Tag: EU

The European Union, ECHO and Humanitarian Action

Interview with Pauline Chetcutti, President of VOICE.

Pauline Chetcuti speaking at the press conference on the sidelines of the 2025 European Humanitarian Forum. © DG ECHO

Alain Boinet: At the end of July, the consolidated appeal stood at 45.84 billion dollars. At that date, only 7.64 billion dollars had been raised, which is about 40% less than at the same time last year! As a result, the United Nations announced a drastic reduction of their plan, leading to hyper-prioritization targeting only 114 million people at risk out of the 310 million identified, with a budget of 29 billion dollars and no guarantee of achieving it. What do you think?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The situation is concerning: 40% less than last year and only 17% of the requested amount actually raised. The consequences will be dramatic for communities in need of assistance.

This hyper-prioritization will have very heavy effects. On the one hand, tens of millions of people will be left without lifesaving aid, with the risk of tipping into increased precarity. On the other hand, it risks creating new emergencies that could have been avoided if these populations had been taken into account.

It also raises a moral and ethical question: how can we “sort” lives this way?

For years, work has been done on the triple nexus, on resilience and prevention—everything that goes beyond pure emergency response. Yet with this hyper-prioritization we risk a return to a solely emergency-driven logic, which is more costly and generates imbalances between populations.This movement thus contributes to discrediting the humanitarian sector by leaving populations aside, in a context where the trust of both beneficiaries and donors is already deeply weakened.

The Secretary-General António Guterres delivers the opening address of the General Debate of the eightieth session of the General Assembly. © United Nations

Alain Boinet: In a context of funding crisis and weakened leadership of the United Nations, how should we approach the UN 80 structural reform project launched by the Secretary-General on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the UN and, within this framework, the specific Humanitarian Reset which concerns, in one way or another, all humanitarian actors?

Pauline Chetchuti:

Obviously, budget cuts make reform necessary, even if this is not new since the UN has been reforming in cycles for several years. Today, we are in a context of crisis where budgets are cut, and the reorganization proposed by UN 80 as well as the Humanitarian Reset are being undertaken in direct response to this situation.

The UN 80 project is a reorganization of UN entities with better coordination between the peace–development–human rights pillars, as well as a simplification of mandates, with potentially large UN agencies grouped together.

This reform therefore responds to a double urgency: the decline in funding and the loss of credibility of multilateralism.

The Humanitarian Reset is part of this logic, aiming for simplification, efficiency and “cost-effectiveness” of the sector. It seeks to refocus funding as close as possible to countries, notably via OCHA’s country-based pooled funds, and it also emphasizes localization. In principle, localization is not ruled out, but the way it will be implemented raises questions. At VOICE, we are working precisely on these points, notably on the importance of maintaining a diversity of instruments and actors to respond to complex and diverse contexts.

However, we must avoid reducing everything to technical aspects. The success of these reforms will also depend on the political will of donors and the commitment of States. It is up to us—NGOs and networks—to document the concrete consequences of the Reset for organizations and to remind everyone of our fundamental and complementary role in the humanitarian ecosystem. NGOs bring essential diversity, being closest to contexts and with a nuanced understanding of population needs. It is therefore crucial to ensure that all humanitarian actors are taken into account in the Reset led by Tom Fletcher.

Finally, the achievements of the reforms undertaken since the World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain must be preserved and, above all, prioritized: flexible funding, localization, risk sharing and lighter reporting requirements. We cannot afford to go backwards.

Tom Fletcher, during a press conference in Geneva, on December 3, 2024. © UNOCHA

Alain Boinet: Governments representing various political leanings—within the European Union and OECD members in particular, not to mention the United States—are significantly reducing their humanitarian and development aid. How can we understand these decisions, what are the possible consequences, and what can and should humanitarian actors do?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The humanitarian crisis is severe at present, accentuated by U.S. cuts with the end of USAID, but it is also a long-term trend over recent years. The reasons are multiple, though some common threads emerge: national retrenchment, refocusing on domestic priorities, fiscal austerity, inflation, public debt. At the same time, we see rising military expenditures and declining spending on international cooperation.

There is also donor fatigue and distrust toward aid after Covid, Ukraine, etc. Moreover, it is becoming very difficult for States to continue defending and justifying these investments. Indeed, it is complicated for them to maintain their commitment when they cannot show immediate and tangible results, in a logic of prioritizing responses to the internal needs of their own populations.

Furthermore, we have weakened leadership at the United Nations, despite a huge increase in the services it provides. There is truly a loss of momentum and legitimacy of multilateral institutions, which is obviously driven by certain great powers (China, the United States, etc.) that are changing the context we operate in. And this is what is driving today’s budget cuts.

The direct consequences will be particularly heavy for communities already weakened by conflicts, climate shocks or economic inequalities. These populations will be doubly affected by the decline in funding, the reduction in international cooperation and the scaling back of support. It is a vicious circle: the less we fund the aid system and the multilateral system, the less visible the impact of this system is for the most vulnerable. Consequently, there is disengagement from institutions that weakens their effectiveness and legitimacy, which then, in turn, is used to justify reduced engagement and investment in these very institutions.

For us as NGOs, as members of civil society and as a network representing a large number of organizations, we must resist and reaffirm the impact of international cooperation and, more specifically, of humanitarian aid. We must demonstrate its concrete impact for the most vulnerable populations, build a strong narrative toward institutions, donors, but also the general public.

European polls still show significant public support for humanitarian aid, though not always reflected in the policies of Member States. That is why it is essential to maintain a strong voice, to continue demonstrating the positive impact of humanitarian aid and to highlight partnerships with local NGOs. That is to say, it is not simply the European Union acting vis-à-vis States in the rest of the world, but above all an approach aimed at creating strong civil societies capable of developing their own capacities within the contexts in which they operate.

So this is a virtuous circle to which we contribute, in which communities develop positively and emerge from cycles of vulnerability. For us, the challenge is to continue to engage to counter today’s weariness and disengagement.

Malakal, capital of Upper Nile State, South Sudan, May 16, 2023. © Solidarités International/Bebe Joel

Alain Boinet: In a recent VOICE Out Loud publication (September 2025), you published a long interview with Commissioner Hadja Lahbib on the various communication challenges for the European Union’s humanitarian aid. What should we take away from it, in your view?

Pauline Chetcuti:

First, we are very grateful to Commissioner Hadja Lahbib for lending her voice and contributing to this interview. I recommend reading it; it is really very interesting.

A key message emerges from this exchange: speak with principles and values. She places at the center dignity and the need to be in integrity with the agency of each population. She also puts communication at the heart—listening to what populations want before “speaking over” them. It is not about “advertising,” but about making the voices of our partners in different countries heard, with integrity.

She encourages communicating with values, with a real desire to convey a message of solidarity and community. The idea is that we can show impact while going beyond images that are sometimes undignified (such as those of children in conflict), often used in the past. We can communicate with dignity to foster solidarity, not just visibility.

Hadja Lahbib in Chad, 2025 © European Union/Denis Sassou Gueipeur.

Alain Boinet: In a previous interview with you published in Défis Humanitaires in February 2025, we notably discussed the DG ECHO budget for 2025. Three months from the end of the year, do we now know its amount and how do you at VOICE analyze it?

Pauline Chetcuti:

The budget question is fundamental, and all our members within VOICE are asking it.

For 2025, the amount stands at around 2.46 billion euros for the strictly humanitarian line. The figure will be consolidated by the end of the year, with possible budget top-ups. We already know that the emergency aid reserve was fully mobilized this year to respond to several major crises, and it is unlikely to be renewed before year-end. This reserve provided for 583 million euros for 2025.

We do not think there will be any major change in how the European Union will fund humanitarian crises.

As for the draft 2026 budget, the Commission is proposing a little over 1.8 billion euros for humanitarian aid; subsequently, the Council proposed an increase of 18 million to this amount. It is a step up, but it remains limited in view of the growing scale of humanitarian needs and inflation. Moreover, this does not at this stage include the emergency and solidarity reserve, which will be discussed over the course of the year.

Alain Boinet: Discussions for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2035) have begun at the European Commission, which should present a proposal during 2025. Moreover, President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Piotr Serafin announced a budget of 200 billion euros for “Global Europe in the world,” the new external action instrument with an indicative amount of 25 billion euros for humanitarian aid. While the increase is very significant and positive, humanitarian actors are nevertheless concerned about the vagueness and risks related to the framework and objectives. What does VOICE and its President think?

Pauline Chetcuti: :

This is a core issue for VOICE: how to use this new multiannual financial framework (MFF) and understand what this Global Europe entails.

