{"id":8695,"date":"2022-03-28T11:45:01","date_gmt":"2022-03-28T09:45:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/twistislamophobia.org\/en\/?p=8695"},"modified":"2022-05-17T13:11:44","modified_gmt":"2022-05-17T11:11:44","slug":"what-is-behind-this-impulse-of-solidarity-towards-ukrainians","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/twistislamophobia.org\/en\/2022\/03\/28\/what-is-behind-this-impulse-of-solidarity-towards-ukrainians\/","title":{"rendered":"What is behind this impulse of solidarity towards Ukrainians?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the all-out war throughout the country, has been the focus of political and media attention for several weeks. The gravity of the humanitarian situation certainly justifies this coverage, and allows us to remember that all wars are reprehensible. (Cover photo: Alisdare Hickson).<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, this is precisely the point that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, because if all violations of fundamental rights and freedoms are to be condemned and all lives are equal, how can we explain the double standards that have been installed in the discursive sphere since the beginning of the conflict? And likewise, why do the victims of this conflict seem to enjoy a solidarity that is not received, for example, by Syrians, Yemenis, Afghans, Sudanese…?<\/p>\n

This article does not intend to answer these questions in their complex and diverse totality, but to underline some important points to remind us that the values of humanity and solidarity, invoked at every turn in recent days, seemed to have disappeared until now, and if its return can be positive it must be done in a universal way and not fall into discriminatory, racist and Islamophobic discourses and practices.<\/p>\n

The importance of the asylum principle: looking at the past to understand the present<\/strong><\/p>\n

First of all, it is important to remember that the decision to flee a situation of war or horror is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> in Articles 13 and 14:<\/p>\n

\u201c1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.<\/em>\u201d Article 13<\/p>\n

\u201c1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.\u201d<\/em> Article 14<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The freedom of movement recognized by the 1948 text is therefore one of the fundamental rights of all persons, without discrimination. It is also the cornerstone of one of the rights at the heart of current events: the right to asylum<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    The question of asylum is rooted in the history of mankind, and its ancient origins remind us of its importance. Some historians trace the idea and notion of asylum back to ancient Egypt, specifically to the Treaty of Qadesh <\/strong>(1280 B.C.) between Ramses II and Hattusili III, which for the first time in history addressed, in transcribed form, the issue of “refugees” by containing several clauses concerning the protection and repatriation of prisoners from the rival camp.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>

    Hittite version of the treaty of Kadesh. Archaeological Museum of Istanbul.<\/p><\/div>\n

    However, it was in the time of ancient Greece that the concept of asylum acquired greater importance, especially when it obtained its first definition. From the 5th century BC onwards, Greek jurists and thinkers began to explain that there were sacred places, “\u03ac\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd<\/strong> asylon<\/em>“, which were therefore inviolable and could not be plundered<\/strong>. These places could also serve as a refuge for anyone fleeing from human justice.<\/p>\n

    Throughout history, this notion of asylum has acquired different meanings and applications, depending on the time and place, but the principles on which it has been based have always been the same, those of hospitality and protection<\/strong>. Its evolution and definition was closely linked to religions, from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n

    Such is the case of the three major monotheistic religions, whose founding stories remind us of this notion of asylum: 1.<\/strong> a situation of danger (persecution<\/strong>), 2.<\/strong> a fleeing (exile<\/strong>) and 3.<\/strong> the search for a place of protection (asylum<\/strong>). For Judaism this sequence of events is called the Exodus, for Christianity the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and for Islam the Hegira.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    These religions have given rise to different normative systems dealing with the phenomenon of displacement, based on ethical and moral values based on the need for welcome and hospitality. This is the case of Islam and the Shari’a<\/a>, which, due to their history, have developed rules and laws concerning the treatment of foreigners and people who have been forced to take the path of exile, also recognizing the value of those who come to the aid of people fleeing violence<\/strong>, as was the case of the Prophet Muhammad in Medina.<\/p>\n

    Between the principle and the application, an unbridgeable gap, or almost…<\/h3>\n

    However, the concept of asylum, as we understand it today, is more recent and is linked to the construction of nation states from the 19th century onwards and, above all, to the two world wars and the development of international law.<\/p>\n

    The Geneva Convention on Refugees<\/strong> (1951) and the New York Protocol<\/strong> (1967) are the founding texts which, taking up the ideas of protection and hospitality inherent in the right of asylum, defined the notion of “refugee”<\/strong> and established the fundamental rights to be guaranteed to this group. These texts are based on the principle of non-discrimination and non-refoulement and have been ratified by 145 States.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>

