For more than a decade Yves Daccord was the face of ICRC. As Director General he held one of the most influencial positions in the humanitarian sector. Then he left and started doing something with pop-ups and the social contract at Harvard. In this conversation we touch on issues from art, security, the social contract and knowing when it is time to leave.
Transcript
For more than a decade Yves Daccord was the face of the ICRC. As the Director General, he held one of the most influential positions in the humanitarian sector. But then he left and started doing something with pop ups and social contracts and Harvard. And I got really curious. Because what do you actually do when you leave the center of power? This is a conversation about the social contract, what keeps us together, and which trade offs we have to make and the ones we're willing to make. It's also a conversation about the humanitarian project, and how we as individuals, as humanitarians, position ourself, visa vie the industry, the people we serve, and the principles. Enjoy the conversation. I did. Yves Daccord, welcome to Trinitarian. Thank you. You're best known as the Director General for ICRC, where you, for 10 years held that post, but recently, you stepped down and you're now a fellow at Harvard, where you are also the chairperson for something called the Edgelands Institute, which is a pop up institute. And you are the co-lead of a new initiative together with Interpeace on the International Commission for Peace, is that correct?
Yves Daccord:Yes, International Commission for Inclusive Peace, which is really rethinking the way we do peace around the world.
Lars Peter Nissen:But really, what I found interesting was, on the on the web page, you are described as a humanitarian leader, international strategist, influencer and change maker. And when I came across some of the updates on LinkedIn, of your new work, what really struck me was two things. One, it's really interesting that a person who comes from a position of leadership at one of the core humanitarian institutions, now starts working with the social contract, and Edgelands. What is that? And secondly, this pop up business? That sounds very agile to me, and how is that having worked for ICRC but let's begin with Edgelands. What is that?
Yves Daccord:So that is the following one. Is I'm... It's coming from two different elements. The first one is, I am deeply convinced that we are living in a time where we have to rethink the way we are living together, right? And we saw that, we see that, everywhere, right? That in a way we're living in a world where we are so fragmented, that we are not able anymore, I would say, to agree to live together. And you see that what is right now at the core, it seems, of our way to be together is our anger. So you see competing anger. And I think that's maybe why we were so fascinated by somebody like Trump, because Trump is a champion of managing that and pushing that and I am deeply convinced that it's time to rethink the rules that brings us together. So that was one of the reasons to look at the social contract. And to use the entry point and a social contract, we all have a social contract. And here, in my view, is a very narrow view, which is the view of, what is the trade off you're ready to do (you, your family, your community) with the so called legitimate authority when we can discuss who they are for your safety and your protection? Let's go back to that. And I've learned that from ICRC from the humanitarian world. It's always good to remember that security is not a given. But there are trade offs. And what is interesting is to look at this trade off at the time on one hand, where you have what we call the so called digitalization of security, all the data questions, the camera, all that's happening around us. So safety is not managed the same way. And on the other hand, COVID-19. And if you look at that, what is rather fascinating is to see how people are reading, leading, feeling about the social contract. And we've selected the numbers of cities, because I believe the cities are possibly one of the places where you can still test, discuss, whatever.
Yves Daccord:So that is the idea. And to do that, I've worked with Harvard and we agreed with Harvard that we wouldn't want, didn't want, to do a project or mobilise the entire Harvard. So let's find a new way, a new vehicle, and we came up with the idea to have an institute so you have the power of academic multidisiplinarity, but we brought the pop up energy, which means by essence, we will stop whatever the result are, after four years. And I love that I love the idea that you mobilise and you are humble enough to recognise that your contribution might be only a small one, but you are someone thinking about the famous theory of system so your contribution might impact a creative a movement that is larger. And the other element of pop up which is so interesting is it is radically decentralised. You have to pop up somewhere else. So we selected cities to pop up in the cities. So that is... but it was long, but just to give you, that's the two elements. So the social contract and the pop up nature of this experience.
Lars Peter Nissen:Fantastic. If we start with the social contract, the way you describe is broader than the way I would normally think about humanitarian work. So how do you see the link between your work so far in the humanitarian sector, and this. On one side, you talk about Edgelands, so obviously we're looking at marginalised communities or vulnerable communities, but is it different or is it the same as the, the humanitarian.
Yves Daccord:No, it's very different. I think I really have enjoyed all my years in the humanitarian, but my plan was very clear to, I've learned a lot, to maybe to take with me learning, but not to do humanitarian anymore. No no no, that's not at all the plan. And you're right. So the way I'm looking at the social contract is really for every single society, including here in Geneva, there is no questions. And what I'm interested in is, of course, what is happening in our own society. And who is letting... good example, let's take Geneva, who is, in fact, somewhat part of the social contract. And you've seen Geneva suddenly has the COVID and discover, oh, my God, there's this thousands of people that suddenly lining up to ask for food and help and support: humanitarian aid. Oh my God, in Geneva! Yes? And the question is not so much now to look at the humanitarian aid. The question is, what is happening to all of us? How come that these people are not part of a social contract? And then if there will be a new social contract? How are we describing and designing this new social contract? That is what I'm interested in, of course, I'm interested to look into that in different set of contexts, we will look at Singapore, for example, where the social contract is extremely explicit, right? When you come to a government, and the people are very, are very much aware, on both sides of the equation, of what to expect. We will also look at Beirut, for example, where the social contract is extraordinarily fragmented. So I think what we're trying to do is to learn a little bit how this implicit social contract is lived and understood by the people. And then once we understand that to go one step further to see okay, what are the part of the contract that needs to be redrawn with the authority or with, let's say, the community? And I think that that is what is so interesting. So to respond to your question, I'm learning from the humanitarian, and I've seen my experience in especially at war is to see how much a community that even a very powerful community could be destroyed. I'm still, as everybody, shocked, for example, shock is maybe not the right word, I think I'm, I don't know what to say, I'm speechless again and again, to what I've seen from them in Syria. So how much a society, a very complex society, but a society, can be totally destroyed, and how much, in fact, the social contract, and the social fabric of a society will take decades, if not more, to just rebuild. So I think that that's interesting to also reflect about also in our own society here, let's reflect before it's too late. So there's really something about that which I think, so, let's say leads me to reflect and to go a bit wider than just the humanitarian perspective.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, that's really interesting. And I think you, you're spot on in pinpointing how COVID-19 Suddenly reshaped our understanding of vulnerability. And we had all of us hyper privileged people here in the near Geneva area stuck on the French side of the border, unable to access our education or healthcare. And that was a thought provoking, I think, experience and I think also created a space where we listened more than we normally do. I think as a world, we somehow stopped for a second and listened more to, to what actually is happening. But my question, then, from inside the humanitarian sector, where I'm still stuck is, you've now gone out and look at this social contract, what can I use you for? What how is that useful to those of us who are trying to come to terms with how this reshaping of vulnerability, globally speaking, has created a challenge that I don't think we as humanitarians necessarily have understood yet? What's your message there?
Yves Daccord:My message is, I don't think, let's be as simple, I don't think have a message. But what I'm trying now to develop is a methodology that is owned by the people. And I think this is maybe one thing that the humanitarian can still learn is how do you put in place not just product or service, but you will start to develop methodology that are then owned by the people, right? And a methodology that maybe brings this is one thing I'm really a been always very impressed and positive about the humanitarian sector is the principle. Especially, I'm always been impressed by humanitarian and impartiality, right. Can we bring this principle of humanitarian impartiality may be at play when it comes to politics, I found that interesting to reflect about that, because what I see right now, at play is a lot of politicians in groups that are very, very good at redefining who is us who are us, you know, and normally the people who are good at that are the one who are defining smartly who are not us, you know?. So they are excluding the migrants. They are excluding the women. They are excluding the gay. You know? and it's quite fascinating to see and it's very powerful, and in this time of a huge uncertainty and I'm brilliant, much of the opinion that COVID-19 will stay with us for a long time.
Yves Daccord:And another thing in terms in terms of dramatic impact. But in terms of pandemics, I think we move into a world where the pandemic is now with us we always had pandemics we had, you know that very well, Ebola, we had still we have, by the way, Ebola and HIV AIDS and SARS, but it was somewhat located to a specific population, or group of population or to a specific place. What is interesting with COVID-19 is that for the first time it is hitting all of us, and as you mentioned before, without differences between class and country and border, and I think this is a new world in which we are moving in quickly. If you think about the climate question and all that it will make more pandemic coming to us, that's very clear for me. So if you just think about just this part of it, it will create more uncertainty. And when you go for more uncertainty, I think one of the scenario is you are looking for kind of clear rules and I think you are going for politicians and people that are proposing new, very simple solutions. I was I was living, I'm still living in the US, and so I was living in the US during the last month of the elections. And you know, one figures really struck my mind. And I'm still just trying to make sense of it. In the elections, the one that people voted, if you look at the 100 county, in the US, that were the most affected by COVID-19, so means concretely affected people dying right? Out of them, 68 voted for Trump. So that's kind of, you say, just what? So there's really something interesting here. And I think one of the elements for me is, I still even if, and you are well placed, you do analysis, you do fact base and there is evidence, we're living in a world where people are not willing and not being interested about that. And in way what they are going, not all, but what they're going for is, you know, somebody who is angry, like them, and who somewhat redefining, redefine, who is us. So I think to make a long story short, the question is here, here. And I think what we can do and what we should learn, and I think maybe couldn't do that in the humanitarian, is to reflect what are the methodology that allows the people maybe to at least reflect and reconnect, maybe, and it takes time, within their own society to maybe find a way to redesign what are their social contract? Yes, that could be something interesting.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah. It's very interesting the way you frame it. And I fully agree, because I think what we have now is not just a situation of uncertainty, but also great ambiguity, in the sense that we don't know the answer but we actually also don't know what the question is. So in other words, we don't have an analytical framework to come to terms with this. And and one of the things I've been trying to think through with respect to the humanitarian world is, it seems we have to start thinking about what we do as a narrative. And it's really difficult because situations we deal with so horrific many times that how can you say that this is a story and narrative. But if we don't come to terms with it, and try to begin to understand how, how there's also a counter narrative being spun? And how we have to put focus on the stories we tell ourselves about who is vulnerable, who's not, who do we define as part of the humanitarian caseload and who was not there? If we don't redefine the, I think the relationship between evidence and decision making an action, and really begin to understand that, I don't think we can meet this challenge.
Yves Daccord:I agree [inaudible].
Lars Peter Nissen:I, one of my big bias is going into this, I used to live in Zimbabwe. And so what immediately popped into my head was, oh my God, we have, you know, the dreadful situation we've had for decades there and we have HIV, we have food insecurity and now COVID, that's gonna be the tipping point. I had similar thoughts about Nicaragua, maybe this is what will push it over the edge. And really, I was so far, probably wrong. But then you had other countries like Peru or Brazil or South Africa, right next door to Zimbabwe, where suddenly you have a massive impact? And I think we really as a community have to reflect on what's the foundation for our work? What, Where do we choose to focus. Do choose to focus where we already are? Or are we truly niche based in able and agile to focus where vulnerability appear?
Yves Daccord:Yeah, it's a very good question that nothing if you just look at the COVID-19, I think one of the reflections I would have, if I will be in the humanitarian sectors, is that we have a shift of vulnerability. That's very key for me. And I think as always, if you look in history, when you have a shift of vulnerability, it means that it will have also an impact on the way compassion and resources are distributed. That's very clear for me, right? And if you bring that on one hand and on the other hand, you see that in this very uncertain and ambiguous time, politicians and governments are rediscovering, not new but let's say confirm the discovery, rediscovering, rediscovering the importance of containment, that you can somewhat show to your public. You did that already with migration and now you do that with COVID-19. You can show no, it's very good to close the border. No, no, we can't contain the problem outside of the border, that will not go, that will not go, that will stay very deeply. That is very clear. And then you can add a third factor, which is the trust factor. I think we know it's not new but I think we know already that as a human being, I think we've moved to a world where it's like this kind of, we are much more in a world of prove it than just so the default mode is not that the more that I trust you, I don't know you. But you have to prove me that you are maybe a real humanitarian or, or a very good journalist, whatever. So that's my first. But now with COVID-19, it will just be even much more complicated, right? Because you have a lot of people they want to know, even before being with you, they want to know, have you been vaccinated? Yes, no? Are you, did you get it or not? Whatever. And, of course, they can't ask that to you, maybe they can. But if you are in groups of meetings, that will be more difficult. So what they will do, they will trust, in fact, the technology. Very clear. So you will see in the next six months appear technology that you would even not think are possible. I can tell you in six months time, I will not come in this building without having QR codes on my phone that will not just say yes, no, but will give a very clear indications of my track record on health, for example, which seems impossible today, but that will be absolutely accessible. And and you will have that. So think about this three dimension, the containment, the trust element, for example. And you bring that together? Yes, I really think it will be a time where humanity, the humanitarian, if we talk about that sectors, and I'm sure it's already the case, we'll have to reflect very quickly. What might happen to them and to the structure and to their priority and their focus. Because I think things will change much quicker, much more quickly than we were
Lars Peter Nissen:Six months, really?
Yves Daccord:Yeah. Look at the vaccine, I will never, I never thought that they will be able to do. Of course the technology is there. [inaudible] I don't know if you just go to China or to Israel, you'll see it. So technology is absolutely there. I mean, if you go in South Korea, in China right now, today, to example to country, very different nature, you know, not just there, but you would use your phone today in entry, every single building, there is no way that you enter a building without a QR code, right? And that's normal people feel is totally, there is no question anymore, because that's part of your element, you will not travel in plane. And the plane will be back again, or let's say without the QR code over the next coming months, I have no doubt on that one. And the catch, the question you will then raise is, okay, but then who'll control the list, who'll control the data? How does that work? Is it democratic node? I mean, all these kind of questions which we are all struggling. And I would argue that's also one of the interesting elements of the institute I'm trying to lead the Edgelands Institute is we want to bring this discussion, so to find a way to bring the discussion, to the public. Because these are discussions that are, when they happen, that are totally controlled by experts. I mean, the discussion on data freedom is so complicated, so difficult, that's why coming with the angle of the social contract is a much more interesting, because then you don't have to discuss the data, you want to discuss what is important for you, and what is important for us, maybe the two of us if we have in this room and in this community. So what what do we want to agree, and that is already a good start much more than discuss the specifics of data protection.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I think I agree with that, I would hope that at least in a European setting, that we would not be able to introduce very intrusive technologies that quickly, but I stand to be corrected.
Yves Daccord:I don't know, I have a feeling that... maybe you might you might be right. But that say this technology will be part for us. And I'm really look at COVID as a new 9-11 If you want in a sense of like 9-11, the world has changed, or we have one incident, or one crisis, if you want, and then the way we look at the world has changed. 9-11, for example, the story we'd never really discuss, is what happened for me, 9-11 is the moment where states, to start with the United States of America, but then a lot of states in the world, including democratic state, without having never telling the public, including in Europe, they decided, that in terms of security, the problems and the issue was the people. Each of us! Was not any more groups or terrorist. What they realised was that every single individual could be a much more complex and dangerous issues. And which means the moment you start to reflect about that you change totally the way you're looking at people and then of course we think we know only the iceberg with Snowden and all that, it means then you have them to control the people, you have them to look at the technology, so it's already there. I would say Lars, it's already there. My sense is the It's with us.
Lars Peter Nissen:So I agree with that. But let me go, you know, it's out of character for me to be optimistic, but let me try. Right? Okay, so I see the threat. I think the tech is just right down scary and anybody who has kids would agree with that when you see how intrusive it is in their world, and the way that it shapes their reality, it is frightening the power that these companies have. At the same time, we also have a situation where Black Lives Matter resonated at a global level that I haven't seen before. You have a resurgence of the whole Me Too movement. There are some things that brings us together also. We have a global narrative around correcting some of the wrongs or is that just...
Yves Daccord:Yes and no. So, on one hand, at least my perception is, I would I would say, since 10 years, since, we're just celebrating right now, the so called Arab Spring, right? And I would argue that was maybe the first really massive revolution without leader. And what is interesting, including with Black Lives Matters and Me Too whatever, it's not about leader, it's not one person who says, Now let's do it like that way. I'm quite amazed by this people movement. That's true. Look at climate also. Very, very impressive. That is very true. My problem, though, is so far, it is, it has led to a certain numbers of pressure, manifestation, maybe change of some of the practice. But that's it. Have not been able to be transformed into a societal proposal. Extremely difficult, right? And I think maybe it's because it will take time maybe because our society as we know it, are maybe going through a time of transition and it's difficult. So what I see is more and more competitive movement and pressure, that is maybe what. So you see Black Lives Matters, but at the same times in the US, you also see the white, not just supremacist, but the white people, especially the white male, being so entrenched and so worried about that, that their choice in terms of voting is exactly the opposite. So what what I see is competing movements.
Lars Peter Nissen:Competing narratives.
Yves Daccord:And competing narrative, exactly. And what worries me a lot, is I see people doing business out of that. The most striking element is the media and the evolution of the media of the last 10 years. And that's one of the interesting place because I've been part of a small group [%] down here in Switzerland. And I'm now part of their of the board of the this. And it's interesting to reflect about how do you do still today, a media that could be a media that is able to be, let's say, to create a common grammar and common fact, that will allow to have people to have different opinion. Whereas today, the most of the media will have really developed well, our media have developed as an echo chamber, to each of the movements or to each of the anger, if you want, that's quite amazing, if you think about it, right? And that word that where I'm less slightly less optimistic than you. So I see, as you mentioned, people revolving, I think people are reflecting I see people creating a dynamic, but so far, I've not seen anything globally that has resulted to concrete element. It might come, it might come. I see a lot of little try, experiment, but they're very local, quite interesting. But I've not seen anything really, at so far, at least, let's say, at at a political level, maybe with a one or two exceptions, in Europe is maybe an exception, we can discuss that, but overall, I'm a little bit more concern, let's say for the next 10 years.
Yves Daccord:Okay, so I think you've very convincingly outlined these global threats that are there. And I, by and large, agree with that analysis. Now let's jump to the edge. Right, the edge land where where you now operate your little pop up shop, and talk us through what what happens when you then go to the edge and study the social contract that. What does that look like? And what's the link with those global trends that you have just described.
Yves Daccord:Let's take an example, which is we are working right now in Medellin, in Colombia. And I know that, you know well, Colombia, and it's interesting to to observe and we selected Medellin, because this is one of the places that has made a huge transition over the last 15 years when it comes to security. Right? And I think what is interesting is to try to understand on the spot, what are the issues and of course, the issues are huge. And then you have to make some interventions on specific places. I think what was the interesting things who came up was in fact about the young people. Very strong feeling that the young people, younger generation, I'm talking about 15 to 25 let's put it like this, feel very decent power and don't understand, it's not a surprise, by the way, some of the priority developed by the government. They just don't buy all these questions about the peace and the conflict and they feel very, very far away from, in fact, any social proposal. And you can see a government, and especially a municipal government, trying to grasp it, but they don't know how to engage in terms of discussions with them. They not sure, right? And they feel that difficult. And one of the things that young people then do is they don't vote, they don't participate. As a government, what is your incentive then to bring them on? And I think what we're trying to do with them, we'll see if we succeed, we're trying to do is to understand how, in that case, the young people are describing what are the trade off they're ready to do, and really thinking about trade off is so interesting. What does that mean for them when they reflect about legitimate authority? Who's providing the security to them? You know, how does that, how do they reflect about that? Do they agree that within their community, the vulnerability of the other, will also reinforce their own security? So do they understand the notion of mutual vulnerability for them? That's very interesting. And then last, but not least, what will they then see as a change? And what is interesting with this methodology, you don't ask anybody what do you want to change, which is, I want you to change, no no, when you talk about social contract, you talk, you start to talk, about you, you know? You and me. And what is the relationship? What is the dynamic? And what is your contribution? What are the trade off? And that what is interesting. So what we've, what is also interesting, and here, in terms of methodology, that's my strong convictions, you can't anymore discuss, especially if you talk about edge, especially if you talk about centre and periphery and if you really try to capture that, you can't do that you can't do that only with the research, you have to do that with art. And you have to bring art at the beginning of the process. And that is very interesting. Because then when you bring artists within the discussions, but not, you know... and you allow them to develop that the type of feedback you get is a much more interesting one, right? And we'll see how, how were we able to work around that. But that is what we are some somewhat thing. And of course, what we're trying to do is to test the methodology that works for the people and for the city. That is maybe the the critical element.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so art, is that music, is it painting, what theatre, anything?
Lars Peter Nissen:it's the ecosystem of the, let's say, of the region or a city in that case. And then we are right now also negotiating within bigger artists, maybe you know, Magnum, the photographer? They want to do for years with us on the social contract. The value gain is to come with a lot of different elements, I think we should it's exactly the we discussed before is you don't come with your own kind of artists or you own very narrow perspective. You are low in a way, a dynamic, to be creative. The beauty, though is to do a pop up, pop up is even when you do that you come and you do that a limited intervention, you don't do that. Because you can you can stay there for 30 years. You come you do a limit interventions. And what is then interesting is then you use what is emerging also in other cities, and you're comparing and then you come back again and you create this iteration that normally, normally, we'll see, should help us to come with specific maybe recommendation in terms of almost a playbook if you want. And the playbook can be, that's my can be, around urban planning could be around a totally different way to look, for example, at at data management, could be very different way to look at political party. I don't know. We'll see.
Lars Peter Nissen:I guess what you're trying to find is a scalable way of reengineering the social social contract.
Yves Daccord:Yes. But I'm careful with that. Because you have we have to be humbled because why would we intervene in Medellin? In Medellin they're... It's an advanced, as you know, community. They have they work hard around now. So I think we also have to see where our interventions make sense and where, and that's what I've learned from the humanitarian world, where bringing an international perspective makes sense to the local dynamic. That is what is interesting, and not the country. Right? Really.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I'm thinking that it's so interesting, right? So, I mean, how do you convey that sort of learning? I mean, do you write a book?
Yves Daccord:No!
Lars Peter Nissen:Right? So how do you convey that...
Yves Daccord:No, I have no ambition to... [both laughing] With the people. I think, well, it's a very, it's a fair, question. And I'm so far, we are just at the beginning, right? So we are still incubating, as we say nicely in Harvard, and then we'll spin off. I think our view is to do a series of interventions both locally and globally and in order to be able to then, on every time, learn from the interaction, right? And maybe also spot the people. What I would find interesting is that the people in Medellin, some of them, will then lead the very same discussions and project in Geneva and Then we are bringing maybe also people from Nairobi, that will work on specific because we start to see oh, maybe there is really a questions about, in fact, informal power, even in Geneva. Okay, who is really good at that? So being able to somewhat creating the on one hand a very own dynamic because it's still about the people and the legitimate authority, and we can, again, discuss where they are. But what you can do is you can provide a different perspective, to help the people maybe to redraw, or to reengineer that. Maybe it's not an entire social contract, but part of the social contract, right? Let's see, we'll see. We'll see how it works. I wouldn't be disappointed if I see you in three years time. And we've done only a book, I would say, that is...
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, don't do a book.
Yves Daccord:Exactly. And there's too many books anyway.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah.
Yves Daccord:I'm terrible at books, really.
Lars Peter Nissen:It's almost more like simple rules.
Yves Daccord:Simple Rules? Yeah. It's also art. One thing I would be really excited about is, is first of all, if you know, the Biennale of Venezia I would love to have the entire arsenale being really one of the Biennale being focused on the social contract, and the digital civilians, that will be lovely as an example. So I think they are moment. And I think one of the idea would be also that we not just work locally, but we on purpose, are connected with the art world. So we just are going now to the [Italian reference?], for example. And at the same time to a very political and security world. So I'm also planning to go for example, to the Munich Conference and security Munich conference. So that is what is interesting when you navigating in very different environment, but then bring that together.
Lars Peter Nissen:As you were speaking, it's almost like you have almost a deliberate urban bias, right? You've chosen...
Yves Daccord:I don't think... yeah?
Lars Peter Nissen:Which is almost the opposite of the humanitarian sector.
Yves Daccord:Yeah.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so what are the implications for your puppet project of, on one side, you you're working with the world class institutions here, you talk about Harvard, you talk about Magnum you talk about the Biennale You know, that's A-list stuff. This is the best of the best. And you work with some of the most marginalised communities in urban settings. Are there any limitations to working with the big shots?
Yves Daccord:Let me just address two things First, firstly, urban bias. Just quickly about that. I think the recognition that in this time of transition, transition in terms of new political system, new international rules, I don't know, we'll see where we are. And right now, we are in the midst of this huge competitions between different block and I think we will see that over the next coming five to 10 years, there is no question about it. Cities in this kind of transition, cities, as a political structure and social structure, are very interesting. No questions. It's not the exclusions of the rest, especially of the rural area, but the cities and let's say, the ecosystem, or you can also the ecological system, are very interesting. And we don't look at City as you know, with a wall, but we look at people who are coming in and out of the city and what it means but the city somewhat, and this is very true in every culture, the city have to deal with the diversity, that's also so interesting. There is no question this is the place where diversity is part of that you can't just design that it's only one part of population who has the right to do that that doesn't work in a city, you have to be pragmatic, you do have to experiment, I found that very interesting. And you start to see associated is not new, but working together much more across the board on issues which are normally ready to migration, climates Very much so. But you will see them starting to do that on issues related to security and data, I have no question about it, right? Because they will have to deal with that they can't right now, more and more, they will they will have to find. So that's also extremely interesting to come at that moment. And to think about the social contract. And of course, the very specific elements related to security. So that's just to say, the city as a place not an exclusion, but as an interesting place as a lab, but let's say. That is very interesting. With authority that are willing, because they have no choice they have to deal with it. So they are interested to engage with you state are not interested at all, it's far away. "What are you talking about? Just stay in Harvard? That's okay." We don't, you know... Then working with it's interesting, your your description. I think there is a risk always, and I see that with Harvard, that I don't know very well, and Harvard is a complex anyway, ecosystem, there is always a risk that, of course, when you work with them, that they are looking at the world through their lens. There is no questions. Absolutely. And in the lens of Harvard, I mean, the people are remarkable. I mean, just amazing. I mean, the level of people... Though the structure, and the organisation, is very American. They have a very American way to think about for example, the risk. So you feel it, you absolutely feel it. And that is one of the reasons why I'm so attracted by the popup nature of my initiative. So you are incubated somewhere and yes, you'll learn and you will have a lot to learn from from that place and the people, but at the same time, So you already think about, you know, moving out of the structure and being totally decentralised. I think right now, if you want to be serious about discussing, engaging, and maybe reimagining the social contract with people you have to decentralise your thinking and I am coming from an organisation that in that sense was never decentralised. Right? I'm coming from ICRC. We were decentralised in the sense of we were close to the people, we, our delegation, were there. But our centre was very much the way we think about the world, right, related to international humanitarian law to the principle very much, very clear--and for good reason, because we were, and we are, intervening in war and in violence. I would argue that I'm exactly choosing the opposite, which is you have to decentralise, even your thinking, you metallurgy and your power and maybe reflect a structure that allows you to be challenged by the very same people that you are doing research about. And that is... I found that very interesting.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I asked you that because I sometimes think that one of the key things we as humanitarian bring to the table is that we often... if you've worked in the field, you have experienced a profound loss of control. Right? I mean, you've just had to operate in order cares.
Yves Daccord:That's one loss and just up and do things that I think we'll bring on the table, we do understand that governments are not always able to provide basic solutions to their people. I'm just saying that because I'm still amazed today how much the world especially the official world, think official, think structure, think governments. I mean, look at everything done with the climate as an example. I'm quite amazed. I mean, today the money... and it's great. But it's an entire financial architecture, that go through government, or big business, and then you reflect for example Sahel. I mean, how will that impact, I don't know, the 40, 50, 60 percent of the people who are not living in areas where the government has any control. And that's still completely out of the mind of the international community. It's quite amazing, by the way.
Lars Peter Nissen:As you know, to a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
Yves Daccord:Yeah, yeah.
Yves Daccord:And, yeah, and I happened, I think we have... I mean, I've lived in Geneva for 10 years now and I feel it very strongly. While we're sitting here in the middle of the humanitarian ghetto, if you want, we can see most of the big institutions from within a mile, and the disconnect is quite profound. And I think it does limit our way of thinking about problems. And I really, I admire your step, your career step away from one of the most powerful positions in the sector to this sort of deliberate opposite, right?
Yves Daccord:Yeah, but I think that's maybe more personal. I don't know how you feel about it. But I, I really, I have, I have two beliefs, or a lot of beliefs. One belief was, there is a moment where your ability to lead an organisation is limited, right? And maybe you can be, and I felt still that I was, very curious. And I was curious, it was one of the indicators, I was interested, I was, I think, willing to continue to lead, but I also found that the organisation started to know me too much. So it's not just you, it's also the organisation.
Lars Peter Nissen:Absolutely.
Yves Daccord:And that there is a need at a certain moment to change. And again, we can have a long discussion, is it right or wrong, but there is and we can discuss what it is. It was 10 years and for me 10 years was really the maximum I could do. And I really think because 10 years allows you allowed me, not alone, of course with a group of people, to do major change. And for me, the major change was about the people about the way, for example, there was such a gap between the international nationally hired staff. I mean, the way we as an organisation, and we as a sectors needs to know the word is decolonize. I would not have used this word 10 years ago, but rethink the way we are organised the way symbol power, all that is distributed organisation. It tooks you it took me at least 10 years to just even start that not just the conversation, but to change the system, for example, change the grading change in salary. I mean, all that is a very heavy endeavour. But after 10 years or eight, whatever, I think there is time to give space to a new generation and new people to think about it.
Yves Daccord:So that's what first belief. My second believe is, that's more related to me is, we living in a world where it's useful to put yourself a little bit in danger, or or let's say to move outside of major structure, because major structures are great, but they also they are also a way to somewhat protect you from the reality, right? Because of course you have to think about your structure and when you're a big structure 90% of your energy is about the structure itself: the people, the power game and how it works. And even if you love the structure, but it's still about that moving outside and being suddenly on your own, put you in a very different relationship to the world, to what's happening, to even your own people. And I would argue, at least for a person, trying to understand what's happening is very useful.
Yves Daccord:And maybe my third point why I'm in this journey is because I have three daughter. And now the grown up they are... Judy is 25 Ines and Emma are 22, both, and I really thought 10 years ago, that shit would hit the fan when they will be adults, and grown up, and I would have disappeared, right? And I think I realised over the last 10, maybe five years that no no no, I was wrong. Shit will hit the fan now. Including when I am active, alive, and they are alive too. So I realised that it was not just about me, you know, waiting, shit to happen. And they will take care of that. It was much more about us, together, being able to do that. And then if you really want to be able to understand what's happening and maybe propose solutions, you have to put yourself in danger. You and danger. Let's be... but at least you have to look at the world, understand what happened. Test new way, you know, I would say in a different perspective, at least kid. And you can do that for a while, then you can go back, that's fine. But I think be exposed differently, let's say. Yeah, that I'm deeply convinced by.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, that that resonates with me. And I think also what pops out in sort of the intergenerational connection that we need to have, I think we need to recognise that our kids live in a very different world than we lived in.
Yves Daccord:Absolutely.
Lars Peter Nissen:And it was interesting to hear you talk about the young people in Medellin and, you know, what is their incentive structure? What is... What does their world look like?
Yves Daccord:And what strikes me, sorry to interrupt you. But what struck me also is, and I'm teaching also now a university (which is super interesting, by the way, and make some interventions on a few things, whatever)... What I'm really interested in more and more is I realised that we're living in a generation where the younger generation, really I'm talking about the really the younger generation, then they look at things and they know things that allow them not to be any more dependent from our wisdom. And I found that very interesting. Because the the classical wisdom would be to say, this is our case study, this is what we have done well, bad, please replicate or don't replicate. Oh, really, you know. And that I found very interesting to observe, which will impact a lot of us in the way we then transmit or not--what we rate. And there's really something about that, which which is really interesting for me to reflect, which would mean typically, one of the beauties of my little Institute is, I think, I'm from far the oldest. My research team is 25 years old, average. Most of them, they're 22, 23, 24. They really think the world in a different way. And this is extraordinarily challenging, but also very interesting.
Lars Peter Nissen:I'm thinking, you made this journey now. You jumped down from the top of the pile and sort of left the echo chamber, or whatever you want to say. When you look back at us who are still in this.
Yves Daccord:Us meaning the humanitarian?
Lars Peter Nissen:Us meaning the humanitarian--the industry. What do you see? And what what do you wish we would do differently?
Yves Daccord:First of all, I look I look back with with a lot of gratitude, which means I need to recognise that first of all my organisation, the ICRC, and in general, the Red Cross has been a great family, so I also feel that I've learned a lot really. I've met fantastic people. So I think there is something about first the people that I still feel very positive about it-- very vibrant, very interesting, a lot of smart people, maybe almost too much and a lot of people very engaged and I really love that I really value that enormously. Then there is a second second way to look into that, which is, I felt already at the time, and I'm still feeling that the way the sector is (and I know we have to be careful to think about the sector, but let's say the professional sector, professionally maintenance sector), the way it is constructed, is a mystery. Not so much the constructions but it's a mystery that it's still work, right? And since already yours. I was just watching when is the moment where it will be deconstructed? What it, when it, when will it be, at the time we were using the word Uberization, I would not use it anymore, but let's, where is, what is happening, what is happening, and I thought I saw some similar time and I think the first signal for me was in Syria, where I realised that we the humanitarian professional sectors were maybe delivering, I don't know, 20, maybe 30 percent of the aid? I don't know if we know exactly. But certainly the majority of the relief (I'm careful what I'm saying) that people were receiving, we're not coming from us-- were coming from the community, were coming from the business, were coming... And yes, this is a very different way, by the way, to relive. Maybe there is no principle here, maybe a lot of other issues, but I realised, wow, we are becoming more and more, somewhat decentral, not any more central to the response. And though we are still having the same discussions, the same kind of wording, the same blah, blah, and I felt, Oh, my God, we are moving out of, in fact, the critical response, right? And I'm talking about us as a collective and knowing that there's a lot of different around that. So that was my first... And I was thinking, to be honest, that our somewhat own ability as a collective to improve and to respond and to rethink ourselves would be detrimental to us. And to my surprise, the sector is still there. And maybe my last element is always thought also that there will be new competitor. So I never thought that there will be the competitor will be the same. So I was always waiting, what will be the new computer? I never thought it will be MSF, or the UN or would [inaudible] the Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent that will [inaudible] that was not... I was looking at Price Waterhouse Cooper. I was looking at, you know, the risk firm. I was looking at Google. And I was wondering, you know, who is coming, one day, and who'll make a proposal that will take over? Because we didn't see, in fact, what the people were needed and the cost and whatever. So I'm still struggling. So what I'm... To make a long story short, what I'm still looking at the sector as a sectors is I still... I'm still amazed. Let's put it that way. That the sectors with his [inaudible].
Lars Peter Nissen:[Inaudible]
Yves Daccord:Yep, I wouldn't say that. But it's still somewhat exist in its own way and endeavour. And then there's a lot of a lot of response about that. But one of the one of the responses is it's very related to it's doner--the way it's done or functioning. Maybe there's something about being in tune, not anymore with the world, but in tune with his donor. Maybe that? or maybe with the so called the diplomatic kind of big things, which is still working the same (by with which fascinate me even more, having a whole new... How is it possible today, to be a diplomat? If you reflect about the classical diplomat, I mean, if you reflect if you see, for example, country being fascinated and spending billions, maybe not billions, but lt's say millions, in their diplomatic strategy to have a seat on the Security Council. And then you say, to do what, you know? It's kind of the ultimate goal as a nation. Wow, what is that? So I think you're all also this world, which is so strange. It still works, still a lot of excitement, and completely disconnected from the reality of the world, so I think that that is asking me the question is more about, Wow, it seems for me with a bit of a distance that there is really surprisingly resilient, professional sectors and I'm not sure why. It might be my last point, though, and I come back to it. I'm still amazed, by the way that, and that's what I love with the humanitarian, is not just an industry, there is also in our love, and maybe just an anecdote, which really for me is the lessons I do remember: I was in Chechnya, at a time during the war in Grozny, the first war. And we were able to come in and Grozny me and I was really... it was a terrible war, really, in terms of violence. There was nobody. And I remember very still vividly arriving in the morning with our Jeeps, and we didn't know what happens and in front of us, there was suddenly a truck with... they just painted on the truck and then they had a flag, I think it was, yeah, you're kind of basic white flag. And then they put a Red Cross. Was them did it, group of people. And the truck was going in the, you know, in the street, taking the the people who died, taking the body very carefully. These people were not humanitarian professional, they were not at all connected to the Red Cross, but they were Red Crosser, you know? And this is maybe what makes me still hopeful about, not the sector as such, but as the idea of humanitarian, right? And that comes back to humanity, impartiality. And then you see people like that that, I mean, in the street, doing things which are not owned by us, but at the same time is very close to us. I love this ability to bring volunteers very closely to professional and that's very rare. There is not that many sectors and maybe this is one of the value of the so called sector.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah. So almost humanitarianism as a virus that infects people.
Yves Daccord:Yes, yes, yes! And it has infected people for a long time.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah.
Yves Daccord:And will continue to do so. And that is really something which by the way, have kept me so much intrigued but also so much connected with the idea of the Red Cross, really, in that sense--that people can just decide, yeah, that's maybe my enemy, but the person is wounded or died and I will. This person deserves respect. Wow, this is powerful.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yves Daccord, Thank you so much for coming on Trumanitarian. Thank you for all of your work with ICRC and in the humanitarian sector. And I look forward to seeing you popping up all over the place inthe coming years.
Yves Daccord:Thank you very much, all the best to you.
Lars Peter Nissen:I hope you have enjoyed this episode of Trumanitarian. We're coming close to the end of season two, but still have a couple of fascinating episodes lined up for you, one on China as a humanitarian actor, and we will also continue to explore the role of trust plays in humanitarian action based on some work that Internews have done so keep an eye out for those new episodes. We drop a new one every Friday at nine o'clock Central European Time. If you liked the show, then please make some noise about it. Recommend it to a friend rate us on iTunes or wherever you listen and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Instagram. We're not quite on Tik Tok yet, but who knows? Finally, we always are happy to hear from you. So drop us a comment on social media or send us an email on info@trumanitarian.org and tell us what you like, what could be better, and which topics you would like us to deal with next, have a great week.