TyroCity: International Relations

UNO vs. League of Nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

The League of Nations and the United Nations

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

The birth of the League ideal

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

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

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

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

The growth of a system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death and transfiguration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new international age?

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

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

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

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

The challenge ahead

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Soviet Responses to Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

Subject Matter or Actor of International Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements Of International Relations:

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

Impact of the cold war in the functions of United Nations

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

The Security Council of the United Nations has the power to take necessary measures to maintain and restore international peace and security.
One of the most important powers given to the permanent members was the veto (negative vote).

As per the Article 27 of the United Nations’ (UN) Charter the affirmative votes of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members of the Security Council are required for adopting decisions of the Council on all matters other than the procedural ones.

If any of the permanent member files negative vote, no substantive decision can be made by the Council.

The arrangement of the veto, which allows the permanent members of the Security Council to negate an issue as often as they see fit, tied Security Council decisions directly to Cold War politics.

The system works well when the big powers are in agreement.

However, when the powers are divided, as was the case throughout the Cold War, the Council is hindered in their decision‐making abilities.

Obstacles in Admission of New Members:

The Cold War caused obstacles in the membership process of the United Nations.

One of the stated goals of the United Nations was to have universal membership.

Agreeing on admitting members was not a simple task. New members would be admitted by decision of the General Assembly;

the General Assembly would make its decision only based on the recommendation of the Security Council.

The Security Council had to vote on the membership applications of many states.

In 1946, just a year after the signing of the Charter, nine admission applications were received: Albania, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland, Thailand and Sweden.

Four of the applicants were recommended for admission by the Security Council ‐ Afghanistan, Iceland, Sweden and Thailand.

States such as Mongolia could not receive the necessary votes to obtain membership and thus their applications were continuously denied.

Since the permanent members reserved their right to use the Security Council veto on issues of membership, a deadlock on new members occurred between 1949 and 1955.

The Soviet Union insisted on the admission of Communist sponsored states or no admissions at all. The United States worked rigorously to prevent the admission of communist states.

Ineffective Collective Action

The United Nations took a back seat in the developments in Europe during 1945 ‐ 1949. There was no collective response through the UN when Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe.

Berlin blockade of 1948 ‐ 1949 by Soviet Union, the UN was powerless to intervene.

On 25 June 1950, the Security Council learned of the full‐scale invasion of South Korea by North Korea and discussions began on what the UN response should be.

The Soviet Union had vetoed the South Koreans joining the UN, and the USA would not recognize the legitimacy of the North Korean government.

No Involvement in the Superpowers’ Spheres of Influence:

United Nations continued to engage in ‘peacekeeping’ missions around the world

The UN’s work was generally in areas the superpowers did not find strategically important.

When the USA attempted to force regime change in Cuba in 1961, the UN did not get involved.

As had been the case with the Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe, the UN avoided becoming engaged in the superpowers’ spheres of influence.

Current activities and positions

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

Criticism of US policy

In recent years the US has become a target of the organization. The US invasion of Iraq and the War on Terrorism, its attempts tostifle Iran and North Korea’s nuclear plans, and its other actions have been denounced as human rights violations and attempts to run roughshod over the sovereignty of smaller nations. The movement’s leaders have also criticized the American control over the United Nations and other international structures. While the organization has rejected terrorism, it condemns the association of terrorism with a particular religion, nationality, or ethnicity, and recognizes the rights of those struggling against colonialism and foreign occupation.

Anti-Zionism

NAM’s Havana Declaration of 1979adopted anti-Zionism as part of the movement’s agenda. The movement has denounced Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It has called upon Israel to halt its settlement activities, open up border crossings, and cease the use of force and violence against civilians. The UN has also been asked to pressure Israel and to do more to prevent human rights abuses.

Sustainable development

The movement is publicly committed to the tenets of sustainable development and the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, but it believes that the international community has not created conditions conducive to development and has infringed upon the right to sovereign development by each member state. Issues such as globalization, the debt burden, unfair trade practices, the decline in foreign aid, donor conditionalities, and the lack of democracy in international financial decision-making are cited as factors inhibiting development.

Reforms of the UN

The Non-Aligned Movement has been quite outspoken in its criticism of current UN structures and power dynamics, mostly in how the organization has been utilized by powerful states in ways that violate the movement’s principles. It has made a number of recommendations that would strengthen the representation and power of ‘non-aligned’ states. The proposed reforms are also aimed at improving the transparency and democracy of UN decision-making. The UN Security Council is the element considered the most distorted, undemocratic, and in need of reshaping.

South-south cooperation

Lately the Non-Aligned Movement has collaborated with other organizations of the developing world, primarily the Group of 77, forming a number of joint committees and releasing statements and document representing the shared interests of both groups. This dialogue and cooperation can be taken as an effort to increase the global awareness about the organization and bolster its political clout.

Cultural diversity and human rights

The movement accepts the universality of human rights and social justice, but fiercely resists cultural homogenization. In line with its views on sovereignty, the organization appeals for the protection of cultural diversity, and the tolerance of the religious, socio-cultural, and historical particularities that define human rights in a specific region.

Working groups, task forces, committees

High-Level Working Group for the Restructuring of the United Nations
Working Group on Human Rights
Working Group on Peace-Keeping Operations
Working Group on Disarmament
Committee on Palestine
Task Force on Somalia
Non-Aligned Security Caucus
Standing Ministerial Committee for Economic Cooperation
Joint Coordinating Committee (chaired by Chairman of G-77 and Chairman of NAM)

Contemporary relevance
Since the end of the Cold War and the formal end of colonialism, the Non-aligned movement has been forced to redefine itself and reinvent its purpose in the current world system. A major question has been whether many of its foundational ideologies, principally national independence, territorial integrity, and the struggle against colonialism and imperialism, can be applied to contemporary issues. The movement has emphasized its principles of multilateralism, equality, and mutual non-aggression in attempting to become a stronger voice for the global South, and an instrument that can be utilized to promote the needs of member nations at the international level and strengthen their political leverage when negotiating with developed nations. In its efforts to advance Southern interests, the movement has stressed the importance of cooperation and unity amongst member states, but as in the past, cohesion remains a problem since the size of the organization and the divergence of agendas and allegiances present the ongoing potential for fragmentation. While agreement on basic principles has been smooth, taking definitive action vis-à-vis particular international issues has been rare, with the movement preferring to assert its criticism or support rather than pass hard-line resolutions. The movement continues to see a role for itself, as in its view, the world’s poorest nations remain exploited and marginalized, no longer by opposing superpowers, but rather in a uni-polar world, and it is Western hegemony and neo-colonialism that that the movement has really re-aligned itself against. It opposes foreign occupation, interference in internal affairs, and aggressive unilateral measures, but it has also shifted to focus on the socio-economic challenges facing member states, especially the inequalities manifested by globalization and the implications of neo-liberal policies. The non-aligned movement has identified economic underdevelopment, poverty, and social injustices as growing threats to peace and security.

Holocaust

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

Introduction

The Holocaust was the systematic, state‐sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
“Holocaust” is a word of Greek origin meaning “sacrifice by fire.“
The Nazis, Germans were “racially superior” and that the Jews, deemed “inferior,” were an alien threat to the so‐called German racial community.

Causes of Hatred

Christianity ‐ Before a Christian authority declared that “Jews were not guilty for the death of Jesus Christ
Church fathers decided that Jews as a group should be persecuted because they ‘killed Jesus.’
This became an excuse to abuse the Jews for more than a thousand years. The Nazi Leaders who had been misguided by those myths considered Jews as their enemies.

Threat of Communism ‐ It was widely assumed around the Europe the then time that Jews were the communists and most of them were the supporters of Marxism. Communist group attempted to carry out a Bolshevik‐type revolution in the German state of Bavaria. Most of the leaders of that failed attempt were Jews.
Extreme Nationalism ‐ The Nationalist leaders of Germany used to consider the Jews for the shameful defeat of Germany in the First World War. The Jews were blamed for not supporting the German military during the war. It was held that Germany had been betrayed by Jewish who were working to defeat Germany.
Economic Theory – Hitler and Nazis assumed the Jew businessmen were responsible for the depression era of 1929 and so on as Germany was hit the hardest by the economic devastation.
Racial Theory – Hitler wanted to purify Germany racially. He wanted only the Aryan Race which couldn’t be obtained unless all Jews were gone.
Personal Reasons – Some argue that Hitler’s Hatred towards Jews was because of his bitter experiences with Jews in the past. Besides, he also used to live in the Jew settlement for many years of his struggling career, and experienced bitter truth.

Nazi’s Policy

Initially, Nazi had the policy of social and economic displacement of Jews and their removal from German soil
They did it through discriminatory legislation, economic deprivation, administrative harassment, and social exclusion rather than physical torture and murder.
As soon as the Nazis assumed power, they made racism and anti‐Semitism central components of their regime.

Anti-Semitism

Many harboured a prejudice against Jews that is known as anti‐Semitism.
Some scholars view anti‐Semitism as a religious prejudice. Others regard it as an anti‐Jewish variety of a general hatred directed against ethnic minorities.
Historians and sociologists have come up with several theories to explain anti‐Semitism the prejudice against Jews, including hateful feelings.

Anti‐Semitic riots and campaigns of terror that climaxed on April 1, 1933, in a countrywide boycott of Jewish‐owned shops and Jewish professionals, such as physicians and lawyers.
On April 7, 1933, the Reichstag enacted a law that allowed the government to dismiss Jews from the German civil service.

Piecemeal regulations as insufficient, and implement a comprehensive legal framework for their anti‐Semitic policies. January 30, 1933, the Nazis established concentration camps for the imprisonment of all “enemies” of their regime.
Sentences could be a few months or a few years. Such camps were built on railroad lines for efficient transportation.

Before the outbreak of war, SS (special German police force at the time of Hitler) and police officials confined Jews, Roma, and other victims of ethnic and racial hatred in these camps.

From November 1935 German churches began to collaborate with Nazis by supplying records indicating who is Christian .
The Nazis also used samples of human hair developed by Nazi scientists to determine ancestry.

End of the Holocaust

Final months of the war, SS guards moved camp inmates by train or on forced marches, often called “death marches,” in an attempt to prevent the liberation of large numbers of prisoners by the Allied forces (Germany’s
enemy states).

Offensives against Germany, they began to encounter and liberate concentration camp prisoners, as well as prisoners en route by forced march from one camp to another.

The marches continued until May 7, 1945, the day the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many of the survivors found shelter in displaced persons (DP) camps administered by the Allied powers. Between 1948 and 1951, almost 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel,
including 136,000 Jewish displaced persons from Europe.

Other Jewish displaced persons emigrated to the United States and other nations. The last displaced persons camp closed in 1957.

Foreign policy

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

Foreign policy means the policy adopted by the states or nation for the protection and promotion of national interest by conducting external and foreign affairs of state ensuring maximum welfare of national interest in the international arena. In other words it is an interaction of one state with another state or a group of stats or international organizations in order to maintain mutual help and understanding. Merriam Webster defines foreign policy as “The policy of sovereign states in its interaction with other sovereign state”.

Foreign policy is such a medium which promotes national prestige preserving national security, independences and indivisibility. Its main means and resources is diplomacy and the concept of the foreign policy adopted by the country is declared to the world through diplomacy. Foreign policy is always subjected to national welfare and national interest. It is possible to present the national interest to the international sector through foreign policy. Every nation has its own social, economic, political, cultural, religious and geographical conditions. Due to difference on these aspects among the countries, they have their own problems.It is indispensable for Nepal to adopt a balanced non-aligned foreign policy because of its geographical situation,social and cultural relationship,industrial and financial trend and practical relationship to be maintained with the neighbouring countries.Due to this reality,it is necessary to make Nepal’s foreign policy more
realistic with India and promote the level of relationship with China and other nations on the basis of trust,friendship and understanding.

Basics of Foreign Policy
What kind of foreign policy should be adopted,should the international relationship and relationship with neighbouring countries be kept in the equal distance or how to lead it ahead practically,how to present onself to the international forum and what kind of foreign policy should be adopted protecting national unity,indivisibility and independence considering national security is determined by any country on the basis of different grounds.In short,generally basics of foreign policy are as follows:

Geographical situation
Population situation of the country
Size of the country
Natural resources available in the country
Economic condition of the country
Social and cultural condition of the country
State of industrialisation]
Level of development in science and technology
Political leadership,etc.

Forms of Foreign Policy
Before 1950s the world’s foreign policy was run on the basis of power.The First World War and the second World War broke into because of this reason.There was competition of power among the nations to extend the state and make colonies.But the foreign policy changed after the end of world wars and establishment of United Nations Organization.In this process,the form of foreign policy in the world came to develop in the following way-
3.1. Foreign Policy based on Military Union
The foreign policy of the world was divided into two poles when America and former USSR led North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) established in 1949 and Warsa Pact established in 1954 respectively.These opposite groups had competition in managing weapons and military power.After the end of communism and division of USSR Warsa Pact was dissolved in 1991 and since then the foreign policy of the world has been directly based on the two poled military union.However,the world communities have been making an effort in one way or other to extend and strengthen their own groups.
3.2. Non-Aligned Foreign Policy
Non-aligned foreign policy was originated by the effort of the third world countries which were united to run the foreign policy independently remaining nuetral without following any super power states during the cold war raised between the east and the West in reaction of the foreign policy based on the military union spread in 1950s.
Having experienced the bitterness of collonialism and emperialism, the third world countries have been making futher effort of adopting non-aligned foreign policy. In this process, at first the indian council of world issue organized a convention of the asian relationship council in 1947 in which 28 countries including nepal had participated.After that Delhi Conference in 1949, Round Table Conference 1954, Indonesian Boger Conference 1954 and Bangdung Conference 1955 were held one after another. Finally, according to the decision of Belgrade Preparation committee 1961, the Afro-Asian relationship conference succeeded to bring all the non-aligned countries into a single group. Consequently, Non-Aligned Foreign policy was established as an organization through the first convention of non-aligned countries held at Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1961.
In this context, the following five points principles were propounded for non-alignment by Belgrade preparation committee:

Such country should have adopted independent foreign policy based on font absolutism or peaceful coexistence.
The country which has accepted the continuous struggle for the achievement of freedom from collonialism.
the country which has not been the member of any military union related to the cold war.
The country which has not done bilateral treaty with the super powers like Russia and America.
There should not be military camp of any nation within that country.

The principles of non-alignment mentioned in the political document approved by Belgrade conference 1961 and Cairo conference 1964 are as follows:

Peaceful coexistence.
Self decision and freedom.
Respect to Sovereign equality and regional indivisibility.
Protection of human rights.
Confronting military union.
Disjoint from military union.
Confronting imperialism, colonialism and world-chauvinism.

Neutral Foreign Policy
The foreign policy of that country which behaves equally and fairly with all the countries not keeping military relationship with any country at any time either in peace or war is called neutral foreign policy. In the context to run neutral foreign policy, the signature in international treaty of the responsibility which should be undertaken in that regard, constitutional provision and necessary legal provision should be also managed. If neutral policy is adopted, security expenditure in military and military goods can be saved. There will not be the need of keeping millitary in the country. Peace, security, law and order can be managed only through the police union. Some countries of the world have been adopting neutral foreign policy. If neutral foreign policy is adopted, a large amount of military expenditures can be used for development works.
According to the supporters of neutral foreign policy, the country gets national security by declared itself the vstate during foreign invasion or war than the national security given by national military. Small countries cannot be secure by military. In contrast, according to those who have their arguments against neutral policy, it is not suitable to adopt neutral policy for the independent nation. It arises questions on the capability and strength of the nation. They forward their logic that it hurts the national prestige and self-respect.