The notion of "moral obligation" has come up, in a rather excited fashion, for the second time in about as many weeks. So I thought I'd share some of my views on that:
(1) The notion of "moral obligation" is not absolute. Among other things, it depends on one's "system of ethics", which, in turn, is determined by numerous factors. Suffice it to say that what it entails varies from place to place and even from person to person.
(2) Where people feel sufficiently strongly about "moral obligations" and agree on them, they will codify them into laws, agreements, or whatever. Those too will vary from place to place, but there are some international ones---such as on refugees, prisoners of war, and so forth.
(3) To my mind, where "moral obligations" are not codified into law, or whatever, it is foolish to rely on them---for the very simple reasons in (1). This, of course, does not mean that we should not assert what we feel "moral obligations"; it simply means that it is unwise to rely on such assertions, unless it is among people or nations or whatever that share the same views on such matters.
(4) My observation---and it could be wrong---is that people, whether as individuals or as nations, act first in self-interest. To the point that they have been "indoctrinated" in some particular religion or "system of ethics" or some guilt-inducing system---and a few might even actually be good---they might also act in the interest of others. Otherwise, action will be based on the fear of adverse consequences (e.g. from failure to obey the "law".)
In the present matter, we may all agree that Europeans have certain moral obligations to act in certain ways. But the most pressing question has to be this: what if they don't? As Africans, what is our self-interest, and who looks after it?
Pundit has, for example, suggested that
In the meantime Italy and Eu should pursue progressive immigration and refugee policies and not cow to right wing political wave.
They might, or they might not. In that regard, I don't foresee any major changes "in the meantime", but that is actually not especially important for the point I wish to make. More critical is this: what if they don't? By way of "safety" or Plan B, I think that we should also prepare for "the worst". So, to my mind, here is the pressing question:
given that it is easier to control or to change oneself than to control or to change others, what can we do for ourselves?While we also call on the EU to do certain things, why not at the same time also call out on the AU? For Uhuru and Ruto, the latter went all out. How many words have they even said about the Mediterranean situation? (It has been going on for years and this year looks set to be a "record year".)
As Africans we need to give up on this idea that we must continue to rely on the West or the East (China) until one day, miraculously, we achieve "equality"; after all, we did not have such thinking during the independence wars.
We have the abilities and resources to do for ourselves. If our leaders are "unable or unwilling", is the solution then to "outsource" the leadership while, oddly enough, at the very same time we assert "sovereign and independent and equal"? Is that not a recipe for perpetual dependency? Yes, someone will always send yellow maize, perhaps out of some sense of "moral obligation". But why not free ourselves by growing our own maize?
Given what
mwafrika faces all over the world, the only real solution will be for
him to work on making home a better place. So, the Europeans don't care whether or not Africans die, like flies, in the Mediterranean. And the Africans? Where is their caring?
