TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

Development of Foreign Policy in Nepal

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

Nepal had diplomatic relationship only with the four countries- India, America, England and France till 2007 B.S.
International relationship took a new turn after Nepal got the membership of the UNO in 2012 B.S.
In 2013 B.S. Nepal established diplomatic relationship with USSR, China, Japan, Switzerland etc.
In 2013 B.S., Nepal took part in the general assembly of the UNO for the first time.
Since 2018 B.S. Nepal has been participating in conferences of non-alignment held at different countries regularly.
First time in 1969-70 and in 1988-89 for the second time, Nepal was elected temporary member of UNO security council.
Nepal got support from many countries on the proposal of declaring it as zone of peace by the then His Majesty King Birendra in 2031 B.S.
A new chapter began by adding a new dimension in the foreign policy of nepal after the peoples movement 2046 B.S.
In 1991 Nepal signed in the six different important international treaties at the same time.
In 1992, the prime minister of Nepal took part in non-alignment conference.
Nepal has been strengthening its foreign relationship in the international sector through regional forum showing active participation in the different SAARC summits held till now.

General Theory of International Relations

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

The first thesis
A general theory of international relations needs to deal with the relationships between at least three fundamental concepts: Structure, Purpose and Situation. Power, and restraints on power, will be considered as subsidiary concepts. Structure- not just as nation but all other influential factors.

The second thesis
A general theory of international relations needs to permit of a multiplicity of viewpoints ranging from that of a responsible member of a particular group at a particular time (say, the Secretary of State of the United States today) to one that approximates, as far as may be possible, to that of a hypothetical observer from Mars studying the emergent characteristics of an interacting system of many cultures, races, states, classes, etc., over the full course of history.

The third thesis
A general theory of international relations needs to deal with two realms: the realm of fact and the realm of value — of “should” propositions — and with the interrelations between these realms. In almost every problem of international politics the first question to be asked is, in the particular context, who is to be regarded as the “we” and who is to be regarded as the “they.” The Phenomena of External and Internal Means of Balance of Power: Alliances
serving as external means and Increased armaments as internal balance of power. The recent world order in terms of economy, ideology and political system are becoming just as aspect of purpose. The means-ends concepts works better in international relation.

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).

Causes behind the World War II

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

Introduction

World War II (Started September 1, 1939), global military conflict that, in terms of lives lost and material destruction, was the most devastating war in human history. It began in 1939 as a European conflict between Germany and an Anglo-French coalition but eventually widened to include most of the nations of the world. It ended in 1945, leaving a new world order dominated by the United States and the USSR.

More than any previous war, World War II involved the commitment of nations’ entire human and economic resources, the blurring of the distinction between combatant and noncombatant, and the expansion of the battlefield to include all of the enemy’s territory. The most important determinants of its outcome were industrial capacity and personnel. In the last stages of the war, two radically new weapons were introduced: the long-range rocket and the atomic bomb. In the main, however, the war was fought with the same or improved weapons of the types used in World War I. The greatest advances were in aircraft and tanks.

World War II ended with the surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945 and the surrender of Japan on August 14, 1945. Statistically, this military conflict overshadows every war ever fought. Some 1.7 billion people from 61 nations engaged in a struggle waged on the land, on the sea, and in the skies of Europe, East and Southeast Asia, North Africa, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. The clash left behind a trail of carnage and destruction unparalleled in human history. World War II took the lives of some 55 million soldiers and civilians and destroyed untold amounts of property. It cost more to finance World War II than any war before it. Beyond the awesome and almost unfathomable statistics, the conflict left a permanent mark on all aspects of human experience and shaped the history of the postwar world. For a generation of men and women everywhere, World War II was “the war.”

Cause behind the 2nd World War

Seen and main cause of war is German attack on Poland on September 1 1939 and consequent declaration of war by Britain and France against Germany. This gives the impression that war was caused by the Polish-German dispute. Polish problem was indeed the immediate cause of the war, but there were many other causes that created the situation in which war became unavoidable. Let us, briefly discuss all the distant as well as immediate causes of the war. It is generally believed that the treaty of Versailles signed after the 1st World War was so unjust that it carried the germs of Second World War.

