Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Jennifer Gartner]

Pretty cool, huh?

Well, the issue does bother me. As a matter of fact, the collapse of socialistic block by the late 1990s gave rise to doubts as to timeliness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that in fact had accomplished its mission and essential role.

Realistic logic concerning military alliances, based on historic experience of the Cold War, gave reasons to believe in incapability of either military block to outlast the collapse of the other.

American and European experts and politicians who shared these ideas, adhered to the opinion of necessity to disband NATO or at least limit this organization in its claims. For instance, Germany, represented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs Hans Ditrih Gensher and backed by the Czechoslovakia, pursued a policy towards "deeper institutionalization" of the CSCE, trying to transform this forum into decisive element of new European security system.

Moscow in early 1990s gave rise to the idea of "European Security Council" which would consist of the largest European states.

Nevertheless, drastic measures taken by the USA and its closest allies not desiring to turn down time-proved mechanisms of transatlantic ties in late 80s-early 90s ensured NATO's survival as defense alliance.

What do you think of that?

[asterix]

I think your native language is one of the Slavic group.
There are a few minor errors, mostly concerning the use of the articles, but it is well-written otherwise.
Luckily for the members of NATO, Bosnia gave them an excuse to perpetuate their nowadays pointless alliance, especially as the UN is so corrupt and useless.

[element105]

NATO is merely a regional organization which doesn't speak for most people in the world,it won't replace the UN as the biggest company and its increasingly interfering into international affairs accompanied with the declining of the authority of the UN would absolutely lead to a sort of status that nations' anarchism spreads all over the little earth.

[Jennifer Gartner]

I absolutely agree with you on the matter that NATO doesn't speak for all the people in the world and is increasingly interfering in global affairs behind its competence. From the most blatant facts of interference, such as Kosovo and Afganistan it is clearly seen that the major "decision-maker" within the organisation was the USA, and all other members of the alliance either supported their hegemonistic plans or simply refrained from the actions undertaken. Today we observe the trend towards American choice of unilateral actions above actions within the North Atlantic Alliance and any alliances at all. Therefore, with the growing decline of the UN power, we see growing anarchism particularly of the Unites States, sometimes supported by other much weaker allies. The saddest part of the story is absence of any opposing to the United States power, anyting able to stop them in their global imperialistic intentions. Some states may be opposing them on political level, some stay may declare their protest of disagreement, but that doesn't really hinder Americans; in the end they always get what they want.
_________________
I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help

[asterix]

And before that it was the British, the Spanish, the French, the Russians,the Romans.

There's always some nation that is paramount. Your view of that nation is always coloured by the relationship of your own country with it.

I would rather live next door to the USA than Iran, or Syria.

[Jennifer Gartner]

You see, these states were never dominant in entire international arena. Spanish, say, were cool in 15-17 century, but they always had Brits as their main rivals who eventually defeated them. Brits, in their turn, were first in industrial revolution and thus were very influential internationally, but they had to compete with such states as Netherlands and France. Russia was major international player, espacially when forming the USSR, but it also was never the ONLY powerful state in the world.

Historians and specialists in iternational relations distinct a number of international relations systems.
The first commonly acknowledged system is Westphal system formed in 1648. Before it there were no national states but feudal principalities remaining from the Holy Roman Empire that descended from Charles the Great.

Westphal system, as it was said, became the first system of independent nation-states, they were more than 360 and there was great rivalry among them. As you see, no domination here.

The next international system was formed in 1715 after the Vienna congress and was called the Vienna system. Its creation was caused by the Napoleonian wars and the system was actually the accord between major European states such as Great Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia. They agreed to preserve staus quo concerning their inflience and power in both Europe and other parts of the world. Again, we see competitive system and no dictatorship by a single state.

This system is followed by Versailles-Washington system. This was created after World War I and set balance between such states as the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, Dania, Japan, Russia, and other states.
Finally, everybody knows bipolar system of 1945-1991 marked by the Cold War and confrontation between the Unites States anf the USSR. These were two major states in the world whose accord directly impacted the global balance.

The entire history of international relations knows no sitauation where ONE single state was able to decide the fate of the globe without anybody capable to stop it. The antique Roman Empire can be considered the only exception, but we should keep in mind that while this empire dominated in Europe, there were powerful Chinese and Indian civilizations that experienced no influence by the Romans.

Therefore, we are facing a unique situation when one state tends to become global leader without any serious rival. You can remind me of European Union and South-Eastern Asia, but these rivals are primarily economic and have no capacities to compete with the USA in their political and military power.

Still, I deem that there is no good in being silent or suppoting violent unlawful actions simply of the fear of being punished for disobedience.

Beware of the indifference, wise man said. Indifference approves global crimes and injustice. We should not be indifferent.
_________________
I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help

[element105]

Oh no,Asterix.Being a friend of a bad guy can only protect you from being harmed by him but can never make you a nice man.

Jennifer,I have to say we are suffering the age of international dictatorship at present. Such condition is not gonna change until else countries are aware of what they have been facing and willing to draw together.

[Jennifer Gartner]

[element105]

So are you.

[asterix]

As I said above who is "good" or "bad" is coloured by your relationship with them.
Actually, there is no good or bad, there just is.

[element105]

History is always written by winners,so winners are good,but in peoples' heart,there is also being a sence of good and bad.

[asterix]

If you are Taiwanese, independence is good. If you are Chinese, Taiwan's independence is bad.
So which is it?
Good, or bad?

[Jennifer Gartner]

If you are Chinese politician, Taiwanese independence is bad. But if you are a mere chinese citizen able to distinct real things from propaganda and "brainwashing" you can assess certain things irrespective of your government's or media's position. There are many Americans who disapprove agressive policy of the USA. There are demonstrations, movements, American movies made on this topic and the stuff.

That is, being American doesn't restrict your attitude to unquestionable aproving of some stupid or evil things the government may do. Think about that, asterix.

Element105, you are cool, I respect your position
_________________
I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help

[asterix]

There are equally as many who approve of America's policies, so what"s your point?
My point is that there is no good or bad.
There just is.

[Jennifer Gartner]

Your right to think so
_________________
I work here --> Custom Research Writing Help