Admittedly, I’m not good with deadlines.

I was on the train to work today, wondering what the angle should be for my next piece, when I fell into conversation with fellow twitterer @Morgwn, the artist behind last month’s Assange cover.

Anyhow, we were talking about the amount of coverage given to the Dickileaks scandal versus the popular revolts currently spreading through the Middle East. We came from it from our different angles – I thought that in covering Dickileaks we at least had something we could use to make some change in our community. He, quite rightly, pointed out that the birth of democracy in the Middle East could be a little more important in the grand scheme of things.

It was an amicable, friendly conversation, but it did get me thinking – where does charity and activism begin? Where is it best to devote our energies? Is it better to focus on the local or the global?

As the citizens of a first world nation, blessed with communication technologies scarcely imaginable even a decade ago, it might seem a no-brainer that we lend our skills and resources to the struggles for peace and freedom overseas. We have the ability to co-ordinate and direct the flow of news coverage to an unprecedented extent. It would almost seem obscene to allow other countries to toil under tyrannical rule or burn in anarchy while we had the tools to record and articulate their plight, right?.

It does seem, however, a rather Sisyphean task. There is so much wrong with the world – war, resource conflict, dictatorial governments, rape, disease, illiteracy; it does seem an impossible task to do any cause the justice it deserves. Organizations such as the UN have become so hamstrung by bureaucracy that their efforts have only a barely perceptible affect. It’s left to non-profits and charity organizations to take up the slack in making lasting positive change and they’re constantly scrambling for funds or being booted out of affected regions by ne’er-do-wells, tyrants and warring gangs. Is it, then, better to abandon concerted efforts for change overseas in an attempt to fix our own backyard?

It would certainly seem that concentrating our efforts for positive change locally would be an easier task. We’re talking about addressing problems on a much smaller scale than we face globally. Were government, non-profits and charity organizations to throw all their efforts into trying to solve the problems we face here in Australia, we might be able to move a few inches forward. Hell, it only took 200 years to apologize to the indigenous people, perhaps we could sort out the mess that is the Intervention in, say, 50?

It’s just not that simple though. The aid we give to other nations and the organizations that assist overseas are a powerful tool in building our international reputation and showing the potential of democracy. More importantly, the local and the global are inextricably linked – if we devote our energies to improving the lot of other nations, for example, then they’re less likely to drown off our shores in a desperate quest for asylum. Assisting fledging democracies to build sustainable economies will, in time, reap economic benefits for us as well as them.

Working out where to devote our energies in making the world a better place must always result in a balance between local and global causes. We can’t cut aid to our neighbours because of natural disasters at home. Nor can we ignore our own problems in an effort to help save the peoples of other nations from dictatorial rule. It may seem an obvious answer, yet the debate still rages. I

’d be fascinated to hear your responses.

+ 1

+ 1