Bangladesh’s abstention from voting the UN General Assembly resolution on Myanmar, which condemned the country’s February 1 military coup and called for restoring democracy and preventing arms flow, has raised questions if Bangladesh is supporting Myanmar military regime.

It also created confusion of whether this stance put Bangladesh into the grouping of Russia and China, who, despite their powers at the UN Security Council (UNSC), has done little to protect the Rohingyas from the genocidal acts, especially following the 2017 military crackdown that drove some 750,000 Rohingyas out to Bangladesh and created heavy socio-economic and security challenges.

The Western countries, including the US, EU, UK, and Canada, initiated the resolution and finalised it in consultation with ASEAN members.

A total of 119 countries voted in favour and Belarus voted against it.

As many as 36 countries including UN Security Council Permanent Members China and Russia, and Bangladesh’s closest friend India, and ASEAN countries Brunei, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos abstained from voting.

Rabab Fatima, Bangladesh’s Permanent Representative to the UN in New York, explained the abstention.

She said Bangladesh shares borders with Myanmar and hosts over a million of their people. Therefore, stability in Myanmar is critically important for Bangladesh in finding a durable solution for the Rohingyas, who are victims of atrocity crimes.

“However, the resolution that was adopted fails to recognise, in its operative part, the urgent need for creating conditions for the safe, voluntary and sustainable return of the displaced minorities of Myanmar, particularly the Rohingyas.”

The resolution calls for the swift implementation of the five-point consensus reached at the Leaders’ Meeting of the ASEAN in Jakarta held in April.

“This, however, does not address the repatriation issue,” she said.

Moreover, the recent comments of the Myanmar military leader, in public media, rules out the possibilities of any policy reforms that are fundamental for the safe and sustainable return of the Rohingyas.

“The failure of the international community in addressing the crisis creates a sense of impunity in Myanmar,” she said of Myanmar’s genocidal acts against the Rohingyas, who have been fleeing to Bangladesh since the 1980s following persecution.

Is this explanation satisfactory? Could Bangladesh have handled the resolution differently?

Some international relations analysts say Bangladesh took the right decision because the world has done little for creating conditions for the Rohingya return, which is so crucial for Bangladesh that has been immensely suffering for the last four decades for actions by Myanmar.

The others, however, say the abstention of voting at the UNGA resolution, which will remain a momentous document for the history of Myanmar, has not reflected Bangladesh’s moral stand.

Touhid Hossain, former foreign secretary, however, supported Bangladesh’s position.

The UN resolution cannot be complete without including the Rohingya genocide, citizenship and repatriation from Bangladesh, he said.

“Myanmar military has committed a far grave crime by mass killing, raping and driving out the Rohingya than the human rights violation in Myanmar now. It is surprising that the Western world has ignored it in the resolution.”

Bangladesh had tried to include the Rohingya issue in the resolution but was ignored.

Also, the resolution did not speak of a comprehensive arms embargo and was not unanimously adopted.

“Therefore, Bangladesh’s abstention means making a strong point on the Rohingyas,” Hossain added.

Countries like China, Russia and India as well as a number of ASEAN nations that can help address the Rohingya crisis have abstained from voting and Bangladesh has no point in voting for it, said Imtiaz Ahmed, a professor of the Dhaka University’s International Relations department.

Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been supported by the West all along, actually supported the Rohingya genocide and defended the military junta at the International Court of Justice while in power.

The UNGA resolution, despite having political significance, has no capacity in terms of taking any concrete actions against the Myanmar junta, Ahmed said.

Myanmar has been ruled by the military for decades, and sanctions against the junta by the Western powers have not worked.

“Therefore, it is better for Bangladesh not to interfere with Myanmar’s internal affairs.”

Also, most of the countries that worked for the resolution continued to trade with Myanmar and still maintain diplomatic relations.

“This means that they are not sincere about what they are speaking.”

Bangladesh does not have any dispute with Myanmar; the problem is between Myanmar and Rohingyas.

However, Bangladesh is vocal about the accountability of the Rohingyas, but the UN resolution has not spoken about it.

“So, what Bangladesh did is right,” Ahmed added.

M Humayun Kabir, a former ambassador of Bangladesh, begs to differ.

“It would have been better if we voted for the resolution because abstaining from the vote carries a wrong message. If we look at our diplomacy in the last 50 years, it was based on principle. We had a moral stand for democracy, peoples’ rights.”

The Western countries that have been providing Bangladesh with humanitarian as well as diplomatic assistance have been surprised by Bangladesh’s abstention.

“It is a question of how they look at it in the future,” said Kabir, president of the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute.

Asked about abstention of other countries, he said: “We need to consider the principle we have and not what others do.”

Bangladesh could have voted and then explained its grievances and demands.

“That would have been recorded and have made our moral position clear.”

Most of the world voted for the resolution.

“Had we voted for it, Myanmar would have not liked it. In fact, Myanmar is already not very happy about us. So, why should we compromise our principle?”

Bangladesh’s abstention has created diplomatic confusion with the world as well as with Myanmar, said Kabir, also a former secretary to the foreign ministry.

The country should have voted for the resolution because it has an international weight that can facilitate democratic restoration, said another former foreign secretary asking to remain unnamed.

“We could have explained our position even after voting. Now, our position as far as Myanmar’s democracy could be questioned even if we want democracy.”