Crossing the border
While the cross-border terrorism is making the headline for last few decades, the cross-border attack on terrorists is a new buzzword. I have been watching this for some time now. There are a couple of incidents going on right now. Turkey is attacking Kurdish rebels crossing the Iraq border. On the other hand, US attacks are on the rise inside Pakistan despite a few hiccups.
However, I seldom see both of these are getting equal importance or equal coverage on media. I may be wrong in assigning numbers to their actual weightage, but anything involving United States gets more focus than the other one having no US presence.
Let’s talk differently, are these moral? Are these legal? The answer of the first question is – if they are moral within the boundary, I don’t see any reason to call it immoral if an invisible boundary is in between them. In short, boundary doesn’t matter at all. Now to answer the next question, it should be noted that law was created to maintain harmony and it has a moral basis. So, if the current laws don’t call it legal, but call it moral – then I would certainly object to it. It is absolutely illogical to call it moral, but illegal at the same time. It shows, the law needs to change.
Indeed the law needs change. In the world, we have laws in the countries, and also in the state-specific laws. There are some minority laws. However, it was feasible to run the world in this fashion since the probability of a human being changing his/her country of birth was indeed minimum. Not only that, getting exposure of another country was so difficult in a couple of decades back. In fact, the international boundaries are shaped in a way that a community, which has a very low probability of moving around – can stay together. Now, in the era of globalization, the international boundary is wiped out – with digital technology, internet, high speed vehicles, cheap transportation and communication. How can people be still ruled by archaic system of country specific laws?