What’s the point of foreign aid?

Send us Fan Mail

On our Inside Geneva podcast this week, we host a debate on a key question: what’s the point of foreign aid?

“What’s the point of mobilising taxpayers’ money and sending it to faraway countries to assist vulnerable people? And how do you sell that to your own taxpayers?” says Gilles Carbonnier, former Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

There are more conflicts and greater needs, yet donor countries want to spend less.

“What’s the point of mobilising taxpayers’ money and sending it to faraway countries to assist vulnerable people? And how do you sell that to your own taxpayers?” says Gilles Carbonnier, former Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

There are more conflicts and greater needs, yet donor countries want to spend less.

Do we think some people’s tragedies are less important than others?

If a child is in pain in Khartoum, that’s exactly the same as a child being in pain in New York or London. If a mother is grieving in Gaza, that’s exactly the same as a mother grieving in Geneva,” says Chris Lockyear, former Secretary General of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF).

How can aid agencies better explain what they do?

“What defines us is humanity, and humanity means we cannot stay idle when we see others suffering. We have to act and do something to try to protect them, assist them and prevent suffering, regardless of where this happens,” says Carbonnier. 

Listen to the full episode on Inside Geneva.

Get in touch!

• Email us at [e-mail]
• 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

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_01 (00:00):
SwissInfo podcasts.

SPEAKER_09 (00:09):
This is Inside Geneva from SwissInfo, and I'm
Imogen Folks.
In today's programme, we head toGeneva's Graduate Institute for
a debate on a very topicalquestion.
Is there any point spendingmoney on foreign aid?

SPEAKER_05 (00:25):
What's the point of mobilising taxpayer money and
sending it to faraway countriesto assist vulnerable people and
how do you sell that to your owntaxpayers?

SPEAKER_04 (00:37):
There is a lot of duplication and there is a lot
of also financial waste in thesystem that needs to be cut
down.
But really the primary questionmust be what do the people need?

SPEAKER_07 (00:48):
A lot of people don't understand what foreign
aid is needed for, where itgoes, how it works.
They kind of look at their ownsituation and say, well, maybe
economically I'm not doing well.

SPEAKER_06 (00:58):
If a child is in pain in Khartoum, that's exactly
the same as a child being inpain in New York or London.
If a mother is grieving in Gaza,that's exactly the same as a
mother grieving in Geneva.

SPEAKER_05 (01:10):
What defines us is humanity.
And humanity means we cannotstay idle when we see others
suffering.
We have to act and do somethingto try to protect them, to
assist them and to preventsuffering, regardless of where
this happened.

SPEAKER_09 (01:59):
So our controversial topic today is what's the point
of foreign aid?
I'm gonna bring you just acouple of statistics to think
about before we start ourdiscussion.
The UN estimates that 239million people on the planet
need some form of humanitarianaid.

(02:20):
This year it's aiming to help 87million of them, which is round
about a third.
So what happens to the othertwo-thirds?
Some people have said, well,it'll help the aid agencies
become more efficient, stop themduplicating.
Others have said you're takingfood from the mouths of the

(02:41):
very, very hungry to feed thestarving.
So we're going to unpick some ofthat.
We might also look at the factthat I was listening to an
interview I did with the UNHuman Rights Commissioner two
years ago, who said there werean estimated, I think, 50
conflicts around the world.
And now they're more than 100.
The number of people displacedaround the world has doubled in

(03:05):
the last 10 years.
So some things are clearly goingwrong.
Is it humanitarian aid?
Is it something else?
That's what we're going tounpick as well.
So without further ado, let meintroduce our panel because I am
really, really delighted to havesuch amazingly experienced
people here to talk to you andto be on the podcast.

(03:26):
So Chris Locke here, formerSecretary General of MSF, until
March of this year, now a fellowjust next door at the Geneva
Center for Security Policy.
Ambassador Dica Potzel,Ambassador to the UN in Geneva
from the European Union.
Some of you may have seen justyesterday the EU issued a new
statement on its view ofhumanitarian aid and how to go

(03:49):
forward.
Here we have your own JacquelineLee, graduate student here at
the Graduate Institute, whosespecialty is in from
international development.
And Jules Carbonnier, for manyyears until March, vice
president of the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross, and
now a professor here at theGraduate Institute.
So to begin, one short answerfrom each of you.

(04:12):
What is the point of foreignaid?
Ambassador, I will start withyou.

SPEAKER_04 (04:16):
Thank you so much, and thanks for having me.
Lovely to be here.
So to me, this is first and andto the EU, this is first and
foremost about humanity.
And it is about dignity ofpeople in need, and it is about
caring for the dignity of thosewho need our help and our
support, and also to those whorisk their life to actually

(04:37):
provide for people.
And I would like to give a bigshout out right at the beginning
to all humanitarians,particularly those in the field,
of course, who are really doingan excellent job.
Now, helping people in need hasa long history, and it also
leads to me to more peace andsecurity in the world.
It leads to a more stable and amore peaceful global

(04:59):
environment.
And this is in all ourinterests.
And hence the EU is still somuch invested in helping people.
And let me finish by saying that91% of European citizens,
according to the last survey,support humanitarian assistance
worldwide.
And I think that is a wonderfulstatistics to share.

SPEAKER_09 (05:20):
That is very heartening, given sometimes, you
know, reading the newspapers,you might think opinions were
very different on that topic.
Chris, I'm going to come to younext.
Dica said contributing to peaceand security.
Would you go along with that?

SPEAKER_06 (05:32):
Well, I would agree with 90% of what you said.
In fact, you've already stolenone of my statistics,
statistics, so I'm going to haveto uh think through that one as
we as we as we talk.
And I agreed very much with whatyou said in terms of caring for
people and dignity.
Where I have a slightlydifferent view is that I think
as soon as there is even asubtle element of self-interest
or transactional component toit, whether that is peace and

(05:54):
security at the most, let's say,positive end of the scale, or
it's good for marketdevelopments, it's good for our
own economy at the more negativeend of the scale, I think you're
almost always going to fall intothe trap of somebody saying, I
can do it cheaper, I can do itbetter, and we get into this
efficiency paradox.
You also said it's not a newidea, and I agree very
fundamentally with that.

(06:15):
You know, every major worldreligion has caring for the
other somebody else.
Marcus Aurelia said it to carefor all human beings is part of
being human.
And I think what the point offoreign aid is, is the
institutional organizationalexpression of that will to care
for people, to understand that,you know, if a child is in pain

(06:36):
in Khartoum, that's exactly thesame as a child being in pain in
New York or London.
If a mother is grieving in Gaza,that's exactly the same as a
mother grieving in Geneva.
Even if we don't all share thesame values, we share the same
emotions and we share the sameresponse and need to care for
other people.
And I think foreign aid is theexpression of that solidarity

(06:58):
and that care.

SPEAKER_09 (06:58):
Sheel?

SPEAKER_05 (06:59):
Well Imajan, I think it's a great question.
What's the point of mobilisingtaxpayer money and sending it to
faraway countries to assistvulnerable people?
And how do you sell that to yourown taxpayers?
It's a question of value, aquestion of responsibility and
self-interest.
Value because you know whatdefines us is humanity.

(07:21):
And humanity means we cannotstay idle when we see others
suffering.
We have to act and do somethingto try to protect them, to
assist them and to preventsuffering, regardless of where
this happens.
States have taken commitmentsunder international law, under
uh UN declarations to contributeto international cooperation and

(07:42):
to contribute to ODA with thislong rehearsed 0.7% of GDP as a
target and to achieve thesustainable development goals.
And the final one is uhself-interest, because if you
just see one barometer, which isvery interesting, which is
published every year at Davos bythe World Economic Forum, you

(08:03):
have what are the big risks outthere in the short run:
conflict, violence.
But when the you know leadersare asked what are the biggest
in 10 years from now, it's allabout global public goods.
Climate change, biodiversity,conservation, nature loss, and
pollution, and so forth.
And it's the best interest ofall of us, taxpayers, really

(08:26):
rich countries, and others, tocontribute to protecting global
public goods throughinternational foreign aid and to
prevent global public beds fromhappening.
So three excellent reasons,which to me makes it a
no-brainer.

SPEAKER_09 (08:41):
Jacqueline, when you look around from the younger
generation and you see moreconflict, more people in need,
do you think it's a no-braineror do you think maybe there's no
point?

SPEAKER_07 (08:52):
I I think it's a very important question, and
foreign aid is meant to come inand protect um in cases of
disruption.
And that's pivotal in mostcases.
It's necessary for stability,and it's important that foreign
aid is maintained going forward.
I don't look at it as an issueof non-importance.

(09:12):
It's something that we shouldall, I think, continue to focus
on in finance.

SPEAKER_09 (09:17):
Well, finance is a key question because that seems
to be thin on the ground.
But you've all made really goodpoints of it's about humanity.
Actually helping other people,as you say, Chris, has been part
of humanity for millennia.
But if we look at the lastdecades, we had the Millennium
Development Goals, we had thesustainable development goals.

(09:41):
We are actually going backwards.
Child mortality is going to risefor the first time this year in
many, many years.
Some people just say, well,that's a really sad indictment
of the way the world is, there'snothing we can do.
Others might say, all of theseaid agencies, something they're
doing is not right.
So could we be, even here inGeneva, be brave and look that

(10:04):
hard in the face?
Are there things that thehumanitarian community has been
doing that aren't right?
I'm going to come to the twohardened aid workers first,
Chris and then Gilles.

SPEAKER_06 (10:17):
Yeah, of course there are things that aren't
aren't right.
So things that can be improved,and we can talk about
efficiency, we can talk abouteffectiveness.
But there's a more fundamentalquestion.
Imagine, you mentioned the therate of conflicts in the world
that we have at the moment.
You know, there's differentfigures.
I have a figure here of um 61state-based armed conflicts,
which is the the highest sincerecords began in 1945.

(10:37):
So there is an importantquestion about how we do aid
more effectively, but there's abigger upstream question, and
that's about political will,political mediation, conflict
resolution, the prevention ofconflicts.
Because as soon as we start totie humanitarian assistance to
the ending of conflicts, youknow, as a humanitarian, we
don't need the conflicts to endto be able to do the work.
We should be able to care forpeople whether there are

(10:59):
conflicts or not.
And the uh 2.4 trillion spent onmilit militaries globally in
2023.
At the same time, so this isbefore before the USAI crash, 32
billion on humanitarian aid, butonly 300 million on uh peace
mediation, which is 0.01% ofmilitary spending.
And so I think we need to bereally careful in terms of what

(11:22):
responsibility we put into aidwork, the aid response, and
humanitarian organizations whenthere is this absolute mismatch
in terms of fueling of conflictsversus resolving of conflicts.
Instead of solving conflicts,instead of bringing power behind
the peace and mediation agenda,we're in effect both financially

(11:43):
and politically capitulating tothat.
And we're replacing language ofpeace and security with language
of humanitarian access andnegotiation.
And I'm very worried that that'sa global sort of step back from
ending conflicts, frompreventing wars.
And unless we look at thatbigger picture, it's not just
the humanitarians that are thatare suffering in this, but more

(12:04):
fundamentally the millions ofpeople around the world who are
needing assistance is isincreasing.
And so I think it's all a reallyimportant question, but we need
to look at the the setting inwhich the humanitarian landscape
fits, and that is also what'sgoing backwards.

SPEAKER_09 (12:18):
Can I bring you in there, Gilles?
Because your previousorganization, the International
Committee of the Red Cross, I'vetalked to over years who've said
to me, we're just a stickingplaster on a wound, and the
frustration that a situationlike Yemen, for example, or
Somalia goes on and on.

(12:40):
So what do you think?
Are humanitarians doingsomething wrong too, or are they
just being used in a situationthat others aren't solving?

SPEAKER_05 (12:50):
Well, you know, in an ideal world we would love to
have humanitarians and the ICRCleaving the Yemens of this
world.
We've been there for way toolong.
The fact of the matter is thatno way.
There is no development actorsand solid state structure to
take over provision of basicservices to the population.

(13:11):
There are still a lot of urgentneeds that needs to be met with
humanitarian aid and oftenhumanitarian aid, and we have to
say it.
It's humanitarian because itresponds to needs that are not
solvent.
It wouldn't be commerciallyviable to say what the private
sector and blended finance willdo the trick.
Can help, but it's not you needgrants.

(13:33):
I do agree with Chris and whatyou said, Emojan, that of course
we can become more effective,slimmer, faster, more efficient.
The ICRC, we had twice to cutdown our budget drastically, but
there are limits.
To give you an example, forinstance, in Northern Ivory
Coast, suddenly we have ourdelegates at the field saying,

(13:56):
hey, we have hundreds ofthousands of people who do not
receive anymore the assistancethey were receiving from other
agencies who had to cut downtheir activities.
So please send us the necessarymeans.
And we tell them, sorry, wecannot substitute for others who
have left, and you cannot assistthose people who are refugees
from Burkina Faso and elsewhere,and who are in limbo.

