Here, the author looks at the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts from a materialist, historical and dialectical view. He believes that they bear the scars of imperialism pushed to the limits of its logic. The author does not spare humanitarian organisations, which he believes should question their relationship with war, fight for peace and resist the humanitarianisation of the world.
The ongoing armed conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are already among the deadliest conflicts in recent years. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that in Ukraine there were around 30,000 civilian casualties (just over 10,000 killed and just under 20,000 injured) between the start of the Russian military attack in February 2022 and January 2024. As regards Gaza, an estimate published by around twenty humanitarian NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in late August 2024 put the death toll at over 40,000, and nearly 94,000 injured, while successive evacuation orders have affected almost 90% of the enclave’s population.[1]« Gaza Humanitarian Access Snapshot #4: 13-26 August 2024”, Relief Web, 28 August 2024, … Continue reading
High mortality is not the only thing that these two major armed conflicts have in common. They are also characterised by breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL) that have rarely reached such high levels. In Ukraine, Amnesty International witnessed, over the course of 2023, indiscriminate attacks by Russian forces on populated areas or civilian infrastructure, use of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines – both by Russian and Ukrainian forces – and Russia’s ill-treatment of male and female prisoners of war held in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. Similarly, in Gaza, Amnesty International has established that Israel is guilty of war crimes (attacks carried out with no distinction made between civilians and military aims, and possible attacks against civilian property).
“The situations in Ukraine and Palestine are unique insofar as they could, in the more or less short term, tip the world towards what the Marxist historian Edward Palmer Thompson called ‘exterminism’.”
The Ukraine and Gaza conflicts have clear similarities with other wars, yet two particular – and closely linked – aspects set these two conflicts apart from other wars nonetheless. First, the situations in Ukraine and Palestine are unique insofar as they could, in the more or less short term, tip the world towards what the Marxist historian Edward Palmer Thompson called “exterminism”.[2]Edward Palmer Thompson, Beyond the Cold War: a new approach to the arms race and nuclear annihilation, Pantheon Books, 1982, p. 41 sq. ; cited in John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark, The Robbery of … Continue reading Since the end of the Cold War, Atlanticist countries, under the banner of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), have never been so close to entering into direct military confrontation with Russia, thereby threatening humanity with nuclear conflict. In Gaza, observations from the International Court of Justice lend ever more credence, day by day, to the possibility of genocide. Second, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts both say something about capitalism, about its decomposition and about its imperialist headlong rush prompted by this decay. So we need to weigh up these conflicts in light of the mechanisms of imperialism and its recent developments.
To do that, we can turn to the works of the British economist John Smith. Against the backdrop of an acute crisis of overproduction and neoliberal globalisation, Smith believes that the global transfer of production to low-wage countries is a prominent feature of 21st-century imperialism. This outsourcing of production goes hand in hand with exploitation of the workforce in the countries concerned – exploitation that has worsened over time.[3]John Smith, Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalisation, Super-Exploitation and Capitalism’s Final Crisis, Monthly Review Press, 2016. These two specific aspects and their consequences offer a different view of the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
The Ukraine war: a struggle between good and evil or a standard way to tackle the overproduction crisis?
Russia undeniably bears a heavy historical responsibility for the invasion of Ukraine. Yet it would be naive to see Atlanticist countries’ support for Kyiv as just a commitment to freedom, democracy and human rights. It should also be seen as a confrontation – through a third-party State – between two blocs defending their respective spheres of interest.
From the 1970s onwards, in response to the overproduction crisis, outsourcing to low-wage countries kept inflation and interest rates relatively low in countries of the North. But it also produced trade imbalances and encouraged financial speculation. The conditions created in this way led to an increase in debt and the development of a huge credit bubble that eventually burst in 2007. Standard responses (recovery plans quickly followed by austerity measures) have not solved anything. It has become tough and increasingly risky for imperialist countries to increase public debt, given the latter’s huge size, depriving them of budget deficits as a tool to underpin demand. The capitalist system cannot stop credit bubbles reforming and bursting. Resorting to traditional methods is turning out to be ever less effective with each new crisis. That is why John Smith writes that the crisis of 2007 was “the momentous moment [that] marked the completion of the transition from a postwar world order to a prewar world order.”[4]John Smith, Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century…, op. cit., p. 281.
