What is in it for the World?

Is it a diabolic predilection that feeds into the rhetoric, completely covering the bane at hand or it is just mere human nature to create ideal situations as these and complicate them ourselves with interspersed idealistic interests. The Syrian bloody endemic began three years ago. Then, it was just a growing child realizing his/her capabilities and in a catalytic attempt trying to expand his/her prejudication. This has appeared to be one very long confrontation as like a parent unwilling to yield to the stubbornness of their child, the incumbent regime has solemnly vowed to crush any attempted effort at emancipation. Now of course the conditions are not any better than they started but this could have been curbed or even relegated to a less ridiculously debilitating situation than it is today. It is frustrating to learn or rather note that these things happen unfortunately as time elapse. Whenever they are of a bigger scope, so that material assets are lost, they garner enormous attentions and even influences. This however was thought to be by and for the Syrian people. I for one will, as much as possible avoid the possibility of conflict in the resolution of an issue, but for the relentless nature of our species I sometimes hesitate. I however think there are peaceful alternatives to any given situation.

The free Syrian army as this 'rebel' child will call itself, in defiance of the Incumbent Assad regime has sworn  to depose all that resist the 'revolution'. Now in his own words, a man many exhort as the brain of peace, a resolution of indifference in a dichotomized world of black and white, Nelson Rhuhulhalha Mandela states "During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But, my lord, if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." With emphasis on the very last sentence, “...if needs be...I am prepared to die”. If I am to choose sides, I will go for that of the free Syrian army, the rebels to oppression. Not that they are right, but that they have the guts to stand up against authoritarianism. I will hope that the free Syrian army were more like Mandela in their approach to resolving giant of a problem. Nonetheless this civil war as was labelled has spiraled into an unimaginable catastrophe because, whereas it was an organized opposition in the beginning between two factions, the imaginary lines that outlined their differences has meandered into more than a tunneling tributary. Islamic groups with self proclaimed goals completely unrelated to the safety and development of the country and its people have joined the fight. I can honestly confirm that initially this was not as big an issue but now my loyalties will not as much lie with the rebels, if I am to choose.  

But my main question here is what is in it for the world? This broadens the scope of the discussion from Syria, to central African republic to Indonesia and then Ukraine. Some say the Arab rising initiated by Tunisia had something to do with the instability that shook the entire Arabian peninsula. I join these noble folks in affirmation, but I conclude that this has actually been the trend in ages past. One thing (and here I may sound completely off topic) like capitalism can change the outlook of the world for a lifetime, causing a people to be suppressed and treated as nonentities. Another thing like nuclear weapons, can literally wipe the human race off the surface of the earth. All these are not frankly, at their pinnacles yet, but if the trend is not averted the next generation will not be around to marvel at the decay we have brought on our own selves. It begins with globalisation then as one arm is infected the others blindly follow its peril. Just imagine what would have happened had Egypt instead of jumping into chaos, analyzed an approach that is conditioned for Egyptians and their land what I will term ‘Egypt-specific’. No one can stop globalisation, hence nationalisation without ethnocentrism must be preserved. Nationalisation in that each state looks out for herself in development and advancement, perhaps with the help of the other but never entirely copying the others approach. The trend can easily be overlooked because on the surface it looks like a wave of good, sweeping across troubled lands. Globalisation is great, as it ensures communications, interconnectedness- a way to share knowledge for the betterment of the human race. An Akan proverb simply puts it as "sense varies in all heads". Nonetheless, we need to revise the trend, that is what the world can draw from the past and ongoing struggle. But how do you break away from this purposefully structured architectural construct of high and low?