UN Aid Chief Urges Stronger Diplomacy to Defend Laws of War as Civilian Protection Erodes
By Sadaf Sundas Riaz | SCN NEWS
UNITED NATIONS, New York, Sept. 21 (SCN NEWS) — United Nations humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher called on governments gathered in New York on Monday to use diplomacy more forcefully to protect civilians and uphold international humanitarian law, warning that the rules designed to limit human suffering in war cannot survive through declarations alone.
Addressing a high-level ministerial event during the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, Fletcher argued that humanitarian diplomacy must become a more effective tool for securing compliance with the laws of war at a time when civilians, medical facilities, humanitarian personnel and essential infrastructure are increasingly exposed to the consequences of armed conflict.
The meeting, titled “Humanitarian Diplomacy that Safeguards International Humanitarian Law,” brought governments and humanitarian actors together as UNGA81's high-level week opened in New York. The European Union and Ireland organised the event, with the African Union, Brazil, Canada and Jordan among its co-sponsors.
The organisers said the world is experiencing around 130 armed conflicts, creating an environment in which respect for international humanitarian law has become an increasingly urgent diplomatic issue. The rules apply to all parties to armed conflicts and are intended to protect civilians and people no longer participating in hostilities while restricting the means and methods of warfare.
Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, placed responsibility not only on parties fighting wars but also on governments capable of influencing them. His intervention reinforced a central argument increasingly heard within the humanitarian system: condemning violations after they occur is insufficient if diplomatic relationships and political leverage are not also used to prevent them.
That distinction gives Monday's discussion wider significance. Governments routinely reaffirm their commitment to international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, but humanitarian organisations continue to report serious challenges in obtaining safe access to populations affected by conflicts and protecting their own personnel.
The issue extends across several crises dominating diplomacy at this year's General Assembly. Wars and humanitarian emergencies in the Middle East, Ukraine, Sudan and elsewhere have generated disputes over civilian casualties, humanitarian access, attacks affecting medical services and the obligations of combatants under international law.
Humanitarian diplomacy can involve negotiations for access to civilians, protection of aid routes and medical facilities, release or exchange of detainees, evacuation arrangements and engagement with parties to conflict over their legal obligations. It can also involve governments using political relationships with allies and partners to press for compliance.
The challenge is that humanitarian organisations themselves often lack the political leverage needed to alter the conduct of armed actors. That places greater emphasis on states — particularly governments with diplomatic, military or economic influence over parties to a conflict — to use those relationships to support compliance with humanitarian law.
Monday's meeting therefore went beyond the question of whether governments accept the laws governing armed conflict. The more difficult question confronting delegates was whether states are prepared to use their diplomatic influence consistently when those rules are threatened, including in conflicts involving close partners.
That debate is unfolding as the wider UN humanitarian system confronts another pressure: severe funding shortages. Governments and aid agencies are simultaneously discussing how to finance assistance for tens of millions of people facing extreme humanitarian needs, creating a two-sided challenge in which humanitarian organisations need both resources to operate and political access to reach affected populations.
The two problems are closely connected but distinct. Additional humanitarian funding can provide food, medicine, shelter and other assistance, but money alone cannot guarantee that aid convoys reach civilians, that humanitarian workers operate safely or that parties to conflicts comply with their obligations.
The ministerial discussion also comes as the United Nations faces broader questions over the effectiveness of the international system in responding to wars. The Security Council has frequently been divided over major conflicts, increasing the importance of diplomacy conducted by individual governments, regional organisations and coalitions outside formal Council decisions.
For humanitarian agencies, preserving space for neutral assistance becomes particularly difficult when conflicts are highly politicised. Aid organisations must negotiate access while maintaining humanitarian principles, even as governments and armed actors pursue competing political and military objectives.
The UNGA81 gathering gives governments an opportunity to demonstrate whether renewed support for humanitarian law will extend beyond statements made in New York. Concrete diplomatic pressure for humanitarian access, protection of civilians and respect for medical and relief operations would provide a clearer measure of whether Monday's commitments translate into action.
For Fletcher and the humanitarian community, that implementation gap is increasingly central. International humanitarian law already establishes rules intended to protect people during war; the question confronting governments at UNGA81 is whether they will use their political influence to help ensure those rules are respected when conflicts intensify.