Alain Boinet: When one thinks of UN Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991, on Iraq, aimed at protecting civilians and the Kurds, how does it resonate with you in light of the geopolitical situation in 2025 and the ways conflicts are resolved? What is your assessment?

Bernard Kouchner: What is happening? We have all worked for human rights, development, humanitarian missions, anti-racism, and social justice. We continue to do so, but we must recognize that these values no longer hold the same allure. Is it a failure? No, I do not believe so, but it is at least an unfortunate pause.

The Kurds! A word about them: the largest stateless people, a remnant forgotten by colonialism, our discovery in Iraq at Hadj Omran, one night listening to the great Massoud Barzani, an old warrior who remained a democrat… It was in the early 1970s! And thirty years after Security Council Resolution 688, here we are unearthing it again, more than thirty years later—a major advancement in humanitarian law, once called “the mother of all resolutions.”

The world has changed. The Kurds are no longer unknown. They have fought hard; NGOs, the French, and Americans, among others, politically supported their efforts. Not enough. Here is a good example of the necessary mix of politics and humanitarian action. Certainly, the Kurds, trapped between Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian territories, are not united. They fight in different situations. Not to mention a significant, fragmented diaspora.

Whether humanitarian or political, we must continue alongside the Kurds. Everything has evolved, but the persistence of humanitarian commitments from NGOs was decisive. In Iran, repression remains perhaps the most violent; in Iraq, the Kurds are nearly autonomous. In Syria, the situation is unstable, and the new bearded leader inspires little confidence.

For the Kurds, is independence the next step? A single Kurdish state? Is this a shared desire? To achieve that, a common language and ideology would need to be built. It will take decades.

AB: In your view, what does Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Donald Trump’s election signify for international relations, and what consequences might this have in the future?

BK: Let’s not confuse the two phenomena, even though they complement each other. We must consider the “rightward shift” of global public opinion, which exists and is strengthening. Do poor populations frighten the rich? The violent rejection of immigration points in this direction. The failure of socialist struggles and hopes reinforces this sentiment.

For Vladimir Putin, invading Ukraine is about forcibly reclaiming the borders of the former Soviet Empire. Let us recall that the Russians themselves (Yeltsin) authorized Ukraine’s independence and referendum. We had already followed the events in Georgia and Crimea. Will the Moscow army go further? Will they invade the Baltic states? Many French citizens believe so; many Europeans think the same. I personally do not believe in an immediate expansion of the war. The Russian economy is faltering, and the Ukrainians are not giving in. But undoubtedly, the risk exists.

We must strengthen our European defenses and persist in the old idea, this stubborn support for a “Europe of defense.” It should be noted that Donald Trump, in one of his oscillations, seemed to give in to Putin’s reasoning, and he does not seem to know the region’s history. Trump likes meeting Putin. Will the U.S. President add betrayal to diplomatic recklessness? He changes his mind often—a bad point—but when he persists, it is a good point. I do not yet know the outcome of this confrontation; what I understand regarding taxes and the economy frightens me. He has not finished shocking us. If Donald Trump does not appear as a great politician in the classical sense, he seems to be a top-level golfer.

Indeed, the century wavers.

AB: In his book Occident ennemi mondial numéro 1, Jean-François Colosimo emphasizes the conquering resurgence of former empires—Russian, Persian, Turkish, Chinese—and adds the United States. In this new context, what becomes of Europe, its countries, and democracy?

BK: Yes, the old empires are regaining ambition. Disputes over ideologies, capitalism and socialism, are rarer, but differences in living standards remain, and the poor and the rich are still with us. Europe—the one we wanted united—has become a target for other nations of all tendencies. Is it still an example, a hope, or a regret?

All of them, for different reasons, are irritated by these old democracies, by their convulsions, but even more so by their cultures and ways of life. And what is to become of Europe—should it make us despair? Not even a unanimous communiqué from all 27 European countries on the terrifying bombings of Moscow, which went on for many long months, despite the firm positions of President Macron and British Prime Minister Starmer. We maintained that Vladimir Putin was threatening all of Europe. The European countries remained vague.

And suddenly, thanks to the courage of Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, after a very forceful alliance between the British (who had left Europe) and the French, politics changed pace. Fear of a conflict spread, judgment of Vladimir Putin grew harsher. And the Washington conference finally gave a dimension that went beyond the first impressions of Trump’s alignment with the most harmful positions of Putin, supported by the very violent and deadly bombings on Ukraine. But very quickly, we fell back into vagueness.

AB: What becomes of the UN in all this? It seems paralyzed, marginalized, or submissive. Will it meet the fate of the League of Nations?

BK: The UN remains a disappointed hope. The UN is in a state of brain death. Not even a last resort. The UN does not move forward, but it still has some remnants of presence. For example, it remains stationed at the border between Lebanon and Israel. Yet it is a theoretical presence.

It is the Security Council that is paralyzed: Putin’s Russia, the invader of Ukraine, is the cause, and China supports it—softly, but supports it nonetheless. Two out of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: impossible to make a decision!

What future for the United Nations? Dark. We must invent another machine for making peace. That big Washington meeting—was it useful? The UN was not even present. Your comparison with the League of Nations is accurate.

AB: The U.S. administration recently dismantled USAID, drastically cut budgets, and altered priorities and methods. Similarly, in Europe, the UK, Germany, France, and others are suddenly cutting humanitarian and development funding. How do you explain these choices, and what consequences might they have?

BK: Yes, it is an assassination, but why rely so heavily on the U.S.? Was this country our life insurance for nearly 70 years? We often criticized it while calling on it in serious situations. Military operations in Africa often received American material and financial support. Washington’s aid helped reinforce our social protection measures, allowing the French to reap the so-called “dividends of peace.” We paid little attention to others, unlike NGOs. None of our military operations could have happened without U.S. support. Our children attended schools overseas, music, sports—all influenced by the Americans.

It would be too easy to dwell on 1939–45 and D-Day. But let us remember: we cannot break with Americans simply because we doubt Trump’s stability.

AB: The drop in aid funding is accompanied by a weakening of international humanitarian law, protection of civilians, and access to relief, as seen in Sudan, Ukraine, and Gaza, where famine is used as a weapon of war killing innocents. Are we heading toward acceptance of the worst and the impotence of the law?

BK: Birth rates, capitalist success, poverty, disrespect for the law—multiple factors mix and clash. I regret this regression of commitments.

AB: Humanitarians feel less supported, even criticized. How can one speak to a public primarily concerned with purchasing power and insecurity about an uncertain future?

BK: Humanitarian action, thanks to NGOs, large and small, has been one of the major advances of political consciousness. It was about standing with others, with poor countries, requiring strong economies in rich countries.

You mention an uncertain future—is this a war against Putin’s army? The defeat or alleged betrayal of Putin, Trump, or both? The previous simplistic dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism was convenient but too simplistic. Society has evolved beyond those rigid labels. Yet France remains a country where, despite the crisis, life is still good.

AB: In L’heure des prédateurs, Giuliano Da Empoli writes: “In Libya, the Middle East, Ukraine: the edges of the continent that rebuilt itself on peace are now battlefields; war penetrates further into Europe’s borders.” Given this, should we prepare for possible war and arm ourselves accordingly?

BK: All indications point to a warlike reality. I do not know if conflict is imminent, but we must prepare. Again, despite illusions, we must build a “Europe of defense,” not a European army. The path is long, but the necessity is clear.

History forgets, so let us remember: it was Gorbachev and Yeltsin who granted Ukraine independence and accepted the referendum. Disturbances in 1984 marked conflict between Russian speakers and Ukrainians. Putin, after 20 years of dictatorship, launched a “special operation” and sent his army to seize power in Kyiv. Let us salute the courage of Ukrainians and the tenacity of President Zelensky.

AB: According to the UN (OCHA), $47.4 billion is needed this year to assist 189.5 million people in 72 countries. Forecasts suggest contributions may reach only a fifth, or less. The human consequences would be catastrophic. What message would you send to policymakers about this real risk?

BK: I advocate rescuing as many people in danger as possible. I have done so my entire life. But it is too easy to separate humanitarian action from politics. In these dangerous times, we must bring them closer without conflating them. With limited funds, we must innovate to continue emergency response and development aid.

We all dream of changing the world, and this is why we must closely follow political realities while addressing humanitarian needs. Is it possible? I believe so—it is not forbidden to dream.

AB: How would you like to conclude this interview?

BK: Current times try to make us despair; let us not despair and continue to believe in Humanitarianism. Politics will try to catch up.

Recently, Gérard Chaliand, a man of tenacity and loyalty, passed away. He had seen everything, understood everything, and, as they say, never flaunted his knowledge. I have remembered him since I was 20. He was a model of intellectual honesty and rare courage. He spoke with gentleness and gravity about what he observed, never speaking ill of others. A rare man who approached geopolitics with a poet’s eye—and friendship. Farewell, Gérard.

Bernard Kouchner

Co-founder of Doctors Without Borders and Doctors of the World. Former Minister of Health, former Minister of Foreign Affairs.

 

 

 

 

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :

• A comprehensive humanitarian and geopolitical overview
• The Challenge of Humanitarian “Reinvention”
• Report from Ukraine – Between War and Resilience
• “The World to Come as Seen by the CIA”
• Tribute to Gérard Chaliand
• They speak out for Défis Humanitaires