Stephane Bussard/Le Temps - The former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan outlined his vision on Tuesday. The humanitarian forum which he is supposed to run from this autumn in Geneva should gather together humanitarian actors in order to “exchange experiences on dealing with major crises”. The Director of the Academy for international humanitarian law and human rights, Andrew Clapham, sheds light on the aims of the future forum. The professor has drafted a report for the Swiss government which aims to develop the way forward in making Geneva the humanitarian capital.

Why set up a humanitarian forum in Geneva? Is n’t there a danger of creating a new body just for the sake of it?

The idea was first mooted nearly a year ago. I talked to a number of non governmental organisations and agencies working in the humanitarian field. I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t in Geneva a space where the players could discuss humanitarian policy. It will be up to Kofi Annan and his committee to decide the shape of the forum. But I imagine that it could for example discuss the impacts of sanctions imposed on a state and how to ensure they are applied in a sensible manner. This is not about coordinating humanitarian action but humanitarian policy.

Could we call it the humanitarian equivalent of Davos?

No, it is not about networking nor marketing. It is about boosting humanitarian action. We have to be clear about this: such a space is outside that of governments and it won’t have any power to set international standards.

What can Kofi Annan bring, apart from his address book?

He has lived through some major events in the humanitarian field. He has taken part in discussions related to various crises within the UN. It is an experience that will prove very useful when talking to other players.

Your report written for the Swiss Department for Foreign Affairs is about finding ways of making Geneva the humanitarian capital?

The word capital is too strong, as it implies that Geneva is going to decide everything. That is not the case. It is not a question of reinventing the wheel. The resources are there, but they have not been sufficiently used and shared. Everything is currently rather all over the place. Geneva should be presenting itself more as a hub where humanitarian law and human rights can be debated within the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and its humanist traditions.

There is one thing that we must avoid - mixing up the humanitarian field and that of human rights. Each field is certainly linked, but each has its own identity. The International Committee of the Red Cross for example can not allow itself the luxury of mixing the two. In order to have access to prisoners of war, it needs confidentiality and can not be seen like Amnesty International as a defender of human rights. Any misunderstandings could be extremely awkward.

Why all the excitement? Had people forgotten that Geneva has these resources?

The creation of the Council of Human Rights has been the catalyst. And in Berne, with Micheline Calmy-Rey, the interest around Geneva has increased. At the academic level, the creation of a new Institute for International Studies and Development and Academy for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights has added to the momentum. It is now important to be inventive. In my report, I put forward other proposals to build momentum around Geneva: offering grants for young people from developing countries to study humanitarian subjects in Geneva or setting up an institute for human rights in order to build links between the two fields.