Humanitarian Diplomacy for the Protection of Civilians: Mobilizing Political Will in an Era of Constraints (Protection of Civilians Week 2026 Side Event)

Yeah.
Hello, good afternoon.
Dear colleagues, Excellencies, can we start, please? We're just 3 minutes over and we've got a packed agenda item.
Good afternoon, Excellency's colleagues, distinguished guests, and friends, welcome and thank you for joining us here today.
Before we begin, I have the honor to read all the rules and practical points to you.
Today's session focuses on humanitarian diplomacy as a practical instrument for the protection of civilians in an increasingly constrained environment.
House rules, if you allow me, the event is recorded.
Please raise your name plate when you wish to speak.
Interventions from the floor should be kept to 2 minutes.
There's no timer, as we've seen in other holds, so please respect the time.
Please press your microphone button before speaking and release it when you're done.
Basic.
I would now like to invite opening remarks from our co host as well as ICRC before turning to the co sponsors of the event.
Welcome remarks by Her Excellency Ambassador Alia Ahmed Binsf Al Thani, permanent representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations.
Excellency Flosios.
So much, dear colleagues, good afternoon.
It's such a great pleasure, of course, to welcome you to this important side event during the United Nations Protection of Civilian Week, this year themed humanitarian diplomacy for the protection of civilians, mobilizing political will in an era of constraints.
This gathering, dear colleagues, is especially timely as we confront significant challenges in civilian protection, primarily stemming from a lack of political will among stakeholders rather than operational limitations.
I would like to thank, of course, our Minister, Her Excellency, doctor Maria Benali Lissner, and His Excellency, Mr.
Tom Fletcher, the United Nations Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, for their recorded messages that will be played later demonstrating their commitment to civilian protection and humanitarianism.
I commend, of course, my dear friend, miss Mariana, Agar, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, for joining us in person.
Thank you so much, Mariana, for giving us this important time of your busy schedule.
I also express our gratitude to the representatives who traveled from capitals to be part of this important event.
Let me also welcome her Ecellcy Sehaar Shia, Assistant Foreign Minister for Human Rights from the State of Kuwait.
Thank you so much for taking part in our event and all of our colleagues taking part as well.
Further, I thank our partners at OCHA and all co sponsoring member states for this valuable collaboration and this essential discussion.
Dear colleagues, as a country that considered mediation and humanitarian diplomacy fundamental pillar of its foreign policy, the State of Qatar is aware that the world is facing severe humanitarian crisis and complex.
Humanitarian access is often obstructed.
Civilians are unjustly targeted and violations of international humanitarian law continue innovated.
Critical decisions regarding aid delivery, the establishment of humanitarian corridors, and conflict resolutions are frequently made in distant capitals disconnected from harsh realities on the ground.
This disconnect must be urgently addressed to uphold our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in such situations.
In this context, humanitarian diplomacy, the strategic engagement of political decision makers, parties to conflict, humanitarian personnel, influential, intermediaries, and local actors has become essential.
While operational negotiations at the local level are necessary, they are rarely sufficient on their own.
Effective protection of civilians requires sustained political engagement at the highest levels within the Security Council through regional organizations and by utilizing the leverage of states capable of influencing conflict dynamics alongside guidance from civil society and international legal frameworks.
As we engage in these critical discussions, let us emphasize the need to integrate humanitarian considerations into political, regional, multilateral processes.
This approach will create more favorable conditions for humanitarians across access and protection.
The UN Security Council, along with other relevant UN bodies and key stakeholders, must collaborate to strengthen protection and accountability within their mandates.
Furthermore, UN reforms should focus on enhancing the organization's capacity to prevent, mediate, address atrocity crimes, particularly under the framework of the responsibility to protect RTP.
Through its diverse mediation efforts, both regionally and globally, the State of Qatar remains committed to prioritizing civilian protection.
Our ultimate goal is clear to save lives and safeguard the most vulnerable.
For instance, our joint mediation with Egypt and United States and the Gaza Strip has helped save lives, facilitated the release of detainees, and provided essential humanitarian and medical assistance.
Moreover, the State of Qatar reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the Peace Council to the Board of Peace, a dedicated.
Dedicated body that since the signing of the Charm Cher Agreement, we have allocated $1 billion to support the Council's effort in achieving a lasting resolution.
Additionally, in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, the DRC, Qatar actively engaged in discussions on the humanitarian access and judicial Protection protocols, part of the Doha framework for the comprehensive Peace Agreement signed with the Congo River Alliance, of course, known as the M 23, in November 2025.
However, achieving this goal requires a unified commitment to uphold the principles of the international humanitarian law and to ensure that civilians are never exploited for political gains.
Civilian safety must be our shared priority and humanitarian access must be guaranteed at all time.
Free from restrictions.
Let us seize the opportunity to share practical lessons during this event and tangible commitments in the field of humanitarian diplomacy.
Together, we can enhance our collective effort to mobilize high level political action that effectively safeguard civilians and improves humanitarian outcomes.
Of course, we look forward to a very engaging discussion today, and I thank you.
Thank you, Her Excellency Ambassador, PR of the State of Qatar.
Why don't I introduce the two videos we have? Her Excellency, doctor Maram Bin Ali Bin Nasser Al Misnad, Minister of State for International Cooperation, State of Qatar.
Excellency dear colleagues, I am pleased to join the side event co organized by the State of Qatar and OCA.
Our discussion is timely.
It focuses on pressing question.
How to mobilize political will to better protect civilians through humanitarian diplomacy.
The protection crisis we face are not primarily operational.
They are political.
They reflect decisions whether to protect or expose civilians, grant or deny access, uphold or disregard international law.
Qatar has consistently put this principle into practice.
We have facilitated humanitarian access in Afghanistan, supported evacuation efforts, and used our mediation role to create space for aid delivery in active conflict zones.
Our mediation in Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere continues to prioritize civilian protection and humanitarian corridors.
This is why humanitarian diplomacy is important.
The state of Qatar is acting on this responsibility.
We have advanced humanitarian diplomacy through mediation, multilateral engagement, and partnerships.
We have launched a national humanitarian diplomacy initiative to bridge field realities with political processes.
We've joined the ICRC Global Initiative on international humanitarian law and endorsed the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian persona.
As a major donor to OCHA, OTA uses its financial support to turn political promises into action.
Excellencies, we all have diplomatic tools.
The question is whether we will use them consistently and without selectivity to protect civilians.
OTA remains committed to doing so.
Thank you.
Excellent.
Excellency, colleagues, friends, thank you to all our partners and co sponsors for bringing us together.
Let me start with a simple truth.
This is not a crisis of norms.
We do not lack resolutions.
We do not lack conventions.
We do not lack law.
What we lack too often is action.
What we are facing is a crisis of implementation, a growing gap between what member states have signed up to and what too many are prepared to do when it matters most.
And civilians are paying the price in Gaza, in Sudan, in Haiti, in Yemen, in Myanmar, and in too many other places that don't make it to the headlines.
Every day, humanitarian aid is blocked, delayed, politicized, or denied.
Much of this suffering is not inevitable.
It is not accidental, and it is not beyond our control.
It is the result of choices, choices to escalate when de escalation is possible.
Choices to obstruct when access could be granted.
Choices to look away when international humanitarian law demands action.
None of this is inevitable.
That is where humanitarian diplomacy matters.
So quietly, sometimes publicly, but always persistently and pragmatically.
It means using political influence diplomatic leverage and moral authority to protect civilians and defend our humanitarian space.
It means spending political capital on behalf of people who have none.
I see that spirit in our partnership with the state of Qatar, a partnership built not on rhetoric, but on results, on hard conversations, practical solutions, and a shared belief that when lives are on the line, Diplomacy must deliver.
When this humanitarian diplomacy works, we know it saves lives.
It helps secure humanitarian pauses.
It opens roads, crossings, and corridors.
It gets medicine to hospitals, food to families, and injured children to safety.
It protects schools, clinics, water systems, and other civilian infrastructure.
Perhaps most importantly, it keeps civilians visible in political processes that too often make decisions about them without them.
That is not charity, that is responsibility.
Thank you to, of course, Under Secretary-General Fletcher, as well as doctor Maryam, for those videos.
Let's move on to a statement by ICRC's president miss Mariana Eger.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ed.
Thank you, Ambassador.
It's a great pleasure to be here and I really value the invitation to speak here at this very important event and I want to just follow on what Tom Fletcher said by saying, yes, humanitarian diplomacy matters.
It's important, but diplomacy matters full stop.
What we mean by diplomacy depends on how much political capital we are willing to invest in these actions and engagements.
I think the way that the ICSC works with Qatar is a good example.
We stay away from politics, we stay away from mediation, but we come in with technical advice and then operational capacity once an agreement is reached.
But we need states to negotiate.
We need states to actively engage in facilitation and in a genuine effort to create resolutions to conflict.
I'll come back to that.
Because across the world, conflicts are multiplying, not only in number, but also in intensity and we count more and more international armed conflicts, meaning armed conflict between states and powerful militaries and now even the people of the most powerful militaries are not feeling safe at all times anymore because of the level of escalation and the continuous trend towards more escalations rather than less.
We see entire cities that are leveled and destroyed and we see facilities and personnel targeted almost on a daily basis.
We see how children are being recruited to armed groups and rape and torture are consistently and systematically employed as weapons of war.
It is, as all of you have said before, not because the law is unclear, but all these people are dying because the law is being violated with impunity, but also disregarded and considered an impediment to military victory.
This is the trend we need to reverse, and this is also one of the main objectives of the International Initiative, which will be a subject tomorrow before the Security Council debate on protection of civilians.
International humanitarian law is a testament to the feats of diplomacy.
It is testament of the many innocent lives that could be saved and the suffering that can be prevented if states showed more collective commitment to put humanity at the center of the diplomatic activity.
In the fragmented geopolitical landscape that we experience today, trust in established institutions, but also trust in your negotiation partner or adversary has become the most single biggest challenge and how to rebuild trust.
I said it this morning in another briefing in a completely debased environment is extremely difficult to resolve.
But it will not be done unless you sustain diplomatic engagement.
I'm a trained diplomat as well.
This profession is extremely important and the effectiveness of diplomacy will show whether we can resolve conflict.
It will not be the military escalation because we are reaching a point where the economic impact is surpassing the absorption capacity of most states in the world, and it will be only through negotiation and political engagement that the trend can be reversed.
At the ICSC, we will continue to implement our mandate in support of preventive measures and in support of protecting the highest number of people that we can through our actions and including our diplomatic engagement.
But ultimately, the responsibility will stay with states.
It will stay with the political and military power.
It is states primary responsibility.
You have an obligation as states to respect and ensure respect for the rules of war.
You have a responsibility to use all the influence you have to de escalate.
From where I sit, this responsibility has seldom been bigger and how you design your military operations, how you design your military and security strategies are crucial when it comes to protecting civilians and reducing the loss of civilians in the event of conflict.
It is true how you design your defense policies, your foreign relations strategies, that you protect civilians, and that you preserve prospects for peace.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to the president of ICRC for the stress on responsibility of states.
Allow me to give a short statement as the OCHA representative, and I think it echoes the PR of Qatar's words and the ICRC president and also USG and ERC Fletcher.
In Gaza, Sudan, DRC, in Ukraine where I've just briefed the council today a few hours ago and elsewhere, civilians continue to face extreme levels of harm, displacement, denial of access to assistance.
The scale of suffering is not in question.
It's very clear from everything has been said before, the principal constraints on civilian protection are not operational or technical.
They are political.
Humanitarian access is blocked.
Civilians are targeted, including just last week, my own colleagues in OCHA DSS, in Carson City and IHL obligations are disregarded because of decisions taken by political actors in capitals.
As USG Fletcher said, humanitarian diplomacy is therefore not an abstract concept at all.
It is a practical tool to influence those decisions, shape the behavior of party or parties to conflict, obviously, and create the political conditions that protect civilians and enable humanitarian action.
