es.euronews.com
EU's Double Standard on Gaza Undermines Global Credibility
A former EU ambassador accuses the EU of applying a double standard in international law, citing its strong response to the Ukraine conflict compared to its inaction in Gaza; this is damaging the EU's credibility with the Global South, hindering trade deals, while the EU's failure to deliver promised aid worsens the humanitarian crisis.
- How are the EU's actions, or lack thereof, affecting its relationship with the Global South, and what are the specific consequences?
- The EU's perceived double standard in addressing international law violations, particularly concerning the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, is severely undermining its global standing. This is evident in the limited support from the Global South in the EU's condemnation of Russia's actions in Ukraine, with only Bahamas and Micronesia offering significant backing. This lack of support directly impacts the EU's pursuit of economic and trade partnerships.
- What is the primary impact of the EU's perceived double standard in applying international law to the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza?
- A former EU ambassador to the Palestinian territories, Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff, criticizes the EU's uneven application of international law, comparing its response to the Ukraine conflict with its inaction regarding the Gaza conflict. He asserts this inconsistency is damaging the EU's credibility with the Global South, hindering efforts to forge trade agreements. The EU's weak response, exemplified by the failure of a promised aid increase to Gaza, fuels this perception.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the EU's inaction in Gaza, considering the proposals made by former ambassadors and the broader geopolitical context?
- The EU's failure to effectively address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, coupled with its perceived double standard in applying international law, will likely continue to erode its influence and credibility on the world stage. The proposal by 58 former EU ambassadors to suspend trade agreements and other collaborations with Israel, while significant, faces obstacles in achieving consensus among EU member states. The long-term impact may include decreased international cooperation and reduced leverage in future global conflicts.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article is framed as a critique of EU inaction in the face of the Gaza conflict. The headline and introductory paragraphs emphasize the alleged double standard in the EU's application of international law and the erosion of the EU's credibility. The use of strong quotes from a former EU ambassador critical of Israel's actions sets a critical tone that pervades the entire article. While Israeli government justifications are included, they are framed within the context of the preceding criticisms. This framing leads to an overall narrative that is heavily critical of the EU's response and Israel's actions.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotionally charged language in describing the situation in Gaza. Words and phrases like "horrible spectacle of killings and mutilations," "vergonzoso" (shameful), and "genocide" are used repeatedly, conveying a sense of outrage and condemnation. While these reflect the views of the quoted individuals, the article could benefit from more neutral alternatives that report facts without overtly expressing a particular opinion. For example, instead of 'horrible spectacle of killings and mutilations,' a more neutral phrasing could be 'significant civilian casualties.'
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the criticism of the EU's response to the Gaza conflict and largely presents the perspective of a former EU ambassador critical of Israeli actions. Counterpoints from the Israeli government are included but presented as justifications for actions criticized by the ambassador. The article omits detailed accounts of Hamas' actions beyond the initial attack, focusing instead on the consequences of Israel's response. While acknowledging the limitations of space, a broader inclusion of different viewpoints, especially regarding Hamas' actions and justifications, would provide greater balance.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as a simple comparison between the EU's response to the Ukraine conflict and its response to the Gaza conflict. This simplification ignores the significant differences in the geopolitical context, the actors involved, and the nature of the conflicts. The article also implicitly frames the debate as 'EU support for Israel' versus 'EU condemnation of Israel's actions', rather than exploring more nuanced positions on the conflict.