1.

GLOBALISATION OF WORLD POLITICS

Introduction: a globalising world

When a word becomes popular, it is often because it captures an important change

that is taking place in the world. The term "Global" was previously confined to the
word 'spherical', but as conditions began to change rapidly, mainly during the
1980s, talk of globalisation became more rife.

Globalisation: a definition

There are five notable terms that have been used interchangeably with the term
'globalisation'. The first is "internationalisation", that is, an intensification
of cross-border interactions and interdependence between countries. Second, is
"liberalisation", that means, a process of removing government-imposed restrictions
on movements between countries in order to create an 'open', 'integrated' world
economy. Third, "universalisation", that is, the spread of various objects and
experiences to people at all corners of the earth. Fourth, is "westernisation",
especially in an Americanised form. Others have confused globalisation with
"deterritorialisation", that is, a shift in geography whereby territorial places,
territorial distances and territorial borders lose some of their previously
overriding influence. The logic here, is that if these five terms could be
substituted for the word globalisation then, the latter's use would be redundant.

-Globalisation refers to processes whereby many social relations become relatively

delinked from territorial geography, so that human lives are increasingly played
out in the world as a single place. (Social relations- the countless and complex
ways that people interact with and affect each other.)

In a nutshell, to distinguish between Internationalisation and Globalisation, the

former is like a patchwork of bordered countries, while the latter is a web of
transborder networks. International links (for example, trade in cocoa) require
people to cross considerable distances in comparatively long time intervals,
whereas, global connections (for example, satellite newscasts) are effectively
distance-less and instantaneous. Global phenomena can extend across the world at
the same time and can move between places in no time; this is why they have a
'transworld' and 'supraterritorial' character. International and global relations
coexist, and the contemporary world is at the same time both internationalised and
globalising.

There is no specific moment in history when one could say that globalisation began
on this date or year or era, rather its origin and development have been very
diverse and slow paced. But full fleged, continual, comprehensive, intense, and
rapid changes with increased frequency globalisation could be attributed to the
second half of the 20th century, or more precisely from the 1960s. For it is only
since the 1960s that the world has acquired most of the 1990s figures of 850
million telephone connection points, 1.1 billion television receivers, 60,000
transborder corporations, 16,500 transborder citizens associations, US$ 1.5
trillion in foreign exchange transactions every day, and nearly 1.5 billion
passengers per year on scheduled airline flights.

Fully fleged globalisation- a process with such weight that it requires us to make
fundamental adjustments to our understanding of world politics- is fairly new
development.

Key points:

-Globalisation refers to a process-still ongoing-through which the world has in

many respects been becoming a single place.

-Globalisation has in one way or another encompassed every sphere of social life.

-Although considerable groundwork for globalisation was laid in earlier times,

fully-fleged trend dates roughly from the 1960s.

-Many accounts of globalisation suffer from oversimplifications, exaggerations,

wishful thinking.

Globalisation and the states-system

Contemporary social change that are often associated with globalisation:

Information society-

3.INTERNATIONAL HISTORY 1900-1945

Japanese expansion in China: As Germany's position was strengthened in Europe with

the extinction of Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Turkish empires, so was Japan's in
Asia. Japan took advantage of China who was in a languished state busy fighting
civil wars, mainly between the Nationalist Guomindang under Sun Yat Sen and Mao's
Communist party which ultimately triumphed in 1949. Therefore, it was the right
moment for Japan to strike, and her strategic interest was Manchuria. This followed
the 1904-05 war in Manuchuria between the Russians in which Japan prevailed,
marking the first major defeat of an European power by an Asian state. Japan also
fought Germany in WWI to secure Germany's chinese possessions.

Japan and Germany even though rivals in WWI, felt that the Versailles settlement
was not done. The western powers were racially prejudiced thought Japan and was
confirmed after the Immigration legislation of 1924 by America which prevented
Japanese immigration into the US. Furthermore, Britain and the US also restricted
Japan's naval construction to prevent China from falling under Japanese control.

The officer class believed that Japan should expand its hold on china, and this
social upheaval made way for a rising military strength. In the late 1920s Japan
suffered from two destabilising tremors, one was the Kanto earthquake and the other
was the depression. Both had a great impact on the Japanese economic condition.

The Manchurian crisis of 1931 is considered as the opening shot of WW2. Japan used
a minor skirmish between japanese soldiers and chinese bandits as a pretext to
occupy a greater portion of Manchuria. China protested to the League of Nations but
Japan did not repent on the breach of international law, and established a puppet
state called Manchuguo.

KEY POINTS: Japan went through a rapid phase of industrialisation and

modernisation, with profound social, economic, and political consequences. To
expand business and industry Japan invaded China. Japan was dissatified after WWI
post war settlement. Between 1931-1933, Japan consolidated its hold over China
establishing a puppet state, and the UN did not take strict action against Japan's
international breach of law. By 1937, Japan was at war with China worsening
relations with US.

The path to war in Europe: During the 1930s, the crisis in the Far East worsened,
and simultaneously Europe faced a series of crises- Italy invaded Abyssinia
(Ethiopia), Germany remilitarised Rhineland; civil war in Spain; Germany's
expansion into Austria, then Czechoslovakia, followed by Poland at which point
Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939.

The general idea of the commencement of WWII, is usually associated with the
expansionist regime of Adolf Hitler, but A.J.P. Taylor says in his book, "The
Origins of the Second World War", which immmediately followed a barrage of
criticism, that Hitler resembled any other statesman. Only Nazi Germany did not
suffice to explain the war.

Popular dissatisfaction with the 1919 settlement fuelled extreme right-wing

movements during the 1920s and 1930s. Facism in Italy and Spain, and Nazism in
Germany. Italy had never seen a stable government since long, despite unification
in the 19th century. Myth describes that Mussolini marched on Rome and rose to
power, but factually he was called upon by the conservatives and the king himself
to form a stable government. But his facist policies imbued in every social sphere
changing the entire society into a facist revolution. (Both Hitler and Mussolini
began to expand their territories, whether Hitler had ever planned war is not
explicit but to fulfill his territorial ambitions he was ready to risk it).

Facism and Nazism ruled Italy and Germany reordering societies and eliminating any
notion of private sphere. The Treaty of Versailles was breached in every way
possible by Hitler. Europe underwent a series of crises and the western powers
adhered to a policy of appeasement with Hitler. But after Germany ran through
Czhecoslovakia and then put its foothold in Prague the appeasement policy was
shattered and Britain and France declared war on Germany.

CONCLUSION:

A protracted crisis existed since the late nineteenth century which was manifest in
the exhaustion in two total wars. The wars engulfed mainly the European states as
well as few of the wider world. The first war ruined many European states
economically and many political structures were undermined. A number of empires
also collapsed during the war- those of Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Tzarist Russia.
Additionally, the war disrupted a growing international capitalist system, although
initially it was eclipsed by the buoyancy of the US, when the latter collapsed in
1929, a general Depression soon thereafter to all parts of the world which had been
engaged in international trade. The depression not only unraveled the economic
interconnectedness of the interwar period, but also the predominant economies
(particularly Britain's) had been obscured by America.

America's economic growth was not the only threat to the primacy of Europe, in the
East there was Japan who had undergone rapid industrialisation and by the 1930's it
embarked to expand its territory in China and beyond. Post-war Europe was
dissatisfied by the Versailles Settlement and this emboldened extremist political
movements, most notably fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germay. Hitler and Mussolini
set out to enlarge their territory, whether Hitler had actually plannned the war
that broke out in 1939 can be debatable, but undoubtedly he did not mind risking it
for accomplishing his ambitions.

WWII was more global than the first, the alliance of Britain, US and Russia
defeated the Axis powers of Italy, Japan and Germany. One might argue that the cold
war was emerging while the world war was still being fought. Some revisionist
historians most notably the American Gar Alperovitz, suggest that America's
dropping of the atomic bombs was the opening shot of the cold war- the bombs were
showcasing the might of the US being aimed at USSR rather than Japan, for the
latter would have surrendered in any case. The antagonism of the two powers was in
their disagreement of the post-war shape of the world. America wanted a world based
on free markets and liberalisation, whereas USSR wanted if not the spread of
communism worldwide, at least as many Americans feared, then at least a 'security
zone' of satellite states in Eastern Europe. The post-war stalemate resulted in the
division of Europe into two camps for the next forty-five years and the temporary
solution of 'the German problem' into two separate states.

The two wars severely hit Europe and thus ended the European era of world
domination. With growing nationalism and birth of new sovereign states, colonial
ambitions were short-lived, and the prestige of the first European industrialised
states disappeared. Yet paradoxically, the world underwent a massive series of
global interconnectedness with increasing modes of communication, commerce, and
transport whose growth accelerated rapidly after 1945.

4.INTENATIONAL HISTORY FROM 1945-90

END OF EMPIRE: The belief that national self-determination should be the guiding
principle of international politics marked a major transformation of attitudes and
values. After 1945, imperialism was viewed by growing international hostility. The
three main European colonisers were Britain, France and Portugal.

BRITAIN: Between 1947-80, 49 territories were granted independence. The recognition

of the justice of self-determination combined with realization of the strength of
nationalism brought about a reappraisal of policy. India was a stronghold for
Britain who was reluctant to decolonise, India was considered the "Jewel in the
Crown", but in the end independence was granted and now it is the world's largest
democracy. The transition from empire was on the whole peaceful although some
conflict did take place in Kenya (1952-6) and Malaya (1948-60), but these were
suppressed by following a counter-insurgency policy.

FRANCE: France was occupied during WWII and successive governments tried to retain
its imperial status. France's decolonisation process was different from Britain,
for France did not leave its colonies- it went through another phase of war esp. in
China and Vietnam. France refused to accede Algeria, because it believed the latter
was part of France itself.

PORTUGAL: The last European empire in Africa was that of Portugal, once military
dictatorship was overthrown in Lisbon withdrawal from empire followed swiftly.

Different European colonisers had different attitudes towards decolonisation,

Britain decided to leave while France and Portugal wanted to preserve their
empires. European powers showed different responses from various countries and
regions, for instance, Britain withdrew quickly from Asia than Africa.
Decolonisation was peaceful in many whereas, revolutionary in others (Algeria,
Malaya, and Angola), depending on the colonial power and nationalist movements.
Struggle for independence became embroiled in cold war when superpowers/or their
allies became involved, e.g. Vietnam.

THE COLD WAR (1945-53, onset of the cold war)

The onset of the cold war reflected the failure to enforce principles agreed in
Yalta and Potsdam conferences. Key issues were Germany's future, Central and
Eastern European countries, mainly Poland, the allied forces tried to tackle.

Soviet Union had occupied the German capital, Berlin, which was a major
confrontation in the cold war and Stalin had sought to sever all roads and rail
communications, which he ended in 1949. The western side was held by the US who
made massive airlifts and kept alive Germany's populace and political autonomy. The
crisis also saw the deployment of America's long-range bombers in Britain which
were officially described as "atomic capable", though none were actually armed with
nuclear weapons. After this, followed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO), which in pratice, the cornerstone of the alliance was to defend western
Europe, and in reality, it meant that the US could use nuclear weapons to deter
Soviet agression.

In Asia, the thirty year old Chinese civil war ended with the victory of the
communists under Mao Zedong. The North Korean attack on South Korea in 1950 was
considered as a communist offensive.

1953-1969: CONFLICT, CONFRONTATION AND COMPROMISE

One consequence of the Korean war was the build up of the American forces in
western Europe, in case of a communist ploy to distract them and attack Europe
instead. Military concentrations of both superpowers continued apace with
increasing nuclear forces, the rearmament of Germany in 1954 brought in the Warsaw
Pact in 1955. By 1960, some 7,000 nuclear weapons were deployed in western Europe
alone, and this nuclear build up continued by both ideologies.

In 1953, Stalin died, and his successor Nikita Khruschev showed a reformist
attitude towards the east European states. Soviet intervention in Hungary brought
bloodshed to the streets of Budapest and this act was condemned by the
international community. Almost coincidentally, there was an attack on Egypt by
Britain, France, and Israel which deteriorated British relations with the US. And
this was probably the last spasms of European imperialism.

The Berlin in 1961 and Cuba in 1962, were the two major crises that brought the
cold war on the brink of a nuclear Armageddon.

The events of 1962 were followed by a more stable period, nuclear arsenals kept on
stockpiling, the superpowers continued to support their friends and subverting
their foes. America's concentration was deepening in Vietnam and Soviet-Chinese
relations were deteriorating. The USSR and China fought a border war over a
territorial dispute. This was the time when "detente" (meaning easing of relations
esp. between nations), came as a reconciliatory form between USSR and the US.
Moreover, "rapprochement" was seen between China and US. Soviet-American
governments understood the need to reduce the arms race, and avoid a catastrophic
nuclear war.

1969-1979: THE RISE AND FALL OF DETENTE

Detente: The easing of tensions or strained relations esp. between nations.

Rapprochement: The reestablishing of cordial relations.

Detente was represented as an attempt by both superpowers to manage their relations

through negotiations and agreements. Richard Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger
were the chief instruments of the Sino-American rapprochement. This did not bring
the end of relations between the two sides, for both had divergent political goals.
This was also the time when various political upheavals in the Third World were
taking place.

How far the two superpowers were able to control their friends and how far they
were entangled by their committments was underlined in 1973, when the Arab-Israeli
war embroiled them in a potentially dangerous confrontation.
America saw the Soviet revolutionary movements in the Third World as duplicity.
Some Americans claim that support of Soviet revolutionary forces in Ethiopia killed
detente; others cite Soviet role in Angola. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran in
1979, an important western ally, weakened the influence of the US; though the
militant islamic regime was a threat to both the USSR and the US.

1979-86 THE SECOND COLD WAR

The period of tension and confrontation between the superpowers is described as the
"second cold war". American intervention in Grenada in 1983 and against Libya in
1986 were seen as evidence of a new belligerence. Reagan's policy towards Central
America, and support for the rebel Contras in Nicaragua was source of controversy
within America and internationally. In 1986, the ICJ found America guilty of
violating international law for the CIA's covert attacks on Nicaraguan harbours.

Meanwhile, the soviet leadership took the Reagan administration's words and (deeds)
very seriously, and believed they were planning an attack on the USSR. In 1983, the
soviet air defences shot down a Korean civilian airliner in Soviet airspace which
immediately alarmed the US, and they deployed nuclear missiles in Europe.
Furthermore, they misinterpreted, a NATO training exercice (codenamed Able Archer)
and made them believe that US was preparing an attack.

Throughout the 1980's Soviet leadership was handicapped by a succession of ageing

political leaders (Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko), whose ill-health inhibited
Soviet responses and confrontation with the US threat. Only after Mikhail Gorbachev
became President in 1985 there was a "new thinking" of in foreign policy and his
domestic reforms of glasnost (or openness) and prestroika (or restructuring)
created a revolution in Soviet society. To Gorbachev's dismay nationalist forces
were to destroy the USSR. His attitude was not that of confrontation and war.

Throughout Europe Moscow-aligned regimes gave way to democracies. Germany became

united and East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) disappeared. In the Paris
agreement, the end of cold war marked success in arms control rather than
disarmament.

KEY POINTS: There are disagreements about when the cold war started and who was
responsible. It began with the failure to implement the agreements reached at the
Potsdam and Yalta conferences. Distinct phases can be seen in East-West relations
during which tension and the risk of direct confrontation grew and receded. Some
civil and regional wars were intensified and prolonged by superpower involvement;
others may have been prevented or shortened. The end of the cold war has not
resulted in the abolition of nuclear weapons.

THE BOMB

Why was the bomb dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima remains a matter of fierce
debate, moreover, the attacking of civilian population is a continuing controversy.
Gar Alperovitz in his book Atomic Diplomacy, claimed that as President Truman knew
that Japan was defeated, real reason was to coerce the Soviet Union to serve post-
war American interests in Europe and Asia.

The relentless proliferation of nuclear weapons or arms race almost resembled a

global battlefield. The USSR, US, China, Britain and France became known as nuclear
weapons states. The growing concern of proliferation of nuclear weapons brought in
the Non Proliferation Treaty NPT, that negotiated- those states which had nuclear
weapons would halt the arms race and those who did not possess nuclear weapons
would not develop them. States that did not sign the NPT are India, Pakistan,
Israel, and South Africa who are known to have nuclear weapons. Several others like
Iran and North Korea have committed their efforts to developing them.

Robert Oppenheimer one of the scientists who created the American atomic bomb,
characterised the atomic age as like two scorpions trapped in a glass jar. The
scorpions have no means of escape and no alternative but to threaten that which it
would be suicidal to carry out. Yet the logic of what became known in the West as
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) depended upon each side being able to destroy
their adversary after being attacked.

KEY POINTS: There remains a debate about the use of the bomb in 1945, and the
effect that this had on the cold war. Nuclear weapons have been an important factor
in the cold war. How far the arms race has had a momentum of its own is a matter of
debate. Agreements on limiting and controlling the growth of nuclear arsenals have
played an important role in Soviet-American (and East-West) relations. States with
nuclear weapons have agreed on the desirability of preventing the spread of nuclear
weapons to other states. Various international crises have occured in which there
has been the risk of nuclear war at these times remains a matter of debate.

CONCLUSION

The changes that have taken place in world politics since 1945 can be summed up as,
the bomb, the end of imperialism and the rise and fall of the cold war. In some
cases, cold war involvement helped bring about change, whereas, in the direct
involvement of superpowers there was prolongation and conflict. Marxist ideology in
many third world countries provided liberation movements, but provocation to the
West. Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh were primarily nationalits who could have taken
either side of the superpowers, but preferred the USSR, in fear of the US and
Western hostility. China and the USSR's division also showed diverging trends of
Marxism.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR (Richard Crockatt)

The end of the cold war was a major historical turning point as measured by changes
in the international system, the nation-state, and international organisations.

What is meant by 'cold war'?

First, in a narrow sense it refers to the Truman doctrine (1947) and the Khruschev
thaw of the mid 1950s, during which unrelieved antagonism existed between the
superpowers. To the extent that the open antagonisms of these years were reproduced
later in, for example, the Kennedy years and the first Reagan administration, the
term cold war is also applied to these instances. This refers to a kind of
behaviour, characterised by open ideological confrontation. Such periods of cold
war alternated with periods of detente (1953-60, 1969-75, 1985-9), during which
negotiations and tension reduction were firmly on the agenda.

The second meaning of the 'cold war' is concerned with structure rather than the
behaviour of East-West relations. The structure of the cold war remained continuous
from the 1940s-80s. Detente was part of the cold war rather than a departure from
it, in that while there was behavioural change in periods of detente the structure
of US-Soviet relations remained constant. Hence, the structural condition between
the two was marked by political and military rivalry, ideological antagonism
between capitalism and communism, the division of Europe, and the extension of
conflict at the centre to the periphery of the international system.

INTERNAL FACTORS: The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union

Structural problems in the Soviet system:

First of all, the suddenness of the collapse of communism defied the predictions of
experts. The Soviet leadership lacked vitality primarily, for the ageing stultified
leaders. Gorbachev's accession to power was a new beginning to the Soviet history
and he broke the rigid mould of Soviet politics. Gorbachev, fundamentally, adhered
to socialism but differed from the Stalinist form of socialism, indeed he went back
to the ideals of Lenin. Many on the Right in the US felt that this type of mindset
had reinvigorated the Soviet Union, and would prove to be more catastrophic than
its predecessors.

There were long-term and short-term causes that lead to the disintegration of the
Soviet Union. The prime cause was economic, though arguably it had political roots,
in that economic policies were dictated by the centre. Structural weaknesses were
built into the system of the command economy which relied on inflexible central
planning, that rewarded gross output of goods rather than productivity, and no
incentives were offered to management and production techniques. The centre
dictated what goods should be produced and even determined the prices, it was a
kind of forced-marching economy that withstood the German onslaught in 1941 and
ultimately defeated the Third Reich. But such success came at enormous human cost.
In the 1970s the computer and automation revolution bypassed the Soviet Union
except in the military sector. Agriculture was another weak sector of the USSR
where central planning stifled productivity.

Then how did the USSR survive till the 1980s?

The USSR did well in some sectors such as production of heavy industrial goods and
military equipment. It also had excess reserves of oil which they could exchange
for hard currency. Thus, the long-term causes could be summed up as: structural
weaknesses in the economy, including inflexible central planning system, inability
to modernise, inefficiency and absence of incentives in agricultural production.
The short-term causes could be described as: economic stagnation in the 1970s and
80s, poor harvests in the late 1970s and 80s, and Gorbachev's political and
economic reforms.

Glasnost began with relaxation of censorship which Gorbachev hoped to be able to

control but the process soon eluded his grasp as something approaching a genuine
public opinion emerged. A combination of glasnost and political restructuring
undermined the role of the Communist Party and ultimately the Soviet Union itself
which by the end of 1991 had dissolved into separate republics. Economic
restructuring had the effect of destroying the rationale of the old system without
putting viable new mechanisms in its place.

THE COLLAPSE OF COMMUNISM IN EASTERN EUROPE

The end of communism in Eastern Europe was sudden but protest against communist
rule was nothing new. The Soviet Union had always been forced to acknowledge the
existence of national differences and desires for autonomy among Eastern European
nations and had tried to maintain a balance between maitaining the integrity of the
Soviet bloc and allowing some diversity.

The Polish union solidarity illustrated the deep currents of dissent, whose
momentum was maintained even after the banning of the organisation in 1981. A
catalyst for revolutionary process was Gorbachev's abandonment of the Brezhnev
doctrine of limited sovereignty for Eastern Europe.

Failure of the attempts by Eastern European leaders to stem the tide of revolution
in 1989 by installing new personnel illustrated the degree to which the crisis of
communism was systemic.

EXTERNAL FACTORS: RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES

Debate about US policy and the end of the cold war:

Opinion about the American role in ending the cold war has tended to polarise:
either the Reagan hard line forced the Soviet Union to its knees or Reagan's
policies were immaterial or actually served to prolong the cold war.

Soviet-American relations did not change overnight with the advent of Gorbachev,
the US responded cautiously to his initiatives.

Gorbachev's new thinking in foreign policy overthrew the conventional wisdom of

Soviet foreign policy. Gorbachev's concessions, which helped to produce the INF
Treaty and generally improve the climate of Soviet-American relations, were
promoted initially in a controlled fashion but tended to become more unilateral and
sweeping as the pace of domestic reform quickened.

The story is not simply one of Soviet concessions. The US made some significant
movement too, indicating that a polarised interpretation of the end of the cold war
is too simple and schematic.

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS

Isolation of the communist system from the global capitalist system:

The causes of the end of the cold war are to be found not only in internal and
external conditions considered separately but in the interaction between the two.
The separation of the communist bloc from capitalism, though not apparently
disadvantageous to communism until the 1970s, left it at an increasing relative
disadvantage to the capitalist West. Growing consciousness of relative disadvantage
was a factor in the collapse of communism.

CONCLUSION

The end of the cold war offered grounds for both pessimistic and optimistic
speculation.

INTERNATIONAL HISTORY SINCE 1989 (MICHAEL COX)

OUTLINE: Most experts failed to anticipate the end of the cold war- There is no
agreed view about why the cold war came to an end- The world after 1989 may be less
different than certain pundits assume- Many of the world's new problems can be
traced back to the end of the cold war.

COMPETING VISIONS OF THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD

REALISM

Realism is a school of International Relations theory. It is a spectrum of ideas

which revolve around the four central propositions of Political Groupism, Egoism,
International anarchy, and Power politics. Theories of political realism originated
through the works of Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, emerging as an
International Relations based approach in the inter-war years of the 20th century,
from 1919-39.

The story of realism begins with a mythical tale or the idealist or utopian writers
of the inter-war period (1919-39). The idealists, a term realists gave to the
idealists, focused on understanding the cause of war so as to find a solution to
stop it. The realists concluded that the idealists approach was flawed. For
example, they ignored the role of power, overestimated the degree to which human
beings were rational, mistakenly believed that nation-states shared a common set of
interests, and were overly passionate in their belief in the capacity of humankind
to overcome the scourge of war. Hence, the outbreak of WWII, confirmed the realists
at least that, the inadequacies of the inter-war idealists approach of studying
international politics. (Idealism: holds that ideas have important causal effect on
events in international politics, and that ideas can change. Reffered to by
realists as utopianism since it underestimates the logic of power politics and the
constraints this imposes upon political action).

Assumptions of realism:

The international system is anarchic. There is no actor above states capable of

regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on
their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
The international system exists in a constant antagonism. International Anarchy.

States are the most important actors.

All states within the system are unitary rational actors. States tend to pursue
self-interest. Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible.

Relative gain: Is a zero-sum game, which states that wealth cannot be expanded and
the only way to become richer is to take wealth from another state. Neoliberal
thought assumes that states focus primarily on their individual gains and are
indifferent to the gains of others. In contrast, neorealism or structural realism
assumes that states are largely concerned with relative gains rather than
abosolute.

Zero-sum game is a game where the sum of each outcome is always zero. A situation
in which one person's gain is another's loss, so the net change in wealth is zero.

The primary concern of all states is survival. States build up military to survive,
which may lead to a security dilemma.

Timeless wisdom of Realism

The ancient or classical realists were Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Jean

Jacques Rousseau, whose insights were based on "raison d'etat" or reason of the
state, under which states should conduct themselves in international politics. In
fact many successful leaders of the 19th and 20th century followed the timeless
principles of classical realism. According to Friedrich Meinecke, Raison d'etat, is
the fundamental principle of international conduct, the State's first law of
motion. It is the duty of the statesperson to rationally calculate the most
appropriate steps, that would ensure to perpetuate the life of the state in a
hostile and threatening environment.

Realists are sceptical about any moral or ethical values, they argue that the need
for survival requires state leaders to stay away from morality. Advocates of raison
d'etat speak of dual moral standards. (Dual moral standards: the idea that there
are two principles or standards of right and wrong, one for the individual citizen
and the other for the state). Justification for the dual moral standards stems from
the fact that the condition of international politics make it necessary for state
leaders to cheat, lie, kill etc, that the individual would not accept at all. But
realism is not completely immoral, for the existence of the state itself represents
a moral force, thus preserving the life of the state and the ethical political
community it envelops becomes a moral duty of the statesperson.

Statism, self-help and survival are the three core elements that we identify with
realism. Realism identifies the group as the fundamental unit of political
analysis. In ancient times, Thucydides and Machiavelli used the word city-state or
polis, but since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), realists consider the sovereign
state as the principle actor in international politics. Statism means the state
being the legitimate representative of the collective will of the people. This
legitimacy of the state is what enables it to exercice authority internally as
manifest, for example, in the making and enforcement of law. Externally, realists
argue that a condition of anarchy exists. They use the word anarchy instead of
chaos to emphasise the lack of a central authority.

International politics as compared to domestic politics, where the former leads to

greater violence than the latter, due to the different organisational structures.
The structure in the international realm is that of anarchy, where as in the
domestic level there is a hierarchical structure between different political
actors. (In the philosophy of the social sciences a structure exists independently
of the actor e,g, social class, but is an important determinant in the nature of
the action e.g, revolution. For contemporary structural realists, the number of
great powers in the international system constitutes the structure).

As the international community is anarchic, the first priority is the survival of

that state. States wish to perpetuate their existence. States that are more
powerful have a better chance of surviving, while the weaker ones may not stand a
better chance. Hence, power is a crucial element for survival.

Self-help is the principle of action in an anarchical system like the international

realm. States should not rely on any other state or institution for its safety. For
today's friend can become tomorrow's enemy. Realists turn back to history for valid
proof of the inaction of an unfortunate Ethiopia under the League of Nations or
Kuwait under the UN.

The obvious question here would be what options are available to states to ensure
their security. One essential idea stems from "the balance of power." If the
survival of a state or a number of smaller states is being threatened by a
hegemonic state or coalition of states, they should form alliances to preserve
their own independence by checking the power of the opposing side. Balance of power
seeks to ensure an equilibrium of power in which case no stronger state or states
can dominate on others. An example of this was during the cold war, with the formal
alliances with the Warsaw Pact and the NATO. (Balance of power is an equilibrium
between states; historical realists regard it as the product of diplomacy or
contrived balance, whereas structural realists regard the system as having a
tendency towards a natural equilibrium or fortuitous balance).

KEY POINTS: Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics since the
beginning of academic International Relations. Outside of the academy, realism has
a much longer history. Scepticism about the capacity of human reason to deliver
moral progress resonates through the work of classical political theorists such as
Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau. In the Melian dialogue, one of the
episodes of the Peloponesian war, Thucydides uses the words of the Athenians to
highlight the realist view of a number of key concepts such as self-interest,
alliances, balance of power, capablities, and insecurity. The people of Melos
respond in idealist verse appealing to injustice, fairness, luck, the gods, and in
the final instance, to common interests.

ONE REALISM OR MANY?

There is not one realism but many knots of historically constituted tensions,
contradictions and evasions'. Classical realism existed upto the 20th century,
modern realism 1939-79, and neo-realism 1979 onwards.
Machiavelli recognised that devising universal maxims of state conduct, at all
times, to ensure the survival of the state not only difficult but also impractical,
for the flux of political life was bound to continuous change. Hence, he believed
that state leaders should act on "situation-bound knowledge." E.H. Carr is the
modern Machiavelli, who concluded that the fundamental problem of international
politics was how to foster peaceful change in the relations between satisfied and
non-satisfied powers without the need to resort to war.

Structural realism is derived from Thusydides' representation of power politics as

a law of human behaviour. Hans J. Morgenthau notes that "politics, like society in
general, is governed by objective laws have their roots in human nature." Further
Morgenthau observes, one has to recognise that these laws exist and second, to
devise the most appropriate policies that are consistent with the basic fact that
human beings are flawed creatures. Therefore, Thucydides' and Morgenthau believe
that the essential continuity of the power-seeking behaviour of states is rooted in
the biological drives of human beings.

Structural realism II attributes to the cause of conflict to the anarchic structure

of the international system. This theory is often associated with Kenneth Waltz,
who propounds that anarchy prevents states from cooperative agreements to end the
state of war.

Hobbes presents his version of realism between individuals in a state of nature and
sovereigns in a state of war, suggests a kind of permanent cold war where states
are constantly living in fear of being attacked. But he also believed that states
are less vulnerable than individuals, and for that reason they are able to coexist
with other states.

Is realism a single theory? There is a lack of consensus in the literature as to

whether realism is a single coherent theory.

The important cleavage is between historical realists and structural realists. The
latter see it as a permanent condition of conflict or the preparation for future
conflicts, whereas, the former see realism as a licence to take any course of
action necessary to ensure political survival.

Structural realism divides into two wings: those writers who underscore human
nature as the structure (structural realism I) and those who believe that anarchy
is the structure which shapes and shoves the behaviour of states (structural
realism II).

Liberal realism steps in and rejects the pessimistic view of historical and
structural realists, believing that the state of war can be mitigated by the
management of power, diplomacy and customary international law. (State of war: the
conditions, often described by classical realists, where there is no actual
conflict but a cold war exists that could become a 'hot' war any time).

THE ESSENTIAL REALISM

Realism may have different strands of theories developed through time, but
essentially it adheres to three S's, Statism, Survival and Self-help.

Statism: The ideology which supports the organisation of humankind into particular
communities; the values and beliefs of that community are protected and sustained
by the state.

Max Weber's definition of the state, "the monopoly of the legitimate use of
physical force within a given territory." This explains that the state has absolute
authority within this territorial space. It is an unwritten contract between the
individual and the state. Hobbes puts it as, we trade our liberty for the guarantee
of security. Once security has been established then can civil society begin to
grow. Hence, it is essential for every state to organise power within its
territorial limit. The next move is to accumulate power internationally, in an
anarchical system.

Survival: The first priority for state leaders, emphasised by historical realists
such as Machiavelli, Meinecke, and Weber.

Survival is a precondition to attaining all other goals. According to Waltz and

Joseph Grieco, states have security as their principle interest and therefore only
seek the requisite amount of power to ensure their survival. According to this
defensive view of realism, states are defensive actors and will not seek for
greater power if that means to jeopardise their own security. John Mearsheimer, an
offensive realist, argues that the ultimate goal of states is to gain a hegemonic
position in the international system. Defensive realists believe that status quo
powers lessens the competition for power while offensive realists argue that
revisionist states and aspiring hegemons are always willing to take risks with the
aim of improving their aim in the international system.

SELF-HELP: In an anarchical system, states cannot assume other states will come to
their defence even if they are allies.

As there is no superior authority in the international system, states are obliged

to resort towards self-help. But in the process of providing security for oneself,
the state will be fuelling insecurity for others. This feeling of insecurity is
known as security dilemma. According to Wheeler and Booth, security dilemmas exist
"when the military preparations of one state creates an unresolvable uncertainty in
the mind of another as to whether those preparations are for defensive purposes (to
enhance its security in an uncertain world), or offensive purposes. Structural
realists believe that security dilemma is a perennial condition whereas historical
realists believe that even in a self-help system the security dilemma can be
mitigated, through diplomacy or balance of power.

KEY POINTS: Statism is the centrepiece of realism. First, the state is the pre-
eminent actor and all other actors are of a lesser significance. Second, state
"sovereignty" signifies the existence of an independent political community, one
that has judicial authority over its territory. Statism is flawed on empirical
(challenges to state power from above and below) and normative grounds (the
inability of sovereign states to respond to collective global problems such as
famine, environment degradation, and human rights abuses).

Survival is the primary objective of all states, it is the supreme national

interest to which all political leaders should adhere. All other goals such as
economic prosperity are secondary or low politics. Apart from this, leaders should
adopt to some moral code of conduct. Are there no limits to what actions a state
can take in the name of necessity?

Self-help is the method by which states protect themselves from the vulnerable
international community, the structure does not permit friendship, trust, and
honour; only a perennial condition of uncertainty generated by the absence of a
global government. Co-existence is made possible by the maintenance of balance of
power, and limited co-operation is possible in interactions where the realist state
stands to gain more than other states. Self-help is not an inevitable consequence
of the absence of a world government. Historical and contemporary examples show
that states have preferred collective security systems, or forms of regional
integration, in preference to self-help.

CONCLUSION: REALISM AND THE GLOBALISATION OF WORLD POLITICS

LIBERALISM (TIM DUNNE)

Liberalism is the historic alternative of realism. In reference to political

parties, realism is the natural party or ruling party, while liberalism is the
leader of the opposition. Liberal thinking influenced policy-making elites and
public opinion in a number of Western states after the First World War, and are
referred to in academic International Relations as Idealism. Liberal thinking
resurged mildly after WWII and in the inauguration of the UN, though it remained
extinguished by the return of the Cold War power politics. Stanley Hoffman a
contemporary theorist wrote, 'international affairs have been the nemesis of
liberalism'. 'The essence of liberalism is self-restraint, moderation, compromise
and peace' whereas 'the essence of international politics is exactly the opposite:
troubled peace, at best, or the state of war'.

Liberalism is an ideology that is fundamentally anchored around liberty of

individuals, liberals see the establishment of the state as necessary to preserving
liberty either from harm by individuals or by states; the state must always be the
servant of the collective will and not (as in the case of realism) the master, and
democratic institutions are the means of guaranteeing this. The crucial point here
is that Liberalism is primarily a theory of government, one that seeks to reconcile
order (security) and justice (equality) within a particular. But providing order
and justice on the 'inside', may not be possible without reform of the 'outside'.

As often is the case with general theories of international politics, we quite

quickly move from identifying assumptions shared by all liberals to realising that
there are fundamental disagreements.

Domestic and international institutions are to be judged according to whether they

further this aim. From the eighteenth century onwards, Liberalism has exerted a
strong influence on the practice of international relations/politics. It came to
prominence during the inter-war period in the work of idealists who believed that
warfare was an unnecessary and outmoded way of settling disputes between states.
Liberalism has multiple strands- on issues such as human nature, causes of wars,
and the international system.

Varieties of Liberalism

Immanuel Kant believed that human potentiality can only be realised through the
transformation of individual attitudes as well as a binding of states together into
a whole or some kind of federation. In 1517, Irasmus iterated that war is
unprofitable. The kings and princes of Europe must desire peace, and perform kind
gestures in relations with fellow sovereigns in the expectation that these will be
reciprocated. (Integration: a process of ever closer union between states, in a
regional or international context. The process often begins by co-peration to solve
technical problems, referred to by Mitrany as ramification).

Liberal Internationalism holds that the natural order has been corrupted by
undemocratic state leaders and out-dated state policies such as the balance of
power. However, liberal internationalists believe that contact between states or
peoples of the world, through commerce or travel, will facilitate a more specific
form of international relations. Key concept of liberal internationalism:
the idea of a harmony of interests.

Idealism was dominant from the early 1900s through to the late 1930s, and was
motivated like liberal internationalism, by the desire to prevent war. For
idealists, the freedom of states is part of the problem of international relations
but not the solution. Two requirements follow from their diagnosis. First, the need
for explicitly nomative thinking: how to promote peace and build a better world and
that progress was possible. Second, states must be part of an international
organisation and be bound by its rules.

The central thought of the idealists was the creation of an international

organisation, such as the League of Nations, to facilitate peaceful change,
disarmament, arbitration, and where necessary enforcement. Within the League of
Nations the collective security system miserably failed. (Collective security:
refers to an arrangement where each state in the system accepts that the security
of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to
aggression,

Liberal Institutionalism

The collapse of the League of Nations has ended the significance of idealism. In
the 1940s, liberal institutionalists turned to international institutions to carry
out a number of functions the state could not perform. These were the integration
in Europe, and pluralism in the US. By the 1970s it focused on new actors
(transnational corporations, non-governmental organisations) and new patterns of
interaction (interdependence, integration). (Pluralism: an umbrella term, borrowed
from American political science, used to signify International Relations theorists
who rejected the realist view of the primacy of the state and the coherence of the
state as actor.

Neo-liberal internationalism is dominated by the debate about liberal states: how

far the liberal zone of peace extends, why relations within it are peaceful, and
what pattern is likely to evolve in relations between liberal states and
authoritarian regimes?

Neo-idealism responded to globalisation by emphasising for a double democratisation

of both international institutions and domestic state structures. Radical neo-
idealism is critical of mainstream liberalism's devotion to "globalisation from
above" which marginalises the possibility of change from below through the
practices of global civil society.

Neo-liberal institutionalism is the most conventional of all contemporary

liberalisms. Their central point is how to initiate and maintain cooperation under
the anarchical condition. This task is facilitated by the creation of regimes. Neo-
liberal institutionalists share with realists the assumption that the states are
the most important actors, and that the international system is anarchic. But their
accounts diverge on the prospects of achieving sustained patterns of cooperation
under anarchy.

CONCLUSION AND POSTSCRIPT: THE CRISIS OF LIBERALISM

MARXIST THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Introduction: the continuing relevance of Marxism

Key points: Marx's work retains its relevance despite the collapse of the Communist
party rule in the former Soviet Union. Of particular importance is Marx's analysis
of capitalism, which has yet to be bettered. Marxist analyses of international
relations aim to reveal the hidden workings of global capitalism. These hidden
workings provide the context in which international events occur.

The essential elements of Marxist theories of world politics

The principle idea of Marx and Marxist theorists was, that the social world should
be viewed as a totality. Academic divisions- history, philosophy, economics,
political science, international relations, sociology etc, is both arbitrary and
unhelpful. In other words, none can understood with the absence of others: the
social world had to be studied as a whole.

Marxist terms:

Capitalism- According to Marx there were three main characteristics of capitalism.

1. Everything involved in production (raw materials, machines, labour involved in

the creation of commodities, and the commodities themselves) is given an exchange
value, and all can be exchanged, one for the other. In essence, under capitalism
everything has its price, including people's working time.

2. Everything that is needed to undertake production (the factories, and the raw
materials) is owned by one class- the capitalists.

3. Workers are 'free', but in order to survive must sell their labour to the
capitalists in order to survive, and because the capitalist class owns the means of
production, and control the relations of production, they also control the profit
that results from the labour of workers.

Means (or forces) of production: These are the elements that combine in the
production process. They include labour as well as the tools and technology
available during any given historical period.

Relations of production: Relations of production link and organise the means of

production in the production process. They involve both the technical and
institutional relationships necessary to allow the production process to proceed,
as well as the broader structures that govern the control of the means of
production, and control of the end-product(s) of that process. Private property and
wage labour are two of the key features of the relations of production in
capitalist society.

Another key element of Marxist thought is the 'materialist conception of history'.

The latter means that historical changes are ultimately the reflection of economic
development. That is, economic development is the motor of history. According to
Marx, there is a tension between the means of production and the relations of
production. For instance, when there is a technological advancement, previous
relations of production become outmoded and indeed become fetters restricting the
most effective utilisation of the new productive capacity.

Marx also states that, developments in the economic base act as a catalyst for the
broader transformation of society as a whole. In his 'base-superstructure' model,
he tries to logically follow that a change in the economic base of society is
reflected in the superstructure or the entire society.

Key points: Marx himself provided little in terms of a theoretical analysis. His
ideas have been interpreted and appropriated in number of different and
contradictory ways resulting in a number of competing schools of Marxism.
Underlying these different schools are several common elements that can be traced
back to Marx's writings.

World-system theory

The world system theory is a development of Lenin's theory of imperialism, that

explains the phenomenon of monopoly capitalism. The latter has a two-tier structure
consisting of a dominant 'core' exploiting the less-developed periphery. This model
actually complicates the view of Marx which identifies the simple divergence of
interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Thus, this structural
division of the core and periphery determines the nature of relationship between
the bourgeoisie and proletariat of each country.

This development of Lenin's theory alert us on two essential features of the world-
system approach to the understanding of world politics. The first is that
international and domestic politics takes place within the capitalist world-
economy, and the second contention is that states are not the most important
actors, rather social classes are also very significant. Moreover, it is the
location of the states and classes within the framework of the capitalist world-
economy that constrains their behaviour and determines patterns of interaction and
domination between them.

Lenin's views were developed by the Latin American dependency school in greater
depth, Paul Prebisch's work on the notion of core and periphery is especial. He
argues that countries in the periphery are suffering from 'the declining terms of
trade'. Put simply he suggested that the price of manufactured goods increased more
rapidly than that of raw materials. For example, year by year it requires more tons
of coffee to pay for a refrigerator.

The key features of Wallerstein's world-system theory

For Immauel Wallerstein the dominant form of social organisations has been what he
calls 'world systems'. History has seen two types of world-systems, i.e., world-
empires and world-economies. The distinction between the two systems is
essentially, about resource distribution or-who gets what. In a world-empire, a
centralised political system uses its power to redistribute resources from
peripheral areas to core areas, whereas, there are multiple competing centres of
powers in a world-economy, where resources are distributed through a medium of
market. The commonality between both the systems is that the transfer of resources
from peripheral to core areas.

The modern world-system is an example of a world-economy. According to Wallerstein,

this system emerged at the turn of the sixth century, and implicated all countries
into its ambit. Its driving force is the 'ceaseless accumulation of capital', or
simply capitalism. He defines capitalism as 'a system of production for sale in a
market for profit and appropriation of this profit on the basis of individual or
collective ownership. He argues that within the framework of this system, specific
institutions are created and recreated. For Wallerstein all social institutions
large and small, are continually changing and adapting within the world-system.
Futhermore, he says that not only the elements in the system change, but the system
itself is historically bounded. It had a beginning, has a middle and will have an
end.

The modern world-system can be described in terms of space and time. The spatial
dimension focuses on the differing economic roles played by different regions
within the world economy. Wallerstein adds an intermidiate economic zone which he
calls the semi-periphery. The latter has certain features of the core and certain
features of the periphery. The semi-periphery is hybrid in nature, it provides a
source of labour that counteracts any upward pressure on wages in the core and also
provides a new home for those industries that can no longer function profitably in
the core (textiles and car assembly). The semi-periphery also stabilises the
political structure of the world-system.

According to world-system theorists, the three economic zones are interconnected in

an exploitative relationship in which wealth is drained from the periphery to the
core. In relative terms, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The spatial dimension is made up of the three economic zones, the core, the semi-
periphery and the periphery. As such, the three zones described in isolation are
static, but in order to comprehend the inner dynamics of their interaction, we must
turn our attention to Wallerstein's description of the temporal dimensions of the
world-economy. These are cyclical rhythms, secular trends, contradictions, and
crisis.

The first is concerned with the tendency of the capitalist system to go through
recurrent periods of expansion and contradictions, or simply boom and bust, where
each cycle does not return to the same point it had begun. Secular trends refer to
the long-term growth or contradiction of the world economy.

Contradiction is referred to as the crisis of underconsumption. In the short term,

capitalists drive down the wages of workers, (producers) to maximise profits.
However, the capitalists need to sell the products in the market to consumers who
are willing to buy them. The contradiction arises here, as the producers are also
the consumers, and their wages have been cut down, and their purchasing power
decreases and hence, this leads to underconsumption.

The usage of the word crisis is very specific to Wallerstein's world-system theory,
he claims that the current system is in such a crisis which will involve its demise
and replacement by another system.

Gramscianism and Robert Cox- the analsyis of 'world order'

Key points: Drawing upon the work of Gramsci for inspiration, writers within an
Italian school of international relations have made a considerable contribution to
thinking about world politics. He shifted the Marxist analysis to superstructural
phenomena, and specifically, he observed that consent for social and political
system was created and recreated by hegemony. Hegemony allows the ideas and
ideologies to disseminate throughout society and become widely accepted. Robert Cox
has tried to intenationalise the key concepts of Gramsci, and most notably
hegemony.

Marxists indubitably aquiesce that the US, a good example of a hegemonic power has
succeded in convincing the world to accept its neo-liberal policies. Many would
argue that these are 'common sense' policies and that those of the Third World
countries that have adopted them have merely realised that such economic policies
best reflect their interests- the neo-liberal project (in particular reduction of
state spending, currency devaluation, privatisation, and the promotion of free
markets). Marxists argue that an analysis of the self-interest of the hegemon, and
the use of why such coercive power, provide a more meaningful explanation of why
such policies have been adopted.

Spending on health and education have been reduced, the Third World have been
forced to rely on export of raw materials and their markets have been saturated
with manufactured goods from the industrialised world. The adoption of neo-liberal
policies by the Third World is in direct interest of the developed world. The
hegemon will always promote free trade- because, assuming it is the most efficient
producer, its goods will be cheaper throughout the world. It is only when Third
World countries would put barriers to trade and become more protectionist of their
own production, that the hegemon's products will be more expensive. Next, is the
area of raw materials. The fact is, that Third World countries cannot compete in a
free trade situation with those of the developed world, because they will be more
reliant on export of raw materials. Even this is in the interest of the hegemon, as
increases in the supply of raw material exports mean that the price falls.
Additionally, devaluating their currency the price of their exported raw materials
goes down. Lastly, when Third World countries privatised industries, investors from
the developed governments snap up these companies, such as airlines,
telecommunications, and oil industries and avail them at bargain prices.
If neo-liberal policies have such an adverse impact on Third World countries then
why have they adopted them? This is where the coercive element comes in. Through
the 1970s and 1980s and even today, there has been a major debt crisis between the
Third World and the West, this is due to excessive and unwise lending by the
Western banks. Third World countries have not been able to pay back the interest,
let alone the debt itself. And when they turned for assistance towards the IMF,
another complexity arose. This is because, the IMF is majorly controlled by Western
countries possessing more t

han fifty percent of votes, which again restricts the IMF to provide a id to the
Third World.

Critical theory

Critical theory has its roots in the Frankfurt school, a group of thinkers
including Max Horkheimer, Herbert Adorno and Jurgen Habermas. The centerpiece of
this theory revolves around emancipation. Several versions of understandings have
emerged, the first generation is equated with a reconciliation with nature, second,
Habermas has argued that emancipatory potential lies in the realm of communication
and radical democracy. Andrew Linklater has argued in favour of the expansion of
the moral boundaries of the political community and has pointed to the European
Union as an example of a post-Westphalian institution of governance.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORDER

Key points: The UN was set up for maintaining peace between states after the second
world war. Many lessons were learnt from its predecessor, the League of Nations,
several improvements and improvisations were made in the new organisation. The
central system was only a part of the UN.

Problems within the state and problems between states:

It became more difficult for states, and diplomats, to accept that what happened
within states was of no concern to anyone else. It became more common for
governments to see active membership in the United Nations as serving their
national interest as well as being right. The end of the cold war had helped to
promote this attitude.

The UN and conditions within states:

The cold war and the decolonisation process discouraged more active involvement by
the UN within states. Scholars involved with international theory questioned the
previous orthodoxy that individuals in new states were necessarily better off after
independence. The UN became a focus of the global conscience.

The UN and maintaining international order:

The UN had become involved in a multilayered system of governance sometimes working

with states, sometimes alongside them, and sometimes apart from them. Global
governance involved a stronger role for maintaining standards for individuals
within states. By the mid-1990s the UN had become involved in maintaining
international order in three main ways: concern with order within states, with
resisting aggression between states, and by attempting to resolve disputes within
states.

The UN and intervention within states:

New justifications for intervention in states were being considered by the early
1990s. But most operations of the UN were justified in the traditional way: there
was a threat to international peace and security. But any relaxation of the
traditional prohibition on intervention had to be treated very cautiously, and new
methods of approval in the UN could be advisable if this happened.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SWEDISH PM PER LODIN HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS CHIEF MILITARY OBSERVER AND HEAD OF
MISSION FOR UNMOGIP. IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1948 TO INVESTIGATE AND MEDIATE THE
DISPUTE BTW INDIA AND PAK.

AFGHAN-INDIA FRIENDSHIP DAM IN HERAT PROVINCE WAS INAUGURATED IN AFGHANISTAN.

PM MODI WAS CONFERRED WITH HIGHEST CIVILIAN HONOUR, THE AMIR AMANULLAH KHAN AWARD.

THE UNION CABINET APPROVED A NEW AGREEMENT FOR A FREE TRADE REGIME BTW INDIA AND
BHUTAN.

indonesia is the world's largest archipelago, straddling the indian and pacific
oceans. it can potentially control all the straits linking the southern indian
ocean to the south china sea.

india's act east policy focusses on the extended neighbourhood in the asia pacific
region.

chahabar port agreement is a tri-nation deal with India, Afghanistan and Iran.
Developing the Chabahar port was seen as crucial for India because it will not only
allow New Delhi to bypass Pakistan and access global markets but also counter
China�s expanding influence in the Indian Ocean region. But the project�s land
route through Afghanistan remains a security headache.

�Studies show that� the corridor could bring down cost, time of cargo trade to
Europe by about 50%.�

Once the Chabahar port is developed, Indian ships will get direct access to the
Iranian coast; a rail line to the Afghan border town of Zaranj will allow India a
route around Pakistan.

International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is the ship, rail, and road
route for moving freight between India, Russia, Iran, Europe and Central Asia.

It was established in 2000 by Iran, Russia and India.

Namibia signed an agreement with India in 2009 for uranium supply. The treaty sets
the framework for long term supply of uranium but it is pending ratification by
Namibian Parliament.

Namibia being a member of the African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (ANWFZT), it
is barred from trading in uranium with India, which is not a signatory of Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The ANWFZT, also known as the Treaty of Pelindaba, is named after South Africa�s
main Nuclear Research Centre.

Pelindaba was the location where South Africa�s atomic bombs of the 1970s were
developed, constructed and subsequently stored.

The Pelindaba Treaty signed in 1996 aims at preventing nuclear proliferation and
preventing strategic minerals of Africa from being exported freely.

The East African Community (EAC), comprising Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda,
Burundi and South Sudan, has emerged as one of the most successful of Africa�s
Regional Economic Communities.

Having established a customs union, it is building a single market and wants to set
up a monetary union.

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC): MCC is a US agency providing eligible

countries with grants to fund country-led solutions for reducing poverty through
sustainable economic growth.

Development Partnership Administration (DPA): DPA looks after implementation of

India�s development cooperation programmes with partner countries.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1267 was adopted unanimously on 15

October 1999. After recalling resolutions 1189 (1998), 1193 (1998) and 1214 (1998)
on the situation in Afghanistan, the Council designated Osama bin Laden and
associates as terrorists and established a sanctions regime to cover individuals
and entities associated with Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and/or the Taliban wherever
located.

1267 UN Sanctions: On 30 December 2016, China had blocked India's move to list
Pakistan-based Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, at the 1267 Sanctions Committee
of the UN Security Council. China was the only member on the 15-nation committee to
have opposed India's move.

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 28 countries. It

operates an internal (or single) market, which allows free movement of goods,
capital, services and people between member states.

The EEA includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It allows
them to be part of the EU�s single market.

Switzerland is neither an EU nor EEA member but is part of the single market - this
means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA
nationals.

ITLOS is an intergovernmental organization created by the mandate of the Third

United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

It was signed at Montego Bay, Jamaica, in 1982.

The tribunal is based in Hamburg, Germany.

The Tribunal has the power to settle disputes between party states.

The Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), formerly known as the Indian Ocean Rim
Initiative and Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC), is
an international organisation consisting of coastal states bordering the Indian
Ocean.[4] The IORA is a regional forum, tripartite in nature, bringing together
representatives of Government, Business and Academia, for promoting co-operation
and closer interaction among them. It is based on the principles of Open
Regionalism for strengthening Economic Cooperation particularly on Trade
Facilitation and Investment, Promotion as well as Social Development of the region.
[5] The Coordinating Secretariat of IORA is located at Ebene, Mauritius.

The Association comprises 21 member states and 7 dialogue partners, the Indian
Ocean Tourism Organisation and the Indian Ocean Research Group has observer status.

Australia
Bangladesh
Comoros
India
Indonesia
Iran
Kenya
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mauritius
Somalia
Mozambique
Oman
Seychelles
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

Dialogue Partners
Countries with the status of dialogue partners are:[9]

China
Egypt
France
Germany
Japan
United Kingdom
United States

CEPI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, is a "public-private

coalition that aims to derail epidemics by speeding development of vaccines"[1]

The concept is to develop early phases of vaccines without knowing the details for
the form in which the infection will appear, but will still cut down the time to
tailor the eventual vaccine to be effective to the epidemic.

CEPI's plan includes preparations for possible outbreaks of Lassa fever, Marburg
fever, MERS, SARS, Nipah virus, Rift Valley fever, chikungunya, and others. It is
being funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the
World Economic Forum, the governments of Norway, Germany, Japan[2] and India.

The 11th Asia-Europe Meeting Summit took place in the Mongolian capital Ulaan
Baatar. India was represented by Vice-President Hamid Ansari.

The ASEM is an informal inter-regional dialogue that addresses political, security,

financial, economic, social and cultural issues.

It was officially established on 1 March 1996 at the first summit in Bangkok,

Thailand.

It was founded in September 1961. At present NAM have 120 member countries and 17
observer countries.
India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh signed a landmark Motor Vehicles Agreement
(MVA) for the Regulation of Passenger, Personnel and Cargo Vehicular Traffic among
the four South Asian neighbours in 2015.

The BBIN MVA is not much of help to Bhutan in economic development as Bhutan�s
trade is mostly with India and both nations already allow free movement of vehicles
across their border.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a forum for 21 Pacific Rim member

economies[2] that promotes free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It was
established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence of Asia-Pacific
economies and the advent of regional trade blocs in other parts of the world; to
defuse fears that highly industrialised Japan (a member of G8) would come to
dominate economic activity in the Asia-Pacific region; and to establish new markets
for agricultural products and raw materials beyond Europe.

11th G20 Summit was held in Hangzhou, China. The theme of the Summit was �Toward an
Innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive World Economy�.

The G20 started in 1999 as a meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank
Governors in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis.

The Group of Twenty (G20) is the premier forum for its members' international
economic cooperation and decision-making. It comprises 19 countries plus the
European Union.

G20 represents 85% of global GDP, 80% of international trade, 65% of world�s
population.

In 2008, the first G20 Leaders' Summit was held, and the group played a key role in
responding to the global financial crisis.

An annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting is attended by the heads of government of

all APEC members except Taiwan (which is represented by a ministerial-level
official under the name Chinese Taipei as economic leader. The location of the
meeting rotates annually among the member economies, and a famous tradition,
followed for most (but not all) summits, involves the attending leaders dressing in
a national costume of the host country. APEC has three official observers: the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, the Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

PARIS CLIMATE SUMMIT

-Durban summit was held in 2011

-the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) will form the foundation
for climate action post 2020.

-In nov 2014 US and China agreed to limit greenhouse gases emissions.

-In 2013, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with
Climate Change impacts was established.

196 countries promised to limit global warming to no more than 2 degree celcius
with a goal of keeping it below 1.5 degree celcius.

-The Paris produced an agreement hailed as "historic, durable and ambitious".