Jason Cannon
2/18/14
Russia
This article is focused more on the United States views than Russia's views, but still gives some good information about Russia's stance on the Syrian crisis and their relationship with the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/middleeast/russia-is-scolded-as-us-weighs-syria-options.html?hpw&rref=world
Synopsis:
Both Kerry and President Obama are critical of Russia's actions in the Syria crisis and have recently expressed their frustration. Kerry said that the Russian government was "contributing so many more weapons" to the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. He also said they are "enabling Assad to double down, which is creating an enormous problem." When speaking about President Obama, one Western Official said, "I've never seen him more frustrated . . ." Russia does support the Syrian government while the US supports the Syrian rebels. Previously, Russia and the United States had made agreements to sponsor peace talks as well as to get rid of the chemical weapons Syria possessed even though they both took a different stance on the issue. Any positive relationship between the US and Russia on this issue is falling apart as demonstrated by the comments of Kerry and President Obama.
Comments:
This issue highlights how different the United States and Russia are. They both have taken very different sides on this issue. I have a hard time understanding why Russia would support Assad in his violence against the people, but I am sure that their reasons would be just as good as the reasons of the United States in previous situations. I think Assad's actions are completely wrong and that the current Syrian government should not be in power, but I acknowledge that Russia might find it beneficial to keep them in power. They probably have economic and political ties to this issue that are not seen by many in the US. It is amazing how complicated foreign relations are and how difficult it is to compromise.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Friday, February 7, 2014
Scottish independence: Seven months to save UK, Cameron says
Jason Cannon
2/7/14
Great Britain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26071166
Synopsis:
Britain Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech recently trying to get UK citizens to encourage Scotland to not vote for independence. Scotland citizens will vote on whether Scotland should break from the UK in September when the Scottish National Party puts forward the referendum. Prime Minister Cameron talked about his Scottish heritage and how the issue was "personal". He also mentioned the "four compelling reasons" for Scotland to not break from the UK. The reasons, as stated by the article, were "the economic benefits of being a bigger country, greater international clout, connections between people, and the cultural impact of the UK." The leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, ripped on Cameron for being unwilling to comply to his requests for a publicly televised debate in Scotland. A spokesman for those in favor of Scotland independence stated, "In September, we have a chance to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands and ensure that we always get the government we vote for."
Detailed Analysis/Comments
I think that Cameron's desire to keep Scotland a part of the country is a good one for the UK. The reasons Cameron stated seem valid and logical. The article expounded on the cultural side of the issue, basically saying that Scotland was a very important element of the British culture. If Scotland were to leave it would take a big chunk out of the culture, economy, and power of the UK. I do think that Cameron should accept the proposed debate though. If he really thinks he as good reasons and logic behind his arguments, he shouldn't be afraid of presenting his arguments in front of the Scottish public in a debate.
The article emphasized to me how important the regional differences are in the UK. The region that they have roots in is a major part of their identity. They see Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and England as very different places with different cultures. Obviously Scotland sees themself as different and separate if they want to become independent.
Although I don't know much about the situation, I assume that Scotland has some valid reasons as to why they want to become independent. My gut reaction would be to tell them to stick with Britain and not be so rebellious, but in thinking about America's history I might reconsider. The Britains probably thought the same thing as me when America rebelled and fought for independence. Looking at America's past helps me to respect the stance of Scotland.
2/7/14
Great Britain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26071166
Synopsis:
Britain Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech recently trying to get UK citizens to encourage Scotland to not vote for independence. Scotland citizens will vote on whether Scotland should break from the UK in September when the Scottish National Party puts forward the referendum. Prime Minister Cameron talked about his Scottish heritage and how the issue was "personal". He also mentioned the "four compelling reasons" for Scotland to not break from the UK. The reasons, as stated by the article, were "the economic benefits of being a bigger country, greater international clout, connections between people, and the cultural impact of the UK." The leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, ripped on Cameron for being unwilling to comply to his requests for a publicly televised debate in Scotland. A spokesman for those in favor of Scotland independence stated, "In September, we have a chance to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands and ensure that we always get the government we vote for."
Detailed Analysis/Comments
I think that Cameron's desire to keep Scotland a part of the country is a good one for the UK. The reasons Cameron stated seem valid and logical. The article expounded on the cultural side of the issue, basically saying that Scotland was a very important element of the British culture. If Scotland were to leave it would take a big chunk out of the culture, economy, and power of the UK. I do think that Cameron should accept the proposed debate though. If he really thinks he as good reasons and logic behind his arguments, he shouldn't be afraid of presenting his arguments in front of the Scottish public in a debate.
The article emphasized to me how important the regional differences are in the UK. The region that they have roots in is a major part of their identity. They see Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and England as very different places with different cultures. Obviously Scotland sees themself as different and separate if they want to become independent.
Although I don't know much about the situation, I assume that Scotland has some valid reasons as to why they want to become independent. My gut reaction would be to tell them to stick with Britain and not be so rebellious, but in thinking about America's history I might reconsider. The Britains probably thought the same thing as me when America rebelled and fought for independence. Looking at America's past helps me to respect the stance of Scotland.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)