17 October 2025 – The 5th Bi-monthly Webinar, Navigating Health and Solidarity: Refugee Perspectives and Practical Challenges,” posed a critical question: How do power, policy, and everyday realities shape solidarity, and “unsolidarity”, in refugee health?
Organised by the Global Health Solidarity (GH-Solidarity) project and the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Solidarity (CeSCoS), the session brought together leading scholars and frontline practitioners to dissect the power dynamics, challenges, and pathways in supporting refugee health. The consensus was clear: moving from short-term charity to long-term, rights-based solidarity is not just an ethical imperative but a practical necessity.
Moderated by Prof. Caesar Atuire, the webinar opened with a crucial conceptual foundation laid by Prof. Barbara Prainsack, who argued against solidarity being used to justify anything that is deemed desirable. To distinguish solidarity from other pro-social concepts, “we define solidarity as practices by which people support others who they take to be like themselves in a relevant respect,” Prainsack stated, distinguishing it from charity by its foundation in equality. While this does not deny or neglect difference, it means that solidarity emerges when people act upon what they see themselves as having in common with others despite all the differences that inevitably exist.
“In the moment of enacting solidarity, it’s an equal relationship. We recognise each other as people suffering oppression or a joint threat, or working towards a shared goal, and that connects us.”
Prof. Prainsack presented solidarity as a structure built on three levels: the foundational, person-to-person acts (Tier 1); the communal level, where support becomes a standard upheld by the group (Tier 2); and finally, the societal level, where solidarity is formalized through laws and long-standing institutions (Tier 3).
Elias Weiss, a Centre for the Study of Contemporary Solidarity (CeSCoS) fellow and Post-Doctoral Researcher on the GH-Solidarity Project, introduced a note of caution.
“While solidarity carries positive connotations, these same mechanisms can be used to do something else instead of fostering social cohesion.”
He described this as “parasitical solidarity”, where the visible performance and the sheer motivation of helping obscures ineffective or even harmful actions and primarily serves the interests of those enacting it. He urged participants to scrutinise the practice, namely, who decides, who benefits, and what changes on the ground, so that solidarity remains accountable to people in need rather than to institutional optics.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of recognising when solidarity is absent. Research presented by Prof. Prainsack on behalf of Natalia Varabyeu Kancelova (University of Vienna) introduced a continuum from solidarity to "unsolidarity", understood as the conscious failure to act despite a clear need. Understanding this "unsolidarity”, and the different forms it can take – ranging from passive “non-solidarity” to openly hostile “anti-solidarity” – is crucial for diagnosing how systems fail those they are meant to serve, and for revealing the stages at which trust and recognition break down.
Practitioner Realities: Dignity Over Charity, Rights Over Aid
These theoretical frameworks around solidarity came to life during a discussion with Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, Director of the German-Iraqi NGO WADI – Association for Crisis Assistance and Development Cooperation. Drawing on three decades of work in conflict zones from Iraq to Greek refugee camps, he issued a powerful call to reframe the entire conversation.
“Refugees should not be an object of charity… they have rights to food, health, and shelter. A public-health approach has to be rights-based.”
Mr. Osten-Sacken critiqued the systemic failure in places like Greece, where untrained volunteers were left to care for deeply traumatised individuals, a situation he called a “wrong concept of solidarity”. This approach, he argued, often aligns with deterrence policies by normalising inhumane conditions.
His solution? Centre dignity and enable self-organisation.
“Dignity is more important than food or shelter. It is the centre of any approach we should follow,” he said. “When you scan a refugee camp, there are doctors, engineers, mechanics… The basic idea should be… let people organise themselves according to their knowledge and skills.”
An audience member highlighted the internal fractures within host communities, where some residents welcome refugees in a spirit of solidarity while others mobilise against them. In response, Mr. Osten-Sacken acknowledged there is “no easy answer” to this growing trend, but proposed a tangible solution: immediate co-production.
He argued for leveraging the skills of refugee professionals such as doctors, nurses, and teachers "at the first point of reaching Europe." This approach, he contended, allows newcomers to “contribute according to their skills” from the outset, countering the damaging effects of long asylum procedures that, in his view, “erase skills and dignity.” By making the competence and contributions of refugees visible, societies can build practical bridges and combat the narratives that fuel backlash.
In this context, Prof. Prainsack emphasised that the right to asylum is a foundational right, as it enables people whose civil and human rights are violated in their home countries to reach a place where those rights are protected and can be meaningfully exercised.“Undermining asylum,” she warned, “is a profound act of anti-solidarity,” directly connecting the political assault on asylum systems to the conceptual framework of unsolidarity discussed earlier.
A Path Forward: From Principle to Practice
This conversation laid out a compelling blueprint for reform in refugee health and solidarity. We must shift from charity to rights, anchoring interventions in legal entitlements rather than benevolence. We must centre lived experience by meaningfully involving refugees in decision-making and honouring their agency and expertise. We must ensure competence and accountability by deploying qualified professionals to meet complex health needs. And we must build enduring structures, including laws, policies, and funding models, that institutionalise solidarity, not just sentiment.
As Prof. Atuire noted, “We are in a world that shares so much but is drifting apart in unequal ways. Those who suffer the burdens of irresponsibility must be heard when we speak about health and justice.”
This webinar reaffirmed that in the face of global political instability, solidarity cannot remain a buzzword. It must become a disciplined, accountable practice that returns power and dignity to those it seeks to serve.
Watch the Videos Here:
- Part 1 (Concepts & Short Talks): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gci9eykNMGo
- Part 2 (Dialogue with Thomas): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lF3Fw7uZLw
- Log in to post comments