In a historic display of support and solidarity with Ukraine, 39 State Parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC) referred the situation of Ukraine to the Court. This referral enables the Office of the Prosecutor to proceed with opening an investigation into alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Ukraine without seeking prior authorisation of the Court, which, consequently, expedites the procedure.
In parallel, a few days after Russia’s aggression on Ukraine the UN Security Council voted to hold an emergency and rare UN General Assembly session on the Ukraine crisis after Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have demanded it to immediately stop its attack on Ukraine. During the emergency UN General Assembly session, an overwhelming 141 out of the 193 Member States voted in favour of a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly’s resolutions are non-binding. They do however carry a significant weight showcasing the political will on a wider international scale to isolate and hold Russia accountable.
Simultaneously, the international community has left no stone unturned in trying to ascertain its dismay of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and pressure the country to back down, from global sanctions to dramatic walkouts from the Human Rights Council. This unprecedented commitment to supporting international justice that the international community has depicted with the crisis in Ukraine affirms the old saying that goes “where there’s a will, there’s a way”.
It is important to make clear that civilians in Ukraine deserve protection from their Russian aggressors and any civilians anywhere for that matter. However, it is evident that this firm political will to stop impunity in its tracks seems to fade when it is happening in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia.
Russia, for instance, has vetoed 16 times Security Council resolutions on Syria since the crackdown in 2011 in the country. In 2014, Russia, backed by China, cast a veto against the referral of the situation in Syria to the ICC and on three occasions after that. Unlike what we have recently witnessed, when faced with these vetoes, the Security Council took no further action to uphold peace and protect civilians in Syria, indicating its inability to act in the face of the veto “deadlock”. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, the failure of the UN Security Council to take any actions to put a stop to the conflict contributed to “the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million Syrians, the arrest of nearly 150,000 others”.
The US and the UK, two of the world’s biggest international players, supported the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen against the Houthis despite mounting evidence that those attacks do not respect the rules of war and are targeting civilians and civilian objects. This war, which has been called the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, has left 16 million people, including children, on the brink of famine. The US and the UK, the two permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, continued to be involved in the Council’s talks where sanctions were only used against the Houthis.
As we are currently witnessing an overpowering Eurocentric morality and strong defence for the principle of armed conflict on display in the Western world, one can’t help but ask why haven’t we seen this virtue and will from the international community to put an end to aggression in other regions?
Additionally, States have long used ICC’s budget to interfere with the Court’s work. Just recently, Canada –one of the 39 countries that referred Ukraine’s situation to the ICC– threatened to withdraw its funding to the Court if the latter did not drop its investigation into Israeli alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the situation in Palestine despite a growing body of evidence calling Israel an apartheid State.
So, as we are currently witnessing an overpowering Eurocentric morality and strong defence for the principle of armed conflict on display in the Western world, one can’t help but ask why haven’t we seen this virtue and will from the international community to put an end to aggression in other regions?
The implicit and explicit racism in Western coverage of the Russian invasion referencing people’s race, religion, nationality, and associating that with “civilisation” might provide some explanation on why audiences and communities seem to take such drastic measures vis-à-vis the Ukraine war as opposed to other wars or conflicts.
During its emergency session, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressing the General Assembly on the Russian attack on Ukraine said that “the mere idea of a nuclear conflict is simply inconceivable”. However, reports of chemical weapons being used by the Syrian government with Russia’s participation in rebel-held Eastern Ghouta killing more than 1,000 civilians did not seem inconceivable enough to impose harsh sanctions and hold Russia accountable then.
All this goes to show that the West appears to be very disconnected and disengaged from the atrocities that are happening in other places. It seems that post-colonialism has only trained people to accept the suffering of communities of colour, to treat them as an inferior race, to normalise their unwarranted risk to premature death and consider it unfortunate.
Calling out racism and double standards in the response to the Russian invasion and aggression against Ukraine does not in any way undermine the solidarity for Ukrainian civilians under attack. All forms of occupation, oppression, and aggression should be condemned, whether it happens in Europe and America or the Middle East and Africa.
While these measures taken by the international community are to be saluted and are considered a valuable stance against Russia’s impunity in Ukraine, more action needs to be taken in other situations as well to affirm the common values of this community. Nonetheless, despite past disappointing events, the shared moral norms the international community is presently showcasing make plain that when political will is mustered, it is possible to see tangible results. An inclusive and universal humanitarian approach is crucial and, if applied, would have a far greater impact in ending impunity everywhere.
