Causes of 2004/2007 Big Bang Enlargement

The unification of Europe can be traced back to the 1950s with the formation of the European Defense Community and the European Political Community. For more than 60 years, numerous declarations, agreements and treaties have been signed culminating into the European Union as people know it today.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Causes of 2004/2007 ‘Big Bang’ Enlargement specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The EU is omnipresent; its influence permeates all spheres of life. However, the journey towards the unification of Europe has not been without challenges. The process has not been immune to crises. Nevertheless, architects of the EU have ensured that the formation process is crisis proof. The unification process has had numerous milestones, the 2004/2007 ‘big bang’ enlargement being one of them. It is imperative to state that there have been about five enlargement periods most of which oc curred after 1970. Originally, the EU constituted 6 members. Between 2004 and 2007, the EU enlarged its membership from 15 to 27, with the aim of partnering for peace and socioeconomic development (Emmanouilidis 2, 13). The effects of 2004/2007 ‘big bang’ enlargement towards the unification of Europe and the eventual formation of the EU cannot be underestimated. However, the debate on the real causes still rages on with differing opinions and assertions. New threats to international security have been cited as the most probable causes of the 2004/2007 ‘big bang’ enlargement. The reinvention of terrorism and the subsequent attacks in the US and Europe require cooperation between the EU and the US in not only curbing terrorism but also in improving international security. Other sources cite the need to curb shifting of global economic power against Europe as the primary cause of 2004/2007 ‘big bang’ enlargement. These causes are described in deta ils herein after. Before 2004, EU’s political elite had for a long time nursed ambitions to integrate the EU as a community of values. Governments across the EU were encouraged to seek democracy, peace and progressive development. In light to this, several declaration were made, with governments pledging to pursue, and support peers in the pursuit of these goals. Regardless of these declarations, most governments paid lip service to the democratization process. Progressive development remained largely anonymous especially within smaller but strategically important countries. This implies that before 2004 the EU was held loosely by declarations without any collective effort to implement them.Advertising Looking for essay on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Additionally, most countries along the European borders portrayed little enthusiasm in pursuing democracy and integration into a political and economic federation. The loose alliance was brought into sharp focus by a series of event (Dunay and Lachowski 43). In 2001, terrorists attacked the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, an attack that fundamentally changed the way war against terror is perceived by major anti terror groups. The US embarked on a process of restrategizing its international security policies. Fighting terrorism effectively required a new strategic approach to international security. As such, international cooperation seemed necessary (Cotey 67 – 71). The United States of America saw NATO and the EU as two major partners which would provide financial, logistical and political capital in the war against terrorism. While NATO was already a well established authority, the same cannot be said about the EU. With terrorism posing as a transnational threat, there was need enhance security across Europe by securing its coastline. As such, the US pressurized the EU to incorporate all non mem ber states into a the federation, which was effectively achieved through incorporating other countries such as Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, and others with the aim of creating a ring of friends (Dunay and Lachowski 44). Therefore, pressure from the US triggered the 2004-07 ‘big bang’ enlargement. The fight against terror also brought into focus EU’s role in enhancing international security. As stated earlier, the EU was a loosely held alliance of States with no tangible ambitions towards political and economic integration. As explained by Dunay and Lachowski, US backed efforts to boost international security triggered the ‘big bang’ enlargement (44). Within this process, tensions arose within Euro-Atlantic security alliance, since NATO felt threatened by EU’s ever increasing political and economic might. This therefore begs the question on why the US overlooked NATO and instead opted to support the strengthening of the EU. According to the US Council on Foreign Relations, NATO is an antique war machine still preoccupied with the politics of the cold war era.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Causes of 2004/2007 ‘Big Bang’ Enlargement specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More As such, the US considered NATO as the wrong choice of partner to fight terrorism on a global scale (US Council on Foreign Relations n.pgn). Such considerations seem justified by the realization that despite the fact that NATO served its masters diligently during the cold war era, the organization was ill equipped to handle the new threats to international security. NATO did not have the technical expertise and the experience to deal with terrorism and other associated threats such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, WMDs. Additionally, the US and the EU had a common belief that there were no shared interests with NATO (Dunay and Lachowski 56). Therefore, NATOâ₠¬â„¢s weaknesses and inability to provide support in the war against terror led to establishment of a stronger EU, which led to the ‘big bang’ enlargement. Dunay and Lachowski (53) attribute the ‘big bang’ enlargement mostly to pressure by the US for the EU to unite and increase its capacity in enhancement of international security, especially in light of new terrorism threats. Bailes (10) agrees but argues that there are certain events which prove that ‘big bang’ enlargement is not as a reaction to pressure from the US. For instance, the Madrid terrorist attacks on March 2004 awakened the entire Europe especially with regards to European Security Strategy, and how this policy aids the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Expanding EU’s influence in international security required a unified military union. This created logistical and political nightmare. Despite there being tensions between the EU and NATO, their eventual cooperation help ed overcome the challenge of establishing Europe’s military force. This effectively led to the establishment of European Defence Agency. Analysts argue that the formation of the European Defence Agency which effectively enhanced cooperation between EU member states also enabled the EU to admit new members. This is considered as a milestone towards the integration of Europe.Advertising Looking for essay on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Therefore, the threat of terrorism resulted to an increased desire to operationalize the European Security Strategy, with the aim of expanding EU’s influence and capacity to deal with new security threats caused the ‘big bang’ enlargement. So far, the politics of international security, with special reference to the increasing threat of terrorism seemed to have triggered the 2004-07 ‘big bang’ enlargement. However, there are indications of other causes, especially regarding economic issues. At around the time as the 2004-07 ‘big bang’ enlargement, Europe’s economic growth seemed to have experienced a lull. Most of the weaker states within the EU were experiencing slowed economic growth. Europe’s elite nations felt that the global balance of economic power was shifting against the EU. This meant that the future of Europe as an economic power was threatened, and thus the need to safeguard it. To safeguard the future of Europe as an economic power, it was necessary to unify the entire continent into a single economic bloc, which would also use a single currency. By abolishing economic borders, a single market was created. This not only guaranteed economic prosperity but also checked the shifting of economic power against Europe (Emmanouilidis et al. 15, 21). Emmanouilidis et al. attribute the big bang enlargement to fears from within Europe about the economic decline (15, 21). Mitropolitski (n.pgn) on the other hand cites economic reasons as a major cause of the big bang enlargement but takes a different approach. Mitropolitski (n.pgn) argues that challenging the rising US global economic power and the need to create an alternative and bigger global economic power as the main cause. Many years after the World War 2, European nations had not yet realized full economic benefits, due to the existence of economic barriers within Europe. Since no nation had the resources to single handedly challenge US econom ic dominance, the European economic elite saw the need to integrate Europe into an economic bloc. Led by Britain, France and Germany, the European economic interaction targeted 15 countries on the short term, with 25 countries targeted on the long term. The assertions mentioned herein by Mitropolitski, and Emmanouilidis et al. indicate that enlargement of the EU emanated from the need to create a single and stronger market constituting most, if not all of the European countries. The process of enlargement took place within a very short period of time, amidst much hype. Therefore, as far as Mitropolitski, and Emmanouilidis et al. are concerned, the ‘big bang’ enlargement was caused by the desire to safeguard the balance of economic power between Europe and America. It is evident that the unification of Europe is a journey spanning more than 60 years. The 2004/2007 ‘big bang’ enlargement is one of the most significant landmark events and has largely shaped th e EU as we know it today. Numerous arguments have been forwarded, each purporting different causes. The need to establish a free market within Europe has been cited as a possible cause. This came in the wake of diminishing Europe’s economic influence, slowed economic growth rate and the shifting of global economic power across the Atlantic to the US. Fearing economic domination, the European economic elite saw the need to consolidate Europe’s economic opportunities. This effectively led to enlargement of the EU’s membership to 27 within a span of 3 years. This however, is overshadowed by the ever increasing threats to international security. Between 2001 and 2004 renewed terrorist activities required a new approach to international security. Since NATO was not adequately equipped to deal with terrorism and associated threats, enlargement of the EU seemed to be the easier option. It is imperative to state that politics cannot be delineated from these two causes. A stronger economic bloc gives Europe a strong political bargaining power. Similarly, expanding the EU’s influence on matters pertaining international security translates to added political power. Therefore, regardless of the cause, 2004/2007 ‘big bang’ enlargement has led to EU’s political empowerment. Works Cited Bailes, Albert. The European Security Strategy: An Evolutionary History. 2005. Web. Dunay, Pà ¡l and Zdzislaw Lachowski. Euro-Atlantic security and institutions 2005. 2005. Web. Emmanouilidis, Janis. The Delphic Oracle on Europe: Politics and Policies. 2009. Web. Hellenic Foundation for European Foreign Policy Emmanouilidis, Janis et al. Stronger after the Crisis: Strategic Choices for Europe’s  Way Ahead Strategy Paper On the ‘State Of The Union’. 2011. Web. Mitropolitski, Simeon. â€Å"3 Unspoken Truths on the EU â€Å"Big 3† Meeting.† IRED. 2004. Web. US Council on Foreign Relations. Making America Secure Again: Setting the Right  Course for foreign policy. 2003. Web.. This essay on Causes of 2004/2007 ‘Big Bang’ Enlargement was written and submitted by user Jayce Q. 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.

Euthanasia Essay Example

Euthanasia Essay Example Euthanasia Essay Euthanasia Essay Do we really have the right to our own life? Imagine a close relative of yours was slowly dying of cancer; every breath they took was Just as agonising as the last. They are confined to their soiled beds and held prisoner of their own internal anguish, unable to move and with no recognised medication or drug capable to numb the agonising pain associated with death. The family member explains that they are happiest when they are sleeping, proceeding to ask you to end their torment. What would you do? If you assisted the individual in hastening their death, you would be accountable for their murder, subsequently erving a prison sentence for the murder of your relative. What the relative wants you to commit is Euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Many people, like any sensitive topic, draw conclusions about Euthanasia from sources and facts that are either Pro-Euthanasia or from the sources that are against Euthanasia. So tonight ladies and gentlemen, I will discuss the positives and negatives of this controversial taboo from a non-biased perspective and draw my onclusions as an aid so you can make the impartial decision for yourselves whether we should have the right to control our own very existence. As of 2011, active euthanasia is only legal in the three Benelux countries: the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. However topical the subject may be, it is still illegal in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, in 1987 a survey suggested that 72% of the survey respondents were in favour of legalised euthanasia. Given this statistic, one would assume euthanasia would be a legal choice but as we know, its not. So why is it illegal? The heated debate is drawn between the warring social, religious and political groups. These groups argue that the fundamental issue of Euthanasia is its sheer margin for abuse. This abuse can be noted in the Netherlands. Where in 1990, 1030 Dutch patients were killed without their consent; more than 12% of these patients were mentally competent were not consulted on whether they would live or die. These deaths, of course, were essentially murder, since Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands; these deaths went and will remain unpunished. The extent of abuse in the Dutch Euthanasia system also extends to the lethal injection of disabled newborn babies. Of course, babies are incapable of making a decision whether they want to live with their disabilities, yet 8% of all infant mortalities in Holland occur as a result of Euthanasia. It is apparent that we have to imagine a society where people live in constant fear for their lives, where we no longer attempt to accommodate peoples disabilities because the disabled are simply disposed of and where hospitals refuse to treat people for their illnesses, but kill hem instead because someone determines that their lives are not worth living. This is precisely what some pro-Euthanasia enthusiasts believe, that we should put an end to lives that are no longer worth living. So ladies and gentlemen let me ask you a simple question; what makes your lives worth living? Is it your Job? Your favourite football team? Or simply your children? However, what if an individual pleads that their demise be hastened? what if the form of Euthanasia is voluntary and the person insists that they are to perish? Then, I believe that this person should be Euthaised. In my opinion, I dont think that it is necessary to delve deep into the realms of every single positive that exists on the topic of Euthanasia. However, there is one main positive, the individual is finally happy, put out of their everlasting terror. They are finally allowed to die with dignity. You may think that there is no dignity in death. However, put yourself in their shoes. Unable to clean up your own excrement, unable to clean yourself, unable to feed yourself. Most importantly, in such a vulnerable state, that you are incapable of taking their OWN life.

Film reflection Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Film reflection - Assignment Example Basically, a mask is usually used to conceal the true identity of a person, especially when the person has the intention of behaving in an unacceptable way. Men are depicted wearing mask of violence, which is a disguise of who they really are. It is the fear of being described as weak that makes men disguise in violence so that they can expose their masculinity to others. Boys never desire to be branded unmanly and so must display their masculinity via violence, which is often perpetuated by media images. Kimmel reveals that â€Å"the fear of being seen as a sissy dominates the cultural definition of manhood† (150). According to the author, a boy might have to engage in physical fight in order to dispel the idea that he is a sissy. Kimmel further argues that â€Å"violence is the single most marker of manhood† (150). As such, the media can be linked with increased violence that has plagued the modern society where men strive to prove their manhood by hiding behind the mask of violence. The film Tough Guise 2 is thus a perfect platform for understanding why many males are