December 24, 2024 • 38 mins
In 2024 there are more than 100 conflicts ongoing, worldwide. A record number of aid workers have been killed.
Tom Fletcher, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator: ‘It’s not just the ferocity of these conflicts, Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria. It’s about that wilful neglect of international humanitarian law. And as a result we seem to have lost our anchor somehow. That scaffolding, that we felt was there, international humanitarian law that I was hoping we’d be taking for granted at this point, is shaking.’
Inside Geneva asks whether we have given up on international law.
Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law, Geneva Graduate Institute: If I see the Europeans talks about international law and the rules based order, but then keep supporting Israel in the face of the International Court of Justice - deliver weapons, not take part in the negotiations on the legally binding instrument on business and human rights that many countries in the global south want, then I ask well, what do you really mean by your commitment to international law and multilateralism?
Can the United Nations survive such double standards?
Richard Gowan, Crisis Group: I think the rest of the UN membership is watching this, they’re seeing a fragmenting international order, and they are profoundly frustrated.
And what about the long term effects of so much violence, for the perpetrators as well as the victims?
Cordula Droege, Chief Legal Officer, ICRC: Humanitarian law is also based on the fact that to dehumanise your enemy means that you also dehumanise yourself. And if you do it on a large scale you dehumanise the entire society and the fabric of society.
Is the age of multilateralism, cooperation, the ‘rules based order’ over?
Jan Egeland, Secretary General, Norwegian Refugee Council: The ideals were shared by more governments, there was more unity of purpose. And today there is more nationalism, introspection, skepticism. Europe first, America first, me first, rather than humanity first.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
In today's programme, the Gaza Health Ministry says
more than 40,000 Palestinianshave been killed since the
October 7th Hamas massacre inIsrael that triggered the war.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
If I see the Europeans talk about
international law and therules-based order, but then keep
supporting Israel in the faceof the International Court of
Justice, deliver weapons, nottaking part in negotiations on
the legally binding instrumenton business and human rights
that many countries in theglobal south want, then I ask
well, what do you really mean byyour commitment to
(00:55):
international law andmultilateralism?
Even the littlest even?
Speaker 2 (00:58):
those unable to walk were forced to flee when Sudan's
army and a paramilitary forceturned their guns on each other
last year.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
I think the rest of the UN membership is watching
this.
They're seeing a fragmentinginternational order and they're
profoundly frustrated.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Here in hearings at the Hague, Israel has been
accused by South Africa ofengaging in genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Humanitarian law is also based on the fact that to
dehumanize your enemy means thatyou dehumanize yourself, and if
you do it on a large scale, youdehumanize the entire society
and the fabric of society.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel,
everything will be closed.
We are fighting against humananimals.
Speaker 6 (01:50):
The ideals were shared by more governments,
there was more unity of purpose,and today there is more
nationalism, introspection,skepticism.
Europe first, america first, mefirst, rather than humanity
first.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Hello and welcome to the last Inside Geneva of 2024.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and, becauseit's the last episode of the
year and it's been a prettydifficult year, we're going to
take a long, hard look at someof the challenges faced by the
United Nations and byhumanitarian agencies, because
(02:33):
those challenges are really thechallenges that face our world,
whether it's the Middle East,sudan, climate change or Ukraine
.
Our political leaders seemneither willing or able to
resolve them effectively.
Over the next half hour, we'lltalk to leading humanitarians,
analysts and internationallawyers about why that is and
(02:57):
whether the UN multilateralismand what's called the
rules-based order can survive.
Let's begin by hearing fromRichard Gowan, un Director at
the Crisis Group.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
I think it's been a very turbulent year for the
United Nations, primarilybecause we're seeing major power
competition and arguments overUkraine and Gaza proving more
and more toxic inside theSecurity Council.
We're seeing Russia and the US,in particular, frequently using
(03:35):
their vetoes in the Council,and I think the rest of the UN
membership is watching this.
They're seeing a fragmentinginternational order and they're
profoundly frustrated, and I youknow you talk to diplomats from
around the world and the firstquestion they will ask you is
(03:56):
how do we persuade our politicalmasters back in our capitals
that this thing, the UN, isreally helpful to them?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, this is the thing you hear it in some of the
founding members of the UnitedNations, a kind of narrative
that this body is increasinglyirrelevant.
And of course, it's not just anarrative.
We now have policies which areforcing the UN into irrelevance,
so that's what it feels like inGeneva.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
I mean, I think we have to step back and we have to
recognise that diplomats canfret, un officials can worry
about their contracts, but theorganisation is still doing a
huge amount globally andhumanitarian agencies
peacekeeping operations arestill functioning and doing some
good worldwide.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Breaking overnight.
Critically needed humanitarianaid has started rolling into
Gaza.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
So, despite the friction at the UN Security
Council, gowan argues, thehumanitarian wing of the UN is
still working, but howeffectively when the big powers
are so divided?
Let's talk to seasonedhumanitarian worker, jan Eglund,
who led the UN's emergencyresponse during the biggest
(05:13):
natural disaster the world hasever seen.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Tens of millions of tonnes of water unthinkably
powerful are driven onto shoresacross the Indian Ocean.
The world has never faced ahumanitarian disaster on this
scale in peacetime.
Speaker 6 (05:34):
The challenge now is to help the survivors in 10
ravaged countries.
The Indian Ocean tsunami was,of course, unique because it was
nature at its worst buthumanity at our best.
I mean we raised $12 billion inweeks.
All of the countries devastatedby the tsunami were fully
rebuilt, basically withinternational help.
(05:58):
The whole world was seized bythe misery caused and donated.
Private sector came like neverbefore.
There were 450 internationalaid groups involved.
That came then just after wehad initiated a major also
(06:19):
response for the Darfur crisis.
We were able to get precedencefrom President Bush in the White
House and Prime Minister Blairin London the prime ministers
and presidents across EuropeFast forward 20 years and the
crisis in Darfur and Sudan isthree times as big and we meet
(06:44):
neglect, to a large extentdisinterest.
So I think there is also somethings changed.
There was more—I think theideals were shared by more
governments.
There was more unity of purposeand today there is more
nationalism, introspection,skepticism and Europe first,
(07:09):
america first, me first, ratherthan humanity first.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Where does that leave ?
Somewhere like Gaza.
Then who's going to rebuildGaza?
Speaker 6 (07:19):
Rebuilding Gaza and Lebanon and Sudan or the ruins
still there in Syria?
No, I don't know really,because we also have a time with
a new Cold War.
