I've been wondering.. read this:

"The reason why the wealthy countries are doing their never too weary struggle is because they won't let go of what they have scratched with their claws and fought with their armies to get their hands on. They won't let 'the others' run their own course, independent from the interests of The West, because that would mean the end of those very same interests. That is why the big immigration question - or, to view it from a different angle: the migration phenomenon - may be more important than it looks like. It is an unusually clear example of the time we live in, the situation we find ourselves in. And it may well be that through this clear example lies the possibility of finding something else clear, a solution or a medicine that is shaped by this example's clarity."

..i've been writing this paragraph over and over again, to make it the way i try to see all this. Is i true? Does the migration perspective offer new insight and a damn good way to see these things we see happening (and are a part of) today? To use the migration, how the west chooses to face it, and even more important: the story behind it, what has caused it, and the underlying nature of its cause, is that good? is it true that it is an unusually clear looking glass, with an angle we should use more often?

cause ive started to wonder... specially when it comes to the UN, its role. i dont know how to view the UN, i hear many conflicting statements, from different sides. the norwegian refugee council, where i got some of the inspiration from, shows for example total respect to the UN and how countries are to be subordinate to the pact. it's the foundation of their whole stance, basically.

(Im thinking about this more now than ever because now it is a part of my future.. i will be studying "Culture and Identity" in uni starting next autumn, and those studies bring you on a path towards multicultural understanding (a not nice example is: conflicts), immigration topics, ethnology, religion, migration and so on.)