A review of data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute suggests that, from the early 2000s onwards, the financialisation of the economy – a process well underway by then – was accompanied with an increase in military spending. In 2023, the latter reached a record level of US$2,443 billion. The correlation between the overproduction crisis and the arms race is glaring. War – or just the production of weapons and military equipment with war in mind – is a good way to quickly absorb surplus production and reset the accumulation counters. As capitalism currently stands, each imperialist country has an objective interest in going to war – in the hope of winning, of course.
The Israel-Palestine conflict: just a land war or a sign of the class struggle?
The effects of Jewish colonisation – both that which took place before the division of Palestine in 1947 and that since 1948, including later colonisation in the occupied territories – were originally, and still are, the same as those of any other colonising process. Ghada Karmi, a former Research Fellow and Lecturer at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, in the United Kingdom, has described some of these hallmarks of colonisation, which include the destruction of housing, the dispossession and confiscation of land, and a monopoly on the main water sources.[5]Ghada Karmi, Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine, Pluto Press, 2007. Yet alliances and realities on the ground have made Zionism more than a mere colonialist project that might seem outdated, particularly because these alliances and realities have developed over a long period of time. In what has become the State of Israel, there is something of the 21st century imperialism described by John Smith. The Zionist project – at least as it is being implemented today – has made it easier for multinationals (AXA, Carrefour, Hewlett-Packard, Puma, Siemens, etc.) to set up in Israel or the occupied territories.
Furthermore, historical developments since 1948 have transformed the Palestinian people “into a nation of refugees, exiles, second-class citizens and communities under military occupation”, as Ghada Karmi has written.[6]Ghada Karmi, Married to Another Man … op. cit., p. 18. In 2023, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) estimated that there were around 2.5 million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Their situation is the result of the “encampment” of the populations of the South – containment that restricts or even removes their right to free movement, the main effect of which is the creation of huge pools of labour that can be easily used. Unemployment rates are especially high, particularly among young people. The 2023 annual report from the International Labour Organization (ILO) on the status of Arab workers in the occupied territories revealed that about one fifth of the West Bank workforce is now employed in Israel. In total, nearly 193,000 workers from Palestine are working in Israel and the settlements. About 80,000 of them are working outside the regulatory framework or in an undocumented and unofficial manner, which makes it easier for them to be exploited and underpaid. The report also states that exploitation is reinforced by a brokering system that forces more than half the Palestinians working in Israel to pay a monthly fee to an intermediary.[7]International Labour Organization, The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories, 2023. Following the 7 October 2023 attacks, the work permits of thousands of Palestinians were suspended, but replacing some of the Palestinian workforce with Indian workers was just a formality for Israel.[8]Carole Dieterich, « Des milliers d’Indiens postulent pour travailler en Israël », Le Monde, 30 janvier 2024. Even if there is a Palestinian comprador bourgeoisie, the Israel-Palestine conflict is also part of the global class struggle between the capital of central countries and the proletariat of peripheral countries.
Examining the relationship between war and humanitarian aid, questioning humanitarian principles and exploring new concepts
Humanitarian NGOs have a special relationship with war. CARE, Concern and Islamic Relief call on the African Union to intervene in Darfur, Oxfam urges the European Union to intervene in Chad, and Secours Catholique Caritas France exhorts France to intervene in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Joël Glasman, a historian and professor at the University of Bayreuth, Germany, gives a timely reminder of some of the calls for war issued by humanitarian NGOs in recent years.[9]Joël Glasman, Petit manuel d’autodéfense à l’usage des volontaires. Les humanités humanitaires, Éditions Les Belles Lettres, 2023, p. 31-36. The special relationship between humanitarian NGOs and war is determined by IHL, of course, but also by some intellectual currents that are probably more influenced by the legacy of Hugo Grotius than that of Immanuel Kant. Or perhaps it reveals an inability to see the decisive role that war plays in keeping the capitalist system alive.
“Leading humanitarian NGOs, especially European ones, should openly oppose policies of militarisation and imperialist wars and should promote the withdrawal of their home countries from NATO.”
Leading humanitarian NGOs, especially European ones, should openly oppose policies of militarisation and imperialist wars and should promote the withdrawal of their home countries from NATO. The influence of humanitarian NGOs remains relative, so those that choose this path of opposition would probably be well-advised to join existing groups. Some may judge these positions to be largely symbolic, or even insignificant, but we can believe in the power of symbolism. According to the Swedish political analyst Nils Andersson, what should be invoked is people’s right to intervene against war.[10]Nils Andersson, Le Capitalisme, c’est la guerre, Éditions Terrasses, 2021, p. 137. What if humanitarian NGOs became the leading flag bearers for this?
Yet opposition to militarisation policies as part of an anti-imperialist logic and the promotion of new relationships that are likely to promote peace on a global scale do not stop us from seeing the deep-rooted nature of certain ongoing conflicts. In some situations, adopting a position is the only reasonable solution to achieving peace. We think that this is the case regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Admittedly, a two-State solution, which humanitarian NGOs implicitly support when they call for international law to be respected, has become a narrative that fuels nationalism and mainly tends to perpetuate a state of war and therefore a humanitarianisation of the Palestinian cause. Just as the two-State solution is not neutral, the solution of a single shared State stretching from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan is not either. We believe that the latter solution is doubtless the best way to support the Palestinian cause. Humanitarian NGOs should become aware of this and act accordingly, rather than just stick to calls for a ceasefire and compliance with IHL, even if such as stance is vital.
The attitude of humanitarian NGOs towards war suggests an excessively strict interpretation of humanitarian principles. They use much energy negotiating and drafting arguments to explain the independence and neutrality that they wish to display. It is true that access to casualties and the safety of their teams often depends on these principles, which are not negotiable. But questioning the relationship between humanitarian NGOs and war, however, can only lead to a reappraisal of their intervention principles. It seems to us that the principle of neutrality should especially be put in the hot seat.
For pacification, but against the humanitarianisation of the world
Humanitarian principles prove unsuitable because they are a falsely political transposition of principles that were originally designed for States (Switzerland, for example). By giving themselves the legal means to ensure their recognition, these States choose neutrality and base their independence on that neutrality. The shortcomings of humanitarian principles are not new, but it took the level of IHL violations and impunity reached in Ukraine and Gaza for them to be fully revealed. It is difficult to believe that global warming – a subject on which more and more humanitarian NGOs are building expertise and solid pleas – can be curbed, but not the arms race or the escalation of war. In truth, if it were not for their near-religious attachment to their doctrine, nothing would stop humanitarian NGOs speaking out, as strongly as possible, on military issues and peace.
“One of the main responsibilities of humanitarian NGOs should be to refuse the humanitarianisation of the world. Ukraine and Palestine are giving them the opportunity to express this refusal.”
One of the main responsibilities of humanitarian NGOs should be to refuse the humanitarianisation of the world. Ukraine and Palestine are giving them the opportunity to express this refusal. The conflicts in these two countries are part of a long continuum of contradictions and crises in the capitalist system that eventually lead to imperialist wars. Emma Beals, a consultant at the European Institute of Peace and a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute, invites us – if we want to give ourselves a chance to stop war – to use more honest language and reconnect humanitarian responses to the realities and causes of conflicts. For her, the search for peace should be part of the humanitarian agenda.[11]Emma Beals, “We can’t hope to end wars if we’re not honest about what they are”, The New Humanitarian, 20 May 2024, … Continue reading The Ukraine war is creating a moral duty to call for demilitarisation because the prospect of a Third World War is now real. Yet the NGOs concerned are strangely silent about this prospect at the moment, even though it could lead to the ultimate humanitarian disaster. And in Gaza, the blatant powerlessness of IHL and humanitarian principles in the face of an ever clearer and well-documented risk of genocide certainly invites us to rethink humanitarian doctrine.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of the organisation he works for.
Translated from the French by Derek Scoins
