Inside Geneva Special: A bonfire of international law

2026 has started with some momentous events. Israel has banned dozens of aid agencies. What are the consequences?

“We’re supporting one in five of the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, and one in three babies that are born in Gaza are assisted by our staff on the ground. We’re doing surgical support, wound care, physiotherapy, maternity and paediatric care,” says Chris Lockyear, Secretary General of Medecins sans Frontieres.

The US cut billions from foreign aid, then announced $2 billion for selected projects.

“[We saw] Tom Fletcher next to Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old with no experience in the humanitarian sector, who said, ‘Well, the humanitarian organisations have to adapt or die,’” adds Dorian Burkhalter, Swissinfo journalist.

The money has strings attached, humanitarian crises in Afghanistan or Yemen get nothing.

“There was talk about the radical ideologies perpetrated by some of the UN agencies, which had undermined American interests and peace, bizarrely enough,” continues Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor for The New York Times.

Part of that $2 billion goes to several Latin American countries, meanwhile the US says it’s now “running” Venezuela.

“Central and South America, obviously Washington views as its domain. And we’re all here in Geneva muttering to ourselves ‘but you just violated international law’. Does it matter to anyone?” says Inside Geneva host Imogen Foulkes. 

Are we seeing a bonfire of international laws?

“The fundamental commitments to some form of international law that have underpinned western security since the Second World War are being completely abandoned by an administration that doesn't acknowledge any accountability to anyone except itself,” says Cumming-Bruce. 

And what does it mean for the world’s most vulnerable?

“All around the world, whether they’re in Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine or Venezuela, there are real people who are living through the consequences of these decisions that are made in places like Washington DC and New York or in Geneva,” says Lockyear. 

Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva. 

Get in touch!

• Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
• Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en

Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter. 

For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/

Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang

Transcript

Opening And Guests Introduced

SPEAKER_08 0:57

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Folkes, and this is a production from SwissInfo, the international public media company of Switzerland.

SPEAKER_15 1:10

In today's program, an Israeli ban on dozens of international aid organizations operating in Gaza comes into force on Thursday.

SPEAKER_05 1:18

We're supporting one in five of the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, and one in three babies that are born in Gaza are assisted by our staff on the ground. We're doing surgical support, wound care, physiotherapy, maternity and pediatric care.

SPEAKER_00 1:52

The Pinky Bank is not open to organizations that would just want to return to the old system. President Trump has made clear that system is dead, gone.

SPEAKER_06 1:59

There was talk about the radical ideologies perpetrated by some of the UN agencies, which had undermined American interests and peace, bizarrely enough.

SPEAKER_16 2:09

The breaking news this morning: President Trump says the U.S. carried out large-scale strikes on Venezuela overnight. He says its president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Celia Flores, have been captured and flown out of the country.

SPEAKER_08 2:22

Central and South America. Obviously, Washington views as its domain. And we're all here in Geneva muttering to ourselves, but you just violated international law. Does it matter to anyone?

SPEAKER_12 2:35

President Trump already announcing Venezuela will turn over 30 to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil. Trump saying that money will be controlled by me.

SPEAKER_06 2:44

The fundamental commitments to some form of international law that have underpinned Western security since World War II are being completely abandoned by an administration that doesn't acknowledge any accountability to anyone except itself.

Israel Suspends NGOs In Gaza

SPEAKER_08 3:06

Normally we're out every two weeks. But myself and the colleagues I have here, we were feeling a little bit a bit guilty because we chose our stories of the year for 2025 and predicted they would be stories in 2026 as well. And my goodness, a week is a long time in journalism as well as in politics. Or there's an old saying which I think was a former British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, he used to say, events, dear boy, events, and events have overtaken us. A lot of things happening between Christmas and round about the start of 2026, and a number of them are very, very relevant to what we report on here in Geneva and on the podcast. So two of my partners in crime from the last uh podcast, Nick Cumming Bruce, contributor to the New York Times, and Dorian Borkhelter of SwissInfo. And we've got Chris Lockier, uh Secretary General of Med Sans Frontier. And we're going to talk about some of these events. I'm sure some of you are already guessing what some of them are. The one I want to start with first is the announcement on New Year's Eve in the last hours of 2025 that Israel was banning dozens of international aid agencies.

SPEAKER_14 4:32

And Israel says it's suspending 37 humanitarian organizations from working in the Gaza Strip starting January 1st. Israel's Ministry of Data Super Affairs says the affecting NGOs, including Doctors Without Borders, and Oxman, have, quote, failed to meet required security and transparency standards.

SPEAKER_09 4:49

Unrelenting rain, flooding, mud-caking makeshift tents. After two years of intense trauma and widespread death, more hardship could be around the corner than these Palestinian Israel hasn't.

SPEAKER_08 5:01

And we know that Gaza is a huge humanitarian crisis, still, despite the ceasefire. We hear this over and over again. Chris, Doctors Without Borders is one of those organizations. What happened?

SPEAKER_05 5:14

Well, we we, as you say, we got the um the letter on uh just before uh just before the turn of the the year. We we knew that our current registration was valid up until the end of the year, and we've been trying to comply with the the process which the Israeli government have put in place um to re-register NGOs who are working not just in Gaza um but also uh in the West Bank and uh and East Jerusalem as well. And we got a letter essentially saying that um our application was sort of pending, um, that there were elements um missing to that, and maybe that's a point that we'll pick up on, um, and that um effectively we had 60 days to wrap up our operations in in Gaza and Palestine more broadly.

SPEAKER_08 5:57

Why do you tell our listeners what you actually do in Gaza before we get to what the problem Israel thinks it has?

SPEAKER_05 6:06

We're supporting one in five of the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, and one in three babies that are born in Gaza are assisted by our um by our staff on the ground. We have in Gaza itself, we have over 1,100 staff members. Um, we're we're doing surgical support, wound care, physiotherapy, maternity and pediatric care, general health care, maternal health service, mental health services, as well as water distribution in the last three weeks of November. As uh our access to Gaza City increased and opened up, we we delivered 14 million litres of water in that period of time as well. And this is just the MSF perspective, of course. There's dozens of other organizations that are in a similar situation. And if you look at it through that lens, obviously those numbers go up in proportion. There's 60% of Gaza's hospitals are run with or with the support of international NGOs. So it is a huge, huge impact that this uh this banning of NGOs will have in uh 60-day time if that decision is not reversed.

SPEAKER_08 7:04

So why is this being done?

What MSF Does On The Ground

SPEAKER_05 7:07

Well, I mean I mean I think that we have seen throughout the course of this war a systematic um restriction, uh suffocation of humanitarian assistance uh going into the the the Gaza Strip. We've seen a refuting essentially of the ICGA rulings or that there must be unimpeded humanitarian assistance coming into uh into Gaza. You mentioned the ceasefire, but I mean it's there are people being killed by Israeli forces very frequently now, despite the the the ceasefire. And so it can seem to be part of an overall attempt to restrict um access to Palestinians of life-saving and essential basic um services.

SPEAKER_08 7:48

Nick, uh Doria, I I I'd like to hear questions from you as journalists for Chris about this, because the headlines I've been seeing is the aid agencies should share details of their staff. Is that what you've been seeing?

SPEAKER_04 8:01

Yeah, that's that's what I've been hearing as well. And I think my understanding is uh that they are not really willing to give those details for security reasons, and I think understandably so, knowing that hundreds of humanitarian workers have been killed in Gaza, most of them from UNRWA.

SPEAKER_08 8:17

Yeah, I think it's more than 200 actually.

SPEAKER_06 8:19

570 something.

SPEAKER_04 8:21

And and I think 400 of those are UNRWA stuff, if I'm not mistaken. But yeah, I mean this is actually also what I'd like to hear from MSF is um exactly, you know, what where are the Israeli authorities asking for, and why is that a problem? You know, why is that info so sensitive?

SPEAKER_08 8:39

Yeah, because I think Nick, certainly I don't know about your readers, but certainly my listeners and viewers, I mean, and a lot of my friends and family will say, so what's the problem with that? Just let the Israelis know who's who you're working with.

SPEAKER_06 8:51

Well, I think I mean there are obvious reasons why that's a problem, um, given the potential for having confidential information about your staff being shared with intelligence agencies would be one major concern. But I mean, basically this seems to me to really just underscore the fragility of the of the whole ceasefire process. I mean, we're three months into this process now. Um, there's supposed to be a board led by President Trump managing Gaza. There's supposed to be an international security force which is being deployed. We know nothing about that. The rationale for these requirements imposed on on aid agencies is to prevent the siphoning off of aid by Hamas. Hamas, I thought the whole point was that Hamas isn't going to exist as a significant enterprise in in Gaza with the peace process. So it doesn't all add up at all. And what we have seen essentially is that aid is being drip-fed into Gaza. There's more now than there was in October the 10th, but um it's still well below requirements. And the question then is, you know, how long are they going to play this out? And what is the end game?

SPEAKER_08 10:01

So, Chris, let me put some of those points to you as well. First of all, your average person on the street would say, why don't you share details with the authorities? Let me ask you also, is this common for governments to say we want every single detail of every worker you have? And also maybe you still have staff in Gaza. How is the your assessment of the humanitarian situation right now?

SPEAKER_05 10:26

Well, um the first thing I'd say is that we've been engaging with the Israeli authorities about this registration process um since it came to light that there was going to be a change. And we still are, and we are still uh hoping that there's a change in this um in this decision, and we're discussing on on all of the points that they're putting to us. I think the important point here in terms of the the context is that there have been over 500 uh aid workers killed. We've had 15 of our staff killed. There's been several accusations towards our staff, and in in none of these cases has any evidence been put forward to us. And at the same time, we're also looking at accountability towards the fact that that our staff have been killed, and it's not just our staff, but tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. And so there's a massive question of accountability, but also safety of our staff here. How is this data going to be used? How is this information going to be used? Um, I think it is absolutely right for us as an employer to look at the safety of our staff first and foremost, and we'll say that in any context, and we're not getting answers to those questions. And this is key and fundamental to us. And I think the burden here should not be on the people who are trying to provide medical assistance and talking about what's happening, but the fact that there have been tens of thousands of people killed by the Israeli military in in Gaza. And and so we're still willing to talk, we will continue to talk, but our staff have been facing, along with the rest of the population of Gaza, the most horrendous situation. And our primary responsibility here is to try and ensure that their safety is maximized as much as possible, because we're never going to claim that we can call Gaza safe still, even after there is a something of a ceasefire in place.

Staff Data Demands And Safety

SPEAKER_06 12:14

Three months into this ceasefire, though. I mean, how much do you have now and do your medical staff have access to all the medical resources that they need to provide treatment? Do they get all the drugs they need a few weeks ago? There were complaints from some hospitals that they didn't even have enough gauze. There was still a huge concern about dual use equipment and the ability to provide proper sort of scans and so forth. How much has that improved in the in in recent weeks?

SPEAKER_05 12:41

It sort of goes up and down. So there are times, um there was a time a few weeks ago, as you say, where even gauze again was in short supply. It is extremely complicated and unpredictable to get items that are dual use, as you say, particularly sort of strategic items. So it's it's often very complicated to, or it's been impossible to um bring in autoclays for sterilizing surgical equipment, sometimes external fixators to uh support limbs as uh they've been fractured and to heel. Anything like that, it's at best incredibly unpredictable and often just um completely barred from access. So it's still trying to provide humanitarian assistance on something of a patchwork of supply, an unpredictable patchwork of supply. So unpredictability is one of the big problems, then it's just it's it's kind of whimsical. Unpredictability is absolutely one of the big problems. I don't know whether it's whimsical or whether it's strategic. I mean it's uh that's that's very hard for us to be able to judge. But the unpredictability of supply, but also, as we're now seeing, the unpredictability of our our registration and our legitimacy to be in in Gaza from that point of view as well.

SPEAKER_08 13:50

Aaron Powell So you've got 60 days and and then we will see, and you're still in negotiation, and I know that I mean the first time I heard about this was was getting on for six months ago. And I think as far as I know, you and other aid agencies have been trying, as you said, quite hard to find some accommodation and to to keep the Israeli authorities happy while not compromising your principles. I want to move on to the next big story that happened between Christmas and New Year. Um, and it relates, Dorian, to your story of the year of 2025, which was cuts to humanitarian aid, very relevant to you as well, of course, Chris. We had an announcement on the 29th, very sudden announcement, because I was telephoned at home hoping to enjoy my holidays by the US diplomats saying, Oh, you have to come to this. There's a big announcement.

SPEAKER_13 14:41

This week, the US pledged$2 billion in humanitarian aid to the United Nations as part of a deal that will also overhaul how the US funds foreign aid work going forward.

SPEAKER_17 14:52

The US has announced a$2 billion pledge for UN humanitarian aid. Tell us what they announced.

SPEAKER_04 15:00

Yes, no, exactly. So on the 29th of December, the US administration sent to Geneva Jeremy Lewin, his call, working for the State Department.

SPEAKER_08 15:11

Relatively new addition to the humanitarian aid community, I understand.

SPEAKER_04 15:15

I believe he was hired by the uh Doja Right.

SPEAKER_08 15:19

He worked for Elon Musk to dismantle USAID.

SPEAKER_04 15:22

Exactly, yeah. So he was sent to Geneva to announce together with the UN relief chief Dom Fletcher that the US would be given 2 billion US dollars next year to OCHA to fund basically 17 humanitarian crises across the world. But this is, I mean, a really I mean two billion isn't nothing.

SPEAKER_08 15:43

How does it compare to what they cut though?

SPEAKER_04 15:46

So back in the in the day, so in 2024, before Donald Trump came, the US was funding about 40% of OCA's uh appeals. So that means it was about 11 billion, I think. And then last year it dropped to a little over three billion, and now two billion. So it's a significant drop compared to the previous administration.

SPEAKER_08 16:11

Nick, you were at the announcement, this guy Jeremy Lewin, side by side with the UN emergency relief chief Tom Fletcher. What was the the vibe you got? Was it celebratory? I mean the UN UN aid agencies are desperate for cash.

Supply Barriers And Unpredictability

SPEAKER_06 16:27

Well, I think that was a big part of the of the occasion, really. Um Tom Fletcher was obviously delighted to have two billion dollars, arguably, at his disposal at the point when he's asking other countries to subscribe to the global humanitarian appeal. It was useful for him to have an American contribution of funding at that point. And so he was all gratitude. And I think it was clear that the Global Humanitarian Appeal, which had emphasized the need for reform in the delivery of humanitarian assistance, had been framed to some extent to reflect the conversations he'd been having over many weeks with the Trump administration. The trouble with all this is it came with some language that would be concerning to anybody who's interested in sort of neutral, impartial delivery of humanitarian assistance. There was talk about the radical ideologies perpetrated by some of the UN agencies which had undermined American interests and peace, bizarrely enough. And then there is also the fact that there's still huge uncertainty about how this is going to work. It's not as if there's two billion dollars sitting in a central fund which is going to be distributed at the discretion of Tom Fletcher and the UN. It's money that's going to go out to 17 different country operations. These are supposed to be governed by memoranda of understanding, which none of which have been concluded. So we don't know how this is really going to work. And it's money that's going to be distributed through resident coordinators in the country. And so there's a great question mark over how that money is going to be coordinated with funding given bilaterally by other donors to aid agencies. And so, yeah, a lot of big question marks about that. And I think one of the other concerns also is that the UN reform process talks a lot about putting much more aid through local organizations, which in principle has a lot of merit. They're relatively low cost, and so you're avoiding a lot of the overheads that come with UN agencies and UN administration. But at the same time, these small organizations don't have the ability to sort of scale up in quick order to deal with the immensity of the crises that we're dealing with in places like Sudan. That really does fall on international aid agencies that have global reach and have global resources. And they've been slightly left out of the picture, and we're not quite clear where what part they're going to play and how they're going to be funded in going forward.

SPEAKER_04 19:01

I think also just the whole image. So I mean I wasn't at the event itself, but I saw the photos and the fact that this event took place at the US mission.

SPEAKER_08 19:10

Not at the UN, that's right.

SPEAKER_04 19:11

Not at the UN, seeing, you know, Tom Fletcher next to uh Jeremy Lewin. So this very young, 28-year-old guy who never worked in the humanitarian sector, you know, say, well, the humanitarian organizations have to adapt or die, I think, who has a quote, right? From what his he does.

SPEAKER_08 19:27

Yes. He, Jeremy Lewin, as you said, during aged 28, said to the assembled UNAID agencies who are all watching this, adapt or die. Chris, how does that make you feel?

U.S. Announces $2B UN Aid Pledge

SPEAKER_05 19:40

I'm old. I'm not 28 anymore. Even if I'd like to believe that I am. So I think just to give context in terms of how I'm coming at this, so first thing to say is that from so from an MSF point of view, we're very fortunate to be privately funded. Very, very little, less than 2% of our funding comes from government sources. And that means that we can still be on the ground in an independent, in an impartial, in an impartial way. But we are seeing the impact of aid cuts around the world. We're seeing rates of admissions for nutrition programs in Ethiopia and Somalia going up. We're seeing health centers closed in in Afghanistan. And this is as a consequence of aid funding across the board. The US is clearly the most consequential actor in this, but there are many other governments who have done the same. And so the impact is very real and we can see it. And it is we're seeing more patients come to our clinics as a as a result of it. Now, I share, I think, the same concerns as as UNIC when it comes to what does this mean in terms of the distribution, the prioritization, and the allocation of not just the money and the resources, but the people and the expertise that comes behind it. And it does leave many questions. To be asked in terms of the aid response globally. You know, in principle, I would be very in favour of OCA taking a role of ensuring there is that flexible funding to scale up responses at a global level and at a local level. But that has to be based on the needs that are in front of the humanitarians who are there, based on who is in most acute need, whether that's within a country like South Sudan or Sudan or DRC, or whether that's globally. And I think clearly some of the statements that came with this announcement were that it would be in line with uh US foreign policy interests, for example. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_08 21:28

And domestic policy interests, they actually said, which even from this administration took me aback.

SPEAKER_05 21:35

And so that that leaves me with questions then in terms of the extent to which that is possible or to which that is constrained in terms of prioritized countries or deprioritized countries, but also thematics as well. What about when it comes to women and child health care? What about when in looking at LGBTQ communities around the world? But this is what we mean when we're talking about neutral impartial um provision of humanitarian assistance, is getting to the people who are most vulnerable. That is the key thing, and where we we we need to spend most of our resources.

SPEAKER_06 22:08

And I mean the the the list of 17 countries was also in its in a sense problematic. It includes Central American countries that are not at the top of anybody's humanitarian crisis list.

SPEAKER_08 22:19

El Salvador is on there, I think.

SPEAKER_06 22:21

Guatemala, Guatemala and Honduras. And it it conspicuously left out, and Lewin was quite uh explicit on this point that there was going to be no money from America for Afghanistan, which has a huge hunger crisis at the moment. Huge crisis for health, for women and children, and none for Yemen. So yeah, that's that list of countries reflects very much uh some American priorities.

SPEAKER_08 22:47

So so we're moving into a thing that which it was always there under the surface that traditional donors sometimes did say, well, we quite favor that particular region. But it's this is really blatant now. It's absolutely clear. And since you mentioned that Latin American countries are on there, time to go to our third and final topic. But first, a quick break, where we'll hear about a podcast from our colleagues at Foreign Policy.

SPEAKER_07 23:17

Hello, I'm Femi OK, and I'm the new host of The Negotiators, the show that draws back the curtain on some of the most compelling negotiations around the world. This season, we're taking a scuba diving in the Red Sea, walking the grounds of a luxury resort in Uganda, and even aboard an aging oil tanker floating off the coast of Yemen.

SPEAKER_02 23:37

We were constantly monitored by drones overhead, divers under the vessel, so it was not exactly a high trust operation.

SPEAKER_07 23:44

That's the negotiators, available now, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back, everyone.

SPEAKER_08 23:49

Now for our third and final big event that interrupted the holiday period. No surprises. It's Venezuela.

SPEAKER_11 23:59

Overnight, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife touching down on U.S. soil, surrounded by federal agents. Nios of leader handcuffed on the tarmac in New York, just hours after being captured and removed by American forces.

SPEAKER_10 24:12

This was not an invasion. We didn't occupy a country. This was an arrest operation. This was a law enforcement operation. He was arrested on the ground in Venezuela by FBI agents, read his rights, and removed from the country. Obviously, this was not a friendly territory. So in order to arrest him, we had to ask the Department of War to become involved in this operation.

SPEAKER_01 24:31

We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in.

SPEAKER_03 24:39

As the High Commissioner has said, this operation violates a fundamental principle of international law. It violates the UN Charter.

Conditions, Ideology, And Uncertainties

SPEAKER_08 24:45

It is relevant to us. The US is very interested in the Western Hemisphere. It's made it absolutely clear, Uncle Sam's backyard. I first heard that when I was a teenager. It's back. That Central and South America, obviously, Washington views as its domain. And we're all here in Geneva muttering to ourselves, but you just violated international law. You and Human Rights said that this morning, Dorian and Nick, I think you were both both there when UN Human Rights put that said that. Does it matter to anyone?

SPEAKER_06 25:18

Well, yes, it matters deeply. It's kind of ironic that, you know, they should be invoking the Munro Doctrine, which was formulated initially, you know, as a as a barrier against Western imperialism and colonialism in the Latin American continent. Whereas what we're seeing here is a doctrine, the Dunro Doctrine, which seems to be kind of imperial in essence. And it's concerning for all sorts of reasons. I mean, it's concerning in the context specifically of Venezuela, because there's so little coherence so far from the administration about their objectives. Trump says he's running it and that they're going to stay in the country and run it for a long time. Secretary Rudio, who's a key player in this, has given out a very different kind of note on that. But I I mean it it's deeply concerning for all the reasons that were laid out this morning by uh the UN Human Rights Office, which is that it undermines the principles of territorial sovereignty and the UN Charter. And it's concerning because quite clear that this strategy doesn't stop, it's strategy is perhaps too flattering a term, but you know, these instincts don't stop with Venezuela. Uh Trump has talked about Colombia, he's talked about Mexico, he's talked about Iran, we've seen him bombing Nigeria. And of course, particularly now, they're talking about Greenland, a NATO country. So what we're seeing is, I think, in some ways, an inflection point, you know, where the the the fundamental commitments to some form of international law that have underpinned Western security since World War II are being completely abandoned by an administration that doesn't acknowledge any accountability to anyone except itself.

SPEAKER_04 26:55

And I think, if I may, what is also worrying about this is the, I mean, European, I think, in particular, reaction to this. So it's been really timid to say the least. I think only Spain has taken really a strong stand to condemn this action. So if, you know, European countries which traditionally sort of are at least want to be the voice of international law, even though it's been also eroded a little bit in the last years with their stand on Gaza. But I mean, then it weakens the entire architecture of uh international law. And it's I guess for European countries that also see Russia's action in Ukraine and that see Trump with Finland. I guess it just makes them less safe, as also highlighted the UN Human Rights Office.

SPEAKER_06 27:42

If you're not sure, yeah, I think it I I mean the spokeswoman's comment that it it everybody is less safe as a result of this is is the bottom line. Um, it kind of green lights the operations that people like Vladimir Putin have undertaken in Ukraine and potentially China would undertake in Taiwan. I mean, I think these are the analogies that everybody is drawing. And you will have to say also that it it should be of real concern to Americans who may not be interested in foreign policy, because what we are also seeing is an administration that is completely ignoring the kind of constitutional checks and balances that have underpinned US democracy. And so in this operation, the Trump administration has completely ignored Congress and seems to basically be pursuing its its own agenda without really any regard to the legalities that it faces at home or abroad.

SPEAKER_08 28:34

What a lot of people perhaps watching this, people who don't work in Geneva, perhaps don't realize is that people in Venezuela have been suffering for a long time, and not just because they've had a repressive government, but humanitarian issues. They are short of power, short of food. Eight million have fled, and not actually Hello Donald to the United States. They fled primarily to Colombia, which has been quite generous in looking after them. So I'm going to bring you in, Chris, maybe just almost for the the final word. When you see this as as a long-standing humanitarian work, I mean does your heart sink? Because I'm just thinking, here we go again. Somebody sitting in a in a government office in a nice gilded oval office might think, yeah, job done. But for you guys, probably the work is just beginning.

Localisation Limits And Omitted Crises

SPEAKER_05 29:24

Well, I think there's there's a question of what does this mean from uh a legal point of view. But I think the the project, the issue in front of us is bigger than a legal issue. You know, there is the question of violation of Article 4.2. There is also the question of non-adherence to ICJ rulings to bring in uh unimpeded humanitarian assistance to Gaza. There's the question of declarations for the protection of humanitarian workers, and at the same time, we're seeing them being killed in droves. And so there is a real question here in terms of accountability, in terms of mutual accountability and individual responsibility when it comes to upholding norms and also ensuring that it is uh people are willing to not just call out their their enemies but call out their allies as as well. And unless we get to that level of accountability on all of these things, then we're going to see a degradation on in terms of these norms, but more importantly, to the individuals all around the world, whether that is in Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine, or Venezuela, there are real people who are living through the consequences of these decisions that are made in places like Washington, DC, in New York, in Geneva. And there's also a lot, a huge amount of speculation about who wanted this action, who didn't want this action. I have a close uh Venezuelan friend who wrote this um just yesterday saying, we never wanted this, not this way. We wanted to do it our way like we always have, but we will take it and keep going because this is not over. Not until we can dance in our streets instead of yours. This is our journey, no one else's. We all know it, everyone except those who know nothing about the place where I come from.

SPEAKER_08 31:01

Good point.

SPEAKER_05 31:02

So if there's there's an intersection of international norms and an individual's raw emotion, I don't think it comes clearer than that.

SPEAKER_08 31:09

That is the definition, I suppose, of sovereignty, but also the definition of you don't just go in and grab a country that you don't know that much about. Well, we hope, I guess, that at some point we will see Venezuelans having their own elections, free and fair, and dancing in the street because of that. In the meantime, unfortunately, uh, Dorian, I think your point was right. At the moment, we are all less safe than the last time we sat in this studio. Let's hope that 2026 can only go upwards from now on, fingers crossed. Chris Locke here, Nick Coming Bruce, Dorian Burke Halter. Thank you very much, and that's it for this special edition of Inside Geneva. A reminder, you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. I'm Imogen folks. Thanks again for listening.