(14:19):
And that's happening way toooften.
And the result is hundreds ofthousands of people, households
being bereft of assistance fromone day to the next.
So there are limits to thisquestion of just become more
effective.
The other thing is that I'mconvinced that states, if they
reduce some of the investmentthey were doing in humanitarian

(14:40):
action, they have to step uptheir investment in peace
mediation, peace promotion, butalso in respecting international
humanitarian law.
Because if we would see lessviolations of international
humanitarian law and war crimeson a daily basis, the needs
would be much less than theyare.
And the cost of recovery andrebuilding would be maintained
at a lower level.

(15:00):
And I am convinced that greaterrespect for international
humanitarian law is alsoconducive to a potential stable,
sustainable peace in the future.
If not, you will have this cycleof revenge that will go on and
uh fragile peace breaking down.
So indeed, this is an investmentthat states and others have to

(15:22):
do as a matter of priority.
And I think that we have to putthings in perspective because,
in the case of the US, defenseis about 15 times higher than
ODA.
In the EU, it's more four orfive times higher for defense
than for ODA.
And I think that indeed we haveto ask states to be effective in
terms of public spending overallrather than to say, oh, let's

(15:43):
cut down ODA because they areineffective, which I think
should deserve greater scrutinyfrom scholars, from researchers,
to question whether reallyforeign aid is less effective
and more wasteful than manyother public policies, where I
think we could also uh improve alot if the question is really

(16:04):
budget constraints.

SPEAKER_09 (16:06):
Dike, you have different views previously.
You've talked about greaterefficiencies, duplication.
So here I would like to hearfrom you, and I do think we all
agree there could beimprovement.
Where would you would you seeit?

SPEAKER_04 (16:21):
I want to start off with something important and
positive.
In emergency settings, thishumanitarian system is really
delivering.
And I think we have to make thatdifferentiation.
What we have been looking at nowin our conversation is more of
what we had in mind, is like theprotected crises.
But when you talk earthquake inTurkey and Syria, when you talk

(16:42):
tsunami, when you talk floodingin Pakistan, the system is there
and it delivers quickly and thenit is out as well, uh, very
often.
Now, when we come to protectedcrises, um the situation is
different.
And here Chris stole my line.
Uh because uh because of coursea lot of it is it boils down to

(17:02):
political will and the respector non-respect in those cases
for international law andinternational humanitarian law.
Hence, we also as the EU want tostep up humanitarian diplomacy.
We need to be more involved intrying to provide for access and
what have you.
But generally, we need the peaceactors there.
We need also the developmentactors there.

(17:23):
So the whole system needs towork better together.
Um, I'm very happy to see thatthe system is actually looking
at it and they're really lookingat how we can provide better.
And that's the thing.
How do we provide better for thepeople in need?
How do we have more impact?
How is more of each dollaractually ending up with the
people in need?

(17:43):
And this is not only aboutefficiency, it is really about
the impact for the people.
And one essential question Ithink that we all need to put
first and foremost is what arethe needs of the people?
What do they want?
What do they need?
And then how can the system, andthis is not only UN
organizations, it's the NGOs,it's the INGOs, it's private

(18:06):
stakeholders and bilateral stateuh involvement, how do they
jointly provide better for uhthose people in need?
So I think that is uh to mereally crucial.
And with a fair look at thesystem, there is a lot of
duplication and there is a lotof also financial waste in the
system that needs to be cutdown.
But really the primary questionmust be what do the people need?

(18:29):
You know, sometimes the systembrings in goods to places where
they are not anchored and wherelocal markets can produce much
better what people actuallyneed, what they eat.
And it would also help, like thelocal economy, for instance.
It would actually provide muchbetter for people.
So we also need to strengthenthe ownership of the countries

(18:51):
and local actors, countrieswhere refugees are, where IDPs
are.
We need to strengthen them, weneed to help them build
capacity, and we also need tostrengthen local actors much
more.

SPEAKER_09 (19:01):
I'm going to come on to that localization question in
a minute, but I want to ask you,Jacqueline, because we talked
about where things might begoing wrong, where there's room
for improvement.
When you talk to your friends,your your family, do they
actually think about foreignaid?
Do they think it's worth it?

SPEAKER_07 (19:20):
Yeah, well, I think from my studies, uh I think it's
a bit of a bubble here at theGraduate Institute.
So we we care about this issuenaturally because of what we're
studying.
So for us, foreign aid isextremely valuable and we
understand a lot of the waysthat it's spent and where it
goes and how the system ismanaged.
But I can't say that that's thesame for everyone.
I would say within my ownhousehold, with my friends,

(19:42):
particularly as uh in myposition in the United States, a
lot of people don't understandwhat foreign aid is needed for,
where it goes, how it works.
They kind of look at their ownsituation and say, well, maybe
economically I'm not doing well,or my country, my neighbors
aren't doing well.
So why are we helping others insuch a way?
That's a hard bridge to crosswith people who have such views.

(20:06):
But I understand where they'recoming from.
Perhaps there's neededtransparency or more awareness
in foreign aid that could helpthem better understand the
importance of it.
We talked about spendingearlier.
It's it's not a large part ofthe budget, at least from the US
perspective.
Um there's far more things thatend up on the domestic budget
than foreign aid, but it doesmake a difference.

(20:27):
Um, so some people, I believe,do understand it, but the vast
majority of my friends andfamily aren't quite aware.

SPEAKER_09 (20:33):
Okay, let's try and link those two things of
financing, because obviouslythat is really, really shrinking
for humanitarian work.
And this issue of localization.
It's what, 10 years since theWorld Humanitarian Summit, where
there's this huge emphasis onlocalization.
But you know, it's like 20 yearssince I started in Geneva.

(20:55):
People have been talking aboutthat for 20 years.
So I'm not quite understandingwhat's gone wrong there.
I mean, what do you think,Diger?
Do you think the big agenciesare just holding on to control
too much?
Or is it trying to turn theTitanic round as it heads to the
iceberg?

SPEAKER_04 (21:10):
It's not only that, but it's also about, you know,
the the needs issue.
People understand maybe betterwhat people really need.
And also they know better aboutlike local answers because
certain ways of dealing withthings have a cultural root in
that particular context.
And it's sometimes ignored, onehas to say, by people who come

(21:31):
in from the uh outside.
But the question uh was uh was adifferent one.
Uh, what went wrong?
And yes, there is resistance inthe system, there is still too
little capacity in local actors,hence the capacity building is
so important.
There is also with donors kindof hesitation to provide

(21:52):
directly to local actors.
So now a lot of them stillprovide to the UN organizations,
and they are asked to then act.
As an intermediary and pass iton.
So you lose a lot of money onthe way already.
And then it's a question ofaccountability, right?
So accountability has become andtransparency has become a huge,
huge issue for donors.

