“A Storm on a Mediterranean Coast” by Claude-Joseph Vernet (1767), Getty Center in Los Angeles
Previously, it was said that foreign policy had no place and influence on elections, that it was not a criterion for voters’ choice among candidates. Today, the trend seems to be reversing when public opinion perceives that external events, near or far, can have a negative impact on their daily lives, on their own security.
The war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East around the Strait of Hormuz and their consequences on the supply of oil, gas, fertilizers, cereals, food products, value chains produce immediate concrete consequences on the growth rate, inflation, deficit, and the need to strengthen our security after decades of disarmament of the famous “peace dividends.”
In a masterful documentary (documentary available in the right column of the website through ARTE), Jean-François Colosimo shows, with images and statements, how “The Empires Strike Back” (Russia, China, Iran, India, United States) extend their power, if necessary at the expense of their neighbors. \nDuring the next presidential elections in France, in April 2027, will the international situation and foreign policy have an influence on voters’ political choices? Will humanitarian and development aid be present and convincing in the debates?
In this edition, we address this question whose relevance imposes itself on us between external threats, consequences and internal weaknesses, international solidarity.
In his article”How the vases break,” Cyprien Fabre highlights the fault lines that weaken us and a “resilience crisis that we all must now face,” calling to “build this resistance to shocks.”
In his opinion piece, Antoine Vaccaro warns us about the strong rise of “autocratic regimes,” the weakening of freedom and law, and calls for help, with Seneca and Marcel Mauss, the philanthropy of giving as an antiviral for a resistant and dynamic society.
While external threats can weaken the resilience capacities of a country and its population, as well as those of the European Union, our internal weaknesses are the best allies of those who consider us their “enemy.” The very existence of Ukraine ultimately depends only on its resistance.
Let us remember the lesson of historian Arnold Toynbee: “Societies do not die by murder, but by suicide.”
It is time to take stock of our strengths and internal weaknesses and to assess the external risks posed to us by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and many other autocrats and dangers such as climate change, conflicts, uncontrolled population displacements worldwide, the grip of drug trafficking, terrorism, not to mention selfishness and frenzied consumerism.
We are living in a strange time, a moment of transition to something we do not yet know.Which anthropologist will be able to interpret the simultaneous release in France of films like “Les Rayons et les Ombres” by Xavier Giannoli about collaboration during the occupation from 1940 to 1944, but also Antonin Baudry’s two-part film “De Gaulle,” The Iron Age then I Write Your Name, and in October, the film by László Nems “Moulin”.
What will be the impact of these films and General de Gaulle on public opinion, and on the candidates themselves for the upcoming presidential election?
“The French Archipelago” or the “birth of a multiple and divided nation,” a remarkable study-book by Jérôme Fourquet, calls us more than ever to lucidity and unity.
So, what could be more symbolic in this troubled context than the entry of Marc Bloch into the Pantheon on June 23, 2026.
Marc Bloch dressed as an officer when he was fighting with an infantry regiment in 1914 – 1018 (non-dated photo)
Marc Bloch, a graduate of the École Normale Supérieure, agrégé, historian, fought in the 1914-1918 war and then in the 1939-1945 war. In 1929, he created with Lucien Lefebvre the journal Annales d’histoire économique et sociale. In 1939, then over 50 years old and father of 6 children, he asked to return to service. After the defeat, he wrote the May 1940 report “The Strange Defeat,” a book to read and reread to understand. Jewish and French patriot, he then joined the resistance. He was arrested in Lyon on March 8, 1944, tortured by Klaus Barbieand summarily executed on June 16, 1944, along with about thirty other prisoners, a martyr of the French resistance.
My intention is not to say that history repeats itself because, as the philosopher says, “One does not bathe twice in the same river.” However, why does this past come back so strongly today in our collective memory and what lessons will we draw from it for the present times?
If we will not rewrite history, on the other hand, we need men and women of the caliber, courage, and intelligence of a Marc Bloch, a Jean Moulin, and the vision of a General de Gaulle. What applies to us applies to everyone everywhere. The countries of the world, members of the UN, must reposition themselves on the global chessboard that is unstable.
The lessons are many and diverse. Faced with aggression and totalitarianism, fighting from the start is the best way to prevent submission. If, as Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others,” that should not exempt it from hearing just criticisms and reforming itself in times of crisis. Its legitimacy depends on this. For we are weak because of our own weaknesses and divisions. There is no fatality; it depends first and foremost on us.
If philanthropy and humanitarian aid are not the solution to all its immense challenges, they constitute an essential condition for living together in the diversity of nation-states, alliances, identities in mutual respect and solidarity.
Alain Boinet is the president of the association Défis Humanitaires which publishes the online review www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International of which he was director general for 35 years. Moreover, he is a member of the Humanitarian Consultation Group with the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, member of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, of the French Water Partnership (PFE), of the Véolia Foundation, of the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to go to the field (north-east Syria, Haut-Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to testify in the media.
