TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

Definition and Nature of Diplomacy

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Diplomacy

Diplomacy, practices and institutions by which nations conduct their relations with one another. Originally, the English term diplomatic referred to the care and evaluation of official papers or archives, many of which were treaties. In the 18th century diplomatic documents increasingly meant those pertaining to international relations, and the term diplomatic corps was used to signify the body of ambassadors and officials attached to foreign missions. In 1796 the British philosopher Edmund Burke criticizes the French for their “double diplomacy” during the Napoleonic Wars; since then the term diplomacy has been associated with international politics and foreign policy.

The term “diplomacy” refers to the interaction between nation-states. Traditionally, diplomacy was carried out by government officials–diplomats–who negotiated treaties, trade policies, and other international agreements. The process of negotiations ranges from very formal to informal, but it tends to be fairly adversarial and competitive, relying on distributive or positional bargaining strategies that assume a win-lose situation.

In simple terms, Diplomacy means the management of the international relations by negotiations; it is also the method by which these relations are carefully and intelligently adjusted and maintained. Diplomacy is the art of representing a nation’s national interests abroad, through the use of peaceful measures Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states.

Diplomacy as an art of maintaining organized relations among the states is obviously, the foundation of state craft. Diplomacy also refers the skillful conduction of the relation between States. The main purpose of diplomacy is to avoid a condition of conflict or war to the last possible extent, but if war breaks out, diplomacy assumes a different form for the sake of protecting and promoting the “National Interest” of a state. The following implications may be drawn from what we have said above about the meaning and nature of diplomacy:

Diplomacy is the art of conducting negotiations with other states of the world so as to remove or narrow down the areas of disagreements and misunderstandings and thereby maintaining good relations as far as possible.
These negotiations are conducted to protect and promote “National Interest”. For this purpose foreign policy is formulated by the government and that will be implemented through the diplomats.
Maintenance of the peace without injuring the interest of the state is a major objective of diplomacy.
Diplomacy is the applied form of foreign policy. Hence, there should be no conflict or contradiction between what the foreign policy makers affirm and what the professional diplomats do.
Modern diplomacy is closely related to the state system; it is inseparably bound to inter state representation.
Diplomacy is a key concept in world politics. It refers to a process of communication and negotiation between states and other international actors
Diplomacy began in the ancient world but took on a recognizably modern form from the fifteenth century onwards with the establishment of the permanent embassy.
By the end of the nineteenth century all states had a network of embassies abroad linked to foreign departments at home. Diplomacy had also become an established profession.

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy:

Diplomacy plays a key role in the foreign policies of states and other international actors
A diplomatic ‘machinery’ (minimally a foreign department and overseas representation) may be highly developed or fundamentally depending upon the actor but it performs important functions in the making and the implementation of foreign policy
Diplomacy involves persuading other actors to do (or not to do) what you want (don’t want) them to do. To be effective, diplomacy may need to be supplemented by other instruments, but negotiating skills are central to the art of diplomacy.
Diplomacy combined with other instruments (military, economic etc.) is called mixed diplomacy. Here, diplomacy becomes a communications channel through which the use or threatened use of other instruments is transmitted to other parties.
Diplomacy usually has comparative advantages over other instrument in terms of availability and cost.
In complex, multilateral negotiations, diplomacy has become less an art form and more a management process reflecting high levels of interdependence between nation societies.

The United Nations, with its headquarters in New York City, is the largest international diplomatic organization.

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics and culture. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians.

The word stems from the Greek word “diploma”, which literally means ‘folded in two’. In ancient Greece, a diploma was a certificate certifying completion of a course of study, typically folded in two. In the days of the Roman Empire, the word “diploma” was used to describe official travel documents, such as passports and passes for imperial roads, that were stamped on double metal plates. Later, the meaning was extended to cover other official documents such as treaties with foreign tribes. In the 1700s the French called their body of officials attached to foreign legations the corps “diplomatique”. The word “diplomacy” was first introduced into the English language by Edmund Burke in 1796, based on the French word “diplomatie”.

In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner.

Diplomats and diplomatic missions

A diplomat is someone involved in diplomacy; the collective term for a group of diplomats from a single country who reside in another country is a diplomatic mission. Ambassador is the most senior diplomatic rank; a diplomatic mission headed by an ambassador is known as an embassy, with the exception of permanent missions at the United Nations, the Organization of American States, or other multilateral organizations, which are also headed by ambassadors. The collective body of all diplomats of particular country is called that country’s diplomatic service. The collective body of all diplomats assigned to a particular country is the diplomatic corps. (See also diplomatic rank.)

Diplomatic strategy

Real world diplomatic negotiations are very different from intellectual debates in a university where an issue is decided on the merit of the arguments and negotiators make a deal by splitting the difference. Though diplomatic agreements can sometimes be reached among liberal democratic nations by appealing to higher principles, most real world diplomacy has traditionally been heavily influenced by hard power.

The interaction of strength and diplomacy can be illustrated by a comparison to labor negotiations. If a labor union is not willing to strike, then the union is not going anywhere because management has absolutely no incentive to agree to union demands. On the other hand, if management is not willing to take a strike, then the company will be walked all over by the labor union, and management will be forced to agree to any demand the union makes. The same concept applies to diplomatic negotiations.

There are also incentives in diplomacy to act reasonably, especially if the support of other actors is needed. The gain from winning one negotiation can be much less than the increased hostility from other parts. This is also called soft power.

Many situations in modern diplomacy are also rules based. When for instance two WTO countries have trade disputes, it is in the interest of both to limit the spill over damage to other areas by following some agreed-upon rules.

Diplomatic immunity

The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed. This sanctity has come to be known as diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honour. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights.

Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-seventeenth century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country he may be declared as persona non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried for the crime in their homeland.

Diplomatic communications are also viewed as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to carry documents across borders without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called “diplomatic bag” (or, in some countries, the “diplomatic pouch”). While radio and digital communication have become more standard for embassies, diplomatic pouches are still quite common and some countries, including the United States, declare entire shipping containers as diplomatic pouches to bring sensitive material (often building supplies) into a country.

In times of hostility, diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, as well as in some cases when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents. Ambassadors and other diplomats are sometimes recalled temporarily by their home countries as a way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees still remain to actually do the business of diplomacy.

Diplomats as a Guarantee

In the Ottoman Empire, the diplomats of Persia and other states were seen as a guarantee of good behavior. If a nation broke a treaty or if their nationals misbehaved the diplomats would be punished. Diplomats were thus used as an enforcement mechanism on treaties and international law. To ensure that punishing a diplomat mattered rulers insisted on high-ranking figures. This tradition is seen by supporters of Iran as a legal basis of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. In imitation of alleged previous practices supporters of the Iranian Revolution attempted to punish the United States for its alleged misdeeds by holding their diplomats hostage. Diplomats as a guarantee were also employed sometimes in pre-modern Europe and other parts of Asia.

Diplomacy and espionage

Diplomacy is closely linked to espionage or gathering of intelligence. Embassies are bases for both diplomats and spies, and some diplomats are essentially openly-acknowledged spies. For instance, the job of military attachés includes learning as much as possible about the military of the nation to which they are assigned. They do not try to hide this role and, as such, are only invited to events allowed by their hosts, such as military parades or air shows. There are also deep-cover spies operating in many embassies. These individuals are given fake positions at the embassy, but their main task is to illegally gather intelligence, usually by coordinating spy rings of locals or other spies. For the most part, spies operating out of embassies gather little intelligence themselves and their identities tend to be known by the opposition. If discovered, these diplomats can be expelled from an embassy, but for the most part counter-intelligence agencies prefer to keep these agents in situ and under close monitoring.

The information gathered by spies plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy. Arms-control treaties would be impossible without the power of reconnaissance satellites and agents to monitor compliance. Information gleaned from espionage is useful in almost all forms of diplomacy, everything from trade agreements to border disputes.

Diplomatic resolution of problems

Various processes and procedures have evolved over time for handling diplomatic issues and disputes.

Arbitration and mediations

Nations sometimes resort to international arbitration when faced with a specific question or point of contention in need of resolution. For most of history, there were no official or formal procedures for such proceedings. They were generally accepted to abide by general principles and protocols related to international law and justice.

Sometimes these took the form of formal arbitrations and mediations. In such cases a commission of diplomats might be convened to hear all sides of an issue, and to come some sort of ruling based on international law.

In the modern era, much of this work is often carried out by the International Court of Justice at the Hague, or other formal commissions, agencies and tribunals, working under the United Nations. Below are some examples.

Hay-Herbert Treaty Enacted after the United States and Britain submitted a dispute to international mediation about the US-Canadian border.

Conferences

Other times, resolutions were sought through the convening of international conferences. In such cases, there are fewer ground rules, and fewer formal applications of international law. However, participants are expected to guide themselves through principles of international fairness, logic, and protocol.

Some examples of these formal conferences are:

Congress of Vienna (1815) – After Napoleon was defeated, there were many diplomatic questions waiting to be resolved. This included the shape of the map of Europe, the disposition of political and nationalist claims of various ethnic groups and nationalities wishing to have some political autonomy, and the resolution of various claims by various European powers.

The Congress of Berlin (June 13 – July 13, 1878) was a meeting of the European Great Powers’ and the Ottoman Empire’s leading statesmen in Berlin in 1878. In the wake of the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78, the meeting’s aim was to reorganize conditions in the Balkans.

Negotiations

Sometimes nations convene official negotiation processes to settle an issue or dispute between several nations which are parties to a dispute. These are similar to the conferences mentioned above, as there are technically no established rules or procedures. However, there are general principles and precedents which help define a course for such proceedings.

Some examples are

Camp David accord Convened in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter of the United States, at Camp David to reach an agreement between Prime Minister Mechaem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. After weeks of negotiation, agreement was reached and the accords were signed, later leading directly to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979.

Treaty of Portsmouth Enacted after President Theodore Roosevelt brought together the delegates from Russia and Japan, to settle the Russo-Japanese War. Roosevelt’s personal intervention settled the conflict, and caused him to win the Nobel peace prize.

Diplomatic recognition

Diplomatic recognition is an important factor in determining whether a nation is an independent state. Receiving recognition is often difficult, even for countries which are fully sovereign. For many decades after becoming independent, even many of the closest allies of the Dutch Republic refused to grant it full recognition. Today there are a number of independent entities without widespread diplomatic recognition, most notably the Republic of China on Taiwan. Since the 1970s, most nations have stopped officially recognizing the ROC’s existence on Taiwan, at the insistence of the People’s Republic of China. Currently, the United States and other nations maintain informal relations through de facto embassies, with names such as the American Institute in Taiwan. Similarly, Taiwan’s de facto embassies abroad are known by names such as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. This was not always the case, with the US maintaining official diplomatic ties with the ROC, recognizing it as the sole and legitimate government of all of China until 1979, when these relations were broken off as a condition for establishing official relations with Communist China.

The Palestinian National Authority has its own diplomatic service, however Palestinian representatives in most Western countries are not accorded diplomatic immunity, and their missions are referred to as Delegations General.

Other unrecognized regions which claim independence include Abkhazia, Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Lacking the economic and political importance of Taiwan, these nations tend to be much more diplomatically isolated.

Though used as a factor in judging sovereignty, Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention states, “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states.”

Informal diplomacy

Informal diplomacy (sometimes called Track II diplomacy) has been used for centuries to communicate between powers. Most diplomats work to recruit figures in other nations who might be able to give informal access to a country’s leadership. In some situations, such as between the United States and the People’s Republic of China a large amount of diplomacy is done through semi-formal channels using interlocutors such as academic members of thinktanks. This occurs in situations where governments wish to express intentions or to suggest methods of resolving a diplomatic situation, but do not wish to express a formal position.

Track II diplomacy is a specific kind of informal diplomacy, in which non-officials (academic scholars, retired civil and military officials, public figures, social activists) engage in dialogue, with the aim of conflict resolution, or confidence-building. Sometimes governments may fund such Track II exchanges. Sometimes the exchanges may have no connection at all with governments, or may even act in defiance of governments; such exchanges are called Track III.

Paradiplomacy

Paradiplomacy refers to the international relations conducted by subnational, regional, local or non-central governments. The most ordinary case of paradiplomatic relation refer to co-operation between bordering political entities. However, interest of federal states, provinces, regions etc., may extend over to different regions or to issues gathering local governments in multilateral fora worldwide. Some non-central governments may be allowed to negotiate and enter into agreement with foreign central states.

Cultural diplomacy

Cultural diplomacy is a part of diplomacy. It alludes to a new way of making diplomacy by involving new non governmental and non professional actors in the making of diplomacy. In the frame of globalization, culture plays a major role in the definition of identity and in the relations between people. Joseph Nye points out the importance of having a soft power besides a hard power. When classical diplomacy fails, a better knowledge can help bridging the gap between different cultures. Cultural diplomacy becomes a subject of academic studies based on historical essays on the United States, Europe, and the Cold War.

SAARC

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

SAARC AND ITS FORMATION
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an economic and political organization of eight countries in Southern Asia. In terms of population, its sphere of influence is the largest of any regional organization: almost 1.5 billion people.

SAARC provides a platform for the peoples of South Asia to work together in the spirit understanding. It aims to accelerate the process of economic and social development in Member States. The upcoming 15th SAARC Summit is being held in the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo on 27-28th July, 2008.

History:

Bangladeshi president Ziaur Rahman first mooted the idea in the 1970’s for creation of a trade bloc, consisting of South Asian countries. The Foreign Secretaries of the seven countries met for the first time in Colombo in April 1981.

The Declaration on South Asian Regional Cooperation was adopted by the Foreign Ministers in 1983 in New Delhi. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation was established, when its Charter was formally adopted on December 8 1985.

Member States:

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan form the principle Member States of the association.

Afghanistan was added to the regional grouping at the behest of India on November 13, 2005, and became a member on April 3, 2007. With the addition of Afghanistan, the total number of member states were raised to eight.

Observers:

In April 2006, the United States of America and South Korea made formal requests to be granted observer status. The European Union also indicated interest in being given observer status, and made a formal request for the same to the SAARC Council of Ministers meeting in July 2006.

On August 2, 2006 the foreign ministers of the SAARC countries agreed in principle to grant observer status to the US, South Korea and the European Union.

Objectives:

To promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality of life.
To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential;
To promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia.
To contribute to mutual trust, understand and appreciation of one another’s problem;
To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields;
To strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;
To strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interest; and
To cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes.

Areas of Cooperation:

At the inception of the Association, the Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) consisting of a number of Technical Committees (TCs) was identified as the core areas of cooperation.

The current areas of cooperation under the reconstituted Regional Integrated Programme of Action covers the following areas:

Agriculture and Rural Development
Women, Youth and Children
Environment and Forestry
Science and Technology and Meteorology
Human Resources Development
Transport

Highlevel Working Groups have also been established to strengthen cooperation in the areas of Information and Communications Technology, Biotechnology, Intellectual Property Rights, Tourism, and Energy.

Peace treaty of versailles

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The Treaty of Versailles is a peace document signed at the end of World War I by the Allied and Associated Powers and by Germany in the Palace of Versailles, France, on June 28, 1919; it took force on January 10, 1920.

Background of First World War
Major Causes of World War I
Growth in German power and ambition: Although Germany did not become a unified country until 1871, it prospered and used its growing wealth to create military power. Britain was concerned that the growth in German power would threaten its dominance on the sea. Hence, it established formal ties with France and Russia. Since the European powers started to gang up against Germany, it sought more armaments and closer relations with Austria‐Hungary.
Arms races and nationalism: Germany expanded its naval weapon which seemed to threaten Britain’s dominance of the seas so essential for maintaining the British Empire. The alliance system and the tensions generated by the arms races fueled nationalism all over Europe, which in turn intensified tensions and mutual suspicions. German nationalism focused on achieving a world empire to match the country’s growing economic and military might. France, Russia, and Austria‐ Hungary also had their own agenda influenced by the ideology of nationalism. Slavic nationalism threatened Austria‐Hungary; Russian nationalism placed pressure on Russia to aid Serbia because
many Serbians and Russians shared common ethnicity; French nationalism demanded the return of its lost provinces of Alsace‐Lorraine.
Colonial rivalries: For many centuries, European nations built empires. Colonies supplied European nations with raw materials and provided markets for manufactured goods. As Germany industrialized it competed directly with France and Britain to gain colonies. Major European countries also competed for land in Africa.

Formation of peacetime alliances: By 1907 there were two major defense alliances in Europe. The Triple Entente, later known as the Allies, consisted of France, Britain, and Russia. The Triple Alliance, later known as the Central Powers, consisted of Germany, Austria‐Hungary, and Italy (Soon joined by the Ottoman Empire). Once Russia acted in response to Austria’s attack on Serbia, alliance commitments pulled one European great power after another into the war.

World War I – Major Events
World War I took place for four years and three months between 1914 and 1918. The war killed more than 18 million people and the total cost was nearly $333 billion. The Great War began as a local collision between Serbia and Austria‐Hungary. Bosnia was controlled by Austria‐Hungary and a Serbian group was fighting to free Bosnia from Austria‐Hungary and make it a part of Serbian kingdom. The war was triggered when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne of Austria, was assassinated in Sarajevo (Bosnia), by a Serbian terrorist organization that wanted Bosnia to be free of Austria‐Hungary and to become part of a large Serbian kingdom. Bosnia had been thesite of numerous plots against Austria‐Hungary’s Hapsburg rulers, especially after 1908 when Bosnia Herzegovina was annexed by Austria‐Hungary. Austria‐Hungary placed the blame for the assassination directly on Serbia. Austria‐Hungary also saw the crisis as an opportunity to deal with Serbia once and for all.

Austrian leaders wanted to attack Serbia but feared Russian intervention on Serbia’s behalf since Russia (having a large Slavic population) had public pressure to defend fellow Slavs in Serbia and elsewhere from Austria‐Hungary’s threats. Hence, Austria‐Hungary wanted German assistance with a hope that the German commitment would prevent Russia from entering the conflict. Some historians argue that at least some of Germany’s leaders did not hope to deter Russia, but they actually hoped that war would begin so that Germany could defeat Russia before Russia’s growing military power made it a serious threat to Germany. On July 25th, 1914, Austria‐Hungary mobilized
its army, and three days later declared war on Serbia. Russia decided to support Serbia and Germany declared for Austria‐Hungary. Russia was also upset with Austria‐Hungary for its failure to perform the deal they had made in 1908 in which Russia would not raise any voice against the annexation of Bosnia‐Herzegovina by Austria‐Hungary and Austria‐Hungary would support Russia’s efforts to secure free passage to Russian warships into the Mediterranean. Germany’s agreement to support Austria‐Hungary is often cited when holding Germany responsible
for World War I. When Austria‐Hungary declared war against Serbia, Russia did decide to come to the defense of Serbia. Fulfilling its promise to back Austria‐Hungary, Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st and then on Russia’s ally, France on August 3rd. Germany planned to swing through neutral Belgium to attack France from the north where its defenses were the weakest. Great Britain also joined the contest on August 4 because of its moral obligation, especially to France with which it had made secret but informal military arrangements. The trigger for British entry in the war was the German invasion of neutral Belgium. The limited war in the Balkans spread across all of Europe because of the alliance system. In 1915, Italy joined the Triple Entente, thereby betraying its earlier obligations as a member of the Triple Alliance in return for territorial promises made in the secret Treaty of London. In 1917, the United States, which had been neutral, also tilted in favor of Britain because of a shared ancestry
and language. American had stronger economic interests with the Allies (Triple Entente). US had a major reason to be involved in World War I since American public opinion turned against Germany and Central Powers after Germany sank a British passenger ship on May 7, 1915 killing all passengers including 128 American tourists. Eventually, 32 countries on six continents became enmeshed in the conflict. The entry of the United States into the war in 1917 gave the Allies a much‐needed psychological boost, along with fresh forces and material. On the other hand, the Central Powers had no hope of getting fresh supplies. On November 3, 1918, Austria‐Hungary surrendered to the Allies. On November 11, 1918, Germany signed a truce ending the Great War.

Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles
The Paris Peace Conference, held at the Palace of Versailles, opened on January 12, 1919, and was attended by the political leaders of 32 countries representing three‐quarters of the world’s population. America’s President Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924), Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain (1863–1945), Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau of France (1841–1929), and Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando of Italy (1860–1952) were the victorious war leaders that dominated the conference and each had his own objectives. Britain sought to recreate a workable balance of power and safeguard its empire. France sought to dismember Germany and create security for itself in
Europe. Italy sought the territories it had been promised during the war. Wilson sought a forgiving and generous peace with America’s defeated enemies. Wilson sought a liberal world that reflected his Fourteen Points on the basis of which Germany surrendered.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points:
Geopolitical Issues:

Russia should be allowed to operate whatever government it wanted.
Belgium should be evacuated and restored to the situation before the war.
France should have Alsace‐Lorraine and any lands taken away during the war.
The Italian border should be readjusted according to nationality.
The national groups in Europe should be given their independence.
Romania, Montenegro and Serbia should be evacuated and Serbia should have an outlet to the sea.
The people of Turkey should have a say in their future.
Poland should become an independent state with an outlet to the sea.

General Ideology:

Ensuring freedom of the seas
Ending secret treaties and negotiations
Establishing equal and free trade
Reducing arms
Granting self‐governments to the peoples in Central Europe
Establishing League of Nations

However, America’s allies wanted to impose a harsh peace on Germany that would prevent any revival of German military power that might again endanger their security. Britain considered the freedom of the seas as a danger to the British Empire and wanted to make the Germans pay for the war. In the end, Wilson gave over his principles one after the other in order to get the last of them, a league of nations. Wilson’s League of Nations was written into the peace treaty with Germany as the first of 440 articles. The U.S. Senate opposed the treaty, instead signing the Treaty of Berlin with Germany in August 1921. Germany was not invited to attend the peace conference. Germany and the other defeated powers were forced to sign treaties that provided a very different peace than they had anticipated. The finalpeace settlement of Paris consisted of five separate treaties with the defeated nations ‐ Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey. In addition to signing the Versailles Treaty with Germany, the victors and the defeated Central Powers signed four other treaties during the meetings: the treaties of St. Germain (with Austria), Trianon (with Hungary), Neuilly (with Bulgaria), and Sevres (with Turkey). The Treaty of Versailles with Germany, signed at Versailles near Paris, on June 28, 1919, was by far the most important. The Treaty of Versailles contained 440 articles. It dealt comprehensively with the territorial, military and war guilt of the Central Powers and the economic, political and other related aspects of the peace settlement. Germany had to accept the blame for starting the War. Germany was asked to surrender nearly 40,000 square kilometers of territory with more than seven million people. Germany was told to pay huge reparations, which after prolonged negotiations were fixed at $33,000 million. German colonies were taken away and were described as ‘Mandated territories of the League’ which France, Britain, and Japan distributed among themselves. Germany and Austria were barred form uniting. Germany had to reduce its army to a hundred thousand men, cut back its navy, and eliminate its air force. Alsace and Lorraine, taken by the Germans from France in 1871, were returned. Sections of eastern Germany were awarded to a new Polish state. German land along both sides of the Rhine was made a demilitarized zone and stripped of all weapons and fortifications. The conference created the League of Nations, the predecessor of today’s United Nations and the organization that gave voice to the idea of collective security. The conference also established the Permanent Court of
International Justice and the International Labour Organisation. The principle of national self‐determination was the most important and durable outcome of the peace conference. As the consequence of World War I and the peace conference, three empires—the Austrian‐ Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman (Turkish) collapsed, and in their place the independent states of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Hungary were born. The Ottoman Empire was divided into several political entities, including Iraq, Syria, and Palestine, each of which consisted of peoples of different ethnic, religious, and tribal groups. The Treaty also established Yugoslavia, another artificial nation‐state, from remnants of the Austro‐Hungarian Empire.

Negative Arguments regarding the Treaty of Versailles
None of the defeated nations had any say in shaping the treaty. Germany was shocked at the severity of the contradictions between the assurances made when the truce was negotiated and the actual treaty. The desire to punish and permanently weaken Germany gained priority over the quest for a just peace. The Treaty was not based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points as the Germans had been promised it would. The loss of territory and population angered most Germans who believed that the losses were too severe. Germans thought the Treaty was a dictated peace. They had not been invited to the peace conference at Versailles and when the Treaty was presented to them they were threatened with war if they did not sign it. The Germans considered the Treaty of Versailles a harsh
peace. They were especially unhappy with Article 231, the so‐called War Guilt Clause, which declared that Germany (and Austria) were responsible for starting the war. The harsh treatment of Germany prevented the Treaty from creating a lasting peace in Europe. It created anger among Germans who regarded it as unfair. This determination provided the climate for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and in the end, to World War II. Hence, some scholars claim that the ‘Peace Treaty of Versailles was an imposed Peace’ and the ‘Second World War was started immediately after the settlement of First World War’. The First World War was supposed to be the war to end all war. However, the Treaty of Versailles is often criticized as the ‘Peace to end all Peace’. Germany was imposed to pay $33 billion in reparations that it was not capable of paying. Although economists at the time declared that such a huge sum could never be collected without upsetting international finances, the Allies insisted that Germany be made to pay, and the treaty permitted them to take punitive actions if Germany fell behind in its payments. The rise of fascism in Italy
under Mussolini in 1922 is linked to the fact that Italy was deprived of territories that were promised through a number of secret treaties before the War. The Paris Peace Conference was supposedly guided by the principle of self‐determination. However, the mixtures of peoples in Eastern Europe made it impossible to draw boundaries along neat ethnic lines and compromises had to be made. As a result of compromises, almost every eastern European state was left with ethnic minorities. The problem of ethnic minorities within nations would lead to later conflicts.

Game Theory

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Aspects of game theory were first explored by the French mathematician Émile Borel (1871-1956), who wrote several papers on games of chance and theories of play. The acknowledged father of game theory, however, is the Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neumann, who in a series of papers in the 1920s and ’30s established the mathematical framework for all subsequent theoretical developments. During World War II military strategists in such areas as logistics, submarine warfare, and air defense drew on ideas that were directly related to game theory. Game theory thereafter developed within the context of the social sciences. Despite such empirically related interests, however, it is essentially a product of mathematicians.

The game theory was largely disseminated by John Von Newmann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944) in their works. The game theory has provided a means for analyzing many problems of interest in economics, management science, and other fields. In the International Relations, Game Theory is mostly related to study the conflict and consequences between two or more state and other actors of International Relations. Mostly the scholars Thomas Scheiling, William Riker and Martin Shubik used this theory on the study of international politics and relation. Among these scholars the contributions of Thomas Scheiling and Martin Shubik are significant to develop this theory than others.

Introduction:

As scholar Shubik says “Game Theory is a mathematical method for the study of some aspects of conscious decision making in the situation involving the possibilities of conflict and cooperation. It deals with the process in which the individual decision unit has only partial control over the strategic factors affecting its environment.”

Game Theory is a branch of applied mathematics that concerns itself with the study of multi-person interdependent decision-making in conflict situations. Such a situation exists when two or more decision makers, who have different objectives act on the same way and share the same resources. It is a set of techniques for analyzing strategic situations; that is, situations in which at least two agents make decisions that affect one another’s welfare. The perceptivities offered by the theory can be therefore applied across a wide range of disciplines including economics, political science, anthropology, sociology, biology etc.

Game Theory is a mathematical analysis of any situation involving a conflict of interest, with the intent of indicating the optimal choices that, under given conditions, will lead to a desired outcome. Although, game theory has roots in the study of such well-known enjoyment as checkers, tick-tack-toe, and poker also involves much more serious conflicts of interest arising in such fields as sociology, economics, and political and military science. There are two persons and multi person’s games. Game theory provides a mathematical process for selecting an Optimum Strategy (that is, an optimum decision or a sequence of decisions) in the face of an opponent who has a strategy of his own.

Game Theory is a theory of competition stated in terms of gains and losses among opposing players. In Game Theory a game refers to a strategic situation that involves at least two rational intelligent individuals called players. A rational player is one who consistently makes decisions tracking down of some well-defined objective and an intelligent player is one who knows everything we know about the game and who can make the same inferences as we do.

The game theory operates on the assumption that the international political process or international relation is the confrontation like a chess game, or a contrast between two merchants or brokers, or the movements of rival political candidates, or the counteractions of opposed diplomats, and within the game all institutions and countries are playing as individuals player. It is defined as a body of thought dealing strategies in situations of conflict and competition wherein each participant or player seeks to maximize his gains and minimize his losses. It is also a mathematical model in which the player is placed in a certain fixed situation and tires to make maximum gains out of his opponents.

There are two main branches of game theory: Cooperative (collaborative) and Non-cooperative (strategy) game theory. Non-cooperative game theory deals largely with how intelligent individuals interact with one another in an effort to achieve their own goals. But in cooperative both interact to achieve for their common goals.

Basic Concepts:

In game theory, the term game means a particular sort of conflict in which no of individuals or groups (known as players) participate. A list of rules stipulates the conditions under which the game begins, the possible legal “moves” at each stage of play, the total number of moves constituting the entirety of the game, and the terms of the outcome at the end of play.

a) Moves:

In game theory, a move is the way in which the game progresses from one stage to another, beginning with an initial state of the game through the final move. Moves may alternate between players in a specified fashion or may occur simultaneously. Moves are made either by personal/national choice or as counter the opponent for maximum benefits or achievements.

b) Payoff:

Payoff, or outcome, is a game-theory term referring to what happens at the end of a game. In such games as chess or checkers, payoff may be as simple as declaring a winner or a loser. In card or other gambling situations the payoff is usually money; its amount is predetermined by bets collected during the course of play, by percentages or by other fixed amounts calculated on the chances of winning. Moreover, in IR the payoff may be treaties determine role and responsibility, conventions for to do or not to do something collectively by players, agreements, compensation for something or some other outcomes as desire by the nation players with their opponent/s.

c) Extensive and Normal Form:

One of the most important distinctions made in characterizing different forms of games is that between extensive and normal. A game is said to be in extensive form if it is characterized by a set of rules that determines the possible moves at each step, indicating which player is to move, the probabilities at each point if a move is to be made by a chance determination, and the set of outcomes assigning a particular payoff or result to each possible conclusion of the game. The assumption is also made that each player has a set of preferences at each move in anticipation of possible outcomes that will maximize the player’s own payoff or minimize losses. A game in extensive form contains not only a list of rules governing the activity of each player, but also the preference patterns of each player.

Because of the enormous numbers of strategies involved in even the simplest extensive games, game theorists have developed so-called normalized forms of games for which computations (determining something by mathematical or logical methods) can be carried out completely. A game is said to be in normal form if the list of all expected outcomes or payoffs to each player for every possible combination of strategies is given for any sequence of choices in the game. This kind of theoretical game could be played by any neutral observer and does not depend on player choice of strategy.

d) Perfect Information:

A game is said to have perfect information if all moves are known to each of the players involved. Checkers and chess are two examples of games with perfect information; poker and bridge are games in which players have only partial information at their disposal. In IR role of UN can be groups as game of perfect information and any other role of nations with each other can grouped in partial or secreted information game.

e) Strategy:

A strategy is a list of the best possible choices for each player at every stage of a given game. A strategy, taking into account all possible moves, is a plan that cannot be upset, despite of what may occur in the game.

In the game theory the player built their strategy with the predication on the strategy chosen by his opponent, which gives information about all possible strategies, rules and payoffs or their possibilities that enables each player to maximize benefits while minimizing losses.

Scholar Davis B. Bobrow suggests that following properties of the situations with which game theory deals:

They involve two or more ‘players’ whose interest conflict, at least in part.
Each Player has two or more choices (Strategies) as to how to proceed in the game.
The outcome of the game is determined once each player has chosen a strategy.
And each possible outcome is associated with a particular payoff or return (positive or negative) to each player.

Commons Assumptions:

In game theory one usually makes the following assumptions:

1) Each decision maker [“PLAYER”] has available to him/her two or more well-specified choices or sequences of choices (called “PLAYS”).

2) Every possible combination of plays available to the players leads to a well-defined end-state (win, loss, or draw) that terminates the game.

3) A specified payoff for each player is associated with each end-state (a ZERO-SUM game means that the sum of payoffs to all players is zero in each end-state).

4) Each decision maker has perfect knowledge of the game and of his opposition; that is, he knows in full detail the rules of the game as well as the payoffs of all other players.

5) All decision makers are rational; that is, each player, given two alternatives, will select the one that give up him the greater payoff.

The last two assumptions, in particular, restrict the application of game theory in real-world conflict situations. On the other hand, game theory has provided a means for analyzing many problems of interest in economics, management science, and other fields.

Interests and Rules in Game:

As per the pro-scholars of the game theory, in the international politics the political game will be played with other players, which have these three characteristic with them when they are playing games:

Identical Interest: The player of the game will have same interest and want achieve maximum gains as per their interest. The strategy of both part of the game will be same and they only concern with their own interest. This will be the cooperative or collaborative game to achieve something common as per interests of players, where players negotiate binding contracts that allow them to plan joint strategies.

Game with opposite interest: On this players want to have maximum gains with minimum losses. It is based on “Loss & Gain Theory” of the game. Here one will get gains as per the losses of another player. This will be the non-cooperative or strategic game to achieve something opposite interests between players, where notiation and enforcement of a binding contract are not possible.

Game with mixed interest: This is the game, where the player will play game with common interest as helpful and with opposite interest as unhelpful. Here the losses and gains may be equal with each other. This will be some how cooperative- no-cooperative or collaborative- strategic game where sometime the interest are identical and sometime against each others.
There are certain assumption and rules of the game theory. The assumptions are that the players are guided by rational behaviour and choose the best course of action that brings them maximum gains. The rules are that the equation between the players is straight and the losses of one are the gains of another. The game theory is built up with the help of give importance conceptions: Strategy, Opponent, Pay-of, Rules and information.

Kinds of Game:

The situation of the game visualized are in the four kinds in the game theory for the study of the international relations and politics, these are:

Zero-sum two person game: Here the gains of one player are equal to the losses of the other player. In less formal terms, a zero-sum game is a game in which one player’s winnings equal the other player’s losses. Do notice that the definition requires a zero sum for every set of strategies. If there is even one strategy set for which the sum differs from zero, then the game is not zero sum.

Non-zero-sum two person game: In this kind of game, between two players the winner of the game will shared the outcome of the game and losses of one are not necessarily equal to the gains of another.

Zero-sum n-persons games: Here the player will be more than two, and the outcome is shared and the losses of the one are not necessarily equal to gains of another but the in accumulation the sum will become zero.
Non-zero-sum n-persons games: This is also a game between more than two player will play the games. In this game the situation in extremely complex and the gains and losses are shred by both sides of the game to some extent.

Prison’s Dilemma in Game Theory:

The prisoner’s dilemma was originally formulated by mathematician Albert W. Tucker and has since become the classic example of a “non-zero sum” game in economics, political science, evolutionary biology, and of course game theory.

A “zero sum” game is simply a win-lose game such as tic-tac-toe. For every winner, there’s a loser. If I win, you lose. Non-zero sum games allow for cooperation. There are moves that benefit both players, and this is what makes these games interesting.

Tucker began with a little story, like this: two robbers, Bob and Albert, are captured near the scene of a Bank Robbery and are given the “third degree” and interrogated in separate cells without a chance to communicate with each other by the police. For the purpose of this game, it makes no difference whether or not Bob or Albert actually committed the crime. Each has to choose whether or not to confess and implicate the other. If neither man confesses, then both will serve one year on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. If each confesses and implicates the other, both will go to prison for 10 years. However, if one robber confesses and implicates the other, and the other robber does not confess, the one who has collaborated with the police will go free, while the other robber will go to prison for 20 years on the maximum charge.

Bob and Albert both told the same thing:

If you both confess, you will both get 10 years in prison.
If neither of you confesses, the police will be able to pin part of the crime on you, and you’ll both get 1 year.
If one of you confesses but the other doesn’t, the confessor will make a deal with the police and will go free while the other one goes to jail for 20 years.

At first glance the correct strategy appears obvious. No matter what Albert does, bob will be better off “defecting” (confessing). Annoyingly, Albert realizes this as well, so Bob and Albert both end up getting 10 years. Surprisingly, if both “cooperated” (refused to confess) both be much comfortable.

And so the game becomes much more complicated than it first appeared. If Bob play time after time, the goal is to figure out Albert’s strategy and use it to minimize his total jail time. Albert will be doing the same. Remember, the object of the game is not to screw Albert over. The object is to minimize Bob’s jail time. If this means ruthlessly exploiting Albert’s generosity, then do so. If this means helping Albert out by cooperating, then do so.

