'Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out its own problems.' How far do you agree?
Ex-President of Nigeria, Jonathan Goodluck, flatly refused to acknowledge the growing problem of the Boko Haram, at least officially. Rather than deal with the conflict consuming his already-troubled nation, he sought to fling wave after wave of his men, armed with just forty bullets each, to give the fractured segments he resolutely refused to acknowledge. His staunch refusal to sort out such evident escalations of disagreement has led to exacerbating tensions not just in his nation, but in and around the region. Unfortunately, Nigeria is far from alone in being incapable or unwilling to sort out its own problems, at least not in a manner deemed satisfactory to the powers that be in the world. Such distrust has led to cries for world powers to intervene in any domestic issue that potentially could escalate in conflict, justifying America's role as the de-facto World Police. Still, there are others who believe that countries have the ability to sort out their own problems and manage the conflict within their territories, with their nuanced knowledge of the issue, and facilitated by a lack of resistance to the interventions, as typical of external help. Having considered both sides of the issue, I must admit I am more for non-intervention, believing that countries experiencing conflict should be generally left to sort out its own problems.
Admittedly, there is some merit to the argument that such countries facing conflict should not be abandoned to their own devices since the conflict is often, in large part, due to a lack of ability or resources. This is indeed a fair point when we consider that the conflict is a testament to the inability for the initial disagreement to be resolved. Whether it is due to a lack of resources to meet the needs of the nation, or less tangible forms of inability, it does appear that patient optimism would likely prove insufficient in resolving the problems. King Mswati III of Swaziland has been turning a blind eye to the abject poverty that most of its people struggle with on a daily basis, while indulging his fifteen wives in luxuries and comfort. The growing resentment in the community is gaining attention, even if the monarch is determined to ignore it. Sadly, Swaziland is far from being alone, with Aung San Suu Kyi's conspicuous silence on the Rohingyas deafening, to say the least. Whether the conflict is borne of a lack of resources or ability, the severity that fuelled the escalation can indeed be said to justify intervention of some sort. At least, at first glance, it seems we are morally obliged to not leave the troubled to their own limited devices.
Armed with the perceived need for a foreign power with an arsenal of both resources and morality, we have embraced intervention, conveniently overlooking the vested interest of such measures. We have so often painted in our minds, images of countries in conflict as torn, broken souls incapable of survival, and the intervention as the arrival of justice and light to life the afflicted out of the miasma and darkness. Most of the time, we completely fail to consider the motivations of such assistance. In the rare occasion that we do, we defend it as fair reward for the supposed altruistic efforts. America's fervour in ensuring justice, somehow seeming to be confined to nations that have oil, is perhaps the clearest indication of such vested interest. Even if we dismiss this accusation, there are an abundance of other examples. Be it the generous assistance extended from Australia to Nauru, so as to solve its economic challenges, that has seen Nauru become the dumping ground for refugees turned away by Australia. Or the recent news of Filipino President Duterte rejecting millions and millions of financial aid offered by the United Nations for different problems and issues. All these cases reveal one undeniable truth: Assistance is rendered with vested interest. Even if it can mitigate issues in the short run, the implications, not to mention obligations, make the intervention or acceptance of it, rather imprudent.
To complicate matters, problems are not universal, couched in the unique context and mindset of its people. This hinders the effectiveness of intervention in other countries' problems. The reality is that we see the world from our own perspectives, so the assessment of the cause, and by extension the solution, is very much married to our perspectives. Our perspectives, again a product of our time, experiences, and social values. To then apply this lens to a society not our own is foolhardy at best. Without understanding the multitude of causes and the byzantine web of exacerbating factors, the simplistic imposition of a supposed panacea, with the naive arrogance accorded by privilege, will bring little of the reprieve we vainly seek. Our prideful ego, in seeking to bring advancement and improvement to perceived forgotten lands, can be found littered in the annals of history, thwarted by the savage, ungrateful creates unable to comprehend the gifts of modernity. From the futile attempts to educate women on menstrual hygiene, or merely seeking to eradicate the abhorrent practice of Chhaupadi - banishing women to secluded huts during their menstrual cycle - our efforts to solve problems and eliminate conflict are clearly thwarted by our lack of true understanding. Whether conflict stems from gender, cultural practices, race, religion, or whichever arbitrary division prevalent, intervention on the basis of wisdom, knowledge, or wealth, does little to resolve conflict, even if it might numb the extent somewhat.
What perhaps is the straw that breaks the camel's back is the pride involved in conflict resolution. This is particularly troubling since one country's problem can be construed as injurious to the image of the nation. To then have another nation coming to the rescue is likely to be far more than any self-respecting citizen can bear. After all, nationalistic pride would prevent one from accepting the superiority of another nation and its ways, especially at the implied rejection of one's own, or at least the acknowledgement of its inadequacies. From Castro's rebellious declaration that Cuba does not need "gifts from the Empire", to North Korea's persistent efforts to credit the Supreme Leader for the items sent by America, the insecurity and threat to sovereignty is plainly evident. Even in the face of rational reason, the acceptance of assistance from other nations is an admission of weakness and ineptitude. Moreover, this is assuming that the help was not already mired in a Gordian knot of terms and conditions, intended to impose the values and will of the party offering help. The European Union's offer to bail out bankrupt nations often included a requirement for austerity measures, at once a clear show of dominance and also a less than covert criticism on existing leadership. Such efforts, rationally sensible, provoke resentment and retaliation, further fracturing the communities already having difficulties.
With such clear limitations to intervention, it is logical for nations to be given the space to work through their issues. They have the clearest insight and knowledge; and whether they admit and acknowledge it is another matter. The solutions, however juvenile or imperfect the rest of the world deems, is theirs and they can focus on tweaking it instead of being compelled to fervently defend it out of pride. Perhaps most poignant is the revelation that problems and conflicts are largely products of perception. The value-judgement and priorities already vary enough from individual to individual, without foreign input to complicate matters far more.
Now, it is not to say that foreign intervention has no place, but that the conditions must be thus urgent and severe enough to necessitate the actions, considering the implications and general futility. Thankfully, our pride does allow for the acceptance of help and intervention, at least when it is apparent that the refusal of which mean certain death and suffering in the immediate future. Typically triggered by natural catastrophes, the urgency and severity facilitate the expression and acceptance of humanity, without fear of the cynical self-interest that attaches itself to rational thought and plans. Wherever the catastrophe, the world rallies quickly, driven by the stark reminder of our own mortality, to help a fellow human being. We are cognisant that without assistance, irrevocable consequences are swift and cruel, spurring us to act as a collective bastion of humanity. Yet, in less urgent situations, we find ways to rationalise our way out of helping or accepting such help, however severe it may be.
In all, it is clear that countries experiencing conflict should generally be left to sort out its own problems, with its expertise and the futility of intervention, though it must be acknowledged that we should make an exception in cases of extreme urgency and severity. Whether the decision to not intervene is borne of acknowledgement of futility or trust in the community, this approach will at least reduce complications and divergence that lend itself to further disagreements. It takes a lot of faith to allow events to unfold themselves, the effort to resist intervention far greater than simply taking over. Let us not make the mistake of equating non-intervention with disinterest, but instead, choose to see it as the greatest expression of faith and confidence in the fellow humans in other nations. As much as we lambast Nigeria and their president, we should remember that the people had the wisdom to not re-elect President Goodluck. That should count for something.
~~~~~~
All
sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They
are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are
subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave
us a comment below! :)
