As delivered - provisional transcript
Mr Chairman, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. First of all I wish to express the ICRC’s deepest sympathy to all persons affected by the terrible natural disasters in China and Myanmar. I thank Dr John Chipman and the government of Singapore for the opportunity to address this forum on the subject of responding to humanitarian emergencies. My observations will be related to humanitarian emergencies created both by natural disasters and by armed conflict. I am fully aware that it is the consequences of natural disasters that are your chief concern as present.
On the whole, government agencies or organisations like the ICRC all face similar challenges when they respond to an emergency caused by a natural disaster. Except for droughts, natural disasters often occur unexpectedly, and the first hours and days are crucial in saving lives and preventing the spread of epidemics. To minimise the human suffering caused by disaster two things are needed, an assessment of the specific needs of the population, and the scale of those needs, and the ability to deliver the required assistance rapidly and efficiently. The main challenge is therefore to become operational as quickly as possible. Capacity for rapid deployment depends on the availability of the proper professional human resources, as well as efficient and flexible logistics. Governments and organisations can prepare themselves to some extent, by developing their capacities in both areas. Knowledge of the area, the activation of existing contacts, the ability to build local capacities and skills are all assets.
Governments bear the main responsibility for responding to the needs of their people. In certain cases, because of the scale of the disaster, a variety of other actors might be able or ready to intervene; such opportunities should not be disregarded. When the needs of a population exceed the national capacity to respond, government should take advantage of the help offered by international actors. When they are reluctant or tardy in accepting assistance on the grounds that they are preserving their sovereignty and want no interference in their domestic affairs, the result may well be many preventable deaths among their people. The attitude of the authorities in countries effected by humanitarian emergencies is therefore crucial. However, besides being an opportunity, the presence of different actors creates a challenge in terms of coordination. To be effective, coordination must be action oriented, and reality based. To be clear, in situations of emergency it is not about coordination of dreams and ambitions, but existing and available capacities on the ground. Coordination has to be built on available human resources, professional capacities and logistical means. I have no doubt at all that an organisation’s reputation in the field is determined by its operational capacities, including rapid deployment. Actions speak louder than words. Humanitarians, like others, have to deliver on their promises.
Armed conflicts may flare up unexpectedly, as in Lebanon during the summer of 2006. In such cases, rapid deployment capacities and the related challenges I have mentioned are relevant. In many cases, there are warning signs, which allow those willing to respond to humanitarian needs to make preparations in advance. Many current conflicts are chronic. The main challenge in responding to humanitarian emergencies created by an armed conflict is gaining access to those in need of protection and assistance. Dialogue with all the parties to the conflict is essential for having such access. Without dialogue there can be no guarantee of acceptance for either the humanitarian assistance or for those providing it.
Obviously, those willing to respond to the needs created by natural disasters occurring in a conflict area faced all the challenges mentioned before. The situation is compounded by the fact that usually the authorities have been weakened by the conflict, as have the public services they deliver, and their capacity to respond to an emergency is proportionally diminished. The ICRC is an impartial, neutral and independent organisation, whose exclusive humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence, and to assist them.
War is the predominant environment that we work in, and in this context the ICRC is probably the largest humanitarian actor worldwide, with more than 12k permanent staff in the field. The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law. Its activities stem from the mandate entrusted to it by the international community, first of all through the Geneva Conventions, which are now ratified by every country in the world. We maintain a presence and are active in 80 countries, there are about 230 delegations and offices. As a result of this, the organisation has expert knowledge of many widely different situations. Today, it’s larger scale operations are in Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Israel, and the occupied territories.
The ICRC is also committed to responding to the needs of people affected by natural disasters when they occur in places where it is already operational. Knowledge of the area, appropriate human resources and logistical capacity when they are already in place, are crucial in assessing needs in a specific situation, and responding to them effectively and rapidly. I think that we gave convincing proof of our capacity in this regard after the earthquake in South Asia, in October 2006 in the district of Musafarabad in Pakistan administered Kashmir. This operation also demonstrated the importance of well coordinated and complimentary action, in this case involving the ICRC and the Pakistan armed forces, the main actor in the effected area.
Another instance of the ICRC’s intervention in natural disasters was the work done by the organisation after the tsunami of 2004. Some of the stricken areas were affected by ongoing armed conflicts or other situations of violence. The support provided by the Singapore government and military was rapid and constructive, and allowed us to establish a professional logistical base in Singapore for our flight operations, in order to organise the delivery of aid. In the natural disaster caused by cyclone Nargis, the ICRC is supporting the international federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and the Myanmar Red Cross society.
Humanitarian response can be provided by a variety of actors. Their methods vary, and there are times when one form of action is more effective than another, but there should be no confusion between the different actors and their distinctive roles. ICRC’s neutral and independent humanitarian action is always based on dialogue with the concerned parties, and acceptance by them. Its aim is to provide an effective response that will benefit all victims of armed conflicts, and all violent situations.
The organisation is fully aware that acceptance has to be earned, and can easily be lost, but it is equally convinced that in situations do armed conflict or in sensitive political environments, its neutrality and independence do facilitate access to people in need, and to the proper authorities. Demonstrating the relevance of this particular approach to humanitarian action is a daily challenge for the ICRC. Our operations in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Sri Lanka, to mention just a few, are convincing examples of the enduring value of neutral and independent humanitarian action.
The main task of military forces is to ensure the security of their country. However, they often have a wealth of human resources and logistical capabilities, and experience has shown that their life saving work in their own countries or in other countries during large-scale natural disasters is irreplaceable. It must be welcomed and encouraged. When a humanitarian emergency occurs in an area of conflict, or in the sensitive political context, the situation changes. Armed forces are direct participants in the conflict, or can be perceived as part of a wider political agenda. In analysing their function from a humanitarian perspective I will mention three points. First, in situations where international humanitarian law is applicable, armed forces have the obligation to provide humanitarian assistance to populations under their control, the responsibility that governments have at all times. Second, securing an area is the primary role of any military force, and might have a clear humanitarian dimension, depending on the situation. Indeed, one can only applaud if the civilian population is spared the effects of the fighting, because of improvements in the security situation. An improved security situation will also facilitate the delivery of public services and humanitarian assistance. Third, when military forces deliver themselves humanitarian assistance, they acquire a more ambiguous role, and it is likely to create conflict with the actors engaged in the purely humanitarian mission, and creates doubts on the independent and neutral action. If no actor other than the military were able to respond to people’s needs, because of the prevailing security situation, lifesaving humanitarian activities carried out by the military can only be welcome. On the other hand, in my view, military forces should avoid engaging in humanitarian activities, if humanitarian actors are able to do the job. It is, in any case, up to them to prove they are in a better position to do so than humanitarian actors.
In a complex security environment, effective and timely humanitarian assistance can be delivered only if states, their military forces in particular, and humanitarian actors engage in substantive dialogues while being aware of, and respecting, each other's mandates, principles and modus operandi. Even the context in which the ICRC is working, and its mandate, it is normal that the ICRC is in regular dialogue with military forces all over the world. Afghanistan is a good example of the relationship between the ICRC and military actors. The organisation did not participate in civil military initiatives, such as the provincial reconstruction teams, but it is fully committed to discussing a wide range of issues of humanitarian concerns, such as operating procedures for handling detainees of the conduct of hostilities. We see Afghan authorities with US forces, or with commanders from the international security assistance force. This, and other aspects of our dialogue, are indicative of a quality of relationship that is something of a model in civil military relations, although rather unique. What is important is that such relations have not detracted from the ICRC’s ability to maintain its neutrality and independence in Afghanistan, neither has it undermined its ability to develop a dialogue with other armed actors in that context.
There are other examples of the ICRC’s coordination efforts in Asia. The ICRC seeks to interact with regional organisations such the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. In order to build a complimentary relationship our organisation aims to establish or intensify its dialogue with the political and military authorities that formulate policies for responding to emergencies. In this context the ICRC’s contribution to the drafting of standard operational procedures in regional mechanisms, such as the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management, or its dialogue with the ASEAN Emergency Rapid Assessment Team, recently dispatched in Myanmar should be noted. As it is the objective of such mechanisms to strengthen the regional response to emergencies, the ICRC is ready to enter into a wider dialogue and cooperation, including the subject of the use of neutralised military assets for humanitarian operations. Thank you.
