The red line
What’s a red line? What lies beyond this line? Immoral, inhumane, unacceptable, inconceivable things that one will not dare imagine sometimes because of how horrid and upsetting the images associated with them can be.
I have just seen an interview on CNN where a Syrian filmmaker/representative of some political agency/group (I have lost track as I have seen so many faces talking about this issue) challenges the US government’s plans of taking military action against the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. The woman on TV challenges the western views on what is considered the “red line.” She says that in her point of view, the situation in Syria that the media have never failed to show to the world for the past two years has been disgustingly barbaric and inhumane that it has crossed the “red line” a long time ago. Her question then is: How come the powerful countries in the international community are only reacting now?
The answer to that, of course, is politics (and they have reacted before but not as strongly as they are doing so now), which made me mull over that interview and relate it to what I am going through and probably the subconscious reasons why I am now getting a skin breakout and having trouble sleeping at night.
Red line. It’s relative. It’s subjective. What is gut-wrenching for some people may be perfectly acceptable to others. What is logical and reasonable to some government may be totally backward and ignorant to others. What is considered immoral and unacceptable to some religious groups may be holy to others. It is, therefore, the wrong question to ask: When is it considered crossing the red line? Wrong question. The question should be: How do we react when we find something that flips on that red light in our head and we see people going to the other side, crossing the line to the place where things we don’t dare imagine happen? Especially when the occurrence is so disturbing and obviously wrong that we don’t need to ask ourselves whether we are in the minority for thinking it’s a breach of basic human requirements of what is acceptable. In these cases, the question is: What do we do then?
For example, I believe all this scrutiny whether Janet Lim-Napoles is to blame for the abuse of the pork barrel system is a complete waste of time. It’s staring us right in the face: There is obscene corruption in the Philippine government and our trusted politicians are involved. That is the bigger issue. That is what we should do something about. I am not saying we should let JLN get away with stealing our hard-earned pesos. By all means prosecute her! All I am saying is: Be quick and be done with it as there are bigger and more complicated issues to resolve! Like catching the lawmakers involved and revising the system so that this will not happen again.
As I was watching CNN earlier, I was thinking: How many more words and exchanges among members of parliament and US politicians are required to establish the fact that has already been made clear by horrific videos of dying children all over the media and on the Internet? I say: Stop the debate on whether or not chemical weapons were used because that is stating the obvious. It has been obvious a long time ago that Syria is doomed and international intervention has always been badly needed by the common people there to “salvage what’s left”—in the words of the filmmaker/representative of some political agency/group. Why can’t everyone in power just focus on how to save the innocent lives in Syria instead of debating whether they should target Syrian President Bashar Assad and his supporters or the rebel groups? Just get rid of those bandits (both sides) one way or the other and spare those who are innocent. Therefore, the big and influential ones should deliberate quickly and decide the best way forward to save the people, save the people. If the method will be war or diplomatic dialogue or international trial, that’s another matter. What I’m saying is the motive behind the action should be to save the people first and foremost, not destroy a country or simply get rid of a dictator.
To those people who can’t seem to see that the people in Syria need all the help they can get, maybe for all of you this is still acceptable and doesn’t qualify for what constitute your red lines. It is noteworthy to mention, though, that this one is a question of what you find humane, and it is disturbing to realize that some people will turn a blind eye to this simply because they want to better themselves first.
Everywhere in the world there’s poverty, problems, difficulties and diseases. I am from a poor family in the Philippines. But, I think, this is not an excuse to turn a blind eye to something as horrific as what’s happening in Syria because it is so obvious that it is already a matter of what we deem human. It is not only a question of our morality or conscience. It is a question of whether we are human. So maybe think again. If after doing so, you still believe what you believe, I will respect that, but I wish you will have the decency to just keep it to yourself and not share it with the world as it only shows how much of a nonhuman you are.
On a smaller scale (in relation to the goings-on in the world), a couple very dear to me have decided to give up their child because they cannot afford to sustain him, cannot care for him, and cannot physically, emotionally and spiritually nurture him. This crosses my red line, as I believe that there are better options than giving up the child for adoption, and these options have been presented. However, this is one incident where, no matter how difficult it is for me to
accept—as it falls in the category of things unreasonable for me—I will now keep mum as I am not in the position to act/react. It may have crossed my red line, but to this child’s parents, they have his best interest at heart…
Chloe Nina Ballesteros, 29, works in Doha, Qatar. She says she wishes for world peace, “and means it.”
