Aid, Rebuilt: Liana Ghukasyan on Humanitarian Leadership

This interview is part of a larger conversation series with leading humanitarian thinkers on how to reshape and reform the aid system in turbulent times. This month, we’re talking to Liana Ghukasyan, the director and special advisor to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), about humanitarian leadership. 

If you could rebuild the aid system, what is the one main thing you would change? 

I would redefine how we understand and exercise humanitarian leadership, placing it closer to communities and anchoring it firmly in moral clarity. We measure humanitarian leadership and in many ways, the effectiveness of the aid system itself, by proximity to power. Who is invited to the table? Who sits with presidents, ministers and ambassadors? Who speaks at high-level summits? Presence became a proxy for influence. But over time, after countless hours in those very rooms, I have come to question that assumption. 

Being seated at a high-level table does not necessarily mean shaping decisions there. Sometimes it simply means being present when key political conclusions have already been formed. Humanitarian actors are often invited late in the process: to inform, to brief, to react, rather than to co-create outcomes. 

We present evidence. We appeal to international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles. We speak about human dignity. And yet the gravitational pull of political interests, security agendas and domestic calculations remains powerful. Influence is far more fragile than visibility. Our influence should flow upward from communities, not downward from conference rooms. 

Rebuilding the aid system is not only about funding models or structural reform. It is about redefining what we consider ​“power” to be. It requires humility to admit that not every high-level invitation equals impact. And wisdom to know when presence matters and when it risks becoming symbolic. Sometimes, the most transformative act of leadership is not sitting at the table but reshaping the room where decisions are made. 

Where, then, does real humanitarian influence happen? 

Real influence often happens well before formal meetings, in quiet bilateral conversations. It grows far removed from cameras, through relationships built over years rather than in moments of visibility. It is forged in the field, where leaders confront reality firsthand and allow those experiences to shape their judgments and priorities. Influence is also exercised through consistent, principled positioning, even when it carries a cost, and through collective leadership, where a unified humanitarian voice is harder to ignore. 

Some of the most consequential humanitarian leadership I have witnessed did not happen at grand summits. It happened in field visits that changed perspectives, in patient advocacy that slowly shifted red lines and in principled refusals that protected human dignity and life. 

Leadership, in that sense, is not performative. It is cumulative. 

Does this mean high-level engagement is no longer important? 

Not at all. Access to political leaders remains essential. Decisions about humanitarian crises, sanctions, borders, funding, and protection frameworks are political decisions. Humanitarians cannot disengage from power. But we must be clear-eyed about what high-level presence can realistically achieve. Engagement should not be symbolic. It should be strategic. 

We should enter rooms when we bring leverage, whether moral authority, operational credibility, collective positioning, or evidence that cannot be ignored. And we should invest just as much energy in building influence between crises as during them. True effectiveness lies not in how often we are invited, but in whether our presence shifts outcomes. 

What would this shift mean for future humanitarian leaders? 

It would require a different mindset. Future humanitarian leaders will need to cultivate systems-thinking rather than institutional defensiveness, recognizing that no single organization can address today’s crises alone. They will need to prioritize collective leadership rather than organizational competition, building coalitions that amplify shared goals instead of protecting individual turf. Long-term trust must matter more than short-term visibility; moral consistency should overrule rhetorical brilliance. 

They will need to be comfortable operating across multiple layers, from field realities to political forums, while keeping communities at the center of decision-making. In an increasingly fragmented and politically polarized world, the temptation will be to seek visibility and validation. 

Rebuilding the aid system is not about dismantling it. It is about recalibrating it so that its center of gravity returns to helping those for whom it was founded in the first place. 

For those who would like to engage more deeply with your ​“one thing,” what reading would you recommend? 

To learn more about influence in the humanitarian system and how it can be used to drive meaningful change, read my recent article on the LSE blog. In addition, I have also expanded on my thoughts about humanitarian leadership on LinkedIn and warmly invite you to join the discussion.