Rethinking Crisis
Peter Son discusses the power of the term ‘crisis’ to initiate action, both for better and worse.
When one hears the word ‘crisis’, alarm bells start to ring. To be in crisis mode means to border on anarchy. There is no rationality and no governance. There is no clear resolution to a crisis. At least this is what the mass media portrays. We are often the victims of such sensationalism. The truth is sometimes distorted and we are misled into believing that an ‘issue’ of global magnitude is an undeniable ‘crisis’. However, whilst adopting a cynical approach to this label of ‘crisis’, it seems almost foolish to not tag a global ‘issue’ as a ‘crisis’, as anything else would seem a rather dangerous euphemism.
The word ‘crisis’ rings alarm bells chiming with words such as fear, suffering and desperation. Ironically, it is these words that are able to generate the full capacity of the human character. In the recent Victorian Bushfire Crisis, Australia was able to unify as one grieving nation. In the ‘dark’ light (excuse the oxymoron) of the Global Financial Crisis, Australians donated generously to help alleviate the suffering that singed the hopes of the Victorian people. On a global scale, the Boxing Day Tsunami seems to be the apotheosis of human suffering from natural disasters. Likewise, the world was able to unify in aiding financially not just out of sympathy and charity, but out of the power of empathy as common human beings. This unification can also be seen in the efforts of individuals and NGOs in tackling the Global Poverty Crisis, although there is a need for more state responsibility and commitment. Regardless of the type of ‘crisis’, natural or human-induced, it is suffering that is the common reductionist element of being a global human citizen. It is a bizarre irony that the tag of ‘crisis’, through its sensationalism, can be used as a launch pad to help stir the fear, suffering and desperation that generates the human power for empathy and unity.
However, whilst achieving unity through the label, the subsets of the term may impinge on the human ability to think rationally and pragmatically. Although the term demands public attention, it also promotes chaos. Desperate times call for desperate measures. A natural human response to a ‘crisis’ may not always be unity, indeed it is often self-preservation. This can be seen in the Nuclear Proliferation Crisis. With a lot of loopholes in the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly articles 4, 6 and 10, there is a sense of ‘crisis’ emerging. The loose nature of the Treaty undermines the confidence states have in it as a source of international law. This creates a sense of paranoia and the common dangerous misconception that nuclear weapons would equate to security. Compounding this fear is the sense of exclusivity practiced by the members of the self-proclaimed “nuclear club”. Following Bush’s declaration of the “Axis of Evil” post 9/11, North Korea’s sovereignty was questioned by the international community. It is unsurprising that North Korea would respond to such a provoking tag by testing missiles, causing great geopolitical tension. This was a desperate showcase of nationalism, a reaction to the power and domination of Western states. It is evident that the label of ‘crisis’ can fuel further irrational and short-sighted choices by states as the term generates hostility and a self-serving dogma.
This intrinsic self-serving concept can also be seen in the Climate Change Crisis. Despite the avalanche of scientific and empirical evidence of the looming ramifications of climate change, states are reluctant to offer higher levels of carbon emission reductions. The need to preserve the environment for a sustainable future must be balanced against their self-interest for economic growth. Moreover, it seems unfair for one country to lower their emissions at a higher level than a country of similar economic power. Hence, there is always a prisoner’s dilemma in the midst of a ‘crisis’ as actors on the international stage choose between altruism and self-interest.
It seems that the term ‘crisis’ creates global attention and is a dualistic force for good or evil. It can promote co-operative sovereignty or anarchy, altruism or self-interest, empathy or apathy. It seems that only a natural disaster of epic global proportions will formulate a powerful enough ‘crisis’ so that the ‘sovereignty of humanity’ is able to unify and realise that our common ability to suffer is the gateway to resolve any form of crisis. It is of utmost importance that in the midst of a crisis, we hold onto our human capacity to think rationally and pragmatically, not just for our own state, but for the collective survival of all people. It is the willingness to survive in a crisis that brings out the best, or worst, in the human character.
