What is “humanitarian diplomacy”- and why does it matter?

Geneva Call's Alain Délétroz tells me it is about protecting civilians during armed conflict and that means also engaging with militias and armed groups to try and stop war crimes. Often it works.

(Brussels) — Hadja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Crisis Management, wants to put “humanitarian diplomacy” at the heart of EU foreign policy. The priority, she says, must be practical results: securing humanitarian access, protecting civilians and getting aid to people trapped in war zones.

Who could object to that?

With humanitarian crises multiplying across the world even as aid budgets shrink, more effective humanitarian engagement is urgently needed. Yet humanitarian diplomacy is also politically fraught especially when it requires engagement with armed groups and militias often held responsible for grave abuses.

Lahbib’s recent meeting with M23 rebels in eastern Congo was a striking example of pragmatic and well-prepared humanitarian diplomacy which the Commissioner and aid groups say helped ease civilian suffering.

But what about talking to the Taliban? Keeping communication lines open with Afghanistan’s defacto authority is clearly important to discuss women’s rights and humanitarian access.

Those upcoming “technical talks” between the Commission’s home affairs directorate and a Taliban delegation, however, are not about humanitarian issues. They are about deportation and migration deterence.

So what is humanitarian diplomacy and how does it work in practice? I spoke to Alain Délétroz from Geneva Call, an organisation that has spent 25 years engaging directly with armed groups - from Congo and Sudan to Syria and beyond - to persuade them to respect the laws of war.

Here is our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Délétroz: Our mission is to ensure that civilians are protected during armed conflict. We engage directly with armed groups and de facto authorities. We go into conflict zones, establish contact with commanders and try to persuade them to change their behaviour.

Even if they are not states or official armies, they still fall under international humanitarian law: the Geneva Conventions. What often surprises people is that most commanders we engage with are willing to change their behaviour.

Question: That is extraordinary, especially when you compare it with the brutal ways states are fighting wars today.

Délétroz: Exactly. I’ve said several times, including at the UN General Assembly, that this should be one of the great shames of our time. Last year, Geneva Call engaged close to 200 armed groups. Almost all of them changed their behaviour for the better.

But when you compare this with the behaviour of national armies, it really is shocking. Groups that are often labelled “terrorists” by states - or even by the international community as a whole - are sometimes more willing to respect the basic principles of international humanitarian law than states themselves.

Question: That really is a remarkable development..

Délétroz: Look at what has happened over recent years. When Geneva Call was created 25 years ago, most armed conflicts were no longer classic interstate wars. They were conflicts involving armed groups, militias, de facto authorities.

Now we are returning to terrible interstate wars. And when states fight, the level of lethality and destruction is on an entirely different scale from what most armed groups can inflict.

Look at Gaza today. Look at Ukraine. Entire cities devastated. And now Iran. Whether intentionally or not, the result is the same: children killed by a single bomb or missile. The firepower of states is vastly greater.

Of course, armed groups can also be devastating. In Africa, we used to say that the Kalashnikov was the weapon of mass destruction because of the sheer number of young men carrying them.

But when you look at Ukraine, you see two modern armies using their full military capabilities against each other every single day - short only of nuclear weapons, thankfully.

The level of destruction is immense. And in places like Gaza or Sudan you often have asymmetrical warfare where state-backed destruction exists alongside brutal abuses by armed groups.

Question: But you are saying that some of these groups are willing to learn and change. Could you give examples?

Délétroz : The positive examples are not confidential. In eastern Congo, for example, we convinced a major armed group to stop recruiting child soldiers. When we first engaged them, they had 92 child soldiers in their ranks. They immediately released them and signed what we call a “Deed of Commitment” on child protection.

These Deeds of Commitment are very important instruments. They oblige signatories to respect specific aspects of international humanitarian law. In this case, no recruitment of anyone under 18 years old - not 15, which is technically the Geneva Convention standard, but 18, which aligns with UN recommendations.

The commitments also include protection of schools. Armed groups often use schools as barracks or ammunition depots.

We bring commanders to Geneva. Swiss neutrality allows this. Switzerland’s constitution commits its foreign policy to peace. Interestingly, the European Union’s constitutional framework also contains this peace obligation.

The Deeds are co-signed by the Canton of Geneva as a witness. For many commanders, it is the first time they are formally received inside a state institution. It gives the process weight and seriousness.

The agreements also allow Geneva Call to monitor territories under their control and publicly denounce violations if commitments are broken.

Question: And the challenge of ending sexual violence?

Délétroz: We also have Deeds criminalising sexual violence. In the DRC, we worked with armed groups notorious for widespread rape. After two years of engagement, their behaviour changed significantly.

That is the work we do. In Syria, out of the 42 armed groups involved in the offensive that brought down the Assad regime, Geneva Call had trained 38 in international humanitarian law over the past 10 years. And during the military operations themselves, they largely respected civilians and prisoners.

The later atrocities involving Druze communities and Alawites came after the military campaign. But during the actual operations, these groups behaved according to the laws of war.

Question: That is more than many state armies today.

Délétroz: Well, just turn on your television and look at Gaza or many Ukrainian cities.

For me, the law must be implemented. And when there are such visible abuses against civilians, international justice mechanisms must act.

Of course, many armed groups still commit terrible abuses. Sudan is an example. We should not romanticise anything. But at least with some groups, we can open dialogue.

The Geneva Conventions are humanity’s minimum agreement: if conflicts cannot always be avoided, then at least violence must have limits. When states themselves start attacking that framework, the danger becomes enormous.

In Congo, however, we saw something positive. Belgian Commissioner Hadja Lahbib travelled to eastern Congo and met M23 leaders. Very few politicians at her level would do that. I thought it was courageous and useful.

For the armed group, it signalled that they were being taken seriously — and that serious behaviour would be expected in return. Geneva Call is already training M23 commanders on civilian protection, checkpoints, women’s rights and child protection. Political engagement reinforces this work.

Question: Sudan is another brutal conflict. Are you engaging with the RSF?

Délétroz: Yes. We have had contacts with elements of the RSF and made significant progress with some parts of the leadership. But unlike M23, which has a more centralised structure, the RSF functions more like a confederation. Different factions behave differently. That makes engagement more complicated.

Question: Do critics accuse you of legitimising armed groups simply by talking to them?

Délétroz : Yes, frequently. But respecting the law does not make someone politically legitimate. Failing to respect it makes them criminals. That is the distinction. Our concern is not why they fight. Our concern is how they fight, how they ensure civilians’ protection.

If fighters are allowed to behave like thugs during war, those habits become deeply embedded. Violence without discipline becomes normal. And afterwards, societies must somehow reintegrate tens of thousands of traumatised young men who have lived without rules. Talking is always useful. The question is how you talk. We must be careful not to close doors completely.

But what keeps us going is the belief that somewhere inside every human being there remains a spark of humanity. Otherwise, frankly, you leave this work and go into private banking. (End of Interview)

Geneva Call has signed a memorandum of understanding with M23 on strengthening civilian protection.

So there you are: humanitarian diplomacy is about putting people first, trying to make sure that war crimes are not committed, that humanitarian assistance reaches the people trapped in conflicts that they did not start. Often it can also mean talking to unsavoury armed militias but these contacts must be well-prepared and the objectives clearly set out.

It does not mean political recognition and it does not mean – as Kaja Kallas the EU’s foreign policy chief said recently - making aid conditional on countries’ relations with Russia or Iran.

And it is definitely not about expediting refugee returns, a point Lahbib implicitly acknowledged when she said humanitarian aid and migration cannot be linked.

END