The double standards in the world’s outcry when Ukraine is under attack

As I watched the coverage of the Ukraine invasion in the Western media, I was suddenly reminded of Toni Morrison's novel The Bluest Eyes.

Published in 1970, it is based on an African American family's struggles in a white Anglo-Saxon community. The name of the book is a reference to young Pecola's (the protagonist) desire for blue eyes, as she is repeatedly told she is 'ugly' because of her African American mannerisms and dark skin. 

Blue eyes correlate to 'whiteness' in the book.

So why did I suddenly remember this book?

In a BBC interview on 26 February, Ukraine's deputy chief prosecutor David Sakvarelidze said, "It's very emotional for me because I see European people with blonde hair and blue eyes being killed every day with Putin's missiles and his helicopters and his rockets." 

It is indeed difficult to ignore how journalists and media outlets are covering invasion in specific tones and words - some subtle, some blatant - that are dangerously different from those used when people of a darker skin complexion fall victim to invasion, land annexation, military tanks or bombs. 

Nusmila Lohani. Illustration: TBS

And lest we forget, the last week of February, there were reports detailing how others from Africa, India and the Middle East were pushed back, even injured, by Ukrainian security forces, when they reached the border to escape the country. 

Examples of bias and double standards are abundant and well documented. The difference is palpable. There are no nuances, no bars held. The world's media continue to do very poorly to veil its white supremacy and euro-centricity because not only is the media coverage different, but they also work to erase information that perpetuates their bias. 

For instance, Vogue and CNN erased the word Palestine from American model Gigi Hadid's (who is also Palestinian-Dutch) social media posts where she said she would donate her fall fashion week earnings to Ukraine and Palestine. 

This is not to delegitimise the plight of the Ukrainians during Russia's invasion. This is not to dehumanise the Ukrainian victims but rather to understand that calling out the abhorrent bias and sympathising with the Ukrainians are not mutually exclusive. Both can be done at the same time.

And for the victims of wars and conflicts in Middle Eastern and African countries, I would assume, these past couple of weeks had to be particularly difficult because while they sympathise with Ukrainians, they also realise, yet again, how differently they are treated and addressed by the world.

If nothing else, the double standards of the media coverage between the Ukrainian invasion by Russia and invasions of Middle Eastern countries by the United States and/or its allies, should give reason to take a long, hard look at the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel. 

Drawing parallels between what is happening right now in Ukraine and what has been happening in Palestine for decades is telling of a myriad of things, particularly supremacist discourses. This was the basis of an Irish politician Richard Boyd Barrett's 2 March speech in Dublin's parliament.  

On 1 February this year, Amnesty International published a 278-page report accusing Israel of apartheid; racial/ethnic segregation, in other words. The organisation also called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider the state of Israel's crime of apartheid and called on all states to exercise universal jurisdiction to bring the perpetrators to justice. 

Following this, Barrett called for a debate. However, before the scheduled date, Russia launched its all-out invasion of Ukraine on 24 February.  

Barrett drew parallels and called out his parliament for their very strong and immediate response to Russia in the wake of the invasion and their response to Israel's treatment of Palestinians. 

He said, in his speech on 2 March, "The government has moved instantly within five days to sanction Putin's regime and take urgent action. And the strength of language that was used, rightly against Putin, as a barbarian, as a thug, as a murderer, as a warmonger, all of which are true; all of those things, all of those things apply to the state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. 

And yet, the government is concerned about its use of language and doesn't feel it is appropriate to even use the word apartheid."   

Sanctions

Since the eve of 24 February, many - Switzerland, European Union, United States, Canada, Australia, France, United Kingdom - have moved at warp speed to put sanctions on Russia - and in some cases on Russian oligarchs too, leading it to become the world's most sanctioned country. 

Condemnation rang loud and relentlessly, continuing as I write this. The number of companies suspending operations in Russia or pulling out of Russia continues to grow larger. This already includes Amazon, Disney, Ford, H&M, L'Oreal, Microsoft, Samsung, Unilever, Zara, Adidas,  among many others.  

