Political Science

Background Information
The New Zealand Defense force is made up of a Navy, Air force and an Army. Each service runs their own recruit training at their own base locations. The federal government of the country of New Zealand has been training their different military service units independently. The three military service units in the country, just like any other country in the world, require individuals to be physically fit. The requirements of a physically fit individual do not guarantee them an easy time when training. It is just helpful for the individuals to counteract to the hard system of training offered in the military school. In fact more than a half of the requirements of training for all the units are the same (Wicksteed Major, 1982). It beats logic therefore for the country of New Zealand to carry out the training in separate environments. This paper seeks to show that the method employed by New Zealand in training their military recruits independently is a waste of money and resources.

Despite the many areas of similarity seen in the independent service units, the country of New Zealand has over the years been using these modes of recruit training. It is true that there are enough commonalities that each service covers in their recruit training that could allow a single defense force recruit training centrally (Franke, 1999). Some systems used for training of the recruits have fully purposed to completely break down the person and at the same time restructure and rebuild the individual to conform to the requirements of the military group. The process also may attempt to transform the person to suit the system.

Standard uniforms are given out to the recruits, their hair cut short among other factors. The soldiers are required to conform to the required standards. The important part of the elementary training is mainly psychological (Martin, 2006). When a recruit is found not to conform to the orders and obey the instructions in practicality, they may not be considered ready for the military operation. The military training therefore can be done jointly.

What the Army recruits require, the Navy and the Air force have been in need of the same. There are common areas of practice. The training has been going on independently (Franke, 1999). Every soldier regardless of the service unit needs to be physically fit. The training for physical fitness is also the same. The operations of a soldier in the military are more or less the same for all the service units.

The New Zealands training for her military is done separately. The training for fitness and the resocilaization process which could have effectively been done jointly has taken different procedures. The Army has had its own camp and training school where they receive their training from. Likewise, the Navy and the Air force have had such.

DISCUSSION
The method used by the country of New Zealand in training their soldiers is not all that bad and it has some advantages. It is very healthy for the soldiers as far as the orientation to their particular culture is concerned. Independent training procedures employed here have helped maintain the culture of the different military groups. It has to a very great extent avoided mixing up of the cultures. There is preservation of the norms and the requirements of each and every service unit. The training right from the elementary level is done in an independent way from one service unit to the other (Wicksteed Major, 1982). The convictions held here is that every soldier needs to specialize in their field.

All the same, the methodology and modalities applied here in the training by the nation of New Zealand has not yielded satisfactory results as far as economics is concerned. There has been a continued waste of resources and training material through the duplication of these training procedures done independently (Rolfe, 1999). A lot of money has been expended more than it would have been if the exercise at the initial stages was done jointly. Such results prompt the need of devising other ways of doing the exercise.

However, all military initial training procedures begin with a process of Resocialization. This is a concept and process based on sociological theory and practice. It deals with the retraining of an individual emotionally and mentally in a way that the people can operate in an area which is utterly different from the environs one is accustomed to (Martin, 2006). This is what the military recruits undergo before they are completely turned into soldiers from the civilian nature. However, the military forces have different groups. Their different field operations obviously would indicate that their training would take different methods. Nonetheless, a soldier is a soldier. This is one thing that the country of New Zealand among other countries offering independent military training seems to forget.

All except the training of officer trainees have a lot of commonalities in the training and resocialization process. The military forces main function is to protect the state, nation or country from external attack. Therefore, there is need for joint readiness to combat forces that are meant to invade a nation. The practice utilized by the country in this case does not add up to an attractive picture of the countrys efforts in saving the scarce resources available. The idea is never feasible economically (Rolfe, 1999). All units including the Army, the Navy and the Air force would require similar orientation to the military operations and procedures. This is a complete change of personality that each individual has to go through before they take part in the execution of the military duties.

The Army and the Marine recruits are almost always trained in an essential marksmanship with personally-assigned rolls of ammunition and weapons, maintenance of weapons in the field, combat hand-to-hand, the fitness training which is done physically, basic survival methods and techniques together with first aid procedures (Martin, 2006). The Navy and the Coast guards would definitely be trained to survive in water. Physical fitness is of equal importance. Compared to the Army and the Marine Corps, the requirements of training have some common grounds. The Air force similarly needs such like training of physical fitness though it may need military and classroom based instructions which are required for their field.

Benefits of joint training
Joint training is usually structured in a way that all the units of the armed forces are ready to execute in one force the strategy of the national military. This is usually done in an effort to shape the international environment and giving attention to the full spectrum of disaster and scope of the operations in the military (Rolfe, 1999). The most important thing here is that joint recruit training helps the units to be ready to defeat the enemies from the same point of action which is a great source of strength and increases joint readiness to combat.

Training in the military forces has a lot of similarities. The main training efforts applied at the earlier stages has all to do with the changing of the recruited fellows into soldiers to do away with the civilian nature in them. There is therefore no logic for the country of New Zealand to carry out this operation in separate conditions and environments. This only adds up cost to the process. To prepare for an uncertain time in the future, the forces should have a similar training involvement (Martin, 2006). No matter how well the training could have been conducted, problems could easily emerge in the battle field. Common language and unity is very crucial when executing military roles and thereby the efforts applied in training three units separately would be of no importance.

The joint recruit training will also help in saving on the man power needed to do so. Separate training will demand the involvement of more trainers (Franke, 1999). The training of the three service units of the country of New Zealand will demand the deployment of many training officers. These officers will need to be paid every moment they are involved in the training session. This indeed wastes the countrys resources.  The more the number of trainers, the more finances would be required to cater for them.

It is therefore of no use to deploy training officers to cater for groups differently while they could have been training from a common point. This is applicable and has worked out for many countries (Wicksteed Major, 1982). These nations and countries have resorted to this as the efforts have been economically useful. The resources are indeed saved by employing the joint training method. Separate training camps realizes wastage of resources as some material that could be applied for many recruits finds their way in serving only a small group.

The means applied here jointly goes a long way in promoting joint and strong military operations. The operations in the military when combating external forces and demands are all dependent on the unity in doing so. Joint recruit training makes a move in promoting joint readiness of all the units in the military forces. This is a very important step in the military training. At some point, there needs to be harmony when executing the roles of military.

Independent recruit training modalities employed are unhelpful in promoting unison in the forces. However much similar the curriculum in the common grounds may seem, the training when done differently would produce different results. Coming together in a common training environment makes people alike (Franke, 1999). The persons thinking and way of doing things automatically takes after each other. This is a very crucial point to the military. It promotes joint readiness and action in the process of executing the operations of military.  

Limitations of joint training
However, the joint training could easily be found introducing a mix up in the individual service units. The service units have different cultures. In most cases, the recruit training offered jointly mainly favors the Army Service Unit. The Army is mainly involved in operations of the dry land and keeping peace at the borders (Rolfe, 1999). The Navy Service Unit on the other hand will mostly find their job at the waters such as the sea, oceans, although there are some departments that have to operate in the dry land. Therefore, the Air force Service Unit is the one whose culture could be eroded as time goes by.

As a result of this, the joint training of the military forces may need a Single Service phase to cover specific requirements not common to all services. This is very evident as seen in the case of the Army which benefits entirely at the expense of the other Service Units. The joint military training can only be applicable at some level. Despite the existence of common areas of operation, the system could easily erode some cultures of some particular service units.

The resocialization process in the military training takes in account in a broad way the basic training required for the Army soldiers (Martin, 2006). Of importance to note is that there could be a waste of resources in training the other service units on matters which are not of major application and importance to some units.

Proposed model
Recruit training is the first indoctrination and guidelines given to new personnel in the military. It can be common to every recruit, selected officers on the grounds of experience as exhibited during the training period or may be for the ranks enlisted. Trainee officers have been found to undergo a more serious and vivid program. This is the only set of military group among other special ones that may require independent programs. Their culture and orientation in the military forces is very different from the rest of the military recruits (Martin, 2006). The way of doing things for the other military recruits other than the officers is very similar and therefore could easily be done jointly.

The training of the officers in the military which requires special attention usually comes before the main common training of the recruits. The country of New Zealand could make use of this model to make sure it saves on the resources of money and materials in the training process (Franke, 1999). Much of the initial training for all service units is similar. The Army, Navy and the Air force therefore could be jointly training together during the early stages of their service in the military. This initial training mainly involves the process of creating transformation in the civilians. The transformation is meant to change the civilians into sailors (for the Navy), soldiers, marines, coast guardsmen or the airmen (for the air force).

It is virtually a way of conditioning whereby the inductees are highly encouraged to some extent to burry their individuality for the better part of the service unit. The conditioning of these civilians is very important for the military ability to function since combat requires people to tolerate stress and execute actions which are basically not common in the normal way of life. The nature and the amount of the conditioning to these recruits will vary from one service unit to another at higher levels (Martin, 2006). But for recruit training at the initial stage, the country of New Zealand could employ the basic conditioning using this model. There is no need to duplicate resources therefore whilst the same resources could have been used in a joint recruit training session.

Conclusion
Having clearly considered the functions of the different service units of New Zealand, it is imperative to note that training them independently only increases cost to the federal government. The duplication of the training facilities is a real wastage of resources for a country. It is true that the duties and operation modes of the different service units may differ. However, there is a possibility of integrating these units and ensuring that they are training from a common point. The stipulations of the proposed model offer a clear guideline on the execution of the joint training efforts of the military forces.

Many countries and nations of the world have been using this method of joint military recruit training and it has worked for them. The process of resocialization helps civilian recruits into the military act as soldiers. The soldiers now seem like they posses reversed roles in the society. It is very important for the recruits to execute their operations in a manner that would clearly put demarcation between the civilians and the soldiers.

Recruits are essentially given instructions in drill to march, stand and give response to some orders in a manner that is unquestionable. In the past, drills were derived from the military tactics whereby the soldiers in the fire line presented accurate and coordinated motions of loading and firing muskets. Nowadays, these specific tactics have become obsolete. However, drilling is important since it performs a psychological function as it inculcates commands and trains the recruit to unhesitatingly act in the face to deal harshly with situations.

Learning commands of drill have been helpful in the contemporary infantry training in the military. It maintains the soldier in proper position relative to their peers and thus sustains the shape of their formation as they move over irregular terrain. Recruits are normally put under very vigorous training physically, in the efforts of preparing for the demands of combat as well as to weed out and remove the less able or those that are not fully motivated. This has been influential in building morale and has an element of providing a sense of achievement for the recruits having met the physical requirements.

Recommendations
The training of military recruits before being fully involved in the military operation has been found to take different forms. However, any government input in the military operations should be seen as being very useful without constraining its resources. In the past, the military was greatly comprised of the Army (Franke, 1999). As time has elapsed, the military has come up with other units which help to maintaining peace at the borders in other areas of operation. All of these soldiers need a joint force in the preparation to combat challenges posed to the nation from outside.

There is a need therefore for any country to embrace a joint recruit training model as explained above. It will be very useful for any country. The joint training of the military groups helps in the making sure that the soldiers from all units have joint readiness in fighting external wars. It is a very economical way of doing the training. The resources which would have been duplicated are utilized in a very special way. There is no more wastage of resources in this model of training the military recruits (Rolfe, 1999). The little resources available are put together for their maximum use.

It is therefore highly recommended that this method (proposed model) be put into use. The joint military recruit training has for many years been used by other countries and has not fully been effective. The only drawback in the historical joint military training is the fact that some cultures meant specifically for a certain service unit could be interfered with. For instance, the culture and orientation of the Navy is basically in the management of peace round waters like in the seas and oceanic regions. The joint military training has for many years put emphasis on dry land which mainly favors the Army.

The Air force in this case could also been found that they benefit a little. All the same they still have some commonalities in which they can train together as a single unit. This new model of training makes provision for a common training session and later giving room for the different training for the requirements as stipulated in the constitutions of each service unit. These differences should not be used as points of argument as to why the training needs to be done independently (Franke, 1999).
 There are a lot of savings economically that can be realized through the implementation of this model. The soldiers after having the common training are now allowed to go to their respective camps from where they receive training and directions based on the demands of the particular service unit (Franke, 1999). The only groups of military training that could find a fully independent training could be the training meant for the officer trainees. These are somehow special as their duties include some kind of special programs.

One concept in governance unique to a democratic system such as the US is the separation of power into three co-equal branches, the executive, legislative and the judiciary.  But on the question of balancing power, are these branches of government really equal Considering the traits and functions of each branch could give us an idea on how the balance of power is being played out.

Congress drafts the law to guide the development of the country and by theory should be the most powerful because of its collective mandate from the people. It could even impeach a president and more important it could change the rules on system of governance. Representatives to Congress have more grass roots exposure and hence as an institution could rally support in a more expansive and representative manner than any sitting president.

The executive branch meanwhile, implements the law and the president more or less functions like a chief-executive-officer but the role has been magnified by a clause on another presidential function, that of the commander-in-chief. The president is expected to lead the country especially at times and period of great uncertainties.  The executive branch, which included federal agencies including law enforcement, unlike the other two branches, is encapsulated in the persona of the president, elected every four years. Congress and the judiciary have no equivalent persona and more or less perceived as a collective unit.  This somehow trumps the power of Congress, as when the situation gets critical, it is the president who usually takes over the role of keeping the country together.

The judiciary, the third branch is powerful because it is the keeper of the law and this branch of government has the last say on anything pertaining to the law and its implementation. In societies based on the rule of the law, judges occupy position of power in society. This power is negated in some ways because it is manifested after an act has been committed and the court is tasked to establish the constitutionality or legality of said action.  Hence, the Supreme Court for example, is really out of the loop of governance but functions more as an arbiter between Congress and the President.

While it is difficult to compare powers of the three branches as these are different and unique to each branch, we can see how external or environmental factors such as the political parties and public opinion exert an influence in tilting the balance in favor of one branch over the other with respect to question of power. The public especially in societies with strong representative mechanisms such as political parties, e.g., Democratic and the Republican parties lobby and advocacy groups such as the green lobby could give added premium to a branch of government. The unpopularity of the war on Iraq for example dismantled the Republican hold on the White House. Though at the onset, then Pres. Bush was able to rally support for the war efforts playing on the 911 attack to push his anti-terrorism program, which included toppling Saddam Hussein. When the intelligence gaffe that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, which was the pretext of going to Iraq, the public support waned and consequently Congress shifted its sight to eventual pull out from Iraq placing the presidency of Mr. Bush into a defensive position.

There are accounts, which place premium on flexibility as a measure of power.  The president for example could use tactics as signing statements or clarification on what the president would do or how he treats such a legislation he signed, which as pointed out by Examiner.com, had been used extensively by then Pres. Bush to circumvent immediate implementation of certain laws which not to his list of priorities.  It is not however, only the president who has a trick or two when it comes to exercise of power, representatives could use filibustering techniques to scuttle issues and make it difficult if not impossible for a president to secure necessary legislation such as budget allocation for his programs. Another point which limits the presidents power is that a president for example, no matter how popular and powerful to a point that he could get what he wanted would still have to go after two terms. That is the law.

On the whole, when it comes to balance of power, we can say that because of the nature of leadership and succession in governance, the pendulum shifts as to which is more powerful in shaping national priorities at certain times.  The president sometimes appeared as the most powerful but this could be more due to the president as a symbol of the country as head of state but a president under the American system would still have to answer to where real power resides  to his constituency and to his political party, to the American people.

While it might appear that Lius Legislating the Universal The Circulation of International Law in the Nineteenth Century is of little relevance for scholars of international relations, it is definitely not the case. One of the major strengths of this piece, which focuses on the translation of Henry Wheatons Elements of International Law into Chinese in 1864 by W. A. P. Martin, is its comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. Borrowing methods and insights from discourse studies, linguistics, historiography, philosophy, and jurisprudence, the author makes important observations about the implications that circulation of legal texts has had for historical developments in international relations.

The central argument the author advances is that translated texts produce intended and unintended meaning between discursive contexts of source and target languages, especially if such languages had little contact before and are only learning to speak in each others political discourse (which certainly was the case with English and Chinese in the middle of the nineeenth century). Thus, translators are charged with creating hypothetical equivalences between languages which are subsequently fixed through repeated use. Martin had to come up with neologisms which were barely intelligible to his Chinese contemporaries,such as quanli for right, created by removing negative connotations associated with quanshi (power or domination) and adding the word li (interest of calculation) from commercial vocabulary nowadays, the terms seem perfectly natural. However, it is important to keep in mind that due to different connotations attached to any word in target language, concepts are transplanted from one discourse to another with a great degree of imprecision.    

Leaving the linguistic peculiarities aside, the author examines how Western powers employed international law to project their influence around the globe. Chinese ordered translations of some passages from Vattels Le droit des gens (another work considered by Martin for translation which, however, was not endorsed by American authorities because of the author being French) to justify their refusal to trade in opium. In such a way, the approach to international law among Chinese was purely instrumental they tried to use it as a rhetorical device to persuade the West (the British Empire in this case) of righteousness of their position. Western powers ignored the letter and spirit of the law during the Opium Wars, forced numerous unequal treaties upon China, colonized Hong Kong, and opened its ports to international vessels. Under such historical circumstances, the translation of Wheatons Elements of International Law was considered timely for two main reasons. First of all, it helped to construct the image of the West as a more benign power which relied not only on force but also law in its dealings with other nations. Secondly, it legitimized unequal treaties and served as a useful instrument for ensuring their implementation. This marked an important shift in the perception of universality of international law rather than defending it on the basis of shared humanity and moral vision, as early European philosophers did, the emphasis shifted to universal consent, treaties, balance of power, and international tribunals.      

The only noticeable weakness of the text is that it makes several points which are not sufficiently integrated into the texts canvas. The discussion on Lord Macartneys mission which discovered that China was reluctant to open up to international trade  and therefore established the image of Chinese as sinocentric, traditionalist, backwards and uncooperative, the central image employed by the so-called colonial historiography  is an interesting point in itself yet does little to advance the authors argument. So is the discussion of the naturalization of the translating the word yi (originally meaning foreigner or stranger) as barbarian, deemed to be highly offensive by the British and banned from all Chinese official documents on these grounds.

Other than that, the argument of the author appears sound and complete. Using the example of a particular legal text, the author investigates how purely discursive events influence actual material reality. This text is extremely relevant nowadays, given the apprehensions that the recent rhetoric of universality of human rights and humanitarian interventions can be just a guise for neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism.                                  

History
Federal Express known as FedEx is a US bases logistics Services Company whose headquarter is in Memphis. Frederick W. Smith In 1971 invested 91 million as a capital for a business enterprise. After he added 4 million more to his money he purchased a second-hand airline company named Little Rock in Arkansas. He started to use the airplanes to offer delivery services for envelopes and small parcels being delivered within the United States. Finally Smith named his business as Federal Express.

The company started its operation in April 1973. At that time FedEx owned 14 Dassault Falconaircraft and had nearly 400 workers. The services that were offered included overnight and two-day package delivering services and also Courier Pak. Sometime later the company started to experience financial crises and Smith was unable to cover the companys expenses. After his loan application was rejected he flew to Las Vegas and won a fortune at Black Jack table. In 1976 the company became profitable with an average quantity of 19,000 parcels per day. In 1977 the Us Govt. allowed the Federal Express to purchase their first large aircraft the Boeing 727. In 1978 the company was listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Federal Express started to use a centralized computer system to keep track of packages, weather, routes, employees and vehicles. In 1980 the company started to provide facilities in nearly 90 states. Federal Express started to establish hubs at different airports in the late 80s. In 1989 the company purchased to Flying Tiger Line to expand its international services. In 1994 Federal Express adopted the name FedEx and also launched their website and in 2000 the company officially dropped the Federal Express and became FedEx Corporation.

Managerial Aspects
Individuals involved at FedEx
The key individuals involved at FedEx involve
Frederick W. Smith who is the founder of FedEx and is the Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx. His responsibilities include giving tactical instructions to all of the FedEx Corporation operating Companies.
Michael Glenn who is the Executive Vice President of Market Development and Corporate Communications he controls all sales, marketing and communications across the FedEx operating companies.

Alan Graf who is the executive vice president and chief financial officer. His responsibility is to control all the financial aspects of FedEx Corporation.

Christine Richards who is the Executive vice president and General Counsel and Secretary of FedEx Corporation. She is responsible for making sure that FedEx Corporations worldwide activities are in accordance with global, national, state and regional government rules.

Robert Carter who is the Executive Vice President and Information Services and Chief Information Officer. He is responsible for placing technology direction, and also the companys key applications and technology framework.

Organizational Chart
The organization chart of the FedEx is given below

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Project Manager and Team
The FedEx Corporation includes one chairman four vice presidents, four Chief Executive Officers, five international executives, and eleven other key executives.

Types of Cargo Transported
FedEx transports all types of cargo all over the world including from letters to parcels to houses to cargo containers. FedEx offers fast and most of the time same delivery depending on the destination. Before being transported the cargo is categorized into different categories and this categorization depends on what type of item is being transported, what is the size of the item, how long will it take to deliver the parcel. Shipments are generally categorized as domestic goods such as furniture or art pieces etc, parcel, express and cargo. Small enveloped or packages are termed as express shipments. Express shipments are usually delivered by air. Parcel shipments include big boxes and do not travel by air but are transported through road or rail.

Operation
Operational Philosophies
The major underlying philosophy of FedEx Corporation is to complete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively (Knudson, 2009). This philosophy is responsible for binding all the services of FedEx express together. Other underlying major operational philosophies of FedEx Corporation can be to provide 100 reliable service in less time period. The FedEx corporation also tries to link up the team members in such a way that they feel like an important part of the company. This philosophy makes the employees to work harder and to provide good results.

Market Served by FedEx
FedEx Corporation is situated in the United States. The hub of FedEx at Memphis is the head quarter of FedEx Corporation and it is responsible for providing the services to the country as well as too many other markets of the world like Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Europe, Central and South America, the Caribbean and China and so on. It is serving almost 220 countries and has provided a global access.

Types of Cargo
The FedEx delivers a wide range of cargoes across the world. FedEx is serving the world with different types of cargo like air cargo, shipping cargo, road cargo and so on. Hence ships, trucks, vans, airplanes all are being used for delivering the services to the customers. All types of cargo are being delivered across the world from letters to parcels.

Problems Limitations
Although FedEx is a very reliable and fast delivery service but still sometimes few limitations can be observed in the operations. The most commonly limitations or problems of FedEx have seem to be a delivery which is not made on time. Another problem with the FedEx operations is the increasing costs of operations which sometimes takes place because of having lack of coordination along the employees. Although these problems are observed only sometimes but still are very important and should be solved.

