TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

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

Locarno agreements

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

Background

After the end of First World War, the European countries made several attempts to promote peace. The Treaty of Versailles established the League of Nations to maintain international peace and security. Protocol for the pacific settlement of international disputes, more commonly known as the Geneva Protocol, was adopted in 1924 to outlaw war, promote peaceful settlement of international disputes and establish military measures against the aggressor. The idea of mutual security established by the Geneva Protocol was that a state would come to the defense of another state when there is an aggression. However, the idea of mutual security established by the Geneva Protocol did not gain success since states were not prepared to go to war in order to protect some distant State where their own security was not threatened. The only chance that the idea of mutual security would ever become acceptable was that it might be applied regionally to groups of nations. The members of such a group would realize that their own security would depend upon maintaining peace among their own neighbors. If there is war in one state, it would cause security threat in the neighboring states. This was the basis of a peace pact made in the year following the proposed Geneva Protocol. The biggest threat to the peace in Europe at that time was the hostility between France and Germany. France and Germany wanted more security from each other. The Foreign Minister of Germany made the first move by sending a proposal for a peace pact to other European nations on 9 February 1925. The pact was to apply to a particular region of Europe and was to be guaranteed by France, Great Britain, Italy, and Germany.
The delegates from Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, Poland, and Czechoslovakia met in the city of Locarno, Switzerland. The Locarno Conference began on October 5, 1925. The conference continued for 11 days and seven treaties came out of the conference. The pact was formally signed in London on 01 December by France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Belgium. The treaties became effective from September 14, 1926.

Introduction
The Locarno Treaties (also known as Locarno Agreements or Locarno Peace Pact) refers to the series of agreements whereby Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy mutually guaranteed peace in Western Europe. The distinguishing feature of the Locarno Treaty was the localized police principle (regional security). The Pact was not a single measure but consisted of several treaties closely related together. Through the Locarno Treaties, the Allies (the alliance led by France, Britain, Russia during World War I) and the new states wanted to secure the territorial settlement made through the Treaty of Versailles and solidify Germany’s borders with Belgium and France. The Allies also promised to normalize relations with Germany. Another purpose of the Locarno Treaties was to ease worldwide post‐war tension.

The Locarno Treaties consisted of seven agreements; the Rhineland Pact being the major one.
I. Treaty of Mutual Guarantee (Rhineland Pact)
It was signed by Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy. It provided that the Belgian‐ German and Franco‐German frontiers as fixed by the Treaty of Versailles were inviolable; It guaranteed the permanent demilitarization of the Rhineland. Belgium, France, and Germany promised not to resort to war except in self‐defense or after the breach of the agreements on the demilitarization of Rhineland zone or in the fulfillment of League obligations. They further agreed to settle all disputes by peaceful means. In case of violation of the treaty all the signatories to the Treaty will come immediately to the assistance of the party attacked. Arbitration Conventions/Treaties
II. Arbitration Convention between Germany and Belgium
III. Arbitration Convention between Germany and France
IV. Arbitration Treaty Between Germany and Poland
V. Arbitration Treaty Between Germany and Czechoslovakia
The parties to these treaties agreed to submit all disputes to arbitration tribunal or the Permanent
Court of International Justice if such disputes could not be settled through normal diplomatic
methods.
Treaties of Guarantee
VI. Treaty of Guarantee between France and Poland
VII. Treaty of Guarantee between France and Czechoslovakia
France signed further treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, pledging mutual assistance in the event of conflict with Germany. These essentially reaffirmed existing treaties of alliance concluded by France with Poland on 19 February 1921 and with Czechoslovakia on 25 January 1924. As Germany refused to guarantee its eastern frontiers, unlike the western frontiers, France sought to give Poland and Czechoslovakia the security they required by signing treaties with them. The parties undertook to lend each other immediate aid and assistance should they become the victims of unprovoked aggression.

Significance of the Locarno Treaties
The Pact of Locarno, 1925 symbolized the atmosphere of goodwill between the enemies who had fought a world war 11 years before. The Locarno pact was viewed by many as the beginning of a new era of European peace. Unlike the Treaty of Versailles, it was signed by Germany voluntarily, and Germany was thereby recognized as the equal of other European Powers, which seemed a step towards the end of Germany’s bitterness against the winners of the First World War. Germany made several other gains. Germany was admitted to the League of Nations in 1926 and given a permanent seat on the Council. In 1927 the control of Germany’s disarmament stopped as a result of the Locarno Treaties. The treaties introduced a hope for international peace, or the “spirit of Locarno”. In both 1925 and 1926 the Nobel Peace Prize was given to the lead negotiators of the treaty, going to Sir Austen Chamberlain in 1925 and jointly to Aristide Briand and Gustav Stresemann in 1926, Following the success of Locarno Treaty, Kellogg‐Briand Pact (The Pact of Paris) was signed on 1928.

Negative Arguments regarding Locarno Treaties
Even though the Locarno Treaty had been successful in bringing about peace, the League of Nations was not strengthened and the collective security remained uncertain. Promises not to go to war were worthless without a way to enforce these promises. The Pact of Locarno failed to provide an adequate basis for the limitation of armaments which was amongst the objects declared in the final Protocol. The spirit of Locarno could not convince nations to cut back on their weapons. States were simply unwilling to trust their security to anyone but their own military forces. Locarno divided borders in Europe in two categories: the Western frontiers guaranteed by Locarno, and the eastern frontiers, which were free for revision. Any conflict in eastern frontiers of Germany would only be settled through arbitration. Great Britain promised to defend Belgium and France but not Poland and Czechoslovakia. Poland insisted that its eastern borders should be covered by any western guarantee of borders. Since it did not happen, Locarno introduced distrust between Poland and Western countries. It was said that Germany was officially asked to attack the east, in return for peace in the west.
Locarno was never tried in practice. On 7 March 1936 Germany sent troops into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, declaring that the situation imagined at Locarno had been changed by the Franco‐Soviet alliance of 1935. France regarded the German move as a “flagrant violation” of Locarno, but Great Britain declined to do so, and no action was taken. Also, Germany made no effort to arbitrate its dispute with Czechoslovakia in 1938 or with Poland in 1939. For Russia, Locarno arrangements focused on the regional security of Europe were efforts to isolate Russia in particular by detaching Germany from its own understanding with Moscow under the April 1922 Treaty of Rapallo. It was perceived in 1925 that the Locarno Pact would bring peace in
Europe, and there would not be another world war. But beginning in the 1930s a series of events took place that ultimately led to another conflict. Soon after joining the League of Nations, the “spirit of Locarno” ran into strong opposition in Germany and France and eventually dissolved completely. The Germans were upset that their borders were so restricted, and many felt that Locarno had brought disgrace and dishonor. France was opposed to it because they felt that they were not well enough protected from Germany. Though its ideals were good and its promises were
hopeful, the Locarno treaties could not prevent World War II.
Some scholars argue that the Treaty reduced the significance of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles. In the case of flagrant aggression, the parties to the Locarno Treaties agreed to act if necessary without a decision of the League Council. Likewise, the disarmament of Germany was stopped as the result of Locarno Treaties contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.

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.

Factors Determining International Relations

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

The Geographic Factor: The location of a State on this planet, its climate and size are such factors which influence its foreign policy in relation to other States. There are numerous authorities who have advocated that the foreign policy of a State is determined by the geography of that state i.e., the geographical position of a State determines its foreign policy. The geographical position of a nation is the principal factor conditioning its foreign policy – the principal reason why it must have a foreign policy at all. As for instance “the geographical factors have been decisive for the course of British history and explain, just as they dictated the main principles of British policy and the pre-occupation of British statement”. (Sir A Chamberlain’s view). If the geographical position of a country is sound, and its climate is healthy, if it is rich in food-stuffs and raw materials, it must follow an independent foreign policy. The geographical position and historical developments are such determining factors of foreign policy of a country that regardless of changes in the form of government, the foreign policy of a country has a natural tendency to return again and again to the same general and fundamental alignment. As for instance, if a state is strategically situated having natural barriers like seas, mountains, terrains, deserts etc., it is not ordinarily vulnerable to foreign invasions. Such strategically situated country follows independent foreign policy in relation to other States.
If a country lacks in all these geographical factors, it has to look to the other States and has to follow the course of the neighboring States in her relation with them. It cannot follow an independent foreign policy, of its own. Thus it is clear that a country which has unfavorable geographical positions cannot be able to keep itself isolated from the events happening in its neighboring countries. The typical example of strategically situated country is that of Great Britain which is surrounded by seas on all sides and the English Channel serves as the most effective barrier to foreign invasion of British Isles due to the fact of which Great Britain remains secure and continues to be a great power. Quite similar is the position of the United States of America. Its geographically isolated position on this globe has brought power and strength to it that it became able to compete Great Britain.

Economic Factors: The economic factors hold a key-plate in affecting the relation of a State with the rest of the world. The chief elements of economic factors which determine the position of a country in relation to other states are (i) its self-sufficiency and (ii) its capacity to provide food, clothing and shelters to its population. Since nature has unevenly distributed its wealth all over the world, no country can claim that it is wholly economically self-sufficient and thus a great power.
A State may be purely agrarian or agricultural being rich in its raw materials and food-stuffs only but lack in mineral resources as coal, iron etc. and hence such States cannot be industrially advanced. Again a State may be rich in mineral resources which can establish huge centers of production and hence they may be industrially advanced states. Again there is the third category of States which may be styled as the balanced States capable of producing enough food for their population and establishing industries out of the resources available within their territories, such as Great Britain, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union. But they also cannot pretend to be self-sufficient because they have to depend upon other States for import of raw-materials without which their industries cannot run successfully. Thus the so-called balanced States becoming able to exert influence on other States and become big powers in course of time. Whether it is the case of Great Britain, or of the United States or of the Soviet Union or of China, the story is the same. Just as the huge supplies of raw materials and natural resources are essential for a country for becoming a big power, a large population is also essential for bringing about greater industrial and agricultural output as well as for raising a powerful army and navy. The great development in China is an illustration on this point which has become one of the Five Big Powers of the world and very recently has taken its seat in the 15 members-Security Council of the United Nations. By population alone cannot make a country strong if it goes on increasing day by day without a corresponding increase in production. The case of India is a leading one on this point.

If a country does not control the increase in its population corresponding to the increase in its production it must look for some other territories to accommodate its increased expansionist policy. Japan invaded Manchuria with this motive; China occupied Tibet for similar ambition, Germany clashed with the Allied Powers with the same motive.

