You Never Know You Too Might Become A Refugee

It seems refugees have always been in the news.  Mostly we think of people fleeing persecution.  A new reason is already developing--climate change.  In reality many of those who used to make their living farming now find it more difficult to survive and seek safer countries.

"You Never Know You Too Might Become a Refugee" (2023) is set in 2043 and might be thought of as science fiction, but unfortunately it is already happening and is predicted to get worse.  The film projects that in 2030 the United Nations declares a legal justification to be a refugee is climate change and all countries must accept them.  Unfortunately some countries refuse and even make it a crime.  England is one of them.

The Isle of Grain is used as a mythical starting point.  Two adults and their daughter are being severely battered by the weather and are aware it will become increasingly more difficult to survive.  They had applied to get to England, but were unsuccessful.  They felt the situation was so desperate that they would have to take the illegal route.

They were able to get the necessary money, but that would just about wipe out their finances.  Evading the police was an ongoing concern. Finding accommodation was difficult.  The film focuses on an interview to avoid criminal prosecution.  The interviewer suggests strongly they should have stayed where they were and have broken the law.  

The situation is not really resolved as there is no happy solution.  Some refugees die in the effort to reach safety. 

The irony is that the wealthy industrial countries are most responsible for climate change, but citizens of poorer countries suffer the most.  Donald Trump is already setting up America to close borders to climate change refugees.  To start with they deny climate change exists while allowing some of their donating businesses to profit.  They already put heavier emphasis to keep out immigrants.

This film offers a message the world desperately needs to understand, so I would like to credit some of the people for this particular effort.

Two people shared the organization of the effort.  

Teo Ormond-Skeaping, the director, writer, cinematographer and editor started as photographer and has had many photo exhibits.  He has become politically active and focuses on climate change and how it effects people.  Taking part in many international climate change for climate change.  He has 4 credits as a cinematographer, 2 as a producer, 2 as a director and 1 for editing.

Since 2012 Teo has collaborated with Lena Dobrowolska, a Ph.D. researcher.  She was a director and writer for this film.

Richard Skelton composed the music.  He has been a noted album producing musician.  Richard has 12 credits for composing.

Dominic Farrow played the father.  He has 3 acting credits.

Kaara Benstead played the mother.  She has 6 acting credits, 1 for writing and 1 for directing.

Richie Campbell played the interviewer.  He 62 acting credits, 1 for assistant directing and 1 for producing.

Nick Bartlett played a people smuggler.  He has 87 acting credits including "Topsy Turvey" (1999),  "London Boulevard" (2010) and "World War Z" (2013). 

Mike Kelson played the head of a people smuggling group.  He has 108 acting credits, 2 for writing and 1 for directing.

Jack Bense played a detention center officer.  He has 47 acting credits including "Hereafter" (2010) and "Unforgotten" (2025).

Bitu Thomas played herself.    She has been in films in English, Tamil and Hindi.  Her 16 acting credits, 1 for directing and 1 for writing include "One Life" (2023).

This film is well done and has a powerful message.  I watched it on a DVD borrowed from my local library and am not aware if it is available elsewhere.

A realistic assessment of climate change and how we might deal with it... http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/10/intervention-earth.html

Empty Planet

Over 50 years ago I took a course in demographics.  A lot has changed since then.  Then, we had gone through the baby boomers and a lot of experts agreed there was danger in being overpopulated, but some thought there were some natural brakes 

The two authors studied lots of statistics, but more importantly traveled around the world and talked to a variety not only of experts, but also to ordinary people (if a little better educated).  Recently saw both with Steve Paikin on the tv show "The Agenda" 5 years after publication of "Empty Planet" (2019).

Two factors have emerged in almost every nation to account for declining birth rates:  the education (and empowerment) of women and urbanization.  For ages having children was good for helping on the farm, but in the city children are more of an expense.  Women are at long last learning how to avoid burdensome motherhood and enjoy life more.

The replacement rate for women to replicate themselves is 2.1 meaning they need to have 2 babies each plus a little more to allow for those who don't have any or only 1.  Almost all of the developed world is below that number and even in most of the developing world the number is also declining.  The global population has been climbing because of longevity increases and parts of the world where women have more than two babies.  The authors contend that previous estimates are far higher than the reality and declining population will be dramatic.

It is not necessarily a bad thing, however there will be some negative effects. 

Young people are innovators and older people are expensive with pensions and medical care while fewer people to generate the economy and provide services.

China after their experience with their one child policy are stuck with millions of men unable to find a female partner because when only allowed one child and with the Chinese strong preference for boys and many girls were abandoned.  Many ended up adopted overseas.  During the policy years both men and women learned that sterilization was the most effective birth control. 

Brazil telenovelas effected women of all social classes if they watched them.  The families depicted were small and the women all seemed to have more freedom.  They appealed to both rich and poor.

Infertility is another factor.  Naomi Klein in an effort to get pregnant learned about fertility issues.  Chemical pollution is correlated to infertility, birth defects and miscarriages.  see   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/02/this-changes-everything-deserves-major.html

Both authors are Canadian and have noticed historical factors that have boosted population.

Clifford Sifton was the Canadian interior cabinet minister from 1896 to 1905 under Wilfrid Laurier and both were concerned that Americans were pushing towards the western border with Canada.  The government took some immigration employees off salary and put on commission.  Under Sifton, immigration authorities approached Scandinavia, Germany, Balkans, and Ukraine enticing many who helped secure the border against Americans.

On the other hand the government stopped Chinese immigrants after they had been instrumental in building the national railway.  Jews from the St Louis ship were sent away and during World War II the Japanese were forced into internment camps.

Eventually the Chinese were allowed to migrate and Canada developed a reputation for helping refugees including Hungarians after 1956, the Vietnamese fleeing war conditions and the Syrians during their Civil War and most recently Ukrainians.  The government uses  a point system that evaluates which refugees or would be immigrants can help Canada.  We also accepted a multi cultural life style that was more comfortable for non English immigrants..

My ancestors came to North America by boat from England, Scotland and Switzerland and some shifted from the United States by horse or on foot.  My wife Sharon's ancestors also came by boat from Italy and Ukraine.

Quebec has a delicate situation because they not only needed to boost population, but wanted to maintain their French culture.  They targeted French west Africa.  My Brother in law, Ali came from Morocco to Ontario for education.  After he married my sister the plan was to go to Morocco, however a stopover in Montreal offered a compatible situation with more Moroccans and as he was fluent in French (English and Arabic) the decision was made to live in Quebec.  Their house proved to be an enjoyable stopover on my way to Nova Scotia to visit my daughter in school and develop a sales job and then he helped me open up Quebec for sales and vacationing.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/07/travels-of-salesman-part-3-quebec.html

The U.S. needs immigrants to maintain their standard of living, but some politicians (example Donald Trump) think a key to getting elected is to cater to prejudices.  Most of American Nobel prize winners were immigrants.  Soon America will find it more difficult to attract necessary immigrants as many will find conditions at home better and there will be fewer of them. 

 Incentives do make a difference, but not nearly enough.  Paternity leave, tax deductions even cash bonuses have to compete against other factors.

 IVF is one tool to help slow down the decline.  For those who were without hope there is now hope   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/11/joy-film-about-ivf.html

Environmentalists have pointed out a major cause of climate change has been the burgeoning over- population.  Urbanization can be good for the environment.  High rise apartments can be more energy efficient and allow traffic to be more manageable.

The population mix has changed gradually, but seems certain to bend towards less with a greater proportion to the older.  The right to work legislation and the generosity of pensions likely will be adjusted.  We truly are all part of this change and perhaps we will act more compassionately as well as rational.  

the Brain drain from"shithole" countries

It was an American millionaire who once said "I can buy smarts."  In fact that is literally what good managers and business owners do.  That is of course if they want to be successful.  Businesses are run for profit and these days the focus is on short term profits.  Nations on the other hand can afford to and should want to take a long term view.

Politicians need to get votes for the next election or there will be no long term career in elective office.  If they detect fear for instance of darker guests they can exploit that fear. The erroneous argument is often based on the potential or perceived loss of status. Donald Trump understands what motivates voters and has surrounded himself with narrowly focused bigots.

Emotional intelligence is used more effectively by some than others.  It allows a person to "read" another with regards to such things as their loyalty, reliability and other traits better and thereby "manage" them more effectively.  Successful politicians are the masters.

It is not the person at the very bottom of the ladder who emigrates.  It takes money, connections, and knowledge to emigrate.  Often skilled professionals and tradespeople feel they can do better for themselves and for their families in another country.  Of course many are satisfied with their status at their homeland and feel the ties of relationships.

At another level there are people who work hard, but don't get anywhere.  They are ambitious, family oriented, etc.  Sometimes they will do something desperate.  Refugees are on the run because of scary circumstances, such as violent political or criminal actions or natural upheavals

Let's face it, most western countries are aging.  They will need people to take care of the old. They will also need people to do the distasteful jobs their citizens don't want.  We all need economic activity to keep our pensions viable.

From another point of view a poor country needs to value its human resources.  They may applaud the success of one of their former citizens in America, but in reality that person could help boost national prospects in their birthplace.   One of my favorite movies "Swades" is about the conflict a successful space engineer from India who realizes his home country can use his talents.  He enjoys the challenges of the American space program and the lifestyle that goes with it, but feels part of his life is not as it should be.

Of course many immigrants send money back to their homeland and some will revisit and help in different ways.  It is natural to want to help the people from back home.

Still taking in an immigrant is a way of stealing.  Regardless of the original motive every human being has value and it is in the interest of others to develop it.  Many receiving countries denigrate newcomers and fail to develop whatever talents have been brought.  Sometimes the stealing is more obvious when a talented individual such as a star athlete or proven surgeon is tempted by the "good life," but even a lowly laborer who outperforms the lazy native is a steal, although not acknowledged as such.  The West needs a wide range of people with low skills to do work the rest of us avoid (by getting more education, etc).

Of course it can be argued that foreign students get educated to new skills in western countries and often take those skill back home.  There is a trade off as we get their money and usually good will.  We all benefit when knowledge spreads.

Among the desirable immigrants there are certain to be many that are less desirable even criminal. And even more there are many that find adaptations are more difficult and go astray.  If we examine our own culture we would learn that many people are unhappy with their status.

I recall Tucker Carlson disputing the notion that "our strength is diversity" by claiming our strength is unity.  When everyone thinks the same way unity is easy, but everyone thinking the same way is not the way to strengthen your unity.  That comes from accepting new ideas and looking for common ground. Humans from diverse backgrounds have more basic commonalities than our prejudices and biases allow us to realize.

There are something like 65 million refugees in the world.  Some of them might be classified as economic refugees and many of those can indeed improve our economy.   On the other hand many fear for their lives.  Among my ancestors were Mennonites who fled Europe for  religious reasons.  Some of their descendants went to Canada.  I suspect most of them felt a struggle when they decided they might do better in the new world.

Politics and Climate Change sparked by the Fort McMurray fire

Read an article in Huffington Post reporting that Elizabeth May was criticized for pointing out a possible connection between the Fort McMurray wildfire and climate change and that charge was considered too political.  I am just amplifying the issue.

I agree it is necessary to concentrate on cleaning up the mess and restoring the displaced people back to normalcy as quickly as practical.

The article suggested the claim of being too political (Justin was one of the many accusers) would not have been made if a virus had been causing a problem in Fort McMurray.  We would all want to know the cause so we could prevent a future occurrence.  Climate change has been made a political issue, when it really should be a scientific issue.

My contention is that climate change has been established by reputable scientists as a major problem requiring international co-operation.  It should be considered the top priority for politicians, but unfortunately they are tied in too strongly to vested interests who can take advantage of basic ignorance and suspicion.

On Facebook I was disturbed to see one post stating that while the mess was being cleaned up the government should not spend one cent helping refugees.  The priorities are always changing, but a commitment has been made and until it has been fulfilled it seems to me that we are honour bound. After that it is logical to re assess our priorities, but I hope we would not base our decisions just on racially charged concerns and the overblown fear of terrorism.

Reviewing my thoughts on the refugee crisis.  We are complicit in it, one item of which climate change has been a factor.  We benefit from new blood while Syria suffers a brain drain.  Previous blog:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/11/the-syrian-refugee.html

Politics has always been about power.  Sometimes it is tied to the people's welfare, but too often it is a convenient cover for vested interests.  In the case of climate change the people's welfare has been taking a back seat to vested interests of those who control fossil fuels.  We are talking about literally trillions of dollars presently in the ground which can buy an awful lot of political power.

To read the original article in Huffington Post by G. Ellijah Dann of Simon Fraser University:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/fort-mcmurray-fire_b_9890178.html  Let's have that political discussion about a scientifically claim that affects everyone.

The Syrian Refugee

What can I say that others haven't already said?

