Abstract

The Rohingya refugee crisis, one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century, caused serious environmental damage in the host areas and widespread violations of human rights. This article examines the crisis through the lens of green criminology, focusing on environmental harm and victimization experienced by both displaced Rohingya populations and local ecosystems in Bangladesh. This study uses a qualitative methodology to investigate how both state and non-state actors contribute to ecological destruction, exacerbating vulnerabilities for refugees and host communities. The findings underline the intersections between environmental injustice, forced migration, and structural violence, calling for integrated policy responses that address both humanitarian and ecological dimensions of the crisis.

Keywords: Green criminology, environmental victimization, Rohingya refugees, ecological destruction, environmental injustice.

Introduction

The Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority from Myanmar’s Rakhine State, have faced systematic persecution and ethnic cleansing, culminating in a mass exodus following the 2017 military crackdown. One of the largest refugee camps in the world has been established in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, where over a million migrants have sought safety (Amnesty International, 2018). From a criminological perspective, the environmental effects of the crisis remain understudied, despite extensive reporting on the humanitarian aspects of the crisis.

Green criminology, a subfield of criminology that examines environmental harms and crimes (Lynch & Stretesky, 2014), offers a critical framework for analyzing the ecological devastation associated with the Rohingya crisis. This article explores how unplanned, rapidly growing refugee settlements have disproportionately harmed local host communities and displaced individuals by leading to deforestation, soil erosion, and water contamination. It also critiques how international negligence, corporate interests, and government policies perpetuate environmental victimization.

Theoretical Framework

A branch of critical criminology known as "green criminology" expands on conventional ideas of crime to encompass environmental harm, regardless of its legality (Lynch & Stretesky, 2003). It challenges the anthropocentric and legalistic emphasis of mainstream criminology and promotes an ecocentric viewpoint that considers harms to non-human organisms and ecosystems (White, 2008).

The term "green victimization" describes the harm that environmental degradation causes to both human and non-human victims. This victimization often intersects with social inequalities, making marginalized populations disproportionately vulnerable (South, 2010).  States and corporations may be committing state or corporate crimes when they fail to prevent environmental deterioration or contribute to it (Kramer & Michalowski, 2005).

Background: The Rohingya Crisis

The Rohingya, an ethnic group from Rakhine State in Myanmar that is primarily Muslim, have faced decades of systematic discrimination, statelessness, and violence. The situation deteriorated dramatically in 2017 when the Myanmar military launched a brutal campaign described by the United Nations as a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing" (OHCHR, 2017). The roots of the crisis are deeply historical, involving colonial legacies, nationalist politics, and ethnic tensions, which led to a mass exodus of Rohingya to neighboring Bangladesh.

During British colonial rule (1824–1948), the region now known as Rakhine (formerly Arakan) saw increased migration of Muslim laborers from Bengal to Burma, which was encouraged by the British administration. As local Buddhist people began to view the Muslim minority as colonial collaborators and a demographic threat, this movement planted the roots for future ethnic conflicts (Yegar, 1972; Leider, 2018).

Following Burma's independence in 1948, issues of citizenship and national identity took the stage. Some Rohingya were granted citizenship by the 1948 Union Citizenship Act, but things gradually got worse. General Ne Win's military administration, which came to power in 1962, started a systematic "Burmanization" effort that disadvantaged Muslims and other ethnic minorities. There was a growing exclusion of the Rohingya from documentation and public life.

The 1982 Citizenship Law, which denied citizenship to the Rohingya unless they could demonstrate ancestors in Myanmar before 1823, a nearly impossible task considering their lack of documentation and historical marginalization, was a significant turning point. Most Rohingya become stateless as a result of the law (Human Rights Watch, 2000).

In response to the humanitarian catastrophe, Bangladesh allowed Rohingya refugees to establish temporary camps in the Cox's Bazar region, which is currently the largest refugee settlement in the world. The rapid and unplanned influx of people into ecologically sensitive areas led to severe environmental degradation, deforestation, soil erosion, and depletion of water resources (UNDP, 2018).

Environmental Destruction in Cox’s Bazar: A Case Study

Deforestation and Habitat Loss: Wildlife habitats were destroyed and human-animal conflict escalated as a result of the clearing of more than 6,000 acres of forest to make accommodation inside the refugee camps (UNHCR & IUCN, 2019). Additionally, the loss of tree cover increased the likelihood of flooding and landslides, particularly during the monsoon season.

Water Scarcity and Pollution: Groundwater supplies were severely strained by the sudden increase in population. Overuse of tube wells, improper sanitation, and inadequate waste management led to health hazards and water pollution (REACH, 2018).

Soil Erosion and Natural Disaster Vulnerability: The construction of temporary shelters and the loss of vegetation cover worsened soil erosion and made the refugee population more vulnerable to landslides and cyclones (ISCG, 2018).

Green Victimization of the Rohingya

Primary Victimization: The original displacement from Myanmar involved Ecological dispossession, including village burning, land grabs, and militarized devastation of habitats linked to Rohingya livelihoods.

Secondary Victimization: In Bangladesh, the Rohingya face new forms of victimization:

• Confinement to ecologically unstable terrain.
• Exclusion from sustainable development and environmental decision-making.
• Exposure to environmental risks without legal recognition or protection.

