Pierre Krähenbühl has been director general of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since April 2024. The Swiss national has spent his entire career in the humanitarian field. He joined the organisation in 1991. From 2002 to 2014, he was director of operations. From March 2014 to November 2019, he was commissioner general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), a highly politically exposed position, which forced him to step aside until 2021, when he returned to the ICRC.

Paperjam: The ICRC relies on its neutrality to accomplish its mission. In the current context, is this neutrality--which, on the ground, translates into an absence of military support--ultimately a disadvantage these days?

Pierre Krähenbühl: For us, the principle of neutrality is a fundamental principle that must be clearly understood. Neutrality is not a natural human reflex. When, as a delegate from the International Committee of the Red Cross, you enter a place of detention somewhere in a conflict zone and talk to prisoners who may have been tortured or ill-treated, the normal human reflex is to leave that place and shout your indignation from the rooftops. We feel this indignation. Not shouting our indignation is a deliberate choice that allows us to act at the heart of conflicts. It’s not indifference. We believe that maintaining this neutrality allows us to be present on the ground and to enter squarely into very polarised and very dangerous contexts and to contribute to modest, and sometimes more important, humanitarian solutions.

So how do you manage to guarantee and defend this neutrality?

Internally, people who join the ICRC know that this is a fundamental principle for us. Of course, the central principle of our action is the principle of humanity, ie a commitment to support populations that are at some point subjected to the absolute horror that is war. Neutrality is instilled from the very first weeks spent at the ICRC in training courses, in the support given to new staff, and then gradually in working methods. The most difficult thing is to convince the parties to a conflict that you are neutral. You will be observed for weeks, sometimes months or even years in your practices. It is only when you repeatedly demonstrate that you are not choosing sides, that you are not providing confidential information to one party or favouring a particular community that people will gradually gain confidence. And all that can be lost in an afternoon. All you have to do is make a public statement that is interpreted by one side or the other as being incompatible or inconsistent with your position of neutrality and everything you have built up over months and years can collapse. And these days, everything can happen very quickly on social networks. This is all the more important because the safety of our teams in the field depends on it. If at any point the suspicion arises that you are not as neutral as you say you are, it can have tragic repercussions.

You have just mentioned the principle of humanity. Can we set human rights against national sovereignty? Is it conceivable to have a right to humanitarian intervention, as Doctors Without Borders called for over 40 years ago?

Some humanitarian actors wanted this right to be recognised. That was not our approach. Our way of working involves ongoing dialogue with the parties. We negotiate our access, we don’t try to force our way in because we don’t think this approach is sustainable. We may be criticised for this, but our only instrument is dialogue, and trying to convince the parties, whether state parties or non-state armed groups, of the merits of a humanitarian gesture that can benefit everyone, such as evacuating the wounded or reuniting families. Our humanitarian model is based on dialogue and the notion of acceptance by all parties.

In the light of current events, whether in Gaza, Ukraine or Africa, it is clear that humanitarian law is being increasingly flouted. Do you think there is a real risk that it will disappear altogether?

The first thing to say is that the consequences of ignoring humanitarian law are immediate. When we talk about international humanitarian law, we are not talking about abstractions. If respected, this law saves lives. If it is not respected… we see it every day in the Gaza Strip. It’s devastating, it’s absolute hell. If we’re prepared to tolerate that in a war, I really think the foundations of our humanity are at stake.

The first consequence--when the rules developed after the Second World War in reaction to the horrors of that conflict are no longer applied, for all sorts of reasons--is that it clears the way not only for the proliferation of war, but also for wars without limits, without rules, without respect, centred on the dehumanisation of the other. Others whose dignity and humanity we can no longer protect. This is an immediate consequence. In the longer term, we might ask ourselves whether, since the rules contained in international humanitarian law allow a situation of this kind to arise, why continue to take an interest in it? It should be remembered that these treaties were not negotiated in 1949 by humanist idealists, but by soldiers and diplomats who had no illusions about the goodness of human beings. They adopted these minimal rules because they knew perfectly well that within each human being there is an unlimited capacity to inflict the worst violence on others. If we allow ourselves today to weaken these rules, to adopt cynical postures or permissive interpretations, the consequences will haunt us for decades to come. No one will be able to say, about Gaza: “I didn't know.”

What are the main humanitarian challenges you anticipate for the coming years?

We pay close attention to issues related to climate change, pandemics and migration whenever they are superimposed on conflicts. Conflict is at the heart of our work and our expertise. And when it comes to conflict, the first clear challenge is the changing nature of war. Armed conflicts are proliferating and lasting longer. This points to a weakness in the international system when it comes to conflict prevention and resolution. This is a major concern for the future.

Next, a very important point for us in the changing nature of war is that it goes beyond its traditional physical context linked to a territory, a population, borders or resources. Today, we have superimposed a digital dimension on this physical context. New technologies--artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, drones, etc.--are taking hold and transforming the way war is waged. As the ICRC, we need to learn how to deal with these new challenges.

Finally, what I want to stress is that, when it comes to conflict, I don’t see a collective mobilisation equal to that generated by covid. We remain very tolerant of, even nonchalant about, the existence of war. War is considered inevitable and linked to human nature. It’s always difficult to convey in a sincere and authentic way what war does when it happens. We all have a particular relationship with war, linked to our family histories, our studies or our culture. In contrast to the rhetoric that idealises war, what we see on the ground is an accumulation of trauma and horror. I’d like us to be more proactive in preventing conflicts or resolving them.

This is a central challenge.

Another challenge that has just entered the news is your resources. The ICRC anticipates a 17% drop in its 2026 budget, from 2.1bn Swiss francs to 1.7bn. Do you still have the resources you need?

The cut you mention is not definitive. But it does indicate that humanitarian funding is under pressure. Some 90% of our budget, or a little more, comes from public funds, whether from governments or international institutions such as the EU or development banks. We are now experiencing a reduction in resources from governments. This does not just concern the United States. Many European countries have decided to reduce their contributions and have chosen to prioritise investments in national security and defence. It is not up to the ICRC to comment on these choices.

But if we want to reduce the amounts made available to humanitarian organisations, there should also be parallel action to reduce the number of conflicts that we allow to continue across the planet and across the decades. On a daily basis, we are the ones who see the incredible human cost of endless wars. We are in favour of political remobilisation to resolve conflicts. What we also advocate is that countries that are currently investing in strengthening their security and defence should also invest in training their armies in issues relating to humanitarian law. If a country has to send its armed forces into conflict and has not taken the time to prepare its soldiers and officers for what respect for populations and the humane treatment of prisoners actually mean, we will have problems.

Faced with these two issues, the question of our funding is a factual problem. Compared with other problems in the world, it is perhaps not the most complex issue that we have to deal with.

You have just opened a delegation for cyberspace in Luxembourg. What is its role and why was it set up here?

Why Luxembourg? Luxembourg has always held a special place for us. Firstly, it has always supported us in our institutional work, which consists of promoting development, knowledge and training in international humanitarian law. This has been done both through public conferences and through public statements of position. It’s a subject on which Luxembourg has always been with us at the forefront.

Luxembourg has also supported the establishment of our cyberspace delegation in November 2022 with great conviction and resources. This delegation is a multidisciplinary (technological, political, operational and legal) research and development centre at the service of the entire ICRC network. Here we analyse trends linked to new technologies and their impact on conflict and also on humanitarian action, such as protecting our neutrality in cyberspace. It is a centre for innovation and the application of experience on issues that are essential for our future.

And finally, of course, Luxembourg is a member of our main donor group, the “Support Group,” and enables us to work in the field. This combination is quite unique.

And how is Luxembourg’s support crucial today?

We are now in a more unpredictable environment when it comes to funding humanitarian activities in general. While a large number of countries have chosen to give priority to defence spending, Luxembourg is one of the countries maintaining stability in its funding. What’s more, if we look at the per capita contribution, it’s one of the highest in the world.

Another aspect that is very important to highlight is our relationship with the Luxembourg Red Cross, which is a partner of great trust with whom we have worked for a very long time, who plays an important role nationally and who also acts internationally and with whom we cooperate.

Beyond the financial aspect, what do you expect from Luxembourg in terms of political or diplomatic pressure?

Luxembourg has always supported us in our work on the ground. More generally, we would like states to actively encourage their partners to apply the rules of international humanitarian law. These rules apply to everyone in the event of conflict. We want to see them respected and applied because they save lives and protect human dignity. We need this in the world today. We need all states to make a commitment.

Then, in a context of developing defence capabilities in Europe, national capabilities must also be developed in terms of international humanitarian law. That’s where the ICRC comes in. This is our area of expertise. We know intimately what happens when war breaks out. We have a wealth of experience that we can share and that is useful in the phases when we are thinking about preparing for a confrontation.

This article was originally published in French.