Most of my life there has been conflict around the world with many people fleeing and seeking refuge.  Lately Syria has generated the most wanting to flee.  Most have gone to nearby Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan, but increasingly expanding to Europe and North America.  Refugees have always fanned the flames of fear, but now we are talking Muslims and that seems to up the ante quite a bit.

Simply I believe we are obligated.  Furthermore we are beneficiaries.

We are very complicit in the problem.  We tend to disassociate ourselves from our history when it is uncomfortable.  The Mideast, at one time was the basket of civilization, however it has been surpassed by Europe and the so-called West.  We discovered oil there that was critical for our life style to continue.  We got involved in wars and regime changes and afterwards had the power to draw boundaries for our convenience.  We decided to keep the price of oil (and gas at the pump) reasonable so would support dictators who were only too happy to suppress their citizens.

We gradually learned of climate change, but mostly dismissed it in favor of continuing our comfortable system.  One of the effects is to increase droughts.  Droughts in turn force demographic changes--rural residents move to urban areas--prices go up--jobs go down and more stress creating violence.  The result is a lot of people fleeing for their lives and to re-start their history.

It suits some people to fan fear.  If one is running for political office (and sees foreigners as expendable) it could be helpful to portray the hated party in power as endangering your welfare.  As the refugees are painted as terrorists, politicians try to out-do one another with their condemnation.   Republicans are transparent in this political strategy, but they are not alone.  Fortunately there are a few sane people with influence.

There certainly is danger, but it occurs no matter what choices are made.  We can mitigate the dangers if we choose not to panic.  Sitting in North America we don't have the danger of poor Syrian (and Iraqi, etc) refugees crossing our borders overnight.  Other nations (which we consider allies) have been taking the burden of dealing with unasked for refugees.  We have the opportunity to sort through them and pick who we want.  We will also be relieving a stressful situation for our allies.  Time is a factor in that while we try to get things perfect at our end, others are suffering.  Also consider this flood of Syrians as a brain drain.

Danger is always relative.  There is always the danger that an airplane will drop out of the sky on top of you.  We don't get paralyzed by that.  In the U.S. they don't get upset about the number of gun related homicides and suicides (at least not enough to legislate against it).  So far all statistics on the matter show that refugees are not a big risk for terrorism, although other types of foreign visitors do represent a higher risk.

There is a very delicate problem involving many factions warring against different enemies needing to be sorted out.  A recruiting device of ISIS and other terrorist organizations is that we hate Muslims.  Many of us have fallen into that trap and don't see it.  Those who have become vocal in their fear and hatred send a signal.  Muslims are not a lot different from the rest of us.

In 1956, after the Hungarian Revolution I was old enough to understand a bit and see some of the effects.  There was no concern of Communist sympathizers infiltrating our society.  I went to elementary school with some refugees and over the years have encountered other Hungarians who came over as refugees or their children.  I remember talking to one who helped develop Canadian basketball.  I worked with another and laughed at his jokes.  It turns out a cousin of my wife married a fellow who came over as an infant with his parents concerned his crying and coughing would alert authorities.  These are just a few examples that affected me personally and many Canadians of my age could think of more.

After Vietnam fell to the enemy Canada opened up its doors to Asian refugees.  The first time I heard the term "boat people" referring to refugees.  I have had a few as neighbors, as vendors at the Hamilton Farmer's Market and have enjoyed going to their restaurants.  I have heard of a friend of friends who literally lost a brother fleeing by boat.  Recently as a deputy returning officer during the Federal election I was struck at the enthusiasm of Vietnamese to vote.

I have earlier recounted an experience with a Syrian (not sure if he was a refugee) who fixed a problem with my car tire that had eluded my normal resources.

The point is foreigners add to our lives.  It is easy enough to find stories that reflect the desperation and the danger, but we also learn about refugees that are showing gratitude.  One Syrian refugee  was recently reported providing food to the homeless in Berlin, Germany.

Justin Trudeau recently said "our strength is diversity."  While others may cower in fear we can shake hands and converse with many different perspectives.  Before too long we will be adapting to and enjoying new ideas.  If we choose to close our doors or segregate newcomers we are losers.

Paris has got the world's attention

Last Friday seemingly out of the blue terrorism struck in Paris,and got worldwide attention.  Terrorism is the weapon of discontented, perhaps deranged groups who feel their concerns are being ignored.  They hope to create fear and distrust.

The question is sometimes asked "why do they hate us?"  There are rational reasons overlooked by too many, but perhaps more importantly there is an emotional underlaying.  Emotional responses can make a bad situation worse. Reflex action helped bring on this situation.

As a teenager I remember feeling a bit rebellious.  Once I hit puberty and started feeling my oats there seemed to be a lot of people restraining what I felt were my rights.  At university I remember reading "The Student as Nigger" which really painted a world of unreasonable discrimination and a conspiracy of big money.  I was by no means a radical, but aware  and sympathetic of a worldview of thinking quite opposed to the establishment.  At the University of Guelph many students became riled up because our chancellor, a former provincial premier had done something supporting corporate interests (can't remember what horrible thing it might have been) and we should get him expelled.  It didn't go far and a year or so later I gladly accepted him giving me my graduation degree.  I didn't get a job right away and in fact had a difficult time getting settled, but eventually fit into the establishment and am reasonably happy about it.  Fairly normal process for my generation.

Around the world to-day there is a great deal of youth unemployment.  Many are aware of how unfair the world can be and look for explanations.  In the Mid-East there have always been a few ready to offer explanations.  Now they have a bigger audience and now in many cases they have modern tools.   Rebellion among young people is normal and when combined with unemployment, alienation is inevitable.  You can see it in all corners of the world, some results might even be considered productive.

The invasion of Iraq is often cited as the beginning of our current problems, but I think it goes back further, perhaps a lot further.  At one time the Mid-East was one of the key centres of civilization including Syria, Iraq, Iran and Egypt.  Arabs actually played a key role in the European Renaissance. A lot of things combined to shift modernization to Europe and I suppose many felt cheated.  Europeans became colonial powers, sometimes in very authoritarian ways and other times as commercial powers.

Skipping a lot of history when we come to the First World War we can see some major shifts.  Both the Arabs and the Jews were promised more political freedom.  The Brits and the French, amongst others divided up the world and drew lines that suited them.  The Ottoman Empire fell apart and ended up as only Turkey.  Many different religious sects and ethnic groups found themselves stuck in unnatural groupings.  Also at this time oil became critical to keep Western commerce fuelled and soon Mid-Eastern countries became critical oil suppliers.

As a management tool Westerners accepted dictators to work with.  The masses of the Mid-East and elsewhere were basically kept ignorant with a well defined elite minority in control.