In anticipation of the upcoming G7 from June 15 to 17, 2026 in Evian, the French government commissioned IFOP to conduct a study (1) on the state of public opinions in the G7 countries (2) regarding official development assistance and international cooperation. The IFOP study holds surprises for us and raises a paradox. It engages here our analysis and proposals from Humanitarian Challenges.
As a reminder, the G7 was born in 1975 at the initiative of French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, after the first oil shock of 1973, in the context of the Yom Kippur War. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its global consequences will be very present at the 51st edition of the G7 member countries on the shores of Lake Geneva in Haute-Savoie. This G7 also mobilizes the “Civil Society 7” or C7, which brings together hundreds of actors with Coordination Sud (3), the French platform of international solidarity organizations.
This G7 will address for the first time an essential humanitarian issue, that of the global logistics supply chain. It will be preceded by only a few days by the 7th National Humanitarian Conference (CNH) on July 3 in Paris. CNH is organized by the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and its Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) in connection with humanitarian NGOs of the Humanitarian Coordination Group (GCH).
But what exactly does the IFOP study tell us about the state ofpublic opinions of G7 countries on international cooperation?
What does the IFOP study tell us?
This very comprehensive study can essentially be summarized by several findings.
First, the marked interest of public opinions in international news, averaging 71%.
Next, a hierarchy of issues ranging from terrorism and extremism (72%), to conflicts (67%) and the economy (55%).
If international cooperation is a moral obligation for 70% of respondents, it is also a policy that serves our interests for an average of 78% within the G7 and 71% in France.
According to IFOP, the principle support for financing developing countries reaches 75%, with Italy ranking far ahead (84%) while France comes in last (66%).
But there are figures that catch our attention. The level of understanding of what international cooperation is stands at 50% on average and 46% in France.
The most problematic aspect lies in the low level of information that public opinions say they have, 47% on average in G7 countries and only 28% in France, where 50% of people say they are poorly informed and 20% very poorly informed!
Conversely, public expectation is very strong to know how international cooperation funding is used, 75% on average versus 82% in France. Another question, 75% ofpeople and 82% in France wonder what the concrete results of this cooperation are. But just as much, 75% ask what its usefulness is for each G7 country. Finally, note a demand for control for 73% on average and for 77% in France. The expectations for tangible and convincing evidence are very high and constitute a challenge for the future of international solidarity.
Moreover, what is truly surprising is the profound ignorance regarding the budget of the States that finances international cooperation. Only 2% of respondents know that this percentage is less than 1%, while 16% think it represents between 10 to 15%. This amount is estimated by the French at 14.7% of Gross National Income (4) while the actual percentage allocated to Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2025 was actually 0.42%! The gap is considerable and indicates an abyssal lack of accurate information.
To summarize broadly, a strong majority of the populations of the G7 member countries are in favor of international aid which they greatly overestimate while asking to be better informed about the relevance of projects, their concrete impact (only 37% of French people consider that aid is effective), about rigorous control of implementation and, finally, about the interest of this cooperation for the donor countries themselves.
Finally, 64% of inhabitants believe that what will happen in developing countries could have a significant impact on their lives. It should be noted that public opinion in France is one of the most reserved regarding cooperation policy.
But what do the latest figures on Official Development Assistance tell us?
The recent report from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (5) notes a 23.1% decrease in Official Development Assistance in 2025 with a budget of 174.3 billion dollars.
26 of the 34 OECD DAC member countries reduced their aid in 2025, and decreases had already occurred in 2023 and 2024. France’s aid in 2025 was 14.53 billion dollars, or 0.42% of GNI. This had already decreased by 11% in 2023 and by 13% in 2024. According to Coordination Sud, aid could be reduced by 58% in France over 2 years. The OECD anticipates a further decrease of 5.8% in 2026.
Humanitarian aid from DAC countries has sharply decreased by 35.8% to 15.5 billion dollars, marking a second consecutive decline after 5 years of growth (2019-2023).
To better understand these figures, note that 5 DAC countries (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, and France) account for 95.7% of the total ODA decrease, but the United States alone is responsible for three-quarters of this decline with ODA down 56.9% compared to 2024. The top 5 contributors represent an amount of 132.02 billion dollars out of a total of 174.3 in 2025.
For reference, non-DAC countries dedicated 13.3 billion dollars to cooperation and 11.7 billion to 30 major philanthropic foundations that report their donations to the OECD.
Finally, projections indicate a further 5.8% decrease in DAC ODA in 2026, a figure that does not take into account the consequences of the war in the Middle East and the embargo in the Strait of Hormuz.
A paradox appears in the opposition between a majority of inhabitants of the G7 countries who still support international cooperation and the strong, rapid, and ongoing reduction in the funding of international cooperation by the G7 countries and the DAC.
The first explanation that comes to mind is a gap in understanding and attitude between public opinion and governments. Citizens still habitually support international cooperation while states have already drawn the consequences of the profound shifts underway in international relations, power dynamics, interests, and risks of war.
In this context, there are two realizations on the part of Western countries, particularly Europe, since from now on we must set aside the United States under Donald Trump.
