Refusal of Refugees

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner said Monday he will "temporarily suspend" efforts to admit Syrian refugees, while also talking about the state and country's "shared history of providing safe haven for those displaced by conflict." "We must find a way to balance our tradition as a state welcoming of refugees while ensuring the safety and security of our citizens," he said. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who previously said he was open to helping resettle Syrians, now says he is "not Interested." "I would say no as of right now," he on Monday. "No, I'm not interested in accepting refugees from Syria." North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory announced Monday that he is asking the govemment to stop sending Syrian refugees to his state. He said 59 Syrian refugees had been resettled there already and the state received too little information about them. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent President Barack Obama a letter telling him his state would not welcome Syrians and urging him to halt plans to admit more of them into the U .S. Abbott argued that any Syrian might be connected to terrorism. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter said in a statement that it makes no sense "to allow people into our country who have the avowed desire to harm our communities, our institutions and our people." He said he would "use any legal means available" to block Syrian refugee resettlement in the state. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker joined the chorus on Monday afternoon. "There may be those who will try to take advantage Of the generosity Of our country and the ability to move freely within our borders through this federal resettlement program, and we must ensure we are doing all we can to safeguard the security of Americans," he said in a statement. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey took the most extreme approach — he announced he will oppose the resettlement of all refugees in his state, not just those from Syria. Others were more moderate. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) said Monday he wants the White House to review how it screens refugees, but did not say he would try to block Syrians from his state. Some governors, including Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and Washington Gov. went in the opposite direction, affirming Monday they will welcome Syrian refugees. "Our first priority remains the safety of our residents," Hickenlooper said in a statement. "We will work with the federal government and Homeland Security to ensure the national verification processes for refugees are as stringent as possible. We can protect our security and provide a place where the world's most vulnerable can rebuild their lives. " Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) also said his state would continue to admit Syrian refugees. But he will soon be replaced by incoming Gov. Matt Bevin (R), who them. Obama said Monday he remained committed to taking in Syrian refugees, but they must go through rigorous screening.

Works Cited
Foley, Elise. "Here's a Running Tally of the Governors Who Want to Reject Syrian Refugees." Republican Governors Syrian Refugees. Huffington Post, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.


Response:
The terrorist attacks continue to linger in people's minds so much that they have started to take measures into their own hands. It is easy to see why people, namely the governors, would want to reject the refugees after the Paris attacks, yet the situation for the refugees becomes more desperate, more like a crisis for them. These governors, with their people in mind, are wise to keep the refugees out, even if it means that refugees will have to find refuge elsewhere. Hopefully, the US will support the refugees in another way.

Britain At Crossroads

David Cameron is right to make it clear: without a deal, Britain will leave the EU

"No longer the unwilling component of an unprecedented attempt at political unification, but
independent, standing or falling on our own merits"
That is Why today the prime Minister is so right to flash some steel — to unsheathe a section of the blade that might soon be used to cut the rope and set Britain free. Free to make our own laws and our own trade deals; to have impact in the world commensurate with our own abilities, no longer believing that we can somehow puff ourselves up and "punch above our weight" by contriving to call the shots among 28 nations in the smoke-free corridors of Brussels. No longer to sacrifice parliamentary democracy for diplomatic "influence"; no longer the subset of a superstate; no longer the unwilling component of a unique and unprecedented attempt at political unification, but independent, standing or falling on our own merits. David Cameron is making it clear, in his long-awaited speech, that if he doesn't get a satisfactory result in those negotiations, then he could lead the Out campaign; and in that great release of pent-up Eurosceptic energy there can be little doubt that he would be victorious. And then what? Well, there would unquestionably be a scratchy period. There would be anxiety in Washington, where they like the convenience of having their closest ally round the table in the El J. There would be nervousness among some of the big international investors in the UK who would not want to be shut out from the Single Market — and those fears would have to be allayed. In many EU countries — and this is a point that weighs with me — there would be real shock and dismay from those who think that Britain has much to contribute, and who know in their hearts that without active British engagement, the history of Europe in the last 100 years would have been (to put it mildly) a whole lot worse. But is that enough in 2015, 70 years after the end of the last war? Must British influence be expressed through this supranational body, with all its anti-democratic practices? If we are to be successful in this negotiation — and stay in a reformed EU — then our friends and partners must understand that we are serious in our aims. The Prime Minister is rightly calling for reform that will give this country back control of its borders; that will stop the one-way ratchet towards ever closer union; that will curtail the profusion of regulation; that will stop the eurozone countries from bullying those EU countries who do not use the euro and probably never will.We need somehow to persuade our friends of what their own electorates are telling them — that it is better and more democratic to ensure that as much decision making as possible is handed back to national parliaments, and we need the negotiations to give effect to that ambition as well. It can work. I am sure that David Cameron can get what he wants by the end of next year. And if our friends are so irrational as to say no, and we vote accordingly to come out, is that really the end of the
story? Look at all previous "no" votes. The Danes voted no. The French, the Irish, even the Dutch they have all at one stage or other put two fingers up to the treaties. They are still members. The other countries just had to make the necessary adjustments.
"In the coming campaign we will hear torrents of drivel from all the people who traditionally warn about us about leaving'

Indeed, you could argue that the only language our friends understand is an initial no — and that is the only thing that will really bring them to the table, make them focus on the need for reform. Britain's relationship with Europe has already changed, in the sense that we are not members of the dominant political project — the single currency, with all its further erosions Of democracy. We are already members of a very different club from France and Germany. But there are other members of that club; others who are not in the euro but who want free trade. It would be no bad thing to lead that group, to formalize what is already a semi-divorce. One thing is sure: in the coming campaign we will hear absolute torrents of drivel from all the people who traditionally warn about us not being included in some European project — big business, the CBI, the Europhiles in Parliament. Remember: they were wrong about the ERM, they were wrong about the euro and they are already exaggerating the downsides of leaving.
We want to stay in, but not at any price. David Cameron is right to make that clear.
Excerpted from David Cameron is right ro make ir clear' withou' a deal. Brilain will leave the EU - Telegraph


Works Cited:
Johnson, Boris. "David Cameron Is Right to Make It Clear: Without a Deal, Britain Will Leave the EU." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 9 Nov. 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

Response:
The European Union (EU) is going to have to make compromises and formulate a better deal for Britain, because at this point, Britain doesn't seem to be messing around. From initial remarks, it seemed that Britain may have been bluffing or just trying to squeeze a better deal out from the EU, but now Britain is actually considering of opting out of the EU. This single decision would be a game changer pertaining to international relations as Britain is a huge trading engine for the EU. Also the US, being one of Britain's biggest allies, will now have to encounter a different face of the EU without Britain at their side. Britain also being an economic world power, will have to decide how this decision will affect independent businesses and internal trade, which in turn effects exports and imports from other countries. Britain is on the brink of their heavy decision, and whichever side wins, will absolutely affect the country and international relations.
In response to bias, it wasn't too noticeable as both sides were clearly outlined and the author wasn't leaning to one side or the other.

China's New Island

The U.S. Must Accommodate China's Power in the Island Dispute -- Or Be Willing to Pay a High Price | Hugh White

SYDNEY -- There are two ways to see the U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea. We can see it is as a modest legal maneuver, designed to assert Washington's interpretation of some rather arcane and contested points of international maritime law. Or we can see this week's operation as a big strategic move in the new power politics of Asia.

Seen this second way, it was designed to reassert America's naval preponderance in the western Pacific in the face of Beijing's increasingly bold and forthright challenge, and thereby to defend the traditional U.S.-led regional order from China's drive to displace American leadership and create a new Sino-centric strategic system in Asia.

Washington hopes that the rest of us will see it as both of these things -- a routine legal maneuver and a forthright assertion of strategic resolve. It is likely to be disappointed. This week's events may simply reinforce how badly Washington misunderstands the challenge it faces in Asia.

The U.S. is not defending any general right of freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, because nothing China is doing on or around the islands it occupies there can credibly be construed as challenging that general right.

Look at the legal aspect first. Washington is clearly trying to present the operation in this light, as a routine assertion of U.S. interpretation of maritime law. But it is not saying exactly what legal position this operation is supposed to assert.

One thing is for certain: it is not defending any general right of freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, because nothing China is doing on or around the islands it occupies there can credibly be construed as challenging that general right. Washington's frequent oblique suggestions to the contrary are frankly misleading.

There are three genuine legal issues the U.S. may have been trying to pursue. One is the right of "innocent passage" through acknowledged territorial sea, which America asserts and China perhaps disputes. Another is the legitimacy of claiming a 12 nautical mile territorial sea zone based on a feature which is submerged at high tide, which America denies and China may be trying to assert. Third, America may be contesting China's claim to the feature itself, and hence to any territorial sea around it.

If China retaliates in any substantive way, for example by enhancing its military forces or posture around the Spratlys, then Washington faces a very tough choice indeed.

Of these it seems the most likely rationale of this week's operation is the second option. A State Department spokesman described the transit as occurring in international waters, which rules out the first option, and the third would imply that America had abandoned its long-held refusal to take any view of the merits of the various competing claims throughout the South China Sea.

In reality, however, it hardly matters, because it is perfectly obvious, despite Washington's claims, that the legal issue is a pretext for an operation whose real purpose was strategic. The Obama administration is trying to use the legal device of a freedom of navigation operation to show its resolve in the escalating power-political rivalry with China over the future leadership of Asia.

How well that works depends on how China responds. It will be a clear success if China backs off from its assertive behavior, stops developing its island bases and generally returns to quiet acceptance of U.S. primacy in Asia. But the chances of this are vanishingly small.

Washington still expects Beijing to back off at the first faint sign of U.S. resolve. It doesn't grasp that Xi Jinping may be at least as determined to change the Asian order as Barack Obama is to preserve it, and that he may believe he holds the better hand.

It is far more likely that China will either ignore the U.S. transits, or retaliate. If China just issues angry statements and then carries on as before, America's big move looks weak and ineffective. If China retaliates in any substantive way, for example by enhancing its military forces or posture around the Spratlys, then Washington faces a very tough choice indeed.

If it backs off meekly in the face of Chinese escalation, the administration would look even weaker than it does now, and suffer grave damage to its credibility both at home, in Asia and globally. But a robust response would risk further countermoves by China, and further escalation towards open conflict. That would entail huge economic costs and little chance of quick and easy victory for America. No U.S. president could lightly take this path.

It is hard to see how getting itself in this position looks smart for Washington. The administration seems to be assuming that a low-risk, low-cost routine legal maneuver like a freedom of navigation operation could serve as a decisive move in a high-risk, high-stakes strategic competition. That suggests that America still does not understand the nature of the contest it is now waging with China.

Washington still expects Beijing to back off at the first faint sign of U.S. resolve. It doesn't grasp that Xi Jinping may be at least as determined to change the Asian order as Barack Obama is to preserve it, and that he may believe he holds the better hand. Everything Xi has done over the past few years suggests very plainly that he does indeed believe this. And everything Washington had done since the "pivot" suggests it doesn't understand its adversary in Asia.

America therefore needs to stop pretending to itself that it can do this on the cheap.

China today is a very powerful and ambitious country, led by a man who really is determined to build new model of great power relations in Asia to replace the regional order based on U.S. primacy. There are no low-risk, low-cost ways to respond to this challenge. The more Washington tries to respond in such ways, as it has done this week, the more plainly it signals that America lacks the resolve to take the much tougher measures needed to preserve a strong role for itself in Asia.

America can only constrain China's growing power in Asia if it is unambiguously willing to impose big costs and risks on Beijing, and that can only be done by accepting equally onerous costs and risks itself. America therefore needs to stop pretending to itself that it can do this on the cheap.

It also needs to consider what kind of role it really needs to play in Asia, and what it is willing to pay to play that role. It may well be that maintaining its traditional primacy in the face of China's power will cost America more than it is worth. If so, Washington needs to conceive and negotiate a new role in Asia which preserves the most important U.S. interests at a cost America is willing to pay over the long term. And that would mean accommodating China's ambitions to some degree.


Works Cited:

White, Hugh. "The U.S. Must Accommodate China's Power in the Island Dispute -- Or Be Willing to Pay a High Price." The U.S. Must Accommodate China's Power in the Island Dispute -- Or Be Willing to Pay a High Price. Huffington Post, 27 Oct. 15. Web. 2 Nov. 15.


