Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:05]
Imogen
The Swiss Connection Science Podcast is back
- [00:07]
Imogen (Host)
with brand new stories.
- [00:09]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
They're all connected by one overarching the
- [00:12]
Imogen (Host)
climate challenges we face today and the smart solutions that can help us tackle them.
- [00:17]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
This season, we're diving into the depths
- [00:20]
Imogen
of Swiss lakes, where invasive mussels are
- [00:22]
Imogen (Host)
threatening the delicate indigenous ecosystem. We'll also travel to the Arctic to discover how ancient ice can reveal vital clues for pioneering climate research.
- [00:33]
Imogen
And we'll explore the critical world of
- [00:35]
Imogen (Host)
the semiconductor industry, looking at its global
- [00:38]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
importance and Switzerland's potential role within it.
- [00:41]
Imogen (Host)
All this and more is coming soon
- [00:43]
Imogen
in the new season of the Swiss Connection Science Podcast.
- [00:52]
Imogen (Host)
Swissinfo podcasts. This is Inside Geneva from swissinfo and I'm Imogen. Folks, in today's programme, we head to Geneva's Graduate Institute for a debate on a very topical Is there any point spending money on foreign aid?
- [01:17]
Gilles Carbonnier
What's the point of mobilizing taxpayer money and sending it to faraway countries to assist vulnerable people? And how do you sell that to your own taxpayers?
- [01:29]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
There is a lot of duplication and there is a lot of also financial waste in the system that needs to be cut down. But really the primary question must be what do the people need?
- [01:39]
Imogen
A lot of people don't understand what foreign aid is needed for, where it goes, how it works. They kind of look at their own situation and say, well, maybe economically I'm not doing well.
- [01:50]
Chris Locke
If a child is in pain in Khartoum, that's exactly the same as a child being in pain in New York or London. If a mother is grieving in Gaza, that's exactly the same as a mother grieving in Geneva.
- [02:02]
Gilles Carbonnier
What defines us is humanity, and humanity mean we cannot stay idle when we see other suffering. We have to act and do something to try to protect them, to assist them and to prevent suffering, regardless of where this happen.
- [02:25]
Imogen (Host)
Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva.
- [02:28]
Imogen
Imogen.
- [02:28]
Imogen (Host)
I'm Imogen, folks. And today we've got a subject that is really close to the heart, I think, of Geneva. We know. I'm sure a lot of us hear that there's a lot of soul searching going on in Geneva in the last year or so about how this city's focus, which is often humanitarian work, how that can continue. So our controversial topic today is what's the point of foreign aid? I'm going to bring you just a couple of statistics to think about before we start our discussion. The UN estimates that 239 million people on the planet need some form of humanitarian aid this year. It's aiming to help 87 million of them, which is around about a third. So what happens to the other two thirds? Some people have said, well, it'll help the aid agencies become more efficient, stop them duplicating. Others have said, you're taking food from the mouths of the very, very hungry to feed the starving. So we're going to unpick some of that. We might also look at the fact that I was listening to an interview I did with the UN Human Rights Commissioner two years ago, who said there were an estimated, I think, 50 conflicts around the world. Now there are more than 100. The number of people displaced around the world has doubled in the last 10 years. So some things are clearly going wrong. Is it humanitarian aid? Is it something else? That's what we're going to unpick as well. So without further ado, let me introduce our panel because I am really, really delighted to have such amazingly experienced people here to talk to you and to be on the podcast. So, Chris Locke here, former Secretary General of MSF until March of this year, now a fellow just next door at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Ambassador Djika Potzl, Ambassador to the UN in Geneva from the European Union. Some of you may have seen, just yesterday the EU issued a new statement on its view of humanitarian aid and how to go forward. Here we have your own Jacqueline Lee, graduate student here at the Graduate Institute with specialties in international development. And Gilles Carbonnier, for many years until March, vice President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and now a professor here at the Graduate Institute. So to begin, one short answer from each of you. What is the point of foreign aid? Ambassador, I will start with you.
- [05:08]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
Thank you so much and thanks for having me. Lovely to be here. So, to me, this is first, and to the eu, this is first and foremost about humanity, and it is about dignity of people in need. And it is about caring for the dignity of those who need our help and our support, and also to those who risk their life to actually provide for people. And I would like to give a big shout out right at the beginning to all humanitarians, particularly those in the field, of course, who are really doing an excellent job. Now, helping people in need has a long history, and it also leads to me to more peace and security in the world. It leads to a more stable and a more peaceful global environment. And this is in all our interest. And hence, the EU is still so much invested in helping people. And let me finish by saying that 91% of European citizens, according to the last survey, support humanitarian assistance worldwide. And I think that is a wonderful statistics to share.
- [06:12]
Imogen (Host)
That is very heartening given sometimes, you know, reading the newspapers, you might think opinions were very different on that topic. Chris, I'm going to to you next, Dyke has said contributing to peace and security. Would you go along with that?
- [06:23]
Chris Locke
Well, I would agree with 90% of what you said. In fact, you've already stolen one of my statistics, so I'm going to have to think through that one as we talk. And I agreed very much with what you said in terms of caring for people and dignity. Where I have a slightly different view is that I think as soon as there is even a subtle element of self interest or transactional component to it, whether that is peace and security at the most, let's say positive end of the scale, or it's good for market development, it's good for our own economy at the more negative end of the scale. I think you're almost always going to fall into the trap of somebody saying I can do it cheaper, I can do it better and we get into this efficiency paradox. You also said it's not a new idea and I agree very fundamentally with that. Every major world religion has caring for the other somebody else. Marcus Aurelius said it, to care for all human beings is part of being human. And I think what the point of foreign aid is is the institutional, organizational expression of that will to care for people, to understand that, you know, if a child is in pain in Khartoum, that's exactly the same as a child being in pain in New York or London. If a mother is grieving in Gaza, that's exactly the same as a mother grieving in Geneva. Even if we don't all share the same values, we share the same emotions and we share the same response and need to care for other people. And I think foreign aid is the expression of that solidarity and that care shield.
