Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion has captivated the world for several weeks, and has triggered a massive wave of financial support and solidarity mobilizations. Support is expressed in many ways: millions of euros in donations; provision of technology; reception of refugees; volunteering, humanitarian volunteering; military aid; transport of provisions; media coverage…
Strangely, the Western population is not mobilizing as much for other war zones, elsewhere on the planet, or to support vulnerable people who are already present in France or in Europe. Some scholars try to explain the massive reaction to the Ukrainian crisis, compared to other peoples.
Solidarity amplified by massive media coverage
For Jessica Eise, a social issues scholar at the University of Texas, the waves of generosity to Ukraine offer an opportunity to examine what motivates solidarity giving. While in Yemen, Afghanistan or Ethiopia, the economic and social disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic puts tens of millions of people at risk of falling into extreme poverty right now, these global humanitarian crises, however very topical, have not attracted the attention of public opinion.
This would be explained by the fact that, despite the desire to make a difference with their solidarity support, people do not necessarily get involved for the causes that could have the most impact. In reality, donors can rarely explain what drives them to choose one cause or another. Studies have shown that people tend to be more likely to respond to requests for help from a single identifiable recipient rather than a large-scale problem, such as a nationwide famine, for example. The more media coverage of an issue increases, the more stories and stories about it will become known, and the more donations will be made. So today, many heartbreaking stories about the fate of more than three million Ukrainian refugees have gone around the world in a matter of weeks, leaving Ukrainians traveling across Europe warmly welcomed. Yet in these same places, recalls Jessica Eise, refugees from the Middle East and Africa have rarely experienced such generosity.
Is it discrimination, or late awareness?
The explanation of this massive solidarity, by positive prejudices concerning European and white refugees, and negative prejudices concerning refugees of other skin colors, was approached. Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov told reporters in early March that Ukrainians “are intelligent, they are educated people”. And to add: “It’s not the wave of refugees we’ve been used to, people whose identities we weren’t sure of, people with unclear pasts, who might even have been terrorists.” If some do not hide their preferences, others choose to tend towards universalism.
In a forum given to Le Monde, the philosopher Ayyam Sureau exposes the complexity of the question, arguing that we cannot compare these two types of refugees, because Ukrainians have the right to free movement in Europe since 2017. But above all, according to her, stopping on accusations of racism will not change our solidarity with other causes. On the contrary, taking advantage of these demonstrations of solidarity with the Ukrainians could help to shed light on the issue of war victims and refugees in general. While we deplore the “double standard” and cry racism, accusing a culpable preference for the white refugee, Christian moreover, we should rather, according to the philosopher, hope that he will only a matter of time.
Be that as it may, raising awareness of the refugee issue, carried out for many years, leaves no one indifferent. But, if we cannot welcome everyone, nor welcome anyone, can we then find a “golden mean” without this being interpreted as being discrimination?