Bonessi: It’s been a challenging time to be part of a humanitarian organization in the U.S.

[News Reels] “The United States has long been the largest donor of foreign aid in the world”….“US cuts to foreign aid are taking their toll on vulnerable people around the world”…“Late today the US State Department, suspended all foreign assistance around the world for at least three months.”

Bonessi: The terms: foreign assistance aid and foreign aid have been discussed a lot lately. But, what do they really mean, and can humanitarian aid to help people affected by conflict and violence—the work we do at International Committee of the Red Cross—really meet an America-first agenda. Here’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio:

[Recording of Marco Rubio] “Does it make America Safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

Bonessi: I’m Dominique Maria Bonessi and this is Intercross, a podcast from the International Red Cross.

INTERCROSS INTERLUDE MUSIC

Bonessi: We’re trying something new today. I’m handing over the reins to our Head of the Regional Delegation for the U.S. and Canada Fabrizio Carboni who sits down with Kathryn-Jean Lopez, editor-at-large at the National Review, a US magazine and new site focused on conservative commentary. Kathryn, who is based in New York, was chatting remotely with Fabrizio, who is based in here in Washington during a noisy Police Week. Their conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

————————————————————————————————————————

Fabrizio: Hi Kathryn. I hope you’re doing well.

Kathryn: I am. I am. Thanks for having

Fabrizio: I think we have, an interesting discussion. You know, ‘m mainly coming from the field.

You know, I spent all my career, in operations. Uh, I’ve been in many places in Sudan, in Afghanistan, Colombia, I mean, you name it, many operational places. And today I’m in Washington. It’s a more political place , for me, and it’s also an interesting place because. The United States, an important partner of the ICRC.

Often people tend to focus on the financial aspects, but I would say that our relationship with the US is especially important for political reasons because the US is often present in many places where we work. I think the US as a society, not just as authorities, is very invested in the humanitarian field, in, different ways.

So, for us it’s really important this position. So the first thing I would like to share with you, I’m first time that I believe in the us, I’m, I see how religion is important in the humanitarian commitment of, of many, uh, actors in the us. And a question I have for you is that on one hand this seems to be, I would say, almost a transactional push, you know, on humanitarian action for an aid.

You know, we need to make the US stronger, safer, and more prosperous, which I understand from a state perspective. But there is then, uh, I would say the more moral, ethical, religious commitments, which resonates a lot with me. I’m not religious, but I’m Catholic educated. Mm-hmm. And, and my, you might turn work, I mean, is anchor into those values, you know?

So that’s the first question for you, you know, how to reconcile the, the current environment. With your, your values.

Kathryn: Yeah. It’s uh, you know, it’s, interesting. Um, before we went on air, you were talking about how these kind of turbulent times force you to, go back to foundational questions. Why did you get involved in this?

What is most important, what are our priorities? And that certainly is the case right now. And, I kind of see the faith-based organizations and the churches and the temples and the mosques as, as sort of the conscience, right? For the political. Of course this can be a very dangerous territory because sometimes the religious becomes manipulated by the political and sometimes on purpose, sometimes it kind of happens, people get swept up in, in the political. And obviously as, as you already alluded to Fabrizio, um, there are practical concerns that states have. There are financial concerns that states have, there are border concerns that states have.

There are national security concerns that states have, but it is not only because of our values and because we don’t wanna make God mad, that a state should consider, its commitments to foreign humanitarian aid oftentimes. It is a national security issue too. I know people who work in the humanitarian area who will point out the Marshall Plan was humanitarian, it was also national security, you know, no question about it.

And so that’s definitely something to bear in mind. But um, particularly in a US context when we’re talking about. The current administration and kind of these unprecedented cuts that have been happening almost from the outside. Right. The administration’s letting it happen. But you’ve got, the businessman doing it, Elon Musk.

