UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : OHCHR/Special Procedures - Press conference: UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar

Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today at this press conference.

Our speaker today is Mr Tom Andrews, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar.

He will brief brief you today on his latest report to the Human Rights Council.

We will begin with opening remarks from the Special Rapporteur followed by before moving to questions.

Mr Andrews, you have the floor.

[Other language spoken]

OK, Does that, is that good?

Yeah, turning it on makes a lot of difference.

Well, thank you very much everyone for your interest and your attendance.

I'm very pleased to return to Geneva, where I will have the honour of engaging with the Human Rights Council, along with the High Commissioner and representatives of Myanmar civil society organisations in an enhanced interactive dialogue on the crisis in Myanmar later this week.

Today, I'd like to talk about some of the distressing facts that are emerging out of Myanmar.

And I'd also like to address what is even more distressing, the trajectory of these facts and what lies beneath them.

And I'd like to circle that trajectory back to the United Nations and its Member States, the Human Rights Council, and really to all of us.

The facts in Myanmar are dismal.

More than 6800 people have been killed since the coup.

More than 22,000 political prisoners are behind bars, most of whom are guilty of only exercising their fundamental rights, including speaking out and participating in demonstrations opposing a brutal military junta.

Before the coup, there were 300,000 people internally displaced in Myanmar.

Now there are more than 3.5 million.

Nearly 1.5 million refugees from Myanmar are currently living in other countries.

Nearly 1/3 of the population of Myanmar are facing acute food insecurity.

21.9 million people are in need of humanitarian aid.

As if this misery were not enough, a 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar on the 28th of March.

I was on the Thai Myanmar border at the time when it struck.

We know that at least 3800 people were killed and more than 5000 were injured, but the true numbers are likely much, much higher.

More than 200,000 were displaced by the earthquake three months after it struck.

There are many who continue to sleep on the streets.

Hunger or lack of access to water and sanitation facilities haunt many communities.

They are forced to grapple with extreme heat, drenching rains and infectious diseases.

Meanwhile, the junta has taken the same approach with earthquake relief that it takes to all humanitarian aid generally, block the delivery of aid to opposition controlled areas and attempt to force all donors and agencies to deliver aid only into its own hands.

I've spoken with humanitarian workers that have been physically blocked at checkpoints and prevented from delivering aid to earthquake impacted communities and experienced their frustration and their anger.

The Hunter has reportedly evicted earthquake survivors from their shelters, leaving those whose homes were destroyed with nowhere to go.

The junta proceeded to break a so-called humanitarian ceasefire almost immediately after declaring 1, and repeated the same cynical ploy again.

Meanwhile, they've been attempting to exact as much legitimacy as possible from engaging with foreign donors, covering the pages of state media with pictures of foreign aid workers posing with junta officials.

Let me note, as I have in the past, that the Hunter needs three things to sustain itself, money, weapons and legitimacy.

We need to do more to support the people of Myanmar by denying the Hunter all three.

And there will be opportunities and an obligation to do so this year by denying any recognition of the Hunter's so-called election.

And I'll put that in quotes that it is planning for later this year.

UN member states should call this exercise for what it is, a charade and a fraud.

Now, what is making the deepening crisis in Myanmar worse for those inside of Myanmar and those who have fled Myanmar is the dismal, deadly trajectory of the global retreat of international support.

The Rainga in IDP camps in central Rakhine face severe food ration cuts, severe food ration cuts that hit them in April.

Now, the World Food Programme was able to partially restore these cuts in June, but they're facing the fact that existing resources will not be adequate to meeting a desperate need.

Without renewed funding, most of the more than 100,000 refugees in Thailand will not receive any aid starting in August, just a few weeks from now, food distribution for more than 1,000,000 refugees in Bangladesh will stop in October.

Without additional funding, health clinics in refugee camps have shut down, leaving patients scrambling to find care or face the consequences of going without treatment.

I met many refugees when I was on the border following the earthquake, including persons with disabilities needing medical treatment.

I met a 5 year old boy who needed life saving heart surgery and his mom.

They were among the very lucky ones who were able to get access to life saving healthcare services, services that may very soon no longer be available.

The fact is, halfway through 2025, the Myanmar Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan is only 12% funded.

