In the complex global landscape of modern warfare, political rhetoric has become a powerful weapon. Few phrases have been as potent, or as selectively deployed, as “the right to defend itself.” This seemingly neutral term is routinely invoked to justify military actions by powerful states, especially in the West, while delegitimising the resistance of oppressed or occupied peoples. What may appear on the surface as a moral principle of sovereignty and security often hides a darker undertone—one that reveals the enduring and insidious nature of neo-racism in international politics.
The Double Standard of Defence
The concept of self-defence is enshrined in international law, particularly under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. However, the application of this principle often differs starkly depending on who is wielding it. When a Western-aligned state engages in military action—whether it’s a drone strike, an invasion, or a bombing campaign—it is almost reflexively justified as an act of defence. The United States, Israel, and NATO countries have repeatedly invoked the “right to defend themselves” in response to both real and perceived threats, often with the endorsement of Western media and governments.
In contrast, when non-Western nations or stateless groups resist occupation or external aggression, their actions are swiftly condemned. The distinction lies not in the nature of the violence, but in the identity of the actors. Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, for instance, is framed not as defence but as terrorism. Similarly, when Iraqis, Afghans, or Syrians take up arms against foreign troops on their soil, they are seldom afforded the dignity of legitimate resistance. Instead, they are branded insurgents, radicals, or extremists. The implicit message is clear: the right to defend oneself is not universal, but a privilege reserved for a select few.
Neo-Racism in Disguise
This double standard in the discourse of self-defence is a form of neo-racism, a modern-day iteration of the colonial mindset that once justified the subjugation of vast swathes of the globe. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Western empires rationalised their conquests with the belief that they were bringing civilisation to the “savage” world. Today, the same power dynamics persist, though the language has evolved. The right to use force, to defend borders, and to retaliate against perceived threats is largely seen as a right of white-majority nations or those aligned with Western power structures.
At its core, this selective defence doctrine implies that some lives are more valuable than others, and that some people—by virtue of their race, religion, or nationality—are inherently more prone to violence, and thus less deserving of the right to defend themselves. When Israel bombs Gaza, it is framed as necessary for national security. When Palestinians retaliate, it is seen as an irrational act of violence. This racialised framework dehumanises the victims of occupation, while absolving the occupiers of moral responsibility for the violence they perpetuate.
Historical Echoes
The roots of this neo-racism are deeply embedded in the history of colonialism and empire. The West’s engagement with the rest of the world has long been characterised by a belief in its own superiority—a belief that has justified not only territorial conquest but also the imposition of Western values, governance, and economic systems on non-Western peoples. In this worldview, non-Western resistance was seen as barbaric, whether it came from Native Americans, African tribes, or Asian nations resisting European imperialism.
Today, this same mindset persists, albeit cloaked in the language of security and counterterrorism. The idea that certain nations or peoples are inherently more violent, and therefore must be controlled, remains a central tenet of Western foreign policy. The “right to defend itself” has become the modern-day civilising mission, a way for powerful states to maintain their dominance while portraying themselves as victims rather than aggressors.
Media Complicity
Western media plays a crucial role in perpetuating this neo-racist narrative. The framing of conflicts in places like Gaza, Yemen, or Afghanistan consistently reflects the biases of Western power structures. When Western-allied forces engage in military action, the coverage is careful to emphasise the need for defence, security, and stability. Civilian casualties are regrettable but framed as inevitable collateral damage. Conversely, when non-Western actors engage in violence—whether it’s the Taliban, Hamas, or the Houthis—the media focuses almost exclusively on the threat they pose, casting their actions as senseless or fanatical.
This imbalance in media coverage reinforces the notion that Western lives and Western security concerns are paramount, while the suffering of non-Western peoples is secondary. The disparity is not just in the coverage of the violence itself but in the language used to describe it. Israeli airstrikes are “precision operations,” while Palestinian rockets are “terrorist attacks.” U.S. drone strikes that kill civilians are “tragic mistakes,” while Afghan insurgents are “murderers.” This linguistic bias creates a hierarchy of violence, where the defence of Western interests is always legitimate, and the resistance of the oppressed is always criminal.
A Call for Universal Justice
The path forward requires a rethinking of how we apply the principle of self-defence in international relations. The right to defend oneself should not be a privilege reserved for powerful states but a universal principle that applies equally to all peoples. This means recognising the legitimacy of resistance movements in contexts of occupation and aggression, and it means holding powerful states accountable for the violence they inflict in the name of defence.
To break free from this cycle of neo-racism, we must challenge the narratives that dehumanise oppressed peoples and elevate the actions of powerful states as inherently just. We must listen to the voices of those who have been marginalised by centuries of imperialism and continue to suffer under its modern manifestations. Only then can we begin to create a world where the right to defend oneself truly applies to all, and not just to the privileged few.
The “right to defend itself” must not become an excuse for unchecked violence or a tool to perpetuate inequality and injustice. It should be a principle that safeguards the dignity and security of all people, regardless of race, religion, or nationality. Without this shift in perspective, the world will remain trapped in a cycle of violence, where some are always deemed more worthy of protection than others, and where the powerful continue to wage war in the name of peace.
With inputs from agencies
Image Source: Multiple agencies
*The views expressed in this article are personal. They do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, or positions of Vygr and Vygr Media Private Limited.
©️ Copyright 2023. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
