SciPost Submission Page
The Curious Case of Bhasan Char: Island Relocation and the Politics of Refugee Containment in the ‘Global South’: The Case of Bangladesh
by Tazreena Sajjad
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Tazreena Sajjad |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202411_00030v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | Nov. 17, 2024, 2:49 a.m. |
| Submitted by: | Sajjad, Tazreena |
| Submitted to: | Migration Politics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Political Science |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Observational |
Abstract
On October 9, 2021, the Bangladesh Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, and UNHCR signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish a common framework for humanitarian services for refugees on Bhasan Char, following its decision to relocate 100,000 Rohingya from the Kutapalong-Balukhali ‘mega-camp’ to the island. Nested in the literature on the politics of containment and migration diplomacy, this research asks: What factors explain the Government of Bangladesh (GoB)’s new phase of attempted refugee containment in Bhasan Char? Specifically, given the infrastructural development and investments made in Bhasan Char, which has been hailed as a ‘model’ for hosting refugees, what explains the choice of an island in particular? Finally, what are the broader implications of island relocation with regard to refugee management in the Global South? This study offers three specific explanations relocating some Rohingya to Bhasan Char: (i) repeated failures in Rohingya repatriation and persistent international indifference to the protracted crisis; (ii) perception of the Rohingya not only as sources of political and economic insecurity, but as a threat to the local environment and land; and (iii) the history and political economy of khas (public) land use - including islands - in Bangladesh. In drawing attention to Bangladesh’s land use and its politics, this project emphasizes the need to understand the use of an island for refugee management from a Global South perspective, as opposed to Global North’s off-shoring practices. In addition, it argues that while the Bhasan Char strategy has garnered international attention – first negative and, later, positive – it has not yielded substantive material benefits for Bangladesh. Instead, the strategy has not only resulted in Bangladesh having to absorb signification portions of financial costs to support two camps -one on the mainland and one on an island – but raises questions about how such arrangements continue to absolve the Global North of equitable refugee-hosting responsibilities.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Alice Nah (Referee 2) on 2025-5-2 (Invited Report)
Strengths
This is a paper with a lot of promise.
- The author writes well.
- The politics on the use of Bhasan Char for Rohingyas is a contentious issue worthy of deeper analysis.
- The protracted hosting of Rohingyas in Bangladesh is a strong case study for assessing refugee protection issues (and migration politics) in a Global Majority context.
Weaknesses
2. The author hasn’t provided the right theoretical framework and introduces a number of irrelevant debates and observations that muddy the contribution of the paper. I would suggest that the author choses one or two debates and follows them through in a deeper way, explaining their significance.
To this end, the author might want to consider comparing Bangladesh to other Global Majority situations that are similar – where the low-income states are unable to host refugee populations and requires international support, land is scarce, and it has to appease and look after citizens. Drawing on literature and concepts from very different contexts (often European) does not help the author to pinpoint the precise contribution of the paper. More relevant examples might be sourced from Africa and Asia.
The author raises a couple of interesting points that could be explored further. Section 6 on the political economy of land use and “char living” is unique and interesting. The practices describe here sound like internal colonialism – the classifying of land as ‘new land’, taking control of it, ignoring existing native populations, and inviting and relocating different groups to the island. The Rohingyas are possibly (disposable?) ‘early settlers’ to demonstrate that char living possible for citizens. There is something going on here in Bangladesh’s intentions and actions that are not fully explored and explained.
3. The author underplays the deep tensions between Bangladesh and the international community in the relocation of Rohingyas to Bashan Char. More in-depth analysis is needed of the concerns raised by other governments and civil society groups (about environmental degradation, the safety and security of refugees), as well as Bangladesh’s insistence and persistence in relocating Rohingyas in the face of such opposition.
Report
Requested changes
Not applicable.
Recommendation
Reject
Strengths
Weaknesses
This sets up the second area for revision: the author needs to explain directly why this is a case of unsuccessful refugee rentierism. It is suggested several times throughout the text but it should be the main hook for the article because it shows why this manuscript is a contribution to the refugee rentierism literature.
The manuscript could be shortened, particularly in the history sections, and expanded in the theoretical sections above. I look forward to reading the revised manuscript as this is a serious and important contribution to our field.
Report
A few specific questions/ comments: - Don’t need as much explanation of single case methodology - Over use of ‘single’ quotes when it is not a direct quote of something p. 5 – “powerful myth” – please explain more. Myth for and by whom? This language might introduce more confusion if it is not the key concept of the paper. p. 5 – Not clear about the subheading “Where is the Global South?” -Section 4 (p. 7-10) is long and perhaps too much background. Consider shortening. -p. 12 - This sentence is not clear: “By erroneously assuming full availability of threat-related information and decisions within the public domain, it overlooks how in the Global South broadly, such information may not be publicly accessible; and how decision-making regarding security threats is characterized by less systematic and more ad hoc processes.” p. 13 – This sentence is not clear: “Post-British independence, land-based power politics was shaped by asymmetrical ‘patron-client’ or ‘headman-subordinated follower’ relations (Zaman, 1996).” How does this connect to your argument? p. 15 – “FDMNs” is confusing. Perhaps use a different phrase? p. 15 – “notion of absolute exclusivity” This phrase needs more explanation. It is the first time it is mentioned in the paper. p. 15 – “Bhasan Char remains a site for the arbitrary exercise of power and institutionalized imprisonment by the state and the humanitarian industry writ large.” This is a big claim. I agree with this analysis but it needs to be explained more and shown with evidence. p. 16 – “Similar frustrations were also expressed with civil society and government actors pointed out that several of the same donor countries criticizing Bhasan Char were building walls and actively engaged in refugee pushback at their borders.” This is an excellent point and should be expanded in the intro and conclusion. p. 17 – “the US has only committed 87 million of the $876 million Joint Response Plan in humanitarian aid to support Rohingya refugees and host communities in Cox’s Bazar and Bhasan Char”. This is not clear—Is the US committed to funding all of the JRP or is the 87 million the US contribution to a total amount of 876 for all donors?
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision