Humanitarian Corridor: Humanity or Just A Political Move?

Sajid Mahmud 

Director 

Research and Policy Advocacy

Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Geopolitics. 

A humanitarian corridor is a temporary demilitarized route established in conflict zones or areas experiencing natural disasters to allow the safe passage of humanitarian aid and affected civilian populations, particularly refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). These corridors are designed to mitigate human suffering by enabling access to essential services such as food, water, shelter and medical care or by facilitating evacuation to safer regions.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), humanitarian corridors are: “Specific routes and logistical arrangements negotiated for humanitarian actors to access affected populations or for the safe movement of civilians out of conflict zones.” 

They are often established through agreements between warring parties, usually broken by third-party states, international organizations (e.g. the United Nations, ICRC), or multilateral bodies. These corridors may be unilateral or multilateral in nature, depending on the nature of negotiation.

The legal legitimacy of humanitarian corridors depend on International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. The Article 70, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions affirms the right of civilians to receive humanitarian assistance. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), the corridors must be respected by all parties to the conflict; any attack on civilians using these routes constitutes a war crime.

These are the text-book explanations of the humanitarian corridors but the reality can be different.

Reality Check: Security Threats and Sovereignty Concerns 

Corridors prioritize speed and access leading to minimal screening at entry points. Militants, terrorists or criminals can pose as refugees, gaining entry to destabilize  the host country. This is particularly acute in conflict-adjacent corridors where armed groups operate. Infiltration fuels terrorism, crime or insurgencies, eroding public trust in government and humanitarian efforts. Host countries face domestic backlash as citizens associate refugees with security threats. The urgency of humanitarian crises often override security protocols, especially in under-resourced countries. International pressure to keep corridors open exacerbates the issue, as host countries struggle to balance compassion with caution. 

Corridors can become conduits for smuggling weapons, drugs, or fighters as porous borders are difficult to monitor.  This destabilizes both the host country and the region as conflicts spill over.  Host countries face heightened  security risks, strained relations with neighbors and potential escalation of conflicts. Local communities near corridors bear the brunt of violence or trafficking.  Corridors often operate in volatile regions where state control is weak. The lack of regional cooperation and intelligence-sharing hinders efforts to curb illicit flows, turning corridors into flashpoints. 

Monitoring corridors, diverts security resources, weakening overall National Security. Large, transient populations moving through corridors require constant policing, border patrols and intelligence efforts. This stretches security forces thin, reducing their capacity to address other threats. Overworked force leads to gaps in security, increased crime and public dissatisfaction. Rural or remote corridor zones are particularly vulnerable due to limited infrastructure. Host countries, especially developing nations often lack the manpower or funding to secure corridors adequately. International support is typically inadequate, leaving hosts to disproportionate costs.

Un agencies, NGOs or foreign governments often fund or manage corridors, imposing conditions that restrict host decision-making. This can include demands to keep corridors open or accept more refugees. Host governments lose policy flexibility, facing domestic accusations of ceding sovereignty. Dependency on foreign aid entrenches external influence. External actors prioritize global humanitarian goals, often ignoring local contexts. This creates a power imbalance, where hosts feel coerced into compliance to secure funding or diplomatic support.

Temporary corridors can become long-term burdens, locking hosts into unsustainable roles. If conflicts persist or repatriations stalls, corridors remain open indefinitely, creating semi-permanent transit routes. Host countries become reliant on international aid to manage inflows, reducing autonomy. Prolonged corridors strain resources, fuel public resentment and entrench foreign oversight, undermining sovereignty. The lack of exit strategies like repatriation or settlement, turns corridors into traps.  International actors often fail to address root causes, leaving hosts to manage chronic crises.

Humanitarian Corridors around the History

The Turkey-Syria Border Corridor introduced in 2011, established by Turkey, as a humanitarian corridor along its southern border to allow refugees for their safety and human rights. However, the lax control enabled the ISIS operatives to infiltrate, contributing to attacks like the ‘2015 Suruc Bombing’ which killed almost 54 people and left more than 60 people injured. (Guardian, 2016) (Guardian, News, 2015)

Smuggling networks also used these routes to traffic weapons and destabilize the region. During the ongoing war in Syria, the EU and the UNHCR pressured Turkey to keep the corridor active and open which attracted the non-Syrian migrants too and increased the influx. (UNHCR, 2014)

Such a situation provoked the traffickers and smugglers, as well. The corridor eventually became a security and sovereignty liability for Turkey. 

The corridor between Sudan and South Sudan was established in 2013, to evacuate the South Sudanese refugees in Sudan and this corridor was exploited by rebel groups. The purpose of setting up the corridor was totally unachieved and reports indicated that rebels and fighters crossed with civilians, leading to skirmishes in Sudan’s border regions. Sudan’s armed forces were overstretched, reducing internal security. UNHCR shaped operations, limiting Sudan’s control and weakening Sudan’s autonomy. (UNHCR, Emergency Response for the South Sudan Situation, 2014)

Sudan’s limited resources and volatile border region made the corridor a security risk. External aid failed to address local needs, while the lack of a closure strategy trapped Sudan in a prolonged crisis.

Belarus orchestrated the Poland-Belarus Border Corridor (2021), to push middle eastern migrants into Poland, creating a hybrid warfare tactic at the Kuznica border. Belarus weaponized the migration by funneling refugees through the corridor to Poland’s border. (BBC, 2021)

The EU policies shaped Poland’s response and ongoing Belarusian pressure sustained the crisis and prolonged the tension. This led to violent clashes in Polish border towns, with locals and far-right groups protesting, amplifying nationalist rhetoric and unrest. (Scislowska, 2021)

Italy’s Operation Mare Nostrum, through Italy-Libya Maritime Corridor from 2014 to 2017, to rescue migrants crossing the Mediterranean, was heavily influenced by EU and IOM policies. (IOM, 2014)

Italy struggled to regulate inflows or deport ineligible migrants, raising concerns about lost control over its maritime borders. Rescue Operations attracted more crossings and smugglers packed boats, knowing rescue was very likely. The corridor’s humanitarian intent backfired as smugglers exploited rescues, overwhelmingly Italy. EU oversight limited Italy’s autonomy, while public backlash grew over resource strain.

Increase Refugee Influx Instead of Decrease: Pull Factors

Corridors can attract more migrants than intended, increasing inflows. Publicized corridors signal safety and opportunity, drawing not only refugees but also economic migrants or those from unrelated crises. This exceeds host capacity and undermines the corridor’s purpose. Increased inflows strain resources, fuel unrest and complicate border management, turning corridors into magnets. The humanitarian narrative around corridors, amplified by media or smugglers, creates perverse incentives. Host countries struggle to limit publicity, as international actors emphasize openness.

In 2015, the Balkan Corridor was established to manage Syrian refugee flows, attracted migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Africa. Traffickers advertised the corridor as a “safe path” to Europe, leading to 1.2 million crossings in 2015-2016, far exceeding projections. (FRONTEX, 2016) (Kingsley, 2015)

EU-led rescue operation off Libya’s coast, intended as a humanitarian corridor, named Mediterranean Sea Corridor, increased crossings rapidly in between 2014 to 2017. Traffickers packed more migrants onto unsafe boats, knowing rescue was very likely, with arrivals peaking at 181,000 in 2016. (agencies, 2017) (Oluwagbemi, 2017)

Analyzing the UN Proposed Rakhine Corridor through Bangladesh

Bangladesh has conditionally agreed to a United Nations Proposal to establish a humanitarian corridor into Myanmar’s Rakhine state, aiming to deliver aid to civilians affected by the ongoing conflict and a looming famine. This initiative is a response to the escalating humanitarian crisis in Rakhine, where military blockades and recent natural disasters have severely disrupted food supplies, leaving millions, including the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities, at risk of Starvation.  (Sakib, 2025)

The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, has expressed support for the corridor in principle but has stipulated conditions for its implementations. These include guarantees related to the safe and voluntary repatriation of Rohingya refugees currently residing in Bangladesh, as well as assurances concerning the safety and political stability within Rakhine state. (Desk, 2025)

National Security Adviser Khalilur Rahman has clarified that no formal agreement has been finalized, emphasizing that Bangladesh will not become entangled in any proxy conflicts in Rakhine. He also highlighted that any such corridor would require the consent of Myanmar’s Military Junta, which currently controls access to the region. (TBS, 2025)

The Proposal has sparked significant debate within Bangladesh, opposition parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, have voiced strong objections, arguing that the corridor could compromise national security, potentially lead to a new influx of refugees and entangle Bangladesh in regional geopolitical tensions. 

Security analysts have also raised concerns about the corridor’s potential misuse by the armed groups such as the Arakan Army, which has gained control over significant portions of the Rakhine State, including areas along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border. (Tribune, 2025) 

The United States has shown interest in the humanitarian corridor, viewing it as a means to address the crisis and potentially counterbalance Chinese influence in the region. This involvement has led to speculation about broader geopolitical motives behind the initiative.  (Tribune, 2025) 

Rakhine Corridor: Humanitarian Bangladesh or a Dark Future?

Establishing a humanitarian corridor in Rakhine State with Bangladesh’s involvement could bring a number of serious security risks, especially in the context of regional stability and insurgent activities.

The Arakan Army (AA), a powerful ethnic insurgent group currently controlling much of northern Rakhine, could exploit the corridor for logistics or political leverage. There is a huge risk that weapons, fighters or radical elements might move through the corridor under the guise of aid operations. The Arakan Army had already violated the border of Bangladesh several times. In April 2025, the Arakan Army staged a water festival within Bangladesh’s border. This event was held at Thanchi Upazila, Bandarban with a banner Proclaiming “Arakan Water Festival”, leaving the local people in anxiety and under severe security risks. According to locals, this was not just a festival but a manifestation of power and public display of dominance. (BORDERLENS, 2025)

There are several such incidents where it was seen that the Arakan Army has infiltrated within Bangladesh’s territory, abducting locals, weaponizing the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) and different rebel and separatist armed groups in CHT.

Bangladesh is already hosting over a million Rohingya refugees and a new humanitarian corridor can increase the influx of refugees. Bangladesh, being a resource strained country, the defense budget has always been significantly low, considering the other neighboring state actors in this region. Bangladesh Armed Forces also lack manpower. In this situation, the corridor management task and refugee monitoring process would be a huge burden for Bangladesh. Thus, there would be scenarios of low-monitoring or minimal-monitoring of the corridor, which can attract the human traffickers, weapons and drug smugglers and other ethnic groups in Myanmar, to cross the border in an easier way. As corridors have much flexibility, the refugee pull-factor can increase the influx of refugees. The ongoing situation in Myanmar shows no evidence of stopping the crises that have been created as the result of multi-ethnic conflicts. So, once the corridor becomes active, which should be a temporary program, might be prolonged because of the ongoing tensions in Myanmar and might not see any proper closure mechanism. 

Rebel groups like the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), have always been an exclusive security threat for Bangladesh, especially for locals in the CHT regions. Corridors can create a safe-haven for such groups, which are already being operated, even without any corridor.

Bangladesh’s foreign policy has always been a foreign policy of non-alignment. But a corridor disguised under humanitarian considerations, can be perceived as a proxy route for powers like the the United States, China and India. Bangladesh can be caught in the middle of a strategic contest, undermining its non-alignment and border-neutrality policy. 

A very brutal reality is whenever there have been humanitarian corridors, the host country has to face a lack of policy and decision making autonomy. This hostage-like situation for a country shuts the doors for more and more efficient  and context specific policies, protecting sovereignty, security and national interest.