Tertiary Victimization: The implemented relocation of refugees to Bhasan Char, a remote, flood-prone island, raises serious concerns. Critics urged that this is an example of ecological containment, which uses environmental isolation as a cover for humanitarian action to manage refugees.

Environmental Injustice and Structural Violence

Environmental injustice arises when marginalized communities disproportionately suffer ecological harm. This is best demonstrated by the Rohingya issue, as their forced migration brought them into environmentally vulnerable areas with little protection (Pellow, 2002). This relationship between environmental deterioration and structural violence exemplifies what Galtung (1969) called the "slow violence" of social inequality, which shows up as a gradual degradation of living conditions.

State Crime and Institutional Failure

Green criminologists contend that strong institutions' actions or inactions frequently cause environmental harm (White, 2011). In this sense, Bangladesh and Myanmar are both accountable.

• Myanmar committed direct violence against the Rohingya, forcing them into exile.
• Bangladesh, although acting from a humanitarian perspective, failed to implement adequate environmental planning, resulting in ecological degradation.

It is also necessary to examine the role of international actors, such as the UN and NGOs. Despite their involvement in relief operations, there was insufficient early investment in sustainable infrastructure and environmental management.

The Non-Human Victims

The idea of victimhood is expanded by green criminology to encompass non-human animals and ecosystems. Wildlife has suffered as a result of the Cox's Bazar region's environmental change, which has also destroyed biodiversity and upset ecological balances (Beirne,1999). The region's endemic flora and animals have been displaced or put in danger due to unregulated land conversion; elephants have seen habitat loss and an increase in human contact, which has led to fatalities on both sides. These effects highlight the need for an ecocentric approach to refugee policy and call into question anthropocentric ideas of justice.

Toward Ecological Justice

The rights of non-human nature to exist, thrive, and change are all included in ecological justice. According to a green criminological analysis,

• Sustainable Refugee Management: Reforestation, trash management, and renewable energy should all be incorporated into the architecture of refugee camps.
• Transitional Justice Frameworks: In addition to political violence, justice for the Rohingya should include compensation for environmental damages.
• Policy Integration: To avoid exacerbating crises, security, humanitarian, and environmental measures must be combined.
• Recognition of Ecological Victims: Future generations and non-human life are examples of environmental victims that must be acknowledged in legal and policy frameworks.

Conclusion

The Rohingya refugee crisis is a complex tragedy characterized by environmental degradation, humanitarian suffering, and state aggression. Green criminology offers critical insights into how ecological harms compound the victimization of displaced populations and extend beyond human interests. Scholars and policymakers are urged to respond to humanitarian crises in a more comprehensive and just manner by acknowledging green victimization in this context. Without addressing the environmental dimensions of displacement, any solution remains partial and ultimately unsustainable.

Muhammad Alamghir, PPM is a law enforcement professional with over 25 years of national and international policing experience, with expertise in crime prevention, global and regional security, migration, and counterterrorism. He could be reached at muhammad.alamghir@outlook.com.

References

Beirne, P. (1999). For a non-speciesist criminology: Animal abuse as an object of study. Criminology, 37(1), 117-147.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.

International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2018). Environmental degradation and migration in Cox’s Bazar. Retrieved from https://www.iom.int

ISCG. (2018). Situation report: Rohingya refugee crisis. Inter-Sector Coordination Group, Bangladesh.

Kramer, R. C., & Michalowski, R. J. (2005). War, aggression and state crime: A criminological analysis of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. British Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 446-469.

Lynch, M. J., & Stretesky, P. B. (2003). The meaning of green: Contrasting criminological perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 7(2), 217–238.

OHCHR. (2017). Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar. United Nations Human Rights Council.

Yegar, M. (1972). The Muslims of Burma: A Study of a Minority Group. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Leider, J. P. (2018). Rohingya: The History of a Muslim Identity in Myanmar. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History.

Human Rights Watch. (2000). Burmese Refugees in Bangladesh: Still No Durable Solution. https://www.hrw.org

Pellow, D. N. (2002). Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. MIT Press.

REACH. (2018). Water and sanitation in Rohingya camps. Retrieved from https://www.reach-initiative.org

South, N. (2010). The ecocidal tendencies of late modernity: Transnational crime, social exclusion, victims and rights. In R. Walters, D. Westerhuis, & T. Wyatt (Eds.), Emerging Issues in Green Criminology (pp. 32–54). Palgrave Macmillan.

South, N., & Brisman, A. (2013). A green cultural criminology: An exploratory outline. Crime, Media, Culture, 9(2), 115–135.

UNDP. (2018). Environmental impact of the Rohingya influx. United Nations Development Programme Bangladesh.

UNHCR & IUCN. (2019). Environmental management in refugee camps: Cox’s Bazar. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org

Walters, R. (2020). Environmental crime and social conflict: Contemporary and emerging issues. Routledge.

White, R. (2008). Crimes against nature: Environmental criminology and ecological justice. Willan Publishing.

White, R. (2011). Transnational environmental crime: Toward an eco-global criminology. Routledge.

WHO. (2018). Health risks in Cox’s Bazar refugee camps. World Health Organization. Retrieved from  https://www.iom.int