So the US is routinely vetoingall resolutions on Gaza and
(07:42):
Russia vetoed a resolution onSudan that wasn't even that
concrete but it sort of wishedto do more on behalf of the UN
and on behalf of theinternational community and
Russia vetoes that, probablybecause of the US vetoes on Gaza
and Western support for Ukraineand the war.
(08:04):
That Cold War is not helping us.
I think we humanitarians feelmore alone now than we were 20
years ago.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
The big powers at loggerheads and the UN and its
humanitarian workers more alonethan ever.
So where does that leave us?
Richard Gowan again.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
We are, if we are honest, at the end of a 30-year
period where the UN was able toexpand and raise its ambitions
in the context of a US-led worldorder, and even regardless of
what has just happened in the USelections, it is clear that
that order and that period ofcooperation is coming to an end
(08:46):
and we're entering a period ofcompetition where the space for
the UN to act on many issueswill be more narrow and more
difficult than it was before.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I agree with you that the foundations were shaking a
bit, obviously before November2024.
We've had a lot of challenges,but with an incoming Donald
Trump administration we arelooking at something different.
I think.
(09:16):
I'm just wondering where do yousee the casualties Climate
change, gaza, two-state solution, a deal on Ukraine where
Ukraine has to give up territory?
Speaker 4 (09:28):
I think the first thing to say is that I have been
struck that since Trump won theelection, the mood around the
UN has been resignation ratherthan outright panic.
So there is an expectation thatthe Trump administration will
pull out of all the things thathe pulled out of last time,
(09:49):
including the Paris climatechange agreement.
He pulled out of last time,including the Paris climate
change agreement.
We would assume the US willbreak off contact with the Human
Rights Council, as it did inTrump's first term.
This is all factored in.
We also assume that the US isgoing to hack some big chunks
out of UN budgets.
And then there are all thepolitical questions.
(10:12):
I mean, obviously the US willdouble down on support for
Israel at the UN, but will ittry and impose or reimpose UN
sanctions on Iran?
That's certainly a possibility.
Will it take steps at the UN toalienate China?
I mean a lot of.
You know there's a lot ofturbulence ahead.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
There are new developments this morning in
Ukraine's first war crimes trialIn court this morning, the
Russian soldier Israel haspresented its defence at the
International Court of Justiceafter South Africa argued its
committing genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
But the challenge to global stability stems not just
from disagreements among the bigpowers.
It also comes, Jan Eglandbelieves, from a disregard for
international law, the rules weall agreed to after the Second
World War.
What concerns?
Speaker 6 (11:03):
me is precisely this that many of our safest and
closest and most generous allieshave questioned humanitarian
law of armed conflict,questioned the refugee
convention's existence,questioned international justice
regimes, questioned theInternational Court of Justice,
(11:26):
the International Criminal Court, etc.
That's new.
I mean, it's not a new thingthat warlords and dictators do
not like us and our advocacy andour presence and so on.
That's not new.
Actually.
The 1990s was, of course, muchmore bloody than this period is
and I'm old enough to remembermany are not.
(11:48):
The number of civilians killedwas far bigger in that kind of
wars, with genocides in Rwandaand Cambodia, in Kosovo and
elsewhere.
But it's a new thing, basically, that the International
Criminal Court is questioned bythe Western countries that
(12:10):
negotiated the deal, as if theynow in a way agree with yeah, no
, these criminal justice regimes.
That's for African warlords,it's not for our allies.
I don't like it at all and Ithink we have to fight it.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So the world is on fire.
The reality is, as you knowwell, that we are dealing with a
poly-crisis right now, globally.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
That disregard is taking its toll on humanitarian
workers, who have been killed inrecord numbers this year.
When Tom Fletcher, newlyappointed UN Emergency Relief
Coordinator, came to Geneva tolaunch his funding appeal for
2025, he too voiced concernabout neglect for international
(12:57):
law.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
It's not just the ferocity of these conflicts Gaza
, ukraine, sudan, syria it'sabout that willful neglect of
international humanitarian lawand, as a result, we seem to
have lost our anchor somehow.
That scaffolding that we feltwas there international
humanitarian law that I washoping that we'd be taking for
(13:19):
granted at this point is shaking.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
So how worried should we be?
Someone who keeps a close eyeon these things is Nico Krisch,
Professor of International Lawat Geneva's Graduate Institute.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
I guess we're really seeing more now.
We have more violent conflictsgoing on now than we had in
previous decades and clearlythere are many more violations
taking place and they're takingplace more clearly on our
screens.
We see them in the media.
So quite likely we're living ina time of higher numbers of
(13:53):
violations and more willfulneglect of international law.
But at the same time, of course, I think we have also higher
expectations.
In many ways people 30 yearsback, 40 years back, wouldn't
have expected so much ofinternational law.
They wouldn't have thought thatcriminals would be brought to
international justice, warcriminals.
They might not have expected somuch in terms of human rights.
(14:16):
Now, if you look at statisticsof human rights compliance, the
levels of human rightscompliance go down, but they're
still now higher than they'vebeen at any point before 1999.
So in a sense I think we'recoming from a relatively high
point in terms of human rights,international humanitarian law
(14:37):
compliance and it's going down.
Clearly it's getting worse.
At the same time, I think weshouldn't lose perspective and
see kind of that we're still ina different era than we were 50
years ago.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Sometimes, though, I sense a stretching of the unity
around some of these norms.
I mean, I was talking to youngpeople from the global south
yesterday, and there's enormousdisenchantment with what they
see as double standards, and oneof them said to me it's always
(15:10):
the same the traditional worldpowers.
They preach water to us andthey drink wine.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Yeah, and that's been a long-standing problem in a
sense, and some that could bekind of ignored by the West and
the North for some time, becausethe power relations were just
so clearly in their favor thatyou didn't need to listen too
much to this.
Now, clearly, the situation haschanged and that's become a
serious issue.
And if I see the Europeans talkabout international law and the
(15:40):
rules-based order, but then,when it matters, turn away, keep
supporting Israel in the faceof the International Court of
Justice, deliver weapons, evennot taking part in negotiations
on the legally bindinginstrument on business and human
rights that many countries inthe global south want, voting
against or abstaining the globalframework on tax that passed in
(16:04):
the General Assembly recently,then I ask well, what do you
really mean by your commitmentto international law and
multilateralism?
Is it serious, or is it onlygood when it pleases your goals
and for the rest of it, you justdo without?
This idea of the rules-basedorder that the West has now been
preaching for some yearsclearly is something that many
(16:26):
countries around the world andpublics around the world are not
buying, because they say well,there's never been a rules-based
order for us, because you'vealways violated our rights
whenever it pleased you, andyou've claimed from us
compliance with the ruleswhenever you needed it.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Just up the street from Nico Krisch, at the
Graduate Institute, is theheadquarters of the
International Committee of theRed Cross, the guardian of the
Geneva Conventions.
International Committee of theRed Cross, the guardian of the
Geneva Conventions.
Every state on the planet hassigned up to them and the ICRC's
chief legal officer, cordulaDroga, is also concerned.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
If you look at conflicts now, you see, of
course, widespread violationsand destruction and death and
injury, and not all destructionand death and injury in armed
conflict is contrary tointernational humanitarian law,
because internationalhumanitarian law only guarantees
a minimum protection.
So even if internationalhumanitarian law is protected,
(17:22):
you will have great sufferingand conflicts.
There's no such thing as ahumane conflict.
We see two things, though.
We see, on the one hand, thisblatant disregard with, you know
, parties just denying the facts, denying that they are
committing rape, torture,targeting civilians.
But you also have a morepernicious phenomenon whereby
(17:43):
states will actually go out oftheir way to justify under the
law that they can targethospitals because they are being
misused and therefore theybecome military objectives, and
that it's not disproportionateto you know, therefore destroy
them entirely.
Or, after 9-11, there was awhole attempt to redefine what
(18:05):
torture is, so that certain paininflicted on detainees would be
justified under the conventionsby saying this isn't torture,
because torture isn't definedlike this, and we see this today
as well.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Does this concern you ?
I mean, are we in danger oflosing these standards?
I mean, we brought them inpost-World War II for some very
good reasons.
Are we in danger of losing them?
Speaker 5 (18:30):
Yes, I think we're in danger of losing them in
several ways.
One is if you interpret them tothe point of hollowing them out
completely and they have noprotective value.
That's one way of losing them.
We also risk losing thembecause then those who suffer
from the consequences don'tbelieve that the law is there to
protect them anymore.
(18:50):
And we also risk losing them ina much more literal sense
because, as you know, we nowhave states that withdraw from
some IHL conventions.
We have Lithuania that withdrewfrom the Convention Against
Cluster Munitions.
We now have reports of statesusing more and more
(19:11):
anti-personnel mines, and wehave states thinking about
whether they should withdrawfrom the anti-personnel mine ban
convention.
So you have the most basicconventions, which ban weapons
that are considered to beindiscriminate, and they are
being reopened and they arebeing questioned.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
What do you fear?
The consequences of this?
I mean, it sounds like aslippery downward slope.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Yeah, I think the slippery slope image is exactly
the image it's really.
Sometimes I feel it could allunravel before us, because every
state always feels that theconflict that is their conflict
is new and is different and thatthe rules aren't appropriate
for that particular conflict.
We've seen this very often withstates fighting non-state armed
(19:57):
groups that they considerterrorist groups.
We see it sometimes withnon-state armed groups which say
, well, but we are fightingthese kinds of states, so how do
you expect us to have the rules?
And now we see this fear ofinternational armed conflict, of
conflict between states, andthereby states saying, well,
therefore we need more leewayfor our military action, and I
(20:19):
think we need to counter it andwe need to repeat what
international humanitarian lawwas made for from the start.
It was always made withconflicts in mind.
That's what they're about.
Always made with conflicts inmind.
That's what they're about.
So you cannot say that they'reokay in peacetime, that they're
sort of fair weather conventionsthat have to go out the window
(20:39):
once conflict breaks out,because they were always made
with conflicts in mind.
And while conflicts change theconsequences that these
conventions seek to prohibit orlimit, they don't change.
So the suffering of thecivilian population doesn't
change, no matter what conflictthere is.
(21:00):
The need for the wounded andsick to be collected and cared
for and treated doesn't change,no matter the conflict and the
indiscriminate nature of weaponsdoesn't change.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
It is a vast, unfolding crisis.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Tens of thousands hungry frightened, told by
Israel to leave.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
Today, the world's top war crimes court issued
arrest warrants for IsraeliPrime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and former DefenceMinister.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Yoav Galant.
The concerns over respect forinternational law have come into
sharp focus in relation to Gaza.
Some UN member states are angryat what they see as blatant
double standards.
The US has dismissed thedecisions of renowned lawyers at
the International CriminalCourt to issue arrest warrants
(21:51):
for Israeli government leadersas outrageous, and there has
been an apparent abandonment ofthe commitment to a two-state
solution.
So how can faith in themultilateral system even survive
?
That's a question I put to thecrisis group's Richard Gowan.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
Most US observers, and maybe a lot of European
observers, don't realise exactlyhow existential the Palestinian
question is for many members ofthe UN.
There is a real sense that theUN has been dealing with the
(22:29):
Israeli-Palestinian situationalmost since its foundation, and
for a lot of countries from theglobal south, resolving the
Palestinian question is one ofthe last unfinished pieces of
business left over from theanti-colonial struggle.
And so if we have a situationwhere the Trump administration
(22:53):
comes in and one of its firststeps is to back an Israeli
annexation of some or all of theWest Bank which is certainly
something that we're hearing bea real blow to, firstly,
(23:16):
perceptions of the UN, of the USat the UN, which have already
taken a beating because ofBiden's stance over Gaza, but
secondly, of the credibility ofthe UN as a whole for all these
countries that have kept faithwith it as the space to deal
with the future of thePalestinians, and Jan Eglund,
not only a man with more thanthree decades experience in
humanitarian work, but beforethat, one of the Norwegian
(23:39):
diplomats who worked on the OsloAccord aimed at shaping a
two-state solution.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Cautions against one superpower trying to impose
solutions, whether in Gaza or inUkraine.
The UN is the only forum heargues for such diplomacy.
Speaker 6 (23:57):
I think the recent two years have shown the UN is
needed more than ever.
I mean, there was noalternative.
Look at how NATO tried, built anew Afghanistan that was in the
image, in a way, of the NATOcountries.
(24:18):
It cost a trillion dollarsbefore they went for the door
three years back.
The UN has, in spite of all, abetter track record in saving
countries, providing peace,coordinating humanitarian
assistance than any otherorganization, also because there
(24:41):
isn't really much alternative.
But it requires more unity ofleadership.
