Yes, but that’s not what I meant. I didn’t mean not being in the UN, but playing their game. Please try to shift perspective. They are participating in the pretense precisely by abstaining. This is the meaningless gesture to uphold appearance. The pretence of neutrality, rules based order and everything the UN stands for. Vetoing it would have been a disruption. A slight one, but valued highly by the victims of imperial aggression.
They have the power of veto because the system gives it to them as part of the process. That’s not disruption; that’s participation. This is like saying voting for the socialist candidate is disrupting capitalist democracy when in fact it’s just legitimizing it.
Abstaining in both cases reflects an unwilling to participate in the system. This isn’t necessarily disruptive but it’s not participating/legitimizing either.
So you admit it yourself. They have the power to veto, because they don’t use it. The UN serves the empire. On a scale of total subservience to total opposition, abstaining in this context, is closer to the interests of the US than against it.
It’s exactly opposite to tactically denying to take part in bourgeois elections, in a situation where a large number of non-voter could actually critically de-legitimize the while system. Abstaining didn’t make any waves, did it?
Yes, but that’s not what I meant. I didn’t mean not being in the UN, but playing their game. Please try to shift perspective. They are participating in the pretense precisely by abstaining. This is the meaningless gesture to uphold appearance. The pretence of neutrality, rules based order and everything the UN stands for. Vetoing it would have been a disruption. A slight one, but valued highly by the victims of imperial aggression.
They have the power of veto because the system gives it to them as part of the process. That’s not disruption; that’s participation. This is like saying voting for the socialist candidate is disrupting capitalist democracy when in fact it’s just legitimizing it.
Abstaining in both cases reflects an unwilling to participate in the system. This isn’t necessarily disruptive but it’s not participating/legitimizing either.
So you admit it yourself. They have the power to veto, because they don’t use it. The UN serves the empire. On a scale of total subservience to total opposition, abstaining in this context, is closer to the interests of the US than against it.
It’s exactly opposite to tactically denying to take part in bourgeois elections, in a situation where a large number of non-voter could actually critically de-legitimize the while system. Abstaining didn’t make any waves, did it?