Business Relationships
Partners, alliances and pacts of FedEx
FedEx has done partnership with partners such as the American Express, Google Checkout, Amazon Services, GotVMail, Pitney Bowes, USAA and QuickBooks to offer its customer exclusive savings. FedEx gives its customers many intelligent ideas to save money daily and the customers can bring improvement in their business. They have formed alliances with several government institutions, financial, academic and insurance organizations and foreign trade associations that provide support and beneficial services along with high quality and economical prices. Besides that FedEx also gives special discount offers for small and medium sized customers that actively participate in the PyMex Ship and Save Program. Some alliances of FedEx include Concepta Engo, Partnership Yellow Pages Brazil, Seven Idiomas, INPG LICEX,Seu Sucesso, World Tariff, and PyMEx Ship  Save. FedEx has signed a pact with OfficeMax to offer local FedEx express and ground shipping services in over 900 OfficeMax stores opening this autumn as the struggling office-supply vendor looks to improve traffic at its stores. FedEx has also signed a pact with Prakash Airfreight Pvt. Ltd. (PaFex) and Wincor Nixdorf USA.

Code-Sharing, Joint Ventures
In 1999 FedEx Corp. and Tianjin-based Da Tian W. Air Service Corporation formed a joint venture in Beijing. The goal of this venture was to provide unmatched international express transport facilities for clients with delivery requirements to and from China. A code sharing venture was formed between FedEx Corp and Nippon Cargo Airline Ltd. (NCA).

Any Unique Agreements, arrangements etc
FedEx and its subsidiaries have agreed to enter into an alcohol shipping agreement in which FedEx will provide shipping facilities for alcohol and wine under certain conditions. Like for wine it is that the customer should be a licensed dealer, distributor, manufacturer etc. For alcohol it is that a licensed dealer, distributor, manufacturer etc can ship alcohol to other licensed dealer or distributor.

Company Resources
Vehicles and Employees
FedEx is providing its services in more than 210 countries of the world. The workforce of FedEx all around the world is estimated to be having 142,000 across the globe. The drop off locations is more than 44,700. When it comes to the vehicles then FedEx has 40,900 vehicles in all in the entire global network. Also it has got a 615 aircrafts available.

Main Airports Served by FedEx
As it has been discussed above that FedEx serves more than 210 countries all over the world. According to estimation more than Following are some of the main airports that are served by the FedEx
Central Japan International Airport.
Memphis international airport.
Toronto Pearson International Airport.
Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport.
Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport.
Miami International Airport.
Oakland International Airport.
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.
Newark Liberty International Airport
Indianapolis International Airport.
Fort Worth International Airport.

Biggest Customers
FedEx serves 211 countries of the world supplying millions of items per day. It has got number of customers but few of them can be termed as the biggest customers of FedEx. Few of the biggest customers of FedEx are United States postal services, Thaigem, Steve Irwin, IBM and EMEA automotive industry and so on.

Key Facilities
FedEx facilities are located almost all over the world. Facilities located at France, Paris, Netherlands and china recently located offices of fedEx. These new offices are supporting the company. All the offices are however becoming a chain to support the company. The needs of people can be supported with the growing branches It can match the worlds ever- changing needs. The expansion of fedEx will surely benefit its customers. Expansion of fedEx includes online fedEx trade tools and supply chain visibility. These facilities are recently added in companys plan. 14 new offices are being located in 2009.

Future Plans
The cargo airline of USA has also made many plans for its future development and improvement. In future, FedEx wants to establish the visibility is such a way that it may have multiple nodes. By having visibility on multiple nodes means to be visible at every division of the cargo airline from a single place. This will create a single platform for all the various services provided by the cargo airline. The various services or divisions may include FedEx freights, FedEx express, FedEx custom critical and FedEx ground and so on. This visibility will make it easier for the customers to track the information at a single place. This is possible when the information from all the operating services of FedEx is developed as a single unit of information which will be tracked by the customers. If this goal is achieved then the customers would not have to look the different web sites of different services of FedEx in order to view their tracking information. This plan will not only enhance the accessibility of the customers by providing them a single interface but it will also increase the collaboration among the different operating services. Other future plans of the FedEx Express may include the increment in the profits every year. The cargo airline wants to increase this revenue or profit by 10 percent almost. It is also desired that the strategies should be developed that may increase the flow of cash within the company. The operations should be performed in such a way that the return over these operations can get maximum. FedEx Express also wants to grow its network by covering more geographical locations.

Summary
In this paper we have made an analysis of the managerial side of FedEx operations. FedEx is considered to be the best courier service in the world. The network of FedEx is very strong which provides it access to the entire globe. FedEx has established a very effective network of transportation, information services, business and supply chain. In the paper we have also discussed the history of FedEx which states that how this company has made progress and grew in to a large cargo airline service. In this paper we have mainly focused over the managerial side and for this reason we have also provided the organizational chart of FedEx along with the introduction to the key people involved in it. The biggest customers as well as the main airports where the services are being provided by FedEx have also been given in this paper. It has also been discussed that what the future plans of this company are. These plans clearly states that the company aims to progress more by introducing innovative ways for improving the coordination and collaboration.

Experts view on terrorism vary however, most view terrorism as the only general characteristic commonly agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence. This criterion alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism- war, organized crime, revolution, or even a simple riot. Terrorist violence may be perpetrated by rebels in opposition to an established social order or it may be inflicted by a state upon its own citizens or those of another state. Further discussion will be addressed concerning terrorism to me, terrorism definitions, and lastly different terroristic criteria.

Being in the military, we use terms such as Asymmetric warfare and low-intensity operations, which stand for tactics that can include terrorism. At its core, the definition of terrorism is not so much a description of a particular kind of violence, like bombing or assassination, but a way to differentiate an act of violence comparative to the speaker, and their point of view. Terrorism as a word in its usual usage has a connotation of evil, indiscriminate violence, or brutality. Terrorism, in my perspective is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society.

One 1988 study by the US Army discovered that over 100 definitions have been used. The United States State Department, Department of Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all have different definitions of what constitutes terrorism, broadly reflective of their areas of competence and operation. Some examples include The organized use of violence to attack noncombatants (innocents in a special sense) or their property for political purposes. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Current U.S. national security strategy premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents. United States Department of Defense the calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. British Terrorism Act 2000, defines terrorism so as to include not only attacks on military personnel, but also acts not usually considered violent, such as shutting down a website whose views one dislikes. U.S. Army training manual says Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to produce goals that are political or ideological in nature.

The following are some further criteria that are sometimes applied, and the acts they exclude from the definition of terrorism. Many incidents often labeled as terrorist fail one or more criteria. First is target, which commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group. Secondly is objective as the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, andor fear. The intent may be to provoke unequal reactions from states. Lastly is motive which is acts that are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill the bank manager, blow up the vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists.

In conclusion, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and even when people agree on a definition of terrorism, they sometimes disagree about whether or not the definition fits a particular incident. In order to understand terrorism, one must assess the different views of what exactly constitutes terrorism. Reaching a general conclusion on the definition of terrorism has generated much debate in the social sciences and internationally. No single definition seems to satisfy the wide interpretation of what specifically is terrorism.

In this article, the author has attempted to explore the literal meanings of terrorism, using a vast variety of references to drive his point. However the question that comes to my mind, is that is such an article actually needed in our body of knowledge Terrorism to me and the rest of the world, especially the numerous civilians that are affected by it every week, is a simple derivative of terror  an act that will strike fear into the hearts of every person that comes into contact with it. Do we really need to get in to the nitty gritty of the definition to properly define the term, so that some unlawful acts are excluded, or should all acts be cloaked under terrorism so that they are equally dealt with. How can a bank robbery not be defined as terrorism because the robbers were after profit Go ask the people inside the bank or the secretary that was held up at gunpoint whether they werent terrified. Go ask them whether a gun held to their head cannot be defined as terrorism. Defining the term will get us nowhere, denying it will.

Terrorism, what is it
Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)... This is also how the US Department of Defense defines terrorism. Within this definition, there are three key elementsviolence, fear, and intimidationand each element produces terror in its victims. (International Terrorism and Secruity Research) Another definition is terrorism means premeditated politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or agents. This was usually to influence an audience. Terrorism is unlawful use or threat of violence. It is used against people or property to further political or social objectives. The result is to intimidate or coerce a government and individuals or groups modify their behavior or politics.

These are just a few definitions found on the web. As we can see terrorism can mean just about anything. But all these definition seem to have a few things in common, they all start by saying premeditated or calculated which when defined means to plan or intentionally do something, and it always against someone or a group. It is then described by some as both a tactic and strategy a crime and a holy duty a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination We may think that terrorism is new to the world, but it has been among us for a very long time. It is said that it has been around since the beginning of recorded history. And although it is an ancient happening, it is still hard to define.

Terrorism is used against the weak and the strong but is used in an underhanded or undermined way. Look at the way it was used against the US. Everyone that got on those planes or was in those buildings was not expecting it to be their last day. Using terrorism in a way that no one is expecting is a very deceitful, cruel, evil way. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. But this seems to be the only way terrorists know. Harming by blind-side someone is the cowards way.

Terrorism may have many different, but the mean is still the same. It is a mean and evil way for someone to gain control over a nation or individuals by creating fear. It is a way for someone to change the way people live by bring doubt and fear in to their lives. Terrorism is not a new thing of hate it is an old way of hatred that has tried to keep people locked in fear. And the only way to stop them is to keep living as if they never happened. The pain hurt of their actions will live on, but we can not let them win by giving up. Loving, living and being happy are always the sweetest revenge.

The author provides some clever insights into the history of the terror phobia that arrests the world in our times. With countries like the United States forming global coalitions and increasing troop presence in other rogue states, her argument may come as a surprise to the think tanks in Washington. The dilemma that has plagued most of the world this time around is how does one stop all this madness Also is their really any one way to stop them Whereas governments across the globe are scrambling to increase security measures in potential threat zones, and countries are partnering to share any shred of intelligence that may help in destabilizing the global terror network, what are the masses supposed to do to protect themselves An honest answer will be  nothing.  There are two options that we can go with. Firstly we can go up in arms, fortify our houses and neighbourhoods and join the witch hunt, and ultimately clash with everyone who may look suspicious to us. The more intelligent option is to go about our lives as usual.  One must understand as the author so correctly argues, that the basic objective of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of the victims. If we cower down, they have won. If we let them get to us, they have won and their objective has been achieved. If we stop coming on the streets and start hiding in corners they have been successful. If we stop enjoying our life, going out, spending money, it will bring down our economy and they will have achieved what they had planned since the outset. However, if we go about our normal lives in the freedom that is meant for us we will win. If we are brave enough, we will love one another, and we will overcome.

Terrorism has many different definitions. The Department of Justice says it means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The Department of States definition is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets and The Department of Defense states that it is the use or threat of violence intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals. All definitions of terrorism have similar meanings and generally all use the same wording violence, fear, influence, attack and civilians (Terrorism, n.d., para 1-2) Despite there being many definitions, no act of terrorism is random (Prince-Gibson, 2008). To many people, terrorism and insurgency are often synonymous. To distinguish between terrorism and insurgency, you have to look at the goals for each. The main goal for insurgency is to challenge the existing government for partial or full control of territories whereas terrorists usually dont attempt to control certain locations because it makes them easier to locate. While insurgency does sometimes use terroristic actions to attain what they want, their main goal is not invoke fear by the use or threat of violence.

There are many different kinds of terrorism ecoterrorism, cyberterrorism, state terrorism, international terrorism and many more. However, state terrorism and international terrorism seem to draw the most concern (Rourke and Boyer, 2008). State terrorism is terrorism controlled, funded or preformed by an established country. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein are just a few world leaders that have tried to control, suppress or exterminate population under their control (Terrorism, n.d., para 38). International terrorism is terrorism that transcends the boundaries of countries. Al Qaeda is the most known of international countries, spanning all oceans and reaching all continents. While these two forms of terrorism seem very different, they can (and sometimes do) cross over and become one. The lines of state terrorism and international terrorism are thin.

