TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

The Berlin Blockade, Formation of NATO and Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall

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

After Second World War, Germany was controlled by communist Soviet Union in the east and capitalist allies in the west.

West Germany was created on June 7, 1948 when Britain, France, and the US agreed to unite their sections.

Starting from June, 1948, the Soviet Union blocked road, river, and train travel

They also sought to stop the creation of an independent West Germany.

Many historians view the Berlin Blockade as the first serious confrontation of the Cold War.

June 1948 to May 1949, US and Britain decided to fly in food and supplies to West Berlin for 10 months so they did not have to give up on West Berlin.

It is known as Berlin Airlift. The airlift operation employed 400 planes flying 24 hours a day.

The Soviets lifted the blockade in May 1949 with the realization that East Berlin was suffering more, as a result of the Allies counter‐blockade on Eastern Berlin.

The Berlin blockade accelerated the division of Germany. On May 3, 1949, The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, West Germany) was founded as an independent state.

In eastern Germany, the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR, East Germany) became a sovereign nation on October 7, 1949. Germany was then formally divided.

The Western Allies had feared that the Berlin Blockade was a precursor to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Their response was the formation of NATO on April 4, 1949. In 1955 the Soviets founded the Warsaw Pact

Germany officially splits into two countries by the end of 1949 – West Germany (allied with the US and UK) and East Germany (controlled by the Soviets).

It is said that the capitalist West Germany began to prosper and the communist East was struggling. Many skilled workers from East Germany were fleeing to the West.

In an effort to stop this migration, the Soviets began the construction of the Berlin Wall through the city of Berlin on August 13, 1961. The wall stood until 1989, when it was finally torn down; the event is regarded as the symbolic fall of communism.

The Soviet Atomic Bomb: On August 29, 1949, the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb, ending the American monopoly.

Many Americans now feared a Soviet nuclear attack. Many more concluded that the Soviets had suddenly changed the global balance of power. The Soviet atomic bomb also marked the beginning of a huge and costly nuclear arms race.

The “Loss” of China

In October 1949, communist forces engaged in the long‐running Chinese Civil War proclaimed the creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Chinese communists, led by Mao Zedong, had been helped by the Soviets.

The Soviets immediately recognized the new PRC and began supplying it with economic and military aid. the West believed the loss of China was part of a larger conspiracy to encircle capitalism.

the communist victory in China/ introduced the Cold War to Asia.

Attack upon Czechoslovakia

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

The occupation of Austria made the situation of Czechoslovakia most difficult. The young Republic found herself surrounded on all sides, with the exception of her short common frontier with Rumania, by three states, Germany, Hungary and Poland, who laid claim to some of her territory and who, with the support of Italy, prepared a concerted action in this direction. The new strength gained by Nazi Germany, and the inflammatory speeches of some Nazi leaders, influenced large parts of the German minority in Czechoslovakia to expect, within a short time, the annexation to Nazi Germany of the territory inhabited by their minority. The Sudeten-German Party, which, under the leadership of Konrad Henlein, represented the majority of Czechoslovak-Germans, now became more and more intransigent in its demands for complete autonomy within Czechoslovakia and for the Nazification of the Czechoslovak democracy. To outside observers it seemed as if Germany had prepared for May 21 a surprise occupation of Czechoslovak territories similar to what she had done in the case of Austria. A most successful partial mobilization of the Czech army carried through at the shortest notice prevented any breach of the peace.

On March 13, Field Marshal Goering as acting Foreign Minister, had officially assured the Czechoslovak Government that Germany had no hostile designs upon her. But the tension within Czechoslovakia grew, since the Czechoslovak Germans firmly believed in the support of the German Government for their demands of complete autonomy and free development of their Nazi ideology and institutions, demands which a democratic state could not grant without undermining completely its integrity and its democratic Constitution. In spite of the presence of Lord Runciman as head of an unofficial British mission in Czechoslovakia, Germany started in August to mobilize her army to the strength of one million men, to hold army maneuvers not far distant from the Czechoslovak border, and to rush the building of most modern and impregnable fortifications along her Western frontier. For this last, a decree for the mobilization of all labor in Germany was promulgated; over 400,000 men were actually mobilized, and the whole German industry was put on a war basis, working day and night for the strengthening of the air fleet and the army.

Meanwhile, the Czechoslovak Government showed itself ready to grant the most far-reaching concessions to the German minority. Although, during the whole crisis, it gave proof of outstanding moderation and restraint, the German military preparations and the violent press campaign in German papers against Czechoslovakia not only went on unabated, but increased steadily in fury. Repeated warnings by the British Government to the effect that it could not remain indifferent to a war in Central Europe, and its pleas for a lessening of the tension, remained unheeded, as the German Government was convinced that Britain would not hinder Germany’s expansion in Central or Eastern Europe.

The crisis reached its culmination during the month of September. Under flimsy pretexts, the Sudeten German leaders broke off most promising negotiations with the Czechoslovak Government. Chancellor Hitler and Konrad Henlein met on Sept. 1 at Berchtesgaden, and Chancellor Hitler demanded, on Sept. 12, in his speech at the Party Congress at Nuremberg, “self-determination” for the Sudeten Germans, implying their right to secede from Czechoslovakia. At this moment the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, personally intervened. He asked Chancellor Hitler for an interview which was granted him at Berchtesgaden on Sept. 15. The British leading Conservative weekly, the Spectator, published in its issue of Sept. 16 an editorial article under the heading, “A Momentous Mission” in which it wrote: “Mr. Chamberlain has certainly not gone to Berchtesgaden with the idea of settling the future of Czechoslovakia over the heads of the Czechs. . . . Anxiety is to be felt regarding only one commitment into which the Prime Minister might conceivably enter, concurrence with the demand put forward by Herr Hitler in a veiled form in his Nuremberg speech for a plebiscite in the Sudeten German area. Mr. Chamberlain is more likely on many grounds to resist that demand than to endorse it.” What the Spectator had regarded as impossible or improbable, happened. In three momentous conferences, at Berchtesgaden on Sept. 15, in Godesberg on Sept. 22, and in Munich on Sept. 29, Mr. Chamberlain agreed to settlement of the question of German expansion in Czechoslovakia, without any participation on the part of the Czechoslovak Government in the deliberations, and in the growing sense of a complete cession of all the Sudeten German territory to Germany.

The agreement, signed on Sept. 29 in Munich, between Germany, Italy, Great Britain and France, sanctioned the cession to Germany of all Czechoslovak territory inhabited, according to the census of 1910, by a German majority; and the occupation of this territory within ten days, in successive stages, beginning October 1st. A commission, under German chairmanship, of delegates from Germany, Italy, Great Britain, France and Czechoslovakia, was to regulate all further questions involved in the transfer of territories and in the delimitation of new frontiers. It soon became clear that this commission acted entirely according to the wishes of Germany, and that, in the final settlement, Germany got more territorial and economic advantages than she had expected at the conclusion of the Munich agreement.

As the result of this historical crisis, Germany acquired a territory of approximately 11,583 sq. mi. (about the size of Belgium) with approximately 3,500,000 inhabitants of whom about 750,000 were Czechs. But more important for Germany than this additional territorial aggrandizement, which brought the increase in her population within one year to about ten million, was the fact that the remainder of Czechoslovakia lay entirely defenseless before Germany, having lost her natural and strategic frontiers and fortifications. This new Czechoslovakia became for all practical purposes an integral part of the economic, political and strategic system of Germany, an important spearhead for German penetration into Rumania, Hungary and beyond. The position thus acquired within one year, without a war, put Germany into a much stronger position than even Bismarck’s Germany had occupied after three victorious wars. At the same time, the influence of France and Great Britain in Central and Eastern Europe came practically to an end, and the smaller states of Central and Southeastern Europe were forced to veer toward the political and economic orbit of Germany.

Propaganda

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

Propaganda is a Latin word that was first used by Pope Gregory XV in 1622, when he established the Sacred Congregation (Worshippers) of Propaganda, a commission designed to spread the Catholic faith worldwide. Since then propaganda has taken on a much broader meaning, and refers to any technique, whether in writing, speech, music, film or other means, that attempts to influence mass public opinion.

Definitions of Propaganda

Propaganda is generally defined as the dissemination of information or message, but more specifically, it connotes the dissemination of information for the purposes of influencing and advocating an agenda. These information/messages have been carefully designed to influence our opinions, emotions, attitudes and behavior. Their purpose is to influence us to believe in something or to do something that we would not normally believe or do. Most importantly, these messages have been designed to benefit someone.

On Military Term, propaganda is any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.

Propaganda is dissemination of ideas and information for the purpose of inducing or increasing specific attitudes and actions. Because propaganda is frequently accompanied by misrepresentation of fact and by appeals to passion and prejudice, it is often thought to be perpetually false or misleading. Although some propagandists may intentionally misrepresent fact, others may present it as faithfully as objective observers. The essential distinction lies in the intentions of the propagandist to persuade an audience to adopt the attitude or action he or she supports.

Propaganda may be disseminated by or for individuals, businesses, ethnic associations, religious organizations, political organizations, and governments at every level. Thousands of special-interest groups disseminate propaganda. Among such groups are patriotic societies, fire-prevention and traffic-safety committees, and the prevention of cruelty to animals, labor unions, chambers of commerce. No matter what its objective, propaganda attempts to persuade through rational or emotional appeal or through the organization of personal opinion. Efficient use of the communication media is central for the propaganda.

Some Characteristic of Propaganda:

Repetition: The concern message must be continuously propagated in order to take hold within the collective consciousness. Because of that repetition of the message was necessary for propaganda.

Simplicity: The message must be designed in such a way that it appeals to or is quickly understood by the lowest common intellectual people.

Imagery: The most powerful propaganda is well-established within appealing images. This imagery could be pictorial or descriptive. This is why movies and music are such effective forms of propaganda.

Sentiment: The message must contain as little detail as possible, and instead be designed in such a way that it appeals to some strong emotion or sentiment.

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.

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.”

Post World War II

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

World War II brought American isolationism to an end.
The crucially important Lend-Lease Act (11 March 1941) that, even prior to Pearl Harbor, introduced the United States into the front stage of world diplomacy and at the same time gave the latter an entirely new form.
Traditional diplomacy had been conducted between great and small powers, and Wilsonian diplomacy had established the principle of equality, diplomacy after lend-lease assumed a dual nature.
On the one hand, relations between nations deemed to be equals continued to be conducted by ambassadors.
On the other hand, there emerged a new form of relationship between two countries, whereby one became the aid donor and the other the aid recipient.
Thereafter, actively involved in the life of the international organization, the United States found that it had adopted Wilsonian “internationalism,” which constituted a break with tradition.
The main preoccupation of American treaties following World War II was security cooperation in a postwar climate characterized by ideological conflict with the Soviet Union, bipolarization of the world between these two powers, destruction of the colonial empires and the emergence of nearly ninety new nations, economic inequality, and reliance on atomic weapons as a deterrent.
Almost all have been of a new type. They have included aid accords, participation in the United Nations, peace treaties, treaties of alliance, treaties linked to deterrence, and treaties dealing with a far wider range of issues than had traditionally been the case: human rights, ecology, the environment and resources, global warming, the outlawing of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, access to and the future use of outer space, copyright and the protection of intellectual property, and biotechnology and human cloning.
The Treaty of Paris (October 1954), ended the occupation of Germany, replacing it with the presence of “security forces.” These negotiations (between council ministers of five powers) were brought to a halt by U.S. adoption of containment policy (the Truman Doctrine of 12 March 1947 and the Marshall Plan of 5 June 1947), the
creation of the Kominform by the Soviet Union, and the increasing tensions of the Cold War in 1948 (the Berlin Blockade).
The Atlantic Pact of 4 April 1949, which created NATO, was a reaction to the Cold War.
The Warsaw Pact (formally, the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance, sometimes, informally War Pac, akin in format to NATO) was a collective defense treaty among eight communist states of Central and Eastern Europe in existence during the Cold War.
(14 May 1955), Motto: Union of Peace and Socialism

UNO vs. League of Nations

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

The U.N.O. is a much wider organization than the League of Nations was. In fact, the League during the years between the two wars, (1919-1939) almost became a forum of imperialist powers, an instrument to maintain their own interests and resolve, if possible, their imperialist conflicts. The U.N.O. is a more representative body. The U.S.S.R. is one of the original and permanent members along with the imperialist powers.

Secondly, the Security Council takes decisions by seven votes including five permanent members while the League Council took decisions by unanimity. Even a small state could bloc the work of the League even if all the big powers and most of the states were in agreement. That cannot happen in the Security Council. On the other hand, its decisions are assured at only by agreement between permanent members.

The U.N.O. also enjoys an advantage over the League in so far as Asian and African states have come into existence and always throw their weight on the side of peace forces. The imperialist countries and states with aggressive designs cannot have an easy run. All decisions are to be taken on the basis of the unanimity of big five powers. Entire possibility of peace and war has been thrown on their shoulders.

The principle of unanimity has got its own benefits. Now no major power can have shelter behind the veto of a small state as was the case with the League of Nations when one hostile vote of Portugal made the League ineffective to take any action against Italy when she attacked Abbyssinia. In fact, the U.N.O. today takes decisions which arc unfavorable at time to the interests of these powers.

The economic and social functions of the U.N.O. have been separated from political and legal functions. In case of the League these were blurred. Similarly, the Trusteeship Council is a distinct improvement over the mandatory system of the League. Today the forces of peace are more powerful than those during the inter-war period. The U.N.O. thus functions under better conditions. That is the reason why the U.N.O. has been able to maintain peace for four decades or so.

The League of Nations and the United Nations

The imposition of a peaceful world order was a key objective for the League of Nations, established in the aftermath of World War One. How can its successor, the United Nations, react to the challenges of the 21st century? Charles Townshend assesses its chances.

The birth of the League ideal

The League of Nations, born of the destruction and disillusionment arising from World War One, was the most ambitious attempt that had ever been made to construct a peaceful global order. It was rooted in a comprehensive liberal critique of the pre-war international system, which was widely believed to have been the cause of the carnage of 1914-18.

The idea of the League was to eliminate four fatal flaws of the old European states: in place of competing monarchical empires – of which the Hapsburg Empire was perhaps the most notorious – the principle of national self-determination would create a world of independent nation states, free of outside interference; the secret diplomacy of the old order would be replaced by the open discussion and resolution of disputes; the military alliance blocs would be replaced by a system of collective guarantees of security; and agreed disarmament would prevent the recurrence of the kind of arms race that had racked up international tensions in the pre-war decade.

Before this, the closest approach to an international political structure had been the Congress System, in which the European great powers held occasional summit meetings to discuss issues they found urgent. (To his credit, the much-maligned Tsar Nicholas II of Russia had sponsored international efforts to ban ‘inhumane’ weapons such as expanding or exploding bullets; but these efforts were only partially successful.)

The surviving victorious great powers at the end of the Great War – Britain and France – would have preferred to go no further than regularising the old Congress System. The spirit of the times, however, which was overbearingly personified in the president of the USA, Woodrow Wilson, pushed towards the creation of a more comprehensive global organisation, which would include all independent states, and in which even the smallest state would have a voice.

The growth of a system

America failed to ratify the League Covenant Unfortunately, Wilson’s thinking about the way that self-determination would work in the real world, and about getting his idea for a ‘community of power’ off the ground, remained vague. Partly this was to avoid alarming US isolationist opinion, but in any case, when the League Covenant was agreed at the Paris peace conference in 1919, the US Senate refused to ratify it.

How the League would have worked with American participation remains one of the great ‘what ifs’ of modern history. As it was, the direction of the system was left in the hands of states – primarily Britain and France – whose altruism was questionable and whose economic resources had been crippled by the war

Yet the League of Nations did work surprisingly well, at least for a decade after the war. By December 1920, 48 states had signed the League Covenant, pledging to work together to eliminate aggression between countries. A series of disputes – between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia, between Italy and Greece, and between Greece and Bulgaria – were resolved under its auspices.

Though relatively minor, these were just the kind of incidents that had in the past triggered regional conflicts – and indeed World War One itself. There was a widespread belief, or hope, that the League’s prestige was growing incrementally. Methods of investigating disputes, and helping to keep the peace, were regularised.

Another crucial function was the establishment of Mandates to bring all the territories that had been liberated from German and Turkish rule, at the end of the Great War, to eventual self-determination. In Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the process seemed to be moving steadily forward. (In view of its subsequent history, the formal admission of Iraq to the League in 1933 was indeed premature.) The machinery of the League organisation grew more substantial, and the secretariat began to carve out the basis for a quasi-independent role, although this was unplanned and unlooked-for by the old great powers.

The proliferation of League activity, however, carried risks: as one of its founders, Lloyd George, put it, ‘it had weak links spreading everywhere and no grip anywhere’. ‘Grip’ ultimately meant the capacity to use force. When the crucial concept of collective security was put to the acid test in the 1930s, it dissolved. Once big powers started to challenge the status quo, as Japan did in Manchuria, the League found it practically impossible to reach a clear verdict on who was guilty of ‘aggression’.

Or, still more disastrously, in the case of Italian pressure on Abyssinia, the guilt was clear enough but the key powers, Britain and France, were unwilling to antagonise the guilty party because of their wider strategic fears. The failed attempt to impose an oil embargo on Italy demonstrated that any credible system of economic sanctions was far distant.

Death and transfiguration?

Like the proverbial old soldier, the League never died, but rather faded away. Between the humiliation of seeing one of its members, Austria, taken over by Germany in 1938 without even a formal protest, and the absurdity of expelling the USSR after the outbreak of World War Two in 1939 (an event that neither the USSR nor the League were involved in), all that remained were such wraithlike undertakings as the British Mandate in Palestine.

When the Allies finally began to prepare for the end of World War Two, they rejected any idea of restoring the League, and instead moved to establish a new organisation, the United Nations (UN). The structure of the United Nations was to give a much stronger position to the traditional great powers through the UN Security Council; the most significant thing about its creation, perhaps, is that this time the USA did not back away.

A significant number of the old League’s aims and methods were transmitted into the new organisation in 1945. Among these were not only such low-key but effective institutions as the International Court and the International Labour Organisation, but also the working assumptions of the secretariat, and some key operations – including those that would soon come to be called ‘peacekeeping’ operations.

The UN may have almost stumbled sideways into its peacekeeping role, but the motive and sustaining force in the process was the survival – and the strengthening – of the expectation of international involvement in the preservation of global security. Gradually this came to include the defence of human rights as well as the resolution of territorial conflict. The UN’s first attempt to resolve a serious conflict, in Palestine in 1947-8, was unsuccessful, even disastrous: it failed to implement its own partition plan, and its special mediator was assassinated.

None-the-less, UNTSO (the UN Truce Supervision Organisation) opened the gates to a wave of – often bafflingly labelled – successors: UNMOGIP, UNEF, UNOGIL, UNFICYP, UNIMOG, ONUMOZ, UNPROFOR. Some, like the observer force in Kashmir, have remained active for 50 years: not evidence of brilliant success, admittedly, but evidence of hard necessity and a degree of usefulness at least.

Other UN organisations had a shorter but more spectacular life: notably the Operation in the Congo (ONUC) from 1960 to 1964, which prefigured the alarming future for missions to states that were dissolving into civil war. In the Congo, the UN found itself using military force against Katangan rebels to preserve the unity of the state of Congo – a departure from the principle of strict neutrality which has usually been thought vital to the success of its peacekeeping missions.

Dealing with such internal conflict was a far more ambitious and demanding task than the traditional role of assisting consenting states to observe ceasefires. In effect it showed that the UN might need to take governmental responsibility in some situations.

A new international age?

The development towards taking responsibility in countries at risk of disintegration, was due to a dramatic increase in the prestige and initiative of the UN Secretary-General. This was especially at the time when the position was held by the charismatic Dag Hammarskjöld – from 1953 until his death in a plane crash in the Congo in 1961. The UN secretariat came to represent the apparent ‘democratisation’ of the organisation, as the General Assembly began to assert itself after a decade of US domination. (A vivid insight into how this American pressure operated can be found in Conor Cruise O’Brien’s To Katanga and Back.)

What some have called the ‘third world UN’ emerged out of the shadow of the ‘cold war UN’, to the horror of conservative American opinion, which had expected the UN to function as a vehicle for US values – or in effect US policy.

The end of the cold war triggered an unprecedented upsurge in UN commitments. Despite the recurrent funding problems, of the kind that had also dogged the old League, the upbeat official view was that the organisation’s prestige had never been so high. But the nature of the problems emerging in the last decade of the 20th century was extremely worrying.

The title ‘nation’ had always been (for both League and UN) a polite fiction for a club of sovereign states, who often contained within them various ethnically diverse minority groups, sometimes with a claim to nationhood in their own right. These states often denied the rights of their constituent nations to self-determination, and the breakdown of such states as Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Somalia during the 1990s, revealed a maelstrom of elemental national forces. These could not be compartmentalised into old-fashioned sovereign states of the kind that the UN exists to guarantee, leaving the organisation unsure of how to treat them.

The challenge ahead

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of the Islamic group Hamas Still more worrying was the explosive upsurge of terrorist violence, which in many places has dissolved the shape of military conflict in ways that make the traditional methods of monitoring ineffective. If there is to be a new age of terrorism, it can only be countered by the development of international – indeed global – security agencies. Only the UN could provide a framework for these; yet the possibility of taking effective measures is likely to be frustrated by the difficulty of finding a common definition of terrorism.

The League of Nations tried to draw up a Convention against Terrorism the 1930s, and could not get general agreement. The wider circumstances of that time were unpropitious, but the basic problem persists: as President Assad of Egypt told Tony Blair, in the wake of the attack on New York on September 11 2001, labelling is inescapably a political act. Members of Hamas (the Islamic resistance movement), and the Islamic Jihad organisation, may be terrorists to the government of Israel, but to others they are fighters against oppression. Does the UN have the ‘grip’ to impose a common view?

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.

Subject Matter or Actor of International Relations

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

The participants in international relations, often called actors, have a great influence on the relationships between nations and on world affairs. The major participants include the nations themselves, the leaders of those nations, sub-state actors (groups or organizations within a nation), transnational actors (organizations operating in more than one country), and international organizations.

Nations: International Relations study the relations between two or more Nations, which are influenced by a variety of geopolitical, historical, racial, religious, ideological, strategic and leadership factors. It deals with inter-state or international relations rather than intra-state or domestic action. It is a study of inter-state relationship and regional affairs and such an academic concern is also known as area of studies. The relationship of state and its impact in the world politics is a subject matter. Like relationship of Israel and Palestine, its impact in the Middle East Asia as well as interests of UAS and its role for peace talk is a current subject matter of the International Relations.
The nations themselves are the most important actors in international relations. A nation is a territory with a defined border and a government that answers to no higher authority than its own. All or part of the population shares a group identity, often based on a combination of common ancestry, language, or culture. In 1997 there were 186 recognized nations in the world. There also are a number of political entities sometimes thought of as nations. These include territories that function independently, such as Taiwan, which is officially considered a province of China; colonies, such as Martinique; and nations that are not yet recognized, such as Palestine. Also included in this list is Vatican City, which does not fit into any of these categories.

Nations vary in size and power—from the United States with a $7 trillion economy and China with more than 1 billion people to nations with fewer than 100,000 people, such as Andorra and Greenland. Size and power are two important variables in determining a nation’s relationships with other countries and its influence in international affairs. The handfuls of the most powerful nations that control most of the world’s military and economic strength are called great powers. The great powers include the United States, Great Britain, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), France, China, Germany, and Japan. These powers are the most important actors in international relations.

Leaders and Government of Nations: The most important individual actor within a nation is the top leader of that country. The top leader is the person who has the primary political power or authority in country. For example, the top leader in Great Britain is the prime minister, who is the head of government and has the most political power, even though the king or queen of that country is considered the head of state. The top leader in the United States is the president.
The interactions of the governments of two or more sovereign states can take place within a multi-state system for different proposes and that will be a subject matter for the international relations. Like the relationship of Bhutan and India, China and Taipei, Italy-Monaco and Vatican City etc.

Sub-state Actors: Besides the top leader of a nation, there are other groups and individuals within that nation that influence its international relationships. These domestic actors, called substate actors, include particular industries with distinct interests in foreign policy (such as the automobile or tobacco industry) and ethnic constituencies with ties to foreign countries, as well as labor unions, cities, and regions. All of these actors may be affected by international events differently from each other or the country where they operate. These groups can influence a nation’s foreign policy in several ways, such as by lobbying political leaders, donating money to political candidates or parties, or swaying public opinion on certain issues.
Foreign trade is an important instrument to build the political and economical relation among the states. Various international regulations affect foreign trade one way or the other. Economic aid policies and practices of the develop countries, as well as the developing countries, commodity agreements, tariff barriers, exchange regulations, international economic agencies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund etc., are some of the issues that concern the students of international relations.

Politics divide world community in different group on the basis of ideology, race, culture and regional and economic interests, like the communist countries, the non-aligned countries, the Arab world, African countries etc. International relations studies the factors that contributes to the growth of political and military alliances within the different groups, the degree of their unity and the resulting impact on the balance of power situation among the states concerned. These types of political and military alliances are created because of the defense interests of the state too.

Transnational Actors or International Institutions and Organization: The international organizations provide forums for cooperation and conflict-resolution and are governed by their own rules. These organizations are formed with a view to foster economic, military, cultural cooperation among the member states. Some are regional groups and some are global organizations. Because, all of these organizations have inter-state relations, they form a subject matter of international relations of their geographical area.
Organizations operating in more than one country are known as transnational actors. They often have specific interests in international issues that differ from those of any nation. Transnational actors include multinational corporations. They also include nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as Planned Parenthood and the Roman Catholic Church, which promote their interests across international borders. NGOs often align themselves with particular nations that support their interests, and come into conflict with those that show lack of support. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are groups whose members are national governments. Examples of intergovernmental organizations include the European Union (EU) and the Intelsat Satellite Consortium. They are usually created to promote cooperation between different nations on a particular issue or in a particular geographic region. Nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations together are called international organizations.

Foreign Policy: Every state has their own foreign policy to deals with other states. International relations study the foreign policy and its formulation factors to deals with the nation concerned. Various agencies contribute to the shaping of a country’s foreign policy. Some states are mostly influenced by their own domestic affairs/pressure to shape their foreign policy.

Power: International politics is a “struggle of Power” and international relations are a core of international politics, so “Power”, which will guide the state to maintain their relations in world community, was also an important subject matter. It studies elements of national power that contribute to the state’s strength internally and the balance of power situation that setting its power position externally.

Evaluating the Influence of Actors:
Scholars of international relations have divided the various influences on international events into different categories, or levels of analysis. There are three widely used levels of analysis: (1) individual actors, (2) domestic influences, and (3) interstate influences. Some scholars also study a fourth level of analysis, global influences.

In the individual level of analysis, scholars study the concerns, perceptions and choices of the individual people involved—great leaders, crazy leaders, activists, or individual citizens. For example, if the assassin of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914 had bungled the job, World War I might not have broken out when it did.

In the domestic level of analysis, scholars look at how international relations is influenced by domestic actors, including special interest groups, political organizations, and government agencies. Scholars study how different kinds of societies and governments behave, such as democracies versus dictatorships. They also look at the politics of ethnic conflict and nationalism, both of which can lead to international conflict and war. The domestic level of analysis is also called the state or societal level.

In the interstate level of analysis, scholars focus on the interactions of states themselves, without regard to their internal makeup or the particular individuals who lead them. For realists, this is the most important level because it looks at how a nation’s relative power compared with other nations affects its behavior. The interstate level of analysis is also called the international or systemic level of analysis.

Some scholars also look at the global level of analysis. In this analysis, scholars study how global trends and forces, such as technological change and the global environment, affect international relations. They also study how the lingering effects of colonialism influence international relations.

Elements Of International Relations:

It is a fact that the international affairs condition domestic of a state. Domestic policy and foreign policy must be co-existensive and co-existing complementary to each other. It would be a damaging for a country to have different policies for its internal and external affairs, because what a state does at home is bound to be reflected in its dealings with other countries. Not even a single State can adopt a foreign policy which is detrimental to the Interests of the world community. But there are certain factors which are essentially responsible for determination of the foreign policy of a country in relation to other States and the international relations are largely affected by these factors. Following is the classification of the factors

Impact of Holocaust in International Relations

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

Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish refugee from Poland, coined the word genocide in 1944 to describe what was happening in German‐occupied Europe. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944)
In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention, which requires governments to “undertake to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.”

Genocide Convention

Article 1 The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

International Accountability for Crime Against Humanity

After holocaust, Prosecution of top Nazi leaders at Nuremberg established the principle that individual officials could be held responsible for “crimes against humanity” and for implementation of policies that violated international law

Tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council are trying government officials for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda,

What are the Crime Against Humanity ?

“Crimes against humanity” include any of the following acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
} murder;
} extermination;
} enslavement;
} deportation or forcible transfer of population;
} imprisonment;
} torture;
} rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy,
enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of
comparable gravity;
} persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds;
} enforced disappearance of persons;
} the crime of apartheid;
} other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing
great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

International Protection of Human Rights

Before the Holocaust, international efforts to oppose human rights abuses were limited to other country territory.
As a result of holocaust, the recognition that the protection of human rights is an international concern expanded dramatically with the 1948 adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became apparent after the war, the consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define the rights to which it referred. A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter’s provisions on human rights.

Protections for Refugees

} During the Nazi era, Jews fleeing the Germans and their collaborators often found that entry to other countries, including the United States, was barred.
} Later in 1951, under the United Nation Refugee Convention, governments promised not to return refugees to places where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Reconciliation Between Christian and Jews

The Nazis exploited centuries of negative Christian teachings about Jews and Judaism to foment hatred and promote their own racist, anti‐Semitic policies
Mainstream Christian churches—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—failed as institutions to protest or systematically oppose Nazi persecution of Jews.

In 2000 during a historic visit to Jerusalem, Pope John Paul II expressed sorrow for “the hatred, acts of persecution, and displays of anti‐Semitism directed against Jews by Christians at any time and in any place.”

Idea of a Jewish Homeland

During the rule of Nazis in Germany, most Jews who sought to escape Nazi persecution were trapped in German‐occupied Europe because virtually no nation was willing to admit large numbers of Jews, even on a temporary basis.
After World War II, the United Nations divided Palestine into two potential states, one for Jews and one for Palestinian Arabs. The State of Israel was founded in 1948 as a homeland where any Jew could become a citizen under any circumstance.

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

History of diplomacy

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

As soon as people organized themselves into separate social groups, the necessity of regularizing contacts with representatives of other groups became apparent. Even the earliest civilizations had rules for interaction.