(22:12):
That is making things much morebureaucratic.
That has to be admitted.
But it has to do with a lot ofpublic scrutiny also in donor
countries.
We say we want to go more local.
I mean, really?
So the will needs to be there.
The capacity needs to be builton the ground by local actors,
and the system also doesn't needto be afraid of losing out.

(22:37):
I mean, the big agencies, oflosing out on either money or
influence or what have you.
To me, it would be the mostwonderful place if we can
dissolve all humanitarian actorsbecause they weren't they they
wouldn't be needed anymore.
So that's never gonna happen, Iknow, but you know, I mean the

(22:59):
mindset should be I want toreach a state where I'm not
needed rather than I need tomake sure I get money to be
everywhere.

SPEAKER_09 (23:07):
Do you guys see yourself in that?
That you you need to get moneyto stay where I where I am?

SPEAKER_06 (23:12):
No.
Um but I do agree with themajority of what was said there.
There are inefficiencies, thereare coordination concerns.
But I think if we go back to thewhat's gone wrong, I think we're
failing to have the real nuancedconversation about the
complexity of what it is todeliver humanitarian assistance.
Often it's it's reduced to sortof the big NGOs or localization,

(23:33):
uh donor-driven, privatelyfunded, that's that sort of
thing.
And these binary conversationswill mean if we stick to these
binary conversations, will meanwe'll be back here in 10 years'
time.
I think what's often missed, forexample, is whether it's local
or international aid, to be ableto be rooted in a community, for
example, takes time, it takesdiscussion, it takes investment,
takes an understanding theculture, which absolutely

(23:54):
sometimes there's problems withthat.
And when we're looking at thenumbers, it's often that sort of
nuance that doesn't comethrough.
And often to work in Yemen,we'll make mistakes when we
negotiate.
We will we will have to withdrawbecause of security reasons.
All of these factors need to besomehow brought into this
conversation.
Because as soon as we start totalk about money, there's a real

(24:14):
risk of oversimplification init.
And then we lose it, and we werisk not being able to reach the
people who need care the mostand only reaching those who
easiest to reach.
Um a year or so ago, I was injust over a year or so, I was in
Darfur twice.
So via Port Sudan and via theChad border into Darfur.
But I could drive from theChadian border across West

(24:37):
Darfur, South Darfur, NorthDarfur, all the way to Nyala
Hospital.
It took like five days to drivethere.
Even within a country likeSudan, the cost of treating
somebody, whether that's locallydelivered or internationally
delivered, is hugely differentconsidering just that supply
line, that range of supply lineand the extra security checks
that you need to go through.

(24:58):
So even in that one country, thecost per patient, per aid
deliverer is vastly different.
And I and I think that um weneed to bring in the complexity
to not make the same mistakes ofuh we have seen over the last 10
years to be where we've to notbe back from having this
conversation in 10 years' time.

SPEAKER_09 (25:14):
Gilles, do you want to come in there?
Because some people are saying,oh, now this is the golden
opportunity to get where we'vewanted to be for decades with
localization and more efficiencyand less duplication.
How do you see it?

SPEAKER_05 (25:27):
Well, I think uh you, Chris, and Ambassador Daike
Potzel, you made uh veryimportant points.
Uh, the point of accountabilityand the concern that states and
ministers have to be accountableand avert a scandal in the
newspaper where which could besafe by those who want to cut
down a deal further, say, look,they have funded this and all is

(25:49):
wasted, etc., is a real concern.
And then you have bureaucraticlayers and maybe this
outsourcing of some of the risksto the UN, which subcontracts
international NGOs, whichsubcontract companies, which
subcontract local NGOs, and it'sa lot of transaction costs.
Now, indeed, I think it's hightime and it takes courage to

(26:09):
say, well, we are dealing withthe places where things are
murky and we have to take somerisks and try to explain it to
the extent possible that we wantto have impact, but it's not
just like doing some social workin Geneva.
It's different.
When the ICRC was created manyyears ago, the idea was to have
a small boutique secretariathere in Geneva and to create

(26:31):
national societies of the RedCross, and they would do the
job.
And one year later, you had theSchleswig-Holstein war with the
Danes and Russians andAustrians, and they said,
please, ICRC, come over andbecome operational because we,
as national societies of the RedCross, we cannot work trust-line
and we are not accepted by theopposing side.
And this became even more acuteseven years later when you had

(26:54):
the war between Prussia andFrance.
So the ICRC became operationalprecisely to serve as a neutral
intermediary in places where onelocal actor or the other wasn't
able to work.
So I think this shows that it'simportant to think
complementarities.
And I want to give you anotherexample with a Swiss NGO that
has a long time ago indevelopment work supported

(27:17):
platforms of NGOs locally, noexpatriates, no mobile, just
funding directly localorganizations, and they created
local offshoots with their ownboards local with full power on
decision making on budgets andexpenditure.
And this worked to some extent,but when you had big political

(27:38):
upheavals in Guinea-Bissau andelsewhere, this all crumbled
because those who were in chargewere one side and the other and
couldn't control what happenedthen.
So I think in a way,international NGOs have to also
take a certain lead with youknow being more risk-taking in
this type of venture, realizingthat in so-called humanitarian

(28:01):
crisis, you need to find theoptimal complementarities rather
than pitting the internationalversus the local, which is, I
think, not very productive.

SPEAKER_09 (28:11):
Jacqueline, what do you think about what you've
heard?
I mean, you're studying whatGilles and Chris have been doing
for a living for many years.
I mean, how do you see it fromlooking at it from that angle?
Do you think I know what theyshould be doing to make it
better, save money, be more.

SPEAKER_07 (28:30):
Exactly.
No, I mean, I think I wasencouraged by some of the
answers that were shared.
Um, because my question hasalways been about the number of
NGOs that are operating in kindof the same spaces and if
they're operating in too much ofa silo.
Um, but I think what we werehearing is that there is a good
level of collaboration, andmaybe that's something that

(28:50):
should continue to improve tochange the sector as well and to
improve issues with financing,um, that we need each other's
expertise, and maybe you canalso save some money by
utilizing the resources thatmaybe other NGOs have, um, so
you have less overhead or youhave less duplications of tasks.

