Answer:
The South African Border War, also known as the Namibian War of Independence, and sometimes denoted in South Africa as the Angolan Bush War, was a largely asymmetric conflict that occurred in Namibia (then South West Africa), Zambia, and Angola from 26 August 1966 to 21 March 1990. It was fought between the South African Defence Force (SADF) and the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN), an armed wing of the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO). The South African Border War resulted in some of the largest battles on the African continent since World War II and was closely intertwined with the Angolan Civil War.
Following several years of unsuccessful petitioning through the United Nations and the International Court of Justice for Namibian independence from South Africa, SWAPO formed the PLAN in 1962 with material assistance from the Soviet Union, China, and sympathetic African states such as Tanzania, Ghana, and Algeria.[31] Fighting broke out between PLAN and the South African authorities in August 1966. Between 1975 and 1988 the SADF staged massive conventional raids into Angola and Zambia to eliminate PLAN's forward operating bases.[32] It also deployed specialist counter-insurgency units such as and 32 Battalion trained to carry out external reconnaissance and track guerrilla movements.[33]
South African tactics became increasingly aggressive as the conflict progressed.[32] The SADF's incursions produced Angolan casualties and occasionally resulted in severe collateral damage to economic installations regarded as vital to the Angolan economy.[34] Ostensibly to stop these raids, but also to disrupt the growing alliance between the SADF and the National Union for the Total Independence for Angola (UNITA), which the former was arming with captured PLAN equipment,[35] the Soviet Union backed the People's Armed Forces of Liberation of Angola (FAPLA) through a large contingent of military advisers and up to four billion dollars' worth of modern defence technology in the 1980s.[36] Beginning in 1984, regular Angolan units under Soviet command were confident enough to confront the SADF.[36] Their positions were also bolstered by thousands of Cuban troops.[36] The state of war between South Africa and Angola briefly ended with the short-lived Lusaka Accords, but resumed in August 1985 as both PLAN and UNITA took advantage of the ceasefire to intensify their own guerrilla activity, leading to a renewed phase of FAPLA combat operations culminating in the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.[34] The South African Border War was virtually ended by the Tripartite Accord, mediated by the United States, which committed to a withdrawal of Cuban and South African military personnel from Angola and South West Africa, respectively.[37] PLAN launched its final guerrilla campaign in April 1989.[38] South West Africa received formal independence as the Republic of Namibia a year later, on 21 March 1990.[22]
Despite being largely fought in neighbouring states, the South African Border War had a phenomenal cultural and political impact on South African society.[39] The country's apartheid government devoted considerable effort towards presenting the war as part of a containment programme against regional Soviet expansionism[40] and used it to stoke public anti-communist sentiment.[41] It remains an integral theme in contemporary South African literature at large and Afrikaans-language works in particular, having given rise to a unique genre known as (directly translated "border literature").
Explanation:
Hope I helped.
Answer:
Protectorate, the English government from 1653 to 1659. After the execution of King Charles I, England was declared a commonwealth (1649) under the rule of Parliament.
Explanation:
The king was a man who was made to executed. Tea.
The past two decades have seen growing aware- ness of the complexity of police work, an ex- amination of the use of discretion in officers’ daily policing activities, and a better under- standing of the critical role community leaders play in the vitality of neighborhoods.
Noted criminologist George L. Kelling has been involved in practical police work since the 1970s, working day-to-day with officers in numerous agencies in all parts of the country and serving as an adviser to communities, large and small, looking for better ways to integrate police work into the lives context of the “broken windows” meta- phor, proposed by James Q. Wilson and Dr. Kelling in 1982 in The Atlantic Monthly, this Research Report details how an officer’s sensitive role in order maintenance and crime prevention extends far beyond just arresting lawbreakers—how discretion exists at every level of the police organization. Historically, police have asserted authority in many ways, often having nothing to do with arrest. Dr. Kelling takes a special interest in the use of discretion to exercise the core police authority, enforcement of the law. He wants to understand better why officers make arrests in some circumstances and not others, especially when they are dealing with the more mundane aspects of policing—such
as handling alcoholics and panhandlers and resolving disputes between neighbors. And he notes that police officers themselves are often unable to articulate the precise characteristics of an event that led them to act as they did. Kelling maintains that officers must and should exercise discretion in such situations. But giv- ing police officers permission to use their pro- fessional judgment is not the same as endorsing random or arbitrary policing. In his view, polic- ing that reflects a neighborhood’s values and sense of justice and that understands residents’ concerns is more likely to do justice than polic- ing that strictly follows a rule book.
Police work is in transition within commu- nities. The police are more frequently involved in creating and nurturing partnerships with community residents, businesses, faith-based organizations, schools, and neighborhood asso- ciations. Their role in the justice process re- quires even greater commitment to developing policy guidelines that set standards, shape the inevitable use of discretion, and support com- munity involvement. We hope this Research Report will help inform the continuing debate over the proper exercise of police discretion in this new era of policing.During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Frank Remington, Herman Goldstein, and others ad- vanced the notion that police departments are comparable to administrative agencies whose complex work is characterized by considerable use of discretion. Moreover, they advocated the development of guidelines to shape police use of discretion. Their thinking and work were ahead of their time; the field of policing was simply not ready to consider seriously the implications of this view. Policing was still mired in the simplistic and narrow view of law enforcement agencies as concerned primarily with felonies—the front end of a criminal .
Sl<span>ave rebellions and the fear of slave revolts consumed the attention of white colonists in the south and the north in the 1730s and the 1740s because the ratio of slaves to whites was often very high--meaning that the only thing keeping such revolts from taking place more often was fear and violent intimidation. </span>