Field level negotiations remain indispensable.
You hear it today.
But they are increasingly shaped by broader political dynamics, regional processes, multilateral forums, and actors with direct or indirect leverage over conflict parties.
The two levels cannot must not be separated.
Today's discussion, thank you to the states of Qatar and partners, is not about reaffirming principles.
It is about examining how humanitarian diplomacy can be used more effectively and by whom.
Let me quickly move on to the co sponsoring member states to deliver statements.
Statement from the Special Representative on Protection of Civilians Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway.
You have the floor, please.
Miss Catherine Anderson.
Thank you very much to Cathar and the co conveners of this event.
Across all the conflicts today, the civilians are paying an unacceptable price and we see widespread violations of international humanitarian law, attacks on critical infrastructure and severe constraints on humanitarian access, attacks on civilians, attacks on humanitarian workers.
It's not in this time when we speak so much about funding cuts and restructuring, it's not primarily a failure of capacity.
It's a failure of political will, which is the basis of this event.
It's also the failure or the lack of determination to pursue peaceful resolution to conflict or to respect the rules that preserve life and dignity during war, actually to disregard all the pathways to peace that you have when conflicts arise.
For us, this reinforces the need for humanitarian diplomacy to be used more systematically to influence behavior.
We have maybe in the past focused too much on access and less on protection.
And maybe humanitarian diplomacy is a term that should be challenged.
It's not humanitarian diplomacy, it's diplomacy.
It's political work, it's mediation.
The efforts must be grounded in international law so that our common objective is the rights and well being of people and that the humanitarian objectives of protecting civilians are seen as political choices, strategic choices, and a matter of national and international security.
So just quickly, for priorities on our side, international humanitarian law provides clear rules and the challenges both implementation, but also a sense of double standards.
This I think we must avoid.
The rules apply to everyone everywhere at all times.
States must lead by example and through consistent engagement with partners and allies to ensure respect for the rules.
Leadership also means addressing violations openly and demanding accountability.
Second, the dialogue to influence behavior.
Changing conduct in conflicts require this sustained engagement that has been described by Qatar by ICRC and OCHA, the sustained dialogue with those who carry weapons, and we should be willing to speak to everyone.
To strengthen this dialogue with armed forces and non state actors, we should also build on the great knowledge and experience by other partners such as the ICRC, but also Geneva Cole, Civic, and others who play a critical role in promoting respect for humanitarian norms.
States should support and amplify these efforts politically, but also financially if they have the opportunity.
Third, policies, training, and discipline, practical measures.
These commitments are, of course, legal commitments, political commitments, but they're also very practical commitments.
So it includes all of us investing in training of armed forces, strengthening civilian harm mitigation policies, having our military strategies include protection of civilians as a strategic objective.
Practical tools, we have many of those and they are great from the IHL Global Initiative.
I think it's coming through a lot of good practice that all of us can benefit from.
This demands a better cooperation, better exchange of experience, but it's there.
We can do better if we choose to.
And all this system will make a real difference on the ground for people.
And lastly, protection with them for the communities.
The civilians are, of course, primarily the victims as we speak, but we also know that they are agents of their own protection, and it's engagement with the communities.
Humanitarian diplomacy cannot be a separate track.
It has to connect with community level efforts.
Supporting local capacities for protection, preparedness and resilience is crucial.
Diplomacy is a force multiplier, but it's political work.
It has to be done at all levels.
But I think there are enough states still in the world that do want to respect IHL, that do want to promote norms and want the multilateralism that functions.
Thank you.
Thank you, representative of Norway.
Dear Excellencies, I will flatch my mic when the time is up, please keep to 3 minutes if that's okay.
We've got a huge list of speakers.
Statement by the Deputy permanent representative of the UK.
His Excency Archie Young, over to you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to Qatar, thank you to Archer.
It is great to see a full room today, particularly on an issue as critical as this.
It's clear from the conversation that we've had so far that protection of civilians depends on political will, but also it needs to be grounded in practical realities.
It is that meeting point of that political will and the practical realities that can really actually make that difference for children, for families, for all those who are in need.
Of course, as we know that that protection is sadly too often absent, whether that is in Sudan, in Gaza, in Lebanon, in DRC, and we must challenge this and we must challenge it through the UN.
We must challenge it bilaterally, we must challenge it regionally.
From our perspective, there are three particular elements in this time of constraints that we see as critical to doing this.
The first is access.
Access has been mentioned a lot, but I'm not just talking about these broad calls for improved access, but really specific asks and actions, whether that's on workable procedures, on crossings, on functioning routes, on protection for humanitarian personnel.
We need to get granular in our asks and our actions on access.
The second is on making sure that the operational realities are really informing our humanitarian diplomacy.
That means making sure we have the connections to national and local actors so that we are targeting our efforts in the most effective way.
Then the third depends on investing in partnerships and skills.
That can enable that access, enable that protection.
That's why the UK was pleased to co host the Sudan conference in Berlin, where $1.7 billion was committed in humanitarian pledges by partners.
These three elements together we see as critical to driving action on this.
This is bigger than one state alone.
We will continue to use our seat in the Security Council to advance these and we really value the opportunity of discussions like this and partnerships like these to move this forward.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
DPR of the UK straight to the DPR of Sweden Ambassador Andrés Vonsel.
Okay.
Colleagues, thank you to Qatar, OCHA, and all the other co hosts for this event today.
Sweden is a proud sponsor of the event today.
We meet at a moment when protection of civilians is under extreme strain.
Across regions, we see failure of political will, civilian targeted.
Humanitarian access is obstructed and international humanitarian law violated with impunity.
These are political choices requiring political responses.
Humanitarian diplomacy is now indispensable.
Operational field negotiations remain vital but are no longer enough.
Decisions on access to aid, corridors, and compliance are made in capitals, in regional organizations and in this building.
Protection of civilians begins long before the convoy moves with political engagement, leverage, and accountability.
For Sweden, humanitarian diplomacy is not a technical add on to humanitarian aid.
It is a core responsibility of member states.
We all have diplomatic tools, interpersonal relationships, influence, political capital that must be used to uphold international humanitarian law and to secure access.
Respect for international humanitarian law is not optional.
It's about ensuring respect and this is a legal obligation.
As financial pressure and geopolitical fragmentation grow, humanitarian diplomacy is a force multiplier.
It can expand humanitarian space without expanding budgets, but only if strategic, sustained and tied to real outcomes for people.
I look forward to today's discussion and to working with all your partners to ensure diplomacy delivers for those most in need of protection.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, DPR of Sweden.
Now to the Deputy Head of European Union, Ambassador Heth Samson.
Adam, thank you, Excellency' dear colleagues.
Thank you, Qatar and Ocha and all the other co sponsors for convening us on this very important topic today.
At the time of growing geopolitical fragmentation and tension, I think shrinking humanitarian space and increasing financial pressures, humanitarian diplomacy is not optional.
It is still indispensable.
Across conflicts globally, civilians continue to bear the heaviest burden of war as we know, and humanitarian access is obstructed.
Aid workers are attacked and international humanitarian law is too often just disregarded.
For the European Union, humanitarian diplomacy means engaging consistently at all levels, global, regional and local to create and maintain space for humanitarian action.
It means using political leverage, dialogue, and multilateral engagement to secure humanitarian access, strengthen protection outcomes, and uphold respect for international humanitarian law.
Later this year, the European Union and Ireland will organize in Brussels an international conference on the protection of humanitarian aid workers.
Respect for international humanitarian law is not a matter of political convenience, but a legal and moral obligation binding on all parties to conflict at all times.
And the EU will continue its humanitarian diplomacy efforts to promote compliance with international humanitarian law, including through dialogue with parties to the conflict and through supporting efforts for monitoring and data collection of attacks.
We strongly support the global initiative to galvanize respect for IHL, and we invite all states to join this initiative to uphold humanity in war as all EU member states have already done.
I look forward to our exchange and to identifying concrete ways in which member states and partners can better mobilize political will, strengthen humanitarian diplomacy and translate commitments into meaningful protection outcomes for civilians on the ground.
Humanitarian diplomacy is ultimately about preserving humanity in the darkest moments of conflict, and our credibility will not be measured by the statements we make, but by the assistance and protection we are able to secure for those most at risk.
Allow me to end by just expressing our deepest appreciation to humanitarian personnel worldwide, including of the UN, who continue to risk their lives every day in frontline negotiations and to protect and save others under the most difficult circumstances.
Thank you.
Thank you to the representative of the EU, deputy chair of the European delegation.
I will last but not least, we've got Mr.
Hans Mabel representing the PR of the DRC.
Excellence madame, Oris contempora forces Philippe.
On, the solution pragmatic, the Psreation strategic diplomatic, Fluence relation capital Protection, civil politique, P the continent.
Us resolution you consider security, violence, Atisonlaport, materials medical, La resolution attack on population of Civille Sudan, resolution, Liu Republic Secretary-General Aff Costal Civille Marin de Plasmaville, Cité attack and infra Siville.
Madam President, not organization, the Roe, the examination Cermon Volunte politic, Protection, the Tourville and distinction, the color, the religion geography.
Aj, population Seville, rep Congo, Lab Gaza, Jesdan, Jedanu Ukraine, a victim that attack international Maitre, Maite, V population Seville France conflict, Time.
Can you finish very quickly, sir? Sorry.
Are lapel, October the milnra Frances, vertex, cause, age, lisin continue trivial Maxi Boc, thank you very much.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Time is not on our side at all, and we've got a lot to cover.
Thank you so much to our member states interventions on humanitarian diplomacy on diplomacy, political diplomacy, on the practical realities, the political will, shrinking humanitarian space, political will, moral versus legal and everything that you said, of course, culminating in civilians must be respected at all times and hats off to our humanitarian colleagues who risk their lives every day indeed.
We now go to Civic Center for Civilians in Conflict.
Him from civics operational experience.
How can humanitarian diplomacy and mediation processes move beyond high level engagement to deliver concrete protection outcomes for civilians on the ground? Thank you.
I want to thank the State of Qatar, the ICRC and OCHA and the other co sponsors for this important event and timely discussion.
As you said, if we keep the mediation efforts and the reconciliation processes at a high level and not going to the field, we will fail.
Basically, we stop bombing, we don't protect civilians, and the cycle of violence will start again.
I propose, first of all, a few concrete ideas to make sure that there is a link between Han diplomacy and field realities.
The first one Protection of civilian should be placed at the of any design of mediation efforts or humanitarian diplomacy when it comes to targeting a conflict.
It has to be, as you said as well, Catherine, a strategic core objective of any efforts.
Without it, you fail.
I will propose that we frame this into national POC frameworks that states could develop.
We supported the national policy framework of Somalia, for example, and in this framework, you can have this as a core objective and then resolve situations down the line.
The second one to include early enough in any mediation efforts, civilian perspectives, voices of affected communities, to make sure that you have an inclusive and comprehensive effort that is not detached from civilian realities.
Then to make sure that you link indicators of success of mitigation efforts to concrete protection outcomes for impacted communities.
It could be percentage of reduction of gender based violence, increase of access to schools that were occupied by military personnel or armed groups or any other type of indicators.
This is extremely important.
Then we have a clear matrix where you link up mitigation efforts and production outcomes.
Finally, to go back from time to time to affected communities, to provide some feedback on the process implementation of nation efforts, and to receive as well their perspectives to make sure that you are not, as I said, detached from realities and you can always make sure that this nation efforts is in line with the core objective protecting lives.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for that intervention and clear practical points.
The Executive Director of Civic, let me go to the representative of the Qatar Red Crescent Assistant Secretary-General for relief.
I have a few questions for you which are completely new.
We haven't seen it before.
Yes, you have.
Drawing on the Qatar Red Crescent societies of experience across multiple contexts, what factors make some humanitarian diplomacy efforts more successful than others in influencing parties to conflict.
That's just one of ten, one of two.
