I was looking at the news yesterday and I read the news from Russia and Germany. Syria came up in both presses. Some think this will be a prolonged war and others think it will be a shift to a multi-polar world and more conflicts on the horizon. With a master's degree in International Relations plus lots of reading and discussing with people from all over the world, I could present an international analysis. But my calling is orphans and that is what befuddles me about international leaders' actions in the current world. Nobody seems to calculate the economic or people losses when they decide to get involved in a conflict. The United Nations puts the number of children affected at 5,600,000 in Syria and just over 2,000,000 outside of Syria. These stats are from September 2015.
So I had to ask myself a couple of questions. I read an article that showed countries that get involved in violent conflicts lose money and destroy infrastructure and damage human resources. So the old thinking of gaining resources from a war or conflict is really a past belief that has not proven a worthwhile gain in resources in the last 50 years. (of course some wise guy can come up with one or two). The world has seen 324 conflicts since 1946 and 35 are ongoing and a quick scan down the list showed me no one is really a winner. The cost of human capital and destruction of infrastructure is overwhelming. So what keeps a trend going that is proven fruitless? The financial gain does not support violent conflict.
The primary motivation is power and prestige. Either for ideological reasons or pride, leaders cannot disengage from current conflicts and look for other areas to use their political and military might. Could you imagine leaders saying we are not going to have a war because it would be too destructive to the people? What a paradigm shift that would be.
In the meantime, as I process these thoughts, how can I comprehend the toll on the Syrian children and how could I even begin to help. It is so overwhelming.
References
Marshall, M. (2015). Major Episodes of Political Violence 1946-2014. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/warlist/warlist.htm
UNICEF (2016). Syria Crisis. Retrieved from http://i2.wp.com/childrenofsyria.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/UNICEF-Syria-Regional-Crisis-SitRep-September-2015-1.jpg?resize=592%2C819
So I had to ask myself a couple of questions. I read an article that showed countries that get involved in violent conflicts lose money and destroy infrastructure and damage human resources. So the old thinking of gaining resources from a war or conflict is really a past belief that has not proven a worthwhile gain in resources in the last 50 years. (of course some wise guy can come up with one or two). The world has seen 324 conflicts since 1946 and 35 are ongoing and a quick scan down the list showed me no one is really a winner. The cost of human capital and destruction of infrastructure is overwhelming. So what keeps a trend going that is proven fruitless? The financial gain does not support violent conflict.
The primary motivation is power and prestige. Either for ideological reasons or pride, leaders cannot disengage from current conflicts and look for other areas to use their political and military might. Could you imagine leaders saying we are not going to have a war because it would be too destructive to the people? What a paradigm shift that would be.
In the meantime, as I process these thoughts, how can I comprehend the toll on the Syrian children and how could I even begin to help. It is so overwhelming.
References
Marshall, M. (2015). Major Episodes of Political Violence 1946-2014. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/warlist/warlist.htm
UNICEF (2016). Syria Crisis. Retrieved from http://i2.wp.com/childrenofsyria.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/UNICEF-Syria-Regional-Crisis-SitRep-September-2015-1.jpg?resize=592%2C819
No comments:
Post a Comment