Here is what I have learned:
First, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 must not be shelved; they must be applied. These are bedrock principles that protect human life, regardless of nationality, race, or religion. Every society agrees to these norms because they affirm that some rights are inherent to human existence, and they remind us that every human being is entitled to dignity and protection, even in times of war.
My second lesson is:
The concept of the political according to Carl Schmitt – the reduction of political strategy and action to the distinction between friend and foe – is evidently en vogue. But I profoundly disagree with this approach to politics.
If governments want to bring their economies and political stability back on track, it is not enough to call out the enemy. State leaders must pressure their allies, influence their friends, to change their actions, wherever necessary, in respect for key international agreements.
Leadership requires courage. Leadership is about taking the harder path: calling for restraint, for dialogue, for respect for the rules that govern war and peace.
And finally, my third lesson: there are a hundred steps to peace, but the first are humanitarian.
Frontline humanitarian action can stabilise tensions in communities. When international humanitarian law is respected, lives are saved, hospitals and schools remain open, markets can function; or prisoners of war are exchanged. Where the full collapse of public administration and the provision of essential services are prevented, the cost of war is reduced, and reconciliation becomes easier.
As an internationally recognised neutral intermediary, the ICRC is often called upon to implement the initial components of a cease fire agreement. This creates and maintains channels of communication between warring parties.
Around the world, many of my colleagues in dangerous situations are speaking to fighters to obtain access for life-saving relief, to evacuate the wounded, to facilitate the release of hostages and detainees, or to bring news to families separated from their loved ones.
None of this would be possible without our neutrality.
This is often the most misunderstood principle of the ICRC. But without it we could not work. By staying neutral, we can help people based on need, not what side of the frontline they are on. It means, we can speak to those in power – on all sides – to influence how wars are being fought.
This also means withstanding pressure and often fierce criticism that our neutrality makes us complicit. There are many times when it would have been easier for the ICRC to bend to the pressure and pick a side. But if we lose our neutrality, we lose our ability to operate.
It means we cannot visit prisoners of war on both sides. It means we cannot evacuate civilians across frontlines. It means we cannot help people be released and return home.
States will never be completely neutral because their primary role is to protect their territory and people. Yet, the same states need neutral actors to support them in preparing the ground for peace.
This brings me to the theme of this conference: leader or dreamer.
While upholding International Humanitarian Law always remains the primary responsibility of states, we as the ICRC are tasked with translating the principles of the Geneva Conventions into tangible actions. Our delegates, engineers, accountants, drivers, and lawyers, all follow the same truth – that all human life, no matter what side you are on, is equally deserving of protection.
In the complexity and horror of war, it is first and foremost our values as an organisation that guide how we work at every level, from the decisions our delegates make on the ground on how to deliver aid, to how we allocate our funds efficiently to drive impact based on meeting people’s needs.
Speaking to you as future leaders about what it means to lead with moral clarity and courage, I would like to say the following: leadership demands more than the ability to make decisions – it demands the courage to make the right decisions, even when they are neither easy nor popular.
In my case it is about acknowledging that the world is complex, that the issues we face are multifaceted, and that the path to peace requires cooperation, compromise, and above all, a commitment to preserving humanity as a common good.
At the same time, as the president of an institution that employs close to 20ʼ000 staff across the globe, I can never ignore the realities and constraints facing my organisation. Over the last two years, the ICRC was forced to cut several thousand positions. This is a number I am neither proud to emphasise nor to remember. But the restructuring underpinning these drastic measures was necessary to sustain our operational backbone; to protect our mission and mandate in times of acute financial pressures.
However, I don’t yet see much light at the end of the tunnel. Pressures and attacks against the international humanitarian system continue to be on the rise, in Europe as well as in the US. Countries that have traditionally and historically been a creators and steadfast supporters of international assistance.
If governments are compelled to pay less for humanitarian action, they need to do more to stop wars. I said earlier that the ICRC registers over 120 armed conflicts. At least three times more than 30 years ago. World leaders have to urgently stop this downward trajectory.
There is a way forward, there is a key to this. It begins with a renewed commitment to the principles that have guided us for 75 years. The Geneva Conventions remain as relevant today as they were when they were first adopted. But they can only be effective if they are respected and implemented by all parties to a conflict.
The ICRC, together with Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa, have recently launched a global initiative to reinvigorate political commitment to international humanitarian law. This initiative was designed to cut across traditional silos, to embrace a new mulilateral reality, and create a platform where states can contribute to revitalizing respect for these fundamental and lifesaving rules.
This initiative is an exceptional effort because the current situation demands it.
Future wars will be fought based on the standards set by conflicts today, and we cannot afford the bar to be lowered any further.
Over the next two years, we will tackle some of the most pressing challenges facing international humanitarian law. This will be developed through a number of work streams. This comprehensive work conducted by legal and military experts will culminate in a global meeting in late 2026 to reassert our shared commitment to international humanitarian law.
I presented this initiative earlier this week to all members of the UN General Assembly. I left encouraged that states from all regions of the globe expressed their support for it – more proof that multilateralism is not dead. The world may look different than it did in the past, but the need for cooperation remains as vital as ever.
Not everyone leads a humanitarian organisation. The graduates among you will leave this honorable academic institution in the pursuit of professional development in many different fields and sectors. I have myself worked in diverse areas and different organisations. Through this experience it has become my conviction that, no matter the path you take, it is always worth putting humanity at the center.
We acknowledge Source link for the information.
