Political Cartoon

Response: 

This political cartoon is depicting the U.S in relation to  China's declining economy. The year of the sheep was 2015 and predicted that this year would be gentle, in other words, the year of the sheep should have predicted an unchanging economy if not a prosperous and growing one. The artist is trying to get the reader to focus on the bear, the symbol of China's economy, because it is the biggest, most exaggerated piece of this cartoon. Through his word choice and use of satire, as well as the things the artist chose to exaggerate, his opinion would seem to be that while the U.S is slightly uncomfortable at the new decrease of China's economy, China is in more trouble than we are. However, you could also interpret this cartoon as the bear attacking the U.S, portraying the effect that China's economy has on the U.S.  I think that this cartoon is persuasive in that even if you didn't look at the rest of the cartoon, the bear representing China's economy would stand out and stick in the mind. This focuses on the bad position that China's in, instead of the possibly bad or at least uncomfortable situation that the U.S is in. The artist could have exaggerated his Wall Street characters more to portray the real state that the U.S is in if China's economy does crash.  

Citation:

“Political Cartoons” 2015. WORLD news group. 29 Sep. 2015. <http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/>

Eastern European leaders defy EU effort to set refugee quota

A young Syrian migrant waits in a holding centre for immigrants in the Spanish enclave
Of Melilla in north Africa. Photograph: Fadel Senna/AFP/Getty
Central and eastern European leaders have defied attempts by Brussels and Berlin to
impose refugee quotas ahead of two days of high-stakes summits in Brussels to try to
decide on what already looks like a vain attempt to limit the flow Of refugees and
migrantslll into Europe.
After months of being consistently behind the curve in grappling with the EU's huge
migration crisis, interior ministers will meet on Tuesday to focus on the highly divisive
issue of mandatory quotas to share refugees across the union. There will then be an
emergency summit of leaders on Wednesday.
Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's foreign minister, who is chairing Tuesday's meeting,
failed to reach a breakthrough in Prague on Monday with his counterparts from the
Czech Republic121 Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Latvia.
The Czech government wrote to Brussels arguing that compulsory quotas were illegal
and that it could take the issue to the European court of justice in Luxembourg(31, while
the anti-immigration Hungarian government brought in new laws authorising the army
to use non-lethal force against refugees massing on its borders.


"There are still a few problems to solve," said Asselborn. "We still have 20 hours."
"The terrain is still very uncertain," said a senior source from Luxembourg. "We don't yet
have agreement. It's going to be very, very difficult."
This week's fresh attempt to agree on a quota system comes amid the deepest divisions
between western and eastern Europe since the former Soviet-bloc countries joined the
EU a decade ago.
At issue is the paltry figure of 66,000 refugees being shared across the EU after being
moved from Italy and Greece. They have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to
redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary151, which passed a
law on Monday allowing the army to use non-lethal force on migrants and whose
hardline government wants no part of the scheme.
y16 alone this year and given that up to a million people are expected to enter German
that Frontex, the EU's border agency, says 500,000 are currently preparing to leave
Turkey for the EU, the figures being fought over in Brussels are risible.
But the numbers are not the real issue. The row is about power and sovereignty. In the
end it seems that all countries will join in sharing refugees, with the exception of Britain,
which has opted out Of the scheme(71. The Other two countries with opt-outs —
Ireland and Denmark — have agreed to take part, leaving the UK isolated.

For the east Europeans, the vexed question is one of who takes the decisions: whether
Brussels and Berlin set their quota or whether they decide themselves to take in refugees.
They feel they are being bullied and blackmailed by the Germans, who have threatened to
withhold EU funding for the recalcitrants for the supporters Of quotas, especially in the European commission181, the numbers are also less important. For Brussels, the key factor is that the start of mandatory sharing would mark the first tentative steps towards common EU policies on refugees and set a precedent to be built on.
Germany is the biggest and strongest backer Of the proposed new regime, not least since
it is a replica of the system practised in Germany. It has a well-functioning federalised
scheme that spreads and funds the burden across the 16 German lånder (or states), based
on a formula that takes account of local wealth, unemployment rates and the population
density of immigrants.
In effect, the European commission is proposing to extend the German model to the EU.
If there is no consensus on Tuesday, the pro-quotas camp could push the issue to a
qualified majority vote, which they would comfortably win. But that could open up deep
divisions and cause major political damage.

