The heart warming lady-like foreign policy of Angela Merkel

German chancellor Angela Merkel has been widely criticized for her policy accepting approximately one million refugees in 2015 alone. (1) Groups such as the right wing Pegida group, discussed in detail in "Like a Poison: How anti-immigrant Pegida is diving Dresden,” criticize Merkel’s policy as allowing “suicide bombers and economic freeloaders” to come pouring in.(2) Many of the critiques of Merkel and much of the support she has generated is highly gendered and uses slogans such as “open your hearts” and “the dignity of humans in sacrosanct.” She was also portrayed as extremely “weak” or, really just reacting to natural human emotions, when she pat a crying 14 year old girl refugee on the shoulder during a public forum called “Living Well in Germany.”(3) After this incident, twitter exploded with strange criticism about how Merkel comforted this teenager as if she were a kitten, with the hashtag #MerkelStreichelt. She is often critiqued as weak on traditional foreign policy and the exposure of her citizens to unnecessary risk. It's important to analyze the effects of this language and what it actually means to adopt a feminist foreign policy. Has Merkel adopted a feminist foreign and domestic policy? What does this mean for global female leadership? What does it mean for male leaders who begin to adopt a less "traditional" and more "feminized" foreign policy?

Firstly, we should examine why Merkel has made the decision to accept the greatest number of refugees out of the European Union. Was this merely an act of charity exposing Merkel's soft, sensitive, "woman" side? I would argue absolutely not. In fact, I would argue that, while the West does have several women in head of state positions, it is a rare occurrence where these women are elected because of how "feminine" they are. I would even argue that Merkel and Hillary Clinton have both gotten to their levels of influence in Western political spheres because they learned to play the game like men, or they have adopted masculinized policies. Clinton has been notorious for her “strong" stance on foreign policy. Merkel has had generally conservative economic and social policies including equal pay and family leave. (4)

The reasons Merkel is really supporting this "mass migration" (if it can even be called mass in comparison to other countries taking in many more people per population, such as Hungary) is because the German economy desperately needs this mass workforce in order to continue being a large exporter in machinery, vehicles, chemicals, and household equipment. Germany benefits from a highly skilled labor force. Take a look at the German population pyramid below. (5)

Elderly people are living longer and younger couples are having fewer children-- a problem seen in many developed countries including Japan and the United States.(6) Merkel is actually making a brilliant economic move by allowing young refugees to fill this lacking workforce and legally begin paying taxes that will support older generations.

What Pegida and most the far right-wing groups do not understand is that this is not just some peace and love for all humanity feminized foreign policy that would only be implemented by a woman weak on foreign policy with a large compassionate heart, but a economically brilliant leader who understands that incorporating new cultures into German society will never "destroy" German culture... but a lack of workers will destroy Germany's thriving economy and cause it to become a much weaker power with significantly less influence if some major changes aren't made to expand the young workforce.

Citations

(1) “Germany on course to accept one million refugees in 2015,” The Guardian, Dec. 7, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/germany-on-course-to-accept-one-million-refugees-in-2015

(2)  Kate Connolly, “Like a poison: how anti-immigrant Pegida is diving Dresden,” The Guardian. Oct. 27, 2015.  

(3)  Amy Davidson, “Merkel and the Crying Girl: Five Lessons,” The New Yorker, July 21, 2015. http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/merkel-and-the-crying-girl-five-lessons

(4)  Ulrike Helwerth. “Merkel’s failure on gender equality,” The Guardian. Sept. 29, 2009.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/22/angela-merkel-gender-equality

(5)  CIA World Factbook: Germany. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

(6) Ibid.  

Syrian Refugees: More Should Be Done

Internal violence in Syria has displaced millions of individuals including children. These people are left without a home and essentially stripped of their basic needs at no fault of their own. Thus far, the surrounding countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and North Africa have taken in a significant portion of refugees. Nearly 12.5 million Syrians are displaced, including those still in Syria, those in the countries mentioned above, and those seeking asylum in Europe.[1] While many countries have taken welcomed refugees in with open arms there are a great number more who are unwilling to host them primarily for security reasons, both national and ontological.

            While any new addition to a state is likely to cost more money, the world must act in order to help shelter individuals who have been displaced by internal turmoil. They did not ask to be displaced and should not be met with cynicism. I recognize that there are a lot of aspects a country must consider when deciding whether to admit refugees or not, I believe it is the duty of able countries to provide assistance to those who need in times of humanitarian crisis as we are seeing in Syria. That being said the EU along with the rest of the able world including the United States who generally speaking have the capabilities to provide the basic necessities for refugees should do so, currently there is not enough being done on behalf of the world community.

            I recognize that each country is different and has its own set of unique challenges that need to be accommodated. I am not advocating for the flood of Syrians into countries with no control over admittance. Rather, I am arguing that every able country, those who have the financial means, should be taking in refugees but doing so at an amount that they can handle. By this I mean an amount that they can adequately take care all the while still providing for their citizens and the country as a whole. All in all more can be done to ensure basic human rights are protected for those who need it as in the Syrian crisis.

---

[1] "Key Facts about the World’s Refugees | Pew Research Center." Accessed October 24, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/key-facts-about-the-worlds-refugees/.

REPOST OF 10/9/16

Looking at the Issue of Russia and the Ukraine is one that can get very complicated very fast. There are many sides to this complicated conflict, and the lines can get kind of blurry when examining this. This conflict begins much further back than the coup in 2014, and a lot of it has to do with Russia undermining the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Russia has constantly undermined Ukrainian sovereignty, and has gone through channels to promote pro-Russian ideology.  For example, there was a pro-western pro-EU government in the Ukraine in 2013. But all of a sudden, the officials change their minds and switched to wanting to become more attached to Russia, which leads to the Coup and revolution. Then Russia invades Crimea, and holds an election where 97% of the people agree that they want to be annexed by Russia. As we discussed in class, no group of people in the world would be able to vote 97% in favor of something, it just wouldn’t happen. Even the above linked article is a way for Russia to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.

I personally believe that this all sets a very dangerous precedent in the international community. I do not think that one group is responsible, whether it be the UN, the EU, or other groups I find them all equally responsible. A UN member state, a potential EU member was invaded by another UN member state and had land taken away. This “legitimate vote” that Russia held in Crimea, clearly had some funky math. I think that by allowing a member of the P-5 to walk all over another member state really hurts the image of the UN. By not having a backbone and enforcing the law, they send a very negative message to all nations. Basically what they are saying is that, eh we will look the other way when another nation wrongfully invades another. They did this with the US and they are doing it with Russia now. What I am saying is that by not at least trying to stop this from happening and gaining some legitimacy, they just roll over and let it happen.

Refugee Crisis in Europe

I found this week’s topic of the migrant crisis that Europe is facing very interesting and also one that the United States is having a similar issue with. While the United States has not taken on as many refugees as Europe, it is beginning to look into how it can expand accepting refugees.

Specifically, in this topic of a refugee crisis is the problem of anti-immigrant views among people in these countries. In the reading from the Guardian, by Kate Connolly, we are informed of a group that holds those views, Pegida. Pegida represents a growing percentage of the population that is frustrated from Europe accepting immigrants. “when virtually every town and community is gripped by the question of how to house its share of the refugees that have been arriving in their thousands every day, with no sign of a let-up”. These people are worried about losing their identities and also their way of life. The movement has substantially grown over the past two years, showing that this is a growing issue.

Personally, I find the rhetoric of groups such as Pegida hard to stand behind. What I find confusing about groups such as these is that they often contradict themselves when speaking in public and issuing manifestos. They say that they do not stand for hate of any kind, while they stand on stage and say they do not want Muslims because they are all terrorists.

But I do find myself sympathizing with people in these countries because they are going through something that is scary to them. People are stubborn, and often they do not accept change gracefully. When events such as this happen and threaten to shake things up in someone’s day to day operations, they go on the defensive. While I am not justifying the hate speech or acts of these groups, I do believe that people do have a right to voice their concerns. It cannot simply be said that everything will be fine, because we do not know what will happen. But as human beings I believe that we owe it to society to help out others when we are able to do so. While no one wants change, if the change is to provide someone with a safe and stable environment I think that we should be able to suck it up.

I personally find myself torn on the issue of allowing refugees into our country. One aspect that I tend to look at is the homeless population in the United States. We currently have an abysmal number of men, women, and children who do not have a stable home to live in and do not know when their next meal will come. I believe that if we are actually going to be able to help out people outside of our country, we must start taking care of those hear. What kind of message does it send that the US cannot even provide steady meals for all of its citizens, but wants to accept refugees? I believe that it does not send a good message to those outside of the country, because it shows that we might not be able to fully help them. But I also believe it sends a message to those inside our country that we do not care.