TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

Impact of Holocaust in International Relations

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

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

Genocide Convention

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

International Accountability for Crime Against Humanity

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

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

What are the Crime Against Humanity ?

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

International Protection of Human Rights

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

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

Protections for Refugees

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

Reconciliation Between Christian and Jews

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

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

Idea of a Jewish Homeland

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

PEACE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicting Perspectives regarding Peace of Westphalia

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

System Theory

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

Morton Kaplan after 1955 explain the theory in more systematic manner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Causes & Origin of Cold War

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

1. Immediate Causes

Opposing Ideologies: Once common Enemies defeated (Germany); tension escalate.

The Soviets sought to introduce their brand of communism to nations and territories that they occupied as a result of the war.

The United States and the other Western European nations viewed communism and one‐party rule in a very negative light; as a direct threat to individual freedom and democracy

East–West ideological differences soon manifested themselves in Germany, which was split into western and eastern occupation zones in 1945.

The Atomic Bomb:

SU upset that their allies had tried to keep the technology a secret;

American atomic monopoly might create a serious security problem along their western border.

Strategic Imperatives and Power Vacuums; As the number of newly independent states proliferated in the postwar world as the result of decolonization, the US and Soviet Union competed for influence over these new states.

US adopted the policy of checking the Soviet expansion.

Economics: The Soviets held out the promise that communism would bring an end to economic deprivation and inequality.

The United States convince Europeans that democratic capitalism offered the only acceptable way of achieving economic success and freedom.

Leadership and Personalities: In April 1945, just a month before the defeat of Germany, President Franklin D. Roosevelt died, and Vice President Harry S. Truman became the new leader of the United States.

Roosevelt’s style of wartime diplomacy with Stalin had been very personal and informal; compromise and postponed making difficult postwar decisions.

Truman’s leadership style was far more forceful and direct than was Roosevelt’s.

2. Intermediate Causes:

Foreign Policies of the 1930s: Hitler annexed Austria in March 1938, the French, British, and Soviets entered into negotiations to form an alliance or mutual defense pact.

negotiations broke down by mid‐1939 because of mutual suspicions and misunderstandings.

Just as the Munich Agreement 1938, angered the Soviets, the August 1939 Nazi‐Soviet Non‐Aggression Pact outraged the West.

The Soviets stayed out of the war until they were attacked by Germany in June 1941.

The World War II alliance of the allies was based not on long‐term trust or even long‐term mutual interests. It was based only on the will to defeat a common enemy.

War Damage and the Soviet Union

Stalin and his successors believed that their country would have suffered much less damage and far fewer deaths had its allies dedicated more resources to the World War II effort in Europe.

mutual distrust soon replaced mutual cooperation after the Axis nations were defeated.

After the war was over, Stalin felt entitled to control Eastern Europe

He believed that the great suffering and sacrifices made by the Soviets had earned him the right to establish pro‐Soviet regimes from Yugoslavia all the way to the Polish‐Soviet border.

He sought dominance there for ideological as well as security reasons. mistrust developed with the way Allied Conduct of World War II.

3. Long‐term Causes

Western Interference in the Russian/ Bolshevik Revolution (1918–1921)

In January–February 1918, Great Britain, the United States, and France decided to intervene in the Russian Revolution of November 1917. The revolution led ultimately to a civil war.

Britain, America, France, Japan, and several other Western nations sent troops to Russia to stop the Bolsheviks. By 1921, the Bolsheviks had consolidated their power and the West ended its intervention and blockade.

The deeply resented the West’s intervention in what was clearly an internal affair. This history weighed heavily on East–West relations.

Soviet Security Concerns: history of Invasion;

Stalin’s desire to establish a defensive perimeter in Eastern Europe contributed to the eventual clash with the West.

Introduction and Development of International Relations

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

History of the Discipline of IR:

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

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

The Development of IR Thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Great Debates”/ Inter-paradigm debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace treaty of versailles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilson’s Fourteen Points:
Geopolitical Issues:

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

General Ideology:

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

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

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

Division of the world between NATO and warsaw pact

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

North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]

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

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

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

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

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

Key Provisions :

The North Atlantic Treaty consists of 14 articles.

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

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

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

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

Structure

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

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

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

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

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

Roles, Uses and Success of NATO

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

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

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

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

NATO Now

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

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

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

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

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

The Warsaw Pact

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

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

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

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

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

Key Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversies and Criticisms

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

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

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

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

Diplomatic Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Long‐term Consequences of Cold War

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

Proxy Wars: Vietnam War, African Decolonization Movements, and Afghan Crisis

Proxy wars were fought throughout the developing world

During 1961–1973, the United States gradually escalated its involvement in the Vietnam War.

Vietnam was divided into North and South regions after its decolonization in 1954. North Vietnam came under communist influence while US backed South

Gradually nationalistic forces from the North that aimed to unify Vietnam began to encroach into the South. The Americans saw it as a communist threat and began to provide military support to the south.

The U.S. government withdrew its military in the early 1970s. The U.S. effort to prevent a communist takeover in South Vietnam failed.

In other parts of the world, but most notably in Africa, post–World War II decolonization movements witnessed both the Americans and Soviets competing for influence.

This superpower rivalry either precipitated regional or civil wars or greatly prolonged conflicts already in progress. Such was the case in Congo (Zaire), Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya, among other African states.

Millions of people died in these wars mainly because of genocide, forced relocations, and starvation.

In late 1970s Afghanistan experienced a sort of revolution. A communist government was installed in power in Afghanistan

The US, USSR and China all had vested interests in Afghanistan due to its oil.

But anti‐communist force in collaboration with the religious fundamentalist forces opposed the new government. As a result Afghanistan plunged into a civil War.

In this civil war the USA supported the anticommunists and the fundamentalists (mujahedeen) via Pakistan. On the other hand, the communist government sought military and economic aid from the USSR.

The war was a disaster for the Soviet Union. USSR ultimately withdrew in 1990.

Nepal’s Participation in the UN peacekeeping Operations

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

Nepal has been one of the major contributing stakeholders in peace‐keeping missions of the United Nations by contributing a large number of army troops and police.

Quantitatively, Nepal is the sixth in rank among the highly contributing nations to peace missions in the world.

As of June 2013, Nepal has already participated in 39 UN peacekeeping operations around the globe contributing more than 95,000 Nepali peacekeepers including the military, police personnel and other civilians including doctors, engineers, etc.

Nepal has responded to every call of the General Assembly and the Security Council for the cause of conflict prevention and peacekeeping efforts immediately after joining the United Nations.

Nepal started its participation in the peacekeeping operations with the first involvement of the Nepalese Army in United Nations Military Observation Group in Lebanon (UNMOGIL) in June 1958 and the Nepal Police Force in Former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR) in 1992.

Contribution:

Nepalese peacekeepers have been entrusted with assignments have been both at the headquarters (e.g. deputy military advisor) and field levels such as Force Commanders of various peacekeeping operations.

Nepal has conveyed its willingness to provide up to 5000 military peacekeepers at the request of the United Nations.

In 2008, Nepal observed the 50th anniversary of Nepal’s participation in the UN peacekeeping operations.

Nepal has signed the Memorandum of Understanding under the UN Standby Arrangements to contribute, at a short notice, 3500 troops including doctors, engineers, observers and headquarters staff and 200 civilian police monitors for peacekeeping purposes.

Nepalese peacekeepers have earned a very good reputation. International community has appreciated the performance of Nepalese peacekeepers for their loyalty, professionalism, dedication, and impartiality.

Challenges:

Nepal’s financial limitations place a heavy burden on its abilities to send troops with required logistics especially transport vehicles and helicopters etc.

Nepal needs to enhance the capabilities of the peacekeepers through persistent training to fulfill more complex and multidimensional mandates as required by new missions.

French‐speaking skills should also be promoted among the peacekeepers for the missions spreading over French speaking areas.

Nepal should consider promptly procuring necessary quality equipment to be supplied to the missions.

Nepal should also focus on gender balance in composing the troops being sent on UN missions.

Transparency in selection in UN Peacekeeping Operation.

Strong vetting (Examining) system should be developed.

Nepalese peacekeeper should provide a senior level responsibility in UN mission