In an era where global geopolitical conflicts continue to spread, humanitarian space is shrinking, and global humanitarian needs are exploding, compounded by challenges such as funding constraints, disorganized public discourse, and governance imbalances, the disconnect between traditional aid models and sustainable development, as well as corporate overseas compliance, is becoming increasingly apparent.

As a core institution within the global humanitarian assistance system, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) consistently operates on the core principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, conducting relief work across conflict zones worldwide. Facing contemporary humanitarian governance challenges, the balance between emergency response and long-term development, innovative models for government-business collaboration, and key industry issues like Chinese corporate overseas compliance, an interview was conducted with Boris Kelecevic, Acting Head of the ICRC Regional Delegation for East Asia. The discussion delves into the essence of the ICRC's neutral leadership in the modern era, analyzes existing weaknesses in the global humanitarian system, and provides professional insights and future outlooks on global humanitarian construction, corporate overseas ESG compliance development, and China-foreign collaboration in the humanitarian field.

Escalating Global Conflict and Shrinking Humanitarian Space: Redefining Neutral Leadership

Amidst intensifying global conflicts and a continuously shrinking humanitarian space, how do you define the ICRC's "neutral leadership"? What are the most severe challenges in practically implementing this concept on the ground?

Since its establishment in 1863, the ICRC has been committed to alleviating human suffering and preserving human dignity during wars and situations of armed violence. We work alongside our Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement partners, delivering life-saving aid across front lines, and striving fully to reunite separated families and locate missing persons.

We engage with authorities and armed forces on all sides, often confidentially, advocating for the humane treatment of detainees and urging compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to protect civilians from harm, including in cyberspace.

Neutrality means we provide assistance to all in need, irrespective of race, religion, gender, or political affiliation. We do not take sides, always standing with the people we assist. It is precisely because of this that conflicting parties trust us to provide appropriate help for their populations and prisoners of war without bias. By refraining from public judgment on right or wrong, we can engage in frank dialogue with all conflict parties, building the necessary trust to access areas other organizations cannot reach and provide aid to those in distress.

However, implementing this principle still faces numerous challenges. For us working in war zones, safety is paramount, concerning the security of staff, partners, and operations. Work cannot proceed without safety. It is distressing that, despite protection under IHL, humanitarian aid workers and medical personnel are increasingly becoming targets of attack. In 2024 alone, 338 attacks against humanitarian workers were recorded; between 2023 and 2024, there were over 600 attacks on medical facilities and personnel; in 2025, 25 Red Cross and Red Crescent volunteers and staff tragically lost their lives.

Public perception is also crucial. In the digital age, some conflict parties adhere to a "with us or against us" narrative logic. Providing aid to a wounded person from "Side A" can lead to being perceived as supporting the enemy by "Side B." Currently, we also face challenges from disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech. This is extremely dangerous, severely damaging our credibility and operational capacity, ultimately preventing those in urgent need from receiving help. Facing these issues, we need continuous communication and dialogue with relevant parties, clearly conveying the ICRC's stance of not taking sides.

Highlighted Supply-Demand Imbalance: Upholding Humanitarian Principles Without Compromise

Facing the dual pressures of surging humanitarian needs and tightening budgets, as the Acting Head of Delegation for East Asia, how do you believe the ICRC should balance meeting humanitarian needs with upholding its core humanitarian principles?

Regrettably, armed conflict has become a defining feature of our time. There are currently around 130 ongoing armed conflicts globally, more than double the number from 15 years ago; over 20 of these conflicts have lasted for more than two decades, meaning entire generations have never known peace. More than 204 million people live in areas under the full or contested control of armed groups; the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has registered 284,000 missing persons, a staggering 70% increase in just one year. These immense humanitarian needs urgently require a collective response from the international community.

On the other hand, funding support for the humanitarian sector continues to shrink, creating a sharp contradiction between rising needs and scarce resources. Many humanitarian organizations, including the ICRC, have had to downsize their personnel.

For the ICRC, limited personnel and funding mean focusing on core missions, prioritizing key regions and critical operations to help as many people as possible. Current humanitarian needs are extremely urgent; no single organization can handle them alone. We urgently need political and financial support from states.

Facing these challenges and limitations, we will never compromise or abandon our fundamental principles. On the contrary, principles like neutrality and impartiality are at the heart of all our actions. Neutrality is not a moral luxury but a practical tool.

States play a decisive role in preventing the world from sliding into unrestrained warfare. The ICRC calls on governments to support principled humanitarian action and uphold IHL, which is designed to protect civilians and prevent excessive suffering. In this regard, in September 2024, China, France, Brazil, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Jordan, and the ICRC jointly launched a global initiative to galvanize political commitment for the respect of IHL. This provides a platform for states to collectively reverse the alarming trend of disregard for the rules of war in contemporary warfare. The ICRC appreciates China's efforts in elevating IHL as a political priority and its support for the ICRC's exploration of the link between IHL and peace, which is also an important part of this initiative, aimed at proposing practical recommendations to ensure respect for the laws of war.

Linking Humanitarian and Development Efforts: Building a Long-term, Sustainable Relief System

Sustainable development in conflict zones differs fundamentally from standard ESG frameworks. How does the ICRC integrate emergency relief with long-term resilience building in projects such as water supply and healthcare?

This is an important question. Traditionally, the ICRC's core expertise has been in emergency, short-term relief, while long-term development work is typically undertaken by development agencies. However, today, strengthening collaboration between humanitarian and development agencies, leveraging their respective comparative advantages, is increasingly vital for ensuring the continuity and impact of relief operations, preserving essential services and infrastructure, and enhancing the risk resilience and self-sufficiency of people affected by conflict. This is the Humanitarian-Development Nexus. Combining humanitarian action and protection dialogue with the long-term vision and financing capacity of development institutions helps achieve more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. In protracted conflicts, we often face challenges driven by complex factors such as conflict, climate change, and health crises. In such situations, collaborative efforts across humanitarian and development fields are key to preventing service collapse and adapting to conflict pressures.

Although our core work is short-term relief, the ICRC's responses also have long-term impacts. For example, our staff repair water supply networks and power grids, conduct capacity building and vocational training, and establish water plants. These efforts will yield long-term benefits for local populations.

I would like to cite three examples showcasing the sustainable impact of our humanitarian work conducted in coordination and partnership with development agencies and corporate entities:

Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo: To enable hundreds of thousands of people to access safe, affordable drinking water, the ICRC is implementing a large-scale water project in Goma. Launched in 2019, the Goma West Resilient Water Project involves constructing a drinking water supply system including water treatment plants, pumping stations, and reservoirs. Supported by the World Bank, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and the Lombard Odier Foundation, it will bring positive, sustainable change to the lives of hundreds of thousands.

Yemen: The ICRC, in collaboration with the World Bank, is implementing the Yemen Food Security Response and Resilience Project, addressing both short- and medium-term goals to improve food availability and access to nutrition.

Gaza: In the past two years, we established a Red Cross field hospital in Rafah, Gaza, to address urgent local medical needs. Since becoming operational in May 2024, the hospital has performed over 11,300 surgeries, conducted 250,000 consultations, assisted with 1,200 deliveries, provided 19,200 physiotherapy sessions, and facilitated at least 1,500 blood transfusions. Local medical needs remain urgent, prompting the ICRC to decide on refurbishing and upgrading the hospital to continue providing life-saving medical services. This hospital is supported by many partner Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies from various countries, including the Red Cross Society of China (both its headquarters and Hong Kong branch).

In China, we maintain close cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the China International Development Cooperation Agency, the Red Cross Society of China, and related institutions to jointly explore pathways for addressing humanitarian needs on the ground. We appreciate China's financial contributions supporting humanitarian action in countries affected by armed conflict. We hope that through further cooperation and mutual trust, China can increase its financial support to the ICRC to address the growing humanitarian needs caused by armed conflicts.

Empowering Chinese Enterprises Going Global: Integrating Humanitarian Compliance into Core ESG Systems

For Chinese enterprises expanding into high-risk regions, how should humanitarian compliance be integrated into ESG and sustainability frameworks? What practical, actionable advice can you offer?

Companies operating in high-risk or complex environments face significantly elevated risks. Such areas are often characterized by weak governance, poor management of public or private security forces, widespread violations of national and international law, acute social tensions, and sometimes direct involvement in armed conflict.

Simultaneously, various stakeholders—including investors, regulators, multilateral lenders, insurers, and local communities—increasingly expect companies operating in such environments to address humanitarian impacts, such as civilian casualties, displacement, labor exploitation, food and water insecurity, and conflict sensitivity, as part of responsible business conduct.

Therefore, for Chinese enterprises expanding into high-risk regions, moving beyond traditional ESG metrics is no longer optional but a necessity. A practical approach is to view humanitarian compliance strategically, integrating it into core governance frameworks that combine ESG, enterprise risk management, and overseas strategy, rather than treating it as a separate philanthropy or corporate social responsibility module.

Specifically, companies operating in high-risk regions can strengthen the implementation of their ESG obligations in four key areas:

1. Adopt a proactive, conflict-sensitive approach.

2. Conduct dynamic, enhanced due diligence.

3. Make policy commitments to respect IHL.

4. Align domestic guidelines with international frameworks and emphasize the localization of ESG implementation.

Over two decades ago, the ICRC began systematically engaging with business actors operating in complex environments. Over the years, we have collaborated with various partners to develop a comprehensive set of reference materials on conflict prevention and due diligence, including the "Toolkit on Responsible Business and Security Management in Complex Environments," the "Guide on Business and International Humanitarian Law," and the "Conflict Prevention Handbook." We hope these tools and resources can assist Chinese enterprises in conducting more effective conflict analysis and enhanced due diligence, and in better fulfilling their ESG obligations in high-risk regions.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Humanitarian Governance Requires Collaborative Empowerment and Institutional Innovation

What do you see as the most prominent leadership gap in the global humanitarian system over the next five years? What is your call to action for the next generation of leaders in the ESG and humanitarian sectors?

I believe that, as in many global sectors, leadership in the humanitarian field increasingly requires multidisciplinary capabilities to address a diverse range of issues encompassing ESG considerations, funding, and high-risk humanitarian crises. The next generation of leaders should perhaps focus more on building mechanisms rather than solely delivering material aid. This requires a stronger vision for cross-sectoral collaboration to build sustainable infrastructure in fragile contexts. Furthermore, leaders must stay current, adeptly utilizing emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Future leaders should also consider how to empower local communities, fostering a shift from a "provider" mindset to a "partner" mindset in both humanitarian and ESG fields. Concurrently, local communities may transition from being "beneficiaries" of humanitarian aid to designers of localized aid mechanisms, better building their own resilience.