensions are rising between Rohingya and Bangladeshis

Md Shahidul Alam

Bangladesh’s response to the Rohingya influx has long been described through the language of emergency: shelter, relief, humanitarian duty, and eventual repatriation. In national and international discourse, the crisis is still often treated as temporary, awaiting a political settlement. Yet in Kutupalong, where the world’s largest refugee settlement now stands, that vocabulary no longer captures everyday reality. For many local communities living beside the camps, the crisis no longer feels temporary. It has become part of the landscape, the labour market, and the structure of uncertainty.

This does not make the need for refuge less real. The violence and displacement faced by the Rohingya remain central to any ethical understanding of the situation. But after years of stalled repatriation, limited international burden-sharing, and expanding humanitarian infrastructure, the effects of prolonged hosting have accumulated around Kutupalong in ways that are less visible than emergency relief but no less consequential. Labour relations have shifted, forests and hills have been transformed, water sources and waste systems have come under pressure, and host-community grievances have grown in spaces where formal policy has little reach.

The problem, therefore, is not refuge itself. It is permanence without acknowledgement. The Rohingya presence is still governed through temporary language, while local communities live with long-term consequences. This gap between official framing and lived experience is where politics, humanitarian practice, labour competition, and environmental loss converge.

At the international level, the Rohingya situation remains suspended in a cycle of statements, conferences, and deferred solutions. Repatriation is repeatedly invoked, but the conditions for safe, voluntary, and dignified return remain unmet. Accountability processes move slowly, and responsibility is spread across states in ways that rarely produce enforceable commitments. Bangladesh is praised for its humanitarian role, but praise has not produced the political pressure or burden-sharing needed to change the structure of the crisis.

For communities around Kutupalong, this international stalemate is not abstract. It is felt through uncertainty. Decisions that shape their land, work, and future are made far beyond their reach, while the consequences remain local. What was once imagined as a short-term act of sheltering has become an open-ended reality. The longer the political question remains unresolved, the more the temporary settlement acquires the features of permanence.

The problem, therefore, is not refuge itself. It is permanence without acknowledgement. The Rohingya presence is still governed through temporary language, while local communities live with long-term consequences. This gap between official framing and lived experience is where politics, humanitarian practice, labour competition, and environmental loss converge.

Humanitarian organisations operate within this unresolved condition. Their work is essential: food, health services, sanitation, protection, and shelter cannot be dismissed. Yet their role is also structurally limited. Donor cycles, emergency indicators, and regulatory restrictions shape what can be addressed. Immediate needs are counted and reported; slow-building pressures are harder to fit into programme categories. Labour competition, ecological strain, and host-community resentment often circulate informally, acknowledged in conversation but weakly addressed through institutional mechanisms.

This has created an uneasy relationship between NGOs and host communities. Humanitarian organisations are highly visible around the camps, but their programmes are primarily designed to meet the immediate needs of refugees rather than address the wider and longer-term consequences of the camps for surrounding communities. While their work is essential to sustaining refugee lives, the emergency framework within which they operate is poorly equipped to manage the challenges of long-term coexistence. As displacement continues year after year, humanitarian assistance can inadvertently help sustain a situation that is becoming increasingly permanent, even though policies and programmes continue to treat it as temporary.

This gap is most visible in the local labour market. Formal restrictions prevent Rohingya refugees from entering recognised employment, but everyday economic life around Kutupalong does not follow formal rules. Informal labour has expanded because people need to survive. Refugees seek work where they can find it; local workers compete in the same low-paid sectors. Policy may draw a line between legal and illegal work, but the local labour market is shaped by necessity.

For host-community workers, this competition is rarely experienced as a sudden rupture. It is felt as a gradual erosion. Day labour, construction, agriculture, transport, and small services have long supported local livelihoods. As refugees enter these sectors informally, employers can often pay less. Local workers describe accepting lower wages to keep their jobs or losing opportunities to those willing to work for less. Such changes do not always produce visible conflict. They appear in daily bargaining, delayed payments, shorter workdays, and the quiet calculation of household survival.

