George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 362

<361>

The march was a form of protest, amplified by the use of Islamic flags, signaling a demand for the implementation of Islamic law within the constitution.

Specifically, their demands were:

1. The immediate application of Islamic laws, asserting their supremacy over the Basic Law (Constitution) of the Federal Republic of Germany.

2. Formal recognition of all refugees currently residing in Germany as citizens, with guaranteed equal rights.

3. The abandonment of the proposed border closure plan and the acceptance of a greater number of refugees into Germany.

4. An immediate increase in refugee support funds to elevate living standards and ensure a minimum standard of living.

While the demands seemed absurd given the large number of people involved, the core issue was the recognition of refugees as full ‘citizens.’ Achieving this, they believed, would pave the way for the gradual realization of the other demands. They were prepared for a long and arduous struggle.

However, such a proposition was unacceptable. It represented a fundamental threat to the existing European identity.

In polite terms, it was globalization, a concept championed by the Western world, including the United States and Europe. In harsher terms, it was perceived as an invasion of Islamic civilization. Labeling anti-refugee protesters as 21st-century Crusaders was an exaggeration.

Despite the term ‘invaders’ being used, the protesters themselves framed their actions as advocating for an ‘Islamic Bill of Rights.’ Yet, from the perspective of many citizens, they were seen as ungrateful invaders, much like the Native Americans who shared their knowledge of corn cultivation with the early European settlers.

From a foundational standpoint, ‘protest’ is a right reserved for those with standing – a fundamental right of ‘citizens.’ Those without citizenship lack this power, a crucial tool for challenging authority.

Therefore, refugees, lacking citizenship, arguably had no inherent right to protest. Some viewed their actions not as protest, but as an illegal assembly or even a riot.

Thus, the simultaneous eruption of anti-refugee protests, fueled by a determination to defend Europe, was not coincidental but inevitable, even with the accompanying violence. Citizens felt their government had ignored their opposition to the refugee influx, leading to a predictable backlash.

In essence, subsequent events were a chain of cause and effect. Unbeknownst to both Middle Easterners and Europeans, a volatile situation was brewing, threatening to shatter their established order.

They were nearing a point of no return, where the slightest spark could ignite a catastrophic explosion. There was no easy solution, no way to simply remove the threat or escape the consequences.

The only question was whether to exacerbate the situation or allow it to detonate on its own. Expelling the existing refugees was no longer feasible, and acceding to their demands would trigger a citizen revolt.

Even if divine forces offered forgiveness, the citizens would not. The current government would crumble. The time for compromise had long passed.

They should have carefully analyzed the United States’ shift away from the Middle East. Misinterpreting this as a mere change in policy had dire consequences, akin to losing one’s entire fortune in a single gamble. And politics, after all, is often a high-stakes gamble.

This was the outcome of gambling on the Middle East.

“What is the Prime Minister doing! Is this even a country anymore!”

“The Prime Minister must resign! We don’t need a weak government that can’t even stop this Islamic invasion!”

The perceived slow and inadequate response to the refugee crisis fueled public anger. Protesters demanded an unrealistic solution: the expulsion of all refugees. While impractical, it was a consistent and unwavering demand.

While the response was not necessarily slow, the previous Prime Minister had already taken the fall. The current Prime Minister, Merkel, bore some responsibility, but she inherited a situation that was already spiraling out of control.

In any case, the government did its best. The United States, through the United Kingdom, subtly pressured Europe to shoulder the responsibility for the situation. Initially, it seemed manageable. Exploiting the Middle East could accommodate around 10,000 refugees, or even a million.

Stabilizing the Middle East and repatriating the refugees was the ultimate goal. A significant portion of these refugees could then be transformed into pro-European advocates, deeply embedded within Middle Eastern society, facilitating easier governance.

In the early stages, this was not merely a humanitarian endeavor with inherent losses, but a strategic initiative with potential benefits. The problem was the West Iraq War [Likely a fictional conflict referencing real-world events]. The reality of West Iraq was widely known due to frequent media coverage. However, such scandals were attributed to unscrupulous companies, not the state, allowing for a superficial restoration of the country’s image.

European governments were not entirely blameless, perhaps guilty of aiding and abetting. They cautiously observed, intending to capitalize on the situation by targeting a relatively powerless company to boost their popularity in the West.

However, this short-sighted scheme backfired in the form of the West Iraq War, which severely damaged their credibility and international standing. While losing international influence was undesirable, the United States and the EU were the dominant forces of the era. The US held a clear lead, with the EU as a distant second.

The fact that a union of countries was needed to rival the United States underscored its immense power.

“Anyway, the time has finally come to choose,” Bush muttered, closing the refugee report on Europe.

‘There is no option to die embracing the refugees. That’s what democracy is. A proper democratic government can never go against the people’s choice. Well, I wonder if there has ever been a proper democratic government on this earth.’

True participatory democracy had been absent since its inception in the authoritarian Middle East. A truly democratic country had never existed, not even the United States. Despite its reputation as a democratic leader, it was arguably a nation where influence could be bought.

Bush was inherently predisposed to act decisively, even if it meant overriding the majority, ostensibly for the greater good. However, such actions were fundamentally incompatible with democratic principles.

‘But that doesn’t mean I’m going to deny the value of democracy.’

Bush’s actions were a form of shortcut, undermining the very essence of democracy. It was akin to Bush operating heavy machinery while others struggled with rudimentary tools.

In retrospect, it was a questionable act. While Americans might not have seen it as significant, non-Americans were profoundly affected by Bush’s interventions.

In China, in particular, the fates of individuals were drastically altered. However, this had become a forgotten history, seemingly irrelevant. Yet, Bush could not simply ignore it.

He was inherently compassionate and empathetic, and the knowledge that his actions had caused suffering weighed heavily on him. Even if he wished to disregard it, his conscience, personified by “Kim Kap-hwan” [Likely a reference to a character known for justice], compelled him to care.

This became a heavy burden for Bush. Initially, he was exhilarated by the prospect of changing the world. But as time passed, the weight of responsibility grew.

The expectations of the people, the lawmakers, the duty to guide the world, and the growing sense of disillusionment created immense pressure.

He often felt like giving up. But he persevered, reminding himself that his past efforts and sacrifices would be rendered meaningless if he faltered.

“The incident broke out in Germany, but France has already made its choice.”

“France. It’s not a country with good memories. It will soon truly transform into the City of Light [Referring to Paris]. Fires of looting will rise in various parts of the city, and there will be direct armed confrontation through the military, not voices through protests. This incident will intensify inter-racial conflicts for at least half a century.”

Expressing his sadness, Bush rose from his seat. It was 3 a.m., a late hour to be leaving work.

“Then we have no choice but to become a place of racial harmony. Or is that so?”

“Are you thinking of dismantling that refugee camp? Or are you going to accept more Middle Eastern refugees?”

“Of course not. That’s a bad move. It will only lead to destruction.”

Dismantling the camp would render their previous efforts a sunk cost, while accepting more refugees would overwhelm even the United States.

“I’m thinking of guiding these refugees to the east.”

He pointed to the Middle East on the silver globe and gradually moved it eastward, ultimately landing on China, specifically the region now known as Uyghur.

“Uyghur? If a newborn country accepts so many refugees, it will collapse.”

“Well, that’s the case if Uyghur is a newborn country with no background at all. They have India as a background.”

“Will India really help them?”

“Of course not. It’s a Hindu country. They would rather starve them to death. They will not try to feed them. It’s not Uyghur who feeds them.”

“Then where is it?”

“China.”