When Nutriset talks to humanitarians

*Two-year-old Seid eats high-nutrient peanut paste provided by a Save the Children health extension worker. @Nutriset*

On a regular basis, the Nutriset Group invites humanitarian actors to come and talk to its employees from all professions. Through testimonials from field missions or through dialogues led by Christian Troubé and organized by Fatima Madani, Nutriset’s NGO customer care manager. This month, Nutriset welcomed Alain Boinet, President of Défis Humanitaires and founder of the humanitarian NGO Solidarités International.

Christian Troubé
Alain, how do you look back on the last 40 years of humanitarian work, to which you have made a major contribution? We all remember the image, in the 80s, of globe-trotters who went off to do humanitarian work with three medicines and a backpack. And we’ve seen this generation become the bosses of multinational NGOs, with budgets in the millions. In a few words, how would you sum up your career?

Alain Boinet
Christian, as you well know as a journalist, the world has changed a lot since 1980, and so has humanitarianism. Yet the need for humanitarian action is still there, more than ever. 1980 is a landmark: a small number of NGOs and individuals decided to take the risk of going to the aid of populations in danger, without authorization or visas, by entering certain countries clandestinely. This was notably the case in Afghanistan in the 1980s. While international humanitarian aid was deployed for refugees in Pakistan and Iran, which was essential, no one thought of crossing the border. On the other side of the border, however, people were exposed to war on a daily basis, without any help. This was the “French doctors” movement, embodied in particular by Bernard Kouchner and MSF. “Solidarités International” is part of this small handful of associations and individuals who decided to go beyond borders to help people, without authorization and clandestinely.

It took us around ten years to get international institutions to recognize that this was both essential and possible. Accessing populations in danger anywhere, and without authorization if necessary, is not, in my view, tantamount to calling into question borders, which are human realities. We simply believe that the duty to help people in mortal danger must prevail everywhere in the world. It’s a dream, an ideal, but also a very concrete objective.

International humanitarian aid meets the vital needs of populations mainly affected by conflict or war. Most of the time, these are civil wars, although Ukraine is an exception, for religious and/or ethnic reasons. So geopolitics is important for humanitarian action. Humanitarian action also responds to the consequences of natural disasters and major epidemics.

Every change in geopolitical times has major humanitarian consequences. Briefly, to answer your question, we can distinguish a few major periods over the past 45 years.

The 1980s, with the Cold War between East and West,
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR in 1989 and 1991,
UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s Agenda for Peace in 1992, with the hope of perpetual peace.
The war in ex-Yugoslavia from 1992, the first Gulf War in 1991, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994,
The great strategic disruption with the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, followed by the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq in 2003,
A transition period in 2019 with COVID-19,
Since February 24, 2022: Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the war represents an epochal change that will once again impact the world and humanitarianism.

We are witnessing a return to sovereignty for states, nations and former Empires. In Senegal, the election of a young president who is strongly and democratically asserting his country’s sovereignty is to be compared with the military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. These countries have a very strong desire to recognize their sovereignty and independence.

We are caught up in this geopolitical context with major challenges. Access to populations in danger, insofar as we may encounter difficulties because we may be perceived as Western associations. The multiplication of players. Sovereignty also raises the question of identity. Then there’s the question of funding – will humanitarian aid remain a priority on the international agenda, or will it dwindle among institutional funders?

Afghanistan 1986, during the war against the Soviet Union, Bernard Kouchner and Alain Boinet crossed a river during a march lasting several weeks before arriving at their destination to bring aid from MDM and Solidarités International. Photo José Nicolas.

CT
We are indeed at an important historical turning point. This was underlined by all our leaders, notably at the European Humanitarian Forum held in Brussels on March 18 and 19.

Before discussing this geostrategic development for the humanitarian sector, I’d like to return to the question of humanitarian funding. The NGO world operates on very large budgets, and its action has helped to influence the increase in French and international public aid. Over the past year, however, we have witnessed what you call the “scissor effect”: pledges are not being kept and funding is falling.

France’s ODA was 10 billion in 2017, 15 billion in 2022, but budgetary arbitrations in 2024 are raising fears of a significant reduction in this aid. Bruno Le Maire has announced a reduction of 742 million euros. France, like many other countries, is making trade-offs to finance defense rather than public aid. What would you say about this situation?

AB
You put your finger on an essential point. Institutional funding reflects political choices about priorities. Over a long period of time, we have seen a steady increase in Official Development Assistance (ODA) worldwide, even though it falls short of the target of 0.7% of GNP, as well as an increase in humanitarian aid budgets. These budgets, like ODA, are unevenly distributed: most ODA comes from OECD member countries.

Let’s take an example of how the financial resources of humanitarian organizations have evolved. It is interesting to refer to a Défis Humanitaires study on this subject concerning a dozen French humanitarian NGOs – Médecins Sans Frontières, Action Contre la Faim, Handicap International, Solidarités International, Première Urgence Internationale, etc. – whose budget was 450 million in 2006 and 1.9 billion in 2021. This represents a 4-fold increase in the space of 16 years. This gives an indication of the growth that has taken place in other countries and at international level.

In the scissor effect, something may surprise us. ODA continues to grow. In 2021, the budget was 235 billion US dollars and 287 billion in 2022, representing an increase of 22%. For 2023, the increase is again 1.8%, according to the OECD. However, at the same time, in 2023 we have seen a marked weakening in funding for international humanitarian aid: the UN’s assessment of the resources needed with OCHA was of the order of 57 billion dollars in 2023, and we have mobilized less than 20 billion US dollars in funding. This means that we have met only 35% of the humanitarian needs identified.

CT
It’s worth remembering that we’re usually talking about 50-60% of funds actually disbursed. So we’re seeing a freefall in funding from the field.

AB
Every year, the United Nations, with OCHA, launches an appeal to States to raise the necessary funds. As you point out, we usually mobilize 50 to 60% of this amount. This time, we’re down to 35%. This is a serious matter. At the European Humanitarian Forum (EHF) on March 18 and 19, 2024 in Brussels, Cindy McCain, representative of the World Food Program (WFP), said that heartbreaking choices had had to be made: “in Afghanistan, we’ve cut over 10 million people from aid, in Syria we’ve cut 4 million, and in Somalia we’ve cut 3 million people from aid. And the list goes on.” This means that the United Nations in particular, and other humanitarian actors, are engaged in a policy of prioritization. As resources are scarce, the question is: who do we help and who do we help less or not at all? It’s a terrible dilemma.

In my editorial on the scissor effect in Défis Humanitaires, I write that there is a growing distortion between increasing needs and decreasing resources. What’s at stake is what’s going to happen in 2024, and the whole humanitarian world is witnessing this scissor effect. I hope that the EHF, which has mobilized a lot of financial resources in Europe, will help to redress the balance. But it’s also up to us to do something about it. Of course, defense budgets will increase – and this is necessary in the current context, as it is a collective life insurance policy, as we can see in Ukraine – but humanitarian aid is also a life insurance policy for populations in danger. We must not forget them, especially as humanitarian budgets are out of all proportion to defense budgets or international economic exchanges.

*European Humanitarian Forum – 2024 – © Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union / Julien Nizet*

CT
When we talk in terms of numbers of beneficiaries, it becomes dramatic. OCHA had forecast that by 2023, there would be 245 million people in the world to help. The scissor effect meant that we were only able to help 128 million. For 2024, OCHA says it wants to help 180 million people at a time when wars are multiplying, as well as major humanitarian crises. With a budget of 46 billion, we’re not even sure we can achieve this. Especially as we assume that half of the 46 billion will never be paid out.

Let’s take a look at the EHF last March. It presented a lucid assessment of a dramatic situation and, at the same time, made an appeal to remain hopeful and find ways to mobilize. Janez Lenarčič, DG ECHO Commissioner, opened his speech by declaring, “Make no mistake, the humanitarian lifeboat is sinking.” Martin Griffiths, OCHA’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who has since resigned, argued that NGOs needed to change their business model, considering both the situation of donors and the explosion of needs. At the same time, we are in a geopolitical situation unseen since 1945.

How can we do less with less, how can we learn to optimize humanitarian aid in the field?

There is also the question of access to populations. On the one hand, we have high-intensity conflicts, and on the other, gang conflicts and civil wars. So how can we guarantee access to humanitarian aid in this context?

Finally, faced with the rise of state sovereignty and nationalism, the very identity of humanitarian universalism, which had become established since the 90s, is being challenged. Here too, the space for intervention is shrinking. What do you think about this?

AB
To add to what Janez Lenarčič said, he said: “The global humanitarian crisis has continued to degenerate. The humanitarian aid lifeboat is increasingly powerless in the face of the growing tsunami of humanitarian needs. Make no mistake, this lifeboat is sinking. We don’t have much time left to repair it.

During the EHF, a funding appeal was made to member states and the European Union, which mobilized 7.7 billion euros. It’s a wake-up call. In addition, a decision taken by the European Council at the end of the first two EHFs has been reaffirmed. This involves increasing humanitarian aid to 0.07% of each country’s gross national income (GNI). This is a long way off. To put it another way, on average, in the OECD countries that are the main donors, humanitarian aid will represent 14% of ODA in 2022, a little less in 2023, and some countries are well below this figure. For example, the United States devotes around a third of its ODA to humanitarian aid, and France was at less than 1% for a long time. Since 2017, France has climbed back up the slope. For 10 years, we had to take action to get our country involved in international humanitarian aid. In 2009, it was a few tens of millions of euros, in 2022 it’s 653 million euros, and, normally, in 2025 France’s humanitarian budget should be one billion euros.

In France, ODA has risen from 10 to 15 billion euros in the space of 5 years. For this, we must salute the decision taken by the President of the Republic and the government. So, today, France’s ODA budget for 2024 has been cut by 746 million euros. This is not the only budget to be cut. The environment, for example, is much more affected, with savings of almost 2.5 billion euros. Virtually all ministries are affected, with the exception of priority ministries such as defense. I do hope, however, that the one billion French euros will be available for humanitarian aid in 2025 in France.

