Op-ed: How dangerous is the presumption "People residing in nations sans a live war do not require international protection" in the 21st century?

monica-galentino-102655-unsplash.jpg

     This article in no way tries to weigh the importance of one suffering over the other- it only represents an attempt to understand and question the complexity of the modern world we live in.

   With Syria having its war which has now turned into a global conflict, North Korea threatening all of the world with its Nuclear tests, scheduled Castes uprisings in the capital of India and people losing territorial freedom in regions like Zomia – whose safety can an international body weigh more? It’s a question of belief and more than ever- trust on our system.

     Today we are a part of a world where there isn’t just one problem there are innumerable problems and every one of them is equally important. Even when the problem doesn’t directly question the human population it does connect to it, take for example any environmental problem from pollution all the way to global warming. But when the human population is at a direct threat, such as in the case of bombings, it alerts the international institutions for immediate human protection. But then the question rises- who do we protect first? The ones who are at war with another country, or the ones who are being tortured at the cost of their country and identity, or those who require support because they are the minority.

     Alright, we can save ten million refugees from a war and that’s a big number but then, how would you answer to the plea of a tortured- Why not me first? Is what I suffered not enough? Is what I want not valuable? Am I not valuable?

     Again, this does not mean that you leave the ones in war and save the others, this means that you divide your responsibilities- you save them all. We live in a world where humanitarian decisions are made through political sanctions and political sanctions through humanitarian acts- we live in a loop.

     In the aspect of Nihilism, all is pointless so do nothing but in the aspect of Optimistic Nihilism all is pointless so why not do the good instead? In the light of religions, we are all different but in matters of life and death- we are all one.

     Maybe what the system needs is a reform, in fact, it seriously needs one. How does one require a degree to weigh one set of people over the other? One does not if he/she is a global citizen- a believer and supporter of the concept that we all are citizens of the same world.

     Countries reach extremes when they’re left with no other option but to utilize all of their resources to one single matter. This happens even when things could have been handled without the loss of those resources given that they were humbly approached upon at the time of its beginning. The reason being- Peace Treaties are made after something so impactful has occurred rather than being signed beforehand to prevent such events - the reason, again, is complex and of course, political.

      Yet again, there lie several exceptions to the previous statement but then issues still rise and it would be stupid to think that they wouldn’t– people are several and people are different so there will be contradictions and thus, issues.

     It’s a subjective and personal question but at the same time it isn’t. This is a message to the system, the global system, to divide its responsibilities impartially and a message to us- an equally important part of our system- to question our beliefs and put forth our voices but stand together, always.