Humanitarian and geopolitics overview.

Meeting of heads of state and government in London to support Volodymyr Zelenky after his altercation with Donald Trump on February 28 at the White House © European Union, 2025

With this issue 100 of the online magazine Défis Humanitaires, we want to celebrate with our readers this milestone of good editorial hope. Since February 2018, we have been seeking to promote humanitarianism in its geopolitical environment, noting that humanity is at once one and diverse, universal and multiple, with its peoples and their countries.

This is all the more true given that 300 million human beings are in danger for want of help, and 2 billion men, women and children are living in destitution and uncertainty. Yet humanitarian aid, which has already begun to decline, is in danger of falling even further. The future looks more uncertain and dangerous than ever.

Understanding and anticipating events is a prerequisite for effective action. Humanitarian action is a positive response to cruel events. To understand where we are today and where we’re going, let’s take a brief look at the 4 periods that have marked humanitarianism since the 1980s, and draw some useful lessons from them.

Humanitarianism where we come from, 1980-1989.

Contemporary humanitarianism emerged in the 1980s, during the Cold War, when the world was divided into two antagonistic blocs, East and West, the USSR and the USA, and their allies in NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The real wars were fought on the periphery, in what was then known as the Third World. This is where contemporary humanitarianism was born, and where it based its legitimacy and development on field action, often crossing borders without visas to reach populations in danger. At the time, I was involved in this adventure of solidarity in Afghanistan, which also applied to Cambodia and Ethiopia. We created a new model that became a benchmark.

Distribution of briquettes in Kamianka, December 27, 2024. Solidarités International

A world disappears, 1989-2001.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the disappearance of the USSR in 1989-1991, after a brief period of euphoria and universal peace, ushered in a new era with the first Gulf War and UN Resolution 688 to protect the Kurds of Iraq. Then the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and the war in Bosnia, and the genocide in Rwanda established humanitarian action as an essential international policy, leading to the creation in 1992 of DG ECHO, the European Union’s and the Commission’s humanitarian instrument. Faced with urgent and far-reaching needs, the humanitarian community expanded rapidly, particularly NGOs, which established themselves as a major player in crises.

The turning point of September 11, 2001.

The next turning point came on September 11, 2001, with the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. We remember George W. Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war against terrorism, and the UN Resolution authorizing the United States to intervene in Afghanistan, where it remained for 20 years, with the inglorious end that we know. We remember the American intervention in Iraq to “democratize the Middle East”, which was based on false allegations and had dramatic consequences.

The humanitarian dynamic will grow out of necessity, and will soon be stimulated by the Arab Spring, which will degenerate into civil war in Syria. We remember the Serval operation in Mali in January 2013, against jihadist groups, then in Burkina Faso and Niger. During this period, humanitarian action emerged as one of the essential components of any solution, along with its other security, diplomatic and political aspects. It was at this time that the concept of the Humanitarian-Development Nexus was born and flourished, to which the word peace was soon added.

BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024, attended by the UN Secretary-General. The world is reshaping itself! ©Agency brics-russia2024.

Sequel or change of era?

In an article entitled “From geopolitics to humanitarianism” published in Défis Humanitaires on July 24, 2019, I posed the question of whether this period was a continuation of what had gone before or whether, on the contrary, it heralded a new geopolitical and humanitarian cycle. A question all the more necessary given that Donald Trump had been elected in 2016, Vladimir Putin had been re-elected in 2018 as had Erdogan, the Turkish president, and Xi Jinping had been elected president for life of the People’s Republic of China in the same year.

To this question we now have the answer, which is the main focus of this editorial for the 100th issue of Humanitarian Challenges.

From Putin to Trump, or the great leap into the unknown!

The tipping point begins with Russia’s attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and is confirmed with the election of Donald Trump, who takes office on January 22, 2025. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, war had been frozen in Europe. For more than 3 years, the war in Ukraine has meant that borders have been called into question, and the countries of the European continent, which had been slumbering, are rearming because of the threat of a possible extension of a conflict with the Baltic States and Poland, with the risk of a domino effect with NATO member countries.

This is the moment chosen by Donald Trump to propose that Canada become the 51st state of the USA, to invite Greenland to come under his control, to regain control of the Panama Canal and to seek to impose peace on Ukraine with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, while threatening that country and its allies in Europe with abandonment if they do not comply within a week!

Vladimir Putin & Donald Trump in Helsinki July 2018. (Image Credit Kremlin.ru via Wikimedia Commons)

The turning point that history will remember is here, and it’s here to stay. Possible challenges to borders, geopolitical deregulation, the law of survival of the fittest, the race for access to natural resources, the risk of confrontation that could spiral out of control, the weakening of the UN and paralysis of the Security Council.

And what can we say about the undermining of the Climate Agreement, the struggle for control of space, information conceived as a battlefield – the list is long, foreshadowing this change of era.
In this poisonous climate, the guarantee of freedom and independence for some countries, and of power and neo-empire for others, is leading to an exponential increase in defense budgets.

In the latest “Eurobarometer” survey, 66% of people rank protecting people as their top priority. The economy and industry came next (36%), followed by energy resources (27%).

The need for security has just led countries such as Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to decide on March 18, in a joint declaration, to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines, ratified by 164 states!

As in previous periods, this will have a major impact on the humanitarian sector!

What about humanitarian aid?

Not only are humanitarian needs still with us, but they are set to increase, both because of the vulnerabilities that are flourishing (conflict, poverty, climate, water resources, demographics in Africa) and because of the drastic decline in resources.

The Trump administration’s dislocation of USAID and freeze on funded programs has caused, despite exemptions, a veritable cataclysm in humanitarian and development aid. All the more so as this shock was preceded by a sharp drop in official development assistance from many European Union and OECD member countries.

The main trend seems to be as follows: a rapid decline in funding, restricted or even inaccessible general access to populations in danger, with a retreat from International Humanitarian Law, more violence against civilians considered as protagonists and stakes in wars, politicization and criticism of humanitarian aid.

Mothers with their children wait at the MSF clinic in the Zamzam camp, 15 km from El Fasher, North Darfur. MSF

Let’s face it, this is a historic step backwards for humanitarian action. Although we started from scratch almost 50 years ago, we’ve been making progress ever since, but for the first time we’re taking a step backwards at a time when we were already struggling to meet the vital needs of populations in danger. The head of a humanitarian NGO recently told me that for his organization, this was a 10-year step backwards! The majority of humanitarian NGOs are having to reluctantly and urgently lay off some of their staff. The UN and its agencies are planning to regroup into 4 large entities, and even to relocate to cut costs.

If the humanitarian aid budget almost doubled between 2012 and 2021, it then briefly stagnated, and now it has been falling since 2023, and will increase and accelerate in 2025. What will happen next? Will there be a reaction, a halt, a stabilization at the very least, or, on the contrary, will the downward slide continue, and to what extent?

And yet, if the shock is conducive to the search for an alternative model, we don’t see a replacement solution on the scale. In any case, we need to acquire more influence and, ultimately, more audacity and imagination to invent the future.

A new mobilization in these changing times.

For the sake of completeness, we need to add to the geopolitics of conflicts, those of more numerous catastrophes and the risk of major epidemics.

How can we act in the face of rising extremes when civilian populations are seen as war targets and treated as enemies to be annihilated? This is the case in Gaza with the use of the weapon of hunger against an entire population; it’s the case in Ukraine with the systematic bombing of towns and villages and civilian infrastructures; it’s the case in the civil war in Sudan. This is the dehumanization of total war, in the face of which humanitarian aid must do everything in its power to fulfill its mission in spite of everything!

I can also see the growing debate between the national priority of security and international aid in its various forms. One is not incompatible with the other. I believe that we can be proud of our own identity, while believing that others can also be proud of their own nationality, while feeling concerned by the misfortune of others by providing them, as partners, with aid, skills, tools and knowledge useful for their development, and also learning from them. A country grows by making these choices of effective and respectful solidarity. This in no way prevents us from promoting the interests of our own people.

This is also why I believe that the ideological and partisan politicization of humanitarian aid will lead to its weakening. Let’s not fall into this trap. Humanitarian aid is indisputable when it is carried out within the framework of its principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality.
At a time when security is becoming a priority for public opinion and their countries, human security must be associated with it, all the more so as the insecurity of populations fleeing war, disaster and epidemics destabilizes their neighbors from near and far, through a domino effect that will eventually impact us too if we do nothing.

More concretely, there are deadlines that are as much at stake. This is the case in France, with the Finance Bill for 2025 and 2026. Political leaders must, at the very least, stabilize humanitarian and development budgets, or even revitalize them in the spirit of the recent Presidential Council for International Partnerships. Similarly, the 4th European Humanitarian Forum on May 19 and 20 in Brussels should be an opportunity to strengthen DG ECHO’s humanitarian aid, rather than diluting and weakening it. Finally, the Conference on Financing for Development in Seville next June could be the occasion for a new impetus, as well as a demanding “aggiornamento” (updating) to improve efficiency for populations and optimize private initiative for all.

We’ll be back in touch with you in early June with issue 101 of Défis Humanitaires.

Défis Humanitaires, with you.

One hundred editions since February 2018, 152 different authors of articles and interviews whom I’d like to thank here for their contribution, a growing increase in the number of readers, in France of course but also in order in the USA, Burkina Faso, Canada, Belgium, Mali, Switzerland, Senegal, the UK and Cameroon for the first 10. The most widely-read articles focus on humanitarian thinking, the humanitarian-development Nexus, funding and salaries, demographics and philanthropy.

In this chaotic and dangerous international context, Défis Humanitaires, a free and independent magazine, is more topical than ever, and we have many projects to propose to you. I therefore invite you to answer the questionnaire enclosed in this issue, which will be very useful to us, as well as to testify “A vos plumes” for Défis Humanitaires. We’ll be publishing these testimonials in our next issue in June.

Finally, with issue 100, Défis Humanitaires aims to evolve into an information medium with greater visibility and smoother navigation. To achieve this, your support (donate) will be decisive to better inform, alert and mobilize. This has never been as useful as it is today. If we don’t act, we’ll go backwards!

I’d like to thank you personally for your support and for this mutual commitment, which strengthens humanitarianism.

Alain Boinet.

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

Trump, Putin, France and Europe, humanitarianism!

Vladimir Putin & Donald Trump in Helsinki July 2018. (Image Credit Kremlin.ru via Wikimedia Commons)

By signing an executive order abruptly freezing US international aid budgets and putting an end to the USAID agency, President Donald Trump has provoked shock followed by a storm in humanitarian organisations, coupled with uncertainty about the future, by combining exemptions for certain programmes with contradictory orders and counter-orders that sow confusion.

The big question is why this decision and its disastrous consequences.

All the more so as this slump in official development assistance from the United States, the world’s biggest donor, was shortly preceded by significant cuts in a number of European countries. I confess to being surprised by the great silence of the institutions on this subject, as we saw at the 10th anniversary of the CNDSI (Conseil National du Développement et de la Solidarité Internationale) in Paris or in the programme of the next European Humanitarian Forum on 19 and 20 in Brussels.

How can we explain the great return of geopolitics that we are witnessing, and what new period are we entering blindly?

What are the consequences for humanitarian and development aid for populations and, much further afield, for nation states and the international community that represents them at the UN, itself shaken, unbalanced and divided?

Have we not entered a pre-war climate that is already manifesting itself in cyberspace, sanctions and the trade war, in the accelerated increase in defence budgets and armies, and in the strengthening of the resilience of populations in the face of rising perils?

Swedish manual for survival in times of crisis or war

The humanitarian consequences

To take the measure of the earthquake caused by the US administration on 24 January, when it wrote to its partners to immediately freeze its funding for 90 days for evaluation in 158 countries where USAID is present, it is useful to recall the figures.

In 2023, the year for which we have the official OECD figures, they show that global Official Development Assistance amounted to USD 233.3 billion, including USD 64.7 billion for the United States (see the link to Cyprien Fabre’s article DH 97). This amount includes 14.5 billion for humanitarian aid out of a total humanitarian budget of 43.6 billion that year.

The entire global humanitarian and development ecosystem was instantly shaken, leading to a cascade of programme interruptions or forced slowdowns.

The extent of the shock is clearer when you consider that the budgets of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) are each 40% funded by the United States. Allen Maima, head of public health at the UNHCR, says that 520,000 displaced persons in the DRC are at risk of death from infectious diseases because the 2025 health budget has been cut by 87% compared with 2024. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has been forced to cut its budget and programmes by 20%, as have all the United Nations agencies, to varying degrees.

In eastern Chad, the WFP distributes food to new arrivals from Sudan. Photo WFP / Jacques David

The Secretary General of the NGO Danish Refugee Council (DRC), Charlotte Slente, testifies that on 26 February she received more than 20 notices of termination of grants from USAID and the US State Department for 12 countries, amounting to USD 130 million! The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), for its part, said that it had never experienced such a cut in funding in its 79-year history.

Among the humanitarian NGOs in France, Manuel Patrouillard, Director General of Handicap International/Humanité et Inclusion (HI), said that out of a budget of 270 million euros in 2024, 36 million came from USAID and that they had been forced to stop 36 projects overnight.

The same applies to Première Urgence Internationale (PUI), where CEO Thierry Mauricet explains that American funding accounts for around 30% of an annual budget of €130 million. At Solidarités International, the proportion is around 36%, according to its Managing Director, Kevin Goldberg. The same applies to Action Contre la Faim, ACTED, Triangle Génération Humanitaire (TGH) and many other humanitarian NGOs.

But beyond these cuts, uncertainty still reigns, as projects that were granted waiver to continue have subsequently been cancelled and then renewed in contradictory ways.

NGOs recently received letters on 21 March telling them that they could resume the various ‘life-saving’ programmes, without knowing whether these would continue if necessary when they expired. As a result, some NGOs are considering ending these programmes on the scheduled date without planning to follow up, due to the lack of American commitment at this stage.

Finally, the US administration owes a great deal of money to its partners, who have advanced the funds needed to implement the aid, without being reimbursed since December. Around €200 million is owed to 6 French NGOs, and the amount increases every month.

While the US Supreme Court has ruled that this money must be repaid, no one knows when this will happen. As a result, NGOs owed USD 25 or 30 million could find themselves out of business if the money is not repaid by June! So there are also major concerns about the cash flow of these organisations.

US Department of Defense. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Isaac Ibarra/Released)

The origins of the earthquake

The US administration set out its position in a twenty-page document entitled ‘Designing a New Architecture for US International Assistance’. It states that ‘the US international assistance apparatus is inefficient and fragmented’ and that it lacks ‘a unified and coordinated delivery system’.

It states that ‘As Secretary Rubio has made clear, all U.S. international assistance efforts should make America safer, stronger and more prosperous’.

According to the new US administration ‘The United States had an archaic system that needed to be dismantled’ and President Trump’s ‘decisive actions’ are an opportunity to ‘restructure the system and establish an architecture for international cooperation that respects the taxpayer and achieves measurable results, particularly through the private sector, and aligns with America’s strategic interests.

In fact, it’s a question of restructuring American aid in depth, and this seems to have been thought out in advance when we discover the very precise and detailed roadmap for its implementation. In particular, USAID is to change its name, following changes to its articles of association, to become the US Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA). Similarly, the Office of Humanitarian Assistance (OHA) will become the Office of Humanitarian Assistance.

This is clearly a vast plan aimed at redefining the objectives, priorities, partners and organisational and operational methods for implementing this policy.

Press Conference by the President of the United States © NATO

But it is important to understand that this American earthquake in their humanitarian and development aid is part of a much broader and deeper perspective that can be summed up by Donald Trump’s political project of illiberalism. This aims to go beyond the limits of a liberal democracy deemed too slow, contradictory in its compromises and ill-adapted to the challenges of today’s world. A project that calls into question the separation of powers and the hierarchy of standards in the name of popular suffrage embodied by a leader who wields a great deal of power.

At this stage, I wondered whether Donald Trump’s America might not be the consequence of, or even the response to, the autocratic, even totalitarian, regimes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and others, or an American copy of a global trend that is also seeing a diversified global South assert itself and clash in heightened global competition.

In any case, this epochal change means that the humanitarian and development world must take it fully into account and position itself beyond what immediately affects it.

Donald Trump has confirmed and completed this change of era, in which the war in Ukraine has played a triggering role. In a more conflictual and unpredictable world that is disrupting the globalisation of trade, geopolitics is once again asserting itself as the ‘queen of battles’.

The world is changing

When Donald Trump distances himself from Europe and its defence, he is pursuing the American policy initiated by Barack Obama and continued by Joe Biden of refocusing the United States strategically on the Asia-Pacific region, in the face of China’s now global ambitions.

In so doing, he has brought us face to face with Russia and our disarmament in the possible absence of the American umbrella that has prevailed since the creation of NATO.

Public opinion in France is not mistaken when three out of four people support the rearmament of our defence according to a recent poll (1). Similarly, a study (2) shows that 50% of young people aged between 18 and 30 would be prepared to join the army in the event of a conflict threatening our country. This is what Brice Teinturier, CEO of Ipsos, says when he notes that ‘the strict separation between national and international issues is a thing of the past’.

This is borne out by the fact that the defence budget was €32 billion in 2017; it will be €50.5 billion in 2025, and €67 billion in 5 years’ time. But the pace is increasing in line with the risks, and the Minister of Defence, Sébastien Lecornu, is now working at the request of the President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, on a budget of €100 billion, or 4% of Gross Domestic Product.

This trend is sweeping across Europe, and summits of Heads of State and Government, as well as Chiefs of Defence Staff, are being held in quick succession in Paris and London to address the threat posed by Ukraine, which could eventually affect the Baltic States and Poland, and consequently the whole of Europe.

© Ministère de la Défense ukrainien
Victory Day Parade in Moscow © mos.ru

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faced with the threat posed by Vladimir Putin, backed by China, and the abandonment of Donald Trump’s America, a relatively disarmed Europe seems to be rediscovering General de Gaulle’s vision of strategic independence based on the ultimate nuclear deterrent. In the general upheaval of the usual reference points, let us add that the same General de Gaulle was in favour of a Europe of nation states as a guarantee of its roots and strength, as Ukraine is proving by fighting for its freedom and independence.

Humanitarian conclusion

The change in times we are living through is similar to those we experienced with the fall of the Berlin Wall or the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on 11 September 2001, with the global consequences we are all familiar with.

The future will tell us how the interdependence of ruptures and recompositions will play out over time.

For the time being, although humanitarian aid must first of all cope with the dismantling of USAID, the change of era is profound and general, and it is in this new world that we must pursue our mission with, I believe, two convictions.

The first is that being a French or any other citizen is compatible with international aid in the name of humanism, solidarity, history and even a ‘certain idea’ of one’s country and its responsibilities in the world.

The second is that, whatever the world that lies ahead, solidarity between human beings and nations is still urgently needed to save lives and overcome poverty through sustainable development.

The real humanitarian challenge now is to know how we are going to help and develop with fewer resources in the face of greater needs. That’s the challenge we have to meet.

Alain Boinet.

 

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