Political Double Standards and the Risk of Bias
Al-Ittihad, UAE, March 23
The topic of double standards in politics has once again come to the fore given the deadly crisis unfolding in Ukraine. We’ve all witnessed double standards when it comes to things like welcoming Ukrainian refugees into host countries, while Arab refugees – who fled an equally bloody war in Syria – were turned down at the border. We’ve seen double standards when it comes to the Western world’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and right for self-determination, while these very same governments denied the Palestinians similar rights. This asymmetry between how the world is dealing with Ukraine, compared to how it has been dealing with the Arab world, is quite disturbing and warrants a response. For example, a prominent New York Times columnist compared the world’s response to Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine with that same response when it came to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. “Kuwait was a small state nestled in the midst of a war-torn region,” the commentator wrote, “while Ukraine is a democracy of more than 40 million people, located on a continent that has been largely peaceful and home to great democracies.” These two sentences are infuriating. The author suggests, without any hesitation or remorse, that the Ukrainian people are more deserving of defense than the people of Kuwait. But scrutiny reveals that it was prejudice and ignorance of history that led him to this perception. We can overlook the difference in size between the two countries. I am sure that the author will not claim that Egypt, because of its size, is more deserving of defense than Israel. As for forms of government, clearly the author does not realize that Kuwait, although it has a traditional society, enjoys a vibrant political culture, and has witnessed highly competitive parliamentary elections. Kuwait’s parliament has a long history of interacting with government ministers on issues of policy and accountability. It is true that Ukraine has a democratically elected executive, but its system of government has not been without flaws, controversies, and corruption. Nor can the form of government determine the extent to which a nation deserves to exist or defend itself. The columnist seems to view Ukraine as more deserving of support than Kuwait because Ukraine is in “largely peaceful” Europe, while Kuwait is located in the Arab world, “a war-torn region.” In other words, this means that conquest and violence are expected of the Arabs, but not of the Europeans. These few words expose the remarkable ignorance and a strong dose of fanaticism. Let us examine the phrase “largely peaceful.” In the last century, Europeans fought two bloody world wars that claimed more than 60 million lives. First, millions of young people were pushed as pawns in a competition between European powers. Then the emergence of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Spain gave way to another, more lethal war that involved an extermination of Jews, mass murder of Poles, Russians, Gypsies, and others, and a brutal, indiscriminate bombing of cities, on both sides. At the end of the war, Europe was divided with the creation and expansion of the Soviet Union, which suppressed and killed millions, consolidated control, and brutally crushed any political rebellion. The end of communist rule brought more violence to places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, and the rise of far-right movements across Europe. Other than these deadly conflicts, European powers were fighting to expand their colonial possessions, and by mid-century, were actively suppressing the peoples of the colonies seeking independence. Millions of Arabs, Africans, and Asians fell victim to their struggle to get rid of the European colonialists who occupied their lands, exploited their wealth, and deprived them of their rights. But the legacy of “largely peaceful” Europe did not end there. The European colonial powers drew artificial lines that divided peoples and created new states that served the interests of these powers. These colonial powers pitted religious, tribal, and ethnic groups against one another, or made profitable concessions to the obedient of these groups, some of which prospered at the expense of their fellow citizens. In these regions, European powers left a legacy of division and potential seeds of conflict for the future. Therefore, allow me to conclude that Europe was not “largely peaceful” throughout history. Indeed, it bears great responsibility towards the “war-torn” Arab world. –James Zogby (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
