When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Morocco, Libya And Doubts About The True Motivations Of Western Humanitarian Aid

The practice of sending humanitarian aid to foreign countries has always been political, but Morocco's decision to refuse offers of search-and-rescue teams raises questions about national sovereignty and politics in times of crisis.

photo of rescue workers discussing the morocco earthquake

Firefighters deployed by the NGO United Firefighters Without Borders to the area of Morocco affected by the earthquake.

Matias Chiofalo/Contacto via ZUMA
Pierre Haski


PARIS — A deadly earthquake in Morocco, catastrophic flooding in Libya – two disasters in two countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean have sparked strong emotions, and revived an old debate about humanitarian aid.

France dispatched a field hospital Thursday with 50 personnel to the region of Derna, on the Libyan coast, where the tragedy has claimed thousands of victims. The medical aid will be welcome in the country, which, after 10 years of instability, has no unified government.

At the beginning of this week, France was ready to send civil search and rescue experts, dogs and equipment to earthquake-struck Morocco – just as France did earlier this year after the earthquake in Turkey, and as it has done on many other occasions. But Morocco never gave the green light, and the search and rescue teams stayed in France. The same goes for teams offered by the U.S.

Duty to intervene"

The contrast between these two situations raises a number of questions. In a video posted on social media and addressed to Moroccans, French President Emmanuel Macron himself spoke of “controversies that have no reason to exist” – but his effort at direct communication shows that not everything has gone as Paris would have hoped.

Among these questions, there is of course the very nature of state humanitarian aid. It should come as no surprise that it is also a political issue; it has always been. The first French humanitarian intervention dates back to Napoleon III. In 1860, the French army was sent to Lebanon to save threatened Christians. Officially, it was purely a humanitarian mission. But it was obviously about reinforcing French influence, in the face of the Ottoman Empire.

“Duty to Intervene”, a book by historian Yann Bouyrat, which examines the French expedition, notes the extent to which the debates of 1860 resemble those which continue today.

Since the end of the Cold War, the concepts of the “right” and even the “duty to intervene” have been refined and codified. Morocco’s refusal to welcome French rescuers means that those days are over. Rabat has signaled the return of sovereignty, even in the most dire emergencies.

Relief supplies destined for Libyan flood victims loaded at the German Air Force at the Wunstorf air base.

Julian Stratenschulte/dpa via ZUMA

A diplomatic tool

On the other side, Libya shows that this “humanitarian intervention,” for which the Western world has increasingly advocated, remains legitimate when it concerns failed states. This, unfortunately, is the case with Libya – and French aid is particularly welcome there, given that France bears considerable responsibility for the chaos in the country, after its involvement in the 2011 military intervention against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.

It would be a tragedy if, in the name of this national pride, disaster victims are deprived of help.

Rony Brauman, one of the French thinkers working in this field, emphasized in his 1995 book “Humanitarian Action” that, in the 20th century, “Humanitarian action asserted itself as a component of international relations and a diplomatic tool, at once as an individual commitment and as a privileged means of access to the world.”

The expression of sovereignty we are now seeing changes the situation. It would be a tragedy if, in the name of this national pride, disaster victims are deprived of help that is not available locally. The risk is that solidarity will wane in a world which needs it more than ever.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

Bibi Blinked: How The Ceasefire Deal Could Flip Israel's Whole Gaza War Logic

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed ahead a deal negotiated via Qatar, for a four-day truce and an exchange of 50 hostages for 150 Palestinian prisoners. Though the humanitarian and political pressure was mounting, Israel's all-out assault is suddenly halted, with unforeseen consequences for the future.

photo of someone holding a poster of a hostage

Families of Israeli hostages rally in Jerusalem

Nir Alon/ZUMA
Pierre Haski

Updated Nov. 22, 2023 at 8:55 p.m.


PARIS — It's the first piece of good news in 46 days of war. In the early hours of Wednesday, Israel agreed to a deal that included a four-day ceasefire and the release of some of the hostages held by Hamas — 30 children and 20 women — in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners, again women and children. The real question is what happens next.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

But first, this agreement, negotiated through the intermediary of Qatar, whose role is essential in this phase, must be implemented right away. This is a complex negotiation, because unlike the previous hostage-for-prisoner exchanges, it is taking place in the midst of a major war.

On the Palestinian side, although Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is present in Doha, he does not make the decision alone — he must have the agreement of the leaders of the military wing, who are hiding somewhere in Gaza. It takes 24 hours to send a message back and forth. As you can imagine, it's not as simple as a phone call.

And on the Israeli side, a consensus had to be built around the agreement. Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right allies were opposed to the deal — in line with their eradication logic — even at the cost of Israeli lives. But the opposition of these discredited parties was ignored, and that will leave its mark.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest