By now the press organs of most territories and the propaganda machinery of interested actors have at least nodded in the direction of the news that the General Assembly "passed a resolution by a large majority on Wednesday, calling on countries not to recognise the four regions of Ukraine which Russia has claimed, following so-called referendums held late last month, and demanding that Moscow reverse course on its 'attempted illegal annexation,'" (Ukraine: UN General Assembly demands Russia reverse course on ‘attempted illegal annexation’). Much of the analysis focused on the contribution of this effort to the architecture of narrative and its weaponization for longer terms agendas. That is fair.
This vote came within weeks of another, one which received the same sort attention by global press organs and the propaganda machinery of interested actors.
The U.N. rights council on Thursday voted down a Western-led motion to hold a debate about alleged human rights abuses by China against Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang in a victory for Beijing as it seeks to avoid further scrutiny.The defeat - 19 against, 17 for, 11 abstentions - is only the second time in the council's 16-year history that a motion has been rejected and is seen by observers as a setback to both accountability efforts, the West's moral authority on human rights and the credibility of the United Nations itself. (U.N. body rejects debate on China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims in blow to West)
Putting the voting charts side by side provides an interesting basis for analysis. In one case the General Assembly voted to condemn the official act of annexation , but remained silent on final outcomes and scrupulously ghosted the actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine in 2014. In the other, the Human Rights Council rejected a public debate on the report issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but did nothing to repudiate the report itself (and failed as well to condemn the manner of its issuance).
These are twins, more valuable for the lesson they teach about hiding things in plain sight, than they are as mere ingredients in the construction of narratives valuable to the contests between the two great emerging post-global imperium. First, it has become clear that press organs have become far more easily manageable, and are eager to play a role within the supply chain of narrative production. There is great value for all parties within this narrative management eco-system. But this is an old insight most useful now for its repetition and its novel presentation in the emerging post-global world order. Second, the most interesting part of international relations within international institutions is neither commitments leading to a 'yes' or 'no' vote. It is the politics of abstention that is now acquiring a more interesting dimensions, though one that is understudied. The usual approach is to conflate abstention with the politics of getting to 'yes' or 'no'. And yet abstentions may actually refocus the performance of voting from a binary objective to a commentary and conversation--one that ought to be more difficult to void. One understands abstention as signalling--but do we understand it as commentary? That remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment