The three questions posed under this critically important title points we have in the centre of our attention every day in the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Our work, providing support through the resources of our worldwide National Society network, has as its highest priority the provision of support for the most vulnerable.
Without discrimination of any kind.
This title rightly suggests that there is a danger of discrimination when a disaster captures public attention as this Tsunami has done.
It is true that it has to some extent overshadowed the suffering of so many millions of others in the world, and the priority which must be given to issues like the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
But there are good reasons for this. It was a cataclysmic event, which attracted huge publicity, and it has affected people from more countries than almost any other disaster.
In addition, many lives would not have been lost if there had been strong and effective preparedness measures in place, including effective early warning systems and mechanisms.
That is a subject which has been addressed in different ways at several important conferences already this year, including the Mauritius International Meeting on Small Island Developing States and the World Conference on Disaster Reduction.
At both the International Federation made clear its position that disaster preparedness must be based on and built from the community level if it is to be effective.
That message seems to have been received, but the task now is to put timetables and concrete plans in place.
Not just for the tsunami affected countries. For all.
Our position is comprehensive and also includes reference to the Millennium Development Goals, and the need for stronger support for the world's development agendas.
These are objectives which stand comfortably alongside our own Strategy 2010 and its concentration on the needs of the most vulnerable.
Our expectation, and our advocacy, is directed at ensuring that no vulnerable people will find themselves without the support and protection of their Red Cross or Red Crescent Society.
So, with that background, I can offer our position on the three questions posed for this discussion today:
(1) Fair and sustainable reconstruction must contain ingredients removing the need for such devastation from future disasters. Disaster preparedness must be an integral part of relief and reconstruction. Sustainability, in this context, is not only the well-known term "relief to development". It also means "development to relief".
Preparedness is, therefore, part of response. And preparedness, to be effective, must also be about development.
So response is part of development, and development provides preparedness. A good example is the very successful program of the Vietnam Red Cross which has very much reduced cyclone damage through the replanting of mangroves along the coast.
It must involve the local people themselves in the design and implementation of the programs. Without discrimination of any kind, and backed by education, gender empowerment and partnerships with local and community organisations capable of speaking for the best interests of their communities.
(2) One of the most important roles we have identified for governments, consistently, in our International Red Cross and Red Crescent Conferences, is their acceptance of the voice of the communities in their own decision-making and implementation councils. Governments have accepted this obligation, but there are still many which have yet to build the relationship. Those which have done it well, like Bangladesh, are countries which have gone far towards mitigating the effects of potentially terrible disasters.
Civil Society has an important role if these partnerships are to be meaningful. It is not enough to talk of government obligations to be inclusive: it is vital that civil society builds capacity so it can effectively partner government in work to prepare for and respond to future disasters. So capacity-building is a critical ingredient in post-tsunami aid.
One of the most important lessons about disaster response is that by far the largest number of lives are saved by neighbours and others in the affected communities. Civil Society's role is to help ensure that the capacity of those local communities is as developed and strong as possible, again I stress, without discrimination.
International actors and economic agencies must ensure that they deploy resources to this local capacity building and training, and governments must ensure that this level of engagement with local communities is welcomed and facilitated.
(3) Ensuring support for the forgotten, and for the people living in forgotten emergencies, is one of our greatest preoccupations. We are very pleased that the United Nations now proactively shares this position - it is articulated very well by Jan Egeland, the Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs.
Our task remains, though, to maintain the attention of governments to these issues, and to ensure that emergencies and the vulnerable people within them are not forgotten when the media moves on to the next trouble-spot.
All this is relevant to the issue of the tsunami funds and the continuing extreme vulnerability of countless other people.
That's why I were so pleased to hear Canada's Minister for International Cooperation speak out and call for continuing attention to the other ongoing programs at the Geneva Ministerial Tsunami Meeting on 11 February. Ms Carroll said Canada called on all other countries to apply the principles of good humanitarian donorship while providing support to tsunami victims.
Among other things, there can be no reduction of support for other humanitarian programs. We say it is essential that the Tsunami crisis be seen as a lesson to be learned by all donors, and all international and national institutions.
One lesson for governments is that the tremendous outpouring of public support for the victims of the tsunami shows a wide willingness to help, and to assist the most vulnerable. The amounts given by the public need to be seen alongside those from governments as part of a huge national effort.
This national effort should be respected by governments as an indication of political support for increasing development assistance budgets. This is a point common to UN speeches, but it has proved very hard to get support beyond rhetoric.
But the Tsunami may have changed that. There is, potentially, a new dynamic in the development assistance debate. What we would like is to see governments rise to this dynamic in a simple but effective way:
(a) Agree that they will consolidate all the aid they will offering in 2005 - including for the Tsunamis - as their new benchmark for progress towards the 0.7% GDP target set official development assistance.
(b) So 2006 provisions will be move towards 0.7% from a new base. This will accelerate meaningful work towards the demands posed by so many other crises, including for example, HIV/AIDS in Africa, to Darfur, to hurricanes in the Caribbean, to drought and hunger. To the unnecessary suffering of many millions through disease, famine and disaster.
(c) The design and implementation of the programs to be supported will be done together with civil society and Red Cross Red Crescent organisations truly representative of the communities themselves.
(d) The Governments of affected countries will take all necessary steps to empower the community representatives to partner them and contribute effectively to this work.
This would be a clear and unequivocal statement of the value for the world's vulnerable people of the sacrifice made by nearly a quarter of a million people on 26 December 2004.