TyroCity: International Relations

System Theory

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

Morton Kaplan after 1955 explain the theory in more systematic manner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The kellogg briand pact

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

Background
After the First World War, France did not regard the League of Nations as a guarantee of their security. They wanted to strengthen their defensive system by involving powers beyond Europe on their side. Aristide Briand, the foreign minister of France published an open letter to the US Government in April 1927 proposing a treaty for perpetual peace between France and the United States and also to draw the United States into French defensive system against Germany. The US also had reasons to accept the French proposal. At the end of World War I, U.S. Senate had failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles also established League of Nations. However, the League was not popular in the US because of the economic cost of operation, perceived unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles and unwillingness to get involved in European problems. The United States still came under pressure from its allies in Europe, and from advocates of the League of Nations, to sign some sort of international peace agreement. However, the US did not want to be dragged into a European war on the side of France. Hence, instead of a bilateral agreement between the two nations U.S. secretary of state, Frank Kellogg proposed a multilateral treaty. Kellogg also
wanted the treaty to specifically ban wars of aggression and not acts of self-defense.

Introduction
The Kellogg – Briand Pact is formally known as ‘General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy’, or the ‘Pact of Paris’. The treaty is also known as ‘World Peace Act’. This treaty was an attempt to outlaw international war. It was named for the two men who created it, U.S. secretary of state Frank Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. Fifteen nations signed the Kellogg‐Briand Pact in Paris on August 27, 1928: France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The treaty set a date of July 24, 1929, to officially go into effect. By this date, more than 60 nations had signed the treaty. Eventually, it was ratified by 65
states, including Germany, Italy and Japan.

Key Provisions
The treaty contained only three articles.
(i) The signatories renounced war as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
(ii) The contracting parties agreed that settlement of all conflicts, no matter of what origin or nature, that might arise among them should be sought only by pacific means.
(iii) The treaty would remain open for adherence by all the other Powers of the world as long as it may be necessary.
The treaty therefore outlawed war entirely, providing no exceptions to this general prohibition. The parties, however, generally recognized that war would be permissible in the following cases:
(i) for self‐defence
(ii) against any treaty‐breaking State
(iii) in order to carry out responsibilities under the League of Nations and the Locarno Agreements

Several signatories, including the United States, had submitted diplomatic notes prior to the treaty’s ratification indicating their understanding that wars entered into in self‐defense would be lawful. Its most notable feature was the fact that the U.S.A. was one of its signatories, thus recognizing once more its connection with and responsibility towards Europe.

Significance
Although the Kellogg‐Briand Pact did not stop warfare, it did establish an internationally accepted doctrine: Self‐defense is the only legal basis for war. The treaty also established the notion that the territorial acquisition resulting from the use of force are unlawful. The Pact was invoked with some success in the course of territorial dispute between China and the Soviet Union in 1929. The pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace ‐ it was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of people responsible for starting World War II. Since there was no expiration date for the treaty, it aimed at outlawing international war permanently. In 1929 Kellogg received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the treaty.