    Source: UNHCR<\/p><\/div>\n

    The principle of asylum, and refugee status, has thus become an internationally recognized right, but also, unfortunately, an object of politics and geopolitics. This politicization of asylum has given rise to a gap between the principle enunciated in the texts and its actual application<\/strong>, which has grown steadily over the years. This fundamental right has thus become in most cases an illusion rather than a reality.<\/p>\n

    However, it seems that since the war in Ukraine, a bridge is being built over this abyss that once seemed insurmountable. The question is, nevertheless, if these efforts and this bridge are intended to make this long-forgotten right a reality for all those who need it. Unfortunately, the negative answer is not surprising, as there seem to be barriers restricting its access and crossing.<\/p>\n

    You don’t have to look far to realize that many people continue to risk their lives trying to cross borders in the face of Western indifference, as two babies and three women died and more than 40 people went missing in the Mediterranean on March 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    However, this tragic news does not arouse the emotion and indignation of public opinion, or does so on a much smaller scale than what we have experienced in recent weeks with the Ukrainian refugees. This is especially the case with the media, which also play an important agenda-setting role.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    What is behind this double standard? Racism, Eurocentrism, Islamophobia\u2026<\/h3>\n

    Indeed, the European public sphere has been trying for years to normalize or dehumanize the death of thousands of people at our borders through a process of alterization or otherness that turns them into “Others”. In this context, images and information about the war in Ukraine and refugees are different, and aim to link these people to an “Us”. This self-recognition in their situation seeks to evoke empathy and indignation about the conflict they are experiencing. The result is an unequal treatment of the victims of the different conflicts according to geographical, ethnic, religious criteria…In this vision, otherness, real or imaginary, becomes a factor of dehumanization<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    This phenomenon is justified by a rhetoric that, despite a pseudo-justification of an urgent need for international protection, is in reality based on racist and islamophobic politics and thinking.<\/strong> The latter seeks to make a supposed “cultural proximity” the determining factor of empathy, or, to use the term developed by Judith Butler<\/strong>, of “grievability<\/strong>“, that is to say, of the capacity to mourn a life, or to consider whether they are worthy of living and therefore of grieving.<\/p>\n

    This variable geometry of empathy can be explained in many ways, and Butler has developed an important bibliography around it. Notable in this regard is her latest book written with French philosopher Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Worms, Le vivable et l’invivable<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a>One of the main ideas of her years of study, reflected in this book, is that the ability to live one’s own life is socially discriminated against and unequally valued according to sociopolitical norms. So is the empathy that arises from a person’s suffering and its capacity to move consciences and help in the face of the unlivable.<\/p>\n

    Worms explains that “if we can die, in the classical sense of the word, of hunger or cold, our life can be made unbearable by the lack of recognition, by depression or melancholy…”<\/em> . This is precisely what we want to denounce, that this necessary recognition is granted to some groups of people, but not to others, and that this arbitrary choice is, in part, the result of systemic racism.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The images and atrocities committed by the regime of Bashar al Assad and Putin in Syria escapes no one, so it might seem logical that they should be protected and considered – like Ukrainians – refugees. However, the reality and discourse are totally different<\/strong>, and they are still mainly described and perceived as “Muslim migrants<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

    The spokesmen of this hypocrisy justify this double standard with the argument of an alleged “cultural proximity”. However, this myth deserves to be deconstructed to show its true face: that of a culturalist, essentialist, not to say racist and Islamophobic thinking, which denies the humanity of hundreds of thousands of people.<\/p>\n

    This narrative has aberrant discriminatory results, such as the attempt to distinguish between “good” and “bad” refugees, i.e., “civilized” and “savages.” This racism, coming from a colonial rhetoric<\/strong> of “pseudo-civilization”, is pervasive in the discursive field, as these few examples show:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Daniel Hannan, of The Telegraph wrote<\/a>: \u201cThey seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
    • On February 26, CBS News correspondent Charlie D’Agata said: \u201cBut this isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European \u2014 I have to choose those words carefully, too \u2014 city, one where you wouldn\u2019t expect that, or hope that it\u2019s going to happen.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
    • \u201cWe\u2019re not talking here about Syrians fleeing the bombing of the Syrian regime backed by Putin, we\u2019re talking about Europeans leaving in cars that look like ours to save their lives.\u201d<\/em> Philippe Corb\u00e9 on the French channel BFM TV.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
      \n

      \u201cCivilized\u201d
      \n      pic.twitter.com\/AiU7uVmjMr<\/a><\/p>\n

      \u2014 Imraan Siddiqi (@imraansiddiqi) February 26, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n