What counts as global health? There has been limited discourse to date on the ways in which country-level contexts may shape positioning in global health agendas. By reviewing Japan’s response to the Refugee Crisis, we demonstrate a clash between rhetoric and action on global responsibility, and suggest that cultural and historical factors may be related to the ways of perceiving and acting upon global health.

About 930, 000 Rohingya people were migrated in the Cox’ s Bazar district of Bangladesh following the ethnic cleansing violence in the Rakhine State of Myanmar. They built their camps by clearing the natural forests and social forestry plantations which was one of the important natural habitat and corridor of critically endangered wild Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in Bangladesh. The Rohingya people extensively collected timber and fuelwood for construction and cooking from the forests and destroyed nearly 2, 000 hectares of forest land. As a result, in search of food and route for natural movement, E. maximus entered into the camps, destroyed the settlements and a severe human-elephant conflicts arose resulted in 13 Refugees were killed and nearly 50 people were injured. Studies revealed that there are 48 E. maximus is roaming around the camps, and all most all the incidents occurred during the dawn time where male and children were the main victims. Government, aid agencies and NGOs are operating in the field to take on the state of affairs. They commenced to enhance consciousness, setting up 56 watchtowers and 30 volunteer elephant response teams to warn residents when elephants enter the camp. Reduction in demand of fuelwood through supplementing the alternative fuel, reforestation with native and fruit-bearing tree species, agroforestry practices, plantation of elephant preferred fodder species, ensure safe transboundary corridors, and non-forestry incomegenerating activities can reduce and mitigate the Rohingya and. E. maximus conflicts.

Forced migration has become a world-wide phenomenon in the past century, affecting increasing numbers of countries and people. It entails important challenges from a global health perspective. Leppold et al have critically discussed the Japanese interpretation of global responsibility for health in the context of forced migration. This commentary complements their analysis by outlining three priority areas of global health responsibility for European Union (EU) countries. We highlight important stages of the migration phases related to forced migration and propose three arguments. First, the chronic neglect of the large number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the discourses on the "Refugee Crisis" needs to be corrected in order to develop sustainable solutions with a framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Second, protection gaps in the global system of protection need to be effectively closed to resolve conflicts with border management and normative global health frameworks. Third, effective policies need to be developed and implemented to meet the health and humanitarian needs of forced migrants; at the same time, the solidarity Crisis within the EU needs to be overcome. These stakes are high. EU countries, being committed to global health, should urgently address these areas.