Humanitarian crisis deepening amid global conflicts, says ICRC president

ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric. Keystone / Salvatore Di Nolfi

Humanitarian aid is in crisis as funding falls, support wanes and respect for international humanitarian law erodes. ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric explains why protecting civilians in Gaza or Ukraine hinges on political will, and why autonomous weapon systems should be banned.

SRF: During the UN General Assembly High-Level Week in New York in September, you were heavily involved in promoting international humanitarian law and humanitarian aid. Are heads of state and government aware of how many issues are in disarray in this area?

Mirjana Spoljaric: They are certainly aware of the situation. The question is what effect this awareness will have. We need to take it a step further and move towards action.

As soon as we start talking about international humanitarian law, it becomes clear that countries need to adapt their military strategies so the situation on the ground improves. That’s when dialogue becomes difficult, because it’s highly political. Empathy and solidarity have a hard time gaining traction.

SRF: Do certain key parties to conflicts – such as in Ukraine or Gaza – not care about principles like the protection of the civilian population?

M.S.: Every government representative knows just how dire the situation is in Gaza. What is lacking is the political will to actually improve the situation.

Food aid is not enough. What is needed are machines or dual-use goods, but it is forbidden to import them. Pressure must be put on influential states like the US and Israel to lift such sanctions.

What are dual-use goods?

Dual-use goods are products that were originally developed for everyday civilian use or for industry, but which could theoretically also be misused for military purposes, such as the manufacture of weapons or surveillance systems.

Because these goods can pose a security risk, they are subject to strict government checks. Anyone wishing to export them abroad requires official authorisation to do so.

SRF: Do the governments of influential countries still support the Geneva Conventions?

M.S.: Our global initiative to promote international humanitarian law is supported by 118 states. At a summit in Jordan in December, international humanitarian law will be made a political priority. Several heads of state have confirmed that they will travel to Jordan.

SRF: Where do you see the most serious breaches of international humanitarian law?

M.S.: The all-too-flexible interpretation – let’s call it that – of international humanitarian law and wanton destruction are rife. We are witnessing this today in all conflicts.

Millions of people are being displaced and tens of thousands killed, very often as a consequence of violations of international humanitarian law.

SRF: Developments in weapons systems also contravene the Geneva Conventions and we are seeing the resurgence of nuclear weapons and new autonomous weapons systems. What can be done about this?

M.S.: UN Secretary-General António Guterres and I recently reaffirmed our demand to curb autonomous weapon systems. Weapon systems that decide on life and death without human command must be banned.

A growing number of states are seriously concerned about what the future of warfare will look like if artificial intelligence is given free rein.

SRF: We are moving towards a world in which the principle of “law before power” no longer applies, but rather “power before law” in other words, the law of the strongest. What are the consequences for humanitarian aid?

M.S.: The principle of “might before right” undermines economic development, investment in human capital and social progress.

Only within a rules-based legal order can children attend school without fear, young people pursue education or vocational training with confidence, and adults find work that provides a decent living. All of this depends on the rule of law prevailing.

Translated from German, sub-edited by Simon Bradley/ac