The Rohingya crisis is not merely a regional problem. It is a test of our collective humanity. It challenges the international community’s commitment to justice, human dignity, and the principle that no people should be condemned to statelessness, displacement, and uncertainty indefinitely.

I acknowledge the remarkable role played by Bangladesh. Despite its own developmental challenges and demographic pressures, Bangladesh has opened its doors to more than a million Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution and violence. Such a commitment cannot be explained solely by political calculations or strategic interests. It reflects a profound humanitarian consciousness and a moral responsibility toward vulnerable human beings.

History will remember Bangladesh not only as a host country but also as a nation that refused to turn its back on a persecuted people when much of the world was content to express sympathy from a distance.

As a Turkish academic and public intellectual, I cannot discuss the Rohingya issue without recalling Türkiye’s own experience with large-scale refugee movements. Over the past decade and a half, Türkiye has hosted millions of displaced people, particularly those fleeing the devastating civil war in Syria. At various times, Türkiye became home to nearly four million Syrian refugees, making it the largest refugee-hosting country in the world.

Like Bangladesh today, Türkiye faced enormous economic, social, and political pressures. Yet it adopted an approach based on the conviction that human lives must take precedence over political convenience. Millions of Syrians found safety, education, healthcare, and opportunities to rebuild their lives.

Of course, no refugee-hosting experience is free from challenges. Questions of social integration, economic burden, public opinion, and security inevitably arise. Türkiye has experienced all of these debates. Bangladesh has experienced them as well. Nevertheless, both countries have demonstrated that humanitarian responsibility is not merely a slogan but a practical commitment requiring sacrifice and perseverance.

There is another important similarity between the Syrian and Rohingya cases. In both situations, humanitarian assistance alone cannot provide a permanent solution. Refugees do not wish to remain refugees forever. Humanitarian aid may alleviate suffering, but it cannot replace dignity, citizenship, security, and belonging.

This brings us to the central question of today’s discussion: Is repatriation a distant dream? Repatriation should never become a forgotten dream. Yet neither should it become an unrealistic slogan disconnected from realities on the ground.

Experience from Syria offers valuable lessons. The return of refugees can only be sustainable when certain fundamental conditions are met: security, legal guarantees, protection from persecution, restoration of rights, access to livelihoods, and confidence in the future. Without these conditions, repatriation risks becoming temporary, unstable, or even dangerous. The same principle applies to the Rohingya people.

Repatriation cannot simply mean crossing a border. It must mean returning home as equal human beings with recognized rights and dignity. Any discussion of return that ignores citizenship, legal status, security guarantees, and protection from discrimination will fail to address the root causes of displacement.

The international community therefore bears a responsibility that extends far beyond humanitarian funding. While humanitarian assistance remains indispensable, it cannot substitute for political action. The world must maintain diplomatic pressure and pursue meaningful engagement aimed at creating conditions under which voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable repatriation becomes possible.

At the same time, regional actors have a crucial role to play. No single country can solve the Rohingya crisis alone. Effective cooperation among Bangladesh, ASEAN members, Türkiye, Muslim-majority countries, international organizations, and major global powers is essential.

Türkiye has consistently supported humanitarian efforts for the Rohingya people through governmental institutions, civil society organizations, and international diplomacy. The Turkish people have felt a strong sense of solidarity with the Rohingya because they recognize their suffering as part of a broader human struggle against injustice and exclusion.

However, solidarity must now evolve into a more comprehensive international strategy. We need stronger diplomatic initiatives, greater burden-sharing, increased support for host communities, and sustained efforts to keep the Rohingya issue on the global agenda.

One of the greatest dangers today is not only displacement itself but the normalization of displacement. The longer a refugee crisis continues, the greater the risk that the world gradually accepts it as permanent. We have seen this happen in many regions. Refugee camps become semi-permanent settlements. Emergency measures become routine. International attention shifts elsewhere. We must resist that tendency.

The Rohingya people should not become another forgotten population trapped between memory and neglect. Their plight should continue to remind us that international justice remains incomplete whenever an entire community is denied its basic rights.

Bangladesh’s example demonstrates that moral leadership does not depend on economic power alone. Türkiye’s experience similarly shows that humanitarian responsibility can shape national and international identity. Both countries, in different ways, have illustrated that compassion and solidarity are not signs of weakness but expressions of civilizational strength.

As we reflect on possible pathways forward, we should remember that lasting solutions require more than political agreements. They require trust, accountability, reconciliation, and a commitment to human dignity. They require seeing refugees not as burdens but as human beings whose aspirations are no different from our own: safety, family, education, work, and a future for their children.

The question before us is not merely whether repatriation is a distant dream. The deeper question is whether the international community possesses the moral imagination and political will necessary to transform that dream into reality.

Bangladesh has demonstrated remarkable humanitarian leadership. Türkiye has sought to do the same in its own context. Together, these experiences remind us that compassion must be matched by commitment, and commitment must ultimately be translated into justice. Only then can repatriation cease to be a distant dream and become a realistic path toward peace, dignity, and hope.