The first is the emergence of so-called southern countries grouped in the BRICS, which represent about ten countries (6), influenced by former empires aspiring to become so again, like Russia and China, and which challenge the world order born at the end of the Second World War as well as the Western model (democracy, rule of law, market economy).
The 16th edition of the BRICS Summit in Kazan (Russia) on October 24th 2024
The case of several Sahel countries such as Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso is emblematic. Why cooperate with countries whose governments come from military coups, who demand the departure of French troops, who call on Russian mercenaries from the Africa Corps, and who require the absence of French public funding in humanitarian and development NGO projects. This profoundly changes public cooperation policies even though the vital needs of populations victimized by war and chronic poverty still legitimize humanitarian action.
The second shock is the awareness of the risk of a war extension following Russia’s attack on Ukraine on February 22, 2022. Thus, war becomes once again in Europe a means of conquest and it could be renewed, particularly against the Baltic countries. This would force NATO member countries to react to the risk of being drawn into the war while most of these countries are not ready to fight it and must prepare by rearming without American commitment being certain anymore.
If you combine these two external shocks with internal risks on the political, economic, and social levels in some countries, as happened in the United States with Donald Trump’s second election, you then have sufficient reasons to understand the ongoing changes in priorities.
And yet, for these countries, continuing these cooperation policies in an adapted form is indeed a necessity in order not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and to resist the pressures of the neo-emerging empires.
What challenges for the next National Humanitarian Conference?
France’s humanitarian budget was 285 million euros last year while it was 800 million in 2023 and should have been one billion euros in 2025.
Since the 1st National Humanitarian Conference in 2011, we have only seen progress, first with the creation of this Conference, then that of the Humanitarian Consultation Group, but also the adoption of a Humanitarian Strategy of the French Republic and, finally, the continuous increase of the humanitarian budget and ODA starting from 2018.
The next CNH on July 3 cannot therefore follow in the footsteps of the previous ones but, on the contrary, seeks both to measure the decline in order to contain it while looking for alternatives, alliances, new perspectives.
This CNH will have 3 main topics on the agenda.
The humanitarian space and international humanitarian law.
Humanitarian reform or “reset”, innovation and pooling.
Partnership and funding.
The challenge is great because we must understand that the fall in funding, the erosion of humanitarian authority, the decline of international humanitarian law, and the restriction of access to aid for populations in danger are linked to each other and lead to a negative spiral! This is what must be stopped and a new dynamic restarted.
If we have already discussed these issues in Défis Humanitaires, I would like this month to focus on 4 of them:
In a preparatory document for the G7, the Ministry of Finance and Budget mentions the choice to “move from a logic of assistance to a logic of mutually beneficial partnership.” If this logic of ODA as an investment partnership with solvent countries can be considered, how would this be possible with poor countries victims of war, disaster, or a devastating epidemic?
Humanitarian urgency must remain an unconditional moral duty, but also a strategic duty to prevent the spread of misery and chaos of close to neighboring countries, even beyond
Human security should better inspire humanitarian action in the future based on its food, health, economic, personal, community, and political components, as the insecurity of some can become the insecurity of others.
Let us note that while ODA has decreased by 23.1%, humanitarian aid has dropped by 35.8%! To avoid this drift, we should return to the idea of “sanctuarizing humanitarian aid” within ODA and dedicating a minimum of 9% of its total amount to it.
Finally, since public funding is down, why not launch a humanitarian lottery in France?
Conclusion.
Every change of era brings a change of priorities. But the moral and strategic necessity of humanitarian and development aid must remain a constant to save lives, lift people out of poverty, and generate sustainable development.
In a world that is both divided and interdependent where everything is known, solidarity remains a comparative advantage that distinguishes the supportive from the predators. There is no incompatibility for a country to serve its population and interests while delivering emergency relief where it is vital, while supporting development that is in everyone’s interest.
Without forgetting to respond to citizens’ strong expectations for information regarding the relevance of cooperation, its impact, good management, and the mutually beneficial partnerships it creates.
That is precisely the mission set by Défis Humanitaires, in this edition as in previous ones, is to act against misinformation as well as disinformation.
You too can be an actor in this humanitarian mission by sharing our magazine around you and supporting it with your donation (makeadonation) to allow it to exist, to last, and to develop for its readers. Thank you.
Revenu National Brut “Le RNB comprend le produit intérieur brut (PIB) et les revenus nets du travail et de la propriété reçus de l’étranger dont on soustrait les revenus versés à l’étranger”.
Alain Boinet is the president of the association Défis Humanitaires which publishes the online review www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International of which he was director general for 35 years. Moreover, he is a member of the Humanitarian Consultation Group with the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, member of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, of the French Water Partnership (PFE), of the Véolia Foundation, of the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to go to the field (north-east Syria, Haut-Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to testify in the media.
Alain Boinet is the president of the association Défis Humanitaires which publishes the online review www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International of which he was director general for 35 years. Moreover, he is a member of the Humanitarian Consultation Group with the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, member of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, of the French Water Partnership (PFE), of the Véolia Foundation, of the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to go to the field (north-east Syria, Haut-Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to testify in the media.
You must be logged in to post a comment.