Three major powers had been dissatisfied with the outcome of World War I. Germany, the principal defeated nation, bitterly dislike the territorial losses and reparations payments imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles. Italy, one of the victors, found its territorial gains far from enough either to offset the cost of the war or to satisfy its ambitions. Japan, also a victor, was unhappy about its failure to gain control of China. Some of the main causes of the World War II were as follows:

1. Treaty of Versailles:- The point is that the primary cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, named after the small town in France where the treaty was signed, embarrassed and humiliated the Germans. Some of the highlights of the treaty were:

German loss of territory, which damaged their economy
Financial reparations of 33 billion dollars, which caused inflation and unemployment
Loss of their army and navy, leaving them vulnerable to attack
The forced acceptance of guilt for WWI, which humiliated the German people

Treaty of Versailles was a dictated treaty of peace imposed upon Germany. Germans defeated 1871 France, and in 1919 when German was defeated she decided to take revenge. German delegates at Paris Conference were kept confined to a hotel surrounded by barbed wires. Germans were not consulted at the drafting stage. They did not negotiate it. The victors drafted the treaty and Germany was told to sign it or face military action. This is a treaty on which Germany made sign with out having chance to provide suggestions from her side. Because of treaty Germany was deprived of all her overseas colonies, and even in Europe her size was substantially reduced. Poland, France, Belgium and others gained at her cost. Her army and navy were badly curtailed and she was told not to have any air force. Treaty of Versailles mutilated and humiliated Germany. Now, it was the turn to Germany to take revenge. Hitler came on the center stage, led his proud people to avenge their humiliation and caused the Second World War. In addition to embarrassing the people of Germany and making their lives miserable, the treaty was also filled with other problems.

Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and parts of Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Italy were carved out of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. These new small nations were not strong and were not equipped either economically or militarily to grow and to defend themselves.
Russia was not invited to the peace talks because it was still going through its communist revolution and they were talking of worldwide communism.
The League of Nations, which was the precursor to the United Nations, was formed but it carried very little power and was not effective in protecting countries from aggression.

2. The Failure of Peace Efforts:- During the 1920s, attempts were made to achieve a stable peace. The first was the establishment (1920) of the League of Nations as a forum in which nations could settle their disputes. The league’s powers were limited to persuasion and various levels of moral and economic sanctions that the members were free to carry out as they saw fit. At the Washington Conference of 1921-22, the principal naval powers agreed to limit their navies according to a fixed ratio. The Locarno Conference (1925) produced a treaty guarantee of the German-French boundary and an arbitration agreement between Germany and Poland. In the Paris Peace Pact (1928), 63 countries, including all the great powers except the USSR, renounced war as an instrument of national policy and pledged to resolve all disputes among them “by pacific means.” The signatories had agreed beforehand to exempt wars of “self-defense.”

3. Failure of Collective Security System:- After the First World War the collective security system was conceptualized to provide the security to the victim of an aggression. Members of League, by their collective action, would compel the aggressor to vacate it. This collective action could either be in the form of economic sanctions or military support to the victim of aggression. It is failed by name of self-defense, the big power did aggression and collective security didn’t work properly. Like in 1931 Japan committed an aggression against China on Manchuria. Also 1935 Italy waged a war against Abyssinia.

4. Failure of Disarmament:- Pairs Peace Conference that world peace would be ensure if countries reduced their armaments to appoint consistent with their defense. That means all weapons of offensive nature were to be destroyed. The Treaty of Versailles had disarmed Germany, and victor nations were to disarm later. They never really wanted to disarm; therefore Germany declared in October 1933 that she was leaving both the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations. Later in 1935 Germany formally declared the she was no more bound by the military clause of the Treaty of Versailles. This makes the way of an armed conflict. The failure of disarmament became one of the major causes of Second World War.

5. World Economic Crisis:- World Economic Crisis began in 1929 with sudden stoppage of loans by American financial house to the European Countries. In the 1930’s, the Great Depression that causes throughout Europe, including Germany, millions of people lost their jobs, and their money lost its value. It makes effect mostly to Germany, because she is making rapid industrial progress mostly borrowed American money. Also the race for armaments did negative effect to the economic situation of the Europe.

