Let’s show that humanity can do better by United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs   Geneva, 11 March 2026   Remarks at Press Conference on 87 Million Lives Campaign by Tom Fletcher, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. (Extract):   "I want to start by saying that we’re living through a moment right now of grave peril across the Middle East. We’re seeing these crises escalate rapidly and increasingly collide in dangerous ways. We’re seeing violence reverberate across borders, displacement, economic shocks, soaring humanitarian needs – and we’re seeing the consequences spread faster than we can respond.   Later this afternoon, I’ll make three asks of the United Nations Security Council.   Firstly, that civilians, all civilians, wherever they are in the region, must be protected. Constant care must be taken to spare civilians and critical civilian infrastructure, schools, hospitals, at all times and by all parties. And humanitarians must be protected and our movements facilitated.   My second ask: we must be supported to go wherever the needs are in the region. I’ve reaffirmed our readiness to help Lebanese, Iranian, Palestinian, Israeli or other civilians, as needed. Humanitarian action is always harder in times of war, but this is, of course, when it is most needed. We call on Member States to help ensure that our life-saving work continues.   And a third ask of the Security Council is for a revival of strategic, calm, rational, patient, hopeful diplomacy – we need calmer heads to prevail. Peacemaking is hard, but it is always better and takes more courage than the alternatives.   So, every time you hear the powerful attack the UN, ask yourself what they gain by weakening us. Let’s have the courage instead, to recommit to lasting peace, sustained stability, dependable governance and international law.   The developments of the last two weeks are further confirmation that we’re living in a time of brutality, impunity and indifference. The rules-based scaffolding meant to restrain the worst excesses of war is cracking.   Human ingenuity is being applied to find ever more sinister ways to kill at scale, while civilians are subjected to ever more abject violence.   Aid workers are increasingly under attack. Just today, three more of my humanitarian colleagues, in Sudan, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and in Lebanon have, I’m afraid, been killed.   So, this is a tough moment for humanitarian action. We are overstretched, under sustained attack and under-resourced, but we refuse to retreat from our principles and we refuse to retreat from our mission. We refuse to give up on the people who rely on us to survive.   Ans that’s why today I actually want to talk a bit about something more uplifting: a global mission to rediscover solidarity and humanity, even in these toughest of times.   Just over 87 days ago, the humanitarian community unveiled a hyper-prioritized humanitarian plan calling for $23 billion to reach 87 million people this year with life-saving support.   87 million people, more than died in the Second World War, the catastrophe that, of course, led to the creation of the United Nations. And of course, behind every number is a life, is a story.   We gave ourselves 87 days to challenge Member States to back this plan with resolve, with resources, with a determination to deliver in 2026. Of course, the real needs are far greater than just those 87 million lives. And, of course, we have vital, vital appeals that go well beyond $23 billion, but what we’ve done here is to prioritize on the basis of greatest need, where the most urgent cases are that we must respond to first.   This plan will be delivered by around 2,000 humanitarian organizations across our extraordinary global humanitarian community. Over 60 per cent of them are local partners, local organizations.   In January, we reached over 7 million people with life-saving support – and they are the 7 million people facing the most severe needs in the most hard-to-reach places across 17 of our operations. In Sudan alone, we reached almost 2 million people in January, despite the security challenges we face.   Imagine delivering that same result every month, this year: 7 million lives a month. We can do that if we get the support we need, and we would then reach our target of saving 87 million lives across the year.   I said over 87 days ago, when we announced this plan that we would set out where we were on the funding at this stage. So far we've received $5 billion for the plan, with additional pledges and announcements, bringing the total to $8.7 billion. But we still face a massive gap without additional support, millions of people will die.   So we need those countries who’ve made these pledges to deliver that disbursement quickly. We need those who have more funds available to get those funds moving fast towards this plan in the first half of the year, not the second half, to allow us to deliver where support is most needed. And we need more partners to come forward, from the private sector, everyone who can to join this global effort.   We still need over $14 billion now to deliver this plan, and this is at a time when conflict in the Middle East is costing $1 billion dollars a day. Listen to that number and feel the shame that I feel that we’re spending a billion dollars a day on this war. Even just $1 billion would allow us to save millions of lives.   So the choice is, are we going to close this gap? The resources exist, but does the solidarity?   We’re not asking you to choose between a hospital in Brooklyn, London, Mexico City, Rio, Manila, or a hospital in Kandahar, Akobo, Aleppo, Port-au-Prince. We’re asking you just to recognize that maybe the world can spend a little less on weapons this year and more on saving lives. (In 2025, Global military spending was $2.7 trillion)   A recent global survey demonstrated that supporters of international aid outnumber opponents by four to one. There is a movement of billions supporters out there.   I believe that when people understand what humanitarian funding represents and delivers, they overwhelmingly support this action – it’s about solidarity, humanity, kindness.   Our ask, therefore, is simple. Choose solidarity. Choose this year to save 87 million lives. No one can end every crisis, but together, we can help end someone’s crisis – one life at a time. Let’s make 2026 a story of genuine solidarity and genuine hope. Let’s show that humanity can do better.   Q: You mentioned the $1 billion cost every day of the war. How much does it cost in extra humanitarian needs? In other words, do you have to already revise the plan that you unveiled in December?   Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: Yes, the cost of our response is going up, and we will have to prioritize even harder and further with the resources that we have. We basically have to make do responding to crisis as they come.   Because of the conflict in the region, we are now going to have to scale up further in places like Lebanon, for example. I’m having to use more money from the Central Emergency Response Fund to react to these crises across the region. And every time we do that, it means that we have to deprioritize the response elsewhere at a time when, as I say, the needs go well beyond the 87 million people in critical need.   I’m also really worried about rising food costs, energy costs, fertilizer costs as this conflict goes on. I’m worried that further escalation will damage other supply routes. All of this has a direct impact on our humanitarian supplies, including going to areas of key need in sub-Saharan Africa. But more broadly, the conflict drives up the prices and so drives more people into greater need.   Q: I was wondering what kind of contingency plans you are looking at for the region – if you have any estimates yet, of the numbers of numbers of people, more people who will be in need or who will be displaced because of the conflict now. Is there any way of estimating that? Also, you mentioned that you’re calling on countries to spend less on weapons and more on solidarity, but I think the trend that we’re seeing right now is going in the opposite direction, with more spending on a lot of arms.   Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: It’s hard for us to predict how many will be displaced, but already, hundreds of thousands of people are on the move. Many in Iran are internally displaced at the moment.. Of course, that’s already happening in Lebanon, where you have hundreds of thousands displaced.. Those numbers are very worrying, and every day of the war pushes more people away from their homes and their communities. I’m sorry, the second question?   Q: It was on the weapons spending.   Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: I think the world has decided that it’s far more interested in spending enormous amounts of money developing increasingly deadly weapons than it is on saving lives. It seems to have decided that it hasn’t got time to work on ensuring that the rules that govern these weapons, these lethal autonomous weapons, keep up with the pace of technology.   So you’ve got this dangerous alliance between very innovative technology and huge amounts of money and people’s desire to kill more people – and that’s a toxic combination. Last year, 90 per cent of all deaths caused by drones and other explosive weapons in populated areas were civilians.   And we’re seeing that across the crises on which we work – whether it’s Gaza, Sudan or in Ukraine, we’re seeing these bad practices move between crises. The bad actors are actually discovering newer ways to kill and learning from each other new ways to kill, and we’re struggling to keep up with that innovation in killing.   I’m really concerned that this conflict whenever it ends, or whenever people claim it ends, this phase of the conflict, will mean that in the next phase, people will be spending even more money on arms and defense, because they’ll be more anxious about the next conflict. There’ll be even less funding for humanitarian action.   But you also have this knock-on effect on international law and international trust. It will be even harder for us to stand up the systems and processes, the scaffolding, that’s meant to hold the world together because it’s facing such sustained attritional attack. So that’s what I mean about the warning lights are flashing red right now.   