Much has been said and written about media bias and double standards in the West’s response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, when compared with other wars and military conflicts across the world, especially in the Middle East and the Global South. Less obvious is how such hypocrisy is a reflection of a much larger phenomenon which governs the West’s relationship to conflict and conflict zones.
On March 19, Iraq commemorated the 19th anniversary of the US invasion which killed, according to modest estimates, over a million Iraqis. The consequences of that war were equally devastating as it destabilised the entire Middle East region, leading to various civil and proxy conflicts. The Arab world is reeling under that horrific experience to this day.
Also, on March 19, the eleventh anniversary of the Nato war on Libya was commemorated and followed, five days later, by the 23rd anniversary of the Nato war on Yugoslavia. Like every NATO-led war since the inception of the alliance in 1949, these conflicts resulted in widespread devastation and tragic death tolls.
None of these wars, starting with the Nato intervention in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, have stabilised any of those regions. Iraq is still as vulnerable to terrorism and outside military interventions. Libya is divided among various conflicting camps, and a return to civil conflict remains a possibility.
Yet, enthusiasm for war remains high, as if over seventy years of failed military interventions have not taught us any meaningful lessons. Daily, news headlines tell us that the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, Spain or some other western power have decided to ship a new kind of ‘lethal weapons’ to Ukraine. Billions of dollars have already been allocated by Western countries to contribute to the conflict in Ukraine.
In contrast, very little has been done to offer platforms for diplomatic, non-violent solutions. A handful of countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia have offered mediation or insisted on a diplomatic solution to the conflict, arguing, as China’s foreign ministry reiterated on March 18, that “all sides need to jointly support Russia and Ukraine in having dialogue and negotiation that will produce results and lead to peace”.
Though the violation of the sovereignty of any country is illegal under international law, and is a stark violation of the United Nations Charter, this does not mean that the only solution to violence is counter-violence. This cannot be truer in the case of Russia and Ukraine, as a state of civil war has existed in Eastern Ukraine for eight years, killing scores and depriving whole communities from any sense of peace or security. Nato’s weapons cannot possibly address the root causes of this communal struggle. On the contrary, they can only fuel it further.
If more weapons were the answer, the conflict would have been resolved years ago. According to the BBC, the US has already allocated $2.7bn to Ukraine over the last eight years, long before the current conflict. This massive arsenal included “anti-tank and anti-armour weapons ... US-made sniper (rifles), ammunition and accessories”.
The speed with which additional military aid has poured into Ukraine following the Russian military operations on Feb. 24 is unprecedented in modern history. This raises not only political or legal questions, but moral questions as well — the eagerness to fund conflict and the lack of enthusiasm to help countries rebuild.
After 21 years of US invasion of Afghanistan, resulting in a humanitarian and refugee crisis, Kabul is now largely left on its own. Last September, the UN refugee agency conflicted that “a major humanitarian crisis is looming in Afghanistan”, yet nothing has been done to address this ‘looming’ crisis, which has greatly worsened since then.
Afghan refugees are rarely welcomed in Europe. The same is true for refugees coming from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali and other conflicts that directly or indirectly involved Nato This hypocrisy is accentuated when we consider international initiatives that aim to support conflict refugees, or rebuild the economies of conflict-torn nations.
Compare the lack of enthusiasm in supporting conflict-torn nations with the West’s unparalleled euphoria in providing weapons to Ukraine. Sadly, it will not be long before the millions of Ukrainian refugees who have left their country in recent weeks become a burden on Europe, thus subjected to the same kind of mainstream criticism and far-right attacks.
While it is true that the West’s attitude to Ukraine is different from its attitude to victims of western interventions, one has to be careful before supposing that the ‘privileged’ Ukrainians will ultimately be better off than the victims of conflict throughout the Middle East. As the crisis drags on, Ukraine will continue to suffer, either as a result of direct impact of the conflict or the collective trauma that will surely follow. Amassing of Nato weapons in Ukraine, as was the case of Libya, will likely backfire. In Libya, Nato’s weapons fuelled the country’s decade long civil conflict.
Ukraine needs peace and security, not perpetual conflict that is designed to serve the strategic interests of certain countries or military alliances. Though military invasions must be wholly rejected, whether in Iraq or Ukraine, turning Ukraine into another convenient zone of perpetual geopolitical struggle is not the answer.
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and editor. He is the author of six books.
