Why is the UKs relationship with the rest of the EU so difficult

Introduction European countries have witnessed great political and economic integration with a Union of 27 European countries being currently in existence. This vibrant European Union can trace its roots to the post World War II years when integration among European nations was seen as necessary to end the devastating wars between neighbours.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Why is the UK’s relationship with the rest of the EU so difficult? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The European Union has achieved significant growth from an initial membership of 6 nations to the current membership of 27 nations. It has emerged as a major political and economic force in the world, even threatening to compete with the traditional superpower, the United States of America. Of the 27 members making up the European Union, the UK has set itself apart as the nation that has a problematic relationship with the EU. While the o ther nations have a good relationship within the union and mostly support its policies, the UK continues to have a mostly adversarial relationship with the union. This paper will set out to discuss the major reasons for the difficult relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU. Reasons for the Difficult Relationship The UK is more concerned with the economic aspect of the EU than the political dimension. From the onset, the UK has been reluctant to foster stronger political ties with other European countries instead emphasizing on the economic dimension of the union. This is in contrast with the view of the other EU countries that view political goals as being equally important for the union (Chalmers 23). The main motivation of the UK to join the union was economic and the country never strived for political integration. Margaret Thatcher who served as the British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 expressed the concerns that Britain had regarding political integration. Thatch er stated that British was constantly losing her independence and sovereignty as more decision-making power was transferred from the British Parliament to Brussels. The UK’s lack of commitment to political integration, which is a core aspiration for the other EU member states, has increased the difficulty in relationship between it and the EU.Advertising Looking for essay on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Britain’s relationship with the EU is complicated by the fact that Britain was not involved in the founding of the European Union. When the six European countries, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg, founded the EU, Britain choose to isolate herself from this union. British did not feel the need to engage in a union with other European countries since her economy was larger than that of countries such as Germany or France. Therefore, Britain disregarded the opportunit ies she was given to participate in the process of establishing the EU during its formative years. Watts and Pilkington note that because of this disregard, Britain had excluded itself from the decisive events taking place on its doorstep (21). This created a hurdle for the UK since it did not have a part in the setting up of the basic rules that govern the EU (Watts and Pilkington 127). The formation of the Union led to an acceleration in economic growth for the member states and the six member states were going from strength to strength. This growth persuaded Britain to finally join the Union but by then, the six founding states had shaped the community to serve their best interests. As a new arrival to the Union, Britain had to be content with adapting itself to the rules that had already been put in place by the founding club of states. When a country chooses to be a member of the EU, it gives up some of its national sovereignty and agrees to be bound by some policies that dicta te the policies of countries within the union on social, economic, and political matters. Unlike other EU countries, which are ready to give up their local powers and accept the authority of the European Court of Justice, the UK wishes to repatriate power back to Westminster. The UK currently feels exposed to EU integration and is therefore looking for ways to limit this exposure and therefore protect itself (Chalmers 132). The UK has tried to remove itself from some of the agreements of the EU in order to increase its autonomy.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Why is the UK’s relationship with the rest of the EU so difficult? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Britain’s move towards limiting the authority of EU bodies can be seen from the Conservative Parties 2009 election manifesto, which clearly highlighted their commitment to limiting the power of the European Court of Justice over Britain’ s courts (Brady 3). In line with this ambition, Britain intends to pull out of most of the EU’s crime and policing co-operation in order to avoid having the European Court of Justice undermine Britain’s common law traditions. Brady observes that the UK wants to remain part of specific elements of EU crime and policing while disregarding those that are deemed unfavourable for the UK (2). This move has made many EU member states hostile to the UK. Britain’s politicians have played a significant role in making the relationship between the UK and the EU difficult. Begg observes that there is little support for the EU among British politicians with the anti-Europe politicians commanding a substantial political base while those in favour of the EU having little influence in the political system of the country (1). British parliamentarians are constantly calling for a referendum in the country to decide on whether the UK should maintain its EU membership. Public suppor t for the European Union has always been low among Britons and this makes the relationship with other EU member states difficult since Britain is perceived to be an undedicated member. From the onset, the British did not unanimously favour membership to the European Community and legislation in support of the European integration was voted into Britain through a small majority in favour. The UK is constantly renegotiating the terms of its membership to the EU, an action that is frustrating the other members of the EU.Advertising Looking for essay on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Begg notes that the UK government is carrying out an audit of its relationship with the EU with the aim of making changes to suit the interests of Britain (1). This need for renegotiation has been necessitated by the alleged disenchantment of Britons with the EU. For EU member states, such actions are seen as a move towards more exceptional ism by British instead of fostering deeper integration. The special relationship between the UK and the US has made Britain’s relationship with the rest of the EU difficult since UK foreign policy traditionally started out by trying to build an Anglo-US position. Britain has for decades developed a close and special bilateral relationship with the US and the two governments have constantly sort to cooperate with each other and engage in deep consultation. Niblett notes that the UK and the US has many common foreign policy objectives that they collaboratively pursue (637). These strong bilateral relations tend to make the EU a secondary par ty to the US as far as UK policy makers are concerned. The negative perception of deep US-UK relationships by EU member states can be seen by the historical attempt by French President Charles de Gaulle to veto Britain’s application to join the community in 1961 where President de Gaulle asserted that Britain’s ties with the US would be hindrance to the UK’s dedication to the European Union. Nationalism acts as a major undermining force for Britain’s involvement in the EU. Watts and Pilkington states that Britain is the EU member that has mostly employed euroscepticism to defend national sovereignty against the encroachment of an alien Europe (110). In 1994, Leon Brittan, a former British Commissioner expressed the unease about Brussels due to the perception that it was interfering where it should not do so and the belief that Brussels lacked sufficient democratic legitimacy. Following the EU enlargement, the UK’s influence in the Union has reduced considerably and it is no longer able to moderate the EU debate or easily mediate with the majority of EU members. This lack of significant power in the union has increased nationalistic tendencies at the expense of involvement in the EU. Britain’s idea of her role in the world also contributes to making the relationship between the country and the rest of the EU difficult. George suggests that due to her impressive historical legacy, the British population and its politicians feels superior to the other European countries and are therefore unwilling to relate on an equal footing with them (42). For centuries, the British Empire significantly influenced the world with Britain having colonies on every continent at the height of her imperial era. With such a legacy, entering the EU for Britain meant a loss of some of its worldwide influence. This has created a psychological barrier that has greatly strained Britain’s relationship with the rest of the EU. The UK has alwa ys conducted itself as an independent party to the EU instead of a member state. This perception was best articulated during Margaret Thatcher’s rule, which was characterized by increased political isolation. During this period, the UK sort to highlight her sovereignty and opposition to political and social integration with the rest of Europe. Barely 3 years after UK’s entry into the EU, the Britons were calling for a renegotiation of their terms of entry (Bideleux 143). This move had the support of the political establishment of the country and its citizenry therefore demonstrating the outsider status that UK aspired for. Financial considerations have made the relationship between the UK and other EU member states problematic. The UK has sort to reduce its financial responsibilities in the Europe and ensure that its financial well-being is not tied up with that of the other European nations (Eudey 15). This stance is best demonstrated by the refusal of the UK to give up its currency, the British Pound in favour of the common currency of the EU, the Euro (Tavlas 37). The Eurozone crisis, which nearly triggered the collapse of the EURO currency, has increased the difficulty of the relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU. This crisis has been costly to the union’s big economies with countries such as Germany and France having to shoulder enormous financial responsibilities in order to preserve the integrity of the common currency since its collapse would be devastating. Instead of taking on a more helpful approach, Britain has continually pointed to this event as justification for her scepticism about deep economic integration in the union. Most of the EU members have perceived Britain as being unhelpful during the crisis and this has reduced the goodwill that the UK enjoys with the EU. British officials are not very open with their EU counterparts and this has led to some of their actions been regarded as adversarial. Brady revea ls that when taking actions that influence the EU, British ministers have not taken the time to articulate their position and enable the other EU members to better understand them (3). This lack of openness has antagonized many EU member states who are at times irritated by the actions of the Britons. Without open communication between British national officials and their EU counterparts, the EU officials can only guess at the motivation behind the actions of the UK government. Discussion Due to the numerous troubles that the UK has been having with the EU, there have been talks of Britain opting out of the union. Such a move would be detrimental to both the UK and the EU. The UK is important to the EU’s continued political and economic growth. Without its involvement, the EU would lose some of its global powers and its ability to develop a more dynamic economy. Exclusion from the EU would also see Britain reduce itself to a second-class status in Europe and lack the power to influence the future decisions of the Union. Britain’s role in the EU is crucial to her economic well-being. Cottret states that while most of Britain’s foreign investment comes from outside the EU, the country is regarded as the most suitable launch pad for entry into the European market (192). Britain’s withdrawal from the EU would therefore seriously damage her advantage and lead to a significant decline in foreign investment. It is therefore in the best interest of Europe for the UK to continue being a member of the EU. However, the difficulties experienced in the relationship between the EU and the rest of the Union need to be mitigated. For the to occur, the UK will have to concede that it cannot maintain its identity entirely and accept to adopt a European identity. The nation will also have to accept the fact that the sovereignty of the British Parliament will be challenged and surpassed by the European Court of Justice from time to time. While this wil l be an infringement on the fundamental principle of the British community, it will be a small price to pay for the advantages of being in the EU. Conclusion This paper has discussed the difficult relationship between Britain and the EU. It has highlighted the many reasons that make Britain’s involvement in the EU difficult. The UK’s historical legacy makes it difficult for the country to accept narrowing its political interests primarily to the European continent. The lack of involvement in the formative years of the Union also means that Britain did not have a say in the establishment of the core policies and rules that govern the EU. These difficulties have mitigated the role of the UK in the union and led to speculations about its future membership to the EU. This paper has noted that if the UK leaves the EU, there will be significant loses especially for the UK. Action therefore needs to be taken to make the relationship between Britain and the EU less problematic . Works Cited Begg, Iain. It is entirely possible that Britain could leave the European Union within the next decade. Feb. 2012. Web. Bideleux, Robert. European Integration and Disintegration: East and West. NY: Routledge, 1996. Print. Brady, Hugo. Britain’s 2014 justice opt-out: Why it bodes ill for Cameron’s EU strategy. Brussels: Centre for European Reform, 2013. Print. Chalmers, Daniel. European Union law: text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Cottret, Bernard. Civilization of Modern Britain. Vienna: Breal Publishers, 2004. Print. Eudey, Greg. â€Å"Why Is Europe Forming A Monetary Union.† Business Review 3.1 (1999): 13-21. Web. George, Stephen. An awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print. Niblett, Robin. â€Å"Choosing between America and Europe: a new context for British foreign policy.† International Affairs 83.4 (2007): 627–641. Tavlas, Grant. â€Å"B enefits and costs of entering the Eurozone.† CATO Journal 24.2 (2004): 34-54. Web. Watts, Duncan and Pilkington, Colin. Britain in the European Union Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005. Print. This essay on Why is the UK’s relationship with the rest of the EU so difficult? was written and submitted by user Emilia Z. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

African-American History from 1950 to 1959

African-American History from 1950 to 1959 From the Brown vs. Board of Education decision to the murder of Emmitt Till and the dawn of the Civil Rights movement, these are the pivotal historical events in African-American history that occurred in the decade spanning 1950 through 1959. 1950 Ralph Bunche wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his ability to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.Gwendolyn Brooks receives the Pulitzer Prize in poetry. She is the first African-American to receive such a distinction.Chuck Cooper, Nathaniel Clifton, and Earl Lloyd become the first African-Americans to play for the National Basketball Association.Juanita Hall becomes the first African-American to win a Tony Award for her portrayal of Bloody Mary in South Pacific. 1951 Racial segregation in Washington D.C. restaurants is declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.An estimated 3500 whites try to keep an African-American family from moving into an apartment building in Cicero. As a result, Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson calls the state’s national guard to protect the family.Florida NAACP official Harry T. Moore is killed by a bomb.Johnson Publishing Company prints its first issue of Jet. 1952 For the first time in more than 70 years, the Tuskegee Institute finds that there are no lynchings reported in the United States.Writer Ralph Ellison publishes Invisible Man. 1953 In June, African-American residents of Baton Rouge establish a boycott of the city’s segregated transportation system.James Baldwin publishes his first novel, Go Tell It On The Mountain. Willie Thrower joins the Chicago Bears and becomes the first African-American quarterback in the National Football League (NFL). 1954 The U.S. Supreme Court declares segregation in public schools unconstitutional in the Brown v. Board of Education case.Benjamin Oliver Davis Jr. is the first African-American to be appointed as an Air Force general after serving in the Korean War.Malcolm X becomes Minister of the Nation of Islam’s Temple No. 7 in New York City.  Frankie Muse Freeman becomes the first African-American woman to win a major civil rights case after serving as the lead attorney for the NAACP in the Davis et al. v. the St. Louis Housing Authority case. The ruling ended racial discrimination in public housing in St. Louis. 1955 While visiting family in Money, Miss., 14-year-old Chicagoan Emmett Till  is killed by white men.Rock n roll artist Chuck Berry records the hit song Maybellene with Chess Records.Rosa Parks is arrested after refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery Bus to a white patron.Marian Anderson is the first African-American to perform with the Metropolitan Opera.Martin Luther King Jr. is elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association. The organization leads a year-long boycott against Montgomery’s segregated transportation system. 1956 Nat King Cole becomes the first African-American to host a primetime show on national television.Harry Belafonte’s album Calypso is the first record to sell more than one million copies.The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Gayle v. Browder case declares it is unconstitutional to segregate transportation on intrastate travel. This ruling supports those participating in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. 1957 Congress establishes the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This is the first legislative act protecting the rights of African-Americans since the Reconstruction period by establishing the Civil Rights section of the Justice Department. Federal prosecutors are now able to get court injunctions against those who interfere with the right to vote. Under this act, the Federal Civil Rights Commission is also established.Dorothy Irene Height is elected president of the National Council of Negro Women. Height holds this position for 41 years.Federal troops are sent to Little Rock, Ark by Dwight Eisenhower to enforce the desegregation of Central High School. The troops are also instructed to protect nine African-American students who are enrolled in the school and remain for the entire academic year.The Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights (ACMHR) was established in Birmingham.Perry H. Young becomes the first African-American pilot of a commercial passenger airline. 1958 The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) is established in Atlanta. King is appointed as the organization’s first president.The Alvin Ailey Dance Theater is founded in New York City.Louis E. Lomax is hired by WNTA-TV in New York City. Lomax is the first African-American newscaster for a major network station.Althea Gibson is the first African-American woman to win the U.S. Open Championship. 1959 Motown Records is formed by Berry Gordy Jr. in Detroit.Jazz trumpeter Miles Davis records  Kind of Blue.  The work is considered Davis masterpiece.  A Raisin in the Sun, a play written by Lorraine Hansberry opens on Broadway. The play is the first to be produced by an African-American woman on Broadway.Three days before he is scheduled to stand trial for raping a pregnant white woman, Mack Charles Parker is beaten by a mob in his jail cell. Parker is lynched near Poplarville, Miss.

Divorce as a stressor leading to family crisis Essay

Divorce as a stressor leading to family crisis - Essay Example Divorce is identified to be under different psychological stressors that adversely affect the lifestyles, health along with attitudes of the divorced couples. In this regard, the ABCX Model is used as an important tool based on which family stressors and family functioning procedures are identified during stress situations. It also depicts the procedures in accordance with which families can cope with stress, which is associated with divorce. Contextually, the essay emphasizes applying the topic of divorce in relation to four elements of ABCX model in order to have a better understanding of the implications of the stressor in an individual life. Divorce generally changes the social life of the individuals due to the loss of supportive aspect. In this respect, divorced couples witnessed to possess lower level of well-being and psychological conditions due to different stress situations that they undergo. In this regard, the ABCX model is used as an effective measure of coping with suc h stress situations. The stresses associated with divorce are related with the components of ABCX model in the following section. According to the article of Rosand et al. (2014), in the present societal scenario, divorce is determined to be increasing specifically in the Western societies by a considerable extent due to various factors that include relationship dissatisfaction, emotional distress and inadequate education programs among others.

Cause and Effect essay (Only on CAUSE) Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Cause and Effect (Only on CAUSE) - Essay Example The impact of the rise in fees is seen in the increase in the number of students requesting financial aid or seeking student loans. The hike has begun to put college education nearly out of the reach of a vast majority of middle-class Americans. This means that a lot of the students have to make do with only a high school education, which reduces their job market considerably. A lot of teenagers, especially colored males, find themselves unemployed because of lack of proper qualifications. A large segment of graduates who do find jobs are overwhelmed by the debts incurred as cost of education, and to avoid this situation they try to seek jobs during their education. Since unemployment rates take into account the number of people actively seeking jobs, these students get bracketed as unemployed and not merely as students, raising the count of the unemployed. For those who pass out of the American educational system with a high academic degree, the news is not very good either, and this brings us to our second reason behind the rising rates of unemployment in the United States. Technology has made the world increasingly globalised: the internet has dramatically shrunk distances. Boston and Bangalore are now neighbors, and the level of competition for jobs and businesses is higher than ever before. Places like Bangalore in India, for instance, have a large number of English speaking populace, and the professions of being a doctor and engineer are eagerly sought after. The time in India is exactly the complement of that in the United States; night time in America is day time in India. This means that American businesses can send work down to India at the end of the day, and have it done by morning. This ideal combination of the right education and the time difference has turned India into a prime destination for assignments in the medical and engineering field, making the employment of

The interpretation that Lenin was a dictator Essay Example for Free

The interpretation that Lenin was a dictator Essay Historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov have made the interpretation that Lenin was a dictator. As he adopted policies such as War Communism and the establishment of the Cheka. However their historical accounts can be challenged, due to their personal opinions. Other historians, such as Hill, believe that Lenin was not a dictator, as his policies were imposed on him by the Russian circumstances. Thus Lenin was not a dictator, as he was merely responding to the harsh Russian circumstances and was able to adopt flexible policies such as NEP. Lenin has been seen as a dictator through his centralisation of the state by 1924. This is because a centralised one-party dictatorship governed Soviet Russia. The Politburo became the Bolshevik organisation, which dominated government institutions and the main decision-making. Also Lenins decision to form an entirely new body of government, the Sovnakom, while the Soviet existed and should have been made as the main body of government, showed that Lenin had no intention of sharing power with other socialist groups in the Soviet. The Sovnakom ruled by decree without going to the Soviet for approval. Thus the centralisation of the state in Russia can be seen as dictatorial as it limited the political influence of other political groups, while it strengthened the authority of the Bolshevik, through the establishment of Sovnakom, which Lenin chaired. Pipes is one of the Historians who believe that the centralisation of power had allowed Lenin to create a one-party dictatorship1, as Lenins party was a precursor of a new type of political organisation that would be emulated before long by mass-based dictators2. Thus this historian is suggesting that Lenin creation of the Sovnakom, allowed his party to rule Russia through dictatorial means. This opinion is to an extent true, as the creation of the Sovnakom showed that the main decision making was taken by the Bolshevik centre with little account taken of other political viewpoints. However, Pipes historical account can not be held reliable, mainly for his personal views on Lenin and Communism, and also on the fact that there were circumstances outside Lenins control that forced him to use the Sovnakom rather than working effectively with the Central Executive Committee, such as the Civil War. The Politburo is also seen as a dictatorial institution that allowed Lenin to extend his dictatorship. The Politburo was the leading decision-making body of the Communist Party; it increasingly took power from the Sovnakom as the key decisions were made in the Politburo. Furthermore the Politburo consisted of members chosen by the Central Committee. Volkogonov explains that there was never a debate about it power3; this he believes was achieved as State power has been handed over to the so-called Party organ which was in fact the main instrument of the Bolshevik dictatorship4. This historian is suggesting that through the Politburo the Bolsheviks were able to rule Russia in a form of dictatorship, this is because they had the means of control and could pass decrees without considering other political viewpoints. The view that Lenin was a dictator because of the way he controlled political power could be challenged some historians belief that the creation of both the Sovnakom and the Politburo was a necessary measure, imposed on Lenin due to the circumstances created by the Civil War. It seems unlikely that Lenin would have moved so quickly towards a highly centralised state had it not been for the Civil War, which created the economic chaos in which the country found it self in 1918. The nature of the Civil War meant that there was little time to carry out consultation with the Soviet and other bodies. Emergency decisions needed to be taken quickly, thus decision making become more centralised. This view is supported by the fact that, in Nizhniy-Novgorod, the local Mafia of black marketers who defied Moscow controlled everything. So it is understandable the regime should have used the party structure to gain more centralised control of government bodies and bring some sort of order to the chaos. Therefore the actions of Lenin were pragmatic responses to the problems the Civil War forced on him, and they were not dictatorial, as Lenin had no choice. Overall, the centralisation of power does not suggest that Lenin was a dictator, this is because it was a pragmatic response to the chaos created by the Civil War, and also Lenin had lost control over the Politburo due to his ill health, towards the end of his time in power the Politburo is regarded to have become increasingly dictatorial. Thus the actions taken by the Politburo were not Lenins responsibility, they were the responsibility of Bolshevik party itself. Therefore Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. Historians have interpreted Lenin as a dictator due his use of Red Terror. It was introduced after the attempt on Lenins life on 30 August 1918. The Red Terror is seen as a dictatorial action as it was the use of force to establish more political control over the Russian society. Thus Red Terror was used against any political opposition, which seems dictatorial. Pipes who views the Red Terror, as evidence that Lenin was a dictator, believes that Red Terror was not a reluctant response to the actions of others but a prophylactic measure designed to nip in the bud any though of resistance to the dictatorship5, thus this historian supports the idea that the Red Terror was used to form a dictatorship, as it restricted political freedom in Russia. This is because the Red Terror was aimed at former officials, landlords and priests who were executed. Any opposition to the Bolshevik Party authorities was dealt with by violence. Peasants who resisted the requisitioning of their crops or who hoarded grain were often shot at. Industrial unrest was similarly crushed. Therefore the Bolshevik regime was aware of the fact that there may be some opposition to the regime from, hence the regime chose to use the Red Terror in order to deal with any possible opposition. Thus some historians see this as a dictatorial action. Volkogonov also views the Red Terror as a cling to power at any cost6. He believes that Lenin wanted to stay in power at the cost of the Russian lives that may oppose him, thus Lenin chose to end this opposition either with physical terror, shooting, or through the use of concentration camps. Another aspect of the terror, which leads many historians of accusing Lenin as a dictator is the formation of the CHEKA7. This became the state institution8 to deal with any form of opposition to the regime. Historians believe that Lenin can be seen as dictatorial as he chose to deal with the opposition by terrorist means, and that he felt no qualms in resorting to merciless terror.9 Pipes believes that Lenin is a dictator as he planned to use terror before there had been any organised opposition against him. He explains that the CHEKA, or secret police, the main agency of the Red Terror was established in December 1917, before there was any organised resistance to the new regime.10, thus this shows that the CHEKA was only used to maintain the power of the Bolshevik regime and to protect Lenins authority. This view is supported by Volkogonov who believes that in order for Lenin to protect his authority he needed only one device, merciless dictatorship11. This historian is clearly stating that Lenins use of terror was a merciless dictatorship aimed at protecting his regime from any opponents. For example in August 1918 Lenin ordered ruthless measures against rich peasants who were resisting the regime and in particular its requisitioning of food. Therefore the CHEKA can be seen by historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov as a clear evidence of the dictatorship of Lenin. This is because the CHEKA and the Red Terror helped Lenin to establish more control over opposition in Russia. However, the account of these two historians can be challenged, as Pipes is an anti-Marxist and despises Lenin, while Volkogonov is an ex-general in the Russian army and does not approve of Soviet policies, therefore both historians hold biased views and. In addition to their historical opinions there are histor ical facts suggesting their argument is wrong. The interpretation that Lenin used terror simply as a means of enforcing his policies and establishing control has been questioned by other historians who see the policy of the Red Terror as a temporary measure forced on Lenin due to the circumstances; they also believe the terror was not used entirely by Lenin, Red Terror was rather a response to terror he faced. Lavers opinion on the Red Terror is that Terror met Terror12. Here he is referring to the Civil War, in which the Whites were using terror as well. During the Civil War, Baron Wrangel, a White leader in the Crimea ordered the execution of 300 prisoners of war, while the Green leader Antonov allowed his army of peasants to bury alive captured communist. Thus this historian is suggesting that Lenin only seemed to respond to the situations he was in, and had no intention of controlling political opposition. Lenin was not the only one using terror, there were other political organisations that did use terror. Hence he was in a situation in which he had to use terror as a response. Other historians also believe that Lenin was in a threat from the first moment he come into power, thus he needed to use terror in order to protect his authority. This view is supported by Liebman, who believes that Lenins motive- to defend the soviet power against the attacks of counter revolutionaries13, led him to use terror as he was facing opposition from 1917. This is proven by the fact that the opposition to Lenin came both from within Russia and from outside Russia. On 10 November 1917 the Morning Post in London called for direct military action against the Bolsheviks, also as the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 Kerensky and General Krasnov attempted to rally an army onto Petrograd in November 1917. This therefore shows that Lenin faced opposition and a terror threat from the first moment he came to power, thus he merely responded to this terror. Overall, Lenin used the Red Terror as a response to the terror that already existed in Russia when he had come to power. Lenin established the Red Terror after he had faced threats from both within Russia and from foreign intervention, thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. This is because Lenin did not establish terror for personal interest and to control all political opposition, he established the terror in order to deal with terrorist opposition in the same way any regime would. The use of the CHEKA is also viewed by Service as a temporary measure, he believes that Lenin believed that the need for such an organisation would be only temporaryLenin did not at this stage call for a campaign of extensive mass terror14. This view is right, as Lenin saw the CHEKA as a temporary measure to protect the Bolshevik regime during its infancy to ensure its survival. Furthermore, the CHEKA was temporary, as during the Civil War the role of the CHEKA had declined. Overall, both the Red Terror and the CHEKA were a temporary response to the circumstances and a necessary body to contain the counter-revolution threat facing the Bolsheviks. Furthermore any regime that is newly established into a nation needs to protect itself from terrorist opposition. Thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator because he established a temporary measure as a response to the Russian circumstances. One of the reasons why Lenin is accused of being a dictator is the policy of War Communism. War Communism was a decree introduced by Lenin, it established strong centralised control over areas of production and distribution in the areas under Bolshevik control. War Communism can be seen as dictatorial policy as it reduced workers involvement in factories: Factory Committees lost the ability to manage their work places. Instead party officials took over this role which led to Bolshevik control over the economy. It also included the requisition of grain from peasants in rural areas by force; this caused unrest to increase as a result Lenin was forced to back his measures with the terror of the CHEKA. The view that War Communism is dictatorial is expressed by Volkogonov who believes that War Communism was a harsh regulation, as there was an acute food shortage in 1920 and a famine in 1921, in which 10 million Russians died. Volkogonov also believes that the dominance of the state over society which Lenin approvedensured the adoption of War Communism15. Volkogonov expresses a view in which Lenin appears to have approved of complete control over all aspect of society, and it was his attitude towards the government of Russia that led the way for War Communism. Thus Volkogonov is stating that Lenin is a dictator because of the policies that he introduced to Russia. However, knowing that Volkogonov was an ex-general in the Russian army, and had to leave due to his political views of the communist regime, his views cannot be seen as reasonable due to his biased and anti-Leninist feelings. The interpretation that War Communism was dictatorial is also questionable because, to an extent, the control of War Communism was needed, as most factory committees were not professional and experienced enough to control production for the Civil War, nor did they have the ability to organise the supplies for the cities and Red Army. It can therefore also be argued that Lenin was not a dictator, for example Hill argues, that Lenins choices to introduce War Communism were caused by temporary desperate necessities16. This suggests that Lenins actions were not of a dictatorial intention and that Lenins adaptation of War Communism was a mere response to the harsh economic problems. Although Hill is a biased historian, as he was a Marxist and sympathetic to Lenin, there were harsh conditions, due to the treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Civil War so his interpretation is still credible. The view that War Communism was not dictatorial is also supported by Laver, who believes that War Communism was the response of a regime desperate to feed the towns17. Production in Russia collapsed as the transport of goods and raw materials was totally disrupted by the Civil War; the allies blockaded communist territory, mainly Petrograd, and prevented it receiving foreign trade. This led to the population of Moscow and Petrograd being halved; of the 2.6 million workers in 1917 only 1.2 million was left working in 192018. Thus there was a need of an economy that was temporarily controlled by the state in order to ensure that cities were provided with food from the countryside and that production continued during the Civil War. Most importantly it can not be overlooked that War Communism was only a temporary measure. As soon as the Civil War come to an end War Communism was replaced by the New Economic Policy; which granted workers more than the freedom they had before the Civil War, and the peasants a freedom which they had never had. Laver, who holds a neutral view of both Lenin and communist revolution, believes that War Communism was a response to the Russian problems. He states that the policies were brought in piecemeal in response to the critical circumstances which prevailed in Russia19. Therefore this view also supports the argument that the economic problems led Lenin to adopt the policies of War Communism. Service also believes that The onset of Civil War had intervened and necessitated emergency measures that he now referred to as War Communism'20, therefore the view of Service, who is a neutral historian, supports the view of both Hill and Laver that Lenin was led to adopt the policies of War Communism due to the Civil War. Overall, Lenin cannot be easily accused of being a dictator as he adopted the policy of War Communism. This policy involved emergency measures that were imposed on Lenin as production fell and the Civil War started, Lenin had no intention of using the economy to establish personal power as he was willing to grant back political freedom as soon as the Civil War was over. The New Economic Policy (NEP) could be seen by some historians as one of the policies that proves Lenin was a dictator. They suggest that Lenin was desperate to keep power therefore he introduced NEP which only gave limited economic freedom and introduced political restraints to ensure that no power was lost. Historians such as Pipes question Lenins motives for introducing NEP, they dont believe that it was done to grant freedom but in order to maintain power. Pipes claims that NEP was a temporary measure only introduced as a period of relaxed tension so that a fresh offensive would be launched to exterminate the bourgeois for good21. Pipes view is to an extent is right, as the introduction of NEP was accompanied by strict measures of political control such as a final ban on all political parties other than the Bolsheviks. This suggests that Lenin was not willing to compromise his power, and he kept control of the commanding heights of the economy, thus had no real intention of granting the freedom that NEP seemed to promise. Pipes also suggest that for the Bolsheviks the grain monopoly was essential to the survival of communist dictatorship22, and that the Bolsheviks needed to regain the peasants loyalty in order to establish their dictatorship. However this interpretation is questionable as the Bolsheviks intended to regain the loyalty of the peasantry for a better agriculture that would help to develop a better industry. Pipes view is biased, as he holds an anti-Lenin felling. Pipes served as President Reagans national security advisor on soviet affairs during 1981-82; thus he holds a very negative opinion towards Communism and Lenin in particular. Pipes view is therefore questionable. The introducation of NEP was after War Communism, this shows that Lenin was willing to grant freedom. This, ascertains that Lenin was in fact far from being a dictator as he granted the peasantry a freedom that they never had before and he allowed the agriculture and trade to develop in private hands. Services view that NEP allowed greater legal freedom for the peasantry to trade grain than had previously been available to them23, is a more of a convincing view, as NEP allowed the peasants to trade the remainder of the grain anyway they wished. Thus the freedom that has been granted to the peasants proves that Lenin had no intention of acting as a dictator. NEP is therefore evidence that Lenin is not a dictator. It showed flexibility and the ability to compromise on ideology, which is not often related to dictators. Furthermore, NEP was able to restore confidence in Russians, workers and farmers returned to their work, which did help the economy. Overall, the NEP is another reason why Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. This is because Lenin was able to see the errors that had been caused by War Communism and offer an alternative that did not agree with his ideology. NEP therefore proves that Lenin is far from being a dictator as it helped to improve the Russian economy and it replaced a temporary policy, which was not suitable for Russia after the Civil War. Overall, Lenin was not a dictator as he had no intention of being so, Lenin merely responded to the circumstance that faced him, although these responses may seem unsuitable Lenin did retreat from some of them, such as the move from War Communism to the New Economic Policy after the Civil War. Thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. 1 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution page 506 2 R.Pipes- The Three Whys of The Russian Revolution page 38 3 D.Volkogonov-Lenin Life and Legacy page 306 4 D.Volkogonov-Lenin Life and Legacy page 307 5 6 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy page 237 7 The Extra-ordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage was founded in December 1917. 8 D.Volkogonov- Lenine Life and Legacy page 236 9 R.Pipes- Three Whys Of The Russian Revolution page 41 10 R.Pipes- Three Whys Of The Russian Revolution page 41 11 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy page 472 12 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor page 62 13 M. Liebman- Leninism Under Lenin page 315 14 R.Service- Lenin a Biography page 322. 15 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy- page 334. 16 C.Hill- Lenin and the Russian Revolution- page 133. 17 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor- page70. 18 P.Oxley- Russia from Tsars to Commissars- page 128. 19 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor- page70. 20 R.Service- Lenin a Biography- page 430. 21 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution- page 22 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution- page 23 R.Service-Lenin a Biography- page

NSAID’s In Competition Equines Essay -- horses, law

Presently in the United States there is a law against consumption of NSAID’s (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in horses during competition. The Federation Equstre International (FEI) wants to propose a new law allowing the consumption of these NSAID’s in competition horses. Therefore, with every new law passed some are for and some are against it. Each side has a knowledgeable reason behind their choice to be for or against the change. The FEI wants to look at all sides equally and make their educated assessment for the new rule inclined. Inflammation is a normal response to tissue damage. There are five signs of inflammation called cardinal signs. Theses signs include: heat, pain, swelling, redness, and loss of function. Inflammation can be considered one of the leading origins of discomfort in an injured or ill equine animal. When an NSAID is given to horses the cardinal signs are controlled, and damage to the inflamed tissue is reduced (Crabbe). NSAID’s in equine’s can be useful, but they can also cause negative side effects that, in a long-term use, can cause more negative effects on the horse and possibly decimate them. Barb Crabbe, veterinarian, says; â€Å"When NSAID’s block the damaging effects of prostaglandin, they also block these protective mechanisms, putting your horse at risk for ulcers throughout his GI tract† (Crabbe). Although Crabbe feels there are several negative side effects Davis feels there are only two negative side effects cox 1 and cox 2. These two negative influences cause the bad side effects in NSAID’s. Cox 1 gets in the way of the body’s natural reaction to inflammation. Cox 2 controls the pain and helps to control the remaining inflammation (Davis). Nevertheless this does not mean NSAID’s ar... ...ecture. Cuckson Pippa, â€Å"FEI NSAID Congress Addresses Science and Ethics of Drug Use†, www.chronofhorse.com, The Chronicle Of The Horse, August 24, 2010. Pierre Louis, â€Å"How To Use Irrelevant Plasma and Urine Drug Concentrations in Doping Control in the FEI† , FEI NSAID Congress , Switzerland, 2010, address lecture. Princess Haya, â€Å"Opening Address†, FEI NSAID Congress, Switzerland, 2010, address lecture. Roly Owers, â€Å"What Are The Ethical and Welfare Implications of Permitting the Use of NSAIDs During Competitions?† FEI NSAID Congress, Switzerland, 2010, address lecture. Willis Grania, â€Å"FEI president welcomes long overdue congress on NSAID’s†, www.Dressagensw.com, Equestrian Australia, n.d, February 6, 2014. Tim Ober, â€Å"The Pros and Cons of Reintroducing NSAIDs to FEI Sport†, FEI NSAID congress, Switzerland, 2010, address lecture

Book Review of 1984 Essay

He was a member of outer party, who has better life than the proles according to the government. Winston did not believe in the party, the Big Brother. He remained the memory before the Revolution, some fragmented memory about a better life than he was experiencing. He held a belief in abiding faith, contrary to the faked fact that he produced for the sake of work. Through the process that how the party reintegrated Winston, we saw the party controlled the society, using what they learned from the history to improve the method of doing a brainwashing. Julia is the second main character. She is Winston’s love, a beautiful young woman. Julia was born after the Revolution. She knew a little about the past through her grandfather, who disappeared when she was eight. She was zealous in the activities that government promotes, like Junior Anti-Sex League, Two Minutes’ Hate and community center. However, she is a girl who does not care about what the life will be tomorrow. She used her body to exchange for inner party’s good. Everything she did for the government was a mask, to distract attentions from sexually promiscuous rebel. She was sex criminal. After she fell in love with Winston, she believed that ‘It’s the one thing they can’t do. They can make you say anything — ANYTHING— but they can’t make you believe it. They can’t get inside you. ’ However, she was also tortured to be perfect and even suffered more than Winston. ‘Her face was sallower, and there was a long scar, partly hidden by the hair, across her forehead and temple’. The third main character is O’Brien, a member of Brotherhood, which is leaded by Goldstein, the target of Two Minutes’ Hate. But O’Brien was actually a member of inner party, a zealous supporter of the Party, a thought police, a spy. He made Winston believed in him that he opposed that Party and pretended to be a member of Brotherhood. With the help of Mr. Charrington, Winston was caught by Thought Police, as well as Julia. O’Brien engaged in most part of reintegration of Winston. He was the first one who inspires Winston to oppose the Party, by a sentence, ‘We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness,’ O’Brien had said to him. And then he leaded him to believe in the existence of Brotherhood, finally to the love of Big Brother, the death. The story started from Winston Smith, a member of outer party. Winston lived in a dark age, though others may deny it. There are three biggest powers in the world: the Eurasian, Oceania and Eastasia. Winston was in Oceania, under the control of the new party—INGSOC, English Socialism. The official language is New Speak, contrary to the Old Speak. It is used to limit and finally eliminate all modes of thought, therefore nobody would rebel, even just a second’s thought. There are three classes: the Inner Party, the Outer Party and the Proles. Telescreens and microphones are everywhere, monitoring every act of the citizens. There are four ministries, the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Plenty, the Ministry of Peace and the Ministry of Truth. Each of the ministries is working on the things that are contrary to its name. Winston worked in the Ministry of Truth, where all the documents should be rewritten in order to support the eternal positive of the Party. It is a department that holds the output of Medias, books, news and podcast, falsification was made to the history and facts, which promote the Party doctrine. Winston never believed in the Party. He lived with a mask, controlling every movement, every word that he gave out. However, accidentally he fell in love with a young woman, Julia. They had sex, enjoying the food that Julia brought from the Inner Party, and talked about their doubts on the Party, sharing pieces of memory before the Revolution. They decided to join the Brotherhood, to fight against the Party. They could do everything, except stop loving each other. O’Brien, as a member of Brotherhood, received them and gave them the book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, written by Emmanuel Goldstein. However, when Winston and Julia were still reading the book in Mr. Charrington’s shop, they were caught by though police. The Brotherhood was a trap. O’Brien was actually an Inner Party member. Winston suffered for a long period of reintegration, and finally built up his loyal love to Big Brother, before his death. The mainline is easy to summarize, however the idea that the story wants to tell is difficult. In the book, the politics have been gone to the worst part. Those covers, like â€Å"to help the poor†, â€Å"for the sake of freedom and equality†, or â€Å"to release the proles and reform the society†, are abandoned. The aim of the Party is so direct, that is even adverse, to attain the pure power, nothing else but only the power. The method they used was successful. Language is the access to mind. It is clever to not only limit people to express their opinion but also change their tools, the language itself, by reducing the amount of words and meanings it can represent. It can stop the rebel from the beginning point. â€Å"A thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable. † This aim is attainable as long as the Party could replace the Old Speak entirely. The new generation would know nothing about the Old Speak and have no ways to understand the past since those past were record in the Old Speak and possibly had been rewritten totally by Ministry of True. They are as ignorance as animals, who have no past and even no inherit genes. In order to let people have no spare time to think about the meaning of their lives, to explore the things that the Party does not tell, they have war continuously. This could help to avoid rebellion. â€Å"War is peace. † It also keeps the life standard just right above the poverty line. People have to work hard, though the government has always claimed that they have made progress on production, they still do not have enough to eat or enough fuels to make them warm. The life was terrible that everyone works like animal, do what orders, and no more think. But it was a blast of strong power, to have so much unconscious workforce. â€Å"Ignorance is strength. † To explain the last part of the Party’s practice, â€Å"Slavery is freedom. † it relates to the concept of individual and group. As an individual, you are slaved, but groups of slaved have the strength to achieve power and freedom. One should escape from its own identity, and to be slaved, to be remixed into a group, which finally reaches the ultimate freedom. The story has been making a big background in the Chapter 1. After Winston met Julia, the plot has been speeded up. I think the most special point of this book is that he put the climax as the end. â€Å"He loved Big Brother. † The final turning point, and then everything become silent. Actually it just looks like George Orwell him self’s life, ended at the climax. The book reveals several methods of safeguarding the pure power. They came from George Orwell’s real life. George Orwell had been policing in Burma, and then experienced bottom level life in Paris and London. Then he and his family experience the civil war in Spanish and after that was World War Two. These experiences gave George Orwell the elements needed for this book. The poor life standard, the deep hate to those powerful and rich people, the cruelty of war and all of them made up the main background of 1984. George Orwell was a really sensitive writer, who made words to represents more than it should be. His novel was not long and you seldom see some extremely difficult sentence, but you still cannot get its idea only after one-time read. It takes time to catch the main part. Meticulous as him, the principle of New Speak was also provided at the end, to illustrate how this power weapon works. I would definitely recommend my friends to read this book, since it shows how bad the politics, the government might be, and what they would do to maintain their position. I have heard about a comment, which said that you can find many books to help you know the true face of the politics, say that is 5percent, however 1984 could provide you 100percent of that. Reference: http://ebooks. adelaide. edu. au/o/orwell/george/o79n/contents. html