Q: Can you elaborate a little more on other areas where you need to channel funds to save lives. Besides the Middle East region, what about other crisis areas that are not getting into the spotlight, like Central and West Africa?   Under-Secretary-General Fletcher: I’m glad that you mentioned the neglected crises, because this is a big concern we have. There are many neglected crises: Gaza, Sudan, Haiti, DRC, South Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon is moving up the list as we speak, crisis in sub-Saharan Africa.. We are struggling to fundraise for the Sahel, where you have a lot of people in need. The Ukraine crisis is, of course, a massive humanitarian crisis.   What we are trying to do across these major crises and many others is to show where the gaps are and to ensure that as a world, we’re not neglecting those in real need of our support".   http://www.unognewsroom.org/story/en/3044/un-relief-chief-presser-tom-fletcher http://humanitarianaction.info/document/global-humanitarian-overview-2026 http://www.unocha.org/latest/news-and-stories   * A US Iran War Cost Tracker: http://iran-cost-ticker.com/   17 Mar. 2026   US war spending in Iran could have saved 87 million lives, says UN. (EU Observer)   The money spent by the US attacking Iran over the past two weeks could have saved the lives of 87 million people, according to the United Nations.   “The US alone has already spent more money on this conflict in the last two and a half weeks than the $23bn we need to save 87 million lives this year,” said Tom Fletcher, a senior official at the United Nations.   The Trump administration spent over $11.3bn in the first six days alone of its war against Iran.   Speaking to European lawmakers at the development committee on the 17th of March, Mr Fletcher said the $23bn also represents less than one percent of what the world will spend this year on guns and arms and defence.   “This is a very tough time to be a humanitarian. It’s a very tough time actually, to be a UN official,” he said, noting that major UN agencies and international NGOs have been forced to cut a third of their staff.   Mr Fletcher, whose full official title is UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator is appealing for greater international funding to support those in urgent need. As hundreds of child nutrition centres for severely malnourished children shut down in multiple vulnerable countries.   Last year was marked a stark reversal for global aid funding. Major donors implemented drastic cuts despite escalating crises, raising alarms about a funding shortfall. As a result, only about one-third of global humanitarian needs were funded last year.   Over 240 million people are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, says UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).   The funding cuts has forced the UN to prioritise only 87 million people facing life threatening needs. But only $5bn has been mobilised so far, or about 15 percent of what is needed.   http://euobserver.com/207273/us-war-spending-in-iran-could-have-saved-87-million-lives-says-un/   * The Iran War Is Breaking Global Humanitarian Aid Efforts   The war in Iran has triggered severe global economic disruption, choking off disaster relief supply chains and spiking oil prices—further exacerbating existing humanitarian crises. Sam Vigersky an international affairs fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations calls on the Trump administration to immediately release the $5.5 billion that the US Congress recently appropriated to the WFP, UNHCR, and NGOs working mitigate the global fallout from the crisis.   "Even that funding would not contain what is unfolding across the globe. That figure is less than half of what the United States historically devoted toward international humanitarian response, and it arrives at a moment of growing need. Still, releasing those funds would be an immediate, and desperately needed, first step. As Congress debates supplemental funding for the war with Iran, the United States already has money appropriated for a humanitarian response sitting inside the State Department. Moving it quickly—and following up with a larger surge of funding—may determine whether millions of people teetering on the edge of survival fall into catastrophe".   http://www.cfr.org/articles/the-iran-war-is-breaking-global-humanitarian-aid-efforts http://www.cfr.org/articles/the-iran-wars-hidden-front-food-water-and-fertilizer http://www.unops.org/news-and-stories/speeches/millions-of-people-around-the-world-at-risk-over-three-weeks-on-the-war-in-the-middle-east http://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-projects-food-insecurity-could-reach-record-levels-result-middle-east-escalation http://www.unocha.org/news/closure-hormuz-could-have-immense-impact-humanitarian-operations-un-relief-chief-warns http://www.rescue.org/press-release/closure-strait-hormuz-and-regional-airspace-closures Visit the related web page
	Why international law is still the world’s best defence by Fatou Bensouda, Sam Shoamanesh Former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court   Mar. 2026   Should we permit the foundations of international law to erode, the world would slip once more into anarchy and chaos.   Conceived in the long shadow of global devastation, the post–World War II order was constructed -imperfect yet purposeful – to shield humanity from a similar catastrophe.   In 1943, as the tides of battle in World War II began to turn in favour of the Allied powers, United States President Franklin D Roosevelt warned: “Unless the peace that follows recognises that the whole world is one neighbourhood, and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind.”   Today, that coveted peace is increasingly fragile.   The post-war architecture conceived to avert great-power conflict, institutionalise interstate cooperation, reduce hot wars, and entrench human rights within binding international law is now under acute pressures. It faces a combustible mix of resurgent ultranationalism, hyperintensified zero-sum strategic rivalries and hegemonic power plays, the fragmentation of longstanding alliances, and the brazen repudiation of established norms.   Multilateral institutions that once underwrote stability are increasingly marginalised or instrumentalised in the service of Machiavellian politics. Foundational treaties are hollowed out or breached outright, compliance regimes weakened, and enforcement mechanisms rendered inert—leaving the post-war international system exposed to the very coercive power politics it was designed to contain.   The result is a palpable drift towards an unchecked “force-based order”, under which might displaces right, and power eclipses principle.   International orders do not suddenly unravel because of political declarations broadcast at podiums, nor because of the conduct of aberrant outliers. They collapse when those collectively entrusted with their stewardship neglect to properly defend them – when resolve gives way to timidity, principle is bartered for political expedience, and moral clarity is supplanted by double standards.   Unless the international community acts with resolve to defend and modernise the international order – fortifying rather than constraining it, including by making it more representative and meaningfully inclusive – the global system will drift toward a far more volatile and perilous disequilibrium.   The United Nations charter – one of the central instruments of the post-war legal infrastructure – is under threat. The charter enshrines the bedrock rule of the modern international order that no state may threaten or use force except in self-defence or with UN Security Council authorisation.   That peremptory norm – the foundation of the collective security architecture – is now visibly fraying. As raw power eclipses legal restraint, and the silence or equivocation of the many emboldens the few, the prohibition on the illegal use of force risks sliding from binding law into empty rhetoric.   Almost overnight, the threat of force – and even unilateral military action undertaken without legal authorisation or meaningful deliberation – has begun to crystallise into a disturbing new normal. This accelerating erosion of established norms is not a passing anomaly; it is a structural shift with profound implications for international peace and security.   Institutions of international law, which have played a decisive role in preventing conflict and advancing accountability are also threatened.   The International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – has successfully adjudicated numerous interstate disputes, demonstrating the power of legal mechanisms over hard power and military confrontation.   Efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account – from Nuremberg to the creation of UN ad hoc tribunals – paved the way for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its creation in 2002 sent a powerful message that mass atrocities as merely politics by other means must no longer receive a pass, that perpetrators must be held accountable, and that impunity can no longer be tolerated.   The historic cultivation of these norms may be considered a crowning achievement as this normative transformation has not only awakened humanity’s consciousness regarding atrocities, but has also reshaped expectations of accountability for such grave crimes, and recast the very narrative and language with which we confront these vital questions.   And yet, those very powers that once shaped, and at least on the surface, nurtured these norms and institutions of international justice, now blatantly erode their integrity—whether by defiance, selective invocation, or politicisation. Thus, the edifice of collective restraint trembles, vulnerable to the machinations of those who prize unbridled power above principle.   To be sure, such regression diminishes the security and prosperity of all participants in the international system, irrespective of their size or influence.   Yet another grave assault on the very foundation of human rights advocacy lies in the entrenched “culture” of convenient indignation and performative empathy by states and self-serving and ideologically inclined actors alike.   Such expedient outrage and hollow sympathy erode the credibility of the pursuit of justice, undermining the universality of dignity for which we strive.   International law cannot be invoked à la carte, nor enforced with expedient selectivity.   Perhaps the greatest threat to international justice is not just outright opposition from ill-wishers but indifference and arbitrary application. The contrasting global reactions to different theatres of conflict in the past decade alone lay bare the hypocrisy that undermines faith in the universality and effectiveness of international law.   When our compassion is contingent upon political expedience, convenience or dictated by the fleeting spotlight of media attention or social media clickbait, we betray the fundamental, universal principle at the heart of human dignity.   Just as questionable are those who conveniently brandish the language of human rights not as “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, but as a tactical instrument of lawfare deployed against political adversaries. Such deceptive tactics not only trivialise the suffering of victims but can also fuel and perpetuate the very conditions that enable even graver human rights abuses.   Indeed, ancient wisdom bears counsel: “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”. In this environment, smaller states and middle powers, in particular, cannot afford passivity.   They must coordinate with strategic clarity and act with resolve to defend and reinforce a rules-based global system anchored in real and principled commitment to international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes.   Perspective is important. The Western world, even when considered as a whole, comprises about 11 to 15 percent of the global population; the remaining 85 to 89 percent of humanity resides beyond it.   In a century increasingly defined by multipolarity, the convergent interests of the so-called Global North and Global South in safeguarding peace and stability within – and one hopes beyond – their respective spheres of influence must rise above the complacencies and double standards that have long underwritten the status quo.   True advocacy demands courage – to uphold and apply the law equally and impartially, even when doing so is uncomfortable, unpopular, or personally costly.   It is the discipline to defend rights not only when they align with powerful interests, or “tribal” and prevailing sentiments but wherever justice demands it.   The legitimacy and potency of international justice are also fundamentally anchored in ethical leadership and an unwavering fidelity to principle. It is incumbent upon the stewards of international institutions, courts and tribunals to embody integrity, impartiality, and steadfast dedication to their mandates.   When these ethical foundations are shaken or compromised, the repercussions are deep and lasting: public confidence disintegrates, victims suffer renewed injustice, adversaries are emboldened, and the quest for justice is dealt a blow.   The character and courage of those at the helm are not mere virtues, but the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of international justice stands.   This is our clarion call: should we permit the foundations of international law to erode—whether through selective justice, passive indifference, or the cynical calculus of unprincipled politics—the world would slip once more into the shadows of anarchy and chaos.   We cannot yield to a world order defined by unchecked aggression, the erosion of sovereign borders under predation, and the unravelling of hard-won international norms. To acquiesce to such decline is to legitimise disorder as a governing principle, invite instability, normalise coercion, and accelerate a descent into systematic violence.   The cost would be borne by societies worldwide, in shattered security, fractured institutions, and immeasurable human suffering. It is our shared responsibility to avert this regression.   By steadfastly upholding international law, nations around the world do more than safeguard their own futures; they erect barriers against the reckless impulses of would-be aggressors, protecting all – including the aggressors themselves – from the dire consequences of unfettered conflict.   Indifference is not an option. Wilful blindness is complicity. In standing in firm defence of international law, we are not only enforcing norms – we are shaping the trajectory of our civilisation and honouring the enduring promise of humanity itself.   The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet triumph – a beacon guiding our gradual rise from unbridled brute force towards greater order, justice, and civilisation. We must never allow the law to fall silent, for it stands as humanity’s foremost defender.   * Fatou Bensouda is the former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (2012-2021). Sam Sasan Shoamanesh served as Chef de Cabinet to Fatou Bensouda during her mandate as ICC Prosecutor.
	View more stories