It is necessary to think through. Oh, okay. Like what? Not every cut is equal. And we’re in a situation where we know if we take, say the PEPFAR program, the AIDS in Africa program, we know that babies are dying because we’re trying to cut money. And look, I’m a conservative. I don’t want the government wasting taxpayer money.

I know that U-S-A-I-D was wasting money. But there are also places where it wasn’t wasting money. Mm-hmm. And our foreign aid in the US is 1% of our budget. It’s not gonna change our deficit situation dramatically we, let babies in Africa die because of , decisions we’re making and not making in a very considered way, I’d argue.

And so it is really important that that religious folks call us to our better angels, but also to remind us there are actually also selfish reasons. Not only, I mean, do we care about our neighbor, but we also don’t wanna be known as the country that decided all of a sudden that we’re gonna let babies die in Africa.

Fabrizio: It’s interesting because sometime I wonder whether. Under foreign aids, we don’t put too many things, you know, in the sense that, for instance, I would say that conflict humanitarian action is, I don’t, when I, I’m listening what is said about foreign aids, I have a hard time to connect it to , emergency humanitarian aid. We can do in places like today. Congo Sudan. I mean, you name it. And, and I, when I’m listening to you, I have the impression that you also face this probably sometime superficial understanding of what is foreign aid. And I understand the political dimension and, I mean, we want politics with a capital P. So I, I would never go against this, but I have the impression that probably sometime. We simplify a bit too much challenge.

Kathryn: Yeah, absolutely. And it is a challenge to get busy people with busy lives, to focus on a crisis in Congo or Kenya or wherever it is. And it’s also hard, and occasionally you have journalists from both sides, so to speak who focus on particular human beings. And that starts to change to the conversation a bit when you realize we’re not just talking about a class of people, we’re talking about actual, you know, an actual son or daughter of someone, an actual parent, actual orphans, because of, of work that we’re no longer supporting.

Again, I’m a conservative. I don’t agree with Nicholas Christophe all the time from the New York Times, but he did a wonderful job recently, focusing on some stories, of people who were being hurt because, of our cuts from the AIDS in Africa program, we need those stories to be told.

To help, to help us with the challenge of getting people to focus on the importance of foreign aid.

Fabrizio: It’s interesting because it’s the second time that you mentioned that you’re conservative and I, tend to believe that, uh, my experience of the U.S. it’s actually the support to. I would say humanitarian action is a bipartisan support. Yeah. I mean, obviously I put aside the fraud and, and the inefficiency. I mean, we’re not talking, I’m not talking about this my experience for instance, of congress or, or my experience even of, think tanks or civil society in general in the us. I believe that when we managed to make our case for a humanitarian action. An efficient humanitarian action, a frontline humanitarian action and humanitarian action. Focus on people and, and not on other, I would say political consideration. I often, not often, I always meet a bipartisan support, so I’m not claiming that I met all Congress and I met everybody but. I would say in my view, I met , a representative sample I believe of the political forces in the US and, and what we stand for, um, resonates. I mean, we don’t agree on everything because I mean, life is complex. Conflict is complex. Politic is complex. But I would say, I never met somebody saying, you know, no, it doesn’t matter. You know, we don’t care. I have sometime difficulties to reconcile this, I believe bipartisan, support and commitment to what I would call humanitarian values and sometime what I hear, or I would say financial decision, which are taken. I have some time difficulties reconciling this.

Kathryn: I guess that’s why I point out I’m conservative for two reasons. One is probably to conservatives who would say, oh, you’re just a bleeding heart. You don’t care about government efficiency. No, I do, I do. But also to liberals who are like, oh, you’re just a typical conservative. You just want, you don’t care about human beings, you know, we have these caricatures, you know?

Fabrizio: It’s interesting because I, I think one of the challenge we face probably is to accept that, you know, I say that it’s bipartisan, but probably what I should say is that. It should be nonpartisan.

Kathryn: Nonpartisan. Yeah.

