Myanmar’s ‘Terrorist’ Label Complicates Rohingya Diplomacy 

Myanmar’s latest move to identify 4,241 Rohingya living in Bangladesh camps as having been involved in “terrorist activities” risks further complicating an already fragile diplomatic process. In a recent press statement, Myanmar’s Foreign Ministry presented the figure as part of its account of the Rohingya repatriation process. But without publicly available evidence, independent verification or a transparent legal process, such allegations cannot be treated as established facts. Instead, they risk criminalising an entire persecuted community and diverting attention from the central diplomatic question: how to ensure the safe, voluntary and dignified return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar.

The timing is significant. Bangladesh has repeatedly urged Myanmar to take back its nationals under the 2017 bilateral repatriation agreement. Yet every repatriation effort has stalled, not because Bangladesh has refused to cooperate, but because Myanmar has failed to create the conditions necessary for safe, dignified and voluntary return. Now, instead of addressing those conditions, Myanmar has introduced a new security narrative around thousands of refugees. Such a move can only deepen mistrust between the two countries and make an already difficult diplomatic process even harder.

If Myanmar has credible evidence against any individual, it should share that evidence through formal bilateral, legal and UN channels. A press statement cannot substitute for due process. The UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar concluded in 2018 that the military’s operations in Rakhine State were carried out with genocidal intent. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) imposed provisional measures in January 2020 ordering Myanmar to protect the Rohingya from genocide and preserve evidence. In 2022, the ICJ rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections, and the genocide case filed by The Gambia has proceeded. In January 2026, Myanmar again defended its position before the ICJ, while Bangladesh objected to attempts to portray the Rohingya as “Bengalis” and frame the crisis primarily as an issue of illegal migration and security.

Against this legal and diplomatic backdrop, Myanmar’s latest “terrorist” designation cannot be allowed to become a substitute for meaningful engagement. Let us remember who these people are. More than 1.1 million Rohingya have been forced into Bangladesh, most after August 2017, when Myanmar’s military launched “clearance operations” in Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung townships. Villages were burned, women and girls were raped, and men and boys were shot.

Survivors fled across the Naf River. These were civilian communities subjected to persecution because of their ethnicity and faith. Even if some individuals among the refugees have committed crimes-as can happen within any population-collectively associating thousands of refugees with terrorism violates the principle of individual responsibility and risks undermining refugee protection.

The history of failed repatriation efforts makes the diplomatic implications even clearer. After the 2017 influx, Bangladesh and Myanmar signed a repatriation arrangement in November 2017. The first scheduled return, in January 2018, produced no returnees because Myanmar could not guarantee citizenship, safety, freedom of movement or access to original homes. Bangladesh later shared lists of Rohingya for verification; Myanmar cleared a fraction before the process stalled. A second attempt in 2019 failed for similar reasons.

After the February 2021 military coup, engagement effectively collapsed. The junta instead intensified conflict in Rakhine State, including with the Arakan Army, displacing more people and destroying more villages. The areas from which many Rohingya originally came-Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung-are neither safe nor adequately rebuilt.

Myanmar has refused to grant Rohingya citizenship under its discriminatory 1982 Citizenship Law, has not fully implemented the recommendations of the Kofi Annan Commission, and has not held perpetrators accountable for the mass atrocities. In bilateral meetings, Bangladesh has repeatedly raised these barriers. Myanmar’s response has been marked by delay, new conditions and, now, a list of people it says were involved in terrorist activities.

The figure of 4,241 should therefore be approached with caution. It echoes earlier attempts by Myanmar’s authorities to frame the wider Rohingya population through a security lens. Following the 2017 crackdown, the military sought to portray the Rohingya population as affiliated with the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) or as illegal Bengali immigrants. The danger is that such a narrative transforms a refugee population into a security threat and shifts diplomatic attention away from the question of why they were forced to flee in the first place.

Myanmar’s own latest statement also shows why the issue requires sustained international engagement. According to its Foreign Ministry, Bangladesh provided a list of 828,824 displaced persons, of whom Myanmar said it had verified 426,545 by July 31, 2026. It said 308,797 were former residents of Rakhine State, while 113,507 remained unverified and 4,241 were allegedly involved in terrorist activities. Myanmar also said it would receive verified former residents when the security situation in Rakhine becomes more stable.

This makes the diplomatic challenge clear. Repatriation cannot depend solely on competing claims exchanged through press statements. It requires a credible verification mechanism, security guarantees, restoration of rights, international monitoring and sustained political engagement. Bangladesh has consistently maintained that the crisis originated in Myanmar and that its durable solution must also be found there. In June 2026, Dhaka again urged the international community and key regional actors to intensify diplomatic efforts to facilitate the early repatriation of Rohingya refugees.

International pressure has not been enough, but it has established important legal and diplomatic principles. UN Security Council Resolution 2669, adopted in December 2022, demands an immediate end to violence in Myanmar and calls for the safe, voluntary and dignified return of refugees. ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus, which the junta nominally accepted, remains largely unimplemented. The ICJ’s provisional measures are legally binding. At the same time, recent regional diplomacy shows that engagement with Myanmar is once again becoming an important part of the conversation. Malaysia, for example, has sought direct engagement with Myanmar’s leadership as part of efforts to facilitate refugee repatriation, arguing that diplomacy is necessary to secure concrete results.

Bangladesh knows the cost of this crisis. It has sheltered more than a million Rohingya, sacrificed forest land, stretched public services and absorbed significant social and environmental pressures. Bangladesh did not create this crisis, but it continues to bear much of its human and economic cost. Dhaka has repeatedly urged Myanmar to take back more than one million refugees who fled military crackdowns. Yet sending people back to a country that continues to deny them citizenship and now associates thousands of them with terrorism, without adequate guarantees of safety and rights, would be unacceptable.

Hospitality cannot be indefinite, and responsibility must be shared by the international community. More importantly, accountability must remain part of the diplomatic process. Bangladesh needs stronger support from international partners to ensure that repatriation does not become a numbers exercise but a genuinely safe and sustainable process.

Myanmar’s authorities should therefore stop allowing labels to replace diplomacy. If there is credible evidence against any individual, it should be presented through a lawful and transparent process. Myanmar must address the discriminatory citizenship framework, restore the rights of the Rohingya, guarantee their safety and allow independent monitors access to Rakhine State.

The international community, meanwhile, must not legitimise Myanmar’s narrative by repeating allegations as established facts. It should continue diplomatic engagement while making clear that meaningful repatriation requires trust, rights, security and accountability.

For the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, a government statement cannot erase their suffering or the record of what happened to them. Their experiences are documented in UN reports, court proceedings and the testimonies of survivors.

The diplomatic process may be long and difficult, but it must ultimately lead to a solution based on truth, justice and the right of the Rohingya to return safely and with dignity.