July 8, 2025 • 33 mins
Inside Geneva’s Summer Profiles are back! In this episode we talk to Tammam Aloudat, doctor, aid worker and now journalist.
“I was born in Syria, and I spent most of my life there until my mid-20s. I studied there; I went to medical school there,” says the CEO of The New Humanitarian.
Was being a doctor in Syria his first choice?
“One of the first side effects of autocratic dictatorships is that there isn’t really work outside a few private enterprises, one of which is being an engineer, a lawyer, or a doctor,” he says.
A chance meeting with a British Red Cross official led him into humanitarian work.
“And a couple of years later, when I wanted to go out and work for the Red Cross, it was him who gave me a contract with the British Red Cross and sent me to Iraq. I mean, arguably not the nicest thing to do to someone, but it was exactly what I had asked for.”
But the disastrous consequences of that conflict made him question his work, and the traditional neutrality of humanitarianism.
“Can we afford to only put roofs over people's heads and do nothing about the system? If your house was bombed for the first time, I understand. If it was bombed for the 17th time, and instead of a house you have a tarp, and instead of food, you have animal feed or grass to eat,” Aloudat says.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva for a fascinating discussion.
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 Fowkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I was born in Syria and I spent most of my life
until I was in my aboutmid-twenties in Syria.
I went to medical school there.
Syria was a police stategoverned by a vicious dictator
during my childhood.
One of the side effects ofautocratic dictatorships is
(00:46):
there isn't really work outsidevery few private enterprises,
one of which is being anengineer, a lawyer or a doctor.
And a couple of years later,when I wanted to go out, the Red
Cross gave me a contract withthe British Red Cross and sent
me to Iraq Arguably not thenicest thing to do to someone,
(01:08):
but it was exactly what I askedfor.
I had the blessing of beingyoung and ignorant and not
seeing the bigger problems thatone of the tools of the American
(01:31):
invasion is allowinghumanitarianism to function semi
independently.
Can we afford to only put roofsover people's heads and do
nothing about the system?
If your house was bombed forthe first time, I understand.
If it was bombed for the 17thtime and instead of a house you
(01:51):
have a tarp and instead of foodyou have animal feed or grass to
eat, like the case is today inGaza, can we still say
humanitarianism is better thannothing?
Humanitarianism is better thannothing.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes, and today webegin our season of Summer
Profiles.
We've got a great selection ofguests coming up for you over
the next few weeks, from acandidate to be a judge on the
International Court of Justiceto a senior aid worker in Gaza,
to another who started hishumanitarian career in Gaza way
(02:29):
back in the 1980s, and much,much more.
We start with a man who hasalso spent a good part of his
working life as a humanitarianbut has now made the perhaps
surprising switch to journalism.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
My name is Tamama Laudat.
I'm originally a physician.
I come from Syria and I haveworked in the humanitarian
sector for most of my adult lifebetween the Red Cross and MSF,
doctors Without Borders, doctorsWithout Borders.
(03:10):
And, as of last November, in2024, I moved from being in a
humanitarian organization toworking in the new humanitarian,
which is a news agency, anewsroom that reports on crises
and the sector that serves them.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
I'm going to come on to that career switch in a
moment, but first you're fromSyria, a country that I guess
here in Europe we all hear about, but most of us have never been
, in my about mid-twenties, inSyria.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
I studied there.
I went to medical school there.
The only exception is my father, who taught university, was
seconded to Saudi Arabia for afew years when I was a young
child, until the age of seven,and other than that I've spent
most of my life there and it wasin a partially very typical
(04:12):
middle class life and in otherparts fairly outside the norm.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
How do you mean?
Speaker 3 (04:19):
I mean, people have images of Syria that varies a
lot and those who don't know thehistory of it know probably
imagine jihadis and Islamists.
But I come from a well the tailend of a generation that was
much more socialist, much moresecular, and my father was born
in a village in the south butwent on to do a PhD in the
(04:40):
Soviet Union at the time, and hewas never organized in a party,
but a devout socialist all hislife.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
You went to medical school in Syria.
Did you always want to be adoctor right from being a little
boy, or was it something thatcame to you.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Oh God no, no, it didn't come to me, it was given
to me.
In Syria all universities werefree but very competitive If you
got the grades to go to medicalschool.
You go to medical schoolbecause that's one of the few
ways was a police state governedby a vicious dictator during my
(05:27):
childhood, and one of the sideeffects of autocratic
dictatorships is there isn'treally work outside very few
private enterprises, one ofwhich is being an engineer, a
lawyer or a doctor, andeverybody else was an employee
by the state in somethingusually that has nothing to do
with their education.
So going to a medical schoolwas both a status thing because
(05:51):
doctors had a certain socialstatus and sort of future
independence thing as well.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Did you use that to get out?
Because you already in 2003,you were iraq?
Not that that's necessarily adesire, it wasn't a desirable
posting, but did you see it likethat?
Speaker 3 (06:12):
in part.
Yes, I mean the going out bitis, uh is a weird one.
It was easier to get out ifyou're a physician, but not
usually.
The idea of going out with ahumanitarian organization wasn't
on the books.
Really, the route that mostpeople did that I studied with
was to go and do the exams theequivalency exams of their
(06:38):
medical degrees with the US orin the UK or Germany, and go and
study there and like,specialize there and, with any
luck, stay there.
So the Damascus School ofMedicine was a great exporter of
doctors, but that also meantthat we studied medicine in
(06:58):
Arabic and everybody had torestudy it in English to apply
for the exams.
I didn't have the desire to dothat.
I did orthopedic surgery for awhile.
I thought that would beinteresting, but I realized,
luckily early enough, that Idon't have the gift of doing the
same thing every day for therest of my life.
(07:20):
So humanitarianism came as anaccident, but it was a happy one
, so tell me about being in Iraqin 2003.
It started in the late 90s whenI was a volunteer in the Red
Crescent in Syria.
It wasn't something I expectedto do, but a cousin of mine,
(07:43):
whom I've always loved so dearly, told me that I should try it,
and I went once to a meeting andI got hooked completely.
I think, looking back at it nowagain, in a police state there
are very few opportunities to bewith people freely, and that
(08:03):
was one of those fewopportunities and I loved it.
It was something to do, a placeof debate and discussion, and
the volunteers have, at the time, been self governing.
So we've learned to make ourcase and to act in a somewhat
democratic environmentdemocratic environment.
(08:28):
And then I had the good luck ofencountering a few people.
One of them was the head ofinternational department in the
British Red Cross, and a coupleof years later, when I wanted to
go out and, do you know, workfor the Red Cross, it was him
who gave me a contract with theBritish Red Cross and sent me to
Iraq.
I mean arguably not the nicestthing to do to someone, but it
was exactly what I asked for.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
It was just over 90 minutes beyond President Bush's
deadline for Saddam Hussein toleave Iraq that US warships and
planes launched the openingsalvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom
, of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This is what it's like on thereceiving end.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Tell me about Iraq, then.
Again, one of those thingsheralded we're being reminded of
it a bit now the kind ofmission accomplished when, in
fact, it descended into a reallyserious conflict.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
I was 25 when I went to Iraq.
I mean it was such anexceptionally different
experience for me.
We landed in Baghdad in theearly days of June, just a few
weeks after the missionaccomplished spectacle that
George W Bush did on thataircraft carrier, and it looked
(09:49):
for a very short period.
It did look like a missionaccomplished.
It looked for a very shortperiod, it did look like a
mission accomplished.
And I drove with a couple ofother colleagues across the
country from Erbil to Basra thatsummer and it was open and
again from an expatriate-likesort of humanitarian landing
there perspective, it looked allgood.
(10:10):
You could even buy alcohol andbecause that's a question
apparently that one should askafter regime changes but things
disintegrated very fast.
That was a lesson I've learnedearly enough is prophesying
about how the future goes is nota very good idea.
Soon after, in summer,explosive devices started being
(10:33):
planted on the sides of roads.
In the early days of me beingthere we could go through the
green zone from our residence tothe office of the IFRC at the
time.
So I used to drive an oldfour-wheel drive through the
checkpoints and through thefairgrounds the military
fairgrounds that saddam used toenjoy very much, and soon after
(10:57):
those became targets, a massivebomb blast at the un in baghdad.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
It didn't play any part in the war.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
But this afternoon the United Nations found out
what it's like to become aterrorist target.
It only became apparent thatthings are going really wrong
when the bomb attack against theUN followed in October with
another ambulance attack againstthe ICRC against the ICRC.
(11:36):
That was when we realized thatthat sort of brief period of
calm was going to be followed bya real big problem and it did.
But also part of it that Ididn't recognize is at the early
days there were Americanadvisors to the ministries who
came and gave no introduction orcredentials, sat and
condescended to NGOs about howthey should do their jobs, and
(11:58):
once things started getting badthey also disappeared behind
closed doors.
And this whole celebratory modeof we liberated the country
went to hell quite fast.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
This is beginning to sound a bit familiar.
Did you feel you could do anygood in Iraq?
I mean, you were a doctor.
You must have had some sensethat you were achieving
something.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Yes, to an extent, Iraq was my formative base in
this sector, and part of it wasdoing good as a doctor is one
thing, and doing good as someonewho is extracted from the very
strict environment of medicinewas a different thing.
What I mean by that is, in ourday and age, doctors aren't
(12:44):
expected to be anything butdiagnosis and treatment machines
contained in clinics that areformally trained to the highest
level.
The days where doctors inArabic one of the ways doctors
were called was hakeem, whichmeans a wise person.
This was one of the things thatattracted me to the
humanitarian world.
Much more is that we're broughtback to a place where you
(13:08):
cannot just be in your clinic,close the door and do whatever
you need to do within arelationship with a single
patient at a time.
It included judgment aboutresources.
It included judgment aboutpriorities.
None of those are any more partof the medical training.
I think that was useful, anddoing that well is what makes a
(13:28):
difference in a context likethis.
But also, I had the blessing ofbeing young and ignorant and
not seeing the bigger problemsthat surrounded you know, the
existence as a sort of one ofthe tools of the american
invasion is allowinghumanitarianism to function semi
(13:50):
independently and say that youknow, whatever problems arise,
we will solve them through thoseguys it was.
It was too early for me to tobe cognizant of the bigger
picture well, you moved to othercrisis zones.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
When did that or that interpretation that you have,
when did that start to to dawnon you?
I mean, I do remember that inAfghanistan, round about the
same time, similar things weregoing on, that aid workers were
described, I think by ColinPowell, as a kind of support to
the combat team, which isabsolutely not what humanitarian
(14:29):
workers want.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
I mean it might not be what we want, but it might as
well be what we are intended ornot, but it was.
I mean I came from an entirelydifferent place.
My early images of being ahumanitarian were from, you know
, what used to be called thecowboys of the day, people who
(14:50):
jumped in and jumped out and didsomething and then left, and
then to the next war.
That intersects largely withthe stories of journalists who
covered wars, and I avidly readthe journalists who covered war.
I read their books.
There's that sense of adventure, you know, meaningful, doing
something good while being on,an adventure that started
(15:14):
diminishing.
Then I went and studied inLondon.
I did a Master's in PublicHealth.
My next mission, as they arecalled, was to Indonesia after
the tsunami.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Then a second wave roars in with unstoppable
momentum, those watchingpanicking as it engulfs
everything.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
And there it was still far from realising the
roots of the problem.
But there was my firstencounter with what is called
the humanitarian circus.
I was in Aceh with anothercouple of thousand of
humanitarian workers.
Everybody and their goat wentto Aceh because that's where the
money was, regardless of howmuch or how little can be done
(16:02):
there.
And suddenly there was a bubblewith its own economy.
I mean, soon after, from havingto get your food in a banana
leaf to having a pizzarestaurant and stuff that were
made for expats and havinghumanitarian parties, and you
start realizing that there'ssomething wrong.
(16:23):
I mean, there were so manyhumanitarians that the
coordination requiredcoordination.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
In the past we've had a whole conversation about
decolonizing humanitarian aid.
We've had a whole conversationabout decolonizing humanitarian
aid.
Some of the things you'vewritten recently I'm thinking
particularly an analysis pieceyou did for your own media now
the New Humanitarian was aboutprecisely this.
You still think there's a huge,almost colonialistic approach.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
The problem with the decolonizing is that people
immediately contain it in theirassumption about what
colonialism and decolonizing is.
That people immediately containit in their assumption about
what colonialism anddecolonizing is instead of
actually thinking of the meritsof the argument.
If I was to argue it fromscratch, I'd say we still have a
heavy inheritance of the powerdynamics that were colonialism,
(17:10):
patriarchy, toxic nationalism.
Were colonialism, patriarchy,toxic nationalism.
All of them fall together andhave managed for a long time to
assume a benevolent exterior tolook good, whether that is the
liberal world order or themultilateral, whatever you want
to call it.
And it took a lot of digging tosee what is broken under the
(17:35):
surface.
And this is where the colonialliterature or the feminist
literature or theanti-capitalist literature
helped understand those obscuredor intentionally obscured
relationships of power, whetherit is globally or within the
humanitarian sector itself.
I think it's safe to say thatthings are broken to the extent
(17:58):
that you don't need to mediatethe conversation that much with
tools of understanding likeUnderstanding Colonia.
It is still important, but youdon't need to use them to dig
those inequalities of ours.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
You say it's not working, what would you change?
Because, frankly, if I've justhad my house bombed or bulldozed
or swept away by a flood, I'mnot particularly interested in a
humanitarian worker coming andtalking to me about challenging
capitalism.
I've got a roof over my head.
So I'm just not quite sure whatthe change is that you're
(18:33):
looking for.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Absolutely rightly so .
And this is one of thedifficulties, because
decolonising the university issimple Throw away half of the
racist, fascist authors in thatlibrary and put more diverse and
more inclusive readingmaterials and education, and
there's no loss actually inthrowing away half the library
that is outdated and harmful.
Here we have a very differentsituation.
(18:55):
There are millions of peoplewho are dependent on aid and who
would die effectively if you,you know, eliminate and I've
said it multiple times, if I hada red button on my desk that
you know cancelledhumanitarianism, I wouldn't use
it.
It's not the place of any of usto moralize over the lives of
people.
Wouldn't use it there.
It's not the place of any of usto moralize over the lives of
(19:16):
people.
But the question is can weafford to only put roofs over
people's heads and do nothingabout the system?
If your house was bombed forthe first time, I understand.
If it was bombed for the 17thtime, and instead of a house you
have a tarp and instead of foodyou have animal feed or grass
to eat, like the case is todayin Gaza, can we still say
(19:38):
humanitarianism is better thannothing and where's the
threshold of it having failed tothe extent that it's just
covering the catastrophe.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
They unloaded the few trucks that reached Khan Yunis
under cover of darkness.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
It's time for Hayat to have her wounds treated and
her bandages changed.
An Israeli airstrike did thisBurns, cover her arms and back.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
Israel renewed its blockade of medicine and food
entering the Gaza Strip morethan two months ago medicine and
food entering the Gaza Stripmore than two months ago, so in
a way, repairing the car whilewe're driving it or changing
half of the car while we'redriving it.
But there's also a need for anagreement.
When is it that this car ishaving more accidents than
(20:28):
deliveries?
And I don't think we're farfrom that.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So a lot of humanitarians Tam-Am, though,
would say to you that you'remisidentifying the problem.
They say that they're beingused as a sticking plaster, but
it's not up to the humanitariancommunity to find diplomatic and
political solutions, whetherit's in the Middle East, whether
it's between Russia and Ukraine.
Now, they are frustrated atthese never-ending conflicts and
(20:53):
the appalling mistakes and wecan come on to it in a minute
the violations of internationallaw that are taking place, but
their job is delivery, immediatedelivery at the point of need.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Yes, it is until they become complicit in the crimes
that they are delivering aid for.
And this is a delicate place tounderstand.
If we are to deliver aid, wehave to assume a functioning
system under which we candeliver aid.
If the system exploits us tocontinue its oppressive means,
(21:27):
then we need to say somethingabout it.
So I'll give you a parallelexample.
Whether it is soldiers not beingokay to say we got orders to
break the law, that has beendismissed as an argument long
ago.
So you know to say that thepolice is not guilty of killing
and beating people because thisis what they were told to do and
(21:47):
this is what they understand.
This Harm cannot be justifiedand our individual and
collective agency cannot begiven away.
If we believe that we're stilldoing good despite all the harm,
fine.
But if we believe that we havebecome part of covering up the
harm and we're still saying it'snot our job to do something
(22:09):
about it, then it's not funny.
There are plenty of examples.
I mean, if you look at thisdelusional understanding of
neutrality as silence, forexample, you go to the ICRC's
website two years of genocideand hundreds of statements, and
the word Israel is like LordVoldemort cannot be mentioned.
(22:31):
You know, it takes so muchrhetorical engineering To talk
about a conflict without evermentioning the side that is
killing people.
That's not neutrality, that isfear.
And one has to ask when is itto gain access and when is it
(22:51):
just to retain a status quo thatis comfortable for those that
provide aid, even if it'sharmful to those who receive it?
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid
on day one of his presidency.
Late today, the US StateDepartment suspended all foreign
assistance around the world forat least three months.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
The United Nations Aid Agency is saying that there
could be 2,000 new cases of HIVdue to the USAID cuts.
Can I cut to something thatmany people, especially here in
Geneva, see as more immediate,though many would also accept
the validity of what you've justsaid there.
But more immediate issue isthat there have been massive
(23:33):
financial cuts to humanitarianfunding.
Aid programs are being cut, butyou've said recently that US
cuts are not the key problem.
I mean some people mightdispute that with you at this
point.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Oh God, they aren't, of course they aren't.
If the problem was the lack ofmoney, then the cuts would be
the problem.
The problem is not.
The US has increased itsmilitary expenditure to over a
trillion dollars for the firsttime ever.
Germany, who had aconstitutional obligation to not
(24:08):
go in debt, has opened debtindefinitely and without
limitations up to 500 billion,if I understand it, for armament
.
The UK has cut most of it.
It's not about the lack ofmoney.
We're acting as if the problemis that the banks are empty.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, the problem is the priorities that the
governments have made.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
If we believe that, then we would be talking about
their priorities, not about theamount of money.
You'd know Geneva well enough.
The talk is about where do weget money to cover the lack of
money?
Let's go and run to the privatesector and ask for money.
Who's the private sector?
The same tech companies thatare weaponizing AI so it can be
(24:51):
used in the wars that we aretrying to help people in?
Or the transportation or oil?
Or companies that aredestroying the environment that
we're trying to help people for?
I mean, the logic of that isjust let's find money.
You know, I mean there is alevel of descending into
compromise that will get human,but that's not the point.
The point is not a problem ofmoney, it's a problem of
(25:14):
politics, and as long as wepretend that we are outside
politics, above and beyond it,then we aren't going to see the
problem.
We're not going to call outthose who are sacrificing any
potential or even pretense ofbenevolence in favour of
effectively like the Wall StreetJournal, I think, called it the
(25:36):
move from welfare state towarfare state.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
The way you talk, I'm actually beginning to see why
you moved from humanitarian workto journalism.
Do you see this career changeas a way almost to get this
message across about what needsto be changed and how wrong some
of the priorities are?
Speaker 3 (25:58):
I think there are a couple of elements to it.
First, I think I had a massiveprivilege of working for really
good organizations and withamazing people, and I've had the
luck and opportunity to be inmultiple positions, including
leadership, and there's plentyof good that is being done, can
be done there, but there aremany people who are doing that.
(26:18):
I think there are very few whohave the willingness and urge
and self-destructive tendency toactually not let this speaking
out, and I think there's a levelwhere you cannot do that inside
the system, and this offered mean opportunity, potentially
while having a job and notstarving to speak out more.
The other part is I thinkjournalism has a potential to
(26:44):
stir politics, to call out, topick shit better than any other
discipline, and I think we havean obligation to do that now
rather than fall into the falseobjectivity and both-sidism or
the passive voice of mostjournalism today.
(27:04):
But in all cases, this is whatattracts me to it, and the New
Humanitarian is such a uniqueorganization in the sense of its
27 people who have, over 30years since the Rwandan genocide
, gained the credibility ofbeing sort of the journalism and
accountability mechanism of asystem this complicated and this
(27:25):
attracted to power, so it'sbeen a huge experience so far.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Very last question, then.
We are, of course, talking inthe home of international law,
which I personally you maydisagree with me I see this as
such a fundamental and veryimportant part of what should
keep us civilized, but it'sbeing ripped up.
How can we revive it?
Speaker 3 (27:51):
So I do disagree in principle.
I think law and justice are twodifferent things.
Not all laws are just andjustice isn't served always by
the law, but in this case wehave a tool and that tool worked
imperfectly, because whetherit's international humanitarian
law or the Rome status or any ofthose instruments of
(28:13):
international law have workedimperfectly, but they set a
standard and today we are seeingthe effect of dismantling of
this the fact that Netanyahu,with an arrest warrant, flies
over Europe and doesn't getstopped.
I can't imagine that, havinghappened to Gaddafi or Omar
al-Bashir the fact that he'sreceived in Congress and gets
(28:34):
applauded dozens of times wedon't have anymore the moral
standing to say it's theRussians and the Chinese and
everybody else that doesn'tdeserve the civility of the law.
It is an effective dismantlingof the law that had, to an
extent, kept us civilized and ofcourse, we need to advocate,
(28:55):
call for it to be reformed,respected and so on.
But we also need to understandthat politics has reached a
stage that is so well into thegutter.
I mean, there's no more left orright, everybody's a neoliberal
and everybody lovesbillionaires and everybody is
going to sell their grandmotherfor the next elections.
(29:15):
This is not a sustainable stateunder which law can be
respected, and this is I meanarguably, without getting into
politics and active dissent andcalling out the failure of our
political collective.
It's hard to repair one aspectand not the others.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Tamar Maloudat ofthe New Humanitarian for his
time and that fascinatinginterview.
Join us again in two weeks,where we'll be hearing from
international lawyer Dapo Akande, who has thrown his hat into
the ring to be a judge at theInternational Court of Justice.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
I think I was very argumentative as a child and
everyone used to say you shouldbe a lawyer.
I always had this interest ininternational affairs, and when
I saw that there was an area oflaw that actually dealt with
international affairs, I thought, yes, that's the bit that I'm
interested in.
It's clearly the case that infar too many cases,
(30:25):
international law is disregarded.
I think that is true.
There are many instances wherethe law is not followed, and you
only have to turn on the newsto see that.
What I do know is that actually, international law is
increasingly regarded asrelevant and actions are judged
(30:50):
more nowadays by reference tointernational law than was the
case before.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
That episode will be out on July 22nd.
