Statement

“People have the power to change the course of history”: ICRC President at the European Conference, Harvard University

31 January 2025
President Spoljaric giving speech

Good afternoon, 

 

It is an honour and privilege to speak to you today. We are living in a time of unforeseen convergence of events that will shape our world’s future, and Europe’s role in it.

 

As at every critical juncture in history – we witness the foundations of both law and diplomacy coming under immense strain. 

 

Because the world is deeply divided. Because conflicts are increasing in number and escalating in intensity. International humanitarian law – the rules that seek to protect humanity in war – is too often disregarded, violated, and even ignored all together. 

 

This is undeniably the reality we face today. But I want you to acknowledge – especially those of you who hold or intend to take the reins of global leadership positions – that there is another truth to this: at the very end, multilateralism prevails.

 

The world would not be where it is today without the cooperation among people and states. I would not be standing before you as the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) if individuals had not come together to create institutions of global relevance. 

 

The ICRC was founded by a visionary group of men and women to uphold dignity and safety in conflict. It owes its very existence to the belief that the creation of universally binding rules is not just possible but necessary.

 

Consider the international reach of Harvard University, which is as interconnected with the world as is the ICRC. The pursuit of knowledge and the shaping of leaders with a broad understanding of the complexities of the world, are needed to navigate today’s global challenges. 

 

Humankind has always been more strongly defined by interdependence than division.

 

Why is this so important?

 

The chances of having a prosperous life, of seeing future generations – our own children – thrive, are always higher if we have stability rather than chaos, peace rather than war. 

 

I can speak to this firsthand. Today, over 120 active armed conflicts are registered by the ICRC. Many of these conflicts are more intense than those seen in previous years – and the human cost is clear.

 

This month I visited Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. I met devastated families, desperately hoping their loved ones would return. I met mothers sheltering in makeshift tents, amidst of piles of rubble, trying to protect their children from cold, fear and hunger. 

 

The same pattern of destruction could be said for people living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Ukraine, Myanmar, and beyond. 

 

To my thinking, there is no such thing as a “forgotten conflict.” From Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza, we bear witness to crises that only a few years ago might not have been at the forefront of your thinking. Yet, three years later, the cost of reconstruction is measured not in millions, but in the hundreds and thousands of billions. Many millions of people have been displaced. The human toll of conflict is staggering, and the path to recovery is long and arduous. 

 

We can’t ignore any longer that it is precisely the economic consequences of war that are dominating national elections and budgetary negotiations across Western and, notably so, European parliaments.

 

Here’s the most important point: the scale of suffering we witness is not inevitable. People have the power to change the course of history. 

 

We can imagine a world where the laws of war are better respected: a world where civilians are shielded from attacks, hospitals serve as sanctuaries for the sick and wounded, humanitarian aid reaches those in need, and prisoners of war are treated with dignity.


This world is possible, but it requires courage and leadership to move past divisions and find common ground in our shared humanity.

 

What fosters stability? What ensures that future generations are safer, and do not inherit the seeds of hate generated by past conflicts?

 

The answer is not found in further division but in de-escalation; in the recognition that we share common values, and that respect for human life must transcend political divides.

 

And yet, we are witnessing the deliberate targeting of civilians and humanitarian workers, and the use of weapons that flout the rules of war. It is no longer a question of “if” international law will be broken but “when.” 

 

Let me ask you this: What defines victory? Who decides when a war is won?

 

Can victory really be claimed if all that remains is charred earth? Or worse, a betrayed social contract?

 

When wars are fought with cruelty and barbarism, with no regard for humanity, the path to peace and reconciliation is far more difficult – and global stability becomes increasingly fragile.

 

Today, the political leitmotiv of “you are either with us or against us” is taking again stronger hold. This view places human life on a scale, as if one life is worth more than another. 

 

But I ask you as future leaders: Should the life of the person sitting next to you be worth more than your own? Should my life be worth more than yours?

 

We know from history how dangerous this line of thinking can be. This week marks 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of hatred, prejudice, and the hollowing out of the law. We must learn the lessons of the past. If we allow the dehumanization of others, the foundation of our shared humanity – the recognition of our own right to exist – collapses. 

 

Since I took office as the President of the ICRC, I have been trying to find ways to help states de-escalate, to pull back from the current trajectory of division, death, and destruction. 

 

President delivering speech at Harvard University
ICRC

Here is what I have learned:

 

First, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 must not be shelved; they must be applied. These are bedrock principles that protect human life, regardless of nationality, race, or religion. Every society agrees to these norms because they affirm that some rights are inherent to human existence, and they remind us that every human being is entitled to dignity and protection, even in times of war.

 

 

My second lesson is: 

 

The concept of the political according to Carl Schmitt – the reduction of political strategy and action to the distinction between friend and foe – is evidently en vogue. But I profoundly disagree with this approach to politics. 

 

If governments want to bring their economies and political stability back on track, it is not enough to call out the enemy. State leaders must pressure their allies, influence their friends, to change their actions, wherever necessary, in respect for key international agreements.

 

Leadership requires courage. Leadership is about taking the harder path: calling for restraint, for dialogue, for respect for the rules that govern war and peace.

 

And finally, my third lesson: there are a hundred steps to peace, but the first are humanitarian. 

 

Frontline humanitarian action can stabilise tensions in communities. When international humanitarian law is respected, lives are saved, hospitals and schools remain open, markets can function; or prisoners of war are exchanged. Where the full collapse of public administration and the provision of essential services are prevented, the cost of war is reduced, and reconciliation becomes easier.

 

As an internationally recognised neutral intermediary, the ICRC is often called upon to implement the initial components of a cease fire agreement. This creates and maintains channels of communication between warring parties. 

 

Around the world, many of my colleagues in dangerous situations are speaking to fighters to obtain access for life-saving relief, to evacuate the wounded, to facilitate the release of hostages and detainees, or to bring news to families separated from their loved ones.

 

None of this would be possible without our neutrality.

 

This is often the most misunderstood principle of the ICRC. But without it we could not work. By staying neutral, we can help people based on need, not what side of the frontline they are on. It means, we can speak to those in power – on all sides – to influence how wars are being fought. 

 

This also means withstanding pressure and often fierce criticism that our neutrality makes us complicit. There are many times when it would have been easier for the ICRC to bend to the pressure and pick a side. But if we lose our neutrality, we lose our ability to operate. 

 

It means we cannot visit prisoners of war on both sides. It means we cannot evacuate civilians across frontlines. It means we cannot help people be released and return home.

 

States will never be completely neutral because their primary role is to protect their territory and people. Yet, the same states need neutral actors to support them in preparing the ground for peace.

 

This brings me to the theme of this conference: leader or dreamer.

 

While upholding International Humanitarian Law always remains the primary responsibility of states, we as the ICRC are tasked with translating the principles of the Geneva Conventions into tangible actions. Our delegates, engineers, accountants, drivers, and lawyers, all follow the same truth – that all human life, no matter what side you are on, is equally deserving of protection. 

 

In the complexity and horror of war, it is first and foremost our values as an organisation that guide how we work at every level, from the decisions our delegates make on the ground on how to deliver aid, to how we allocate our funds efficiently to drive impact based on meeting people’s needs.

 

Speaking to you as future leaders about what it means to lead with moral clarity and courage, I would like to say the following: leadership demands more than the ability to make decisions – it demands the courage to make the right decisions, even when they are neither easy nor popular. 

 

In my case it is about acknowledging that the world is complex, that the issues we face are multifaceted, and that the path to peace requires cooperation, compromise, and above all, a commitment to preserving humanity as a common good. 

 

At the same time, as the president of an institution that employs close to 20ʼ000 staff across the globe, I can never ignore the realities and constraints facing my organisation. Over the last two years, the ICRC was forced to cut several thousand positions. This is a number I am neither proud to emphasise nor to remember. But the restructuring underpinning these drastic measures was necessary to sustain our operational backbone; to protect our mission and mandate in times of acute financial pressures. 

 

However, I don’t yet see much light at the end of the tunnel. Pressures and attacks against the international humanitarian system continue to be on the rise, in Europe as well as in the US. Countries that have traditionally and historically been a creators and steadfast supporters of international assistance. 

 

If governments are compelled to pay less for humanitarian action, they need to do more to stop wars. I said earlier that the ICRC registers over 120 armed conflicts. At least three times more than 30 years ago. World leaders have to urgently stop this downward trajectory. 

 

There is a way forward, there is a key to this. It begins with a renewed commitment to the principles that have guided us for 75 years. The Geneva Conventions remain as relevant today as they were when they were first adopted. But they can only be effective if they are respected and implemented by all parties to a conflict.

 

The ICRC, together with Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan, and South Africa, have recently launched a global initiative to reinvigorate political commitment to international humanitarian law. This initiative was designed to cut across traditional silos, to embrace a new mulilateral reality, and create a platform where states can contribute to revitalizing respect for these fundamental and lifesaving rules. 

This initiative is an exceptional effort because the current situation demands it. 

Future wars will be fought based on the standards set by conflicts today, and we cannot afford the bar to be lowered any further. 

Over the next two years, we will tackle some of the most pressing challenges facing international humanitarian law. This will be developed through a number of work streams. This comprehensive work conducted by legal and military experts will culminate in a global meeting in late 2026 to reassert our shared commitment to international humanitarian law. 

I presented this initiative earlier this week to all members of the UN General Assembly. I left encouraged that states from all regions of the globe expressed their support for it – more proof that multilateralism is not dead. The world may look different than it did in the past, but the need for cooperation remains as vital as ever. 

Not everyone leads a humanitarian organisation. The graduates among you will leave this honorable academic institution in the pursuit of professional development in many different fields and sectors. I have myself worked in diverse areas and different organisations. Through this experience it has become my conviction that, no matter the path you take, it is always worth putting humanity at the center.