Armenia at a Crossroads in Its Destiny

May and June 2026: two months that cement Armenia’s ties with the European Union

© The Smithsonian for Folklife and Cultural Heritage – Crowd of protesters in the Place of Republic in Yerevan, during the Velvet Revolution in 2018

An analysis. With this article by Arthur Robert, we offer a detailed look at the recent diplomatic events of early May with France and the European Union, Russian reactions, and the June 7 legislative elections won by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

In May 2026, within a forty-eight-hour window, Yerevan hosted the 8th summit of the European Political Community (EPC), inaugurated the first-ever bilateral EU-Armenia summit, signed a strategic partnership with France, and concluded a connectivity partnership with the European Commission.

The sequence of May 4–5, 2026 was both the culmination of an Armenian repositioning begun in 2018 and a strong political signal, one month ahead of the June 7 legislative elections in which the country’s positioning toward Europe and Russia was a central theme. This sequence allowed Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to reinforce the geostrategic shift he had initiated, consisting of moving away from Russia’s orbit and deepening relations with the EU.

For Brussels and Paris, the stake was to consolidate a foothold in the Caucasus, at a time when Georgia is drifting away and Russia is militarily absorbed by Ukraine. Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, recalled during the summit that “Armenia would decide for itself.”

Thus, the victory of Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party in the June 7, 2026 legislative elections sealed the rapprochement between Armenia and the European Union. Civil Contract won with nearly 50% of the vote, while the parties favoring closer ties with Russia — Armenia Strong, led by Samvel Karapetyan, and the Armenia Alliance, led by Robert Kocharyan — obtained 23% and 10% of the vote, respectively. While the outgoing Prime Minister’s party, in power since 2018, retained an absolute majority, it lost seven seats compared to the 2021 legislative elections, depriving it of the two-thirds majority that would have allowed it to pursue the constitutional revision demanded by Azerbaijan.

© Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development, Archives Direction (geographic division) – November 2014

 

The European Political Community (EPC) Summit: a symbolically charged first outside the EU

The 8th EPC summit, the first held outside the EU, brought together on May 4, 2026 in Yerevan more than forty heads of state and government, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, under the motto “Building the Future: Unity and Stability in Europe.” Four major themes emerged from the summit:

  • Democratic resilience, with the idea that Armenian democracy must be protected from “external interference and disinformation,” a direct consequence of Russian hybrid warfare;
  • Trans-Caucasian and trans-Caspian connectivity, in the current context of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) and the Middle Corridor, of which Armenia now aspires to be a branch via the future TRIPP route;
  • Economic and energy security, with reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the rise of renewables and nuclear power;
  • Defense and strategic autonomy, driven by the Ukrainian context.
© Alain Boinet – City of Meghri, in the district of Syunik, South of Armenia near borders with Iran, Azerbaidjan and Nakhitchevan. It’s the spot within the Latchin corridor through which should go the TRIPP road and a railway.

The choice of Yerevan for this first EPC summit outside the EU marks political recognition of Armenia’s trajectory, begun in 2017 with the signing of a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the EU and Armenia, which entered into force in 2021. After the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, Yerevan’s pivot westward continued with the announcement in April 2024 of an EU Resilience and Growth Plan for Armenia, endowed with €270 million over the 2024–2027 period.

 

The first EU-Armenia summit: a further step toward accession

On May 5, 2026, following the EPC, António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, co-chaired with Nikol Pashinyan the first bilateral EU-Armenia summit, marked by the signing of a joint declaration reaffirming the EU’s commitment “to supporting Armenia’s sovereignty, resilience and reform agenda,” with both parties committing to “expand their long-term strategic cooperation.”

Armenia’s path continued with the adoption of the law “On Launching the Process of Armenia’s Accession to the EU” by the National Assembly in March 2025, which makes EU candidacy a legally binding orientation for the Armenian executive. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan indicated in October 2025 that a formal application could be submitted the following year. Subsequently, a strategic agenda for the EU-Armenia partnership was adopted in December 2025.

© Armenian governement gallery – Opening ceremony of the EPC in May 2026

Two partnerships were sealed during the summit:

  • The EU-Armenia Connectivity Partnership, covering energy, transport and digital sectors;
  • The allocation of €30 million under the European Peace Facility (EPF) for Armenia’s armed forces. This amount combines a first tranche of €10 million (signed in 2024) and a second of €20 million adopted in January 2026.

 

The France-Armenia strategic partnership: a “singular relationship” institutionalized

French President Emmanuel Macron played a key role in this sequence, which cemented the strength of the France-Armenia friendship, just as the French Senate and National Assembly played a driving role in the maturation of this partnership, through:

  • The activism of the France-Armenia friendship group;
  • The Senate resolution of November 25, 2020 on the “need to recognize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh”;
  • The Senate resolution of November 15, 2023 condemning Azerbaijan and calling for European sanctions.

Welcomed by large crowds expressing sympathy in the streets of the capital, Emmanuel Macron spoke of a “singular relationship” and Armenia’s “European vocation,” and signed with Nikol Pashinyan the declaration on the French-Armenian strategic partnership, complemented by a series of contracts carried out by French companies.

© Armenian government – Signing of France-Armenia agreemets on May the 5th 2026

In the field of defense, the partnership establishes Paris as one of Armenia’s main arms suppliers and extends cooperation begun in 2023, including:

  • Continuation of orders signed in October 2023: three Thales GM200 radars, 50 Arquus Bastion armored vehicles, as well as a letter of intent for MBDA Mistral surface-to-air missiles;
  • Continuation of deliveries of the 36 CAESAR howitzers ordered in June 2024. The first units were presented in Armenia in May 2026 ahead of the May 28 military parade.

In the economic field, Vinci and Razel-Bec signed a declaration of intent to participate in the construction of the Bargushat tunnel, a key piece of infrastructure for connecting with the Georgian port of Poti and the south of the country. In civil nuclear power, France (Framatome) positioned itself among other competitors for the construction of the future small modular reactor (SMR) intended to replace Metsamor. In the aerospace sector, FlyOne Armenia ordered two Airbus A321neo aircraft, while Armenia’s Ministry of Defense acquired six Airbus H145 military helicopters.

© Olivier Decottignies – Signing of defense agreements on the 22nd and 23rd of February 2024 in Yerevan between defense ministers Sébastien Lecornu and Souren Papikian

 

Armenia’s geopolitical repositioning as a central issue in the legislative elections

As the timing of the EU-Armenia summit illustrates, the rapprochement with Europe, along with the exit from Russia’s orbit, were central themes of Armenia’s June 2026 legislative elections.

Civil Contract took a position breaking with the historic relationship of vassalage between Armenia and Russia — a classic feature of the relationship Russia seeks with former Soviet states, according to political scientist Taline Papazian. The Prime Minister championed a doctrine of “real Armenia,” consisting of refocusing the state on its internationally recognized borders and renouncing any claim to Nagorno-Karabakh, and promised the adoption of a new Constitution presented as a “Fourth Republic.”

This campaign took place against a backdrop of tensions with the religious establishment, since since June 2025 Nikol Pashinyan has publicly called for the departure of Catholicos Karekin II, head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, whom he accuses of having broken his vow of celibacy. In February 2026, the Armenian prosecutor’s office launched proceedings against the Catholicos.

The confrontation with the Church became a central dividing line with the opposition, which largely positioned itself as the defender of the clergy. It is in this context that Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire and founder of the “Armenia Strong” alliance (23% in the June 2026 elections), entered politics. In June 2025 he had pledged to “defend” the Church, before being arrested for “calling for the seizure of power” and placed under house arrest. Ineligible due to his Russian and Cypriot citizenship, he handed leadership of the party list to his nephew Narek Karapetyan, who is himself under investigation for concealing Russian citizenship. The alliance promised to revise the Constitution to allow Samvel Karapetyan to become Prime Minister. Documents published by the investigative outlet The Insider allege past ties between him and Russia’s FSB, which his camp has denied, calling it a fabrication.

© Wikimedia Commons – A CSTO Summit in Yntymak Ordo Residence , Bishkek, in November 2025

The other opposition forces shared this pro-Russian orientation while differing in profile and degree. The “Armenia Alliance” (10% in the June 2026 elections), led by former President Robert Kocharyan, advocated for remaining in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization — a military alliance created and led by Moscow in 2002, grouping six former Soviet republics). The “Armenia Alliance” also seeks closer ties with Moscow and rejects any constitutional concession to Azerbaijan, which part of the opposition views as a betrayal.

Judicial affairs fueled the polarization among the protagonists. In addition to Samvel Karapetyan, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, leader of the 2024 protest movement against territorial concessions to Azerbaijan, remained in pre-trial detention over an alleged coup plot. Armenia’s Investigative Committee reported 59 criminal cases for electoral fraud, mainly targeting people close to the opposition. Those concerned see this as judicial instrumentalization against their candidates, while the government invokes the rule of law and the fight against foreign interference.

The geopolitical divisions of the Armenian election were accompanied by a large-scale Russian interference operation reportedly involving Russia’s three main intelligence services (the SVR, FSB and GRU). This operation took the form of a disinformation campaign using methods well known to European authorities, such as Doppelganger or Storm-1516. The campaign notably aimed to tarnish the reputation of Nikol Pashinyan, code-named “Boroda” (meaning “beard”), and was reportedly accompanied by efforts by Russian services to gather information that could compromise Pashinyan. Finally, Russia is said to have devised a plan to transfer 100,000 Armenians from Russia in order to influence the vote, in addition to its support for the “Armenia Strong” alliance.

 

A minor regional revolution that challenges Russia

The months of May and June 2026 brought Armenia’s estrangement from Russia, begun in 2018, to its peak. Abandoned by its historic partner during the two successive phases of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (or Artsakh) with Azerbaijan (2021–2022 and 2023), Armenia has frozen its participation in the CSTO since February 2024. Following an agreement, Russia withdrew its border guards from Yerevan airport in July 2024, where they had been stationed since 1992. Nikol Pashinyan spoke of a “point of no return” in December 2024, and in March 2025 Yerevan notified Moscow of its refusal to fund the CSTO’s 2024 budget.

© Wikimedia Commons – Vladimir Putin with Armenian Prime minister Nikol Pachinian in Kremlin (April 2026)

Russia reacted strongly to Armenia’s distancing from the CSTO, and reacted even more forcefully to the May-June 2026 sequence, viewing Volodymyr Zelensky’s participation in the EU summit in Yerevan in particular as a betrayal.

The day after the European summits in Yerevan, Russian diplomacy denounced a “rapprochement” with Brussels intended, according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, to draw Armenia into an “irreversible involvement in the EU’s anti-Russian line.” Meeting at the EAEU summit in Astana on May 28, 2026, the Moscow-led bloc deemed that Armenia’s EU candidacy posed “serious risks” to its economic security, and mandated a review of a possible suspension of Armenia by December.

Armenia was also subjected to a series of economic restrictions by Russia, its main economic partner (around 37% of Armenian exports go to Russia, while nearly 30% of imports come from there). Most of these restrictions were justified by Russia on sanitary grounds, but their timing leaves little doubt as to Russia’s intent to punish Armenia for its geopolitical trajectory.

As early as April 2026, Russia banned the Armenian cognac brand Proshyan on its territory, a week after a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Nikol Pashinyan. On May 29, Vladimir Putin compared Yerevan’s trajectory to the “Ukrainian scenario” and brandished the trade weapon, stating that Russia would be “forced to limit its economic activities in Armenia” if the country moved closer to the EU. The following day, Moscow recalled its ambassador to Armenia for “consultations on measures taken” against Armenia over its “rapprochement with the European Union, undermining cooperation within the EAEU.”

As the elections approached, these restrictions intensified. On May 22, the Russian agency Rosselkhoznadzor (responsible for veterinary and sanitary surveillance and control of goods entering Russia) temporarily restricted imports of floral products from Armenia. For similar reasons, Russia blocked tens of millions of bottles of Jermuk mineral water — a popular Armenian brand in Russia — at the end of May.

© Armenian government – Armenian Prime minister arménien, Nikol Pachinian, voting during the June 2026 elections

Starting May 30, 2026, Rosselkhoznadzor also imposed “temporary restrictions” on imports of tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and strawberries from Armenia. On June 2, these restrictions were extended to several fruits, and on June 3 to Armenian eggplants, potatoes, and dried fruits. Finally, on June 12, Russia blocked the import of all quarantine-subject products from Armenia, as well as their transit through its territory to member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

On June 15, Kaja Kallas indicated that the EU was preparing a large-scale economic aid plan for Armenia to help it cope with Russian retaliatory measures.

 

An unprecedented partnership in the Caucasus

The French and EU-Armenian partnerships could, in the medium term, become the prototype for a European security policy in the eastern neighborhood.

Georgia’s trajectory offers, by contrast, a counter-example of a failed shift. After obtaining EU candidate status in December 2023, Georgia abruptly backtracked under the effect of its domestic politics. As early as May 2024, the pro-Russian Georgian Dream party pushed through a “foreign agents” law modeled on the Russian one, deemed by Brussels incompatible with democratic standards. The October 2024 legislative elections, won by Georgian Dream in a vote marred by irregularities, sealed the rupture. In November 2024, just hours after the European Parliament adopted a resolution rejecting the election results due to irregularities, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced the suspension of EU accession negotiations until the end of 2028, accusing the EU of blackmail. Moreover, deliveries to Armenia were interrupted: of the 50 Bastion armored vehicles promised by France, only 26 had been delivered, due to transit difficulties through Georgia since the end of 2024.

 

Despite recent progress, a situation that remains fragile

While Armenia in June 2026 no longer appears to be a “disappointed ally” of Moscow but rather a distinct strategic partner with robust ties to Europe, the new Armenian situation remains fragile.

First, while normalization between Azerbaijan and Armenia appears to be continuing, its longevity cannot be predicted. The tripartite protocol of August 2025, signed in the presence of Donald Trump, Pashinyan, and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, creates unprecedented conditions for peace. But Baku is conditioning the formal signing of the treaty on the revision of the Armenian Constitution to remove all reference to Nagorno-Karabakh, which could reignite tensions in a context of clear Azerbaijani military superiority. Yet neither the EU nor France is in a position to provide Armenia with security guarantees comparable to those long offered by Russia, which still maintains a base in the country housing 4,000 soldiers.

© The White House – Donald Trump, Nikol Pachinian and Ilham Aliev in Washington on the 8th of August 2025 during the signing of the TRIPP (Trump Route Initiative for International Peace and Prosperity)

Second, Russia’s economic and political retaliatory measures are expected to have a significant impact on the Armenian economy.

Finally, the June 2026 legislative elections showed that parties advocating closer ties with Russia remain very popular. In the long term, Armenia’s deep historical ties with Russia and the reality of its geographic position will likely compel Armenia to normalize its relations with Russia.

As Taline Papazian sums it up, Armenia faces the complex challenge of “transforming an imposed rupture into a coherent political project, capable of reconciling sovereignty, democratic stability, and openness to its regional and European environment.”

Arthur Robert.


Arthur Robert is an analyst within the sectors of geopolitics and economy. He works for public institutions as well as the private sector while being a teaching assistant.


Discover other articles from this edition :

Humanitarian work, hit but not sunk, get up!

© La Chaîne de l’Espoir – Wounded equipped by the Ukrainian center Unbroken

In anticipation of the upcoming G7 from June 15 to 17, 2026 in Evian, the French government commissioned IFOP to conduct a study (1) on the state of public opinions in the G7 countries (2) regarding official development assistance and international cooperation. The IFOP study holds surprises for us and raises a paradox. It engages here our analysis and proposals from Humanitarian Challenges.

As a reminder, the G7 was born in 1975 at the initiative of French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, after the first oil shock of 1973, in the context of the Yom Kippur War. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its global consequences will be very present at the 51st edition of the G7 member countries on the shores of Lake Geneva in Haute-Savoie. This G7 also mobilizes the “Civil Society 7” or C7, which brings together hundreds of actors with Coordination Sud (3), the French platform of international solidarity organizations.

This G7 will address for the first time an essential humanitarian issue, that of the global logistics supply chain. It will be preceded by only a few days by the 7th National Humanitarian Conference (CNH) on July 3 in Paris. CNH is organized by the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and its Crisis and Support Center (CDCS) in connection with humanitarian NGOs of the Humanitarian Coordination Group (GCH).

But what exactly does the IFOP study tell us about the state ofpublic opinions of G7 countries on international cooperation?

 

What does the IFOP study tell us?

This very comprehensive study can essentially be summarized by several findings.

First, the marked interest of public opinions in international news, averaging 71%.

Next, a hierarchy of issues ranging from terrorism and extremism (72%), to conflicts (67%) and the economy (55%).

If international cooperation is a moral obligation for 70% of respondents, it is also a policy that serves our interests for an average of 78% within the G7 and 71% in France.

According to IFOP, the principle support for financing developing countries reaches 75%, with Italy ranking far ahead (84%) while France comes in last (66%).

But there are figures that catch our attention. The level of understanding of what international cooperation is stands at 50% on average and 46% in France.

The most problematic aspect lies in the low level of information that public opinions say they have, 47% on average in G7 countries and only 28% in France, where 50% of people say they are poorly informed and 20% very poorly informed!

Conversely, public expectation is very strong to know how international cooperation funding is used, 75% on average versus 82% in France. Another question, 75% ofpeople and 82% in France wonder what the concrete results of this cooperation are. But just as much, 75% ask what its usefulness is for each G7 country. Finally, note a demand for control for 73% on average and for 77% in France. The expectations for tangible and convincing evidence are very high and constitute a challenge for the future of international solidarity.

Moreover, what is truly surprising is the profound ignorance regarding the budget of the States that finances international cooperation. Only 2% of respondents know that this percentage is less than 1%, while 16% think it represents between 10 to 15%. This amount is estimated by the French at 14.7% of Gross National Income (4) while the actual percentage allocated to Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2025 was actually 0.42%! The gap is considerable and indicates an abyssal lack of accurate information.

To summarize broadly, a strong majority of the populations of the G7 member countries are in favor of international aid which they greatly overestimate while asking to be better informed about the relevance of projects, their concrete impact (only 37% of French people consider that aid is effective), about rigorous control of implementation and, finally, about the interest of this cooperation for the donor countries themselves.

Finally, 64% of inhabitants believe that what will happen in developing countries could have a significant impact on their lives. It should be noted that public opinion in France is one of the most reserved regarding cooperation policy.

But what do the latest figures on Official Development Assistance tell us?

The recent report from the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (5) notes a 23.1% decrease in Official Development Assistance in 2025 with a budget of 174.3 billion dollars.

© OECD – The evolution of official development assistance in the world

26 of the 34 OECD DAC member countries reduced their aid in 2025, and decreases had already occurred in 2023 and 2024. France’s aid in 2025 was 14.53 billion dollars, or 0.42% of GNI. This had already decreased by 11% in 2023 and by 13% in 2024. According to Coordination Sud, aid could be reduced by 58% in France over 2 years. The OECD anticipates a further decrease of 5.8% in 2026.

Humanitarian aid from DAC countries has sharply decreased by 35.8% to 15.5 billion dollars, marking a second consecutive decline after 5 years of growth (2019-2023).

To better understand these figures, note that 5 DAC countries (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, and France) account for 95.7% of the total ODA decrease, but the United States alone is responsible for three-quarters of this decline with ODA down 56.9% compared to 2024. The top 5 contributors represent an amount of 132.02 billion dollars out of a total of 174.3 in 2025.

For reference, non-DAC countries dedicated 13.3 billion dollars to cooperation and 11.7 billion to 30 major philanthropic foundations that report their donations to the OECD.

Finally, projections indicate a further 5.8% decrease in DAC ODA in 2026, a figure that does not take into account the consequences of the war in the Middle East and the embargo in the Strait of Hormuz.

© OECD – Official development assistance in France

Paradox, analysis and consequences.

A paradox appears in the opposition between a majority of inhabitants of the G7 countries who still support international cooperation and the strong, rapid, and ongoing reduction in the funding of international cooperation by the G7 countries and the DAC.

The first explanation that comes to mind is a gap in understanding and attitude between public opinion and governments. Citizens still habitually support international cooperation while states have already drawn the consequences of the profound shifts underway in international relations, power dynamics, interests, and risks of war.

In this context, there are two realizations on the part of Western countries, particularly Europe, since from now on we must set aside the United States under Donald Trump.

The first is the emergence of so-called southern countries grouped in the BRICS, which represent about ten countries (6), influenced by former empires aspiring to become so again, like Russia and China, and which challenge the world order born at the end of the Second World War as well as the Western model (democracy, rule of law, market economy).

The 16th edition of the BRICS Summit in Kazan (Russia) on October 24th 2024

The case of several Sahel countries such as Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso is emblematic. Why cooperate with countries whose governments come from military coups, who demand the departure of French troops, who call on Russian mercenaries from the Africa Corps, and who require the absence of French public funding in humanitarian and development NGO projects. This profoundly changes public cooperation policies even though the vital needs of populations victimized by war and chronic poverty still legitimize humanitarian action.

The second shock is the awareness of the risk of a war extension following Russia’s attack on Ukraine on February 22, 2022. Thus, war becomes once again in Europe a means of conquest and it could be renewed, particularly against the Baltic countries. This would force NATO member countries to react to the risk of being drawn into the war while most of these countries are not ready to fight it and must prepare by rearming without American commitment being certain anymore.

If you combine these two external shocks with internal risks on the political, economic, and social levels in some countries, as happened in the United States with Donald Trump’s second election, you then have sufficient reasons to understand the ongoing changes in priorities.

Handbook by the Swedish government “En cas de crise ou de guerre” 2024

And yet, for these countries, continuing these cooperation policies in an adapted form is indeed a necessity in order not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and to resist the pressures of the neo-emerging empires.

What challenges for the next National Humanitarian Conference?

France’s humanitarian budget was 285 million euros last year while it was 800 million in 2023 and should have been one billion euros in 2025.

Since the 1st National Humanitarian Conference in 2011, we have only seen progress, first with the creation of this Conference, then that of the Humanitarian Consultation Group, but also the adoption of a Humanitarian Strategy of the French Republic and, finally, the continuous increase of the humanitarian budget and ODA starting from 2018.

© Alain Boinet – 2021 National Humanitarian Conference

The next CNH on July 3 cannot therefore follow in the footsteps of the previous ones but, on the contrary, seeks both to measure the decline in order to contain it while looking for alternatives, alliances, new perspectives.

This CNH will have 3 main topics on the agenda.

  • The humanitarian space and international humanitarian law.
  • Humanitarian reform or “reset”, innovation and pooling.
  • Partnership and funding.

The challenge is great because we must understand that the fall in funding, the erosion of humanitarian authority, the decline of international humanitarian law, and the restriction of access to aid for populations in danger are linked to each other and lead to a negative spiral! This is what must be stopped and a new dynamic restarted.

If we have already discussed these issues in Défis Humanitaires, I would like this month to focus on 4 of them:

  • In a preparatory document for the G7, the Ministry of Finance and Budget mentions the choice to “move from a logic of assistance to a logic of mutually beneficial partnership.” If this logic of ODA as an investment partnership with solvent countries can be considered, how would this be possible with poor countries victims of war, disaster, or a devastating epidemic?
  • Humanitarian urgency must remain an unconditional moral duty, but also a strategic duty to prevent the spread of misery and chaos of close to neighboring countries, even beyond
  • Human security should better inspire humanitarian action in the future based on its food, health, economic, personal, community, and political components, as the insecurity of some can become the insecurity of others.
  • Let us note that while ODA has decreased by 23.1%, humanitarian aid has dropped by 35.8%! To avoid this drift, we should return to the idea of “sanctuarizing humanitarian aid” within ODA and dedicating a minimum of 9% of its total amount to it.
  • Finally, since public funding is down, why not launch a humanitarian lottery in France?

Conclusion.

Every change of era brings a change of priorities. But the moral and strategic necessity of humanitarian and development aid must remain a constant to save lives, lift people out of poverty, and generate sustainable development.

In a world that is both divided and interdependent where everything is known, solidarity remains a comparative advantage that distinguishes the supportive from the predators. There is no incompatibility for a country to serve its population and interests while delivering emergency relief where it is vital, while supporting development that is in everyone’s interest.

Without forgetting to respond to citizens’ strong expectations for information regarding the relevance of cooperation, its impact, good management, and the mutually beneficial partnerships it creates.

That is precisely the mission set by Défis Humanitaires, in this edition as in previous ones, is to act against misinformation as well as disinformation.

You too can be an actor in this humanitarian mission by sharing our magazine around you and supporting it with your donation (makeadonation) to allow it to exist, to last, and to develop for its readers. Thank you.

Alain Boinet.

 

Footnotes :

  1. https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/sondage-g7-partenariats-internationaux
  2. Member countries of the G7 : France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, United-States, Japan.
  3. Coordination Sud, website of the C7 dedicated to the G7. https://2026civil7.org/fr/
  4. Revenu National Brut “Le RNB comprend le produit intérieur brut (PIB) et les revenus nets du travail et de la propriété reçus de l’étranger dont on soustrait les revenus versés à l’étranger”.
  5. OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and developpement. OECD and APD : https://www.oecd.org/fr/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.html#:~:text=L’aide%20internationale%20a%20connu,1%20%25%20par%20rapport%20%C3%A0%202024.

Discover the other articles of this edition :


Alain Boinet is the president of the association Défis Humanitaires which publishes the online review www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International of which he was director general for 35 years. Moreover, he is a member of the Humanitarian Consultation Group with the Crisis and Support Center of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, member of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, of the French Water Partnership (PFE), of the Véolia Foundation, of the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to go to the field (north-east Syria, Haut-Karabagh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to testify in the media.