- [07:51]
Gilles Carbonnier
Well, Imogen, I think it's a great question. What's the point of mobilizing taxpayer money and sending it to faraway countries to assist vulnerable people? And how do you sell that to your own taxpayers? It's a question of value, question of responsibility and self interest value. Because what defines us is humanity and humanity means we cannot stay idle when we see others suffering. We have to act and do something to try to protect them, to assist and to prevent suffering. Regardless of where this happened, states have taken commitments under international law, under UN declarations to contribute to international cooperation and to contribute to ODA with this long rehearsed 0.7% of GDP as a target and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. And the final one is self interest because if you just see one barometer, which is very interesting, which is published every year at Davos by the World Economic Forum, you have what are the big risks out there in the short run? Conflict, violence. But when the, you know, leaders are asked what are the biggies in 10 years from now, it's all about global public goods, climate change, biodiversity conservation, nature loss and pollution and so forth. And it's the best interest of all of us, taxpayers in rich countries and others to contribute to protecting global public goods through international foreign aid and to prevent global public beds from happening. So three excellent reasons which to me makes it a no brainer.
- [09:33]
Imogen (Host)
Jacqueline, when you look around from the younger generation and you see more conflict, more people in need, do you think it's a no brainer or do you think maybe there's no point?
- [09:44]
Imogen
I think it's a very important question. And foreign aid is meant to come in and protect in cases of disruption, and that's pivotal. In most cases it's necessary for stability. And it's important that foreign aid is maintained going forward. I don't look at it as an issue of non importance. It's something that we should all, I think, continue to focus on in finance.
- [10:09]
Imogen (Host)
Well, finance is a key question because that seems to be thin on the ground. But you've all made really good points of. It's about humanity actually helping other people. As you say, Chris has been part of humanity for millennia. But if we look at the last decades, we had the Millennium Development Goals, we had the Sustainable Development Goals, we are actually going backwards. Child mortality is going to rise for the first time this year in many, many years. Some people just say, well, that's a really sad indictment of the way the world is. There's nothing we can do. Others might say all of these aid agencies, something they're doing is not right. So could we be even here in Geneva be brave and look that hard in the face? Are there things that the humanitarian community has been doing that aren't right? I'm going to come to the two hardened aid workers. First Chris and then Gilles.
- [11:08]
Chris Locke
Yeah, of course there are things that aren't right, things that can be improved. And we can talk about efficiency, we can talk about effectiveness, but there's a more fundamental question. Imogen, you mentioned the rate of conflicts in the world that we have at the moment. There's different figures. I have a figure here of 61 state based armed conflicts, which is the highest since records began in 1945. So there is an important question about how we do aid more effectively. But there's a bigger upstream question, and that's about political will, political mediation, conflict resolution, the prevention of conflicts. Because as soon as we start to tie humanitarian assistance to the ending of conflicts, as a humanitarian, we don't need the conflicts to end to be able to do the work, we should be able to care for people whether there are conflicts or not. And the 2.4 trillion spent on militaries globally in 2023 at the same time. So this is before the US aid crash. 32 billion on humanitarian aid, but only 300 million on peace mediation, which is 0.01% of military spending. And so I think we need to be really careful in terms of what responsibility we put into aid work, the aid response and humanitarian organizations, when there is this absolute mismatch in terms of fueling of conflicts versus resolving of conflicts. Instead of solving conflicts, instead of bringing power behind the peace and mediation agenda, we're in effect, both financially and politically capitulating to that. And we're replacing language of peace and security with language of humanitarian access and negotiation. And I'm very worried that that's a global sort of step back from ending conflicts, from preventing wars. And unless we look at that bigger picture, it's not just the humanitarians that are suffering in this, but more fundamentally, the millions of people around the world who are needing assistance is increasing. And so I think it's all a really important question, but we need to look at the setting in which the humanitarian landscape fits. And that is also what's going backwards.
- [13:10]
Imogen (Host)
Can I bring you in there, Gilles? Because your previous organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross, I've talked to over years have said to me, we're just a sticking plaster on a wound. And the frustration that a situation like Yemen, for example, or Somalia goes on and on. So what do you think? Are humanitarians doing something wrong too? Or are they just being used in a situation that others aren't solving?
