Commentary. The Cuban Missile Crisis Address to the Nation is a speech made by the United States of America President, John F. Kennedy, and live transmitted on October, 22nd 1962.
Document Commentary A key moment in the history of mankind is the Cuban Missile Crisis having the two superpowers at its core: United States of America and the Soviet Union. The crisis began on October, 14th 1962 and lasted for 13 days. Evidence proved it to be, the point at which the Cold War nearly degenerated into a nuclear war and nearly became World War Three. The Cuban Missile Crisis Address to the Nation it's a speech made by the United States of America President, John F. Kennedy, and live transmitted on October, 22nd 1962. If we examine the method for making the "crisis" public, we can observe that John F. Kennedy was extremely specific. He did make very clear the problems 'ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead...capable of striking Washington, D. C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area.'(Kennedy, 1962) By being specific about what exactly the crisis was, John F. Kennedy was able to give public awareness to the events that were likely to unfold. Besides warning Khrushchev the speech also has other targets. The American president warned Dictator Fidel Castro by saying: '. They are puppets ... which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americans, and turned it into the first Latin American country to become
Britain's Nuclear Deterrent. The government argues that the conditions required for complete nuclear disarmament do not yet exist. This paper will argue that these conditions already exist for the UK and will examine the threat, costs, the environmental
(Word Count 2636) Introduction A thorough review of the United Kingdom's (UK's) deterrence requirements was conducted as part of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and concluded that 'while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain, our minimum deterrent remains a necessary element of our security' (MOD, 1998). That minimum deterrent is Trident. The government argues that the conditions required for complete nuclear disarmament do not yet exist. This paper will argue that these conditions already exist for the UK and will examine the threat, costs, the environmental factors and the legality of the Trident system. Background The UK has been a committed nuclear power since 1945 when the first atomic bomb was produced under the Manhattan Project (Clarke, 2004). The UK nuclear weapons programme is currently based entirely on four Trident nuclear missile submarines (SSBNs) which came into service in 1994 with a projected service life of 'up to 30 years' (MOD, 1998), and fewer than 200 warheads. Whilst the UK's operational posture has changed dramatically over the last few years, enabling us to maintain our nuclear forces at reduced readiness (MOD, 1998), the government has still made it absolutely clear that it is prepared to use its nuclear deterrent as a first strike capability provided a realistic and credible threat against the UK exists. British
What were the main forces promoting globalisation in the late 20th century? How different was this from what had happened in the late 19th century?
What were the main forces promoting globalisation in the late 20th century? How different was this from what had happened in the late 19th century? In order to study the phenomenon of globalisation, it is initially crucial to set a clear definition of the term. In the words of Richard Higgott and Simon Reich, "'Globalisation' is rapidly replacing 'Cold War' as the most overused and underspecified explanation for a variety of events in international relations" (Higgott and Reich 1998). Indeed, the concept is so broad that it is difficult to define; for some it is simply a borderless or international economy whereas for others it is an over exaggerated concept which is perhaps even non-existent. However 'globalisation' is defined, it is clear that the world economy has become progressively more integrated in the latter half of the twentieth century, with this integration accelerating in pace in the past 25 years. Due to the huge increase in pace of globalisation, many presume that the concept is unprecedented; never before has the world market become intertwined in this manner. However, this assumption would be incorrect as globalisation is not a new phenomenon: there was a similar spell of international economic integration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although this came to an abrupt stop with the arrival of the First World War in 1914. This essay will look at
The importance of non-state actors in the World politics.
Research Paper Revision Duisheev Nurlan ICP-100 28.04.02 The Importance Of Non-State Actors In The World Politics The world is certainly changing its political appearance. That is related to the growing interdependence of states to each other that in turn is related to the emergence of strong non-state actors. States and tremendously growing transnational actors inevitably influences the history of humankind. Today there is an ongoing debate considering the significance of the world political actors: "which of them have more impact on world's political issues?" First, I will deal with the operational definitions, given by some prominent thinkers, of the actors in the world stage that are discussed and try to provide broad explanations to the activities conducted by each actor. Arguments proving the importance of the non-state actors, the differences between the actors, and the problems that states are facing will be given briefly in the very middle. The conclusion will be drawn from the perspective of changing world towards pluralism. There is a little ambiguity in the meanings of some terms: state, non-state actors, transnational corporations. It is easier to understand if I use technical terms by operational definitions. Peter Willets figured out the meaning of some key concepts that are considered useful among other thinkers: "A state is an entity that is
Critically evaluate the claim that both as an ideal and a reality the project of european unity has invariably rested more on reaction against an external 'other' than on any inherent sense of common identity or purpose.
CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE CLAIM THAT BOTH AS AN IDEAL AND A REALITY THE PROJECT OF EUROPEAN UNITY HAS INVARIABLY RESTED MORE ON REACTION AGAINST AN EXTERNAL 'OTHER' THAN ON ANY INHERENT SENSE OF COMMON IDENTITY OR PURPOSE The project of European unity has had a long and varied history. Ideas of European integration go back as far as the seventeenth century with Duc de Sully and his 'Grand Design' to redraw European boundaries, generate a European Council and defend the continent with a united European Army. Despite the rejection of de Scully's idea Europe has experienced a series of similar ideas and attempts to create a more unified federation, from Napoleonic France in the early nineteenth century to Nazi Germany in the mid twentieth century. In this essay I will briefly explore such attempts that have occurred since the end of the First World War, to ascertain the thinking behind them and the influences that brought the unity of Europe about as an ideal. I will also describe the events that took place leading up to the creation of the European Community and to the present day European Union, depicting the shift from European unity as an ideal to the European Union as a reality. All too often people assume that European unity is a modern concept, a post-war invention, a reaction to world war two and Nazi Germany. But the truth is European unity actually dates back well
Is Britain more or less Awkward the other Member States
Is Britain more or less 'awkward' than other member states? Contents: Abstract . Introduction .1 An Awkward Partner .2 Problems for Comparative Politics .3 Overcoming the n=1 problem 2. Everyday policy making 2.1 Post-Maastricht 3. The Legal Systems 3.1 Ministers Voting Behaviour 4. Opposition Government 4.1 The Media 5. Conclusion Fig.1 A Venn diagram showing Britain's foreign commitments post-1945. Fig.2 Annual Report of the Court of Justice (2007) Fig.3 Data for Graph ibid: Actions for failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Notes on Fig.4 Fig.4 Voting Behaviour in the Council . Introduction: This report discusses the challenges with answering the question and then discusses resource based theory in an attempt to pinpoint whether Britain is more or less awkward than the other member states. .1 An Awkward Partner: 'An Awkward Partner' (George, S. 1992) brings together the main threads of Britain's relationship with the EC and EU and considers Britain awkward according to the dictionary definition: 'clumsy, bungling'' (George, S. 1995. p.43). One reason for Britain's awkwardness, discussed in academic literature, arises from her commitments to the Commonwealth and US. A Venn diagram can be used to illustrate the complexity of Britain's commitments (Fig.1). Butter trade links with the Commonwealth meant Britain attempted to safeguard New
At what point did Bosnia - Herzegovina become a state in international law?
At what point did Bosnia - Herzegovina become a state in international law? Laura Jenkins Jesus College, part 1B Law Following a protracted and bloody civil war in the former Yugoslavia the republics which had previously made up the nation were invited to apply for formal independent status, with similar conditions as had been required of the states of the former USSR. Six of the republics took up the invitation and presented their cases to the international community in the winter of 1991/2; prior to that date several of them had declared themselves independent, and were continuing their domestic policy as if that were the case. The question then arises of whether these states were internationally recognised independent entities merely because they declared themselves to be so, or whether there is some more rigorous test. In this case, there was also the issue of whether the fledgling states ceded from the former Yugoslavia or whether they were wholly new states; this issue is important to determine what treaty obligations the new nations would face. This latter point will not be fully discussed here as it is beyond the scope of this essay. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) laid down the definition of a state in international law; it stated that there must be four criteria met before a state could be formally recognised as such: * a
Is War Defensible?
Is War Defensible? Imagine if everyone had telepathic powers and could communicate with the dead, and it was possible to ask the victims of World War One, the Vietnam War or the Kosovo crisis if they felt they had died in a just or unjust manner. They would probably say, "what's the difference!", underscoring the absurdity of the moral proposition of the question. Yet this is precisely the selective chivalry that constitutes just war theory, the idea that state-sponsored killing can be legally and morally rationalised, while similar acts perpetrated by non-state actors are illegal and intrinsically evil. Realism, the dominant paradigm of interstate relations, regards war as a legitimate political tool and takes no moral position. Just war ideas try to reconcile realism with a more ethical morality, but fail to do so for a number of reasons. Thus the only just and moral position possible is that war is not defensible under any circumstances. Just war theory attempts to defend the practice of war by morally specifying the conditions under which war may be justly conducted. However the moral dissection of warfare is incompatible with the dominant realist paradigm, which regards war as an extension of diplomacy for states to use for survival in the hostile and anarchic international order1. According to realists, the lack of a central authority to ensure the rights of
How succesful was The League of Nations in the 1920's?
The League of Nations helped stop a few wars but actually, how successful was it? Well, we can start off with the Vilna Incident in the 1920's. When the Polish started to try to take control of it, Lithuania appealed for help. The League protested to Poland but they did not listen. The League was now stuck. What they could have done but didn't, was send British and French troops to force the Poles out. The French did not want to become enemies with Poland as they saw it as an ally with Germany in future. Britain didn't want to act alone and they didn't want to send troops all the way across Europe. The Leagues first case was a failure. The Leagues next case was a success in Upper Silesia. This region had Poles and Germans living there but both countries wanted control over it. The League made a compromise and both countries accepted. The next case is the Corfu case. It was the border between Greece and Albania. Tellini, an Italian general was told to supervise the area when one night, they were watching the Greek side of the frontier when they were ambushed and killed. Mussolini, the Italian leader, blamed Greece and was furious and on the 29th of August, 1923, demanded that Greece pay compensation and execute the murderers. The Greeks had no idea who the murderers were so Mussolini attacked on the 31st of August and occupied the Greek Island of Corfu. 15 people were killed.
Decline of the Congress Party in India
What are the most convincing factors that help explain the decline in dominance of the Congress Party in India's political system? India's political system is commonly described as being a multi-party system. This is a system of political representation involving 3 or more political parties. Each political party has the capacity to control government either by its own or through coalitions with other parties. India is a federal republic; therefore, this multi-party structure is implemented at both the regional and national levels. Rajni Kothari offers a more in-depth analysis and definition of India's political system. The author accepts the common notion of India's political system being a multi-party one, but also goes further to qualify the system as a multi-party system with "one party dominance", (Kothari 1964: 1162). Kothari defines a one-party dominant system as, "a competitive party system but one in which the competing parts pay dissimilar roles and one which consists of, parties of pressure and parties of consensus". Parties of pressure operate within the margin of pressure. This is comprised of opposition parties to the ruling party or parties. Their main role is to, "pressure, criticize, censure and influence the ruling party and act as a balance of power on the ruling party, by exerting the latent threat to displace the ruling party if it strays too far from