Fabrizio: Because, and, and it’s a hard one because today in the communication sphere, the social media, you always have to, to take a, a position, you always have to be in favor or against. And, and you can’t have this space where you just focus on, what you share, on, what you agree. For us, for instance, we are in conflict situation and we see that suffering is politicized. You know you have to put a value on a mother who has lost a son.

Kathryn: Mm-hmm

Fabrizio: I mean, and I’m sure that in your experience, you also experience this for me, that there is no, there shouldn’t be a political value. I mean, wherever is this person in the U.S. in Africa, and I’d be a bit more specific in Gaza, in Israel, for me it’s, it’s irrelevant, you know? Right. And, and, and this is something. Which I found increasingly difficult to pass as a message. The human value as such, and I, by the way, I don’t think that the, the US are responsible to, to have the burden exclusively on the US shoulder. There should be more. Burden sharing. I’m not saying this, but I, I found this. This concept increasingly challenged, I believe mainly for political reasons and there I’m not using political reason with a capital P, but a small one.

Kathryn: So you’ve been in the United States for almost a year. What’s most challenging in your work and what’s most surprising overall?

Fabrizio: I mean, surprising, not surprising, but I come back to, to what I told you, we work with the Department of Defense, State Department, Congress, American Red Cross, so I would say with many parts of society, and I’m very impressed how this I would call it humanitarian value is present. You know, it, it’s something, which goes beyond, in my view, what they have to say when they meet the Red Cross. If you go to the Department of Defense, you meet, you know, officers. I mean, they are soldiers. They’re combatants. You know, their, their job is to make war and, and no misunderstanding around this.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that, there are limits. In the way you use force. I, I’ve seen, I dunno if the word is the right one, but compassionate, I mean, they’re soldiers. I mean, I repeat, you know, no misunderstanding. They have a mission. They have a duty is to fight. And, and I’m a humanitarian and my objective is to have a dialogue with them and make sure that, you know, we see eye to eye on some limits to violence and how to use violence.

This being said, it’s very it’s very present and this is quite it is very impressive. The other thing, which is very striking king and when I arrived here I saw advertisement for veterans, and I have no memory of another country where veteran are so visible and I found it. Yeah. Inspiring. For us it’s important, when people are out of combat because they’re wounded, because they’re not fighting anymore and they’re living with the consequences of fighting, you know? Right. You can have psychological wounds, physical wounds, and, to see that they are present, that they matter, that population in general care about the veteran. This is quite unusual and to see this in the street, or when you go to Congress, you have those flags about, the missing inaction it’s something, maybe it connects to my previous point. You know, I think it’s a country who paid the price of, war, of being in conflict.

It’s something the public knows. It’s something you experience as member of society, you maybe have a friends, a brother, a father who was in the armed forces who fought. And this is very present and I believe that’s maybe why as International Committee of the Red Cross, when I have those interaction, there is something common because at one stage we share a common space, which is the space of violence, the space of conflict.And this is a very important experience, I would say. But a, question for you. When, when you observe a bit, what’s happening in places like Ukraine, like Gaza, Sudan. You know, what comes to your mind? I would say as, you know, I dunno if compassionate is the right word, but you’re committed. I think you’re compassionate. I think it’s a positive word, at least for me in my mouth, it’s a positive word. How do you see all those humanitarian drama?

Kathryn: Well, I think I have similar thoughts to you in as much as it, it drives me mad that. We can’t, we oftentimes can’t see simply a child who is suffering, whether they’re Israeli or Palestinian. You know the Catholic Church and the a Bethlehem, for instance, I know serves. Both Christians and non-Christians Jews and Muslims. And that’s gotta be at the heart of certainly the Christian’s attitude.

And that so often is the case with the faith-based social services and hospitals, schools, et cetera. I know in, in Iraq, for instance, after the ISIS genocide., In Irbil, so many Catholics and Yazidis wound up after they fled ISIS and they built a school, a university, they built a hospital and they serve everybody who made their way there. And that’s the way it ought to be.

But your point about the military and veterans. I have an additional take. I think part of it comes from there are a lot of us in the United States who don’t serve and don’t have family members, immediate family members who have served. And there is a consciousness about that and a gratitude.  In a sense that we owe the families who are making tremendous sacrifices and we owe the veterans who have given life or limb. I think a lot of that is a sense of gratitude. And I know this is a different topic, but one concern I certainly have about the United States is the danger of succumbing to anger and forgetting the gratitude. We have a lot that we need to be stewards of that came before us. And I think part of that attention to veterans is about gratitude and it’s super important and it is part of the reason that we some of us feel the need and actually this polls very well. The majority do support foreign aid, and part of it is because we are grateful for the gifts that we’ve been given. We’re grateful that we’re in a position where we can help others.

Fabrizio: Yeah. And, and if we go a bit on this, I dunno if the, the concept of transactional is the right one. You know, if now we need to think about, okay, how is. foreign aid, and in our case, more, humanitarian action contributing to this peace, stability, prosperity. I mean, how could we frame it? I mean, I know it’s not an easy one. I’m throwing at you, but how could we, beyond the moral and ethical commitment that we have and it’ll stay. I, at the same time, and I believe also for legitimate reason, we need to make our case right, that what we are doing is also, or at least not intention with those, uh, I would say, uh, objectives,

Kathryn: You could argue if the United States and other Western countries aren’t in the mix trying to help in, in Nigeria, for instance. Or Sudan, then you are going to have somebody else influence and you’re going to give the power to somebody else. And if you’ve got Islamic terrorists, in charge, that’s not good for anybody. And so that’s call it selfish, call it political, but it’s not a, an argument trying to pull it your heart strings.

Fabrizio: Obviously working in, in, in many parts of the world, being in Asia, like in Myanmar or Middle East I came maybe to the conclusion that religion is not the cause of violence. Very often the cause of violence are very common, are structural related to exclusion, instability. Knowing that tomorrow won’t be better than today.

Kathryn: Right.

Fabrizio: I have the impression that a well and efficient foreign aid, and to a less extent humanitarian action, contribute to an environment where people, would make different choices. Where people won’t move. You know, I, I’ve met a lot of, of IDPs refugees in my life, and there is one common denominator. If they had the choice, they would’ve stayed home. Most of the people, you know, when you are in those places, they’re asking you, oh, should I leave or not? And my answer is always the same. You know, if you leave, you’re not doing it for you because it’s not going to be nice. And, and I’m sure you have your experience in meeting refugees or migrants. They would rather stay home.  So I would tend to believe that very humbly our work contributes to. A conducive environment where people make different choices and choices with, which is not violence or displacement. I dunno, religion, I believe, I’m not an expert, but my field experience, I believe it’s just the, the sugar coating of something.

Kathryn: I think that’s absolutely the case. When you, when you can actually hear, ’cause it’s difficult for many reasons. And also people often don’t care to hear, but the stories of why, let’s say a young man becomes a terrorist it’s desperation, it’s anger, it’s no other way of seeing a future. That’s not to excuse any of that. But that’s how it happens, right? That’s how you know , Domestically, in any country. How do you, why do you wind up with a life of a crime? It’s probably because you were desperate, um, and you didn’t see any other way out. Which raises so many questions about how we can reach people earlier and all of that.

But, um, yeah, I think you’re right. And I also think too part, you know, religion is part of the solution in as much as it offers people and they’re free to choose it or not, but it offers people something more a hope that’s beyond this world. Right? And I think key, and so I do think it’s in, say, the national security of interests of countries to make room for religious freedom.

And I remember the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks saying at one point he was giving a speech and he talked about how. The best ecumenical work in the world happens on the front lines where you see Jews and Christians and Muslims and Buddhists working together in a crisis situation. Let’s say the Red Cross, right?

You’re not a religious organization, but there are people of all religious and no religious stripes, right? Who are doing good, and when people see that. They see, oh yeah, okay. Religion is a force for good actually , and even if I don’t believe, well, I want my neighbor to believe or those are good people or, and it’s good to have them around. And so then you start to like, care, say about, the small Christian population in Iraq, like, oh, it’s good to have them around. Okay. Even if I don’t wanna be one of them, that’s fine. You know? Yeah. I do think, more generally, religion, makes us, Pope Francis used to say more tender the compassion you were talking about it makes us look at people as human beings, which is, it goes back to the challenge you raised before. Sometimes it is just hard to get people to care about what’s happening in a country on the other side of the planet. That’s just because we only have, as people, we only have so much time, almost only so much attention. So we both have to know some of the stories of the people who are suffering and also what people are capable of when they’re given a little help. And also to see some of the motivations of the people who are doing humanitarian work, whether it’s secular or faith-based.

Fabrizio: Kathryn just we’re reaching the end. So I think on one hand, you know, there is this human dimension this empathy. For the other, I would say this moral, ethical dimension. At the same time, I don’t think it can, it can’t be the only drive because as you said, you know, it’s hard to care for everybody. At one stage we are emotionally saturated by what’s happening around us. That’s why, by the way, I don’t like to make people feel guilty. Sure. Because. They’re not crying every two days for what’s happening in Papua New Guinea or what’s happening in it, or because I think it’s unfair because we, there’s, there is so much we can take emotionally, so I don’t like too much this aspect. Nevertheless, there is an empathy that is I remember after the attack on Israel I remember. This concept of doom scrolling sucked a lot of us in, we just see all these horrible, horrible stories. Yeah. And a human being cannot take it. Yeah, no, Exactly. And you know, you can also see that, you know, you had Ukraine then quickly after you had Ethiopia, quickly after you have Sudan, then you have.

What happened in Gaza, and Israel, and, and it’s really hard to stay emotionally connected to all those crisis one after the other. And by the way, I think for this, the US public in general, nevertheless stays connected, nevertheless, remains very generous of its time. I mean, private fundraising in the US is unbelievable, you know? I found it, it’s credit to the American people. And then next to this emotional moral, there is a more rational approach. And I believe that rational Yeah. Or transactional, I dunno how to call it exactly. And I believe the current situation forced us to think about it. And there are less resources. And so the question, it’s first obviously increase those resources as much as we can. And two, how do we make sure that each and every dollar we have is spent the best way possible trying to create humanitarian value for each and every dollar we spend? And it’s not an easy one. It’s not an easy one to demonstrate because we tend to believe that because we are humanitarian, we do good things,

Kathryn: Right?

Fabrizio: By definition.

Kathryn: Right,

Fabrizio: And it’s not always the case. So that’s how I would summarize the moment in which we are a moment which, um, force us to obviously [00:31:30] increase as much as we can, the resources available because the situation is dramatic around the world, and at the same time, be efficient and aware that each and every dollar we receive comes from somebody. Right. Who gives it to us to do something good.

Kathryn: And also I’d just add that obviously one wants to be a good steward of resources and money in particular. But there’s also the real world. people are watching. And I guess if there’s an upside to this what’s happening with foreign aid in the US in particular and some of the excesses? Yeah. Let’s say one of the upsides is, yeah, everyone knows, look, the money is being watched and how it’s being used. And so if it makes everybody a little more honest and a little more, um, yeah, a little more honest, that would be an upside.

Bonessi: That was Kathryn-Jean Lopez, the editor-at-large of the National Review, speaking with ICRC’s Head of the Regional Delegation for the U.S. & Canada Fabrizio Carboni.

If you like what you hear on the podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen.

If you’d like to learn more about our work please visit intercrossblog.icrc.org and follow us on X.com @ICRC_DC.

See you next time on Intercross.

Music for this episode was provided by: Tension Music Box by Universfield — https://freesound.org/s/735313/ — License: Attribution 4.0