George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 370

George Bush’s Great America – Episode 369 (370/377)

< Episode 369 >

Bush held the document, reading it several times, a growing unease settling in. He realized something was seriously wrong. The situation unfolding was diverging significantly from the original timeline he knew.

The differences from the original history, significant enough to warrant detailed consideration, related primarily to the situation in Europe. These differences are as follows:

First, the full-scale intervention in western Iraq, intended to stabilize the Middle East and exploit its resources, instead triggered a massive surge in refugees. While the refugee numbers had briefly plateaued, and even declined in some areas, around the time of the western Iraq occupation, this proved to be a temporary lull.

The civil war in western Iraq, followed by conflicts in other parts of the Middle East, forced people to flee to all corners of the globe. Although the refugees scattered in many directions, the majority ultimately headed for Europe. This influx was fueled by the proliferation of refugee camps in various European countries, combined with a widespread, if somewhat naive, perception of Europe as a land of prosperity.

Consequently, most European countries, with the exception of some Northern European nations like Finland and Sweden, found themselves struggling to cope with the refugee crisis. As the refugee problem escalated into a matter of national survival, these countries were forced to choose between policies of appeasement and hard-line repression.

There seemed to be no way to effectively reverse course. Both appeasement and hard-line policies ultimately led to negative outcomes. France, for example, effectively declared war on the refugees, implicitly blaming Germany for creating the conditions that led to the crisis. They were unwilling to be victimized, even if it meant suffering losses.

France’s approach, of course, had its own drawbacks. The aggressive stance of public authorities towards refugees, and the tendency to blame them for all of society’s ills, was uncomfortably reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s persecution of the Jews.

However, unlike the Nazis’ actions, this wasn’t a conspiracy theory manufactured to seize power. The EU’s struggles were genuinely rooted in the refugee crisis, a key difference from the historical context of Nazi Germany.

Conversely, most EU member states, with the exception of France, continued to pursue appeasement policies. The majority followed similar approaches, except for Greece, which teetered on the brink of default and had largely lost the capacity to differentiate between refugees and its own citizens.

Second, Greece, as mentioned above, presented a unique case. While initially appearing to be in a similar predicament, a few subtle advantages allowed them to stubbornly pursue their own agenda.

In the original timeline, Greece seemed utterly hopeless. However, in this altered reality, they clung to the belief that even if they couldn’t solve their problems independently, they could rely on foreign powers to avert default.

Moreover, that foreign power was the leading nation of the EU. In the most optimistic light, it wasn’t entirely a foreign power. Of course, the Greek people didn’t see it that way, but the government had reasons to believe it.

They understood that regardless of how much Germany interfered with the Greek economy, the ultimate outcome would benefit Greece. After all, Germany was the largest component of the Greek economy, and Germany had a vested interest in saving Greece. For the sake of the Eurozone, they had to intervene, even reluctantly.

In fact, one of the reasons this situation arose was that Germany, despite warning about Greece’s growing debt, ultimately only issued recommendations and stood idly by. It was no exaggeration to say that Germany was now bearing the consequences of its past inaction.

Third, Turkey’s potential EU membership. Turkey was actively seeking to join the EU, even offering territorial concessions. This was a noticeable departure from Bush’s recollection of Turkey’s previous stance.

While they had always been eager to join the EU, they weren’t willing to do so at any cost.

In the current climate, with the Greek economic crisis and the refugee problem compounding each other, Turkey became a welcome solution for the EU and the Eurozone. Consequently, they were able to solidify their position rapidly, compensating for previous political setbacks and a period of low-profile diplomacy.

While not as influential as Germany, which was openly recognized as the leading power, Turkey possessed a limited but significant ability to challenge Germany’s decisions.

If refugees were expelled from Europe, they would inevitably return to the Middle East. Even if they didn’t return to the Middle East, most would eventually seek refuge in Turkey.

The EU countries, even as their situation deteriorated, still felt compelled to maintain a facade of conscientiousness.

To be precise, they were trying to appear conscientious. They had their international reputation to consider, and the United States was conspicuously standing by, arms folded.

In any case, Turkey was making its voice heard clearly, appealing for and insisting on guarantees for the ‘human rights of refugees.’ This stance was, of course, self-serving. A strong stance on refugee rights would amplify Turkey’s influence. Turkey’s influence stemmed partly from its status as a regional power, partly from the factors mentioned above, but most decisively from the presence of ‘refugees’ seeking to settle in Europe, which allowed Turkey to exert influence within the EU.

By positioning itself as a protector of Muslims within the EU, Turkey leveraged its predominantly Muslim population (98%) to wield the hammer of ‘ethics’ within the bounds of common sense and humanitarianism, even though it was a secular country.

The ethical stance that Turkey adopted became a powerful weapon. It allowed them to condemn other parties at will, and they reinforced this ethical stance with the military and economic power they had diligently cultivated.

Even though Turkey was among the countries with the strictest refugee policies, outward appearances mattered. Having resolved to use ethics and human rights as leverage, they managed refugees more systematically and actively suppressed discriminatory actions against refugees by mobilizing public authorities.

As a result, Turkey could now influence the entire EU simply by refraining from active condemnation and issuing occasional statements at opportune moments.

Even Germany was closely monitoring Turkey’s every move, and it could be argued that the 21st century had finally brought a golden age for Turkey, reversing the endless decline that began with the Ottoman Empire [Osman I founded the Ottoman Empire in the late 13th century].

These events and conditions led Bush to develop something akin to a conspiracy theory.

‘No, it’s not even a conspiracy theory. There’s some truth to it.’

While some details were speculative, the core suspicion was that ‘Turkey intentionally intervened in the Middle East conflict?’ But if that were the case, Bush would have noticed it sooner.

‘So, is it simply a case of capitalizing on the situation? That’s quite rare. Just by diligently improving water purification technology while providing various resources to Europe…’

In short, they were adapting to the circumstances. Turkey, like other Middle Eastern countries, faced chronic water shortages and was using every means to address this. They were steadily building dams and purchasing water purification technology from Europe. However, dam construction was a complex undertaking and could provoke backlash from neighboring countries.

Turkey made significant efforts to address its water issues, but it still faced criticism from neighboring countries. Then, the war that engulfed the Middle East erupted. As their own problems mounted, they could no longer afford to worry about the impact of events in other countries on their own lives and future.

“Indeed, it was worth getting out of the traffic law revision meeting.”

“Is that so?”

“Of course. This means that the era of European dominance is declining.”

Of course, the decline was gradual, and Europe remained powerful. The United States was still a major player. While the United States couldn’t be considered entirely European, its mainstream culture was still predominantly European. The fact that all American presidents Bush remembered were of European descent supported this.

‘Even the first black president is on the verge of being elected or not.’

A presidential candidate who might receive the black vote simply because of his skin color. While this might seem like a discriminatory observation, it reflected the reality of the situation.

“Honestly, I think we have no choice but to expel the refugees.”

As the Chief of Staff said, expulsion was the only solution unless they granted autonomy or revised the constitution. Since autonomy and constitutional revision were impossible, expulsion was the only option. The problem was that expulsion was not an easy task.

Wasn’t the founding ideal of the EU peace? Where could they possibly expel the refugees to? Even if they did expel them, it would represent a regression of peace within Europe. If that happened, the EU would be permanently confined to the European continent.

“I don’t care what the solution is. The important thing is how these events affect the United States.”

The impact was straightforward. If Europe declined, the United States would suffer some economic damage. The reason it was ‘some’ was that there was a vast Asian market that would remain open. There were no military implications because the US military was much larger than in the original timeline, and there were no diplomatic concerns except for the EU’s reliance on the United States.

“I don’t think we need to offer any more help than we already are.”

The help that the United States provided to the EU, aside from economic aid, primarily involved sharing the burden of Middle Eastern refugees. However, in the current dire situation, this assistance was of limited value. Moreover, the United States could point to Latin American refugees as its primary concern. As a secondary justification, they could argue that ‘Europe created the mess in the Middle East, not us.’

So, what about a scenario where the United States actively intervenes? It wasn’t difficult to imagine. The current United States was capable of doing it.

They could deploy troops to suppress the conflicts with greater force and then mediate a settlement. This would temporarily end the war, and the refugees would lose their leverage. The only legitimate reason for them to remain in Europe would be ‘the home country is still in chaos.’ However, that reason alone wouldn’t be sufficient.

Such intervention might have been possible in peacetime. But now, the European sense of reason was paralyzed, and they were desperate to somehow rid themselves of the refugees.

In any case, the United States might be able to resolve the situation temporarily through intervention. They would incur astronomical costs for intervening in the Middle East, but that would be the extent of the burden. Moreover, if they were truly determined to intervene, it wouldn’t be a solo effort by the United States. Afghanistan, China, India, South Korea, Japan, and even Southeast Asian countries and Russia could participate.

Russia was a somewhat uncertain partner, but in any case, with the exception of Russia, they could definitely attract support and even troop deployments. This would reduce the economic burden, and they could reshape the Middle East relatively reliably according to the interests of the United States.

‘But this must be a bad strategy.’

That’s right. Unless the United States was truly committed to dominating the Middle East, the region would eventually fragment again.

At that point, it would be difficult for the United States to maintain control, and wouldn’t they be back to square one? The situation with Sudan in Africa was different. Sudan only required preventing local conflicts, but the Middle East encompassed the entire region known as the Middle East.

‘There is no way to deal with the Middle East, at least during my term. If those damn EU guys had handed it over a little earlier, there might have been a way, but the limit was to divide the conflict into civil wars. In the end, I have to hope that time will solve it.’

At this time, neither Bush, nor the Europeans, nor the refugees living in Europe could even imagine what would really happen in Europe.