Although there are many differing ideas about what terrorism is, the elements and behaviors attached to each are very similar. Generally, they are all political, psychological, dynamic, deliberate and extensive. For the most part, terrorist acts are political in nature or aim to result in political change. Their threats are psychological in nature and must be coercive. If the perceived threat of violence isnt credible, than the terrorist has nothing to enforce their intended effects. Terrorism acts are always deliberate and extensive. It might take years to plan one attack but, for the terrorist, if the intended purpose is met it was worth the time.

I believe that terrorism is all of those things. Ask ten people and youll more than likely get ten different answers. Ask an Al Qaeda member and they would not say that they were terrorists. Instead theyd describe themselves as freedom fighters or legal combatants fighting for a legitimate cause. At the end of the day, every person fighting is doing so for one reason their beliefs.

The author of this article has very ably brought together the varying themes of terrorist together to create an interesting insight that explains the core of all terrorism  beliefs. Whereas it may be true that all terrorists explain themselves with this singular notion, it definitely does not solve anything. The clash of beliefs is something that has been a long time coming, and although it has been studied a number of times, no research article has really provided a viable solution that has been implemented. Some critics of religion tend to say that beliefs systems and organized religion are actually the reason that many people fight today, and thus the world is in the shape that it is in. Countries like Iran tend to see the United States as the Great Satan as well. However one thing that all people of religion tend to forget, whether they are heads of state, common masses or even academics, is the singular statement that lies at the core of all religions and belief systems. Brotherhood, friendship, loves and cooperation - these are the themes that are common across every religion. Serving humanity is something that needs to tie us all together when everything else divides us. It is only this spirit that can unite us and improve the world at large.

Formulating foreign policy decisions are by far the most complex decisions that an executive head of a country has to take because the effects of any foreign policy decision have a short term and a long term component, which can result in a multitude of negative or positive outcomes. It therefore becomes extremely important that the decision making process is well balanced and logical. At the apex, any decision making body necessarily has to consist of a group of people where decisions are usually arrived at through consensus and due deliberation. However, a decision making process can get afflicted by groupthink which is defined as a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Such a definition obviously has immediate negative connotations though social scientists routinely complain that groupthink is a poorly specified and largely untested theory. This essay examines the effects of groupthink theory on foreign policy decision making process and argues that groupthink does not necessarily produce negative outcome by referring to two specific incidents namely The Bay of Pigs incident and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.  

Groupthink has several distinct characteristics. A group may develop illusions of invulnerability that may catalyse unwarranted risk taking. A group over time automatically feels protective towards the decisions it evolves and this might trigger a need to rationalise warnings given by others to the groups decisions. Unquestioned belief in morality of the group may also become a focus point where rational dissent becomes stifled. A group may also resort to rationalising that those opposed to its wisdom are weak, evil, unpatriotic, biased or even stupid. Under such circumstances, every member of the group may subconsciously be under social pressure not to be disloyal to the group by voicing an opposing view and thus results in self censorship. In every group, there could be members who act as keepers of the faith who interject to preserve the groups majority view. In highly complex and difficult situations, groupthink has shown to be even more accentuated due to the high stakes involved as also the personalities of the leaders involved. Sometimes a leader who displays authoritarian traits may simply force everyone to instinctively toe the line. On the other hand, a leader who is too accommodative may allow one or more dominant subordinate a greater voice in the decision. This becomes truer when decisions requiring a nation to go to war or launch an offensive are at stake where seeming weak is not the best face to show. Groupthink also becomes heightened if most of the members of the group come from the same ethnic, religious, educational or ideological background. The more numerous the characteristics described above in a group, the greater are the chances of groupthink resulting in a disastrous decision. This truism is exemplified by the Bay of Pigs incident.

Groupthink manifested clearly in the Bay of Pigs incident, the abortive attempt spear headed by the CIA to overthrow Fidel Castro of Cuba through landing Cuban exiles in Southern Cuba with support from the U.S. government in April 1961. President Kennedy had assembled a formidable team of advisors, some the best and the brightest brains in the country and yet he took a highly questionable foreign policy decision which ended in abject failure. In fact Kennedy was later to introspect as to how could I have been so stupid as to let them go ahead. One of the variations to traditional groupthink theory is that the Kennedy team of advisors suffered from a new group syndrome. Kennedys team was fairly new and had not had the time to develop group cohesiveness leading to magnification of personal inadequacies and fears precluding an objective assessment of the problem at hand.  The decision to launch the operation was taken just three months after assuming presidency. Kennedy flush with electoral victory was mindful of the right wing community that wished the President to act tough on Communists especially those flourishing in Americas backyard. Kennedys own need in this regard percolated to his advisors. To maintain secrecy, the entire decision making processes were limited to a very small group keeping the governments Latin America experts out of the loop. Secretary of Defence Robert Mc Namara was too involved in Pentagon administrative matters to pay close attention to this primarily CIA driven plan. The core group that did deliberate on the plan was a homogenous group of almost same educational, religious and ethnic backgrounds and were mostly males. The group also displayed loyalty to the Presidents idea and rejected contrarians views to the plan as articulated by Senator Fullbright in one of the meetings (Hart, Stern,  Sundelius, p. 174). When the plan was put to an informal voice vote, Kennedy himself interjected any member who tried to put forth a more nuanced view of the operation. When that happened, most members of the group naturally voted for the motion so as to conform to the groups thinking and not be singled out as the traitor or the undesirable. Kennedy also gave the CIA greater voice in meetings that subconsciously reinforced the acceptability of the plan. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also did not voice any real opposition to the plan probably not wanting to counter the CIA and what increasingly seemed to be the Presidents idea.Thus the decision to embark on the plan got reinforced over time to a limit that not one dissenting voice was recorded from the entire group when the final decision was being made. This is one example where groupthink led to disastrous results.

On the other hand the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 shows how groupthink can produce positive results. The dilatory statements of Egyptian President Nasser and the equally alarming posturing of Arab states surrounding Israel prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War strengthened the belief of Israelis that the Arab states were bent on destroying Israel. The closure of Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping by Egypt and the massing of Arab forces on Israels borders forced a groupthink amongst the Israeli planners that Israel needed to carry out a pre-emptive strike to neutralise the Arab threat. Within the Israeli group, the forceful voice of Yitzhak Rabin, the Commander in Chief rallied the rest of the group into a high risk option of striking pre-emptively. The political members wanted the Israeli Defence Forces to wait for the outcome of a meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Eban and President Johnson of the United States. Rabin explains in his memoirs that the Israeli Armed forces view was that what is the point of waiting any longer Weve already forfeited the advantage of strategic surprise. If we continue to wait, we run the risk of losing even the advantage of tactical surprise. That would be the worst situation imaginable. What are we waiting for. The political members of the group were not easily swayed by this exhortation and a voice vote ended in a stalemate. Rabin persisted and finally won the argument leading to the Six Day war which was a stupendous success for the Israelis in the short term. This was a classical example of groupthink as other members of the Israeli cabinet who were sceptical of possible Egyptian attack nonetheless went through with the decision lest they were labelled as weak, unpatriotic or indecisive. Thus in this case groupthink produced positive results while in the Bay of Pigs case groupthink resulted in a disaster.

In conclusion, it can emphasised that foreign policy decision making process whether in America or Israel or elsewhere in the world necessarily has to be taken by the executive where there always will exist a group that takes the decision. Group dynamics posit that dangers posed by groupthink will remain wherein decisions may be taken without proper evaluation of all options. In the Bay of Pigs case, the group deciding was relatively new, lacked cohesion and was dominated by one member, the CIA with others deferring to the perceived approval of the President. This led the Kennedy administration to launch the operation with disastrous results. In the case of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was considerable opposition to launching the war by the political members who wished to exhaust all political options before deciding to go to war. In this case, groupthink was forced by a forceful personality, Yitzhak Rabin who had the support of the entire Israeli Armed Forces behind him. Groupthink here was more balanced because the Israeli Armed forces had completely analysed the adversarys strengths and weaknesses and had a well developed plan unlike the Bay of Pigs incident where the Joint Chiefs of Staff had played only a marginal role leaving operational planning in the hands of the CIA. Groupthink can therefore result in positive or negative outcomes depending upon how well the group is able to resolve its inner dynamics and arrive at a more considered decision before implementing the same.

The issue of the role of religion in current European affairs comes to a head every time there is an incident such as the recent headscarf debate. That incident was more about political rather than just a religious problem but it leads to the uncertainty about the place religion has in a post-modern, secular Europe.

Religion has a far greater impact on present-day European identity than is either acknowledged or given credit for. The evidence to prove this statement is not difficult to come by. The European Union has so far failed to provide a basis for a common identity among the member states. Schlesinger and Foret write the putative Eurodemocracy is still hunting for its principles and conditions of existence. Given this lack of unity, it is inevitable that a shared religious identity should become the basis for communal identity.

It is the expression of religion rather than just a system of values which has created this importance of religion in the European mind. Challand argues in a 2009 article that religion was not a significant concern in Europe before 1980. He gives evidence for this by saying that the number of articles published in journals and newspapers combining the words religion with Europe increased steadily over the decade from 1980 to 1990. There are two conclusions to be drawn here the first is that the place of religion in Europe had become a debatable topic long before the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001 the second is that religion became a mounting concern in the European mind as the rates of non-Christian immigrants to the European Union increased. The mention of migrants immediately brings to mind the presence of a Muslim population within Europe and the place Islam can be expected to have within a secular Europe.

It cannot be denied that the European Union has painlessly absorbed Catholic, Protestant, Christian Orthodox and any number of other faiths, so why should the concept of Islam within the European Union cause such dread  To answer this question one needs to question the secularity of Europe itself.
Casanova  writes  western European societies are deeply secular societies and havedifficulty in recognizing some legitimate role for religion in public life and in  collective group identities. He adds Muslim-organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety concerning the role of religion in the public sphere. This opinion implies that it is the presence of a collective Muslim mindset as well as the actions of the people having that mindset which raises the issue of religion in secular European thoughts. This statement may be accurate in saying that the public display of religious sentiment makes Europeans uneasy, but is false in suggesting that secular Europe has completely cut off its ties to its religious heritage.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes about pockets of Muslims living across Europe who choose to confine themselves to their own rituals rather than blending within the community of their adopted country.  in the town of Evry, south of Parissupermarkets stopped selling pork and alcoholic beverages and ritual seep slaughter has become an official activity because Muslims constitute two thirds of the total population. The anxiety caused by the creation within the European Union of such Islamic states, along with the pictures of Muslim youths becoming trained terrorists has led to a reversal to Judeo-Christian values in a number of European states. Nowhere is this clearer than in the more than 50 year old problem of Turkeys admission to the European Union. Challand writes  simplistic argumentsabout an alleged Islamic threat take the upper hand and the fact tat Turkey fulfils most of the criteria to enter the EU are ignored. The idea of allowing a Muslim country, even one as sincerely secular as Turkey to enter the fold of the EU clearly goes against some buried Judeo-Christian feelings. The basis of this thinking is the same one that leads migrants to clump together with others of the religion, even though they may not belong to the same nation. Schlesinger and Foret write religion can play a role in cultural defense by providing resources with which to protect national, ethnic, local or group cultures.

It is not correct to say that a sharing of Judeo-Christian values can create an automatic connection with a European identity, nor is it correct to claim that not having a Christian past bars a state from becoming a member of the European Union. The point is to acknowledge that a lack of religious feeling is extremely unlikely, even in so-called secular groups like the EU.

Romano Prodi suggested that  the traditional logic of liberalism isno longer enough to meet concerns and fears regarding ones own identity in the era of globalization. Europe has to come out from behind the veil of secularism and confront its own religious identity as well as the role of religion within its union.