Early Development
The first civilization to develop an orderly system of diplomacy was ancient Greece. Ambassadors and special missions were sent from city to city to deliver messages and warnings, to transfer gifts, and to plead the cases of their own people before the rulers of other city-states. These diplomatic missions, however, were occasional and sporadic.

With the decline of Greece and the rise of the Roman Empire, the Greek system of diplomacy disappeared. As Rome expanded, its diplomacy served the purposes of conquest and annexation. The Romans were not inclined to coexist with other states on the basis of mutual interests. Rome issued commands; it did not negotiate.

For almost a thousand years after the fall of Rome, Europeans thought of themselves not as members of separate nations but rather as members of smaller groups vaguely bound to some feudal overlord. Although localities had relations from time to time, no record exists of any formal diplomatic practices during the middle Ages.

Renaissance (New start of) Diplomacy
Modern diplomacy had its origins during the Italian Renaissance. Early in the 15th century, a group of city-states developed in Italy, but none could dominate the rest, and all feared conquest by the others. The rulers of most of the city-states gained their positions through force and cunning. Because they could not count on the loyalty of their subjects, these rulers hoped to maintain allegiance by seeking foreign conquest and treasure. They sought opportunities to increase their power and expand their domain and were always concerned about the balance of power on the Italian Peninsula.

Although Renaissance diplomacy was especially vicious and amoral, the Italian city-states developed a number of institutions and practices that still exist: (1) They introduced a system of permanent ambassadors who represented the interests of their states by observing, reporting, and negotiating. (2) Each state created a foreign office that evaluated the written reports of the ambassadors, sent instructions, helped to formulate policies, and kept vast records. (3) Together they developed an elaborate system of protocol, privileges, and immunities for diplomats. Ambassadors and their staffs were granted freedom of access, transit, and exit at all times. Local laws could not be used to impede an ambassador in carrying out duties, but ambassadors could be held accountable if they actually committed crimes, such as theft or murder. (4) The concept of extraterritoriality was established. Under this principle, an embassy in any state stood on the soil of its own homeland, and anyone or anything within the embassy compound was subject only to the laws of its own country.

Diplomacy in the European State System
The rise of nation-states in 17th-century Europe led to the development of the concepts of national interest and the balance of power. The former concept meant that the diplomatic objectives of nations should be based on state interests and not on personal ambition, rivalries, sentiment, religious doctrine, or prejudice. For example, gaining access to raw materials was in the national interest. The balance of power theory was based on a general interest in maintaining the state system by seeking equilibrium of power among the most powerful nations. That diplomacy could be used to pursue both sets of interests was soon apparent. Increasingly, the presence of the major powers became a staple in international politics. Although small countries might disappear, as Poland did when it was partitioned in the 18th century, the great powers sought to manage their relations without threatening one another’s survival. At the same time, European diplomats were becoming increasingly professional and learned. The seamier side of diplomacy—the bribing, lying, and deceiving—was gradually replaced by a code of expected and acceptable conduct.

The European system of diplomacy suffered its first shock when Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe in the early 19th century. After Napoleon’s defeat, the European system was “restored,” and no major wars occurred for the next hundred years.

The New Diplomacy
In 1914 the countries of Europe were thrust into another violent confrontation. The carnage of World War I brought the European system of diplomacy into disrepute. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was the chief critic of the European diplomatic system and the proponent of a new type of open diplomacy and collective security. Wilson’s primary targets were the theory and practice of the balance of power, the distinction between great and small powers, the pursuit of national interests, secret agreements and treaties, and professional diplomats.

In place of the old system Wilson offered a “new diplomacy” in his Fourteen Points. Open covenants would be drafted in international conferences with great and small countries participating on an equal basis. Peace would be maintained by making national boundaries coincide with ethnic boundaries. All members of the international community would pledge to fight for these boundaries against any nation that used force to change them. Countries would pursue community interests instead of national interests and submit their disputes with each other to international arbitration for peaceful resolution.

Many of Wilson’s ideas were incorporated into the 1919 Treaty of Versailles (see Versailles, Treaty of) and the League of Nations. After the United States rejected the league and returned to a policy of isolationism, however, the European states reverted to the balance of power system and the pursuit of national interests through professional diplomats.

During World War II, the U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt again sought to establish a new type of diplomacy, but he and the British prime minister Winston Churchill built the postwar international order on the basis of agreements with the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that conformed more to the old European system than to the new ideas embodied in the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations. Although the United Nations remains a symbol of what a new diplomatic system might be, international politics since the end of World War II has adhered closely to the European model and has, in part, returned to some of the worst aspects of Renaissance diplomacy.