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 :

https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/sondage-g7-partenariats-internationaux
Member countries of the G7 : France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Canada, United-States, Japan.
Coordination Sud, website of the C7 dedicated to the G7. https://2026civil7.org/fr/
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”.
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.

THE GLORIOUS YEARS – Interview with Bernard Kouchner

Bernard Kouchner in Hassakeh at the “International Forum on Water in Northeastern Syria,” September 27–28, 2021. Photo by Alain Boinet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, the century wavers.

Washington Summit on Ukraine, August 2025 ©The White House

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

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

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

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

Trump–Putin Meeting, Alaska 2025 ©The White House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernard Kouchner (right) in Afghanistan in 1985 with Commander Amin Wardak (left) and Alain Boinet. ©José Nicolas SIPA Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AB: How would you like to conclude this interview?

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

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

Bernard Kouchner