Humanitarian corridors are essential mechanisms designed to ensure the safe passage of civilians fleeing conflict zones and to facilitate the swift delivery of critical aid to those trapped by hostilities. According to Rule 55 of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Study, parties engaged in conflict have an explicit obligation to actively support and permit the unhindered movement of humanitarian assistance.
Paradoxically, however, the concept of humanitarian corridors does not explicitly appear in formal IHL treaties – precisely because its very existence would signify a fundamental failure of these laws. Ideally, if the rules governing armed conflict were respected, such emergency routes would not be required. Thus, the establishment of humanitarian corridors represents not a successful implementation of humanitarian principles, but rather an urgent response to severe violations. Such corridors are a desperate effort to alleviate human suffering when all other measures have failed.
While these corridors are intended to serve humanitarian goals, their implementation is often entangled in complex political and operational challenges. What is often presented as neutral humanitarian action actually operates under a military framework, serving broader geopolitical interests, all while being masked as humanitarian aid.
The situation surrounding a proposed humanitarian corridor in Myanmar’s Rakhine State is no different.
Recently, Bangladesh found itself at the heart of a diplomatic debate over the United Nations’ proposal to establish such a corridor to provide aid to those affected by the ongoing violence between Myanmar’s military junta and the Arakan Army. The proposal initially seemed to be a step toward alleviating the suffering of the displaced Rohingya population, who have been subjected to systemic violence and persecution in Myanmar. However, the political fallout and the potential risks associated with this plan raise questions about its effectiveness and whether it could exacerbate the crisis.
Bangladesh’s official stance on the corridor has shifted several times. The idea of such a channel was first raised following U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ visit to Dhaka in March. On April 8, Khalilur Rahman, the senior aide to the chief adviser, publicly introduced the concept for the first time, explaining that discussions about Bangladesh’s potential involvement on the corridor began during a meeting between Guterres and Bangladeshi officials in New York on February 7. Rahman also mentioned that preliminary talks had already been held with the Arakan Army, international organizations, and Myanmar’s government.
On April 27, Foreign Adviser Touhid Hossain announced that Bangladesh had agreed in principle to support the corridor, contingent on certain conditions being met. However, just days later, on April 29, the chief adviser’s press secretary, Shafiqul Alam, denied making any such decision, leaving the matter shrouded in ambiguity. On May 2, Alam further stated that if the United Nations takes the lead on the initiative, Bangladesh’s decision will be made following discussions with all relevant parties involved.
This flip-flop has sparked intense debate, with various political factions – including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB), Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, and Islami Andolan Bangladesh – expressing vehement opposition to the idea. The BNP warned against Bangladesh potentially becoming another Gaza, emphasizing the risks associated with geopolitical entanglements and security threats. Further criticism raised by Bangladesh Samajtantrik Dal, the CPB, and Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh posits the proposed corridor as the tool of a Western imperialist conspiracy. In this narrative, the Rakhine humanitarian corridor is seen as aligned with broader U.S. objectives to expand influence within the region.
Since Myanmar’s military overthrew the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on February 1, 2021, the junta has brutally suppressed protests, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, including children. As Myanmar grapples with this turmoil, China has solidified its influence over the military regime, securing key infrastructure projects and deepening its control.
In contrast, the United States has expressed support for Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement. In August 2024, U.S. officials held virtual meetings with opposition members, pledging to increase support for Myanmar’s transition to a civilian government. Experts argue that Washington must prioritize supporting the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar, not just for moral reasons, but to counter China’s influence in the region. In this light, many analysts view U.S. offers of humanitarian aid to opposition-controlled areas of Myanmar as an attempt to curb China’s expanding influence.
In the aftermath of Bangladesh’s July 2024 uprising, relations between Bangladesh and the United States have flourished. As a neighboring country to Myanmar, Bangladesh finds itself at the crossroads of geopolitical interests, with the U.S. keen to advance a pro-democracy agenda. The proposed Rakhine Humanitarian Corridor, as discussed by Hossain on April 27, could be seen as a step toward this goal, providing the U.S. an opportunity to support Myanmar’s opposition in the name of humanitarian aid. Domestic political leaders in Bangladesh have already expressed concerns over the U.S. officials’ visit, further fueling suspicions that these diplomatic exchanges may be part of a broader political strategy.
Thus far, Bangladesh’s foreign policy has appeared increasingly aligned with the United States, but the situation is far from straightforward. Bangladesh maintains a longstanding economic partnership with China, and Beijing will not stand idly by as Washington influence increases in the region.
During a March 2025 visit to China by Muhammad Yunus, the chief adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government, the Rohingya crisis was one of the key points of discussion. The Chinese government has played a significant role in pushing for peace talks between Bangladesh and Myanmar, and Beijing has lauded Bangladesh for its efforts to resolve the Rohingya issue. In April 2025, at the BIMSTEC Summit, Myanmar’s deputy prime minister, Than Swe, announced that 180,000 Rohingyas were eligible for repatriation. Though details remain sparse, it might be a gesture supported by China to both show its power and reassure Bangladesh.
As China and the United States vie for influence over the resolution of the Myanmar crisis, Bangladesh finds itself caught between two powerful global forces – and the proposed humanitarian corridor has become a potent symbol of its predicament. The diplomatic flip-flop from the interim government, with the foreign adviser’s comments being directly contradicted by the chief adviser’s press secretary, revealed the underlying pressure facing Bangladesh.
The situation highlights the delicate balancing act Bangladesh must navigate. The Rakhine Humanitarian Corridor, while intended to ease the suffering of displaced populations, poses significant political and security risks. As both the U.S. and China exert pressure on Bangladesh to align with their respective strategies, the proposed corridor’s implications for the country’s foreign policy are significant. Bangladesh, with its strategic position in the region, must not only balance ties with China and the U.S. but also make a decision that serves the best interests of its people, who are most affected by the crisis.
The security of a potential humanitarian corridor remains a major concern. The ongoing conflict between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army means that the corridor could easily be hijacked by armed groups or used for illicit activities such as arms trafficking. The potential involvement of international peacekeepers, such as U.N. personnel, could further exacerbate tensions.
In this volatile situation, Bangladesh must proceed with extreme caution. The humanitarian corridor risks escalating both the humanitarian crisis and the geopolitical tensions it aims to address. Policy analysts and think tanks believe that a broader, more inclusive dialogue involving all key stakeholders – including Myanmar’s military junta, opposition groups, the Rohingya leadership, and international organizations – is crucial for finding a sustainable solution to the conflict in Rakhine State, and the accompanying refugee crisis.