Answer:
South Vietnam was forcibly reunited with North Vietnam and became a single communist nation.
Explanation:
Newly elected President Richard M. Nixon declared in 1969 that he would continue the American involvement in the Vietnam War in order to end the conflict and secure "peace with honor" for the United States and for its ally, South Vietnam. Unfortunately, Communist North Vietnam's leaders, believing that time was on their side, steadfastly refused to negotiate seriously. Indeed, in March 1972 they attempted to bypass negotiations altogether with a full-scale invasion of the South. Called the Easter Offensive by the United States, the invasion at first appeared to succeed. By late summer, however, Nixon's massive application of American airpower blunted the offensive. At this point, the North Vietnamese began to negotiate in earnest. In early October, American and North Vietnamese representatives met in Paris. By October 11, they had hammered out a peace agreement. Its key elements were: all parties would initiate a cease-fire in place 24 hours after signing the agreement; U.S. forces and all foreign troops would withdraw from South Vietnam no later than 60 days after signing the agreement; American prisoners would be released simultaneously with the withdrawal of American and foreign forces, and a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord would be created to organize and oversee free and democratic elections to determine the political future of the South.
The agreement represented a victory for the North Vietnamese but also it seemed to provide an honorable way out for the Americans. Nixon quickly approved the terms. On October 22, however, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu stopped the process in its tracks. Especially infuriating to him was the cease-fire in place. It left thousands of North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam (estimates ranged from 140,000 to 300,000) well-positioned to continue the war when the Americans departed.
The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), developed by the UN, shows the growing importance of human rights by It is criticized for becoming a justification for intervention on behalf of state interests not related to protection of human rights.
<h3>The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?</h3>
All Heads of State and Government endorsed the duty to safeguard populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity at the 2005 World Summit. Three equally important pillars support the responsibility to protect (commonly abbreviated as "R2P"): the obligation of each State to protect its citizens (pillar I); the obligation of the international community to support States in protecting their citizens (pillar II); and the obligation of the international community to act when a State is blatantly failing to protect its citizens (pillar III). When the concept was adopted in 2005, it was a solemn commitment with high hopes for a world free of these atrocities.
- There are several circumstances in today's world where populations are at risk of R2P crimes or where such crimes are already occurring. These crises are occurring in a climate of waning internationalism, declining adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, political division in important decision-making bodies like the Security Council, and a degree of defeatism toward advancing ambitious agendas like protection.
- Alarming contempt for core principles of international law has been on display. We are witnessing widespread and egregious attacks on protected civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools, as well as on protected individuals, including humanitarian and health-care workers, in many of the armed conflicts that have broken out in recent years.
- The most severe transgressions of international humanitarian and human rights law, which may qualify as atrocity crimes, continue to be committed by the armed forces and auxiliary militia of States, which is a depressing reality given the rise of violent, non-state armed organizations.
- Similarly, governments do not hold those responsible for atrocity crimes accountable for their deeds. In order to prevent the investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes, some States parties to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, are not collaborating with the Court or are even considering withdrawing from the Statute.
- The Security Council is becoming less willing to bring issues to the Court, and certain political figures obviously want to avoid being held accountable in court.
Learn more about Protect (R2P) here:
brainly.com/question/16179318
#SPJ4
If the students now complete their homework, and the teacher no longer complains to the parents. This is an example of: Negative reinforcement.
<h3>What is Negative reinforcement?</h3>
Negative reinforcement can be defined as the process of using reinforcer to remove behavior that are unpleasant or undesiring behavior that are not acceptable.
Based on the given scenario the teacher is using negative reinforcement to stop the student unpleasant behavior so as to enables the students to always complete their homework,
Inconclusion this is an example of: Negative reinforcement.
Learn more about Negative reinforcement here:brainly.com/question/326299
Equator)0 latitude Prime Meridian)0 Longitude that would be my answer were they meet
The answer is evaluating your work. It is not enough that
you finish your work. You have to check
it diligently to ensure there are errors in what you have drafted. Make sure there are errors in content or
punctuation before you submit. It will
save time and make things easier at work.
