Month: March 2025

Safe Zones.

Due to the overcrowding in the Bangladesh refugee camps, there has been a lot of talk about safe zones in Myanmar for the Rohingya.

First, let us keep in mind the overriding cause of the conflicts in Myanmar, a country where successive governments have been gradually ethnic cleansing the population in order to restore the nation to a solely Buddhist state.

The Rohingya are understandably eager to return to their homeland and safe zones have been proposed as a means of protection, but are they a good idea?

Safe zones have not been shown to be very effective as a means of saving lives. Take the example of Palestine where Israel has struck safe zones hundreds of times and where people have faced death, massive injuries and/or starvation.

So-called “safe zones” pose an increasingly pressing threat to genuine and legitimate protection for refugees fleeing conflict. Safe zones are not for safety, the are to prevent the flow of migration to neighbouring countries during times of war. Safe zones can be used to circumvent the obligations of states receiving refugees and displaced persons required under international law. In particular, safe zones prevent the right to leave a place of danger and to seek asylum elsewhere. In terms of international law, safe zones violate the prohibition on refoulement (the law against returning refugees to a place of danger).

Safe zones, due to their volatility cannot protect refugees in the manner specified under humanitarian and international laws. To be succinct, safe zones cannot be a substitute for refugee protection and the obligations of individual states to meet the needs of refugees entering their territory.

Safe zones are not a new idea and in theory they are said to have the ability to protect refugees and deliver services needed for people fleeing conflicts, but in reality, safe zones are a methodology for states to abrogate their responsibilities to needy refugees

Due to the number of armed conflicts around the world and the continuing flow of refugees, a number of countries are considering safe zones. However, safe zones, if they are to remain safe, require the cooperation of warring parties. Not only are safe zones unreliable for meeting the needs of refugees, they pose considerable danger to a people experiencing genocide. Indeed, genocide becomes much easier and less noticeable because the refugees are confined.

Safe zones are not a suitable option to a growing refugee problem. They violate the rights of refugees to seek protection elsewhere, they prevent protection from the hostilities a civilian population. Safe zones are at the mercy of unstable and volatile governments and their armed forces. They make the delivery of services, including food and medicines more difficult. For this and other reasons the United Nations Security council have not authorised safe zones since the 1990s.

Safe zones require consent from all parties and if consent is not given with good intent, safe zones pose a further risk of hostilities towards people who are already perceived to be the enemy. There is no freedom and no security in a safe zone for the Rohingya..