Response:

The US is playing with fire, as their naval vessel encroaches on disputed Chinese territory. China, being one of the world's superpowers, is making great strides in Asia, as it is trying to widen its sphere of influence. The US has been playing this game since its very existence, but now they are being contested in Asia with China as their adversary. The US, according to this article is testing the legitimacy of the disputed island and is basing its next decision on China's reactions. This is an interesting game that if played right, can be used to the advantage of either side. The US obviously holds the most cards, but growing China isn't one to be known to back down easily. Especially now that many of its former traditional policies and laws are changing and are working towards a more progressive China. The US has some strategy in mind, but they are wrestling with another world giant.
The bias in this article was almost unnoticeable. It seemed to be well written from an impartial point of view. If anything, there may have been some bias towards the Chinese who seemed to be a little bit more favored in the land dispute.

Burnt Turkey

Blood and Ballots in Turkey | Stephen Schwartz

This post was co-authored by Veli Sirin, European director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

The Turkish Republic will hold new parliamentary elections for the second time this year on November 1, following the failure of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to maintain a legislative majority. Ballots cast on June 7 reduced the AKP's share of seats to 258 out of 550, the party's first loss of control over the governing body since 2002.

In addition, a new force, the People's Democratic Party (HDP), mainly comprising Turkish Kurds, won 80 seats in June. The traditional secularist Republican People's Party (CHP) gained 132, and the ultra-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) also elected 80 deputies.

Attempts to create a multiparty governing coalition - focused on the AKP and CHP - failed. But Turkish and Kurdish critics of Erdoğan argued from the beginning of the political crisis in June that the president had no desire to resolve the situation and would gamble on a new vote to provide AKP with a renewed majority.

Such an attitude fits the authoritarian style of Erdoğan. One must admit that Erdoğan has a magnificent capacity for judging the mood of the public. He is a gifted speaker, who could convey, after 13 years in power, that he was merely a modest servant of the poor Turks - or, put better said, that he could mediate between all of the country's citizens. But his credibility was destroyed by a single statement.

That came when Erdoğan called the result of the June election a "mistake" the Turks had to "correct" by a new vote. The hero of the majority party, rushing from election victory to election victory, the father of a "new Turkey," could not contend with the failure of the majority of voters to continue following him. That would have to be an error, which the Turkish citizenry could not desire.

Without his political assurance of the love of the Turkish nation, Erdoğan now wishes to force their affection for him. He also reveals that for him, Turkish democratic electoral rules are less important than his personal power.

Erdoğan has set a series of fires that will not be easy to put out. Ankara is ablaze because the long-ruling AKP has been undermined. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) agitates for greater concessions than those proposed previously. The Kurdish militants want enhanced autonomy or regional self-determination. The so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), driven by fanaticism, treats anyone who does not follow its puristic vision of Islam as an enemy.

Turkey has become a battleground of all against all: AKP vs. the Kurds, the MHP against the left, Kurds fighting ISIS, and ISIS opposed to everybody. A ceasefire between the Turkish authorities and the PKK, which was agreed to in 2013, broke down.

The pro-Kurdish HDP and Kurds in general have been the greater victims in this tumult, at least in numbers. HDP branches and other Kurdish-identified workplaces and businesses have been attacked repeatedly. In the broader Turkish context the secularist newspaper Hürriyet's offices were assaulted twice.

Early in September, as reported in the London Financial Times, HDP leader Selahattin Demirtaş counted 400 Kurdish sites as having been targeted for what he described as a "lynching campaign."

Then came the explosion on October 10 of two bombs at a rally for peace between the Turkish state and the Kurdish minority, in Ankara, the national capital. The death toll stood at 102 people, with 400 more injured, according to Hürriyet. The Ankara atrocities followed a blast in Suruç, a town in southeast Turkey, on July 20, in which 33 people were killed and 104 injured.

Suruç is close to the Turkish-Syrian border and the victims in the July horror were leftist activists who organized to rebuild the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobane, liberated from ISIS control at the beginning of this year.

The Turkish government has blamed both the Suruç and Ankara bombings on two Kurdish brothers affiliated with ISIS. But Kurdish and other opposition representatives reproach Erdoğan and his cohort for failure to assure security in the country.

Kurds make up at least 18 percent, or as much as 15 million, of the population of Turkey, which stands at a total of 80 million, as estimated in the CIA World Factbook. They are also prominent in the Turkish diaspora communities of Western Europe, especially in Germany.

As Turkey approaches its "substitute" parliamentary election for this year, two more factors come into play. With the country acting as a major transit point for Syrian and other refugees headed for northern Europe, the European Union (EU), which had suspended its process for accession of Turkey, has indicated that it would reopen the mechanism for Turkish membership if the country accepts a new role in controlling Europe's borders. German chancellor Angela Merkel visited Istanbul on October 19, and proposed that EU financial aid to Turkey, along with visa restrictions and talks on EU affiliation, be reopened.

Further, the large body of heterodox Shia Alevi Muslims among Turks and Kurds - also counting around 20 percent of the population - are fearful of a reassertion of AKP power. David Gardner of theFinancial Times stated on November 14 that 84 of 132 deputies for the Republican People's Party (CHP) are Alevis (a sect unrelated to the "Alawites" under Bashar Al-Assad in Syria).



Alevis claim with considerable justice that they have experienced long-standing discrimination at the hands of Turkish Sunni rulers, both secular and Islamist. They were reminded of their grievances by the Ashura commemoration on October 24, which recalled the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of Muhammad and heroic martyr of Shiism, at the battle of Karbala, in Iraq in 680 CE. Like the tragedy of Karbala, Erdoğan's march to new elections is paved with blood and intrigues, as well as the suffering of the Syrian victims of official Turkey's passivity toward ISIS recruitment and passage across the frontiers between the two countries.



Works Cited:
Schwartz, Stephen, and Veli Sirin. "Blood and Ballots in Turkey." Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.



Response:
With Turkey now on the brink of reaching membership in the EU, they now see that the road there might prove to be more difficult than previously thought. Currently, they're facing serious internal issues and their government seems to be having a small breakdown. They're going through a time of transition which is making elections and the primaries especially difficult. Also, the vast amounts of Kurds in Turkey are provoking Turkish leaders and are obviously trying to send a message across. Even though they are a minority, it reminds me of the Israeli situation before WWII of when they were spread across the world with no home country. Like the Israelis, Kurds are spread mostly across Europe, but they don't want to be. For bias, I thought that the author did an exceptional job at not taking sides too much. Although there did seem to be some resentment towards the Kurds as it listed all of the things that they were doing too disrupt the country of Turkey. I thought that this was a really cool article though as it pertains to the Middle East violence as a whole.

Sweden's Burden

Refugee consensus crumbling in Sweden, Europe's most generous host


STOCKHOLM a self-proclaimed "humanitarian superpower" where welcoming those fleeing war and oppression is ingrained as part of the national identity, the Nordic country has proudly taken in more refugees per capita than any other in Europe.

But now, with military barracks, ski lodges and camping huts already filling up, it is running of roofs to put over the heads of immigrants. The government is warning that tens of thousands of people may end up spending the Nordic winter in tents.

And for the first time, there have been signs in recent weeks that the national consensus behind the open-door policy is crumbling. Far-right protesters have shouted "go home" at asylum seekers. Refugee housing has been hit by arson attacks. And even in the political mainstream there is a growing feeling that its generous policies are unsustainable.

With fewer than 10 million people, Sweden has already received 100,000 refugees so far this year, and the government now predicts 150,000 could arrive by year's end. That is more than double the number it expected when it set aside as much as 4 percent of the 2016 state budget for immigration and integration.

Authorities will soon set up electrically heated tents that could house up to 35,000 people this winter, bringing to the cold dark reaches of northern Europe the sort of refugee camps more familiar in the poorest parts of the world.

"We are living from hand to mouth, and we have for a long time now," Tolle Furegard, national housing coordinator at the Migration Agency, told Reuters.

Early in the Syrian crisis, Sweden stepped out in front of other European countries to declare that all refugees from Syria would automatically be granted permanent residency, letting them work and making it easier for family members to join them.

Polls show most Swedes still welcome refugees, and several charities have received record donations. But a growing minority worry the influx will hurt their cherished welfare state.

Center-left Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, heading a fragile minority government, faces calls from within his own Social Democrat party to tighten immigration - policies that over the decades welcomed refugees from Vietnam war draft dodgers in the 1960s to Gulf War refugees in the 1990s.

One municipality in northern Sweden is keeping the location of new homes for 150 refugees secret after three centers were torched. Another center in western Sweden was forced to evacuate residents after it was set alight on Tuesday.

At Stockholm's train station, around 30 far-right demonstrators protesting what they see as an influx of Muslims to Sweden, gathered near a temporary migrations center, shouting "Go home". The station, where volunteers help asylum seekers, has welcomed refugees for months.

TENT CITIES

"Sweden is preparing for a crisis situation," said Lofven, adding that asylum seekers will have to accept a lower standard of living. "It's about putting roofs over people's heads now."

Lofven's minority government faces a backlash from a center-right and far-right opposition. The main center-right Moderates, for years champions of immigration, now call for an end to granting permanent residency for asylum seekers.

In a country where questioning immigration was socially taboo a few years ago, several of the biggest newspapers are now criticizing the government's policy.

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, the third biggest party in parliament, have risen further in polls, catching around a fifth of voters. They will start advertising in Middle Eastern media to deter people from coming to Sweden.

"Nobody should even think about coming here," said Paula Bieler, Sweden Democrats spokeswoman. "We have tented camps here. It's cold, chilly and snowy in Sweden. There is a shortage of resources both for our own population and for those who come here."

Lofven is diverting some foreign aid money back home to help meet the extra costs.

The government argues that investing money in improving integration for immigrants is crucial to staving off economic hardship in the future. But integrating newcomers has proved difficult. Unemployment among foreign-born Swedes is more than 20 percent, four times higher than among natives.

"Integration has not worked as well as we would have liked," said Interior Minister Anders Ygeman. "It's clear that there are risks."

Adding to the cost is an unexpectedly high proportion of unaccompanied children among the refugees - a fifth of the total - requiring costly extra services.

REFUGEES FIRST STOP

The vastness of the enterprise can be seen at the main asylum center in the southern city of Malmo where around two thirds of all asylum seekers to Sweden register.

The former hotel and conference center is clean, with a restaurant and rooms for 600 people. The number of refugees arriving per day ballooned from 55 in July to around 900 in September. Staffing has doubled since the crisis started.

"I don't have to worry about the budget. My job is to make sure we don't close the door on anybody who comes here," said Patricio Mora, the center's manager.

Lines quickly form outside and tempers flare when families jostle to enter.

Schools feel the strain. In Norberg, a community of around 5,000 people about two hours drive from the capital, the 500-pupil school faces an extra 100 refugee students.

"We have used the library, storage rooms and the teachers lounge as classrooms. If even more children arrive in the coming weeks, we have nowhere to place them," said Asa Eriksson, the town mayor.

"If worst comes to worst they will have to be outside."

(Additional reporting by Sven Nordenstam, Violette Goarant and Daniel Dickson; Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Peter Graff)


Works Cited

"Refugee Consensus Crumbling in Sweden, Europe's Most Generous Host." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 20 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Response:

Sweden, being one of the first EU respondents to the refugee crisis, is now starting to feel the heat as many refugees from the middle east crowd into their country. Expecting nearly double of the number of refugees than what they had originally planned, Sweden is preparing for all risks and seem to be handling the situation with the right precautions. However, tent cities are now being made for the in surge of refugees coming into the country. This wouldn't be much of an issue if the season wasn't heading into winter. Since it is, this could prove dangerous for the incoming refugees and the refugees already there. Not only, will they be in makeshift shelters, but they'll also be in it through the coldest season of the year. Although Sweden does appear to be taking the right measures with the refugee crisis, there is still a long process to see whether or not it will be sustainable. This article from Reuters will have a bit of a bias from the US, but it seems to also be critical in its analysis of the refugee crisis in Sweden.

Putin's Antics

Praise for Putin Is Misplaced, and Dangerous | Cody Cain

It seems fashionable in some circles to praise Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, for being some sort of a hero for world peace and justice.

The most recent instance of this Putin-praise came in the aftermath of Mr. Putin's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in which he suggested that the world really ought to find a solution to the war in Syria.

What? This, coming from Mr. Putin?

In fact, the world made a tremendous effort to stop the war in Syria back in 2012 at a time when this would have prevented enormous human suffering. The United Nations proposed a resolution for ending the violence, but Mr. Putin vetoed the resolution. That veto opened the gates for the ruthless Syrian regime to wage the worst aspects of the war against its civilian population.

At the time, Susan Rice, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said she was "disgusted" by Russia's veto, and that Russia would have "blood on its hands" for the violence in Syria that would ensue.

So let us not ignore the blood of war covering Mr. Putin's hands as he stands before the world and admonishes us to seek peace.

Also, the main impediment to peace in Syria is Mr. Putin's intractable support for the brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria. Mr. Assad could not remain in power without Russia's support, and his removal would lead to negotiations for a peaceful transition of government.

So let us not have any illusions of Mr. Putin somehow being a profit for peace in Syria.

The other major instance of Putin-praise came back in 2013 when Syria used chemical weapons against its own civilian population, thereby crossing the "red line" set by United States President Barack Obama against the use of chemical weapons. Mr. Putin was hailed as a hero for "proposing" that Syria surrender all of its chemical weapons in order to avoid United States military strikes for having crossed this "red line."

What? How in the world was Mr. Putin praised for this? It was like the world had fallen down a rabbit hole into some sort of alternate reality.

In truth, it was Mr. Putin who allowed Mr. Assad to conduct this atrocious war against his own civilians in the first place, including allowing Mr. Assad to use chemical weapons. Mr. Putin could have preemptively warned and prevented Mr. Assad from using chemical weapons. And when Mr. Assad actually used the chemical weapons, Mr. Putin could have immediately dropped his support for Mr. Assad right then and there.

But no. Mr. Putin continued to support this monster, Mr. Assad.

So Mr. Putin's "proposal" for Syria to surrender its chemical weapons was not motivated at all by any sort of compassion for the citizens under attack, or by a desire to spare the innocent civilians from Mr. Assad's brutal repression. No. Mr. Putin backed Mr. Assad's brutal repression all the way, and still does.

Rather, the reason Mr. Putin was willing to surrender the chemical weapons was so Mr. Assad could remain in power, and thus continue the brutal repression.

Mr. Putin knew full well that if the United States began military strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons, this would likely spell the end for Mr. Assad. Mr. Assad was struggling just to hang-on against only the rebels, and thus a United States military intervention would likely devastate Mr. Assad.

The example loomed large of the fate of the dictator in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi, who met his demise not long after the United States intervened in Libya. Mr. Putin could see the writing on the wall for Mr. Assad.

So the act of surrendering the chemical weapons was no more than an act of basic self-interest and self-preservation. It was hardly an act worthy of any sort of praise.

In fact, Mr. Putin's "proposal" did not even come from Mr. Putin. The proposal had come from Secretary of State John Kerry. Mr. Kerry had been asked if there was anything Mr. Assad could do to avert the impending United States military strikes, and Mr. Kerry responded that, yes, Mr. Assad could surrender all of his chemical weapons.

So Mr. Putin was hardly some visionary creative genius who innovated this wonderful proposal out of thin air. Rather, Mr. Putin was merely abjectly accepting the terms of surrender offered by the United States in order to save his puppet regime in Syria from destruction.

If anyone deserves praise, it is Mr. Obama for agreeing to pull back and not proceed with the military strikes once Syria agreed to surrender its chemical weapons. This was absolutely the right decision by Mr. Obama, and an honorable act of standing by his word.

Mr. Obama's "red line" was always about the chemical weapons and only the chemical weapons. So when Syria agreed to surrender its chemical weapons, as specified by Mr. Kerry, the threat was eliminated, and there was no longer a necessity for United States military action. This was a victory for the United States.

In the aftermath of this event, without any basis in reality, Mr. Obama was portrayed negatively as being weak for failing to enforce his "red line," and Mr. Putin was portrayed positively for proposing the magic solution that averted the United States military strikes. And Mr. Putin was further praised for having engineered his positive portrayal. All of this has been a bizarre perversion of reality.

Let us also not forget about Mr. Putin's long history of atrocities. This is the guy who invaded and annexed Crimea. This alone is utterly deplorable. And when he did it, he used a military with no insignias identifying their country of origin. At the time, Mr. Putin blatantly lied to the world by insisting that this mysterious invading military was not Russian and that Mr. Putin had no idea who it could be. After the invasion was complete, Mr. Putin remarked that of course this military was Russian. Astonishing. And people today praise this guy?

Mr. Putin also destabilized Ukraine, he caused a war there that devastated the local population, and he effectively carved-out the eastern portion of Ukraine as a Russian satellite.

In addition, Mr. Putin has an appalling record on human rights, jailing and killing scores of political opponents.

When one of Mr. Putin's multi-billionaire cronies, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, began to make waives by suggesting Russia needed to become less corrupt, Mr. Putin had him deposed and jailed for 10 years.

When a former colleague and Kremlin insider, Boris Nemtsov, turned into an outspoken critic opposed to the corruption of Mr. Putin's rule, he was shot dead openly on the streets of Moscow only steps from the Kremlin. Now that sends a very clear message to anyone who would dare to oppose Mr. Putin. And this was only a few months ago in early 2015. Mr. Putin publicized that he called the mother of the deceased Mr. Nemtsov to express his condolences and to vow that he would find the killer. This shockingly evokes Shakespeare's timeless portrayal of the nature of brutal dictators in his great play Macbeth, written around 1603, when the dictator Macbeth mourned and wailed the death of Banquo to the public, when, in fact, it was Macbeth who had ordered the murder of Banquo.

The New York Times ran an entire series of articles entitled, Above the Law, chronicling the corruption, abuse, and lawlessness in Mr. Putin's Russia. This included the horrendous crackdown on journalists who dared to criticize Mr. Putin's regime.

The history of Mr. Putin's ruthlessness must not be forgotten.



So to all those Putin-praisers out there, please think before you praise. Praising harmful acts and harmful people can, in fact, lead to harmful behavior.








Works Cited:

Cain, Cody. "Praise for Putin Is Misplaced, and Dangerous." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 5 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.




Response:

This article, being about Putin, is very informative about Putin's exploits. The journalist seems to be almost complaining about how Putin doesn't deserve any glory or respect. The author even backed up his accusations toward Putin by pulling in the New York Times to show that he is not the only one who shares these views. The author appears to be very biased towards the US, but seems to know what he's talking about. This article makes Putin and Russia seem to be savage, corrupt, and even evil. Although in reality, that's not the way it really is. Putin may be sometimes crazy and act like a jerk, but he is the head of a world superpower and that deserves some respect. As well as the fact that he is pulling in Russia to help efforts against terrorism. Plus, it should be noted that most Americans or westerners have a good portrayal of Putin because of news not only from the states, but even international news, that he is sneaky and can't be trusted. It's also interesting, because this article was found in the World section, which would seem to have less of a bias towards the states. The article was well written, but the bias was too much emphasized.

South China Sea Political Cartoon

South China Sea Cartoon

Works Cited

Paresh. "Asian Observer." Asian Observer. N.p., 11 July 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Response:

This political cartoon addresses how Southeast Asian countries are all in the South China Sea and they're all fishing and it seems that China is taking all the fish from the sea and from the other countries that are using the same water source.  The cartoonists side on this topic is that he seems that he favors Vietnam or Philippines in this situation over China. The cartoonist also seems to favor the ASEAN, but it seems that they have no power in the area. The South China Sea, in general, has been disputed upon and there is even a whole Code of Conduct given by the ASEAN for this specific piece of water. Other people from this district might have the feeling that China is being oppressive almost with the Sea and have command over something that isn't legally theirs. I did find this cartoon persuasive because it puts China in an almost ugly light and it really looks like that in this cartoon. The facial expressions from the characters, countries, are also persuasive with the fact that they clearly express their possible intentions in the Sea. I think the cartoonist could have added more effect to his persuasiveness by adding angry faces from other big countries from the US or maybe Great Britain. This political cartoon clearly describes the situation in the South China Sea. 

The US responds to the Refugee Crisis

U.S. Will Accept More Refugees as Crisis Grows Migrants in Bregana, Croatia, near the border with Slovenia. Authorities in Slovenia on Sunday were halting migrants at its border with Croatia to the south and allowing them to pass in small groups. Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times BERLIN — The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017, a significant increase over the current annual cap of 70,000, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday. "This Step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land Of second chances and a beacon of hope," Mr. Kerry said, adding that it "will be accompanied by additional financial contributions" for the relief effort. The American move, announced after Mr. Kerry held talks in Berlin with his German counterpart, Frank- Walter Steinmeier, still falls far short of the global demand for resettlement from people who continue to flee turmoil in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries. 'This kind of piecemeal, incremental approach is simply not enough to effectively address this crisis," said Eleanor Acer, director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, an advocacy group that has been pressing the United States to take I Syrians alone next year. "This minimal increase for next year is certainly not a strong response to the largest refugee crisis since World War Il.




Syrian men camped in Bregana on Sunday. Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times Four million Syrians have fled to other countries, and hundreds of thousands of others from the Middle East and Africa have been pouring into Europe. Mr. Kerry said the United States would explore ways to increase the overall limit of refugees beyond 100,000, while carrying out background checks to ensure that their numbers are not infiltrated by terrorists. "We still need to do more, and we understand that," Mr. Kerry said at a news conference with Mr. Steinmeier. Under the new plan, the limit on annual refugee visas would be increased to 85,000 in 2016. The cap would then rise to 100,000 the following year. The United States has taken in only about I Syrian refugees since the Start Of the conflict there more than four years ago. American officials said that the Syrians accepted in the next year would come from a United Nations list Of about 18,000 refugees. The three largest groups of refugees admitted last year were from Iraq, Somalia and Bhutan. Syrians were at the bottom of the list of nationalities. Refugees are people who have fled their homes to escape war or persecution (and can prove it), while migrants more generally may be relocating for economic reasons. In their meeting, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Steinmeier also focused on ways to end the war in Syria, where 250,000 people have died and 12 million have fled their homes in the past four and a half years. In addition, and the United States will try to rally support next week at the United Nations General Assembly for a significant increase in in the countries neighboring Syria, Mr. Steinmeier said. The American response is unlikely to relieve much of the pressure on European countries, particularly Germany, which remains the most desirable destination for most of the migrants. Other efforts to address the crisis, such as agreeing to distribute migrants equitably among European Union members, have foundered so far, and in the absence of a unified and effective policy, the migrants have been left to find their own way across the Continent.




Germany recently has been under pressure from a seemingly unstoppable influx of migrants, and it reinstated border checks a week ago to better manage the crowds. The flow from Austria slowed over the weekend to less than 2,000 registered arrivals each day, according to Lars Rebel, a spokesman for the German federal police. But Austria received about 20,000 newcomers over the weekend on its eastern border with Hungary. Most "still want to go to Germany, their great goal, their great dream, their great vision," said Alexander Marakovits, a spokesman for Austria's Interior Ministry in Vienna. At least 10,000 arrived or passed through Sunday at the small Austrian village of Nickelsdorf, a city in the State of Burgenland near the border with Hungary that links Budapest to the east and Vienna to the west, Mr. Marakovits said. The main highway linking the two cities was closed amid concerns that crowds of refugees would spill into traffic. Although everyone insisted the flow was manageable, the director Of the state's police, Hans Peter Doskozil, hinted at the strain. 'In the worst case, if there is no shelter, then the buses can go on the highway and make a kind of sightseeing tour," Mr. Doskozil told the Austria Press Agency, "as crazy as that sounds. "But they must drive away, so that the others see something is happening," he added. "Otherwise you can't hold the crowd back anymore." ntin a in th main t Gerry Foitik, head of the Austrian Red Cross, said his volunteers would probably manage to accommodate most migrants somewhere in Austria on Sunday night. But he said about 5,000 might remain in and around Nickelsdorf. Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Steinmeier in Berlin at Villa Börsig, a palatial German guesthouse overlooking a lake. Later they met with a small group Of Syrian refugees, who asked not to be identified by journalists out Of concern for friends or relatives still in Syria. The Syrians, asked by Mr. Kerry why the Surge Of migrants had been so great in recent weeks, said they had despaired of being able to return home and that life in refugee camps was becoming harder as food rations were Cut back "The reason people are coming now is because they gave up hope completely," one woman said. One man asked: "Are not five years enough for the international community to intervene, especially the United States?" Asked at his news conference why the United States cou d not accept more Syrians more quickly, Mr. Kerry said that budget constraints and vetting requirements established after the Sept. 1 1 terrorist attacks limited the scope Of the response. "We are doing what we know we can manage immediately," he said. But he did not rule out the possibility that more might eventually be done. Along the migrant trail those who had appeared boxed in on Friday — stranded in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary — somehow managed to continue their trek. With help from the Serbian authorities, who made no secret Of their policy Of pushing them through as fast as possible, most Of the migrants who had been thwarted at the Hungarian border made their way west into Croatia.




From there, some continued toward Slovenia, where the authorities said around 2,500 had crossed the border by Sunday morning; the Croatians took a larger number to the Hungarian border in the northeast. In Hungary, angry officials, who have been struggling to extend a razor-wire fence at the Serbian border to include the Croatian frontier, received the arrivals, packed them on trains and buses and moved them quickly to the Austrian line. The authorities there were allowing them to enter — 5,000 on Saturday alone. The authorities in Slovenia, meanwhile, were halting migrants at the border with Croatia to the south and allowing them to pass in small groups, taken by bus from border crossings at Obrezje and Rigonce to several locations around the country. By Sunday morning, the crowds had diminished, with only about 300 people waiting at the huge Obrezje crossing, and only about half as many in Rigonce. Those who continued to straggle toward the border from deeper inside Croatia were simply allowed through by the Croatian authorities, leaving it up to the Slovenians to stop and process them. The Slovenians took the migrants, one busload at a time, to a processing center in Brezice, a few miles from the border. There, they were registered but not fingerprinted. Slovenia is a member of the European Union, as is Croatia, but unlike Croatia it also is part Of the Schengen accorgl. which allows passport-free travel but encourages strong external borders. Illustrating how hard it is to keep the refugees from their main goal — Germany — only seven migrants had requested asylum in Slovenia by Sunday. The rest were taken to six refugee centers around the country. From there, many simply decided to make their own way north toward the Austrian line, where a few hundred had crossed by Sunday morning. Excerpted from US, Will Accept Mon? Refugees as Cnsis (hows The YO'* limes http:h'WMv.nytimesconv'201S/09,'2 AvorId/europe'us-tcFincrease-admi.ion-of-refugees-to-1 00000-in-2017-kerry-sayOtmI?


Works Cited

Gordon, Michael R. "U.S. to Increase Admission of Refugees to 100,000 in 2017, Kerry Says." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

Response: 

The US's response to the migrant situation seems to be very clear and in good timing. The US is doing well with cooperating with the EU as more migrants flee the middle east to reach European shores. Some countries in the European Union are reacting well to the influx of migrants and refugees. The US also makes a great point by understanding the difference between the regular migrants and refugees. However there is some criticism on how long it took the US to respond to the crisis of the refugees and the amount that they are taking in, but I think that they are making the right decisions in the little time they have had to figure things out. The bias of this article is from an angle from an American perspective. The US is definitely given a good reputation and if it had been from a source outside of the US, the point of view may have been different and even hard on the US. 

North Korea's Reboot of Fuel Plants

North Korea says it has restarted nuclear bomb fuel plants. In this June 27, 2008 file photo from television, the 60-foot-tall cooling tower is seen before its demolition at the main Nyongbyon reactor complex in Nyongbyon, also known as Yongbyon, North Korea. (Photo: Anonymous, AP) North Korea on Tuesday said it has restarted operations at its atomic bomb fuel production plants, in a move that pushes Pyongyang further toward a standoff with Washington and its allies. The secretive state says it is fully ready to use nuclear weapons against the United States "and other hostile forces" at any time if they "persistently seek their reckless hostile policy towards the (North) and behave mischievously. " In state media, the North said its plutonium and highly enriched uranium facilities at the main Nyongbyon nuclear complex had been "rearranged, changed or readjusted and they started normal operation. " It follows a warning by Pyongyang on Monday that it is ready to launch "satellites" — which the West considers banned long-range missiles — aboard long-range rockets to mark the ruling communist party's anniversary next month. The 70th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party falls on Oct. 10. The director of the North's National Aerospace Development Administration told Pyongyang's otT1cial Korean Central News Agency that scientists were pushing forward on a final development phase for a new earth observation satellite for weather forecasts. On Tuesday, South Korea's Defense Ministry said a rocket launch will be a "serious provocation," a military threat and a violation Of U.N. resolutions, Yonhap reported. In a briefing, the ministry's spokesman Kim Min-seok said: "South Korea and the United States are jointly watching for all possibilities with regard to North Korea's (potential) long-range missile launch,' according to the news agency. "So far, no particular signs have been seen." North Korea has spent decades trying to perfect a multistage, long-range rocket. After several failures, it put its first satellite into space with a long-range rocket launched in late 2012. The U.N. said it was a banned test of ballistic missile technology and imposed sanctions. Experts say that ballistic missiles and rockets in satellite launches share similar bodies, engines and other technology. An angry North Korea then conducted its third nuclear test in February 2013, inviting further international condemnation and sanctions. Washington sees North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles as a threat to world security and to its Asian allies, Japan and South Korea.
Contributing: Associated Press 

Works Cited
Onyanga-Omara, Jane. "N.Korea Says It Has Restarted Nuclear Bomb Fuel Plants." USA Today. Gannett, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.

Response:

North Korea is a rising international threat to the United States and its allies as it is rebooting its nuclear bomb fuel plants. South Korea, also feels the pressure as realization start to kick in as the North is making investments towards weapons of mass destruction. The world recognizes the North's activity as dangerous, and as a threat to international security. The actions taken by North Korea will be followed up with action won't be taken lightly.

This article is written from an American stand point so the article will be biased from that point of view. If it was written from a communist news source, then the reaction and the information given may be different. However, this still is big news and an issue for many.

Angela Merkel's Migrant Agenda

Angela Merkel hailed as an angel of mercy as Germany opens its doors The German response "can make us proud," Chancellor Angela Merkel said. Just two months ago, Germany was suffering from yet another image problem, deplored as a harsh and heartless overlord in its effort to impose financial discipline on its European neighbors. Its hard-nosed bailout negotiations with debt-ridden Greece and apparent willingness to throw Athens under the bankruptcy bus triggered protests around the world and caricatures of Chancellor Angela Merkel as Adolf Hitler.

Angela Merkel announced the nation was reallocating up to $9.6 billion to deal with the influx Of migrants. Only two months ago, Mrs Merkel drew mockery for stroking a deportation after she had reduced her tear,s. Now Mrs Merkel is being hailed as an angel of mercy and her country as a paragon of virtue for flinging open the doors to a massive influx of refugees. The sight of Germans whooping in welcome and thrusting gifts at bedraggled asylum seekers arriving on chartered trains has stood in sharp contrast to the indifference or outright hostility directed at them in other European nations. The Palestinian girl has since had her residency permit extended. Some Germans hope that such positive images might help remove some of the stains on their reputation, including older, darker associations with trains full of unwanted people — those who were systematically sent to their deaths by the Nazis. Mrs Merkel said she was moved by the sight of hundreds of migrants stuck at a railway station in Hungary last week, chanting their desire to come to Germany.

A migrant from Syria holds a picture of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "This wasn't always the case," she said with characteristic understatement. More recently, Berlin has been cast in the familiar role of villain for taking a tough line on Greece and on debt in the eurozone. "Some started saying that we are financially overtaking Europe and that we are only thinking of our own interests," said Jonas Walther, a 25-year-old choreographer. "Now everybody is praising Germany for its intake of refugees. "But we should not be taking refugees to improve our image," he added. "We should be taking them because of the humanitarian situation, and I think that this is currently the case." German officials say they are prepared to accept as many as 800,000 asylum seekers this year, a number equal to 1 per cent of the population. The government announced on Monday that it would set aside billion ($9.6 billion) to deal with the influx. "Germany is very reluctant in accepting a leadership role," said Alexander Goerlach, editor of the European magazine here in Berlin. "This is due to Germany's past. We are haunted by the ghosts and demons of the nationalistic era of the 19th century that in one way or another laid the ground for the two world wars." Mrs Merkel is working with the EU's other main power, France, to come up with a solution to the biggest migrant crisis to hit the region since World War Il. The two partners have agreed on a proposal, to be unveiled on Wednesday, to distribute 120,000 asylum seekers among EU nations based on each country's size and economic strength.

Mrs Merkel said that the public outpouring of donations and assistance to refugees who arrived by the thousands in Germany over the last few days ought to make her compatriots feel "proud and grateful". The German response "can make us proud," Merkel said. But there's unease here as well: over how far the country's resources can be stretched, over the backlash already brewing in some areas and over Germany's being a leader and an outlier in the crisis, even if laudably so. Despite all the praise for its generosity toward refugees, the government in Berlin feels far more comfortable acting in concert with other European nations, precisely to avoid accusations of German high-handedness or exceptionalism. But the country's economic might has turned it into first among equals in the European Union whether it likes it or not. But agreement among all 28 EU members appears elusive, with several central and eastern European states saying categorically that they do not want to accept any refugees. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose heavy-handed treatment of asylum seekers has drawn international criticism, dismissed the quota plan on Monday, saying that residents' right to free movement within the EU would make country- specific numbers unenforceable. Hundreds of refugees and migrants continued to push their way north from the Balkans into Hungary en route to their preferred destinations Of Germany and Sweden. They broke out Of a receiving centre 011 the Hungary-Serbia border, then began walking north along one of Hungary's main highways, The Associated Press reported. More asylum seekers, many from Syria and Iraq, also continued to land in Europe on one of Greece's eastern islands. More than 230,000 have come ashore to date, including 61 rescued from the sea off the coast of the hard-hit island of Lesbos on Monday. Among those plucked from the waters were a baby and more than a dozen other children. With no hint that the flood of arrivals would abate any time soon, the southern German state of Bavaria, where most refugees have entered the country, began exhibiting signs of strain. About 20,000 asylum seekers arrived in Germany over the weekend, and Bavarian officials said at least 2500 more arrived on Monday, leaving them scrambling to find shelter for each new batch. "We will still do our best to create new places," Christoph Hillenbrand, the president of the government of Upper Bavaria, told reporters at the train station in Munich, the state capital. "But we are pushing up against the limit now." Although polls show a strong majority of Germans in favour of accepting refugees, Mrs Merkel's influential political allies In Bavaria warned that assistance to newcomers could not be unlimited. Some Germans who disagree with their government's generosity, including suspected neo-Nazis, have done so violently, burning down facilities intended for migrants and staging angry protests. Five asylum seekers in south west Germany were injured on Monday when the house they were living in caught fire, German media reported. The cause of the blaze was unclear. But such incidents have been drowned out in recent days by the numerous accounts and images of ordinary Germans turning out in droves to help the newcomers in their midst. In Munich, such efforts shifted into high gear at a donation bank, where half a dozen people sorted through heaps of clothing, toys, bicycles and bedding earmarked for refugees. The welcoming attitude was particularly noteworthy in a city that has long had to live with the stigma of being the birthplace of the Nazi Party. "This is the nicer side of Germany you are seeing," said retired banker Eddie Lauer, 64. Filmmaker Doris Doerrie said that the spontaneous gestures of goodwill undoubtedly benefited the country's reputation abroad. "Germany does worry about its image," she said. "But I worry a little about us getting too full of ourselves, applauding our actions. We shouldn't get carried away by the idea of our own goodness."


Works Cited
Chu, Henry. "Migrant Crisis: Angela Merkel Hailed as an Angel of Mercy as Germany Opens Its Doors." The Sydney Morning Herald. N.p., 8 Sept. 2015. Web. 08 Sept. 2015.

Response:

The EU is all over the news today as thousands of migrants are fleeing the Middle East to Europe. The question though many have been asking is "who is going to take responsibility?" Germany, the EU's financially strongest, is taking responsibility of the crisis and is acting as the main player in this recent world event. Germany's Angela Merkel has introduced a plan that offers billions in support of the refugees, which is definitely progressive. In previous weeks, these European countries have been so shocked by what has been happening that they have no idea what to do and they're standing there with their mouths open wide. I am in complete agreement with Germany's standing on the crisis, but I think that Germany should be weary of the fact that these migrants are also bringing along with them their culture and religion and these will be influential factors in the upcoming years as they will change and shape Germany, and the bigger picture of Europe. 

However, we have to keep in mind that this article was written from an American stand point and that not everyone agrees with Germany. In fact, there are quite a few countries in Europe that don't want these migrants flooding into their countries, Austria being one of them. Also, Germany and the US have a steady relationship, so most Americans, and publishers, will think highly of Germany and also because it is a EU superpower.

Biography

Hey! My name is Peter Ndizi Kuguru, and I currently live in Nairobi, Kenya. I attend Rift Valley Academy where I am now a Junior. I was born in Kenya, but I've lived most of my life in Georgia in the US. I also lived one year in Cambridge, Massachusetts. So, I've experienced many different types of cultures and have been exposed to ideas and opinions that I don’t always share. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and so my world view will definitely come out of a different lens than maybe most others. However, that doesn't mean that I will automatically turn down any opinion or view just because I don't necessarily believe that. Follow me!