There were many basic factions.  In the Muslim world there were two main groups--Sunni and Shiite with their own divides.  The Kurds were spread over several nations including Turkey, Iraq and Syria.  They had their own aspirations and their own factions.  They are one of the awkward entities with some being very aggressive towards independence and others trying to work within the system.  Americans have noted that from their point of view the Kurds are fighting on our side, except some have antagonized Turkey as well as Iraq and that is interfering with overall co-operations.

Iran, although a Muslim country (mainly Shiite) is not Arab.  We overlook that a CIA coup replaced an elected head of state with a dictator.  The CIA  helped set up a secret police system.  We supported Iraq when they tried to take advantage of the Iranian Revolution.  Americans shot down a Iranian commercial jet.  Iran was called part of the Axis of Evil.  A great deal of mistrust although not every one hates everyone else.  Our culture might have been different if the Persians had defeated the Greeks.  As a Pope helped bring down the Soviet Empire, Ayatollah Khomeni helped displace a dictator.  Religion is not only powerful, but can used in a political, even military manner and Muslims were not the first to discover this possibility.

Since 1948 Israel has carved a spot for itself, but to a great extent displaced Arab Muslims.  Christians (at least some factions) complicate things by interpreting the Bible in such a way that they see Israel as the site of the Second Coming and that it is necessary for Jews to be in control.  This may seem very trivial, but in fact it plays an important role in American politics. Supported by American money Israel has expanded further and feels they need to protect themselves from their neighbours and those in the occupied territories.  Many Arabs and Muslims see a big conspiracy to keep them away from what is rightfully theirs.  Some people feel Israel has tried to use the Americans to fight their wars.

The Russians have stepped in to protect their interests.  They feel comfortable with dictators and also fear Islamist extremists.  They are said to want a warm weather port.  Assad rules with the backing of a minority group, the Alawites and initiated  the current crisis by refusing to compromise.  He even used chemical weapons and created a crisis that was resolved only when the Russians pressured him to dispose of the chemicals.  The Russians have taken not only to attacking ISIS, but more with other anti-Assad groups, some of whom are considered American allies.  They have also co-ordinated with the Iranians.

One other factor has been climate change.  Westerners do not seem conscious that drought has been a big problem in both north Africa and Syria that have caused the price of food to go up and rural jobs in particular to diminish.  One of the outcomes has been increased urbanization with dissatisfied youth.  The Arab spring had its origins in these dynamics.  It doesn't take a lot of people to cause a lot of trouble. In Libya, Egypt Yemen and Syria the Arab Spring didn't work out quite the way we visualized and in Tunisia there have been a lot of difficulties that so far have been overcome.

Not sure all the different voices have been captured in my brief narrative, but when you stir everything together you are bound to come up with a lot of anger.  The invasion of Iraq was done from ignorance.  Iraq had precious little to do with 9/11 and in fact they feared Al Queda more than we did.  We didn't allow for their own fear of letting their neighbours know they didn't really have weapons of mass destruction.  We didn't understand that Saddam Hussein the dictator controlled a variety of ethnic groups that didn't always like each other and although brutal, modernized his country more than others in the same area.  Once the decision was made it was made sloppily.  All members of the Baath party were locked out of good jobs.  We didn't send enough troops to control different groups from fighting each other.

Even while Paris has caught the spotlight  we didn't pay as much attention when a terrorists  hit Lebanon just  a few days before.  Not proved yet, but ISIL is claiming they bombed a Russian jet plane over the Sinai Peninsula.

What to do now?  Bear in mind the terrorists want us to be afraid and can predict there would be some repercussions.  They might have hoped that Russia and France at least would step back from attacking them, but that seems unrealistic.  A big concern right now is refugees and they have become a very big political issue in both Europe and North America.  It is true there is a real risk that at least a small part of the millions of refugees are already radicalized and that some more might become so.

But there is also a risk if they are not accepted.  They too are driven by fear and have left their homes and run for their lives.  Where will they go?  Who will they blame for their dilemma?  For some countries they represent a solution to a demographic problem (they don't have enough young people to take care of them when they get old).  Give them a chance and they can contribute, but otherwise they will become like barbarians at the gates.  Let us not forget we are all complicit in their situation in a myriad of ways.  Let us all realize there will be many more refugees in the future.

I noted in another blog how a Syrian immigrant fixed my auto tires better than an established mechanic.

Should we pool our resources more effectively to fight ISIS?  The hangup seems to be that many of those in the area are reluctant to get involved or alliances are tangled up with pro Assad and anti Assad, pro and anti Kurds.  The Russians complicate the situation.  Sorting out the alliances seems critical and is heartening to read some steps are being taken.  The Canadians under Justin Trudeau were about to withdraw from air attacks to transfer our efforts to emphasizing military training and diplomacy.  The decision has been made more difficult and he could not be faulted for beefing up our military efforts, but hopefully in a purposeful way.

The Palestinian situation is an excuse for some, but solving it would take a lot of steam from many of the  extremists and their sympathizers.  Again fear plays a role, but also so does bitterness.  The United States as a prime supporter needs to look long term what is in their mutual best interest--a workable two state solution.  I hope that Canada will play a more balanced approach than the previous one of backing every outrageous settlement expansion.

The Kurds until recently have been overlooked or seen as an unavoidable nuisance best to ignore.  It is a very knotty problem involving several countries.  Many just think they should be given independence, but that is easier said than done.  I prefer we don't increase the number of nations, but rather consolidate what we have.  We all seem to have a tribal loyalty and although we are inter mingling more than ever that loyalty is still fairly intense for many.  Turkey, Iraq and Syria have national interests tied in with the Kurds.  Canada may not be the perfect example, but we have made accommodations between English and French that not everyone likes, but have kept us both working together.

It is easy to sort through other people's choices and decide what makes the most sense, but emotions play a a very big role.  Forgiveness may seem trite, but the idea benefits both parties.  South Africa set an example that perhaps can be improved upon.

An irony I learned from Facebook (thanks Samia) is that the terrorists were stopped from placing a bomb inside a football stadium where the French president was in attendance and although the bomb ended up exploding outside the stadium it is likely thousands were saved.  The guard who stopped the terrorist from going inside the stadium was a Muslim.

the Canadian election of October 19, 2015

As a deputy returning officer I agreed to be neutral in political expressions in the lead up to October 22nd.  Elections involve decisions by millions of people and although we sometimes act like a herd of sheep there certainly are millions of thought processes involved.

Working at a poll station is only one perspective, but as a starting point for this election I noticed more people telling me it was their first time voting.  This included some young people.  One young man said his girl friend talked him into it.  A few others were immigrants who seemed very pleased to be able to do this.  I noted that Hamilton had attracted a good share of Vietnamese refugees and they and their offspring valued voting in Canada.  The results bucked the national trend a little, but exhibited some commonalities.  The incumbent NDP won fairly easily, but the Liberals came closer than previously.  I noted that the Green Party did worse than previously as did the Conservatives.

My underlying theory is this was more a vote against Stephen Harper than an endorsement of any particular party.  Furthermore more than in previous elections more people voted strategically.  This was to the detriment of the Green Party and the NDP.  This was complicated, but for many voters it was a question of what is the most effective way to get rid of Harper.  There were organizations devoted to strategic voting in ridings where it could make a difference.

At the beginning of the election campaign it appeared likely that the NDP would benefit the most from the anti-Harper sentiment, but in the end they suffered crucially.  Undoubtedly there were many factors involved, but two got my attention.  One was Thomas Mulcair's policy that even on a question of separation 50% +1 is enough.  This helped the other parties stir up fears.  Another emotional issue was the niqab controversy where Thomas championed the right of women to wear it at citizenship ceremonies.  Only two women challenged the government courts and their cases were not presented fairly.  But this stirred up enough racist feelings that it probably switched a lot of votes by itself, but it also made many fence sitters re-think the best way to get rid of Harper. 

Harper's party used a lot of negative ads.  I had been offended by his attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, but he was persistent in their campaign that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready."  I think a lot of people agreed, but in the end voter's expectations were greatly surpassed by Trudeau's debate performance and his campaign.  After awhile the Conservative insistence on the "not ready" campaign (which intruded on the Blue Jay playoffs) made people resent it and wonder why there was not more emphasis on their own messages.

For me there are a lot of reasons to oust Harper.  Like conservatives around the globe his real agenda was economic and his campaign was financed by big money interests intent on increasing their share of the profits.  This was most evident perhaps with the oil industry.  It could be argued that at the time looking at Canadian resources, the tar sands was the best bet to boost the Canadian economy.  As time went on more people realized the many problems.  The tar sands were in an awkward location, they were relatively expensive to work and of course they were environmentally one of the worst offenders.

The anti-science stance taken by the government kept people uninformed not only about climate change, but other scientific concerns.  Libraries closed while scientists were discouraged from publicly presenting their findings.  Scientists should be providing counsel so we and the politicians can make better decisions.  Canada fell behind even other reluctant nations in the battle against climate change.

At the same time the economies of the oil business hurt other businesses by inflating our currency. Manufacturers found it much more difficult to compete with other nations.  Farmers found it difficult to get freight transportation against a tremendous increase in oil train freight.

Conservatives in the United States found the best way to attain power was to align themselves with social conservatives.  Take advantage of fears.  The Niqab issue was only one example. Stephen Harper stood against an investigation into the deaths of aboriginal women.  They resisted the national urge to help the Syrian refugees again using fear of Muslim terrorists as their excuse.  Near the end they set up a telephone line to report barbarian cultural practices.  Many people saw this as Harper trying to create a wedge item that really had very little importance on the real priorities.

To satisfy their base voters the Conservative government threw out the long form census despite complaints from many business and social agencies.  They were against marijuana and drug injection clinics in an almost puritanical stubbornness.  Trudeau undoubtedly increased the youth vote with his policies in these regards.

Canada for decades had been accepted as a peacemaker, but Harper wanted a more militant image.  In the Middle East we used to be considered neutral, but Harper became a steadfast supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu no matter what injustices were suffered by the Palestinians.  Other experts feel that the solution to Mid East problems was a two state solution, but Harper stood by those who worked against that idea.

The Conservatives understood our political system far better than most voters.  With only 39% of the votes they gained over 50% of the seats and the power to impose their views on the rest of us.  They had gotten very sophisticated and knew they could have success by ignoring the masses and pleasing their base instead.  Only a few years ago Conservatives actually had two variations--a softer kind like Joe Clark and the harsher kind like Stephen Harper.  Obviously they had much in common and were tired of losing because of splitting the vote.  Our first past the post system gave a union of the two factions a big step up.

One promised policy would be to get serious about proportional voting.  It is very hard to get the winners to radically change the system that helped them attain power.  As it turns out only 39.5% of votes cast were for the Liberals.  Fair Vote Canada reported that 51.8% of votes went to candidates that lost.  Harper had been promising legislation to make it more difficult to get proportional voting.

In the end there is a pendulum of opinions.  We are happy as long as our private plans unfold as expected, but get upset if things do not.  Too much freedom can be as bad as too little.  I don't know how the Liberal majority will work out, but I am sure there will be some improvements that will benefit more people.

King Abdullah II and his solution to the Mid-East Conundrum

The Mid-east is usually described in terms of turmoil.  We like to think that it is far away and doesn't affect us, but in a global world that is less true every day.  In every conflict there is by definition at least two viewpoints and in the Mid-East it should be acknowledged there are many more.  We mostly listen to very few perspectives and ignore and even dismiss most of the other views.

The Western powers have had a big stake in the oil kingdoms of the Middle East and going back further our religious ties have resulted in lots of violence.  The problems of Palestine have a long history, but really it has been brought to global attention with immigration of Jews back to the area starting in the early years of the twentieth century after suffering persecution mostly in Europe.

In the United States there are big concerns about immigration.  It seems to be most concerned about Latin Americans and Muslims.  Palestine faced a more overwhelming immigration with Jewish immigrants actually becoming the dominant demographic.  The British terminated their Mandate after a number of terrorist incidents (involving a future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachim Begin) deferring to the United Nations who advocated a two state solution.  There are many disputes over the exact details, but there can be no mistake there was an Israeli effort to expel Arabs and resistance from their part.

King Abdullah II recounts his family and Jordan's role in the unfolding conflicts.  His perspective might not exactly reconcile with other versions more commonly heard, but they have the ring of truth.  His mother was American and he was educated in England and America.  First king to have only one wife.  She is of Palestinian origin, but lived in Kuwait for much of her upbringing.

Palestinians as well as other refugees were accepted, but all too often Jordan had to deal with trouble makers.  The PLO under Yassar Arafat used to attack Israel from Jordan and after awhile tried to overtake the Jordan government.  Jordan provided asylum to Saddam Hussein's daughter.  They have since taken in a large number of Syrian refugees.

Ariel Sharon and Benjaimin Netanyahu were two Israeli rulers who gave lip service to the two state solution, but in the end found ways to sabotage the notion.  In fairness to them if a lot of Israeli voters did not share their feelings they would not have been in a position to block efforts.

Unlike in Britain the first newborn royal child is not automatically heir to the throne and in this case an uncle was named, but when the time came, Abdul had proved himself in the military (and a bit diplomatically) and was named Crown Prince.

9-11 changed everything.  The American priority was to punish the perpetrators and then extended a war into Iraq.  The Palestinians ended up being classified as terrorists in many American minds.

After the Iraq invasion of 2003 Jordan attempted to be neutral, but had talks with American politicians and military leaders.  King Abdullah tried to advise Paul Bremer against de-Baathification and dissolving the Iraqui army to no avail.

Trying to be a moderate does not protect from assassination attempts.  King Abdullah II has been fortunate to have an intelligence agency that has been able to warn him in advance.  Some of his relatives and colleagues have not been so fortunate.

The key plank of the book is the two state solution be implemented as soon as practical.  As King Abdullah II states, "Al Quaeda won't disappear the moment a Palestinian state comes into being.  But it will have a harder time finding new recruits and winning support for its criminal actions."  King Abdullah recognizes there would have to be all sorts of confidence building steps and reassurances, but the goal has to be to arrive at an independent Palestine.  Arabs at one time had offered more economical connections such as connecting railroads through Jordan and Syria which in turn would allow rail transport from Israel to Europe.   Better communications and accessibility would benefit all.

Aside from excessive violence against Palestinians the big obstacle is the continuous settlements in occupied territories.  On the Palestinian side there is not unity and of course there are many who would try to sabotage negotiations.  Israelis and their sympathizers have a very strong lobby.  In addition there are evangelicals in the States who strongly believe the Jews must control Jerusalem before the second Coming of Christ.  There is genuine fear amongst the Israelis and they are supported by many Jews who see Israel as a sanctuary.

My feeling is that if Israel is to survive as a Jewish state they will have to accommodate the Palestinians and to a lesser extent Arabs and Muslims in their neighborhood.  They are justifiably afraid, but too many have a feeling of entitlement in that the occupied lands are theirs to fulfill Biblical dictates.

Note that this book was written in 2011 and I don't see much progress towards his objectives.  The settlements continue to expand.  Many of the key elements of obstruction remain in place.  It may already be too late, but if more people read this book they would understand the situation better and realize there is urgency.

EMIGRATION AND REFUGEES

Immigration frightens a lot of natives forcing us to adapt our life style.  Thousands of people are risking their lives and those of their loved ones.  We hear every week it seems of another boat sinking in the Mediterranean.  Not so long ago we heard about young children being sent up through Central America to the American border.  We know there are millions seeking refuge in western countries.

What would make most people leave the comforts of their home and contact with familiar family, friends and neighbours?   Some no doubt are seeking fortune and could be labeled greedy, but many others are motivated by fear.  Sitting in our comfortable western homes we both wonder why people would risk their lives and fear how they might change our lifestyle.

Trends that are easy to overlook or ignore are continuing to gather steam and it is time for mankind to ask what options we still have.  It is a global problem with causes and effects in every corner.

Mexico, central America and parts of South America are caught up in drug gang wars.  In poor countries it is common for desperate people to do desperate things.  Some have chosen to get involved with the drug trade.  Why is that so profitable?  It isn't because of domestic demand as most locals really can't afford it.  The truth is the demand comes from western countries.  We have more money, but we also have our own kind of despair.  In some cases it boils down to looking for bigger "kicks" and in other cases life seems meaningless.  Others can analyze the causes, but no one can deny the demand for illegal drugs emanates from the wealthier western countries.

In poorer countries those at the bottom have an opportunity to do the spade work (growing, packaging, transporting, selling locally) while others fight for the top where there is often huge profits.  Inevitably the power goes to the most ruthless.  This creates all sorts of other problems.  Drugs amongst the locals hurts health, productivity and feelings of self-worth.  Fighting causes fear.  It is not strange that so many parents in Central America want their children into a safer environment.

Fighting with different motivations is happening in the middle East, including northern Africa.  Literally millions of Syrians have fled their homes and for the most part have ended in refuge camps in nearby counties.  Western countries are reluctant and fearful to accommodate Muslims that they associate with terrorism. Others are willing to take advantage and charge for re-settling.

For decades western corporations with political support have been propping up dictators who were able to keep a lid on tensions.  There have always been what we might label "fanatics", but they were largely ignored or suppressed.  Now many gain attention and support as one way of fighting oppression.  Money that could have been spent on education and alleviation of poverty was spent on military weapons and security measures.  Oil was incredibly cheap and fuelled our lifestyle.  The fanatics are blaming misery on their dictators with their western support.  Just as some fanatics blame our disasters on our sinfulness, the Islamists are seizing the opportunity to blame their enemies and their religious lapses.  Religion is a powerful force that has been abused by many, but admittedly giving many others comfort.

I was surprised to learn in my family tree research that at least two branches of my family fled Europe for religious freedom.  One branch was literally on the boat, after the Mayflower with religious dissenters looking for freedom to worship.  One group actually ganged up together to flee through Indian territory to establish their own church.  Another branch were Mennonites who as anabaptists were persecuted in Europe.  Once established in America another generation felt they had to leave for Canada to avoid conscription.  Like many I have become detached from these earlier forces in my history.

There are many vested interests belittling concerns about Climate Change and they have found allies in fundamentalists, other religious factions and those invested with the status quo.  Scientists have been warning us for years with irrefutable evidence that there are going to be drastic changes.  Drought is having an impact in different parts of the world, now including California, but also Africa, the Middle East, Australia and elsewhere. We forget that agriculture is the base industry of the world--without food everything slows down.  It is only natural that people look for alternatives to make a living and to feed themselves.  In addition to droughts there are also floods and rising sea levels.  Storms are becoming more powerful and having more than just temporary inconveniences.  Bangladesh has developed a reputation for cheap labour which comes from desperation which in part comes from Climate change.

Economics is tied up in everything mentioned so far, but another strong trend is global inequality.  It is true that cheap labour is still in demand and that many poor countries are able to take advantage of rich corporations looking to lower their costs.  A bigger trend is that machines (including computers) are making production less and less dependent on human labour.  It is getting common to talk about the 1% in America, but at one level it seems so unreal.  How can a very few people have so much wealth and power?  Part of it is when they get enough traction they help set the rules and the rules are meant to protect their interests.  Another part is modern technology allows them to seek the lowest production costs which basically means at the expense of others.

Many people feel like they are on a sinking boat and are looking for a way off.  Literally that is what we are seeing in the Mediterranean.

All of this could be an opportunity.  Just as slavery relieved burdens and created wealth for some of our ancestors, machines could do the same more humanely for the benefit of everyone.  Clean energy, cleaning up the mess, education, could help re-balance our enviromen.  Obviously it would take a global effort to re balance some counter productive historical global efforts.  If everyone waits for someone else to make the first move the problems will increase.  Fortunately efforts are being made from different quarters, but at this stage they look like they are not gaining enough traction.

Knowledge could lead to greater awareness of our mutual interests, but that will not be enough.  We also have to develop trust.  Any efforts that boost education and awareness of the true reality will help, but it really boils down to political will.

A phrase credited to Scottish town planner Patrick Geddes,  "think globally act locally" seems appropriate for most of us.  Understanding the issues helps guide voting decisions--but more basically, questioning.  Individuals can only do so much, but understanding the issues and prioritizing choices is something that needs to be brought into the political arena.

At the moment political decisions seem very closely tied to vested interests.   Most of the vested interests seem very narrow so a goal would be to expand the viewpoint of those interests.  One result of increased wealth is greater security concerns in such forms as alarm systems and gated communities.  Does a wealthy person want to live like that or are they too fearful.  Fear is just as big an enemy as greed, especially when they are so short sighted.  Trust is an important element of a solution as we all need to transition to the future.

The wealthy industrialized nations of the west fear that unless the developing nations are willing to forgo their own fossil fuel energy expansion, action on their part is meaningless.  The United Nations seems the most logical place to deal with these problems,  Bi-lateral is most practical for specific issues, but some issues are bigger.  Encouraged to hear that Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and California are tying some of their efforts together.  If these sorts of efforts can expand they can also develop some momentum.  Perhaps we will then expand beyond climate issues to deal with some of the other underlying causes of modern problems.

Photo is of the famous Statue of Liberty during a trip with my office at New York.  also visited Ellis  Island where my wife's Grandmother came from Italy during World War I.

Will we waste another opportunity with Iran?

The news is full of commentary on the Iranian nuclear negotiations.  On this side there is serious doubt about how the Iranians can be trusted  Very little direct commentary from the other side.

Trust is perhaps the fulcrum upon which everything else turns.  Americans point out that Iran supports terrorist groups, but Iranians feel they are boosting liberation forces for the Palestinians and fellow Shiite followers.  Americans have meddled in all sorts of countries.  They overlook that back in 1953 the C.I.A. organized and supported a coup d'tat that replaced an elected premier, Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran in order to protect western economic interests and went on to help set up a brutal secret police force, Savak.  The Americans have also been involved in Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile and others.  Iran has not invaded any country in the past several centuries, but have been invaded by Iraq with support from the United States.  Iran, before being named as part of the Axis of Evil actually provided logistical assistance to the Americans and currently are fighting against a common enemy ISIL.

Militant presidential candidates and other Obama bashers need to realize that additional nations are part of the negotiations and need to be considered in any adjustments of the agreement.  Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and Germany each have a stake in negotiations.  We need to have trust amongst our allies and adversaries.  Bear in mind that each of the parties on our side has a different perspective on the issue and some compromises are part of the deal.  If we don't respect one another how can we expect the other side to respect us.

That is all in the past; what can be done for the future?  We can be sure that military and intelligence resources will be preparing for the inevitable expiration of the agreement.  What will be done to build up mutual trust?  Ten years is half a generation when we probably need a full generation to really make a difference in attitudes (theirs and ours).

The Middle East is a mess.  Invading Iraq has opened up a lot of problems.  Al Qaeda was not welcome there at the start of the American attack, but now it and more extreme elements are threatening the whole area.  Sunni and Shiite distrust and fear each other.  They used to inter marry and carry on business together.  Fundamentalists and extremists are forcefully trying to impose their views on others.  This is an internal dilemma best handled by other Muslims and we need to be careful not to take sides except to defend against violence.

We feel very uncomfortable with dark skinned people, especially if they are Muslim  But we have a responsibility to help with the refuge problem generated by Mideast conflicts.  Refuge camps are potential sources of violence.  One way or another the stresses have to be relieved.   Canada has stated a preference for Christian refugees which might be commendable, but doesn't really deal with the problem.  Americans are not much better while some countries have tried to pick up the slack.

Education is an area where there is a limit to what can be forced upon the resistant masses.  From both the top and grass roots, efforts should be encouraged for cross cultural projects.  They generally take a long time to have a national impact, but are important to start the ball rolling.  Sports and cultural exchanges have been useful with Russia, China and other nations.

I remember years ago having problems with my auto tires.  A persistent slow leak was very inconvenient  and took it to my regular reliable garage, but the problem soon returned.  It took a Syrian immigrant I encountered at a gas station to really fix it.  He made my life better and I am sure he did for others.

Palestine is very often used as an excuse or rationalization, but might there be something to it?  Israel is a haven for Jews that are still discriminated against around the world.  Millions of people (mostly Evangelicals) around the world feel Israel has Apocolyptic meaning that lends very significant support to Israel despite any evidence of unfairness.  The Palestinians feel that it is their land and other Arabs and Muslims feel they have been mistreated by western and Jewish powers.  Settlements are an obvious affront to any honest attempts to reconcile the two races and somehow have to be stopped if not reversed.

During the recent Israeli elections Netanyahu expressed what many consider his true feelings that no two state solution will be instituted while he still has power.  He has backtracked a little, but we should also realize that the Israeli voters have very strong concerns about security.  Emotions such as fear are very difficult to overcome.  Outsiders are painted as not understanding or worse.  We like to think we have their best interests at heart and we truly realize that war is bad for everyone.  Palestine has tired of empty promises and the one sided rhetoric against them and are trying to involve the International Court of Justice.  United States, Russia and China have avoided the court, but in reality the court might be able to accomplish in a more neutral forum what the bigger powers with their vested interests cannot.  Might the Muslim world credit the west with finally rectifying an injustice?

While we look at this from a distance we have more interests and responsibilities.  Climate change, most likely caused by industrial nations has factored into the Mideast by way of droughts.  Ironically some of the same people who believe the Jews have to control the Holy Land before the second coming also believe the climate is controlled by God and we humans should not interfere.  To me they overlook that we have been interfering and not showing respect for God's creation.  Climate change is affecting the entire world in different ways including floods, rising ocean levels, sea water acidification, stifling heat as well as droughts. The Mideast is just one area bearing the burdens of climate change and few see the connection.  There are bound to be more tensions stemming from climate change.

Anti-Muslim forces seem to be strongly influencing America and other nations.  Allied with climate change deniers, conservative right wingers use whatever available tools for their own greedy economic interests.  It is time to take a longer range view or we will all suffer.

An earlier take on some "Persian" experiences: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/10/my-three-persian-experiences.html

Some of you may know that I have family ties to the Arab Muslim part of the world.  Like anyone else when I hear another perspective I often notice that those giving it are decent people with much in common with what I aspire to, it actually is more understandable.  Close your heart and your mind and there is no shortage of weird violent people out there.

Syria, what a mess!

There are no good choices at this point.  No one should be condemned for however they vote or even for their motivation.  There are undoubtedly many who want to be associated with the majority without delving into the issues.  I do not understand all the issues and admit that it is more complex than can be dealt with in a short blog.

Part of the problem goes back to my biggest pet peeve which is short term thinking.

One primary problem is that America (and most of the rest of the world) feel most comfortable dealing with whoever is in power.  At some stage we are complicit in maintaining the status quo.  We can be self righteous about being superior and conscious that everything is not fair under a particular jurisdiction, but our tendency is to protect our own short term interest and do business with just about anyone.

China and Russia are in the equation and have decided that their best interest lies in supporting the Syrian government.  Russia sells weaponry to Syria.  China needs to keep all energy options open. Both are authoritarian and fear the idea of a successful revolution.  Oversimplified perhaps, but trying to overcome their UN security council veto could lead to further tension.

Iran is a player as it is allied with Syria.  Finally Iran has elected someone who is more open to solving the nuclear dilemma.  With few allies and a load of rhetoric, Iran has to be concerned to maintain its alliances.  At the same time some Westerners feel that striking against Syria is weakening Iran and perhaps forcing them to be more compliant.

In the Middle East an always underlying concern is Israel.  One really pertinent connection is the Golan Heights where Israel has conquered land they now feel is a buffer.  Israel has bombed Syria to cut nuclear development.  Part of the Syrian opposition comes from Islamists who see an opportunity to overthrow a government that is relatively tolerant of Christians and Jews and install a more fundamentalist  regime.  They are not looking for a two state solution, but many would work towards destroying Israel.

Israel is fearful of what its neighbors intend.  Palestinians are resentful and many are desperate. Israel has more powerful friends in the United States that protect it with money, weapons, political decisions including a UN veto.  There are many who want a two state solution, but others who feel more secure by occupying Palestine.  Still others on both sides have given up on the two state solution. Alleviating fear requires courage, patience and understanding.

Refugees have fled to Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and others.  In such numbers they create logistical problems and potentially are an unknown political force.

Recently became aware of another factor which you can read in more depth at http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/06/drought-helped-spark-syrias-civil-war-is-it-the-first-of-many-climate-wars-to-come/  I am struck at the number of people who belittle climate change, but their points strike me as being politically/economically linked.  Climate scientists for the most part seem very reluctant to draw links from climate change to weather problems such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts, but the links seem stronger almost daily.  I recall that the Arab Spring started with a protest of one man in Tunisia who was affected by food prices.  Food prices were affected by drought.  This is only one factor, but really unemployed youth and food prices have been critical.

Should the United States use a military strike against Syria and if so how can they contain it?  The risks are very high that the best they can achieve a rebel victory or less likely a chastened Assad. They will inevitably fan anti-American hatred.   Who knows how Russia, China, Iran might react. Mideast turmoil seems inevitable.  If not resolved the same question might be asked--can a regime do whatever it wants to suppress its own people?  Will any nation feel they can do what they want even against American threats?

What alternatives are available?  America needs international support.  The United Nations is frozen by veto's allowed to only five countries.  The Arab League has its own factions.  Turkey is a Muslim country that is negatively impacted by Syrian refugees and occasional stray bombs.  They have concerns over Kurds, another complicating issue itself.  Can United States afford to be the world's policeman without at least some economic support.

The Americans have been hurt and embarrassed by the efforts of the George W Bush government to deceive them with false information (some of which was deliberate) regarding the Iraq invasion.  I think they were stunned that the Iraqi people resisted and then learned that they had opened a hornet's nest.  At the same time a new President finds himself dealing with a polarized electorate.  A part of the electorate seems to feel that Obama is a Muslim or sympathetic to radical Muslims.  Seems ridiculous, but not something that can be ignored.  For some this seems an opportunity to make him look bad while on the other side some think this is an opportunity with respect to dealing with the sequester problem as well as the debt ceiling.  Some support as they feel the need to support a president, others to send a message about chemical warfare.  Others feel that we need to commit to democracy.

The rest of the world has its own perspective.  They are split in that they mostly seem to think that the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people, but are skeptical of any course of action.  They fear potential spread of violence, even world war.

Are there alternatives?  I can't see a risk free short term alternative and either striking or not striking sends a powerful message with horrific consequences very likely.

The United Nations was created to deal with these types of problems, but many see a single country veto as insurmountable obstacle.  At the time it was thought to be an inducement to get participation of the winning Allies.  Since then many changes have occurred and newly empowered nations such as India, Brazil and others are left out.  My solution would be to negotiate a new deal such as a veto of one of the selected countries (or even two or three) can be overcome by 2/3 votes of General Assembly members representing 2/3 of the world's population.  China is a delicate issue as they might feel ganged up with a too low a population requirement as they represent approximately 25% of the world population.  This would also empower India.  We don't want them to have an effective veto based on population, but to gain their co-operation we don't want them to feel too threatened. This will only happen when the original veto holders see it in their best interest to accept world opinion.

The International Criminal Court is another  possible solution.  One of its weaknesses is that United States will not join as they feel they will be ganged upon.  Other countries resist to protect themselves.  Perhaps the UN veto and the International Criminal Court membership issues can be negotiated together. Perhaps that is naive, but other forces are making it a little more possible.

One of those forces is climate change.  It affects everyone, although not evenly.  The biggest problem is  distrust of science and economic short term self interest.  We in North America and Europe need to realize food prices even in remote parts of the world can have global effects.  We need to realize that floods, droughts, hurricanes although natural are being aggravated by our actions on an international scale.  War is one of the consequences.  To provide our own security in our backyard we need to be concerned about forces in areas we haven't given much thought to.

Did I cover all the issues?  Definitely not, but I hope that more people take a long term view so we can minimize future damage and get on the course to a more logical future for all mankind.  Syria is a mess, but it didn't happen overnight.