Demographic factor: The demographic factor – (a) the size of the population and (b) ethnic circumstances, also affect the international affairs to a great deal. A nation becomes great and powerful if it has both a growing large population and efficient industrial production. The Soviet Union and the U.S.A. are treated to be big powers only because they have large population and a market industrial development. In contrast to the above two countries, our country though having a large population has not become great power only because it has not been industrially so advanced as to satisfy its needs. Thus the size of the population and equally the huge and efficient industrial production determine the existence to which a nation can claim have an independent foreign policy of its own. Thus the size of population contributes to the weakness of the country. Greater the size more weak economic position is of a country.
Another demographic factor is the ethnic circumstances of a nation. Those countries having a single race or nationality have no internal problems to solve. Such countries are quite free to pursue an independent foreign policy but the countries which have various races or nationalities are bound to face numerous internal problems. The recent split of Pakistan into Pakistan proper and Bangladesh is due to the fact that Pakistan is composed of several racial groups. Though we find that India is composed of several racial groups but the constitution of this country has solved the internal problems of India and there is no likelihood of this country being split up into different entities. The case of India serves an example in that despite diversities there is unity.

Strategic factors: The military strategy of a country is another important factor to determine the foreign policy because is closely connected with the national security of the country. If a country has effective protective natural barriers, it seldom worries about its security, as for instance British Isles and Japan. These countries are surrounded by oceans on all sides and they enjoy the position of islands. Thus the natural barriers of these countries have afforded protection from foreign aggression. Since they are surrounded by oceans on all sides, they have become able to have strong navy to safeguard their frontiers from foreign attacks. This is the main reason that they are considered as great naval powers. Besides seas and ocean, mountains, rivers, snow, deserts, swamps and forests play significant roles in safeguarding the territories of countries.
The Soviet Union and Switzerland are among the few countries which have the most secured frontiers. Both of these countries play important roles in their international affairs as they are strengthened by the most effective protective natural barriers. Distance is another factor influencing the foreign affairs of country. Countries which are isolated from the disturbed areas of the world due to distance, remain actually unaffected by the U.S.A. on the globe serves an example in this respect which remained unaffected by the disturbances taking at some distant places. Thus the distance of a country from the centers of trouble spots is an important factors governing the strategic problems of that country.

Additional Factors:

The historical-psychological, sociological factors: If a country has its bold history, and its people are ready to sacrifice their blood for their motherland, its moral shall always be high. The future of a country cannot be assessed well if we do not study its to day’s affairs in light of the yesterday’s history. No country can pursue an independent foreign policy if the morale of its people is not high and their national character is not strong enough. Such elements are necessary for adopting an independent policy by any country or nation.

The organizational and administrative factor: This factor constitutes the form of the government within a political society and the attitude of the people towards it. Many of majority of foreign issues can be decided by the sound governmental organization, efficient public administration of a country. A government which has strong support from its people lasts long and becomes efficient with lapse of time and becomes also able to deal with the foreign affairs peacefully. Thus, general support of the government and the efficient administration are very important factors for the formulation of sound foreign policy.

The Military factor: Last but not the least significant factors is the military factor which determines the foreign relations of a country. This factor is considered from various aspects, e.g., size of the armed forces, quality and morale of army men, quantity and variety of weapons and equipments which determine the foreign relations also.

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

Propaganda and Diplomacy

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

The usefulness of the instrument of propaganda is now recognized by all the states of the world. But it assumed a significance of its own in the age of cold war. The foreign policy maker paid due attention to the role of propaganda and the diplomats had to perform and execute their job by sailing on winds of propaganda. A study related on propaganda and diplomacy has shown recent year’s development that diplomacy is spread through by propaganda which is contained in communications sent form one government to the other in notes, request, protests, publication, demands for apologies, declarations, official speeches and the like. Sometime, official declaration made for propaganda purposes have their own impact upon the diplomatic bargaining. Whether such declarations should be treated as sincere commitments or not, is verified by the events that occur afterwards. In most of the cases it is found that such declarations are just meant for creating propaganda.

In the time of fascism, propaganda is considering one of the essential parts of the official ideology. The fascist’s official agencies create mass hysteria by means of propaganda to enthuse people so as to deify the authority of the supreme leader. New slogans and symbols like Mussolini’s fasces and Hitler’s Swastik are used to inspire the people to take part in a life of do or die for ht cause. Badges and fancy uniforms are distributed among the soldiers and other paramilitary forces to inculcate a feeling of importance and status.

In this age of democratic diplomacy, propaganda has become very important for the obvious reason that more and more people are becoming participants in the process of diplomacy. Besides, the advanced means of communications are creating a host of serious problems for the diplomats. The days are gone when the foreign affairs were considered to be a matter of specialized study and their conduct was left to the experts. A common man was entirely ignorant of the process of politics in the national or international affairs. Now the elements of propaganda have entered into the world of diplomacy and diplomacy is sometimes dominate by the propaganda.

Wartime Propaganda

Massive modern propaganda techniques began with World War I (1914-1918). From the beginning of the war, both German and British propagandists worked hard to win sympathy and support in the United States. A Ministry of Information was set up, as it had been during the First World War, which employed film directors, actors and entertainers throughout the war. When war broke out in September 1939, the British Government was very aware of the importance of propaganda. That is to say, providing information about the way the war was going trying to make sure that people obeyed the regulations and restrictions that were imposed by the government and keeping up people’s morale. The approach of World War II in 1939 brought many changes of using media too. To counter the propaganda being broadcast by Germany and Italy, the British government asked the BBC to offer services in Arabic and Spanish, and agreed to pay the additional costs required.

German propagandists appealed to the many Americans of German descent and to those of Irish descent who were traditionally hostile to Great Britain. Soon, however, Germany was virtually cut off from direct access to the United States. Thereafter British propaganda had little competition in the United States, and it was conducted more skillfully than that of the Germans. Once engaged in the war, the United States organized the Committee on Public Information, an official propaganda agency, to mobilize American public opinion. This committee proved highly successful, particularly in the sale of Liberty Bonds. The exploitation by the Allies of President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which seemed to promise a just peace for both the victors and the defeated, contributed greatly toward crystallizing opposition within the Central Powers to continuation of the war.

After World War I propaganda achieved great importance as an instrument of national policy in the totalitarian state. Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union deliberately molded public opinion through government propaganda agencies. In Germany, Adolf Hitler established the extremely powerful ministry of propaganda headed by Paul Joseph Goebbels. Completely dominating all public statement in Germany, this agency activates the so-called war of nerves. Before each new aggressive move by Germany; for example, against Czechoslovakia in 1938, the German press and radio publicized alleged evidence of persecution of German minorities in the victim country. Incidents were manufactured and exploited to justify German intervention, and the German war machine was depicted as invincible. The technique proved effective in dividing populations, weakening the power of the victim to resist, and causing its allies to hesitate. As the European crisis intensified, German agents in France spread propaganda of defeatism. Through books, pamphlets, and venal newspapers and in the legislature and the army, they encouraged dissatisfaction with the government, distrust of allies, and fear of German military power. These divisive efforts hastened the collapse of French resistance when the German army finally struck in May 1940.

The propaganda aspects of World War II were similar to those of World War I, except that the war was greater in scope. In the 1930s the United States and Germany engaged in a propaganda war leading up to World War II. Radio played a major role, and propaganda activities overseas were more intense. Both Germany and the United Kingdom again sought to persuade American opinion. German propagandists played on anti-British sentiment, represented the war as a struggle against communism, and pictured Germany as the unbeatable champion of a new order in world affairs. German agents also gave their support to movements in the United States that supported isolationism. German propaganda efforts again proved ineffective, especially after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; the evidence of German aggression was too clear, and American sympathies were increasingly on the side of the United Kingdom. After the United States entered the war, the Axis powers sought to weaken the morale of the Allied armed forces and civilian populations by radio propaganda. The British traitor (conspirator) William Joyce broadcast from Germany under the sardonic name “Lord Haw Haw”; the American poet Ezra Pound broadcast for the Fascist cause from Italy; U.S. forces in the South Pacific became familiar with the voice of Iva Ikuko Toguri D’Aquino, a native Californian of Japanese descent, who broadcast from Japan as “Tokyo Rose.”

Allied propaganda efforts were aimed at separating the peoples of the Axis nations from their governments, which were solely blamed for the war. Radio broadcasts and leaflets dropped from the air carried Allied propaganda to the enemy. The official U.S. propaganda agencies during World War II were the Office of War Information (OWI), charged with disseminating information at home and abroad, and the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), charged with conducting psychological warfare against the enemy. At Supreme Headquarters in the European theater of operations, the OWI and OSS were coordinated with military activities by the Psychological Warfare Division.

Cold –War Propaganda

In the period of the Cold War, a marked conflict of interests between the United States and the Soviet Union following World War II, propaganda continued to be a significant instrument of national policy. Both Democratic and Communist blocs of states attempted by sustained campaigns to win to their side the great masses of uncommitted peoples to achieve their objectives without resorting to armed conflict. Every aspect of national life and policy was exploited for purposes of propaganda. The Cold War was also marked by the use of defectors, trials, and confessions for propaganda purposes.

In this propaganda war the Communist nations seemed initially to have a distinct advantage. Because their governments controlled all media, they could largely seal off their peoples from Western propaganda. At the same time, the highly centralized governments could plan elaborate propaganda campaigns and mobilize resources to carry out their plans. They could also count on aid from Communist parties and sympathizers in other countries. Democratic states, on the other hand, could neither prevent their peoples from being exposed to Communist propaganda nor mobilize all their resources to counter it. This apparent advantage for Communist governments eroded during the 1980s, as communications technology advanced. Inability to control the spread of information was a major factor in the breakdown of many Communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the decade.

The United States Information Agency (USIA), established in 1953 to conduct propaganda and cultural activities abroad, operates the Voice of America, a radio network that carries news and information about the United States in more than 40 languages to all parts of the world. In 1978 USIA functions were taken over by the International Communication Agency; its name was changed back to the U.S. Information Agency in 1982. In 1967 it was revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had for many years covertly supported numerous American and foreign labor, student, and political organizations, such as Radio Free Europe, the efforts of which benefited U.S. foreign policies.

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.

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.

Meaning, nature and scope of IR

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

The definition of International Relations (IR) varies from a layperson to scholars. It means one thing to individuals inhabiting at the power centers of the World (the West) and means other thing to the impoverished peoples of the South. It is a complex tapestry of conceptions that is palatable to one and vulgar to the others. The definitions are also either narrow or broad. It is either state-centric, or society-centric or anthropocentric in connotations. It is defined in a way that suits those who govern and those who are governed. A striking balance is therefore required to satisfy the interpreters of IR especially for the people who dislike inevitability of power politics qua realpolitik.

IR encompasses or covers all facets and dimensions of relations amongst nations. It includes political, economic, social, cultural and ideological spheres of a state which interface that with the others. Specific to the influences on the state and its citizens we can say that IR is the study of respective spheres of (inter)actions at different levels – either above or below a state and with different actors – either state or non-state. However a universal acceptance of a definition is still elusive. It suggests that there is no single viewpoint on understanding and explaining IR.

The traditional scope of IR is associated much either with state-centric notions of our existence or with forces international in nature that shape our private lives. Whereas today it is identified more with job prospects and career in IR. We sometimes pursue our study according to the conditions of job markets or scope of the subject in securing employment. The important aspect of after education is to explore avenues on your own to expand the scope of the received knowledge in a society. Without internship or voluntarism in non-government sectors one can not augment experiences of real world situations. It also emphasize on interpersonal and communication skills as well as working on a multicultural environment in diverse situations. MNCs play a prominent role in current international relations and international business diplomacy is one area where management students would be suitable to undertake the profession.

Some put forward a limited list and others exhaustive list but it can not be forthrightly said that scope is fully decided because the international environment as well as this discipline is in a state of flux. Even then its scope and main areas of study have been distinctly demarcated viz. study of the state system, relations in conflict and cooperation, general and diplomatic history, power, international law, international organizations, international systems, integration and community approach, geopolitics, conflict management and conflict resolution, war and peace, ideologies, nationalism, colonialism and imperialism, foreign policy, national interest, policy-making, national character, psychological factors, military-strategic factors, alliances and groupings, arms control and disarmament, demographic factors, economic factors and area and regional studies.

Purpose and Importance of IR

IR is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate foreign policy. Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields making it cross and inter-disciplinary study. It involves a diverse range of issues, from globalization and its impacts on societies and state sovereignty to ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, terrorism, organized crime, human security and human rights.

The course on IR will attract interest from young students all over the country and abroad as Nepal is at the centre of Asia touching two giant countries – India and China. It is to realize the importance of this country and its people in bridging between two vast economies by becoming a transit state and, in total, maintaining harmony among them for the development, solidarity and unity of Asia. Therefore it is felt that there is a need for an academic discipline of this type in Nepal at the threshold of 21st century and in the context of globalized world.

To fulfill the desires and aspirations of men and women who would like to pursue academic life in International Relations. To open avenue to critically examine at every level of analysis – individual, local, national, regional and global which would illuminate and enlighten in understanding and analyzing complexities of today’s world. The demands of budding talents of Nepal in this regard, it has become extremely necessary to introduce this inter-disciplinary course.

The aims of this course is to familiarize students with the central concerns of IR – foreign policy analysis, international organization, strategic studies, diplomacy, globalization, international political economy (IPE), international law and IR theory. It will provide students with tools for the critical interpretation of both secondary and primary texts, equip them with an in depth knowledge of international history and politics during the mid 20th century to the present, equip students with the skills and opportunity to conduct autonomous supervised research projects including assignments, seminars, a long essay and dissertation and develop their competency at communicating their ideas.

It therefore aims to cater students wishing to develop their specialist knowledge in international affairs/politics and diplomacy. It prepares students for exciting careers in the diplomatic service, inter-governmental agencies, national and international non-governmental organizations and international media. Also they will go on to high-caliber jobs and will be accepted into prestigious university programmes and secure research positions around the world. The purpose is to lure the best and brightest students of Nepal to do an inter-disciplinary academic exercise.

By the time one finishes studies in IR, he/she will have developed high levels of initiative, self-discipline and creativity. It will enhance employment prospects and will give them a tremendous sense of personal achievement. The course is stimulating, challenging and ultimately rewarding – intellectually, and in whichever direction students choose their careers their horizon will expand and worlds of possibility will open up as a result of advanced course in IR.

IR has both theoretical and practical utility. It can be adapted for use in general education in each community and each country with their worldview and various interpretations giving to its generalizations.

Its practical importance can not be negated with regard to practical assignment of individuals when conduction IR. They include national or international officials, statesmen, politicians, international jurists, international financiers, international propagandists, educators, journalists and activists. It aids in their practical activity to discern situations on the ground reality to be addressed, to obtain relevant information, to frame goals and to make decisions initiating action. IR can be investigated further for research purpose to answer innumerable questions about the future of international relations as well as to find shortcomings in the existing theoretical and political knowledge of the world. Some scholars point out that it teaches the formula to be pursued for human survival and progress, understanding and controlling human problems of global repercussion such as war and conflicts, aims at objectivity, balance and perspective. To others the value and purpose of IR is about understanding the role of subjectivity (meaning nation’s viewpoint and even authors), fostering internationalism along with nationalism and establishing a better world.

Individual and the World
Americans are unconcerned about world event s and issues. Minority of well-educated Americans follow foreign news and most of them have little information about global politics. As we are not mere spectators on the theatre of global drama which is played over and over we are all caught up in the tidal ebb and flow of global happenings. The importance of studying IR is to make one knowledgeable about the world and to try to mould it according to one’s liking as international politics does matter. It does affect one’s economic life, habitat and substantially one’s existence.

Economic condition
As international industrial and financial structures become interestingly intertwined the impact of international economics on an individual continues to expand (ex. job losses in developed countries and petro-states can have effect on remittances of Nepal). The term intermestic symbolizes the merger of international and domestic concerns. The ubiquitous connections briefly explore three aspects of that relationship. How international trade, the flow of international capital, and defense spending all affect finances of individuals we need to deeply understand.

– International trade and your finances

The global flow of goods (tangible items) and services (intangible items such as revenues from tourism, insurance and banking) are important to your financial circumstances. International trade and your job are interrelated. Exports create jobs and jobs are also lost due to rising imports.

– The flow of international capital and your finances

Investment capital whereby foreign investors provide jobs for domestic workers and the product and marketing decisions that they make have a wide impact. The infusion of foreign capital save the companies facing crisis and provide jobs as well. The inflow of foreign investment capital had deeper impacts on economies of India and China.

International financial capital markets allow people to own individual shares, stocks, bonds of mutual fund shares. It has gone up in Nepal as well as in the developed countries. It is not the concern of the rich. Financial aid and tuition waiver at foreign universities and higher education sector provide relief to needy foreign students.

– Defense spending and your finances

Americans paid taxes to buttress America’s involvement in world affairs. In F/Y 2001 the US government spent $ 1.9 trillion foreign aid accounting 1% of the budget. The defense spending was considerably 16.1% which equals about $ 1,100 per American for national defense. Israel has the highest per capita spending on military. With 5% of the world’s populations, the US accounts for 37% of the world’s military spending and make military-industrial complex lucrative.

Habitable world – environmental sustainability of development
There are demographic pressures, ageing population, teeming youth force in Nepal. High population growth rate also affects the pattern of consumption of food, energy creating ecological calamity, environmental disaster and global warming due to emission of green house gases. High food prices in international market with food deficit can result in famine and malnourishment in remote corners of the country.

Interconnected life with a corporeal world
Human resources are utilized in the country and the abroad as human insecurity looms large. Under skilled and knowledgeable work force look greener pasture of the developed countries for job prospects and academic career. They even do menial jobs which are dirty, dangerous and difficult (3Ds). Around thousands leave TIA the only international airport in the country and it is an irony that on average three dead bodies of Nepalese arrives home.

Can we make a difference?

Yes, we can. There are multiple ways but to name a few. Direct voting or referendum on international questions as Danish, Irish, Polish and Czech voted for the Lisbon Treaty. The Swiss are well known for practicing this process. We can vote for suitable candidates who can deliver much on foreign policy fronts especially abrogating the 1950 treaty with India, harnessing of water resources for our benefits. We can also demand from the leaders on the accountability of the use of international aid. We can involve in direct action at local and national level by influencing global relations through activism and entrepreneurial activities.

Conceptualising the World into theories

Every statement that is intended to describe or explain anything that happens in IR is a theoretical statement. It is naïve and superficial to try to discuss IR solely on the basis of ‘the facts’. This is because whatever facts are selected – any at all – are literally abstract. The serious student of IR needs to consider afresh the problem of how to picture IR as a whole. The problem of theorist is to simplify the complexity without distorting it. That task, in turn, requires attention to the procedures of theory-building.

Theory-building

‘Theory’ is not a static body of knowledge rather it is a ‘tool on the road to knowledge’ in the same way that ‘facts are not knowledge but only the raw materials’ that have to be transformed via ‘theorising activity’ into propositions that can be ‘tested in the process of empirical research.’

Theory consists of both analysis and synthesis. To analyse is to unravel, to separate the strands, or to take to pieces. To synthesize is to reassemble, to piece together the parts in such a way as to compose a whole that makes sense.

According to Robert Cox, “Theory is always for someone for some purpose”.

As a development of Marxist thought, critical theory seeks to unmask the global domination of the rich North over the South. It views knowledge as inherently political; social scientists and social science as instruments of power.

Generally speaking IR scholars derive three schools of thought on it viz. realism, liberalism and Marxism. They should be strictly designated as ‘paradigms’ but they are also more casually termed perspectives, approaches, world views, frameworks or general theories. The voices from the margins as called by advocates of critical theory and post-modernism are making presence felt in the current discourse of IR. Infact IR is impervious to a growing awareness of feminist approaches to it. The political has become the personal. Gender issues, ethnicity and more traditional concepts of nation-states, nationalism, culture and religion reflect new emphasis in IR on identity studies.

There are five basic values of state system – security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. Each of them is generalized respectively by realist theories, liberal theories, International Society theories, International Political Economy (IPE) theories of IR.

For realists, IR is a system of ‘billiard-ball’ states in intermittent collisions. For pluralists, it is a ‘cobweb’, a network of numerous crisscrossing relationships. For structuralists, it is a ‘multi-headed octopus’, with powerful tentacles constantly sucking wealth from the weakened peripheries towards the powerful centers.

Popular schools of thought – realism and idealism
At least for five centuries or more we have followed a path that has been characterized by self-interested states struggling to secure their self-interests in a largely anarchistic international system. The alternative path not undertaken argued that states need to abandon the pursuit of short-term self-interest and take a more cooperative globalist approach. They favour a decline in the central role played by states in the international system, a rise of global institutions such as the UN and regional supranational organizations like EU. The world needs to find a new way to govern itself from the perspective of the advent of nuclear weapons, the deterioration of the global environment and other looming problems.

Two approaches are not an ‘either-or’ choice. Realism, realpolitik, balance of power, nationalist, conservative and state-centred (state-centric, state-based) on the one hand and the other idealism (idealist), globalism, (new) world order, liberal, liberal institutionalism and internationalist. Besides these there are number of related orientations – feminism, political economy and constructivism. Realists are pessimists and idealists are optimists about the existing world.

Politics according to the doctrine of realism and idealism
Both disagree over the nature of Homo Politicus (political humankind) and their respective views govern their approaches to domestic as well as to international politics. Realists portray politics in somber hues and believe that political struggle among humans is probably inevitable because people have an inherent dark side. Some scholars trace their intellectual roots all the way back to Thucydides, the chronicler of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides argued that the casus belli between the Athenians and the Spartans around 420 BC was an increase in Athenian military power and the security dilemma it posed to Melians of the Spartan League. He is said to have begun one of the main traditions of thinking about international relations. Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Max Weber are also regarded as seminal thinkers without getting designation of being realists. The realist doctrines may have germinated in the writings of these early thinkers but its recent formulations as a theoretical approach to the study of IR began in the later 1930s and early 1940s.

E.H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau are pioneers in that development. They were among the first scholars to use the term ‘realism’ and to elaborate its fundamental assumptions by contrast with the allegedly idealistic study of IR that prevailed during the interwar period. They claimed to delineate hard realities of international life and unmasked the reality of politics challenging romanticism and utopianism. Idealists with its belief in peace and emphasis on free trade in effect were blind to accumulation of power by states and the perpetuation of status quo. There are three basic tenets of realist philosophy derived from Machiavelli:

History is a sequence of cause and effect – a synchronization involving hard power (political or military) or high politics of security and survival. It outweighs rationality, an intellectual effort over “imagination”, a utopian believe.
Theory does not as utopians assume create practice but practice makes theory.
Politics are not as utopians pretend a function of ethics but ethics of politics. Morality is the product of power.

Thomas Hobbes envisaged anarchical society wherein humans possess an inherent urge to dominate, animus dominandi.

Morgenthau extrapolates relations between individuals on a wider scale in not essentially different in relations amongst nations. He said “politics is governed by objective laws which have their roots in human nature”. It is reflected in a rational theory of politics and international relations. He mentioned about six principles of realism wherein human nature and ethics of state are dealt with.

Therefore with negative view of human actions and desires liberal thinkers profoundly misread the facts of history and misunderstood the nature of international relations. There are profound conflicts of interest both between countries and between people according to Carr. Thus IR is far more about conflict than about cooperation. Morgenthau was preoccupied with human nature at the base of international relations no less than any other human relations. And humans were self-interested and power seeking and that culminates easily in aggression. The second major element of the realist view concerns the nature of international relations – an international anarchy. The third component is a cyclical view of history. In contrast to the liberal view that qualitative change for the better is possible, realism stresses continuity and repetition. They hold a notion of power politics between states which exist in an international anarchy.

A relatively more recent variation on realism is neorealism which focuses on the anarchic nature of a world system based on competition among sovereign states while classical realists stress human nature as decisive in shaping world politics. They both doubt that there is an escape from conflict. Anarchy/hierarchy is the nature of the international system based on sovereign actors (states). They answer to no higher authority, overarching authority providing security and order. It is a self-help system with each state relies on its resources to survive and prosper. Classical realists believe human nature is immutable and neorealists are skeptical about utility of international organizations or the ability of interdependent nature of relations to promote cooperation. National policy of a state is formulated on national interests.

Idealism and the Nature of Politics:

Idealism refute that all or most humans are inherently political predators. They believe in over of cooperation and less conflictual relations. Basic liberal assumptions are: 1. a positive view of human nature, 2. a conviction of cooperative rather than conflictual state of international relations, 3. a belief in progress. They believe in human reason applying rational principles in international affairs. The human reason can triumph over human fear and the lust for power. The core concern of idealism is the happiness and contentment of individual human beings. The classical realism focused on freedom, cooperation, peace, progress.

Early thinkers are John Locke (constitutional states and toleration), Jeremy Bentham (international law and reciprocity) and Kant (progress and perpetual peace). The basic tenets of liberalism are intertwining of human progress, human reason and cooperation which results in the process of modernization towards the development of the modern state. Idealists trace their intellectual lineage to Jean-Jacques Rousseau who understood the human potential to come together to build a cooperative and peaceful global society.

Utopian liberalism as the early study of IR has traits of Wilsonial idealism. It is the conviction that through a rationally and intelligently designed international organization. It should be possible to put an end to war and to achieve more or less permanent peace. Norman Angell, a contemporary liberal of Wilson, is a forerunner of later liberal thinking about modernization and economic interdependence. It involves a process of change and progress which renders war and the use of force increasingly obsolete.

Idealists as critics say are out of tough with current thinking; they put moral principles before practical or prudential considerations and are naïve about the world around them. They are futurists who seek a perfect world. The self-proclaimed realists had coined the term to describe liberal internationalism of the interwar years and such a labeling deserves debatable. Recent research indicates that the idealist thinkers of the period were not as ‘other worldly’ as many realists suggested. Idealism surfaced in reaction to the carnage of the 1st World War. Most intellectuals and policymakers of the day pointed the blame on the Realpolitik of the European great powers and resolved the task of abolishing war as an instrument of statecraft. Philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie, Ford and Rockfeller devoted some portion of their wealth to educate people about benefits of developing internationalist orientation. Indeed the birth of IR as a separate discipline coincided with these developments. Wilson’s 14 Point at the Versailles Peace Conference in December 1918 not only provided an outline for the settlement of the 1st World War but also served as the basis for the establishment of the League of Nations. Idealists shared a belief in progress and were of the view that deliberations under the rule of law and the procedures of parliamentary democracy could be firmly established in international diplomacy. That’s why they placed so much importance on the League of Nations and on strengthening international law.

A fundamental belief of idealism is that what unites human beings is more important than what divides them. The idealists rejected communitarian and realist arguments that the state is itself a source of moral value for human beings. Instead, they defended a cosmopolitan ethics and sought to educate individuals about the need to reform the international system. Interwar idealism was as much a political movement as an intellectual one.

The idealism is a sort of a passé paving the way for mutation into neoidealism (often called neoliberalism) school of thought. Neoidealists subscribe like neorealists much of the world conflict to the anarchic world system based on competition among sovereign states. Like all idealists, neoidealists believe that humans can cooperate in order to achieve mutual benefits. Since the anarchical system hinders cooperation, it is building through effective international organisation can the best path to cooperation achieve. That’s why their prescription and emphasis on institutions make them liberal institutionalists.

Power of Power politics and norms and values of Justice
They are poles apart in describing the two facets of governance, the power and justice. Both as standards of international conduct disagree over their roles. Realists maxim holds that the “might is right” whilst idealists contend that “right makes right”.

Realism and Power Politics

It is an undisputable belief on power that leads state exercise to secure their frequently conflicting interests. This is a salient feature of the main action at international arena. They hold that objectives of politics internationally are to augment power, to keep or retain it or to exhibit it. It is not a novel thought as Indian seer Kautilya had expressed these mantra two millennia ago.

The essence of politics is the struggle for power and foreing policy is based on the tenets for a strategy of survival and struggle for existence. So in an international climate of anarchy of a state ignores or do not follow this dictum then it barely fits in those strategy. Thus the national interest takes into account of enhancing or preserving the state’s security, its influence and its power- military and economic. The sutra of success for a state in international politics lies in the mightiness of these elements. Therefore it is unconscionable or irrational to follow policy based only on ethics or morality. So the morality of the state is national survival but that does not imply realists are amoral. The moral duty of the state in its highest form is to do good for its citizens. More moderately realists prescribe that morality should be weighed prudently against national interests .

Idealism and norms and values

Competition and cooperation – dynamic views
Positivism or what is of reality – an appraisal of divergent theories

Methodology of studying world politics
Some of the most important IR questions are methodological in nature. Such issues became prominent with the ‘behavioural revolution’ in the 1950s and 1960s. Since the end of the Cold War, methodological issues have returned to center stage in a debate between positivist and post-positivist methodologies. In most academic disciplines, including IR, there are two fundamental kinds of controversy. One kind debate involves over substantive issues i.e. questions of fact. The other controversy involves over methodological issues i.e. conceptual and philosophical questions that are involved in the way that we carry out our research.

Political Scientists and world politics – analytical orientations, descriptive (empirical) or prescriptive (normative) – goals and research methods

The concepts of war, order and peace, justice and injustice, anarchy and sovereignty as an intellectual concern were occupied prominent place in a long history of international relations. Political scientists study world politics in order to formulate theories – generalizations – about politics. Thus they would like to unravel the phenomena and patterns that are constant at spatio-temporal realm. There are many methodologies and approaches to arrive at understanding of IR. Nonetheless a political scientist main concern is with theory. Keeping this in mind IR scholars has three subsidiary goals: description, prediction and prescription.

Description is the oldest and most fundamental of these three goals. It focuses on patterns. When researcher studies a single event or case studies or a series of events across time or space the object is not to just describe the event(s). Instead the goal is to relate them to a pattern of other events for e.g. democratic peace, multipolarity, anarchy is what states make of it, etc.

Prediction is even more difficult than description because of complexity of unpredictable human nature. Forecasting is fallible and inaccurate when no one predicted the end of the Cold War except the dissidents and litterateurs. Moreover the rise of Great power can fall in certain period as the history of Roman and British Empires are of any guide.

Prescription is a third goal. Some scholars go beyond their objective studies and come to normative or moral philosophy of IR i.e. what ought to be. They enter into direct policy-making field whereas those who can not make influence indirectly through working in think-tanks, as columnist and public author of influencing books.

Political scientists conduct research or gather evidence to support their hypothesis through three basic methodologies – logic, traditional observation and quantitative analysis. Logic involves applying it in deducing or deriving specific reasoning for particular political observation such as deterrence theory, negotiations or game theory in decision making, foreign policy analysis etc. Traditional observation uses varied techniques to study political phenomena. One method is historical approach – personal interviews, archives and participant observation. History can be prelude to the current problems and underlying conflict can be traced to the past. Quantitative analysis use mathematical modeling for measurable phenomena such as cross border trade, human migrations,

Level of Analysis (international system, state or individual) There are three levels of analysis form which world politics can be investigated. They are system-level analysis, state-level analysis and individual-level analysis and are not mutually exclusive.

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.

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?

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.