About the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

About the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military alliance of countries from Europe and North America promising collective defense. Currently numbering 29 nations, NATO was formed initially to counter the communist East and has searched for a new identity in the post-Cold War world. Background In the aftermath of the Second World War, with ideologically opposed Soviet armies occupying much of Eastern Europe and fears still high over German aggression, the nations of Western Europe searched for a new form of military alliance to protect themselves. In March 1948 the Brussels Pact was signed between France, Britain, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, creating a defence alliance called the Western European Union, but there was a feeling that any effective alliance would have to include the US and Canada. In the US there was widespread concern about both the spread of Communism in Europe – strong Communist parties had formed in France and Italy - and potential aggression from Soviet armies, leading the US to seek talks about an Atlantic alliance with the west of Europe. The perceived need for a new defensive unit to rival the Eastern bloc was exacerbated by the Berlin Blockade of 1949, leading to an agreement that same year with many nations from Europe. Some nations opposed membership and still do, e.g. Sweden, Ireland. Creation, Structure, and Collective Security NATO was created by the North Atlantic Treaty, also called the Washington Treaty, which was signed on April 5th 1949. There were twelve signatories, including the United States, Canada and Britain (full list below). The head of NATOs military operations is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, a position always held by an American so their troops don’t come under foreign command, answering to the North Atlantic Council of ambassadors from member nations, which is led by the Secretary General of NATO, who is always European. The centrepiece of the NATO treaty is Article 5, promising collective security: an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The German Question The NATO treaty also allowed for the alliance’s expansion among European nations, and one of the earliest debates among NATO members was the German question: should West Germany (the East was under rival Soviet control) be re-armed and allowed to join NATO. There was opposition, invoking the recent German aggression which caused World War Two, but in May 1955 Germany was allowed to join, a move which caused upset in Russia and led to the formation of the rival Warsaw Pact alliance of Eastern communist nations. NATO and the Cold War NATO had, in many ways, been formed to secure West Europe against the threat of Soviet Russia, and the Cold War of 1945 to 1991 saw an often tense military standoff between NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact nations on the other. However, there was never a direct military engagement, thanks in part to the threat of nuclear war; as part of NATO agreements nuclear weapons were stationed in Europe. There were tensions within NATO itself, and in 1966 France withdrew from the military command established in 1949. Nevertheless, there was never a Russian incursion into the western democracies, in large part due to the NATO alliance. Europe was very familiar with an aggressor taking one country after another thanks for the late 1930s and did not let it happen again. NATO After the Cold War The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to three major developments: the expansion of NATO to include new nations from the former Eastern bloc (full list below), the re-imagining of NATO as a ‘co-operative security’ alliance able to deal with European conflicts not involving member nations and the first use of NATO forces in combat. This first occurred during the Wars of the Former Yugoslavia, when NATO used air-strikes first against Bosnian-Serb positions in 1995, and again in 1999 against Serbia, plus the creation of a 60,000 peace keeping force in the region. NATO also created the Partnership for Peace initiative in 1994, aimed at engaging and building trust with ex-Warsaw Pact nations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and later the nations from the Former Yugoslavia. Other 30 countries have so far joined, and ten have become full members of NATO. NATO and the War on Terror: The conflict in the former Yugoslavia had not involved a NATO member state, and the famous clause 5 was first – and unanimously - invoked in 2001 after terrorist attacks on the United States, leading to NATO forces running peace-keeping operations in Afghanistan. NATO has also created the Allied Rapid Reaction Force (ARRF) for faster responses. However, NATO has come under pressure in recent years from people arguing it should be scaled down, or left to Europe, despite the increase in Russian aggression in the same period. NATO might still be searching for a role, but it played a huge role in maintaining the status quo in the Cold War, and has potential in a world where Cold War aftershocks keep happening.   Member States 1949 Founder Members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France (withdrew from military structure 1966), Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States1952: Greece (withdrew from military command 1974 – 80), Turkey1955: West Germany (With East Germany as reunified Germany from 1990)1982: Spain1999: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia2009: Albania, Croatia2017: Montenegro

Bill Clinton As Vice President - Constitutional Issue

Bill Clinton As Vice President - Constitutional Issue The question of whether Bill Clinton could be elected vice president and be allowed to serve in that capacity surfaced during the 2016 presidential election when his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, jokingly told interviewers the idea had crossed my mind. The question goes deeper, of course, than just whether Bill Clinton could be elected and serve as vice president. Its about whether any president who has served out his  statutory limit of two terms as president could then serve as vice president and next in the line of succession to the commander in chief. The easy answer is: We dont know. And we dont know because no president whos served two terms has actually come back and tried to win election to vice president. But there are key parts of the U.S. Constitution that appear to raise enough serious questions about whether Bill Clinton or any other two-term president could later serve as a vice president. And there are enough red flags to keep any serious presidential candidate from picking someone like Clinton as a running mate. Generally speaking, a candidate wouldn’t want to select a running mate when there’s serious doubt about the running mate’s eligibility, and when there are many other good alternatives as to whom there’s no doubt, wrote Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law. The Constitutional Problems With Bill Clinton Being Vice President The 12th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution states that â€Å"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.† Clinton and other former U.S. presidents clearly met the eligibility requirements to be vice president  at one point - that is, they were at least 35 years old at the time of the election, they had lived in the United States for at least 14 years, and they were natural born U.S. citizens. But then comes the 22nd Amendment, which states that no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. So now, under this amendment, Clinton and other two-term presidents are rendered ineligible to be president again. And that ineligibility to be president, according to some interpretations, makes them ineligible to be vice president under the 12th amendment, though this interpretation has never been test by the U.S. Supreme Court. Clinton has been elected to the presidency twice. So he can no longer be elected to the presidency, according to the language of the 22nd Amendment. Does that mean he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, to use the language of the 12th Amendment? asked FactCheck.org journalist Justin Bank. If so, he could not serve as vice president. But finding out would certainly make for an interesting Supreme Court case. In other words, writes  Volokh in The Washington Post: Does constitutionally ineligible to the office of President mean (A) constitutionally barred from being  elected  to the office of President, or (B) constitutionally barred from  serving  in the office of President? If it means option A - if eligible is roughly synonymous, for elected offices, with electable - then Bill Clinton would be ineligible to the office of president because of the 22nd Amendment, and thus ineligible to the office of vice president because of the 12th Amendment. On the other hand, if eligible means simply constitutionally barred from serving, then the 22nd Amendment doesn’t speak to whether Bill Clinton is eligible for the office of president, since it only says that he may not be  elected  to that office. And because there’s nothing in the constitution that makes Clinton ineligible for the presidency, the 12th   Amendment doesn’t make him ineligible for the vice presidency. Cabinet Position Are Also Problematic for Bill Clinton Theoretically, the 42nd president of the United States would have been eligible to serve in his wifes cabinet, though some legal scholars might raise concerns if she were to nominate him  to secretary of the Department of State. It would have placed him in the line of succession to the presidency, and should his wife and her vice president have become unable to serve Bill Clinton would have become president - an ascension some scholars believe would have been in violation of the spirit of the Constitutions 22nd Amendment prohibition on presidents serving a third term.

The effects of redundancy in an engineering workshop in the British Literature review

The effects of redundancy in an engineering workshop in the British Army - Literature review Example It is vital that troops have enough supply of ammunition, food, water, spares, and fuel, tools should remain serviced, arrangements should remain created to fit each contingency; linkage channels should remain formed and maintained, bridges and roads should remain mend; and casualties should have cure and discharged. The managerial, management of a scheme and vocational skills needed are those required in every enterprise with the extra technicality that they should remain precisely used in situations that can be both physically demanding and potentially disastrous. Life in the forces forms flexible, task oriented and dynamic group participants who have knowledge of scheme control, strategic arrangement and, importantly organizational ruling. The officers in addition appear to have adequate knowledge in different fields having passed through so many educative stages in the army (Perks, 2010: p. 250). Several of the officers leave the army after operating in service commission for a s hort period of time, and have the possibility of becoming captains or junior majors (as well as their navy and air force associates) in when they are at their twenties or reaching their thirties. Some vacate at 37, the least age at which a servicing servicewoman or man can cash in on their pension. Moreover, those who still hold onto their career leave at around 55, the vacating age of the total British military staff. The city has remained as the best attractive alternative for the corps to venture in after leaving the military service. Those corps becoming redundant both through application and compulsory redundancy will have the following effects and risks according to the Armed Forces Redundancy Programme and Continuity of Allowance of April 2011 (Perks, 2010: p. 225). Specialist pay- The two, Applicants and Non-applicants for the reduction exercise who are entitled to get a specialist lump sum at the time of notification of the reduction mission will have their specialist sum e valuated in line with the rule in JSP 754 for dealing with staff who elect to vacate the army at a noticeable exit stage. Financial incentives- The rule for dealing with the several types of recruitment and retention reimbursements is as shown below (Perks, 2010: p. 229). a. Commitment Bonus (CB): The total corps vacating due to this reduction scheme will have the right to get any suitable commitment bonus accessed under the Improved CB programme for any quantifiable service finished prior to heir final day of operation. The Old or Interim CB programmes will merely remain reimbursed to those chosen for reduction if it is probable for the person to finish the necessary Return of Service (ROS) prior to their final day of operation. The two, Applicants and Non-applicants reduced who fall short to accomplish their CB ROS will not remain needed to make any compensation of amounts previously remunerated. b. Financial Return Incentives (FRI)- Applicants and No