We, who began providing humanitarian aid in 1980, without any institutional funding to help the Afghans, must fight against this backlash and for access to aid for populations in danger. We need to convince decision-makers, because political will is essential. According to a survey, 90% of citizens in the 27 European countries consider humanitarian aid to be very important, even essential. There is widespread public support for humanitarian aid. This is our greatest support in translating this into political decisions. Prioritizing, innovating and optimizing humanitarian resources: that’s the most important thing.

Afghanistan – WASH & MPCA integrated emergency response for people affected by the cholera epidemic, natural disasters and displacement in Bamiyan and Kapisa provinces – 2023 – © Solidarités International

CT
It’s true that humanitarian resources are optimized through political gamesmanship, but this can have increasingly pernicious effects when it leads to donor countries selecting beneficiaries according to their strategic stakes.

AB
At European and international level, humanitarian aid is likely to become more sensitive to political considerations. Take Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, for example, which have experienced military coups, and are appealing to the Russians while asking the French and Americans to leave. It is likely that France, the United States, other countries and Europe will not continue their efforts in the same way when certain countries are challenging their political model and supporting hostile regimes such as Russia, China and Iran. So there’s a real political issue on the table, even though humanitarian aid aims to be impartial, neutral and independent of political agendas. We need to advocate and act in favor of impartial humanitarian aid, while remaining clear-sighted about the changes underway.

We also need to become more efficient, and innovation is central to this. One example is hulo (humanitarian logistics), an initiative currently supported by 13 NGOs. hulo pools logistical resources, making it possible to spend less and better through grouped orders. In 2023, hulo generated an economy of scale of 15.03% on orders from its NGOs.

Another point on which we need to innovate concerns bureaucracy and the sprawling administration that risks suffocating humanitarian aid. In an article published in Défis Humanitaires, Olivier Routeau, Director of Operations at Première Urgence Internationale, wrote that, in the context of a consortium in Ukraine involving several NGOs, 137 documents in addition to the project document itself had been requested, and contractual negotiations then took 4 months. So, 4 months later, some of the players had already met some of the identified needs, rendering the project largely obsolete.

He cites another example: a project financed by a United Nations agency which originally requested two interim monitoring reports per year. In the end, the agency asked for formalized monthly reporting for each of the 7 intervention sites. This increased the number of reports to be submitted from 2 to 84. It’s no longer possible to work like this. We need a real simplification shock.

In a new article in the 88th issue of Défis Humanitaire, Ludovic Donnadieu, founder of an auditing firm specializing in NGOs, tells us that we need to change our model, because it’s outdated and generates stifling bureaucracy to the detriment of aid to populations. He suggests correlating financial and project audits, in order to establish the link between resources and the actual implementation of projects. These are simple, common-sense proposals. At the moment, the current reporting system is a waste of time and money. Humanitarian aid has neither money nor time to waste.

[PHOTO HULO]

CT
Carole Poudré, Director of Customer Operations at Nutriset, poses the following question. Beyond the bureaucracy, aren’t donors wary of the ability of NGOs to deal with humanitarian emergencies? This mistrust of NGOs on the part of institutions probably stems from the bureaucracy you mentioned.

AB
Hello Carole. It’s the umbrella technique. Institutional administrators want to protect themselves, and the consequences cascade down. We have to say that we have to stop behaving this way. It’s the realization of the project that’s the priority. At Solidarités International, we have refused funding in the DRC from a United Nations agency that wanted to impose an armed escort from the United Nations Mission in Congo (MONUSCO) on us when we signed the project. We refused because this armed escort risked endangering not only our teams, but also the populations we were going to support in the Ituri province. In the end, we won our case. As soon as we have convincing arguments, we need to be able to set limits with our partners.

The problem is that we often have to deal with financiers who are quite disconnected from the realities on the ground. We are also increasingly partnering with local NGOs. As a result, some international NGOs transfer this bureaucratic practice of chasing ineligible expenses onto local NGOs to protect themselves. We have to get out of this system and reject this way of behaving.

But let’s make no mistake. We’re talking about public money from the taxes of citizens in the countries that fund us. We have an obvious duty of accountability for ethical and practical reasons. These funds have been entrusted to us, and we must scrupulously account for them. However, we are all in a bureaucratic trap from which we must emerge together.

CT
Is there any possibility of NGOs at international level speaking with one voice to donors? Carole writes that it takes a certain amount of courage for NGOs to defy the financial machine. It also means time spent on advocacy that is not fully devoted to helping people.

AB
At the first World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 in Istanbul, as part of the Grand Bargain, a dozen objectives had been set, including that of a shock of administrative simplification. Not only has it not happened, but the situation has worsened. International institutions and the UN must be called to account for their responsibilities and commitments.

It is possible to act in this way within the framework of NGO coordination – although more and more actors are becoming implementing partners who apply the precautionary principle above all, rather than genuine humanitarian actors who feel co-responsible for the general humanitarian system. On the other hand, if we succeed in convincing one state, we can hope to have a leverage effect on other states. So we need to work with both NGO coordinators and governments. In this way, we can influence France, which in turn can influence the other member states of the European Union and the United Nations.

Getting things moving at this level is both complex and essential if we are to advance the humanitarian cause.

CT
I’m wondering about access to today’s difficult terrain. We could mention Gaza, where humanitarian action has been filtered, not to say prevented, for six months by both the Egyptians and the Israelis. We could mention Sudan, now a large white spot on the map of Africa, where 8 million people are in great danger, particularly in Darfur, where humanitarian access is virtually impossible. Other places could also be mentioned – Nagorno-Karabakh, DRC…

What’s your take on this? How can we get access to these areas? In the 1980s, we didn’t ask ourselves the question, we just went for it. Nowadays, because of the bureaucratic institutionalization of the humanitarian world, we don’t go there any more, even though we could go there all the same, by forcing doors and borders?

*Departure to Ukraine of a convoy of trucks in partnership with the Leleu transport company – 2022 – © Solidarités International*

AB
Access to relief for vulnerable populations is the very reason for humanitarian aid. There is no such thing as zero risk, so risk has to be taken into account. Let’s face it: in a country at war, there’s no such thing as zero risk. In general, the greater the risk to the population, the greater the risk to us. On this point, there is a great diversity of NGOs – some of which practice the absolute precautionary principle and stay behind, and others which continue to take risks in a controlled way to rescue people who are in mortal danger. We must remember that humanitarian aid is about helping to save lives. Access is a priority.

The case of Gaza is specific. It’s a territory of 360km2 that is completely closed off. It is therefore impossible to enter without authorization, and strikes are so frequent that it is practically impossible to operate without, at the very least, prior authorization. Although the Israelis seem to warn NGOs and the population by telephone before the bombardments, this does not prevent the tens of thousands of civilian deaths we know about. International humanitarian law must apply, and aid must enter and reach the people of Gaza.

Humanitarian principles must be genuinely applied, in particular political neutrality and impartiality of aid, based solely on vital needs. This is the only way to act in war-torn countries. Independence from political agendas is our best visa for access to populations in danger.

CT
There remains the question of the new identity of humanitarianism, which stems from the rise of sovereignism. Firstly, in terms of humanitarian action in the field, we are seeing many regions of the world become inaccessible to what is rather hastily termed Western humanitarianism. At the same time, we are seeing the emergence of donors outside the traditional aid system – I’m thinking in particular of the Gulf States. They are beginning to want to be humanitarian actors, but on their own terms, according to their own vision of the world.

What’s your take on this development?

AB
Humanitarian aid, like development aid, should be shared and distributed throughout the world. The countries with the means to do so – China, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates – need to join forces with Western countries. The issue is also whether they will apply the principles of humanitarian aid. Chinese humanitarian aid, which does not go by that name, is subject to economic and political interests. It is important that these countries get involved and cooperate with the OECD on the resources they allocate to official development assistance and humanitarian aid. In some extreme cases, the situation is particularly critical. One example is Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. On the one hand, the Saudi air force was bombing medical facilities supported by health actors, while at the same time supporting humanitarian aid on the spot!

I’d like to come back to the question of the universality of humanitarian aid and the challenges posed by sovereignty. My conception of universalism is not opposed to recognizing the diversity of cultures, religions, peoples and histories. There are universal values, but there is also a human diversity that is a richness of humanity. I believe that universalism must recognize diversity. In that case, the sovereignty of states and populations is not necessarily a problem. Humanitarians must recognize that they are not at home when they intervene abroad, and that they must respect the laws of these countries. It’s not enough just to provide relief; you have to discover and learn about the culture of the people you’re helping, and respect it.

Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, a former French ambassador to China, Germany and Great Britain in particular, notes that others don’t think like we do, and that a German is not a Frenchman who speaks German. I believe that universalism, in the context of the rise of sovereignty and the return of the old Empires, does not preclude a partnership that respects differences, as long as the rule of law is sufficiently respected. Humanitarian values are universal values, because anyone who suffers and is in danger of dying for lack of water, food, disease or shelter must be helped, regardless of where they come from or who they are. It’s not Western, it’s human.

CT
You’re very much in line with what we stand for at Nutriset. How do you see the role of the private sector in humanitarian aid?

AB
Défis Humanitaires has had the opportunity, on several occasions, to highlight what the Nutriset Group does. It’s a company that does remarkable work in the field of nutrition, and has diversified its products considerably. I’m also a member of the Board of Directors of the Veolia Foundation, which is doing great work that certainly deserves more funding. I think we need to promote and develop initiatives by companies and local authorities alike, based on shared humanitarian principles.

Humanitarian work often involves taking risks, and this can pose problems for the private sector, even though it is not necessarily involved in the field. Intervening in difficult contexts can pose a problem for companies, although some do so with operational partners. At the very least, they can act in the field of post-crisis reconstruction. Here, we may need know-how as well as financing. If I take the Veolia Foundation as an example, we had a case in Ukraine. When the Russians destroyed the Kakhovka dam on the Dnieper River on June 8, 2023, flooding huge areas with towns and villages, people no longer had access to drinking water. The risk of water-borne diseases was very high. Solidarités International, together with the Centre de Crise et de Soutien of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Veolia Foundation, carried out an emergency project involving the installation of five water purification plants, the training of personnel in western Ukraine by the Veolia Foundation, and the deployment where necessary in the Kherson region with Solidarités International. This is the kind of initiative that needs to be multiplied, because international companies also have a responsibility to act wherever they can with humanitarian partners, not with a commercial aim but with a humanitarian aim that honors them.

The Nutriset Group is an example of this. It is so in its own actions, in what it produces, notably with its partners in the PlumpyField network.

*Crating 5 Aquaforce 2000 from the Veolia Foundation. Photo : CDCS*

Fatima Madani
Sophie-Anne Sauvegrain, anthropologist at Nutriset, asks whether the fact that an emergency situation lasts over time helps to reconfigure relations between humanitarians and populations, in a better recognition of the diversity you mentioned?

AB
Hello Sophie-Anne. For me, it’s always been a conviction that you have to take an interest in the country you’re in, the people, their culture, their history, their language. In terms of language, the relationship changes enormously once you know a few words and phrases in the local language. It’s a great added value that changes the relationship, the distance. But humanitarian aid workers often arrive in countries in crisis and need to be effective very quickly. They can’t rely on existing structures, which often fail because of conflict or disaster. The result is an increasingly technical approach.

We must never lose sight of who the people we’re helping are, because their identity is also part of their dignity. Recognizing people as people, not numbers, is fundamental to our relationship with them, and indispensable to our effectiveness. Dialogue and recognition must be established. It’s up to them to tell us what their needs are.

I remember an assessment mission to Angola a long time ago. I asked the people returning from the mission if they had asked the people what their needs were, where they came from, why they were there, where they would like to go next, what they thought their needs would be in the future. I realized that they had only asked these questions of the authorities, UN agencies and NGOs. That wasn’t good enough, and today it won’t happen again. Recognizing people’s identities means respecting their dignity and working in partnership to provide effective relief.

FM
Sophie-Anne Sauvegrain also asks if Alain can give an overview of the breakdown between UN-type international institutions, international NGOs and local NGOs.

AB
Every year, the Global Humanitarian Assistance Report gives precise statistics on these issues. I suggest that Sophie-Anne have a look at this report. I would also point out that every year, Défis Humanitaires produces a ten-page summary in French of this report, which we are publishing in this edition, which covers the year 2023.

It’s not easy to answer this question, since UN agencies act on their own, but also in partnership with the international NGOs they fund. They themselves may work with local NGOs. There is a kind of multi-actor partnership that is difficult to isolate by category. It’s also possible to have several different backers on the same project, and in varying proportions of funding. In any case, there are operators in the field who are in contact with the populations and who respond to needs, first and foremost the NGOs, the ICRC and the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the United Nations agencies and national NGOs, without forgetting that the populations and the national players are the first actors of solidarity among themselves.

In Ukraine, we have seen a drift in this system: certain international NGOs, to protect themselves from financial audits by donors, focus on ineligible expenditure by local and national NGOs, rather than supporting them, even though it is the latter that are often the most exposed in the frontline zones. I believe, on the contrary, that these partnerships should enhance the capacities of national and local NGOs, and that they should complement each other.

At the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May 2016, some people emphasized the opposition between national and international NGOs. In my opinion, this was a serious mistake and we lost years. If we want things to work, we have to work in complementarity with each other. NGOs have difficulties with audits in terms of capacity, because they require time and skills. Accountability is essential, so we need to imagine a transfer of skills. We need to think about training in these areas.

CT
What would be your conclusion Alain?

AB
Défis Humanitaire is an online magazine that benefits from a committee of experts with diverse skills and various partners. We publish a diversified monthly edition that takes account of current events and also deals with in-depth issues. The magazine is read in France, of course, but just as much in the USA as in the Sahel countries, in Brussels or Geneva as in Armenia and the DRC.

To return to our common mission, which consists in saving people and not abandoning them when they are faced with risk and danger, it is an indispensable human mission, from emergency relief to the return to peace and reconstruction, and then as soon as possible to the resumption of development. It’s our duty.

We are fortunate to meet exceptional people who, even if they are destitute, teach us a great deal. We discover the world in all its diversity, which is both multiple and unique. We can help them through their trials and tribulations, and this mission remains relevant whatever the difficulties. Humanitarian aid is not a long, quiet river; we face many obstacles, so we have to hang in there and overcome them together. Let’s be optimistic!

Christian Troubé

A senior reporter specializing in international relations, Christian Troubé first became acquainted with the humanitarian world in the early 1980s, during the war in Lebanon. As a journalist, he went on to accompany a number of NGOs to various fields of action. As a volunteer, he was also a director of Action contre la Faim. The author of numerous books on humanitarian aid, he now puts his experience at the service of the Nutriset Group, advising on its strategic communications.

Links to Nutriset :
https://www.groupenutriset.fr
https://nutriset.fr
https://www.plumpyfield.com

Who is Alain Boinet : click here to read his biography.

Geopolitics of defense

Interview with the general (2S) Grégoire de Saint-Quentin

Introduction Défis Humanitaires: War is back in Europe with the Russian attack in Ukraine. The Sahel has entered a period of great turbulence. The world is fragmenting, becoming more unpredictable and more dangerous. Grégoire de Saint Quentin, who has held major military responsibilities as an army general and whom we thank for this interview, answers questions from Défis Humanitaires, which invites you to discover his analysis of the links between geopolitics, conflict, defense and humanitarianism. Enjoy the interview, and watch the short video at the end.

Alain Boinet
General, on February 26, at an international conference in support of Ukraine at the Elysée Palace, French President Emmanuel Macron declared: “We will do everything necessary to ensure that Russia cannot win this war”. He also sketched out the prospect of Western, and therefore French, troops intervening in Ukraine, assuming what he described as “strategic ambiguity”. In your opinion, how should we understand the statements made by the President of the Republic, who is the head of France’s armed forces?

Grégoire de Saint-Quentin
First of all, as you mentioned, this statement was made at the end of an international conference where all the countries and organizations supporting Ukraine held lengthy discussions on the nature of the military support to be provided. At the time, Russia was campaigning for Vladimir Putin’s re-election, and the narrative of his victory was extremely offensive, while Western aid was struggling to materialize on the Ukrainian side. The primary aim of the conference was to reaffirm the full support of all players for Ukraine, as long as the Russian regime wished to persevere in its war of aggression.

With regard to the deployment of Western troops, you are also right to point out in your question that the President of the Republic in France is the head of the armed forces. This means that he decides on the deployment of forces, with the Armed Forces Chief of Staff (CEMA) then responsible for implementing his operational decisions. Under article 35 of the Constitution, the parliamentary vote remains the final arbiter, and takes place in the weeks that follow.

His questioning of the appropriateness of deploying ground troops, however natural it may be given his position as the institutional cornerstone of our defense system, was not so obvious to our Western partners, whose decision-making processes on the commitment of forces are different from ours. The ensuing debate provided a clearer picture of what would be perceived as “escalatory” by each of the different parties.

*Ukrainian artillerymen of the Joint Forces Task Force using the CAESAR supplied by France – 2022 – © Ministry of Defence of Ukraine*

AB
Does Russia’s attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022 constitute a strategic breakthrough, and what are its consequences and implications in the current geopolitical context? What does this mean for you in military terms, for example?

GSQ
It’s much more than just a military issue. The deliberate, unmotivated attack on a neighboring country by a permanent member of the Security Council, the guarantor of international order, is a major event. It has led to a rupture in international relations, and to a transformation whose scope we are not yet in a position to measure. Nevertheless, we can identify two initial consequences.

Firstly, this conflict confirms the primacy of the balance of power in all its crudeness: I impose my will because I am the strongest. It was clear that international regulatory mechanisms had been weakening for several years, but now they have been shattered, and Russia is paving the way for military adventurism the world over.

The second consequence is just as worrying, as it stems from the desire of authoritarian states, particularly Russia, to polarize antagonisms. By declaring war on the “collective West” and assuming leadership of a “global South”, the Russian head of state is seeking to extend and generalize chaos through his representation of international power relations. Today, no one yet knows when the international system will regain its stability, or what the foundations of that stability might be.

AB
In 1991, at the time of the break-up of the USSR, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, France had 160,000 troops at its disposal to deal with a possible war. Today, according to Pierre Schill, Chief of Staff of the French Army, we can mobilize 20,000 men. Is this enough in this context? How do you see the years ahead? What specific military consequences does this entail?

GSQ
There is a return to potential confrontations between powers, with a level of violence and weapons sophistication that is not what we have seen for 30 years: for peacemaking or humanitarian reasons, we intervened in so-called asymmetrical conflicts, most often intra-state, where the level of weapons use and lethality were much lower than what we are seeing in Ukraine. High-intensity, resource-intensive combat is waged in all areas of confrontation (land, air, sea, space, cyber). It’s hardly surprising, then, that the current situation is prompting European countries to rethink the question of their security and the funds they need to allocate to it.

In this much more demanding context, the operational contract set for the French army aims to be able to mobilize and project 20,000 men capable of fighting the toughest battles as part of a coalition. This is very little indeed compared with the situation during the Cold War, and we can legitimately wonder about losses and the renewal of human and material resources if the conflict were to last. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that, whatever the nature of the threat to our interests, it is difficult to envisage operations being carried out within a strictly national framework. We would act in coalition, within a NATO or other framework. What’s more, unlike in Ukraine, we are not currently threatened by an invasion of one of our neighbors, which would require much larger volumes of forces to hold an entire front.

*Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman meets with the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels, Belgium, January 12, 2022 – © NATO*

AB
Journalist Jean-Dominique Merchet says that “the French army is a bonsai version of the American army”, because France has the full range of equipment, just like the Americans, but on a smaller scale. What do you think about this? Will the new military programming law make it possible to scale up?

GSQ
I understand that such a comparison can be made, but I’d like to add a few nuances.

There are two points in common between France and the United States that are not sufficiently reflected in this expression.

Like its great ally, France has succeeded in developing a vigorous defense industry, at the cutting edge of technology, underpinning sovereign capabilities at the top end of the spectrum that few other countries possess, such as state-of-the-art fighter aircraft and nuclear submarines. This performance is the result not only of ongoing investment by the French government and industry, but also of the tremendous feedback received from our armed forces. Today, a critical mass of equipment is necessary, but not sufficient. We need the know-how and systems to combine them for maximum operational advantage. Artificial intelligence will make a major contribution to this, but nothing is possible without the proven feedback from “real life” that comes with years of operational experience.

The second thing we have in common with the US is that we are the only two NATO countries to have an independent nuclear deterrent, both in terms of how it is implemented and how it is used. This is a particular responsibility for our country, but it is also a major asset in the current context.

It’s important to understand that if our conventional capabilities seem “bonsai”, it’s also because the armed forces budget pays the price of our independence through the maintenance of deterrence. This is not the case with our European neighbors, particularly the Germans. As for the British, who are also a nuclear power, they have just decided to increase their defense spending to 2.5% of GDP, whereas the commonly accepted NATO standard is 2%.

So we need to take a good look at what’s happening around us. If Ukraine had remained a nuclear-armed state in 1991, war would probably not be ravaging its territory today. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee against existential risk.

At the same time, Russia, the country with the most nuclear warheads in the world, is severely challenged on the Ukrainian front, and is only able to control the situation thanks to the asymmetry of human and material resources with its adversary. Deterrence must be complemented by robust conventional means adapted to new threats.

For example, for the first time in its history, Israel has just been hit by a massive attack of munitions, guided or not, fired from a state, Iran, which has no borders with it. With the widespread “droning” of warfare, which we are seeing in all recent conflicts, there is no reason to think that this type of action cannot be reproduced in other conflicts.

AB
General Syrsky, Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, declared on April 13 that: “the situation has worsened considerably, mainly due to the significant intensification of Russian military actions. Ukraine’s allies are currently unable to provide the necessary military support.” What are the risks of this imbalance for Ukraine and its NATO allies, including France?

*President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Commander Oleksandr Syrskyi – Ukraine – 2023 – © President of Ukraine*

GSQ
The risk for Ukraine is to back down and allow the Russian regime to seize the Oblasts it has decided, following bogus referendums, should be attached to the Russian Federation.

For us in the West, when we say that we must not let Russia win, it’s because we must stand up to the law of the strongest, and that Ukraine’s failure will be presented to the world as that of those who supported it, and therefore as the bankruptcy of our political systems based on individual freedom, which is abhorred by authoritarian states.

So, have we done everything in our power so far? I’m in no position to judge. What is certain is that Ukraine is now living on Western perfusion, but there are undoubtedly jolts in this support. At the moment, we’re at a low point which we can only hope will soon be filled by the recent American decisions to resume aid.

We must never forget that the law of the strongest has governed international relations for centuries, and that wars of aggression have ruined Europe several times over. We can only hope that the phenomenon of war, consubstantial with human nature, will be, if not curbed – let’s be realistic – at least limited. I therefore believe that Western countries are genuinely concerned that, after its success in Ukraine, Russia will not stop there, and that its bad example will end up setting a precedent.

AB
A recent poll shows that 65% of French people are in favor of reinstating military service, including 55% of 25-34 year-olds and 62% of 18-24 year-olds. Is this a surprise for you? How do you interpret this poll?

GSQ
Among the younger generation, there’s a growing interest in all meaningful areas of activity, and defense is one of them. Our young people are much more interested in security and defense issues than their elders. They understand perfectly well that they are entering a world that is going to change profoundly, and they want to understand the keys, if only to take control of their future.

Moreover, the military institution is one of the elements of stability in a changing world. To belong to it, even if only for a period of military service, is to capture what makes it so rich: an established framework, standards known and accepted by the whole community, and respect for commitment. The institution offers a degree of security at a time when the world is more uncertain than ever, and we should be pleased that this attractiveness translates into a willingness to serve. This is a considerable change from my generation, when the military profession was disparaged, and national service even more so. I find this survey quite encouraging.

AB
We can imagine that the war in Ukraine is one reason for this new awareness.

GSQ
These young people, and many of their parents, have known nothing but peace. The idea of war had disappeared from their consciousness and didn’t threaten their future. So, with the Ukraine, there is an extremely salutary realization that war is unfortunately an inescapable human reality, and that we need to understand what drives it in order to be able to limit it.

*Participants in a Universal National Service session on July 13 in Strasbourg. (Photo Guillaume Krempp / Rue89 Strasbourg / cc)*

AB
In the Sahel, French troops had to leave Mali, Burkina Faso and then Niger, where they were replaced by the Russians – who are focusing on Libya, while the situation is deteriorating throughout the region, right up to the countries of the Gulf of Guinea. You have extensive experience of theaters of operation abroad. So, in your opinion, what are the reasons for these major changes? How far can they lead?

GSQ
The deterioration in the security situation in the Sahel, recently documented by the UN, is deeply regrettable, because it’s the people who are paying the highest price.

What I find even more worrying for the stability of the region is the repetition of the same political mechanics: military coup d’état, reversal of alliance in favor of Russia with the withdrawal of all European and American partners, followed by the gradual confiscation of public freedoms under the protection of the Wagner/Africa Corps praetorian guard. The radical nature of this process inevitably leads to isolation. This is illustrated by these countries’ threat to break abruptly with ECOWAS. Yet this has been the framework for regional dialogue and stability for over fifty years. It is with ever greater integration and coordination that the region’s armies will eventually defeat a threat as mobile as terrorist groups.

It’s perfectly understandable that people, especially young people, should aspire to change when their future is threatened by all kinds of instability. However, it is to be feared that, having chosen the “Russian model” based on political authoritarianism, the countries of the Alliance of Sahel States will not be able to meet the growing demand for security.

AB
The war will continue, because the jihadist groups are still fighting. It’s simply changing in nature, because they’re not fighting the war in the same way as the French forces on the ground. Can you imagine how this will evolve?

GSQ
You’re right to point out that Wagner, in support of local forces, doesn’t bother with the same principles as Western forces when they’re fighting. After years of fighting terrorism, everyone knows that the behavior of troops on the ground is key to influencing the legitimacy of terrorist groups. Any infringement of human rights on the part of regular forces and their supporters only reinforces this legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

We can therefore expect a chaotic situation for some time to come, as neither side will be able to win out irreversibly. For the immediate neighbors of this “grey zone”, this is certainly a concern, as its potential for external destabilization is not zero.

AB
War in Gaza, France’s decision to launch military cooperation with Armenia, the first NATO and EU country to do so, ongoing tensions around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. Can we view these different situations through the prism of a return to the old Empires, calling into question Western magisterial authority and aggravating the risks of conflict?

GSQ
I don’t think it’s what you call the Western magisterium that’s in question. It’s true that there was a period when NATO beat the USSR by a knockout in 1990, which meant that, for years, Westerners – and the United States in particular – dominated the international system. I don’t think that’s the case any more, not least because the West has made mistakes, and the issue today is elsewhere.

Borders are being called into question. What’s new is that a number of countries believe that no one will be able to prevent them from seizing what they covet by force. When you consider the number of unresolved border issues on every continent, you understand how destabilizing the Ukrainian conflict can be. Especially when Russia claims to be using it as an illustration of a doctrine to fight the West. This makes no sense whatsoever. Democracy, peace and the freedom of peoples to self-determination are not Western values; they are universal aspirations.

*100,000 Armenians were forcibly expelled from their ancestral homeland of Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh by the Azerbaijani army on September 19 and 20, 2023.*

AB
Wars have dramatic humanitarian consequences for populations, at the risk of destabilizing neighboring countries with floods of refugees, provoking migratory movements, making political solutions difficult, and radicalizing the forces involved. As someone who has worked alongside humanitarian aid workers in the field – NGOs, the UN, the ICRC – how should humanitarian emergencies and respect for international humanitarian law be taken into account in contemporary and future conflicts? When we start a war, do we ask ourselves enough about the political and humanitarian consequences of the war in all their dimensions?

GSQ
You have to be extremely cautious before committing yourself to a war, and look for every possible way of avoiding it. You always know how you’re going to get into a war, but you never know how you’re going to get out, or when. So you need to weigh up your decision carefully before committing force. On the other hand, once the decision has been taken, you have to be resolute, determined and put all your resources into achieving your objectives quickly.

The humanitarian issue is taken into account at a very early stage in operational planning. The population, like all the factors contributing to the crisis, is carefully analyzed: what is its attitude, what are its needs, what consequences will the actions of the parties to the conflict have on it, and how can this aspect be managed? Humanitarian issues are fully integrated into the conduct of operations. We approach humanitarian aid actors to find out if and how they wish to collaborate. All this is a constant concern.

AB
How would you like to conclude this interview?

GSQ
There are never battles that are lost in advance, and there are never victories in battles that have not been fought. We need to have confidence in our abilities, in our democracies, to defend ourselves in an environment that some – particularly authoritarian regimes – are trying to make chaotic. We have what it takes to prevail, provided we apply the principles we have just outlined. We need to be resolute, tenacious and goal-oriented. You can’t be faint-hearted and you have to stick to what you believe in. When you can do that, it’s the first step towards a return to a stable situation.

3 questions 3 answers with Grégoire de Saint-Quentin (french)

Grégoire de Saint-Quentin
Army General (2S) of the French Armed Forces

Grégoire de Saint Quentin is 63 years old. A graduate of the Ecole Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr, he completed a full course of military studies, leaving in 2020 with the rank of Army General (2S).

His military career was marked by special forces and joint operations. During the first part of his career, he was involved in numerous operational missions, most often as joint commander. From 2004 to 2006, he commanded the 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment. After graduating from the Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale in 2009, he was appointed General in 2011 and successively commanded the French Elements in Senegal, Operation Serval, special operations and all joint operations from 2016 to 2020.

Since September 2020, he has been applying his operational experience to the development of high-tech intelligence and defense capabilities, in particular as Senior Vice President of Preligens.

Grégoire de Saint Quentin is Grand Officier de la Légion d’Honneur and Grand Officier de l’ordre National du Mérite.