The Rainga Humanitarian Crisis Joint Response Plan is only 22% funded.

Now, leading the way of this dismal trajectory downward has been the United States.

And to be fair, the devastating impact of US cuts reflects, in part, the leadership role that the United States has historically played in making sure that these vitally important services were adequately funded, at least in the past.

And Americans can be proud of that.

But the US contribution to the Myanmar Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan was 30% last year.

So far it is 5%, This year 30% to 5%.

The US contribution to the Rainga Humanitarian Crisis Joint Response Plan was 52% in 2024.

In 2025 it is 6%.

US foreign assistance commitments to Myanmar was $237 million in 2020.

Four, 234 million in 2020, 237 million in 2024.

It is 8.5 million in 2020, five, 237 million to 8.5 million.

Now it is fair to ask why other governments had not done more in the past.

It's a fair question and whether they should step up and take a larger share of the burden today.

I believe a reasonable answer to the second question is yes.

As communities or businesses who are dependent on a large source of revenue, no, It is great as long as these large sources keep up, but devastating when they cut back or worse, cut out.

A diversified source of revenue generates stability and security.

In the case of those impacted by the crisis in Myanmar, it can indeed be the key to survival.

Unfortunately, not only have many governments failed to step up to fill the gaps left by US cuts, many have announced their own reductions in aid.

We are going, ladies and gentlemen, in the wrong direction.

Of course, the UN Human Rights Council is also being impacted by a retreat in support by UN member states.

There has been considerable discussion here in Geneva about what has been described as a liquidity crisis of the Human Rights Council.

The fact is, the Human Rights Council liquidity crisis is really a political crisis.

[Other language spoken]

The Human Rights Council shines a spotlight on human rights and assaults on those rights.

Its members express sentiments and pass resolutions addressing a wide range of human rights issues.

But action as well as words are necessary.

Making investments to defend human rights and fund critical aid, establishing funding, adequate funding for these critical budgets is critically important.

[Other language spoken]

It is critical that governments walk the walk at issue here.

Do human rights matter?

And if human rights do matter, if human decency matters, if saving the lives of children in Myanmar who are in desperate need of help matter, then those who believe it matters should be willing to invest a modest amount of resources to save lives.

Stop the immense and growing level of suffering, create stability and enhance security for all.

It is a very, very wise investment.

Now, the fact is there are political forces that are pushing relentlessly to reject the very idea of human rights.

We see this all over the globe and they're pushing to ignore or vilify those who are victimised by brutality.

To deny or dismiss the factors that Dr desperation.

Forcing victims out of their homes, out of their villages or out of their countries.

That reject the basic idea that nations can and should work together across national borders to save those whose lives would otherwise be lost.

This is who we are at our best and it is also in our own interest to stand up to forces that Dr instability, cruelty and violence.

This is a very dangerous trajectory that we are now on.

The fear card, the grievance card, the vilification card are potential political tools and weapons, and they're being used in many areas of the world.

But we have seen these cards played before, and we know where their trajectory leads.

The United Nations itself was created on the ashes of the devastation that these types of cards generated nearly a century ago.

The downward trajectory that we are currently on will continue until leaders are willing to stand up for human rights and set priorities and budgets that reflect the best and not the worst of us.

When we do what is necessary to communicate to citizens of all walks of life why this matters.

When people of conscience stand up and say enough is enough, Communication is where you members of the media can play a decisive role.

The Human Rights Council has been called the conscience of the United nations.

Now more than ever, the United Nations and world leaders near to need to hear and heed the voices of conscience because the stakes could not be higher.

I just want to say that there is good news in the fact that we know what happens when action is taken.

We can see the results.

There's been a 1/3 reduction in the flow of weapons flowing into the hands of the military junta using the international financial system because of actions that have been taken by member states.

We know how vital a civil society is in Myanmar and we'll be some of those.

Representatives of civil society will be addressing the Council on Friday and we know that the private sector has been stepping up as well to take action.

When we released the report, a report on why and how the private sector and the public sector have been providing the the the means by which the Hunter has been arming itself through the international financial system, Singapore took action that reduced 90 percent, 90% of the weapons flowing from Singapore into Myanmar.

And in Thailand, Bangkok Bank cut off its relationship with the junta controlled Myanmar Economic Bank.