I also think we really, as aidgroups, humanitarian groups,
human rights groups, solidaritygroups, need to be a little bit
better in really designingsolutions and not just have this
(25:04):
repeat thing that it's reallybad in place A and B.
The world must wake up andlet's have another seminar about
it.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
So can those committed to the UN and to
international law be proactive,engage in meaningful activity,
something more than, as Eglandputs it, holding seminars.
Nico Krisch has some thoughts.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
I think what really is required now is that we form
an alliance of those thatsupport those kinds of rules,
that are serious about them andthat are also ready to pay a
cost, pay a price, for thatseriousness.
Now, it's quite likely that theUS is not going to be among
those for the next few years,but maybe one can do things
(25:51):
without the US.
And there are enough statesaround, especially smaller
states, mid-sized states, thatcare a lot about international
law, depend a lot oninternational law and, as a
result, are ready toreinvigorate it to some extent.
And I think, kind of from thatbasis there's a possibility of
(26:12):
generating more support.
There's much support among civilsociety, much support among the
public.
There's a much greaterattachment to international law
Now among many people across theworld.
They know much more aboutinternational law and they think
, well, there's a promise therethat we can draw upon.
So I think we shouldn't simplylet all hope slide away, but I
(26:32):
think it takes a real consensusbuilding effort to gather that
kind of alliance, and that alsomeans that countries have to
make compromises.
So I think we have to remindpeople that international law
and multilateralism, the UN, issomething that can't be there
only if it serves your ownpurposes, but that as a space
(26:56):
that we need to value, becauseotherwise we just cannot support
peace and achieve the goalsthat we want to achieve.
That really requires an effortand commitment and a readiness
to say well, we work togetherand we make the necessary
compromises.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
The countries you might expect to respond to that
kind of plea were traditionallyin Europe, but with shaky
governments in France andGermany and uncertainty over the
ongoing war in Ukraine, willthey stand up for international
law and the rules-based order?
Richard Gowan has his doubts.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
The question I would put to people sitting in Geneva
or Strasbourg, where thesethings are supposed to matter,
is do you really think thatdefending the multilateral order
is the number one priorityright now in Paris or London or
Berlin?
Because there is a differencehere between 2017 and Trump's
(27:55):
first administration and today.
Back in 2017, 2018, theEuropeans had the resources and
they had the bandwidth to mounta fairly serious defence of
multilateralism.
You'll remember that Germanyand France set up this rather
strange body, the Alliance forMultilateralism, which was
(28:17):
really basically meant to be acounterweight to US
disengagement, and that worked.
I do actually think that membersof the EU played a significant
role in defending the UN systemduring Trump's first term, but
now, if you're sitting in anymajor European capital, you're
not worrying about the future ofUNESCO or the Human Rights
(28:39):
Council.
You're worrying about thefuture of NATO.
You're worrying about thefuture of Article 5.
And, regardless of the US, youhave much less money than you
used to Aid.
Budgets have been collapsing,western governments need to put
money into defence, and so Ijust wonder whether the
Europeans are going to have thebandwidth and the financial
(29:00):
weight to really fill the gapthat significant US
disengagement with the UN couldcreate.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Some people would argue, though, that say, the
defence of human rights,international humanitarian law
and you know people get fed upwith this either or equation,
it's us looking after ourselves,or it's us giving something to
those poor people caught up in awar or a famine that these
things are actually not mutuallyexclusive, and if we don't
(29:31):
defend them, it will contributeto instability at home as well.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
I mean, I would be one of the people who said that
right.
You know, I believe that quitestrongly.
And so European countries, likeit or not, are going to have to
probably devote more time andmore attention to trying to
stabilise their southern flank.
Work with the AU, work out howto fund peace operations in
Somalia, work out how to fundpeace operations in Somalia and,
(29:56):
yeah, protect multilateralismthere.
We can't just focus on Moscow,we can't just focus on Europe's
eastern flank.
We do need to have a moreglobal understanding of how we
deal with some of theinstability that Trump might
create.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Jan Eglin, too, too, is sceptical that Europe, with
its current focus on reinforcingits fortress against migrants,
remains committed to upholdinginternational law.
Speaker 6 (30:25):
It is interesting how the conventions for refugees
came in the early 1950s becausethe Europeans really we felt
sorry for ourselves because wewere refugees after the Second
World War.
So the refugees should haverights really and they should be
guaranteed.
Europe had suffered enough andnow Europe is full-time burying
(30:52):
that convention and have aEuropean championship in barbed
wire erection and the Genevaprinciples of do not attack
those who are not fighting.
It's the golden rule.
It was there sinceAnguillet-Denard and the Battle
of Solferino in 1858.
Now it seems not.
(31:15):
Now it's okay to bomb hospitalsbecause there might be a
militant there somewhere.
It's not, it's a war crime.
Has been for a hundred years.
Speaker 5 (31:26):
Black smoke billows Caked in dust.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Survivors emerge these nightmarish scenes as
Israeli forces once again attackAl-Shifa Hospital.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Nine people have been killed and dozens wounded after
a series of Russian strikes onthe Ukrainian capital, including
an attack on a children'shospital.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Not attacking hospitals, not targeting
civilians or their homes,schools, churches, mosques or
museums.
We do, in theory, all agree onthese principles, although we
may not honour them.
In the week the UN appealed for$47 billion to help civilians
affected by conflict, the ICRC'sCordula Droga reminds us that
(32:09):
it may be worth our while tofollow the rules, because,
however much we may want todefeat our enemy, war is so very
costly.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
If you uphold the rules of not targeting civilian
objects, not targeting hospitals, not targeting schools, not
targeting electricity grids, nottargeting energy infrastructure
, water systems, you willalready have a cost to these
conflicts that's much morelimited and a possibility also
(32:40):
to get out of conflicts andreconstruct that is easier.
So international humanitarianlaw is not made to prevent
conflicts and it's also not abody of law that is made as such
to get out of conflict.
It's really made to protectvictims of armed conflict.
But it's very obvious that ifyou respect international
(33:01):
humanitarian law, it will createpathways to get out of conflict
.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
And she continues.
If that appeal doesn't work,there is another one to our
consciences, perhaps to oursouls.
Speaker 5 (33:15):
I profoundly believe and I think humanitarian law is
also based on the fact that todehumanize your enemy means that
you dehumanize yourself and ifyou do it on a large scale, you
dehumanize the entire societyand the fabric of society.
And you have to look atyourself.
I think and think how do youwant to come out of this
(33:37):
conflict?
How do you want to look atyourself when you finish the
conflict and look at yourselfand see what have I done in this
conflict?
