For a little over a month now, Ukraine has been subject to massive destruction at the hands of the Russian Federation. Homes are being destroyed. Cities are being bombarded. Children are being killed in the hundreds. The Russian invasion is panning out to be Europe’s biggest crisis since World War II, bringing the biggest food crisis since the 1940s-1950s and one of the largest refugee crises since the Syrian Civil War.
Despite the war tearing through their homes and cities, many Ukrainians remain vigilant, showing extreme resilience in the face of almost certain danger at the hands of the Russian military. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been on the streets himself, armed with a rifle and ready to defend his country, quite literally an epitome of fighting to the death. Amid this resilience, however, more than 3.7 million Ukrainians have fled their homes, accounting for a little over 9% of the total Ukrainian population of 41.1 million.
As the civilian death toll rises, people have fled to the neighboring countries of Poland, Romania, Moldova, Hungary and Slovakia. Some have even gone as far as Mexico. As refugees arrive at the borders of more and more countries, the difference in treatment between Ukrainian and other refugees is becoming quite clear. Ukrainian refugees are being accepted with open arms by European countries, while refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern countries have consistently been turned away. Why are they being treated differently than refugees from Syria or Afghanistan? The answer is quite simple: they’re white and European.
When the Taliban overthrew the government in Afghanistan and re-established their Islamic Emirate last year, millions of refugees made their way to Europe in hopes of finding a new life free from the cycle of war they had been stuck in for decades, as well as the ensuing oppression likely to come with the return of the Taliban. European nations like the U.K. agreed to take in 25,000 of these refugees, while other nations like Austria, Poland and Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden refused to take any refugees or seemed hesitant to do so; the former trio even increased their border security.
However, this attitude seems to have changed for Ukrainian refugees. Austria, which refused to take any Afghan refugees, has registered over 27,000 displaced Ukrainians since the war began late in February. Poland has welcomed over 2 million refugees — greater than the population of the nation’s capital, Warsaw. Switzerland triggered its special “S” status for the first time for Ukrainian refugees and is ready to take in nearly 60,000 refugees. They also broke their foreign policy rule of neutrality when they imposed sanctions on Russia in line with the rest of the European Union (EU), although they contest this allegation.
This is blatant racism. You cannot simply pick and choose which refugees you want to take in and which you don’t. Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov claimed that Ukrainian refugees are “not the refugees [Europe] is used to,” calling them Europeans and saying “these people are intelligent … educated people …” that the refugees they were “used to” were questionable in regards to their “identity” and that they were “people with unclear paths, who could have been terrorists.” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only highlights what we’ve already known: nobody cares about people in need unless they look like the majority.
Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghans alike have faced war, famine, poverty and death on a massive scale. If we are to treat all refugees the same, then why not send Ukrainian refugees back home? It’s what Denmark did with some Syrian refugees, claiming it’s now “safe” for them to go back home and stripping them of their residency, even though the country is still in a state of civil war. Of course, it would be inhumane to Ukrainians because they’re white refugees and not “uncivilized terrorist” refugees from the Middle East.
This is in no way meant to say that we should treat Ukrainian refugees in the same way Middle Eastern refugees are treated — we shouldn’t. Nobody should be treated that way. These people have faced horrors that nobody in the “first world” will likely experience in their lifetimes. They have been subject to the worst of humanity, and it only makes sense for wealthy countries to attempt to give them refuge. It’s the very least they can do, given that many of these wars have been started by wealthy countries in the first place.
Let’s not forget about the war crimes either. There is no doubt that much of what Russia is doing in Ukraine constitutes war crimes. Civilians are being executed in lines on the streets. Mass graves are appearing in cities for civilians killed by Russian forces. The U.S. Department of State and the European Council have condemned these actions as war crimes.
How is this any different from what the United States and coalition forces have done during wars in the Middle East, which are not classified as war crimes? U.S. forces in Iraq were given extreme freedom in their rules of engagement, allowing them to murder civilians for nearly any reason and without any hesitation. This led to troops “frequently opening fire” at civilians at military checkpoints and during house searches and patrols. The U.S. also hired private security companies to provide security to officials in Iraq, leading to the Nisour Square massacre, in which contractors from one of these companies killed over a dozen civilians. The contractors were pardoned by former President Donald Trump before he left office in late 2020.
The U.S. also made frequent use of drones during its wars in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Since January 2004, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has compiled statistics on U.S. drone strikes, in which it counted over 14,000 confirmed drone strikes, with a total of 910 to 2,200 civilians killed, with 284 to 454 of those being children. This is compared to 8,858 to 16,901 total deaths. While many killed were legitimate targets, the U.S. frequently disregarded any possibility of civilian deaths, which clearly constitutes a war crime. Civilian prisoners were also tortured by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison during the early years of the Iraq War.
Like the refugee stance, this isn’t to say that Russia’s war crimes should be excused because they shouldn’t. But who is the United States to criticize Russia for committing war crimes while at the same time refusing to acknowledge their own? The U.S. often excuses its war crimes as “mistakes” and refuses to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) since its membership would open it and its servicemembers to prosecution for any war crimes they may commit.
The war in Ukraine is undoubtedly one of the most pressing issues of our time. The sheer aggression of Russian forces poses a threat to the stability of Europe, as the conflict can easily pour into neighboring countries like Poland. However, the war shows just how easy it is for the West to condemn war crimes and accept refugees, despite their refusal to do so for their war crimes and Middle Eastern refugees. This is a dangerous double standard that should not be tolerated.
Mohammad “Moh” Samhouri is a Copy Chief for the 2021-22 school year. He can be reached at samhourm@uci.edu.
