UN HC speaks on plight of Rohingya, both in Myanmar and BD

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi addresses the UN Security Council in New York on 28 April._11zon

Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in New York, 28 April 2025

This is a season of war. This is a time of crisis.

From Sudan to Ukraine, from the Sahel to Myanmar, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Haiti, violence has become the defining currency of our age. While UNHCR is not part of the United Nations response in Gaza, the situation of civilians there, which we thought could not get worse, is reaching new levels of desperation by the day. I realize I am not telling the members of this Council anything you do not already know – which is an indictment in itself – but unfortunately that is the reality of our world. One where, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, 120 conflicts rage unabated. Each one of them fuelled by the same perverse yet powerful delusion: that peace is for the weak; that the only way to end war is not through negotiation but by inflicting so much pain on your enemies that they are left with two choices: to surrender or to be annihilated.

And so, blinded by the idea that only total military victory will do, it should come as no surprise that the norms of international humanitarian law, once held in respect, or at least proclaimed to be – protecting civilians, upholding the neutrality of humanitarian actors, allowing the most basic aid to reach people under siege – are cast aside, dismissed as easily as the thousands of lives destroyed in the pursuit of supremacy. As Pope Francis said, “every war represents not only a defeat of politics but also a shameful surrender.’ He is gone, sadly, but his words remain more urgent than ever.

Preventing and stopping war – upholding peace and security – this is the Security Council’s mandate. This is your primary responsibility. And one that – you will forgive me for again saying it – this body has chronically failed to live up to.

But please do not resign yourselves to the defeat of diplomacy. I speak to you today once more on behalf of the 123 million people forcibly displaced – who are among the first victims of wars, and in many ways the most visible symptom of conflict and persecution. Caught in devastating situations, they have sought safety – or at least attempted to. But they will continue to hope for a safe return. And they – I know – will not be resigned and will not want us to be.

Like the people of Sudan, one third of whom have been displaced since the start of the conflict two years ago. One out of every three people! Forced to flee their homes because of a situation that frankly defies description – indiscriminate violence, disease, starvation, rampant sexual atrocities, flooding, droughts.

A country and a society torn apart in a context where all pretense of adherence to humanitarian norms has been abandoned. I was in Chad earlier this month, at the border with Sudan. I met women and children who had just arrived from embattled El-Fasher and Zamzam. They reported horrors, but above all fear. Civilians in Darfur are regularly blocked from fleeing dangerous areas. Worse, they are actively targeted – you will have seen recent reports of attacks against civilians in and around displacement camps, where delivering aid is not only a security and logistical challenge, as it is in the rest of the country, but also a bureaucratic nightmare intertwined with toxic politics. That is why it was so significant that those same families, telling me their stories, pointed at the border and said that crossing it, in spite of all hardships they knew they would endure, meant leaving at least that fear behind – no better testament to the life-saving power of asylum.

As the number of displaced Sudanese continues to grow, humanitarians have sounded the alarm about the terrible human cost exacted from the Sudanese people and from their future. Warning also – as I did again at the London Conference only a few days ago – that the consequences of this conflict have now spread well beyond Sudan’s borders, and especially to those countries which collectively host more than three million Sudanese refugees, from Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda to the Central African Republic. The most impacted are Chad and South Sudan, which face enormous challenges of their own besides the refugee influx, but that have kept their borders open despite vastly insufficient humanitarian financing – the latest regional refugee appeal is only 11 per cent funded.

Yet, the needs are enormous. Refugees arrive with nothing and are given a fraction of what is required because of declining aid funding, plus whatever Chadian communities near the border can afford. The Chadian authorities are sparing no effort. Chadian refugee laws and policies are among the most progressive in the world. What they lack are resources, so they can continue receiving refugees. We cannot leave them alone.