Negative Arguments regarding The Kellogg – Briand Pact
The parties to the Pact limited its enforcement by registering certain reservations. Britain agreed to sign the pact only as long as Britain could use force within its own colonies. The U.S. Senate insisted that there must be no curtailment of America’s right of self‐defense and that the United States was not compelled to take action against countries that broke the treaty. Kellogg‐Briand contained no sanctions against countries that might breach its provisions. Instead, the treaty was based on the hope that diplomacy and the weight of world opinion would be powerful enough to prevent nations from resorting to the use of force. Without the means to enforce its provisions, the Kellogg‐Briand Pact proved useless in preventing war.
Though Germany, Italy, and Japan were all parties, the treaty did not prevent them from committing aggressions that led to World War II within 14 years of the Treaty’s entry into force. In violation of the Kellogg‐Briand pact, Japan invaded Manchuria, a northern province of China in 1932, and Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. By 1936 Hitler sent soldiers to occupy the Rhineland, and by 1938 Germany had absorbed Austria. Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 claiming to act in defense of ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia. In September 1939, the German army invaded Poland.
Though the Pact outlawed all wars, the Pact was interpreted by most of the signatories to permit “defensive” war. However, the treaty did not address the issues of what constituted self‐defense and when self‐defense could lawfully be claimed. It made each nation its own judge of what constitutes ‘self‐defense’. Because of these large loopholes, the Kellogg‐Briand Pact was ultimately an ineffective method for achieving the ambitious and idealistic goal of outlawing war.
Kellogg‐Briand Pact was the result of the search for alternative securities since the League of Nations could not create a feeling of security among the participating states. While this Pact helped the work of the League to maintain peace, some scholars argue that the initiation of the Pact by a few states undermined the League’s principle of security through unity and it created further barrier to the success of the League.
Though the parties to the Pact generally recognized that the war would be permissible to carry out the responsibilities under the League of Nations, in theory, the Pact’s provision of outlawing war in all cases conflicted with the provisions of the Covenant of the League to take military actions against the aggressor. The Pact made no attempts to define ‘aggression’ and the Pact did not contain any provisions of amendment to overcome its limitations.

Intermediate Consequences of Cold War

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

- The Korean War
Japan had taken over Korea in 1910 & ruled it until 1945.

Republic of Korea (South Korea) was established in 1948 in the zone that had been occupied by the US after defeating Japan. Communist North Korean troops, backed by Soviet Union invaded South Korea in June 1950 in order to unite Korea under communist regime.

The U.S. sent troops to defend democratic South Korea. By mid‐July 1950, a 17‐nation military coalition fighting under a U.S.‐led UN Command was engaged in fierce fighting against advancing North Korean troops

In late December 1950, China intervened in the war when UN forces were about to defeat North Korean forces.

The Chinese troops pushed the U.S. back to the 38th parallel (38° North latitude) where the border of North Korea and South Korea still stands today.

The war came to the state of ceasefire in 1953 after the move of the UN Security Council. No peace treaty was signed, and North and South Korea remain technically at war to this very day.

Cuba and the 1962 Missile Crisis

The 1959 Cuban Revolution sparked the most dangerous confrontation of the entire Cold War.

The US wanted to crush emerging communism in Cuba that was just 90 miles from Florida.

US destabilize and topple the Castro regime, in april1961, the United States even sponsored a failed invasion of Cuba designed to remove Castro from power.

After that, the Soviets vowed to protect Cuba from U.S. intervention.

The John F. Kennedy administration publicly confronted the Soviets and demanded that supply of missiles be stopped.

The US relaxed its attitude towards Cuba, and the USSR withdrew supplying the missiles when the US agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey.

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.

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.

Peace treaty of versailles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilson’s Fourteen Points:
Geopolitical Issues:

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

General Ideology:

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

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

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

Propaganda before and after World War 2

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

Propaganda before and after World War 2 before 1914, propaganda was usually associated with religion and the implanting of ideas to be cultivated in support of existing beliefs and ‘faith’. Its wartime applications, in the Napoleonic or the American independence wars, were confined largely to calls to arms, lampooning the enemy, glorifying victory, and sustaining morale. The intention by the few to impress the many can be traced back to the ancient world in art, architecture, and symbolism. The advent of printing in the 14th century shifted the emphasis from script to print. In wars of religion, propaganda from the pulpit remained a potent method of swaying emotions, hence the Vatican’s Sacre Congregatio. Massive advances in communications technologies in the 19th century, the development of a global cable network, and the arrival of the mass media by the end of the century extended propaganda to a global audience.

The Great War of 1914-18, a total war which industrialized warfare and made the home front as important as the fighting front, altered the nature of popular involvement and introduced domestic morale as a military asset. It also discredited the word ‘propaganda’ which henceforth came to be associated with the manipulation of opinion, by foul means rather than fair, with lies or half-truths, and with deceit. In particular, the popularization of atrocity propaganda through the relatively new mass-circulation press and the increasingly popular silent cinema discredited the relationship between propaganda and ‘truth’. It was this manipulative power over human emotions which Hitler identified as being a weapon that could be of enormous value for his purposes.

In the new USSR also, propaganda was seized upon as a device that could serve the state, by extending revolutionary ideas to the illiterate masses and, more innovatively, into the international class struggle. With the advent of radio broadcasting in the 1920s, the ability to transmit propaganda across frontiers and appeal directly to foreign audiences undermined traditional notions about non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. A series of radio ‘wars’ prompted the League of Nations in 1936 to pass a convention attempting to outlaw the use of broadcasting for these purposes. More honored in the breach as the Nazi and Fascist regimes positioned propaganda as a central feature of their domestic and foreign policies, the BBC ideal that ‘Nation Shall Speak Peace unto Nation’ fell victim to the ideological conflict that was to produce both WW II and the subsequent Cold War.

By the outbreak of WW II, the sound cinema had also become an important medium for disseminating propaganda. The British Ministry of Information (the choice of words reflecting the nervousness of democratic countries in eschewing propaganda) recognized that ‘for the film to be good propaganda it must also be good entertainment’. Once the USA entered the war, the formidable American motion-picture industry (‘Hollywood’) was mobilized in support of wartime propaganda themes: ‘why we fight’, ‘know your enemy’, ‘unity is strength’, and so on. The wartime democratic alliance evolved a ‘Strategy of Truth’ towards their propaganda, which did not mean that the whole truth was told. But the reputation for credibility which organizations like the BBC were able to develop in their broadcasts to Nazi-occupied Europe was a serious corrective to the propaganda output of Josef Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment encapsulated by the phrase the ‘Big Lie’.

While propaganda by press, poster, radio, and film was used extensively on the domestic fronts to sustain popular morale through the harsh realities of war, bombing, rationing, victories, and defeats, on the fighting fronts it was used as an adjunct to military tactics. Millions of leaflets were dropped over enemy lines, mobile loudspeaker teams shouted out messages, and radio transmissions attempted to sow seeds of confusion, doubt, and defeatism. It is axiomatic that successful propaganda must go hand in hand with policy. The Allies in this respect shot themselves in the foot with the insistence on unconditional surrender following the Casablanca Conference of 1942. By announcing that all Germans in defeat would be treated in exactly the same way, this policy fused the fate of the German people with that of the Nazi Party in a way undreamed of by a grateful Goebbels. It enabled him to launch his own drive for total war, it pre-empted the Allied use of such inducements as ‘surrender or die’ since any German soldier would be treated as a war criminal, and it partly helps to explain why the German people kept fighting to the bitter end.

Developments in new communications technologies during the 1980s, such as the portable satellite phone, the laptop computer, and digital data transmission meant that such military control of the information environment would never be possible again. However, as the Gulf war of 1991 indicated, propaganda had not been confined to the dustbin of history. An increasingly sophisticated US military information policy was able to secure a desired view of warfare through the release of videotapes showing missiles hitting (not missing) their targets with unprecedented accuracy, and through live television press conferences which bypassed the traditional role of the media as mediator. Despite the unprecedented effort by the Iraqis to counter this propaganda of a ‘clean’ and ‘smart’ high-tech war by permitting correspondents from Coalition countries to stay behind in the enemy capital under fire, the military information agenda succeeded in dominating the media coverage. Democracies had indeed demonstrated that they could wage war in the presence of more than 1, 500 journalists, and thereby sustain public support in the process.

Propaganda, Diplomacy, and International Public Opinion

The Cold War inaugurated a paradigm shift in the U.S. practice of diplomacy that reflected changes in the nature of diplomatic activity worldwide. Through propaganda, policy initiatives, and covert action, agents of the U.S. government acted directly to influence the ideas, values, beliefs, opinions, actions, politics, and culture of other countries. Foreign affairs personnel not only observed and reported, they also participated in events or tried to influence the way that they happened. The old maxim that one government does not interfere in the internal affairs of another had been swept aside.

The pattern of international relations was further transformed by the electronic communications revolution and the emergence of popular opinion as a significant force in foreign affairs. Foreign policy could no longer be pursued as it had during the nineteenth century, when diplomacy was the exclusive province of professional diplomats who used (often secret) negotiations to reach accords based on power and interest. Developments in mass communication and the increased attentiveness to domestic audiences abroad to foreign affairs meant that the target of diplomacy had now widened to include popular opinion as much, if not more so, than traditional diplomatic activities. In other words, by appealing over the heads of governments directly to public opinion, effective propaganda and other measures would encourage popular opinion to support U.S. policies, which would in turn exert pressure on government policymakers.

Throughout the Cold War, propaganda and diplomacy operated on multiple levels. At the most obvious level, propaganda as it is conventionally understood (the utilization of communication techniques to influence beliefs and actions) was employed as a distinct instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Through the United States Information Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and other mechanisms, the United States waged a war of words and of ideas that attacked communism, promoted capitalism and democracy, defended U.S. foreign policies, and advertised the American way of life in order to win the Cold War.

On another level, the awareness that international public opinion had become a major factor in the conduct of diplomacy meant that propaganda considerations intruded on the policymaking process itself. American policymakers were increasingly aware that international public opinion had to be an ingredient in policy formulation at all levels: in the planning and policy formulation stage, in the coordination and timing of operations, and finally in the last phase of explanation and interpretation by government officials and information programs.

This attitude played itself out most visibly in the United Nations, which became one of the most important arenas for Cold War propaganda. It also was reflected in the marked increase in the foreign travel of U.S. presidents and vice presidents, an important device for generating news coverage and for reaching international audiences directly. On a more routine basis, consideration of international public opinion simply involved the careful selection of words and phrases to describe the objectives of American foreign policy—including the process of creating what came to be known as a “sound bite. Even within the State Department—an institution wedded to traditional diplomacy and wary of popular opinion—the Policy Planning Staff began to argue in the mid-1950s that convincing foreign officials was often less important than carrying issues over their heads to public opinion, reasoning that popular opinion would exert more of an impact on government officials than vice versa. The extensive and instantaneous media coverage that accompanied diplomatic conferences meant that negotiations needed to be conducted on two levels: on the diplomatic level between governments, and on the popular level to win international public support for policies. Diplomatic conferences were no longer merely opportunities for resolving international disputes; they were sounding boards for public opinion and forums for propaganda.

The psychological dimension of postwar American diplomacy also included a preoccupation with American prestige and credibility—concepts that connoted the reliability of American commitments and served as code words for America’s image and reputation. As Robert McMahon has argued, throughout the postwar period American leaders invoked the principle of credibility to explain and justify a wide range of diplomatic and military decisions. American actions in such disparate crises as Korea (1950–1953), Taiwan Strait (Quemoy-Matsu) (1954–1955), Lebanon (1958), and Vietnam (1954–1973) were driven by a perceived need to demonstrate the resolve, will, and, determination—in a word, credibility—of the United States. .

The infusion of psychological considerations and propaganda tactics into the practice of diplomacy is one of the Cold War’s most important legacies, but given the revolution in communication technologies of the late twentieth century it was perhaps inevitable that the ancient art of diplomacy would become affected by the techniques of propaganda and public persuasion. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War’s propaganda battles, foreign policy continued to be swayed by images transmitted instantly around the globe.

Propaganda

“Propaganda is a soft weapon; hold it in your hands too long, and it will move about like a snake, and strike the other way.” – Jean Anouilh

“Propaganda has a bad name, but its root meaning is simply to disseminate through a medium, and all writing therefore is propaganda for something. It’s a seeding of the self in the consciousness of others.” – Elizabeth Drew

Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.

Propaganda can be defined as any message intended to modify the attitudes and behaviour of people at whom it is directed, primarily by appealing to their emotions. Its use is not confined to dictatorships and authoritarian organizations. Democracies have employed it extensively in wartime. In peacetime it plays a significant role in electoral politics, and in public-service campaigns relating to social problems. Messages may range from simple verbal texts to elaborate combinations of aural and visual signals (e.g. television commercials). The media used have included print, graphic art, film, radio, television, and architecture, from baroque palaces to fascist monuments.

Types
Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, contrasted to an appeal to intellect. It shares techniques with advertising and public relations. Advertising and public relations can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product or shapes the perception of an organization, person or brand, though in post-World War II usage the word “propaganda” more typically refers to political or nationalist uses of these techniques or to the promotion of a set of ideas, since the term had gained a pejorative meaning, which commercial and government entities couldn’t accept. The refusal phenomenon was eventually to be seen in politics itself by the substitution of ‘political marketing’ and other designations for ‘political propaganda’.

Propaganda was often used to influence opinions and beliefs on religious issues, particularly during the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. Propaganda has become more common in political contexts, in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, but also often covert interests. In the early 20th century, propaganda was exemplified in the form of party slogans. Also in the early 20th century the term propaganda was also used by the founders of the nascent public relations industry to describe their activities. This usage died out around the time of World War II, as the industry started to avoid the word, given the pejorative connotation it had acquired.

Techniques
Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce “spots” or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.

A number of techniques based in social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies become propaganda only strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. Below are a number of techniques for generating propaganda:

Appeal to prejudice -Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Black-and-White fallacy –Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., “You are either with us, or you are with the enemy”)
Beautiful people -The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. (This is more used in advertising for products, instead of political reasons)
Big Lie -The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the “big lie” generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.
Demonizing the enemy -Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term “gooks” for National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam aka Vietcong, (or ‘VC’) soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations.
Direct order -This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. The Uncle Sam “I want you” image is an example of this technique.
Disinformation -The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.
Euphoria -The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.
Half-truth -A half-truth is a deceptive statement which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade blame or misrepresent the truth.
Intentional vagueness -Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to “figure out” the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.
Name-calling -Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.
Oversimplification -Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

Nazi Germany
Most propaganda in Germany was produced by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Joseph Goebbels was placed in charge of this ministry shortly after Hitler took power in 1933. All journalists, writers, and artists were required to register with one of the Ministry’s subordinate chambers for the press, fine arts, music, theater, film, literature, or radio. The Nazis believed in propaganda as a vital tool in achieving their goals. Adolf Hitler, Germany’s Führer, was impressed by the power of Allied propaganda during World War I and believed that it had been a primary cause of the collapse of morale and revolts in the German home front and Navy in 1918 (see also: Dolchstoßlegende). Hitler would meet nearly every day with Goebbels to discuss the news and Goebbels would obtain Hitler’s thoughts on the subject; Goebbels would then meet with senior Ministry officials and pass down the official Party line on world events. Broadcasters and journalists required prior approval before their works were disseminated. Along with posters, the Nazis produced a number of films and books to spread their beliefs.

Cold War propaganda

The United States and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. Both sides used film, television, and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other, and Third World nations and USA. The United States Information Agency operated the Voice of America as an official government station. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were in part supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, provided grey propaganda in news and entertainment programs to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union respectively. The Soviet Union’s official government station, Radio Moscow, broadcast white propaganda, while Radio Peace and Freedom broadcast grey propaganda. Both sides also broadcast black propaganda programs in periods of special crises.

In 1948, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office created the IRD (Information Research Department) which took over from wartime and slightly post-war departments such as the Ministry of Information and dispensed propaganda via various media such as the BBC and publishing.

The ideological and border dispute between the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China resulted in a number of cross-border operations. One technique developed during this period was the “backwards transmission”, in which the radio program was recorded and played backwards over the air. (This was done so that messages meant to be received by the other government could be heard, while the average listener could not understand the content of the program.) When describing life in capitalist countries, in the US in particular, propaganda focused on social issues such as poverty and anti-union action by the government. Workers in capitalist countries were portrayed as “ideologically close”. Propaganda claimed rich people from the US derived their income from weapons manufacturing, and claimed that there was substantial racism or neo-fascism in the US.

When describing life in Communist countries, western propaganda sought to depict an image of a citizenry held captive by governments that brainwash them. The West also created a fear of the East, by depicting an aggressive Soviet Union. In the Americas, Cuba served as a major source and a target of propaganda from both black and white stations operated by the CIA and Cuban exile groups. Radio Habana Cuba, in turn, broadcast original programming, relayed Radio Moscow, and broadcast The Voice of Vietnam as well as alleged confessions from the crew of the USS Pueblo. George Orwell’s novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four are virtual textbooks on the use of propaganda. Though not set in the Soviet Union, these books are about totalitarian regimes in which language is constantly corrupted for political purposes. These novels were, ironically, used for explicit propaganda. The CIA, for example, secretly commissioned an animated film adaptation of Animal Farm in the 1950s with small changes to the original story to suit its own needs.

Afghan War
In the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, psychological operations tactics were employed to demoralize the Taliban and to win the sympathies of the Afghan population. At least six EC-130E Commando Solo aircraft were used to jam local radio transmissions and transmit replacement propaganda messages. Leaflets were also dropped throughout Afghanistan, offering rewards for Osama bin Laden and other individuals, portraying Americans as friends of Afghanistan and emphasizing various negative aspects of the Taliban. Another shows a picture of Mohammed Omar in a set of crosshairs with the words “We are watching.” This technique has been shown to be rather ineffective in terms of long term opinions change given current political and social conditions in Afghanistan.

Iraq War
In November 2005, The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, alleged that the United States military had manipulated news reported in Iraqi media in an effort to cast a favorable light on its actions while demoralizing the insurgency. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is “an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents”, while a spokesman for former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the allegations of manipulation were troubling if true. The Department of Defense has confirmed the existence of the program. The New York Times published an article about how the Pentagon has started to use contractors with little experience in journalism or public relations to plant articles in the Iraqi press. These articles are usually written by US soldiers without attribution or are attributed to a non-existent organization called the “International Information Center.” Planting propaganda stories in newspapers was done by both the Allies and Central Powers in the First World War and the Axis and Allies in the Second; this is the latest version of this technique.

Anti-Semitic propaganda for children
In Nazi Germany, the education system was thoroughly co-opted to indoctrinate the German youth with anti-Semitic ideology. This was accomplished through the National Socialist Teachers League, of which 97% of all German teachers were members in 1937. It encouraged the teaching of “racial theory.” Picture books for children such as Don’t Trust A Fox in A Green Meadow Or the Word of A Jew, The Poisonous Mushroom, and The Poodle-Pug-Dachshund-Pincher were widely circulated (over 100,000 copies of Don’t Trust A Fox… were circulated during the late 1930s) and contained depictions of Jews as devils, child molesters, and other morally charged figures. Slogans such as “Judas the Jew betrayed Jesus the German to the Jews” were recited in class. The following is an example of a propagandistic math problem recommended by the National Socialist Essence of Education:

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.

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.

Locarno agreements

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Division of the world between NATO and warsaw pact

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

North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]

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

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

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

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

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

Key Provisions :

The North Atlantic Treaty consists of 14 articles.

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

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

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

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

Structure

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

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

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

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

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

Roles, Uses and Success of NATO

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

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

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

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

NATO Now

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

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

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

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

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

The Warsaw Pact

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

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

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

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

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

Key Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversies and Criticisms

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

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

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

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