Myanmar’s recent announcement to repatriate 180,000 Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh has sparked cautious hope among some international observers, but deep skepticism among many others. The pledge, made amid a spiraling political crisis and ongoing conflict in Myanmar, raises critical questions about its feasibility and sincerity. With the military junta losing ground to ethnic armed groups like the Arakan Army in Rakhine State—the historic homeland of the Rohingya—can this displaced and persecuted minority truly expect a safe and dignified return? As the international community watches closely, the plan’s glaring flaws and the absence of structural reforms suggest this may be more a political maneuver than a genuine solution to one of the world’s most protracted refugee crises.
A History of Broken Promises
The Rohingya, a stateless Muslim minority in Myanmar, have faced decades of systemic discrimination and violence, culminating in a mass exodus in 2017 when military operations in Rakhine State drove nearly a million people into neighboring Bangladesh. Now living in sprawling camps like Kutupalong in Cox’s Bazar, they endure cramped conditions and dwindling international aid. Myanmar’s latest repatriation offer is not its first. Previous attempts in 1978 and 1992, following earlier waves of displacement, saw thousands return under international pressure. Yet those returns were marred by a lack of oversight, with returnees denied citizenship and subjected to severe restrictions on movement and basic rights. Far from resolving the crisis, these efforts often paved the way for further violence and displacement. 
Today’s context is arguably more challenging. Since the military coup in February 2021, Myanmar has descended into chaos, with the junta facing widespread resistance from ethnic armed organizations and pro-democracy movements. In Rakhine State, the Arakan Army has seized control of significant territory, leaving the military government with limited authority to implement policies or ensure security. Against this backdrop, the promise to facilitate a safe return for 180,000 Rohingya appears tenuous at best. Without control over key areas or the capacity to provide basic services, how can the junta guarantee the safety and rights of returning refugees?
Legal and Structural Barriers Persist
At the heart of the Rohingya crisis lies Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which effectively stripped the community of legal recognition and rendered them stateless. Despite international condemnation, this law remains unchanged, and there has been no indication of reform or formal acknowledgment of the Rohingya as an ethnic group within Myanmar. Without citizenship, any returnees would likely face the same exclusion and discrimination that forced them to flee in the first place. Inside Myanmar, over 100,000 Rohingya remain confined to internal displacement camps, some for more than a decade, with restricted access to healthcare, education, and freedom of movement. Since the coup, humanitarian access to these camps has further deteriorated, with aid organizations struggling to operate amid escalating violence.
The absence of legal and policy changes casts serious doubt on the junta’s repatriation pledge. Without repealing or amending the 1982 law, and without a commitment to recognize the Rohingya’s rights, any return risks replicating past injustices. International human rights groups have repeatedly called for structural reforms as a prerequisite for repatriation, emphasizing that a safe and voluntary return cannot occur under the current system of exclusion.
Flaws in the Repatriation Plan
Even on a logistical level, the proposed repatriation plan raises significant concerns. Myanmar has agreed to accept individuals listed as refugees between 2018 and 2020, but this excludes many children born in the Bangladeshi camps since then. The potential for family separation—where parents may be allowed to return but their children are not—violates fundamental humanitarian principles and the right to family unity. Many Rohingya families, understandably, would refuse to return under such conditions, rendering the notion of a “voluntary” repatriation questionable.
Moreover, the voices of the Rohingya themselves appear to be sidelined in this process. Surveys and interviews conducted in Cox’s Bazar camps consistently reveal that most refugees are unwilling to return without guarantees of full citizenship, safety, freedom of movement, and access to education and healthcare. “We want to go back, but not to the same suffering” said a refugee leader in a recent report by a humanitarian organization. Their demands are clear, yet there is little evidence that Myanmar’s authorities or the international mediators facilitating discussions are addressing these core concerns.
Bangladesh’s Burden and International Responsibility
For Bangladesh, hosting nearly a million Rohingya refugees since 2017 has been an immense humanitarian and economic challenge. International funding for the camps has declined in recent years, while tensions between refugees and local communities have grown. The government in Dhaka is understandably eager for a resolution, but agreeing to a repatriation plan without robust safeguards risks further harm to an already vulnerable population. A flawed return process could retraumatize survivors, exacerbate instability in Rakhine State, and potentially destabilize the camps in Bangladesh if refugees resist forced repatriation.
The international community, including bodies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), has a critical role to play. Independent oversight is essential to ensure that any repatriation is truly voluntary, safe, and dignified. This includes verifying the identities of returnees, facilitating safe transport, and monitoring their reintegration to prevent discrimination or violence. Beyond logistics, there must be pressure on Myanmar to enact legal reforms, acknowledge past atrocities, and commit to accountability and reparations for victims. Without these steps, repatriation risks becoming a hollow gesture rather than a meaningful solution.
Toward a Just and Sustainable Return
For any repatriation to succeed, several key conditions must be met. First, Myanmar must repeal or amend the 1982 Citizenship Law to grant the Rohingya full legal recognition and rights as citizens. Second, the process must be family-centered, ensuring that no children or household members are excluded from return lists. Third, international organizations must be involved at every stage to provide oversight and build trust among all parties. Fourth, repatriation should be embedded in a broader framework of justice, including accountability for past crimes and reparations for victims. Finally, returnees must be supported with long-term reintegration plans, including access to education, healthcare, housing, and employment opportunities, rather than being confined to temporary shelters or camps.
These conditions are not mere ideals—they are prerequisites for a sustainable resolution to the Rohingya crisis. Without addressing the root causes of displacement, including systemic discrimination and lack of accountability, any return initiative risks perpetuating cycles of violence and exile. The international community must resist the temptation to endorse superficial agreements and instead demand concrete reforms and guarantees from Myanmar’s authorities, whether under the current junta or a future administration.
A Path Forward Amid Uncertainty
Myanmar’s pledge to repatriate 180,000 Rohingya refugees may offer a glimmer of hope on the surface, but it is undermined by the country’s deepening political crisis, unchanged discriminatory laws, and lack of genuine accountability. For the Rohingya, who have endured generations of persecution and displacement, a safe and dignified return remains a distant prospect. As the situation in Rakhine State and beyond continues to evolve, the question looms: will this latest promise mark a turning point, or is it yet another chapter in a long history of unfulfilled commitments? The answer depends on whether Myanmar and the international community can muster the political will to prioritize justice over expediency, and rights over rhetoric.
