Vol. 1 (2015): L'URSS et la Russie contemporaine face à l'humanitaire

The preparation of this special issue devoted to the USSR and Russia in the face of humanitarian issues coincided in a very unexpected way with a controversial topicality: the delivery of Russian humanitarian aid to the eastern Ukraine regions, which have been in the grip of a clash between so-called "pro-Russian" separatist forces and the regular Ukrainian army since spring 2014.

The American Relief Administration operations against famine in Russia in the 1920s are outstanding both by their scope (nearly 10 million people fed daily in August 1922) and by the methods that have been deployed. Based on both American and Russian sources, the paper shows how philanthropy has taken the form of a genuine “business of relief” : a combination of managerial methods (organization, profit maximization, no obvious compassion to beneficiaries) and military practices. The ARA grows indeed out of the First World War : not only did the first distributed aid come from American stocks in Europe, but that’s when its leaders have gained experience and when the methods of managing populations were tested. The article also shows how the ARA was able to protect its independence from the Soviet government, despite attempts by the latter to control it, and suggests that a convergence in methods (permanent mobilization of the population and fascination with Taylorism), may have contributed to the acceptance of the ARA among Soviet leaders. Finally, the article recalls how the rural population received the envoys of the ARA, and how the organization was forced to adapt its activity, relinquishing aspirations of scientific organization to face the devastation of the country.

Russia is probably one of the countries which, as a partner, but also as an area for action and a preferred location for its operations, has made the most impact on the history of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This country’s importance derives first and foremost from the length of their relationship, which dates back practically to the origin of the ICRC. Although longstanding, this history is nonetheless marked by alternating periods of intense collaboration and phases of tension and absence. It is therefore a relationship that often contrasts with the image of relations between Russia and the outside world throughout the 20th century. We will see that, paradoxically, the phases of cooperation did not always coincide with the “wartime” of humanitarian emergency. However, it was precisely an interest in Russia that prompted the ICRC to go beyond the initial framework of its mandate and shatter the “traditional dualism” between wartime and peacetime. With its tumultuous history, Russia therefore represents an extraordinary laboratory of humanitarian action, as a place to develop best practices and standards, but also new forms of relationships in crisis situations.

This article traces the history of the organized aid toward the hundreds of thousands of Poles who had been deported by the Soviet authorities after the annexation of Poland’s Eastern territories in 1939. They stayed, for the most part, in Siberia’s and Central Asia’s periphery until their return to Poland after the War. The liberty of action granted by the Stalinist government to the Polish representatives makes this history very untypical. Its development follows very closely the ups and downs in the relations between the USSR and Poland during the War. It unfolds in different acts, ultimately demonstrating the role held by the humanitarian aid in the creation of the pro-Soviet ally that post-War Poland would become.

Cet article analyse l’aide humanitaire que des citoyens apportent à d’autres en Russie post-soviétique, en faisant une histoire et une ethnographie inédite de l’association « Assistance civique ». Il retrace l’évolution de l’aide fournie par l’association dans ses dimensions matérielle et juridique depuis la chute du régime soviétique. Au fil des populations qui se réfugient à Moscou, un glissement s’est opéré. D’une aide humanitaire principalement domestique, octroyée aux réfugiés de l’ex-URSS puis aux réfugiés intérieurs dans les années 1990, l’association a élargi son aide dans les années 2000 aux étrangers venus de pays plus éloignés, l’aspect civique prenant le pas sur l’aide matérielle directe. Cette évolution d’une aide à dominante informelle vers une aide plus professionnalisée et judiciarisée peut s’expliquer par la collaboration qui s’instaure entre l’association russe et le HCR, mais aussi par la politique de l’État russe à l’égard des associations de la société civile, son refus de définir une politique d’accueil des migrants ou de véritable protection des réfugiés, et sa promotion d’une libéralisation des services.

This article is based on Laurence Binet’s study War Crimes and Politic of Terror in Chechnya 1994-2004 published as one of the « MSF Speaking Out Case Studies ». This collection of MSF internal report is now gradually released online to reach a larger audience (http://www.speakingout.msf.org). These studies seek to describe the decision-making process that led to MSF public positioning during major humanitarian crises, and to highlight the dilemmas and controversies that have accompanied them. These studies consist of a chronology made of extracts from the organization’s own documents (situation reports, mission reports, emails, minutes of meetings, press releases, testimonies etc) as well as of newspaper articles. They comprise also excerpts from interviews with MSF stakeholders, actors of the decision making process. Based on these sources, the proposed article describes the public positioning of Médecins sans Frontières, during the first (1994-1996) and the second Chechen war (after 1999) and recalls the operational context in which it was inscribed. The article then proposes to examine the main questions and dilemmas raised for the organization by these positioning, during the decision making process as well as afterwards.

In the late 1980s, major natural and technological disasters such as Chernobyl and Spitak, in combination with Perestroika, led to the institutionalization of a new state’s role in “emergency situations” management. Established in 1994, the Russian Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) has since emerged as a key player in the country’s humanitarian policy. This ministry, both civil and military, has experienced unexpected growth from the 1990s until now by incorporating new areas of expertise and many new “administrative resources”. Acting as the State’s “humanitarian arm” during disasters and conflicts, it is also an instrument of soft power for Russia abroad. The popularity it enjoys, however, is less related to its activities in times of war and disaster and more to its ability to effectively communicate its functions and values and to promote its former leader, Sergei Shoigu, in office for more than 18 years. Looking back to the creation and development of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, we will consider how administrative resources and communication strategies, as well as issues of sovereignty and need for assistance, are intertwined in the implementation of a state humanitarian policy.

Transitions, la revue publiée depuis 1993 par l’Université libre de Bruxelles et depuis 2000 en partenariat avec l’Université de Genève, n’est plus. Fin de Transitions, place à Connexe : les espaces postcommunistes en question(s). Ce titre désigne à lui seul l’ampleur de nos ambitions : mettre en relation des disciplines et objets de recherche voisins, tisser des liens entre des domaines et des espaces « connexes », saisir à la fois le multiple et le commun, la singularité et l’ensemble, le présent et le passé, le régional et le transnational, la revue s’intéressant à un large espace géographique, qui intègre les anciennes « démocraties populaires » et les anciennes Républiques de l’Union soviétique.