Links: A. Europe faces a flood of sea-bound illegal immigrants.
B. France's NF calls for an end to allowing migrants entry.
In the last few weeks, calm seas have resulted in thousands of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea, hoping to reach Europe and a brighter future. I can't blame these folks; I would probably being taking the same action if I were in their shoes. It's not a difficult issue to understand. People in north and sub-Saharan Africa, who struggle to feed their families and have no real hope of bettering their lives, will spend whatever meager amount of money they can raise to try and hire a smuggler to find a place on a boat that will sail in the direction of Europe. One difference between the illegal immigration in this part of the world and the problem on the U.S./Mexico border: persons attempting illegal entry into the southern United States (mostly from Mexico and Central America) usually don't bring their families. They settle in, find a job, and send for their families later (ideally), who then repeat the process as a group. Border Patrol officers on the U.S./Mexico border normally encounter adult males, between the ages of sixteen and fifty, who are attempting illegal entry. Certainly families will attempt to cross together on occasion, but usually the male bread winner will come first. For most persons attempting the crossing of the Mediterranean, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; therefore a much higher percentage of families will attempt the crossing together. This detail increases the number of children and elderly who are at risk, and ultimately, become casualties.
The various Republics that constitute the European Union (EU) in 2015 (and those who cling to the periphery, like the UK and Norway), have elbowed and bruised each other to see who can be the most "progressive" and "liberal". This has resulted in a number of positive developments, especially in the area of minority rights. A serious movement exists to guarantee women equal pay for equal work, and the gay community has been granted certain protections that combat homophobia not only in the workplace but in public environments as well. The move to appear more progressive has really focused on the social issues of each respective nation. Certainly Germany, Italy, Austria, France, and others have taken steps to strengthen the so-called "social safety net" of unemployment, disability, paternity leave, gay-partner benefits, and other concerns. Its almost as if one day the EU decided that it had reached a level of maturity and wealth that obligated its member countries to leave no person without lodging, food, clothing, medicine, and a certain degree of comfort. This is a very worthy goal, but a bit too utopian for my reality. Not every EU member state is drowning in wealth. In fact, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain threaten to scuttle the entire EU scheme in debt sometime within the next decade. Sadly enough, these four countries have each been forced to deal with the ever-increasing issue of seaborne illegal-migrant traffic (in this instance, Europeans use the word "migrant" instead of "immigrant"). Part of the EU's effort to deny no person basic human rights was the decision to not repatriate these sea-borne migrants who come by the hundreds of thousands every year (except in the case of terrorists or murderers....good luck checking everyone). Once these refugees from Niger, Libya, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Congo, etc., either land or are intercepted at sea (lets not reflect too long on the poor souls who never make it to this point....its too heartbreaking for me to consider), they are distributed to various immigrant processing locations. Just because a boatload of migrants was intercepted in Italian waters does not guarantee that they will become wards of the Italian state. They may end up in Austria, or Denmark. But wherever they end up, one fact is guaranteed: they are the responsibility of the state, i.e. the taxpayers of whatever country we are dealing with. Some nations, including France and Austria, have been very proactive in creating education and employment training programs for the migrants. Ideally, the new arrivals will soon become productive, job-holding, tax-paying members of society. Sadly, it just doesn't happen that way; at least not often enough.
Recently I saw an interview with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front political party and possibly the front runner for the presidency in 2017. I can't say that I agree with everything this lady has to say, but I give her credit for being intelligent, clear and to-the-point. As is highlighted in the second link above, Le Pen points out that the longer the EU states continue the policy of guaranteed legal residency for all persons who manage to float a dinghy in the direction of Europe, then the number of migrants will continue to increase. Soon the numbers will become unsupportable. If residency is no longer a guarantee, and persons who attempt an illegal entry by sea are treated in the same manner as those who attempt an illegal entry by land (repatriation), then people will stop risking their lives and their meager savings in this effort. Look, its normal for decent folks to have sympathy for persons who are trapped in the third world and have little hope for the future. But there are other avenues to help that do not involve drowning your own country and crippling the future of your children and grandchildren. Europe is not financially able to support a third of the population of Africa. In fact, the more I look at Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy, the more concerned I become regarding the EU's ability to support itself.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Saturday, May 2, 2015
What can we expect if Bashir al-Assad is forced to abandon Damascus?
Links: A. Assad forces losing more ground in Syria.
B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.
Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib. Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side. Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country. The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control. The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.
Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda. I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one. In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter). Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets. I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature. Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units. In a nutshell, Its all against one.
If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected? Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS. As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates. No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days. The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship? He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left.
Who picks up the pieces? Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah? Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State? Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army. As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills. I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all. While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.
B. Assad's weaknesses being exploited.
Everyday the headlines bring news of more territory lost to pro-government forces, as the hodge-podge of various anti-Assad groups push closer and closer to Damascus. In recent weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), a well-organized group that many identify as Al-Qaeda's proxy in the Syrian conflict, has taken the lead, and delivered a string of defeats to the regular Syrian Army near the northwest town of Idlib. Syria's second-largest city of Aleppo, which is just north of Idlib, presently is not controlled by either side. Within the last year, regime forces have suffered losses in every corner of the country. The Iraqi border area is controlled by the Islamic State, while the northeast border with Turkey appears to be under mostly Kurdish control. The Jordanian border area in the southwest has seen a successful push by Jabhat al-Nusrah as of late, with the regime no longer able to claim control of any of the towns.
Although I have argued on numerous occasions that the IS, JN, and the Khorosan group were basically separate digits connected to the same hand, the hand of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda. I have always based my opinion on the strong historic links between all the groups and Al-Qaeda, and the usefulness of having the enemy imagine ten separate opponents on the battlefield as opposed to one. In truth, I'm sure these groups do have certain issues of ideology or ceremony that aren't the same, but at the end of the day, they share they same basic goal: creating an Islamic Extremist state in Syria (and the entire Levant, for that matter). Interestingly enough, now that the Kurds have solidified their defensive positions in the north eastern border region, all of these groups can focus exclusively on regime military targets. I would imagine that if they truly were opposed to each other, then we would eventually see some sign of conflict; it's human nature. Even the nebulous "Free Syrian Army", equipped and trained by the United States, appears to be focused on Syrian military units. In a nutshell, Its all against one.
If the regime is unable to respond effectively, what can be expected? Right now, Assad's control basically is limited to everything west of the Anti-Lebanon Mountain Range, which includes the entire Mediterranean coast, and the area around Damascus, although the Yarmouk refugee camp just outside Damascus has apparently been co-opted by the IS. As difficult as it is to imagine, Assad controls roughly one-eighth of Syria, the enemy is collecting at the gates. No doubt, when it becomes necessary, Assad and his family will be able to find asylum in Iran, Oman, or some friendly country, and plenty of money has been squirrelled away in various banks to keep him and his henchmen living comfortably for the remainder of their days. The question is, will Assad recognize the moment, when the time has come to abandon ship? He has shown a great deal of determination in the past, and he has stayed in Damascus when many others would have left.
Who picks up the pieces? Will it be Jabhat al-Nusrah? Or possibly Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State? Don't put your hopes on the Free Syrian Army. As soon as the U.S. money goes away, these guys will disappear into the hills. I believe that the Islamic State will take charge, and the experts will begin to consider that maybe these groups weren't so far apart after all. While the IS solidifies its position, maybe Angela Merkel and President Obama and convene a summit to enact sanctions. One thing is certain; whatever military resources that will be made available because of the end of hostilities in Syria, will quickly make their way to the battlefields of Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)