(29:13):
Chris, I think you wanted tocome in here.

SPEAKER_06 (29:14):
Yeah, yeah, because I I think um in some places we
coordinate well across agencies,and I think in some areas I
think we could do a lot better.
And I also think there is adonor element to this as well.
And often until the sort of thefinancial hierarchical lines
also force everybody to worktogether, there is going to be

(29:35):
inefficiencies there, and therewill still be this competition
for money.
There was this uh I tried tofind a more updated survey, but
this one's back from 2016 whereuh there was a survey done on um
the Norwegian Refugee Councilwith a with a consultation firm,
and they they said that theyalone spent 40,000 hours a year
on administrative compliancebecause of different donors

(29:56):
using different reportingsystems.
And just in that, you have to beaccountable, just looking at the
different forms you have to fillin, just in European
governments, that takesoverheads.
That takes hours and and andtime, multiply that across the
system and years.
There's wastage.
And it comes back back to yourpoint, Ambassador, in that it's
it's it has to be everybodylooking at this.

(30:18):
NGOs could do bettercoordinating in in many crises.
At the same time, thebureaucracy within some of the
NGOs that is created can be donebetter.
Donors can really help with thatby aligning and and making
things just simpler.
And then we get into sort of thenational legislation, because in
some cases, even when donors tryto be very progressive in terms

(30:40):
of their alignment of theirforms, they have to go back to
to parliament to have a vote tochange box number 15c on a form
because it's embedded in thedomestic uh legislation.
And so this is sort of anotherexample where I'm saying that we
need to embrace the complexityof this problem, because we're
all in this uh together.

SPEAKER_09 (30:57):
Do people need to sell it better?
Humanitarian aid?
Because I'm a journalist,obviously, as you all know.
I mean, you you can find themost lurid headlines about some
kind of aid project that notaxpayer thinks should ever have
been an aid project.
But the complexities that you'retalking about, or the

(31:18):
contribution to peace andstability, which we've been
talking about, rarely getscovered.
It's also my profession's fault.
But like it does aid agenciesneed to do a better job of
communicating?

SPEAKER_04 (31:30):
Yes.
And uh we have been talking tothem for years now about that.
Sometimes we talk aboutvisibility because that is also
important for donors to be seenalso on the ground, um, that we
are there, that we haven'tforgotten.
Like for the Europeans, forinstance, it was particularly
important after the start of theRussian war of aggression

(31:51):
against Ukraine, because thenthe reproach was, oh, you're
forgetting about the rest of theworld, you're only looking at
Ukraine.
And it was simply not true.
If you look at the figures, itwas not true.
The money for Ukraine came ontop.
But that was a narrative thatspread in Africa and Asia and so
on and so forth.
So, yes, we need to talk moreabout it.
We need to reach out more to, orthe organizations, all of us,

(32:15):
need to reach out more toparliaments because this is
where the decisions aboutbudgets are being taken, to
explain, to invite these peopleto come and see for themselves
what is actually going on andhow they're doing it.
And now at the moment, it isalso very important to talk
about how we are making itbetter and how how the system
will provide better.

(32:35):
On the other hand, the 91% thatI mentioned at the beginning
give me great hope that we arenot doing too badly and that
people still feel thatsolidarity is the good thing to
do, is the right thing to do,and are committed to to keep
this going.
So, yes, communication is key.

(32:56):
Apparently, some of it works.

SPEAKER_09 (32:58):
Do you guys think that governments should do a
better job of um communicatingwhy they spend money on foreign
aid?
Do you think governments sell itenough to their taxpayers?

SPEAKER_05 (33:09):
I think uh governments have to do a lot,
especially when it comes to uhpublic funding.
And uh like a postel, you youmentioned, uh reaching out to
parliaments and having thepossibility of MSF and the ICRCs
of this world to explain andbring them and see for
themselves is very important.
And not only the political wingsthat tend to be supportive, but

(33:31):
also those who are very doubtfulor against.
And we have really to reach outand to have narratives that
speak to a broader audience,especially of political
constituencies.
Rather than always saying, Oh,you know, children are dying,
they're starving, which we know,and ever more, and we feel
powerless.
Explaining just what you gothrough.
It is just to think outside thebox and how to relate to

(33:54):
different donors so thatsuddenly they say, aha.
I understand that you won'tsolve the mess, but I understand
that what you do is so importantto preserve us as humans and to
preserve some dignity in themidst of this chaos.

SPEAKER_09 (34:08):
Jacqueline, and then I'll come to you, Chris, but
what do you think about that?
Because certainly I suppose, andagain, you you said inside the
Geneva bubble, but watching justover a year ago the destruction
of USAID, many people here werethinking, how can this happen?
And I'm just wondering again, doyou think there is a bigger role

(34:28):
for the humanitarian agencies tobetter explain what they do, or
would it have happened anyway?

SPEAKER_07 (34:34):
Yeah, I I think unfortunately what happened was
outside of the control of thehumanitarian agencies.
It's not for uh their lack oftrying to, as far as diplomacy
and doing a great job with uhthe work that they do.
I don't believe any of usthought that an agency that's 60
plus years old would bedismantled in three or four

(34:54):
months' time.
We understood that theadministration has had some
opposing views, um, but the wayin which that agency was
dismantled was was devastating,um, not just to US citizens who
were paying attention, but uh ofcourse to the people impacted
directly around the world, uhthe workers and recipients of

(35:15):
aid.
I think it's important that notjust the humanitarian sector
explain what they do, butgovernments maybe have a change
of heart as well to speak aboutthe work that's being done.
I don't necessarily have faiththat my government will make
that choice anytime soon.
I believe there's alsoopportunities for people to seek

(35:35):
out to better understand whatthis sector does.
If even if it's not a part oftheir current world, they can
also learn about thisinformation.
And as you said, it's not juststarving children or the
advertisements we're used toseeing.
There's much more to this sectorthat I think people could become
familiar with if they choose to.

SPEAKER_09 (35:55):
Now I want to ask you that, Chris.
I mean, we do see aid agencies,certainly in Britain, quite
glossy adverts, and we haveambassadors who also happen to
be film stars and so on.
I've always personally felt thatthat kind of approach makes one
particular immediate crisis veryfashionable and everything else
gets left on the side.
I mean, I'm just wondering,because there needs to be a

(36:17):
pact, clearly, between peoplewho pay taxes and foreign aid,
how can it be maybe bettercommunicated?

