War
is about or can be about a lot of things. A common enough reason for
war that cuts across territory and time is profit. Those who stand to
gain or lose, consequently, almost always locate themselves on this or
that side in terms of interests to be achieved or squandered. In other
words, ‘interests’ colour the take. That, ladies and gentlemen, is
‘Ukraine Un-frilled.’
This is not to say that people need not
‘feel’ for Ukraine and Ukrainians. Those in conflict zones have to
endure depravations, threats and vulnerabilities that others cannot
really have any clue about. These are inflated or suppressed as per
interests of the inflators and suppressors. They are, then, preyed upon,
prostituted even. We’ve seen a lot of that over the past week or so.
And
so we have either the ‘Poor Ukranians’ or the ‘Poor Russian-speakers in
parts of Ukraine who don’t want to be part of that country.’ Typically,
again as per outcome preferences, there’s selectivity. In the ‘here and
now’ the poorer entity is the Ukrainian. No argument there. That’s a
big story. It’s still not the entire story though.
Outcome-preference.
That’s a key term in all this. It is a term that is never used.
‘Interests’ are certainly mentioned and selectivity allows for these to
be posited as logical and moral. Shed of frills, though, they have
little to do with people or suffering; they speak instead about
prejudices.
Wars take their courses. Predictions (like election
results) are almost always, knowingly or unknowingly, about pushing
specific agenda. It is not hard to read between the lines. Take for
instance the BBC. The reports at first glance appear to be reportage,
but it is in fact heavily editorialised narratives that are tied to
interests that are not difficult to identify. As in all propaganda
exercises, there’s cherry-picking of useful quotes, wild extrapolation
and a liberal sprinkling of ideological/political condiments — the
(mis)information dish needs to be palatable after all. Indeed that’s the
Western media in general. It dominates to the point that we don’t
really get alternative narratives and not even, say, the Russian
Version(s) which could, theoretically at least, allow for close-reading
and frill-comparison.
It’s all very interesting. People talk
about respecting ‘international boundaries’ almost as though they’re
clueless about the history of that part of the world and the ways and
occasions in which the maps have changed over the last two millennia and
indeed the last century. Name enemy and you get a blameless, angelic
‘friend,’ never mind crimes of omission and commission that contributed
to the current state of affairs. Name enemy, paint him as villain and
make sure that your own villainous history is left out of the narrative —
that kind of propaganda abounds. Who, after all, among those vilifying
Putin and Russia, taking moral high ground and making grand
pronouncements of how the world should be ordered, pauses to talk about
NATO, its movers and shakers and what they've done and got away with
over the past few decades?
National boundaries get talked of.
Human rights are mentioned. Sanctions called for. Existentialist angst
(of Ukraine and Ukrainians) are pointed out. These are certainly
relevant topics that need to be kept on the table. However, the script
has a flip side and that side is always kept hidden. How can one talk of
human rights and basic dignities and not talk of Nazism? How can you
talk of one country’s anxieties and ignore the worries of another? How
can one provoke and if/when the provoked react, strut around as though
one was just another innocent bystander? How can one nation be
described as authoritarian and its leader as a tyrant and the
authoritarianism, tyranny and unabashed racism of the relevant
counterparts be ignored? Indeed, how can such individuals and regimes be
hailed as champions of freedom and democracy?
Simple answer:
interests. Interests or preferred-outcomes, if you will, constitute a
palette of innumerable colours. You can paint at will. If you are
advantageously located in structures of ‘information’ dissemination your
paintings get carry; if not, few will even get to see your depictions
and moreover even if they do get some public space, they will be ripped
apart, painted over or pooh-poohed.
What’s really happening in
Ukraine, does anyone want to know? Here’s a question to ponder: have you
heard of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Monitoring Mission? Do you know that this outfit, made of 57
participating states, generates an amazing volume of detailed
information on conflict zones gathered on a daily basis? Well, over 40
member states have representatives in the Ukraine monitoring mission and
almost all members have a military or diplomatic background. There are
700 monitors, and they have been in Ukraine since 2014. Their job ‘is to
patrol both sides of the civil war conflict zone and to record
infringements of the ceasefire and de-escalation agreements, bringing
these to the attention of the relevant authorities.’ Worth a look-see,
what do you say?
So
we will hear the jeers and cheers. Whatever works for whoever, should
we say/think? That’s one way of thinking about it, true, but here’s a
thought from a Turkish academic that might offer a pathway to a
different kind of engagement: ‘We need an internationalism that does not
reflexively resort to waving the flag of a nation-state--even when
under attack--as the primary form of expressing solidarity. We need to
think beyond the nation-state form in situating "our" side in war and
peace alike.’ That’s from Ayça Çubukçu, Associate Professor &
Co-Director, LSE Human Rights, London School of Economics.
malindadocs@gmail.com
This article was first published in the Daily Mirror on March 3, 2022
[Malinda
Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian
Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment