UN Relief Chief warns of 'age of indifference' as humanitarian funding drops
UNOCHA - United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Remarks at the Daily Press Briefing by Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
New York, 15 September 2025
Many thanks for having me back, and colleagues for giving me some time today. I look forward to the questions. I'll try and be as brief as possible so we can get into the higher-protein exchange I'm sure that we'll have ahead of us. I'll make just some general comments about where we are on, particularly, humanitarian reform, and as a sector. I can give you headlines on some of the major crises that are currently - and I assume will be in the future - crossing my desk, and then very happy to open up.
So to start with [the General Assembly's] High-Level Week, for which, obviously, we're deep into the preparations: I think that maybe this is something that new people or newish people always say, but I think this is the most significant High-Level Week that we've had for a long time, and really does define UN action going forward. We're in a situation now where there are many who would like to see the UN being weakened, which, of course, is a reckless act of self-harm. And so we have to push back against this crisis of finance, yes, but also these challenges to our legitimacy and to our confidence.
And as the SG [Secretary-General] has been leading with the UN 80 process, there's a sense that, you know, change is essential right now, but we're not changing in benign waters - we're changing in the midst of a storm around us. And so what we've realized on the humanitarian side is that we need to grieve for what will go and what has gone. We need to fight for what must be saved, and we must imagine what we can be in the future. And I know that you'll be hearing more on that from the SG in the period to come.
For the humanitarian part of this process, as we discussed last time I was here, we are facing this perfect storm: underfunded, overstretched, under attack. The underfunded bit of it has, if anything, got worse since I was last here. So we've only been funded 19 per cent of what we need - one-nine, just to be clear - which is a 40 per cent drop on where we were last year. Devastating - makes it an age of indifference. And as you know, those funding cuts have already meant that we have hyper, hyper-prioritized our planning in order to target saving 114 million lives, which would cost US$29 billion. Just to put that in perspective, that $29 billion is 1 per cent of what the world will spend on defense this year. So what does that mean about the collective priorities?
We're overstretched, as you've heard me say before, but just to update the evidence for that: millions now going without essential food, healthcare and protection. Programmes to shield particularly women and girls have been slashed. Hundreds of aid organizations across this community have been shut down. The sector as a whole, I would estimate, has shrunk already by a third, even since I took over 10 months ago. It wasn't something I was planning to be saying. And if you listen, as I do, to our leading agencies: UNICEF - an extra 6 million kids are likely to be out of school. WFP are saying they can only reach 1 million of the 3 million Afghans who currently need food. UNHCR are saying that 11 million refugees may no longer get the help that they need.
And as [Spokesperson for the Secretary-General] Stephane [Dujarric] often reminds us, we're under attack. Last year, 380-plus aid workers killed - highest ever; 270 already this year.
It's a record that I fear we'll break again. And that violence against us - and I'll come on to Yemen, for example, and of course, OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory], Gaza - is somehow being normalized. It's an age of impunity. And so a question that I wish was asked more is, where are these weapons coming from that are killing us and those we serve? They don't come out of nowhere.
So, what do we do? Well, for the UN, I think - but for the humanitarian sector, as we've done - the parameters are, firstly, reform: get the barnacles off the boat, if that's not too English an expression - dealing with the unnecessary layers and processes, duplication and dead weight.
Then regroup: We've got to build these fresh coalitions around those who really do need what we stand for, those at greatest risk of climate crisis and of conflict and of humanitarian catastrophe, those who most lose out in a strongman world.
And then renew. And again, I know the SG will be setting out more ideas on this in the coming period. We've got to have an element of idealism and hope to how we renew, how we build that genuinely global organization, how we ensure that we are saving lives, building resilience, stopping conflict, defending rights - and how we prepare humanity for the impact of climate crisis and artificial intelligence.
On the Humanitarian Reset - we're now well into that implementation phase. That old model is gone, and we mourn the consequences of that for those that we serve, but we won't stick around and be held up from actually then pushing through the changes we need to make sure that we save as many lives as we can with the money that we have. So you'll see more, I hope, direct assistance, cash in people's hands. You'll see women and girls at the heart of the response. Simpler, faster appeals. More local leadership. More responsibility and power closer to the communities that we serve. You'll see us scaling up our pooled funds so that the majority of resources reach local organizations. And you'll see us launching the foundations, laying the foundations, for that more radical renewal of the humanitarian mission by 2030: greener, more anticipatory, more preventive, more efficient, more local.
I'll be very brief on the headline country crises, because I know that you'll want to dive deeper into those.
Gaza, OPT - as you hear from Steph, more than half a million people face catastrophic hunger. We fear that number could exceed 640,000 by the end of this month. As I said in Geneva after the last IPC [Integrated Food Security Phase Classification] report, it's a preventable, a predictable famine, but we can stop it. Gaza's women, elderly, children can't eat statements of concern. And a reminder, as so often, during the ceasefire earlier this year, when I was in Gaza, thousands of truckloads of aid entered, proving that we can save lives at scale if humanitarians are allowed to do that.
So we need the crossings open. We need functional access. We need unimpeded, safe passage inside Gaza. We need the looting to stop. We need the hostages to be released. We need a ceasefire now.
And all of this, of course, is against a backdrop where the rules of war are being corroded day by day. We've heard Israeli ministers talking openly about flattening Gaza and forcing people out permanently, bombing food aid, and so on. And I've said consistently, I don't think that we have to choose between condemning the starvation of civilians in Gaza and demanding the unconditional release of hostages. We must do both. We don't have to choose between fighting antisemitism and holding Israel to the same laws as everyone else. We must do both.
I've just come from a call with our excellent Humanitarian Coordinator, Resident Coordinator, in OPT, and the simple version of our plan to stop the Gaza famine: ceasefire, hundreds of trucks a day, full access, safe routes, end the bureaucratic delays, restore power and water, and allow commercial traffic. None of that - none of that - is complicated.
Sudan will be a big theme for High-Level Week. As you know, largest humanitarian crisis in the world, more than half a million people now in famine-like conditions, 30 million people need aid, and sexual violence - as I've been hearing from Sudanese NGOs in the last few days - is rampant. Particular focus on trying to get this siege of El Fasher lifted - 900,000 people there in desperate, desperate need of our life-saving work. That will be a big theme of the coming days.
Syria - looking to see how we can use the visit of the President and his team to ensure we've got the right balance in the conversation between the humanitarian imperative and that longer-term development and resilience and reconstruction effort that will allow the people of Syria, as they wish to, to reduce that dependence on humanitarian aid. So a real moment, I think, another big theme for High-Level Week, is getting that right.
Haiti - I was in Haiti last week for three days and saw crisis hitting from all sides: the violence, displacement, collapsing services. I do encourage you to read the articles that Jacqueline Charles wrote for the Miami Herald. She was with me for that time, and she can articulate much more eloquently than I can what we saw. The violence has to end. I saw the last functioning [public] hospital in Port-au-Prince pushed to the brink. Real concern over the sustainability of that operation. I met young people trapped by violence but who are finding ways to rebuild their lives. Spoke with many of the IDP families living in the most unthinkable conditions. And most challenging, spent a long meeting with survivors of gender-based violence who have faced just unspeakable and repeated attacks. Quiet, quiet courage, but they should not have to be asked to show such courage. So we're doing all we can there. Again, I've just come from a conversation with the team in country, but it's one of the crises, alongside DRC and Afghanistan, where the funding cuts are hitting hardest - less than 12 per cent of what we need.
Afghanistan I've discussed here before. You know the challenges. I think I visited since I last joined you and went to Kandahar, Kunduz, Kabul. Of course, the recent earthquakes have then devastated nearly half a million people, claiming thousands of lives. Many homes destroyed, livelihoods decimated. And so we have a Flash Appeal out at the moment to respond to that earthquake.
If I can just add - and it may come up later - our female humanitarian workers and the women that we're working with in country are absolutely indispensable to the humanitarian response in Afghanistan, and it is intolerable that they're coming under further pressure, further challenges in the work they are doing. We cannot do our work without them.
Finally, Yemen, where again, there's been a huge focus in the last week - last two weeks, really - since those additional detentions of our staff. I just told the Security Council that it's intolerable that at a time of funding cuts, when we're already facing security threats, that those who are trying to save lives in Yemen are being detained and challenged in this way. Utterly unacceptable, as the SG has said, and I echo, of course, his call for their immediate, unconditional release.
Q: Mr. Fletcher, thank you very much, on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, for doing this briefing. My name is Edith Lederer from the Associated Press. A couple of follow-ups to what you've just said. You started out saying that this is the most significant High-Level Week and that there were people threatening to see the UN being weakened. Can you tell us what countries, what people, who you see as those people actually trying to destroy the United Nations? Secondly, you said that the humanitarian overall appeal this year was only 19 per cent funded. Could you give us the figure for this year and for last year? And third, one of the big issues is donors. Do you see other countries stepping up to fill in the gap left by the huge cuts in funding from the United States? Thank you.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So I'll let you speculate on who I might be thinking of in terms of this challenge to how the UN operates. I'd only say that one thing that struck me in the short time I've been in the job is the amount of support, actually, increasingly loud support for what we stand for, and lots of Member States stepping forward and saying, this isn't an organization that is owned by the big powers, owned by the post-'45 Security Council. It's an organization that does belong to all of us, and of course, belongs to our citizens as well. And so I think you're hearing a lot more pushback there against the notion of a strongman, transactional, survival-of-the-fittest world. We know where that leads, and we know why we were created as an institution. And it's unfashionable, in a way, to be defending institutions at the moment and defending structures and hierarchies and order, but the alternative is disorder and chaos. So we know very clearly why we're here, and we know what we need to be fighting for.
On the numbers - so to date this year, 19 per cent received. That's $8.7 billion out of the $45.5 billion requested in the Global Humanitarian Overview that I launched back in December. So that's a 40 per cent drop on last year. I don't have the number for last year, but as Steph would probably tell you, you could probably do the maths from there. [In 2024, 50 per cent of the $49.4 billion required was received.] You see, I do read all the transcripts, Steph, I'm trying to try to learn from the master.
Donors - this is an important point. I think we've recognized as the humanitarian community that the US was footing too high a proportion of the bill. Now I don't want to see any of that money cut because it has an impact on our life-saving work. But maybe we were overreliant - you know, whatever it was, 40 to 50 per cent - on that donor. And of course, that US money has saved hundreds of millions of lives over a long period. And so I think it's right that we try to share that burden around more fairly. It's obviously a message that we hear loud and clear from the new administration. I've heard it again in the last couple of days.
Q: Thank you very much, Biesan Abu-Kwaik with Al Jazeera Arabic. I just want to go back to something that you just said about the attacks against humanitarians and the violence against them - and on Gaza, in particular - and you're saying it has become normalized in the age of impunity. And you're asking the question that you would want to hear, where are the arms coming from? On Gaza, in particular, where scores of humanitarians have been killed, are you implying that more pressure should be applied on countries for an arms embargo or stop the arms arming Israel? This is one question, and my second question is, back in May, at the Security Council, you called on Security Council members to act decisively to prevent a genocide. You were criticized for using the word genocide, but since then, the International Association of Genocide Scholars have concluded that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. Do you feel vindicated at this point?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So in terms of the attacks on humanitarians, and think of Gaza, of course, in that context, that's where the majority have been, but we've seen it also in recent weeks in Ukraine, where we've lost NGO colleagues, I've mentioned Yemen, Haiti. You know, in all of these crises, we're facing increasing risks. And those weapons are not coming from nowhere, as I say, the weapons that are killing us, our people who are going out towards the sound of gunfire in order to try and save lives. And so I do want more of a conversation about not just the legal obstacles that should be put in front of the attacks on us, that sort of sense of impunity, but also physically the damage that's being done to us and to those we serve.
Now, I don't know about arms embargoes and those other questions - they're for the political colleagues - but I don't want my people, our people, to be killed. You know, that goes for the courageous humanitarian workers and those we serve. And they're being killed in increasingly sophisticated ways - that is one of the really alarming things, even in 10 months in this job - increasing use of lethal autonomous weapons, drones and so on, which are then targeting our installations and our people. And Steph has already talked about, you know, even in the last couple of days, implications of that for some of our properties in Gaza.
On those issues that I raised in that Security Council briefing back in May - it's not about me being vindicated or anything else. I think everyone, you know, people are speaking out clearly in public on what needs to change, what we're seeing. It's not for me, again, to get into the legal minutiae of all of this, but we need a ceasefire. We need this to stop, and we must continue to speak out boldly to that effect.
Q: Thanks. Amélie Bottelier from AFP news agency. You were just in Haiti, and it's a country that has been deprived of a lot of media coverage because a lot of us cannot go there. You've been there, so can you describe what is it to live, how is it to live in Port-au-Prince? I mean, we know that 90 or 95 per cent of the capital is controlled by the gangs. But what does that mean for the population? And what did the population tell you about what they want from the international community, and especially if there is any need for this new anti-gang force that the US is now promoting in the Security Council? Thank you.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So they described to me - and you could see it in their eyes, and you'll see it in the videos that we've put out of that trip - I mean, they're just terrified. Moving across Port-au-Prince, day to day, utterly terrifying. Going through those checkpoints where you can be abducted, shaken down for money, taken hostage. It's utterly... The centre for therapeutic support to victims of sexual violence that I visited at the end of the trip, people talk about the need for that in the way they talk about the need for a pharmacy on the corner or a local school. It's like, well, of course in our neighbourhood, we have a pharmacy, a supermarket and a centre for the victims of sexual violence. And the women I met there describe how they are taking contraception in advance of going through checkpoints, because they're anticipating the sexual violence they know they'll face just going about their daily lives. So the level of brutality from the armed groups, the level of fear is really terrifying. And people want to be heard. They want to be supported. Mostly, they ask for dignity. And at the moment, they don't feel they have dignity. And the conditions in the IDP site I visited were, you know, as difficult as any I've seen in the 10 months in this job.
Q: Thank you. Colum Lynch from Devex News. Just a couple more questions on numbers. You said that the humanitarian sector has shrunk by about a third, and I don't know if you have hard figures on that? Also, if you could just give us some sense of the scale of staff budget cuts in OCHA specifically, and what that, you know, both in terms of staff and funding this year. And then finally, if you just can give us some sense - you talk about this being the most important [UN General Assembly] in many years. For someone like you who's advocating for humanitarian issues, you know, what do you do during the week? Who do you meet with? What are you asking for? And you know, given the climate, is there really, do you have much hope that you're going to come out of this with a better, you know, financial picture than you have now? Actually, one other thing, just on the question you brought up about weapons, I don't see why the UN couldn't collect sort of forensic evidence of weaponry that's used in the battle. It's the sort of thing that the Panel of Experts does, uses all the time, to draw attention to what weapons are being used. Thanks.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: Many thanks, Colum. So that figure of about a third is across the sector as a whole. So that was drawn from the meeting that we had, the last IASC [Inter-Agency Standing Committee] Principals meeting back in June. I think the worst of those cuts have actually fallen on local and national NGOs, many of which are dependent on those shorter-term funding contracts. But you're seeing that equally across the big international NGOs as well, and of course, across the UN humanitarian family. We have, as part of the SG's UN 80 initiative, we have a humanitarian cluster of five of those agencies, and across that cluster, we're probably at about 30 per cent to a third reductions over time. So it's an enormous amount to be taking out of the formal sector. In OCHA itself, we're going through very, very, very tough choices right now. We've restructured, but we're losing 20 to 25 per cent of our staff across OCHA, and these are people who are utterly committed humanitarians, who are vital to the coordination effort, but who we cannot afford to hold onto in this new funding context.
The week itself - I mean, I'll tell you in a week-and-a-half what it was like. Speed dating. You know, anyone who says it's the city that never sleeps probably hasn't been here during High-Level Week. They might have been here during some other weeks. So it's full on. I can't remember - someone may hold up a number at the back - how many bilaterals I have, but I have an immense number of bilaterals with ministers, development colleagues, heads of Government, and so on. I join many of the SG's meetings where there is a humanitarian dimension. We have side events - sort of breakfast, lunch and dinner - so I'll be eating for the United Nations over the course of the week. So immense amounts on, trying to keep the focus, as you say, on these humanitarian crises that we're dealing with, trying to make sure that they're getting the space that they deserve on everyone's calendars. And as you rightly say, and it comes back to Edie's point, trying to see if we can broaden out that wider Member State and donor support for what we do, so talking not just to our established donors, but to potential and emerging donors. Not everyone is reducing their funding right now.
Q: Thank you. Michelle Nichols from Reuters. Sorry, just another follow up. When you talk about the sector shrinking as a third, is that, would you solely attribute that to the US cuts? And then you were talking about it, you know, the opportunity to reform humanitarian work. And you mentioned, sort of cutting some dead weight. What does dead weight in the humanitarian sector look like? And then, thirdly, there seems to have been a bit of a truce between the UN and the GHF [Gaza Humanitarian Foundation] in Gaza. What's happening there? Have there been any further discussions between the UN and GHF? Has the GHF sort of changed in any way that might convince the UN to work with them at all?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: Great, so the US cuts are obviously the biggest proportion of the funding cuts that we faced. But it's not just the US that has signaled it's cutting back -
several other bilateral donors are in a similar position, proportionally, actually. So it's a wider challenge to us. The dead weight in the system, I mean, perhaps dead weight is not a fair way to describe all of it, but there have been too many layers through the sector. The sector itself, often in the more expensive capitals of the world, has been big, and I think it's that model which is now being changed. Incidentally, I was looking at big efficiencies across the sector before Elon Musk and DOGE and others started talking about chainsaws and so on.
We recognize ourselves because we are close to those we serve. We recognize why we need to be more efficient, and so across, for example, the IASC, and some of you like Colum will know this stuff inside out, we are reducing the number of clusters by almost half, these different sectoral clusters to organize the sector. We're reducing the number of in-person meetings, we're reducing the number of layers, and we're shifting more power and resource to in-country teams, in-country leadership.
And so I've been talking about the four Ds [define, devolve, deliver and defend] to find more clearly, the 114 million lives that we can save. Devolve more power to leadership in-country and to local communities. Deliver much more effectively, and that brings in the ways in which we can use innovation and technology, as well as taking out bureaucracy and inertia from the system. And then the fourth D is defend and being full-throated in our unequivocal defenses that the values that underpin this work and the people we serve.
You've heard me at length in the Security Council and elsewhere, we believe in the importance of principled, neutral delivery of humanitarian aid in line with humanitarian principles. And we're not in any conversation. Yes, now and again you hear that we're in a conversation about putting UN supplies through GHF or other mechanisms like it, and that's not a conversation that we've been having.
Q: Thank you, sir, Abdelhamid Siyam from the Arabic daily, Alquds Alarabi. I want to go back to the same question posed by my colleague, Biesan. I didn't find the answer convincing. On May 13th, you mentioned the word genocide. From that day on, because you were strongly criticized, the Israeli ambassador asked you to apologize for it. You never went back to the same term. Same thing with the Secretary-General when he mentioned that October 7th did not come from a vacuum, and he was criticized, he never went back to that same term. Now, from August 11th until today, 11,000 building were destroyed, buildings and residential buildings, towers and residential buildings. There are over 9,000, sir, in detention, some of them never been tried. Over 300, 400 children and never mentioned in your briefing about these unfairly detained only you mentioned the 20 hostages, which I agree. I mean, they should be released with no conditions, but at least mention the thousands and thousands of Palestinians, including doctor, including the humanitarian workers who are in detention. I think you know about the doctor [inaudible]. So my question, why you don't say it the way it is, why are people terrified of Israel? Thank you.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: Abdelhamid, I don't think I've been terrified of Israel. I don't think I've been terrified of speaking out. You cite, as Biesan did, that May 13th statement and others I've made in the Security Council. You can Google all my interviews. You know, I'm talking about this issue consistently, and I'm not rowing back. I didn't pull back from those comments. I stand by every word I said in that Security Council briefing and the subsequent Security Council briefings.
Obviously, I could come here, when we've got more time, and do a full briefing just on OPT, but I was trying to cover the range of crises that we're dealing with. But, and Steph, every day, does this in in great detail. We're not resiling from telling you what we see - we feel it's our duty to bear testimony to what we're seeing.
Q: Sherwin Bryce Pease, South African Broadcasting. Mr. Fletcher, let's go back to that May Council meeting, if we will. Your words exactly were, "Will you act decisively to prevent genocide and ensure respect for international humanitarian law?" I wonder what your assessment is of the Council's response some four months later, and what might your recommendation be to that Council based on the response you'll give me now.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: It's a good question, and it's a fair question. I think it's a question best directed, dare I say it, to the Council members themselves in the way that I was directing it to them. I think you have seen a more outspoken position by many members of the Council: stronger pressure for our humanitarian access, stronger pressure for a ceasefire. You've seen that in public and private, for many of them, and some of that is having an effect around the margins. We are getting a little bit more aid in than we were getting in, a bit of an uptick, but it's still completely insufficient for what is needed, which is why I've set out those steps that we need to see in order to prevent that, to prevent the famine, and to ensure that we can reach people at scale. So, work in progress, I think, is the short version of that answer.
Q: Kris Reyes with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, thank you for this briefing. Mr. Fletcher, as we head into what you call a highly consequential High-Level Week, can you reflect on what you believe to be the causes of the erosion of trust and confidence in this institution?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: Wow. And I used to write books and give lectures on that, so I'll try and keep it short. You know, I think a lot of this goes back to the financial crash of 2008-2009, and the way in which, rather than turning outwards, the world turned inwards after that, and we've seen that across so many societies. The rise of nationalism, the rise of polarization. I think there's a second huge cause, which is growing inequality and a frustration that many people feel, understandably, that the system as a collective, beyond the UN but the international system, has not gone far enough to address that. And I think it also comes down to this more sort of existential fear we all increasingly have about the impacts of climate change, about what all this technological change around us will mean for the world in which we live in - and people are anxious to see collective responses to that. Now, at a more tactical level, you can point to the sometimes paralysis in the Security Council, which has made it much, much harder to act in a bold enough way. And, you know, and this is why the SG has launched the UN 80 initiative, we should always be thinking about how we can be more effective, more streamlined and more focused on delivering for the people we serve.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, good to see you back. Pamela Falk from US News and World Report. Back to your comment about the US footing more than they might of the bill: it sounds like you have had some conversations with US officials to get to that point. Is it at Washington, you mentioned Elon Musk, is it at the Washington level or DOGE level, or is it US-UN that has more of that day-to-day conversations with you? And we've seen quite a few briefings of different agencies talking about the private sector. Are you looking at the private sector? I mean, they've got a lot of money, and they're giving out a lot of money these days, more than governments seem to be. Have you looked at that, and is that a possibility?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So, short version, Pam on where the engagements are: everywhere.
So, I've been in Washington, even in the last couple of days, in very close touch with the US Chargé [d'Affaires] here in New York, US Chargé in Geneva. When I visit crisis countries, as I did in Haiti, I often touch base with the US representative there as well, so I saw Henry Wooster a couple of days ago in Haiti. You know, so that's a load-bearing conversation, and there, you know, there's an important engagement there because, just as everywhere else, we need to listen.
The private sector is an interesting part of this. I did an event a couple of weeks ago in Geneva with the World Economic Forum, where we're looking at where the private sector can play more of a role. It's one of those never-ending conversations, and it's often something, you know, it will be in the notes somewhere that we say we need more support from the private sector. We've got to find ways to make that more practical. And I've always thought that, rather than us saying we have a plan, it costs this much, give us some money, we should be saying, here are some massive challenges we have to crack - can we solve them together? Where is it in your interest to help us crack these problems? And I find that opens up a more practical conversation with the private sector. And it's a conversation I have indeed been having with the Americans about: how do we ensure that we bring them into the conversation to a greater extent?
Q: Thank you so much for the briefing, Mr. Fletcher. Jessica Le Masurier from France 24. Continuing on the private sector, have you or will you meet with Johnnie Moore or anybody else from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? If you've met already, what did you discuss? Would you consider partnering with them in any way? If you've not met with them, why not? What are your concerns?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: It is one of the aspects of my job here that we meet everyone - it's the nature of the job. And you know, there have been well-publicized contact with the GHF. As I said in answer to one of the earlier questions, we have no intention of working through their mechanism, but we do have an interest in promoting this conversation about the importance of neutral, independent humanitarian aid delivery. And that's a point we make to everyone, including them.
Q: So you met in person with Johnnie Moore, did you?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: This was an in-person meeting, yes. It has been quite well covered in the last few weeks. The New Humanitarian have got most of the detail.
Q: Would there be any partnership?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So, as I say, we're not putting UN impartial aid through, through the mechanism. There was a conversation about the conditions on the ground and how can we overcome the challenges that we described, the obstacles that we face on the ground, and we restated, as we do in all of these conversations, our commitment to the way in which we deliver aid and the fact that we can do this at scale. We know how to do this. As I say, we were getting in 500, 600 trucks a day during the ceasefire, and we've now faced deliberate obstacles to that work. And we want everyone to hear what those obstacles are. We want them addressed.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, my name is Sinan Tuncdemir from Rudaw Media Network. On Syria, you just said looking to see how we can use the visit of the President of Syria and his team. So I wonder, if you are going to meet him, what will be your message to him? I mean, the reason I'm asking that, how satisfied are you with the transitional government when it comes to delivering the humanitarian aid and cooperating with them, especially, for example, we see what's happening there? I mean, since they've been in charge, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed, and we see thousands of displacements. And what's your and how satisfied are you? And I have a second question, if you don't mind, do you or your team has any specific plan for Afrin city, which is the northwest Syria, since the Turkish military operation, more close to the 100,000 people displaced, and now the families are trying to go back to their homes, but they can't find their home because there are settlers, even they can't find their olive trees. And do you have any specific plan for Afrin city? Thank you very much.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So we want access everywhere in Syria, as elsewhere. We don't want any impediments on where we can work, and our teams on the ground are regularly going out and doing recce visits to see what the needs are and where we can best help. So we're constantly adjusting the plan to make sure we're reaching people who most need our help. I think, you know, on the Syrian President's visit, I think it will probably be one of the most visible parts of High-Level Week, alongside a couple of other fairly high-profile visits.
I think, from the humanitarian perspective, we share with the Syrian authorities, this desire to move from being dependent on humanitarian support to that more resilient development model. We have an interest, and we share that with the Syrian authorities, in the humanitarian part of the system not needing to be in Syria. Here, in fact, everywhere, I want to put us out of business, ideally. We shouldn't be putting down deep roots. And there, we've had very encouraging conversations with them along the way, including when I visited back in December, and it's a practical conversation. You know, we're getting the checkpoints open, getting the border crossings open, ensuring that we have access wherever we need to go. And I'm sure I'll continue that when I see them next week.
Q: [inaudible]
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So certainly, as Steph said earlier on, the SG is certainly meeting with the President. I haven't yet seen whether I'm on the dance card for that thing, but I certainly will be getting together with the Foreign Minister, and then expect in some way to be encountering the President as well.
Q: Mr. Fletcher, Dezhi Zhu with China Central Television. Very quick question: you just mentioned that humanitarian workers are under attack. It's not physically - they are also being criticized. For example, in Gaza, the humanitarian operation, as well as you yourself, has been attacked by Israeli authority. Do you consider this a scapegoat for the Israeli authority, who's responsible for the humanitarian situation in Gaza? Or do you think it is systematic stigmatization of the humanitarian workers, and what is the danger of that? Thank you.
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: So it's my job to speak out and say what we see, particularly because you can't get in to witness and report on that yourselves. When you do it, you expect to get a certain amount of lively reaction - and I've experienced that.
But it's not about me. I mean, being criticized in a Security Council statement, or, you know, sort of press conference here is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza are experiencing, or indeed, so many of the other millions of people that we're here to serve are experiencing. So I think there's a completely different scale to that, and we just have to keep focused on saving lives and being honest about what we see.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, apropos of delivery of aid in Gaza, you said it's part of your business to meet with all sides. You met with GHF, et cetera. How satisfied are you with, I mean, there is a war going on. How satisfied are you with Hamas' behavior in terms of allowing and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid? I mean, after all, the United States and Israel both say that there's looting and they have been embedded with civilians and taking food. What are your thoughts?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: We are facing massive amounts of looting of our convoys, but we assess that most of that is coming from desperate civilians, absolutely starving, trying to feed their families, or from some of the armed gangs that operate, you know, with seeming impunity around those areas that we then have to drive through on those very pre-scripted routes that we're given to drive along.
Our assessment is that Hamas are broadly staying out of the way of the aid distribution, which we do through community networks and so on. We haven't hit major obstacles from them.
But, of course, they've got to release the hostages. That is an obstacle, clearly. And we need some sort of transition to a better system for running Gaza as a whole.
So they haven't been a major impediment to what we're doing. Can I guarantee that every grain of rice that gets looted from our lorries doesn't end up on the market in some way or doesn't get stolen by Hamas? No, it's impossible in those chaotic conditions to guarantee that, but we feel very confident that we have a system that ensures the majority does get to civilians if we're allowed to operate.
If we could flood Gaza with hundreds of trucks a day, the looting would go away, the prices in the markets would come down. So we know we can do that, and we can do that even in these incredibly difficult conditions that exist.
Q: Have you met with Hamas?
Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: I mean, we meet with absolutely everyone, as I say all the time, in every environment that we work in.
Thank you.
Posted on 15 September 2025
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