This matters because informal work is not only an economic issue. It also shapes how people interpret justice, belonging, and neglect. When a local worker sees his wage fall, or when a household can no longer rely on the same number of workdays, the loss is read against a wider political silence. The camp becomes not only a humanitarian site but also a reference point in everyday explanations of hardship.

This is why moral language alone is insufficient. Bangladesh’s decision to shelter the Rohingya was shaped by humanitarian obligations, and those obligations remain important. But compassion cannot substitute for political responsibility. When a crisis continues for years, the question is no longer only whether refuge should be provided. It is also how prolonged refuge is governed, who bears its cumulative costs, and which losses remain outside formal recognition.

For refugees, informal labour is also precarious. Without legal protection, they remain vulnerable to exploitation, underpayment, and unsafe conditions. Their willingness to accept lower wages is not simply a choice; it reflects exclusion from formal livelihood pathways. This is why the issue cannot be reduced to hostility between refugees and host communities. Both groups are made vulnerable by a labour system that operates in the shadow of law, aid, and political uncertainty.

Environmental damage is more visible, but over time it has come to be treated as normal. Around Kutupalong, forests have been cleared, hills reshaped, soil destabilised, and water sources strained. At the beginning of the influx, such extraction was justified by urgency. Trees were cut for shelter and fuel, land was quickly repurposed, and hillsides were altered to make space for a population in immediate need. These were not minor decisions, but they were treated as emergency measures.

1783390998911.webp

The world's largest refugee camp in Kutupalong, Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. It is home to Rohingya refugees who fled ethnic and religious persecution in neighbouring Myanmar. Photo: Wikipedia

Years later, the emergency logic remains, while the landscape has changed permanently. What was presented as temporary infrastructure has become a semi-permanent settlement. Ecological recovery is repeatedly deferred. For host communities, forests were not only scenery; they were sources of fuelwood, timber, grazing, informal income, and environmental protection. Vegetation helped stabilise the soil, water sources supported daily life, and land carried both economic and social meaning. As these systems came under pressure, local people experienced environmental loss as material loss.

These ecological pressures also intensify economic hardship and social tensions. As land, water, and other natural resources become scarcer, households lose access to resources that support their livelihoods and supplement their incomes. Environmental degradation also increases exposure to hazards, as damaged hillsides and inadequate drainage make communities more vulnerable to landslides and flooding. Yet policy responses often treat labour, environmental degradation, and humanitarian assistance as separate issues. Around Kutupalong, they are closely connected, each reinforcing the others as the crisis continues year after year.

This is why moral language alone is insufficient. Bangladesh’s decision to shelter the Rohingya was shaped by humanitarian obligations, and those obligations remain important. But compassion cannot substitute for political responsibility. When a crisis continues for years, the question is no longer only whether refuge should be provided. It is also how prolonged refuge is governed, who bears its cumulative costs, and which losses remain outside formal recognition.

For refugees, informal labour is also precarious. Without legal protection, they remain vulnerable to exploitation, underpayment, and unsafe conditions. Their willingness to accept lower wages is not simply a choice; it reflects exclusion from formal livelihood pathways. This is why the issue cannot be reduced to hostility between refugees and host communities. Both groups are made vulnerable by a labour system that operates in the shadow of law, aid, and political uncertainty.

Host-community grievances are often misunderstood when seen only through the lens of hostility. Many local concerns are not simply expressions of anti-refugee sentiment. They emerge from pressure on work, land, resources, and future expectations. Initial sympathy can erode when people feel that their own losses are unacknowledged. To recognise this does not weaken refugee protection. It strengthens the basis for a more honest and sustainable response.

A durable response must move beyond the fiction of temporality. It must treat host communities as stakeholders, not as background populations. It must address informal labour as a structural issue, not as an inconvenient side effect. It must place environmental recovery and resource management at the centre of planning, not at the margins of short-term projects. Above all, international actors must move beyond symbolic appreciation of Bangladesh’s role and accept that responsibility for an unresolved crisis cannot remain concentrated in one locality.

Md Shahidul Alam is a Bangladesh-based researcher and development professional.​
 

Latest Posts

Back