Humanitarianism À la Carte: The West’s Selective International Refugee Convention Adherence
Introduction
Since the turn of the 20th century, the global landscape has been shaped by an unparalleled wave of international refugee migration, with Europe and North America emerging as principal destinations for refugees fleeing turmoil and seeking sanctuary. This phenomenon has not only tested the resilience and humanitarian commitments of host nations but has also unveiled a tapestry of responses that significantly diverge based on the refugees' country of origin. The treatment of these asylum-seekers, rather than being uniform or solely rooted in humanitarian concerns, is influenced by national political alliances, deepening the ridge between the West and others, and revealing a dynamic where politics intertwine with the principles of asylum and human rights. Such is the case with the recent Ukrainian refugee crisis, where nations adhere to international conventions only to ensure Ukrainians receive ample benefits. On the other hand, refugee laws are circumvented in the case of non-Ukrainians, mostly hailing from East Africa and the Middle East, to ensure they bear the brunt of the refugee hierarchy. To put it simply, humanitarianism is chosen from time to time at the discretion of the receiving country, like choosing dishes off an a la carte menu. In this article, I seek to bring forth the factors driving these distinctions between differing refugee groups and the consequences they hold for the international community’s selective approach to refugee integration. Its lack of salience sounds international alarms about the integrity of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its subsequent 1967 Protocol.
For Starters: Bias in the Media
As media capturing war-ridden disasters is consumed by citizens of Western nations, these words and images directly influence the perspective, as well as the profiling, of refugees from differing geographic regions. Take CBS senior foreign reporter Charlie D’Agata, who offered his sage senior foreign reporter view on the war in Ukraine by purporting that the country’s capital “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—I have to choose those words carefully, too—city, one where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen” [1]. It is fascinating to hear that civility and the shock of conflict are measured by proximity to Europe, in D’Agata’s carefully chosen words.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that empathy should not require a map. But some others opt to use a mirror instead. During a BBC interview with Ukraine’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, he confesses: “It was very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair [...] being killed every day” [2]. Rather than questioning his sentiment, the BBC host simply remarked that he “understands and respects the emotion.” Over in France’s BFM TV, journalist Phillipe Corbé stated “We’re not talking here about Syrians fleeing the bombing of the Syrian regime backed by Putin. We’re talking about Europeans leaving in cars that look like ours to save their lives” [3].
In other words, not only do Ukrainians look like the collective entity of “us,” but their plight is deemed as seemingly more relatable and deserving of empathy by the media, influencing our perception of what a refugee should look like, because who wouldn't want to save someone that looks like themselves? Further perpetuating the divide is the association between non-White refugees and the West’s political adversaries, Russia in this case, who purportedly backs a country with the highest refugee count in the world that is undeserving of discussion and sympathy solely based on rumored allegiances [4]. If the media were required to follow the 1951 Protocol on Refugees that recognizes refugees regardless of race, nationality, or political opinion, it would have failed greatly in doing so [5].
The Main Course (of Action): Dispelling The Equitable Treatment Myth
In the wake of President Joe Biden’s response to welcoming 100,000 Ukrainian refugees to the US, a deep-seated issue within the fabric of Western humanitarianism has been thrust into the limelight. The decision, juxtaposed with the ongoing plight of African and Caribbean immigrants facing similar conditions of conflict and displacement, sheds light on the apparent racial biases that influence the level of support and protection offered. As Liberian immigrant and immigration lawyer Samah Sisay observes, “the reality is all over the world, unfortunately, there are many people who are experiencing similar things [as Ukrainians] and don’t get that type of urgency from the US government or attention,” highlighting a glaring lack of equivalent action for black refugees compared to the swift support for Ukrainians [6]. This discrepancy is further underscored by the rapid provision of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Ukrainians by U.S. Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, in stark contrast to the prolonged neglect of Cameroonians and Haitians facing similar and highly prolonged crises [7]. As Sylvie Bello, founder of the Cameroon American Council, underscores: "Ukraine has TPS after days of conflict, and there’s no Cameroonian TPS after five years" [8]. These examples reveal a disturbing trend where the urgency and compassion extended to refugees are filtered through a lens of racial and geographical bias, underscoring a systemic issue within Western humanitarian policies that prioritizes certain lives over others based on race.
Furthermore, the discriminatory undertones are reinforced by the observations of immigrant advocates and politicians who have called out the U.S. for its swift deportations of Haitians and the higher bond amounts for Black immigrants, as found by the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, which contrasts sharply with the treatment of Ukrainians [9]. The racial biases extend beyond the U.S. borders, as evidenced by Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov's remarks: "These are not the refugees we are used to... These people are Europeans," revealing a broader Western perception that differentiates refugees on a racial and ethnic basis [10].
The collective outcry for equal treatment, as articulated by Sisay, is not that “The government shouldn’t be assisting Ukrainian refugees. It’s saying the same level of care that you’re giving to these folks, why is it that refugees, mainly Black refugees and refugees of color, don’t get that same sort of care and attention when obviously they also are in need?” [11]. These disparities in treatment underscore systemic bias within Western immigration and refugee policies where the value of refuge and compassion is unequally applied.
Digestifs: Digesting Reality
Can refugee conventions be outdated? This seems to be the belief amongst Western nations as they avoid the non-discriminatory nature of international refugee law. Though 1951’s Refugee Convention is ideal in theory in emphasizing the legal obligations each state should abide by based on refugees’ protection, not race and nationality, it is difficult for nations like the US to apply 20th-century accords into practice. This time, US border officials have bent rules and exempted Ukrainians from Title 42, which regulates “the admission of immigrants, refugees, asylees, and parolees into the U.S. based on medical reasons” [12]. To follow suit, the Biden administration created a new “streamlined” program called Uniting for Ukraine to grant refugees “humanitarian parole” for up to two years [13]. Similar efforts have not been made for refugees from Africa or the Middle East. Is this the convention in practice? In a world where White displaced peoples are fed the opportunity to rebuild their lives in a new country, others—mostly black, brown, and/or Muslim—spend their lives without a home.
These nations, priding themselves as acceptive and progressive, pick and choose, like an a la carte menu, when to provide support and refuge. The selective compassion and bending of rules to accommodate certain refugees while sidelining others reveal not just a crisis of policy but a crisis of conscience. Holding Western nations accountable requires a collective effort to transcend mere rhetoric and enact policies that reflect the universal values of dignity, equality, and human rights for all, regardless of race, nationality, or religion. It demands a steadfast commitment to reforming immigration systems to ensure they are devoid of discrimination. This involves not only adhering to international conventions in letter, but embodying their spirit in practice, by extending protection and support to all refugees with the same urgency, irrespective of their origin.
Moreover, civil society, international organizations, and individuals must amplify their voices against these injustices, advocating for policy changes and challenging the narratives that perpetuate discrimination. The media, as a powerful influencer of public opinion, must also shoulder its responsibility by portraying refugee crises with the impartiality and humanity they deserve, challenging stereotypes and biases that fuel discrimination. Since the turn of the 20th century, the a la carte approach to human rights leaves too many still waiting at the table for their share of compassion and support.
Bibliography
[1] Moustafa Bayoumi, “They Are ‘Civilised’ and ‘Look Like Us’: The Racist Coverage of Ukraine,” The Guardian, March 2, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civilised-european-look-like-us-racist-coverage-ukraine.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] UNHCR, “Refugee Data Finder,” October 24, 2023, accessed March 3, 2024, https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/.
[5] UNHCR, “Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” 1951, accessed March 3, 2024, https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees.
[6] Char Adams, “African Immigrant Advocates Point to ‘Double Standard’ as Ukrainians Receive U.S. Relief,” NBC News, April 5, 2022, accessed March 3, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/african-immigrant-advocates-point-double-standard-ukrainians-receive-u-rcna23092.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] The Associated Press, “Europe Welcomes Ukrainian Refugees but Others, Less So,” NPR, February 28, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083423348/europe-welcomes-ukrainian-refugees-but-others-less-so.
[11] Char Adams, “African Immigrant Advocates Point to ‘Double Standard’ as Ukrainians Receive U.S. Relief,” NBC News, April 5, 2022, accessed March 3, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/african-immigrant-advocates-point-double-standard-ukrainians-receive-u-rcna23092.
[12] Amanda Bolhuis, “Ukrainians Exempted From Title 42; Permitted to Seek Asylum at U.S. Land Borders,” Terrorism, Homeland Security & Defence - Worldwide, March 24, 2022, https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/terrorism-homeland-security-defence/1175472/ukrainians-exempted-from-title-42-permitted-to-seek-asylum-at-us-land-borders.
[13] Maria Sacchetti, “Biden Administration Rolls Out Plan for Ukrainian Refugees,” Washington Post, April 21, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/22/biden-ukraine-refugees-resettlement-united-states/.