Tayo oke
One of the immediate consequences of war, any war, is a massive displacement of people from their communities. In other words, the first casualty of war are usually the weakest members of society—women, children, old and frail, disabled as well as ‘foreigners.’ They are what the United Nations refer to as “Internally Displaced People.” And, when they start moving on a long trek across borders, they then become “refugees.” The 1951 UN Convention recognises such people by granting them basic rights, which all signatories to it are obliged to honour. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that millions of people have begun to flee Ukraine to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. What is surprising though, and what the authorities in Ukraine would be alarmed by, is the spectacle of its security personnel openly prioritising the passage of Ukrainian nationals over ‘foreigners’ at the crowded border crossings. A number of anecdotal evidence have been recounted by some of the victims appearing on CNN, Sky News, Al Jazeera and other international media outlets. Since there is no passport control at the crossings, it becomes clear that the people pushed to one side and left to wait ‘their turn’ are mostly people from Africa and the South Asian sub-region, majority of whom live in Ukraine as students. How does one recognise a ‘foreigner’ if there is no passport check? It is done by making assumptions based on skin colour. It boggles the mind though that a country pleading for help from one set of foreigners (the Western allies) in one breath is engaged in acts of discrimination against another set of foreigners (its dark-skinned residents) in another breath.
The response to the above rumination would come as a shock to some. It is that the people who feel a sense of subjugation and oppression from another most, are also usually the most ready to mete out the same on another. Let us remember, the USA was conceived on the logic of all men being created equal with a burning desire to live free from monarchical tyranny, while at the same time a large proportion of her citizens wanted to keep a section of their population (the blacks) under perpetual slavery. The position of the Israeli dominance over the Palestinians is another poignant example. During the period of the USSR, communism was not only a system of government, it was a creed and a religion of some sort. It was a pathway towards a Utopia. It was meant to herald the ‘new man,’ free from class oppression, discrimination and subjugation; the anti-thesis of Western democratic norms. Communism was, in every way, superior to capitalism and its ‘illiberal’ ideology. Based on this reasoning, the USSR was a society where discrimination on grounds of race or sex was not only outlawed, it was ‘unknown.’ Unknown because it was systematically suppressed and constantly monitored by a brigade of thought-police dotted around the vast Soviet bloc. Moreover, access to Western media at the time was heavily circumscribed. The Soviet propaganda machine never ceased to show snippets of the race riots in America in particular. It was portrayed as an example of how backward the system of government was in the West. The Soviets were committed to the spontaneous workers’ revolt and triumph of communism across the world. ‘Brotherhood of man’ was not only an ideal but a reality in that part of the world. Racism? Yes, but only in Western ‘imperialist’ societies. That was what the people in Ukraine and other Soviet societies were fed on.
To underline the Soviet’s commitment to the “lumpenproletariat” of the world, the Central Committee opened up the universities to students from Africa and the other so-called ‘Third World’ countries to come and gain valuable qualifications especially in science, medicine and engineering. It was thought that by exposing youngsters from these countries to the Soviet system, they would go back home upon finishing their studies to engage in local workers’ revolts of their own. That did not happened. In fact, the opposite happened. Communism had to be experienced to fully comprehend its import. Communist appeal in theory to the young minds was at odds with the practice they saw on the ground. Many of the students, who went back to their various countries, became fierce anti-communists. Nonetheless, the tradition of African citizens finding their way to the former Soviet states for advance education continued and survived the breakup of the USSR. The scheme has been found to be mutually beneficial to both, as it is a way of cultivating and nurturing new international friendship between middle-income countries. The breakup of the USSR also introduced Western consumerism to them in its raw elements. The American cowboy culture and portrayal of black people in the media as drug runners, criminals and inferior to the whites gave some of them their first ‘ha-ha’ moment. They became unhinged, liberated from shallowness of the mind masquerading as racial superiority.
Let us face it, if your only account of Africa and black people is one initially derived from Western media, you would have to be superhuman not to catch the bug of racial superiority yourself. Moreover, one of the effects of transition from command economy to a market-oriented one involves a painful adjustment to unemployment and severe economic hardship for which foreigners are usually the scapegoats. It is worth stating, however, that racial animus is not just something immigrants experience at the border crossings; it has become ingrained in all the former Soviet bloc countries, including those that are now firmly established as European Union and NATO members. On a personal note, I lived and worked in Ukraine, and in the Baltic states, as part of a delegation from the European Union many years ago, visiting the troubled regions and consulting with the then government of Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014) in Kiev. I was often viewed as an object of curiosity even in the corridors of power. Many would quietly walk up to me to express remorse for their ignorance of black people, especially given that one such person was in a position of authority in their face here and now. I went on national radio and TV a couple of times to disabuse their minds but to no great effect. Others in rural areas would sheepishly approach me for permission to take a photo of me, or even to touch my hair, much to the exasperation of my local staff sometimes. A lot of them were not consciously racist, far from it, but were merely acting on an innate impulse which, in today’s world, falls within the ambit of racism.
The above anecdote happened several years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Things are much different now though. Democracy and free speech have emboldened the right-wing elements to come out of the shadows and vent their spleen in the public space. They also realise that the European Union itself is not free from accusations of racism either. The super irony though, is that the ignorant functionaries in the besieged Ukraine, acting out, are completely oblivious to the fact that the human and material help they are appealing for, and are getting from Western governments, all come courtesy of the taxpayers, (white, black and brown citizens), in those countries. The US Secretary of State for Defence, Lloyd Austin, who is coordinating America’s military assistance to Ukraine, is African-American. Would he too have been told to step aside for the whites at the border crossings? Open display of racism is the last thing Ukraine would have wanted at this juncture. It is a major PR disaster for the authorities in Kiev and could yet spiral out of control if not quickly nipped in the bud.
