As always, the reader is encouraged to use this article only as a starting point on poverty. Seek out opinions on all sides of the discussion and continually question assumptions and answers. Bear in mind that the ideas and topics below are a mere overview of current discussions; no particular view is endorsed or criticized.
“International crises” might seem a funny topic, but consider the etymology. “Crisis” is derived from the Greek krisis, or decision, which came from krinein, or decide. In our vernacular we most often use “crisis” to denote a time of extreme stress or conflict. Inherent in that idea of chaos is the notion that the status quo is usurped, that we are now in a time of flux, that many different futures branch out from the present, and which future we end up in will depend on the crucial decisions we make during that point of crisis.
So ultimately, then, a crisis is a very stressful set of decisions. We do not make the best decisions under pressure; we are often blinded by biases or prejudices that predispose us to certain courses of action, we lack adequate information, or we are simply overwhelmed by the magnitude and immediacy of it all.
International crises are therefore crucial crossroads in our collective path full of obstacles and pitfalls. The dialogue we engage in and the decisions we make will shape our future, be it political, environmental, economic, social, religious, or any number of things. From the decisions made will emerge sometimes clear and sometimes imperceptible patterns, causal relationships that we would do well to study.
There are many crises to be found in today’s world, but only a few that can be said to be of truly global concern. Read the news on any given day and chances are that you will run across almost every single one of them.
The first is one that has been mentioned repeatedly and so here is treated only briefly. Globalization is arguably the most wide-ranging and consequential crisis we find ourselves in. The decisions made regarding its path and progress will impact countless successive generations in innumerable ways. If you pursue further discussion and debate in only one crisis, let this be it.
Perhaps the most visible crisis of our generation is terrorism. The semantics of the word “terrorism” are far too complex to get into here and can certainly be explained much better by those far more educated than this columnist. However, in a general sense terrorism can be defined to mean two things. The most obvious is a physical attack on largely symbolic and/or important targets by individuals who belong to a loose network of operatives and whose ideology is often seen as in conflict with the ideology of the target. The easiest example of this are the attacks on Sept. 11.
Terrorism can be much more, though. Some scholars and laymen alike have extrapolated acts of terror as a sign of a more fundamental conflict, i.e. a “clash of civilizations.” The antagonism that is most often mentioned is between Islam and the West. Some believe that there are two fairly well-defined ideologies, that they are fundamentally different, and because of the increasing inter-connectedness of the globe they have come into conflict, resulting in the formation of al-Qaeda, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the perpetuity of the Palestinian troubles, and so on. Others believe that some or all of this notion is offensive nonsense for various reasons. Both sides have valid points as well as crucial flaws.
Another oft-cited issue of international concern is global warming. Surveys show that most ordinary citizens, scientists, and politicians alike believe that the Earth is indeed warming up. In this decade the contentious issues are how fast it is warming, whether it is a natural cycle or a manmade effect, and, most crucially, what can be done to stop or perhaps reverse the process. Whether any action will be taken is questionable. The spectacular lack of international cohesion on the Kyoto Protocol is telling. But even if a will is found, the way is still unclear. The European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme, formally established in 2005 but debated and formed for years before that, is a good example of what not to do. Though most academics on the subject believe that the notion of a market-based carbon trading design is spot on, they also agree that its execution has been a dazzling flop. Everything from incorrect forecasts to bureaucratic red tape have completely snarled the process. In addition, it is neither mandatory nor advantageous for corporations to buy into the scheme. These problems will most likely be worked out in time, if the experience doesn’t disenchant companies from taking part.
These issues are important now, and decisions have to be made, but they will be even more pressing in the coming two decades. By that time a new generation of leaders, hopefully wiser from the mistakes of the past and possessed of a unified will, will have to shape the future. Let’s hope that they realize they have to live in it, too.
About the writer:
John Jose is a first-year accounting, international studies and economics major. He can be reached at [email protected].
