Social Issues – Page 15

Maximilien Robespierre, an influential and instrumental figure in the period of the French Revolution generally branded as the Reign of Terror, formerly affirmed that, “subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s repression against tyranny.” In the present day, contemporary terrorists impute Robespierre’s perception that aggression is mandatory to protect and emancipate a population. Given that the number of global inhabitants is projected to multiply to 8 billion by 2025, state and international conflicts will propagate as a root of concern for the human race. The perpetual discussion for an explicit definition of what constitutes terrorism by the United Nations appears to be infinite since member countries are ineffectual to form a bilaterally accepted definition. Although the general public condemns terrorism, there remains a double standard of “us versus them” involved in such beliefs. Terrorism can be justified on one hand as there is an element of actuality to the remark “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. On the other hand, terrorism is intrinsically corrupt therefore the rationale is to oppose terrorism in the name of ethics.

Terrorism can be accounted for as a reaction of the perpetrator due to subjugation and individuals’ political principles. Those labelled “terrorists” seldom identify themselves per se, and conventionally resort to euphemistic terms or titles specific to their condition such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, militant, guerrilla, and rebel. It can hence be construed that the perpetrators consider their actions to be righteous, perhaps even obligatory. Terrorists launch wars, claiming for just causes such as self-defence as well as aegis of innocents from threats from despotic governments, civil disorder, and external assaults. Due to a disintegration of law and stability, terrorists bear arms in retaliation to suppression of fundamental constitutional rights. By and large, the sense of duty to defend a society is vested in sovereignty clout but the administration may fail. Under these circumstances, a climate of alarm emerges thus the genesis of guerrillas. The case in point, insurgents validate Islamic terrorism as resistance to American policies in the Middle East or Israeli occupation of Palestine. Terror campaigns are also implemented in an attempt to advocate the customary system. Take for instance, Protestant extremist communities in Northern Ireland have exerted terrorism against those supporting a cohesive Ireland. Therefore, terrorism can be substantiated from the rebel’s stance, in response to contravention of one’s societal, parliamentary, spiritual and ethical dogmas.

However, religion is an inexcusable pretext for acts of terror. The Islamic faith does not condone terrorism. Suicide bombers’ actions mainly stem from political conflict, not religion. Terrorist organizations have illustrated their grounds in spiritual and cultural expressions. Nonetheless, this is frequently a blatant strategy premeditated to conceal political goals, spawn widespread fear and silence disagreement. It is fallacious to presuppose religion would typically result in carnage although religion is not totally above suspicion either.

In reality, ostensible religious terrorism transpires only under the coalescence of idiosyncratic political, social and ideological conditions. Religion becomes fused with vehement expressions of communal objectives, personal egotism, and movements for governmental reform. Thus, such heinous acts cannot be justified on tenets of religious beliefs.

Explanations for terrorism are further complicated by the ethical ambiguity that encircles terrorism. Pragmatic theorists and non-utilitarian philosophers hold contradictory opinions on whether particular acts of terrorism can be vindicated as the lesser evil in a specific circumstance. Utilitarian logicians can hypothetically formulate instances in which sin of terrorism is outweighed by significant commodities that cannot be secured with less moral loss. In practice, pragmatists repeatedly rebuff terrorism since it is extremely questionable that acts of terrorism achieve imperative goods in an efficient conduct or that the detrimental outcomes of undermining the pact of non-combatant immunity is considered to prevail over the success of terrorism. On the contrary, Don Quixotes stress that terrorism is constantly amoral unless the society faces the acute peril of absolute annihilation and the sole means of self-preservation is through deliberately targeting non-combatants. Due to ethical inconclusiveness, it is challenging to realize an accord on the settings in which terrorism can be justified.

Terrorism can be justified through the communal, constitutional, religious and moral creeds of the insurgents because in the modern world, there is no absolute right or wrong concept and there is no standard of doctrines. Moreover, terrorism is a pejorative term with intrinsically negative insinuations which are broadly relevant to one’s dissidents. To a large extent, the application of the term is exceedingly prejudiced such that its use implies a moral assessment. If a person empathizes with the victim of antagonism on one hand, then the act is considered terrorism. On the other hand, assuming one identifies with the freedom fighter, the brutal act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not encouraging or at least ambivalent light.

Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.

In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts.

On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.

Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.

It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.