Mr. Sedwill later tried to diffuse the statement, saying that it was not very well put. And he’s right – it wasn’t. But the essence of what he was trying to say is important. The news often distorts day-to-day life of people living in conflict affected areas. In states affected with armed conflict, not every moment of every day, in every location, is there life threatening danger. Pocketed and fragmented fighting is localised and that often means a good chunk of a state is relatively safe for people to go about their daily routines. What is more, general crime rates can be lower in these areas, as well as the lure of dangerous activities such as drugs and alcohol. Finally, societal bonds are stronger, with a neighbourhood formed to mimic a large family – meaning many people are looking out for your wellbeing, rather than the isolation that is becoming a norm in Western cities. Because of this, it can be argued that if one looks at a child’s access in the city, and the safety net surrounding them – in many cases it may be on par or better than life for a child in some of the West’s more notorious cities. This is a question of physical security. Indeed, the plight of children in developing areas – particularly in fragile and conflict affected states – fair far worse on a human security level. Save the Children noted that 1 in 4 Afghan children will not live to see their 5th birthday, and UNICEF in 2009 declared it the most dangerous place to be a child. There are greater barriers to life saving health care and nutrition in these areas. Gender equality is at a greater disparity, and so is access to education. But what Sedwill’s statement should have done is allowed us (and kids) to review our perceptions of what safety is and what it can be to others. Moreover, it reminds us all that people around the world are not so different from each other – and face similar problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment