Refugees of the Ukraine Conflict Expose European and Western States’ Deep-Seated Bias Towards “the Other”
Editors’ note: This post constitutes a part of a blog series on the Protection of Refugees’ and Migrants’ Rights in Africa. According to a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Africa is home to over 30 million internally displaced persons, refugees, and asylum seekers. This translates to the African continent being home to nearly one-third of the world’s refugee population. Over the past three years, these figures have increased, triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, new conflicts, and ongoing human rights violations. Against this background, this series features contributions from legal experts and practitioners reflecting on the legal framework providing for the promotion and protection of the rights of migrants and refugees, and the unique problems that minorities confront in this system due to factors such as race and gender discrimination.
To date, close to 7 million refugees have fled Ukraine and millions of people within the country have been displaced since the outbreak of the armed conflict on the 24th of February this year. It ranks as one of the worst in recent times, with the United Nations Refugee Agency declaring the conflict a ‘level 3 emergency’.
Globally, the response to the fallout of the conflict is unparalleled: various measures to prevent the further escalation of the conflict have been implemented by non-governmental organisations as well as third party states, either acting individually or as members to international, inter-governmental or regional organisations. Aid provided to Ukraine ranges from military, humanitarian, and financial aid. Measures have also been put in place to ensure accountability for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
In light of its severity, it cannot be disputed that Ukraine and its people continue to be in dire, urgent need of any forthcoming aid from whichever source or state, and the scale of the global response cannot be faulted. What is cause for alarm however is the response of neighbouring states, other European states, as well as Western states to refugees fleeing Ukrainian territory. Sadly, this refugee crisis has once again shown that various deep-seated prejudices continue to exist within these states when it comes to their treatment of persons with different races, ethnicities, and nationalities in a time of severe human crisis.
The legislative framework guiding European and Western states in their treatment of refugees is sound: their membership to the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and various international human rights treaties that may find application to humanitarian crises such as the Ukrainian one, are near-universal (with the exception of the United States of America that is not a member state to these treaties at the same level as its counterparts).
Yet, despite this admirable adherence to and proclaimed respect for the human rights of refugees, in practice the reception and treatment of white Ukrainian nationals fleeing their state is noticeably different to the way in which refugees of colour are received and treated. Numerous instances of discrimination, outright racism and in some cases, even violence have been reported against the latter when attempting to cross the Ukrainian border. This differential treatment has in turn been criticised as a “double standard” when compared to these states’ slow and restrained response to other humanitarian crises and refugees fleeing from African, Middle-Eastern and Asian states.
“Pinpointing the exact reason for European and Western states’ response to refugees fleeing the Ukrainian conflict is complicated. What their approach does expose however, is that their response is ever-shifting when it comes to humanitarian crises.”
The different treatment of non-white refugees by European states at their borders was quickly denounced after reports began to surface. On the 28th of February the African Union released a statement that the “unacceptable dissimilar treatment [is] shockingly racist and in breach of international law”, urging that “the same empathy and support to all people fleeing war notwithstanding their racial identity” be shown.
On 1 March the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding the conflict in general, but also condemned the reported racism and called on states “to respect the fundamental rights of all asylum-seekers seeking safety in the Union, irrespective of their nationalities”. Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, released a statement on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this year, wherein he emphasised “the ugly reality that some Black and Brown people fleeing Ukraine – and other wars and conflicts around the world – have not received the same treatment as Ukrainian refugees”.
Ukrainian neighbouring states, the European Union, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have all put measures in place to receive refugees of the Ukrainian conflict and have created specific visas that they can apply for. Currently only the EU offers “temporary protection” to “eligible” non-Ukrainian nationals and stateless persons who were on Ukrainian territory on 24 February.
Persons eligible for EU protection are nationals of third states and stateless persons, together with their families, who were benefiting from “international protection or equivalent protection” in Ukraine, as well as stateless persons and nationals of third countries who were “legally residing” in Ukraine with “a valid permanent residence permit” who cannot safely return to their state of origin. “Students and workers” who were legally residing in Ukraine “on a short-term basis before 24 February 2022” are not eligible in principle, as they should contact representatives of their state of origin to arrange their “repatriation”.
Pinpointing the exact reason for European and Western states’ response to refugees fleeing the Ukrainian conflict is complicated. What their approach does expose however, is that their response is ever-shifting when it comes to humanitarian crises. It seems to be dictated by whether a crisis poses a direct threat to them from a geographical, military or economic perspective. It also indicates a base-level response informed by the race, ethnicity, religion, culture, or nationality of those directly affected by a crisis, which is also ever-shifting.
Initially, refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Asia from 2015 onwards were treated by an “outpouring of sympathy”, which steadily declined when their influx showed no indications of dissipating as the conflicts from which they fled did not come to an end as quickly as expected. Historically, Eastern and Central Europeans have been subjected to persecution, discrimination and racism for centuries on the European continent, by Western states, as well as by Russia. However, currently the preferential treatment for Ukraine and its nationals by Europe and Western states are justified by arguing that they share a similar race, culture, and religion. It is further argued that their level of “civilisation” and geographical vicinity understandably call for these states to direct their aid towards Ukraine, and that they “can’t help everybody”.
The Ukrainian refugee crisis has exposed multifaceted layers of discrimination, racism, and prejudice towards “the other” by European and Western states. Despite the condemnation of differential treatment and racism against non-Ukrainian refugees and the implementation of protective measures for all refugees, differential treatment and double standards continue to manifest in practice.
However, it is hoped that the exposure of this deep-seated prejudice towards other racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, and national groups will result in genuine and sustained equal treatment of all refugees. States that continue to allow such differential treatment practices should be held accountable by the various organisations that adopted and are implementing the various measures in the first place. This would undoubtedly go a long way in driving European and Western states to truly change the way in which they respond to humanitarian crises, rather than being dictated by whether a situation directly threatens them, or who victims of human rights violations are.
