Homework Help | American History

Before the war started in 1938, there was no strategy in place to undertake air strikes against Britain. Later that year, Reich Lutwaffe required the General, who land comprised of Reich’s North Sea coast, to come up with ways for action incase Britain attacked. Focus on these contingency would be steps against armament based in London and English bases in Norfolk, and Sussex. After the war, reason as to why the plan fell to the General, was that, there was much to do. Additionally, there was great reason to stop air strikes as this could have notable disturbance and short-range bombers that would prove ineffective.

The movement from isolationist foreign policy to intervention was a step in the right direction. The change spread everywhere most notable during the Second World War. The policy was a progression one with the desire to safeguard the interests of the citizens; impact of the military and threat of communism. In the 19th century, America took possession of Texas, California, and Hawaii and warned external influence (Wynn, 2010). The intervention policy sought to protect the resources of the country from other nations. Most notable was the high unemployment level and poverty, while industrialization and financial crisis started to affect the rural parts of US.

The varied demographics phased several challenges due to most of the resources going to other nations. The African Americans, women and those of the lower class faced increased levels of unemployment and poverty was souring; the rates for labor were worsening, this pushed for massive protests. There was need to put in place structures that would protected the needs of the locals. This situation sought to pull the resources of the country towards it and limit resources going to other nations. Wealth would hence be concentrated in the country and allow the locals benefit from it.

The war had notable impact to the global community in terms of the relation between several nations. For instance, this led to division of the countries in the world in terms of NATO, Warsaw and those not related to either (Wynn, 2010). The rivalry spread to other nations with nations campaigning for other nations to join it. Hence, the war affected the international stability. Moreover, the powerful nations sort to use confrontation method and this replicated itself in other nations.

The economic impact of the War led to focus in ammunitions and other industrial innovations. This allowed the nations to improve their level of security. There was notable rise in the number of trade unions, which allowed worker to join and settle issues relating to their work conditions. These issues revolved around poor pay. Similarly, focus was directed to food production where governments sought to have increase their supplies.

There is a notable difference between countries before the war and after the war. Before the war, nations work as a one. However, the war broke these relations and led to the formation of groups. Additionally, there were notable developments in terms of focus on food security and rise of unions. Similarities revolved around focus on development of the country in terms of available resources. Additionally, there is was a sense of uncertainty as most nations have formed enemies and this meant that the possibility of war was imminent and nations and its locals had to improve their level of security.

HomeworkProspect.com connects students with tutors that can help them do their homework. It’s simple and fun. Follow the steps above and enjoy the ride.

Homework Help | American History

Advertisements

Homework Help | Doctors without Borders Opposes the Realist School of Thought

Part two focuses on the conflict issues that have arisen based on some of the actions and decisions that Doctors without Borders have taken. This is done in comparison to the realist school of thought with an aim to reflect how divergent the organisation is from the realist school of thought, which propagates self-interest.

The final part is the conclusion, which provides a summary of all the issues highlighted in part one and two and a clear leaning towards liberalism by doctors without borders. This school of thought is largely ascribes to freedom and tolerance (Moseley, n.d.). The modern liberal accepts rights against the person as well as rights to services such as education and healthcare. Liberalism promotes tolerance rather than parochial prejudices. It focuses on the propagation of peaceful coexistence rather than the elevation of one school of thought over another in a state. Liberalism advocates for a government that permits the individual to pursue life in a manner that they see fit within a neutral framework. This neutral framework is one core reason why critics challenge liberalism (Moseley, n.d.).

Doctors without borders

Doctors without borders is an organization that is largely recognized using the French version of its name (Medicens Sans Frontiers). It was created in 1971 as an organization whose core purpose was to provide healthcare services to victims of political conflicts such as wars, genocide, and other politically driven conflict that leads to the violation of human rights. The organisation has long stood on the principle that it is a neutral party when it comes to state conflicts of any nature. However, the line has become all the more uncertain as the years have gone by. One of its physicians first broke this rule back in 1977 by denouncing Cambodia’s Khmer for committing mass murder of its own people (Gugliotta, 2013). The organization’s rules which are against taking sides or bearing witness have been the source of much debate, considering the environment that the humanitarian dilemma that the doctor faced was obvious. Do you keep quiet so that you can help the victims or do you speak put and lose access to those that need your help? For over 40 years, the MSF has tried to have it both ways. When it began adopting this approach, it was fairly easy since ninety percent of the people that are displaced in the world were escaping from militant socialist governments. Relief groups, at the time, shared the same views as the Western democracies. However, after the Soviet Union fell, the politics became more complicated and this complicated matters for relief groups.

Unlike before, aid now became humanitarian relief aimed at serving a particular political agenda. While the organisation has attempted to maintain that it is a neutral party, it has been unsuccessful in convincing nations of the same. Whereas some view them as leftist hippies, others view them as colonial imperialists out to secure power and control over nations that are in a vulnerable state. The organisation has been known to also suffer loss in many instances even though it attempts to steer clear of the international conflict in a country. Such was the case in 2004 when they pulled out of Afghanistan after five of their aid workers were murdered by the Taliban and the government did nothing to seek justice.

Such cases have been on the rise especially in recent years with the increased risk of terrorism and the continuation of multiple conflicts in different parts of the world. However, rather than choose to bow out MSF has gone as far as to negotiate with criminals and rebels. They at times choose to ignore the wrong doings of such groups so that aid workers can be able to save lives. One such action was MSF agreeing to pay an Al-Qaeda affiliated militia a registration fee of $10,000 per project to be able to continue its operations in war-torn Somalia. To remain in Yemen, MSF agreed to apologize to the government for listing the country as one of the top ten humanitarian crises in 2009. While the listing may be true, MSF agreed to those terms to be able to save lives.

Clearly, MSF is not shy about actions on its part that may be viewed as questionable. In fact, it chooses to be the one to declare its own actions. The amazing thing is even though it has been involved in such negotiations, which would seem to be interfering with the conflict between nations or in a nation; the organisation continues to receive massive support from donors. In addition, government, belligerents, and guerrillas seem indifferent to their actions as they have not used this as ammunition to attack the organisation. It seems that the world is more tolerant when evil is done for the greater good as opposed to when evil is done to achieve destruction and death. While this is an approach that MSF is comfortable with, other organizations of a similar nature are not such as Oxfam (Gugliotta, 2013).

The organization’s commitment to save lives is admirable. Five years after leaving Afghanistan, MSF went back and opened a project in a Taliban controlled area and one that is government controlled. Amazingly, both sides were willing to tolerate their presence as they claimed it demonstrated the MSF’s concern for the Afghani people. In addition, Doctors without Borders seeks to help nations to administer not only healthcare but also education and environmental problems (Dooley, 2014).

MSF seeks to promote the development of global civil society through advancing ideologies such as freedom of speech, the right to life and freedom of the press. The fact that they do this in areas where security is wanting reflects their commitment to the propagation of human rights in the world. Such organisations challenge the sovereignty of a state to some extent as they take on roles that should otherwise be performed by the state. Some critics have argued that there is no such thing as independence. Instead, what exists is a controlled means of dependence where a state chooses the kind of relationships it will sustain (Gugliotta, 2013).

Being a first-hand witness to the conflicts and atrocities that occur in different parts of the world owing to a need for power and influence by the conflicting parties, MSF has amassed a wealth of knowledge in humanitarian law and greatly contributes to the development of the same in different parts of the world (Doctors Without Borders, 2015). This shows that such organisations function in a much greater capacity than that of healthcare and aid providers but that they influence the development of international humanitarian law and human rights all over the world.

The benefits and opportunities that are associated with being part of MSF are some of the reasons why the organisation is still able to secure funding to support its activities and why doctors from all over the world are willing to go to nations where their lives are at risk. MSF has a flexible structure that allows field workers to either sign up for a particular mission or take on a number of missions in different periods (Doctors Without Borders, 2015). It accommodates doctors that feel they want to make dedicate their lives to working at MSF full time and those that are willing to be temporary aid workers. This allows it to attract a wide pool of professionals in the medical industry.

It als

o offers various kinds of trainings to its field workers to develop their knowledge and skills further and ensure that they are able to be effective in the field (Doctors Without Borders, 2015). As such, MSF is able to meet the most critical needs of people that it offers aid to. In many cases, these people tend to be in dire need of specialized medical treatment and support professionals. Trainings on offer range from language training to programs on special medical treatments to leadership and negotiation skills.

The organisation offers its employees certain benefits apart from a salary. These include insurance, upkeep, accommodation, peer support network, psychological support, transportation, assistance in application of work permits and visas and many more (Doctors Without Borders, 2015).

How does it oppose the realist school of thought

Self-interest is the underlying factor of realism. MSF endeavors to display selflessness through its willingness to go where no one else is willing to go in order to save lives. The organisation is willing to uphold this core principle to the point that it is willing to break certain ethical considerations so as to achieve its end goal even though it costs it a great deal in terms of resources and image. Rather than choose a side to support in a conflict, MSF chooses to save lives on both sides of the field. While this has earned it a reputation as an organisation that is out to uphold human rights, it has cost the organisation a great deal of resources which in some cases have included the loss of lives.

That brings us to another question that MSF has had to grapple with. Should military forces be dispatched to a foreign country to save the larger population from oppression, famine, massacre or famine (Weissman, 2010)? This question has sparked a great deal of interest in the recent past. The idea of using military forces to protect civilian and aid workers is a controversial one that for many advocacy groups, academics and policy makers. In the 1990s, the deployment of the military to rescue populations that are in danger was justified under the humanitarian right to intervene.it has also been viewed as a duty by some. In today’s political atmosphere, this action is debated as the responsibility to protect(R2P). The term was developed in 2001 by a panel that was part of the international commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (Weissman, 2010).

The doctrine that ICISS has developed goes beyond the latest theory of humanitarian intervention that Bernard Kouchner and Merio Bettati developed in the late 1980s (Weissman, 2010). The ICISS doctrine is limited in scope as it only considers crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. R2P encompasses the prevention of conflicts as well as the rebuilding of societies. As such, the doctrine supports the use of actions that are diplomatic, economic, judicial, social, political, or military to meet this end. The question that many now ask is does this not interfere with the sovereignty of a nation? After all, national governments are charged with the responsibility of protecting their citizens. When international organisations and other organs such as MSF interfere, does this not reflect a lack of the element of sovereignty? The nation is not asked whether the MSF can set up shop in the rebel side as well as the government side so that they can save lives. This question is normally responded to with the diplomatic response that international intervention is warranted when the government fails in its responsibility to protect its citizens and the degree of intervention can go as far as a declaration of war on those perpetrating violence against civilians.

The R2P doctrine is supported by militant networks, international lawyers, human rights NGOs, liberalists and humanitarian organizations. A limitation placed on this doctrine is that it can only be authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The rule is on its way to acquiring customary international law status (Weissman, 2010). However, considering that different world conflicts are characterized by the lack of respect of such laws, one wonders whether this would improve international humanitarian law and the respect accorded to it by nations all over the world.

On the other side, an argument that MSF seeks to promote its own agenda can also be argued based on the organizations past actions. When staffs choose to take sides and give an opinion that is biased towards one side or when the organisation supported the Western nations against the Soviet Union, they clearly chose to not be neural. This has resulted in the erosion of boundaries that were once thought certain and clear-cut as they were generated from the rules on which the organisation operates. As such it can be said that MSF does have realism tendencies and these have tipped the balance in a number of occasions in its history.

Liberal school of thought

Liberalism ascribes to freedom and tolerance (Moseley, n.d.). The modern liberal accepts rights against the person as well as rights to services such as education and healthcare. Dworkin, a proponent of liberalism claims that justice is the core focus of this school of thought (Moseley, n.d.). As such, it is opposite from realism which is founded on self-interest and power. Liberalism focuses on equality and equity. Distribution of resources in a state that is founded on this school of thought is characterized by selflessness and a laissez faire attitude. This is a stark contrast to nations whose economies are based on capitalism. An example of such a political system was Tanzania under President Julius Nyerere in the late 20th century. Modern liberalism is however criticized by classical liberals who believe that people are neither born equal nor can be made equal (Moseley, n.d.).

Modern liberals lean towards an interventionist government so they place more importance on the State’s ability to prduce the right political climate that push for reform projects (Moseley, n.d.). Liberalism promotes tolerance rather than parochial prejudices. It focuses on the propagation of peaceful coexistence rather than the elevation of one school of thought over another in a state. Liberalism advocates for a government that permits the individual to pursue life in a manner that they see fit within a neutral framework. This neutral framework is one core reason why critics challenge liberalism (Moseley, n.d.). A neutral framework cannot exist in a demcracy because everyone is meant to have the liberty to choose their ideologies and beliefs without criticism. Such a system leaves a vacuum in governance which allows for the breeding of wrong ideologies which are a setback to the progress that democracy is founded on.

Conclusion

Those that ascribe to the realism school of thought tend to be highly skeptical about the ethical norms and how they influence the way states relate. In their eyes, national politics is the realm of law and authority while international policy lacks such limitations and is as such characterized by active or potential conflict among states (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013). This is in contrast with the liberal school of thought which focuses on cooperation or the formation of partnerships for the good of the greater majority (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013).

Realism has contributed to the generation of political conflicts and the need for international organisations such as MSF to intervene. While such organisations have been criticized of violation infringing on public international law such as the concept of sovereignty of a state, they have proven that their presence is necessary to protect the rights of innocent civilians and to save lives. Their actions have at times been driven by self-interest, as was the case during the cold war when they picked a side.

MSF has long stood on the principle that it is a neutral party when it comes to state conflicts of any nature. However, the line has become all the more uncertain as the years have gone by. One of its physicians first broke this rule back in 1977 by denouncing Cambodia’s Khmer for committing mass murder of its own people (Gugliotta, 2013). The organization’s rules which are against taking sides or bearing witness have been the source of much debate, considering the environment that the humanitarian dilemma that the doctor faced was obvious. Do you keep quiet so that you can help the victims or do you speak put and lose access to those that need your help? For over 40 years, the MSF has tried to have it both ways. When it began adopting this approach, it was fairly easy since ninety percent of the people that are displace d in the world were escaping from militant socialist governments. Relief groups, at the time, shared the same views as the Western democracies. However, after the Soviet Union fell, the politics became more complicated and this complicated matters for relief groups.

Being a first-hand witness to the conflicts and atrocities that occur in different parts of the world owing to a need for power and influence by the conflicting parties, MSF has amassed a wealth of knowledge in humanitarian law and greatly contributes to the development of the same in different parts of the world (Doctors Without Borders, 2015). This shows that such organisations function in a much greater capacity than that of healthcare and aid providers but that they influence the development of international humanitarian law and human rights all over the world.

The MSF rules emphasize on neutrality. While this may not necessarily be the case at all times, the spirit behind their actions in the few instances when they have chosen tactics that would be criticized as prejudicial to one party have all been to achieve one end; the saving of lives. MSF is dedicated to ensuring that it fulfills its core mandate and as such chooses to allow guerrillas and insurgents to cause destruction to a state or criminal organisations to conduct their activities as long as they allow them to save lives. While many have argued that this is not a neutral stance, at the end of the day MSF will separate itself from what the world considers as right or legal if it will allow it to fulfill its core mission. Nothing says liberal more than this core motive.

HomeworkProspect.com connects students with tutors that can help them do their homework. It’s simple and fun. Follow the steps above and enjoy the ride.

Homework Help | Doctors without Borders Opposes the Realist School of Thought

Homework Help | BP Case Study

The company has its headquarter in London and have extensive operations in more than 78 countries. The company’s   origins date back to the founding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1908 that was established to exploit oil discoveries in Iran. In 1935, it was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and in 1954, British Petroleum. From then, the company has expanded beyond the Middle East to Alaska and became the first company to strike oil in the North Sea in 1965. British Petroleum later acquired majority control of Standard Oil of Ohio in 1978 before the British government started privatizing the company in stages between 1979 and 1987.

Strategies, goal and mission

After privatization, the British Petroleum started reinventing herself to gain a competitive edge in the oil and gas industry that was currently dominated by the Shell. BP developed new strategies and merged with other companies such as Amoco in 1998 becoming BP Amoco plc. She proceeded to acquire ARCO and Burmah Castrol in 2000 becoming BP plc. in 2001. From 2003 to 2013, BP forged a partnership with the TNK-BP in a joint venture in Russia. Other strategies that have made BP a leading company in the oil gas industry include having two skillful and resourceful mangers at the helm of her leadership (Roberto Michael). During John Browne tenure, the company resorted to  cutting on cost and establishing tough financial targets for each top manager. Then, push the firm to generate a return on investment close to those of her rivals such as Exxon and Shell. As the CEO, John Browne, commissioned the financing deep-water exploration in remotes areas with unpredictable political landscape thereby increasing the  company’s profits and the market capitalization. A campaign with the slogan “Beyond Petroleum” in place of British Petroleum was another strategy that gave the company a global outlook.

The exploration and mining of oil and gas have been fronted as some of the cause of climatic changes. BP is global oil and gas company, therefore they play an important role in setting the pace in the industry. As an alternative and a mitigation measure for the climatic changes, the company has made significant investment in alternative energy. In 2007, Tony Hayward replaced John Browne as the BP’S CEO.  He also introduced new strategies to the company to improve the global stature and profit margin of BP. For example, he organized for the training of the company’s managers about  about risk management at MIT. He also reduced the layers of management and standardized the operations procedures since BP had an unacceptable high overhead costs (Roberto Michael). Hayward said, BP’s performance has materially lagged our peer group in the last three years due to non-consistent and complex organization. These strategies have seen BP become the leading Oil and Gas Company across the globe. The company has also has established clear mission and goals. The company’s goal and mission is to deliver value over volume and become the leading global oil and gas company.

Crucial decisions

Using only six centralizers are devices that ensure that the production casing sat at the center of the well bore, thereby allowing the cement to flow evenly in the space between the casing and the rock. The company had only five centralizers instead of the needed 16 but decided to continue with the installation and opted for a good cement job to save time. Thus, this is negligence on the part of the in-charge manager.

From the investigations, it is  on record that the company’s on-site supervisors allowed the drilling process to continue without waiting for cement stability test results. Then allows for redesigning the cement mixture in case it failed to pass the stability test. The investigation indicates that the cement failed the first stability test conducted at that time, but the company did not report these results to BP (instability meant that the cement mixture could become porous and permeable). Halliburton conducted a second test and shared those results, along with an attached lab report, with BP on March 8 (Roberto Michael). These results also suggested instability, though the first test showed more severe failure than this later one. BP failed to review these laboratory results carefully.

Dismissing Schlumberger personnel, rather than having them perform cement testing to save time and fee of consultations indicates the company’s greed for profit at the expense of best practices. Using the spacer made from lost circulation fluids to avoid disposal issues in another crucial decision that saved the company time in the preparation process. They did not want to deal with hazardous waste regulations that would apply if they had to dispose of these fluids back on the mainland and had a rig crew that has never used this particular type of spacer (The Ocean Portal Team). Displacing mud before putting the cement plug in place due to multitasking and need to save time left an incredible burden for the cement job that normally  prevent the upward flow of the hydrocarbons in the reservoir.

Planning to set the cement plug in seawater 3,000 feet below the mud line and to install the lock down sleeve as the last step in the temporary abandonment procedure was erratic. It was a piloting strategy since there has never been a situation in which BP had set a cement plug that deep in seawater. The company’s decision to go ahead with the negative pressure test and  not installing extra physical barriers along side the cement job to regulate the flow of the hydrocarbon during temporary abandonment is another crucial mistake. Then, not probing further after anomalous results of negative pressure tests shows irresponsibility and negligence of the on-site managers. Multitasking during the process of displacing mud is another undoing that occurred in the Macondo well. The workers and supervisors had a lot to do within a short period so as to commence the oil drilling. These may have led to the evident oversights and hurried preparations leading to the accident (The Guardian). With this crucial erratic decisions and actions below the standard practices required by the industry, it is clear that this incidence was not an accident but an act of negligence. BP should, therefore, be held accountable for the incidence.

Tony Hayward’s performance during the crisis

As the BP’s CEO, Hayward opted to minimize BP’s role in the incident by downplaying the significance of the oil spill instead of assuming responsibility and finding ways to mitigate the crisis. It is evident that, the oil spill was a disaster that left 11 crew members dead, dozen injured and had substantial environmental degradation lasting over three months yet he found time to participate in a yacht race. These incidences come out as negligence on his part as the CEO of a multinational company; therefore, I would say he failed in his duty. As the CEO of BP, I would seek for ways of mitigating the aftermath of the spills together with the environmental experts. The whole accident appears to be an act of negligence on the part of the company’s supervisory and managing directors; therefore, I would establish a commission to look into the incidence. Then establish ways of compensation and restructuring the management to ensure that the incidence does not affect the company’s profits and market capitalization.

HomeworkProspect.com connects students with tutors that can help them do their homework. It’s simple and fun. Follow the steps above and enjoy the ride.

Homework Help | BP Case Study