Wolf before the pack.
In 2009, when the world was witnessing one of the most disastrous financial crises in modern times, a certain Triffin Dilemma was cited to right the wrongs. Weighing the pros and cons of the USD as a global reserve, the SDRs were advocated as a more inclusive and unwavering alternative. Going back to 1971, the Nixon Shock was probably, a more nationally convenient move than a globally benefitting one. At multiple crossroads of decision-making, countries and governments face the challenge of putting the international community’s needs over their own.
The everlasting deliberation over short-term and long-term impacts has had leaders scratching their heads for quite some time now. A similar paradox is faced by the common brass where the needs of the society are measured against our personal requirements. Standing over a cliff that divides these phenomena, the human mind makes perplexing choices, residues if which cannot be foreseen. Since time immemorial, our moral science lectures have been flooded with acts of selfless and overbearing behavior. However, we are hardly tutored about instances when people have had to place themselves over the largely accepted common good. The age-old idea of “what is good for all, is good for one” has been so deeply rooted, that the mere thought of prioritizing our own situation over others’ is satanic. Dealing with such fragile standstills requires us to be absolutely neutral and accepting. As an example, a forest ranger in India is paid about 30,000 INR per month, to protect the nation’s most paramount resources. An elephant tusk, on the other hand, costs about 2,50,00,000 INR, and poachers are ready to pay off these rangers with any handsome amount of money to procure similar valuables. With comparably meagre salaries, they still vow to dedicate an entire lifetime even without the dearth of alternatives. If something, though, was to befall over them, as a society of taxpayers, only a handful of us would be able to appreciate their role and accept a pay cut for their elevated salaries.
In his tenure, Mr. Donald Trump has received flak for, amongst others, his decision to withdraw the USA from the Paris Accord. One of the reasons given was the absurdly high expectations from developed countries alone. A similar irony was posed in front of these major political establishments with respect to the ODA. On one hand, they were shelling out significant chunks of their finances to war-torn nations and on the other hand, experts were doubting if this were to backfire as a permanent solace for the countries in question. More often than not, history has not been kind to administrations that have left the global community high and dry for their own ulterior or genuine maxims. They have been brushed off, as extremists and crusaders of a closed market.
As demanding as it may be to accept, people, organizations, and governments find themselves in tough and vulnerable spots on a daily basis. There might be times when it is practically impossible to be a good Samaritan or, to negotiate a multilateral memorandum that upholds the benefits of all parties involved. It is thus, vital to normalize putting one above all and to destigmatize exclusive examples of people sidelining others for themselves. The implications of setting unreachable standards of sacrifice, may not be conspicuous initially but are enough to shatter an entire working system. Again, that, in no way depreciates those who stoically move mountains for others to tread on better pastures.
To summarize, the boundless ideas of encompassing and envisaging the entire society as one whole unit is indeed, an indispensable virtue that inculcates collectiveness and singularity, if abided by. Nevertheless, there is an innate need to stop trivialising personal good over the shared good. As a generation which boasts about comprehending mental health to a tee, like no other, we should put a cap upon the idea of stereotyping decision-making during delicate times –that might be individualistic–as petty and regardless.
