Wednesday, November 11, 2026

Bangladesh urges global action on Rohingya repatriation as refugee population tops 1.5M


Dhaka calls for coordinated diplomatic pressure on Myanmar as UN rights rapporteur meets home minister
Sm Najmus Sakib
11 November 2026•Update: 11 November 2026
image.pngDHAKA, Bangladesh
Bangladesh on Wednesday called for coordinated international action to ensure the safe, voluntary and dignified repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar, saying their population in the country has exceeded 1.5 million.

The appeal came during a meeting between Kelley E. Currie, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar, and Bangladeshi Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed in the capital Dhaka, according to a ministry statement.

Ahmed told the UN official that although official records indicated a lower figure, more than 1.5 million Rohingya were currently taking refuge in Bangladesh.

Most have been living in camps in the southeastern coastal district of Cox's Bazar since fleeing a Myanmar military crackdown in August 2017.

The minister said hosting such a large refugee population for an extended period had placed a significant burden on Bangladesh's economy, urging efforts to ensure the “safe, voluntary, and dignified repatriation of the Rohingya to their home country, Myanmar.”

He also called on the international community to act responsibly following the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) expected Nov. 19 ruling in the case concerning the alleged genocide of Rohingya in Myanmar.

The meeting underscored the need for coordinated diplomatic pressure on Myanmar by influential international actors, including China, India, the US and the EU.

Currie highlighted the history of human rights violations against the Rohingya and said the UN and its international partners were working to create a “conducive environment for repatriation, while also striving to ensure that the Rohingya are granted citizenship and fundamental rights in their home country.”

‘Don’t let Hasina hijack Bangladesh’s India policy’: Former US envoy Dan Mozena

 Former US Ambassador to Bangladesh Dan Mozena has warned against allowing Sheikh Hasina’s continued presence in India to dominate Dhaka’s relations with New Delhi, saying the former prime minister’s political future should not come at the expense of Bangladesh’s national interests.

“I would not be willing to let Sheikh Hasina hijack the foreign policy of Bangladesh toward its most important international partner, India,” Mozena told Daily Waadaa in an exclusive interview.

“The people of Bangladesh come first, not Sheikh Hasina.”

The former diplomat, who served in Dhaka from 2011 to 2014 during Hasina’s government, said her rule had left deep resentment and suffering that could not simply be forgotten.

“A lot of people suffered grievously at the hands of that government. That doesn’t just go away,” he said.

But he argued that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman must look beyond the political grievances surrounding Hasina and concentrate on Bangladesh’s relationship with India.

“The job of a leader is to advance his nation’s interests, and that’s the job that Tarique Rahman has to do,” Mozena said.

That, he said, requires engagement with India on issues that neither country can afford to ignore.

“That means working on border issues, trade issues, water issues, migration issues and global climate change issues,” he said. “Those issues don’t go away, and you need to find a way to engage them.”

His remarks come as Hasina’s continued stay in New Delhi remains a source of friction between the two neighbours following her removal from power in the August 2024 uprising.

Bangladesh has raised concerns about India allowing the former prime minister to remain on its soil and make political statements. Her reported plans to return to Bangladesh have added to the uncertainty.

Mozena acknowledged that her presence in India was affecting bilateral relations.

“Oh yes, it stands to reason that it is,” he said when asked whether Hasina had become an obstacle to relations between Dhaka and New Delhi.

Having spent his entire ambassadorial tenure under her government, he said he understood the grievances left behind.

“All the years I lived in Bangladesh were under the leadership of then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, so I’m fairly well acquainted with her style of governance, and I can understand the damage and hard feelings that she’s left behind.”

Still, he cautioned against allowing those grievances to determine Bangladesh’s foreign policy.

“This is a real big ask of Bangladesh,” he said.

The ambassador Hasina loved to hate

Mozena’s assessment of Hasina comes from an unusually complicated relationship with the former prime minister.

A career American diplomat, he served as US ambassador to Bangladesh from November 2011 to December 2014 under President Barack Obama.

It was not his first posting in the country. He had earlier served as political and economic counsellor at the US Embassy in Dhaka from 1998 to 2001.

His second assignment coincided with one of the most contentious periods in Bangladesh’s recent political history.

Relations between Washington and Hasina’s government were strained over democratic governance, political violence and the January 2014 parliamentary election, which the BNP and its allies boycotted.

Mozena was a visible diplomatic presence during that period, meeting political leaders, engaging civil society and travelling extensively across Bangladesh.

His activities drew criticism from sections of the ruling Awami League, which accused foreign diplomats of interfering in domestic politics.

Yet he also became known for visiting all 64 districts, meeting ordinary Bangladeshis and promoting economic opportunities, particularly in rural communities.

His relationship with Hasina, however, remained difficult.

In the interview, Mozena recalled the contradiction between the former prime minister’s hostility towards him and the cooperation he sometimes received from her administration.

“My own personal experience with her was one of contradictions,” he said.

“You may recall that she hated me, something fierce, and she bragged about hating me.”

But the same leader, he recalled, helped facilitate his travels across Bangladesh.

“At the same time, that very person who hated me so much enabled me to visit all 64 districts of Bangladesh. I don’t understand that.”

He recalled one particularly unusual episode.

“She even sent a family member with me to Gopalganj, who showed me all of the sites important to her family,” he said.

“At the same time, I’m the most hated person of all. I can’t make sense of it.”

Mozena’s career extended well beyond Bangladesh. He served as US ambassador to Angola from 2007 to 2010 and held diplomatic assignments in India, Pakistan and several African countries.

But Bangladesh remained a defining part of his diplomatic career, particularly because of his often uneasy dealings with Hasina’s government.

Those experiences, he suggested, made it difficult to predict her next move.

Asked whether Hasina would return to Bangladesh in December, as she has indicated, or remain in New Delhi, Mozena declined to speculate.

“Honestly, Abu, I don’t have an insight into the thinking of Sheikh Hasina,” he said.

“So you tell me what’s going on inside her mind. I have no idea.”

‘Her time has come and her time has gone’

On Hasina’s political future, however, Mozena was more forthcoming.

Asked whether the former prime minister’s role in Bangladesh politics was over, he initially declined to offer a direct assessment.

“I have no comment on Sheikh Hasina and her role. But there are millions of members, or former members, of the Awami League,” he said.

When Waadaa pressed him specifically about Hasina rather than her party, he offered a more pointed response.

“That’s hard to say. My own thought is that maybe her time has come and her time has gone.”

He did not rule out her continued presence in political debate.

“That’s not to say you won’t hear from her a lot. But in terms of sitting in the big chair, I would guess not.”

His comments drew a distinction between Hasina’s personal political future and that of the Awami League, which governed Bangladesh for more than 15 consecutive years before the 2024 uprising.

But Mozena was unwilling to be drawn into the question of whether India should extradite the former prime minister.

“I don’t have any great insights on what India should or should not do. I don’t engage on that issue,” he said.

Instead, he returned to what he regarded as the central question: how Bangladesh should manage its relationship with its largest neighbour.

“Sheikh Hasina is not the prime minister of anything right now. She’s sitting someplace in Delhi doing her thing, writing lots of stuff,” he said.

“Okay, just fine. Just ignore all that and get on with advancing the interests of Bangladesh.”

US court allows summonses for Ajit Doval, ex-RAW chief through Indian courts; India rejects allegations

 A US federal court has cleared the way for pro-Khalistan separatist lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve legal summons on Indian National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel through Indian courts. Photo: Collected

A US federal court has allowed Sikh separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to pursue serving his civil lawsuit on Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel through Indian courts, while New Delhi has rejected the allegations against its senior officials.

The development comes after the US State Department confirmed that it had transmitted a summons and complaint against the Indian government to the Indian Embassy in Washington through diplomatic channels.

In a filing before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the State Department said the documents were delivered to the embassy on 9 October under a diplomatic note signed on 30 September, reports The Telegraph.

Separately, on 9 November, US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved Pannun’s request to serve summonses on Doval and Goel through Indian courts with jurisdiction over the areas where the two officials are believed to reside.

The court allowed the documents to be transmitted through the US judiciary to the relevant Indian courts, following several unsuccessful attempts by Pannun’s lawyers to serve Doval personally during his official visits to the United States.

Meanwhile, India’s Ministry of External Affairs rejected the lawsuit and the allegations against its officials on Tuesday (10 November).

“We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials. Also, we reject the frivolous lawsuits. A request for serving of judicial documents in India can only be routed through India’s designated central authority, that is the Ministry of Law and Justice,” ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, according to The Telegraph.

The State Department clarified that transmitting the diplomatic note was a procedural step and did not indicate any position on the merits of the civil case or the validity of the service.

US court approves alternative route to serve Doval, Goel

In its 9 November order, the court accepted Pannun’s argument that Article 19 of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents allows foreign judicial documents to be served through India’s domestic judicial system.

The judge also referred to Section 29(c) of India’s Code of Civil Procedure, which allows summons issued by foreign civil courts to be sent to Indian courts and served as though they had been issued by those courts.

Pannun identified three possible courts in Delhi to receive the summonses for Doval and Goel: Patiala House Court Complex, Dwarka Courts Complex and Tis Hazari Court Complex.

“The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Article 19 of the Hague Convention authorises service on Doval and Goel through service of summons mailed to those courts,” Failla wrote.

Under the order, Pannun must submit a proposed packet by 30 November containing copies of the summonses, the proposed method of service, relevant Indian legal provisions and documents showing that earlier attempts to serve the officials under Article 5 of the Hague Convention had been unsuccessful.

Once the court approves the packet, its clerk will transmit the documents to the Indian courts identified by Pannun.

Case follows US investigation into alleged assassination plot

The civil lawsuit, filed in September 2024, names the Government of India, Doval, Goel, former RAW officer Vikash Yadav, Nikhil Gupta and 50 unnamed defendants.

Pannun alleges that they conspired to assassinate him at his home in New York in retaliation for his advocacy of an independent Sikh state. The allegations have not been established in court.

The civil case is separate from the criminal prosecution of Gupta, who pleaded guilty in February 2026 to three charges, including murder-for-hire, conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Gupta was arrested in Prague in June 2023 and extradited to the United States. US prosecutors accused him of conspiring with Yadav and others to hire a hitman to kill Pannun.

Yadav, a former junior RAW officer, was charged by the US Justice Department in October 2024 and is also facing a case in India. US authorities have alleged that he contacted Gupta to arrange the killing.

Gupta is scheduled to be sentenced on 20 November. Prosecutors have said they plan to present a victim-witness statement and audio and video evidence during the hearing.

Following the US investigation, the Indian government formed a committee to examine the evidence and issues raised by American authorities concerning the alleged assassination plot.

Pannun is legal counsel for the banned organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which advocates an independent Sikh state. India’s Union Home Ministry designated him a terrorist under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in 2019 and declared the SFJ an unlawful association.

CAIR-LA Condemns Southern California Pastor’s ‘Hateful and Irresponsible’ Remarks Targeting Muslim Elected Officials

 The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) today condemned the series of anti-Muslim sermons delivered by Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills surrounding the 2026 Midterm Elections, during which he claims American Muslims serving in public office are incompatible with constitutional government and framing Muslim civic participation as a growing threat to the United States.   

In one video shared on X, Hibbs, who has a history of publishing anti-Muslim content, can be heard stating:  

“255 Muslims who cannot, cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution. It is forbidden in Islam. They must swear allegiance to Sharia law, which is a completely different government. On Tuesday, the United States of America said no to the republic and yes to the very government and military and religion that hit us on September 11th, 2001. We have surrendered. It’s their party now.” 

In a statement, CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said: 

“We strongly condemn these hateful and irresponsible remarks targeting the Muslim community and questioning their participation in American civic life. Pastor Hibbs is contributing to a broader climate of fear and prejudice, encouraging his congregation to view their Muslim neighbors with suspicion and hostility. Such rhetoric is rooted in bigotry and perpetuates the false notion that Muslims are somehow less American or less deserving of a voice in our democracy. 

“As Muslims, we’re taught to respect people of all faiths. We honor Jesus, peace be upon him, and all the prophets of God by upholding love, mercy, and tolerance toward all people. It is deeply troubling to hear a religious leader promote intolerance and attempt to undermine the relationships we have worked to build across faith communities. We must reject this divisive rhetoric and reaffirm the values of mutual respect, understanding, and religious freedom.” 

CAIR-LA calls on faith leaders of all backgrounds to reject rhetoric that perpetuates harmful narratives and instead promote dialogue and understanding to strengthen interfaith relationships. 

The organization also strongly urges community members to report any bias or hate incidents to its Civil Rights Department by calling (714) 776-1177 (ext. 2) or submitting an online intake. 

CAIR-LA is Southern California’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice and empower American Muslims. 

Latest CAIR Podcast Highlights Hind Rajab Foundation’s Fight to Hold Israeli Soldiers Accountable for War Crimes

 

COP31: Governments are Failing to Rein in Emissions From Their Own Power Plants by Don Grant

 World leaders meeting at the annual U.N. climate summit in November 2026 are wrestling with a persistent challenge: how to get countries to follow through on their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet.

One of the biggest problems has long been fossil fuel power plants, but new research shows that one type of power plant in particular has been slowest to change: those owned by the very governments making the promises and writing the laws.

My colleagues and I examined carbon dioxide emissions from thousands of fossil-fueled power plants across 134 countries. What we found reveals an important hurdle to achieving the world’s goals for keeping climate change in check.

Although countries have adopted a variety of pricing, regulatory and subsidy measures designed to curb the emissions of the electricity sector, the effectiveness of these climate policies depends on utilities responding to them.

We found that power plants owned by governments had the highest emissions as a group and didn’t cut their emissions as quickly as investor-owned facilities did in response to most policies. That does not necessarily mean they are violating policy requirements, but they were slower to move.

This matters because governments control nearly two-thirds of the world’s electricity-generating capacity.

The results suggest that to limit global warming, governments need to do more than just enact climate policies – they need to ensure that all plants translate those policies into meaningful emissions cuts.

Who owns the plants matters for climate policy

Of the 13,661 power plants that my colleagues Minh Anh Ly and Musabber Ali Chisty and I studied, 5,149 were government-owned – about 38% of them.

But those government-owned plants were responsible for 69% of the carbon emissions, based on the plants we reviewed. Together, power plants are the largest source of climate-warming carbon pollution globally.

On average, we found that government-owned power plants emitted roughly 910,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually – three times the average of 290,000 tons for investor-owned plants and over eight times the average of 109,000 for cooperatively owned plants.

 

Part of the reason for the difference is that governments often invest in large power plants that burn the dirtiest fuel – coal.

However, we also compared the plants’ emissions in 2018 to their emissions a decade earlier and looked at different national policies that were applied over that time. We found some interesting results.

Several policies were statistically associated with investor-owned power plants cutting their emissions from 2009 to 2018, including:

+ Pricing policies such as carbon taxes that charge companies for emissions released and emission trading systems that set limits that tighten over time.

+ Fossil fuel subsidy reforms that cut federal support for using fossil fuels.

+ Regulation policies like air pollution standards and banning and phasing out coal plants.

+ Renewable portfolio standards that require utilities to expand their use of renewable energy.

+ Subsidy policies that increase renewable energy use.

But when it came to government-owned power plants, only renewable portfolio standards were associated with significant emissions cuts. The other policies had little effect on their emissions.

These differences also appeared when we examined the stringency of policies, meaning how demanding the policy is, and the amount of time utilities have had to adjust to the policies.

Why Governments Struggle to Clean Up

So, what might explain why government-owned utilities respond differently?

Government ownership creates competing pressures that other plants are less subject to. For example, state-owned utilities may be expected to provide affordable electricity, support job growth and generate tax revenue for governments. In countries dependent on payments from companies that extract fossil fuels, utilities may also face political pressure to keep coal and gas facilities operating.

South Africa’s state-owned utility, Eskom, is a prime example. It runs a fleet of aging coal-fired power plants that make it the country’s biggest polluter. But it also provides about 90% of South Africa’s power, and when the country has faced power shortages, it has at times violated emissions standards. Despite years of climate talks, Eskom’s emissions fell little in the 2010s. They have fallen about 16% since 2019, in part due to power outages and more people relying on home solar.

The extra pressure may make it harder for government-owned power plants to reduce their emissions than for private utilities that are accountable to fewer stakeholders and can respond more directly to financial incentives to shift toward cleaner production.

There is also a potential conflict when the same government both regulates and owns a utility. Officials may be reluctant to impose costs that could raise electricity prices or require public subsidies. Our study did not measure enforcement, so we couldn’t establish that publicly owned facilities receive special treatment or disregard legal requirements.

What World Leaders Can do Differently

Our findings suggest that in addition to persuading governments to adopt and enforce more ambitious climate policies, negotiators at the U.N. climate talks will need to get governments to ensure that the power plants they own actually respond to those policies.

Here are three ways governments could do more to get their own power plants to cut emissions.

+ Governments could follow the example of Ireland and establish emissions-reductions targets specifically for publicly owned utilities and tie managers’ performance reviews, investment approvals and public reporting to measurable progress. Targets are more likely to get attention when managers are held accountable for meeting them. Ireland’s emissions from electricity production fell by more than a quarter from 2019, when it added emissions-reduction targets, to 2025.

+ They could also do more to address the financial and political constraints their utilities face. In Morocco, for example, international financing helped a state-owned agency expand solar power while limiting costs to electricity consumers. Similar measures, combined with assistance for communities affected by coal-plant closures, could make emissions reductions more feasible.

+ And governments could pay closer attention to emissions of individual plants as opposed to power sectors as a whole. Publishing comparable annual plant-level emissions and flagging facilities with persistently high pollution would reveal whether sector-wide gains are masking a lack of progress at specific plants.

None of this is to suggest that privatization is the answer to climate change. Government-owned power plants offer special advantages, like coordinating long-term investment and providing reliable electricity in underserved areas. The data show, however, that for governments to meet their obligations, they need to look closely at their own plants’ emissions as well.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don Grant is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Bangladesh urges global action on Rohingya repatriation as refugee population tops 1.5M

Dhaka calls for coordinated diplomatic pressure on Myanmar as UN rights rapporteur meets home minister Sm Najmus Sakib 11 November 2026 • Up...