That facilitates the flow of this financing and translates it into the weapons that are being used to commit gross human rights violations.

These are specific actions that are extremely positive and very fruitful.

And by the way, these actions don't cost money.

They simply require political will.

But it is a political will that we need to generate all around the world.

The stakes could not be higher.

[Other language spoken]

Mr Andrews, the Special Rapporteur, will now take questions.

Please state your name and the organisation for asking a question.

We'll start with the internals in the room.

[Other language spoken]

Thanks for this interesting briefing.

I was hoping you could say provide a few more details about about the specific impact on the ground that you're you're seeing from, from the cuts to aid.

And also you mentioned the the earthquake response.

I know that the Hunter has extended the ceasefire.

How I mean is there is there any sign that that things have improved on the ground in terms of of the the violence or do you see them continuing air strikes?

If you could just talk a little bit more about that.

[Other language spoken]

Very good question.

You know, we, we saw just an acceleration of, of air strikes in April following the earthquake and following their declaration of a so-called ceasefire.

And by the way, that ceasefire that they declared followed the ceasefire that was announced, the unilateral ceasefire announced by resistance forces.

So they were kind of shamed into doing something and, and announcing this ceasefire.

But it was a, a cynical ploy.

It meant nothing because in fact, the actions were extremely devastating.

And I and I talked to to doctors, I talked to those who were eyewitnesses of, of a devastated villages that had been hit by these air strikes.

You know, there was a, someone was telling me that that young people were running as they should out of their homes and going out into fields to protect themselves from the earthquake, only to see and hear aircraft above.

So they had to turn around and, and go inside because of the, of that, of, of that threat.

So I mean, it was just an extraordinary experience for these, in this case, these young people, people all over the, all over the country.

You know, we, we know and we've, we've documented and, and my reports will continue to document as I've outlined, the extent to which this devastation continues.

But what is important to note is the trend lines as I've been, as I've mentioned, are going absolutely in the opposite direction with the hunters.

Attacks on villages have been actually increasing, air assaults have been increasing.

And, and what we found is that as it's more and more dangerous for ground troops to be moving because of the presence of resistance forces and tactics that have been used to intercept those those those ground forces or intercept supply lines, the use of aircraft has been increasing and the use of bombing have been increasing.

And, and, and the reason that that is so devastating is not just the volume, the increase that we've been documenting, but also because of the indiscriminate nature of these, of these aerial attacks and how they have been hitting schools, monasteries.

We've documented that they have hit centres for internally displaced persons.

I met a dad who lost his two only two children, two daughters, after he brought them to an IDP centre for safety because the IDP centre was.

Was was hit, I've talked to parents whose children were were injured in attacks at a school.

So this is devastating and it's increasing.

The numbers are the numbers are bad, but the reality on the ground, this experiences is devastating.

And I also just want to put also it in kind of brackets.

[Other language spoken]

It's very difficult, as I'm sure you know, of getting information quickly and, and accurately.

Now we have people around the country that have been very courageous in providing us with information and, and, and testimony, but they take great risk in order to do that.

And we know that the numbers that we're seeing are less than what is actually happening because because of that fact.

Sorry, just on the people you mentioned now who are taking great risks to get you information, how are you?

I mean, the, the impact that you, you were talking about this liquidity crisis at the, at the Human Rights Council and the fact that things seem to be I, I assume that, you know, money is in short supply when it comes to these investigations now.

And I guess there's a bit of uncertainty about how much, how much you can continue the work and how much effect it it might have with, with everything with the liquidity crisis.

How do you talk to the people on the ground who are are providing you with this this information at great risk to themselves in light of, you know, the developments that you're seeing?

No, it's really hard.

It's really hard.

I mean, they're risking everything and, and, and they've lost so much.

And the fact is, is that the look, you know, we, we manifest values in action, including budgets, how much money we put up to do things reflects our values.

And the, the, the message that we're sending in terms of those values is not a good one, that we're not valuing these human lives, these people who are who, who's taking such, such risk to save their country.

We're, we're, we're sending them absolutely the wrong message.

And the, and the insane thing is, is that it doesn't take a lot of money, you know, and when you compare the cost of the devastation that is that, that, that that's out there and the great risk of the instability and insecurity that can follow.

I mean, it's not an, I think an accident that as these commitments of resources for things like human rights and humanitarian aid have been decreasing, defence budgets have been increasing.

So you're, you're creating a world that is much less secure and much less stable.

You're fueling it by not making your commitments to things that can actually reduce that instability.

And then you're forced to spend even more money on weapons of war to confront this insecurity and instability.

And we've seen this movie before.

I mean, this very institution was created on the ashes of the devastation of what can happen when these forces are allowed to to take off.

And they're taking off right now.

We can see it happening right now.

[Other language spoken]

I was in politics for a dozen years in the US And you know, when you when you're when you're travelling and you're talking to citizens, you know, it's, it's not the easiest case in the world to make the same.

We need to send and and invest money overseas.

But we have to make that case and we have to, you know, and really, if, if the people of my former Congressional District met the little boy whose, whose heart condition as surgery was going to determine life or death, they want that, that, that boy to have that surgery.

You know, they, they, they want these families to be able to, to survive.

They'd understand completely what happens when you've lost everything and the only hope is to gather your family together and move to safety.

They'd understand this.

But we need to communicate that to to people and we need to counter this political movement, this, this vilification, this fear card, this these these forces of darkness that are descending in areas around the world.

We need to fight that.

We need to stand up for these principles and values.

The the the member states of the United Nations and the Human Rights Council can only do as much as the political climate in their countries are going to allow.

And so leaders have to step up to influence that climate.

Civil society has to step up, faith-based organisations have to step up.

We all have to step up to address that climate.

And we're not doing it.

[Other language spoken]

So I have the the honour of being on the front lines of what's happening, what the consequences of this is, and I'm doing my best to convey that to people, but we all have to take the action necessary to to mitigate that immense suffering that I'm witnessing there.

Might be other people.

I just to follow up on what you were just saying, right today there's a big NATO meeting where, where countries are getting together to discuss, as you're mentioning defence budgets and these are some of the same countries that have slashed their their funding for humanitarian aid and foreign, foreign aid.

If you could just say something about about this, this push to increase defence budgets to to 5% that they're discussing today.

We, we need to be addressing the causes of instability and insecurity and we're failing to do that.

And so it is a much wiser investment in it is a much more reasonable investment to mitigate the causes of instability and security rather than be putting more and more money into dealing with the consequences of that insecurity and instability.

It's an imbalance here that's going on.

It's these trajectories of defence spending going this way and human rights and humanitarian spending going in absolutely the opposite direction.

This leads to disaster.

And that's the trajectory that we are we are on.

That is why this is so dangerous.

The the conversations in NATO I know are going to be are not going to include what I'm talking about.

But they should.

They really, really should.

[Other language spoken]

Now we'll take the questions from those online.

Thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

So the reduction of USA that you have mentioned is very dramatic.

Would you dare to say that US has abandoned the Rohingya people and also other other opposition in Myanmar also by banning the entry of the Myanmar citizens to to the USA?

And also, if I may, I think you mentioned in, in, in other reports or other interventions that Myanmar junta was losing ground.

And I don't think you you haven't mentioned now.

Does it mean that it's regaining control and what this would mean for, for the future of, of Myanmar and the possibility of, of the democracy coming back to the country?

[Other language spoken]

Well, I I can tell you that the United States is not alone in moving in the wrong direction when it comes to humanitarian aid and supporting democracy and human rights in in Myanmar.

Other countries are following following suit.

But my point was that the United States having been such a leader in investments in humanitarian aid and human rights, the dramatic cuts that have been made by the United States is that much more devastating.

So the impact is that much more devastating because of the volume that that we started out with, with US funding.

So, so you, you need to put that in context and, and I think it's fair for the United States to say we'll look, we've been, we've been, we've been providing the world with a greater share than, than what we should be.

We, they should be more balanced.

Other countries should be stepping up.

It's a fair argument and we can have that discussion.

But the fact is, is that we're all going in the wrong direction.

And instead of stepping up, countries are stepping, stepping back.

And of course the, the United States that we, we, we, we just talked about NATO has been pressuring NATO countries to step up when it comes to defence spending.

Well, I think it's really important that NATO countries in all countries step up when it comes to humanitarian aid and, and, and investments in human rights.