It would mean forcing countries to take in people they don't want and send people to
countries where they do not want to go, said an EU official, who believed a vote on such
an incendiary issue would be counter-productive.
The summit on Wednesday is to focus on how to keep people out rather than how to
bring them in, while avoiding the mayhem of recent weeks in the Balkans and central
Europe, where borders have been opening and closing on a daily basis in an atmosphere
of panic and chaos.
The summit will concentrate on ways of stemming the flow from Turkey and Libya and
helping the transit countries Of the Balkans — in effect, proposing to bribe neighbouring
countries to keep the migrants from reaching the EU.
Germany has been admired for its open-door policy on Syrian refugees. It is also being
blamed for the mess because of unilateral decision-taking that has sown confusion and
led to kneejerk reactions in the countries en route to Germany from the Balkans —


Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Austria. There is also bewilderment about what
Germany's policy is.
Croatia border clashes as country says it cannot
take more refugees
Since April, when the drowning of 400 migrants in the Mediterranean raised the alarm,
EU governments have staged several emergency meetings in response to horrible events
— such as the death Of a toddler on a Turkish beach191 and the asphyxiation Of 70
migrants in a sealed lorry in Austria.
The governments have bickered and quarreled, failing to agree on coherent policies.
Only the European commission has delivered a semblance of a joined-up strategy,
including the plan for mandatory refugee quotas.
There is talk of beefing up Frontex. But so far, the 26 countries of the Schengen free-
travel area have supplied only 64 extra personnel to the borders agency, seconded for six
months. And, while reinforcing life-saving naval operations in the Mediterranean, the
countries have also failed to redeem all their pledges Of logistical support for the
msslon.
There is lots Of talk Of funding capacities in Turkey and building "reception centres" or
refugee camps in Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. But senior diplomats say these
discussions are sketchy and vague. The commissioner in charge, Dimitris Avramopoulos,
has admitted that the target countries are reluctant to host the EU-proposed camps.

Citation: Traynor, Ian. "Eastern European leaders defy EU effort to set refugee quotas." 21 Sep. 2015. Guardian New and Media Limited. 22 Sep. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/21/eastern-european-leaders-defy-eu-effort-to-set-refugee-quotas>

Response: This article deals with the migration problem from Syria to Europe. The European Union, while trying to organize the migrants and create quotas for each country, their main goal is to stop the constant flow of migrants. Personally, I commend the European Union for taking action to help the migrants who are already in Europe, however, their main goal is not really to help, but rather to stop them from coming at all. I am biased in that, as an American, I have never experience the persecution that the Syrians are experiencing now, so my heart goes out to them. However, I also understand that the European Union is trying keep the economy of all the countries that are part of the EU in a stable place. For example, Germany has welcomed migrants with open arms, but it has been predicted that approximately one million people will have entered Germany in only one year. While their desire to help is admirable, they do not have the resources to support an extra million bodies (be it jobs, money, food, housing) especially since the growth of their population was so exponential. The author is trying to point the reader into the direction of understanding the EU's side of this issue, and not just the devastating state that the migrant are in if they are not helped

Biography

My name is Carlin Couch. I have grown up in America, in a Christian home. My father has been a pastor since I was seven, my mom homeschool me until my freshman year of high school. That same year my family moved to Kijabe, Kenya. I'm a missionary kid. This opened up doors so that I could experience many different cultures other than my own, and has helped me travel to many different places around the world. My own culture is America, but my home is Africa. 

A new way to fight modern day slavery

A new way to fight modern day slavery:

In January 2000, while studying as an undergraduate at the University of San Francisco,
my friends and I, one Of my professors included, were shocked to read a newspaper
article about a case of modern day slavery in Berkeley, California. I didn't realize then
how much this would later come to influence my life.
It was difficult to believe that human trafficking could be happening so close to home —
but that's how forced labor works. It's pervasive. It preys on a community's
vulnerabilities and blind spots. Perhaps most troubling, it afflicts the economically
vulnerable.

In the years following the Chronicle's article, my professor David Batstone wrote Not For
Sale, a book chronicling the modern day slave trade. In 2007, we launched a nonprofit
organization of the same name. Our goal was relatively simple: raise donations to assist
programs that help survivors to rebuild their lives.
Starting a nonprofit felt like a natural inclination in the face of injustice. However, after
nearly a decade trying to stop human trafficking, I now believe that this predisposition
toward nonprofit-based solutions deserves to be challenged.
Despite the hard work of many nonprofits, slavery still exists on a massive scale, with
annual profits totaling over There are 35.8 million people in slavery today131,
more than at any point in history. This galling reality has served as our true wake-up call.
The task at hand is clearly beyond what nonprofits, garnering perhaps S 100m
collectively, can tackle on their own. In light of this we must challenge our traditionally
accepted ways of addressing social problems.
We have come to believe that the modern abolitionist movement requires a business
solution. After all, this is a crime perpetrated by money above-all-else business people,
and it needs to be confronted by immensely talented entrepreneurs. Migrating talent and
capital to address the world's greatest challenges is key to this movement's long term
success.

To that end, Batstone and I scaled up Just Business, an incubator that develops and
supports competitive social enterprises by helping them find investors, management
teams, and other services. Not For Sale151's first four years focused solely on supporting
people only after they had been trafficked, and we continue this important work, helping
nearly 4,500 people in 2014161. However, to truly end trafficking we must also address the
problem at its origin, assisting at-risk people. In this way, Not For Sale also serves as a
research and development program, seeking out scalable business opportunities that
exist within vulnerable communities.

With these goals in mind, Not For Sale and Just Business host the Montara Circle171, a
design-to-action session, to mobilize business entrepreneurs around economic
opportunities in disenfranchised regions. Not For Sale identifies at-risk communities
through data collected via its work with beneficiaries and conducts research to identify
business opportunities. This analysis informs the Montara Circle participants as they set
out to help create an enterprise related intervention. Just Business then takes on the bulk
of responsibility for growing the enterprises that are created in the Montara Circle.
Presently, there are 10 businesses in the Just Business incubator, which we call the
Invention Hub181. Six of them are focused on anti-slavery issues.
Measuring the high cost of environmental impacts

Our first business endeavor from Montara Circle was REBBL191, a fair trade, organic
herbal tonic that sources some of its ingredients from Peru. We integrated our cultural
and political goals at every level Of the planning process. When it carne to choosing a
location for economic development, Not For Sale targeted a specific region of the
Peruvian Amazon that was known to be a source community for trafficking. We also
designed REBBL to be a force for change in the area. By fairly sourcing ingredients from
its indigenous people, we sought to arrest their economic vulnerabilities.
Today, nearly 130,000 pounds of certified fair trade and organic Brazil nuts are sold
annually into the American and European marketplace by communities we set out to
assist in 2011. Not For Sale helped secure the certifications and linked the communities
to exporters.

Ultimately, our goal is to create a self-sustaining economic system, powered by our
enterprises, that will support Not For Sale's social programming. This could be a reality
sooner than later: Whole Foods is currently stocking REBBL, and the beverage will be
selling in most US states by the end of 2015.
By professionalizing our efforts, we've been able to draw top business talent. Palo
Hawken, an award-winning drink developer, is REBBL's CEO. Rather than donating his
time and talents, Palo is financially incentivized to develop a great product that creates
the avenues for further community and environmental enhancement.
As part of our strategy to further shed light on modern slavery and generate revenue for
Not For Sale, in 2014 more than 1.1m products were sold in the US, European, Japanese,
and Australian marketplaces that help amplify Not For Sale's story. These co-branded
products, such as REBBL, highlight Not For Sale on their packaging, which defrays
marketing costs from the nonprofit's economic bottom-line.
Earth demands urgent action on climate change

In return for its contribution to early-stage business development, Not For Sale receives
2.5% gross returns, 5% founding equity, and a board seat to help maintain a social
orientation of the company. The companies also have a supply chain transparency
commitment built into their by-laws, and when applicable, preferential treatment for
employment opportunities for Not For Sale beneficiaries. Constructed with Not For Sale's
global law firm Latham & Watkins, this serves as the baseline model for our anti-slavery
focused enterprises.

We are still in the early days of this hybrid approach, and have much to improve, solidify,
and grow into. But we are already seeing success in attracting talented people and
substantial investment dollars into social enterprises, which can attain large scale social
impact, and sustain our nonprofit endeavors. Unfortunately, what we do is still very rare,
but the hope is that it becomes a more accepted and mainstream approach.
By fighting slaveor, I've learned one clear lesson: it's not enough to work hard within a
system that perpetuates the problem you want to solve. To find a solution, we must also
step outside our Old, traditional structures and create new models Of social change.
Mark Wexler is the co-founder Of Not For Sale, Just Business, and the Invention Hub. He lives
in Berkeley, California.

Response:

The author of this article is clearly biased against modern day slavery, partly because he read the news article about slavery in his own town. This isn't the only reason he's biased. The author and I have the same bias, we are raised in a culture where freedom (be it physical, intellectual, or spiritual) is emphasized on a huge scale. Since we were both raised in America, that comes with a universalist world view, and because of that any injustice or the taking away of anyone's freedom automatically makes our heart skip. In this article, while the author is trying to spread to word of the reality of modern day slavery to the masses, he is calling us to action. In the next to last paragraph he states, "We are still in the early days of this hybrid approach, and have much to improve, solidify, and grow into. But we are already seeing success in attracting talented people and substantial investment dollars into social enterprises, which can attain large scale social impact, and sustain our nonprofit endeavors. " He is calling for help, rallying the hearts and minds of all to action. His goal in this article is to educate, and the through educating, raise money and gain help.

Citation:

Wexler, Max. "A New Way to Fight Modern Day Slavery." 2015. Gaurdian News and Media Limited. 8/9/2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/the-b-team-partner-zone/2015/jun/02/human-trafficking-not-for-sale-mark-wexler>

Development must target the millions of children affected by humanitarian crises

Development must target the millions of children affected by humanitarian crises
Anthony Lake

We must break down the barriers between development and humanitarian response, to
put in place long-term efforts to end poverty and hunger.
In two weeks, world leaders will ratify a new consensus to build a better world: the
sustainable development goals. But we will not reach these development goals — nor
can development be sustainable — without reaching the millions of children living in the
midst Of humanitarian crises. 

Consider a few data points*. Children living in countries affected by humanitarian crises
— conflicts, natural disasters and health emergencies — account for nearly half Of all
under-five deaths How can we achieve SDG3, good health for a11141 if we don't reach
these children?

Four-fifths Of these countries have stunting levels151 above 20%. Nearly two-thirds have
stunting levels above 30%. Two-thirds have unacceptable levels of wasting, often
associated with acute starvation. How can we realise SDG2, to end hunger and all forms
of malnutrition, if we don't reach these children? 

Countries affected by humanitarian crises account for 43% Of all out-of-school
children161 at the primary and lower-secondary levels. SDG4 demands inclusive quality
education for all. How will that be possible if we don't reach these children?
The international community tends to compartmentalise humanitarian and development
crises — separate funding appeals, separate advocacy campaigns and separate
conferences. It is as if development and emergencies exist in different worlds
But children living through crises see no distinction between humanitarian and
development action — they only see whether they are getting what they need to survive,
whether they are able to go to school, and whether they can dream about a better future.
When we educate a girl displaced by conflict, we're not only giving her immediate
protection. We're helping her to shape her mind, build her own future, contribute to her
family and society when she becomes an adult and perhaps even become a voice of peace
in her community and country. 

When we provide cash transfers to families living through natural disasters, we are not
only helping see to their immediate needs. We are supporting them to prevent them
depleting their savings, potentially enabling them to raise healthier, better educated
children. And sustaining the most disadvantaged and marginalised children in crisis with long-
term development efforts is a practical, cost-effective path to fighting future extreme
poverty — SDGI, so, we need to keep breaking down the silos between humanitarian and development action.

 
Ultimately, our success in achieving the SDGs depends on addressing humanitarian crises
themselves. This means, above all, refusing to accept a world in which we are unable to
prevent or resolve conflicts. Ending conflicts would open the single greatest pathway to global development; the best way to save lives; the best way to foster a generation of children ready, willing and able to sustain development into the future. 

Approximately 246 million children live in countries or areas affected by armed conflict.
Last year saw the highest number of child refugees since the second world war, with more
than 25 million171 fleeing violence, destruction and deprivation.
Ending conflicts is not only in the interests Of these children, though that is reason
enough. It is also in the interests of every country in the world. The cost of a civil war can
equal 30 years of GDP growth. Last year alone, conflicts cost the global econom 8 an
estimated $14.3trn - more than 13% of world GDP.
How can we sustain future development when we also sustain these losses, year after
year? Can the world afford to lose more than 10% of its productivity year after year? How
can we bring children out of poverty, poor health and despair when any progress made
can be so quickly — so brutally, so needlessly — erased?

And what kind Of future does humanity have when communities are battered by conflict
after conflict, seemingly without end? When children fleeing these conflicts drown at
sea, or suffocate in the backs of trucks crossing borders in a desperate attempt to escape
the fighting? Wouldn't ending these conflicts be the best possible contribution to reaching the
sustainable development goals?
Before we reject such a call as unrealistic, let's consider the words Of nine-year Old Ali,
from Sa'ada, Yemen — one of 1.8 million Yemeni children affected by the ongoing
conflict191 there. He recently asked: "What did we do wrong? Why can't we live like other
children in the world? The world owes him an answer. He and every child has the right to the quiet blessing of a normal childhood. 

Citation:

Lake, Anthony. "Development must target the millions of children affected by humanitarian crises." Gaurdian News and Media Limited. 14 Sept. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/sep/11/sustainable-development-goals-target-millions-children-humanitarian-crises>

Response:

This article has some very valid points, but also some clear misunderstanding due to the shades of author's bias. The author has a very western mindset being money solves everything. Ending world hunger and poverty, as noble as it is, cannot be done by an endless supply of free hand outs. The author states, "When we provide cash transfers to families living through natural disasters, we are not only helping see to their immediate needs. We are supporting them to prevent them depleting their savings, potentially enabling them to raise healthier, better educated children." I disagree with him. The only thing they are doing is helping them see to their immediate needs. When those without money are given an exorbitant amount of money they don't know how to use it wisely, thus, they use it for their immediate needs and then it's gone. I know I have a bias since I've heard endless stories of the hurt that westerners inflict on villages here in Africa when they try to help without any consideration for culture. However; I do agree with the authors statement, "When we educate a girl displaced by conflict, we’re not only giving her immediate protection. We’re helping her to shape her mind, build her own future, contribute to her family and society when she becomes an adult and perhaps even become a voice of peace in her community and country." Education goes much further than anything else. That is why I agree and disagree with the author, taking into account both of our biases.