6. Rise of Fascism: In the 1920’s and 1930’s fascist dictators took control of Italy, Japan, and Germany. Fascism is a type of government in which power is in the hands of a military leader, and the individuals’ rights are subordinate to the authority of the state. Unlike communism, fascism supports private ownership of business but under strict government control. Fascist do not approve of criticism and multiple parties are not permitted. Fascists are intense nationalist who believe in building and using powerful militaries and they support dictatorship and the deprivation of human rights or in other words, quite the opposite of democracy.

7. Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis:- Treaties between Germany, Italy, and Japan in the period from 1936 to 1940 brought into being the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. The Axis thereafter became the collective term for those countries and their allies. It was a combination of anti-communist Fascist Powers. Japan did not formally adopt fascism, but the armed forces’ powerful position in the government enabled them to impose a similar type of totalitarianism. It divides the world again on the tow hostile camps, which provides easy grounds for war.

8. The Problem of National Minorities:- Large minorities found themselves in the company of non-Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia because of the Versailles Treaty. There were Russian minorities in Poland and Rumania, Hungarian minorities in Rumania and Yugoslavia, and German and Slav minorities in Italy. This gave rise to feeling of dissatisfaction and fear among the minorities.

9. Appeasement (Reunion) by Britain and France:- Balance of power had always been the cornerstone of British foreign policy. Britain feared that a very powerful France would disturb the balance of power. Britain was worried about growing influence of communism that’s why she changed her foreign policy and makes appeasement with France.

10. Failure of League of Nations:- America never been a member of the League of Nation, also German and Russia were not invited to become its members. Germany joined the League in1926 but left it in 1933. Soviet Union came in only in 1934 and was expelled after her invasion of Finland. Any country that was unhappy with league decision left it. Thus, Japan left it in 1933 and Italy in 1937.

11. German attack on Poland:- On Sept. 1, at 5:45 A.M., 1939, on the order of Chancellor Hitler, the first shot was fired in what some call “the Second World War.” On the same day, a score of Polish cities, including Warsaw, Lwow, Cracow, were bombed. The Polish army expected the attack to come along the Polish frontiers. But Hitler introduced a new kind of war called a Blitzkrieg, which means “lightning war.” Waves of German bombers targeted railroads in Tczew, which troubled Polish military mobilization. Hundreds of tanks destroyed through Polish defenses and rolled deep into the country. On 3 September 1939, France and Britain declared war against German this is a beginning of the Second World War.

Introduction to Cold War

TyroCity.com — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The term “Cold War” refers to the non‐military hostility between the United States of America (USA) and the former Soviet Union. The tension and rivalry between the USA and the USSR is described as the Cold War (1945 ‐ 1990).

There was never a real war between the two sides between 1945 and 1990, but they were often very close to war.

Cold War comprised not only superpowers’ confrontations but confrontations between two blocs of states: the United States, with Canada, Australia, and much of Western Europe (allied in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO); and the Soviet Union, with its Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe.

Introduction to Peace Keeping Works of UN

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

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

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

History of diplomacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of diplomacy

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

Democratic Diplomacy:
It is now believed that as power resides in the people and it is exercised by the representatives chosen by and accountable to the people, the work of foreign policy-making and its implementation should be carried on according to the will of the people. Not only that, due importance should be attached to the weight of public opinion. Whatever is done by the President or the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister or the professional diplomats should be known to the people. Crucial matters should be discussed and deliberated in the legislature and there should be a free press in the country to make them known to the common people. It is based on the assumption that ‘national interest’ is safer in the hands of the public rather than in the hands of some elite group, no matter how well skilled in the art of negotiation the latter might be. If the head of the state or of the government or his representative signs a treaty with any other state or states, it should be subject to ratification by the legislature in order to be valid. Thus, the American Senate was justified in rejecting the Treaty of Versailles signed by President Wilson at Paris in 1919. A wrong step taken by a Foreign Minister (as Sir Samuel Hoare of Britain or Madhavsinh Solanki of India) would invite serious criticism in the Parliament and be the cause of his exit from the government. In Nepalese context we can take the examples of TANAKPUR and PANCHESHWOR Treaty and conflict within the political parties as well as in people. Thus, the making and implementation of the foreign policy should be under the popular check. It is true that this kind of diplomacy invites certain ‘dangers’. The people in general are ignorant and they are not capable of exercising control over the role of professional and skilled diplomats. It is likely that the exposure of each diplomatic effort would put the diplomats in a very awkward situation. It is also possible that the operation of diplomacy on such a manner would suffer from the evils of delay and impulsion. However, these weaknesses may be removed if the people in general are politically develop.

Totalitarian Diplomacy:
It is more or less a duplication of traditional or close diplomacy. In a fascist or in a communist system, the chief-leader of the country is the sole maker of foreign policy and it is implemented according to his will that is supported and sustained by his clique of government. The operation of diplomacy is done according to the principles of a particular ‘ideology’ and any consideration of international peace and security is set aside as may be seen in the. Matters are not taken to the parliament for a free and frank discussion and there is strict censorship over the publication of news. Imperialism and war are glorified and the rulers of such a state frankly condemn peace as the dream of the cowards. Mao of China branded all ‘capitalist’ states of the world as ‘paper tigers’. Surprisingly, the diplomats of a totalitarian state invoke fantastic doctrines of racial superiority, mysticism, materialism and militarism for furtherance of their aims. The diplomats become agents of conquest, double-dealing, and spying, whose business is not to work for peaceful international relations but to provoke disagreement rather than understanding to make the leaders and peoples of other nations weak and blind and divided in the face of the growing totalitarian threaten. The object of Totalitarian Diplomacy “is thoroughly calculated to create and maintain bad relations within the world politics and relation.

Personal or Summit Diplomacy:
The direct participation of the heads of great powers (with their ministers or confidants) to sort out matters or to arrive at crucial decisions makes the case of summit or personal diplomacy. It has become increasingly common since the days of the World War II as war time conferences. Major and fateful decisions affecting the whole course of war and the post-war international order were made during the several personal meetings between Prime Minister Churchill of Britain and President Roosevelt of the United States with which Prime Minister Stalin of the USSR and Chinese Prime Minister was associated afterwards. The making of the Atlantic Charter (1941) is the first instance in this regard. The Tehran Conference of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin followed by the Yalta meet of 1943 are other important instances. These were followed by the Potsdam Conference of July-August 1945. These meetings prepared the ground for the creation of the United Nations. The Yalta Conference attended by the President of the United States and the Prime Ministers of Britain, France and the USSR solved the tangled problem of peace in Europe. Reference may be made to a number of non-aligned conferences from the Belgrade meet of 1961. The Camp David negotiations of 1959 between American President Eisenhower and the Soviet Prime Minister Khrushchev softened relations between the two superpowers to the point that one could trace a hint of growing cold war between the USSR and Communist China. The Camp David meet of 1978 hosted by the President of the United States and attended by the President of Egypt and the Prime Minister of Israel tackled the issue of peace in the Middle East. In the 1980s such meetings between the Presidents of the US and the USSR cemented the situation of detente signifying steady curtailment of the cold war. Sometimes personal diplomacy is short-circuited by the role of the most trusted agents or assistants of the heads of the states as we may see in Nixon’s reliance on Kissinger and Yahya Khan’s dependence on Bhutto of Pakistan. Frequent movements of such a trusted representative from one place to another with a particular mission make the case of ‘shuttle diplomacy’.

Other Diplomacy
i)Commercial or Economic Diplomacy: Also known by the names of ‘bourgeois’ or ‘civilian’ diplomacy, it resembles the diplomacy of the merchants and the shopkeepers. It is based on the prescription that a compromise settlement between the rivals through negotiations is generally more profitable than their complete destruction. Through negotiations and by agreeing to give mutual concessions some durable understanding may be reached. Here money plays a decisive part as an essential element of national interest. As every state attempts to increase its economic resources through pacific means, it is also known by the name of economic diplomacy. The line of distinction between politics and economics is unclear and since all focus is laid on trade or commerce, non-state agencies or organized business. The agents of such commercial organizations manage to have half-official and half-mercantile status. We may take note of the fact of the entry of foreign capital into poor and backward countries where the multinational corporations are not only producing and selling their finished goods but also undertaking works as construction of roads and bridges, laying of railway lines, installation of power-generating plants etc. The giving of financial assistance by the rich countries to the poor countries has created a new form of colonialism that is nicknamed as ‘dollar imperialism’. This kind of diplomacy may also be seen in the imposition of economic sanctions by a rich and powerful country on a poor and backward country of the world.
ii) Resource Diplomacy: Nature has blessed all countries with certain natural and mineral resources like oil, coal, iron, gold, uranium, etc. If a country is strong and developed, it makes best possible use of its resources. In case it is poor and backward, it becomes the victim of colonial exploitation. But a number of such countries may form an organization and thereby dictate their terms on those who need their resources. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is considering one of the best examples for this purpose. The oil is used by the Arab states as an instrument and the term ‘oil diplomacy’ thus comes into popularity. Oil is nicknamed as ‘black gold’ or ‘liquid gold’ and it is true, who captures the oil, captures the power of the world in the present context.

Weimar Republic

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

Introduction:

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

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

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

Post-War Problems:

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

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

Collapse of Weimar Republic:

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

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

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

Failure of the Weimar Republic:

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

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

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

Nepal‘s role in SAARC

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

Eric Hobsbawm has defined periods of history in terms of ages, Age of revolutions, of Capital, of Empires and of Extremes etc. By this analogy, our age can be called an “Age of Contrasts” which is the sum total of interdependence and marginalization, abundant prosperity and anxiety, technological revolutions and exclusion. This is the reality we live in.

Similarly, the present time also reminds us of what John Dunne had said about four centuries and a half ago, “No man is an island unto himself, every man is a piece of the continent, but part of the main”. It rings as true today as it was then. South Asia therefore is no exception to this general trend. In fact we are a microcosm of the world at large. The region enjoys a high growth rate but has one of the lowest Social indicators with incidence of poverty. It has a high potential of human and natural resources, yet it faces the great challenge of deprivation and marginalization. It is in that overall context that we would like to look at the SAARC process.

Before going to the specifics, let me state at the beginning that SAARC has gone through the vicissitudes of time in the last two decades. We have passed through moments of euphoria and also moments of frustrations. We are striving hard to gear up slowly towards the objectives of the SAARC. Let us also remind ourselves that SAARC holds a great promise only when we are all able to fully implement what we have agreed in various SAARC forums, and only when we practice what we preach.

South Asia at this point of time is at the crossroads. Globalization has really come to our door with all its attendant characteristics, both opportunities as well as challenges. The overall growth rate of the region has remained high for some years and there is a prospect of getting it even to a higher level and sustaining it at that level, if we all manage distributive effects of growth, infrastructure constraints and well-calibrated and visionary integration with the rest of the world. South Asia has also teeming millions, who are deprived and marginalized and hence have not been able to enjoy the fruits of this overall macro-level prosperity. There are problems of imbalances of growth, unemployment, violence and marginalization. Though such problems are of different nature and of different magnitude in each of the south Asian county, a humane and inclusive development strategy with high and sustainable growth is what every country is striving to achieve. And that has to be seen against the global trends and global reality.

That brings me to the core issues of SAARC, namely economic cooperation, cooperation in social fields, cooperation in poverty alleviation, cooperation in other areas of mutual advantage.

We are all aware that that there is no finality in the sequence between the economic and social cooperation and its impact on making political environment more conducive or vice versa. We have seen both the routes being equally effective. Each region has to deal with its own internal dynamics depending upon the intensity of the issues involved in that particular region. However, we all know that they reinforce each other if they move in tandem. We all must be a1le to look beyond the present and take a longer-term view so that we would be able to ensure peace, security and prosperity in the region and uplift the quality of life of the people as envisaged by the SARRC Charter.

We have also reached an important point of time at the moment. We have finally brought all the countries of geographic and historic South Asia together by having Afghanistan as our member. It is also very important from both short term as well as long-tent perspectives that we are having a number of observers from the neighboring region as well as beyond. These two events are very significant for SAARC and we hope that it would help us inject a new dynamism in the region for an enhanced level of effective cooperation and further promote regional consciousness.

Economic Cooperation

We are all aware that if we want to really touch the lives of the people and ensure them peace, security and prosperity as enshrined in the charter, economic cooperation should receive the highest prominence within the SAARC framework. History, geography, culture and now our common economic and social challenges have bound us together. Of late, the world has been fiercely competitive, and globalization has changed the world into a prospective single market for all, Cut-throat competition, global outsourcing, component trading, seamless flow between production and consumption, and the fast pace of changing taste and fashion are some of the defining features of the global trade today. And its intensity shows no sign of abating. On the contrary, it would be deeper and wider as we see the interplay of further liberalization drive through WTO negotiations and uninterrupted revolutions in science and technology. In this context, regional trade provides us with two important prospects. One is that geographical proximity still makes the bilateral trade more beneficial among the neighbors, as transaction costs become lower and the countries in the neighborhood enjoy the familiarity with the quality1 taste and the purchasing trend and power of the people. Besides, the South Asian community has a very large market within itself. Secondly, the robust regional trade helps the individual countries and their economic units to prepare better for the fierce competition at the global level as they share more strength, experience and the economies of scale through regional trade not only in production and marketing capacity but also in meeting standards and dealing with obstructive non-tariff and pan-tariff measures. Thirdly, regional economic cooperation and deeper integration are gaining in strength even in the regions that were riot that much involved in these endeavors before, such as Mercosur in Latin America, SADCC and COMESA in Africa. This is a general trend at the moment.

Despite our best efforts, SAFTA is yet to be operationalized and we are losing time and opportunity. It is illogical for a region that is enjoying so high an economic growth rate and so vibrant an economy to have less than five percent of its total trade within the region. We all know that there is more competition than complementarity in our products but as per the principles of comparative advantage, we could gain more by intensifying trade within the region through specialization and diversification, which would ensure benefits to all. Similarly, a the nature of trade and global financial markets go through transformation fuelling economic growth around the world, we must also look beyond the core sector of trade in goods and include cooperation in all trade facilitation measures such as services, investment, infrastructure, non tariff barriers including macro economic policies1 It is through the right mix of these factors that we can get due benefits from economic cooperation. Now we are glad to see that the energy issues are slowly coming to SAARC for discussion and cooperation. An important South Asia Energy Dialogue took place in March 2007 in New Delhi. South Asian border-crossings are more cumbersome than that of many other regions. Many studies have shown that the physical and non-physical barriers need to be reduced, as smooth connectivity would be indispensable for such activities. The cost of non-cooperation and benefits of cooperation in South Asia have been thoroughly analyzed innumerable times by many specialists and we should not be oblivious to those hard facts. Nepal strongly feels that we have a lot of stake in promoting economic cooperation in a comprehensive manner, but also in such a way that all share the fruits of cooperation on an equitable basis. The expansion of the capacity of the least developed countries among them should receive due priority. Otherwise such cooperation would not take off and even if it takes off, it would not be sustainable.

Cooperation in Social Sector

This is another area that needs our urgent and effective attention. We are all aware of the not so good record of this region on social issues. Low literacy rate, poverty, low health standards vulnerability or children, gender discrimination and exclusion are indeed serious constraints to harmonious development and prosperity in South Asia. We should concentrate our minds on how we can best coordinate our individual policies on these fronts, how we complement national programs with regional linkages and how we should not only devise but also execute effective regional programs. We have agreed to various action plans and programs to uplift the status of the targeted and vulnerable groups. Sharing of best practices, common standards in identifying and comparing the situations, bringing regional synergy in social programs have occupied our discussions of late. But when it comes to the effect on the ground of regional cooperation in these sectors, they are at best tentative, at worst non-existent. Therefore recent decision relating to the commencement of specific projects under the SAARC development fund is of great significance and indeed is a welcome sign. We must make sure that the projects are effective on the ground and they really bring about a change in the lives of the common man. We also hope that the other windows of the SDF would soon come into operation in an effective manner. This should therefore create additional momentum to our national efforts and also should work as an effective bridge between national programs and international cooperation.

We only hope that the decade of implementation as agreed during the thirteenth SAARC Summit is linked up with the decade of poverty reduction. The 22 SAARC development goals and elaboration of their indicators and monitoring mechanism are important addition to our collective commitment, but we should make efforts to translate them into reality with dedicated programs. Social issues are important not only for their own sake and not only from the perspective of human development, they are also important if we do not want to lay to waste precious human resources and wish to do away with violent internal conflicts and insurgency in the region! Therefore perhaps we should look at the social issues more seriously in a comprehensive manner. SAARC could look at how conflicts and violence fuelled by marginalization and exclusion have ravaged our region as a whole, even though they are of different magnitude and of different nature in each country in South Asia. As it has undermined the lives of the people throughout the region, this should be studied in a holistic manner within the framework of SAARC. There could be lessons that could be learned from each other on this issue as well.

Similarly, in other areas of cooperation, the first meeting of the SAARC home ministers has taken place in order to address the menace of terrorism and drug trafficking more effectively. Similarly, first meeting of finance ministers was also held and instructed IGEG to develop modalities for expeditious and time-bound realization of the mandate of SAARC economic union.

Relationship with Agencies and International Organizations

We are glad that interactions with the international organizations have increased over the years. It has two fold objectives. It provides us with technical expertise in the respective fields. Because of their long experience in their specialized areas, it propels us more towards creating a regional synergy in our projects as they start developing more inter- country operations. We all know that they cannot be a substitute for regional projects, but they can play an important complementary role in giving the necessary support for regional cooperation. One of the major stumbling blocks in the SAARC process in terms of deepening cooperation in the region has been the lack of regional projects. So far what we have is cooperation on the soft side, which is sharing of best practices, studies and meetings of technical experts. They are important to establish facts and understand the region better. However, what is now required is how to implement those common programs which would have a visible impact on the ground in terms of changing the lives of the people. The studies and fields of cooperation with the international organizations is expected to help us have a wider perspectives and also to initiate effective programs of cooperation. We would continue to strengthen our relationship with such organizations to improve our conditions as per the objectives of the Charter.

People-to-people Contacts and Business Contacts

One of the most important features of SAARC has been that it has opened up vast possibilities for people to people contacts through various associations of regional character. There is now more sense of regional identity than before; there are more contacts among the professionals of the region. Among them, the role and influence of the SAARC chamber of commerce and SAARC level think tanks have been more visible. They have created a distinct space for themselves and we are glad that they are coming forward with innovative ideas to give the strong popular character to this regional consciousness. We know that there are still many areas in which we can further promote people to people contacts by facilitating their interactions in a most comprehensive manner. We greatly value all such initiatives, as it helps us to look at different issues afresh.

Political Consultations

Though the charter does not provide for discussions on contentious issues and bilateral issues, informal political consultation process during the SAARC summit meeting has taken on its own life over the years. The practice of organizing retreats during the summit for a free wheeling discussions on all issues of importance, and the forum that the SAARC summit provides for bilateral consultations on the sidelines have been very useful to break the deadlock, as well as warming up relationship in times of difficulties. Considering the history of relationship among the South Asian countries, this provides an easy forum to engage in discussions without elaborate preparations and constraints of full-fledged bilateral visits. To what extent this process has contributed to crack the hard knots is a moot question, but it could certainly create a better atmosphere for serious negotiations.

Conclusion

We are glad that the forthcoming SAARC summit is taking up some of the issues outlined above. We are also talking about a vision for the third decade of SAARC. We are aware that there are a lot of expectations of the people from the process. We fully share that. And it is also a fact that there is much to be desired in terms of its impact on the ground, even though we have made a good progress on the conceptual clarity of our vision for a peaceful, cooperative and prosperous South Asia. We went through our infancy and adolescence and we are now at the young age of 21. And like anyone at that age, we must have an indomitable spirit, an ambitious vision and a vibrant energy to pursue our goals and objectives. Nepal will play its due role in taking the SAARC process forward with commitment and clarity. And I am hopeful that other members would also take it in that spirit, look around and move ahead with the times, with open eyes and an open heart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Loss” of China

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

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

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