At VOICE, we welcome the indicative amount of 25 billion euros earmarked for humanitarian aid under this new Global Europe instrument. It is a strong political signal in a particularly difficult context, marked both by rising humanitarian needs and by a growing lack of donor interest in supporting aid.

But this must be put into perspective. First, we do not yet know how this instrument will be used. If we add up the annual budget and the reinforcements of recent years (including the emergency aid reserve), we already reached a little over 17 billion euros. The increase is therefore real, but not spectacular, especially when we consider that humanitarian needs will continue to grow—particularly if the UN continues its hyper-prioritization.

Next, these figures are for now only proposals since the Member States must still decide.

Finally, another concern for VOICE relates to the political framing of this new instrument. Global Europe emphasizes the competitiveness, sovereignty and economic power of the European Union rather than the needs of affected populations. We therefore face a more political instrument, embedded in a logic of strengthening the interests of the European Union.

Nevertheless, humanitarian aid appears to be preserved, and that is positive. But will it remain independent of the EU’s political priorities? That is not guaranteed. This is precisely what we want to determine. We will advocate for aid to remain needs-based and grounded in humanitarian principles, rather than in the interests of Member States.

Within VOICE, we will continue to raise these questions and to engage directly with DG ECHO and the European Commission on the MFF issues. We also invite all VOICE members to contribute, to share their concerns and, above all, to mobilize Member States to support the maintenance of independent humanitarian aid within this new instrument. We call on each State to take a position on the new MFF to guarantee the safety and sustainability of the humanitarian envelope.

European Humanitarian Forum, 2024 – © European Union

Alain Boinet: Some Member States wish to become more involved and are considering creating a specific forum of States dedicated to humanitarian aid, with the objective of ring-fencing humanitarian funding and thus avoiding any fungibility of humanitarian funds within the overall 200 billion euros. Is this an interesting avenue?

Pauline Chetcuti:

All avenues are worth exploring if they strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of spending.

However, it is essential to ensure today that humanitarian funding is neither diluted nor controlled by the national interests of Member States or of the European Union— in other words, by geopolitical considerations.

Humanitarian aid must also remain flexible in order to react to an extremely volatile context, marked by severe and sudden deteriorations in certain countries. This flexibility must allow us to respond to immediate needs, but also to neglected or forgotten crises often absent from the media spotlight.

Whatever new instrument is built, it must respond as closely as possible to the needs of populations, while remaining accessible to NGOs, and in particular to local partners.

In short, if we open or create a new instrument, we absolutely must integrate these conditions from the outset and ensure that they are fully included in the avenue under discussion.

Alain Boinet: For the good information of our readers, particularly outside Europe, can you present VOICE in broad strokes?

Pauline Chetcuti:

VOICE is a European network of humanitarian NGOs. We bring together more than 90 member organizations based in the EU, as well as in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, which implement or support humanitarian aid.

Our role is twofold. On the one hand, we are a space for coordination and exchange among European humanitarian NGOs. This fosters the adoption of common positions, and the sharing of expertise and knowledge, and creates synergies.

On the other hand, we carry collective advocacy with European institutions (DG ECHO, the European Parliament, Member States). Through our European members and their NGO networks. For example, we work closely with national networks such as Coordination SUD in France to build common positions.

In short, VOICE is a bridge between the European humanitarian civil society and public decision-makers in a region that remains one of the world’s main humanitarian donors.

A member of Oxfam staff helps a family carry home the non-food items they have just received at the UN House in Juba. © Oxfam / Anita Kattakuzhy

Alain Boinet: How would you like to conclude this interview? A message, a call?

Pauline Chetcuti:

It is a difficult question. How can we conclude on a positive note in the face of the challenges we have discussed?

Obviously, we are facing a very severe existential crisis in the humanitarian system. We suffer from a credibility deficit, to which we must know how to respond. The response must be collective. NGOs must come together to create a strong voice, a common narrative that reaffirms the value of international cooperation and global solidarity. This is a real challenge we are setting ourselves within NGOs and that we are determined to meet.

The other point is that funding issues, although essential and at the heart of current debates, are not everything. We also need to remember why we do all this and why it is so important to ask these questions. Because this funding primarily makes it possible to maintain aid to the most vulnerable.

Obviously, we think of forgotten conflicts, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan, where the contexts are absolutely dire. We also think of our colleagues and populations in Gaza and Palestine. If we are questioning ourselves today, it is to preserve this international solidarity, to act as close as possible to populations, to help them not only to survive, but above all to live with dignity and exercise their fundamental rights.

Finally, for me, it is a call to collectivity, a surge of solidarity among our various NGOs. We have real collective potential if all organizations come together, notably through networks like VOICE. We can project a stronger voice and put forward essential ideas and values.

I will conclude by saying that money is not everything. What matters is what we do with it. How we transform this funding into concrete changes, into improved lives in the most complex contexts, so that everyone can get by, survive and live a better life.

Experts from the EU and UNHCR at the border between Sudan and Chad. Around 40,000 people—Sudanese refugees and Chadian returnees—have crossed the border since the start of the conflict in Sudan. © UNHCR/Aristophane Ngargoune

 

Pauline Chetcuti:

Pauline Chetcuti has been—since June 2024—the President of VOICE. Pauline Chetcuti is also Head of Humanitarian Campaigns and Advocacy for Oxfam International. A lawyer specialized in international humanitarian law and human rights, she has solid experience within UN agencies and NGOs in contexts such as Palestine, Afghanistan, the DRC and Myanmar. She provides strategic leadership on global campaigns and policies related to the protection of civilians, fragility and the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations. Author of several publications on humanitarian principles, hunger and the link between climate and humanitarian action, she contributes actively to the international debate. An expert in network management, she strengthens humanitarian partnerships and represents Oxfam in high-level forums. Guided by feminist leadership, she values diversity, inclusion and the expression of the voices of her team and partners.

CALL TO READERS

Défis Humanitaires is launching a collective reflection on the changes in the world that justify the evolution of the magazine and its layout. Thank you for:

Thank you for your commitment and loyalty to Défis Humanitaires.

Armenia: Exclusive interview with Olivier Decottignies

French Ambassador

Alain Boinet: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for answering our questions for the online magazine Défis Humanitaires. You are the French ambassador to Yerevan in Armenia. My first question concerns Missak and Mélinée Manouchian, who were inducted into the Panthéon on February 21. It’s a powerful symbol, saluting the memory of a Resistance fighter who fought with his comrades for our country during the war, and who paid for it with their lives. What is the significance of this event?

Olivier Decottignies : Thank you very much. This is first and foremost a French event, a republican event, a national commemoration. But it is also a Franco-Armenian event insofar as the leader of this group of foreign resistance fighters, who are honored at the Panthéon, was an Armenian. Missak Manouchian was a survivor of the 1915 genocide, who spent his childhood in the orphanages of Lebanon, before arriving in France as an adult. He was a multi-faceted personality: Armenian, communist activist, volunteer in Armenian charities, resistance fighter, poet, worker. Through him and his wife Mélinée, who was also a member of his network and lies beside him in the Panthéon, the entire Manouchian group is honored. A group that included more than just Armenians – it included Italians, Hungarians, Poles, Spaniards… Many of them were Jews. The contribution to the Resistance of all these foreigners who died for France is now recognized.

Alain Boinet: At the end of January, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pachinian proposed that Azerbaijan sign a non-aggression pact in anticipation of a comprehensive peace treaty. On February 13, 4 Armenian soldiers were killed by Azeri fire in Syunik province. President Ilham Aliyev regularly makes bellicose statements. How can we understand this attitude, and what can be done to preserve peace in the South Caucasus?

Olivier Decottignies: The situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan is still one of armed conflict, since we’re talking about negotiating a peace treaty. This conflict regularly gives rise to incidents along the military contact lines. Moreover, these contact lines do not always correspond to the actual border line, since Azerbaijan has been occupying whole swathes of Armenia’s sovereign territory militarily since its offensives in May 2021 and September 2022. Negotiations have been initiated in various formats. These negotiations are no longer making substantial progress, which explains the concerns not only of the Armenian authorities and France, but of all those working for peace. The statements by President Aliyev to which you refer obviously contribute to this concern.

City of Meghri, Syunik province, southern Armenia, bordering Iran, Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. © Alain Boinet

Alain Boinet: One of the reasons put forward by Azerbaijan is the passage between its territory, to the east, and Nakhchivan, to the west, which is Azeri and separated to some extent by Armenia and its province of Syunik. For the Armenians, what is the solution for allowing passage between these two parts of Azerbaijan? And why isn’t this happening?

Olivier Decottignies: The proposal that the Armenians are making, not only to Azerbaijan but to all the states in the region, is to find a traffic regime, which the Armenians have christened “peace crossroads.” This initiative was launched last October by the Prime Minister of Armenia, from Georgia. It does not only concern Azerbaijan and Armenia, but aims to integrate all neighboring states, by facilitating movement in the region under certain conditions: freedom, reciprocity, equality of these states and respect for their sovereignty. It’s a formula that has the merit of uniting all the states in the region around common interests and clear principles. This formula has the support of France.

Alain Boinet: So, why isn’t this being done?

Olivier Decottignies: There are several aspects to the discussions. One of them, which is essential if you want to make peace with your neighbor, is to determine where one country begins and the other ends. The delimitation of the border has not been agreed between the two states, not only on the route, but also on the method, and in particular on the references that would be used. The key principle is that of the Alma-Ata declaration, which stipulates that the borders of the states that have emerged from the Soviet Union correspond to the administrative boundaries of the former Soviet republics. This principle is binding on both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and was reiterated by both states in Prague in October 2022, thanks to the mediation of President Emmanuel Macron. Then, in order to proceed with the route, we need a reference frame. This reference frame is provided by Soviet-era maps. Today, there is no complete agreement between the parties on which set of maps should be used.

Alain Boinet: Does Armenia agree with this set of maps? With the borders as they were defined at the time?

Olivier Decottignies: Armenia adheres to the Alma-Ata principles. But these principles don’t just apply to Armenia, they also apply to Azerbaijan and to all the post-Soviet states that signed up to this rule when the Soviet Union broke up. We’re talking about a time when administrative boundaries existed, but had no more physical manifestation than the boundaries between French departments or regions.

Alain Boinet: Armenia’s neighbors are Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iran and Georgia. What is the attitude of these countries to the situation in the South Caucasus, to the tension you just mentioned? What is their position with regard to Armenia? What can more distant countries like France, the member states and the European Union, India, Greece, the United States and India, which are also concerned by the issues at stake in this region, do?

Olivier Decottignies: It’s difficult for me to speak on behalf of these countries, which I don’t represent. On the other hand, I have a regular dialogue with the Armenian authorities and I can try to explain the situation they are in.

Armenia has noted on several occasions, in particular in May 2021 and September 2022, that the security guarantee historically provided by Russia, and which in principle commits Russia within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), had not been forthcoming. It also realized in 2023 that the Russian peacekeepers who had been deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh as part of the Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement of 2020 had been left holding the bag when the Azerbaijani offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh began.

In fact, the Russian soldiers only left their barracks when it came to disarming the Nagorno-Karabakh forces, as provided for in the ceasefire agreement between the de facto authorities and the Azerbaijani government. So there was an Azerbaijani offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh, carried out with the support of Turkey, but also with the complicity of Russia, and which resulted in the mass forced departure of almost all the Armenians from this territory – over 100,000 people – who have taken refuge in Armenia.

Defense agreements signed on February 22 and 23 in Yerevan by defense ministers Sébastien Lecornu and Souren Papikian. © Olivier DecottigniesArmenia is therefore seeking to diversify its security partnerships. To this end, it is turning to more distant countries such as France, with which we are developing a defense relationship in terms of equipment, training and consulting. And France, in choosing this defense relationship with Armenia, has broken a taboo, since it is the first NATO country to supply defense equipment to Armenia, which remains a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In the same spirit, Armenians are also turning to India. And after the French Minister of the Armed Forces on February 23, the Greek Minister of Defense visited Armenia on March 4.

On another note, we shouldn’t forget Iran, which is an important neighbor for Armenia, insofar as Teheran has reaffirmed, on numerous occasions, its concern that the Armenian-Iranian border to the south of Armenia should not be controlled by any state other than Armenia.

Alain Boinet: French President Emmanuel Macron recently declared that France has a friendly relationship with Armenia. Observers understood that this was an evolution, the affirmation of a special relationship. Can you tell us more?

Olivier Decottignies: The closeness is not new, it’s the result of a long shared history, between the two states, but also between the two peoples. Today, there is above all a very clear line, which is that of the President of the Republic: France’s support for Armenia is unconditional, wholehearted and constant. This is the line that my team in Yerevan, under the authority of the Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs, and with the support of all the government departments concerned, are implementing.

Alain Boinet: Doesn’t this create obligations in the current situation?

Olivier Decottignies: France’s position is not declaratory: it is translated into action. In the humanitarian sphere, France has responded to the massive exile of 100,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh with humanitarian aid that has been increased to 29 million euros for 2023, i.e. more than any other bilateral donor. France was the first to send emergency medical aid to Armenia, the first to evacuate severely wounded and burn victims from Nagorno-Karabakh to French hospitals. France was also at the forefront politically. On three occasions, it referred the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh to the Security Council. At European level, it has pushed for measures that were adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council last November: on the one hand, the reinforcement of the European observation mission, whose numbers will double; and on the other, the opening of discussions to give Armenia access to the European Peace Facility. Last but not least, France has been there for Armenia on a bilateral level, including, as has been said, in terms of defense relations.

The ambassador with a French military delegation in Armenia. © Olivier Decottignies

Alain Boinet: In this tense situation, where things could get out of hand, as Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pachinian recently mentioned on Armenian television, what can we expect from the European Union, but also from the United Nations and other countries, in order to avoid the risk of a potential conflict?

Olivier Decottignies: All member states of the United Nations are, in principle, committed to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other members. So that’s what we’re entitled to expect from any state. Of course, the member states of the Security Council, of which France is a member, have special responsibilities.

Armenia wishes to draw closer to the European Union. As Prime Minister Nikol Pachinian told the European Parliament on October 17, Armenia is ready to develop its relationship with the European Union as far as the EU is prepared to go. Armenia welcomed the prospect of EU membership opened up to Georgia a few weeks ago. It also held a cooperation council with the European Union.

The European Union observer mission is a very good example of what the European Union can do effectively and concretely. Having been out in the field on patrol with the mission, I’ve been able to observe that European observers are warmly welcomed, that they are greeted in a friendly manner in the villages and on the roadsides, that their presence reassures. They are proof, for these vulnerable and isolated populations living in military contact zones, that they are not forgotten by the world. In addition to this reassuring role, the presence of this observation mission means that the international community can obtain impartial information, which is essential in a crisis of this nature. It helps to dispel the fog of war.

Alain Boinet: Is it conceivable that, in the current context, this mission could be mobilized more specifically in the Syunik region, which seems particularly threatened?

Olivier Decottignies: The mission’s mandate covers the whole of Armenia. So it can go anywhere. Its patrols focus primarily on border areas and military contact zones. The mission’s aim is to have sufficient manpower to increase the number of patrols, and Syunik is obviously one of the priority areas in this context.

Alain Boinet: Do you think that the current fragmentation of the world, as illustrated by the war in Ukraine, the Sahel or the Taiwan Strait, is a favorable moment that Azerbaijan could exploit by attempting a military coup against Armenia, a member of the international community represented at the United Nations?

Olivier Decottignies: I don’t know what the intentions of the Azerbaijani authorities are, and I have no contact with them. But what I do know is that in this fragmented, degraded international environment you describe, there have been several military episodes in recent years involving Azerbaijan and Armenia, or Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and that each time, Azerbaijan has taken the initiative.

Olivier Decottignies at a meeting on humanitarian aid for Armenia with members of the Crisis and Support Center of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs. © Olivier Decottignies

Alain Boinet : On September 19 and 20, a military offensive by Azerbaijan drove 100,000 Armenians from their ancestral territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, or Artsakh, in Azerbaijan. How were they received in Armenia? What is their current situation? And how is France helping these refugees?

Olivier Decottignies: 100,000 people forced to leave their homes in less than a week is no mean feat. Given the scale of this population movement, the Armenian response, with the support of the international community and France in particular, has been satisfactory. In particular, no refugee camps have sprung up. Shelter solutions were found in the homes of private volunteers and relatives, as well as in hotels, gymnasiums and schools requisitioned by the state. The immediate response was, I think, equal to the challenge. The surge of solidarity was very strong in Armenia, and the international community was there to help. France played a key role in this response, as we were the leading bilateral donor of humanitarian aid to Armenia, with 29 million euros in 2023, thanks to the mobilization of the Government and Parliament.

Now that the emergency phase is over, the question arises of integrating the refugees. Integration raises legal issues, such as the choice of whether or not to opt for Armenian nationality. It also implies responding to very concrete challenges, which we stand by Armenia:

  • The question of housing, i.e. not just transitional accommodation, but sustainable housing;
  • The question of employment, with a labor market structure that was quite different in Nagorno-Karabakh from that in Armenia, with a much greater weighting of the public sector and the agricultural sector;
  • The question of education: of the 100,000 refugees, some 23,000 school-age children have been integrated into the Armenian school system, but all this has a cost and requires support;
  • Finally, a question that is far from secondary is that of psychosocial support. We’re talking about a population traumatized by nine months of blockade, a brutal military offensive and a forced exodus. It’s a multi-traumatized population, because for many, this is not their first experience of forced displacement. Some were driven out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by anti-Armenian pogroms in Azerbaijan. And for every Armenian, whether from Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia or the diaspora, there is the memory of the genocide, whether we like it or not. It’s a trauma that rekindles other traumas, and requires appropriate psychosocial support. This is one of the priorities of our humanitarian cooperation with Armenia, now and in the months to come.

Alain Boinet: In France, humanitarian and development aid, apart from the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the French Development Agency, is essentially provided by associations, foundations and local authorities. What can these players do in Armenia today for those who are not yet present, and what do you suggest?

Olivier Decottignies: These players are already doing a great deal. Armenia is a land of decentralized cooperation. There isn’t a single region in Armenia that hasn’t established cooperation with French local authorities at municipal or governorate level. And on the French side, civil society organizations, diaspora organizations and NGOs are mobilized and present on the ground. Through the CDCS, we have supported Acted, Médecins du Monde and Action contre la Faim, who are hard at work in Armenia with their Armenian partners. Many diaspora organizations have been active in the country since independence, or even before, since the starting point for French humanitarian action in Armenia was the earthquake of December 7, 1988.

The priority for organizations wishing to help Armenia and Armenians is, of course, to support the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh, in the four main areas we mentioned: housing, employment, education and psychosocial support.

At the same time, given Armenia’s current situation, we need to focus on the most strategic sectors and the regions most at risk. This means sectors that are crucial to Armenia’s territory, economy and resilience, as well as border regions close to military contact lines. From this point of view, there are no small issues and no small projects. A territory that holds together is one where the population stays, so there are jobs, services that can – and must – also be medical, educational and cultural services. I believe that today the most important thing is to concentrate where we can have the greatest impact, and to act not just with compassion, but strategically. We must always think of Armenia with the map in front of us.

Of course, all these organizations and initiatives know that they can get advice from the Embassy team: our door is always open to them.

Alain Boinet: How do you see Armenia’s future?

Olivier Decottignies: I see it looking towards Europe. This is the sense of the democratic trajectory that the Armenian people chose during the “velvet revolution” of 2018 and that they have maintained ever since, through all the trials and tribulations. From this point of view, Armenia’s recent accession to the International Criminal Court is also a very strong signal. However, turning towards Europe does not mean ignoring our regional environment. Building Armenia’s future requires reaching a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, but also, more broadly, a modus vivendi that enables all the states in the region to take full advantage of their strategic position at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. That’s why the resolution of this conflict is so important to us Europeans.

Alain Boinet: How would you like to conclude this interview?

Olivier Decottignies: I’d like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to all those who make up our relationship with Armenia and whom I meet in France and when they visit Armenia: the humanitarian community, civil society, the diaspora, local authorities, elected representatives and French administrations. They always welcome me with a lot of ideas, a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of commitment to developing this relationship with Armenia. I think it’s a great opportunity to benefit from this support, and there are few bilateral relations that arouse such support. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Alain Boinet: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

 

Visit the website of the French Embassy in Armenia

 

Olivier Decottignies

Olivier Decottignies is a career diplomat.

Former Consul General of France in Erbil, Kurdistan, Iraq (2019-2023), he worked from 2015 to 2016 as a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and from 2016 to, 2017 at the French Embassy in the United States. From 2012 to 2015, he was second counselor at the French Embassy in Iran, overseeing the nuclear portfolio and regional issues. Prior to that, he served at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris, where he worked on politico-military issues, in particular NATO and EU missions and operations in Libya, the Balkans and the Caucasus. He was deployed to Haiti as part of the first aid effort following the 2010 earthquake.

An alumnus of the École normale supérieure in Lyon, he holds a master’s degree in public affairs from Sciences Po Paris, a master’s degree in history from the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and a bachelor’s degree in history from the Sorbonne.