Don't miss it.
And a reminder our profilesfrom last summer are all still
available.
Hear from Chris Lockyer,secretary General of Médecins
Sans Frontières, doctors WithoutBorders, or Esther Dingemans,
(31:16):
of the Global Survivors Fund,which supports people who have
suffered sexual violence inconflict.
You can hear those and morewherever you get your podcasts.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
(31:38):
unites prisoners of war withtheir families.
How the International Red Crossunites prisoners of war with
their families, or why survivorsof human rights violations turn
to the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Fowkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
I was born in Syria and I spent most of my life
until I was in my aboutmid-twenties in Syria.
I went to medical school there.
Syria was a police stategoverned by a vicious dictator
during my childhood.
One of the side effects ofautocratic dictatorships is
(00:46):
there isn't really work outsidevery few private enterprises,
one of which is being anengineer, a lawyer or a doctor.
And a couple of years later,when I wanted to go out, the Red
Cross gave me a contract withthe British Red Cross and sent
me to Iraq Arguably not thenicest thing to do to someone,
(01:08):
but it was exactly what I askedfor.
I had the blessing of beingyoung and ignorant and not
seeing the bigger problems thatone of the tools of the American
(01:31):
invasion is allowinghumanitarianism to function semi
independently.
Can we afford to only put roofsover people's heads and do
nothing about the system?
If your house was bombed forthe first time, I understand.
If it was bombed for the 17thtime and instead of a house you
(01:51):
have a tarp and instead of foodyou have animal feed or grass to
eat, like the case is today inGaza, can we still say
humanitarianism is better thannothing?
Humanitarianism is better thannothing.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes, and today webegin our season of Summer
Profiles.
We've got a great selection ofguests coming up for you over
the next few weeks, from acandidate to be a judge on the
International Court of Justiceto a senior aid worker in Gaza,
to another who started hishumanitarian career in Gaza way
(02:29):
back in the 1980s, and much,much more.
We start with a man who hasalso spent a good part of his
working life as a humanitarianbut has now made the perhaps
surprising switch to journalism.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
My name is Tamama Laudat.
I'm originally a physician.
I come from Syria and I haveworked in the humanitarian
sector for most of my adult lifebetween the Red Cross and MSF,
doctors Without Borders, doctorsWithout Borders.
(03:10):
And, as of last November, in2024, I moved from being in a
humanitarian organization toworking in the new humanitarian,
which is a news agency, anewsroom that reports on crises
and the sector that serves them.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
I'm going to come on to that career switch in a
moment, but first you're fromSyria, a country that I guess
here in Europe we all hear about, but most of us have never been
, in my about mid-twenties, inSyria.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
I studied there.
I went to medical school there.
The only exception is my father, who taught university, was
seconded to Saudi Arabia for afew years when I was a young
child, until the age of seven,and other than that I've spent
most of my life there and it wasin a partially very typical
(04:12):
middle class life and in otherparts fairly outside the norm.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
How do you mean?
Speaker 3 (04:19):
I mean, people have images of Syria that varies a
lot and those who don't know thehistory of it know probably
imagine jihadis and Islamists.
But I come from a well the tailend of a generation that was
much more socialist, much moresecular, and my father was born
in a village in the south butwent on to do a PhD in the
(04:40):
Soviet Union at the time, and hewas never organized in a party,
but a devout socialist all hislife.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
You went to medical school in Syria.
Did you always want to be adoctor right from being a little
boy, or was it something thatcame to you.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Oh God no, no, it didn't come to me, it was given
to me.
In Syria all universities werefree but very competitive If you
got the grades to go to medicalschool.
You go to medical schoolbecause that's one of the few
ways was a police state governedby a vicious dictator during my
(05:27):
childhood, and one of the sideeffects of autocratic
dictatorships is there isn'treally work outside very few
private enterprises, one ofwhich is being an engineer, a
lawyer or a doctor, andeverybody else was an employee
by the state in somethingusually that has nothing to do
with their education.
So going to a medical schoolwas both a status thing because
(05:51):
doctors had a certain socialstatus and sort of future
independence thing as well.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Did you use that to get out?
Because you already in 2003,you were iraq?
Not that that's necessarily adesire, it wasn't a desirable
posting, but did you see it likethat?
Speaker 3 (06:12):
in part.
Yes, I mean the going out bitis, uh is a weird one.
It was easier to get out ifyou're a physician, but not
usually.
The idea of going out with ahumanitarian organization wasn't
on the books.
Really, the route that mostpeople did that I studied with
was to go and do the exams theequivalency exams of their
(06:38):
medical degrees with the US orin the UK or Germany, and go and
study there and like,specialize there and, with any
luck, stay there.
So the Damascus School ofMedicine was a great exporter of
doctors, but that also meantthat we studied medicine in
(06:58):
Arabic and everybody had torestudy it in English to apply
for the exams.
I didn't have the desire to dothat.
I did orthopedic surgery for awhile.
I thought that would beinteresting, but I realized,
luckily early enough, that Idon't have the gift of doing the
same thing every day for therest of my life.
(07:20):
So humanitarianism came as anaccident, but it was a happy one
, so tell me about being in Iraqin 2003.
It started in the late 90s whenI was a volunteer in the Red
Crescent in Syria.
It wasn't something I expectedto do, but a cousin of mine,
(07:43):
whom I've always loved so dearly, told me that I should try it,
and I went once to a meeting andI got hooked completely.
I think, looking back at it nowagain, in a police state there
are very few opportunities to bewith people freely, and that
(08:03):
was one of those fewopportunities and I loved it.
It was something to do, a placeof debate and discussion, and
the volunteers have, at the time, been self governing.
So we've learned to make ourcase and to act in a somewhat
democratic environmentdemocratic environment.
(08:28):
And then I had the good luck ofencountering a few people.
One of them was the head ofinternational department in the
British Red Cross, and a coupleof years later, when I wanted to
go out and, do you know, workfor the Red Cross, it was him
who gave me a contract with theBritish Red Cross and sent me to
Iraq.
I mean arguably not the nicestthing to do to someone, but it
was exactly what I asked for.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
It was just over 90 minutes beyond President Bush's
deadline for Saddam Hussein toleave Iraq that US warships and
planes launched the openingsalvo of Operation Iraqi Freedom
, of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This is what it's like on thereceiving end.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Tell me about Iraq, then.
Again, one of those thingsheralded we're being reminded of
it a bit now the kind ofmission accomplished when, in
fact, it descended into a reallyserious conflict.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
I was 25 when I went to Iraq.
I mean it was such anexceptionally different
experience for me.
We landed in Baghdad in theearly days of June, just a few
weeks after the missionaccomplished spectacle that
George W Bush did on thataircraft carrier, and it looked
(09:49):
for a very short period.
It did look like a missionaccomplished.
It looked for a very shortperiod, it did look like a
mission accomplished.
And I drove with a couple ofother colleagues across the
country from Erbil to Basra thatsummer and it was open and
again from an expatriate-likesort of humanitarian landing
there perspective, it looked allgood.
(10:10):
You could even buy alcohol andbecause that's a question
apparently that one should askafter regime changes but things
disintegrated very fast.
That was a lesson I've learnedearly enough is prophesying
about how the future goes is nota very good idea.
Soon after, in summer,explosive devices started being
(10:33):
planted on the sides of roads.
In the early days of me beingthere we could go through the
green zone from our residence tothe office of the IFRC at the
time.
So I used to drive an oldfour-wheel drive through the
checkpoints and through thefairgrounds the military
fairgrounds that saddam used toenjoy very much, and soon after
(10:57):
those became targets, a massivebomb blast at the un in baghdad.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
It didn't play any part in the war.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
But this afternoon the United Nations found out
what it's like to become aterrorist target.
It only became apparent thatthings are going really wrong
when the bomb attack against theUN followed in October with
another ambulance attack againstthe ICRC against the ICRC.
(11:36):
That was when we realized thatthat sort of brief period of
calm was going to be followed bya real big problem and it did.
But also part of it that Ididn't recognize is at the early
days there were Americanadvisors to the ministries who
came and gave no introduction orcredentials, sat and
condescended to NGOs about howthey should do their jobs, and
(11:58):
once things started getting badthey also disappeared behind
closed doors.
And this whole celebratory modeof we liberated the country
went to hell quite fast.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
This is beginning to sound a bit familiar.
Did you feel you could do anygood in Iraq?
I mean, you were a doctor.
You must have had some sensethat you were achieving
something.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Yes, to an extent, Iraq was my formative base in
this sector, and part of it wasdoing good as a doctor is one
thing, and doing good as someonewho is extracted from the very
strict environment of medicinewas a different thing.
What I mean by that is, in ourday and age, doctors aren't
(12:44):
expected to be anything butdiagnosis and treatment machines
contained in clinics that areformally trained to the highest
level.
The days where doctors inArabic one of the ways doctors
were called was hakeem, whichmeans a wise person.
This was one of the things thatattracted me to the
humanitarian world.
Much more is that we're broughtback to a place where you
(13:08):
cannot just be in your clinic,close the door and do whatever
you need to do within arelationship with a single
patient at a time.
It included judgment aboutresources.
It included judgment aboutpriorities.
None of those are any more partof the medical training.
I think that was useful, anddoing that well is what makes a
(13:28):
difference in a context likethis.
But also, I had the blessing ofbeing young and ignorant and
not seeing the bigger problemsthat surrounded you know, the
existence as a sort of one ofthe tools of the american
invasion is allowinghumanitarianism to function semi
(13:50):
independently and say that youknow, whatever problems arise,
we will solve them through thoseguys it was.
It was too early for me to tobe cognizant of the bigger
picture well, you moved to othercrisis zones.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
When did that or that interpretation that you have,
when did that start to to dawnon you?
I mean, I do remember that inAfghanistan, round about the
same time, similar things weregoing on, that aid workers were
described, I think by ColinPowell, as a kind of support to
the combat team, which isabsolutely not what humanitarian
(14:29):
workers want.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
I mean it might not be what we want, but it might as
well be what we are intended ornot, but it was.
I mean I came from an entirelydifferent place.
My early images of being ahumanitarian were from, you know
, what used to be called thecowboys of the day, people who
(14:50):
jumped in and jumped out and didsomething and then left, and
then to the next war.
That intersects largely withthe stories of journalists who
covered wars, and I avidly readthe journalists who covered war.
I read their books.
There's that sense of adventure, you know, meaningful, doing
something good while being on,an adventure that started
(15:14):
diminishing.
Then I went and studied inLondon.
I did a Master's in PublicHealth.
My next mission, as they arecalled, was to Indonesia after
the tsunami.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Then a second wave roars in with unstoppable
momentum, those watchingpanicking as it engulfs
everything.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
And there it was still far from realising the
roots of the problem.
But there was my firstencounter with what is called
the humanitarian circus.
I was in Aceh with anothercouple of thousand of
humanitarian workers.
Everybody and their goat wentto Aceh because that's where the
money was, regardless of howmuch or how little can be done
(16:02):
there.
And suddenly there was a bubblewith its own economy.
I mean, soon after, from havingto get your food in a banana
leaf to having a pizzarestaurant and stuff that were
made for expats and havinghumanitarian parties, and you
start realizing that there'ssomething wrong.
(16:23):
I mean, there were so manyhumanitarians that the
coordination requiredcoordination.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
In the past we've had a whole conversation about
decolonizing humanitarian aid.