The strategies in this case are: confess or don’t confess. The payoffs (penalties, actually) are the sentences served. We can express all this compactly in a “payoff table” of a kind that has become pretty standard in game theory. Here is the payoff table for the Prisoners’ Dilemma game:

Albert
confess don’t
Bob confess 10,10 0,20
don’t 20,0 1,1

The table is read like this: Each prisoner chooses one of the two strategies. In effect, Albert chooses a column and Bob chooses a row. The two numbers in each cell tell the outcomes for the two prisoners when the corresponding pair of strategies is chosen. The number to the left of the comma tells the payoff to the person who chooses the rows (Bob) while the number to the right of the column tells the payoff to the person who chooses the columns (Al). Thus (reading down the first column) if they both confess, each gets 10 years, but if Al confesses and Bob does not, Bob gets 20 and Al goes free.

So: how to solve this game? What strategies are “rational” if both men want to minimize the time they spend in jail? Al might reason as follows: “Two things can happen: Bob can confess or Bob can keep quiet. Suppose Bob confesses. Then I get 20 years if I don’t confess, 10 years if I do, so in that case it’s best to confess. On the other hand, if Bob doesn’t confess, and I don’t either, I get a year; but in that case, if I confess I can go free. Either way, it’s best if I confess. Therefore, I’ll confess.”

But Bob can and presumably will reason in the same way — so that they both confess and go to prison for 10 years each. Yet, if they had acted “irrationally,” and kept quiet, they each could have gotten off with one year each.

This game has fascinated game theorists for a variety of reasons. First, it is a simple representation of a variety of important situations. For example, instead of confess/not confess we could label the strategies “contribute to the common good” or “behave selfishly.” This captures a variety of situations economists describe as public goods problems. An example is the construction of a bridge. It is best for everyone if the bridge is built, but best for each individual if someone else builds the bridge. This is sometimes refered to in economics as an externality. Similarly this game could describe the alternative of two firms competing in the same market, and instead of confess/not confess we could label the strategies “set a high price” and “set a low price.” Naturally is best for both firms if they both set high prices, but best for each individual firm to set a low price while the opposition sets a high price.

A second feature of this game is that it is self-evident how an intelligent individual should behave. No matter what a suspect believes his partner is going to do, is is always best to confess. If the partner in the other cell is not confessing, it is possible to get 10 instead of 5. If the partner in the other cell is confessing, it is possible to get 1 instead of 0. Yet the pursuit of individually sensible behavior results in each player getting only 1 unit of utility, much less than the 5 units each that they would get if neither confessed. This conflict between the pursuit of individual goals and the common good is at the heart of many game theoretic problems.

A third feature of this game is that it changes in a very significant way if the game is repeated, or if the players will interact with each other again in the future. Suppose for example that after this game is over, and the suspects either are freed or are released from jail they will commit another crime and the game will be played again. In this case in the first period the suspects may reason that they should not confess because if they do not their partner will not confess in the second game. Strictly speaking, this conclusion is not valid, since in the second game both suspects will confess no matter what happened in the first game. However, repetition opens up the possibility of being rewarded or punished in the future for current behavior, and game theorists have provided a number of theories to explain the obvious intuition that if the game is repeated often enough, the suspects ought to cooperate.

Dominant Strategies

What has happened here is that the two prisoners have fallen into something called”dominant strategy equilibrium.”

DEFINITION Dominant Strategy: Let an individual player in a game evaluate separately each of the strategy combinations he may face, and, for each combination, choose from his own strategies the one that gives the best payoff. If the same strategy is chosen for each of the different combinations of strategies the player might face, that strategy is called a “dominant strategy” for that player in that game.

Definition of Dominant Strategy Equilibrium: If, in a game, each player has a dominant strategy, and each player plays the dominant strategy, then that combination of (dominant) strategies and the corresponding payoffs are said to constitute the dominant strategy equilibrium for that game.

In the Prisoners’ Dilemma game, to confess is a dominant strategy, and when both prisoners confess, that is dominant strategy equilibrium.

Issues With Respect to the Prisoners’ Dilemma

This remarkable result — that individually rational action results in both persons being made worse off in terms of their own self-interested purposes — is what has made the wide impact in modern social science. For there are many interactions in the modern world that seem very much like that, from arms races through road congestion and pollution to the depletion of fisheries and the overexploitation of some subsurface water resources. These are all quite different interactions in detail, but are interactions in which (we suppose) individually rational action leads to inferior results for each person, and the Prisoners’ Dilemma suggests something of what is going on in each of them. That is the source of its power.

Having said that, we must also admit candidly that the Prisoners’ Dilemma is a very simplified and abstract — if you will, “unrealistic” — conception of many of these interactions. A number of critical issues can be raised with the Prisoners’ Dilemma, and each of these issues has been the basis of a large scholarly literature:

The Prisoners’ Dilemma is a two-person game, but many of the applications of the idea are really many-person interactions.
We have assumed that there is no communication between the two prisoners. If they could communicate and commit themselves to coordinated strategies, we would expect a quite different outcome.
In the Prisoners’ Dilemma, the two prisoners interact only once. Repetition of the interactions might lead to quite different results.
Compelling as the reasoning that leads to the dominant strategy equilibrium may be, it is not the only way this problem might be reasoned out. Perhaps it is not really the most rational answer after all.

Several Nobel Prizes have been awarded to some of major figures of Game Theory: the Nobel was shared by John Nash, J.C. Harsanyi and R. Selten in 1994 and William Vickrey and James Mirrlees in 1996. Herbert Simon won the Nobel in 1979 for concepts (e.g. bounded rationality) which have since been incorporated into the corpus of (Evolutionary) Game Theory.

Criticism:

The theory is highly abstract and works only under assumed conditions. The players are rarely as rational as presumed by this theory. Game theory may be criticized on two important grounds. First, it stands on the premise of zero-sum match in which one side wins and the other side loses. But we may find instances in which the game ends without any side winning or losing. Second, most of the crucial issues of international relations go on endlessly. Because of that scholar Deutsch says: “Game theory usually assumes that most games have an end, but international relations resemble rather an unending game in which no great power can pick up its marbles and go home.”

Peace Keeping Mandate

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Depending on their mandate, peacekeeping operations may be required to:

1.Deploy to prevent the outbreak of conflict or the spill‐over of conflict across borders;

2.Stabilize conflict situations after a ceasefire, to create an environment for the parties to reach a lasting peace agreement.

3.Assist in implementing comprehensive peace agreements;

4.Lead states or territories through a transition to stable government, based on democratic principles, good governance and economic development.

UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:

Consent of the parties
Impartiality
Non‐use of force except in self‐defense and defense of the mandate

Weimar Republic

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Introduction:

Weimar, city in central Germany, in Thüringen, on the Ilm River. Weimar is a railroad junction, and factories in the city manufacture textiles, paper, machinery, automobiles, musical instruments, electrical equipment, glass, and shoes. Weimar projects a medieval quality, with its many narrow streets and old, gabled houses, and it is the site of numerous architectural landmarks. In 1919, following World War I, the German National Assembly meeting in Weimar, established the German Republic, known also as the Weimar Republic, and drafted a democratic constitution. Weimar became the capital of the newly created state of Thüringen in 1920.

The period of German history from 1919 to 1933 is known as the Weimar Republic. It was persisted from 1919 until 1933, when Nazi party leader Adolf Hitler suspended the constitution and assumed power. It is named after the city of Weimar, Germany, where a national assembly convened to produce a new constitution after Germany’s defeat in World War I. Weimar Republic, term used to describe the German republic The republic was established after workers and troops in the German empire shocked in early 1918 against the government’s refusal to end World War I (1914-1918). On November 9, Emperor William II run away from the country and a provisional coalition government was formed between the moderate Social Democrats under Friedrich Ebert and the more radical Independent Social Democrats, who were hoping for a more fundamental socialist revolution. The new National Assembly met in Weimar, Thüringen, in February 1919 and wrote a constitution that established Germany as a democratic federal republic and provided for two houses of parliament, the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. Ebert was elected president of the new republic.

This first attempt at establishing a liberal democracy as Weimar Republic, in Germany was a time of great tension and inner conflict and, ultimately, failed with the ascent of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933. Although technically, the 1919 constitution was never entirely invalidated until after World War II, the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in 1933 that are commonly known as Gleichschaltung in fact destroyed all mechanisms provided for by a typical democratic system, so it is common to mark 1933 as the end of the Weimar Republic.

Post-War Problems:

World War I had left Germany with many economic, social, and political problems. In addition to enduring high inflation and a large national debt, Germans were deeply embittered by the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, signed in June 1919, which formally ended the war. Among other things, the treaty called for German disarmament and huge reparation payments to the Allies. Unable to meet the payments, Germany’s currency collapsed and the German people suffered large financial losses. In January 1923 French and Belgian forces occupied Germany’s main industrial region, the Ruhr, claiming that Germany had defaulted on reparation deliveries.

Statesman Gustav Stresemann took over the German government as the head of a broadly based coalition on August 13, 1923, and helped stabilize the country. In 1924 the Allies made it easier for Germany to pay reparation through the Dawes Plan, which established a milder payment schedule. In 1925 Stresemann signed the Treaties of Locarno, which secured Germany against further incursions on its western frontiers. The allies withdrew their occupation forces and in the following year Germany was elected to the League of Nations, an international alliance for the preservation of peace. A new currency, the Reichsmarkí, was established with much tighter monetary control, and an impressive economic recovery began. However, the economy was dependent on foreign loans, and government expenditure was dangerously high with businesses suffering from low profit margins. In 1925 Paul von Hindenburg was elected the second president of the republic.

Collapse of Weimar Republic:

A worldwide economic depression began in 1929, casting the republic into crisis. In March 1930 Chancellor Heinrich Brüning took over, supported by the emergency powers available to the president. Brüning cut government spending and secured an agreement in Lausanne, Switzerland, that effectively ended reparations payments. But Brüning’s deflationary policies were widely unpopular, and he was dismissed. Taking advantage of the disorder caused by the economic crisis were the Communist party, which was dedicated to disrupting the parliamentary republic, and the Nazis in Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ party, who were extremely nationalistic and anti-Semitic. Reichstag elections held in September 1930 made the Nazis the second largest party, their support growing as the depression deepened. In the elections of July 1932, the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag. Hindenburg was persuaded to bring Hitler into the government, with conservative politicians believing they could control the inexperienced Hitler in a coalition government. Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933. Hitler soon abolished the office of president and declared himself Führer (leader) of the Third ReichH, thus ending the Weimar Republic.

It can be argued that the Weimar Republic never actually had a real chance of survival from the start. It had a particularly unfortunate amount of problems but nevertheless it succeeds in defeat them. It was pure bad luck that in 1929 not only was Weimar confronted with more economic adversity but also Stresemann died at this crucial time. The Nazis were in the right place at the right time in order to exploit this misfortune. If it had not been for these fateful circumstances, it is believe that the Weimar Republic would have survived longer.

In the end it was the actions of the people at the top that reinforced the collapse of popular confidence in the democracy. Together with an initially weak political system, an economy in slump and the not too distant memories of the war and Versailles, it was easy for the Nazis to advertise the benefits of authoritarian government. Even though there was a short period of relative stability, the beginning of depression brought hidden defect to the surface again once more. Democracy was in unreliable hands and the Nazis could offer competence, certainty and an all-important sense of confidence, something the Weimar Republic lacked during all of its years.

Failure of the Weimar Republic:

The failure of the Weimar Republic was besides other factors, due to these inherent ideological abnormalities. The German Republic under Weimar Constitution started life in the most discouraging condition. It was faced everywhere with disorder, disorganisation and destitute. Its first task was to rectify the Versailles Treaty and its name was thus associated in German minds with a national disgrace. Hence, the German people raised their strong slogan of “End with Versailles”, and the Weimar constitution could not succeed though the main object of the Weimar Republic was to provide a respectable place to Germany in the comity of nations, but the German leaders were sharply divided on the issue whether Germany should join hands with Soviet Russia or with France and Britain. But, when France captured Rhur region in 1923 and damaged the economic power of Germany. Germany looked towards west for strengthening her position. When Gustav Stressman came in leadership, he stressed on the policy of fulfilment and reconciliation. It was his attempt that the Dawes plan was implemented and even Great Britain joined hands with Germany. The year 1927 witnessed a conspicuous event in the political life of Germany when it became one of the members of the League of Nations and acquired a place in the comity of nations under the regime of Stressman. Germany was given a seat on the Permanent Mandate Commission. He requested France to withdraw her forces from the Rhine region and he became successful in this respect. In spite of this marked success achieved by Stressman, the German people were not satisfied and they became more restive due to the economic depression and growing unemployment and a strong wave of aggressive nationalism grew up in Germany. Fascist elements also gained grounds; demand for militarism became the order of the day; and all restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles were condemned by the majority of German leaders ultimately the Nazi Party became very popular and its leaders helped Hitler to come to power.

Since striking workers also had to be paid by the state, additional currency was printed, which fuelled a period of hyperinflation. The value of the Mark declined from 4.2 per US dollar to 1,000,000 per dollar by August 1923 and 4,200,000,000,000 per dollar on November 20. On December 1, a new currency was established at the rate of 1,000,000,000,000 old marks for 1 new mark, the Reichsmark.

Features of Foreign policy of Nepal

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Nepal has been mainly raising the following matters in the UNO, Non-Aligned conference, SAARC Summit and in the multilateral and bilateral forums:
1) Trust and values towards panchashil doctrines:
Nepal has adopted the foreign policy keeping trust and value in the following Five principles approved by Bandung Conference in 1955.
a)Non-interference
b) Non-invision
c) Respect to regional indivisibility, sovereignty and freedom of one country to another
d) To have equality and mutual well being
e) to maintain peaceful co-existence
2) To respect UN charter and make the UNO able and strong
3) To protect against casteism, color discrimination, colonialism and imperialism
4) To solve international conflict, misunderstanding and problems through peaceful means
5) Note to form and minitary part
6) keep trust in international law
7) maintain peace, unity, understanding and brotherhood in the world
8) to achieve sustainable peace by institutionalizing peace in Nepal
9) To emphasize on regional help
10) To emphasize on disarmament and protest armament
11) To secure and promote the genuine right of land locked countries
12) To initiate a new economic model in the world
13) To get help and support from friendly countries for economic prosperity
14) To protest any type of interference done by big nation
15) To advocate in favor of economic development and prosperity of very underdeveloped countries
16) Not interfere in the internal issues of the other countries
17) To adopt Non- alignment
18) To emphasize on protection and promotion of human right all over the world
19) To establish special and practical relationship with neighbouring countries, etc.

Policy provisions
Constitutional provision
Act 33. under the responsibility of the nation
Act 33 (dha) To implement the international treaties and agreements in favor of the nation effectively
Act 33 (na) using available water resources, natural means and resources for the well-being of the country
Act 33 (6) The international relationship of the nation will be directed in the direction of promoting national respect in the international arena yet maintaining sovereignty, indivisibility and freedom of the nation.
Act 35 under the state’s policy
Act 35(12) the state will adopt the policy of attracting foreign capital and technology in the country still giving priority to nation investment for nation development.
Act 35(21) Nepal will undertake its foreign policy on the basic of the norms of UN charter, non alignment, five principles doctrine’s, international law and world peace
Act 35(22) the state will adopt the policy that helps to institutionalize peace and order based on international norms and values with co-operative relationship along socio-economic as well as other different sectors based on equality with the neighbouring and friendly countries of the world.

Legal provisions
Existent acts

facility and freedom towards foreign stats and diplomatic representative act, 2027 2.continuity of foreign transaction act 2019
foreign investment act 2010
foreign investment and technique handover act 2049
passwort act 2024
labour act 2048
foreign employment act 2042
human trafficking control act 2064
treaty act 2047
non- inhabitant Nepalese act, 2064 Existent rules 1.passport regulation 2059
Labour regulation 2050 3.Hotel, lodge, restaurant, bar and guiding regulation 2038
Honorary consul general regulation 2039
Immigration regulation 2051
trekking and rafting regulation 2059
Mountaineering reguration 2041
regulation foreign exchange regulation 2020 9.Foreign investment tax regulation, 2020
Foreign empolyment regulation 2056

Verdict or orders of Supreme Court

the court cannot issue order on the mater which is of the nature to be solved by diplomatic effort.
Action plan record signed by two countries need not be confidential
Any written agreement between two countries will be regarded as treaty
No legal condition to use the land abandoned by Sugauli Treaty by annexing it in Nepal

Existent problems in Foreign policy and foreign relationship

Continuity of party partition in appointment of ambassadors without following diplomatic ability and efficiency
lack of professional competency with the ambassadors
The candidates having specialisation in industrial, commercial, employment and diplomatic sector are not selected to appoint ambassadors. 4.Weak condition of financial diplomacy 5.Lack of information and notice through well known international newspapers and magazines by publishing different articles about Nepal. 6.Lack of wide diversification in bilateral and multilateral business investment, technique handover and industrial promotion. 7.Lack of development of water resources through foreign policy and foreign relationship.
Lack of seeking investors and presenting proposals activities through foreign missions. 9.Lack of extension of potentials in tourism promotion through diplomatic missions. 10.Lack of efforts to promote export of nepalese goods in international market. 11.Lack of development and expansion of international gathering, exhibition and commercial representatives board. 12.Weak management of foreign assistance. 13.Adverse effect on foreign policy and foreign relationship due to political instability.

SUGGESTIONS TO SOLVE EXISTENT PROBLEMS IN FOREIGN POLICY AND FOREIGN RELATIONSHIP
1.To appoint ambassadors on the basis of diplomatic ability and efficiency.
2.No political partition on appointing ambassadors.
3.To train the ambassador in financial diplomacy before sending to foreign mission.
4.To include subject matter related to knowledge and experience of industrial, financial, employment and diplomatic sectors in the public hearing for the appointment of ambassador.
5.To broadcast and publish information and notice about different sectors of Nepal through chief newspapers and broadcast mediums of the world.
6.Diplomatic agencies established in the foreign countries should pay special attention to run different activities for the development of tourism, trade, commerce and business of Nepal.
7.Foreign relationship should be strengthened through the medium of international fete exhibition and business representatives boards.
8.Special attention to be paid towards conducting Nepal’s foreign policy and foreign relationship for the multisector utilization of water resources.
9.To conduct foreign relationship and diplomatic activities considering bilateral and multilateral business, promotion, and expansion of investment and technique handover.
10.To make special effort to promote export through foreign policy.
11.To build up any treaty and agreement insuring the favor of national wellbeing and national interest.

Introduction and Development of International Relations

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

History of the Discipline of IR:

IR in practice and as an academic vocation is both ancient and modern. It is relatively a juvenile discipline of social science. It achieved departmental status by setting up a Chair on IR at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth in 1919. A simple examination of the classics of political science and political thought signifies to its ancient status in theory and practice. The activities beyond one’s border in order to maintain and accumulate power at home and sustain ambitions and interests abroad provide the very stuff of IR in ancient context is made of as much as they do in the New Century. The past always acts as an acknowledged guide to the present and the future.

IR is integrally related to the First World War. Before that tumultuous and tragic event IR was not taught as a separate subject but in the US universities it was organized on lectures under History and Economics faculties. After the creation of the League of Nations, the League sponsored a series of International Studies conference through its Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. The Geneva Institute of International Studies served as an intermediary between the League and the growing subject of IR on the level of universities. In the aftermath of another Great War the UNESCO, a specialized agency of UN provided an additional stimulus to the development of study of IR. UNESCO sponsored conference of representatives of universities in 1948 calling to establish chair or department for systematic teaching, study and research of IR. The decolonization during that era expanded the scope of IR in new states. IR no longer remained the exclusive preserve of America and Europe. Though there was horizontal expansion of IR in all new countries it did not reach our mountainous country till 1960s.[1] Now we have access to the resources as well as learning it under the syllabus of an American university in the age of democracy.

The Development of IR Thinking

The stages of development of IR had its genesis in the first half of the 20th century. It achieved its maturity in the post-War world passing through several trends and stages.[2]

The first stage of IR ran up to the end of the First Great War. During that period IR was taught by diplomatic historians concerned with history than politics and contemporary events. They were interested in description of past events rather than critical analysis of the present and prediction of the future. This historical approach precluded a development of theories on IR. It could not prevent the Great War from occurring and after that international catastrophe the study focused on only current affairs. This second stage was perpetuation of also bias as it gave importance to the present without reference to the past. Therefore both stages were encumbered by ineffectual partial approaches. The third stage existed throughout inter-war years and then after the new scholarship was adopted which was an essentially moralist-legalistic approach renouncing war. There were votaries of peace, just world and internationalism. They were quite euphoric in reposing unstinted trust in international organizations to prevent wars and conflicts. They pursued lofty ideals of the rule of international law and civilized norms and values. The statesmen like Woodrow Wilson who put forth 14 Points Charter to chalk out liberal internationalism to be an elixir of the contemporary world. The great faith in the newly established League of Nations and creation of legal institutions and organizational devices had fizzled out with the rumblings of war machines in 1939. Continental Europe attracted magnetic involvement of the West as it soon was embroiled in a quagmire of wars and conflict. Therefore emphasis on utopianism/liberalism/idealism ignored the hard realities of international life and did not comprehend well the nature of IR.

After the Second Great War the fourth stage succeeded on the backdrop of the devastation which had shaken the moral foundations and faith in international organizations and law as instrument of peace. The emphasis now was shifted to making a scientific analysis of the developments in IR including causes of war and ways to avert it. The determinants and roots of foreign policies, techniques of the conduct of IR, the mode of conflict resolution, crisis management, forces and influences which mould and condition the behaviour of states became the cardinal concern of the study. The objective of studying IR was not to exalt or criticize international issues and problems rather to understand them comprehensively. Realism occupied a position of the prevalent school developed by thinkers like E.H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, Kenneth W. Thompson, Reinhold Niebuhr, George F. Kennan, and Henry A. Kissinger. They conveyed what IR and international behaviour of states is as on contrary to what idealists espoused. Power according to them is the currency of international politics. It is a means as well as ends. International politics in the gist is the struggle for power. Every state seeks more of it to use and to fulfill and satisfy national interests. Some partial theories or more importantly approaches on the sidelines of application of realist doctrine were developed. The growth of deterrence theory in the 1950s and 1960s alongside new methodology of game theory came into existence.

On the shadow of hostile ideological camps, orthodox Marxism interpreted IR in its own tenets and tenor. It stressed on transnational class solidarities coupled with a liquidation of transnational class struggle. The thrust in the subject matter of IR was altered with the subsequent development in science and technology, decolonization, the emergence of universal values, spread of nuclear technology, arms race, growth of international and transnational actors. Its desire sought for theoretical contemplation and philosophy of IR.

The fifth stage was marked from mid 1960s to 1970s wherein structurally inter-paradigm debate figured prominently taking a cue from The Scientific Revolutions, a text by Thomas Kuhn. It was the post-realist paradigm which was aptly labeled the behavioural approach to the study of IR followed the paradigm shift. It was thorough and heated exchange of theses over the principles and procedure most suitable for delving into international phenomena. The emphasis on law-like generalizations purported to patterns and regularities presumed to be constant across space and time. The quantitative study of IR was made. To some extent nation-state as a unit of analysis lost the appeal and luster and attempts were made to ascertain real forces of IR. The more relevant unit of analysis – individuals, group think, transnational organizations and bureaucracies were examined. Non-state actors with international reach and scope became the subject matter of this study. The transnational perspective responded with the dynamics of IR and global circumstances.

Neoliberalism or transnationalism in 1970s reflected the ongoing international economic exchange. It formulated complex interdependence in IR introducing transnational relations, economic interdependence, security communities, international organizations and the broader concept of international regimes. A critique of such positive interdependence responded with fine tuning radicalism from Marxist perspective in the form of the world-system, dependency and underdevelopment postulates. It was well received both in Latin America and the US in the late 1960s and 1970s due to American intervention to contain ideologically hostile regimes in the non-Western world.

The North-South disparities were widening the gulf between the affluent and the impoverished societies. The conflicts about unequal dividends of global economy demanded New International Economic Order by the countries of the South. The concepts such as neo-imperialism, neo-colonialism, structural violence, international political economy, peace and other alternative movements became a subject of discourse and analysis of IR. Peace research was started which one of the manifestations of a resurgence of neoliberal theorizing. It appeared at a time when the Cold War lost the chill to détente. It was developed by heavy funding within Western Europe and Scandinavia. Then functionalists, neo-functionalists, world federalists and integration theorists discussed the issues of regionalism, global stability, global order and global peace. Ethically concerned futurologists motivated the people to mull different and alternative worlds for the secure future of the posterity. These trends are known as the post-behavioural era.

The sixth stage from late 1970s to the first half of 1980s the study of IR was influenced by variables such as economic issues, ecological and environment challenges. It became the concern of international community. In 1980s realism was transformed into neorealism with both neoliberalism and radicalism faded.

The conscious or subconscious rationalization involved in contemporary theorizing by the Western scholars was challenged by the intellectuals of the South. The Western theories in many cases were considered irrelevant and inapplicable to the countries of the South. Its inadequacies led to the growth of non-Western perspectives on IR. It came to fore as the demand for a more credible effort on the part of the capitalist West to establish an egalitarian global economy was raised. During the heyday of Cold War most of these countries to note chose nonalignment and peaceful co-existence despite some regional powers courted either superpowers – the US and Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 ushered the triumph of liberal democracy and “the end of history.” the disintegration of Soviet Union was the resultant product of its own inherent flaws in political and economic system. The great debates were also not squarely debated instead the theories were refined within the respective schools of thought. By the end of 1980s the theoretical contestation was reduced to relatively narrow discord.

The mainstream of controversial theories was replaced by rationalists and reflectivists camps. The post-modern debate ensued in the seventh stage. In contrast to neo-realists and neo-liberals shared belief in rational (scientific) methods, reflectivists are characterized by emphasizing interpretation (hermeneutics), the reflections of actors and agents central to institutions. Norms and regimes seen as inter-subjective phenomena are to be studied by non-positivist methods. Four main undercurrents of post-positivism in 1980s were critical theory, post-Marxism, post-modernism and post-modern feminism.

The eight stage had salient feature of unipolar moment with a lonely superpower the US on the landscape of IR. However there were concerted efforts by European countries and other major powers of regions to create a multipolar world order. The post-Cold War era traits comprised of the process and move toward democratizing IR. A thesis on power diffusion has become vogue as the great powers in contemporary IR are constrained to use traditional attributes and resources to achieve their objectives than in the past.

A comparatively new discipline IR has passed through different stages as mentioned above in ordeal atmosphere since its inception in the early 20th century. The study of IR is thus neither well-organized nor fully scientific nor having comprehensive conceptual framework. Yet it has developed itself as an autonomous discipline under the branch of political science apart of which draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies.

The “Great Debates”/ Inter-paradigm debate

First Major Debate: Utopian Liberalism/Idealism vs. Realism (1930s & 1940s)

Second Major Debate: Traditional Approaches vs. behaviouralism (late 1950s & 1960s)

Third Major Debate: Neorealism/neoliberalism vs. Neo-Marxism (late 1960s & early 1970s)

Fourth Major Debate (the early stages): Established traditions vs. post-positivist methodologies (late 1980s & 1990s)

Earlier the inter-paradigm debates was confined and subsumed easily in a conventional tripartite superstructure designated aptly by three waves. There are new debates and there are cutting edges across approaches to IR but we can still discern no new dominant paradigm.

The modern world-system has its origin since a half millennia approximately 1500. Immanuel Wallerstein sees it essentially as a world economy without a world empire. George Modelski concentrates on political leadership in a society although it has anarchical elements is still nevertheless a society. So contemporary world system of the last half millennium is rooted in economic or political relationships. Realism, world society and structural approaches were evident in 19th century theory and practice in concert system (realism), in the growth of international civil society organizations (world society approaches) and in the structuralist Marxist and geopolitical traditions.

The modern state system emerged and got inured n the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the subsequent treaty. Hobbes and Machiavelli were considered realists. Callières outlined a Treatise on Diplomacy and Hugo Grotius was regarded as the father of international law. The Duc de Sully and Kant sought to create conditions for a permanent and working peace system. Friedrich Gentz became the father of modern diplomacy. De Tocqueville envisaged the outlines of mid-20th century international relations. Carl von Clausewitz said war was the continuation of politics by other means. The geopoliticians flourished and the Marxist tradition was germinated.

There was briefly in the 1920s a consensus in theory and practice on the practice of precepts of Wilson’s liberal internationalism. The Anglo-American tradition of idealism or utopianism came under scathing attack from by the European continental scholars who had the first hand experience of ultra-nationalist war mongering regimes in those countries. Those scholars were steeped into prudential realism and axiomatic power politics. Morgenthau put forth well known six principles of realism. In Europe as liberal democracies were at the margins and isolation. The Second great consensus was therefore on realism. The discipline of IR had been founded on the notion that international politics were in essence state-centric and that the dominant mode of relations between states was power politics. It is beginning to crack.

The Study of IR in Japan, China and India: A Concise Glance at the State of the Art Discipline in Three Asian Powers

International Relations as a disciplinary study in Japan can not be found as a separate departmental specialization except in the Graduate Schools of Area Studies, International Cultural Studies, Political Science and Law faculty. From 1868 (the Meiji restoration) till at present there are four traditions governing the principles of Japanese IR which are Staatslehre or statecraft principles, Marxism, historicism and American political science.[3] In brief Staatslehre tradition significantly influenced the study of pre-war military and colonial period and after 1945 also it was forcefully appeared in the academic scene. From 1920 to 1960 Marxism was put forth to criticize the government of the day and in 1920 the word Shakai Kagaku or social science came into prominence. Historicism did not care about relevance of policy and it included in its matter pre 1945 events and personalities. In pre 1945 in Japan there was an influence of European social science and after the war American social science dominated. Prof. Inoguchi has remarked that the salient feature of Japanese political science and IR is diversity without integrated discipline or without institutional integration. During Cold war between 1960 and 1970 Japanese academics were in dilemma to choose either realism or idealism which is not solved even today regarding partial peace with the West and total peace with friendly powers. The post-Vietnam war displaced the Japanese realism about running the world by post-realism and post-idealism.[4]

There are three stages of IR development institutionally in China. The first stage since 1953 catered the needs of civil servants of the Foreign Ministry and new talents in the field of national and public security. The second stage from 1964 to 1979 established three departments of international politics at Peking, Remin and Fudan universities studying the national liberation movements in the Third World, communist movements in the world and IR in the Western world respectively. The third stage from 1980 to the present there are 36 schools of IR within universities, and 54 bachelor or master degree programs, and 29 doctoral degree programs in IR. In China IR is developed and explained within the Marxist thought. Of late Chinese IR scholars are involved in brain storming of non-Marxian theories in Chinese context.[5]

With respect to India liberal-idealism of Nehru’s doctrine in Indian foreign policy is under duress from intellectuals and think tanks to overhaul it.[6] They emphasize the Indian establishment to profess and pursue realist principles while conducting IR especially after 1990 which heralded New World Order. They are cognizance of the fact that the new nuclear nation is a major power to reckon with in the 21st century. There are four universities at four corners in India at the departmental status for imparting specialization in the discipline of IR. Indian analysts and thinkers are imbued with Western paradigms on IR and they indulge in appraising them in their context.[7] Recently they are reclaiming the post-colonial space of discourse due to development of the post-colonialism as a distinct strand of theory. Despite analyzing the workings of the post-colonial state in contemporary settings of IR, authorities on it are based in Euro-American academics employing a textual language of the Occident.

[1] Sridhar Khatri, “Teaching International Relations in Nepal,” Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, July 2001, pp. 139-154.

[2] Heavily referred to Vinay Kumar Malhotra, International Relations, (New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., Reprint 2006), pp. 1-13.

[3] Takashi Inoguchi and Paul Bacon, “The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 1, 2001, pp. 1-20.

[4] Takashi Inoguchi, “The Sociology of a Not-So-Integrated Discipline: The Development of International Relations in Japan,” Journal of East Asian Studies, February, 2001, Vol.2, No.1, p.119.

[5] Qin Yaqing, “Why is there no Chinese international relations theory?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 313-340.

[6] C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy, (New Delhi: Penguin Books/Viking, 2003).

[7] Kanti Bajpai and Siddarth Mallavarapu (eds.), International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2005); Kanti Bajpai and Siddarth Mallavarapu (eds.), International Relations in India: Theorizing the Region and Nation, (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2005).

Diplomatic Mission

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

A diplomatic mission is a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization (such as the United Nations) present in another state to represent the sending state/organization in the receiving state. In practice, a diplomatic mission usually denotes the permanent mission, namely the office of a country’s diplomatic representatives in the capital city of another country.

Naming
A permanent diplomatic mission is usually known as an embassy, and the person in charge of the mission is known as an ambassador. Missions between Commonwealth countries are known as High Commissions and their heads are High Commissioners.

All missions to the United Nations are known simply as Permanent Missions, and the head of such a mission is typically both a Permanent Representative and an ambassador. Some countries have more particular naming for their missions and staff: a Vatican mission is headed by a Nuncio and consequently known as an Apostolic Nunciature, while Libya’s missions were for a long time known as People’s Bureaus and the head of the mission was a Secretary. (Libya has since switched back to standard nomenclature.)

In the past a diplomatic mission headed by a lower ranking official (an envoy or minister resident) was known as a legation. Since the ranks of envoy and minister resident are effectively obsolete, the designation of legation is no longer used today. (See diplomatic rank.)

In cases of dispute, it is common for a country to recall its head of mission as a sign of its displeasure. This is less drastic than cutting diplomatic relations completely, and the mission will still continue operating more or less normally, but it will now be headed by a chargé d’affaires who may have limited powers. Note that for the period of succession between two heads of missions, a chargé d’affaires ad interim may be appointed as caretaker; this does not imply any hostility to the host country.

A Consulate is similar to (but not the same as) a diplomatic office, but with focus on dealing with individual persons and businesses, as defined by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. A Consulate or Consulate-General is generally a representative of the Embassy in locales outside of the capital city. For instance, The British Embassy to the United States is in Washington, D.C., and there are British Consulates in Los Angeles, New York City, Houston, and so on.

The term “embassy” is often used to refer to the building or compound housing an ambassador’s offices and staff. Technically, “embassy” refers to the diplomatic delegation itself, while the office building in which they work is known as a chancery, but this distinction is rarely used in practice. Ambassadors reside in ambassadorial residences, which enjoy the same rights as missions.

Extraterritoriality
Under international law, diplomatic missions enjoy an extraterritorial status and thus, although remaining part of the host country’s territory, they are exempt from local law and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country. They are also only required to pay taxes equal to their respective countries’ guidelines.

As the host country may not enter the representing country’s embassy without permission, embassies are sometimes used by refugees escaping from either the host country or a third country. For example, North Korean nationals, who would be arrested and deported from China upon discovery, have sought sanctuary at various third-country embassies in China. Once inside the embassy, diplomatic channels can be used to solve the issue and send the refugees to another country. Notable violations of embassy extraterritoriality include the Iran hostage crisis (1979–1981), the Japanese embassy hostage crisis (1996) in Lima, Peru, 2006 embassy burnings in Iran, Lebanon and Syria of Danish, Norwegian and Chilean embassies.

Role
The role of such a mission is to protect in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; negotiating with the Government of the receiving State as directed by the sending State; ascertaining by lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.

Between members of the Commonwealth of Nations there are no embassies, but High Commissions, as Commonwealth nations share a special diplomatic relationship. It is generally expected that an embassy of a Commonwealth country in a non-Commonwealth country will do its best to provide diplomatic services to citizens from other Commonwealth countries if the citizen’s country does not have an embassy in that country. Canadian and Australian nationals enjoy even greater cooperation between their respective consular services, as outlined in Canada/Australian Consular Services Sharing Agreement. The same kind of procedure is also followed multilaterally by the member states of the European Union (EU). European citizens in need of consular help in a country without diplomatic or consular representation of their own country may turn to any consular or diplomatic mission of another EU member state.

The rights and immunities (such as diplomatic immunity) of diplomatic missions are codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Nations that are not recognized have legations overseas but these are not recognized as having official diplomatic status as defined by the Vienna Convention. These de facto embassies are usually referred to as Representative Offices. Some examples of these types of missions: the Representative Office of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in Washington, D.C.; Somaliland’s representatives in London, Addis Ababa, Rome, and Washington, D.C.; the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh has a representative office in Washington, D.C.; the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Washington, D.C. (representing the Republic of China); and the American Institute in Taiwan (representing the United States in the Republic of China). Under United States law, such offices are regarded by the State Department officially as “information centers” and the persons working in them do not have diplomatic visas, nor are credentials from their chiefs of mission accepted.

Countries that are not sovereign states may set up offices abroad, as in the case of Hong Kong, which government has set up Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in various locations. Such offices assume some of the non-diplomatic functions of diplomatic posts, such as promoting trade interests and providing assistance to its citizens and residents. They are nevertheless not diplomatic missions, their personnels are not diplomats and do not have diplomatic visas.

Some cities may host more than one mission from the same country. An example is Rome, where many states maintain missions to Italy, another to the Holy See and even another to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. It is not customary for these missions to share premises nor diplomatic personnel. Presently only the Iraqi missions to Italy and the Holy See share premises; however, two ambassadors are appointed, one to each country. Geneva, a Swiss city hosting many international organizations, also has many missions.

Structure
The structure of a diplomatic mission varies according to its size and purpose. The executive office usually consists of a Head of Mission, Deputy Chief of Mission, and is supported by sections including but not limited to:

Consular Section
Consular sections are responsible for assisting and protecting overseas citizens in distress, processing visa applications, and issuing and renewing passports.

Political/Economic Section
Political/Economic sections provide reporting and analysis on political and economic issues, usually by producing cables for their home government.

Public Affairs Section
Public Affairs sections serve as both press offices (handling official spokesman duties and liaising with local press) and cultural offices (supporting home government outreach programs/performances, managing cultural and academic exchange programs such as the Fulbright Program).

Management/Administrative Section
Management/Administrative sections handle the day to day operations of the mission with responsibilities over maintenance, payroll, human resources, etc.

Foreign Aid Offices
Foreign aid offices such as USAID (at American posts) and DFID (at British posts) oversee the disbursement and implementation of foreign assistance.

Office of Defense Attachée
Defense Attaché’s offices handle the official military-to-military contact for governments, support home government military visits, and produce reporting on military and battlefield intelligence.

Other Offices
Other attachée offices usually exist in larger missions handling issues such as agriculture, commerce, science, military sales and health.

Diplomatic rank
The system of diplomatic rank has over time been formalised on an international basis.

Traditional diplomacy
Until the early 19th century, each European nation had its own system of diplomatic rank. The relative ranks of diplomats from different nations had been a source of considerable dispute, made more so by the insistence of major nations to have their diplomats ranked higher than those of minor nations, to be reflected in such things as table seatings.

In an attempt to resolve the problem, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 formally established an international system of diplomatic ranks. The four ranks within the system were:

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, or simply Ambassador, who is a representative of the head of state. Equivalent, and in some traditions primus inter pares, is the Papal nuncio. Amongst Commonwealth countries, the equivalent title High Commissioner (who represents the government rather than the head of state) is normally used instead.
A diplomatic mission headed by an ambassador would be known as an Embassy; one headed by a High Commissioner is called a High Commission. Ambassadors and high commissioners are entitled to use the title “His/Her Excellency” from the government and the people of the country they are appointed to.

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. Usually just referred to as a Minister, an envoy is a diplomatic representative with plenipotentiary powers (i.e. full authority to represent the head of state), but ranking below an Ambassador. Where Embassies are headed by Ambassadors, Legations are headed by Ministers.
Minister Resident or Resident Minister, or simply Minister, is the, now extremely rare, lowest rank of full diplomatic mission chief, only above Chargé d’affaires (who is considered an extraordinary substitute).

Note that both the Minister Plenipotentiary and the Minister Resident are diplomatic ministers, which are not the same thing as government ministers or religious ministers. A diplomatic mission headed by either type of Minister would be called a Legation. As they formally represent the head of state, they are entitled to use the title “His/Her Excellency”, which originally was reserved for Ambassadors.

Chargé d’affaires, or simply Chargé. As the French title suggests, a chargé d’affaires would be in charge of an embassy’s or a legation’s affairs in the (usually temporary) absence of a more senior diplomat. A Chargé d’affaires ad interim or simply “a.i.” is generally serving as head of mission during the temporary absence of the head of mission, while the Chargé d’affaires e.p. or en pied maintains the same functions and duties as an ambassador, and is accredited not to the head of state but to the minister of foreign relations of the receiving state.
As it turned out, this system of diplomatic rank did nothing to solve the problem of the nations’ precedence. The appropriate diplomatic ranks used would be determined by the precedence among the nations; thus the exchanges of ambassadors (the highest diplomatic rank) would be reserved among major nations, or close allies and related monarchies. In contrast, a major nation would probably send just an envoy to a minor nation, who in return would send an envoy to the major nation. As a result, the United States did not use the rank of ambassador until their emergence as a major world power at the end of the 19th century. Indeed, until the mid-20th century, the majority of diplomats in the world were of the rank of minister plenipotentiary.

In diplomatic parlance, all the diplomats that are assigned to a nation are known collectively as the diplomatic corps; one of these diplomats is recognized as the primus inter pares—in practice rather a protocolar honor—who acts as the spokesperson for all, known as the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps or as Marshal of Diplomacy (generally based on the date of arrival in country or presentation of credentials to the head of state, although in some Catholic nations it is held automatically by the Papal Nuncio).

After World War II, it was no longer considered acceptable to treat some nations as inferior to others given the United Nations doctrine of equality of sovereign states; therefore most legations were upgraded to embassies, and the use of the rank of Minister for diplomatic missions’ highest-ranking officials gradually ceased. The last U.S. Legation, in Sofia, Bulgaria, was upgraded to an Embassy on November 28, 1966. Where those ranks still exist, their incumbents usually act as embassy section chiefs or Deputy Chief of Mission (deputy to the Ambassador).

Modern diplomats
Bilateral diplomacy
The distinction between managers and officers is not necessarily as apparent. Senior officers (such as first and second secretaries) often manage junior diplomats and locally-hired staff.

In modern diplomatic practice there are a number of diplomatic ranks below Ambassador. Since most missions are now headed by an Ambassador, these ranks now rarely indicate a mission’s (or its host nation’s) relative importance, but rather reflect the diplomat’s individual seniority within their own nation’s diplomatic career path and in the diplomatic corps in the host nation:

Ambassador (or High-Commissioner in Commonwealth missions)
Minister
Minister-Counselor
Counselor
First Secretary
Second Secretary
Third Secretary
Attaché
Assistant Attaché
Chargé d’affaires and Chargé d’affaires, ad interim (or simply i.) is a separate title used when an Ambassador (or other head of mission) is not present, has not been appointed, or is otherwise not able to discharge duties in a specific location. Generally, the ad interim (temporary) “chargé” (as they are often referred to) is another staff member (usually the second-most senior officer) accredited in the host country for the head of mission’s temporary absences. In such cases, the diplomatic mission advises the local government (usually the foreign ministry) by means of a diplomatic note that a specific individual has been appointed chargé for a specific or indefinite period of time. In contrast to an Ambassador, the specific agreement of the host government is not required.
In certain cases, a Chargé d’affaires may be appointed for long periods, when a mission is headed by a non-resident Ambassador, when countries have established diplomatic relations but not exchanged Ambassadors, or when they have recalled their Ambassadors for a period of time (to express displeasure or serious disagreement) but not yet taken the extremely serious step of breaking diplomatic relations. It is not unheard of for Chargé d’affaires to remain in place for an indefinite period. Since a Chargé d’affaires does not need to present letters of credence to the host head of state, appointing a chargé may avoid a politically sensitive meeting or implying some form of approval or recognition of that head of state or government. Equally, the receiving country may express displeasure by declining to receive an Ambassador, but maintain diplomatic relations by accepting a Chargé.

The term Attaché is used for any diplomatic agent who does not fit in the standard diplomatic ranks, often because they are not (or were not traditionally) members of the sending country’s diplomatic service or foreign ministry, and were therefore only “attached” to the diplomatic mission. The most frequent use is for military attachés, but the diplomatic title may be used for any specific individual or position as required. Since administrative and technical staff benefit from only limited diplomatic immunity, some countries may routinely appoint support staff as attachés. Attaché does not, therefore, connote any rank or position. Note that many traditional functionary roles, such as Press Attaché or Cultural Attaché, are not formal titles in diplomatic practice, although they may be used as a matter of custom.

Usage worldwide
Most countries worldwide have some form of internal rank, roughly parallel to the diplomatic ranks, which are used in their foreign service or civil service in general. The correspondence is not exact, however, for various reasons, including the fact that according to diplomatic usage, all Ambassadors are of equal rank, but clearly Ambassadors of more senior rank are sent to more important postings. Some countries may make specific links or comparisons to military ranks.

Multilateral diplomacy
Furthermore, outside this traditional pattern of bilateral diplomacy, as a rule on a permanent residency basis (though sometimes doubling elsewhere), certain ranks and positions were created specifically for multilateral diplomacy:

A permanent representative is the equivalent of an ambassador, normally of that rank, but accredited to an international body (mainly by member—and possibly observer states), not to a head of state.
A resident representative (or sometimes simply representative) is the equivalent — in rank and privileges — of an ambassador, but accredited by an international organization (generally a United Nations agency, or a Bretton Woods institution) to a country’s government. The resident representative typically heads the country office of that international organization within that country.
A special ambassador is a government’s specialist diplomat in a particular field, not posted in residence, but often traveling around the globe.
The S. Trade Representative is a diplomat of cabinet rank, in charge of U.S. delegations in multilateral trade negotiations (since 1962).
The UN Secretary General personally mandates Special Envoys for a particular field, e.g. Africa’s long-term AIDS problem, climate change negotiations, or ad hoc as for a (civil) war zone; states, especially (regional) superpowers, may do the same, e.g.:
To help with the Northern Ireland peace process, the United States has appointed a Special Envoy to Northern Ireland with the diplomatic rank of Ambassador. As of 2006, the position was occupied by Mitchell Reiss.
During the 2006 democracy movement in Nepal, India sent on April 18 Karan Singh, who is related to royalty in both predominantly Hindu countries, as Special Envoy to neighbouring Nepal where increasingly violent opposition started its successful challenge of the king’s autocratic rule.
In 2005, Belgium created a former cabinet member, Pierre Chevalier Special Envoy of the OSCE presidency—in fact ahead of its 2006 turn as rotatory Chairman-in-Office of the organisation; the post was never formally created—to mediate in the Gazprom natural gas-pipeline crisis involving Russia, Ukraine and the EU.
The EU appoints various Special Representatives (some regional, some thematic); e.g. in 2005—as a response to events in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan—the Council of the EU appointed Jan Kubis as its “Special Representative for Central Asia”.
A case sui generis is the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Consular counterpart
Formally the consular career (ranking in descending order: Consul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul, Consular Agent; equivalents without diplomatic immunity include Honorary Consul-General, Honorary Consul, and Honorary Vice-Consul) forms a separate hierarchy. Many countries do not internally have a separate consular path or stream, and the meaning of “consular” responsibilities and functions will differ from country to country. Other titles, including “Vice Consul-General”, have existed in the past. Consular titles may be used concurrently with diplomatic titles if the individual is assigned to an embassy. Diplomatic immunity is more limited for consular officials without other diplomatic accreditation, and broadly limited to immunity with respect to their official duties.

At a separate consular post, the official will have only a consular title. Officials at consular posts may therefore have consular titles, but not be involved in traditional consular activities, and actually be responsible for trade, cultural, or other matters.

Consular officers, being nominally more distant from the politically sensitive aspects of diplomacy, can more easily render a wide range of services to private citizens, enterprises, et cetera. They may be more numerous since diplomatic missions are posted only in a nation’s capital, while consular officials are stationed in various other cities as well. However, it is not uncommon for individuals to be transferred from one hierarchy to the other, and for consular officials to serve in a capital carrying out strictly consular duties within the ‘consular section’ of a diplomatic post, e.g. within an embassy. Some countries routinely provide their Embassy officials with consular commissions, including those without formal consular responsibilities, since a consular commission allows the individual to legalize documents, sign certain documents, and undertake certain other necessary functions.

Depending on the practice of the individual country, “consular services” may be limited to services provided for citizens or residents of the sending country, or extended to include, for example, visa services for nationals of the host country.

What’s the difference between an embassy and a consulate?
A consulate is like a junior embassy. It’s generally located in a busy tourist city, and takes care of minor diplomatic tasks such as issuing visas. The word consulate literally means office of the consul, who is a diplomat appointed to foster trade and take care of expatriates. You can read some pointed essays about the role of the modern day consulate at the American Foreign Service site.

Embassies are much bigger deals. The word embassy comes from the French ambassade, or office of the ambassador. Ambassadors are high-ranking diplomatic representatives who serve as spokespersons for their national governments. If one country recognizes the sovereignty of another, they generally establish an embassy there. Embassies take care of the same administrative duties as consulates, but they also represent their governments abroad.

This can be tricky business. For instance, the United States doesn’t maintain an embassy in Taiwan (in order to maintain diplomatic relations with China), but it does operates a consulate there to take care of its overseas citizens. For an interesting online look at another prickly diplomatic relation, check out the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia, which features a reaction statement to the recent incarceration of Malaysia’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim.

You may recall the famous photograph from 1975 of American citizens ostensibly fleeing the American embassy in Saigon. The building was in fact an apartment complex across the street, but the message was clear: once the embassy leaves, the country symbolically leaves.

System Theory

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Morton Kaplan after 1955 explain the theory in more systematic manner

In simpler words, a system refers to a set of elements interacting with each other.

This theory assumes that there is a system in international relations and the states are its components. In the international system, states interact with one another, and are dependent on one another.

States are involved in constant interaction with ‘the whole’ or the international environment which is in the form of world politics.

The system is used as a tool of analysis and focus is upon arrangement of actors, interaction of actors or recurring pattern of the behavior of the actors.

International system is a pattern of relations between the basic units of world politics which is characterized by the scope of the objectives pursued by these units and of the tasks performed among them.

A system is an integrated one where all elements work to make the system survive. In the international system, the nation‐states,
knowingly or unknowingly, help the system to survive and progress.

Despite crises, the international system has survived and progressed. Systems theory of IR strongly sends the message that by adapting itself to changes, the international system would become an efficient system where the nations‐states would be more engaged in cooperation and mutual development.

Nations or states are the main actors in the international politics and the role of the state changes with the change of international system.

In the study of International Relations the System Theory is the established as one of the important theory. First the scholar David Easton developed this theory in the field of national politics and scholar Morton A. Kaplan in the field of international politics and relation. Beside that among those who developed the System theory for analyzing international relations, the contributions of Karl Deutsch, Raymond Aron as well as scholar Charles McClelland are significant.

A system is a group of parts that interact according to some kind of process. Systems are often visualized or modeled as blocks of different component with some kind of drawn connections. In the study of IR a “system” is a collection of events or effect which has relationships among all the actors of international Relations. Of course all three: things and relationships and the whole system have to be imagined by us, and tested against ‘reality’, to serve our purposes to understand the international Relation.

All systems have the same common characteristics. These common characteristics are summarized below:

All systems have some basic structure.
All systems are generalizations of reality.
They all function in the same way.
There are functional as well as structural relationships between the units of a system.
Function implies the flow and transfer of some material (events or Effect in IR). Systems exchange data and matter internally and with their surrounding environment through various processes of input and output.
Function requires the presence of some driving force, i.e. World Politics in IR.
All systems show some degree of incorporation between its parts as a whole.

The systems approach distinguishes itself from the more traditional analytic approach by emphasizing the interactions and connectedness of the different components of a system. Although the systems approach in principle considers all types of systems, it in practices focuses on the more complex, adaptive, self-regulating systems

System theory can also be define as, a set of concepts and models which can be used to understand relationships and moreover, simultaneous, transient and shifting relationships.

System is particular method of the data obtaining, measuring, analyzing and taking feedback from the environment of world politics. System is the concept that refers both to a complex of interdependencies between states, government and their relation, that involves distinct regularities and to a similar type of interdependency between such a complex and its surrounding environments.

System theory allow us to focus upon the actions of nation as the components of the system; upon the structure and functioning of the system which results from the interaction of nations; or upon the environmental factors which stipulate both actions of nations and operational environment of the system.

Under this theory the nations of the world (politics) are consider to be in contact and association in a complicated framework of relationship, which is formed through the process of interaction. As per the scholar Richard Little, the system theory is definitely particular design of relationships which can found in the international relations. It is assumed that, despite the complexity and confusion displayed by the mixture of interactions of the actors (state, organization etc) of the international relation, there are a set of structures which, describe the international system and explain the behaviour of the individual states or other actors.

Prof. Morton Kaplan presented a number of real and hypothetical models of global political organization. His six well known models were (i) balance of power system, (ii) loose bipolar system, (iii) tight bipolar system, (iv)universal actor system, (v) hierarchical system/’Unipolar World Model’., and (vi) unit veto system. The first two are historical realities; the remaining four are hypothetical models.

a) Balance of Power system -:- Within this system the nation will act as a international actors. As per this system the country makes balance of power between them and avoid the possibility of war to maintain the world peace. This system has six different rules for the balance of power:

Every nation actors has to gain power from negotiation and diplomatic relation, but not from the war.
First of all nation actors responsible to protect their interest and if there is no other way to protect their interest they have to go through risk of war to protect their interest.
To end the war is respectable, than to end other nation actor.
Nation actor has to make voice against building alliance of nations, which may cause supremacy of power among actors.
Nation actor has to prevent other actors to achieve supremacy in power relationship.
Nation actor has to give opportunity for the war-losing actor to interact in the international system as an actor friend in relation.

b. Loose bipolar system :- In a situation where too many actors influence intentional relations, it becomes difficult to strike a perfect balance of power position and loose bipolar system develops. This is a system where the two superpowers are in balance because of the relationship of surrounding nation actors. These surrounding actors may be neutral state or small states alliance. It affect not only the policy of the superpower also make affect on the arms conflict of superpowers.

c. Tight bipolar System :- Tight bipolar system, deals with only the two superpower and other neutral and alliance nation actors have no role to do in international relations. Two superpowers direct involved maintaining their relations and politics. And because of absence of the fair third party supranational actor the tight bipolar system maintain the international relations.

d. Universal actor system :- The universal international system grows when the universal actor, like the UN, take over many of functions of powerful units in a loose bipolar system. In such a system the universal actor becomes powerful enough to prevent war among nations, but national actors retain their individuality.

e. Hierarchical system :- In the hierarchical international system, the universal actor becomes too powerful and the international community becomes a pattern of world-state. Nation actors interact on non-directive way with the most and powerful role of universal actor (United Nation), which makes hierarchical system in international relations.

f. Unit Veto system :- The veto system is a result of weapons develop-capacity, they create a system of one-level actors, each of whom possesses assort of veto power by high merit of his destructive capacity. In a loose bipolar system, a few nations possess such destructive weapons; in a tight bipolar system only two nations possess such destructive weapons combined with extensive economic power. The non-aligned nations virtually vanish in such a situation.

Criticism
The System theory has its weaknesses. For instance, it makes the things too mechanistic by using the terms ‘input’, ‘output’, ‘feedback’, ‘environment’ and like. Scholar Stanley Hoffman has criticized the System theory effectively. What is worse in that their approach is selective as only those problems relevant to the systems are considered and others are ignored? Most of the model situations only exist in theory. The System theory dose not predict what will actually happen, but it only forecasts what would happen if certain conditions develop, which rarely, if ever develop exactly as imagined.

Holocaust

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Introduction

The Holocaust was the systematic, state‐sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
“Holocaust” is a word of Greek origin meaning “sacrifice by fire.“
The Nazis, Germans were “racially superior” and that the Jews, deemed “inferior,” were an alien threat to the so‐called German racial community.

Causes of Hatred

Christianity ‐ Before a Christian authority declared that “Jews were not guilty for the death of Jesus Christ
Church fathers decided that Jews as a group should be persecuted because they ‘killed Jesus.’
This became an excuse to abuse the Jews for more than a thousand years. The Nazi Leaders who had been misguided by those myths considered Jews as their enemies.

Threat of Communism ‐ It was widely assumed around the Europe the then time that Jews were the communists and most of them were the supporters of Marxism. Communist group attempted to carry out a Bolshevik‐type revolution in the German state of Bavaria. Most of the leaders of that failed attempt were Jews.
Extreme Nationalism ‐ The Nationalist leaders of Germany used to consider the Jews for the shameful defeat of Germany in the First World War. The Jews were blamed for not supporting the German military during the war. It was held that Germany had been betrayed by Jewish who were working to defeat Germany.
Economic Theory – Hitler and Nazis assumed the Jew businessmen were responsible for the depression era of 1929 and so on as Germany was hit the hardest by the economic devastation.
Racial Theory – Hitler wanted to purify Germany racially. He wanted only the Aryan Race which couldn’t be obtained unless all Jews were gone.
Personal Reasons – Some argue that Hitler’s Hatred towards Jews was because of his bitter experiences with Jews in the past. Besides, he also used to live in the Jew settlement for many years of his struggling career, and experienced bitter truth.

Nazi’s Policy

Initially, Nazi had the policy of social and economic displacement of Jews and their removal from German soil
They did it through discriminatory legislation, economic deprivation, administrative harassment, and social exclusion rather than physical torture and murder.
As soon as the Nazis assumed power, they made racism and anti‐Semitism central components of their regime.

Anti-Semitism

Many harboured a prejudice against Jews that is known as anti‐Semitism.
Some scholars view anti‐Semitism as a religious prejudice. Others regard it as an anti‐Jewish variety of a general hatred directed against ethnic minorities.
Historians and sociologists have come up with several theories to explain anti‐Semitism the prejudice against Jews, including hateful feelings.

Anti‐Semitic riots and campaigns of terror that climaxed on April 1, 1933, in a countrywide boycott of Jewish‐owned shops and Jewish professionals, such as physicians and lawyers.
On April 7, 1933, the Reichstag enacted a law that allowed the government to dismiss Jews from the German civil service.

Piecemeal regulations as insufficient, and implement a comprehensive legal framework for their anti‐Semitic policies. January 30, 1933, the Nazis established concentration camps for the imprisonment of all “enemies” of their regime.
Sentences could be a few months or a few years. Such camps were built on railroad lines for efficient transportation.

Before the outbreak of war, SS (special German police force at the time of Hitler) and police officials confined Jews, Roma, and other victims of ethnic and racial hatred in these camps.

From November 1935 German churches began to collaborate with Nazis by supplying records indicating who is Christian .
The Nazis also used samples of human hair developed by Nazi scientists to determine ancestry.

End of the Holocaust

Final months of the war, SS guards moved camp inmates by train or on forced marches, often called “death marches,” in an attempt to prevent the liberation of large numbers of prisoners by the Allied forces (Germany’s
enemy states).

Offensives against Germany, they began to encounter and liberate concentration camp prisoners, as well as prisoners en route by forced march from one camp to another.

The marches continued until May 7, 1945, the day the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many of the survivors found shelter in displaced persons (DP) camps administered by the Allied powers. Between 1948 and 1951, almost 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel,
including 136,000 Jewish displaced persons from Europe.

Other Jewish displaced persons emigrated to the United States and other nations. The last displaced persons camp closed in 1957.

Intermediate Consequences of Cold War

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

- The Korean War
Japan had taken over Korea in 1910 & ruled it until 1945.

Republic of Korea (South Korea) was established in 1948 in the zone that had been occupied by the US after defeating Japan. Communist North Korean troops, backed by Soviet Union invaded South Korea in June 1950 in order to unite Korea under communist regime.

The U.S. sent troops to defend democratic South Korea. By mid‐July 1950, a 17‐nation military coalition fighting under a U.S.‐led UN Command was engaged in fierce fighting against advancing North Korean troops

In late December 1950, China intervened in the war when UN forces were about to defeat North Korean forces.

The Chinese troops pushed the U.S. back to the 38th parallel (38° North latitude) where the border of North Korea and South Korea still stands today.

The war came to the state of ceasefire in 1953 after the move of the UN Security Council. No peace treaty was signed, and North and South Korea remain technically at war to this very day.

Cuba and the 1962 Missile Crisis

The 1959 Cuban Revolution sparked the most dangerous confrontation of the entire Cold War.

The US wanted to crush emerging communism in Cuba that was just 90 miles from Florida.

US destabilize and topple the Castro regime, in april1961, the United States even sponsored a failed invasion of Cuba designed to remove Castro from power.

After that, the Soviets vowed to protect Cuba from U.S. intervention.

The John F. Kennedy administration publicly confronted the Soviets and demanded that supply of missiles be stopped.

The US relaxed its attitude towards Cuba, and the USSR withdrew supplying the missiles when the US agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey.