TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

The Soviet Responses to Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan:

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

In response to the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, which the Soviets saw as a concerted effort to encircle them, Stalin organized the Informational Bureau of Communist Parties (Cominform) in September 1947.

This was an effort to unify communist parties around the world and to put up a united front against capitalist aggression.

In January 1949, the Soviets organized the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), a Russian version of the Marshall Plan designed to aid Eastern Europe in postwar reconstruction.

It was also used to bind together the economies of the Soviet bloc, all under Moscow’s strict supervision.

Division of the world between NATO and warsaw pact

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

North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]

NATO was founded with the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) signed on 4 April 1949 in Washington which came into force in August 1949.

Twelve states initially signed the treaty, including the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

Since then, NATO’s membership has expanded to include a total of 28 states as of June, 2013.

NATO has its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Its guiding principle has always been to establish a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe based on common values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

The alliance’s goal was the eventual integration of the national armed forces of the member nations into a unified military command.

Key Provisions :

The North Atlantic Treaty consists of 14 articles.

The Treaty calls for peaceful resolution of disputes and economic and political cooperation between parties.

The Treaty also calls for the development of the capacity for defense and provides for joint consultations when a member is threatened.

As mentioned in Article 5 (heart of NATO), the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

They promised the use of the members’ armed forces for “collective self‐defense” in case of such attack.

Structure

The highest authority within NATO is the North Atlantic Council composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year.

The position of the secretary‐general has always been held by a European. The council is responsible for general policy, budgetary outlines, and administrative actions, and is the decision‐making body of NATO.

At other times the council is chaired by the NATO secretary‐general and the ambassadors represent the member states instead of the ministers.

Below the Council, there are the Secretariat, various temporary committees, and the Military Committee.

The position of Supreme Commander of the Military has always been held by an American.

Roles, Uses and Success of NATO

The signing of the Intermediate‐Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987 between the US and USSR to eliminate all intermediate range nuclear weapons is considered as a success of NATO.

No NATO member was ever attacked during the Cold War – it never had to use its military forces during Cold War.

It used military force for the first time after Cold War in 1995 to end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1999, NATO forces used force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the protection of Albanians in Kosovo. The first time a NATO member (the US) was attacked was on September 11, 2001 (by non‐state actor al‐ Qaeda).

NATO invoked article 5 of the Treaty for the first time following the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States

NATO Now

After the formal end of the Cold War in 1991, NATO expanded to include the former members of the Warsaw Pact

It serves as a permanent and institutionalized link between the United States and an ever growing number of European allies in collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security

It has been the most important alliance for the US for the past more than 60 years.

Under the plan known as Partnership for Peace (PFP), nonmembers could be invited to participate in information sharing, joint exercises, and peacekeeping operations in NATO.

NATO activities are no longer confined only to Europe. In 2003, for the first time in its history, NATO took up peacekeeping activities outside of Europe by deploying troops in Afghanistan.

The Warsaw Pact

Warsaw Pact refers to the treaty establishing a mutual‐defense organization (Warsaw Treaty Organization) composed originally of a group of Eastern European nations and the Soviet Union.

The treaty was signed in Warsaw, Poland on May 14, 1955. The parties to the treaty were the Soviet Union and its satellite countries in Eastern Europe: Albania, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Bulgaria, and Romania.

The treaty was to last for 20 years, with an automatic 10‐year extension. The creation of the Warsaw Pact was prompted by the integration of a “re‐militarized” West Germany into NATO on May 9, 1955.

The competing military alliance was formed by USSR also because of its own fears of a rearmed Germany.

Soviet troops to occupy Eastern European countries as part of Warsaw Pact activities, the Soviet Union allowed itself to defend any attacks that might come from the West and, at the same time, to keep communist regimes stable.

Key Provisions

The members of the Warsaw Pact pledged to defend each other if one or more of the members were attacked.

The treaty also stated that relations among the signatories were based on mutual noninterference in internal affairs and respect for national sovereignty and independence.

It integrated the armed forces of Eastern Europe into a unified command under the USSR.

Soviet military units were placed on the territories of the other participating states.

High‐ranking Soviet officers were assigned to the defense ministries of Warsaw Pact members to ensure a uniformity of training and to keep the national militaries a part of the armed forces of the Soviet Union.

Two major bodies carried out the functions of the Warsaw Pact: the Political Consultative Committee and the Unified Command of Pact Armed Forces, both headquartered in Moscow.

Controversies and Criticisms

There was a great deal of distrust between the Soviet Union and the member states and among the member states themselves.

the Soviets did not want other pact members to have armies, air forces, or navies that could present obstacles to the Soviet Union.

The Warsaw Pact’s only military action was directed against Czechoslovakia in August 1968 when Czechoslovakia sought closer relations with the West.

The Warsaw Pact no longer exists. After the democratic revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact became stagnant and was formally declared “nonexistent” on July 1, 1991, at a final summit meeting of Warsaw Pact leaders in Prague, Czech

Introduction to Peace Keeping Works of UN

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

Peacekeeping is one among a range of activities undertaken by the United Nations to maintain international peace and security throughout the world.

UN Peacekeepers provide security and the political and peace‐building support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace. The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Council can establish a UN peacekeeping operation. UN peacekeeping operations are deployed on the basis of mandates from the United Nations Security Council. United Nations Peacekeeping began in 1948. So far, 67 peacekeeping operations have been deployed by the UN. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel, as well as tens of thousands of UN police and other civilians from more than 120 countries have participated in UN peacekeeping operations. More than 3,000 UN peacekeepers from some 120 countries have died while serving under the UN flag. There are currently 17 UN peace operations deployed on four continents.

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.

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.”

Nepal’s relation with India

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

Even after India had achieved independence from Britain in 1947, Nepalese-Indian relations continued to be based on the second Treaty of Sagauli, which had been signed with the government of British India in 1925. Beginning in 1950, however, relations were based on two treaties. Under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, ratified in July 1950, each government agreed to acknowledge and respect the other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence; to continue diplomatic relations; and, on matters pertaining to industrial and economic development, to grant rights equal to those of its own citizens to the nationals of the other residing in its territory. Agreements on all subjects in this treaty superseded those on similar matters dealt with in the previous treaties between Nepal and Britain. In the Treaty of Trade and Commerce, ratified in October 1950, India recognized Nepal’s right to import and export commodities through Indian territory and ports. Customs could not be levied on commodities in transit through India.

India’s influence over Nepal increased throughout the 1950s. The Citizenship Act of 1952 allowed Indians to immigrate to Nepal and acquire Nepalese citizenship with ease–a source of some resentment in Nepal. And, Nepalese were allowed to migrate freely to India–a source of resentment there. (This policy was not changed until 1962 when several restrictive clauses were added to the Nepalese constitution.) Also in 1952, an Indian military mission was established in Nepal. In 1954 a memorandum provided for the joint coordination of foreign policy, and Indian security posts were established in Nepal’s northern frontier (see India , ch. 5). At the same time, Nepal’s dissatisfaction with India’s growing influence began to emerge, and overtures to China were initiated as a counterweight to India.

King Mahendra continued to pursue a nonaligned policy begun during the reign of Prithvi Narayan Shah in the mid-eighteenth century . In the late 1950s and 1960s, Nepal voted differently from India in the UN unless India’s basic interests were involved. The two countries consistently remained at odds over the rights of landlocked states to transit facilities and access to the sea.

Following the 1962 Sino-Indian border war, the relationship between Kathmandu and New Delhi thawed significantly. India suspended its support to India-based Nepalese opposition forces. Nepal extracted several concessions, including transit rights with other countries through India and access to Indian markets . In exchange, through a secret accord concluded in 1965, similar to an arrangement that had been suspended in 1963, India won a monopoly on arms sales to Nepal.

In 1969 relations again became stressful as Nepal challenged the existing mutual security arrangement and asked that the Indian security checkposts and liaison group be withdrawn. Resentment also was expressed against the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950. India grudgingly withdrew its military checkposts and liaison group, although the treaty was not abrogated.

Further changes in Nepalese-Indian relations occurred in the 1970s. India’s credibility as a regional power was increased–and Nepal’s vulnerability was reinforced–by the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation; the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, which led to the emergence of an independent Bangladesh; the absorption of Sikkim into India in 1974; increased unofficial support of the Nepali Congress Party leadership in India; rebellions fomented by pro-Beijing Naxalite elements in 1973-74 in West Bengal State bordering Nepal; and India’s nuclear explosion in 1974. Nepal adopted a cautious policy of appeasement of India, and in his 1975 coronation address King Birendra called for the recognition of Nepal as a zone of peace where military competition would be off-limits. India showed some flexibility in placating Nepal by distancing, if not disassociating, itself from the Nepalese opposition forces based in India, agreeing to a favorable trade and transit arrangement in 1978, and entering into another agreement on joint industrial ventures between Indian and Nepalese firms. The latter agreement, by opening the possibilities of India’s investment, indirectly furthered India’s domination of Nepal’s economy. India also continued to maintain a high level of economic assistance to Nepal.

In the mid-1970s, Nepal pressed for substantial amendments to the 1971 trade and transit treaty, which was due to expire in 1976. India ultimately backed down from its initial position to terminate the 1971 treaty even before a new treaty could be negotiated. The 1978 agreements incorporated Nepal’s demand for separate treaties for trade and transit. The relationship between the two nations improved over the next decade, but not steadily.

India continued to support the Nepalese opposition and refused to endorse Nepal as a zone of peace. In 1987 India urged expulsion of Nepalese settlers from neighboring Indian states, and Nepal retaliated by introducing a work permit system for Indians working in Nepal. That same year, the two countries signed an agreement setting up a joint commission to increase economic cooperation in trade and transit, industry, and water resources.

Relations between the two countries sank to a low point in 1988 when Kathmandu signed an agreement with Beijing to purchase weapons soon after a report that China had won a contract for constructing a road in the western sector to connect China with Nepal . India perceived these developments as deliberately jeopardizing its security. India also was annoyed with the high volume of unauthorized trade across the Nepalese border, the issuance of work permits to the estimated 150,000 Indians residing in Nepal, and the imposition of a 55 percent tariff on Indian goods entering Nepal.

In retaliation for these developments, India put Nepal under a virtual trade siege. In March 1989, upon the expiration of the 1978 treaties on trade and transit rights, India insisted on negotiating a single unified treaty in addition to an agreement on unauthorized trade, which Nepal saw as a flagrant attempt to strangle its economy. On March 23, 1989, India declared that both treaties had expired and closed all but two border entry points.

The economic consequences of the trade and transit deadlock were enormous. Shortages of Indian imports such as fuel, salt, cooking oil, food, and other essential commodities soon occurred. The lucrative tourist industry went into recession. Nepal also claimed that the blockade caused ecological havoc since people were compelled to use already dwindling forest resources for energy in lieu of gasoline and kerosene, which came mostly via India. To withstand the renewed Indian pressure, Nepal undertook a major diplomatic initiative to present its case on trade and transit matters to the world community.

The relationship with India was further strained in 1989 when Nepal decoupled its rupee from the Indian rupee which previously had circulated freely in Nepal. India retaliated by denying port facilities in Calcutta to Nepal, thereby preventing delivery of oil supplies from Singapore and other sources.

A swift turn in relations followed the success of the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy in early 1990. In June 1990, a joint Kathmandu-New Delhi communiqué was issued pending the finalization of a comprehensive arrangement covering all aspects of bilateral relations, restoring trade relations, reopening transit routes for Nepal’s imports, and formalizing respect of each other’s security concerns. Essentially, the communiqué announced the restoration of the status quo ante and the reopening of all border points, and Nepal agreed to various concessions regarding India’s commercial privileges. Kathmandu also announced that lower cost was the decisive factor in its purchasing arms and personnel carriers from China and that Nepal was advising China to withhold delivery of the last shipment. The communiqué declared that Kathmandu and New Delhi would cooperate in industrial development, in harnessing the waters of their common rivers for mutual benefit, and in protecting and managing the environment.

PEACE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA

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

Introduction
In ancient times, international relations operated very differently. The system of sovereign state that we have today has not always existed. For much of the world’s history, empires dominated relations between various actors. Between empires, there was little notion of independence and non-interference. A notable exception occurred in ancient Greece, where city‐states related to each other in much the same way that sovereign states relate to each other today. The modern state and the modern international system emerged after the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. With this agreement, the overarching authority of the pope was replaced by the notion of sovereign states. The notion of sovereignty arose in Europe in the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries and spread around the world through the processes of colonization and decolonization when Europeans explored and conquered much of the rest of the world. Prior to the invention of the territorial state, global politics had been dominated by a wide variety of political forms such as empires, tribes, and cities.

Thirty Years’ War in Europe
Thirty Years War is the name given to a series of bloody and devastating wars fought in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and Belgium) particularly on German lands between 1618 and 1648. Though several complex causes and motivations fueled these wars, the conflict between Protestants and Catholics over the authority of the Catholic Church and the pope was a central issue. Until 1517, Christianity was synonymous with Catholicism. Protestantism was a movement against the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants eventually tried to free themselves from the authority of the pope and Catholic rulers. The Thirty Years’ War in Europe began as a conflict between Protestants and Catholics but eventually involved political issues. The Protestant churches were destroyed by Catholic bishop. In response, in Prague in 1618, Protestants attacked the Emperor’s palace and threw two of his ministers out of a window and forced out the Catholic King. The governments of Sweden and Denmark, while claiming to be fighting for the ideals of Protestantism, also saw the War as an opportunity to gain land. Protestant rulers within the Holy Roman Empire and beyond (France, Sweden, Denmark, England, and United Provinces) were on one side and the Holy Roman Emperor and the ruling Hapsburg family, the Catholic princes of Germany, and in the end, Spain were on the other side. In the Thirty Years’ War, two‐thirds of the total population had disappeared and five‐sixths of the villages in the empire had been destroyed.

Peace of Westphalia
The horrors of the Thirty Years’ War made it obvious that the Christian community of medieval Europe was fragile indeed and was in need of replacement. The replacement that came out of the Peace of Westphalia was the sovereign state. The European powers gathered in Westphalia (in what is today northwestern Germany) in 1648 to make peace. The term peace of Westphalia refer to the two peace treaties of Osnabruck and Munster signed on May 15 and October 24 of 1648 respectively which ended both the thirty years war in Germany and the eighty years war between Spain and the Netherlands. The treaty of the Pyrenees signed in 1659 that ended the war between France and Spain is often considered part of the overall accord. The Peace of Westphalia was comprised of separate treaties, as the Catholic and Protestant nations refused to meet with each other. The Catholic parties met in 1648 in Munster, a traditionally Catholic city, whereas the Protestants met in the Protestant city of Osnabruck. The chief participants in the negotiations were the allies of Sweden and France; their opponents, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire; and the various parts of the empire. (which had been riven by the war) together with the newly independent Netherlands. England, Poland, Muscovy, and Turkey were the only European powers that were not represented at the two assemblies. Ultimately, 176 representatives of 196 rulers attended the peace negotiations. France wanted to destroy the emperor’s influence by strengthening the autonomy of the individual princes and by replacing the existing imperial institutions with a French‐led federation. However, these plans were unpopular with the German princes, who preferred an emperor with limited authority than the dominance of France and Sweden. Likewise, France wanted Spanish territory and also did not want to see Sweden become too powerful. After the treaty of Westphalia the Holy Roman Empire remained a loosely knit federation. The emperor had to share the power with the
princes. The United Provinces of the Netherlands (Dutch Republic) were declared independent of both Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. Switzerland was also acknowledged as independent of the empire. France and Sweden gained additional territory.

Significance of Peace of Westphalia
The 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia embraced the notion of sovereignty and almost all small states in central Europe attained sovereignty. The German states (about 250) were recognized as sovereign. The Peace of Westphalia established the principle that all sovereign states are equal. Interference by one state in the internal affairs of another was considered as the violation of sovereignty by the Peace of Westphalia. The system of sovereign states gradually expanded to the non‐Western world when Europeans explored and conquered much of the rest of the world. After the Treaty, the leaders sought to establish their own permanent national militaries. ‘National interest’ gained superiority over religious motives in a long term. The power and authority of the Holy Roman Empire was drastically curtailed by the Peace of Westphalia and the religious authority in Europe was replaced by Secular authority. It made Roman Catholics and Protestants equal and allowed the state to establish the religion of their people. Treaty of Westphalia established a core group of states that dominated the world until the beginning of the nineteenth century: Austria, Russia, Prussia, England, France, and the United Provinces (the area now comprising the Netherlands and Belgium). Following the Peace of Westphalia, in the eighteenth century, European states operated on the balance‐of‐power principle. The principles imply that it is dangerous for all states to allow any other state to become too powerful. The Westphalian state system contributed to the evolution of diplomatic methods and the growth of international law. The peace of Westphalia resulted from the first pan‐European peace congress and it established the practice of multilateral negotiation for resolving conflicts. The Treaty of the Peace of Westphalia recognized peace as the highest goal of the community of states.

Conflicting Perspectives regarding Peace of Westphalia

It is argued that two main treaties that comprise the Peace of Westphalia, make no mention of sovereignty. Some scholars argue that the Peace of Westphalia did not intend to redefine international relations since the treaties had no other purposes than ending the war. While each German principality had its own legal system, the final Courts of Appeal applied to the whole of the Holy Roman Empire hence they were not sovereign. It is also argued that the Peace of Westphalia simply took a pre‐existing set of concepts and established them between nations. Since the three
chief participants (France, Sweden and Holy Roman Empire) were all already sovereign, there was no need to clarify this situation. In any case, the princes of Germany remained subordinate to the Holy Roman emperor as per the constitution. In addition, each treaty contained clauses that allowed Sweden and France to intervene should the Holy Roman Empire break the Peace. This directly violates the concept of individual sovereignty, as it allows external actors to interfere with state affairs. Many scholars at present believe that with the rise of globalization, nation‐states are becoming less and less Westphalian as international organizations such as the European Union, the
United Nations, and the International Criminal Court gain legal power to intervene in countries.

International Relations and Diplomacy

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

Introduction to International Relations

Different Theories of International Relations

History of International Relations

Diplomacy

Foreign Relation of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany

World War II

Foreign Policy

Non-Alignment Movement and its Impact on International Peace and Order

Possible Impacts on Nepalese Financial Service Sector Under WTO Provision

Possible Impacts on Nepalese Financial Service Sector Under WTO Provision

Nepal In World Politics

UN and League of Nations

UNO vs. League of Nations

Nepal and Peace Keeping Works of UN

Cold War

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.

End of the Cold War

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

Certain structural weaknesses in Soviet‐style communism are associated with the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War. Centrally planned economies proved to be less effective than capitalist economies.

Because of the economic crisis, the communist regimes in Eastern Europe fell one by one.

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev adopted certain policies: political openness and economic restructuring in the mid‐1980s to address the economic crisis.

In order for his reforms to take place, he needed to end the Cold War to lower defense spending.

Gorbachev thus announced that the satellite states should be free to choose their own government.

Communist regimes in these countries started to collapse.

The Soviet Union did not intervene as one after another communist regimes collapsed in 1989‐90.

The key external factors contributing to the collapse of communism were the policies of the US administration at that period and the advance of economic and cultural globalization that created demands for western‐style economic and political reforms in Eastern Europe.

The USA and the USSR agreed to disarm a whole category of nuclear weapons through Arms control process.

The dismantling of the Berlin Wall began on November 10, 1989. By mid‐1990, many of the Soviet republics had declared their independence.

On December 8, 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved

The Cold War thus ended with the demise of Soviet Union. With the disintegration of the USSR, Russia came out losing the status and position of a superpower.

The supremacy of the USA has been established making the world unipolar.

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.

The kellogg briand pact

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

Background
After the First World War, France did not regard the League of Nations as a guarantee of their security. They wanted to strengthen their defensive system by involving powers beyond Europe on their side. Aristide Briand, the foreign minister of France published an open letter to the US Government in April 1927 proposing a treaty for perpetual peace between France and the United States and also to draw the United States into French defensive system against Germany. The US also had reasons to accept the French proposal. At the end of World War I, U.S. Senate had failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles also established League of Nations. However, the League was not popular in the US because of the economic cost of operation, perceived unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles and unwillingness to get involved in European problems. The United States still came under pressure from its allies in Europe, and from advocates of the League of Nations, to sign some sort of international peace agreement. However, the US did not want to be dragged into a European war on the side of France. Hence, instead of a bilateral agreement between the two nations U.S. secretary of state, Frank Kellogg proposed a multilateral treaty. Kellogg also
wanted the treaty to specifically ban wars of aggression and not acts of self-defense.

Introduction
The Kellogg – Briand Pact is formally known as ‘General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy’, or the ‘Pact of Paris’. The treaty is also known as ‘World Peace Act’. This treaty was an attempt to outlaw international war. It was named for the two men who created it, U.S. secretary of state Frank Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. Fifteen nations signed the Kellogg‐Briand Pact in Paris on August 27, 1928: France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The treaty set a date of July 24, 1929, to officially go into effect. By this date, more than 60 nations had signed the treaty. Eventually, it was ratified by 65
states, including Germany, Italy and Japan.

Key Provisions
The treaty contained only three articles.
(i) The signatories renounced war as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
(ii) The contracting parties agreed that settlement of all conflicts, no matter of what origin or nature, that might arise among them should be sought only by pacific means.
(iii) The treaty would remain open for adherence by all the other Powers of the world as long as it may be necessary.
The treaty therefore outlawed war entirely, providing no exceptions to this general prohibition. The parties, however, generally recognized that war would be permissible in the following cases:
(i) for self‐defence
(ii) against any treaty‐breaking State
(iii) in order to carry out responsibilities under the League of Nations and the Locarno Agreements

Several signatories, including the United States, had submitted diplomatic notes prior to the treaty’s ratification indicating their understanding that wars entered into in self‐defense would be lawful. Its most notable feature was the fact that the U.S.A. was one of its signatories, thus recognizing once more its connection with and responsibility towards Europe.

Significance
Although the Kellogg‐Briand Pact did not stop warfare, it did establish an internationally accepted doctrine: Self‐defense is the only legal basis for war. The treaty also established the notion that the territorial acquisition resulting from the use of force are unlawful. The Pact was invoked with some success in the course of territorial dispute between China and the Soviet Union in 1929. The pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace ‐ it was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of people responsible for starting World War II. Since there was no expiration date for the treaty, it aimed at outlawing international war permanently. In 1929 Kellogg received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the treaty.

Negative Arguments regarding The Kellogg – Briand Pact
The parties to the Pact limited its enforcement by registering certain reservations. Britain agreed to sign the pact only as long as Britain could use force within its own colonies. The U.S. Senate insisted that there must be no curtailment of America’s right of self‐defense and that the United States was not compelled to take action against countries that broke the treaty. Kellogg‐Briand contained no sanctions against countries that might breach its provisions. Instead, the treaty was based on the hope that diplomacy and the weight of world opinion would be powerful enough to prevent nations from resorting to the use of force. Without the means to enforce its provisions, the Kellogg‐Briand Pact proved useless in preventing war.
Though Germany, Italy, and Japan were all parties, the treaty did not prevent them from committing aggressions that led to World War II within 14 years of the Treaty’s entry into force. In violation of the Kellogg‐Briand pact, Japan invaded Manchuria, a northern province of China in 1932, and Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. By 1936 Hitler sent soldiers to occupy the Rhineland, and by 1938 Germany had absorbed Austria. Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 claiming to act in defense of ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia. In September 1939, the German army invaded Poland.
Though the Pact outlawed all wars, the Pact was interpreted by most of the signatories to permit “defensive” war. However, the treaty did not address the issues of what constituted self‐defense and when self‐defense could lawfully be claimed. It made each nation its own judge of what constitutes ‘self‐defense’. Because of these large loopholes, the Kellogg‐Briand Pact was ultimately an ineffective method for achieving the ambitious and idealistic goal of outlawing war.
Kellogg‐Briand Pact was the result of the search for alternative securities since the League of Nations could not create a feeling of security among the participating states. While this Pact helped the work of the League to maintain peace, some scholars argue that the initiation of the Pact by a few states undermined the League’s principle of security through unity and it created further barrier to the success of the League.
Though the parties to the Pact generally recognized that the war would be permissible to carry out the responsibilities under the League of Nations, in theory, the Pact’s provision of outlawing war in all cases conflicted with the provisions of the Covenant of the League to take military actions against the aggressor. The Pact made no attempts to define ‘aggression’ and the Pact did not contain any provisions of amendment to overcome its limitations.