We've had a whole conversationabout decolonizing humanitarian
aid.
Some of the things you'vewritten recently I'm thinking
particularly an analysis pieceyou did for your own media now
the New Humanitarian was aboutprecisely this.
You still think there's a huge,almost colonialistic approach.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
The problem with the decolonizing is that people
immediately contain it in theirassumption about what
colonialism and decolonizing is.
That people immediately containit in their assumption about
what colonialism anddecolonizing is instead of
actually thinking of the meritsof the argument.
If I was to argue it fromscratch, I'd say we still have a
heavy inheritance of the powerdynamics that were colonialism,
(17:10):
patriarchy, toxic nationalism.
Were colonialism, patriarchy,toxic nationalism.
All of them fall together andhave managed for a long time to
assume a benevolent exterior tolook good, whether that is the
liberal world order or themultilateral, whatever you want
to call it.
And it took a lot of digging tosee what is broken under the
(17:35):
surface.
And this is where the colonialliterature or the feminist
literature or theanti-capitalist literature
helped understand those obscuredor intentionally obscured
relationships of power, whetherit is globally or within the
humanitarian sector itself.
I think it's safe to say thatthings are broken to the extent
(17:58):
that you don't need to mediatethe conversation that much with
tools of understanding likeUnderstanding Colonia.
It is still important, but youdon't need to use them to dig
those inequalities of ours.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
You say it's not working, what would you change?
Because, frankly, if I've justhad my house bombed or bulldozed
or swept away by a flood, I'mnot particularly interested in a
humanitarian worker coming andtalking to me about challenging
capitalism.
I've got a roof over my head.
So I'm just not quite sure whatthe change is that you're
(18:33):
looking for.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Absolutely rightly so .
And this is one of thedifficulties, because
decolonising the university issimple Throw away half of the
racist, fascist authors in thatlibrary and put more diverse and
more inclusive readingmaterials and education, and
there's no loss actually inthrowing away half the library
that is outdated and harmful.
Here we have a very differentsituation.
(18:55):
There are millions of peoplewho are dependent on aid and who
would die effectively if you,you know, eliminate and I've
said it multiple times, if I hada red button on my desk that
you know cancelledhumanitarianism, I wouldn't use
it.
It's not the place of any of usto moralize over the lives of
people.
Wouldn't use it there.
It's not the place of any of usto moralize over the lives of
(19:16):
people.
But the question is can weafford to only put roofs over
people's heads and do nothingabout the system?
If your house was bombed forthe first time, I understand.
If it was bombed for the 17thtime, and instead of a house you
have a tarp and instead of foodyou have animal feed or grass
to eat, like the case is todayin Gaza, can we still say
(19:38):
humanitarianism is better thannothing and where's the
threshold of it having failed tothe extent that it's just
covering the catastrophe.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
They unloaded the few trucks that reached Khan Yunis
under cover of darkness.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
It's time for Hayat to have her wounds treated and
her bandages changed.
An Israeli airstrike did thisBurns, cover her arms and back.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
Israel renewed its blockade of medicine and food
entering the Gaza Strip morethan two months ago medicine and
food entering the Gaza Stripmore than two months ago, so in
a way, repairing the car whilewe're driving it or changing
half of the car while we'redriving it.
But there's also a need for anagreement.
When is it that this car ishaving more accidents than
(20:28):
deliveries?
And I don't think we're farfrom that.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So a lot of humanitarians Tam-Am, though,
would say to you that you'remisidentifying the problem.
They say that they're beingused as a sticking plaster, but
it's not up to the humanitariancommunity to find diplomatic and
political solutions, whetherit's in the Middle East, whether
it's between Russia and Ukraine.
Now, they are frustrated atthese never-ending conflicts and
(20:53):
the appalling mistakes and wecan come on to it in a minute
the violations of internationallaw that are taking place, but
their job is delivery, immediatedelivery at the point of need.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Yes, it is until they become complicit in the crimes
that they are delivering aid for.
And this is a delicate place tounderstand.
If we are to deliver aid, wehave to assume a functioning
system under which we candeliver aid.
If the system exploits us tocontinue its oppressive means,
(21:27):
then we need to say somethingabout it.
So I'll give you a parallelexample.
Whether it is soldiers not beingokay to say we got orders to
break the law, that has beendismissed as an argument long
ago.
So you know to say that thepolice is not guilty of killing
and beating people because thisis what they were told to do and
(21:47):
this is what they understand.
This Harm cannot be justifiedand our individual and
collective agency cannot begiven away.
If we believe that we're stilldoing good despite all the harm,
fine.
But if we believe that we havebecome part of covering up the
harm and we're still saying it'snot our job to do something
(22:09):
about it, then it's not funny.
There are plenty of examples.
I mean, if you look at thisdelusional understanding of
neutrality as silence, forexample, you go to the ICRC's
website two years of genocideand hundreds of statements, and
the word Israel is like LordVoldemort cannot be mentioned.
(22:31):
You know, it takes so muchrhetorical engineering To talk
about a conflict without evermentioning the side that is
killing people.
That's not neutrality, that isfear.
And one has to ask when is itto gain access and when is it
(22:51):
just to retain a status quo thatis comfortable for those that
provide aid, even if it'sharmful to those who receive it?
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Donald Trump suspended American foreign aid
on day one of his presidency.
Late today, the US StateDepartment suspended all foreign
assistance around the world forat least three months.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
The United Nations Aid Agency is saying that there
could be 2,000 new cases of HIVdue to the USAID cuts.
Can I cut to something thatmany people, especially here in
Geneva, see as more immediate,though many would also accept
the validity of what you've justsaid there.
But more immediate issue isthat there have been massive
(23:33):
financial cuts to humanitarianfunding.
Aid programs are being cut, butyou've said recently that US
cuts are not the key problem.