And, and what made it all the worse is not just the volume of, you know, you, you, you, you go from the, the very, very significant, the $237 million from the United States into in, in, in, in 2024 down to 8.5 million.

That is devastating.

But what is made that worse is because it happened so abruptly and so chaotically and, and people couldn't prepare, could they couldn't make adjustments, they couldn't look to see where other resources might come from.

So it was the, it was the cuts and the chaos around those cuts that made things so devastating.

I mean, I was there when that earthquake happened and I was there as, as the, the, the mobilisation of support and aid to, to desperate people was, was underway.

And the United States was missing in action when in the past it would be taking a lead in not only providing resources, but, but coordinating the provision of resources.

And, and it, it broke my heart to see that expertise on the ground there ready to go and not being used because of the chaos that followed those of those devastating cuts.

So it was the amount and it was the chaos and it and, and, and, and the stakes of that were quite, were quite devastating.

Oh, and let me, the second part of the question was with respect to the resistance and, and the progress that has been made on the ground.

You know, I don't want to, I want to be really clear here.

There there is.

I think we're, we're, it's very difficult to, to protect anything.

Of course, the case in Syria is a good example.

Who would have thought that that change happened as as dramatically as it did?

But the fact is, is that the, the military junta, while it is loathed by the people of Myanmar, believe me, and while it has lost considerable, it's lost territory and it's lost soldiers and military facilities and and so forth, there's no, no question at all.

It's the reason why they have this forced military conscription programme.

They're they're losing, they're losing ground literally and figuratively.

But they have significant resources available to them, financial resources and weapons that are being provided to them from abroad.

And as long as those resources continue to flow, they're going to continue to to wreak significant havoc.

And they're not.

And they're not hesitant to do so.

[Other language spoken]

We have a follow up question online.

Thank you for your answers.

Just another short question.

In the beginning you mentioned very interesting numbers including the the number of of dead in the conflict, which sometimes is difficult to to get these these numbers.

Do they come from your own investigation or you have official sources, for example, this 63,000 people that that you mentioned that have died in since the cook.

[Other language spoken]

Yeah, no, these these come from a variety of sources, but they're vetted sources.

They're they're very reliable and and and they're understated.

If any, if anything.

I mean, this is when I when I mention these numbers, there are at least these numbers of people and you get a range.

I mean, some, some come out with, with, with higher numbers than than these, but, but these are, these are vetted numbers.

But, but you know, 6800 people killed 22,000 political prisoners behind bars.

And just think about that and the fact that they're declaring there's going to be an election in, in, in the end of, of, of the year.

And they're looking for a basically they want to find an exit ramp to the international pressure.

They're trying to create this mirage of an election exercise that will create a, a legitimate civilian government.

But you know, you cannot have an election when you imprison and torture and execute your opponents, when it is illegal to report the truth as a journalist, when it's illegal to speak out and criticise the hunter.

And it's really important that countries reject this idea of an election and, and, and not allow the the military hunter to to attempt to get away with this, this fraud.

I mean, that doesn't cost any money to do so, but it's, it would be extremely helpful if the the UN Member States were to make it very clear that that this is going to be recognised not as an election but as a fraud.

[Other language spoken]

Are there any other questions in the rumour online?

I see your hand up online.

Is it an old hand or is that a question?

No, I have a question if nobody else wants to to to ask.

It's about the weapons you mentioned that countries like Thailand and Singapore have been able to reduce.

It looks like these countries are more channels, you know, that rather than providers of, of weapons.

Do you know, or can you mention which, which countries which governments could be selling the weapons to, to the Hunta?

[Other language spoken]

Well, yes, I've, and I've, I've, I've documented these and, and we, we continue to, to monitor the traffic, the traffic flow and some of those numbers, you know, have changed and modified over the, the past few years.

But what has been remaining pretty consistent is that Russia is the single largest source of weapons for the military junta, and China is the second largest source of weapons for the military junta.

[Other language spoken]

Is there another question in the room or online?

[Other language spoken]

If there are no further questions, we will now close this press conference.

Thank you all for joining us today.

Thank you, Mr Andrews.

[Other language spoken]

OHCHR/Special Procedures - Press conference: UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar - 25 June 2025