SPEAKER_06 (36:26):
Firstly, I think um there has been the sort of
populist press anti-aidnarrative, which has been going
on for uh 10-15 years.
There was the Ethiopian girlband, some uh Yenger, I think,
in the in the in the Daily Mail.
And there was a big campaignwith Diffid, as it was, then the
UK Department of Development.
And and actually, if you look atthis project, it was about
talking about uh various issues,including um sexual abuse,

(36:50):
including also how to seek helpand all of these elements.
And it as a project it done verywell.
But because it was attacked inthe in the press, the the
funding was waste.

SPEAKER_09 (36:59):
One lurid headline, and that was it.

SPEAKER_06 (37:01):
Yeah, exactly.
And as humanitarians, I thinkwe've got ourselves trapped
between you know that narrativeon the one hand and the too
self-reflective academicresearch and how to squeeze the
last sort of cent out of everysort of project.
On the other hand, and on thethird hand, this sort of
potentially slightly sensationalcommunication advertisement

(37:23):
style.
But I think you know what Gillesjust gave in terms of this
experiential, slightly more, ifwe can, taking a bit more time
to explain what it takes.
And this is sort of thecomplexity of doing this.
It's it's not just delivering abox, it's also ensuring that the
right aid is going to the rightpeople, which can require a huge
amount of negotiation, puttingstaff often very insecure

(37:45):
situations.
97% of aid workers are localpeople.
The responsibility that comeswith delivering aid and their
safety and trying to have thatconversation.
And I think this is critical foraid agencies, for UN agencies,
for donor governments to bereally taking this argument
forward.
And we need to not be looking atit just as a short-term crisis
by crisis fundraisingopportunity, but actually really

(38:08):
trying to develop a constituencyof care which brings in people
who need assistance, people whocan deliver assistance, the
governments, and being able tomaybe learn a little bit from
the green movement that's beenout there, which sort of is
transnational, there is a commonlanguage that is there.
How do we develop this sort ofcohesive political narrative

(38:29):
approach to caring for peoplearound the world that
encompasses international aidagencies, local aid agencies,
donor governments, UN, and allof this to try and sort of shift
a little bit, well, not a littlebit, a lot, the perspective in
terms of what it takes to care.
And I think that we're a littlebit trying to often find
technical solutions to what isfundamentally a political
problem.

(38:49):
And that's where we really needto work together because the
passion is the same.
The passion is the same.
Whether you're a local nurse ora doctor in a hospital, an
international logistician, adonor, or in a big NGO, the
passion you see is the same, andpeople want to care for each
other.
And I think it's how do we finda collective narrative which
supports that?
And then all the technical bitsneed to follow after that.

(39:10):
That's my dream, anyway.

SPEAKER_09 (39:12):
There are a lot of dreams here.
You guys have all been verypatient, but we do want to take
some questions.
We've heard a lot about therisks of duplication, the risks
of not explaining properly whatit is you do, but how complex it
is.
Our panel are here.

(39:34):
Hands up.

SPEAKER_01 (39:35):
My name is Ricardo Faltifresantas.
I'm pursuing a PhD here, butbefore that, I work for several
humanitarian organizations,including uh the ICRC.
My question is generally to beconstructive, not
confrontational.
And my question is about howwhat we're calling foreign aid
intersects with the history ofcolonialism, imperialism, and
other inequalities, right?

(39:55):
I appreciate it, Chris, when younuanced a bit the debate by
mentioning that you know foreignaid is just putting a band-aid
on the wound, but we're notaddressing root causes.
But then from that, theconversation went a bit into
briefly about conflictresolution.
And in reality, conflicts arejust one expression of how
people might be reacting tosocial inequalities.
I guess my question for you is abit more about how to make sure

(40:18):
that we're framing foreign aidin relation to other
inequalities that link to thesesystems of oppression that I was
talking about, colonialism,imperialism, other related ones,
racism, sexism, classism, and soon.
And I'm saying this because whenyou're talking about how to
justify foreign aid totaxpayers, you're framing
foreign aid as solidarity forthe suffering of others.

(40:39):
And that is correct.
I think that is the vibe thatyou get from foreign aid.
But what if we understood thesame thing, not as foreign aid,
but as reparations for harm thathas been historically inflicted
by these same countries that arethe major donors of what we're
calling foreign aid on thecountries that are the major
receivers, let's say, of thatforeign aid?
But I just feel like if we justkeep framing it as solidarity

(41:01):
for others, which is somethingoptional, how can you really
have that deeper change?

SPEAKER_09 (41:06):
That's a very um hot topic, actually.
I'd I I mean if you any of yousubscribe to the podcast, we did
a whole episode once on how todecolonize aid.
Chris, you answer first, I'veasked you, are we still in this
mindset?

SPEAKER_06 (41:19):
So I would say yes and no.
I would I would go further insome ways as well, because I
mean, if you look at the pointof care, part of me doesn't care
whether it's somebody next dooror somebody around the other
side of the world.
However, there is some value inmany cases to having outsiders
there, particularly when there'smarginalized populations locally
sitting next to each other.
So it's not a capacity point,but I still believe in that

(41:41):
neutrality independence element.
I would also take your pointfurther and say there is the
point at an organizationallevel, but we have to be super
careful at an individual level.
You know, and I'm particularlyused to medical care, and you
know, if you go to a hospitalhere in Geneva, the power
dynamics between the patient andthe doctor are huge.
In a conflict zone or withsomebody that's been

(42:03):
marginalized or abused and fledwith a an international or even
not international but not localdoctor, the risks there for
deliberate or even accidentalabuse are huge.
And so there is often that uminterpersonal dynamic of
decolonization, which is missedfrom the discussion as well.
So I think we need to bring thatvery much into the to the

(42:24):
conversation.
But I do think there needs to bea reframing of the language and
the narrative because I do thinkwe're we're dealing with a some
inherent language which needs tobe developed, which is going to
be a slow, slow process.
So yeah, I think there is workthat we all need to do, in
particular from that narrativeshift perspective.

SPEAKER_09 (42:43):
Jill, you wanted to come in there?

SPEAKER_05 (42:44):
Yes, uh, just to say I made three points, and my
second point was responsibility.
And under responsibility, youcan name it reparation, you can
name it burden sharing, you canname it solidarity.
I think the way you frame it andname it might have an impact on
how much taxpayers andparliaments are willing then to
fund it.
And I'm an economist, so at theend of the day, I'm always

(43:05):
looking at the impact.
Now, with regard to the questionof burden sharing with
responsibility and indeed allthe other issues, you are
mentioning a lot of issues thattend to be tuned down mainly
because of US funding and whatcomes with it.
And I think one thing which isreally of concern is the
conditionality that was quitetraditional in development

(43:28):
funding, but that was not therein humanitarian funding, which
should be principled.
Now is becoming quite stringenton the conditions that might be
signed, which include issuesrelated to gender equality and
to other programs that tend tobe seen by some as wokism.

(43:48):
And I think this is really a bigconcern, and this must be
counteracted as a matter ofpriority for humanitarian
assistance to remain principledand impartial.

SPEAKER_08 (44:00):
I want to make my question quick.
It's also related to powerdynamics.
So for me, I actually workedwith the humanitarian system for
11 years, including someconflict zones in Yemen and
Libya.
So I guess my question is to me,from my experience, I really
feel this deep intertwined fromthe humanitarian system into the

(44:21):
donors' power, geopoliticalinterests.
I would see probably a lot ofmajor donors retreating their
funding because in certain waysthe humanitarian system nowadays
is not fulfilling theirgeopolitical priority in a way
it was able to in the past.
My question, I guess, is uh isthis so-called funding crisis

(44:41):
can also be open up anopportunity to restructure the
power dynamics or the powerstructure of the humanitarian
system itself, considering it'sactually quite an extension of
the state interest and quite anextension of the existing
post-colonial system?

SPEAKER_03 (44:54):
Hello, um, my name is Hajj.
Um my question is how do weenvision simplifying and
aligning these various reportingsystems, these 40,000 work hours
that are put into reporting andthese uh administrative burdens?
How do different actors think wecan act complementarily to align
these reporting systems and makemake it efficient?

SPEAKER_09 (45:16):
Okay, so let me try and pull those together a bit.
And Daikat, Ambassador, I willcome to you first.
We heard about the languagearound aid and whether from
Ricardo, whether we should callit reparations.
We heard a question isgeopolitics gonna actually
completely rip the rug out fromunder impartiality and

(45:40):
neutrality?
And then we heard again, andthis is a good point, about
efficiency.

SPEAKER_04 (45:45):
Um just to very briefly, maybe I can get it into
one sentence.
I think the word reparations iscertainly not the best selling
point in donor countries to getmore money.
And I just leave it at that.
Um, on the geopolitics, and andthat's also the point of
funding.
I think the Americans are comingback with money into the

(46:06):
humanitarian system, and likequite big numbers are flowing
around, right?
Has quite a lot of goldenhandcuffs on it, though.
Well, that's a different story.
But the the question ofshrinking funding, yes, it is
shrinking.
I mean, the European Union hasnot cut funding, right?
We are at 2.0 billion at thisyear, and we hope for the same

(46:26):
next year.
So we will we will stay steadyand reliable.
Some member states have cutfunding, but the landscape with
the Russian war of aggressionagainst Ukraine and the need for
European countries to step updefense is a fact that uh
definitely has an implication onit.
And that leads me to anothervery brief remark on the

(46:47):
question of traditional donors.
We I mean we have been talkingabout broadening the donor base
for years on end, and I wouldpersonally really hope that more
are chipping in, also for thesystem, because a lot of them
are doing bilateral things, butreally to support the system
would also be very helpful.

(47:07):
So I think we should also alwaysthink of others who can chip in.
Um, there are more countries outthere.
I mean, before the Americansdismantled uh USAID, there were
like the three biggest donors,that was the states, Germany,
and the EU, were responsible formore than 60% of humanitarian
funding.
And then it was not sustainable.

(47:29):
And we kept telling everyoneit's not sustainable.
This cannot work.
So we need more.

SPEAKER_07 (47:34):
Jacqueline, you wanted to come in on that.
Absolutely.
I'll take on the last questionabout reporting, just because I
I spent the first part of mycareer uh in accounting uh for
12 years.
So I'm very familiar with thereporting standards and
regulations and um things thathave to be uh reported upon that
can become cumbersome over time.

(47:55):
I think in the case of foreignaid and and the connection
between legislation and havingto appease donors and their
expectations for reporting, Ithink it can be handled
similarly to what was done inthe public accounting world of
creating international standardsfor accounting.
So you have similar rules thatyou work from and then utilize

(48:18):
that as your reportingstandards.
I think the possibility of maybegetting all of these actors into
the same room to have thisdiscussion to say, you know,
we're we're doing this work forthe point of humanity and for
important reasons, but thebureaucracy and the overhead
that impedes upon funding goinginto the right places is too

(48:39):
cumbersome.
So, therefore, if we can changethe reporting standards to be
something that's a bit moreuniversal, then we can be more
effective.

SPEAKER_09 (48:47):
Okay, one last reaction from usual, and then
we'll go to the summing up.
We are in this climate of doubtamong taxpayers about foreign
aid, reduction in funding.
And I want to hear this from youspecifically, because you were
with the ICRC, which is the mostdedicated to this impartial
neutral.
We have now, as Dica said, somemoney coming back from the

(49:09):
United States, but it's madevery clear, they said this
openly, the projects have to bein America's interest.
Does that make you nervous?

SPEAKER_05 (49:19):
Well, I think there are two levels.
One level is grand narrativesfor, you know, the domestic
front and political purposes.
And for that, be it inAfghanistan, be it uh in the US
or elsewhere, I think sometimesit's better not to make a big
fuss about uh some of thesenarrative floating out there as

(49:40):
long as we can make sure that asfar as we are concerned, we can
remain fully faithful to theprinciples neutrality,
impartiality, and independence.
And that's what matters.
So sometimes it's better toremain below the radar and not
make a fuss out of somethingwhich will become an issue and a
real problem if you make it apublic conversation.

(50:03):
And there is a real question ofhow much this might impinge upon
the capacity of an organizationto live up to its principles.
Now, America first policy or mefirst policy that we see all
over the place is self-interest.
Sometimes governments have tosell foreign aid as
self-interest.

(50:23):
So part of it again is morepolitical gesticulation, but
part of it can be of concernwhen it comes to impartiality,
which means assisting as amatter of priority those who
have the most dire needs,regardless of foreign policy
priorities.
And this results in an ever moretight earmarking of funding.

(50:44):
And when an organization,humanity organization, is facing
extremely tight earmarking, youhave a lot of underfunded
operations where needs are huge,and you have a few overfunded
operations where needs arecovered.
This has been a problem foryears, but this can become way
more of a problem than in ourconversation with the auditors,

(51:06):
because you cannot uh take uhmoney earmarked for one crisis
which is very high in the mediaand uh very much in the interest
of uh some donors to coverothers.
So I feel that there is also adialogue, a conversation to have
with states on this key topic.

SPEAKER_09 (51:23):
Okay, we've explored a lot of things, and this is a
really complex topic, and therearen't any easy answers to it.
And some might say the answersare even less easy when the
money is restricted as it isnow.
Others might say it's a reallygolden opportunity to have a
long, hard look at ourselves.
But meanwhile, there is afailure of diplomacy and

(51:46):
conflict resolution, which meansaid agencies are still have more
and more to do.

But we started this question: what's the point of foreign aid? (51:51):
undefined
I want to hear from each of yousomething you've witnessed which
tells you there is a point.
One project where you sawsomething, taxpayers' money well
spent, something that reallyworked.

SPEAKER_06 (52:06):
Um the last year or so I've been to Sudan twice,
Gaza, Ukraine, Greece seeing uhmigrants coming in, and
everywhere I go, I see positiveexamples of stuff being done
brilliantly.
The fact that patients are beingtreated according to the
context.
In Gaza, I met a femalepsychologist who'd had eight of

(52:28):
her family members killed and atthe same time was running
psychiatric programs for kids ona daily basis, and they were
there playing football in thecompound.
I saw a boy in El Janina inDarfur who travelled for five
days to get to the hospitalthere and was beginning and had
something like five surgeries onhis on his face, and he was
getting the treatment that he'sneeded.
I saw in uh another hospital inGaza, I saw two little girls

(52:52):
around maybe five or six yearsold, who were going under
multiple surgeries because theirfaces were severely burnt and
disfigured from an explosion.
They'll live with that for allof their lives.
But they were the only peoplewho had free right to roam
anywhere in the hospital.
Everybody in the hospital knewwho they were.
They were the spirit of thehospital.

(53:12):
They were adopted by basicallyeverybody in that hospital, and
they were a for me, they were asymbol of what you could
achieve.
Everywhere you go, you seesuccess in terms of people
caring for other people in anemotional way, in a way which is
showing solidarity, but is alsoin a very physical way, um

(53:32):
helping to rehabilitate them tobe able to get back on their
feet to restore dignity.

SPEAKER_04 (53:38):
I mean, the question really is how what is success,
right?
How big is success?
And this famous saying of yousave one life and you save the
world has something to it.
And I've seen also uh in manyplaces examples for that.
And I remember like in Iraq, youknow, uh Yizidi refugee camp,
and you see arts teachersworking with little children who

(53:59):
paint horrific pictures, one hasto say.
But this is a way of dealingwith the trauma.
You see young girls playingfootball in the camp, again, you
know, working on the trauma, andGaza bringing out 68 children
from an SOS children's villagein the midst of a lot of like
bombs and everything, and tobring them out to Bethlehem,

(54:21):
where they find a new home, it's68 children's lives saved.
And this is you know,humanitarians going in and
bringing them out.
You know, I mean the ICRC hasdone fantastic jobs in Gaza,
bringing out hostages.
Wherever you go, you have amultitude of stories of what

(54:41):
works.
If you then zoom out and youlook at Gaza or you look at
Sudan or what have you, you seea lot of horrific horror really.
But when you zoom in, a lot isreally working, and people are
not only surviving, but they'rereally um people work to um care
for their dignity, get educationand healthcare and food and

(55:05):
water.
So zoom in a little bit more,and you will find a lot of
things that uh that work.
So it does work.

SPEAKER_07 (55:12):
Just it.
I don't necessarily have anexample from the field, but I I
would like to see the reformhappening in the in the sector
even more, particularly withmore donors that are coming from
diversified places.
So not the reliance on verylarge donors, but having more uh
influx from other places, moreprojects that we see that are

(55:35):
reaching communities in the waythat the communities need, more
discussions with the communitiesthemselves in order to come to
the solutions.
I think we can get there.
I think it just takes the rightdiscussions and the willpower to
do so.
Giles, final word to you then.

SPEAKER_05 (55:50):
One example, because it's beautiful with what we
heard, indeed, every day.
Things work and we have success,and I think that's what keeps us
going, and that's what makesthis job fantastic, and uh, you
know, we can only feel gratefulfor the chance to engage.
One example, which you know isone of the last examples I had
before I concluded uh my mandatewith the ICRC was this operation

(56:12):
where we had about 1,500soldiers and police captured in
Goma.
And uh we organized this convoyfrom Goma back to Kinshasa with
them and their families.
So you had security staff,soldiers, some families.
And they were saying, You'recrazy, we won't go and cross all
these different checkpoints withdifferent opposing groups and

(56:34):
the enemies because they areevil and they will kill us, etc.
We say, no, no, we put the flag,the red cross, and we go.
And of course we cross fingers,but we try to ensure the
security.
And we went there and we couldbring them all back safely to uh
Kinshasa where they meet theirfamilies.
And if you assist once to familyreunification when you can bring

(56:55):
you know children back with theparents, etc.
I think you live through thatshivering, you cry, and then you
say, Well, it's worth all thepain and all the failures that
unfortunately we face on a dailybasis and the setbacks, because
this is uh you know makes somuch sense, and uh that's why we
continue to push forward uhhumanitarianism as a core of our

(57:19):
common humanity and a core ofinternational relations, which
must be cherished.

SPEAKER_09 (57:23):
Well, that is a really nice note to end on.
Thank you, Chris Dyke,Jacqueline, Gilles, thank you
very much.
Maybe we could just put ourhands together.
Thanks for joining us.

(57:46):
Huge thanks to our guests, ouraudience, and of course to
Geneva's Graduate Institute forhosting us.
Next time on the podcast, we'vegot another Books to Make You
Think episode.
We'll hear about a book whichanalyzes the US media coverage
of the war in Gaza.

SPEAKER_02 (58:05):
You need liberal buy-in to sell something like

this (58:07):
a a sustained genocide, the the killing, the mass
slaughter of tens of thousands,potentially over a hundred
thousand in Gaza over a periodof a year, the the time frame
the book is positioned in.
And that requires uh liberalmedia buy-in.
The New York Times, CNN.

SPEAKER_09 (58:22):
And we'll get an insider's look at what the
dismantling of USAID was reallylike.

SPEAKER_00 (58:28):
The people who so recklessly tore down the agency
and put so many lives at riskaround the world are still
sitting in uh high positions ofgovernment and have not been
held accountable for theiractions.

SPEAKER_09 (58:47):
A reminder
a SwissInfo production.
You can email us on insideGeneva at SwissInfo.ch, and
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

(59:10):
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.