How not helping people brings extreme right into power. Or their polities are used to solve crises
Syrians have been begging Europe for help since the start of Syria's war ten years ago. But Europeans have done little and now are using increasingly aggressive methods to convince refugees not to come to Europe. Not helping people brings the worse out of people during crises.
President Trump acted twice, in April 2017 and again in April 2018 together with France and the UK, after more chemical attacks by Assad. These were correct actions that should have been much stronger to destroy all of Assad's airports and weapon production sides. The USA also fought against ISIS, I think an elite division of Assad's army to convince us that Assad is not too bad.
I've never considered President Trump as a real isolationist but more as someone who would intervene if necessary to protect his own people and others if they too are willing to contribute.
Further, when a mad leader attacks its own people than sovereignty no longer applies to that ruler and other countries should protect the citizens, preferably with UN backing and this to enforce international law.
Although President Trump is criticised when he wants good relationship with Russia (although, who can be against a good USA-Russian relationship if possible?), he also tried to convince Russia's president to stop his support of a murderous regime although he failed. But then, everyone failed to convince President Putin because mostly he backs wrong regimes to increase Russia's influence.
Now, after all Europe's criticism and often by civil rights groups, he's doing what he threatened to do: remove the US army from all the places where they are located so people are no longer protected against their leaders but also can no longer condemn when the USA makes mistakes. Indeed, during wars innocent people can die because of mistakes or because of fighting between opposing groups while I'm confident the US army tried to limit casualties as much as possible to keep its good image. However, when soldiers misbehave than that should not be accepted so soldiers know they should respect people wherever they are stationed. And, while Europeans condemned a president because he wants to build a wall to prevent people enter the USA, a sophisticated wire wall including night vision and body heat detectors will protect Europe from refugees.
At the same time, politicians and no longer only from extreme right, say we need an Australian-like migrant system, a system criticised by many human right organisations. And that means and thus already exist: refugees in Greece are located throughout Europe, something that doesn't seem to be very successful. But, such a system can't apply for refugees as they flee dead.
During the last election people voted for PM Mitsotakis, i.e. son of a previous PM Mitsotakis, and preferred by the EU as it can now expect again old politics. For whatever reason, European politicians seem to hate Greek politicians of the left, even when they fought against Hitler but were later punished with the installment of a rightwing military dictatorship to keep communism out of Greece.
Greece still begs for help from the EU as it it seems it received almost none, including food so refugees steal from locals who become angry, not only against the refugees but also against those who help them, and thus riot police are sent in to control the Greek. And then the camps didn't face a Coronavirus outbreak yet while Doctors Without Borders ask Europe to draw up an action plan such as already providing sufficient clean water and soap but also a varied diet so people are strong to withstand a possible epidemic plus also a relocation throughout Europe so they are not densely packed in a small area. In the meanwhile Golden Dawn is rising.
Now the EU praises Greece to defend the outside border of the EU and help may be sent to keep EU's borders closed. I think that, while the EU didn't manage to form its own army and this outside the NATO (as if the USA is the enemy) to have for example coordinated actions to protect the Syrians, it may now succeed "to help its ally Greece" and keep Europe's borders closed. It shows the EU doesn't need its own army when it is not to defend the suppressed because than it is better individual countries act together with the USA. As a result, we start to see openly aggression against refugees to warn them to keep away while other Greeks protest against the EU's refugee policies that equals silence or even praises violence used to stop refugees.
After nearly 40 Turkish soldiers died in a Syrian strike, the Turkish President Erdogan decided to open its borders with the EU in Greece so the migration towards the EU restarted. The EU is furious because, not only did the EU almost nothing against Assad while it paid Turkey to keep refugees outside its borders so its own borders are closed, now the EU has to show the refugees and the rest of the world that it will actively block refugees and if needed will use its armies to stop them. And thus, extreme right doesn't need to rise as political parties are now promoting the same tactics as extreme right would use.
Thus, because the EU refuses to do anything in Syria, the EU has to be careful or it will be seen as the bad continent by refugees but also by a large section of its own people when riot police need to fight against its own people. Than the EU will no longer be able to lecture any other state about how they should treat refugees and migrants.
On the other hand, Turkey can be seen as looking after refugees within its borders and sacrificing its own soldiers to try to protect the Syrians against their own president, for whatever bad reasons this may be according the EU.
Concerning Russia, yes Assad may win so Russia keeps one ally, i.e. Assad and its regime. But many people see Russia for what it is: a country that keeps mass murderers in power. In case Assad wins the EU may even decide the war is over and Syria's refugees can return to Assad's Syria. Indeed, Russia and Syria were already visited by Europe's extreme right to discuss what to do after the war while certain sections of the left may not mind as they side with Assad because their hate for President Trump blinds them. And thus, politicians from what we call established parties should be careful or they too may send Syrians back to their president. Indeed, do nothing to stop dictators and protect their victims and you end up doing policies as those you despise. And thus, while indeed many people throughout Europe say they have to liberate themselves from an evil Europe that may rise a last time, it is because many of those people are the bad ones whose example others don't need to follow.
To prevent the rise of extreme right as extremism and nationalism are no solution, Europe sometimes have to take responsibility by protecting people in other countries against their own leaders. Than Europe can show leadership and be an example for the world. That includes social help such as providing medical care and education and that is already done but can also include the use of its army to protect people, including Germany's army, certainly when it wants to continue its leading position in Europe and thus should no longer be allowed to escape responsibility to help others because it shouldn't have an army as a result of WWI and WWII. On the contrary, it should above all other countries understand what it is when a dictator forces people to use people traffickers to escape death by becoming refugees in other countries who gave protection. Indeed, many Americans (but also British) are fed up that Europe condemns them from interfering in countries while Europe is not very willing to help others. That doesn't mean start wars but can include to host refugees or protect them by imposing no-fly zone as was done above northern Iraq to protect Kurds from Hussein. And no, I'm not a hawk who likes war, on the contrary, the reason why I write Europe should have a well equipped professional army that knows what it does.
How doing nothing to help people ironically results in the rise of extreme rights or politicians from established parties who start to implement as solution the policies of extreme right to keep people who leave everything they have behind when they try to escape the horrors in their country to find them again in the continent they thought would protect them. Indeed, people traffickers may earn money on the misery of people who try to escape the horrors they may create, still a propaganda to condemn every people trafficker as wrong is not correct because many are sincere as they want to help people to try to escape violence. And thus now an army is needed to close Europe's borders and hurt refugees so they too become angry with us. Therefore it may be better to use an army to protect people so they respect us. For that we need a good professional army with dedicated soldiers while other people can do what they are good in to do such as being a healthcare professional or teacher. And when people arrive, I agree that they need to be educated that they come here for their protection because people can be who they are, including equal rights for women, LGBTs, people with other religions. And to prevent too many may arrive as that may indeed reverse many achievements, we need to make sure people don't need to come here because we protect them in their country. Unfortunately but we can't choose the time in which we live and have to react according what comes.
USA
Of course, President Trump is sneered at, always an easy target. This article suggests that under another president the USA may treat the Syrian war differently while President Obama proved this may not be. Indeed, President Obama should have acted against Assad after he warned him against using again chemical weapons to kill his own people, something forbidden by international law. But I understand why he didn't act as no European country wanted to help. If we had done something Russia may never have been involved and the situation less severe.President Trump acted twice, in April 2017 and again in April 2018 together with France and the UK, after more chemical attacks by Assad. These were correct actions that should have been much stronger to destroy all of Assad's airports and weapon production sides. The USA also fought against ISIS, I think an elite division of Assad's army to convince us that Assad is not too bad.
I've never considered President Trump as a real isolationist but more as someone who would intervene if necessary to protect his own people and others if they too are willing to contribute.
Further, when a mad leader attacks its own people than sovereignty no longer applies to that ruler and other countries should protect the citizens, preferably with UN backing and this to enforce international law.
Although President Trump is criticised when he wants good relationship with Russia (although, who can be against a good USA-Russian relationship if possible?), he also tried to convince Russia's president to stop his support of a murderous regime although he failed. But then, everyone failed to convince President Putin because mostly he backs wrong regimes to increase Russia's influence.
Now, after all Europe's criticism and often by civil rights groups, he's doing what he threatened to do: remove the US army from all the places where they are located so people are no longer protected against their leaders but also can no longer condemn when the USA makes mistakes. Indeed, during wars innocent people can die because of mistakes or because of fighting between opposing groups while I'm confident the US army tried to limit casualties as much as possible to keep its good image. However, when soldiers misbehave than that should not be accepted so soldiers know they should respect people wherever they are stationed. And, while Europeans condemned a president because he wants to build a wall to prevent people enter the USA, a sophisticated wire wall including night vision and body heat detectors will protect Europe from refugees.
At the same time, politicians and no longer only from extreme right, say we need an Australian-like migrant system, a system criticised by many human right organisations. And that means and thus already exist: refugees in Greece are located throughout Europe, something that doesn't seem to be very successful. But, such a system can't apply for refugees as they flee dead.
Greece
Greek needed help after the financial crisis but money given had to be repaid with interest while austerity was forced upon Greece. The result was worse education and healthcare with more unemployment while it could have been handled differently and as Europe would have done in the past. Still, people didn't vote massively for the extreme right Gordon Dawn but instead for PM Tsipras and his party but unwanted by Europe. He had to deal with austerity and a refugee crisis and begged the EU for more help.During the last election people voted for PM Mitsotakis, i.e. son of a previous PM Mitsotakis, and preferred by the EU as it can now expect again old politics. For whatever reason, European politicians seem to hate Greek politicians of the left, even when they fought against Hitler but were later punished with the installment of a rightwing military dictatorship to keep communism out of Greece.
Greece still begs for help from the EU as it it seems it received almost none, including food so refugees steal from locals who become angry, not only against the refugees but also against those who help them, and thus riot police are sent in to control the Greek. And then the camps didn't face a Coronavirus outbreak yet while Doctors Without Borders ask Europe to draw up an action plan such as already providing sufficient clean water and soap but also a varied diet so people are strong to withstand a possible epidemic plus also a relocation throughout Europe so they are not densely packed in a small area. In the meanwhile Golden Dawn is rising.
Now the EU praises Greece to defend the outside border of the EU and help may be sent to keep EU's borders closed. I think that, while the EU didn't manage to form its own army and this outside the NATO (as if the USA is the enemy) to have for example coordinated actions to protect the Syrians, it may now succeed "to help its ally Greece" and keep Europe's borders closed. It shows the EU doesn't need its own army when it is not to defend the suppressed because than it is better individual countries act together with the USA. As a result, we start to see openly aggression against refugees to warn them to keep away while other Greeks protest against the EU's refugee policies that equals silence or even praises violence used to stop refugees.
Turkey
In a EU-Turkey deal, Turkey accepted to stop millions of Syrians within Turkey in exchange for billions of euros so they stay outside Europe. However, while Turkey spoke about the creation of safe zones in Syria in which Syrians are protected so they don't need to leave Syria. After Turkey repeated it would protect Syrians from their president, the EU criticised Turkey for what it does in Syria instead (as I wrote before) of helping to install those safe zones.After nearly 40 Turkish soldiers died in a Syrian strike, the Turkish President Erdogan decided to open its borders with the EU in Greece so the migration towards the EU restarted. The EU is furious because, not only did the EU almost nothing against Assad while it paid Turkey to keep refugees outside its borders so its own borders are closed, now the EU has to show the refugees and the rest of the world that it will actively block refugees and if needed will use its armies to stop them. And thus, extreme right doesn't need to rise as political parties are now promoting the same tactics as extreme right would use.
Thus, because the EU refuses to do anything in Syria, the EU has to be careful or it will be seen as the bad continent by refugees but also by a large section of its own people when riot police need to fight against its own people. Than the EU will no longer be able to lecture any other state about how they should treat refugees and migrants.
On the other hand, Turkey can be seen as looking after refugees within its borders and sacrificing its own soldiers to try to protect the Syrians against their own president, for whatever bad reasons this may be according the EU.
Russia
Now Turkey and Russia reach an agreement about safe zones for which Turkey is criticised by the EU. But, if the fighting ends, fewer refugees will need to go to Turkey and from their to Europe.Concerning Russia, yes Assad may win so Russia keeps one ally, i.e. Assad and its regime. But many people see Russia for what it is: a country that keeps mass murderers in power. In case Assad wins the EU may even decide the war is over and Syria's refugees can return to Assad's Syria. Indeed, Russia and Syria were already visited by Europe's extreme right to discuss what to do after the war while certain sections of the left may not mind as they side with Assad because their hate for President Trump blinds them. And thus, politicians from what we call established parties should be careful or they too may send Syrians back to their president. Indeed, do nothing to stop dictators and protect their victims and you end up doing policies as those you despise. And thus, while indeed many people throughout Europe say they have to liberate themselves from an evil Europe that may rise a last time, it is because many of those people are the bad ones whose example others don't need to follow.
UN
But it also shows that the UN needs urgent reforms because currently it is quite powerless to help the oppressed. Not a reform as proposed by some by adding countries to the UN Council so more countries can veto necessary actions but instead by removing any veto right while grant a number of votes according the importance of the country and its willingness to pay although good behaviour can result in a number of extras votes. This way certainly Russia becomes less important and can no longer block actions against criminal regimes as it mostly seems to do. This way a majority of votes is needed to act or prevent action but with the aim that international laws are enforced. Of course, sometimes individual countries may decide to act and according the conscience of the people in a certain country when no majority can be reached to act, just as happens today.In conclusion
How can we continue to watch the atrocity in Syria and other regions? Europe never minded to sacrifice its people to conquer the world. Thus, it should also be prepared to help others who ask for our help. That includes having a well equipped army so few soldiers are needed. Or pay its contributions to an alliance to which it belongs and on which it relies for its protection - President Trump acts while previous US presidents also complained that the EU didn't pay its promised part of the NATO contribution and thus Europe hates it when they are forced to pay. Otherwise and as seems to be happening, the EU ends up without friends while internally nationalism returns although this may still unite countries to keep refugees outside its borders. And, maybe a country that is leaving may agree to remain on condition it can lead the EU to protect its Europe borders. |
| A campaign with the message: how can we continue to watch the atrocities in Syria when we know even schools and hospitals are bombed, something against the Conventions of Geneva. Why does the UN so little to defend its international laws? |
To prevent the rise of extreme right as extremism and nationalism are no solution, Europe sometimes have to take responsibility by protecting people in other countries against their own leaders. Than Europe can show leadership and be an example for the world. That includes social help such as providing medical care and education and that is already done but can also include the use of its army to protect people, including Germany's army, certainly when it wants to continue its leading position in Europe and thus should no longer be allowed to escape responsibility to help others because it shouldn't have an army as a result of WWI and WWII. On the contrary, it should above all other countries understand what it is when a dictator forces people to use people traffickers to escape death by becoming refugees in other countries who gave protection. Indeed, many Americans (but also British) are fed up that Europe condemns them from interfering in countries while Europe is not very willing to help others. That doesn't mean start wars but can include to host refugees or protect them by imposing no-fly zone as was done above northern Iraq to protect Kurds from Hussein. And no, I'm not a hawk who likes war, on the contrary, the reason why I write Europe should have a well equipped professional army that knows what it does.
How doing nothing to help people ironically results in the rise of extreme rights or politicians from established parties who start to implement as solution the policies of extreme right to keep people who leave everything they have behind when they try to escape the horrors in their country to find them again in the continent they thought would protect them. Indeed, people traffickers may earn money on the misery of people who try to escape the horrors they may create, still a propaganda to condemn every people trafficker as wrong is not correct because many are sincere as they want to help people to try to escape violence. And thus now an army is needed to close Europe's borders and hurt refugees so they too become angry with us. Therefore it may be better to use an army to protect people so they respect us. For that we need a good professional army with dedicated soldiers while other people can do what they are good in to do such as being a healthcare professional or teacher. And when people arrive, I agree that they need to be educated that they come here for their protection because people can be who they are, including equal rights for women, LGBTs, people with other religions. And to prevent too many may arrive as that may indeed reverse many achievements, we need to make sure people don't need to come here because we protect them in their country. Unfortunately but we can't choose the time in which we live and have to react according what comes.
Comments