How have I behaved in thisconflict?
And we know that people whocommit serious violations are
also traumatized by theviolations that they suffer from
, the consequences of having tolive with the fact that they
(34:00):
committed atrocities.
And I think there is also aself-interest there to be able
to live with yourself after theconflict.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Those wise words from Cordula Droga end this edition
of Inside Geneva.
We hope this episode hasprovided some food for thought
and perhaps even inspired someof our listeners to remind their
own governments whyinternational law, the Geneva
Conventions and even thecooperation the United Nations
encourages are so important.
Thanks so much for listeningand from all of us here at Swiss
(34:44):
Info, we wish you a happy andhopefully peaceful new year.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
(35:05):
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
(35:25):
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
In today's programme, the Gaza Health Ministry says
more than 40,000 Palestinianshave been killed since the
October 7th Hamas massacre inIsrael that triggered the war.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
If I see the Europeans talk about
international law and therules-based order, but then keep
supporting Israel in the faceof the International Court of
Justice, deliver weapons, nottaking part in negotiations on
the legally binding instrumenton business and human rights
that many countries in theglobal south want, then I ask
well, what do you really mean byyour commitment to
(00:55):
international law andmultilateralism?
Even the littlest even?
Speaker 2 (00:58):
those unable to walk were forced to flee when Sudan's
army and a paramilitary forceturned their guns on each other
last year.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
I think the rest of the UN membership is watching
this.
They're seeing a fragmentinginternational order and they're
profoundly frustrated.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Here in hearings at the Hague, Israel has been
accused by South Africa ofengaging in genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Humanitarian law is also based on the fact that to
dehumanize your enemy means thatyou dehumanize yourself, and if
you do it on a large scale, youdehumanize the entire society
and the fabric of society.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel,
everything will be closed.
We are fighting against humananimals.
Speaker 6 (01:50):
The ideals were shared by more governments,
there was more unity of purpose,and today there is more
nationalism, introspection,skepticism.
Europe first, america first, mefirst, rather than humanity
first.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Hello and welcome to the last Inside Geneva of 2024.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and, becauseit's the last episode of the
year and it's been a prettydifficult year, we're going to
take a long, hard look at someof the challenges faced by the
United Nations and byhumanitarian agencies, because
(02:33):
those challenges are really thechallenges that face our world,
whether it's the Middle East,sudan, climate change or Ukraine
.
Our political leaders seemneither willing or able to
resolve them effectively.
Over the next half hour, we'lltalk to leading humanitarians,
analysts and internationallawyers about why that is and
(02:57):
whether the UN multilateralismand what's called the
rules-based order can survive.
Let's begin by hearing fromRichard Gowan, un Director at
the Crisis Group.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
I think it's been a very turbulent year for the
United Nations, primarilybecause we're seeing major power
competition and arguments overUkraine and Gaza proving more
and more toxic inside theSecurity Council.
We're seeing Russia and the US,in particular, frequently using
(03:35):
their vetoes in the Council,and I think the rest of the UN
membership is watching this.
They're seeing a fragmentinginternational order and they're
profoundly frustrated, and I youknow you talk to diplomats from
around the world and the firstquestion they will ask you is
(03:56):
how do we persuade our politicalmasters back in our capitals
that this thing, the UN, isreally helpful to them?
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, this is the thing you hear it in some of the
founding members of the UnitedNations, a kind of narrative
that this body is increasinglyirrelevant.
And of course, it's not just anarrative.
We now have policies which areforcing the UN into irrelevance,
so that's what it feels like inGeneva.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
I mean, I think we have to step back and we have to
recognise that diplomats canfret, un officials can worry
about their contracts, but theorganisation is still doing a
huge amount globally andhumanitarian agencies
peacekeeping operations arestill functioning and doing some
good worldwide.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
Breaking overnight.
Critically needed humanitarianaid has started rolling into
Gaza.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
So, despite the friction at the UN Security
Council, gowan argues, thehumanitarian wing of the UN is
still working, but howeffectively when the big powers
are so divided?
Let's talk to seasonedhumanitarian worker, jan Eglund,
who led the UN's emergencyresponse during the biggest
(05:13):
natural disaster the world hasever seen.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Tens of millions of tonnes of water unthinkably
powerful are driven onto shoresacross the Indian Ocean.
The world has never faced ahumanitarian disaster on this
scale in peacetime.
Speaker 6 (05:34):
The challenge now is to help the survivors in 10
ravaged countries.
The Indian Ocean tsunami was,of course, unique because it was
nature at its worst buthumanity at our best.
I mean we raised $12 billion inweeks.
All of the countries devastatedby the tsunami were fully
rebuilt, basically withinternational help.
(05:58):
The whole world was seized bythe misery caused and donated.
Private sector came like neverbefore.
There were 450 internationalaid groups involved.
That came then just after wehad initiated a major also
(06:19):
response for the Darfur crisis.
We were able to get precedencefrom President Bush in the White
House and Prime Minister Blairin London the prime ministers
and presidents across EuropeFast forward 20 years and the
crisis in Darfur and Sudan isthree times as big and we meet
(06:44):
neglect, to a large extentdisinterest.
So I think there is also somethings changed.
There was more—I think theideals were shared by more
governments.
There was more unity of purposeand today there is more
nationalism, introspection,skepticism and Europe first,
(07:09):
america first, me first, ratherthan humanity first.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Where does that leave ?
Somewhere like Gaza.
Then who's going to rebuildGaza?
Speaker 6 (07:19):
Rebuilding Gaza and Lebanon and Sudan or the ruins
still there in Syria?
No, I don't know really,because we also have a time with
a new Cold War.
So the US is routinely vetoingall resolutions on Gaza and
(07:42):
Russia vetoed a resolution onSudan that wasn't even that
concrete but it sort of wishedto do more on behalf of the UN
and on behalf of theinternational community and
Russia vetoes that, probablybecause of the US vetoes on Gaza
and Western support for Ukraineand the war.
(08:04):
That Cold War is not helping us.
I think we humanitarians feelmore alone now than we were 20
years ago.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
The big powers at loggerheads and the UN and its
humanitarian workers more alonethan ever.
So where does that leave us?
Richard Gowan again.
Speaker 4 (08:23):
We are, if we are honest, at the end of a 30-year
period where the UN was able toexpand and raise its ambitions
in the context of a US-led worldorder, and even regardless of
what has just happened in the USelections, it is clear that
that order and that period ofcooperation is coming to an end
(08:46):
and we're entering a period ofcompetition where the space for
the UN to act on many issueswill be more narrow and more
difficult than it was before.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I agree with you that the foundations were shaking a
bit, obviously before November2024.
We've had a lot of challenges,but with an incoming Donald
Trump administration we arelooking at something different.
I think.
(09:16):
I'm just wondering where do yousee the casualties Climate
change, gaza, two-state solution, a deal on Ukraine where
Ukraine has to give up territory?
Speaker 4 (09:28):
I think the first thing to say is that I have been
struck that since Trump won theelection, the mood around the
UN has been resignation ratherthan outright panic.
So there is an expectation thatthe Trump administration will
pull out of all the things thathe pulled out of last time,
(09:49):
including the Paris climatechange agreement.
He pulled out of last time,including the Paris climate
change agreement.
We would assume the US willbreak off contact with the Human
Rights Council, as it did inTrump's first term.
This is all factored in.
We also assume that the US isgoing to hack some big chunks
out of UN budgets.
And then there are all thepolitical questions.
(10:12):
I mean, obviously the US willdouble down on support for
Israel at the UN, but will ittry and impose or reimpose UN
sanctions on Iran?
That's certainly a possibility.
Will it take steps at the UN toalienate China?
I mean a lot of.
You know there's a lot ofturbulence ahead.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
There are new developments this morning in
Ukraine's first war crimes trialIn court this morning, the
Russian soldier Israel haspresented its defence at the
International Court of Justiceafter South Africa argued its
committing genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
But the challenge to global stability stems not just
from disagreements among the bigpowers.
It also comes, Jan Eglandbelieves, from a disregard for
international law, the rules weall agreed to after the Second
World War.
What concerns?
Speaker 6 (11:03):
me is precisely this that many of our safest and
closest and most generous allieshave questioned humanitarian
law of armed conflict,questioned the refugee
convention's existence,questioned international justice
regimes, questioned theInternational Court of Justice,
(11:26):
the International Criminal Court, etc.
That's new.
I mean, it's not a new thingthat warlords and dictators do
not like us and our advocacy andour presence and so on.
That's not new.
Actually.
The 1990s was, of course, muchmore bloody than this period is
and I'm old enough to remembermany are not.
(11:48):
The number of civilians killedwas far bigger in that kind of
wars, with genocides in Rwandaand Cambodia, in Kosovo and
elsewhere.
But it's a new thing, basically, that the International
Criminal Court is questioned bythe Western countries that
(12:10):
negotiated the deal, as if theynow in a way agree with yeah, no
, these criminal justice regimes.
That's for African warlords,it's not for our allies.
I don't like it at all and Ithink we have to fight it.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
So the world is on fire.
The reality is, as you knowwell, that we are dealing with a
poly-crisis right now, globally.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
That disregard is taking its toll on humanitarian
workers, who have been killed inrecord numbers this year.
When Tom Fletcher, newlyappointed UN Emergency Relief
Coordinator, came to Geneva tolaunch his funding appeal for
2025, he too voiced concernabout neglect for international
(12:57):
law.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
It's not just the ferocity of these conflicts Gaza
, ukraine, sudan, syria it'sabout that willful neglect of
international humanitarian lawand, as a result, we seem to
have lost our anchor somehow.
That scaffolding that we feltwas there international
humanitarian law that I washoping that we'd be taking for
(13:19):
granted at this point is shaking.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
So how worried should we be?
Someone who keeps a close eyeon these things is Nico Krisch,
Professor of International Lawat Geneva's Graduate Institute.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
I guess we're really seeing more now.
We have more violent conflictsgoing on now than we had in
previous decades and clearlythere are many more violations
taking place and they're takingplace more clearly on our
screens.
We see them in the media.
So quite likely we're living ina time of higher numbers of
(13:53):
violations and more willfulneglect of international law.
But at the same time, of course, I think we have also higher
expectations.
In many ways people 30 yearsback, 40 years back, wouldn't
have expected so much ofinternational law.
They wouldn't have thought thatcriminals would be brought to
international justice, warcriminals.
They might not have expected somuch in terms of human rights.
(14:16):
Now, if you look at statisticsof human rights compliance, the
levels of human rightscompliance go down, but they're
still now higher than they'vebeen at any point before 1999.
So in a sense I think we'recoming from a relatively high
point in terms of human rights,international humanitarian law
(14:37):
compliance and it's going down.
Clearly it's getting worse.
At the same time, I think weshouldn't lose perspective and
see kind of that we're still ina different era than we were 50
years ago.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Sometimes, though, I sense a stretching of the unity
around some of these norms.
I mean, I was talking to youngpeople from the global south
yesterday, and there's enormousdisenchantment with what they
see as double standards, and oneof them said to me it's always
(15:10):
the same the traditional worldpowers.
They preach water to us andthey drink wine.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Yeah, and that's been a long-standing problem in a
sense, and some that could bekind of ignored by the West and
the North for some time, becausethe power relations were just
so clearly in their favor thatyou didn't need to listen too
much to this.
Now, clearly, the situation haschanged and that's become a
serious issue.
And if I see the Europeans talkabout international law and the
(15:40):
rules-based order, but then,when it matters, turn away, keep
supporting Israel in the faceof the International Court of
Justice, deliver weapons, evennot taking part in negotiations
on the legally bindinginstrument on business and human
rights that many countries inthe global south want, voting
against or abstaining the globalframework on tax that passed in
(16:04):
the General Assembly recently,then I ask well, what do you
really mean by your commitmentto international law and
multilateralism?
Is it serious, or is it onlygood when it pleases your goals
and for the rest of it, you justdo without?
This idea of the rules-basedorder that the West has now been
preaching for some yearsclearly is something that many
(16:26):
countries around the world andpublics around the world are not
buying, because they say well,there's never been a rules-based
order for us, because you'vealways violated our rights
whenever it pleased you, andyou've claimed from us
compliance with the ruleswhenever you needed it.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Just up the street from Nico Krisch, at the
Graduate Institute, is theheadquarters of the
International Committee of theRed Cross, the guardian of the
Geneva Conventions.
International Committee of theRed Cross, the guardian of the
Geneva Conventions.
Every state on the planet hassigned up to them and the ICRC's
chief legal officer, cordulaDroga, is also concerned.
Speaker 5 (17:01):
If you look at conflicts now, you see, of
course, widespread violationsand destruction and death and
injury, and not all destructionand death and injury in armed
conflict is contrary tointernational humanitarian law,
because internationalhumanitarian law only guarantees
a minimum protection.
So even if internationalhumanitarian law is protected,
(17:22):
you will have great sufferingand conflicts.
There's no such thing as ahumane conflict.
We see two things, though.
We see, on the one hand, thisblatant disregard with, you know
, parties just denying the facts, denying that they are
committing rape, torture,targeting civilians.
But you also have a morepernicious phenomenon whereby
(17:43):
states will actually go out oftheir way to justify under the
law that they can targethospitals because they are being
misused and therefore theybecome military objectives, and
that it's not disproportionateto you know, therefore destroy
them entirely.
Or, after 9-11, there was awhole attempt to redefine what
(18:05):
torture is, so that certain paininflicted on detainees would be
justified under the conventionsby saying this isn't torture,
because torture isn't definedlike this, and we see this today
as well.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Does this concern you ?
I mean, are we in danger oflosing these standards?
I mean, we brought them inpost-World War II for some very
good reasons.
Are we in danger of losing them?
Speaker 5 (18:30):
Yes, I think we're in danger of losing them in
several ways.
One is if you interpret them tothe point of hollowing them out
completely and they have noprotective value.
That's one way of losing them.
We also risk losing thembecause then those who suffer
from the consequences don'tbelieve that the law is there to
protect them anymore.
(18:50):
And we also risk losing them ina much more literal sense
because, as you know, we nowhave states that withdraw from
some IHL conventions.
We have Lithuania that withdrewfrom the Convention Against
Cluster Munitions.
We now have reports of statesusing more and more
(19:11):
anti-personnel mines, and wehave states thinking about
whether they should withdrawfrom the anti-personnel mine ban
convention.
So you have the most basicconventions, which ban weapons
that are considered to beindiscriminate, and they are
being reopened and they arebeing questioned.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
What do you fear?
The consequences of this?
I mean, it sounds like aslippery downward slope.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Yeah, I think the slippery slope image is exactly
the image it's really.
Sometimes I feel it could allunravel before us, because every
state always feels that theconflict that is their conflict
is new and is different and thatthe rules aren't appropriate
for that particular conflict.
We've seen this very often withstates fighting non-state armed
(19:57):
groups that they considerterrorist groups.
We see it sometimes withnon-state armed groups which say
, well, but we are fightingthese kinds of states, so how do
you expect us to have the rules?
And now we see this fear ofinternational armed conflict, of
conflict between states, andthereby states saying, well,
therefore we need more leewayfor our military action, and I
(20:19):
think we need to counter it andwe need to repeat what
international humanitarian lawwas made for from the start.
It was always made withconflicts in mind.
That's what they're about.
Always made with conflicts inmind.
That's what they're about.
So you cannot say that they'reokay in peacetime, that they're
sort of fair weather conventionsthat have to go out the window
(20:39):
once conflict breaks out,because they were always made
with conflicts in mind.
And while conflicts change theconsequences that these
conventions seek to prohibit orlimit, they don't change.
So the suffering of thecivilian population doesn't
change, no matter what conflictthere is.
(21:00):
The need for the wounded andsick to be collected and cared
for and treated doesn't change,no matter the conflict and the
indiscriminate nature of weaponsdoesn't change.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
It is a vast, unfolding crisis.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Tens of thousands hungry frightened, told by
Israel to leave.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
Today, the world's top war crimes court issued
arrest warrants for IsraeliPrime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and former DefenceMinister.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Yoav Galant.
The concerns over respect forinternational law have come into
sharp focus in relation to Gaza.
Some UN member states are angryat what they see as blatant
double standards.
The US has dismissed thedecisions of renowned lawyers at
the International CriminalCourt to issue arrest warrants
(21:51):
for Israeli government leadersas outrageous, and there has
been an apparent abandonment ofthe commitment to a two-state
solution.
So how can faith in themultilateral system even survive
?
That's a question I put to thecrisis group's Richard Gowan.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
Most US observers, and maybe a lot of European
observers, don't realise exactlyhow existential the Palestinian
question is for many members ofthe UN.
There is a real sense that theUN has been dealing with the
(22:29):
Israeli-Palestinian situationalmost since its foundation, and
for a lot of countries from theglobal south, resolving the
Palestinian question is one ofthe last unfinished pieces of
business left over from theanti-colonial struggle.
And so if we have a situationwhere the Trump administration
(22:53):
comes in and one of its firststeps is to back an Israeli
annexation of some or all of theWest Bank which is certainly
something that we're hearing bea real blow to, firstly,
(23:16):
perceptions of the UN, of the USat the UN, which have already
taken a beating because ofBiden's stance over Gaza, but
secondly, of the credibility ofthe UN as a whole for all these
countries that have kept faithwith it as the space to deal
with the future of thePalestinians, and Jan Eglund,
not only a man with more thanthree decades experience in
humanitarian work, but beforethat, one of the Norwegian
(23:39):
diplomats who worked on the OsloAccord aimed at shaping a
two-state solution.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
Cautions against one superpower trying to impose
solutions, whether in Gaza or inUkraine.
The UN is the only forum heargues for such diplomacy.
Speaker 6 (23:57):
I think the recent two years have shown the UN is
needed more than ever.
I mean, there was noalternative.
Look at how NATO tried, built anew Afghanistan that was in the
image, in a way, of the NATOcountries.
(24:18):
It cost a trillion dollarsbefore they went for the door
three years back.
The UN has, in spite of all, abetter track record in saving
countries, providing peace,coordinating humanitarian
assistance than any otherorganization, also because there
(24:41):
isn't really much alternative.
But it requires more unity ofleadership.
I also think we really, as aidgroups, humanitarian groups,
human rights groups, solidaritygroups, need to be a little bit
better in really designingsolutions and not just have this
(25:04):
repeat thing that it's reallybad in place A and B.
The world must wake up andlet's have another seminar about
it.
Speaker 2 (25:12):
So can those committed to the UN and to
international law be proactive,engage in meaningful activity,
something more than, as Eglandputs it, holding seminars.
Nico Krisch has some thoughts.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
I think what really is required now is that we form
an alliance of those thatsupport those kinds of rules,
that are serious about them andthat are also ready to pay a
cost, pay a price, for thatseriousness.
Now, it's quite likely that theUS is not going to be among
those for the next few years,but maybe one can do things
(25:51):
without the US.
And there are enough statesaround, especially smaller
states, mid-sized states, thatcare a lot about international
law, depend a lot oninternational law and, as a
result, are ready toreinvigorate it to some extent.
