A few days ago, I came across a podcast episode by Sam Harris  and Yuval Noah Harari. The title of the episode was "Defending the Global Order".

The topics of the discussion included the Russian invasion of Ukraine among other issues. Sam mentioned that he initially titled the zoom event "Defending Western Civilization", a framing Yuval objected to.

The objection was based on the view that it gives a wrong idea that the Russian invasion of Ukraine only concerns the west. In addition to that, It also gives the impression that Russia isn't part of the western civilization.

He went on to argue why this war is "different". He states that this challenges "self determination" and the basic rule of the "new global order"  that you can't invade a country and wipe it off the map.

Why does this affect the global order?

Because it normalizes invasions ones again, which will have repercussions globally. Harari uses the analogy of a jungle where there is no certainty of  when a neighbouring tribe/country/empire would invade and occupy us; a situation people believed was a thing of the past.

Over the past few years, state budgets reflected peace. They spent more on education and healthcare and less on defence. The pattern of Russian aggression from Crimea to Ukraine threatens a reversal of that.

A few minutes into the discussion, while talking about the nations that uphold this "global  order" Yuval says, "The world as we know, wheather in the US or Israel, Brazil or Indonesia is built on the foundation of the 'new peace' and Putin shattered that"

I find many of these claims problematic.

To begin with, there's a question of when exactly did this order come into existence. Was it post first or second world war or post cold war? In any of these cases, the timeline of such an order coming into effect will have to be shifted further forward if western nations are to be absolved of their invasions and war crimes, which is necessary if the US is to be included in Harari's list of nations upholding peace. It needs to be shifted post Vietnam war and then post Iraq war.

Secondly, the basic law of the new world order (if such a thing even exists) didn't just outlaw invasions, it also outlawed  apartheid  and colonialism of any form. I'm assuming it did because it should have. If it didn't and if Israel and US are examples of countries built on the foundations of peace, then we'd have to rewrite the very definition of peace.

The new definition  would then accomodate apartheid and colonialism, toppling elected governments and funding dictators. That way, the western nations  can award themselves the  "Peaceful Nation" badge.

Yuval's list included Israel! Palestinian families in Silwan were forced to demolish their own homes lest they cover the cost of demolition. The country that is destroying Palestinian graves to build a national park, bulldozing homes, killing civilians on a daily basis and treating it's arab population as second class citizens  cannot be an example of a country built on the foundation of the new peace. That's a pretty low bar.

This new interpretation of peace won't be acceptable to populations facing the brunt of occupation, air raids, ethnic cleansing and famines caused by wars, some of which were and still are financed by the US. They too wish they could spend more on education and healthcare and that they had the right to self determination. 

The US backed coalition of multiple countries continue to bomb Yemen, killing thousands of civilians and displacing millions over the last 7 years and pushing 24 million people into a famine.

It is understandable that this was an issue limited to the Arab world. Nobody attempted to push the narrative that this war or the war in Syria is a global issue because it simply didn't affect the whole world. The same applies to the Ukraine war. It affects the western civilization and their perception of a global order that doesn't account for multiple countries in the world.

It doesn't affect a whole bunch of war torn/occupied territories any more than they are already affected. They were already living in the "jungle" with no certainty of when and where the next bomb falls. And yet, they stand in solidarity with anyone facing their situation.

They don't deserve to be told how the bombs falling on them mean a different thing to the blue eyed, blonde haired people.

"The Global Order" that was discussed was never "Global". Noticing the "difference" in the type of war is a luxury the observer can afford, people ducking everytime they hear an F-16 can't.

While Yuval did mention that he had no intention to downplay other wars, it cannot be ignored that the narrative of the Ukraine war being "different" from all the other ongoing wars, takes away the little attention those conflicts get at a time when media outlets were emboldened to express racist views about the arab victims of war.

The only major difference this time is that the victims are white.

Sam was right in choosing the title "Defending Western Civilization". I think he should have stuck to that.