UN Urges Western Countries to Open their Borders to Syrian Refugees

A call for Western countries to open their borders to Syrian refugees after Syria’s neighbors have closed their borders has sparked backlash from the United States’ Congress. Big surprise, huh?

The United States is scheduled to take up to 2,000 refugees by this fall and the vague statement of “many more in the future.” In contrast, Canada has pledged to take in 11,000; Germany, 30,000. In all, the United Nations is seeking shelter for 130,000 refugees (of the approximately four million who have been displaced)–and the numbers keep growing as the conflict escalates.

Republicans in Congress claim that refugees are a threat to national security because there is a chance that, due to a lack of intelligence in Syria, terrorists from the region may enter American borders unnoticed. For this reason, they have urged the Obama administration to “go slow” to make sure all refugees are properly screened to prevent a terrorist infiltration.

However, this is unrealistic. We do not currently have the capabilities to monitor all asylum-seekers to ensure they are not terrorists, nor is this something that can really be slowed down more than it has been. Currently, background checks can take up to a year. For the four million people who are without homes right now, that’s too long. Their safety is in danger and they are literally fleeing for their lives.

And we’re not going to let them in because a few terrorists *might* be in there with them.

This is the problem with America today. We are too afraid of the “maybes” to worry about the things that really matter. Men, women, children, and the elderly do not have shelter. They do not have much food. They are in danger every extra day that they spend in refugee camps. But because the United States is so concerned about itself and the possibility of terrorists getting in, it’s going to let people who need our help die. This is the opposite of what the United States has promised overseas. If we actually cared about the well-being of the people in the Middle East, we would let them in.

Why not open it up to the voters? I do not think that Congress actually represents what Americans want anymore. I do not think, after studying history, that many Americans would be opposed to helping people in crisis. This is the exact same thing we did to the Jews when they attempted to find refuge in the United States during World War Two, and what we did to southeastern Asians during the Vietnam War.

It has already been written in the textbooks that the United States turns away people in crisis. “Oh, we could’ve done something about that” doesn’t mean anything if you continue to not do something about it. I do not want to be a part of a country that cannot learn from its history and that does not truly care for the people overseas that it claims to care about.

The Educational Outlook in the Middle East

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/18090-un-12m-children-are-out-of-school-in-the-middle-east

According to a recent report by UNICEF, 15 million school-age children are currently out of school in the Middle East. Besides the 3 million of them accounted for because of the conflict in Iraq and Syria, the remaining 12 million do not attend school primarily for financial reasons. Many Middle Eastern families are impoverished and cannot afford the cost of tuition, books, and uniforms that will allow their children to attend school. If children are able to go to school, many drop out before reaching the secondary level so they can work to provide for their families. For impoverished children, who constitute approximately 15% of all school-age children in the Middle East, education is simply not feasible.

This is an inherent flaw in the Middle East, and one that is going to cause it to fall behind the rest of the world. While many of the governments are putting funding into international trade interests and oil companies, they fail to invest in programs that will help their domestic interests. Health care, infrastructure, job creation, and education programs are all faltering in the Middle East as the result of  prioritizing the needs of the rest of the world and not the needs of its citizens. The only way that the Middle East is going to get out of its rut is by diversifying its industry, which starts with educating its children.

Right now, many Middle Eastern countries–particularly those in the Persian Gulf–do not tax their citizens. But if they start taking the financial reserves earned by oil and investing it in education and job creation now, by the time today’s children are ready to join the educated workforce, they will be more willing to pay taxes to keep the education system going. This is how Middle Eastern countries can transition from rentier to tax-paying economies, and improve their education and job creation programs and their overall quality of life. But it will only work if counties are willing to invest in themselves for the future, instead of for the now.

‘The Daily Show’ Uses March Madness Bracket to Outline Middle Eastern Conflict

Link to video: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xu0tha/constant-intractable-madness
Screenshot found at 3:55 mins.

Although the screen shot above may be hard to read, it’s not hard to see what it is. That’s right, major political players in the Middle East (as well as sharks, Matt Damon, Bollywood, and others) have now been reduced to a March Madness bracket, with the USA in the middle ready to fight whatever forces it comes up against. Who wins it all? According to ‘Daily Show’ Senior Correspondent to the Middle East Bassem Youssef, it will be the military contractors and arms manufacturers, because as long as people are fighting, they’ll be making money.

While this may all seem very light-hearted, the men have a point. There will be some clear winners in the region, as well as some clear losers. In most cases, though, it is uncertain who will come out ahead, as is the case between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels there.

And, even though it was posed as a joke in the clip, I think it’s very apparent that the arms contractors and manufacturers are going to come out on top. Everyone in the region needs weapons to promote their international interests, but if they are spending all of their money on weapons and not the resources needed to promote domestic interests (such as education, job creation, and health care), they will not be able to maintain themselves regardless of how many fights they win. As we learned in class, these strong domestic policy is imperative for financial gain and political, economic, and social stability, and decreases the threat of radicalization in the region.

The Changing Face of the Middle East

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/06/ozy-middle-east-conflict/25354585/

A recent article in USA Today has outlined the major players in the Middle East and argues that there are five dimensions involved in the fighting: “Arabs vs. Persians, terrorists vs. regimes, terrorists vs. each other, Sunnis vs. Shias, democracy vs. authoritarian” are all at odds with each other, ensuring that the conflict in the Middle East is not nearly as black and white as widely believed. In fact, the conflict can be compared with the 30 Years’ War of the 17th century, which resulted in the drawing of the current European borders after thirty years of conflict regarding religious, social, political, and ethnic differences.

Similarly, the European colonial period in the Middle East resulted in the crude drawing of borders in the region, but not in accordance with ethnic and religious dispersion; rather, the borders reflected European interests there. The result? Ethnic tension that has been boiling for 100 years, since the end of World War One.

What does this mean for the rest of the world? The article posits that the United States will not be able to exert nearly as much power over the region as it does today. The consistent fighting supported by the US has made it difficult to convince opponents in the Middle East to establish diplomatic relations with the US, as such efforts have resulted historically in a military intervention. Instead, the US is now being pushed into alliances that did not seem possible in the past–such as the current alliance with Iran–to confront a common enemy: in this case, ISIS.

However, all hope is not lost. I think that the article is relatively pessimistic in stating that the chance for diplomacy has come and gone. I think that diplomacy is still the best option for the US to undertake as policy in the region, but it must do so quickly, while alliances are still being formed against a common enemy or enemies. Should the United States wait too long, however, those alliances may fall apart as tensions rise and extremist groups gain influence and control in the region. Therefore, it is important for the United States to consider alternative means of establishing stability in the region besides sending troops (which will only increase tensions) because there is still time to regain control of the Middle East before it falls completely apart.

The United States Needs to Find a Better Way to Deal with Threats to Christianity in the Middle East

http://www.newsweek.com/what-us-can-do-help-christians-middle-east-319643

Increased threats to Christians in the Middle East are now beginning to affect the rest of the region. Extremist groups in the region that target Christians as well as other religious, ethnic, and minority groups, have led to an increase in factors that are pushing people, especially Christians, out of the region. The article outlines the possible negative outcomes of these factors, including a reduction in “pluralism, tolerance and the ability of the region’s people to live interlinked with the rest of the world.” Additionally, the article claims that any stability and prosperity that currently exists in the region may decline further as Christians leave and extremism continues to grow.

The main concern among the Christian community, and that which affects extremist groups the most, is that the United States, through insensitive policy, appears to be running a crusade that sides with the Christians because of their traditionally Western demeanor, rather than focusing on other groups in the Middle East that also need support. The article provides ten recommendations to reduce these tensions before it is too late for US policymakers to hold any influence regarding the conflict. They include increasing and promoting policy concerning religious freedom for all groups; building networks between governments and NGOs to implement policy to protect targeted groups; use diplomacy to improve conditions in the region; consider different approaches to visa policy regarding Christians trying to leave the region; expand economic development in the region; invest in education; use military force with caution to avoid further conflict; and work with international groups to promote religious freedom.

These are some serious recommendations the United States should consider. Currently, the use of too much military force and too little diplomatic agreements are hurting the country’s influence in the Middle East. Instead of working on implementing programs and laws that would decrease racial, social, and religious tension there, the United States is adding to the chaos by bombing targets that involve civilians and further angering the already extreme groups. Additionally, if the United States continues to simply worry about the Christian population in the region, they will lose the much-needed support from the majority-Muslim countries in the region that will help them to implement international policy and fight extremist groups. For these reasons, it is prudent of the United States to consider a different policy concerning the conflict in the Middle East.

Women Now Allowed at (Certain) Sporting Events in Iran

A ban that prohibited women from attending sporting events in Iran has been lifted. The announcement comes soon after guidelines for an international nuclear deal between Iran and the United States were created.

Iran has faced international criticism and internal women’s rights protests in the past for its unfair treatment of women. Both pressures have influenced the country to lift the bans on women in sports arenas, although women will still be banned from attending “masculine” sports like wrestling and swimming, and will likely “be assigned to special sections in the stadiums.”

This is a huge accomplishment in the way of women’s rights in the conservatively Islamic country. Iran has traditionally segregated itself between men and women, but the new policy may be the first step to decreasing that divide.

Additionally, the policy will give Iran more international opportunities. Because of the sports ban, Iran was denied the opportunity to host the Asian Cup in 2019. Now that the ban has been lifted, Iran may soon be a big name in international sports. Economically and politically, this is an advantage for the country that will hopefully be reached in the future.

Iranian Nuclear Deal Not All That Clear

The recent deal between Iran, the United States, and major EU players has led to a compromise that would lift international sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran’s agreement to reduce its nuclear capabilities. These provisions will help the US and the EU by omitting the nuclear threat from Iran, and the lifting of international sanctions in Iran (which mainly include impositions on banking and trade) will help the country economically.

However, the statements given by the United States and Iran do not match up. There seems to be some disagreement on when the sanctions will be lifted and new conditions on Iran’s nuclear power imposed. The two countries plan to come to an official agreement at the end of June, but in the meantime there are some major discrepancies between the expectations of the countries.

For one, America announced that Iran agreed to limit its Uranium stockpile to 300 Kg, something the Iranians did not acknowledge in their statement. Additionally, Iran plans to terminate sanctions completely and immediately, rather than just suspend them on a gradual basis, as is the goal of the US and EU. Iran also mentioned that cooperation in nuclear power between Iran and the EU will increase, with the EU helping to build nuclear power plants and fund nuclear and medical research.

The United States has banned Iran from using its uranium centrifuges for ten years, and after that ten years Iran will only be able to maintain limited production of the chemical. However, Iran has excluded the word “limited” in its statement.

These discrepancies can lead to problems down the road. Even though American negotiators have announced that all guidelines for the agreement were mutual during the discussion with Iranian officials, the different statements may lead to difficult relations in June when the countries begin the true negotiations. According to come American officials, the differing statements may give Iran the room they need to fight for the provisions they want: namely, an immediate withdrawal of international sanctions and the full use of their nuclear capabilities after ten years.

If this indeed happens, there will be outrage in Congress, which has already expressed its concern with the deal. If the deal is not done in accordance with the parameters the United States plans to use, Congress may split more than it already has and Obama may lose what little support he still has. What that would mean is a long and hard last year in office for the president and a relatively ineffective government in the United States in the face of increasing international conflict.

France Wants to Restore the Israeli and Palestinian States to their 1967 Borders

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/france_takes_the_lead_on_the_middle_east.html

France is increasingly involved in Middle Eastern conflict, and that might not soon change. Beginning late last year, France began developing parameters that would define the Israeli and Palestinian borders and restore them to their 1967 locations.

The United States has taken an ambiguous position on the Two-State System. Although it has outwardly encouraged a deal between the two counties and pushed for peace in the region, it has not done much in the way of implementing policy that would achieve that goal. In fact, just in December, the United States “voted against a resolution drafted by the Palestinian Authority that called for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of 2017.”

France, on the other hand, has called for negotiations between Israel and Palestine under the supervision of the UN and other international players. The resolution, if successful, will create two “democratic, and prosperous states” with the same borders that were in place in 1967 (see above). Other provisions include a demilitarization of the Palestinian State, gradual withdrawal of Israeli military forces, and a terrorism-prevention program.

In addition to these plans, France has also been active in protecting targeted religious and ethnic groups, such as the Assyrians and the Yazidis, from extremist groups in the region. The county hopes to establish safe zones for these minorities in Iraq and Syria to lessen their plight and reduce the influence of terrorist groups in the area.

It is very important that France is taking steps to prevent conflict in the Middle East. When so many other international players are involved in the region due to political and economic interests, France seems interested in helping conflict for more humanitarian reasons–such as reducing conflict that affects Israeli and Palestinian civilians and protecting those ethnic groups which are targeted by other conflict. If other countries, including the United States, were willing to follow France’s example and encourage more stable and open international relations and diplomacy in the Middle East, perhaps the region could see a turnaround in its high conflict levels.

Iranians Speak Out against American-borne Sanctions

In this interactive article, the faces of Iranians are shown beside a quote of their opinion on internationally-imposed sanctions. Overwhelmingly, Iranians are struggling to survive in a country where sanctions prevent them from obtaining American dollars–a necessary means of staying relevant in the global economy in terms of technology, medicine, banking, education, travel, employment, and rent payments.

The sanctions will hopefully be lifted by the end of this month, per a nuclear deal between Iran and the United States. But with time running out, Iranians are becoming anxious. In the words of one interviewee: “My dream is for all of this to end.”

Chart Explains the Political Relationships of the Middle East

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/the-confused-persons-guide-to-middle-east-conflicts/388883/

A chart was recently developed on the political relations between states involved in the Middle East. The chart works both forward and backward; that is, if you want to see who the United States is friendly with in the region, you can start at the United States and follow the solid lines to see who we are matched with. Alternatively, if you want to see who is friends with IS (hint: only Saudi Arabia is), you can start at IS and follow the solid lines to see which countries are allied with them.

Though the chart is seemingly complicated (so complicated, in fact, that the article suggests the use of 3-D glasses to view it), it begins to make sense when one considers the “geopolitical interests, partnerships, and conflicts” that currently exist in the region. For example, it is logical that the Kurds are foes with Iraq, Syria, and ISIS, because all three have historically stood in the way of the Kurds establishing their own country.

Overall, the chart not only provides an accurate portrayal of conflict in the region, but is also a visual representation of how complicated the Middle East may appear to a confused onlooker, when in fact the relationships are not that complicated at all.