On 21-22 May, 2026, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and the IFRC Solferino Academy, convened specialists from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and China based institutions, to discuss how growing involvement from Asian countries in global humanitarianism will shape how international humanitarian work is governed and designed in the future. Participants understood that Asia is vast and diverse, and no one presumed uniformity of perspectives. Rather, the objective was to identify trends and issues that could form the basis for further dialogue and connection, and ultimately, result in strategies to strengthen international efforts to alleviate suffering, mitigate risks and promote development regionally and globally. The discussions were held under the Chatham House Rule. Discussion did not seek to capture the official positions of represented institutions, rather it focused on perspectives and insights under four key headings – where are we now? What changes are needed? What role will Asian countries play in these changes? Describe the future of humanitarianism and what steps are needed from Asia to build it?
Asia will play a growing role in humanitarian action regionally and globally. Its contributions will not simply blend into the existing system. They will shape how the ecosystem evolves.
This doesn’t imply total change. There are aspects of the existing system that Asian countries will support and seek to preserve. The multilateral system, for example, is seen as essential for international deliberation on issues of common interest and concern, and for enabling small and medium powers to align behind common positions and achieve strength in numbers.
Likewise, multilateral humanitarianism has produced laws and norms that remain essential for setting standards, promoting accountability and driving aspirations, including International Humanitarian Law and the guiding principle of Humanity.
Multilateral humanitarianism has grown a capacity to mobilise resources and supply chains to sustain large scale, essential humanitarian services in sudden onset, protracted and complex emergencies. This capacity continues to protect and save lives and will still be needed in some form for contexts such as Cox’s Bazaar or other large-scale crises.
Therefore, even as transition is inevitable as Asia’s role grows, it is important to remember that there are systems, norms, and capacities that will need to be protected and preserved – effective multilateralism, humanitarian laws and norms, and capacity to deliver services at scale.
Nevertheless, as Asian countries grow in influence, we can expect significant changes in the way that global humanitarianism is approached.
Humanitarian contributions start at home. Asian countries, particularly China and India, have lifted over a billion people out of poverty. Across the region, massive investments in disaster mitigation infrastructure and state of the art early warning systems, particularly in China, now protect communities who were devastated by periodic climate disasters throughout history. Countries across the region have invested significantly in their own disaster management capacity, including in national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, thereby reducing dependency on international aid.
In many parts of the region, albeit not all, this has freed up international aid from a decades’ long focus on disasters in Asia and allowed it to concentrate its resources on other countries of greatest need. This is already a major contribution to a global effort.
As economic growth has moved many Asian countries to lower and upper middle income over the last 15 years, there is increasing capacity and willingness to assist other countries in times of crisis. When disaster strikes, emergency supplies from Asian neighbours often arrive first, usually with support of diplomatic channels. Little or none of this is recorded or coordinated multilaterally, and its story is therefore rarely told. Aid from Asian neighbours has the advantage of speed and high levels of political acceptance in the host countries, but it has weaknesses too. It can be supply rather than demand driven, and it ends quickly, leaving the medium to long term response to national and local actors, and international agencies.
How this aid will evolve is one of the key questions facing the future of global humanitarianism.
For a start, Asian countries may not be inclined to join existing clubs whose traditions have been formed and dominated by European and North American cultures. This is not a criticism of the cultures or clubs themselves, only a recognition that the starting point feels uneven, and therefore regional platforms, such as ASEAN and UNESCAP, provide a preferred space for deliberation and coordination, and for new thinking. This regional and sub-regional approach will likely feature strongly in the future and suggests the emergence of humanitarian ecosystems rather than a single ecosystem.
Humanitarian approaches from Asian countries are likely to have a high respect for sovereignty and low tolerance for political interference. Memories are too fresh from colonial history to repeat hints of the same behaviour. Aid strategies will be politically pragmatic, with an informed sense of what is possible and not possible in any given context.
Except in exceptional circumstances, Asian countries will likely approach chronic crises with a developmental rather than humanitarian lens. Chronic poverty, often the root cause, is not a short-term relief problem and building parallel, international aid systems around national and local capacities in such crises is neither wise nor sustainable. Asian strategies will promote resilience to lift people out of poverty based on national and local capacities. Strategies will be rooted in a long-term vision for development not short-term relief targets. Beyond aid, this approach is also likely to be reflected in investments in peace mediation.
Although nominal support to international organisations is possible, there may not be willingness or capacity to make the sort of contributions seen from western donors. At least, not in the short to medium term. Rather, Asian countries will likely apply national capacity to support international problems. For example, China is proactively sharing its innovations in medical treatment with Afghanistan. Malaysia has opened its universities to students from Gaza as an expression of solidarity and as a strategy for long term recovery and resilience of the Gazan population. It has also introduced some of its wealthiest businessmen to the Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazaar to encourage investment in vocational training for a future workforce. We can expect these approaches to broaden. The future of humanitarian engagement from Asia will therefore be based only partially on financial support for international organisations, and more broadly based on national value propositions that provide a reciprocal, developmental value to any crisis.
This then begs the question of who should pay the bill for the large-scale humanitarian efforts that are still necessary in Asia in Cox’s Bazaar, Afghanistan and other places. This question doesn’t have a satisfactory answer, but it needs one, because the current division of financial responsibility lacks parity.
It was recognised that to reach parity over time, fundamental shifts will need to take place in mind-set across sectors in Asia regarding how complex international crises are perceived.
Neighbouring support, compassion and mutual aid are deeply rooted across Asia. Indonesia is cited as the most generous country in the world in terms of percentage of household income that is shared with vulnerable people. Yet while these concepts and values are deeply held in terms of community solidarity, and sometimes religious or neighbourly solidarity, they don’t always project as a global responsibility.
The Principle of Humanity is universal in intent, but to resonate across cultures, it needs cultural interpretation and references. This needs to take place across Asia’s societies, and particularly across the private sector, where philanthropists have enormous potential to respond to suffering globally. This may be one of the most significant ways that Asian countries can support the alleviation of suffering and the promotion of development around the world, but a huge amount of sensitisation, conversation and convening will be necessary to nurture such awareness and to promote a culture of global giving.
It may also require new types of international appeals. Current appeals, which quantify those in need and describe what international organisations will do to help them, may not resonate across domestic audiences in Asia. Future appeals for Asia will need to encourage participation from a broader range of actors and will need to describe how developmental goals will be achieved. They will need to be based on solidarity and connect with a Principle of Humanity that speaks to the different cultures across Asia.
Conclusion and next steps:
Asian countries will play a critical role in shaping the future of humanitarianism. The main features are likely to be an emphasis on regional collaboration and regional multilateral platforms, a strong emphasis on developmental approaches, a preference for supporting national actors, and a more holistic approach to assistance that draws in a broad range of domestic sectors to engage internationally.
A regional and sub-regional approach will likely feature strongly in the future and suggests the emergence of humanitarian ecosystems rather than a single ecosystem. Globally, different ecosystems will need to coordinate for learning and collective impact.
This forum provided a unique space for a wide range of actors from Asia to consider the future of humanitarianism from perspectives in the region. It was just the beginning. The retreat triggered the need to broaden this conversation across countries and sectors, and to align ambitions and strategies through dialogue and coalition building. It recognised that many Asian countries are already designing aid strategies but without the benefit of spaces to converse, reflect and consider how history, culture, learning and connection can inform and enrich these strategies. Several convening opportunities and multilateral events were identified as next places to further the discussion. Although each country will chart its own course, it was recognised that bringing governments, philanthropists, civil society, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, academia and other actors together regionally will enrich insights and enable more coordinated, impactful aid strategies from Asian countries.
Alexander Matheou, the IFRC Regional Director for Asia Pacific, has worked in the humanitarian sector for 20 years, both within and outside the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. He has worked across a variety of fields, including disaster response, food security, social exclusion, displacement and migration, HIV/TB prevention and institutional development. Alexander is a regular contributor of opinion pieces on humanitarian and development issues to an assortment of audiences and forums.
0 Comments