* IISS : The International Institute for stratergic studies (http://www.iiss.org)Mr Chairman,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,


I should like to begin by thanking Dr John Chipman, Director-General of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the government of Singapore, for their invitation to attend the 7th Shangri-La Dialogue and for the opportunity to address this distinguished forum on the subject of intervening in humanitarian emergencies. My observations will be related to humanitarian emergencies created both by natural disasters and by armed conflict. I am, of course, fully aware that it is the consequences of natural disasters that is your chief concern at present.

It is less easy than is generally supposed to distinguish between a natural disaster and one that is man-made. While a disaster may have been brought about by natural causes, its consequences are determined largely by the degree of vulnerability of the population in question and by the ability of the authorities and the population – the resources at their disposal - to respond to an emergency. People living amidst armed conflicts are particularly vulnerable. The effects of natural disasters – but also of other events, such as a sudden increase in food prices – are particularly serious in such circumstances.

On the whole, governmental agencies, military units, NGOs, or organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), all face similar challenges when they respond to an emergency caused by a natural disaster. Except for droughts, natural disasters usually occur unexpectedly, and the first hours and days are crucial in saving lives and preventing the spread of epidemics. To minimize the human suffering caused by a disaster, two things are needed: an assessment of the specific needs of the population and of the scale of those needs, and the ability to deliver the required assistance rapidly and efficiently. The main challenge is therefore to become operational as quickly as possible. Capacity for rapid deployment depends on the availability of the proper professional human resources as well as on efficient and flexible logistics; governments and organizations can prepare themselves to some extent by developing their capacities in both areas. Knowledge of the area, the activation of existing contacts, the ability to build on local capacities and skills: all these are assets as well.

Governments, of course, bear the main responsibility for responding to the needs of their people. In certain cases, because of the scale of the disaster, a variety of other actors might be able, or ready, to intervene. Such opportunities should not be disregarded. When the needs of a population exceed the national capacity to respond, governments should take advantage of the help offered by international actors. When they are reluctant or tardy in accepting assistance, on the grounds that they are preserving their sovereignty and want no interference in their domestic affairs, the result may well be many preventable deaths among their people. The attitude of the authorities in countries affected by humanitarian emergencies is therefore crucial: is the fate of the people their main concern or is it not?

However, besides being an opportunity, the presence of different actors creates a challenge in terms of coordination. To be effective, coordination must be action-oriented and reality-based. It has to be built on available human resources, professional capacities and logistical means. I have no doubt at all that an organization’s reputation in the field is determined by its operational capacities, including rapid deployment. Actions speak louder than words. Humanitarians, like others, have to deliver on their promises.

Armed conflicts may flare up unexpectedly, as in Lebanon during the summer of 2006. In such cases, rapid deployment capacities and the related challenges I have mentioned are relevant. In many cases however, there are warning signs, which allow those willing to respond to humanitarian needs to make preparations in advance. And many current conflicts are chronic. The main challenge in responding to a humanitarian emergency created by an armed conflict is gaining access to affected areas despite the prevailing insecurity. To guard against those providing humanitarian assistance becoming entangled in the conflict, or becoming a direct target of one party or the other, dialogue with all the parties to the conflict is crucial. Without dialogue, there can be no guarantee of acceptance for either the humanitarian assistance or for those providing it.

Obviously, those willing to respond to the needs created by natural disaster occurring in a conflict area face all the challenges mentioned before. The situation is compounded by the fact that, usually, the authorities have been weakened by the conflict, as have the public services they deliver, and their capacity to respond to an emergency is proportionally diminished.

The ICRC is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. It also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening international humanitarian law. The ICRC's activities stem from the mandate entrusted to it by the international community, first of all through the Geneva Conventions, which are now ratified by every country in the world. The ICRC maintains a presence and is active in 80 countries, as a result of which it has expert knowledge of many widely differing situations. Today its largest-scale operations are in Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Israel and the Occupied Territories. The ICRC is also committed to responding to the needs of people affected by natural disasters, when they occur in places where it is already operational. As I have noted, knowledge of the area, appropriate human resources and logistical capacity, when they are already in place, are crucial in assessing needs in a specific situation and responding to them effectively and rapidly. I think that we gave convincing proof of our capacity in this regard after the earthquake in South Asia on 8 October 2005 in the district of Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This operation also demonstrated the importance of well-coordinated and complementary action – in this case, involving the ICRC and the Pakistan Armed Forces, the main actor in the affected area.

Another instance of the ICRC’s commitment was the work done by the organization after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004: some of the stricken countries were affected by ongoing armed conflicts or other situations of violence. In this regard, I must mention the support provided by the Singapore government and military for the ICRC. It was rapid and constructive and permitted us to establish a provisional logistical base in Singapore for our flight operations, in order to organize the delivery of aid to Aceh. In recent times these contacts were renewed, with a view to make further use of some of the military assets that Singapore has offered to put at our disposal. I should like to acknowledge the rapidity and efficiency of the humanitarian response offered by the Singapore military establishment in case of emergencies.

In the natural disaster caused by cyclone Nargis in the Irrawady delta, the ICRC is supporting the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Myanmar Red Cross Society. It is focusing on its mandate-related duties such as assistance to detainees, restoration of family links and management of mortal remains.

I said a little earlier that humanitarian response can be provided by a variety of actors: local and international humanitarian organizations, NGOs, government agencies, and, frequently, military units as well. Their methods vary and there are times when one form of action is more effective than another. But there should be no confusion between the different actors and their distinctive roles.

The ICRC stands for neutral and independent humanitarian action. Its action is always based on dialogue with the concerned parties and acceptance by them, and its aim is to provide an effective response that will benefit all victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. The ICRC is fully aware that acceptance has to be earned and can easily be lost. But it is equally convinced that in situations of armed conflict, its neutrality and independence does facilitate access to people in need and to the proper authorities. Demonstrating the relevance of this particular approach to humanitarian action is a daily challenge for the ICRC. Our operations in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sri Lanka, to mention just a few, are, I think, persuasive examples of the enduring value of neutral independent humanitarian action.

Military forces exist mainly to enable governments to defend the sovereignty of their countries and to ensure the security of a given country or region. They often have a wealth of human resources and superb logistical capabilities, and experience has shown that their life-saving work in their own countries or in other countries during large-scale natural disasters is irreplaceable. It must be welcomed and encouraged.

When a humanitarian emergency occurs in an area of conflict, whether as a consequence of the conflict itself or as a result of a natural disaster, the situation changes. Armed forces are direct participants in the conflict. Analysing their function from a humanitarian perspective, I see two different dimensions. First of all, securing an area – the primary role of any military force – may have a clear humanitarian dimension depending on the situation. Indeed, one can only applaud if the civilian population is spared the effects of the fighting because of improvements in the security situation. An improved security situation will also facilitate the delivery of public services and humanitarian assistance. On the other hand, when military forces themselves deliver humanitarian assistance they acquire a more ambiguous role. It is likely to create confusion with other actors engaged in a purely humanitarian mission, and suspicions about these other actors as well. If no actor other than the military were able to respond to people’s needs because of the prevailing security situation, life-saving humanitarian activities carried out by the military would obviously be welcome. On the other hand, in my view, military forces should avoid engaging in humanitarian activities if humanitarian actors are able to do the job. It is, in any case, up to them to prove that they are in a better position to do so than humanitarian actors.

In a complex security environment, effective and timely humanitarian assistance can be delivered only if States – their military forces in particular – and humanitarian actors engage in substantive dialogues, while being aware of and respecting each other's mandates, principles and modus operandi. Given the contexts in which it is working and its mandate, it is inevitable that the ICRC would be in regular dialogue with militaries all over the world. This dialogue aims at ensuring acceptance for the ICRC and its activities in aid of those most at risk, and at fostering respect for international humanitarian law - mainly through bilateral confidential representations. The ICRC also maintains its relationships with military forces in order to disseminate international humanitarian law. That is the case with many countries in this region, notably in the country hosting the present forum, and the ICRC is willing to further develop this area of common interest.

Afghanistan is a good example of the relationship between the ICRC and military actors. The ICRC did not participate in civil-military initiatives such as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, but it is fully committed to discussing a wide range of issues of humanitarian concern, such as operating procedures for handling detainees or the conduct of hostilities, with the Afghan authorities, with US forces or with commanders from the International Security Assistance Force. I did so very recently during visits to Kabul, Bagram and Kandahar. These and other aspects of our dialogue are indicative of a quality of relationship that is something of a model in civil-military relations, although rather unique. What is important is that such relations have not detracted from the ICRC’s ability to maintain its neutrality and independence in Afghanistan; neither have they undermined its ability to develop a dialogue with other armed actors in that context.

There are other examples of the ICRC’s coordination efforts in Asia. The ICRC seeks to interact with regional organizations such as ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. In order to build a complementary relationship, the ICRC aims to establish or intensify its dialogue with the political and military authorities that formulate policies for responding to emergencies. In this context, the ICRC's contribution to the drafting of standard operational procedures in regional mechanisms such as the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management should be noted. As it is the objective of such mechanisms to strengthen the regional response to emergencies, the ICRC is ready to enter into a wider dialogue on cooperation, including the subject of the use of neutralized military assets for humanitarian operations.

Thank you.