I mean some people mightdispute that with you at this
point.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Oh God, they aren't, of course they aren't.
If the problem was the lack ofmoney, then the cuts would be
the problem.
The problem is not.
The US has increased itsmilitary expenditure to over a
trillion dollars for the firsttime ever.
Germany, who had aconstitutional obligation to not
(24:08):
go in debt, has opened debtindefinitely and without
limitations up to 500 billion,if I understand it, for armament
.
The UK has cut most of it.
It's not about the lack ofmoney.
We're acting as if the problemis that the banks are empty.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, the problem is the priorities that the
governments have made.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
If we believe that, then we would be talking about
their priorities, not about theamount of money.
You'd know Geneva well enough.
The talk is about where do weget money to cover the lack of
money?
Let's go and run to the privatesector and ask for money.
Who's the private sector?
The same tech companies thatare weaponizing AI so it can be
(24:51):
used in the wars that we aretrying to help people in?
Or the transportation or oil?
Or companies that aredestroying the environment that
we're trying to help people for?
I mean, the logic of that isjust let's find money.
You know, I mean there is alevel of descending into
compromise that will get human,but that's not the point.
The point is not a problem ofmoney, it's a problem of
(25:14):
politics, and as long as wepretend that we are outside
politics, above and beyond it,then we aren't going to see the
problem.
We're not going to call outthose who are sacrificing any
potential or even pretense ofbenevolence in favour of
effectively like the Wall StreetJournal, I think, called it the
(25:36):
move from welfare state towarfare state.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
The way you talk, I'm actually beginning to see why
you moved from humanitarian workto journalism.
Do you see this career changeas a way almost to get this
message across about what needsto be changed and how wrong some
of the priorities are?
Speaker 3 (25:58):
I think there are a couple of elements to it.
First, I think I had a massiveprivilege of working for really
good organizations and withamazing people, and I've had the
luck and opportunity to be inmultiple positions, including
leadership, and there's plentyof good that is being done, can
be done there, but there aremany people who are doing that.
(26:18):
I think there are very few whohave the willingness and urge
and self-destructive tendency toactually not let this speaking
out, and I think there's a levelwhere you cannot do that inside
the system, and this offered mean opportunity, potentially
while having a job and notstarving to speak out more.
The other part is I thinkjournalism has a potential to
(26:44):
stir politics, to call out, topick shit better than any other
discipline, and I think we havean obligation to do that now
rather than fall into the falseobjectivity and both-sidism or
the passive voice of mostjournalism today.
(27:04):
But in all cases, this is whatattracts me to it, and the New
Humanitarian is such a uniqueorganization in the sense of its
27 people who have, over 30years since the Rwandan genocide
, gained the credibility ofbeing sort of the journalism and
accountability mechanism of asystem this complicated and this
(27:25):
attracted to power, so it'sbeen a huge experience so far.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Very last question, then.
We are, of course, talking inthe home of international law,
which I personally you maydisagree with me I see this as
such a fundamental and veryimportant part of what should
keep us civilized, but it'sbeing ripped up.
How can we revive it?
Speaker 3 (27:51):
So I do disagree in principle.
I think law and justice are twodifferent things.
Not all laws are just andjustice isn't served always by
the law, but in this case wehave a tool and that tool worked
imperfectly, because whetherit's international humanitarian
law or the Rome status or any ofthose instruments of
(28:13):
international law have workedimperfectly, but they set a
standard and today we are seeingthe effect of dismantling of
this the fact that Netanyahu,with an arrest warrant, flies
over Europe and doesn't getstopped.
I can't imagine that, havinghappened to Gaddafi or Omar
al-Bashir the fact that he'sreceived in Congress and gets
(28:34):
applauded dozens of times wedon't have anymore the moral
standing to say it's theRussians and the Chinese and
everybody else that doesn'tdeserve the civility of the law.
It is an effective dismantlingof the law that had, to an
extent, kept us civilized and ofcourse, we need to advocate,
(28:55):
call for it to be reformed,respected and so on.
But we also need to understandthat politics has reached a
stage that is so well into thegutter.
I mean, there's no more left orright, everybody's a neoliberal
and everybody lovesbillionaires and everybody is
going to sell their grandmotherfor the next elections.
(29:15):
This is not a sustainable stateunder which law can be
respected, and this is I meanarguably, without getting into
politics and active dissent andcalling out the failure of our
political collective.
It's hard to repair one aspectand not the others.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Tamar Maloudat ofthe New Humanitarian for his
time and that fascinatinginterview.
Join us again in two weeks,where we'll be hearing from
international lawyer Dapo Akande, who has thrown his hat into
the ring to be a judge at theInternational Court of Justice.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
I think I was very argumentative as a child and
everyone used to say you shouldbe a lawyer.
I always had this interest ininternational affairs, and when
I saw that there was an area oflaw that actually dealt with
international affairs, I thought, yes, that's the bit that I'm
interested in.
It's clearly the case that infar too many cases,
(30:25):
international law is disregarded.
I think that is true.
There are many instances wherethe law is not followed, and you
only have to turn on the newsto see that.
What I do know is that actually, international law is
increasingly regarded asrelevant and actions are judged
(30:50):
more nowadays by reference tointernational law than was the
case before.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
That episode will be out on July 22nd.
Don't miss it.
And a reminder our profilesfrom last summer are all still
available.
Hear from Chris Lockyer,secretary General of Médecins
Sans Frontières, doctors WithoutBorders, or Esther Dingemans,
(31:16):
of the Global Survivors Fund,which supports people who have
suffered sexual violence inconflict.
You can hear those and morewherever you get your podcasts.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
(31:38):
unites prisoners of war withtheir families.
How the International Red Crossunites prisoners of war with
their families, or why survivorsof human rights violations turn
to the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.