��������

When Donald Trump returned to Asia this week, most headlines focused on his rhetoric about China, trade, and regional security. Yet beneath the spectacle lies a quieter possibility: that the US president’s distinctive brand of foreign policy realism might reopen a path toward resolving one of the world’s forgotten humanitarian crises — the plight of the Rohingya.

For nearly a decade, the Rohingya have lived in limbo. More than a million remain in sprawling refugee camps in Bangladesh, dependent on dwindling aid and with no prospect of return to their homeland in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. Inside Myanmar, those who remain face extreme restrictions on movement, education, and access to healthcare. Meanwhile, the world’s attention has drifted elsewhere, leaving the Rohingya stranded on a stage with no audience.

The international community’s approach has long been paralyzed by moralistic posturing and bureaucratic caution. Successive governments in Washington and European capitals have condemned Myanmar’s junta, imposed sanctions, and issued statements of solidarity. But these gestures have not altered the reality on the ground. The junta still controls large parts of the country, resistance groups such as the Arakan Army dominate others, and China has quietly expanded its influence through trade corridors. The Rohingya, as always, remain trapped between competing powers and competing narratives.

Trump’s return to the global stage could, paradoxically, offer a way out of this stalemate. His foreign policy instincts have never been rooted in ideology. He measures diplomacy by results, not moral virtue, a style often criticized in Western capitals but one that has at times delivered breakthroughs where traditional diplomacy failed. His willingness to negotiate directly with adversaries, from North Korea to the Taliban, broke with decades of orthodoxy and proved that dialogue driven by interests, not illusions, can yield real outcomes.

If applied to Myanmar, that same realism could be transformative. For years, Western governments have clung to the fiction of dealing only with the military regime in Naypyidaw or with international mechanisms that have little leverage. Yet power in Myanmar no longer resides in the capital. The country has fragmented into competing zones of control. The Arakan Army now governs most of Rakhine State, the very territory from which the Rohingya were expelled. The National Unity Government, made up of elected lawmakers and ethnic groups, commands legitimacy abroad but limited reach at home. Meanwhile, China plays both sides, cultivating relationships with the junta and ethnic militias alike in order to secure its strategic foothold.

This fractured landscape requires a new approach that recognizes reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. A Trump-led US foreign policy, with its transactional logic and focus on outcomes, could engage directly with those actors who actually control territory. That would mean opening quiet channels to the Arakan Army and the National Unity Government, while using economic and diplomatic leverage to push for safe zones, freedom of movement, and ultimately, the phased return of Rohingya families under credible international monitoring.

Such a policy would not stem from sentiment but from strategy. Stability in western Myanmar is essential to prevent the region from becoming a permanent hub for trafficking, extremism, and Chinese military expansion.

For nearly a decade, the Rohingya have lived in limbo.

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim

Supporting a workable arrangement for the Rohingya’s return, one tied to governance and reconstruction rather than endless humanitarian dependency, would align American interests with humanitarian imperatives.

Bangladesh, too, would benefit. It has borne the brunt of the crisis since 2017, hosting nearly a million refugees with diminishing aid and growing local resentment. The cost of sustaining this population has become politically and economically unsustainable. A serious US-led initiative that moves beyond aid dependency toward negotiated repatriation could ease pressure on Dhaka and restore regional stability.

Critics will argue that Trump’s “America First” ethos leaves little room for human rights. But that misses the point. Realism does not preclude humanitarian outcomes; it simply achieves them by different means. Where moral appeals have failed, hard-nosed negotiation backed by leverage and clear interests might finally succeed. The Rohingya do not need more statements of sympathy. They need power brokers willing to cut deals that change their material circumstances.

Trump’s advisers have already signaled interest in rebalancing America’s Asia policy toward economic engagement and security partnerships that challenge China’s dominance. Myanmar, strategically located between India and China and rich in minerals, fits squarely into that framework. Linking US engagement there to humanitarian progress for the Rohingya would not only serve moral credibility but also strategic coherence, demonstrating that American leadership can combine interests with values.

The choice facing Washington is not between idealism and realism. It is between policies that sound good and policies that work. If Trump’s visit leads to pragmatic engagement that pressures Myanmar’s emerging authorities, whether military or ethnic, to guarantee the rights and safety of the Rohingya, it would mark the first real progress in years.

The Rohingya crisis has become a litmus test for global leadership. The Biden administration’s declaration of genocide in 2022 was historic but symbolic; it offered no pathway forward. The UN has convened countless meetings, but failed to enforce accountability or deliver meaningful change. The humanitarian sector is exhausted, underfunded, and increasingly irrelevant to the political realities driving the crisis.
What remains is the need for leadership unafraid of complexity, leadership willing to make hard bargains for the sake of stability and justice alike. Trump’s foreign policy realism may be the only approach capable of breaking a decade of inertia.

If his renewed engagement in Asia translates into genuine diplomatic outreach on Myanmar, involving Bangladesh, the National Unity Government, and regional partners, it could finally give the Rohingya a future beyond the camps. The world has tried moral persuasion, sanctions, and isolation. None of these approaches has worked. Perhaps it is time to try something that might.

• Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the director of special initiatives at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC. X: @AzeemIbrahim