- [13:41]
Gilles Carbonnier
Well, you know, in an ideal world, we would love to have humanitarians and the ICRC leaving the Yemens of this world. We've been there for way too long. The fact of the matter is that no way, there is no development actors and solid state structure to take over provision of basic services to the population. There are still a lot of urgent needs that need to be met with humanitarian aid and often humanitarian aid. And we have to say it, it's humanitarian because it responds to needs that are not solvent. It wouldn't be commercially viable to say, well, the private sector and blended finance will do the trick, can help, but it's not. You need grants. I do agree with Chris and what you said, Imogen, that of course we can become more effective, slimmer, faster, more efficient. The icrc, we had twice to cut down our budget drastically, but there are limits. To give you an example, for instance, in Northern Ivory coast, suddenly we have our delegates, the field saying, hey, we have hundreds of thousands of people who do not receive any more the assistance they were receiving from other agencies who had cut down their activities. So please send us the necessary means and we tell them, sorry, we cannot substitute for others who have left. And you cannot assist those people who are refugees from Burkina Faso and elsewhere and who are in limbo. And that's happening way too often. And the result is hundreds of thousands of people, households being bereft of assistance from one day to the next. So there are limits to this question of just become more effective. The other thing is, I'm convinced that states, if they reduce some of the investment they were doing in humanitarian action, they have to step up their investment in peace mediation, peace promotion, but also in respecting international humanitarian law. Because if we would see less violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes on a daily basis, the needs would be much less than they are and the cost of recovery and rebuilding would be maintained at a lower level. And I am convinced that greater respect for international humanitarian law is also conducive to a potential stable, sustainable peace in the future. If not, you will have this cycle of revenge that will go on and fragile peace breaking down. So indeed, this is an investment that states and others have to do as a matter of priority. And I think that we have to put things, because in the case of the US, defence is about 15 times higher than ODA. In the EU, it's more four, five times higher for defence than for ODA. And I think that indeed we have to ask states to be effective in terms of public spending overall, rather than to say, oh, let's cut down ODA because they are ineffective, which I think should deserve greater scrutiny from scholars, from researchers, to question whether really foreign aid is less effective and more wasteful than many other public policies, where I think we could also improve a lot if the question is really budget constraints.
- [16:58]
Imogen (Host)
Daika, you have different views. Previously you've talked about greater efficiencies, duplication. So here I would like to hear from you, and I do think we all agree there could be improvement. Where would you see it?
- [17:13]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
I want to Start off with something important and positive in emergency settings. This humanitarian system is really delivering and I think we have to make that differentiation. What we have been looking at now in our conversation is more or what we had in mind is like the protected crisis. But when you talk earthquake in Turkey and Syria, when you talk tsunami, when you talk flooding in Pakistan, the system is there and it delivers quickly and then it is out as well. Very often now when we come to protracted crises, the situation is different. And here Chris stole my line because of course a lot of it boils down to political will and the respect or non respect in those cases for international law and international humanitarian law. Hence we also as the EU want to step up humanitarian diplomacy. We need to be more involved in trying to provide for access and what have you. But generally we need the peace actors there, we need also the development actors there. So the whole system needs to work better together. Now I'm very happy to see that the system is actually looking at it and they're really looking at how can we provide better. And that's the thing. How do we provide better for the people in need? How do we have more impact? How is more of each dollar actually ending up with the people in need? And this is not only about efficiency, it is really about the impact for the people. And one essential question I think that we all need to put first and foremost is what are the needs of the people? What do they want, what do they need? And then how can the system, and this is not only UN organizations, it's the NGOs, it's the INGOs, it's private stakeholders and bilateral states involvement. How do they jointly provide better for those people in need? So I think that is to me really crucial. And with the fair look at the system, there is a lot of duplication and there is a lot of also financial waste in the system that needs to be cut down. But really the primary question must be what do the people need? You know, sometimes the system brings in goods to places where they are a not anchored and where local markets can produce much better what people actually need, what they eat. And it would also help like the local economy for instance. It will actually provide much better for people. So we also need to strengthen the ownership of the countries and local actors. Countries where refugees are, where IDPs are, we need to strengthen them, we need to help them build capacity and we also need to strengthen local actors much more.
- [19:53]
Imogen (Host)
I'm going to come on to that localization question in a minute, but I want to ask You, Jacqueline, because we talked about where things might be going wrong, where there's room for improvement. When you talk to your friends, your family, do they actually think about foreign aid? Do they think it's worth it?
- [20:11]
Imogen
Yeah. Well, I think from my studies, I think it's a bit of a bubble here at the Graduate Institute. So we care about this issue, naturally, because of what we're studying. So for us, foreign aid is extremely valuable, and we understand a lot of the ways that it's spent and where it goes and how the system is managed. But I can't say that that's the same for everyone. I would say within my own household, with my friends, particularly as in my position in the United States, a lot of people don't understand what foreign aid is needed for, where it goes, how it works. They kind of look at their own situation and say, well, maybe economically, I'm not doing well, or my country, my neighbors aren't doing well, so why are we helping others in such a way? That's a hard bridge to cross with people who have such views, but I understand where they're coming from. Perhaps there's needed transparency or more awareness in foreign aid that could help them better understand the importance of it. We talked about spending earlier. It's not a large part of the budget, at least from the US Perspective. There's far more things that end up on the domestic budget than foreign aid, but it does make a difference. So some people, I believe, do understand it, but the vast majority of my friends and family aren't quite aware.
- [21:25]
Imogen (Host)
Okay, let's try and link those two things of financing, because obviously that is really, really shrinking for humanitarian work. And this issue of localization, it's, what, 10 years since the World Humanitarian Summit, where there's this huge emphasis on localization. But, you know, it's like 20 years since I started in Geneva. People have been talking about that for 20 years. So I'm not quite understanding what's gone wrong there. I mean, what do you think, Danica? Do you think the big agencies are just holding onto control too much, or is it trying to turn the Titanic round as it heads to the iceberg?
- [22:02]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
It's not only that, but it's also about the needs issue. People understand maybe better what people really need, and also they know better about local answers, because certain ways of dealing with things have a cultural root in that particular context, and it's sometimes ignored, one has to say, by people who come in from the outside. But the question was a different one. What went wrong? And, yes, there is resistance in the system. There is still too little capacity in local actors. Hence the capacity building is so important. There is also with donors kind of hesitation to provide directly to local actors. So now a lot of them still provide to the UN organizations and they are asked to then act as an intermediary and pass it on. So you lose a lot of money on the way already. And then it's a question of accountability. Right. So accountability has become, and transparency has become a huge, huge issue for donors that is making things much more bureaucratic. That has to be admitted, but it has to do with a lot of public scrutiny. Also in donor countries, we say we want to go more local. I mean really. So the will needs to be there, the capacity needs to be built on the ground by local actors. And the system also doesn't need to be afraid of losing out. I mean, the big agencies of losing out on either money or influence or what have you. To me, it would be the most wonderful place if we can dissolve all humanitarian actors because they wouldn't be needed anymore. That's never going to happen. I know, but you know, I mean, the mindset should be I want to reach a state where I'm not needed, rather than I need to make sure I get money to be everywhere.
- [23:59]
Imogen (Host)
Do you guys see yourself in that, that you need to get money to stay where I am?
- [24:04]
Chris Locke
No, but I do agree with the majority of what was said that there are inefficiencies, there are coordination concerns. But I think if we go back to the what's gone wrong? I think we're failing to have the real nuanced conversation about the complexity of what it is to deliver humanitarian assistance. Often it's reduced to sort of the big NGOs or localization, donor driven, privately funded, that sort of thing. And these binary conversations will mean, if we stick to these binary conversations, will mean we'll be back here in 10 years time. I think what's often missed, for example, is whether it's local or international aid, to be able to be rooted in a community, for example, takes time, it takes discussion, takes investment, takes an understanding the culture, which absolutely. Sometimes there's problems with that. And when we're looking at the numbers, it's often that sort of of nuance that doesn't come through. And often to work in Yemen, we'll make mistakes when we negotiate, we will have to withdraw because of security reasons. All of these factors need to be somehow brought into this conversation because as soon as we start to talk about money, there's a real Risk of oversimplification and then we lose it and we risk not being able to reach the people who need care the most and only reaching those who easiest to reach. A year or so ago, I was in just over a year or so, I was in Darfur twice. So via Port Sudan and via the Chad border into Darfur. I could drive from the Chadian border across West Darfur, South Darfur, north Darfur, all the way to Nyala Hospital. It took like five days to drive there. Even within a country like Sudan, the cost of treating somebody, whether that's locally delivered or internationally delivered, is hugely different, considering just that supply line, that range of supply line and the extra security checks that you need to go through. So even in that one country, the cost per patient, per aid deliverer is vastly different. And I think that we need to bring in the complexity to not make the same mistakes we have seen over the last 10 years to be where we've to not be back having this conversation in 10 years time.
- [26:05]
Imogen (Host)
Gilles, do you want to come in there? Because some people are saying, oh, now this is the golden opportunity to get where we've wanted to be for decades with localization and more efficiency and less duplication. How do you see it?
- [26:19]
Gilles Carbonnier
Well, I think you, Chris and Ambassador Di Capotel, you made very important points. The point of accountability and the concern that states and ministers have to be accountable and avert a scandal in the newspaper, which could be said by those who want to cut down earlier further says, look, they have funded this and all is wasted, etcetera, is a real concern. And then you have bureaucratic layers and maybe this outsourcing of some of the risks to the UN, which subcontract international NGOs, which subcontract companies, which subcontract local NGOs. And so a lot of transaction costs now, indeed, I think it's high time and it takes courage to say, well, we are dealing with places where things are murky and we have to take some risks and try to explain it to the extent possible that we want to have impact. But it's not just like doing some social work in Geneva. It's different. When the ICRC was created many years ago, the idea was to have a small boutique secretariat here in Geneva and to create national societies of the Red Cross and they would do the job. And one year later, you had the Schleswig Holstein war with the Danes and Prussians and Austrians. And they said, please, ICRC come over and become operational, because we as national societies of the Red Cross, we cannot Work, cross line, and we are not accepted by the opposing side. And this became even more acute seven years later when you had the war between Prussia and France. So the ICRC became operationally precisely to serve as a neutral intermediary in places where one local actor or the other wasn't able to work. So I think this shows that it's important to think complementarities. And I want to give you another example with a Swiss NGO that has long time ago in development work, supported platforms of NGOs locally, no expatriates, no mobile, just funding directly, local organizations. And they created local offshoots with their own boards, local with full power on decision making, on budgets and expenditure. And this worked to some extent. But when you had big political upheavals in Guinea Bissau and elsewhere, this all crumbled because those who were in charge were one side and the other and couldn't control what happened then. So I think in a way, international NGOs have to also take a certain lead with, you know, being more risk taking in this type of venture, realizing that in so called humanitarian crisis, you need to find the optimal complementarities rather than pitting the international versus the local, which is, I think, not very productive.
- [29:02]
Imogen (Host)
Jacqueline, what do you think about what you've heard? I mean, you're studying what Gilles and Chris have been doing for a living for many years. I mean, how do you see it from looking at it from that angle? Do you think I know what they should be doing to make it better, save money, be more we marking our homework? Exactly.
- [29:22]
Imogen
No, I mean, I think I was encouraged by some of the answers that were shared, because my question has always been about the number of NGOs that are operating in kind of the same spaces and if they're operating in too much of a silo. But I think what we were hearing is that there is a good level of collaboration and maybe that's something that should continue to improve, to change the sector as well and to improve issues with financing that we need each other's expertise. And maybe you can also save some money by utilizing the resources that maybe other NGOs have. So you have less overhead or you have less duplications of tasks.
- [30:04]
Imogen (Host)
Chris, I think you wanted to come in.
- [30:06]
Chris Locke
Yeah, yeah. Because I think in some places we coordinate well across agencies. And I think in some areas I think we could do a lot better. And I also think there is a donor element to this as well. And often until the sort of the financial hierarchical lines also force everybody to work together, there is going to be inefficiencies there, and there will still be this competition for money. There was this. I tried to find a more updated survey, but this one's back from 2016, where there was a survey done on the Norwegian Refugee Council with a consultation firm, and they said that they alone spent 40,000 hours a year on administrative compliance because of different donors using different reporting systems. And just in that you have to be accountable. Just looking at the different forms you have to fill in, just in European governments, that takes overheads, that takes hours and time. Multiply that across the system and years, there's wastage. And it comes back to your point, Ambassador, in that it has to be everybody looking at this, NGOs could do better. Coordinating in many crises at the same time, the bureaucracy within some of the NGOs that is created can be done better. Donors can really help with that by aligning and making things just simpler. And then we get into sort of the national legislation, because in some cases, even when donors try to be very progressive in terms of their alignment of their forms, they have to go back to Parliament to have a vote to change box number 15C on a form because it's embedded in the domestic legislation. And so this is sort of another example where I'm saying, look, we need to embrace the complexity of this problem because we're all in this together.
- [31:49]
Imogen (Host)
Do people need to sell it better than humanitarian aid? Because I'm a journalist, obviously, as you all know. I mean, you can find the most lurid headlines about some kind of aid project that no taxpayer thinks should ever have been an aid project. But the complexities that you're talking about, or the contribution to peace and stability which we've been talking about, rarely gets covered. Also my profession's fault. But do aid agencies need to do a better job of communicating?
- [32:22]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
Yes, and we have been talking to them for years now about that. Sometimes we talk about visibility because that is also important for donors to be seen. Also on the ground that we are there, that we haven't forgotten. Like for the Europeans, for instance, it was particularly important after the start of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, because then the reproach was, oh, you're forgetting about the rest of the world. You're only looking at Ukraine. And it was simply not true. If you look at the figures, it was not true. The money for Ukraine came on top, but that was a narrative that spread in Africa and Asia and so on and so forth. So, yes, we need to talk more about it. We need to reach out more to or the organizations. All of us need to reach out more to parliaments because this is where the decisions about budgets are being taken, to explain, to invite these people to come and see for themselves what is actually going on and how they're doing it. And now at the moment, it is also very important to talk about how we are making it better and how the system will provide better. On the other hand, the 91% that I mentioned at the beginning give me great hope that we are not doing too badly and that people still feel that solidarity is the good thing to do, is the right thing to do and are committed to keep this going. So yes, communication is key. Apparently some of it works.
- [33:50]
Imogen (Host)
Do you guys think that governments should do a better job of communicating why they spend money on foreign aid? Do you think governments sell it enough to their taxpayers?
- [34:01]
Gilles Carbonnier
I think governments have to do a lot, especially when it comes to public funding. And like Apostle, you mentioned, reaching out to parliaments and having the possibility of MSF and the ICRCs of this world to explain and bring them and see for themselves is very important. And not only the political wings that tend to be supportive, but also those who are very doubtful or against. And we have really to reach out and to have narratives that speak to a broader audience, especially of political constituencies, rather than always saying, oh, you know, children are dying, they're starving, which we know and evermore, and we feel powerless. Explaining just what you go through is just to think outside the box and how to relate to different donors so that suddenly they say, aha, I understand that you won't solve the mess, but I understand that what you do is so important to preserve us as humans and to preserve some dignity in the midst of these chaos.
- [34:59]
Imogen (Host)
Jacqueline and then I'll come to you, Chris, but what do you think about that? Because certainly, I suppose, and again you said inside the Geneva bubble, but watching just over a year ago the destruction of usaid, many people here were thinking, how can this happen? And I'm just wondering again, do you think there is a bigger role for the humanitarian agencies to better explain what they do, or would it have happened anyway?
- [35:25]
Imogen
Yeah, I think unfortunately what happened was outside of the control of the humanitarian agencies. It's not for their lack of trying to as far as diplomacy and doing a great job with the work that they do. I don't believe any of us thought that an agency that's 60 plus years old would be dismantled in three or four months time. We understood that the administration has had some opposing views, but the way in which that agency was dismantled was, was devastating, not just to US citizens who were paying attention, but of course to the people impacted directly around the world, the workers and recipients of aid. I think it's important that not just humanitarian sector explain what they do, but governments maybe have a change of heart as well to speak about the work that's being done. I don't necessarily have faith that my government will make that choice anytime soon. I believe there's also opportunities for people to seek out to better understand what this sector does, even if it's not a part of their current world. They can also learn about this information. And as you said, it's not just starving children or the advertisements we're used to seeing. There's much more to this sector that I think people could become familiar with if they choose to.
- [36:47]
Imogen (Host)
Now I want to ask you that, Chris. I mean, we do see aid agencies certainly in Britain, quite glossy adverts and we have ambassadors who also happen to be film stars and so on. I've always personally felt that that kind of approach makes one particular immediate crisis very fashionable. Everything else gets left on the side. I mean, I'm just wondering because there needs to be a pact clearly between people who pay taxes and foreign aid, how it can be maybe better communicated.
- [37:18]
Chris Locke
Firstly, I think there has been the sort of populist press anti aid narrative which has been going on for 10, 15 years. There was the Ethiopian girl band Yenga, I think in the Daily Mail and there was a big campaign with DFID as it was then the UK Department of Development. And actually if you look at this project, it was about talking about various issues including sexual abuse, including also how to seek help and all of these elements. And as a project it had done very, very well. But because it was attacked in the press, the funding was one blurred headline
- [37:52]
Imogen (Host)
and that was it.
- [37:53]
Chris Locke
Yeah, exactly. And as humanitarians, I think we've got ourselves trapped between that narrative on the one hand and the too self reflective academic research and how to squeeze the last sort of center of every sort of project on the other hand. And on the third hand, this sort of potentially slightly sensational communication advertisement style. But I think Gilles just gave in terms of this experiential slightly more, if we can, taking a bit more time to explain what it takes. And this is the complexity of doing this. It's not just delivering a box, it's also ensuring that the right aid is going to the right people, which can require a huge amount of negotiation, putting staff often very insecure situations. 97% of aid workers killed are local people. The responsibility that comes with delivering aid and their safety and trying to have that conversation. And I think this is critical for aid agencies, for UN agencies, for donor governments to be really taking this argument forward. And we need to not be looking at it just as a short term, crisis by crisis fundraising opportunity, but actually really trying to develop a constituency of care which brings in people who need assistance, people who can deliver assistance, the governments, and being able to maybe learn a little bit from the green movement that's been out there, which sort of is transnational. There is a common language that is there. How do we develop this sort of cohesive political narrative approach to caring for people around the world that encompasses international aid agencies, local aid agencies, donor governments, un and all of this to try and sort of shift a little bit, well, not a little bit a lot the perspective in terms of what it takes to care. And I think that we're a little bit trying to often find technical solutions to what is fundamentally a political problem. And that's where we really need to work together. Because the passion is the same. The passion is the same whether you're a local nurse or a doctor in a hospital, an international logistician, a donor or in a big ngo. The passion you see is the same. And people want to care for each other. And I think it's how do we find a collective narrative which supports that? And then all the technical bits need to follow after that. That's my dream anyway.
- [40:03]
Imogen (Host)
There are a lot of dreams here. You guys have all been very patient. But we do want to take some questions. We've heard a lot about the risks of duplication, the risks of not explaining properly what it is you do, but how complex it is. Our panel are here. Be very interested to hear a couple of questions or comments from the floor. Hands up.
- [40:27]
Ricardo Valde Tres Santos
My name is Ricardo Valde Tres Santos. I'm pursuing a PhD here, but before that I work for several humanitarian organizations, including the icrc. My question is generally to be constructive, not confrontational. And my question is about how what we're calling foreign aid intersects with the history of colonialism, imperialism and other inequalities. Right. I appreciated, Chris, when you nuanced a bit the debate by mentioning that foreign aid is just putting a band aid on the wound, but we're not addressing root causes. But then from that, the conversation went a bit into briefly about conflict resolution. And in reality, conflict conflicts are just one expression of how people might be reacting to social inequalities. I guess my question for you is a bit more about how to make sure that we're framing foreign aid in relation to other inequalities that link to these systems of oppression that I was talking about colonialism, imperialism, other related ones, racism, sexism, classism and so on. And I'm saying this because when you're talking about how to justify foreign aid to taxpayers, you're framing foreign aid as solidarity for the suffering of others. And that is correct. I think that is the vibe that you get from foreign aid. But what if we understood the same thing, not as foreign aid, but as reparations for harm that has been historically inflicted by these same countries that are the major donors of what we're calling foreign aid on the countries that are the major receivers, let's say, of that foreign aid? I just feel like if we just keep framing it as solidarity for others, which is something optional, how can you really have that deeper change?
- [41:58]
Imogen (Host)
That's a very hot topic, actually. I mean, if any of you subscribed to the podcast, we did a whole episode once on how to decolonize aid. Chris, you answer first. I'm going to ask you, are we still in this mindset?
- [42:11]
Chris Locke
So I would say yes and no. I would go further in some ways as well, because, I mean, if you look at the point of care, part of me doesn't care whether it's somebody next door or somebody around the other side of the world. However, there is some value in many cases to having outsiders there, particularly when there's marginalized populations locally sitting next to each other. So it's not a capacity point, but I still believe in that neutrality, independence element. I would also take your point further and say there is the point at an organizational level, but we have to be super careful at an individual level. I'm particularly used to medical care, and if you go to a hospital here in Geneva, the power dynamics between the patient and the doctor are huge. In a conflict zone, or with somebody that's been marginalized or abused and fled with an international, or even not international but not local doctor, the risks there for deliberate or even accidental abuse are huge. And so there is often that interpersonal dynamic of decolonisation which is missed from the discussion as well. So I think we need to bring that very much into the conversation. But I do think there needs to be a reframing of the language and the narrative, because I do think we're dealing with some inherent language which needs to be developed, which is going to be a slow process. So, yeah, I think there is work that we all need to do. In particular, from that narrative shift perspective.
- [43:34]
Imogen (Host)
Gilles, you wanted to come in there?
- [43:36]
Gilles Carbonnier
Yes. Just to say I made three points. And my second point was responsibility. And under responsibility you can name it reparation, you can name it burden sharing, you can name it solidarity. I think the way you frame it and name it might have an impact on how much taxpayers and parliaments are willing then to fund it. And I'm an economist, so at the end of the day, I'm always looking at the impact now with regards to the question of burdenship, responsibility and indeed all the other issues you are mentioning a lot of issues that tend to be tuned down mainly because of of US funding and what comes with it. And I think one thing which is really of concern is the conditionality that was quite traditional in development funding, but that was not there in humanitarian funding, which would be principled. Now is becoming quite stringent on the conditions that might be signed, which include issues related to gender equality and to other programs that tend to be seen by some as wokeism. And I think this is really a big concern and this must be counteracted as a matter of priority for humanitarian assistance to remain principled and impartial.
- [44:51]
Imogen (Host)
I will make my question quick. It's also related to power dynamics. So for me, I actually worked with the humanitarian system for 11 years, including some conflict zones in Yemen, Libya. So I guess my question is to me, from my experience, I really feel this deep intertwine from humanitarian system into the donor's power geopolitical interests. I would see probably a lot of major donors retreating their funding because in certain ways the humanitarian system nowadays is not fulfilling their geopolitical priority in a way it was able to in the past. My question I guess is this so called founding crisis can also be open up opportunity to restructure the power dynamics or the power structure of the humanitarian system itself, considering it's actually quite an extension of the state interest and quite extension of the existing post colonial system.
- [45:46]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
Hello, my name is Harsh.
- [45:48]
Ricardo Valde Tres Santos
My question is how do we envision simplifying and aligning these various reporting Systems, these, these 40,000 workers that are put into reporting and these administrative burdens. How do different actors think we can act complementarily to align these reporting systems and make it efficient?
- [46:08]
Imogen (Host)
Okay, so let me try and pull those together a bit and dicat. Ambassador, I will come to you first. We heard about the language around aid and weather from Ricardo, which call it reparations. We heard a question is geopolitics going to actually completely rip the rug out from under impartiality and neutrality. And then we heard again. And this is a good point about efficiency.
- [46:37]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
Just to very briefly, maybe I can get it into one sentence. I think the word reparations is certainly not the best selling point in donor countries to get more money. And I just leave it at that on the geopolitics. And that's also the point of funding. I think the Americans are coming back with money into the humanitarian system and like quite big numbers are flowing around. Right.
- [47:02]
Imogen (Host)
Has quite a lot of golden handcuffs on it though.
- [47:06]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
Well, that's a different story. But the question of shrinking funding. Yes, it is shrinking. I mean the European Union has not cut funding. Right. We are at two point something billion at this year and we hope for the same next year. So we will, we will stay steady and reliable. Some member states have cut funding, but the landscape with the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the need for European countries to step up defence is a fact that definitely has an implication on it. And that leads me to another very brief remark on the question of traditional donors. We have been talking about broadening the donor base for years on end and I would personally really hope that more are chipping in also for the system because a lot of them are doing bilateral things. But really to support the system would also be very helpful. So I think we should also always think of others who can chip in. There are more countries out there. I mean, before the Americans dismantled USAID, there were like the three biggest donors, that was the States. Germany and the EU were responsible for more than 60% of humanitarian funding. And that was not sustainable. And we kept telling everyone it's not sustainable. This cannot work. So we need more.
- [48:26]
Imogen (Host)
Jacqueline, you wanted to come in?
- [48:28]
Imogen
Absolutely. I'll take on the last question about reporting just because I spent the first part of my career in accounting for 12 years. So I'm very familiar with the reporting standards and regulations and things that have to be reported upon that can become cumbersome over time. I think in the case of foreign aid and the connection between legislation and having to appease donors and their expectations for reporting, I think it can be handled similarly to what was done in the public accounting world of creating international standards for accounting. So you have similar rules that you work from and then utilize that as your reporting standards. I think the possibility of maybe getting all of these actors into the same room to have this discussion, to say, you know, we're doing this work for the point of humanity and for important reasons, but the bureaucracy and the overhead that impedes upon funding going into the right places is too cumbersome. So therefore, if we can change the reporting standards to be something that's a bit more universal, then we can be more effective.
- [49:39]
Imogen (Host)
Okay, one last reaction from you, Gilles, and then we'll go to the summing up. We are in this climate of doubt among taxpayers about foreign aid reduction in funding. And I want to hear this from you specifically because you were at the icrc, which is the most dedicated to this impartial, neutral. We have now, as Daika said, some money coming back from the United States. But it's made very clear they said this openly. The projects have to be in America's interest. Does that make you nervous?
- [50:11]
Gilles Carbonnier
Well, I think there are two levels. One level is grand narratives for, you know, the domestic front and political purposes. And for that, be it in Afghanistan, be it in the US or elsewhere, I think sometimes it's better not, not to make a big fuss about some of these narratives floating out there, as long as we can make sure that as far as we are concerned, we can remain fully faithful to the principles neutrality, impartiality and independence. And that's what matters. So sometimes it's better to remain below the radar and not make a first out of something which will become an issue and a real problem if you make it a public conversation. And there is a real question of how much this might impinge upon the capacity of an organization to live up to its principles. Now, America first policy, or Me first policy, that we see all over the place is self interest. Sometimes governments have to sell foreign aid as self interest. So part of it, again, is more political gesticulation. But part of it can be of concern when it comes to impartiality, which means assisting, as a matter of priority, those who have the most dire needs, regardless of foreign policy priorities. And this results in an ever more tight earmarking of funding. And when an organization, humanitarian organization, is facing extremely tight earmarking, you have a lot of underfunded operations where needs are are huge, and you have a few overfunded operations where need are covered. This has been a problem for years, but this can become way more of a problem than in our conversation with the auditors, because you cannot take money earmarked for one crisis, which is very high in the media and very much in the interest of some donors to cover others. So I feel that there is also a dialogue, a conversation to have with states on this key topic.
- [52:14]
Imogen (Host)
Okay, We've explored a lot of things, and this is a really complex topic, and there aren't any easy answers to it. And some might say the answers are even less easy when the money is restricted as it is now. Others might say it's a really golden opportunity to have a long, hard look at ourselves. But meanwhile, there is a failure of diplomacy and conflict resolution, which means aid agencies still have more and more to do. But we started this question, what's the point of foreign aid? I want to hear from each of you something you've witnessed which tells you there is a point, one project where you saw something taxpayers money well spent,
- [52:56]
Chris Locke
something that really worked the last year or so. I've been to Sudan twice, Gaza, Ukraine, Greece, seeing migrants coming in. And everywhere I go, I see positive examples of stuff being done brilliantly. The fact that patients are being treated according to the context. In Gaza, I met a female psychologist who'd had eight of her family members killed and at the same time was running psychiatric programs for kids on a daily basis. And they were there playing football in the compound. I saw a boy in Elginina in Darfur, who traveled for five days to get to the hospital there and was beginning and had something like five surgeries on his, on his face, and he was getting the treatment that he needed. I saw in another hospital in Gaza, I saw two little girls around maybe five or six years old who were going under multiple surgeries because their faces were severely burnt and disfigured from an explosion. They'll live with that for all of their lives. But they were the only people who had free right to roam anywhere in the hospital. Everybody in the hospital knew who they were. They were the spirit of the hospital. They were adopted by basically everybody in that hospital. And for me, they were a symbol of what you could achieve. Everywhere you go, you see success in terms of people caring for other people in an emotional way, in a way which is showing solidarity, but is also in a very physical way, helping to rehabilitate them, to be able to get back on their feet, to restore dignity.
- [54:29]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
I mean, the question really is, what is success, right? How big is success? And this famous saying of you save one life and you save the world has something to it. And I've seen also in many places, examples for that. And I remember, like in Iraqi refugee camp, and you see arts teachers working with little children who pain horrific pictures, one has to say, but this is a way of dealing with the trauma. You see young girls playing football in the camp again, you know, working on the trauma. And Gaza bringing out 68 children from an SOS Children's Village in the midst of a lot of like bombs and everything, and to bring them out to Bethlehem where they find a new home. It's 68 children's lives saved. And this is, you know, humanitarians going in and bringing them out. You know, I mean, the ICRC has done fantastic jobs in Gaza, bringing out hostages. Wherever you go, you have a multitude of stories of what works. If you then zoom out and you look at Gaza or you look at Sudan or what have you, you see a lot of horrific horror, really. But when you zoom in, a lot is really working, and people are not only surviving, but they are really. People work to care for their dignity, get education and health care and food and water. So zoom in a little bit more, and you will find a lot of things that work. So it does work.
- [56:04]
Imogen (Host)
Jackson.
- [56:05]
Imogen
I don't necessarily have an example from the field, but I would like to see the reform happening in. In the sector even more, particularly with more donors that are coming from diversified places. So not the reliance on very large donors, but having more influx from other places, more projects that we see that are reaching communities in the way that the communities need more discussions with the communities themselves in order to come to the solutions. I think we can get there. I think it just takes the right discussions and the willpower to do so.
- [56:40]
Imogen (Host)
Gilles, final word to you then, One
- [56:42]
Gilles Carbonnier
example, because it's beautiful with what we heard, indeed, every day things work and we have success. And I think that's what keeps us going, and that's what makes this job fantastic. And, you know, we can only feel grateful for the chance to engage. One example, which, you know, is one of the last example I had before I concluded my mandate with the ICRC, was this operation where we had about 1500 soldiers and police captured in Goma. And we organized this convoy from Goma back to Kinshasa with them and their families. So you had security staff, soldiers, some families, and they were saying, you're crazy. We won't go and cross all these different checkpoints with different opposing groups and the enemies because they are evil and they would kill us, etc. We say, no, no, we. We put the flag, the red cross, and we go. And of course, we cross fingers, but we try to ensure the security. And we went there and we could bring them all back safely to Kinshasa where they meet their families. And if you assist once to family reunification, when you can bring children back with the parents, etcetera, I think you live through that shivering. You cry, and then you say, well, it's worth all the pain and all the failures that unfortunately, we face on a daily basis and the setbacks because this makes so much sense. And that's why we continue to push forward humanitarianism as a core of our common humanity and a core of international relations which may be cherished.
- [58:15]
Imogen (Host)
Well, that is a really nice note to end on. Thank you, Chris, Daika, Jacqueline Gilles, thank you very much. Maybe we could just put our hands together. Huge thanks to our guests, our audience, and of course to Geneva's Graduate Institute for hosting us. Next time on the podcast, we've got another books to make you think episode. We'll hear about a book which analyzes the US Media coverage of the war in Gaza.
- [58:56]
Gilles Carbonnier
You need liberal buy in to sell something like this. A sustained genocide, the killing, the mass
- [59:01]
Imogen (Host)
slaughter of tens of Thousands, potentially over 100,000 in Gaza over a period of
- [59:06]
Gilles Carbonnier
a year, the timeframe the book is positioned in. And that requires liberal media buy in New York Times, cnn and we'll get
- [59:14]
Imogen (Host)
an insider's look at what the dismantling of US Aid was really like.
- [59:20]
Ricardo Valde Tres Santos
The people who so recklessly tore down the agency and put so many lives
- [59:25]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
at risk around the world are still
- [59:27]
Ricardo Valde Tres Santos
sitting in high positions of government and
- [59:30]
Ambassador Djika Potzl
have not been held accountable for their actions.
- [59:39]
Imogen (Host)
A reminder, you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can email us on Inside Geneva@SwissInfo. Check and subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red Cross Unites Prisoners of War with Their Families or why Survivors of Human Rights Violations Turn to the UN in Geneva for Justice. I'm Imogen folks. Thanks again for listening.