Rightfully so, because innocent people have been killed and more continue to be at stake - all in the name of geopolitics, muscle power and NATO breaking verbal commitments made to Russia to not expand across the former Soviet Union bloc nations.  

Sanctions as an economic weapon are a surefire way to make an impact on the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin. But to circle back to Barrett's speech, he said, "[It took] five days for sanctions against Putin and his thugs -- 70 years of oppression of the Palestinians, and it wouldn't be -- What was the word you used? – it wouldn't be 'helpful' to impose sanctions.

Amnesty International [is] calling for Israel to be referred to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Will you support it? They are calling for targeted sanctions against Israeli officials who are perpetuating the system of apartheid, just exactly the same types of sanctions you have just initiated against Vladimir Putin. Will you support it?" 

The answer is a deafening no, Barrett concluded. 

While it has appeared challenging to garner support for Amnesty's call, the European Union and its allies have tried, to the full extent of their capabilities, to convince countries to vote against Russia in the UNGA assembly held in early March. 

In response, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan said, "We are friends with Russia, and we are also friends with America; we are friends with China and with Europe; we are not in any camp." The PM also said Pakistan would remain "neutral" and work with those trying to end the war in Ukraine and that Pakistan is not "a slave" to the EU, in regards to having to agree with EU.

Pakistan abstained. However, the UNGA Assembly voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Russia over the Ukrainian invasion. 

If I were to stretch this topic just a smudge further, the sanctions, ban and boycotts placed on Russia, does this not sound similar to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement?  Founded in 2005, BDS is a Palestinian-led movement to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international laws.

Criticising Israel for human rights violations does not come easy because many fail to differentiate between the anti-semitism and pro-Palestine discourse, even though the two are divided not just by a thin line but a big fat ginormous one. 

"You see these images of Ukrainians with guns being hailed as heroes. And for us what we constantly heard was, we are terrorists," said Mariam Barghouti, Palestinian writer and researcher, in an interview with AJplus. 

Western pundits and commentators were quick to glorify the Ukrainian soldiers and the resistance. Many went as far as to say, they have never seen such displays of courage and bravery in the past. This does not only add to the bias but also works to erase history. If that were really true, then what about the people of Bosnia, Lebanon, Yemen and so many more - who have shown incredible bravery, and some continue to remain resilient in the face of wars and conflicts.

"For Palestinians, our resistance has been criminalised. And I think to say [in] parallel, especially in light of what's been happening in the past decade, not just in Palestine or the Arab world, but around the globe as well from various struggles, takes away from that. 

And I think it is unfair to empower one struggle at the expense of another. It is very telling of how inherently racist news media outlets are," explained Barghouti.  

Ukrainians picking up rifles and making Molotov cocktails have garnered the world's admiration and cheer. This does not just add to the media bias but also speaks of a vital tangent to this discourse.  

"I am very sorry but it is extremely immoral of the United States and the West to incite the Ukrainians to fight and then say we will not come to your rescue, we will just put economic sanctions," said Major General GD Bakshi Retired Indian Army officer on 27 February on an Indian English news channel. 

The veteran military man calls out the media coverage of the Ukrainian invasion, saying, "It is extremely immoral for NATO to cheerlead Zelensky into fighting the Russians to the last man standing in Ukraine, to the last Ukrainian. Who will suffer? Who is suffering?" he asked, "Ukraine. Whose oil installations are being destroyed, pipelines being destroyed, it's theirs." Bakshi called out the media for portraying Russia's invasion as though Ukraine is on the winning side. This is dangerous, according to Bakshi, it not only gives Ukrainians false hope and instigates them to stay on and fight "an unequal" battle.

With diplomatic talks underway between Russia and Ukraine, and the latter saying they no longer insist on joining NATO, it's anyone's guess exactly when the war will end and what would be the ruptures it will have left behind in the world. But one thing has been already reestablished, white supremacy discourses dominate media coverage even in war.