Because there is nothing inevitable, Mr. President, about the decision to host, protect and assist refugees – much less welcoming responses to displacement in much wealthier countries clearly show that. All countries make choices, and you have heard me disagree with many. In this instance, refugee-receiving countries are making the right decision. They are doing their part. We, the humanitarians, are on the ground, doing our part. You must be more committed, and more united, to do yours. Every day that passes without the parties to the Sudan conflict coming to the negotiating table makes the war worse; makes the war more complicated too: refugees talk of not just two parties, but of a proliferation of local militias, loosely affiliated to the main actors, perpetrating violent abuse.

This deadly confusion is a feature of modern wars. We should have learned lessons from wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Afghanistan, whose spillover consequences many members of this Council still contend with to this day. Because if the current dynamics – resigned powerlessness and dwindling aid – do not change, then let us harbour no illusions: the Sudan war’s destabilizing effects will grow, including the onward movement of people: there are already more than 200,000 Sudanese in Libya today, many of whom may travel towards Europe.

Mr. President,

I also watch with great concern – like you, I’m sure – the latest developments in Ukraine – a country I have visited six times since 2022. As recently as January, I was in Kyiv and Sumy – cities that have again suffered devastating attacks just in the last few days. I saw the terrible toll this war continues to take on the Ukrainian people, and especially on the most vulnerable – the elderly, children, families – whose resilience nevertheless remains admirable, even as it has grown weary. UNHCR works closely with the government and local civil society partners to help alleviate the suffering and bring some normalcy and hope to people’s lives.

But clearly, as said by many, what people need is a just peace. My role is not to describe what it looks like, but to remind all those engaged in peace efforts not to forget the plight of more than 10 million displaced Ukrainians – seven million of whom are refugees. It is crucial to continue to plan for their eventual return to their communities. But they will not return unless they can be safe and secure, in the short and in the long term. Unless the sirens truly stop announcing incoming attacks, unless they have access to decent housing, services and work, and unless they are confident that the terms of peace are durable, for them and for their country.

That is the essential calculus for ending humanitarian and refugee crises, Mr. President. Security and self-reliance. And both must convey a sense of being durable.

Solutions are hard work. They require commitment and compromise. You cannot make peace passively or hope for it to happen through mere attrition. That is why it is all the more important that when even unexpected opportunities emerge, we must be ready to seize them. And be ready to take calculated risks.

For the last eight years, for example, stagnation has defined the response in Myanmar. The fighting between the Tatmadaw and different armed groups has caused immense suffering and large-scale displacement throughout the country and the region – a situation exacerbated by the terrible earthquake that struck a month ago. The plight of the Rohingya minority, in particular, has become even worse. Fighting in Rakhine State with the Arakan Army has been particularly vicious – 1.2 million Rohingya are refugees today, mostly in Bangladesh, in the camps around Cox’s Bazaar.

We must thank Bangladesh and its people for having provided them refuge over the years. But Rohingya refugees languish in the camps, without work, deprived of agency, entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, which grows ever more precarious. Half the refugee population is under the age of 18. They are, to paraphrase Chief Advisor Dr Yunus, disconnected from opportunity but connected to the world through the internet. Is it any wonder that many feel compelled to embark on dangerous sea journeys in pursuit of opportunity? Or that those looking to recruit fighters find fertile soil?

But there is now an opportunity to break this dangerous inertia. The interim government of Bangladesh has chosen to engage with the parties to the conflict in Rakhine State in pursuit of a solution there – where it rightly lies. Many will immediately say that such a solution today is impossible for all the reasons we know: too much blood has been shed, discrimination continues, and there are too many competing interests to balance. Many will say that the root causes will never be effectively addressed, and that may well be the case.

But we have been down the path of stagnation for eight years in respect of the Rohingya situation – it is a dead end. From the perspective of pursuing solutions to the Rohingya plight, and in order to start recreating conditions for the return of refugees, dialogue with all parties is a critical first step so that humanitarian agencies – including UNHCR – can reestablish their presence and resume providing desperately needed humanitarian relief – safely and freely. That, in turn, would provide a basis on which to restart discussions on the eventual return of displaced Rohingya – I stress: voluntarily, in safety and dignity – once the security situation in Rakhine allows, and from where other legal rights could also be pursued. It is a long shot, for sure, but I urge you to think out of the box and take some risks. I hope the Council will continue to focus robustly on the situation in Myanmar – including the plight of the Rohingya, and I look forward to the conference planned for September here in New York.

Mr. President,

Other possible turning points are visible, literally, even from here. On Friday, the new flag of Syria was raised at the United Nations – what a powerful symbol for all Syrians! And there we have another long-standing humanitarian and displacement crisis for which an unexpected solution may now be achievable. But to pursue that, you must all prioritize the Syrian people over long-standing politics, some of which are frankly outdated. That also entails taking calculated risks. Of course, we cannot be naïve, many challenges remain – you heard Minister Shaibani describe them here on Friday. It is impossible to overcome the devastation caused by 14 years of war in a few months. But, for the first time in decades, there is a spark of hope, including for the millions of Syrians who remain displaced today, 4.5 million of them refugees in neighbouring countries.

Since 8 December, those numbers have been decreasing – slowly but steadily – as the return movement of internally displaced Syrians grows. We observe an increase of returns also from Jordan, Lebanon and Türkiye. We estimate that over one million people – one million people! – have already returned, and, based on what recent surveys show, many more may follow.

Whether they will stay in Syria or, tragically, move again – including to Europe and beyond – depends, of course, on the authorities, but also – very much – on your willingness to take risks. To ease sanctions, seriously support early recovery, spur investment by the private sector and others: in a word, create conditions so that the basic elements of dignified life – security, water, electricity, education, economic opportunities – are available to the Syrian people as they start to rebuild their communities. To minimize the risks that returning Syrians are taking, I am asking you to take some risks yourselves – political and economic ones. And yes, that must also mean sustained and more significant humanitarian aid, which at the moment – like everywhere else – is decreasing sharply.

Mr President,

I would in fact be remiss, before concluding, if I did not draw the Council’s attention on the critical situation of aid funding. In the precise moment when there is hope to finally move towards solutions to several displacement crises – not only in Syria, but also in Burundi or the Central African Republic – we see a retrenchment away from aid, away from multilateralism, even away from life-saving assistance. We hear of prioritizing national interests, of boosting defense spending – all valid concerns of course, and legitimate state pursuits. But these are not incompatible with aid, quite the contrary.

And so, I find myself making the same argument time after time, trying to convince donor countries of a reality we can all clearly see: that aid is stability. Freezing or cutting aid budgets is already having fatal consequences on millions of lives. It means, among many other things, abandoning displaced people to their fate; taking support away from sometimes very fragile host countries; and ultimately undermining your own stability.

And multilateralism, in fact – including multilateral aid – adds to that same stability and remains indispensable to find solutions to crises, including forced displacement. I may sound anachronistic, Mr. President, but after more than 40 years as a humanitarian, and almost 10 years in my current job, I continue to believe that it is by sitting at the same table that all voices can be heard – the strong and the less strong. And to those who feel that multilateralism is stifling, slow and misaligned with your priorities, I hope you realize that leaving the debate does not mean that the discussion would end. It will not, but it will be less effective and less compelling. We need all of you.

Refugees offer one of the best examples of this shared task. Because if you look around this room, you will see, like I do, that forced displacement has concerned every member of the Security Council at one point, one way or another. The struggle for freedom; the fight against oppression; the imperative to leave one’s home behind because of war, violence, and persecution; the refuge given to those compelled to flee – these are also familiar strands in each of your countries’ histories; deeply woven in complex and unique ways into your traditions and values. You have been the refugee. You have welcomed those who sought refuge.

Now you sit at this table, with the responsibility to end war, to bring peace. And you must succeed.

You owe it not only to all those who are displaced and who count on you.

You also owe it to yourselves.