Is the main message that Qatar Crescent would like to convey to member states and international partners regarding their collective responsibility to protect civilians and uphold international humanitarian law? Close.
Okay.
Thank you very much for inviting me and thank you for the State of atar and atar mission and also OCHA.
It's an honor to It's responsibility for the states actually.
It's responsibility for all the decision makers.
It's responsibility for the big United Nations and big organizations.
Don't just put the blame or don't just put the efforts on a charity or organizations humanitarian organizations.
It's a core force or let's say it's work together between the states and also political decision makers.
Thank you, Excellency, for your points on states on the UN.
Don't put it on the organizations on the ground covering and working.
They have a job to do, and we also or the system, and the member states also have a job to do.
Thank you very much.
Would you like to come in again or should I move on to the next? We'll come back in the round.
We'll come back.
Okay.
Thank you, sir, for that.
Now let me go to Save the Children.
Representative, there you are.
This is new to you, of course, taking into account current financial constraints.
Our representative from Norway touched on that.
What practical approaches have proven most effective in sustaining humanitarian access and protection activities in highly constrained operational environments.
Thank you.
Thank you for your question.
Thanks to the State of Qatar, OCHA, and the co sponsors for convening us today.
Save the Children with the support of Echo is launching a new aid memoir this week on practical tools for increasing children's humanitarian access.
This work is based on extensive research drawing from field level interviews with armed actors, access negotiators and humanitarians in Mali, Myanmar, the occupied Palestinian territory, and Yemen, combined with our own global organizational experience navigating humanitarian access constraints over the past 100 years.
I want to highlight two key themes that are coming out of that.
First, whether you are an international mediator in a conference room like this one or a field level access negotiator, Children's issues are often the most compelling and least politicized entry point for negotiations.
Our research found that both state armed actors and non state armed actors widely recognized children's unique needs and vulnerabilities to the impact of war as an entry point for dialogue.
Negotiations were framed around children's needs, we saw an increased appetite to change policy and practice.
One non state armed group representative told us that children must be protected from the effects of war and recognized their right to education and health care as a core obligation.
They stressed that we would have fought for nothing if future generations are traumatized by violence and can no longer imagine a normal life.
Know that in the reality of modern warfare, these policies are not always reflected in practice, but they do provide a meaningful basis for engagement.
If we can agree that children need an education, that they can negotiate a local truce for exams or de conflict a playground and from there ladder our access negotiations upwards.
The second thing that emerged was the need to operationalize this approach at multiple levels of engagement.
Local access negotiations need space, but they often also require concerted high level political support.
At field level, children and the idea of their future can be used to prioritize and frame negotiations at negotiation asks around civilian services and infrastructure.
At global level, norms and a sense of accountability can be shaped.
High level interventions made directly with political leadership, early warning systems can be returned to focus on children's unique vulnerabilities.
Simply put, in war, children suffer first and worst.
The denial of their rights to humanitarian access is one of the most pressing challenges of our times, only through concerted political and diplomatic action linking the field to the global corridors of power, can we hope to address these.
Thank you.
Thank you to Mr.
Mohamed Al Asma, Global Director for Diplomacy Engagement of the UN from Save, thanks for answering those questions and reminding us, of course, children always bearing the brunt of a Protection protection of civilians and calling for children to be respected and the rights of children.
I like the way you framed it in the educational perspective.
Let me go to Geneva call.
Given that Geneva call has a distinctive and much needed mission, engaging non state conflict parties through principle humanitarian dialogue to achieve concrete protection outcomes for civilians under their control.
How do you translate that field based engagement into humanitarian diplomacy with international institutions and member states so that their political leverage helps amplify these protection outcomes.
Thanks.
Thank you.
From our perspective, we would like to share three main points.
One is about an operational conviction.
The second is realization of the world we're living in, and the third is about the potential and the limitation of this exercise.
So first of all, the operational conviction, one thing that we have learned over the 25 years of experience is that engaging conflict parties is needed, is required, but it's tough, it's challenging, but it can yield results.
This is something that most of us have been calling for, but this is something that we need to repeat again and again.
This change does not happen overnight.
If we want conflict parties to respect the basic principles of international law, it takes time.
It cannot happen overnight.
The second is about the realization.
The realization is, of course, that the world we're living in, the conflict in which we operate are more and more fragmented with a lot of actors having influence on it.
As you mentioned, what we need to do as MAC as well, is to make sure that we take that into account.
We need to look and talk to all those who have an influence on the context in which work, host countries, neighboring countries, regional authorities, the UN, and so on and so forth.
We have to recognize, even in events like this, that the balance of power is changing and therefore, it's changing the way we need to operate.
We have to better recognize the role of global powers such as China, India, Kuwait, and many others who are now having a real voice and having a more voice in this field.
Lastly, about the potential and the limitation, I would like to also relay some of the elements that have been said before.
The rise of Hite diplomacy is not a good news because what we need is, of course, diplomacy.
But obviously, Hite diplomacy is a good step.
We can do things together.
A GC we are very glad to be also counting on partners that can help us leverage their political influence, the contact, their space, the co power.
We'd like to especially recognize the role of Norway, Switzerland, and the EU in that regard.
But in order for humian diplomacy not to be a name in itself, I think we need to all recall what the president of the ICRC also told us is that we need peacemakers more than Humitin diplomats and what we can do at best is to help you diplomats become these peacemakers through some Hit diplomacy exercise.
Thank you.
Thanks a lot.
I know all speakers are trying to rush through the points.
Forgive us.
We'll try and capture all of that.
You made it on time.
Alexander head of Humanitarian Diplomacy and Communications, Geneva Cool.
Let me go straight to the representative IHL Center.
There you are.
What approaches are most effective today in driving greater respect for international humanitarian law among parties to conflict? Thank you very much.
One of the most important things that we can do is make IHL more accessible beyond legal circles.
IHL can be highly technical and complex, but it becomes most effective when humanitarian practitioners, diplomats, journalists, and others working in conflict context can confidently use it in their advocacy, can confidently use it in dialogue, humanitarian dialogue, and engagement with parties to the conflict.
This is also important in helping humanitarian stakeholders internalize IHL norms more deeply so these principles increasingly shape operational decision making and protection advocacy.
This is one of the reasons why we developed the Stockholm manual at the IHL Center, which is a practitioner's guide to IHL assessments and advocacy.
It's designed to support practitioners who may not have formal legal training, but who nevertheless need practical tools to understand and apply IHL in day to day humanitarian work.
Second, civilians are not a homogeneous group and conflict affects different communities in different ways.
Promoting IHL compliance entails an inclusive understanding of civilian harm.
Our recent inclusive IHL report examines how conflict is experienced differently by persons with disabilities, women, children, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ persons, and we're providing practical recommendations on a more inclusive and protective approach to IHL.
Third, I think credibility and coordination matter.
If IHL analysis is applied consistently or inconsistently and imprecisely, we risk weakening the very normative frameworks we depend on.
There has to be rigorous, evidence based legal analysis so that there is no constraint on advocacy.
We have advocacy that is influenced by legitimacy and proper IHL guidance.
At the center, we provide IHL advice and we also seek to provide support to briefings and other technical support in those situations.
I think piloting rapid IHL alert initiatives are important in fostering effective IHL engagement.
Ultimately, driving greater respect for IHL requires a democratization and understanding of the law to strengthen collective humanitarian engagement.
I think IHL should not be seen solely as the domain of courts or legal experts, but as a shared practical framework that enables a wider humanitarian community to engage and advocate for the protection of civilians.
Okay.
All our speakers did very well.
Doctor Joshua Joseph Neo, head of units and senior legal expert at IHL Center, straight to the point succinct and clear.
Excellencies member states, dear colleagues, floor is open.
I have a list of questions and I'm going to call you by name and by member state.
That is not what I'm going to do.
I'm going to open the floor for everybody.
The topic is very, very tough and we are always in a doom and gloom situation.
Our speakers have given us perspectives very practical.
The State of Qatar has given us the opportunity to engage and speak.
ICRC has given us the frameworks, and our practitioners have given us the framing.
The UK and Sweden and Norway have come in with their different perspectives.
Are they impractical, practical, practical, humanitarian out of the diplomacy.
But of course, as Geneva Cole said, humanitarian diplomacy is important when everything else fails.
What? Flows open.
Please put your card up and I will find you.
I don't have one.
Please go ahead.
Australia.
Thank you.
Thank you very much and thanks also to Qatar to OCHA, ICRC, and of course, the other co sponsors, member states and civil society organizations just for the opportunity.
It's been a rich, if quick interventions, I think, I'll try and be quick and rich as well.
I think perhaps just to say that I would agree and reinforce many of the messages.
I think firstly that we really do need a stronger focus on implementation.
That's why we're here.
We have the frameworks, as others have said, what's missing is the consistent delivery on the ground.
In particular, I think we've talked about access, but it's also alignment, ensuring that we are consistent and equal in the protections that we give to others and accountable in terms of really at all levels at the political, at the strategic, and at the operational level.
The second is just around strengthening political support and translating that into practical action.
I think a number of delegations have mentioned, including the honorable Minister from Qatar, the IHL initiative that many of us are partners with, but also the Declaration on the protection of humanitarian personnel, because I think as we know, really, if you can't protect those that are trying to protect civilians, then we are really failing in our jobs as diplomats, as political leaders, as humanitarians.
Um, I think the other so I just encourage others to continue to look at that declaration and opportunities to sign onto it.
The third is just how we best deal in this environment with kind of evolving threats, and I think that, you know, it is bringing together all those pieces, the operational, the people, the strategic because decisions on how we deploy technologies, for example, need to take into consideration all those elements.
And so I would just put that on the table as something that we really need to think about in terms of reshaping conflict, and I recognize the ICRC DC has done a lot of work in this space.
I think ultimately for us, we feel we need to be much more deliberate, we need to be much more consistent, and we need to be much more accountable in how we use diplomacy.
And I would argue humanitarian diplomacy as a subset because it does enable us to open up.
Um, to protect civilians.
I think we, of course, will continue to drive what we can through the IHL Initiative, through the Declaration of Protection of Humanitarian Personnel.
And ultimately, protection is going to be determined by what we say, as others have said, but not by what we say, but also by what we are prepared to do, not just what we do and who we are prepared to influence.
So thank you very much for the opportunity.
Thank you very much, representative of Australia.
I think that Declaration on the Protection of Humanitarian personnel with more than 120 member states signing off on it has been a game changer certainly from the humanitarians and we're grateful to that among other things that you said on the IHL initiative on the evolving threats and the importance of political support.
Thank you very much.
Absolutely, please.
I don't know this one.
Work.
Talking from an organization that work in the ground and we are into these conflict areas like Gaza, Sudan, and other places also.
I think humanitarian diplomacy comes under three factors or three main things.
Number one, you have to be very neutral.
Now the problem is most of the organizations, unfortunately, are coming, you know, one party against other parties.
This thing is creating this kind of conflict.
I think be neutral with everybody, you are supporting the people there in the ground.
You are not just for one party against other parties.
This is one element.
Second, you have always to show before the crisis, don't just jump in the cries and you say that I'm here.
You have to build a relationship with the country, you have to build a relation with the people.
You have to build a relation with these societies.
Like important projects that you should do.
Creating this kind of bridge between you and the society and the people will create this kind of trust between you and them.
Unfortunately, whenever it happens in a crisis or something, they trust you.
I think number three is ask specifically what you want.
When you go to any country that needs help, you have to ask them, what do you want? Do you need roads? You need hospitals, for example, what do you want? Don't just come with your perspective from your home and just build projects from your view.
I think these are three important from my view, these are very important to build this humanitarian diplomacy in the ground, I'm talking.
Thank you to Assistant Secretary-General of the Qatara Crescent neutrality.
Of course, reinforcing the points on international humanitarian law, neutrality absolutely key, building trust and having a relationship with the parties because we're there to assist humanitarian support, and then of course, involving the communities and being specific in our ask, not just in imposing our perspectives on them.
I think it's very clear that the whole issue of trust is absolutely important and we've seen it in our daily work.
Dear member states, again, we've talked about the political will and the push and the drive, so no pressure.
We've heard from Norway, we've heard from Sweden, we've heard from Australia, of course, the states of Qatar.
Any other member states want to join the Gong on support and protection of civilians and IHL, we'll come back to speakers because they'll have a few more seconds to go through.
They've done well.
Go once and back to our speakers, IHL Center, doctor Joshua over to you.
Just to highlight, I think what's interesting is the opportunities for constructive engagement with parties to the conflict, whether it's state or our state actors.
Part of it is understanding patterns of violations, but also their patterns of compliance with IHL.
I think that also needs to be highlighted and where we see patterns of compliance, what are the entry points in constructive engagement with parties around areas of compliance and how can that be transposed to areas of violation where certain things can be changed.
I think looking at constructive engagement using areas of compliance as leverage as opportunities for constructive engagement might be positive for protection of civilians.
Thanks a lot on the points on constructive engagement.
I think the room is talking about practical solutions to be able to do what we do on a daily basis.
We have, of course, called out member states, I called them on the political solutions.
Now let me jump on our NGO colleagues in the room.
Any perspectives, which you have, you deal with this on a daily basis.
Civic will come back in and then others.
Thank you.
Hi.
I wanted to follow up on what Mohammed said as well on the importance to understand the local context.
I think you are very right.
We just cannot jump in in a given conflict without having created the bridge.
If not, we will just fail and Hitian diplomacy is the same thing.
It's not a magic wand that we just come and we say the world and civilians will be protected.
It's really about this long term engagement.
It takes time and for NGOs, it's difficult because of the funding scarcity, as you know, but this is why we need really to strengthen as well the efforts and recognize the efforts of local partners.
We haven't put really too much emphasis on local actors on the ground, local national societies, of course, the local actors, the community workers, the ones that are under the radar, but they are the ones working on a daily basis in making sure that civilians are actually safe.
The other point for me and my last point is about making sure that youth and diplomacy is applied consistently.
So avoiding the principle of double standards.
We cannot just engage in a very robust mediation efforts trying to find solutions for one country and the other, we totally forget about it and we forget about the civilians that are living in these countries.
We have today conflicts where we hear more about the number of missiles hit, number of water plants destroyed, but we forget one thing.
We have civilians living in these territories and they are facing on a daily basis those attacks.
So bringing back the cursor to where it's important, which means the life of civilians bringing their voices and this would help tremendously political actors in member states to act in a decisive way.
Thank you.
We're very clear on that, Him.
I think I can't even try to articulate it better than you have.
On localization, local actors, first responders.
There are terms that are flying around these days about double tap, triple tap.
It is real.
There's some misnomers around that, but the local actors go in first and the importance of their work.
We've got nonviolent peace force somewhere behind me.
Yes.
There you go.
Thanks for program.
And speaking to Whatshim was speaking about about local actors is because of a lack of accountability, due to noncompliance, we're seeing a slippery slope where the hyper local actors, the one doing the most forward leaning work are losing trust in IHL's framework.
And as a result, over time, we're seeing an unfortunate militarization of frontline volunteer networks because there are no other support mechanisms that should be afforded by IHL.
So it's a big question, but how does this term political will just showing up in a lot of the rooms lately interact with noncompliance and IHL? Thanks a lot.
It's always good to hear from our practitioners on the ground and good question.
We've got any takers, I'll go to you for reflections, but that is the first word that comes into my mind is all my lips are accountability.
Importance of accountability, the importance of every time we are in the Security Council, we are giving statements, delivering on the importance of international humanitarian law and respect.
These are legal instruments, let's not forget and they are accountabilities related to that, let's not forget.
Sometimes it takes a very long time, but sometimes it doesn't.
But the key is to document.
The key is to remind all parties all times about their responsibilities and obligations and the key is not to forget that these international humanitarian law is a legal instrument and not just a fancy reference that we make as humanitarians, as law practitioners, as member states, as everyone is saying in this room.
Dear colleagues, yes.
Geneva K.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If I can react on that because I think it's a fascinating conversation both about the compliance and about the accountability.
I would like to bring maybe the nuance that when we talk about accountability, we quickly narrow the conversation to justice mechanism and, of course, legal mechanisms and don't get me wrong, these are needed.
But I think what we may sometimes forget is the reality on the ground that also Ishan spoke about, which is that in the communities, you can find a whole range of different accountabilities.
I think that sometimes we need to take that into account.
The way a community will talk to a young We expect the Nam group to behave differently, sometimes has nothing to do with the mechanism that we have established here in New York or in Geneva.
The second element I want to bring which really strike us as well is that in the human diplomacy and advocacy world, what is lacking also is the fact that we are really good at now trying to document violation, patterns of violations, et cetera, but there's not enough space for the time being to recognize when a conflict party has improved its behavior.
I really challenge you to find me one space where we can do that.
It's difficult, it's challenging.
We might be falling into political traps.
But imagine that a world where you are not rewarded also when you improve your behavior, even as a human being is a world where you put aside a very strong incentive.
I would encourage all of us to think about what type of mechanism incentives can we put towards conflict parties so that they know that if they improve their behavior over time, there will be some recognition of credit.
Thanks.
Thanks a lot.
Geneva C, the flip side of accountabilities is also recognizing when things have improved.
That is an interesting perspective and I think we need to consider it.
Let me run through some of the points.
Absolutely.
Yes.
No way.
I was inspired to comment on both what the nonviolent peace force was saying and what was said by Geneva K.
Of course, the legitimacy in the community is really what gives the perspective for the future, that gives the pathway to peace, that gives any trust left in the community that they are willing to to ensure that they are willing to stay, that they are willing to try to keep their structures and families and businesses intact.
If the parties to the conflict have violate the rules to such an extent that there is no trust, no hope left.
People leave in desperation.
This self interest of parties to conflict to abide by the rules, I think is under communicated because it seems like that's opposition between your self interests and your political objectives and protecting civilians.
But actually, if you have any hope and interest of having a legitimate, stable peace, the way you protect civilians really determine that.
So but as you say, what's the if they see no benefit from respecting the rules, then of course, we come back to what you were talking about, explaining the rules and also linking armed actors with the communities.
The communities will tell them very clearly that it's a benefit to protect them and to gain their trust.
And I think I agree with you that there is not enough space to give credit to those who follow the rules, but I think there are some good examples that we could, of course, look at.
You have experiences from Colombia, you have experiences from Ukraine where this really struggling to try to abide by the rules because you see the legal moral legitimacy benefits for the future of your country for that.
I agree.
Maybe there should be a space, but of course, now the space is really so filled up with the violence and suffering that it's hard to find that.
But I agree we should try to carve out that space.
Thank you to the representative of Norway.
Just direct.
State must do more than just avoid violation.
It's not just a matter of it's their job, State's job actually to protect civilians.
It's not just going around and making rules and without an action.
They have to use their political influence.
They have to use their economical influence.
They have to use their influence to stop or to protect civilians.
I like to be direct, you know, instead of just going around without, you know, pointing the issue itself.
So let's face it, and let's direct it.
It's a state it's a state, you know, job to do that.
So to be direct.
Not at all.
We are having a frank conversation in the midst of a very difficult time for humanity, for humanitarians, for protection of civilians.
This is This is the space to do so.
The accountability of state first and foremost, it's in every resolution, it's in every document, it's in every legal instrument.
Thank you for reinforcing that point.
Let me start to wrap up some of the please, one more from the floor and then I will start to wrap up and end on time.
Thank you.
One line.
We can talk about IHL without mentioning IHL.
I think it's interesting to see within the different communities and we've seen that in the areas where we work, is that sometimes IHL can be a turn off, it can be a red flag for accountability.
It can close a conversation.
And when we look at protection of civilians as the ultimate goal, we can invoke whether it is other cultural community practices, other value systems that reflect IHL norms without necessarily closing the conversation.
We can talk about IHL, but we don't always have to mention IHL.
That's a very practical, important point.
I think the fear versus what it is.
I think protection of civilians, my colleague Ole always reminds me, maybe focused on the protection of civilians rather than that IIHL.
Doctor No, you're right.
The terminology, the nomenclature sometimes is a bit taken in a different way, but of course, the essence is important.
Dear Excellency, colleagues, let me try and wrap up in terms of what has been said by our member states, EU, Sweden, Norway, UK, State of Qatar, and then of course, our speakers.
I hope I did not leave anybody out.
ICRC States of Qatar, my boss, Tom Fletcher, and all our speakers.
Humanitarian diplomacy and thank you Manu for that.
Needs sustained systematic engagement.
This is the summary willing to speak to everyone including non state armed groups, Norway touched on it, EU touched on it.
Humanitarian diplomacy is a core responsibility, Sweden.
Thank you, to use political leverage and relationships to uphold what is IHL.
We don't always have to frame it that way, as IHL Center has said, PC outcomes, efforts bigger than one state alone, UK.
The efforts are collective using regional instruments, using everything that we have.
Tom has said it many times under Secretary-General Fletcher, a system under attack under resourced, overstretched.
It's literally a system under attack.
How do we leverage the different organizations operational realities? This is from the UK should inform diplomatic action, more engagement with local organizations.
That has also been said by Him and others, concrete measures.
States to work on national frameworks, ASG Qatar Red Crescent on the responsibility of the state include voices of civilian and mediation, civic, and then of course, to be deliberate, consistent, accountable in the way we use diplomacy, Australia, thank you, coupled with neutrality and the point you made respect for IHL international humanitarian law, the humanitarian principles.
You've talked about that from our ASG assistant secretary from Qatar Red Crescent.
Dear Excellencies, colleagues, maybe the outcomes Humanitarian outcomes are increasingly shaped by political decisions.
I remember the first day our former Under Secretary-General Martin Griffiths started talking about humanitarian diplomacy.
Oh, how far we've come.
It was a no, no, humanitarians cannot do politics and everything else.
Today, we we've moved on.
Thank goodness for that because some of us were on the front of those negotiations saying, our USG, former USG is not doing politics.
He's doing what humanitarians needs, which is humanitarian diplomacy.
Martin, wherever you are, kudos for that fight.
This reinforces the need to engage systematically those who hold influence over parties to conflict.
Second, humanitarian diplomacy is most effective when it combines different forms of engagement, we've all talked about here, public.
Important, it's accountability our tool, statements in the council.
They are recorded for posterity.
They are there forever.
Who said, what, how, when and it's important, sometimes sounds painful and repetitive, but it's important to hold ourselves to account.
Private dialogue, constant and the strategic use of relationships, you've talked about it and influence across different actors.
Third, consistent gap ensuring that diplomacy efforts translate into tangible improvements in humanitarian access and protection on the ground.
Our colleagues are literally shouting and saying, please, please do something because it's lives.
It's not I've often very, very in a somber mood, talked about how I wish the declarations and the condemnation of attacks against civilians, humanitarians were as strong as attacks against peacekeepers.
I've said it in public forum and I'll say it here again.
Sometimes I wish it was as loud.
It's not always as loud.
Humanitarians and civilians are not a target.
Bridging the gap remains the central test of humanitarian diplomacy in practice.
Helpful for member states statements could include tomorrow Security Council debate the use of humanitarian diplomacy for POC.
That is something that we can.
We've talked about the importance of diplomacy and political diplomacy, but here as humanitarians, we're talking about the importance of humanitarian diplomacy.
Today's discussion, your Excellencys colleagues reinforced that humanitarian diplomacy is not supplementary to humanitarian action in the current environment.
It is increasingly central.
It is central to whether humanitarian access and protection outcomes can be achieved by all.
Thank you to our speakers for the practical realities, thank you for the member states, and of course, thank you to the State of Qatar, ICRC, and all our colleagues for being here.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you very much.