And I think, kind of from thatbasis there's a possibility of
(26:12):
generating more support.
There's much support among civilsociety, much support among the
public.
There's a much greaterattachment to international law
Now among many people across theworld.
They know much more aboutinternational law and they think
, well, there's a promise therethat we can draw upon.
So I think we shouldn't simplylet all hope slide away, but I
(26:32):
think it takes a real consensusbuilding effort to gather that
kind of alliance, and that alsomeans that countries have to
make compromises.
So I think we have to remindpeople that international law
and multilateralism, the UN, issomething that can't be there
only if it serves your ownpurposes, but that as a space
(26:56):
that we need to value, becauseotherwise we just cannot support
peace and achieve the goalsthat we want to achieve.
That really requires an effortand commitment and a readiness
to say well, we work togetherand we make the necessary
compromises.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
The countries you might expect to respond to that
kind of plea were traditionallyin Europe, but with shaky
governments in France andGermany and uncertainty over the
ongoing war in Ukraine, willthey stand up for international
law and the rules-based order?
Richard Gowan has his doubts.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
The question I would put to people sitting in Geneva
or Strasbourg, where thesethings are supposed to matter,
is do you really think thatdefending the multilateral order
is the number one priorityright now in Paris or London or
Berlin?
Because there is a differencehere between 2017 and Trump's
(27:55):
first administration and today.
Back in 2017, 2018, theEuropeans had the resources and
they had the bandwidth to mounta fairly serious defence of
multilateralism.
You'll remember that Germanyand France set up this rather
strange body, the Alliance forMultilateralism, which was
(28:17):
really basically meant to be acounterweight to US
disengagement, and that worked.
I do actually think that membersof the EU played a significant
role in defending the UN systemduring Trump's first term, but
now, if you're sitting in anymajor European capital, you're
not worrying about the future ofUNESCO or the Human Rights
(28:39):
Council.
You're worrying about thefuture of NATO.
You're worrying about thefuture of Article 5.
And, regardless of the US, youhave much less money than you
used to Aid.
Budgets have been collapsing,western governments need to put
money into defence, and so Ijust wonder whether the
Europeans are going to have thebandwidth and the financial
(29:00):
weight to really fill the gapthat significant US
disengagement with the UN couldcreate.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Some people would argue, though, that say, the
defence of human rights,international humanitarian law
and you know people get fed upwith this either or equation,
it's us looking after ourselves,or it's us giving something to
those poor people caught up in awar or a famine that these
things are actually not mutuallyexclusive, and if we don't
(29:31):
defend them, it will contributeto instability at home as well.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
I mean, I would be one of the people who said that
right.
You know, I believe that quitestrongly.
And so European countries, likeit or not, are going to have to
probably devote more time andmore attention to trying to
stabilise their southern flank.
Work with the AU, work out howto fund peace operations in
Somalia, work out how to fundpeace operations in Somalia and,
(29:56):
yeah, protect multilateralismthere.
We can't just focus on Moscow,we can't just focus on Europe's
eastern flank.
We do need to have a moreglobal understanding of how we
deal with some of theinstability that Trump might
create.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Jan Eglin, too, too, is sceptical that Europe, with
its current focus on reinforcingits fortress against migrants,
remains committed to upholdinginternational law.
Speaker 6 (30:25):
It is interesting how the conventions for refugees
came in the early 1950s becausethe Europeans really we felt
sorry for ourselves because wewere refugees after the Second
World War.
So the refugees should haverights really and they should be
guaranteed.
Europe had suffered enough andnow Europe is full-time burying
(30:52):
that convention and have aEuropean championship in barbed
wire erection and the Genevaprinciples of do not attack
those who are not fighting.
It's the golden rule.
It was there sinceAnguillet-Denard and the Battle
of Solferino in 1858.
Now it seems not.
(31:15):
Now it's okay to bomb hospitalsbecause there might be a
militant there somewhere.
It's not, it's a war crime.
Has been for a hundred years.
Speaker 5 (31:26):
Black smoke billows Caked in dust.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Survivors emerge these nightmarish scenes as
Israeli forces once again attackAl-Shifa Hospital.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Nine people have been killed and dozens wounded after
a series of Russian strikes onthe Ukrainian capital, including
an attack on a children'shospital.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Not attacking hospitals, not targeting
civilians or their homes,schools, churches, mosques or
museums.
We do, in theory, all agree onthese principles, although we
may not honour them.
In the week the UN appealed for$47 billion to help civilians
affected by conflict, the ICRC'sCordula Droga reminds us that
(32:09):
it may be worth our while tofollow the rules, because,
however much we may want todefeat our enemy, war is so very
costly.
Speaker 5 (32:19):
If you uphold the rules of not targeting civilian
objects, not targeting hospitals, not targeting schools, not
targeting electricity grids, nottargeting energy infrastructure
, water systems, you willalready have a cost to these
conflicts that's much morelimited and a possibility also
(32:40):
to get out of conflicts andreconstruct that is easier.
So international humanitarianlaw is not made to prevent
conflicts and it's also not abody of law that is made as such
to get out of conflict.
It's really made to protectvictims of armed conflict.
But it's very obvious that ifyou respect international
(33:01):
humanitarian law, it will createpathways to get out of conflict
.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
And she continues.
If that appeal doesn't work,there is another one to our
consciences, perhaps to oursouls.
Speaker 5 (33:15):
I profoundly believe and I think humanitarian law is
also based on the fact that todehumanize your enemy means that
you dehumanize yourself and ifyou do it on a large scale, you
dehumanize the entire societyand the fabric of society.
And you have to look atyourself.
I think and think how do youwant to come out of this
(33:37):
conflict?
How do you want to look atyourself when you finish the
conflict and look at yourselfand see what have I done in this
conflict?
How have I behaved in thisconflict?
And we know that people whocommit serious violations are
also traumatized by theviolations that they suffer from
, the consequences of having tolive with the fact that they
(34:00):
committed atrocities.
And I think there is also aself-interest there to be able
to live with yourself after theconflict.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Those wise words from Cordula Droga end this edition
of Inside Geneva.
We hope this episode hasprovided some food for thought
and perhaps even inspired someof our listeners to remind their
own governments whyinternational law, the Geneva
Conventions and even thecooperation the United Nations
encourages are so important.
Thanks so much for listeningand from all of us here at Swiss
(34:44):
Info, we wish you a happy andhopefully peaceful new year.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
(35:05):
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
(35:25):
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com