:: wikimiki.org ::

Truce

Truce

An armistice is the effective end of a war, when the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and stitium, meaning a stopping. A truce or "ceasefire" usually refers to a temporary cessation of hostilities for an agreed limited time or within a limited area. A truce may be needed in order to negotiate an armistice. An armistice is a modus vivendi and is not the same as a peace treaty, which may take months or even years to agree on. The 1953 Korean War armistice is a major example of an armistice which has not yet been followed by a peace treaty. The United Nations Security Council often imposes or tries to impose cease-fire resolutions on parties to modern conflicts. Armistices are always negotiated between the parties themselves and are thus generally seen as more binding than non-mandatory UN cease-fire resolutions in modern international law.

Notable Armistices in history

The most famous armistice, which is the one still meant when people say simply "The Armistice", is the one at the end of World War I, on November 11, 1918 at the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month." Armistice Day is still celebrated in some places on the anniversary of that armistice; alternatively November 11, or a Sunday near to it, may still be observed as Remembrance Day.
- World War I
- Armistice with Germany (Compiègne)
- Armistice with Austria
- World War II
- Armistice with France (Second Compiègne)
- Armistice with Italy
- Armistice with Germany
- Japanese Instrument of Surrender
- Korean War
- Korean War Armistice Category:War

War

A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues. A war to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterised as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of the same state may constitute a civil war.

History of war

:Main article: History of warfare War seems as old as human society, and certainly features prominently in the recorded histories of state-cultures. But it is a complex issue. Some hunter-gatherer societies engaged in skirmishes over territory and resources, although many did not. The earliest city states and empire in Mesopotamia became the first to employ standing armies. Organization and structure has since been central to warfare, as illustrated by the success of highly disciplined troops of the Roman Empire. As well as organizational change, technology has played a central role in the evolution of warfare. Inventions created for warfare have also played an important role in other fields. The continued advance of technology has led to an increase in the destructiveness and cost of warfare throughout human history. The study of warfare is known as military history.

Morality of war

military history Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some more modern ones viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today war is almost unanimously seen as undesirable and morally problematic. Many now believe that wars should only be fought as a last resort. Some, known as pacifists, believe that war is inherently immoral and no war should ever be fought. This position was passionately defended by the Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi (called "Mahatma" or "Great Soul"). The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Many thinkers, such as Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. At the outbreak of World War I the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude was embraced by many societies from Sparta in Ancient Greece and the Ancient Romans to the fascist states of the 1930s. The defeat and repudiation of the fascist states and their militarism in the Second World War, combined with the unquestioned horror of nuclear war have contributed to the current negative view of war. Today, some see only Just Wars as legitimate, and it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression.

Limitations on war

At times throughout history, societies have attempted to limit the cost of war by formalizing it in some way. Limitations on the targeting of civilians, what type of weapons can be used, and when combat is allowed have all fallen under these rules in different conflicts. Total war is the modern term for the targeting of civilians and the mobilization of an entire society. While culture, law, and religion have all been factors in causing wars, they have also acted as restraints at times. In some cultures, for example, conflicts have been highly ritualized to limit actual loss of life. In modern times, increasing international attention has been paid to peacefully resolving conflicts which lead to war. The United Nations is the latest and most comprehensive attempt to, as stated in the preamble of the [http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter U.N. Charter], "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." A number of treaties regulate warfare, collectively referred to as the laws of war. The most pervasive of those are the Geneva Conventions, the earliest of which began to take effect in the mid 1800s. Treaty signing has since been a part of international diplomacy, and too many treaties to mention in this scant article have been signed. A couple of examples are: Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference, Geneva, 26 October-29 October 1863 and Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force 21 October 1950. It must be noted that in war such treaties are generally thrown to one side if they interfere with the vital interests of either side; some have criticised such conventions as simply providing a fig leaf for the inhuman practice of war. By only illegalising "war against the rules", it is alleged, such treaties and conventions, in effect, sanction certain types of war.

Redefining "war" for legal reasons

Sometimes the term "war" is restricted by legal definition to those conflicts where one or both belligerents have formally declared war. This has resulted in wars (in the sense defined in the introduction to this article) without formal declaration and combatants who officially choose terms other than "war," such as:
- "armed conflict";
- "state aggression by armed force";
- "police action";
- "crime against international peace". For example, the United States Government referred to the Korean War as a "police action", and the British Government was very careful to use the term "armed conflict" instead of "war" during the Falklands War in 1982 to comply with the letter of international law. Sometimes the term "war" will not be used in order to circumvent national constitutions which restrict the power of the executive to wage war without the agreement of other branches of government.

Causes of war

There is great debate over why wars happen, even when most people do not want them to. Representatives of many different academic disciplines have attempted to explain war.

Historical theories

Historians tend to be reluctant to look for sweeping explanations for all wars. A. J. P. Taylor famously described wars as being like traffic accidents. There are some conditions and situations that make them more likely but there can be no system for predicting where and when each one will occur. Social scientists criticize this approach arguing that at the beginning of every war some leader makes a conscious decision and that they cannot be seen as purely accidental.

Psychological theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While these theories can explain why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adopted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi. Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal. A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals. In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about war being used as one of many ways to distract people. War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a totalitarian state controls its people and prevents revolution.

Anthropological theories

Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live. Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.

Sociological theories

Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Some use detailed formulas taking into account hundreds of demographic and economic values to predict when and where wars will break out. The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research. So far none of these formulas have successfully predicted the outbreak of future conflicts. A detailed study by Michael Haas found that no single variable has a strong correlation to the occurrence of wars. One correlation that has found much support is that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea known as the democratic peace theory. Many sociologists have attempted to divide wars into types to get better correlations, but this has also produced mixed results. Data looked at by R.J. Rummel has found that civil wars and foreign wars are very different in origin, but Jonathan Wilkenfield using different data found just the opposite. Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved. This differs from the traditional approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argue it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to war.

Information theories

A popular new approach is to look at the role of information in the outbreak of wars. This theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, argues that all wars are based on a lack of information. If both sides at the outset knew the result neither would fight, the loser would merely surrender and avoid the cost in lives and infrastructure that a war would cause. This is based on the notion that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. This notion is generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Clausewitz. This notion is made harder to accept because it is far more common to study the cause of wars rather than events that failed to cause wars, and wars are far more memorable. However, throughout history there are as many invasions and annexations that did not lead to a war, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1940. On the other hand, Finland's decision to resist a similar Soviet aggression in 1939 led to the Winter War. The leaders of these nations chose not to resist as they saw the potential benefits being not worth the loss of life and destruction such resistance would cause. Lack of information may not only be to who wins in the immediate future. The Norwegian decision to resist the Nazi invasion was taken with the certain knowledge that Norway would fall. The Norwegians did not know whether the German domination would be permanent and also felt that noble resistance would win them favour with the Allies and a position at the peace settlement in the event of an Allied victory. If in 1940 it had been known with certainty the Germans would dominate central Europe for many decades, it is unlikely the Norwegians would have resisted. If it had been known for certainty that the Third Reich would collapse after only a few years of war, the Nazis would not have launched the invasion at all. This theory is predicated on the notion that the outcome of wars is not randomly determined, but fully determined on factors such as doctrine, economies, and power. While purely random events, such as storms or the right person dying at the right time, might have had some effect on history, these only influence a single battle or slightly alter the outcome of a war, but would not mean the difference between victory and defeat. There are two main objectives in the gathering of intelligence. The first is to find out the ability of an enemy, the second their intent. In theory to have enough information to prevent all wars both need to be fully known. The Argentinean dictatorship knew that the United Kingdom had the ability to defeat them, but their intelligence failed them on the question of whether the British would use their power to resist the annexation of the Falklands. The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces. One major difficulty is that in a conflict of interests, some deception or at least not telling everything, is a standard tactical component on both sides. If you think that you can convince the opponent that you will fight, the opponent might desist. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority, and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw Elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.

Economic theories

Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as an outgrowth of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system. That wars begin as a pursuit of new markets, of natural resources, and of wealth. Unquestionably a cause of some wars, from the empire building of Britain to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in pursuit of oil this theory has been applied to many other conflicts including the Iraq invasion of the United States. It is most often advocated by those to the left of the political spectrum who argue that such wars serve only the interests of the wealthy but are fought by the poor.

Marxist theories

The economic theories also form a part of the Marxist theory of war, which argues that all war grows out of the class war. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion. Wars are a natural outgrowth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs.

Types of war and warfare

Smaller armed conflicts are often called riots, rebellions, coups, etc. When one country sends armed forces to another, allegedly to restore order or prevent genocide or other crimes against humanity, or to support a legally recognized government against insurgency, that country sometimes refers to it as a police action. This usage is not always recognized as valid, however, particularly by those who do not accept the connotations of the term. "Conventional warfare" descibes either:
- A war between nation-states
- War where nuclear or biological weapons are not used. (Compare with unconventional warfare and nuclear warfare.) A war where the forces in conflict belong to the same country or empire or other political entity is known as a civil war. Asymmetrical warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military mechanization. This type of war often results in guerrilla tactics. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common example of asymmetrical warfare.

Geographic warfare

The terrain over which a war is fought has a big impact on the type of combat which takes place. This in turn means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific type of terrain. These include:
- Arctic warfare
- Ski warfare
- Desert warfare
- Jungle warfare
- Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare
- Sub-aquatic warfare
- Mountain warfare (sometimes called alpine warfare)
- Urban warfare
- Air warfare
- Space warfare

References

-
-

External links

- [http://www.warcrimes.info/ Documents and Resources on War, War Crimes and Genocide]
- [http://www.umich.edu/~cowproj/ Correlates of War Project]
- [http://cow2.la.psu.edu/ Correlates of War 2]
- [http://www.inta.gatech.edu/peter/PSS99_paper.html Article by Peter Brecke]
- [http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation]
- [http://www.pcr.uu.se/ Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research]
- [http://www.unesco.org/shs/human_rights/hrfv.htm 1986 Seville Statement on Violence]
- [http://www.culture-of-peace.info/ssov/title-page.html The Seville Statement on Violence: A Progress Report]
- [http://www.culture-of-peace.info/myth/title-page.html The Myth That War Is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People]
- [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Rough estimates of the number of deaths in various wars and conflicts]
- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry] War Violence ms:Peperangan ja:戦争 simple:War

Ceasefire

A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions. Ceasefires may be declared as part of a formal treaty, but they have also been called as part of an informal understanding between opposing forces. For example, on December 25, 1914, during World War I, there was an unofficial ceasefire as both the Germans and the British sought to observe Christmas (the "Christmas Truce"). There was no treaty signed, and after a few days the war resumed. [ 1 ] A more recent example of a ceasefire was announced between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on February 8, 2005. When announced, the chief Palestinian negotiator (Saeb Erakat) defined the ceasefire as follows: "We have agreed that today President Abbas will declare a full cessation of violence against Israelis anywhere and Prime Minister Sharon will declare a full cessation of violence and military activities against Palestinians anywhere." [ 2 ] See also Armistice.

References

#[http://www.rense.com/general46/cchr.htm World War I Christmas Truce by Thousands of German Soldiers] #[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050208/wl_mideast_afp/mideastsummit_050208131859 Sharon and Abbas set to declare ceasefire at Mideast summit, AFP News Wire, 2/8/05] Category:War

Modus vivendi

Modus vivendi is a Latin phrase. Modus means mode, way. Vivendi means living. Together, way of living, implies an accommodation between disputing parties to allow life to go on. It usually describes informal and temporary arrangements in political affairs. When two sides reached a modus vivendi regarding the territories disputed, they may not agree with each other's value or attitude. However, they have worked out a way of living with their differences. This sense of the term has been used as the keystone of the political philosophy espoused by John Gray. In the diplomatic arena, a modus vivendi is an instrument recording an international agreement of temporary or provisional nature intended to be replaced by an arrangement of a more permanent and detailed character, usually a treaty. It is customarily made in an informal way, and never requires legislative or parliamentary ratification. Armistices and instruments of surrenders are modi vivendi.

External links

- [http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#modus Treaty Reference Guide: Modus Vivendi (from UN)] Category:Latin political phrases

Peace treaty

:See main article: Treaty. A peace treaty is an agreement (a peace treaty) between two hostile parties, usually countries or governments, that formally ends a war or armed conflict. They are different from an armistice which is an agreement to cease hostilities or a surrender in which an army agrees to give up arms.

Ancient history

One of the earliest recorded peace treaties was between the Hittite and Egyptian empires after the Battle of Kadesh c. 1280 BC. The battle took place in what is now modern day Syria, the entire area of the Levant being at that time a contested area between the two empires. After an extremely costly four-day battle, in which neither side gained any significant advantage, both sides claimed victory. The lack of resolution led to a further battle looking imminent just a few years. Neither side could afford another war at that time as each were being threatened by other enemies; hence a peace treaty was concluded. The peace treaty was recorded in two versions, one in Egyptian hieroglyphs and the other in Akkadian using Cuneiform script; fortunately, both versions survive. This dual language method is common to many subsequent treaties. What is rather different from other treaties is that the two copies were differently worded. Although the majority of the text is identical, the Hittite version claims that the Egyptians came to them asking for peace whereas the Egyptian version of the same text say it was the other way round. The treaty was given to the Egyptians in the form of a silver plaque and this 'pocket-book' version was taken back to Egypt and carved into the Temple of Karnak. The Treaty was concluded between Ramses II and Hattusili III, and in its eighteen articles it first calls for peace and then says that their respective gods also demand peace. It contains many elements found in more modern treaties although it is perhaps more far-reaching than the simple declaration of the end of hostilities in later treaties. It also contains a mutual assistance pact in the event that one of the empires should be attacked by a third party, or in the event of internal strife. There are articles pertaining to the forced repatriation of refugees and provisos that they should not be harmed; this might be thought of as the first extradition treaty. There are also threats of retribution if the treaty is broken. This treaty is considered of such importance in the field of international relations that a reproduction of it hangs in the United Nations headquarters.

Elements of treaties

There are many possible issues which may be included in a peace treaty, and a treaty's content usually depends heavily on the nature of the conflict being concluded. Some of these may be:
- Formal designation of borders.
- Processes for resolving future disputes
- Access to and apportioning of natural resources
- Status of prisoners
- Status of refugees
- Settling of existing debts
- Settling of ownership claims
- Defining of proscribed behavior
- The re-application of existing treaties Treaties are often ratified in territories deemed neutral in the previous conflict and delegates from these neutral territories act as witnesses to the signatories. In the case of large conflicts between numerous parties there may be one global treaty covering all issues or separate treaties signed between each party. In more modern times certain intractable conflict situations, may first be brought to cease-fire and are then dealt with via a peace process where a number of discrete steps are taken on each side to eventually reach the mutually desired goal of peace and the signing of a treaty. A peace treaty also is often not used to end a civil war, especially in cases of a failed secession, as it implies mutual recognition of statehood. In such cases such as with the American Civil War is usually ended when the armies of the losing side surrenders and the government collapses. By contrast, a successful secession or declaration of independence is often formalized by means of a peace treaty.

Role of UN

Since the founding of the United Nations after World War II this organization has sought to act as a forum for resolution in matters of international conflict and is often instrumental in peace processes and peace treaties. The number of international treaties and obligations member states are involved in which they seek to limit and control behaviour during wartime has perhaps made the idea of total war less tenable. This has meant that formal declarations of war are frequently not undertaken and therefore a peace treaty at the end is also not entered in to. The Korean War is an example of a war which was suspended with a cease-fire but never closed with a treaty.

Famous peace treaties

Famous examples include the Treaty of Versailles, formally ending the First World War. The latter treaty is possibly the most notorious of peace treaties in that it is "blamed" by some historians for the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the eventual outbreak of the Second World War. The costly reparations Germany was forced to pay the victors of the war, the fact that Germany had to accept sole responsibility for starting the war and the harsh restrictions on German rearmament were all listed in the treaty and they caused massive resentment within Germany. Whether the Treaty of Versailles can be blamed for starting another war or not, shows the difficulties involved in making peace. Another famous example would be the series of peace treaties known as the Peace of Westphalia. It initiated the modern fashion of diplomacy as it marked the beginning of the modern system of nation-states. Subsequent wars were not about issues of religion, but rather revolved around issues of state. This allowed Catholic and Protestant powers to ally, leading to a number of major realignments.

External links

- [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/treaty.htm Images of both versions of the treaty of Kadesh]
- [http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/egyptian-hittite-peace-treaty.htm Text of the treaty] Category:International law Category:Peace Category:Treaties

United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations. It is charged with maintaining peace and security between nations. While other organs of the UN only make recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments must carry out under the United Nations Charter. The decisions of the Council are known as UN Security Council Resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution

History

The Security Council held its first session on January 17 1946, at Church House, London.

Members

A Council member must always be present at UN headquarters so that the Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to crises. The presidency of the security council is rotated and lasts for one month. The role involves setting the agenda, presiding at its meetings and overseeing any crises. It alternates in alphabetical order of the members' names in English. There are two categories of membership in the UN Security Council: Permanent Members and Elected Members.

Permanent members

The Council has five permanent members:
- People's Republic of China
- French Republic
- Russian Federation
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- United States of America The permanent members were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II: the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 1971, the People's Republic of China was awarded the Republic of China's seat in the UN by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. In 1991, the Russian Federation acquired the seat originally held by the Soviet Union, including the Soviet Union's former representation in the Security Council. Currently the five members are the only nations permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which lacks universal validity, as not all nuclear nations have signed the treaty. This nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership, though it is sometimes used as a modern-day justification for their continued presence on the body. North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel (Israel has never admitted to nuclear weapons possession), and some other countries that are not permanent members of the UN Security Council do possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty. Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any resolution. A single blocking vote outweighs any majority.

Elected members

Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms starting on January 1, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African group chooses two members; the North/South American, Asian, and Western European blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. The last seat rotates every two years between Asia and Africa, currently Africa. The current (2005–2006) elected members are: #Algeria (Africa) #Argentina (Latin America) #Benin (Africa) #Brazil (Latin America) #Denmark (W. Europe) #Greece (W. Europe) #Japan (Asia) #Philippines (Asia) #Romania (E. Europe) #Tanzania (Africa) See Elected members of the UN Security Council for other years.

Membership reform

:Main article: Reform of the United Nations Security Council There has been discussion of an increase in the number of permanent members. The countries who have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Japan, Germany and India. Indeed, Japan and Germany are the UN's second and third largest funders, respectively, while Germany and India are among some of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked a team of advisors to come up with recommendations for revamping the United Nations by the end of 2004. A proposed solution is to increase the number of permanent members by five, which, in most proposals, would include Japan, Germany, India, Brazil (G4 nations), one seat from Africa (most likely between Nigeria and South Africa), and/or one seat from the Arab League. On September 21 2004, those four countries issued a joint statement mutually backing each other's claim to permanent status, together with an African country. France and the United Kingdom declared that they support this claim. Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the UN General Assembly which translates to 128 votes. However, questions still remain. How did such traditional UN stalwarts as Canada and the Nordic countries get left out of a plan that would leave them on the sidelines but elevate larger developing countries, some of which represent threats to international peace and security? Also these liberal democracies have wholeheartedly adopted Universal Human Rights while many of the proposed new members have a history of abuses towards their own populations.

Japan

Japan is the second largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets. Its payment even surpasses the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China and Russia. Japan has been one of the largest ODA donor countries. Thus Japan is considered the most likely candidate for one of the new permanent seats. Japan's eagerness to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council meets with strong opposition from East Asian countries, especially the People's Republic of China, South Korea and North Korea. There are frequent large anti-Japanese protests in both mainland China and South Korea. Although they associate their movements with Japan's past, others speculate that these countries, especially the PRC, are motivated by more current problems such as territorial disputes. In late April 2005, large anti-Japan protests broke out in mainland China. The reasons for the protests are varied, but include tensions between Japan and China over the future of the Security Council. While the protests were not officially sanctioned by the PRC, some analysts suggested that the PRC government allowed the protests to proceed in order to upset Japan's bid to be added to the Security Council. Others still argued that the Chinese government did not want the protestor's anger to be focused on them, as preventing these demonstrations would be construed as supporting Japan. However, the PRC government then forbade further protests when it became concerned that such protests might become more about domestic issues. Many other Asian nations have expressed strong support for Japan's application. Japan's backers in the region include Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam. Other countries such as Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom also back Japan's bid. On August 3, 2005, the US and PRC reached an agreement and decided to block Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council.

Germany

Germany is the third largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets. France has explicitly called for a permanent seat in the UN for Germany: "Germany's engagement, its ranking as a great power, its international influence—France would like to see them recognised with a permanent seat on the Security Council", French president Jacques Chirac said in a speech in Berlin in 2000. The German Chancellor also identified Russia, among other countries, as a country that backed Germany's bid. Italy and Netherlands on the contrary suggest a common EU seat in the Council instead of Germany becoming the third European member next to France and the UK. The former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said Germany would also accept a common European seat, but as long as there is little sign that France and the UK will give up their own seats, Germany, a much larger country, should also have a seat. Thus, the German campaign for a permanent seat was intensified in 2004. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder made himself perfectly clear in August, 2004: "Germany has the right to a seat". Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries. Angela Merkel has given no comment yet.

India

India, a nuclear power, represents approximately a sixth of the world's population and is therefore the world's largest democracy. It is also the world's fourth largest economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity. Its bid is unequivocally backed by permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and Russia. Though initially opposed by the People's Republic of China due to geo-political reasons (China being an ally of India's arch-rival Pakistan and the country also having fought a brief war with India in 1962), recent history has turned China's official support for India's candidature from negative to neutral to positive. On April 11, 2005 China announced it would support India's bid for a permanent seat. Although the US officially does not back India's bid - for various reasons, some of which remain decidedly unclear - it has privately been eager to work with India and to support the nation (which translates to not using a veto). Taking into account its huge population and growing economic and political clout, India is a strong contender to clinch a permanent seat. Another factor which bolsters India's candidature is the fact that it was one of the founding members of the UNSC and has participated in several UNSC's activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda and Namibia, among others.

Brazil

Prospects for a permanent Brazilian seat are looking up. Brazil recently received strong indications that the United States was willing to support its membership, but without a veto. Another prospect that possibly looms is the sharing of the permanent seat with Argentina. The case for Brazil receiving a security council seat is strong. It is the largest country in Latin America in population, and land area. But what it is lacking is a Spanish speaking population, which links the rest of South America together (bar the Guyanas). Brazil also recently received backing for a permanent seat from Russia.

The Islamic member

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the predominantly Islamic Middle East has been an area of persistent international conflict, and the periodic flare-ups in the region have been the subject of many UN security council debates and resolutions. Therefore, the prospect of introducing a permanent Islamic member to the security council is highly sensitive, especially if such a member were to be granted the power of veto. Outside the Muslim world, commentators from mainly the United States, have raised concerns that an empowered Islamic member could wield its veto to restrict the UN's ability to act forcefully in the Middle East or on the boundaries of the Islamic world (e.g. Kashmir and Chechnya), rendering the UN impotent in those regions. The lack of democracy in Middle Eastern states that are predominantly Muslim is another reason cited by some Western commentators who argue against the idea of including these countries in the club of permanent, veto-wielding states. At the same time, the draft G-4 reform proposals may leave over 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide without any permanent representation on the UN security council. This is a highly controversial issue within the Islamic world and would adversely impact the UN's credibility in the hotspots of the Middle East and in the Islamic world. In June 2005, the foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) called for a permanent Muslim seat on the UN Security Council. Recent resistance to the reform draft proposals emanating from the G-4 states can be attributed in part to this highly sensitive issue. The US and several Western states have objected to any proposal that gives new members any veto powers, and within the African Union, Egypt has led resistance to a proposal by Nigeria to adopt a version of the G-4 proposals that removes the right of veto for new members, and may enable the creation of a reformed council that does not have any permanent members with a predominantly Muslim identity.

Role of members and non-members

Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters—for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute—require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote—a veto—by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 79. The majority of the USSR vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence, and the numbers since 1984 have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42. A state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may participate in Security Council discussions in which the Council agrees that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions. Non-members routinely are invited to take part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council.

Role of the Security Council

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members. Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members. The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:
- Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
- Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
- Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and
- Enforce its decisions militarily, if necessary. The United Nations has helped prevent many outbreaks of international violence from growing into wider conflicts. It has opened the way to negotiated settlements through its service as a center of debate and negotiation, as well as through UN-sponsored fact-finding missions, mediators, and truce observers. UN peacekeeping forces, comprised of troops and equipment supplied by member nations, have usually been able to limit or prevent conflict. Some conflicts, however, have proven to be beyond the capacity of the UN to influence. Key to the success of UN peacekeeping efforts is the willingness of the parties to a conflict to come to terms peacefully through a viable political process.

Resolutions

The legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy. It is generally agreed that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. The Council is also empowered to make resolutions under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes); most authorities do not consider these to be legally binding. The International Court of Justice suggested in the Namibia case that resolutions other than those made under Chapter VI can also be binding, a view that some Member States have questioned. It is beyond doubt however that those resolutions made outside these two Chapters dealing with the internal governance of the organisation (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding, where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them.

References

External links

- [http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/ United Nations Security Council]
- [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm Veto patterns of the Security Council] Category:United Nations zh-min-nan:An-chôan Lí-sū-hōe ja:国連安全保障理事会 ko:UN 안전보장이사회 ms:Majlis Keselamatan PBB simple:Security Council

November 11

November 11 is the 315th day of the year (316th in leap years) in the Gregorian Calendar, with 50 days remaining.

Events

- 1215 - The Fourth Lateran Council meets, adopting the doctrine of transubstantiation, meaning that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
- 1620 - In what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod, the Mayflower Compact is signed on the Mayflower, establishing the basic laws for the Plymouth Colony.
- 1634 - Following pressure from Anglican bishop John Atherton, the Irish House of Commons passes "An Act for the Punishment for the Vice of Buggery" (anal sex).
- 1675 - Gottfried Leibniz demonstrated integral calculus for the first time to find the area under the graph of y = f(x) function.
- 1675 -Guru Gobind Singh becomes the Tenth Guru of the Sikhs.
- 1831 - In Jerusalem, Virginia, Nat Turner is hanged after inciting a violent slave uprising.
- 1839 - The Virginia Military Institute is founded in Lexington, Virginia.
- 1834 - Hans Christian Andersen's The Ugly Duckling was first published.
- 1864 - American Civil War: Sherman's March to the Sea - Union General William Tecumseh Sherman begins burning Atlanta, Georgia to the ground in preparation for his march south.
- 1865 - Treaty of Sinchula is signed in which Bhutan ceded the areas east of the Teesta River to the British East India Company.
- 1874 - Gamma Phi Beta sorority is founded at Syracuse University.
- 1880 - Australian bushranger and bank robber Ned Kelly is hanged in Melbourne.
- 1887 - Anarchist Haymarket Martyrs August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer and George Engel are executed.
- 1887 - Construction of the Manchester Ship Canal starts at Eastham.
- 1889 - Washington is admitted as the 42nd U.S. state.
- 1911 - Many cities in the midwest broke their record highs and lows on the same day as a strong cold front rolls through. (see The 11/11/11 cold wave).
- 1918 - World War I ends: Germany signs an armistice agreement with the Allies in a railroad car outside of Compiègne in France. The war officially stops at 11:00.
- 1918 - Józef Piłsudski comes to Warsaw and assumes supreme military power in Poland. Poland regains its independence.
- 1918 - Emperor Charles I of Austria abdicates.
- 1919 - The Centralia Massacre in Centralia, Washington results the deaths of four members of the American Legion and the lynching of a local leader of the IWW.
- 1921 - The Tomb of the Unknowns is dedicated by US President Warren G. Harding at Arlington National Cemetery.
- 1923 - First try for a putsch by Hitler in Munich (Germany).
- 1930 - Patent number US1781541 was awarded to Albert Einstein and Leó Szilárd for their invention, the Einstein refrigerator.
- 1933 - Dust Bowl: In South Dakota, a very strong dust storm strips topsoil from desiccated farmlands.
- 1940 - World War II: Battle of Taranto - The Royal Navy launches the first aircraft carrier strike in history, on the Italian fleet at Taranto.
- 1940 - The German cruiser Atlantis captures top secret British mail, and sends it to Japan.
- 1940 - Armistice Day Blizzard: An unexpected blizzard kills 144 in U.S. Midwest.
- 1942 - Road to Morocco, starring Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, and Dorothy Lamour, premieres.
- 1962 - Kuwait's National Assembly ratifies the Constitution of Kuwait.
- 1965 - Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) was declared independent by the white minority regime of Ian Smith.
- 1966 - NASA launches spaceship Gemini 12.
- 1967 - Vietnam War: In a propaganda ceremony in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, three American prisoners of war are released by the Viet Cong and turned over to "new left" antiwar activist Tom Hayden.
- 1968 - Vietnam War: Operation Commando Hunt initiated. The goal was to interdict men and supplies on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, through Laos into South Vietnam.
- 1968 - A second republic is declared in the Maldives.
- 1969 - Jim Morrison (The Doors) is arrested by the FBI after repeatedly prodding a stewardess.
- 1972 - Vietnam War: Vietnamization - The United States Army turns over the massive Long Binh military base to South Vietnam.
- 1975 - Angola becomes independent from Portugal.
- 1975 - Australian constitutional crisis of 1975: Australian Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismisses the government of Gough Whitlam and commissions Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister, and announces a general election to be held in early December.
- 1978 - Maumoon Abdul Gayoom succeeded Ibrahim Nasir as the president of the Republic of Maldives. He has since been re-elected for six consecutive 5-year terms.
- A renovated Hollywood Sign is unveiled, replacing the older version that was built in 1923.
- 1986 - Sperry Rand and Burroughs merge to form Unisys, becoming the second largest computer company.
- 1988 - In Sacramento, California, police find a body buried in the lawn of 60-year-old boardinghouse landlady Dorothea Puente .
- 1989 - Fall of the Berlin Wall.
- 1992 - The Church of England votes to allow women to become priests.
- 1993 - Australian Prime minister P. J. Keating makes a famous speech at the dedication of the tomb and the burial of the unknown Australian soldier
- 1997 - Mary McAleese inaugurated the eighth President of Ireland.
- 1997 - Marianne Biancuzzo is charged for drowning her newborn baby in a toilet and hiding the remains in a coffee can in Tucson, Arizona.
- 1999 - A six-storey apartment block collapses in Foggia, Italy, killing 62.
- 2000 - In Kaprun, Austria, 155 skiers and snowboarders die when a cable car catches fire in an alpine tunnel.
- 2004 - New Zealand Tomb of the Unknown Warrior dedicated at the National War Memorial, Wellington
- Yasser Arafat is confirmed dead by the the Palestine Liberation Organization, of unidentified causes. Mahmoud Abbas is elected chairman of the PLO minutes later.
- Official Guided by Voices Day in San Diego, California.
- Mary McAleese inaugurated for a second term as President of Ireland.
- 2005 - David Irving, a British Nazi sympathizer and historian, is arrested in Austria on a 1989 warrant for offenses related to Holocaust denial.

Births

- 1050 - Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor (d. 1106)
- 1154 - King Sancho I of Portugal (d. 1212)
- 1155 - King Alfonso VIII of Castile (d. 1214)
- 1220 - Alphonse of Toulouse, son of Louis VIII of France (d. 1271)
- 1493 - Paracelsus, doctor († 1541)
- 1493 - Bernardo Tasso, Italian poet (d. 1569)
- 1599 - Prince Octavio Piccolomini, Duke of Amalfi, Austrian field marshal (d. 1656)
- 1633 - George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, British statesman (d. 1695)
- 1668 - Johann Albert Fabricius, German classical scholar and bibliographer (d. 1736)
- 1743 - Carl Peter Thunberg, Swedish naturalist (d. 1828)
- 1744 - Abigail Adams, First Lady of the United States (d. 1818)
- 1748 - King Charles IV of Spain (d. 1819)
- 1764 - Barbara Juliana, Baroness von Krüdener, Russian writer (d. 1824)
- 1791 - Josef Munzinger, Swiss Federal Councillor (d. 1855)
- 1792 - Mary Anne Evans, English wife of Benjamin Disraeli (d. 1872)
- 1821 - Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Russian novelist (d. 1881)
- 1828 - Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji, Hindu saint (d. 1963)
- 1852 - Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, Austro-Hungarian field marshal (d. 1925)
- 1863 - Paul Signac, French painter (d. 1935)
- 1864 - Alfred Hermann Fried, Austrian pacifist, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (d. 1921)
- 1869 - King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (d. 1947)
- 1882 - King Gustav VI Adolf of Sweden (d. 1973)
- 1885 - George Patton, American general (d. 1945)
- 1887 - Roland Young, American actor (d. 1953)
- 1889 - Clifton Webb, American actor (d. 1966)
- 1891 - Rabbit Maranville, baseball player (d. 1954)
- 1897 - Lucky Luciano, American gangster (d. 1962)
- 1898 - Rene Clair, French film dirctor (d.
- 1899 - Pat O'Brien, American film actor (d. 1983)
- 1900 - Halina Konopacka, Polish athlete (d. 1989)
- 1901 - F. Van Wyck Mason, American author (d. 1978)
- 1903 - Sam Spiegel, Austrian-born film producer (d. 1985)
- 1904 - Alger Hiss, American government official and spy (d. 1994)
- 1904 - J. H. C. Whitehead, British mathematician (d. 1960)
- 1909 - Robert Ryan, American actor (d. 1973)
- 1912 - Thomas C. Mann, American diplomat
- 1914 - Howard Fast, American author (d. 2003)
- 1914 - Henry Wade, American lawyer (d. 2001)
- 1915 - William Proxmire, U.S. Senator
- 1918 - Stubby Kaye, American comic actor (d. 1997)
- 1919 - Martin Balsam, American actor (d. 1996)
- 1919 - Kalle Päätalo, Finnish novelist (d. 2000)
- 1920 - Roy Jenkins, British politician (d. 2003)
- 1922 - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., American novelist
- 1925 - June Whitfield, British comedienne
- 1925 - Jonathan Winters, American comedian and actor
- 1927 - Mose Allison, American musician
- 1928 - LaVern Baker, American singer (d. 1997)
- 1928 - Carlos Fuentes, Mexican writer
- 1928 - Mircea Mureşan, Romanian film director
- 1929 - Hans Magnus Enzensberger, German writer
- 1938 - Ants Antson, Estonian speed skater
- 1939 - Denise Alexander, American actress
- 1940 - Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
- 1943 - Doug Frost, Australian swimming coach
- 1944 - Jesse Colin Young, American musician (The Youngbloods)
- 1945 - Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua
- 1950 - Mircea Dinescu, Romanian poet
- 1953 - Marshall Crenshaw, American musician
- 1954 - Meindert Zwaagstra, American patriot
- 1959 - Lee Haney, American bodybuilder
- 1960 - Peter Parros, American actor
- 1960 - Stanley Tucci, American actor and film director
- 1961 - Corinne Hermès, French singer
- 1962 - Demi Moore, American actress
- 1962 - James Morrison, Australian musician
- 1964 - Judith Edelman, American musician
- 1964 - Calista Flockhart, American actress
- 1966 - Alison Doody, Irish actress
- 1967 - Gil de Ferran, Brazilian race car driver
- 1969 - Carson Kressley, American fashion expert
- 1973 - Jason White, American musician (Green Day)
- 1974 - Leonardo DiCaprio, American actor
- 1977 - Ben Hollioake, English cricketer (d. 2002)
- 1979 - Alexandra Noemi Oana Iftode, Romanian "Steaua Bucuresti" Team Manager
- 1981 - Natalie Glebova, Russian-Canadian beauty queen
- 1985 - Kalan Porter, Canadian singer
- 1988 - Daniel Wood, English cricketer

Deaths

- 397 - Martin of Tours, French saint
- 537 - Pope Silverius, saint
- 1028 - Constantine VIII of the Byzantine Empire (b. 960)
- 1285 - King Peter III of Aragon (b. 1239)
- 1623 - Philippe de Mornay, French writer (b. 1549)
- 1686 - Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé, French general (b. 1621)
- 1986 - Otto von Guericke, German scientist, inventor, and politician (b. 1602)
- 1831 - Nat Turner, American slave rebel (b. 1800)
- 1855 - Søren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher (b. 1813)
- 1880 - Ned Kelly, Australian bushranger (hanged)
- 1880 - Lucretia Mott, American feminist and abolitionist (b. 1793)
- 1884 - Alfred Brehm German zoologist (b. 1827)
- 1887 - Haymarket martyrs:
- 1887 - George Engel (b. 1836)
- 1887 - Adolph Fischer (b. 1858)
- 1887 - Albert Parsons (b. 1848)
- 1887 - August Spies (b. 1855)
- 1917 - Liliuokalani of Hawaii, Queen of Hawaii (b. 1838)
- 1931 - Shibusawa Eiichi, Japanese industrialist (b. 1840)
- 1939 - Jan Opletal, czech student, victim of nazi violence in Prague
- 1945 - Jerome David Kern, American composer (b. 1885)
- 1969 - Ernest Ansermet, Swiss conductor (b. 1883)
- 1973 - David "Stringbean" Akeman, American banjo player (b. 1915)
- 1973 - Artturi Ilmari Virtanen, Finnish chemist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1895)
- 1974 - Alfonso Leng, Chilean composer (b. 1894)
- 1975 - Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ukrainian geneticist (b. 1900)
- 1976 - Alexander Calder, American artist (b. 1898)
- 1977 - Greta Keller, Vienna-born cabaret singer and actress (b. 1903)
- 1979 - Dimitri Tiomkin, Ukrainian-born composer (b. 1894)
- 1997 - Rodney Milburn, American athlete (b. 1950)
- 1999 - Mary Kay Bergman, American voice actress (b. 1961)
- 1999 - Jacobo Timmerman, Argentine writer and journalist (b. 1923)
- 2004 - Yasser Arafat, Palestinian leader, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (b. 1929)
- 2005- Lord Lichfield, British photographer
- 2005 - Peter Drucker, American management theorist (b. 1909)

Holidays and observances

- R.C. Saints - Martin of Tours
- Opening of carnival season in Germany ("Karneval"/"Fasching" on 11-11, at 11:11), the Netherlands, and other countries
- Also see November 11 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics)
- Angola - Independence Day (1975)
- Colombia - Independence of Cartagena, from the Spanish Army in (1918)
- Poland - Independence Day (1918)
- South Korea - Pepero Day
- United States - Veterans Day (Formerly "Armistice Day")
- Armistice Day in France and Belgium: end of World War I (1918)
- Lacplesis' Day (1919) in Latvia: the official date for commemoration of Latvian soldiers, who had died for the country's freedom.
- Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth of Nations, including United Kingdom and Canada

External links

- [http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/11 BBC: On This Day] ---- November 10 - November 12 - October 11 - December 11 -- listing of all days ko:11월 11일 ms:11 November ja:11月11日 simple:November 11 th:11 พฤศจิกายน

Armistice Day

Armistice Day is the anniversary of the official end of World War I, November 11, 1918. It commemorates the armistice signed between the Allies and Germany at Compiègne, France, for the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front, which took effect at eleven o'clock in the morning — the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month." While this official date to mark the end of the war reflects the ceasefire on the Western Front, hostilities continued in other regions, especially across the former Russian Empire and in parts of the old Ottoman Empire. This was gladly celebrated as a national holiday each year in many of the former allied nations. After World War II, it was changed to Veterans Day in the United States and to Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth of Nations. In many parts of the world, people take a minute of silence at 11:00am as a sign of respect, as suggested by Edward George Honey in a letter to a British newspaper.

World War I

, and the use of new, devastating weapons - tanks, aircraft, machine guns, and poison gas.]] World War I, also known as the First World War, the Great War, the War of the Nations and the War to End All Wars, was a world conflict lasting from 1914 to 1919, with the fighting lasting until 1918. The label World War I or First World War did not come into general use until after the outbreak of World War II in 1939, and until then it was known as the Great War or the World War. The war was fought by the Allied Powers on one side, and the Central Powers on the other. No previous conflict had mobilized so many soldiers or involved so many in the field of battle. By its end, the war had become the second bloodiest conflict in recorded history (behind the Taiping Rebellion), though it was surpassed within a generation by World War II. World War I became infamous for trench warfare; this was especially true of the Western Front. The trenches went from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland in Europe. More than 9 million died on the war's battlefields, and nearly that many more on the home fronts because of food shortages, genocide, and ground combat. Among other notable events, the first large-scale bombing from the air was undertaken and some of the century's first large-scale civilian massacres took place, as one of the aspects of modern efficient, non-chivalrous warfare. In the First World War 5% of casualties were civilian. In the Second World War that was 50%. World War I proved to be the decisive break with the old world order, marking the final demise of absolutist monarchy in Europe. Four empires were shattered: the German, the Austro-Hungarian, the Ottoman, and the Russian. Their four dynasties, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, the Ottomans, and the Romanovs, who had roots of power back to the days of the Crusades, all fell during or after the war. The post-war failure to deal effectively with many of the causes and results of the War would lead to the rise of Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and the outbreak of World War II within a generation. The War was the catalyst for the Bolshevik Russian Revolution, which would inspire later Communist revolutions in countries as diverse as China and Cuba, and would lay the basis for the Cold War standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States. In the east, the demise of the Ottoman Empire paved the way for a modern democratic successor state, Turkey. In Central Europe, new states such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were born and Poland was re-created. __TOC__

Causes

Poland of Franz Ferdinand. The murder was the igniting torch of World War I.]] :See also: Causes of World War I and Participants in World War I On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student. He was part of a group of fifteen assassins, acting with support from the Black Hand, a secret society founded by pan-Serbian nationalists, with links to the Serbian military. The assassination sparked little initial concern in Europe. The Archduke himself was not popular, least of all in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While there were riots in Sarajevo following the Archduke's death, these were largely aimed at the Serbian minority. Though this assassination has been linked as the direct trigger for World War I, the war's real origins lie further back, in the complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers after the defeat of France and formation of the German state under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck in 1871.

Reasons & Responsibilities

- See also: Causes of World War I There are many different hypotheses that try to explain who, or what, is to blame for the outbreak of the First World War. Early explanations, prominent in the 1920s and 1930s, stressed the official version of responsibility as described in the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Trianon, that Germany and its allies were solely responsible for the war. However, as time progressed, scholars began looking toward the rigidity of both German and Russian military planning, each of which stressed the importance of striking first and executing plans quickly. The fact that for many decades the British had been accustomed to colonial wars which were won relatively easily against much weaker adversaries certainly helped build enthusiasm for the Great war. In addition, the fact that no major political force opposed the war meant that those who did not agree with it had little organisational power to build opposition, though small protests continued throughout the war. Another cause of the war was the building of alliances and arms races. An example of the latter is the launch of HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary battleship that rendered all previous ships obsolete as "pre-dreadnoughts", in 1906. This weakened Britain's power as a seafaring nation and sparked a major naval arms race in shipbuilding, particularly between Britain and Germany due to new imperialism. Overall, nations in the Triple Entente became fearful of the Triple Alliance and vice versa. The civilian leaders of the European powers also found themselves facing a wave of nationalist zeal that had been building across Europe for years. This left governments with ever fewer options and little room to manoeuvre as the last weeks of July 1914 slipped away. Frantic diplomatic efforts to mediate the Austrian-Serbian quarrel simply became irrelevant, as the automatic military escalations between Germany and Russia reinforced one another. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, resulting in delays from hours to even days. There is probably no single concise or conclusive assessment of the exact cause of the First World War.

Outbreak of war

ambassadors are depicted in green, the Central Powers in red, and neutral countries in yellow.]] Austria–Hungary was created in the "Ausgleich of 1867" after Austria was defeated by Prussia. As agreed in 1867, the Habsburgs were the Emperors of the Austrian Empire. With the formation of the Dual Monarchy, Franz Josef