INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
FIFTH EDITION
PEU GHOSH
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
Lady Brabourne College
Kolkata

Delhi-110092
2020
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Fifth Edition
Peu Ghosh

© 2020 by PHI Learning Private Limited, Delhi. All rights reserved. No part of this book may
be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in
writing from the publisher.
ISBN-978-93-89347-58-6 (Print Book)
ISBN-978-93-89347-59-3 (e-Book)
The export rights of this book are vested solely with the publisher.

Eighteenth Printing (Fifth Edition) ... ... March, 2020

Published by Asoke K. Ghosh, PHI Learning Private Limited, Rimjhim House, 111,
Patparganj Industrial Estate, Delhi-110092 and Printed by Rajkamal Electric Press, Plot No.
2, Phase IV, HSIDC, Kundli-131028, Sonepat, Haryana.
 Table of Contents
Preface
1. The Discipline of International Relations—
Meaning, Evolution, Nature and Scope
Introduction
Meaning of International Relations
Evolution of the Study of IR
Nature of International Relations
Political Science and International Relations
The Approaches to the Study of IR: Theories
and Methodologies
Scope and Subject Matter of IR
Exercises
References
2. Theories and Approaches to the Study of
International Relations
Introduction
The Liberal Approach
Political Realism
E.H. Carr and Realism
Morgenthau and Realism
Neo-Realism
Pluralism
Marxist Approach and The Modern World
System Theory
world system theory
 The Indian Approach: North Over South
Systems Theory
Communications Approach
Decision-Making Theory
Post-Structuralism in International Relations
Evaluation
Constructivism
Evaluation
Feminism in International Relations
Exercises
References
3. International System and the Role of Actors and
Non-State Actors
Introduction
The International System
Actors in International System
States as Actors
National Power
National Interest
Crisis of Territorial State
Non-State Actors in International Relations
Increasing Role of Non-State Actors
Exercises
References
4. Balance of Power
Introduction
Balance of Power
Meaning
 Techniques/Devices and Methods
Relevance of Balance of Power
Collective Security
Exercises
References
5. Foreign Policy—Concepts and Techniques
Introduction
Definitions of Foreign Policy
Objectives of Foreign Policy
Determinants of Foreign Policy
Techniques of Foreign Policy
Diplomacy
Functions of Diplomacy
Traditional and New Diplomacy
Types of New Diplomacy
Diplomacy as a Technique of Foreign Policy
Propaganda
Techniques of Propaganda
Efficacy of Propaganda in conducting
international relations
Military Power as a Technique of Foreign Policy
Exercises
References
6. Cold War and Evolution of Post-Cold War World
Introduction
Meaning
Origin of Cold War
Phases of Cold War
 Towards Temporary Thaw—Détente
End of Détente Beginning of New Cold War
End of Cold War: The New Détente
International System in the Post-Cold War Era
Exercises
References
7. The Third World
Introduction
Decolonization and Emergence of the Third
World
Concept of the Third World
Features of the Third World
Exercises
References
8. Non-Aligned Movement
Introduction
NAM: Genesis
Major Objectives of NAM
Growth of the Movement—From Bandung to
PORLAMAR
Contribution of NAM
Relevance of NAM in Contemporary
International Relations
Exercises
References
9. Neo-Colonialism
Introduction
Imperialism: An Overview
 Neo-Colonialism: Concept
Mechanisms of Neo-colonialism
Demand for NIEO
Fate of NIEO Proposal
Exercises
References
10. Regional Arrangements and their Role in
International Relations
Introduction
Regionalism and Integration in International
Relations
Prominent Regional Organizations
European Union (EU)
African Union (AU)
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
Organization of American States
South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation
Association of South-East Asian Nations
Exercises
References
11. The United Nations and International Relations
Introduction
Birth of the UN
The General Assembly
The Security Council
 The UN Secretariat and The Secretary-General
The Economic and Social Council
The Trusteeship Council
The International Court of Justice
Revision of the UN Charter
Reform of the UN
United Nations and Peacekeeping
Exercises
References
12. Disarmament and Arms Control
Introduction
Meaning and concept
Major Arms Control Agreement since 1960
Disarmament and the United Nations:
Strengthening Peace and Security through
Disarmament
Problems of Disarmament
Exercises
References
13. Globalization
Introduction
Concept of Globalization
Features of Globalization
Effects of Globalization
Globalization and the Sovereignty of the State
Exercises
References
14. Development and International Relations
 Introduction
Concept of Development
Sustainable Development
Principles of rio declaration
RIO + 20-United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development, 13–22 June 2012
Exercises
References
15. Human Rights
Introduction
Evolution
The UN and Human Rights
Exercises
References
16. Terrorism
Introduction
Terrorism: A Threat to International PeAce and
Security
International Terrorism: an Overview
Combating Terrorism
Exercises
References
17. International Law, International Morality and
World Public Opinion
Introduction
International Law
International Morality
World Public Opinion
 Exercises
References
18. Indian Foreign Policy
Introduction
Basic Objectives
Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy: 1947–
Present
Lal Bahadur Shastri to Indira Gandhi— The
Consolidation Phase
India and the Major Powers
India and her Neighbours
Indian Foreign policy under PM Narendra Modi
(2014–)
Exercises
References
Suggested Reading
19. Environment and International Relations
Global Initiatives, Conferences and Summits
relating to Environment Since 1972
Some International Conventions on Environment
and Environment Related matters
Conventions regarding Regulation of Hazardous
Wastes and Hazardous Chemicals
Conventions relating to Nuclear Safety
Features of Kyoto Protocol, 1997
Exercises
References
20. Migration and Refugees
 Introduction
Migration
Refugees and refugee law
United Nations High Commissioner For
Refugees (UNHCR)
The International Organization of Migration
(IOM)
Conclusion
Exercises
References
21. Prominent Economic Institutions/Arrangements
Introduction
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The World Bank
World Trade Organization (WTO)
The Group of Twenty (G-20)
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South
Africa)
India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Trilateral
Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional
Cooperation (IOR-ARC)/Indian Ocean Rim
association (IORA)
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral
Technical and Economic Cooperation
(BIMSTEC)
Mekong-Ganga Cooperation (MGC)
NAFTA
MERCOSUR
 Exercises
22. Current Concerns in International Relations: India
and the World
Pathankot Terror Attack (India)
Uri and Pulwama Terror Attacks and Surgical
Strikes (India)
ISIS
Europe’s Boat People: A Refugee Crisis in
Europe Unfolding
Eurozone Crisis and BREXIT
Doklam Standoff between India and China
Nuke testing by North Korea
Exercises
Index
Preface
This edition has been revamped and rewritten after getting the
tremendous response from the academicians, students, young
scholars and teaching faculties all over India since the book was
published in 2009. Current international scenario has compelled us
to look afresh at the events happening all around the globe. The
global recession that set in 2008 send shock waves and international
political economy witnessed a massive depression. This depression
touched the Eurozone too and the Euro debt crisis is known to all.
Moreover, turbulence in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of
new terror axis has complicated the situation in these countries. The
deteriorating political conditions in these countries called for
international action, including air strikes that have forced thousands
to leave their countries and voyage into other countries, especially,
Europe. The massive influx of ‘boat people’ has given rise to an
unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Europe. Another development
in international political economy is the falling crude price. The world
is grappling in coming to terms with these crises amongst many. The
book cannot disregard such developments. Therefore, a chapter
(Chapter 20) Migration and Refugees and (Chapter 22) on Current
Concerns in International Relations: India and the World has
been added to stay in tune with the changes in international
relations.
The book starts with an introduction to the discipline of International
Relations and Chapters 1–5 deal with the theoretical aspects of
International Relations. These chapters primarily focus on the
evolution, nature and scope of International Relations, different
approaches to the study of International Relations, detailed
discussion on international system and states and non-state actors,
national power, national interest, balance of power and foreign policy
and its determinants and various techniques. Chapters 6–9 deal with
the major world events and patterns of international relations that
emerged in the post-Second World War era. Chapter 10 deals with
regionalism in international relations and major regional
organizations of the world and their role in world politics. Chapter 11
carries an in-depth analysis of the United Nations.
Chapters 12–16 contain an analysis of the newer concerns of
International Relations. They deal with the various attempts at
disarmament, challenges posed by globalization, question of
development and sustainable development, issue of human rights
and the menace of terrorism. Chapter 14 which deals with different
perspectives on development has now an added section on gender
and development in IR. Chapter 17 brings about the importance of
international law, international morality and world public opinion in
world politics.
Chapter 18 deals with the Indian foreign policy as it has evolved from
the days of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru to the present. The bilateral
relations of India with the major powers and her neighbours have
been discussed at length in this chapter. Chapter 19 deals with
international relations and its connection with the environment.
Chapter 20 reflects on the emergent issue in international relations
like migration and refugees. Chapter 21 focuses on the prominent
emerging economic groupings/initiatives, as well as the existing
international and regional arrangements and institutions. Chapter 22
focuses on the current development in contemporary international
relations which makes the book all the more relevant.
This book is not only a useful guide for students and teachers of
International Relations, Political Science, History but also for those
aspiring for various competitive examinations such as NET, SLET
and other Central and State Services.
I am thankful to all my Professors of Department of International
Relations, Jadavpur University for infusing me with the knowledge of
International Relations and providing me with the encouragement
that have helped me to traverse the dynamic terrain of International
Relations in this book. I am thankful to my colleagues of Lady
Brabourne College for being so cooperative.
It is pertinent on my part to take the opportunity to thank the editorial
and production team of my publishers, PHI Learning, for their careful
processing of the manuscript and continuous cooperation. My most
sincere regards go to my parents, Mr. Subhas Kumar Ghosh and
Mrs. Krishnasree Ghosh for their love and affection. It was only
because of their inspiration and enthusiasm that this book could take
the final shape.
Peu Ghosh
The Discipline of International
Relations—Meaning, Evolution,
Nature and Scope
INTRODUCTION
The world that we live in is in a flux. The change, whether in
technologies, telecommunications or travel, affects our daily lives.
Our everyday choices get influenced by such changes. In this fast
moving globalized world, from the time we vote in an election or work
on a political platform or simply purchase commodities or even trade
services in the world market, we become part of the international
community. Whether it is the rules of world trading system or war or
catastrophes or increased people-to-people contact, our
perspectives about world are shaped by the contemporary world
events. The discipline of International Relations makes an
endeavour to encapsulate such international politics and processes.
International Relations (IR) represents the study of foreign affairs
and global issues among states including the roles of states, inter-
governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an
academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or
normative as it seeks both to analyze as well as formulate the
foreign policy of particular states. It is often considered a branch of
political science.
Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as
economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology,
anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It involves diverse
range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state
sovereignty, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation,
nationalism, economic development, global finance, terrorism,
organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism, and
human rights.
Since global developments touch upon the lives of every individual,
the domain of International Relations cannot be the sole right of the
Presidents, Prime Ministers or Diplomats. It becomes relevant for
every single person living under the Sun. The evolution of this
discipline which began after the First World War is still in a
developing stage and its scope is expanding everyday. It becomes a
challenge for academicians and students to master the discipline in
this fast changing world.
MEANING OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
It is not an easy task to give the precise meaning of international
relations which when capitalized and reduced to the acronym ‘IR’,
specifies a field of study taught in universities and colleges as a
‘subject’ or a ‘discipline’. The difficulty increases manifold because of
the tendency to use the terms ‘international relations’ and
‘international politics’ interchangeably. Often it is taken for granted
that IR is the study of international politics only. Morgenthau[1] and
others viewed the core of international relations to be international
politics and the subject matter of international politics to be struggle
for power among sovereign nations. Padelford and Lincoln[2] also
opine that, when people speak of ‘international relations’, they are
usually thinking of the relationships between states. They further
contend that such relationships between states constitute
‘international politics’ which is the interaction of state policies within
the changing patterns of power relationship.
But international relations means more and, as Palmer and Perkins[3]
point out, international relations is related to not just politics of
international community centring on diplomacy and relations among
states and other political units, it means ‘the totality of the relations
among peoples and groups in the world society’. Therefore, the term
‘international relations’ is not only broad but means more than the
official political relations between governments on behalf of their
states. As Hoffman[4] suggested, the discipline of IR “is concerned
with the factors and activities which affect the external policies and
the power of the basic units into which the world is divided”.
Palmer and Perkins[5] observe that IR “encompasses much more
than the relations among nation-states and international
organizations and groups. It includes a great variety of transitional
relationships, at various levels, above and below the level of the
nation-state, still the main actor in the international community”.
Wright[6] contended that international relations include “relations
between many entities of uncertain sovereignties” and that “it is not
only the nations which international relations seek to relate. Varied
types of groups—nations, states, governments, peoples, regions,
alliances, confederations, international organizations, even industrial
organizations, cultural organizations, religious organizations—must
be dealt with in the study of international relations, if the treatment is
to be realistic”.
A more convincing definition has been provided by Frankel[7]: “This
new discipline is more than a combination of the studies of the
foreign affairs of the various countries and of international history—it
includes also the study of international society as a whole and of its
institutions and processes. It is increasingly concerned not only with
the states and their interactions but also with the web of trans-
national politics”.
Mathiesen[8] gives a much broader definition of international relations
and suggests that “International Relations embraces all kinds of
relations traversing state boundaries, no matter whether they are of
an economic, legal, political, or any other character, whether they be
private or official”, and “all human behaviour originating on one side
of state boundary and affecting human behaviour on the other side
of the boundary”.
Goldstein[9] opines that the field of IR primarily “concerns the
relationship among the world’s governments”. But defining IR in such
a way, he argues, may seem simplistic, and therefore, to understand
IR holistically, the relationship among states is to be understood in
relation to the activities of other actors (international organizations,
MNCs, individuals), in connection with other social structures
(including economic, cultural and domestic politics), and considering
historical and geographical influences.
Jackson and Sorenson[10] observe that “the main reason why we
should study IR is the fact that the entire populations of the world are
divided into separate territorial communities, or independent states,
which profoundly affect the way people live”. This definition points to
the centrality of states and state system in the study of IR but there
are other issues as well in contemporary IR. Jackson and Sorenson
thus reflect that “at one extreme the scholarly focus is exclusively on
states and inter-state relations; but at another extreme IR includes
almost everything that has to do with human relations across the
world. Therefore, IR seeks to understand how people are provided or
not provided, with the basic values of security, freedom, order, justice
and welfare”.
According to Lawson[11] “in the simplest and narrowest senses, IR is
taken to denote the study of relations between states”. She contends
that, in a broader sense, “IR denotes interactions between state-
based actors across state boundaries” meaning thereby that,
besides the intimate concern with the state system as a whole, there
is an equal concern with the activities of a variety of non-state actors.
A somewhat standard definition of international relations has been
provided by Frederick S. Dunn 1948. He is of the view that
international relations may “be looked upon as the actual relations
that take place across national boundaries, or as the body of
knowledge which we have of those relations at any given time”[12]. It
is considered to be a comprehensive definition because it does not
limit the subject to official relations between states and governments.
Thus, it may be observed that there has been a tremendous effort on
the part of the IR scholars to come out of a state-centric thinking and
embark on a perspective, recognizing the presence of other actors
as well. Therefore, summing up the above viewpoints, it may be
ascertained that IR is a vast field encompassing the relationships
among states in all their dimensions, including interactions with
various other political and non-political groups along with the study of
international history, international law, international society and
international political economy.
EVOLUTION OF THE STUDY OF IR
The First World War resulted in unparalleled destruction and
devastation of almost every country involved, with millions of lives
lost—perhaps a proper estimate can never be done. Total economic
collapse, widespread famine, and rampant disease continued to add
to the death toll, many years after the fighting had ended, even for
the winning side, the victorious nations. It is from this awesome and
traumatic experience of the First World War that the inspiration to
study IR, as a separate academic discipline, grew.
The origin of IR can be traced to the writings of political philosophers
such as, Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian who wrote the
History of the Peloponnesian War and is also cited as an intellectual
forerunner of realpolitik, Chanakya’s Arthashastra, and Niccolò
Machiavelli’s Il Principe (The Prince). However, IR as an academic
discipline in its own right only came to be studied after the horrifying
experiences of the First World War. Before that, IR had always
existed as a branch of history, law, philosophy, political science and
other related subjects. But World War I, resulting in a loss of 20
million lives, proved the bankruptcy and limitations of traditional
European diplomacy as a method of maintaining world order, and
there grew an urge for alternatives.
This gave birth to the liberal approaches to IR which is often
collectively referred to as idealism or sometimes as utopianism.
Their focus was on the ills of international system, and, “what ought
to be done” to avoid major disasters in the future and to save the
future generations from the scourge of wars. There were many
strands of liberal thinking, but the basic assumption, running
throughout the many liberal writings, was that human beings were
rational and, when they apply reason to international relations, they
can set up organizations for the benefit of all. Therefore, emphasis
was laid on outlawing war, disarmament, international law and
international organizations during this phase of evolution of liberal
thinking. The chief advocates of post-World War I (WWI) idealism
were Alfred Zimmern (1879–1957), Norman Angell (1872–1967),
James T. Shotwell (1874–1965), and Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924).
In particular, Wilson’s “14 Points” speech, delivered before the US
Congress in 1918 is an expression of the sentiments of the idealist
exposition. He made a pledge to the world community for:

Making the world safe for democracy.

Creation of international organization for promotion of
peaceful cooperation among nation-states.

In fact, Wilson’s points were adopted in the post-War peace

settlement. The birth of the League of Nations and the Covenant,
which was finally drawn in 1919, were the final expressions of
Wilsonian principles. The main line of thinking was that realpolitik is
like a “jungle, where dangerous beasts roam and the strong and
cunning rule, whereas under the League of Nations the beasts are
put into cages reinforced by the restraints of international
organization, i.e., into a kind of zoo”.[13]
International Relations, which emerged against such a backdrop,
soon made its way into the American universities. The first University
Chair that formally established the discipline was the Woodrow
Wilson Chair of International Politics at the University College of
Wales, Aberystwyth in 1919. It was endowed by philanthropist David
Davies. Sir Alfred Zimmern was the first holder of the prestigious
chair. Simultaneously, Montague Burton also endowed chairs of
international relations in Jerusalem (1929), Oxford University (1930),
the London School of Economics (1936) and the University of
Edinburgh (1948). Their firm belief was that by promoting the study
of international relations it would be possible to bring about peace,
that is, the systematic study of international relations would lead to
increased support for international law and the League of Nations.
Despite several shortcomings of the liberal thought, it is
acknowledged that Zimmern, Wilson and Davies laid the foundation
of the study of IR as an academic discipline.[14]
As the leading academicians were still reeling under the shock and
awe of the First World War, they adopted a legalistic–moralistic
approach and were highly descriptive and prescriptive, unable to
satisfy the need to understand the complex nature of international
relations as they tried to establish ideals to be achieved while
ignoring the harsh realities of international relations. The optimism
and ideals of the liberal thinkers therefore, got a rude shock with the
outbreak of the Second World War (WWII) in 1939. The idealists’
failure to answer the questions regarding the failure of the League of
Nations to prevent the war and also the behaviour of certain states
with respect to some others, which aggravated conflict-like situations
in the inter-War period ultimately culminating in the Second World
War led to severe criticisms.
Contrary to Wilson’s hope to spread democracy, Fascism and
Nazism grew in Italy and Germany and coupled with this was the rise
of authoritarianism in Central and Eastern Europe. The League of
Nations proved to be too weak an international organization to
control aggressive states. Russia and Germany always had strained
relationship with the League. Germany joined the League in 1926
and left in the early 1930s. Following its invasion of Manchuria,
Japan left the League. Russia joined the League in 1934 but was
expelled in 1940, following its attack on Finland. Britain and France
never had regards for the principles of the League. USA, though a
forerunner in the creation of the League, could not join it because of
the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Covenant of the League as well as
their intention to pursue their age-old policy of isolationism. Severe
economic crisis of the 1930s again forced the states to follow
zealously the policy of protectionism rather than interdependence.
As some scholars put forth, the situation was like each country for
itself, each country trying as best it could to look after its own
interests, if necessary, to the detriment of others—the ‘jungle’ rather
than the ‘zoo’.[15] Therefore, the stage was ready for a more critical
and in-depth understanding of IR.
When the Second World War (1939–1945) finally broke out, the
idealists were blamed for their utopian thinking and their legalistic–
moralistic assumptions were alleged to be far from the realities of
power politics. IR soon came to be occupied with a critique of liberal
idealism and out of this emerged a new paradigm—Realism,
sometimes also known as Realpolitik—an anti-thesis of Idealism.
The principal advocates of this worldview were E.H. Carr (1939),
George F. Kennan (1954, 1956), Hans J. Morgenthau (1948),
Reinhold Niebuhr (1947), Kenneth W. Thompson (1958, 1960) and
others. This was the emergence of the first ‘Great Debate’ in IR in
the post-World War II period.
The realist paradigm puts singular importance to states as the
principal actors and their activities, guided by their interests to be the
only reality. To the realists, conflict of interest is inevitable, which
results in an anarchical international system and it is this situation of
world politics that shapes the choices of the states where each state
defines its interest in terms of power. Interest, defined in terms of
power devoid of any moral consideration, according to the realist,
gives meaning to international politics. Realism with its forceful
exposition soon became the dominant paradigm of understanding
IR. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction also arose about the shortcomings
of the realist paradigm around 1960s and 1970s.
The discontent was more with the language and the method of
studying IR. This was largely because of the behavioural revolution
in the whole gamut of social sciences. The main emphasis was on
application of scientific methods of study. Thus, emerged the second
Great Debate in IR. But this ‘new’ Great Debate was different from
the first in the sense that the first Great Debate was related to the
subject matter or the content of IR, whereas the second was purely a
methodological movement focusing on the mode of analysis in IR.
As Kegley and Wittkopf[16] point out that the central focus was on
“theorizing about theory” rather than “theorizing about international
relations”. They tried to replace subjective belief with verifiable
knowledge and wanted to supplant impressionism and intuition with
testable evidence along with an endeavour to substitute data and
reproducible information for mere opinion. The major works which
tried to incorporate scientific methods were Quincy Wright’s A Study
of War*, Morton A. Kaplan’s Systems and Processes in International
Politics † and Charles McClelland’s ‡ Theory of the International
System.
The methodologies of theorists like Morton Kaplan and Karl
Deutsch§ repudiated the moralism and legalism of the traditional
approaches. Kaplan conceived the international system as an
“analytical entity” for explaining the behaviour of international actors
and the “regulative”, “integrative” or disintegrative” consequences of
their policies. Deutsch understood international system as “clusters
of settlement, modes of transport, centers of culture, areas of
language, decisions of caste and class barriers between markets,
sharp regional differences in wealth and interdependence”. Said[17]
states that “what has been the ideological commitment of the
traditional theorists became a devalued hypothesis to analyse
causation in the real political world” for these theorists in IR.
The second Great Debate was neither won by the behaviouralists
nor by the traditionalists and, gradually the controversies receded
but left a long-lasting impact on the IR scholars, especially those
from USA. Ultimately, this led to the reformulation of both realism
and liberalism, both of which were highly influenced by the
behaviouralist methodologies. The new avatars of realism and
liberalism in the form of neo-realism and neo-liberalism again
fermented the renewal of the first major debate in the 1970s. Side by
side there sparked off another major debate between the neo-
liberalism and neo-realism on one hand and neo-Marxism on the
other. This ‘neo–neo’ debate came to constitute the third Great
Debate of IR.
The neo-liberals renewed the old liberal ideas about the possibility of
progress and change, but they discarded idealism. They tried to
formulate theories and apply new methods that were scientific.
Among several strands of neo-liberalism, the most prominent, which
tried to face the realist challenge, was generally known as pluralism,
and associated with it was the Interdependence Model of
international relations. The chief proponents of the neo-liberal
approach were E. Haas (Influential American Political Scientist),
Robert Keohane¶ and Joseph Nye**.
The main line of thinking of this neo-liberal school was the plurality or
multiplicity of actors. The neo-liberalists rejected the singular
simplicities of the realist approach which considered states to be the
only significant actors in international relations. This new school of
liberal thought put a much greater emphasis on the plurality of actors
and their activities in international relations. They acknowledged that
side by side the UN and other regional organizations like the
European Union (EU), Association of South East Asian Nations
(ASEAN), the African Union (AU) which remained state-based, there
was an increasing importance of non-state actors such as the
multinational corporations (MNCs), International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank, several international non-governmental
organizations such as the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Médecins sans
Frontiers, Amnesty International, and a host of other non-state
actors. These actors operate between the domestic and the
international spheres, thereby transcending states and making the
boundaries irrelevant to some extent.
The other idea which the neo-liberals put forward is the concept of
complex interdependence, which is dramatically different from that of
the realists. They argue that, besides the political relations of
governments, there are other forms of connections between
societies including transnational links between the business
corporations. Here, military force is not given much importance.
Hence, an “absence of hierarchy among issues” is found and military
power is no longer useful as an instrument of foreign policy as the
other actors; besides, the states do not have violent conflict on their
international agenda. Therefore, it can be said that the neo-liberals
put forward non-military paradigms of international relations and
continuously argued for peaceful and cooperative international
relations.[18]
The pluralists’ arguments soon caught the attention of the realists
and it was Kenneth Waltz †† who renewed realism in its new form—
Neo-Realism—and revived the debate between the realists and the
liberals. This stream of neo-realism tried to build upon the principles
of classical realism, especially those of Hans J. Morgenthau and
tried to draw from classical realism those elements of a theory
adequate to the world of the late twentieth century as well as link
conceptually to other theoretical efforts. Waltz’s pathbreaking work
Theory of International Politics ‡ ‡ (1979) laid the essential basis of
the neo-realists’ debate. He focused on the ‘structure’ of the
international system and the consequences of that structure in the
international system. For the neo-realists, international politics
became more than the summation of the foreign policies of the
states and the external balance of other actors. Waltz, therefore,
emphasized patterned relationships among actors in a system that is
anarchical. For him, states were power-seeking and security-
conscious, not because of human nature viewed as ‘plain bad’ by
classical realists, but because the structure of the international
system compels them to do so. Therefore, neo-realists did not
overlook the prospects of cooperation among states. But the point of
contention was that states, while cooperating with each other, tried to
maximize their relative power and preserve their autonomy.
Therefore, the neo-realists were successful in putting the neo-
liberals on the defensive in the 1980s.[19]
However, during this period, efforts were embarked on by scholars to
bring the two schools of thought closer. The efforts of Robert
Keohane and Bary Buzan[20] were noteworthy. Bary Buzan along
with Charles Jones and Richard Little tried to synthesize neo-realist
and neo-liberal institutionalist positions and they introduced the
concept of deep structure, which meant that political structure
encompasses anarchy as well as hierarchy and it includes not only
power and institutions but also rules and norms. They believed that
anarchic society produced states that are sovereign but that in no
way meant that anarchy is incompatible with cooperation. Buzan,
Jones and Little were of the opinion that units of the international
system have differing structures, extending from empires to republics
and including state and non-state actors, in their international action,
exhibit cooperative and competitive behaviours. This resulted in
alliances, coalitions, regimes, norms and institutions for international
cooperation. Change and continuity were brought about by the
interaction between the international system and its units. On the
whole, Buzan, Jones and Little retained the core elements of Waltz’s
structural realism but broadened it by looking into the international
system as being based on anarchy but still including patterns of
cooperation.
Another challenge, which came up during this time and straightaway
confronted the neo-realists and neo-liberalists, was the Marxists
viewpoint. The main contributions came from neo-Marxists such as
Andre Gunder Frank (1967), Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) and
others who formed the School of International Political Economy
(IPE). Their fundamental contributions were in providing powerful
insights into the origin and development of the international system
which is roughly divided into the dominant North and the dependent
South. Their effort was to locate the causes of most developing
countries’ persistent underdevelopment in the patterns of dominance
and dependence. Two strands of structural theorists need attention:
the World System Theory and the Dependency Theory. A core-
periphery bifurcation of the world was developed by the dependency
theorists who took their cue from Lenin’s work Imperialism: The
Highest Stage of Capitalism. In the 1970s, Immanuel Wallerstein§§
added another category of semi-periphery to the dual structure
model while developing the Modern World System Theory. The line
of thinking that reflected in the works of these structural Marxists is
that the striking feature of the world system is the transfer of wealth
and resources from the peripheral countries to the core countries.
The result is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The
core periphery bifurcation symbolizes the “relative economic strength
of rich countries (i.e. those in North America and Europe as well as
Japan), which forms the core of the world economy, and the poorer
ones on the periphery, with the Soviet Union occupying the semi-
periphery”.[21]
The 1970s and 1980s were thoroughly preoccupied with the neo-
liberalism and neo-realism debate. But after the end of the Cold War
from the 1990s onwards, there was a change in the way IR was
seen. The preponderance of the American scholars lessened, and
this made way for assertion by IR scholars of Europe and other
places of the globe. The school of thought that emerged around this
time in the United Kingdom came to be referred to as “the English
School”, with its emphasis on society of states or international
society[22]. Though the school had come to be associated with the
English, but its major figure Hedley Bull was an Australian. The other
chief proponents of this school were E.H. Carr, C.A.W. Manning, F.S.
Northedge, Martin Wight, Adam Watson, R.J. Vincent, James Mayall,
Robert Jackson, and newer scholars like Timothy Dunne and
Nicholas Wheeler.[23] The International Society theorists made an
attempt to provide an alternative set of premises which are neither
Hobbesian nor utopian. In fact, they tried to arrive at non-Hobbesian
conclusions from Hobbesian premises. They did not reject the
realists’ emphasis on power and national interest and they did
acknowledge that world politics is an “anarchical society” but, at the
same time, they do contend that under conditions of anarchy, states
act within a system of norms which, most of the time, is constraining.
Therefore, the core element in their thought is that there is a
presence of a world of sovereign states where both power and law
are present. Power and national interest do matter, but norms and
institutions also have great significance.[24]
However, with the end of Cold War and the dismemberment of the
Soviet Union, the dominant paradigms in IR seemed unable to
explain the prevailing situations. Therefore, new reflective critical
ideas started gaining ground, which were a departure from the
mainstream liberal, realist and orthodox Marxist thinking in IR. New
debates have, therefore, arisen in IR addressing methodological as
well as substantial issues. Currently a fourth debate is on its way,
which challenges the established traditions in IR by alternative
approaches. The new voices in IR are identified as post-Positivist
approaches and the era that it has heralded has been identified by
Yosef Lapid¶¶ as a post-Positivist era.
Steve Smith[25] while considering the present theoretical
perspectives of IR, puts IR theories into two broad categories:

Explanatory theories that see the world as something external

to our theories. Realists, pluralists and structural neo-Marxist
theories tend to be explanatory theories, with their task being
to report on a world that is external to theories. In this
endeavour, they attempt to find regularities in human
behaviour and thereby explain the social world in the way a
natural scientist would do.
Constitutive theories are those that help construct the world.
Most of the recent approaches, ranging from critical theories
to post-modernist theories, tend to be constitutive in the sense
that these theories are not external to the things they are
trying to explain and they just attempt to construct how one
 thinks about the world.
Smith contends that present theoretical perspectives as based
on:
Foundational theoretical position which states that all truth
claims can be judged true or false. Neo–neo debate, historical
sociology and critical theory seem to be foundational.
Anti-foundational theoretical position which contends that truth
claims cannot be so judged since there are never neutral
grounds for doing so. Post-modernism, some feminist
theories, normative theories tend to be anti-foundational.
Smith further characterizes the theories into two categories:
Rationalist, constituting the neo-liberal and neo-realist
theoretical positions.
Reflectivist, constituting the non-positivistic theories.
Smith argues that present day IR is, therefore, characterized by
three principal trends: [Figure 1.1]
Continuing dominance of the three theories—Realism,
Liberalism and Modern World System theory—constituting the
rationalist position and epitomized by the ‘neo–neo’ debate.
Emergence of non-positivistic theories marking the reflectivist
position.
Development of an approach that seeks a rapprochement
between the rationalist and reflectivist positions and is
epitomized by the social constructivist position.[25]

Figure 1.1 Classification of international relations theory in the late 1990s.

[Source: Adapted from Steve Smith][25].
NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
From the birth of IR, it has been facing uncertainty regarding its
boundaries. Before its academic study as a separate discipline
began in the aftermath of the First World War, IR was treated as a
part of history, law and political theory. Even after the intellectual
development started and the discipline was successful in
establishing its foothold, some still considered it as a subdivision of
the greater field of Political Science and emphasized the need to
study political phenomena at the global level. Still, some universities
today offer separate degrees and have separate departments for IR
(especially at the PG level) while others teach IR along with Political
Science. Some others view that the subject matter of IR can only be
studied by interdisciplinary research teams drawing on the expertise
of many disciplines including Political Science, Economics,
Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Medicine, Cybernetics and
Communications and other related fields of study and not separately.
Zimmern[26] (a British academician and the Wilson Professor of
International Polities, the first Professor of International Polities, also
known as International Relations in the World) commented that “the
study of international relations extends from the natural sciences at
one end to moral philosophy … at the other”. He defined the field not
as a single subject or discipline but as a “bundle of subjects…viewed
from a common angle”.
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Even though IR has to be treated as a ‘bundle of subject’ yet, more
often controversy unfolds between the discipline of Political Science
and IR. One treats the other as an offshoot or rather part of its own
discipline, while the other claims to be an autonomous discipline. It is
truly very difficult to compartmentalize both Political Science and IR,
as both are inextricably related to one another, and such
controversies must be avoided. For a more matured and holistic
study, both have to work hand-in-hand. What can be done is to look
at the emphasis of both and levels of entry of one another into the
discipline of each other. Political Science, if it is treated as a science
of politics and working towards studying formal and informal political
patterns existing in a particular state, IR is more concerned with
trans-territorial affairs of the state. Political Science involves concern
with politics within the territorial unit that is called the State. The
legislative, executive and judicial actions of a political system
affecting the political life of a state are the core areas of concern of
Political Science. Very little is the emphasis on foreign relations of
the state concerned and comes into discussion when it affects the
national policies mainly. IR, on the other hand, is more concerned
with the external relations of the states and studying the politics of
power bargaining at the international level. Individual foreign policies
of states, bilateral and multilateral engagements, interactions with
trans-national non-state actors, conflict and cooperation, questions
of international peace and security become the main concern of IR.
However, it is not possible to draw an iron curtain between these two
disciplines. It is not possible to study domestic politics totally
disregarding the international politics, as international agreements
and even international organizations might affect the national
economic and political policies of State. Similarly, IR is also touched
by domestic politics. The ruling government or regime, the
bureaucrats, the political parties and public opinion come to have an
impact on the external relations of the State. For example, the IMF,
World Bank and WTO known as the Triad in international political
economy, with their policies of Structural Adjustment Programmes
(SAPs) affect the economic and financial policies of the countries,
which take loans from them. On the other hand, to analyze the
foreign policy trend of any state, one has to study the internal
functioning of the political system, including the study of political
institutions, political parties and interest groups and public opinion.
What can be said is that domestic politics and international politics
cannot be studied in isolation. IR, therefore has to make an entry into
the domain of Political Science for a proper understanding by
developing methodologies and theories to understand international
politics.
The Approaches to the Study of IR: Theories and
Methodologies
In reality, the complexities in IR makes it impossible to study with a
limited knowledge. What is needed is a systematic analysis of the
subject matter of IR. For this, as Goldstein[27] observes that both
descriptive and theoretical knowledge are required as he contends
that “It would do little good only to describe events without being able
to generalize or draw lessons from them. Nor would it do much good
to formulate purely abstract theories without being able to apply
them to the finely detailed and complex real world in which we live”.
Equally important is the use of methods in developing and testing
various theories. Whether one builds theories from facts or predict
facts from theories, one can utilize them to the learning of IR in
myriad ways. But given the complexities and unpredictability of IR, it
can be said that even the best theories provide only a rough guide to
understand the international processes and interactions and
eventually make decisions.
Nevertheless, overtime different paradigms in IR which sparked
grand debates have ultimately led to the gradual evolution of the
discipline as already discussed. The main debates in IR are
between:
1. Utopian Liberalism/Idealism and Realism
2. Traditional Approaches and Behaviouralism
3. Neo-liberalism/neo-Realism and neo-Marxism
4. Positivism and post-Positivist Alternatives.
Most IR scholars do agree that a single set of theories or even a
single set of concepts would not be in a position to explain IR. Still
three paradigms are found to dominate the study of IR.
1. Realism and neo-realism
2. Liberalism, pluralism and neo-liberalism
3. International political economy—structuralism and neo-Marxism.
Scholars like Abdul A. Said17 observed that five categories of
theories have emerged to examine the unexplored terrain of
international relations:
 1. Theory of theory: how ‘scientific’ the discipline of IR can
become.
2. Systems analysis: This refers to the development of hypotheses
about the international system. The two primary foci are the state
as a responding unit within the international system and the
configuration of the international system on the whole.
3. Action theories: the analysis of the ways states and their
decision makers conduct foreign policy including decision-
making capabilities, institutions and the interaction of the political
system and national society.
4. Interaction theory: which attempts to generalize about the
‘patterns’ of interactions and the internal behaviour of the
interacting units like the theory of balance of power, world
equilibrium, gaming, “challenge and response”, international
processes involving competition, cooperation, bargaining and
conflict.
5. Newer research techniques: borrowed from other disciplines;
content analysis borrowed from the study of communications,
psychometrics useful in measuring such attitudes as ‘friendship’
or ‘hostility’ among states, game theory and the like.[28]
Several alternative approaches have also developed into the study
of contemporary IR.
1. Post-modernist theories propounded by Richard Ashley (1988),
R.B.J. Walker (1993), James Derian (1989) and others.
2. Critical theories advocated by Andrew Linklater (1990), Robert
Cox (1996) and others.
3. Historical sociology propounded by Michael Mann (1986 and
1983), Charles Tilly (1990), Theda Skocpol.
4. Feminist theories advocated by J. Ann Tickner (1988), Cynthis
Enloe (1988, 1990, 1993 and 1999) and Christine Sylvester
(1998).[29]
Despite such breakthroughs in theory building and paradigm
development and improvisations, IR is difficult to study by utilizing
such theories. At best, a mixture of combination of theories is
required to obtain acceptable results. The aim is to provide the IR
scholars and students with a choice of IR theories that will help to
comprehend the multi-layered and cultural complex world as well as
recognize the processes and difficulties involved in coming to
understand them.
SCOPE AND SUBJECT MATTER OF IR
International Relation is a dynamic discipline. With the world fast
changing in the face of globalization, along with the threats of
fundamentalism, ethnicity and terrorism, ebbing state system, crisis
in sovereignty of states, human rights, newer international regimes,
the discipline has been forced to move beyond its traditional themes
and incorporarte a ‘new agenda’ in its study.
Initially, the discipline devoted itself to the study of diplomatic history,
foreign policies of states, international law, international
organizations. Since the outbreak of the Second World War and in
the years following it, the world was not only engulfed in a Cold War
between the United States and the Soviet Union but it also
witnessed the birth of many new states due to rapid decolonization,
which led to an expansion of the scope of IR. As a result, new
theories, and newer methodologies to study IR emerged. As in the
1960s and 1970s, when behaviouralism made a pathway into the
study of IR, motives and behaviours of states as well as political
leaders came to be studied. It is quite an extensive discipline
embracing diplomatic history, international politics, international
organization, international law, area studies, behaviour of states and
their mutual relations, international trade and foreign policy. Its scope
is still expanding and will expand in future too. As Frederick S. Dunn
contends that the word ‘scope’ is ambiguous because it implies fixed
boundary lines readily identifiable as a surveyor’s mark. Therefore,
he suggested that the “subject matter of international relations
consists of whatever knowledge, from any sources, may be of
assistance in meeting new international problems or understanding
old ones”.[30] IR scholars have never agreed on where the
boundaries of their field lie.
Goldstein projects IR as a field of study focussing on:
1. Issue areas—diplomacy, war, trade relations, alliances, cultural
exchanges, participation in international organizations, etc.
2. Conflict and cooperation in relationship among states
concerning issue areas.
3. International security—questions of war and peace.
 4. International political economy—between 1970 and 1980—
increasing concern with economic issues made international
political economy (IPE) inextricably woven into IR, especially
with regard to security issues.[31]
Palmer and Perkins[32] include such topics within the domain of IR
such as state system, national power, diplomacy, propaganda, war,
imperialism, balance of power, collective security, international
organizations, international law, regional conflicts, national interests,
nuclear weapon and changing international system.
According to Frankel,[33] the contents of IR must take care of the
changes in the international system, i.e., the rise in the number of
states, MNCs and terrorist groups; the shift of the major danger
spots geographically, from Europe to Middle East and Africa, from
the strategic to the economic field; the growing recognition of the
need for some form of global or regional regimes, overriding
sovereign states. Therefore, the study should include the making of
foreign policies, the mutual interactions among states, conflicts,
competitions and cooperations among them, national power,
diplomacy, propaganda, international system and international
organization.
Coloumbis and Wolfe[34] emphasize that the study of IR should
involve the approaches to the study of IR, theories of IR, nation-
states and nationalism, national power, national interest, foreign
policies of nation-states and nationalism, national power, decision
making, diplomacy, war, balance of power, international law,
international economy, international organizations, functionalism and
regional integration, gap between the rich and poor nation-states,
new actors in international system, threats facing humankind.
Kal Holsti[35] points out that during the heydays of the Cold War, the
field was characterized by three distinct sets of normative concerns
or discourses which tried to answer the question ‘what to study?’
They are:

Security, conflict and war

Cooperation and the conditions for peace
 Equity, justices and the sources of international inequality

According to Jackson and Sorenson[36], traditional IR was concerned

solely with the development and change of sovereign statehood in
the context of the larger system or society of states which might help
in explaining the questions of war and peace. However, they assert
that contemporary IR is concerned not only with political relations
between states but also with a host of other subjects such as
economic interdependence, human rights, transnational
corporations, international organizations, the environment, gender
inequalities, development, terrorism, and so forth.
Baylis and Smith[37] in their effort to include upcoming agenda in IR
tried to incorporate several new themes. They looked not only into
the historical context of international society and world history till the
end of Cold War and discussed the main theories in IR, including the
new approaches to IR theory in the post-Cold War era, but also
focussed chiefly on international security in the post-Cold War era,
international political economy in the age of globalization,
international regimes, diplomacy, the UN and international
organizations, transnational actors, environmental issues, nuclear
proliferation, nationalism, cultural conflicts in IR, humanitarian
intervention in world politics, regionalism and integration, global
trade and finance, poverty, development and hunger, human rights,
and gender issues.
A more wider content has been provided by Kegley and Wittkopf[38].
By using macropolitical perspective, they draw our attention to:

Charateristics, capabilities and interests of the principal actors

in world politics (nation-states and various non-state
participants in international affairs).
The principal welfare and global issues that populate global
agenda.
The patterns of cooperation and contention that influence the
interactions between and among actors and issues.

Further, they state that the scope of contemporary IR has to expand

to accommodate such questions as:

Are states obsolete?

Is interdependence a cure or a curse?
Is technological innovation a blessing or a burden?
Will geo-economics supersede geo-politics?
What constitutes human well-being in an ecologically fragile
planet?

Lawson[39] points out that, although the traditional concern for war
and inter-state warfare in particular is still the focus of IR, but IR’s
“new agenda” embraces a “vast range of policy issues”. They include
global environment concerns, the epidemiology of AIDS, legal and
illegal migration, including refugee movements, the North–South
gap, human rights, reform of the UN and its agencies, extension of
international law, and the prosecution of crimes against humanity,
whether involving terrorism, religious fundamentalism or international
organized criminal activities that range from drug production and
trafficking to money laundering, smuggling goods of all kinds
including weapons, diamonds, endangered species and people and
‘new wars’ arising from ‘identity politics’ linked with religious, ethnic
or cultural factors. Lawson highlights that the “notion of ‘human
security’ rather than ‘state security’ is now very much in
ascendance.”
The vast topics which have now come to dominate the study of IR
may again not be sufficient with the changing needs of time.
Prospects of change remain as world conditions change.
 EXERCISES
1. Elucidate on how scholars, over time, have tried to define
international relations. Also try to trace the evolution of
international relations.
2. Discuss the nature and scope of international relations.
3. Disucss how after the end of First World War, since 1919, the
study of international relations has evolved to its present form.
4. Discuss the different stages of evolution of international relations
as an academic discipline with special emphasis on the Great
Debates.
 REFERENCES
[1] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, p. 31.
[2] Padelford, Norman J. and George A. Lincoln, International
Politics: Foundations of International Relations, New York, 1954,
pp. 4, 6.
[3] Palmer, Norman D. and Howard C. Perkins, International
Relations—The World Community in Transition, A.I.T.B.S.
Publishers, New Delhi, 1997, p. xiv.
[4] Hoffman, Stanley (Ed.), Contemporary Theory of International
Relations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1960, p.
6.
[5] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 3, p. xi.
[6] Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations, Appleton-
Century Crofts, New York, 1955, p. 5.
[7] Frankel, Joseph, International Relations in a Changing World,
Oxford University Press, London, 1979, p. 6.
[8] Quoted in Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 3, p. xiv.
[9] Goldstein, Joshua S., International Relations, Pearson Education,
New Delhi, 2006, p. 29.
[10] Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen, Introduction to
International Relations—Theories and Approaches, Oxford
University Press, London, 1999, pp. 2–3.
[11] Lawson, Stephanie, International Relations, Polity Press, UK,
2004, p. 4.
[12] Dougherty, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr, Contending
Theories of International Relations—A Comprehensive Survey,
Longman, New York, 1997, p. 18.
[13] Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., n. 10, p. 38.
[14] Lawson, Stephanie, op. cit., n. 11, pp. 41, 44.
[15] Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., n. 10, pp. 40, 41.
[16] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997,
 pp. 26–27.
[17] Said, Abdul A., Theory of International Relations—The Crisis of
Relevance, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 1969, p. 18.
[18] Lawson, Stephanie, op. cit., n. 11, pp. 49–50.
[19] Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, op. cit., n. 12, pp. 80–82.
[20] Buzan, Bary, Charles Jones and Richard Little, The Logic of
Anarchy: Neo-realism to Structural Realism, Columbia University
Press, New York, 1993, p. 36.
[21] Lawson, Stephanie, op. cit., n. 11, pp. 53–54.
[22] Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., n. 10, p. 53.
[23] Brown, Chris, Understanding International Relations, Macmillan
Press, London, 1997, pp. 52–53.
[24] Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., n. 10, pp. 53–55.
[25] Smith, Steve, “New Approaches to International Theory,” in John
Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics,
Oxford University Press, London, 1997, pp. 166–173.
[26] Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, op. cit., n. 12, p. 17.
[27] Goldstein, Joshua S., op. cit., n. 9, pp. 32–35.
[28] Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., n. 10, p. 35.
[29] Baylis, John and Steve Smith, op. cit., n. 25, pp. 172–186.
[30] Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, op. cit., n. 12, p. 18.
[31] Goldstein, Joshua S., op. cit., n. 9, pp. 30–31.
[32] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 3, p. xv.
[33] Frankel, Joseph, op. cit., n. 7.
[34] Couloumbis, Theodre A. and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations—Power and Justice, Prentice-Hall of
India, New Delhi, 1986.
[35] Holsti, Kal J., “The Study of International Politics during the Cold
War,” in Tim Dunne, Michael Cox and Ken Booth (Eds.), The
Eighty Years’ Crisis—International Relations—1919–1999,
Cambridge University Press, London, 1998, p. 26.
[36] Jackson and Sorensen, op. cit., n. 10, p. 34.
[37] Baylis, John and Steve Smith, op. cit., n. 25, pp. xiii–xviii.
[38] Kegley and Wittkopf, op. cit., n. 16, pp. 10–15.
[39] Lawson, Stephanie, op. cit., n. 11, p. 6.

* Quincy Wright, A Study of War, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1942.

† Morton A. Kaplan, Systems and Processes in International Politics, Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1957.
‡ Charles McClelland’s, Theory of the International System, The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1967.
§ Karl Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968.
¶ Robert Keohane is an American academic and a neo-liberal institutionalism
theorist in international relations. He is the Professor of International Affairs at the
Princeton University.
** Joseph Nye Voted as one of the ten most influential scholars of international
relations in the US. Along with Robert Keohane, he developed the neo-liberal
theory of international relations.
†† Kenneth Waltz is one of the most prominent scholars of international
relations.
‡‡ Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, McGraw Hill, New York,
1979.
§§ Immanuel Wallerstein is an American Sociologist.
¶¶ Yosef Lapid, ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a
Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 1989.
Theories and Approaches to the
Study of International Relations
INTRODUCTION
Theory is considered to be a systematic reflection of phenomena,
designed to explain them and to show how they are related to each
other in a meaningful, intelligent pattern, instead of being merely
random items of an incoherent universe. Theory is essential for
every discipline to help in research and provide the basis for
explanation and prediction. However, even the grand theories in
social sciences, particularly in IR, have not provided with
generalizations, principles or hypotheses with that force or vigour
that they might be considered as the foundations for universally
accepted comprehensive theories of IR. As we have seen in Chapter
1, the effort towards comprehensive theory-building in IR began with
the first Grand Debate between the Idealists and the Realists.
Subsequently in the 1940s, development towards theory-building
was given a boost by growing interests in newer methodologies and
techniques for research, analysis and teaching in IR. Further, the
1960s behavioural revolution opened up new avenues for research
and methodological usage. Inputs were taken from biological,
psychological, anthropological, sociological, economic and other
behavioural sciences to explain international political behaviour.
Contemporary IR is also witnessing a steady growth of several new
approaches of the post-Positivist tradition. Despite such initiatives of
theory building, Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (Jr.)[1] point out that like all
other social science disciplines, theory is more diffused and less
precise in IR than found in the physical sciences. Till date, the
mainstream IR discourse, however, is under the influence of three
main theoretical perspectives on world politics—liberalism, political
realism and world system theory. Of these again, political realism
seems to have preponderance over the others.
THE LIBERAL APPROACH
The tradition of liberal political thought as propounded by liberal
thinkers like Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
John Stuart Mill, John Locke, David Hume, Jean–Jacques Rousseau
and Adam Smith was revived, adopted and transformed to give birth
to the liberal approach to IR. The chief proponents of post-World War
I liberalism were Alfred Zimmern, Norman Angell, James T. Shotwell
and Woodrow Wilson. They are sometimes referred to as liberal
idealists or simply idealists. E.H. Carr (1939), however, ascribed
them as utopians.
At the heart of the liberal worldview lie certain basic assumptions
about the human rationality and morality, belief in reforming
institutions as solutions to problems and most importantly idea about
human progress. In the words of David Sidorsky[2] liberalism consists
of “In simplest terms, first a conception of man as desiring freedom
and capable of exercising rational free choice. Second, it is a
perspective on social institutions as open to rational reconstruction in
the light of individual needs. It is third, a view of history as
progressively perfectible through the continuous application of
human reason to social institutions”.
Based on their optimism, the liberalists conceptualize the individual
as the possessor of rationality and a seat of moral values and virtues
and also capable of controlling their basic impulses. They try to
justify the irrational and immoral behaviour of the individuals as not
the manifestations of flawed human nature but the result of
ignorance and misunderstanding, which is possible to overcome
through education and reforming of social and political institutions.
Alongside such positive picturization of human beings, the liberals
tend to be less emphatic about social and individual conflicts as
inevitable. They believe that it is possible to bring about the greatest
good for the greatest number that would reap benefits for all and
create an order that would maximize individual freedom and material
and economic prosperity. The logical corollary of this is the concept
of “harmony of interests”.
Contrary to the realist position that focuses on the possibility of
conflict of interests and clashes, the liberals lay emphasis on the
common interests. The belief is that people and nations share
common interests and the prospects of cooperative activities among
them will satisfy these interests. Liberals are critical about the realist
perspective of international conflict and war and consider them as a
distortion of reality. On the other hand, they believe that on the whole
the majority of interactions among nations are cooperative and non-
conflictual. Wars do take place but they contend that the majority of
nations live in peace and the fact that they are at peace is not
because of any balance of power.
Most importantly, the liberal contention for human progress is worth
mentioning. At the core of this thinking is also the implicit trust (or
liberal faith) that human beings by nature are rational creatures. The
liberals reject the realist position that the basic dynamics and
fundamental realities of international relations remain unchanged.
They contend that as people are rational, they would learn that
certain things such as war is irrational and undesirable and, as they
learn more about how the world they live in works they will gain
knowledge which ultimately will help them to solve problems. As
Robert Gilpin (War and Change in World Politics, 1981) noted that,
just as realism “is founded on a pessimism regarding moral progress
and human possibilities”, so too liberalism is founded on an optimism
regarding moral progress and human possibilities.
Kegley and Wittkopf[3] present the underlying beliefs of the liberalist
worldview and uphold that the basic assumptions of liberalism are:
1. Human nature is essentially “good” or altruistic and people are,
therefore, capable of mutual aid and collaboration.
2. The fundamental human concern for others’ welfare makes
progress possible.
3. Bad human behaviour, such as violence, is the product not of
flawed people but of evil institutions which encourage people to
act selfishly and to harm others.
4. War is not inevitable and its frequency can be reduced by
eradicating the institutional arrangements that encourage it.
5. War is an international problem requiring collective or
multilateral, rather than national, efforts to control it.
 6. The international society must reorganize itself in order to
eliminate the institutions that make war likely and nations must
reform their political systems so that self-determination and
democratic governance within states can help pacify relations
among states.[3]
However, there were several manifestations of idealisms before and
after the inter-War period. It can be said that there were “contending
liberalisms” at work in world politics during that time and later. They
can be classified as:
Liberal Internationalism: This strand of liberal thinking puts faith in
human reason and believes that this reason could deliver freedom
and justice in international relations. Their emphasis was on
transformation of individual consciousness, abolishing war, setting
up of a world government, promoting free trade and maintaining
peace. Liberal internationalists talked about the ‘harmony of
interests’ in international relations, which was vehemently criticized
by E.H. Carr in his famous work The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939).
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
were the leading exponents of liberal internationalism.[4]
Idealism: Unlike the liberal internationalists, the idealists believed
that peace and prosperity is not a natural condition but is one which
must be constructed and for which the requirement is of “consciously
devised machinery”. In other words, they talked about the
establishment of an international institution to secure peace and,
with this objective, they supported the moves for the establishment
of the United Nations after the failure of the League of Nations. They
were also the proponents of collective security, human rights, “New
International Economic Order” peace and disarmament.
Liberal Institutionalism: David Mitrany (1966) and Ernst Haas
(1968) were the earlier liberal institutionalists who believed that
integration through international and regional institutions would help
to solve common problems. Their work provided impetus for
increased cooperation between the European states. The later
liberal institutionalists such as Keohane and Nye emphasized the
centrality of actors other than the states and focused on
transnationalism and interdependence.
The core content of these contending liberalisms was, however, akin
to the emphasis on economic freedom, support for national self-
determination, international system organized and regulated on the
basis of norms and rules, doctrine of non-intervention, opposition to
authoritarian rule, outlawing war and disarmament.
Neo-Liberal Internationalism: This strand of neo-liberal thinking is
dominated by the supporters of democratic peace thesis whose core
thinking is based on the assumption that liberal states do not go to
war with other liberal states. To this end Francis Fukuyama (1989) in
his article entitled “The End of History” in The National Interest,
championed the victory of liberalism over all ideologies and
contended that liberal states were internally more stable and more
peaceful in international relations. He believes that liberal states
have established pacific union within which war becomes
unthinkable.
Neo-Idealism: Advocates of neo-idealism like David Held*, Norberto
Bobbio † and Danielle Archibugi ‡ believe that global politics must be
democratized. David Held even prescribes a “cosmopolitan model of
democracy” in place of Westphalian and UN models, and creation of
regional parliaments, extension of the authority of regional bodies
such as the European Union, as well as democratization of
international organizations like the UN. He also recommends the
realization of human rights through national parliaments and
monitoring by a new International Court of Human Rights.
Neo-Liberal Institutionalism: Proponents of neo-liberal
institutionalism like Axelrod, Keohane and Nye put forward their
ideas in response to Kenneth Waltz’s theory of neo-realism in his
famous work Theory of International Politics (1979). This strand of
neo-liberal institutionalism shares with the realists the assumption
that states are the most significant actors and the international
environment is anarchic. But the neo-liberal institutionalists try to
focus on the task of initiating and maintaining cooperation among
states under conditions of anarchy.

Criticisms
Most of the assumptions of the idealist have been criticized on a
number of grounds. They have been considered as impracticable,
utopian and most of the liberal principles are charged of being
culture-specific and ethnocentric. They portray Western values and
try to impose those on the non-Western values. Free trade,
interdependence, democracy are concepts wedded to Western
liberal tradition and looked at with much contentions by the
developing world. For, it is the big and powerful states which control
the functioning of international politics. The liberals attempt for
peace, effective international organization and disarmament efforts
have met with little success. Further, idealism has been criticized
vehemently by the realists for not taking into account the realities of
human nature and, hence, politics. Pursuit of self-interest becomes
the sole guiding principle in case of individual actions and state
activities. Morality has least importance in the arena of politics. As
Couloumbis and Wolfe[5], observed, “The Realists argue that the
adoption of legalistic, moralistic and even ideological behaviour in
politics tends to run contrary to the forces of nature and it results
either in pacifism and defeatism on the one hand and a fierce
exclusivist, and crusading spirit on the other”. Kegley and Wittkopf
also pointed out that “Much of the idealist programme for reform was
never tried, and even less of it was ever achieved”.
This does not mean that idealism is without any value. A scholar at
this point of time can ask the question whether realism and idealism
can be synthesized to get a comprehensive approach in the study of
international relations. Reinhold Niebuhr[6] (The Children of Light and
the Children of Darkness 1944) opines that it is possible to combine
the wisdom of the Realists with the optimism of the idealists or one
can discard the pessimism of the realists and the foolishness of the
idealists. The essence of this line of thinking is to retain the reality of
power struggle among the states as well as directing the efforts of
the states towards building up of international peace and security
and peaceful coexistence. Reinhold Niebuhr spoke of children of
light and children of darkness. The former, children of light, regard
subordination of self-interest to universal laws so that they are at
harmony with universal good and the latter, children of darkness,
regard self-interest as the prime guiding principle. On the basis of
this criterion, Niebuhr regards the children of darkness as evil and
wicked and the children of light as virtuous. But again, he realizes
that the children of darkness are wise and the children of light are
foolish for they fail to understand the power of self-interest and
underestimate anarchy. Niebuhr, therefore, suggests that the
children of darkness should learn something from the children of light
and the children of light should borrow something from the children
of darkness. It is the only possible way to evolve a comprehensive
approach to understand international relations.
POLITICAL REALISM
Realism has been the most dominant school of thought in the post-
World War II international relations and still continues to have
relevance in the present international relations scenario. The
principal line of thinking of the realist school is in terms of power and
its exercise by states. In other words, it is chiefly concerned with
realpolitik.
The basic assumptions of realism are:
1. The international system is anarchic.
2. Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international
system.
3. States are rational unitary actors each acting under the
consideration of its own national interest.
4. National security and survival are the primary ‘national interest’
of each state.
5. In pursuit of national security, states strive to increase national
power.
6. National power and capabilities determine the relations among
states.
7. National interest, defined in terms of national power, guides the
actions of the states in international relations.
The seeds of realism, however, could be traced to the writings of
political philosophers like Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian
who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War and is also cited as
an intellectual forerunner of realpolitik, Chanakya’s Arthashastra;
Machiavelli’s, Il Principe (The Prince); Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan;
Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian statesman who coined the term
balance of power and Carl von Clausewitz a nineteenth century
General Prussian and military theorist who wrote On War (Von
Kriege) in which he propounded his greatest dictum that war is
nothing but a continuation of politics by other means.
Their understanding of realpolitik deeply influenced the political
realists’ perspective of looking at world politics especially from the
viewpoint of human nature which they relocated in the sphere of
reified states. This will lead us to a discussion on the propositions
put forward by some of the political philosophers and how they
helped in the “construction of state”, “construction of masculinity” and
“construction of warrior mentality” in the discipline of IR.
Machiavelli’s[7] classic work The Prince is an embodiment of what a
prince should actually be and the ways he should wield his power in
order to gain and maintain his sway over his state. To do this, he
could resort to unprincipled means not sanctioned by religious or
ethical standards and still be virtuous. The prince should combine in
him the qualities of the man and the beast. He should be able to
assume the potentialities of the fox and the lion at the same time.
Machiavelli’s contention is that new princedoms are either acquired
or are held through a man’s own armies and his virtú, and not
through fortune. Here, he gives a masculine character to the
statecraft as he describes fortune as a female who is always to be
trusted and is always attracted by the ‘vir’, the man of true
manliness, a friend of the brave and those who are “less cautious
and more spirited”.[8] If a virtuous and prudent ruler wishes to master
fortune, then Machiavelli’s advice is to “strike and beat her and you
will see that she allows herself to be more easily vanquished by the
rash and the violent than by those who proceed more slowly and
coldly”.
Chanakya’s[9] Arthashastra, written in Sanskrit, discusses the
principles of statecraft at length. The title, Arthashastra, which
means “the Science of Material Gain” or “Science of Polity”, does not
leave any doubt about its ends. Kautilya suggested that the ruler
should use any means to attain his goal and his actions require no
moral sanction. The problems discussed are of the most practical
kind faced by the kings, and the solutions suggested are still relevant
and practicable in the modern administrative world. Espionage and
the liberal use of provocative agents are recommended on a large
scale in Chapter XI of Book I on The Institution of Spies. Murder and
false accusations were to be used by a king’s secret agents without
any thoughts to morals or ethics. There are chapters for kings to help
them keep in check the premature ambitions of their sons, and
likewise chapters intended to help princes to thwart their fathers’
domineering authority too [Book I on Concerning Discipline].
Hobbes[10] in his Leviathan portrays a state of nature, which is
horrific and undoubtedly anarchic. The root cause of this anarchy lies
at the basic characteristics of human nature, which persuades every
man to be enemy of every man for three principal causes—
competition, diffidence and glory. Therefore, in such a condition there
are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual
fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short”. Force and fraud are the two cardinal
virtues. To come out of this situation, man entered into a contract—‘a
covenant of every man with every man’ and thus the multitude united
in one person—the Commonwealth, in Latin, civitas. Therefore, the
Leviathan,—the immortal God, was born and with it came into
existence the sovereign, the civil society and the political authority.
Political realists, deriving their basic assumptions from these
philosophic expositions, believe that mankind is not inherently
benevolent but rather self-centred and competitive. From this, they
propagate that states are also inherently aggressive (offensive
realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism); and that
territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This
aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where
increasing one’s own security can bring along greater instability as
the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum
game where only relative gains can be made. The chief proponents
of political realism were E.H. Carr (1939), N.J. Spykman (1942),
Reinhold Niebuhr (1947), George F. Kennan (1954 and 1966), Hans
J. Morgenthau (1948) and Kenenth W. Thompson (1958 and 1960).
E.H. CARR AND REALISM
The efforts of the liberals to establish a peaceful world order through
international organizations, disarmament, open diplomacy, self-
determination and other lofty ideals were vehemently criticized by
Carr[11] (1939) in his polemical work Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919–
1939. He was of the opinion that “The teleological aspect of the
science of international politics has been conspicuous from the
outset. It arose from a great disastrous war; the overwhelming
purpose which dominated and inspired the pioneers of the new
science was to obviate a recurrence of this disease of the
international body politic”. Therefore, it was the passionate desire to
prevent war that determined the direction of the study. The obvious
outcome was that international politics came to be marked by
utopianism. The liberal doctrine of harmony of interest seems to be
untenable because in reality whatever common interests are
present, are “nothing more than an expression of the satisfied
powers with a vested interest in the preservation of the status quo”.
Actually, the doctrine of harmony of interests, according to Carr,
serves as an ingenious moral device invoked in perfect sincerity by
privileged groups in order to justify and maintain their position. The
crux of the matter is that what seems to be absolute universal
principles are nothing but the unconscious reflections of national
policy based on a particular interpretation of national interest at a
particular time. They are nothing but transparent disguises of selfish
vested interests. He opines that “The inner meaning of the modern
international crisis is the collapse of the whole structure of
utopianism based on the concept of harmony of interest”. The
bankruptcy of utopianism resides, according to Carr, not in its failure
to live up to its principles but in the exposure of its inability to provide
any absolute and disinterested standard for the conduct of
international affairs. Therefore, the importance of power politics has
to be acknowledged in international relations. But Carr suggested
that to get sound political theories, both elements of utopianism and
realism, namely, power and moral values are required.
MORGENTHAU AND REALISM
Political realism in IR reached its zenith and assumed a grotesque
stature in the hands of Hans J. Morgenthau in his seminal work
Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948).
His six principles or signposts are:
1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws
that have their roots in human nature which is unchanging.
Therefore, it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects
these objective laws.
2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest
defined in terms of power which infuses rational order into the
subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical
understanding of politics possible. Morgenthau views
international politics as a process in which national interests are
accommodated or resolved on the basis of diplomacy of war. He
upheld that “The concept of national interest presupposes
neither a naturally harmonious, peaceful world nor the
inevitability of war as a consequence of the pursuit by all nations
of their national interests. Quite to the contrary, it assumes
continuous conflict and threat of war to be minimized through the
continuous adjustment of conflicting interest by diplomatic
action”.
3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective
category which is universally valid but not with a meaning that is
fixed once and for all. In a world in which sovereign states
compete for power, survival constitutes the minimum goal of
foreign policy and the core national interest. The protection of
“their physical and cultural identity against encroachments by
other nations” constitutes the vital interest which is common to
all states. Therefore, the basic minimum national interest
identifiable is national survival and other interests are
determined by the requirements of time, place, culture, socio-
economic and political condition of the states.
To support his argument, Morgenthau gives classic examples from
history. One such is the policy of Great Britain in 1939–40
 towards Finland which, he says, was not based on legalistic–
moralistic foundations but backed by massive military aid on the
face of Soviet aggression that might have backfired on Britain’s
survival only. It would have faced destruction in the hands of
Nazi Germany and would not have been able to restore the
independence of Finland thus endangering its vital national
interest, i.e., national survival. Morgenthau remarks asking:
When the national interest related to national survival has been
safeguarded, can nations pursue lesser interests?
4. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to state action.
They must be filtered through concrete circumstances of time
and place. To confuse individual morality with state morality is to
court disaster, as states in pursuit of their national interest are
governed by a morality that is different from the morality of
individuals in their personal relationships.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a
particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It
is the concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves us
from the moral excess and political folly.
6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere
in the same way as the economist, the lawyer and the moralist
do.[12] A political realist thinks in terms of interest defined in
terms of power as the economist thinks in terms of interest
defined as wealth, the lawyer in terms of the conformity of action
with legal rules, and the moralist, who thinks in terms of the
conformity of action with moral principles. Thus intellectually,
political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere but
never-the-less the political realist disregard the existence and
importance of standards of thought other than political ones. It
implies that each standard of thought should be assigned its
proper sphere and function. The development of standards of
thoughts in the field of politics, as in case of economics and
other disciplines, is the main purpose of political realism.
Therefore, this Hobbesian, Machiavellian and Kautilyan
understanding of human nature, as selfish and conflictual unless
given appropriate conditions, has been succesfully adopted,
internalized and transformed into a modern theory of international
relations. During the Cold War it became the most widely accepted
perspective of world politics. As Rothenstein§[13] pointed out, realism
became the “doctrine which provided the intellectual frame of
reference for the (US) foreign policy establishment for something like
twenty years… it did determine the categories by which they
assessed the external world and the state of mind with which they
approached prevailing problems”. Realism prevailed as the dominant
paradigm with its emphasis on the autonomy of political action and
the “billiard ball” model in IR till it was challenged by the behavioural
revolution. But it again re-emerged in the form of neo-realism in the
1970s.
NEO-REALISM
The realist tradition suffered a setback due to the emergence of the
neo-liberal thought, especially the challenge posed by ‘pluralism’.
State-centrism of the traditional realists received a serious jolt as
pluralists emphasized the fact that the state may be a significant
actor in international relations but it is not the sole actor. In other
words, they acknowledged a plurality of actors in international
relations as will be discussed just now. The pluralist’s challenge to
realism was soon met by a new brand of realists, and the forerunner
among them was Kenneth Waltz. Waltz in his famous works, Man,
the State and War (1959) and Theory of International Politics (1979),
came up with his idea of world politics which is popularly known as
neo-realism. Waltz argues that the key difference between
international and domestic politics lies not in the regularity of war and
conflict but in the structure of international system. In the absence
of higher authority in the international system, there is no other way
to secure oneself other than self-help which will ultimately lead to
security dilemma because security build-up of one would lead to
insecurity of others. The resultant anarchy for the neo-realists is,
therefore, due to the presence of a system characterized by the
absence of a higher power over the sovereign states. It is this
structure of international system which decisively shapes up the
behaviour of states in international relations and their struggle for
power. Thus, the sources of conflict or causes of war, unlike what the
traditional or classical realists argue, do not rest on the human
nature but within the basic framework of the anarchic structure of
international relations. Waltz uses game theory (an economic
concept which is widely used in many fields today) in addressing the
balance of power and self-help in this environment. He says that
balance of power results in this kind of a system irrespective of the
intentions of a particular state. But in international politics, in the
absence of authority to effectively prohibit the use of force, the
balance of power among states becomes most often a balance of
capabilities, including physical force, which states choose to use in
pursuing their goals. Thus, in a self-help system, the logic of self-
interest provides a basis of understanding the problem of
coordinating the interests of individual versus the interests of the
common good and the pay-off between short-term interests and
long-term interests.[14] Neo-realists did not overlook the prospects of
cooperation among states also. But the point of contention was that,
states, while cooperating with each other, tried to maximize their
relative power and preserve their autonomy.

Criticisms
The first major criticism which can be levelled against realism is that
like idealism, realism is also lopsided and stresses solely on power
and power struggle, i.e., ‘power monism’. The traditional realists
formulated their views in reaction to the liberal utopians of the 1920s
and 1930s. Consequently, they put greater emphasis on ‘power
politics’, state sovereignty, balance of power and war. For the
realists, states were the only important actors in international
relations. Besides, scholars point out that Morgenthau’s realism was
based on a priori assumptions about human nature, such as the
rational pursuit of self-interest, utility maximization and the like,
which are hardly verifiable and tested. Benno Wasserman, Robert
Tucker, Stanley Hoffman and others have criticized traditional
realism on the ground, that it is neither realistic nor consistent with
itself. According to Stanley Hoffman[15], this theory is full of
anomalies and ambiguities and ignores the discussion of ends.
Quincy Wright observed that the realist theory has ignored the
impact of values on national policy. Robert Tucker criticized the
theory because he thought it was inconsistent both with itself and
with reality. Vasquez (1979) contends that a statistical analysis of
international relations would reveal that though there was
overwhelming dominance of realist paradigm in the 1950s and
1960s, but it failed to adequately explain international politics.
According to the findings, over 90 per cent of the 7000 realist
hypotheses were falsified. Linklater (1990) opined that there is a
need to go beyond the structural realists’ emphasis on constraints
and the liberal realists’ predilection for order, in order to develop an
emancipatory form of theory which seeks to deepen the sense of
solidarity and widen the bonds of community in global politics. Neo-
realism is also not without flaws as Linklater has pointed out that a
major problem with Waltz’s unit-structure relationship is that it leaves
little or no room for systemic change induced by the units
themselves.[16] He further argues that by emphasizing recurrence
and repetition in the international system, neo-realism cannot
envisage a form of statecraft which transcends the calculus of power
and control. Cox (1986) places the neo-realist theory in the category
of ‘problem-solving approach’ to international relations when this
may be little more than a cover for and rationalization of immoral and
unethical behaviour. By deconstructing realism, neo-realism and
neo-liberalism, post-modern critical theory observes that the concept
of inter-state anarchy is in reality an artificial construction of the
dominant discourse and the state practices associated with it. It is
contrived and generated by the dominant international relations
discourse.[17]
There has also been a feminist critique of realist theory from the
point of exclusion of the women throughout the whole discourse. The
most common motif in feminist analyses of peace and war depicts
masculinity as a transcendentally aggressive force in society and
history. Women are bystanders or victims of men’s wars. Most
feminist commentary, through the 1980s, followed this framework. In
particular, the extraordinary outburst of concern over the nuclear
threat in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in a spate of feminist
writings explicitly or implicitly founded on a critique of masculinist
militarism. In her appraisal of Hans J. Morgenthau, for instance,
Tickner (1988) criticizes realism as only “a partial description of
international politics”, owing to its deeply embedded masculinist bias.
But partial descriptions are partial descriptions; they are not dead
wrong. Tickner attacks Morgenthau’s paradigm on several grounds.
But her main concern is to offer a feminist reformulation of certain
realist principles. In a similar vein, the central problem may not be
with objectivity as such, but with objectivity “as it is culturally defined
... [and] associated with masculinity”. The idea of the “national
interest” likewise needs to be rendered more “multidimensional and
contextually contingent”, but not necessarily abandoned. Tickner
stresses: “I am not denying the validity of Morgenthau’s work” but
only asking for a negotiation with the ‘contentious others’.[18]
PLURALISM
The intellectual roots of pluralism can be found in the concepts,
arguments and perspectives of liberal thinking that have directly or
indirectly influenced the pluralist image of international politics,
especially the liberal institutionalism.
The state-centricism of the realist paradigm, its sole concern with
security and military issues and national interest came under scrutiny
in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The changing patterns of
international system as well as the emergence of new issues posed
a challenge to the ‘realist’ image of the world order, and the
challenge came from the pluralist thinkers. The ‘transnationalist’
image or the pluralist perspective takes into account the existence of
such non-state actors like the MNCs, international organizations
such as the Amnesty International, the Catholic Church, OPEC,
cartels, and other organizations like terrorist outfits and hijackers.
Their main point of argument is that the presence of states as actors
cannot be perceived in the absence of non-state actors.
They also looked into the existence of intra-state actors playing an
important role and often influencing foreign policy decisions. For
instance, Richard C. Snyder (1954) with his associates had tried to
show the foreign policy behaviour of a particular state in terms of
both the subjective perceptions of the individuals involved in foreign
policy decision-making and the intra-state ‘setting’ in which they
operate, including domestic politics, public opinion, and non-
governmental actors.
Some other pluralists such as Alexander George and Ole Holsti[17]
have emphasized the role of individuals, their belief patterns and
their psycho-pathological traits in the making of foreign policy. Others
like Robert Jervis draws attention to the role of cognitive factors in
decision-making foreign policy. Scholars such as Irving L. Janis have
emphasized the importance of what they call “group think” in the
making of foreign policy. Taking the instances of the Bay of Pigs
invasion by the USA in 1961, the US unpreparedness regarding the
Japanese Pearl Harbour incident in 1941, and the US decision to
escalate the Korean and Vietnam wars, as case studies, he argues
that the small groups which make foreign policy decisions tend to act
more under the compulsion of group norms rather than rational
thinking. Other pluralists have tried to make an in-depth study and
looked into the specific role of the bureaucracy, its inner conflicts,
contradictions and relationship with the political executive as a major
determinant of foreign policy of a state. Graham T. Allison has
argued on the basis of an empirical study, the role of the US
bureaucracy during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. He comments
that the rational actor model of foreign policy, which assumes the
state to be a monolithic and rational maker of foreign policy, is an
unreal abstraction and, in reality, foreign policy is the composite
resultant of intense bureaucratic ‘imperialism’ and rivalry in the form
of non-cooperative games, and is often irrational on that account.
Keohane and Nye (1972 and 1977) took this pluralist image a major
step forward by contending that the state may not be able to confine
these bureaucratic actors. Organizations, whether private or
governmental, may transcend the boundaries of states forming
coalitions with their foreign counterparts. Such transnational actors
may well act at cross-purposes with the governmental leaders in
their home states who possess the formal authority of decision-
making in international relations. The best example can be that the
British Defence Ministry and the US Defence Department may have
a common view but this is in fact contrary to the stands taken by
both the British Foreign Office and the US State Department which
again may be in unison on a particular issue. Further, certain non-
governmental interest groups in both countries may form coalitions
supportive of one or the another trans-governmental coalition.[19]
The pluralists, therefore, try their best to differentiate themselves
from the realists, old and new, by asserting the presence of non-
state, intra-state and transnational actors in international relations.
They recognize the multivariate character of the processes of
international relations, thereby devaluing the dimension of political
power of international relations and emphasizing the complex-
interdependence of nations as against a state-centric and conflict-
ridden perspective of international system of the realists.
This transnationalism and model of complex interdependence
came to be reflected in the celebrated work Transnational Relations
and World Politics edited by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye¶. In
another of their major works, Power and Interdependence: World
Politics in Transition (1977), they proposed the complex
interdependence as a new account of IR to run alongside realism.
Keohane and Nye elucidate the key characteristics of complex
interdependence juxtaposing them against the basic assumption of
the realist approach to international relations. They identify three
main characteristics of complex interdependence:
1. Societies connected by multiple channels of communication:
The inter-state, trans-governmental and transnational
communications, which the realist framework tends to overlook.
2. An absence of hierarchy among issues: The agenda of inter-
state relations consists of multiple issues that may not be
arranged hierarchically. This means that the realist assumption
that military security tops the agenda is not acceptable.
3. Lesser importance of military force: Against the realist
assumption that military force is dominant, Keohane and Nye
contend that military force is expensive and in some cases may
be irrelevant to a wide range of issues.[20]
From this complex interdependence, there emerges a political
process which is quite distinct from the conventional one where there
is no fixed goals and distinction of power. Under the traditional
analysis of international system, one is expected to anticipate similar
processes on a variety of issues. Under the conventional system,
militarily and economically strong states tend to dominate a variety of
organizations and a variety of issues, by linking their own policies on
some issues to other states’ policies on other issues. This will result
in the stronger states prevailing on even weak issues by using their
dominance and ultimately bringing about congruence between the
overall structure of military and economic powers and the pattern of
outcome on any one issue. World politics, thus, becomes a
seamless web. Under the complex interdependence model,
however, lack of congruence between various issues increases the
difficulties of states to construct linkage strategies. As military force
is devalued, militarily strong states find it difficult to dominate
outcomes on issues in which they are weak. Similarly, unequal
distribution of power resources in trade shipping or oil result in
variations in patterns of outcomes of political bargaining, creating
political processes which differ from one set of issues to another.[21]
Management of interdependent relations may involve construction of
rules and associated institutions and international organizations to
govern the interactions in the issue areas. These definitely would
give rise to international regimes and the scope of activity of the
international organizations will increase in this interdependent world.
In the absence of superordinate central authority, these rules are
voluntarily established by states to provide some degree of order in
international relations. Voluntarism, thus, becomes central to this
mode of thought.[22]
Overall, increased transnational and trans-governmental relations
blur the distinction between national and international politics and
create political processes in which results cannot be predicted by
assuming the dominance of the states.
The basic assumptions of the pluralist models are:
1. Acknowledgement of the presence of non-state actors.
2. Non-military and non-security issues such as population,
pollution, distribution of food, depletion of natural resources,
dependency and outer space are the priority areas.
3. An increase of interdependence—trade, technology transfer,
investment, travel migration, student exchanges and other
interactions have risen manifold.
4. War is no longer a major option for foreign policy decision-
makers, and the more powerful a nation is, the less viable the
war becomes. As one pointed out: “We are moving to an era
dominated by economic power—an era in which war between
major states may virtually disappear”.[21]

Criticisms
The first and foremost shortcoming of the pluralist theory is that
islands of theory are constructed rather than building such general
theory as propounded by realists. Some concentrate on the
perception of decision-making processes, some on regional
integration, others on impact of domestic and bureaucratic politics on
foreign policy or the roles played by transnational actors in world
politics. To attempt to combine islands of theory does not necessarily
result in a general theory.
Further, the pluralists downplay the role of anarchy and security
dilemma in analysing international relations, which has been
criticized by the realists as an incomplete analysis. For, no analysis
of world politics is complete unless the anarchical structure of the
system is not taken into account. The realists allege that such kinds
of thinking tend to be utopian.
The pluralists have also been criticized by many for viewing the
world through the lenses of American political system. This has been
refuted by the pluralists who acknowledge cultural, societal and other
differences. They argue that bureaucracies, interest groups and
transnational actors are important for a better understanding of
international relations and deny that this image is purely American
ethnocentrism imposed on the globe. Yet, critics do find the pluralist
vision of the world suffering from American ethnocentrism.[22]
MARXIST APPROACH AND THE MODERN WORLD SYSTEM
THEORY
The Marxists theory has not been able to secure a formidable place
within the discipline of international relations. Mostly, Marxist
discussion is confined to the question of ‘imperialism’ and one-sided
interpretation of the phenomena. Marxism’s emphasis on economic
factors at the international level also has not been very successful in
explaining the political, ideological and security issues falling within
the domain of international relations. Therefore, Marxism has faced
great difficulties in carving a niche for itself in the realm of IR
theories. Karl Marx did not provide a theory of international relations,
but in his works with Engels, for example, Manifesto of the
Communist Party (1848), or his legendary work Capital: A Critique of
Political Economy (Das Capital, originally published in 1867), there is
reference to wars, proletarian internationalism, world revolution,
expansion of capitalism on a world scale leading to a revolutionary
socio-economic transformation and the like. Later, Lenin, Stalin,
Mao, and a host of other communist scholars tried to elaborate
Marx’s views according to the changing needs of time and world
scenario with an ardent effort to explain the events of international
relations with the help of the principles propounded by him.

Basic Assumptions of Marxian Approach

1. Economic or materialistic determination provides a clue to
understand international relations.
2. Historical determination provides a guideline to understand
international relations.
3. The centrality of the concept of class and class struggle is
evident in international relations.
4. The capitalist states seek economic exploitation and political
subjugation of the weaker states.
5. A scramble for colonies follows.
6. Wars erupt as a result of the clash between capitalist nations
themselves in their bid to establish colonies. The First World War
(1914–1918) is a glaring example in this context.
 7. Proletariats or working classes would unite globally and
proletarian internationalism would lead to world revolution.
8. Lasting peace can only be established after the world revolution,
as it would signify the collapse of imperialism and ushering in of
a classless and stateless society.
Professor Arun Bose[23] provides insights into Marxist view of
international politics. According to him, the basic framework of
international politics includes four basic tenets. These are now briefly
discussed.
Proletarian Internationalism: The essence of proletarian
internationalism is contained in the Communist Manifesto, which
ends with the call: “workers of the world unite”. The ideal of
proletarian revolution includes:
1. The word proletariat has a common interest, independent of all
nationality.
2. Working men have no country since the proletariat of each
country must first acquire political supremacy and constitute
itself as a nation; it is itself national.
3. United action by the proletariat is one of the first conditions for
the emancipation of the proletariat.
4. In proportion, as the exploitation of one individual by another is
put to an end, similarly, the exploitation of one nation by another
will also be put to an end …, and thus, hostility of one nation by
another will come to an end.
Anti-Imperialism: The main line of thinking is contained in Lenin’s
seminal work Imperialism—The Highest Stage of Capitalism. As
capitalism has its inherent contradiction, so has imperialism.
According to Lenin imperialism is capitalism in transition as
represented by moribund capitalism. Lenin depicted imperialism as
the “monopoly stage of capitalism”. He also forewarned certain
features of imperialism.
1. Concentration of production and capital leads to the creation of
national and multinational monopolies—not as in liberal
economics, but as de facto power over their markets—while
“free competition” remains the domain of local and niche
 markets.
2. The fusion of banking capital with industrial capital and the
creation, on the basis of this financial capital, of a financial
oligarchy.
3. Finance capital exportation replaces the exportation of goods
(though they continue in production).
4. The economic division of the world, by multinational enterprises
via international cartels.
5. The political division of the world by the great powers, wherein
exporting finance capital to their colonies allows their exploitation
for resources and continued investment.[24]
The central themes of anti-imperialism are:
1. Capital has become international and monopolistic.
2. Uneven political and economic development is an absolute law
of capitalism.
3. Proletarian socialist revolution is possible not only in several
countries of Europe, but also in one capitalist country, taken
singly, which, would form the nucleus, the base, the hegemony,
of world socialist revolution, attracting to its cause the oppressed
classes of other countries.
Self-Determination: The goal of national self-determination was to
be realized through “proletarian self-determination” as the class
which attains political supremacy, comes to constitute the nation.
The crux of this line of thought was that all nations of the world must
be free to determine their political destiny and colonial system must
be abolished. The main ideas include:
1. Lenin makes no distinction between the oppressor and the
oppressed nations of the world.
2. Oppressed nations are identified as the victims of imperialism as
national revolutionary reserve or allies of the proletariat in the
world socialist revolution.
3. Recognition of the right of the oppressed nation to self-
determination is now interpreted to mean not only the right of
oppressed nations to secede freely, but the desirability of
secession to remove ‘distrust’ and ‘prejudices’ among the
 oppressed nations.
Peaceful Coexistence: This line of thinking upheld that all nation-
states of the world must live peacefully without criticizing or
undermining other’s social, economic and political systems. It
includes:
1. Proletarian socialist revolution could be victorious first in several
countries, or even in one country.
2. It has to survive capitalist encirclement by relying on anti-
imperialistic contradictions.
3. The best way to achieve this is to try to work at the relations of
peaceful coexistence between socialist states and, at least
some, if not all the capitalist states.
Therefore, the essence of all these four basic tenets of Marxist
approach to international relations includes the end of capitalism and
imperialism, unity of the proletariat as one national, and
internationalism in its true form. There was a revival of interest in
Marxian, approach to international relations in the 1970s, which led
to major contributions by scholars like Immanuel Wallerstein (1974),
Frank (1967), Galtung (1971) and others. Their perspective came to
be identified as Dependencia Model or the World System Theory.
WORLD SYSTEM THEORY
The roots of the World System Theory can be traced to the writings
of Lenin. In his monumental work, Imperialism—The Highest Stage
of Capitalism, Lenin contended that imperialism created a two-tier
structure within the capitalist world economy. He identified the
dominant structure as the ‘core’ and the less-developed structure as
the ‘periphery’. It is the location of the states within this capitalist
world economy, which determines the patterns of interaction and
relation of domination and dependence between them. Galtung
(1971) and Wallerstein (1974) further developed this theory and
provided powerful insights into the working of the world capitalist
economy. Among other proponents of this theory, the noteworthy
were Andre Gunder Frank (Capitalism and Underdevelopment in
Latin America, 1967), Raúl Prebisch** (1963), the first Executive
Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin
America, John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson † † (1953), and
Gunnar Myrdal‡‡ (1957), the author of Asian Drama.
The main line of argument of the World System theorists is that the
dependency situation of the developing countries is the direct result
of the economic exploitation by the advanced countries. They define
the situation of dependency, as a “situation in which a certain
number of countries have their economy conditioned by the
development and expansion of another…, placing the dependent
countries in a backward position exploited by the dominant
countries”.
Dependency theorists not only reflect upon the external factors like
foreign states, MNCs, international banks, multilateral lending
institutions, foreign control of technology and an international
bourgeoisie as causes of dependency but also highlight the internal
constraints on development such as patterns of land tenure, social
structures, class alliances, and the role of the state. These internal
factors strengthen and reinforce the instruments of foreign
domination. As a result of the interplay between these internal and
external factors, the nature of development or underdevelopment of
society will vary.
With this line of thinking in mind, some of the World System theorists
use Marxist terminology and Leninist insights to explain this situation
of dependency. Here the structural theories of dependency of the
two chief proponents will be discussed.
Immanuel Wallerstein and His World System Theory
Wallerstein represents the most powerful exposition of the modern
World System theory in his sem inal work Modern World System:
Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-
Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974). Tracing the emergence of
capitalism in the sixteenth century Europe, he examines its evolution
into a world capitalist system that contains a core, a periphery and
a semi-periphery (see Figure 2.1). The ‘core’ has come to
constitute historically the most advanced economic areas, which are
engaged

Figure 2.1 Configuration of the modern world system.

in activities like banking, manufacturing, technologically advanced

agriculture, ship building and others. The ‘periphery’ has been
providing raw materials such as minerals and timber to support the
core’s economic expansion. Unskilled labour is repressed and the
peripheral countries are denied advanced technology from the core
countries in those sectors where they may give the core countries a
tough competition. The semi-periphery is involved in a mix of
production activities, some associated with core areas and others
with peripheral areas. It also serves as an outlet for investment when
wages in core economies become too high. Over the time, particular
regions of the world may gravitate between core, peripheral and
semi-peripheral status. Class structure in each zone varies
depending on how the dominant class relates to the world economy.
Johan Galtung and His Structural Theory of Imperialism
Galtung[25] presents his version of imperialism as a relation between
a Centre and a Periphery. The relationship is unequal and his theory
tried to illuminate on the structure of this unequal relationship, which
resists any change in the status quo. It is this inequality that results
in the formation of a centre and a periphery and he contends that
those in power in the centre have a community of interest with those
in power in the periphery. The consequence that follows is a kind of
relationship that operates at the expense of the majority of the
people in the peripheral countries, but this primarily serves the
interest of the majority of the people in the centre countries.
The basic assumptions of Galtung are:
1. Harmony of interest between the centre in the Centre nation and
the centre in the Periphery nation.
2. Disharmony of interest within the Periphery nation than within
the Centre nations.
3. Disharmony of interest between the periphery in the Centre
nation and the periphery of the Periphery nation.
He depicted this relation diagrammatically as in Figure 2.2.
 Figure 2.2 Galtung’s structural theory of imperialism.
[Source: Adapted from Johan Galtung, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”]

The two basic mechanisms of imperialism, according to Galtung,

are:
1. The principles of ‘vertical interaction relation’, which involves the
actual exploitative relation between the centre and the periphery.
2. The principle of ‘feudal interaction structure’ as a way of
protecting the centre against the periphery, e.g. the principle of
divide and rule employed by the centre to keep the periphery
parts isolated from each other.
The first mechanism is the major factor behind the inequality, and the
second helps to sustain and reinforce the inequality. The
consequence is a continuous dependency of the periphery on the
centre.
He further enumerates four rules defining the interaction structure
between the centre and the periphery:
1. Interaction between the Centre and Periphery is ‘vertical’
2. Interaction between the Periphery and Periphery is ‘missing’
3. Multilateral interaction involving all three is ‘missing’
4. Interaction with the outside world is ‘monopolized’ by the centre
with two implications:
∑ Periphery interaction with other Centre nations is ‘missing’
∑ Centre as well as Periphery interaction with periphery nations
belonging to other centre nations is missing.
The operation of the two mechanisms just mentioned creates “subtle
grid of protection” measures against any potential threats to the
system, i.e., trouble in the periphery in the Periphery. The more finer
and sophisticated mechanisms of imperialism are introduced within
and between nations; there will be lesser needs to resort to
oppression or violence and warfare. Galtung asserts: “Only
imperfect, amateurish imperialism needs weapons; professional
imperialism is based on structural rather than direct violence”.
THE INDIAN APPROACH: NORTH OVER SOUTH
Almost the same theme was provided by a renowned Indian scholar
of international relations, Prof. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya in his
famous work North Over South—A Non-Western Perspective of
International Relations (1984). He highlighted that the structure of
the contemporary international system is the legacy of four-and-a-
half centuries of European imperialism. This has resulted in a
structural division of the international system into two subsystems.
One small but dominant, and the other large but subordinate. The
dominant subsystem is located in the geographical North and the
subordinate subsystem in the geographical South of the globe.[26]
Whereas the dominant subsystem in the North experienced the
industrial revolution centuries ago and has also gone through the
phase of Second Industrial Revolution or the Technotronic or
Cybernetic Revolution, the subordinate subsystem of the South has
failed to even experience their first industrial revolution. This is
mostly because of their impoverishment by historical imperialism and
contemporary neo-imperialism, which again has caused the
affluence of the North at the cost of the drain of wealth from the
South. The situation has not changed even after the process of
decolonization and the so-called “transfer of power”. The imperialist
gain continues through more sophisticated and finer mechanisms.
Poverty, hunger and underdevelopment still haunt the developing
countries as developed countries continue to enrich themselves.
Therefore, the North–South contradiction is the central or primary
contradiction within the international system.

Criticisms
Professor Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya has shown that the World
System Theory has given us deep insights into the working of
international system which tends to be oligarchic and hegemonistic.
He says, however, that this reductionist determinism of the theory
detracts from its ability to explain the impact of domestic structures
on the foreign policies of state in detail or in a methodologically and
logically acceptable manner. There is no reference to the role of any
structural elements other than class in the analysis. Political parties,
armed forces, ethnic and religious groups, bureaucracy and other
factors have been totally ignored. Professor Bandyopadhyaya
observes that the dependency on the World System theories are too
simplistic and fail to provide satisfactory explanation on the
relationship between the domestic structure of a state and the
magnitude and direction of its foreign policy. They are preoccupied
with the centre–periphery relationship and pay insufficient attention
to all these factors. There is also the question of causality involved.
Some critics question whether dependency creates economic and
social backwardness, as World System theorists claim, or it is
economic and social backwardness which create a situation for
dependency. There is no agreement on causality, whether
dependency is the cause of backwardness or it is the effect of this
condition.
Despite such criticisms, World System Theory is not without value. It
has made some positive contribution in revealing the real structure of
international system which, according to Prof. Bandyopadhyaya, is
divided roughly between the dominant North and the dependent
South. It also has given a clue to understanding the causes and
mechanisms of creation and continuation of this dependency,
subordination and marginalization of the poor and developing
countries by the oligarchic and hegemonic powers of the
international system.
SYSTEMS THEORY
The systems theory originated primarily due to the behavioural
revolution in social science. The desire of the new genre of social
scientists, to evolve a general body of knowledge by integrating the
various disciplines of social sciences, finally led to the emergence of
a host of theoretical approaches inspired by natural science
methods. The chief among them was the systems analysis, and
prominent contributions in the field of international politics were
made by Easton (1965), Kaplan (1957), McClelland (1966), Rosenau
(1961), and Boulding (1956), among others.
Morton Kaplan[27] has been the chief exponent of systems theory in
international relations. He conceives international system as an
analytical entity for explaining the behaviour of international actors
and the regulative, integrative and disintegrative consequences of
their policies. The positive element in Kaplan’s thinking is the
consideration of the possibility of ‘change’. Thus he studied the
behaviour of a system under changing conditions. He stated that
there is some coherence, regularity and order in international
relations and it is constituted of two things: “international system”
and “nation-state system”. The international system is composed of
subsystems and a set of actors, both international and supranational,
and is characterized by interactions among them. Nation-states are
the primary actors and their role changes with the change in the
international system. Kaplan describes six models of international
system. They are:
1. The Balance of Power System
2. The Loose Bipolar System
3. The Tight Bipolar System
4. The Universal System
5. The Hierarchical System
6. The Unit Veto System.
The Balance of Power System: According to Kaplan, the period
between 1815 and 1914 experienced a golden age of Balance of
Power (BOP). Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the
system started faltering as rules started to be flouted by major
international actors. Finally, the whole BOP system collapsed with
the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. Kaplan also suggested
certain basic rules for the functioning of the balance of power
system. These rules meant that one takes the following steps:
1. Act to increase capabilities but negotiate rather than fight.
2. Fight rather than pass up an opportunity to increase capabilities.
3. Stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential national actor.
4. Act to oppose any coalition or single actor which tends to
assume a position to predominance with respect to the rest of
the system.
5. Act to constrain actors who subscribe to supranational
organizing principles.
6. Permit defeated or constrained essential national actors to re-
enter the system as acceptable role partners or act to bring
some previously inessential actor within the essential actor
classification.
7. Treat all essential actors as acceptable role partners.
In Kaplan’s view, these features would help keep intact the balance
in relations. Failure would mean an end to balance and, ultimately,
the system.
The Loose Bipolar System: The loose bipolar system, often
recognized as the ‘Cold War’ model, envisages an international
system that comes into operation when there is only two
superpowers leading their respective competitive blocs and there is
also a simultaneous presence of non-member bloc-actors and
universal actors. Thus, this system would comprise two major bloc
actors: the non-aligned states and international organizations like the
United Nations. Both blocs try to increase their capabilities and are
willing to run at least some risks to eliminate rival bloc. Both blocs
also attempt to subordinate the objectives of the universal actors to
their own objectives. Non-aligned states, on the other hand, try to
support the universal actor to check the power of the two blocs and
reduce the danger of war between them. Both blocs strive to
increase their membership but at the same time tolerate the status of
the non-aligned states.
The Tight Bipolar System: The loose bipolar system may get
transformed into a tight bipolar system where two major powers lead
their respective blocs and it virtually becomes different forms of
interactions between the two blocs. In this system, therefore, the role
of non-aligned states or non-member states either disappears or
become less significant. Even universal actors such as international
organizations become too weak to mediate.
The Universal System: This system emerges when the world gets
transformed into a federal world state based on the principle of
mutual tolerance and universal rule of law. The system almost
resembles a world federation. It, therefore, works through a universal
actor such as an international organization like the United Nations or
such other agencies, which would have the necessary capacity to
maintain peace and security and prevent war, once the bipolar
system ceases. It would be performing judicial, economic, political
and administrative work although the states would enjoy sufficient
autonomy.
The Hierarchical System: Such system will come into existence
when a single universal actor absorbs all the other states either
through conquest or treaty. The system will be directive if found on
the basis of world conquest. It would be non-directive when power
would be distributed among units according to hierarchy under the
domination of a single national actor. The states as territorial units
are, thus, transformed into functional units. The non-directive system
is based on will, and the directive system on force.
The Unit Veto System: This is a kind of system when all the states
would possess equal potentialities to destroy each other. The mere
possession of deadly weapons and nukes would deter the attacks on
a particular state. Therefore, this system reaches stability when a
state can resist and retaliate threats from every other state.

Criticisms
Major criticisms have been launched against the systems approach.
The general criticisms against the system analysts are that they
have not evolved any theories but only frameworks, which cannot
make significant contributions to international relations. The theory is
also difficult to operationalize as empirical testing is difficult. There is
a gap between theory and research. It is, therefore, limited in scope.
Kaplan’s models of international system has been subjected to
rigorous criticisms. It is argued that the system not only offers limited
possibilities but its merit is also limited. The first two models roughly
correspond to real situations in the backdrop of particular historical
trajectories. The other four models are totally hypothetical,
impracticable and arbitrary. It was almost like an intellectual exercise
on Kaplan’s part without any reference to reality. Kaplan’s model also
neglected the role of geo-strategic factors as well as national and
sub-national factors. However, the criticisms do not mean that the
systems approach is absolutely without merit. It has made significant
contribution in the scientific study of behaviour in international
relations. It can be used along with other approaches to the study of
international relations.
COMMUNICATIONS APPROACH
Another noteworthy theory in the field of international relations is the
communications approach. The term ‘communication’ has been
borrowed from the concept of ‘cybernetics’, which means ‘steering’.
Norbert Weiner (1948) developed the concept of cybernetics in his
famous work Cybernetics, to signify the control of communications in
political systems. Cybernetics is “a body of theory and technique for
the study of probabilities in different but analogous universes such
as certain types of machines, animals, individual human beings,
societies and nation-states—and the ways in which message
transactions function to control such universes”.[28] Communication
is treated as the cement that makes organizations. It alone enables a
group to think together, to see together and to act together. All social
sciences require the understanding of communication.
This approach in international relations was developed by
Deutsch[29] in his celebrated work The Nerves of Government: Model
of Political Communication and Control (1963). In this book, Deutsch
applies the concept of the theory of information, communication and
control to problems of political and social science borrowing from
Weiner’s concepts of ‘feedback’, ‘channel capacity’, and ‘memory’.
From these, Deutsch developed his concepts of “consciousness,”
“will” and “social learning”. Since 1960s, the communications
approach became popular in social sciences, and terms like
‘feedback’, ‘steering’ and ‘learning capacity’ have become a common
usage while analysing political systems.
For Deutsch, communications, in the true sense of the word, are the
nerves of government. A government is analogous to steering of a
ship and it is a form of administration of communication channels.
Control of steering is central to the problem of steering. A
government, which can lessen the uncertainty of the international
environment, has an advantage and can steer clear in the troubled
waters of international relations. For this, the main component is
information which is vital to the state’s decision-making, both present
and future, vis-à-vis other states as well as non-state actors about
their present and future courses of actions. Very important in this
respect is the feedback. This means the government is able to
assess the impact of its decisions on other actors through the
feedback mechanism. This helps the government, especially those
charged with the decision-making to carefully steer through the
troubled waters of international relations. Therefore, the main focus
of communications approach is communication and information flows
and not unitary emphasis on power.

Criticisms
According to the critics of the communications approach, there is
enormous difficulty in either applying a model or making use of it for
a purposeful study of IR, which has been directly influenced by
natural sciences. The terminology borrowed from electrical or
mechanical engineering also makes it more complex in its
application, and there are chances that the model can be misapplied.
The most vehement criticism has been launched by scholars from
the developing world who contend that the communication flow and
feedback is not among equals but among unequal subsystems
characterized by domination and subordination. The controls of
information flow is vital as this determines who dominates the rest.
Obviously, it is the dominant North which controls the communication
facilities and thus the flow of information and consequentially the
feedback form the weaker subsystem, the subordinate South. The
proponents of communications approach have not addressed this
phenomenon of dependence and dominance of North over South.
Therefore, the complete landscape of international relations cannot
be understood by this approach alone.
DECISION-MAKING THEORY
Another approach to the study of international relations is the
decision-making approach. It is quite common that decisions are
made at various levels and in various ways in all political and
international systems. The decision-making approach tries to
comprehend the complete process of decision making at national,
international or comparative levels and its relation to policy
formulation. This approach became more popular in the United
States as there was a growing urge among the scholars to focus on
decision making and governmental process. The names which came
to be associated with this approach were of Richard C. Snyder, H.W.
Bruck and Burton Sapin, in their monumental work Decision-Making
as an Approach to the Study of International Relations[30] (1954)
tried to provide the theoretical framework for analysis of the
behaviour of actors in international relations.
They began with the assumption that the key to political action lies in
the way in which decision-makers as actors define their situations
and that determines the course of actions of the actors, for action
taken by states in reality are the actions of those acting in the name
of the state. To understand why a particular state acts in a particular
manner, one has to take into consideration the manner in which the
decision-makers as actors define their situation which is again built
on the projected course of action as well as the reasons behind such
actions. Therefore, decision-making is a “process which results in
the selection from a socially defined, limited number of
problematical, alternative project to bring about the particular future
state of affairs envisaged by the decision-makers”. There are
external and internal factors which also influence the process of
decision-making. The internal factors include the role of public
opinion, socio-economic conditions of the people, geographical and
demographic factors and others. Among the external factors the
important ones are the actions reactions and counteractions of other
states as a result of the decisions taken by the men in authority
there. The actions of the decision-makers are also determined by
three basic determinants: (i) spheres of competence, (ii)
communication and information and (iii) motivation. However, there
are also certain limitations to decision-making and decision outcome.
The limitations can arise from outside the decisional system and
limitations arising from the nature and functioning of the decisional
system.

Criticisms
Though the decision-making approach became a handy tool to study
foreign policy processes, it has been criticized on several grounds.
Scholars, though they acknowledge the positive contribution of this
approach, at the same time contend that this approach is partial.
Decision-making approach is impressive and is an innovation over
the traditional power-centric approaches but it has failed to provide a
comprehensive study of international relations. Again, it itself suffers
from state-centrism by putting more emphasis on states as actors. It
neglects objective realities. It also focusses more on the motives and
actions of the decision-makers and completely ignores the impact of
other factors on international politics. It helps understand the foreign
policy processes and importance of the decision-makers in that
respect but, in doing so, it focusses more on images and perceptions
rather than on ground realities. This approach also disregards the
importance of norms and values in national and international politics.
Further, there are no uniform methods or techniques of analyzing the
decision-making process. Nevertheless, this theory is an
improvement upon the institutional approaches as it tried to provide
an explanation of the behavioural pattern of the states under
different circumstances.
POST-STRUCTURALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
From the discussions in the preceding sections especially the
sections on Liberalism, and Realism and Neo-Realism one thing can
be understood clearly that what we take to be real, timeless and
universal in the field of IR is the result of imposition of a form of
order. The dominant interpretations of the ‘world’ which have been
established traditionally talks of states and their policy-makers
pursuing their national interests. Therefore, the way the discipline of
IR perceives the world makes it evident that the discipline is
characterized by different paradigms competing in ‘great debates’.
Post-structuralism engages itself with these issues of representation,
the relationship of power and knowledge and the politics of identity to
the production and understanding of global politics. One should not
perceive Post-structuralism as a new set of paradigm in IR. Rather it
is critical attitude, approach, or ethos that calls attention to the
importance of representation, the relationship of power and
knowledge and the politics of identity in an understanding of global
affairs.
The critical attitude of Post-structuralism can be traced in the writings
of Michael Foucault§§. Post-structuralism as an approach emerged in
the field of IR in the 1980s. The prominent scholars who introduced
Post-structuralism are Richard Ashley, James Der Derian, Michael
and Shapiro, David Campbell and R.B.J. Walker to name a few.
Post-structuralism mainly focusses on the following points which
may be summarized as:
1. Articulate the meta-theoretical¶¶ critique of the dominant
paradigms like the realist theories of IR.
2. Connects IR to its inter-disciplinary context by introducing new
sources of theory.
3. Concerned about how the relations of inside and outside were
mutually constructed.
4. Focusses on identity, subjectivism and powers.
5. Shiftes analysis from assumptions about pre-given subjects to
the problematic of subjectivity and its political enactment.
6. Employs a methodological precepts of interpretation,
 representation and politics instead of narrativizing historiography.
Richard K. Ashley’s famous article, “The Poverty of Neo-Realism”,
led to the development of critical approach to IR. He pointed out that
neo-realism, which tried to replace subjectivism of realism by a
‘scientific’ approach, tried to identify the ‘objective’ structures of
social power behind or constitutive of states and their interests.
Critical scholars were dissatisfied with the way realism and neo-
realism remained dominant even in the face of global transformation.
Post-structuralists, highlighted the neglect of realism of the
importance of transnational actors, issues and relationships as well
as voices of excluded people and perspectives.
Post-structural influence in IR opened newer dimensions in the study
of IR. The newer research work included studies of the gendered
character of state identity in the context of US intervention in the
work of Weber (1994, 1999), studies of centrality of representation in
North-South relations and immigration policies by Doty (1993, 1996),
a deconstructive account of famine and humanitarian crises (Edkins,
2000), interpretative readings of diplomacy and European security
(Dillon, 1996), a rethinking of finance and the field of international
political economy (de Goede 2005, 2006) to mention a few.31
Evaluation
While assessing Post-structuralism it must be seen as an approach,
attitude, or ethos that pursues critique with the purpose of inherently
positive exercise that establishes the conditions of possibility for
pursuing alternatives. It is in this context that post-structuralism
makes other theories of IR one of its objects of analysis and
approaches those paradigms with meta-theoretical questions
designed to expose how they are structured. Post-structuralism
reorients analysis away from the prior assumption of pre-given
subjects to the problematic of subjectivity. This involves rethinking
the question of power and identity such that identities are understood
as effects of the operation of power and materialized through
discourse. However, Post-structuralism often has been marginalized
in the discipline of IR, and their over critical attitude have made them
controversial being labelled as skeptical.
CONSTRUCTIVISM
To discuss constructivism, it will be easier if one follows Figure 1.1
(Chapter 1). Constructivism can be seen to be occupying a ‘middle
ground’ between rationalism comprising the traditional theories of IR
and reflectivism consisting of Post-structuralist approaches to IR.
The timing of the rise of constructivism is quite striking. The sudden
end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and certitude
of possible changes that swept over Europe following the end of
Cold War marked a need for a new theoretical orientation towards
understanding of international events. The factor that spurred the
constructivist critique is that the pre-dominant theories in IR failed to
predict, and even recognize the possibility that such a dramatic
change would happen in international politics. The other thing which
became clear is that international relations is not static or fixed, and
exists independently of human action and cognition. It can be said
that international relations is a consequence of social construction.
Constructivism thus became popular with scholars like Alexander
Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, Peter Katzenstein and Friedrich Kratochwil
giving their valuable insights while contending neo-realists debates
forwarded by Kenneth Waltz in his famous work Theory of
International Politics (1979).
Niclolas Onuf argues that constructivism is not a theory but a way of
studying social relations. The core themes of constructivism can be
summarized as:
1. International relations is a social construction. Social
phenomena such as states or alliances or international
institutions or any other phenomena such as states or alliances
or international institutions or any other phenomena may build on
the basic material of human nature, but they take specific
historical, cultural and political forms that are a product of human
interaction in a social world.
2. There is a ‘social’ dimension of international relations. There is
an importance of norms, rules and languages in this context
apart from exclusive emphasis of realist theory on material
interest and power.
 3. Far from an objective reality, international politics is ‘a world of
our making’. Interactions among actors bring historically,
culturally and politically distinct ‘realities’ into being. This is
because actors are not totally free to choose their circumstances
and process of interactions make possible for them to determine
their choices.
4. International relations is a social construction rather than
existing independently of human meaning and action.
5. The idea of social construction suggests difference across
context rather than a single objective reality. In place of
regularities for the purpose of generalizations and theory
construction constructivists have sought to explain or understood
‘change’ at the international level.
Alexander Wendt’s book Social Theory of International Politics,
(1999) builds a constructivist theory. In his article “Anarchy is What
States make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, (1992),
published in International Organizations, while contending neo-realist
assumption of anarchy in the absence of a global authority, Wendt,
provides a framework for thinking about identity and interests as
constructed, which is subject to process of transformation. He sets
out to build a bridge between Rationalist and Reflectivist traditions by
developing a Constructivist argument drawn from structural and
symbolic interactional sociology.32
Evaluation
Constructivism can be said to be epistemologically about the social
construction of knowledge and ontologically about the construction of
social reality. The basic aim therefore, what seems of constructivism
is increasing the reflexivity in both theoretical and empirical studies
in IR on the basis the fact that analysis of the social world is very
much a part of the real world and might affect it also. A constructivist
looks at international relations with an eye open to social
construction of actors, institutions and events. However, it does not
mean that constructivism sets aside the ideas that material power is
important or that actors make instrumental calculations of their
interests; nor does it necessarily assume the apriori existence of
sovereign states, epistemological positivism, or the anarchy
problematique. Rather, it means that what goes on in these
categories and concepts is constructed by social processes and
interactions, and that their relevance for international relations is a
function of the social construction of meaning. For example, the
realist assumptions for competitions among states may be for status,
prestige, hegemony but they will only make sense in terms of either
legitimized power or shared understandings or are constructed.
Therefore, a constructivists analysis opens a space for greater
reflexivity in the analysis of any situation or event in international
relations where the actors can for a moment think how their own
actions may contribute to the very problems they seek to address.
The glaring example in the recent international politics is the US War
on Terror. What started as a largely militarized response to the 9/11
attack in the US, but later has assumed politicization of the US
actions, and later the mission of remaking countries of Middle-east
into liberal democracies involving human rights violations, disregard
of international law and thus War on Terror becoming a war of infinite
duration. A Constructivist approach to this War on Terror would
rather emphasize on how identities and human sufferings are
constructed through a process of interaction and move away from
the emphasis on states.
FEMINISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International Relations (IR), being a discipline studying the politics
among nations within a changing pattern of power relations among
them, has been the last of the body of knowledge to be influenced by
the feminist perspective. Women have always remained ‘hidden’ in
International Relations, which has been predominantly treated as a
masculine discipline. In international politics, men are always in the
forefront and women as heads of states or diplomats are hard to
find. If one looks at international summits like the G-8 or the UN
conferences or conferences and summits of several regional
organizations like the European Union or SAARC, the number of
men is always greater than the number of women. So, where do we
find women in international relations? For long, women have been
located as wives of diplomats, wives of politicians or as ‘comfort
women’ for military personnel. But women have always been the
victim of decisions taken by men in international politics regarding
war and peace. During war or ethnic clashes or separatist
movements, they are the worst victims and in the aftermath too,
especially if they are forced to leave their country as refugees, their
conditions become deplorable. In peace time, women become
victims of trafficking, trading in women workers or easy recruits in
sex tourist industry flourishing globally. Thus, it is not justified to keep
women out of the purview of any sort of discussion in the discourse
of International Relations. From the late 1980s and 1990s, attempts
were made for re-evaluation of traditional IR theory from the feminist
perspectives, which opened up a space for gendering International
Relations.
Several conferences and published literature marked a new outlook
for examining world events. Jean Bethke Elshtain’s Women and War
(1987), Cynthia Enloe’s Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making
Feminist Sense of International Politics (1989), J. Ann Tickner’s
Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on
Achieving Global Security (1992), V. Spike Peterson and Anne
Sisson Runyan’s Global Gender Issues (1993), and Christine
Sylvester’s Feminist Theory and International Relations in a
Postmodern Era (1994) made their mark in the early 1990s.
Several international conferences also paved the way for highlighting
women’s issues. The important among them were Mexico Women’s
Conference (1975), Copenhagen Women’s Conference (1980),
Nairobi Women’s Conference (1985), Vienna Human Rights’
Conference (1993), Beijing Women’s Conference (1995), and the
like. The year 1975 was declared as the International Women’s Year
and 1976–1985 was declared as the UN Decade for Women. These
were milestones in bringing women issues to the forefront. The
adoption of UN Convention on the elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1979) and the UN
General Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
Against Women (1993) symbolized the victory of Women’s political
campaigns held globally. Three conferences also boosted the launch
of feminist thought into the IR study. They were the Millennium:
Journal of International Studies Conference at the London School of
Economics (1988), the Conference at the University of Southern
California (1989), and the Conference at Wellesley (1990).
In 1997, in a debate led by J. Ann Tickner in the International Studies
Association’s International Studies Quarterly, she suggested three
types of misunderstandings that were to be blamed for the lack of
insight of IR scholars regarding woman’s issues. They are: (i)
misunderstandings about the meanings of gender; (ii) different
ontologies; and (iii) epistemological divides. Tickner in her Hans
Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist
Reformulation (1988) presented a reformulation of Morgenthau’s six
principles of Political Realism, which is the dominant perspective in
International Relations and very much masculine in nature, focusing
only on power politics.
Therefore, Tickner criticizes realism as only “a partial description of
international politics,” owing to its deeply embedded masculinist bias.
Her main concern is to offer a “feminist reformulation” of certain
realist principles. They were:

Objectivity is culturally defined – and is associated with

masculinity – so objectivity is always partial.
National interest is multi-dimensional – so not one set of
 interests can (or should) define it.
Power as domination and control privileges masculinity
All political action has moral significance – cannot or should
not separate them.
Perhaps look for common moral elements.
Feminists deny the autonomy of the political realm – building
boundaries around a narrowly defined political realm defines
political in a way that excluded the concerns and contributions
of women.

However, contemporary world affairs have forced the feminist to face

challenges and consequently respond to, analyze, and confront
forces of globalization and fragmentation. Globalization with its
market forces has severe impact on women. It affects and often
devastates women’s lives, family and livelihood, and drastically
reduces political space for making claims against the state. Further,
the political identity movements producing ‘new wars,’ mostly in non-
western states, have women as victims in such movements.
Therefore, these new developments need a feminist understanding
of nationalism, militarization, war and peace, identity conflicts,
religious fundamentalism, functioning of the global political economy
and impact of forces of globalization. Unfortunately, despite sincere
efforts of the feminists, IR still remains a male-dominated field.
International Relations scholars have worked out their own
exclusions and inclusions and it is very hard for them to think beyond
the issues of power and national interest when it comes to the
question of politics among nations.

Criticism
Two of the most well-known scholars to raise criticism against
feminist IR have been Robert Keohane and Francis Fukuyama. For
Keohane, feminist IR needs to develop scientific, testifiable theories.
Fukuyama questions the feminist IR scholars’ view that if women ran
the world, we would live in a much more peaceful world which, to
him, is doubtful. In the face of such criticism, the feminist IR scholars
need to develop a much more nuanced and sophisticated argument
in order to meet the overwhelming challenge posed by Political
Realists.
However, the impact of feminist engagement on politics and on
public policies across the world cannot be denied. That several
conventions recognize women’s rights itself is a positive
development. Untiring efforts of the feminist have raised
consciousness about gender issues. Feminists and international
lawyers have been successful in getting rape classified, for the first
time, as a war crime, and categorized by the international tribunals
on former Yugoslavia and Rwanda as a form of torture. Sexual
discrimination and maltreatment has been accepted by some
countries like Canada and Spain as grounds for political asylum.
International non-governmental organizations and also aid agencies
involved in providing assistance to the developing countries have
specified in their development policy in general gender concerns as
the centre of their donation policies. Even participation of women in
political decision-making has been made possible through
reservation of seats for women, as in India, in the case of local self-
governmental institutions (a national bill is still pending). In practice,
however, a lot has to be done to increase the level of gender
sensitivity in IR.
 EXERCISES
1. What are the basic assumptions of liberal approach to the study of
international relations? Examine critically the liberal approach to
politics.
2. Discuss the liberal approach to the study of international relations.
3. Analyse the basic principles of liberal approach to international
relations. How was it revived in the 1970s?
4. Discuss liberal and neo-liberal approach to the study of
international relations.
5. Analyse the basic principles of political realism in the study of
international relations. In this connection elucidate E.H. Carr’s and
Morgenthau’s views on political realism.
6. Examine the realist approach to international relations. In this
context also discuss the emergence of neo-realism and its basic
tenets.
7. Discuss the six main principles of Morgenthau’s theory of political
realism.
8. Critically examine the pluralist approach and point out its
difference with political realist approach.
9. Discuss the Marxist approach to the study of international
relations.
10. Analyse the basic principles and significance of the modern
world system theory of international relations.
11. Elucidate Johan Galtung’s structural theory of imperialism.
12. Discuss Morton Kaplan’s six models of international system.
13. Examine how far the communications approach is applicable to
the study of international relations.
14. Briefly discuss the decision-making theory to the study of
international relations.
15. Examine the post-structuralist approach to international relations.
16. Analyze constructivism as an approach to the studys of
international relations.
17. Discuss the feminist approach to international relations.
 REFERENCES
[1] Dougherty, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., Contending
Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Study,
Longman, USA, 1997, pp. 14–22.
[2] Sidorsky, David (Ed.), The Liberal Tradition in European
Thoughts, Capricorn Books, New York, 1970, p. 2, cited in Keith
L. Shimko, International Relations—Perspectives and
Controversies, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, 2005, pp.
51–52.
[3] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997,
p. 20.
[4] Dunne, Timothy, “Liberalism”, in John Baylis and Steve Smith
(Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University
Press, London, 1997, pp. 150–151.
[5] Couloumbis, Theodore A. and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations: Power and Justice, Prentice-Hall of India,
New Delhi, 1981, p. 7.
[6] Cited in Mahendra Kumar, Theoretical Aspects of International
Relations, Shiva Lal Agarwal & Co. Educational Publishers, Agra,
1995, pp. 58–59.
[7] Machiavelli, The Prince, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature,
Hertfordshire, 1997.
[8] Skinner Quentin, Machiavelli, Oxford University Press, London,
1981, pp. 25–29.
[9] Arthashastra, http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history
primarydocs/Arthashastra/index.htm, see also
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_rea
der_1/arthashastra.html.
[10] Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan,
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-
contents.html.
[11] Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919–1939, Macmillan
Press, Bangalore, 1981, p. 80.
[12] Morgenthau, Hans. J, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 4–
14.
[13] Cited in Radharaman Chakrabarti and Gautam Kumar Basu
(Eds.), Theories of International Relations: Search for
Alternatives, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, 1992, p. 91.
[14] Dunne, Timothy, “Realism”, in John Baylis and Steve Smith
(Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University
Press, London, 1997, pp. 117–119.
[15] Hoffman, Stanley (Ed.), Contemporary Theory in International
Relations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1960, p.
34.
[16] Burchill, Scott, “Realism and Neo-Realism,” in Scott Burchill,
Richard Devetak, Andrew Linklater, Matthew Paterson, Christian
Reus-Smit and Jacqui True (Eds.), Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave, New York, 2001, p. 92.
[17] Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja and Amitava Mukherjee,
International Relations Theory: From Anarchy to World
Government, Manuscript India, Kolkata, 2001, p. 44–46.
[18] Review of International Studies, Adam Jones, Does Gender
Make the World Go Round, Feminist Critiques of International
Relations, http://adamjones.freeservers.com/does.htm.
[19] Viotti, Paul R. and Mark K. Kauppi (Eds.), International Relations
Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Allyn &
Bacon, USA, 1998, p. 210.
[20] Keohane, R.O. and J.S., Nye, “Realism and Complex
Interdependence,” in William Marc (Ed.), International Relations in
the Twentieth Century: A reader, Macmillan Education, London,
1989, pp. 243–254.
[21] Sullivan, Michael P., “Transnationalism, Power Politics, and the
Realities of the Present System,” in William Marc (Ed.),
International Relations in the Twentieth Century: A reader,
Macmillan Education, London, 1989, pp. 255–274.
[22] Viotti, Paul R. and Mark K. Kauppi (Eds.), International Relations
Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Macmillan,
London, 1990, p. 215.
[23] Bose, Arun, “The Marxian Theory of International Relations”, in
K.P. Misra and R.S. Beal (Eds.), International Relations Theory:
Western and Non-western Perspective, Vikas Publishing, New
Delhi, 1980, pp. 161–165.
[24] Lenin, V.I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Left
Word, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 113–123.
[25] Galtung, Johan, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”, Journal of
Peace Research, International Peace Research Association,
Groningen, Vol. 13, no. 2, 1971, pp. 81–94.
[26] Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja, North Over South: A Non-
Western Perspective, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 1984,
pp. 1–2.
[27] Kaplan, Morton A., System and Process in International Politics,
Wiley and Sons., New York, 1957, pp. 21–53.
[28] Weiner, Norbert, The Human Use of Human Beings, Boston,
Houghton, Mifflin, 1950.
[29] Deutsch, Karl W., The Nerves of Government: Model of Political
Communication and Control, The Free Press of Glencoe III, 1963.
[30] Snyder, Richard C., H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin, Decision-
Making as an Approach to the Study of International Relations,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1954.
[31] Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, International Relations
Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 2013.
[32] ibid.

* David Held a British political scientist and a prominent scholar in the field of
international relations.
† Norberto Bobbio was an italian political scientist.
‡ Danielle Archibugi is an italian social scientist.
§ R. Rothenstein, “on the Costs of Realism”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 87,
No. 3, 1972, p. 38.
¶ Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Inter dependence: World
Politics in Transition, Little Brown, Boston, 1977.
** Raúl Prebisch, Towards a Dynamic Development Policy for Latin America,
United Nations, New York, 1963.
†† John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, ‘The Imperialism of Free trade,’
Economic History Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1953.
‡‡ Gunnar Myrdal, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, Gerald
Duckworth, London, 1957.
§§ Michel Foucault (1926–1984): He was a French historian and philosopher,
associated with the structuralist and post-structuralist movements, and often
labeled as a post-modernist too. Foucault’s work is inter-disciplinary in nature,
ranging across the concerns of the disciplines of history, sociology, psychology,
and philosophy.
¶¶ Meta-theoretical: A meta theory is a broad perspective that overarches two, or
more, theories like positivism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, and so on – of
importance in sociology and other social sciences.
The Liberal Approach
The Liberal Approach
Political Realism
E.H. Carr and Realism
Morgenthau and Realism
Neo-Realism
Pluralism
Marxist Approach and The Modern World System Theory
Marxist Approach and The Modern World System Theory
World System Theory
The Indian Approach: North Over South
Systems Theory
Communications Approach
Decision-Making Theory
Constructivism
Feminism in International Relations
Feminism in International Relations
References
References
International System and the Role of
Actors and Non-State Actors
INTRODUCTION
The present international system comprises 192 states who are
members of the United Nations, and 6 others such as Kosovo,
Palestine, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic(Western Sahara),
Turkish Cyprus, Taiwan and the Vatican City, who are non-members
of the United Nations. Alongside, there has been a parallel increase
of other kinds of actors besides the states, who are also challenging
the might of the state. It is because of the increase in
interdependence among all these actors that the international
system has now become more extensive and is not just limited to
states and their activities. To comprehend the complexities and
functioning of this international system, it is important to identify the
major actors and their crucial roles in international politics.
Therefore, there has been an increase in interest among the
scholars to assess the changing patterns of international system
along with its component units.
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
The structure of the present day international system is quite
complex and is increasingly becoming more complex. This is more
so because of the changes in the nature of the component units of
the system. Traditionally, it was only the states which were
considered to be the vital parts of the international system or the
primary actors, but now there has been an increasing recognition of
the existence of other agents, or as they are now called non-state
actors in international relations. Therefore, international system can
be thought of as one combining several kinds of actors of varying
degrees of autonomy in their international behaviour, with the states
among them retaining a leading but by no means an exclusive role.[1]
By international system, some scholars mean a more complex
concept involving a set of states and other actors interacting with
each other. Any system is defined by the combination of the
attributes of its component units and the nature, pattern, and number
of interactions among those units. If this idea is applied to the
international system, then the factors, which become important are:

The number of state actors

The relative size of various actors
The number and types of non-state actors
Linkages or interactions among state actors
Interdependence among the units of the system.[2]

However, as Frankel points out, international system lacks two pre-

requisites of domestic political systems, namely, the social basis of a
community and the political structure of a government. International
system does not possess any unconditional agreement on
cooperation, on the precedence of some basic common good over
sub-group or individual interests. It is built only on some limited and
conditional cooperation, which sometimes degenerates into anarchy.
In the absence of a hierarchically arranged government, there is no
authority to determine the jurisdiction of all the social sub-groups and
enforce norms and laws. What exists is only a loose structure and
weak sets of norms to regulate the behaviour of the states.
Nevertheless, the international system has been characterized by
the presence of sovereign states and ensuing anarchy, security
dilemma, balance of power, hegemony, alliances, regional
alignments, international regimes, collective security, conflict and
conflict resolution from time to time. At present, in the contemporary
international system, there is an increasing crisis of the territorial
states vis-à-vis the challenges posed by the non-state actors.
ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Actors in the theatrical sense, mean the lead roles in any play or
movie. Different actors play different roles on stage or a film. If this
concept is transferred to the realm of international system, then the
whole international system becomes an arena of dramatic politics
where lead roles are played by several actors who may be
individuals, groups or organizations. Here, actors are on the one-
hand states personified and on the other several non-state actors.
Therefore, as Frankel says that conceiving international society as a
system and its major components, the states as well as non-state
actors, as subsystems, it is possible to conceptualize the reality of
world politics in a sensible way. The reality is about influencing and
getting influenced. The question here arises who influences and who
gets influenced? The answer obviously can be found out by
analysing the behavioural patterns of the actors of the international
system. The dominant actors always are in an advantageous
position and do possess the capabilities to influence and manipulate
the behaviour of not so powerful actors. Bargaining and leveraging
are the core processes through which the actors try to extend their
influence on each other in the international system, although force
does retain its importance even in the present time.
STATES AS ACTORS
Despite several arguments forwarded by a number of scholars
regarding the crisis of territorial state, in the age of increased global
interdependence and the proliferation of the nuclear and space
technologies, the state remains the primary actor in the international
system. Most scholars date the birth of the state system from 1648
and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), although some contend that the
state as it existed in the seventeenth century, was nothing but the
culmination of the processes that had been happening for over 500
years before the Westphalia Treaty. However, a sojourn into history
would testify that the period of 200 years from about 1450 to 1650
marked the evolution of the territorial state system. The Treaty of
Westphalia brought an end to the thirty years war in Europe and, by
virtue of this Treaty, the rulers of Europe shook themselves off from
the authority of the Church and the Roman Empire. The apparently
simple but central principle of this Treaty was “the ruler of the
territory would determine the religion of that territory” which had
major consequences. The pretense of religious and political unity in
Europe was broken and authority was dispersed among various
kings and princes, and the base for the sovereign nation-states was
established. From this time onwards the important elements of
statehood was conceived—a people, a territory where they lived and
a government with the authority to rule over the people and the
territory. The government was seen as an agent of the state, which
was now considered as a legal entity enjoying sovereignty.[3]
In the course of time, the state system has undergone further
development and changes due to increase in the number of states,
interdependence among them in all spheres, especially in the
economic sector, technological development, rise of democratic
institutions, growth of international law, international regimes,
regional alliances, development of military warfare and weaponries.
Whatever may be the situation, it can be said with certainty that
states still remain as dominant actors in the international system. As
Palmer and Perkins[4] assert, the state-system “may be in its sunset
period, but there seems to have been little change in its basic
design, which is the coexistence of a large number of states,
including some pre-eminent military powers, all subject to the drive
of their special interests and emotions, all subscribing to the theory
of sovereignty, and all impelled to develop national power as the
instrument of their national policies”.

Elements of Statehood
Elements of statehood can be discerned from the definition of state
given by
L. Oppenheim (International Law, 1905), a British authority on
international law. He said that a state “is in existence when a people
is settled in a country under its own sovereign government”.[5] This
definition focuses on the four distinct elements of statehood. They
are a people, a territory, a government and the attribute of
sovereignty. A careful analysis of all these four elements is
necessary.

The People
Most often definition of a state refers to “any body of people
occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one
government”. Therefore, the first vital requirement to qualify as a
state, population is important. It is impossible to conceive of a state
until and unless people live together in an associated life. This is
because state is a form of social organization and people must be its
essential component. The number of people who live in a state is a
matter of great importance. There is, however, no fixed idea about
the exact number of population. Most scholars are of the opinion that
what counts is the quality and character of the population. These
involve obvious concerns about age, sex distribution, trends in birth
rates, standards of living, health, literacy, productive capacity and
skills, customs and beliefs, moral standards and morale and national
character.

Territory
The second most vital element of statehood is, territory. There can
be no state without a fixed territory. Nomadic tribes wandering from
one place to another cannot be considered as a state. The modern
state unquestioningly requires a definite portion of the earth as its
territory over which it has undisputed authority. Again, like the
population, it is difficult to fix the limit of the territory. There may be
states such as the Soviet Union with huge territory or small states
such as Tuvalu, Nauru, Vatican City, Monaco, Maldives or Malta with
territory as small as it can be. What matters is the geographic
location of the states. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for
a small foggy island in the Atlantic, Great Britain to hold its sway
over the world for centuries. In fact, the United States also enjoyed a
strategic location so unique that it was possible for it to follow the
policy of isolationism in the past. The United States is also less
vulnerable from land or naval attacks because of the huge water
body (Atlantic Ocean) surrounding it. An approaching enemy can be
intercepted in the mid-seas by the powerful US navy. Therefore, size
does not really matter. What matters is how far a state is vulnerable
or not, which again depends on a lot of geo-strategic calculations
and political, economic and military factors, especially in this nuclear
and space age.

Government
The third important element is the government, which is the political
organization of the state. The government is like the eyes and ears
of the state, and the state wills and acts through the government.
Whatever may be the form of government, it is absolutely necessary
to have a government. It is through the government that the
sovereign will of the state is expressed. What should be the nature of
the government is no doubt important as far as foreign policy
orientation is considered, but it is tough to state what should be the
‘model’ government for a state. From Aristotle till the present day this
is a puzzle to which there is no clear-cut answer. Therefore, there
are democratic forms of government to authoritarian regimes in the
world. What counts is that whether or not the government of a
particular state is recognized by the governments of other countries.
Once it receives this recognition, it becomes the legal representative
of the country, for instance the case with Peoples Republic of China,
which did not receive the recognition of the United States after its
birth in 1949 and was only recognized by the USA and admitted to
the permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council in 1971
and replaced Nationalist China (Taiwan).

Sovereignty
The most important element of statehood is, sovereignty. The term
‘state’ was derived from the Latin ‘status’ which means the
‘position’or ‘standing’ of a ruler. The position of the state is supreme.
Sovereignty is the supremacy of the state. The state is supreme in
internal as well as external matters. As Hedley Bull (The Anarchical
Society, 1977) observes, sovereignty includes “internal sovereignty,
which means supremacy over all other authorities within that territory
and population” and “external sovereignty, by which is meant not
supremacy but independence of outside authorities”.[6] This implies
then that the state has supreme power to govern its land and
resources and population within its territory as well as in external
relation it has no restrictions on its authority, except those, which it
has on its own accepted.
In international relations, sovereignty is accepted as a fact and
government as representatives of their states, no matter where the
jurists or political scientists locate the seat of the ultimate sovereign
power. Sovereignty should be seen as a special theoretical
relationship between each state and all other states. Though all
states on the face of this Earth is considered sovereign and equal,
this equality is legal and not factual. There is a simultaneous
presence of states of varied dimensions. Some are considered as
major powers, others as middle range powers, yet some others as
small and weak. Here, the interplay between sovereignty becomes
crucial. As each state tries to pursue its national interests, each of
them has to accommodate, make compromises and adjustments,
which limits their absolute sovereignty. International law and
international regimes also impose restrictions on the behaviour of the
state. Clyde Eagleton (1945) took a realistic view of the problem of
inter-relationship between international law and sovereignty of
states. He said, “sovereignty cannot be an absolute term. It is just as
foolish to say that sovereignty must be surrendered or eliminated as
to say that it must be absolute and unrestrained….”[7] There are
scholars who point out to the fact that the states often agree to limit
their sovereignty through the conclusion of international agreements
and through their memberships of international institutions.
Therefore, the principle of ‘consent’ becomes important as, in reality,
states can and indeed bind themselves to observe certain rules and
contract certain obligations.[8] There are few supporters to the idea
that states, by participating in various kinds of international
agreements or gaining membership to various international
organizations like the United Nations or the Commonwealth of
Nations, lose their status as sovereign states. There may be
contentions about limited sovereignty in the present day globalized
world yet it is not possible to deny that so long as the nation-state
system remains the basis of the prevailing pattern of international
society, the substance of sovereignty will remain even if the word
“sovereignty” disappears.
The fact is that all the states on the face of this earth are considered
equal and enjoy political independence. The United Nations Charter
under Article II acknowledges that it “is based on the principle of
sovereign equality of all its Members”. This may be legally true but
factually incorrect. There can be many reasons. No state is
equivalent to other in terms of size, resources and economic
development, and hence power. It is true that some states may be
more equal than others, but reality shows that differences between
states are numerous which affect their capabilities in international
relations to manoeuvre and exert its power and influence on others.
As Palmer and Perkins talked about the conventional classification of
the states in power-political terms as “great powers” or “major
powers” and “small powers” or “lesser powers,” and also a category
like “middle powers.” Undoubtedly, there is another category of
states that is weak and not so powerful in the international arena.
Therefore, it is obvious that “great powers” would have leverage in
bargaining and also manipulating the techniques of using rewards
and punishments vis-à-vis “small powers” and weak states.
Therefore, what constitutes power, obviously, brings us to the
discussion about national power.
NATIONAL POWER
What makes the United States of America the most powerful state in
the world? Should India follow a favourable policy towards USA?
What should be the equation between USA and Russia in their
relationships? How does USA figure in the Indo-Pak relations?
Thousands of such questions can be raised, but the answer is that
the disposition of a particular state in the international arena is based
on its national power.
Power is seen “as the ability to get another actor to do what it would
not otherwise have done (or not to do what it would have done).[9]
Power, therefore, is a relationship. If thought in terms of international
relations, then the state’s attempt to influence others, to a great
extent, is determined by its own capabilities, goals, policies and
actions which is similarly affected by the behaviour of those with
which it interacts.
Power, in the context of world politics, can be seen as:

A set of attributes or capabilities

An influence process
Ability to control resources, behaviour of other states, events,
outcomes of interaction (cooperative or conflictual).

Couloumbis and Wolfe produced an umbrella concept of power that

denotes anything that establishes and maintains control of one actor
over the other. They conceive power as having three elements—
force, influence and authority (see Figure 3.1). Force, can be defined
as the explicit threat or the use of military, economic and other
instruments of coercion by one actor against another in pursuit of its
political objectives. Influence, is seen as the use of instruments of
persuasion, short of force, in order to maintain or alter the behaviour
of one actor in the way as preferred by the other actor. Authority,
means the compliance by one actor to the directives issued by
another actor nurtured by its own perception of respect, solidarity,
affection, affinity, leadership, knowledge and expertise regarding that
actor.[10]
 Figure 3.1 Illustration of power.
[Source: Adapted from Theodore A. Couloumbis and James H. Wolfe][10]

From the realist’s perspective, international politics becomes nothing

but an incessant struggle for power. As its chief proponent, Hans J.
Morgenthau[11] pointed out in his classic text, Politics Among
Nations, in the section entitled “International Politics as a Struggle for
Power”: “International politics like all politics is a struggle for power.
Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is the
immediate aim”. To him power “may comprise anything that
establishes and maintains control of man over man [and it] covers all
social relationships which serve that end, from physical violence to
the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls
another”.
According to Organski[12], power is “part of a relationship between
individuals or groups of individuals” and cannot therefore be
“disentangled from the rest of the relationship but it is influenced by it
and changes with it. For, power is that part of relationship in which
each party is able to influence the behaviour of the other, and almost
any tie between two nations may be utilized in this fashion”. Power
is, thus, the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance
with one’s ends. Unless a nation can do this, even if it is large,
wealthy, or even great, it cannot become powerful.
Padelford and Lincoln[13] define national power “as the sum total of
the strength and capabilities of a state harnessed and applied to the
advancement of its national interests and the attainment of its
national objectives”.
As Ebenstein (1948) puts national power more than the sum total of
certain quantitative factors, it is “The alliance potential of a nation, its
civic devotion, the flexibility of its institutions, its technical know-how,
its capacity to endure privations”. These may be referred to as a few
qualitative elements that determine the strength of a nation.[14]
Whatever may be the varying notions about national power, if we try
to define it from a broad perspective, it means the ability to prevail in
conflict and overcome obstacles, and this is more so because
relations among states involve some form of incompatibility.
Therefore, power helps in getting one’s way. Influence is one of the
methods by which states, like people, try to get their way in
international relations. Influence can range from compellance,
switching sides in international fora, leaving one alliance and joining
another and economic embargo, to deterrence. Deterrence as a
policy became very popular during the Cold War when both the
superpowers, USA and USSR mutually deterred each other by using
the threat of nuclear missiles rather than actually using it to maintain
their foothold in world politics and maintaining their spheres of
influence. Holsti lists six different tactics in the influence ladder:
1. Use of force
2. Infliction of non-violent punishment
3. Threat of punishment (the stick)
4. Granting rewards (the carrot)
5. Offer of rewards
6. Persuasion.[15]
States often use a combination of all the above tactics to gain
leverage in a particular bargain, either tacit or explicit. Therefore,
power becomes an important factor in international relations and to
know how it contributes to a states’ prowess involves an effort to
estimate power. The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu advised the rulers
to accurately estimate their own power—ranging from money to
territory to popular domestic support—and that of their potential
enemies. He wrote that it is essential to “Know the enemy and know
yourself”, and when it comes to the question of estimating national
power, it is necessary to know about the elements of national power,
since measurement of national power is impossible. As Ebenstein
noted that “In the field of international relations, the central problem
of the strength of a nation is essentially a problem of qualitative
judgement and measurement, as national power is more than the
sum total of population, raw materials and qualitative factors”. Seen
in the present context of global interdependence, power can be seen
as having an impact on the sensitivity and vulnerability of other
actors. Therefore, it is rational to discuss the elements of national
power, which would help us to comprehend the pattern of interaction
in international arena.
Elements of National Power
Geography: Geo-politicians such as Sir Halford Mackinder (1869–
1947), Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840–1914), Karl Haushofer
(1869–1946) and Nicholas J. Spykman (1893–1943) attached great
importance to geography. Mackinder forwarded the “Heartland
Theory”. He expounded, “Who rules East Europe commands
Heartland; Who rules Heartland commands World Island; and Who
rules World Island commands the World”. Haushofer distorted the
thesis to support German imperialist ambitions. He propounded the
idea that to have a healthy life a state must be nourished by
acquiring new lands or what he called Lebensraum. Spykman
revised the Heartland theory and forwarded what came to be
popularly known as the Rimland Theory. He propounded, “Who
controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; Who rules Eurasia controls the
destinies of the World”. Mahan in his book The Influence of Sea
Power looked at the rise and exploits of British naval power by virtue
of its control of seas. His writings had a great influence on the
national policy of the United States to develop a huge and powerful
navy. Geography, therefore, may be regarded as the most stable
determinant national power. This includes the size of the territory,
topography, location relative to sea, and landmasses relative to other
nations and control of strategic places.
Size: It means the total land mass that a state controls or exercises
its sovereign authority. The size of states varies from one state to
another, but the most important factors, which contribute to its
national power, are the state’s internal organization, its capacity for
forging political unity and its ability to defend itself. A large area
contributes only to a state’s power if it is capable of providing it with
the capacity of containing a large population and a large varied
supply of natural resources. Nevertheless, size does have an
influence on a state’s decision-making capacity as two of the
greatest powers in the world, the United States and the Soviet Union
have huge land masses under their control.
Location: More important than size is the geo-strategic location of
the state in the sense that, position of a state in relationship to other
land bodies and to other states which profoundly affects the culture,
economy and both its military and economic power. Location tends
to make a state, a land power or a sea power. It is also intimately
related with the power of foreign policy decision-making. The
insularity of Great Britain and the isolated position of the United
States have greatly affected the foreign policy decisions of these
states.
Climate: It is another geographical feature that plays a crucial role in
determining the national power. Climate affects the health,
temperament and energy level of the population. It is also closely
related to productivity. Extremes of climate may make functioning
and development of a modern industrial society difficult. Climate
does affect national power of states through its direct impact on
agriculture, which is required to support its population. Uncertain
rainfall and drought might limit the power of a state while too much
dependence on food import might be obstructed from adopting an
independent foreign policy posture.
Topography: It is another important geographical feature affecting
foreign policy decisions. It, not only determines the density of
population, which a region can support, but also the climate of the
land. Wind, rainfall, temperature and consequently soil conditions
are influenced by the position of the land, sea and mountains. The
strategic position of mountain, valleys, rivers and plains and deserts
not only helps in communication but also in matters of security; for
example, the Himalayas and the Alps are like natural barriers.
Topography sets limit to natural expansion of states. The Himalayas
serving as a natural barrier between India and China has checked
Chinese expansionism. The Pyrenees serve as a fortress of Spain,
and the English Channel gives a natural insularity to Great Britain.
Natural Resources and Availability of Raw Materials: All these
improve the bargaining capacity of a state internationally. Natural
resources are available naturally to the states in the form of soil and
its products, water and its products and minerals. These in turn helps
the states to develop industrially, economically and also militarily.
However, huge possession of resources does not add up to one’s
strength, but the utilization of the particular product is important. The
possession of oil, uranium and atomic energy has been utilized by
various states to their advantage, which have contributed to the
strengthening of their position in international arena. Thus, huge
quantities of oil have helped the West Asian and Gulf countries to
embark on the policy of oil diplomacy. The most noteworthy incident
shaking the international economy, was the oil embargo by the
OPEC countries in 1973. Self-sufficiency in food, mineral and energy
resources has also helped the United States and Russian foreign
policy choices.
Economic Development: The economic performance of a state in
terms of GNP per capita provides the key to understand the state’s
ability to utilize its natural and human resources which adds up to its
national power and determines its policy choices and menu. The
United States, by far the largest economy recording a highest Gross
National Product (GNP), is always able to secure its objectives vis-à-
vis underdeveloped and developing states and also to some extent
in relation to certain developed states too such as Britain and
France. The levels of high economic development provide leverage
to the countries to flex their muscles in relation to economically weak
countries. However, the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) has forwarded a different view of development. The GNP is
not always an indicator of the well-being of the masses. Therefore,
UNDP has introduced the Human Development Index (HDI) to
calculate economic development of a state. This includes three basic
components of human development—longevity, knowledge and
standard of living. But it had also been revealed that those countries
ranking high in HDI group have also high GNP per capita. Therefore,
whether it is HDI or GNP measure of economic development, it is the
developed countries who are in an advantageous position and are
able to call the shots in international relations. Therefore, economic
development is a crucial factor as far as national power is
concerned. The level of economic development also determines the
state’s ability to gear up its military preparedness and improvise its
military capabilities, which in turn determines its foreign policy
objectives.
Military Preparedness: Military capability is the most determining
factor as far as national power and prestige is concerned. Russia,
the United States and China have huge army under their command
as compared to Iceland, Costa Rica, Maldives, Mauritius and other
small countries. Manpower backed by sophisticated technology and
upgradation through continuous research and development is what
makes a state militarily strong and powerful. The US high-tech war
during the 1991 Gulf War brought about revolutionary changes and
introduced new thinking in the history of warfare. It symbolized
radical changes from strategy, to research and development to
procurement, so much so, that other states had to rethink about the
efficacy of their military establishment. Therefore possession of
conventional forces as well as nuclear arsenal gives certain leverage
to states in negotiation with others. Exhibition of sheer military might
projects the prowess and prestige of a state.
National Character and National Morale: Though many scholars
disregard the importance of national character as an important input
of foreign policy because of its metaphysical overtones yet national
character finds expression in international relations through the
perceptions, reactions and behavioural patterns of decision-makers.
As Prof. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya suggests that, if worship of
wealth and power are regarded as chief attributes of American
national character, the foreign policy becomes logically one, which is
consistent with these attributes. In India, the culture and belief
system has moulded the outlook and foreign policy perspective of
the decision-makers.
National Morale: It is also an elusive category and consists of a
state of mind, which sometimes can be called patriotism or love of
country. Morgenthau opined, “National Morale is the degree of
determination with which a nation supports the home and foreign
policies of its government in times of peace or war. It permeates all
activities of a nation, its agricultural and industrial production as well
as its military establishment and diplomatic service”. Willingness to
stand up and sacrifice for one’s country is not only an ingredient of
national morale of troops fighting but also of the civilian population’s.
Political Structure and Leadership: The political structure of a
state and the nature of the ruling elite determines to a great extent
the direction and realization of national policies and also influences
the formulation of foreign policy of a state. In other words, a mature
and responsible government and decision-makers contribute to the
national power of a state. A democratic state, with a high degree of
political accountability, is both responsive and responsible than
totalitarian and authoritarian states. But it is the quality of leadership
which determines the extent to which the state is able to secure its
national interest. The democratically elected government of
Pakistan, since 2008, has failed either to secure the safety of its
individual citizens or of the foreign nationals visiting that country. The
Sri Lankan team, to the shock and awe of the world became a target
of terror during their tour in Pakistan on March 03, 2009. It is alleged
that Pakistan’s soil is being used by international terrorist outfits to
carry out their plans. Unfortunately, the ruling elites are unable to
tackle the rising problem, which is further weakening Pakistan and in
reality disturbing the peace and security of South Asia. Therefore,
the quality of rule is also an important factor in considering the
effectiveness of national power.
Ideology: Ideology is also an important element of national power.
Padelford and Lincoln[16] defined ideology “as a body of ideas
concerning economic, social and political values and goals which
pose action programme for attaining these goals”. An ideology
accepted within a state, whether it is democracy, socialism or
communism or some other, serves certain interests of the state.
Ideological principles may be used by state, or group of states to
advance their national interests through justifying or disguising their
policies and deeds in the struggle for power. The world has
experienced dangerous ideologies such as Fascism and Nazism
which run counter to internationalism. Again, the Soviet Union has
used Marxist–Leninist ideologies to promote Soviet expansionism.
Clash of Capitalism with communism was a source of Cold War
between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, ideology
alone cannot contribute to national power. One has to have the
propaganda machinery, publicity facilities and media coverage at
one’s disposal to effectively use and propagate ideology to further
one’s national interest.
Population: Population is another factor which contributes to
national power. As Morgenthau[17] pointed out, “since size of
population is one of the factors upon which national power rests and
since the power of one nation is always relative to the power of
others, the relative size of the population of countries competing for
power and especially the relative rate of growth desire careful
attention”. But it is difficult to ascertain whether size of the population
adds up to national power. Large population may be a source of
strength or weakness in the modern world. The test is whether a
state can utilize its human resources effectively, support them at
tolerable standard of living, and provide constructive outlets for their
talents and energies. In developed countries, large numbers are
usually a source of their strength, but in underdeveloped and
developing countries, large numbers usually become their burden.
NATIONAL INTEREST
Power defined in terms of national interest gives meaning to
international politics. This realist proposition, propounded by
Morgenthau, as the second and most important signpost of
realpolitik may seem to be a little exaggerated but, nevertheless, it is
true to some extent. It is the position of a particular state in the
international arena by virtue of its national power that determines
how it is going to exercise its will over others. When the question of
will of a state comes into consideration, undoubtedly, the concept of
national interest figures in one’s own idea. But to pinpoint at certain
basic national interests of any particular state it becomes very
difficult. For, as Frankel[18] wrote ‘National interest’ is a singularly
vague concept. It assumes a variety of meanings in the various
contexts in which it is used and, despite its fundamental importance,
these meanings cannot be reconciled. Hence, no agreement can be
reached about its ultimate meaning.
However, certain attempts have been made to provide a bare
meaning of the concept. This has been tried from subjective and an
objective angle. The former interprets national interest as “a
constantly changing pluralistic set of objective preferences”, the
latter assumes that national interest can be objectively defined, or at
least, can be examined with the help of some objectively definable
criteria.
Rosenau* had proposed a distinction between the use of the concept
for the purpose of political analysis and that of political action. He
was of the opinion that as an analytical tool, it can be employed to
explain or evaluate the sources of adequacy of a nation’s foreign
policy, and as an instrument of political action, it can serve as a
means for justifying, denouncing or proposing policies.
Frankel proposed a classification of the uses of the term ‘national
interest’ into ‘aspirational’, ‘operational’, ‘explanatory’ and ‘polemical’.
On the aspirational level, national interest refers to some ideal set of
goals, which the state would like to realize, if possible. At the
operational level, national interest is the sum total of interests and
policies actually pursued. On the ‘explanatory’ and ‘polemical’ level,
in political argument, the concept of national interest is used to
explain, evaluate, rationalize or criticize foreign policy.[19]
However, a powerful objective exposition of national interest was
given by Morgenthau. Though highly criticized, yet not without value
and relevance, he contended that statesmen think and act according
to interest defined in terms of power. The content of national interest
is determined by the political traditions and the total cultural context
within which a nation operates. Inherent in the meaning of national
interest is the minimum requirement of states to protect their
physical, political and cultural identity against aggressions by other
states. Therefore, the residual meaning inherent in national interest
is ‘survival’. ‘Survival’ involves preservation of physical identity, i.e.,
maintenance of territorial integrity, preservation of political identity,
i.e., preservation of existing politico-economic regimes, preservation
of cultural identity, i.e., conservation of ethnic, religious, linguistic and
historical norms found in a state. From these general objectives,
Morgenthau, argues that the statesmen derive their specific policies
which may range from cooperative to conflictive policies like
competitive armaments, balance of power, foreign-aid, alliances,
subversion and economic and propaganda ‘warfare’. [20]
On the whole, as Clinton[21] points out ‘the national interest’ refers to
a general regulative principle of diplomacy, which represents the
common good of the society, in its relations with other national units,
as the end of diplomatic action. But the usage of the term ‘the
national interests’ refers to myriad narrower goals which serve the
broader end of ‘the national interest’ by maintaining or increasing the
power of the state. National interests may range from vital or primary
interests to secondary interests and again from permanent to
variable interests. There can also be general interests and specific
interests. Simultaneously, there can be in the international arena a
play between identical interests, complementary interests and
conflicting interests. The main purpose of the whole idea of national
interest is in giving direction to long-term objectives of the foreign
policy of a state and giving meaning to its actions in a short-term
context.
CRISIS OF TERRITORIAL STATE
International system has been defined by some scholars as “any
collection of independent political entities—tribes, city-state, nations,
or empires—that interact with considerable frequency and according
to regularized process”. However, this does not present the whole
picture of the international structure. This structure is conceived as
being composed of several primary actors, the states and other
equally important international actors, the non-state actors. The
presence of these non-state actors has a great deal of influence in
developing and promoting the menu of constraints and possibilities
of state actions. The international and regional inter-governmnetal
organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, ASEAN, SAARC,
OAU, IMF, WHO and others have come to affect the menu for choice
of the states. These supranational actors have the power to act
separately and make and implement decisions that are binding on
members, and to some extent, non-members too. Some non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Amnesty
International, International Red Cross Society, several human rights
bodies and environmental groups have significant influence on the
policy decisions of states. With the growing interdependence of the
world system individual acts also produce impact on state actions.
Steady growth of world public opinion has, in many instances,
influenced state policies pertaining to human rights, environment,
and matters relating to war and peace.
Globalization and agents of globalization are also now restricting the
sovereignty of states to such an extent that questions are being
raised about the erosion of state authority. Multinational
corporations, flow of capital and information technology, opening up
of markets, convertibility of currencies, free trade, global stock and
bond trading, and mass media are delimiting the authority of the
state more and more. The present state is quite incapable of
controlling phenomena such as global satellite sensing, global social
and ecological problems, which might spearhead global social and
ecological movements, as well as internet hacking all having great
consequences on the international system.
Pathbreaking technological revolution in military technologies has
changed the whole perception of security for the state. States are no
longer invincible. They have become vulnerable preys to the latest
technological discoveries of long-range cruise missiles, inter-
continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), short-range ballistic missiles
(SRBMs), Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles
(MIRVs) and a host of other improved newer weapons of mass
destruction. Added to this are the dangers of biological and chemical
weapons. As John Herz (International Policies in the Nuclear
Age, 1959) suggested that, given the nature of available weaponry,
the traditional state system and security have become obsolete.
States are no longer capable of protecting the lives of their citizens in
the traditional sense. The Gulf War of 1991, and the US War on
terror in Iraq and Afghanistan bear testimony of how helpless states
have become in the face of brazen use of modern weapons of
tremendous precision.
Further, today we find that there is a sharp decline in the ability of
many governments to govern. This often results from the domestic
challenges being faced by the states, which have international
implications. Ethnic and religious forces are resulting in divided
loyalty between these ethno-national and religious movements and
states. These have resulted in disintegration of states in some
cases, and in some such fissiparous forces have made the task of
governance difficult. The ethnic strife in former Yugoslavia and
Czechoslovakia led to the dismemberment of the states. Rwanda,
Burundi and Somalia are experiencing clashes along ethnic lines
that are horrific and often spill over into warfare. Therefore,
observers contend that ethno-national multiculturalism is a potential
long-term threat to the state’s survival because the aspirations of
ethno-national groups to a separate statehood becomes possible
only through the fragmentation of the territorial integrity of the
existing states. Partha Chatterjee (The Nation and its Fragments,
1993) points out that states are inherently fragile because all are
weak coalitions of multiple nationalities that can splinter. The forces
of religious fundamentalism, sometimes assuming international
manifestation in the form of terrorist assaults, are now shaking the
pillars of state authority.
However, to argue that the state, as the most primary unit in
international relations is fading away, is ignoring the reality. It is true
that the overwhelming control of the state over the lives and activities
of its citizens or its external as well as internal concerns has
loosened, but this has in no way affected its position as the premier
form of political organization—a unit that provides myriad services to
its people. It is clear that the state remains the only organization that
can provide the two essential services that allow the society to
survive—security and welfare broadly conceived. Forces of ethnicity,
religious fundamentalism, terrorism, the 9/11 attacks on the World
Trade Center, the London blasts, Jaipur blasts, serial blasts in
Ahmedabad (July 2008), Bangalore (July 2008), and the recent
Mumbai siege (26/11) 2008 are no doubt challenging the states’
might, yet, states continue to be the dominant units in international
relations and the decisions and actions of their governments and
their interrelations still remain the focus of inquiry.
If one considers the case of state vis-à-vis the non-state actors, one
is sure to conclude that non-state actors work towards realization of
their specific interests, few of which may be directly resulting in war
or peace. But, even then, the governments remain the primary
arbiters in these matters. As Holsti[22] contends, states remain critical
actors in international politics because:
1. They command the allegiance of people occupying a definite
territory.
2. They are the ones who possess the capabilities to employ the
ultimate threat (war).
3. They, unlike the transnational organizations, are concerned with
allround development, welfare and security of their population.
4. Only states enjoy sovereignty.
Frankel also explains that “by the end of the seventies, when the
scattered residual remains of colonial empires were still achieving
statehood and adding new, ostensibly even less ‘viable’ new
members to the family of nations, no cases of disintegration or
disappearance of a legitimate state had been recorded”. The
disintegration of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union in
the late eighties and nineties had added to the number of states, but
the world community did not experience any demise of territorial
state as such. Frankel[23] points out six reasons for the survival of
territorial states despite several crises challenging them. They are:
1. States generally retain their legitimacy, both domestically and
internationally.
2. They remain the largest-scale meaningful communities and
command supreme loyalty of the vast majority of their citizens,
particularly as political representatives of nations and as
guardians of national cultures.
3. They retain the monopoly of territory and the near monopoly of
large-scale legitimate force.
4. They remain the only truly comprehensive large-scale
multifunctional organizations with great built-in powers of inertia
due to the built-in bureaucratic and other sectional interests,
which have a stake in their survival.
5. Negatively, they have not been generally faced with really
serious rivals.
6. Perhaps most importantly, as the discontinuation of any state
could undermine the stability of the international system as a
whole and threaten others with a possibility of a major war,
disastrous to all, everybody has now a substantial stake in the
continuation of the status quo.
Therefore, while acknowledging the growing importance of non-state
actors, it has to be admitted also that sovereign states would
continue to be the basic unit of international system. No viable
alternative institution is thinkable in the distant future. It is true that
interdependence and interpenetration of domestic and international
politics, the movement of capital and information, forces of
globalization, technological innovations, newer weaponry, the
increasing influence of transnational social movements and
organizations pose challenges to the state’s supremacy, yet, these
do not mean the end of the state as the primary unit in international
relations. The state system is now facing new challenges,
internationally and also on the domestic front, to which it has to
adjust, and its survival remains linked to such adjustments.
NON-STATE ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
John Burton (The Study of World Society: A London Perspective
(1974), a famous theorist of international relations, opined that for
ages there have been several images, models of abstractions to
focus on the different aspects of world society. One such image is
that of the realist perception of the world. This conventional image
projects a vision of the world composed of nation-states, which are
of different size and power. This image became popularized as the
‘billiard ball’ model. These models upheld the presence of sovereign,
independent states represented by their governments as units and
the interactions or contacts among them are like those of different
sized billiard balls, only the hard exteriors touch and heavier or faster
moving ones push others out of the way. In other words, the points of
contact are government to government. Therefore, this image only
focussed on diplomatic relations, on governments as the main actors
in world affairs, on their relative power and on the personal
characteristics of their leaders. But a sea-change has occurred since
the formulation of this image especially since the Second World War.
Thus, there was the need to revise this world image.[24] Burton and
his colleagues highlighted that with the growth in technology,
communication, transportation and weaponry, the classical European
model of balance of power model has become inadequate. Further,
they neglected the internal processes and components within the
states and interactions among various non-state actors such as
political parties, ethnic groups and multinational corporations, which
have greatly influenced and sometimes manoeuvred governmental
decisions.
Therefore, Burton suggested a contrast to the realist model, which
he termed as the cobweb model—a pluralist image of the world
society. He argues that a cobweb or series of superimposed and
intermeshing cobwebs would be in a better position to give an almost
accurate image of the world society than a set of billiard balls.
Though it would be difficult to theorize but nevertheless it would
reflect, with less distortion, the actual political and economic
processes that crisscross the globe. The cobweb model, he
suggested, would not only take into account the activities of
multinational corporations like Unilever or General Motors (before
the economic meltdown of 2008 after which they have filed for
bankruptcy) but also account for the activities of separatist ethnic
organizations such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Ulster,
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and others and would also
include the activities of individuals and non-governmental
organizations having a powerful transnational impact such as the
Green Peace, Amnesty International, the Roman Catholic Church
and others. This, obviously, in no way undermines the importance of
the states and their governments as they are still treated as
extremely important international actors but are no longer the only
actors.[25] The increasing presence of non-state actors must be
admitted.
Holsti refers to three kinds of non-state actors:

Territorial non-state actors

Non-territorial non-state actors
Inter-governmental actors.

Frankel also recognizes the existence of mainly three categories of

non-state actors:

Inter-state governmental organizations

Inter-state non-governmental actors
Intranational actors.

Following Frankel we will now discuss about these three non-state

actors.

Inter-State Governmental Organizations (IGOs)

IGOs are important non-state actors in world politics. They are
formed when several states come together in some common
interest. These organizations most often develop a common external
policy that might at times contravene the interests of any single
member state.
IGOs can be classified according to the scope of their memberships
and their purpose. On the one hand, there are universal political
organizations such as the erstwhile League of Nations and the
present day United Nations and its specialized agencies which
endeavour to include international membership as far as possible.
On the other hand, there can be several regional groupings of states
or even groupings based on some specific or general purposes and,
therefore, the membership is also regional and sometimes specific.
They might be performing political, economic, developmental,
military, socio-cultural or other functions for their member states. The
most prominent of these kinds of IGOs are the North Atlantic treaty
Organization (NATO), the Organization of American States (OAS),
the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), the Arab League, Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) and, the most notable one the
European Union. To mention a few others, IGOs which are
concerned with social or developmental matters, are the World
Health Organization (WHO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Bank.
The number of IGOs increased between the period of 1945–1985
with a post-World War II high of 378 but, by 1990, the number has
declined to around 300 IGOs. Nevertheless, IGOs are considered as
crucial actors in international relations because their policy and
behaviour have definite impact on the foreign policy of their
members and also on the non-members. Most often, sending
representatives to the IGOs or funding the IGOs or interacting with
other states through the IGOs leads the statesmen to believe that
IGOs are behaving like international actors and must be given
importance in their foreign policy considerations.[26]

Inter-State Non-Governmental Actors

Inter-state non-governmental or non-territorial transnational
organizations have also found prominence in international relations
because of the kind of impact they have on the political, economic
and socio-cultural life of states. They can be categorized into two
types—religious and economic.
According to Holsti[27] they are characterized by:

Organized activities occurring simultaneously in a number of

countries.
Objectives that do not relate to interests within any given
territory.
Component parts that are essentially non-political.

As far as religious non-state actors are concerned, no actor has

been so powerful as the Roman Catholic Church, with the Pope as
its universal head who is also the head of state of Vatican or the Holy
See. Frankel points out that traditionally, the Vatican has been
treated as a sovereign state and it maintains diplomatic relations with
a number of states, which may also include non-Christian states
Vatican or the Pope the supreme head of over one billion acts as
Catholics all over the world. The Pope has made pronouncements
on a variety of international issues including economic development,
abortion, arms control, and the nature of political regimes. However,
the non-Catholic Christian churches, organized around 1954 into the
World Council of Churches do not play such a massive role nor does
any other religion as such.
The other most important transnational actors are those who are
economic in character but have a tremendous impact on all aspects
of lives of states. They are the multinational corporations (MNCs).
MNCs have been defined in different ways. Some see them as a
“cluster of corporations of diverse nationality joined together by ties
of common management strategy”. Others view them as “companies
that control production facilities in two or more countries”.[28]
Whatever way an MNC is defined, it has a presence in the present-
day context unperceived of previously by the state-centric thinkers.
To name a few of the prominent MNCs: GE, the Daimler–Chrysler,
General Motors Corporation (before they filed for bankruptcy after
the global recession of 2008), Ford Motor Company, Exxon
Corporation, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Microsoft, IBM, Toyota,
Sony, LG, Mitsubishi, Coca Cola, Pepsi Co., and others.
MNCs reflect the increasing globalization of world economy. By their
sheer size in physical and financial assets, they have a tremendous
impact on the global economic system. Allocation of factors of
production and control of investment flows give them a leverage vis-
à-vis international political units, such as the states. It is said that
through payment of royalties and taxes, establishment of new plants,
or closure of old ones, decisions on location of plants and advertising
through MNCs can affect developing countries’ economic structure,
tax revenues, level of employment and consumption patterns which
might sometimes lead to social strains.
The MNCs might also be politically involved as evident from the oft
cited cases of the “banana republics” and the involvement of the
United Fruit Company which tried to keep in power that government
which would allow them to operate uninterruptedly. When a hostile
regime under general Arbenz came to power, the company’s vital
interest stood threatened. In 1952, the Arbenz government
introduced land reforms aiming to expropriate uncultivated portions
of large plantations. As the United Fruit Company had the largest
land holding with most of it being uncultivated, it became
apprehensive of Arbenz’s reform programme. The company,
therefore, assisted the American government’s efforts to overthrow
the hostile regime by supporting the exiles in Honduras and
Nicaragua. The coupd’état ultimately toppled the Arbenz government
and he had to flee. Another most cited case is that of the
International Telephone and Telegraph Company, which promoted a
scheme to topple the Allende government in Chile where the US
government officials already had undertaken programmes to topple
the Allende government.[29] There have been cases where the
interest of the home government and that of the MNC had coincided,
leading to the intervention of the host country by the home
government ultimately serving the interest of the MNC. Some of the
most cited cases of MNCs and host government nexus are the
American government’s involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh
regime in Iran in 1953, resulting in new operating privileges for
American oil companies and European oil companies, strong support
of the French–British–Israeli invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956, and
the American government’s abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 to
oust Castro and to do something to preserve the interests of
American oil companies.
MNCs also have their own sphere of influence through the division of
world markets. They are often found to be engaged in diplomacy and
espionage, traditional tools of state interaction. The huge economic
resources at their disposal make them more powerful than several
newer and smaller states as well as old states. In 1993, General
Motors was listed first in the Fortune Global 500 (though today it is
thinking of filing for bankruptcy) and it had gross sales larger than
the GNP of Finland or Denmark. The number and importance of
MNCs, therefore, have grown in the present day. Frankel observed
that in 1972 “The Year Book of International Organizations” listed as
many as 2,190 MNCs, compared to 1,000 in 1958. By 1990s, it is
noted by most observers, that there were at least 10,000 firms with
business activities spreading all over the globe to several countries
and controlling over 90,000 subsidiaries. The United States was
home to, 159 such MNCs, Japan to 135, and Britain to 41.[30]
MNC-optimists view the multinationals as “the most powerful agent
for the internationalization of human society”. To them MNCs are “as
huge economic combines that have the capacity, know-how, and
wisdom to treat the world as a single unit and to combine the factors
of production (labour, land, capital and management) for maximum
efficiency and productivity, in accordance with the rules of the
resuscitated law of comparative advantage”. Further, the MNCs can
also act as powerful agents of modernization, especially among less-
developed countries by creating new jobs, introducing advanced
technologies, training local citizens and thereby, contributing to the
development of the state. The managers and employees of the
MNCs become globally oriented and world minded as opposed to
anachronistic nationalism and war, thereby paving the way for the
development of world peace. They will be humanity’s best hope for
producing and distributing the resources of the earth.
Quite contrary to these views, the MNC-pessimists place their own
objections while critically looking at the functioning of the MNCs.
Barnet and Muller † in their “Global Reach” placed a very powerful
argument that the MNCs are “the most powerful human organization
yet devised for…colonizing…the future” and they offer little hope for
solving the problems of mass starvation, mass unemployment and
gross inequality. They even neglect the socially vital issues like
nutrition, clean air and public health and also the environmental
factors. They argue that the MNCs are colonizing the poor and less-
developed countries and increasingly weakening them to maintain
their strong hold and flow of profit and at the same time destabilize
the rich countries. They predict that the rich countries simultaneously
would also be hit by increasing unemployment and inflation which is
true to some extent in the present context. The Third World and even
the industrialized West are not in a position to stop the process of
concentration of wealth in the hands of the big MNCs.

Intra-National Actors
These sort of non-state actors refer to political movements, national
liberation movements, activities of ethnic, racial, religious or some
ideological minority groups. Their activities have a great impact on
the actions of the states of their origin when these groups are able to
gain support from external sources, either from the members of own
national groups, or from governments hostile to their own
government. This tends to complicate the relations among states
and also have significant consequences on the international system.
During the Cold War, both the superpowers were engaged or gave
tacit support to violent groups taking their sides in the ideological
battle between the two. National liberation struggles like the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), or the African National
Congress (ANC), and the South West African National People’s
Organization (SWAPO), known for its struggle against Apartheid
regime, are noteworthy examples of such non-state actors. Even the
Jews in the United States act as a powerful lobby, called the Zionist
lobby, a pressure group aiming at making the foreign policy of
America more favourable to the state of Israel.
INCREASING ROLE OF NON-STATE ACTORS
Undoubtedly, the non-state actors have come to occupy a place of
significance in the international scenario whether they are IGOs, or
transnational organizations or intranational actors. The role of many
IGOs has become institutionalized in that the comity of nations
expect them to act in a particular pattern, as in the case of the United
Nations. The UN is expected to make efforts to resolve international
conflicts or situations, which might give rise to conflict and perturb
peace. The UN’s role in international peacekeeping and
peacemaking is well acknowledged. The specialized agencies of the
UN are also expected to deliver their respective service as per their
mandate. The World Bank and the IMF have roles to play with
respect to the developmental aspects of the developing states.
MNCs have now come to occupy important place in international
relations and, quite significantly, are playing a more decisive role in
the internal as well as external policies of states.
Keohane and Nye[31] contend that the transnational relations
increase the sensitivity of societies to one another and, thereby, alter
relationships between governments. They have pointed out five
major effects of transnational interactions and organizations, all with
direct or indirect consequences for mutual sensitivity and, thereby for
inter-state politics. Four of these, they point out, may result from
transnational interactions even without the presence of transnational
organizations, although transnational organizations may produce
them as well. The fifth effect necessarily depends on the presence of
transnational organizations as autonomous or quasi-autonomous
actors.
The five effects are summed up as follows:
1. Attitudinal Changes: These may be brought about by face-to-
face interactions between citizens of different states that may alter
the opinions and perceptions of reality of elites and non-elites within
national societies, which may have possible consequences for state
politics. New attitudes can also be fostered by transnational
organizations as they create new myths, symbols and norms to
provide legitimacy for their activities. It is argued that advertising by
these multinational enterprises affects popular attitudes in less
developed societies to the detriment of their autonomy and economic
development.
2. International Pluralism: This means the linking of national
interest groups in transnational structures, usually involving
transnational organizations for purposes of coordination. There has
been a rapid growth of international transnational organizations
which link national organizations having common interests. The
creation of such organizational linkages may in turn affect attempts
by national groups to influence government policy and even
contribute to internationalization of domestic politics.
3. Dependence and Interdependence: This is often associated with
international transportation and finance movements. Integration into
a world monetary system may make it impossible for a state to follow
an autonomous monetary policy without drastic changes in economy,
and dependence on foreign companies for technologies, capital and
managerial skills may deter less-developed countries from following
highly nationalistic and socialistic eco-policies. Further, where
transnational organizations become important within a host society,
they may alter the patterns of domestic economic policies too.
4. Increases in Ability of Certain Governments to Influence
Others: Some governments have often attempted to manipulate
transnational interactions to achieve results that are explicitly
political. The use of tourists as spies or the cultivation of sympathetic
ethnic or religious groups in other states are examples of such
“informal penetrations”. Powerful governments would always try to
direct the flow of international trade or produce changes in
international monetary arrangements by unilateral actions.
Transnational organizations are particularly serviceable as
instruments of government’s foreign policy, whether through control
or willing alliance. USA sought to retard the development of French
nuclear capability by simply forbidding IBM-France to sell certain
types of computers to the French government.
5. Growth of Autonomous Actors: The emergence of autonomous
actors with private foreign policies many a times deliberately oppose
or impinge upon state policies. Such organizations include
revolutionary movements, trade unions, multinational companies and
the Roman Catholic Church among others. Thus, it would not be
possible to understand British–Iranian relations during 1951–1953 or
American–Cuban relations between 1959–1961 without taking into
account the role of certain oil companies in both the cases.[31]
Holsti[32] identifies certain roles played by non-state actors. These
roles imply that these non-state actors:
1. Introduce an issue into international diplomatic agenda.
2. Publicize and raise citizen consciousness regarding certain
global or regional problems.
3. Lobby national governments and international organizations to
make decisions favourable to their cause.
4. Seek outcome through direct action, sometimes (though
relatively rare) involving the threat or use of force.
Therefore, it can be said with certainty that any organized unit that
commands the identification of interests, and loyalty of individuals,
which affects inter-state relations becomes a major competitor of
states as actors. If the international processes are analyzed it can be
seen without doubt that there may be tussle not only between the
states but also between the states and non-state actors. Examples
include the United Nations and Iraq, between OPEC and the
industrialized West, between PLO and Israel, between an MNC and
a state in the case of toxic gas accident at Union Carbide’s plant
resulting in the Bhopal Gas tragedy in India. Nevertheless, it can
also be said that there may be several competitors to the power and
authority of the states as actors, yet the states continue to enjoy
predominance over any other international non-state actor.
 EXERCISES
1. What do you mean by actors in international system? Do you think
that the state is the only actor in the international system? Justify
your answer.
2. Discuss the crisis of territorial state in the face of globalization.
3. What do you mean by non-state actors? Examine the role of non-
state actors in international relations.
4. What do you mean by national power? Discuss the elements of
national power.
5. What are the main components of national power? Elucidate.
6. Bring out the significance of national interest in international
politics.
 REFERENCES
[1] Frankel, Joseph, International Relations in a Changing World,
Oxford University Press, London, 1979, p. 8.
[2] Russet, Bruce and Harvey Starr, World Politics : The Menu for
Choice, W.H. Freeman & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 74–75.
[3] ibid., pp. 50–54.
[4] Palmer, Norman D. and Howard C. Perkins, International
Relations—The World Community in Transition, A.I.T.B.S.
Publishers, New Delhi, 1997, p. 10.
[5] Frankel, Joseph, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 16–17.
[6] Russet and Starr, op. cit., n. 2, p. 54.
[7] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 4, p. 13.
[8] Frankel, op. cit., n. 1, p. 20.
[9] Quoted in Vinay Kumar Malhotra, International Relations, Anmol
Publications, New Delhi, 2006, p. 48.
[10] Couloumbis, Theodore A. and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations: Power and Justice, Prentice-Hall of India,
New Delhi, 1981, pp. 86–87.
[11] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, p. 31.
[12] Organski, A.F.K., World Politics, Alfred A. Knopf, New York,
1960, pp. 96 and 98.
[13] Padelford, Norman J. and George A. Lincoln, International
Politics: Foundations of International Relations, The Macmillan
and Co., New York, 1954, p. 193.
[14] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 4, p. 35.
[15] Russet and Starr, op. cit., n. 2, pp. 116–120.
[16] Padelford and Lincoln, op. cit., n. 13, p. 136.
[17] Morgenthau, op. cit., n. 11, p. 144.
[18] Frankel, Joseph, National Interest, Macmillan, London, 1970, p.
15.
[19] ibid., p. 17.
[20] Couloumbis and Wolfe, op. cit., n. 10, p. 113.
[21] Clinton, W. David, “The National Interest: Normative
Foundation,” in Richard Little and Michael Smith (Eds.),
Perspectives on World Politics, Routledge, London, 1991, p. 50.
[22] Holsti, K.J., International Politics: A Framework for Analysis,
Prentice- Hall of India, New Delhi, 1995, p. 65.
[23] Frankel, Joseph, op. cit., n. 1, p. 55.
[24] Viotti, Paul R. and Mark K. Kauppi (Eds.), International
Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism Globalism and Beyond,
Macmillan, London, 1990.
[25] Couloumbis and Wolfe, op. cit., n. 10, pp. 369–370.
[26] Russet and Starr, op. cit., n. 2, pp. 65–67.
[27] Holsti, op. cit., n. 22, p. 61.
[28] Couloumbis and Wolfe, op. cit., n. 10, pp. 370–371.
[29] Holsti, op. cit., n. 22, pp. 62–63.
[30] Russet and Starr, op. cit., n. 2, p. 69.
[31] Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Transnational
Relations and World Politics, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973, pp. xii–xxii.
[32] Holsti, op. cit., n. 22, p. 64.

* James N. Rosenau, “National Interest”, International Encyclopaedia of Social

Sciences, 1968.
† Richard J. Barnet and Ronald E. Muller, “Global Reach”, Simon and Sehuster,
New York, 1974
Balance of Power
INTRODUCTION
The presence of states with varying degrees of power makes it
necessary to study the pattern of relationship among them. If one
goes by the realist assumption, the international system is
unrestrained and unprotected by any international government,
where states have to look after their own national interests and,
obviously, national security, thereby inducing insecurity in others.
Therefore, the picture that emerges is one in which “each is against
the other”. Though international relations may seem anarchic in the
absence of any world government, yet it is not so in the sense of
lawlessness and disorder.[1] The key to the puzzle, as the realists
suggest, is the principle of balance of power which is “a basic
principle of international relations and a fundamental law of politics
as it is possible to find”. The political relations of independent
nations, especially the great powers, traditionally have been
explained by the theory of the balance of power.[2]
BALANCE OF POWER
European history has experienced long periods when actual large-
scale conflict did not take place. The chief reason behind this was
the absence of one single sovereign authority and presence of many
sovereign states, each zealously guarding its autonomy. Power was
distributed in such a way that each state was able to balance the
others. In theory, if any state tried to increase its power, thereby
posing a threat, all the others would unite to prevent it. This was
what came to be known as the balance of power (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Illustration of balance of power.

The basic assumption is that, as long as power is not abolished, it

must be met by countervailing power. To rely on the goodwill of
powerful neighbours would be naive and only matching power can
provide adequate protection under all circumstances. Mutual
deterrence becomes the buzzword. Any potential aggression is
deterred by the potential combined powers of all the other states.
Therefore, in such a case, balancing power, either by one single
nation or by a group of nations, will prevent any one particular nation
from imposing its will upon others. If state A increases its power,
state B must try to equalize it. If B alone cannot match A’s might, it
can join other states and together they can offset the power of A.
The balance of power that existed in Europe during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries are classic examples of balance of power
systems. The focus was not on matching a rival’s power by building
up one’s army but by forming a coalition of one or more other states
threatened by the growing power of the rival. Thus, deterrence was
achieved by alliances and not by arms races. Historically, under this
kind of balance of power systems, there was no increase in the
power of a single state or even in the system as a whole. Only power
was re-arranged to counter aggression. States pursued independent
policies and was not bound to each other by permanent alliances.
Only when one state threatened the independence of another, did a
group begin to coalesce to oppose the belligerent power.
There are instances when such balance of power principles became
operative in Europe between 1740 and 1763. There were many
alliances between France, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria on the one hand
and Austria, England and Hanover on the other in 1740–1743. In
1744–1745, the line-up was like France, Prussia and Bavaria on the
one hand, and Austria, England, Hanover and Saxony on the other.
In 1756–1763, the line-up was Prussia and Hanover on one side,
and Austria, Russia, France and Saxony on the other. These
arrangements were not fool proof and did not prevent war, but what
mattered was that there was no ideological crusades as seen in the
twentieth century. There was no call for “deFredericking” Prussia as
the US “de-Nazified” Germany after the Second World War. Further,
those wars were mainly fought over Silesia and did not result in
large-scale civilian casualties although a large number of soldiers
were killed.[3]
MEANING
The balance of power is one notion which is central to the study of
international relations. The term is in no way an innovation of the
present times and can be traced to the sixteenth century, only to be
theorized in the eighteenth century and after. It appeared in treaties
like the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, in the memoirs of statesman, and
in the writings of diplomats historians and lawyers. The diplomats of
Ancien Régime (refers to the political system established in France
from fourteenth century to eighteenth century under the Valois and
Bourbon dynasties) considered it as the underlying principle that
created stability. In the twentieth century it has been invoked many a
times but the problem is that there is a lack of unanimity on the exact
meaning of the term.[4] Inis L. Claude (1962) observed that “the
trouble with the balance of power is not that it has no meaning but
that it has too many meanings”.
Professor A.F. Pollard (1923) stated that there are several thousand
meanings of the phrase, but “The essential idea is simple enough: it
is ‘equilibrium’ of the type represented by a pair of scales. When the
weights in the scales are equal, balance results”.
George Schwarzenberger (1951) viewed balance of power as ‘an
equilibrium’ or “a certain amount of stability in international relations”.
G. Lowes Dickinson(1926) clarified the two uses of the term
‘balance’. He said that “it means, on the one hand, an equality, as of
the two sides when an account is balanced, and on the other hand,
an inequality, as when one has a ‘balance’ to one’s credit at the
bank”. He also added “the balance of power theory professes the
former, but pursues the latter”.
According to Professor Sidney B. Fay (1937), balance of power is
such a “just equilibrium in power among the members of the family of
nations as will prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently
strong to enforce its will upon others”.
Kaplan[5] in his System and Process in International Politics,
distinguished between the balance of power system and other
international systems. To him balance of power system is an
international social system without a political subsystem. The actors
within the system are international actors who fall within the sub-
class, “national actor”. ‘Essential’ being used as an undefined term,
the number of essential actors must be at least five and preferably
more.
Morgenthau in his Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace has given four meanings of the term:
1. A policy aimed at a certain state of affairs
2. An actual state of affairs
3. An approximately equal distribution of power
4. Any distribution of power.
Haas[6] has given eight mutually exclusive versions of the concept of
balance of power:
1. Equilibrium resulting from equal distribution of power among
nation-states.
2. Equilibrium resulting from unequal distribution of power among
nation-states.
3. Equilibrium resulting from the dominance of one nation-state
(the balancer).
4. A system providing for relative stability and peace.
5. A system characterized by instability and war.
6. Another way of saying power politics.
7. A universal law of history.
8. A guide for policy makers.
Kenneth Waltz*[7] in his Theory of International Politics (1979) does
not assume that states are self-aggrandizing and aggressive bodies
but he does assume that they have a necessity to preserve
themselves. Thus, they are obliged to be concerned with their
security and take into considerations the existence of other states,
posing to be potential threats. This induces the states to continually
adjust their stance in international relations according to their reading
of power of other states and their own power. The result of these
movements is the emergence of the balance of power.
Hedley Bull † [8] in his The Anarchical Society (1977) considers the
balance of power as a kind of artefact, something that states, or a
significant proportion of states, are willing to see as a desirable end
and are committed to the idea and must ‘want’ it to work.
Despite several meanings and implications, balance of power
remains, as Morgenthau pointed out, “a manifestation of a general
social principle” in international relations.

The Prerequisites for Balance of Power

1. A multiplicity of states.
2. Absence of a centralized legitimate and strong authority over
these sovereign actors.
3. Relatively unequal distribution of national power.
4. Requirement of a balancing power.
5. Perpetuation of existing power distribution which benefits the
balancer nations mutually, i.e., status quo.[9]
From these assumptions arise a set of informal widely understood
principles or rules:
1. Be suspicious of an increase in power by another country—any
country. Be concerned with the capabilities, not intentions.
2. Always ally with the weaker side. Ignore considerations such as
friendship or morality.
3. Support a state or group of states only until, it is out of danger.
Remember that no alliance is permanent.
4. Show moderation towards the aggressor after it is defeated
because no alliance is permanent; today’s enemy may be
tomorrow’s ally.
5. Settle non-essential quarrels in peripheral areas in a way that
does not disturb the central balance.[10]
Kaplan[11] also suggests certain basic rules for the functioning of the
balance of power system:
1. Act to increase capabilities but negotiate rather than fight.
2. Fight rather than give up an opportunity to increase capabilities.
3. Stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential national actor.
4. Act to oppose any coalition or single actor which assumes a
predominant position with respect to the rest of the system.
 5. Act to constrain actors who subscribe to supranational
organizing principles.
6. Permit defeated or constrained essential national actors to re-
enter the system as acceptable role partners or act to bring
some previously inessential actor within the essential actor
classification.
7. Treat all essential actors as acceptable role partners.

Characteristics of Balance of Power System

Professor Palmer and Perkins have enumerated certain basic
characteristics of balance of power system:

The term ‘balance of power’ itself suggests equilibrium but it is

subjected to constant changes, i.e., from equilibrium to
disequilibrium.
Nicholas J. Spykman (1942) remarked that balance of power
is not “a gift of the gods” and it must be achieved by “the
active intervention of man”. States cannot wait until it
‘happens’ if they are willing to survive, and as Spykman says,
that “they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance
against the growing hegemonic power of the period.
Balance of power tends to be in favour of status quo; but to be
effective, a balance of power policy must be changing and
should be a dynamic one.
A real balance of power rarely exists and its real test,
presumably, is war. When war actually breaks, the whole
system gets upset.
It offers both subjective approach of a statesman and an
objective approach of a historian. As was observed by Martin
Wight (1946) who suggested that the difference in the
perspectives of a historian and a statesman is that “The
historian will say that there is a balance when the opposing
groups seem to him to be equal in power. The statesman will
say that there is a balance when he thinks that his side is
stronger than the other. And he will say that his country holds
the balance, when it has freedom to join one side or the other
 according to its own interests”. Hence, states, which play the
game of balance, actually indulge in imbalance—in their
favour.
The balance of power game is a game for the great states
although small and weaker states are vitally concerned with
the outcome; they become mere spectators, or more often
victims, rather than players.
To maintain the balance there is a need for a balancer.

Hartman[12] looking back into history, identified four types of balance

of power process since 1815.
1. “The balancer form in which the balancer promotes flexibility to a
simple, two-bloc form restraining either bloc”.
2. “The Bismarckian form in which the potential troublemaker is
restrained by isolating her through a complex and flexible alliance
system built on the utilization of the counter balancing interests of
other powers”.
3. “The Munich Era form in which the flexibility stems from the lack of
coordination of interests upon the part of the likely victims of
attack”.
4. “The simple two bloc form such as existed in 1907–1914 and
again from 1949–1963 or so, in which each bloc is the direct sole
deterrent or restraining influence upon the other”.
TECHNIQUES/DEVICES AND METHODS
There are different techniques of maintaining the balance of power
system. These are now briefly discussed.
1. Alliances and Counter-Alliances: These are the most commonly
used devices for maintaining the balance of power. If one state
increases its strength, its adversaries have no other option but to
balance it by forming coalitions against it. This has happened quite
often in Europe, where, whenever one particular state threatened the
balance in Europe, other states formed coalitions against it.
Coalitions of one group of states may be met by counter-coalitions
formed by another group of states. Twentieth century Europe saw
two such alliances and counter-alliances, one of them being the
Triple Entente formed by France, England and Russia in 1907 as a
response to the Triple Alliance of Imperial Germany, Austria–
Hungary and Italy. Another was the Axis formed in 1936 to counter
the alliance between France and European nations. Again, the Allied
powers formed a coalition against the Axis power during the Second
World War.
Alliances can be both offensive and defensive, and even a world
balance or a regional balance. It is not too much to say that balance
of power considerations, whether regional, hemispheric or
worldwide, are a controlling factor in virtually every alliance formed
by states. This has proved to be true during the Cold War days when
the United States formed several military regional arrangements
such as NATO, SEATO, CENTO and others, with West European
States, Central Asian states and Pakistan, which were countered by
Soviet led coalitions like the WARSAW Pact.
2. Compensations: Morgenthau points out that “the bargaining of
diplomatic negotiations issuing in political compromise is but the
principle of compensation in the most general form, and as such it is
originally connected with the balance of power”. Compensation
usually involves annexation or division of territory. Territorial
compensations have been frequently used by powerful states at the
expense of the smaller and weaker ones and by victorious powers at
the end of a war. Between 1870 and 1914, this principle was applied
on a large-scale, resulting in distribution of colonial territories and the
delineation of spheres of influence in China and elsewhere, among
the European powers. Partition or division of territories has also
been used in the maintenance of balance of power. A Plethora of
examples are available in this regard, like the division of the Spanish
possessions in Europe and outside among the Hapsburg and the
Bourbons under the Treaty of Utrecht, the partition of Poland and
later its division among Russia, Prussia and Austria, partition of
Germany by the Treaty of Versailles and again after the Second
World War among Britain, France, Russia and the United States, and
division of Korea and Vietnam after the Second World War.
3. Buffer States: Geo-strategically, some states may be placed in
between some powerful states in such a way that they tend to keep
rival powers out of direct contact with each other. They come to
constitute a buffer between the two. Palmer and Perkins point out
that buffer states are of great importance because of their cushioning
effect between the great powers. They may be neutral or neutralized
states, satellite states or dependent territories, or even may be
actively associated with one of two or more aggregations of power in
a relatively honourable way.
One of the important buffer regions of the world has been the one
separating the Soviet Union from the non-Communist powers, an
area comprising weak states, vast distances, geographical barriers,
conflicting interests of superpowers during the post-War period and
rising nationalisms. This may roughly correspond to the idea of a
large part of the Inner Crescent of Mackinder and the Rimland of
Spykman. Afghanistan long served as a buffer state between Russia
and pre-independent India. Similarly, Tibet was also a buffer
between China and India during the British India and even during the
initial years of independence of India. But in both the cases, the
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 disturbed its buffer status,
and recent Chinese occupation of Tibet has destroyed its buffer
character. Nepal and Bhutan also serve as a buffer between China
and India. Thus both India and China follow a cautious foreign policy
towards Nepal and Bhutan. Several lines, such as the 17th Parallel
in Vietnam and the 38th Parallel in Korea, also serve similar
purposes, as that of the buffer states.
4. Armaments and Disarmaments: Military power is vital for the
survival of a state and is directly linked to the maintenance of the
security of that particular state. Therefore, states put great emphasis
on their military preparedness, either in terms of their conventional
forces or nuclear arsenal. The fact is that military preparedness of
one state makes it a necessity for another state to follow the suit.
This leads to a perilous and unending arms race and intensified
rivalries among the major powers, as it had happened in the post-
War era between the United States and the Soviet Union, and as it
happens in every part of the globe. India and Pakistan are again
contenders in the South Asian region and arms race between them
tends to disturb the balance in the region. India, vis-à-vis its
neighbour to match the Chinese prowess, pursues a policy of
improvising and adding to its military arsenal, conventional and
nuclear armaments, which again is most likely to send shocks to her
South Asian neighbours, especially Pakistan, and escalate an arms
race in the region.
But constant arms race increases the fear of destruction. Therefore,
in theory, a more stable balance of power can be attained by ending
the armament race and proportionately reducing the armaments.
The first effort towards disarmament was the Treaty of Versailles of
1919 and then the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Following the
reduction of tension between the two superpowers, both have
attempted to reduce their armament efforts and have signed many
accord in this regard like the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) of 1963,
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-I) of 1972 and SALT-II of
1979, Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty of 1987 and
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 1991. Globally,
several disarmament efforts have also been taken up by the United
Nations, such as the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Treaty and others.
But the problem with disarmament is that the state, which disarms
first, runs a serious risk. Therefore, disarmament is often discussed
and its practice involves difficulties until there are assurances that all
will disarm together in such a way that it will not disturb the current
distribution of power. As this assurance is lacking in most cases,
disarmament measures are looked upon with suspicion and this is
the primary reason why most states having the potential to develop
nuclear power refrained from signing the NPT and the CTBT. They
feared a nuclear hegemony of the nuclear haves and their
calculative measures to prevent the have-nots from joining the
nuclear club.
5. Intervention and Non-Intervention: Intervention is a weapon
used by a powerful state, usually the balancer to intervene, in the
internal affairs of another state to extract certain concessions
necessary to preserve the status quo in the existing balance of
power. There have been several instances where such interventions
have taken place. Germany intervened in the Spanish Civil War in
favour of General Franco, Britain in Greece, the United States in
Cuba, Lebanon, Laos, Guatemala, and others and the Soviet Union
in North Korea, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and
elsewhere. In the post-Cold War world, there have been cases of
intervention by the United States in the Middle-East in Iraq, Kuwait
and Afghanistan.
Again, non-intervention is a kind of policy usually followed by the
powerful states as well as the small states, which satisfies the
political order and follows peaceful methods to preserve the balance.
Unlike Germany, France and Britain followed the policy of non-
intervention in the Spanish Civil War.
6. Divide and Rule: This had been a policy pursued for long to
preserve the balance of power by making the competitors divide
among themselves. It had been used by the Romans to maintain
their control over the scattered people. The French had prominently
used this policy towards Germany ever since the seventeenth
century. The British had historically pursued this policy towards the
Continent. In the post-War period, when the world politics was ripped
apart by the tensions between the two superpowers, generally
known as Cold War, this policy again came to feature in the foreign
policy orientations of the superpowers. Both the superpowers aimed
at keeping the rival camps, i.e., Western and Eastern Europe
disintegrated and divided in order to retain a balance as well as
preserve their spheres of influence.[13]
Criticism
The balance of power theory was an attempt on the part of some of
the international relations scholars to devise a law for international
politics like other sciences. But the greatest difficulty one faces in the
field of international relations is in the application of the theories
derived from other disciplines. Therefore, it becomes difficult to
accept the idea of balance of power just because it is old and a
respectable theory.
Most scholars have come up with their suggestions that the
principles of the theory are correct but the altered conditions prevent
the balance of power system from operating correctly. As
Morgenthau pointed out “…the balance of power in international
affairs is only a particular manifestation of a general social principle
to which all societies composed of a number of autonomous units
owe their autonomy; that the balance of power and policies aiming at
its preservation are not inevitable but are an essential stabilizing
factor in a society of sovereign nations; and that the instability of the
international balance of power is due not to the faultiness of the
principle but to the particular conditions under which the principle
must operate in a society of sovereign states”.[14]
Organski points out several drawbacks of the concept. To him, the
concept is based on erroneous assumptions that nations are
fundamentally static units whose power is not changed from within
and also the assumption that nations have no permanent ties with
each other but move freely, motivated primarily by consideration of
power. He says that nations are not static units that increase their
power only through military aggressions, territorial aggrandizements
and alliances. Given the modern changes in the pattern of
international relations, nations can change by mobilizing national
sentiments, improving the efficiency of social organizations, and by
industrialization. Such increase and shifts in power cannot be
counteracted through traditional mechanisms of the balance of
power because a variety of economic, technological and socio-
cultural changes may lead to the breakdown of one actor and the
emergence of another. A theory which assumes that the major road
to national power lies in waging wars and forming alliances has
missed the most important developments of modern times.
He further contends that nations are not free to make and break
alliances at will for power considerations alone. Even the ‘balancer’
is often not in a position to change sides whenever the distribution of
power changes. The truth is that a nation selects its friends and foes
depending upon its national interest, which may range from purely
military-strategic to political, economic, cultural, and even
psychological. It supports a nation as long as its national interest is
best served from the preservation of the present international order
and opposes those, who tend to disturb or seek a change in status
quo.
Organski also points out that there is no such thing as a ‘balancer’
and never has been so. England, which was long thought to be
playing a role of a balancer, actually was motivated by its self-
interest and acted in world politics in such a way to uphold her
preponderance of power, and not a balance at all.[15]
The other truth lies in the fact that balance of power does not ensure
peace. On the contrary, almost all greatest wars recorded in modern
history have occurred at times when one of the challengers balanced
the preponderant power or when, through miscalculation, a
challenger thought that its power was as great as that of its rivals.
Morgenthau[16] has forwarded a threefold criticism of the concept of
balance of power. He has pointed out the uncertainty, unreality and
inadequacy of the balance of power concept.
1. Uncertainty: Morgenthau points out that if balance of power is
conceived mechanically, it would require an easily recognizable
quantitative criterion by which the relative power of a number of
nations can be measured and compared. It is only by means of such
a criterion it can be ascertained that a particular nation tends to be
more powerful than another or they tend to maintain a balance of
power among themselves. But in reality, it is difficult to make
quantitative measurement of power, and national power is composed
of so many elements that the quality of these components is also
subjected to constant change. Thus, rational calculation of the
relative strength of several nations becomes a series of guesses, the
correctness of which is doubtful. The uncertainty of power calculation
is inherent in the nature of national power itself. This uncertainty is,
however, magnified when the weights in one or the other or in both
scales are composed not only of single units but also of several
nations forming alliances.
2. Unreality: The uncertainty of power calculations incapacitates the
balance of power system from operating and also leads to its very
negation in practice. Since nations are incapable of calculating the
distribution of national power, they will at least attempt to make sure
that whatever error they might commit in calculation, these will not
land them in serious disadvantage in the competition of power and
that they have a margin of safety.
Thus, in the struggle for power, nations actually aim not at a balance,
which is equality of power, but a superiority of power in their favour.
The limitless aspiration for power is always present in the mindset of
nations and this transforms into an armament race which ultimately
may cause war. Preventive war, however, abhorred in diplomatic
language and abhorrent to democratic public opinion is, in fact, a
natural outgrowth of the balance of power. The First World War is a
pointer in that direction. The use of balance of power as an ideology
aggravates difficulties and dangers inherent in the mechanics of the
balance of power.
3. Inadequacy: Morgenthau observed that the actual contribution
made by the balance of power system in the seventeenth, eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries had helped in the establishment of stability
of the modern state system and the preservation of the
independence of its members. But it was not the balance of power
system alone that helped in achieving these things; there were other
factors such as the restraining influence of moral consensus present
in Europe. Morgenthau also observed that the balance of power thus
assumes a reality and function that it actually does not have and
therefore, tends to disguise, rationalize and justify international
politics as it actually is.
RELEVANCE OF BALANCE OF POWER
Based on the criticisms and shortcomings, Organski has asked the
scholars of international relations to reject the balance of power
theory because its concepts are fuzzy, it is logically unsound, full of
contradictions, inconsistent with the events that have occurred, and
fails to explain such events.
Richard Cobden[17] (1867) commented, “The balance of power is a
chimera! It is not a fallacy, a mistake, an imposture—it is an
undescribed, indescribable, incomprehensible nothing; mere words,
conveying to the mind not ideas, but sounds”.
Even the rules or the basic principles propounded by the balance of
power theorists are not applicable in the ever-changing scenario of
international relations. For example, the principles propounded by
Morton Kaplan in 1957 hardly hold today. He had prescribed how the
statesmen should or ought to behave rather than how they actually
behave. Further, his rule 6, “treat all major powers as acceptable
partners” is hardly tenable because, in the present context, given the
importance of public opinion and a simultaneous increase in
nationalism, it is not possible for a state to ally with another
disregarding these restraining factors. Further, during the Cold War it
was witnessed that ideological differences delayed the
rapprochement between the United States and China for long.
Neither of the rules seems to be valid in contemporary international
relations. A total all-out war now might lead to extremes and any
unsuccessful venture might lead to loss of popular support as
happened in the case of US during the Vietnam War. Moreover, if
public opinion swings between interventionism and isolationism, it
becomes difficult for a state to oppose a dangerously growing
opponent. There can also be a system change without a great war
as it had occurred in the Soviet Union.
Moreover, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, for example,
the nuclear weapons, has created situations which are quite different
from the pre-nuclear international scenario. The possession of
nuclear weapons may work as a deterrent and induce the leaders to
use the force with restraint and prevent escalation of small wars to
big ones. Nevertheless, this situation, commonly known as mutually
assured destruction, also creates a kind of balance of power where
the nuclear might of a state matches with that of its adversaries. This
is, however, a balance of terror, and not of power, as it was
evidenced during the Cold War days between the United States and
the Soviet Union, which reached a climax during the Cuban Missile
Crisis in 1962. However, even during the climax, both powers
restrained from using nuclear power though usage would have given
a lead to one over the other. Therefore, even if major wars are less
frequent in a nuclear world than in a conventional system, the high
intensity of such wars probably cancels out the gains from the wars.
This situation is sometimes referred to as Pax Atomica.
Prof. Palmer and Perkins pointed out the difficulties that balance of
power faced in a bipolarized world:
1. The confusing bipolar–multipolar pattern of power and the
disappearance of a balancer
2. The sudden increase in the power of the offensive over the
defensive and the character and the frightening implications of
total war
3. Ideological considerations and other less tangible elements of
power
4. The increasing disparities in the power of the states, with the
superpowers becoming more powerful and the lesser states
becoming weaker, at least in relative terms.[18]
Presently, with the dissolution of one of the superpowers, the post-
Cold War situation drastically changed the power equation between
the two poles. There was no such power transition as suggested by
Organski when he said that “if great change occurs within a single
lifetime, both challenger and dominant nation may find it difficult to
estimate their relative power correctly, and may stumble into a war
that would never have been fought if both sides had foreseen where
the victory would lie”. Systemic changes took place without a general
war. The changes in relative strength came from the differing
economic growth rate and from the loss of allies of the Soviet Union.
This left the United States as the unchallenged dominant actor in
world politics. But again, another question seems to be coming up
whether a united Western Europe will be an ally or become a
competitor of the United States. Although the United States at
present seems to be the unchallenged power, there are also several
power centres and the international system tends to become
multipolar. Therefore, the functioning of the balance of power system
in such a multipolar world cannot be ruled out completely. As US
Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger proclaimed in 1989 that
“We are now moving into… a world in which power and influence
[are] diffused among a multiplicity of states – [a] multipolar world”.
Scholars suggest that such multipolar system is more likely to
consist of the United States, China, Germany, Japan, Russia and a
consolidated European Union. They envisage that such multipolarity
will result in an enlarged global chessboard of multiple bilateral geo-
strategic relationships.[19]
COLLECTIVE SECURITY
Balance of power, as a method of crisis management, is a lesser
used method, and a modern device of collective action by
international community, has become a more viable option.
Collective security, as it is popularly known, has become a device
that seeks to confront the would-be aggressors or aggressors with
concerted power of states, determined to keep peace. Collective
security, though at a glance might seem simplistic and self-
explanatory, is difficult to define.
As Quincy Wright (1942) observed: “The relations of the balance of
power to collective security have…been at the same time
complementary and antagonistic”. It is not antithetic but
supplementary and “International organization to promote collective
security is … only a planned development of the natural tendency of
balance of power policies”, and, again, the basic assumptions of the
two are different. The substance of collective security is the creation
of a world front against a possible aggressor and that of balance of
power is to approximately equal the opposing fronts. But collective
security involves a far greater degree of systematization than
balance of power. As Inis Claude observed: “Balance of power is a
system only by courtesy; while the accusation that it amounts to
anarchy is too strong, it is assuredly a most unsystematic system …
Collective security, on the other hand, represents the urge for
systematization, the institutionalization of international relations”.[20]
Collective security is based on the principle that “Aggression against
any one member of the international community is an aggression
against international peace and security. As such it has to be met by
collective efforts of all the nations”. It stands for “One for All and All
for One”.
An effective collective security system should be strong enough and
capable to meet any aggression from any power or combination of
powers invoked as soon as aggression occurs. George
Schwarzenberger ‡ (an eminent scholar on power politics) observed
collective security as a “machinery for joint action in order to prevent
or counter any attack against an established international order”.
Organski[21] stated that collective security is not a scheme to keep
some nations in check and not others. Rather, it is a plan by which
any nation that uses force illegally is defeated. Organski underlined
the five basic assumptions of collective security:
1. In any armed combat, all nations will agree on which combatant
is the aggressor.
2. All nations are equally interested in restraining aggression from
whatever source it comes.
3. All nations are equally free and able to join in action against the
aggressor.
4. The combined power of the collectivity will be great enough to
defeat the aggressor.
5. Knowing that overwhelming power stands ready to be used
against it, an aggressor nation will either sheathe its sword or go
down in defeat.
Morgenthau[22] highlights three basic conditions that must be fulfilled
for the successful operation of collective security as a device to
prevent war:
1. The collective security system must be able to gather, at all
times, such overwhelming strength against any potential
aggressor or coalition of aggressors that the latter would not
dare to challenge the order defended by the collective system.
2. At least those nations whose combined strength would meet the
requirements under the first principle must have the same
conception of security which they are supposed to defend.
3. Those nations must be willing to subordinate their conflicting
political interests to the common good defined in terms of the
collective defence of all member states.
Under the League of Nations, the sanctions against Italy following
the Italo–Ethiopia War in 1935–1936 and the United Nations
intervention, in defence of the territorial integrity of South Korea,
following an invasion from North Korea in 1950 and 1953, are
examples of application of the principle of collective security.
The League of Nations failed drastically to implement the provisions
of collective security as contained in Article 16 of the Covenant of the
League. It was never implemented. The League was impaired from
the beginning due to the abstention of the superpowers like the
United States to join it and also due to mutual rivalries among the
member states, each zealously guarding its national interest. The
League failed to take effective measures either during the
Manchurian crisis or against the acts of aggression by Nazi
Germany, culminating in the attack of Poland. It was only during the
Italo–Ethiopian crisis that the League, for once, made extensive
effort to implement the collective security provisions. As Claude
observed, “The league experience might be summarized as an
abortive attempt to translate the collective security idea into a
working system. The failure of collective security in this period was
not so much the failure of the system to operate successfully as its
failure to be established”.[23]
The Charter of the United Nations contains provisions relating to
collective security. Article I of the Charter stating the purposes and
principles of the UN, aims at maintaining international peace and
security as its top priority and, to that end declares to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to
peace. Chapter VII of the Charter with regard to Action with respect
to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of
Aggression contains provisions from Articles 39–51 relating to the
collective security system. The Charter invests supreme power on
the Security Council to initiate collective security action in cases of
breach of international peace of security. The United Nations evoked
the collective security measures during the Korean crisis of 1950.
Another test of the collective security system came during the Congo
crisis of 1960. The more current operation includes the one during
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991. But it was more so on the
insistence and preponderance of the United States that the collective
actions were taken. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States
on the plea of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, and USA’s
War on Terror against Afghanistan, were unilateral decisions and the
United Nations was bypassed in these cases of intervention. This
has undermined the credibility of collective action measures under
the auspices of the United Nations. Further, during the heydays of
Cold War, the superpower relations affected the operation of Security
Council and hence the implementation of collective security system.
The international community has failed to evolve a workable system
of collective security for the preservation of peace and security.
Since the end of the First World War, there were active initiatives
among the states to develop the system of collective security. But
the machinery of collective security has never been developed
effectively. Hence, the success rate of operation of the principle is
low. It is a vague principle underlying the obligation of states coming
together to uphold some vague obligations and perform unspecified
actions in response to hypothetical events brought out by some
unidentifiable state.[24] Inis Claude observed that this concept of
collective security has been much talked about, persistently
advocated and attacked, defended and criticized, but efforts towards
developing this as a working principle in managing international
relations have often been thwarted.
A survey of historic experiences has revealed that the nature of
international politics is such that conflicts of interest would continue
and this would create obstruction in banding together of states.
Furthermore, under the assumptions of collective security, any war
anywhere in the world assumes the stature of the World War.
Therefore, instead of localizing an actual or threatened conflict
between two or more states, the collective security system has the
potential to make war universal. It is a dangerous principle to
operate, as Morgenthau points out, and it is bound to destroy peace
among all states.
Therefore, collective security in essence has not been totally
disbanded but, as operation of the principle becomes difficult, the
United Nations has its own peacekeeping mechanisms which in
essence contain the principle of collective action in order to ensure
international peace and security.
 EXERCISES
1. Explain the concept of balance of power pointing out its
characteristic features. Discuss the different techniques of
maintaining balance of power.
2. What do you mean by Balance of Power? What are the various
techniques of balance of power? Discuss whether the concept is
still relevant in the contemporary world.
3. Analyze the concept of collective security. Is it a substitute for
balance of power system?
 REFERENCES
[1] Brown, Chris, Understanding International Relations, Macmillan
Press, London, 1997, p. 103.
[2] Organski, A.F.K., World Politics, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1960,
p. 270.
[3] Ziegler, David W., War, Peace and International Politics, Little
Brown & Company, Boston, 1987, pp. 165–173.
[4] Brown, Chris, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 104–105.
[5] Kaplan, Morton A., System and Process in International Politics,
Wiley&Sons, New York, 1957, pp. 22–23.
[6] Hass, Ernst, “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or
Propaganda”, World Politics, Vol. 5, July 1953, pp. 442–477 cited
in Theodore A. Couloumbis and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations: Power and justice, Prentice-Hall of India,
New Delhi, 1981, p. 43.
[7] Brown, Chris, op. cit., n. 1, p. 47.
[8] ibid., p. 109.
[9] Couloumbis and Wolfe, op. cit., n. 6, p. 43.
[10] Ziegler, David W., op. cit., n. 3.
[11] Padelford, Norman J. and George A.Lincoln, International
Politics: Foundations of International Relations, The Macmillan &
Co, New York, 1954, pp. 213–215.
[12] Hartman, F.H., The Relations of Nations, The Macmillan
Company, New York, 1967, p. 368.
[13] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit, n. 12, p. 224–227.
[14] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 187.
[15] Organski, op. cit., n. 2, pp. 287–297.
[16] Morgenthau, op. cit., n. 16, pp. 223–233.
[17] Organski, op. cit., n. 2, pp. 298.
[18] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 12, p. 231.
[19] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
 Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997,
pp. 458–459.
[20] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 12, p. 242.
[21] Organski, op. cit., n. 2, p. 373.
[22] Morgenthau, op. cit., n. 16, p. 452.
[23] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 12, p. 246.
[24] ibid., p. 241.

* Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, McGraw Hill, New York, 1979
[given details in Chap 1 (p. 8)].
† Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in Politics, Columbia
University Press, New York, 1977.
‡ George Schwarzenberger, Power Politics, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Frederick A.
Praeger, 1951), p. 8.
Foreign Policy—Concepts and
Techniques
INTRODUCTION
States as units of international system cannot remain isolated from
each other. Especially, in this age of growing interdependence, there
are always reasons for interactions among them. Their interactions
constitute what is known as the international processes. These
interactions are best reflected by the policies pursued by the states
towards other states. These policies are generally identified as the
foreign policies which involve regulating and conducting external
relations of the states, with respect to others in the international
scenario.
DEFINITIONS OF FOREIGN POLICY
To put in simple terms, foreign policy is the output of the state into a
global system. ‘Policy’ is generally considered as “a guide to an
action or a set of actions intended to realize the goals of an
organization that it has set for itself” which involves ‘choice’ or
choosing actions (or making decisions) to achieve one’s goal.
‘Foreign’ implies those territorially sovereign units that exist beyond
the legal boundaries of a particular state. That is to say, anything
beyond that legal territorial boundary, not under the legal authority of
the state concerned, is foreign. Therefore, “foreign policy” is
considered to be a set of guidelines to choices being made about
people, places and things beyond the boundaries of the state
concerned.[1]
Padelford and Lincoln[2] point out that foreign policy consists of
courses of actions which a state generally undertakes to realize its
national objectives beyond the limits of its own jurisdiction. They
further contend that foreign policy of a state is “something more than
a mere collection of several specific policies which it pursues with
respect to individual countries”. A state’s foreign policy takes into
account several factors such as an estimate of its own power and
capabilities, the broad principles of conduct which the state holds
and its government advocates with respect to international affairs,
the specific objective of national interest which the state seeks for
itself in foreign relations as well as for the course of world affairs
generally. Foreign policy also involves the strategies and
commitments and tactics which are undertaken for the realization of
a state’s objectives and interests.
There are others who have tried to give a definition of foreign policy.
C.C. Rodee and others in Introduction to Political Science (1957)
defines foreign policy as involving “the formulation and
implementation of a group of principles which shape the behaviour of
a state while negotiating with (contracting) other states to protect or
further its vital interest”. Professor Charles Burton Marshall (The
Exercise of Sovereignty, 1965) defines foreign policy as “the course
of action undertaken by authority of state and intended to affect
situations beyond the span of its jurisdiction”. According to Prof. F.S.
Northedge (The Nature of Foreign Policy, in F.S. Northedge (Ed.)
The Foreign Policies of Powers, 1968) foreign policy implies “the use
of political influence in order to induce other states to exercise their
law-making power in a manner desired by the state concerned: it is
an interaction between forces originating outside the country’s
borders and those working within them”. Frankel sees foreign policy
as consisting of “decisions and actions which involve to some
appreciable extent relations between one state and others” (all these
definitions are cited in Sharma and Sharma).[3]
George Modelski[4] (A Theory of Foreign Policy, 1962) defined
foreign policy as “the system of activities evolved by communities for
changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own
activities to the international environment”. But scholars like
Mahendra Kumar (Theoretical Aspects of International Politics,
1995) have pointed out the limitations of such a definition. According
to Mahendra Kumar the definition of foreign policy should “include
within its range all activities of a state to regulate the behaviour of
other states, either through change or status quo, in order to ensure
the maximum service of its interest”. To him foreign policy should be
conceived of “as a thought-out course of action for achieving
objectives in foreign relations as dictated by the ideology of national
interest”.
Whatever may be the definitions of foreign policy, the important point
is that foreign policy involving the process of creating decisions,
making decisions or implementing decisions is ‘relational’. It is
‘relational’ in the sense that the intention of foreign policy is to
influence the behaviour of other actors because nothing is equal in
the international system. Every state requires resources, economic
goods, military know-how, political and strategic support, and
cooperation of others as well as coordination with all other actors.
Foreign policy, as both process and output, is also a link between the
activities taking place within a state and the world environment
outside it. James Rosenau (Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy,
1967; Linkage Politics; Essays on the Convergence of the National
and International System, 1969 and The Scientific Study of Foreign
Policy, 1971) considers foreign policy as a “bridging discipline” that
“takes as its focus of study the bridges that whole systems called
nation-states build to link themselves and their subsystems to even
more encompassing international systems of which they are a part”.
[5]
On the whole, it can be said that foreign policies are strategies
devised by governments to guide their actions in the international
arena. Therefore, they spell out the basic objectives that the state
leaders have decided to pursue in a given relationship or situation as
the general means by which they intend to realize their basic
objectives. The arduous task before the decision-makers is to
identify the political, economic and psychological needs of their
country and also to recognize the limitations involved in their pursuit
and to work out “a well-defined and well-ordered set of foreign policy
objectives”.[6]
OBJECTIVES OF FOREIGN POLICY
Professor Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya (The Making of India’s
Foreign Policy, 1970) perceives the making of foreign policy as a
continuous exercise in the choice of ends and means on the part of
the nation-state in an international setting. A broad end or goal is
necessary to give a sense of direction to foreign policy.
Broadly speaking, by foreign policy objectives, one means those
things that statesmen pursue in the course of their interactions with
other states. Objectives evolve, and there is hardly any consensus
on how those objectives are best pursued or what the foreign policy
objectives should be. This brings us to a discussion on the relation
between objectives and strategy or between ends and means. Few
things thought of as objectives appear to be ends in themselves, but
are rather means for the achievement of still more abstract or distant
ends (happiness, security, success, prestige, etc.) and objectives,
which originated as a means of attaining something sometimes
become an end in itself. The commonly cited example is that of the
United States, objective of winning the war in Korea and Vietnam.
The real motive was to contain communism which in turn was
ultimately linked to the US interest to maintain stability in the
international system to protect American security. Again, the
objective of winning the Vietnam War was containing communism
but gradually it became an end in itself because the reputation of the
policy-makers depends upon the victory in the war although it
became evident that the outcome of the Vietnam War was surely
going to weaken the US and place the communists in a favourable
position.[7]
Therefore, according to Legg and Morrison[8], a rational policy-
making process to a large extent is the process of organizing clear
and reliable, (i.e., the means actually lead to the desired end)
means–ends chain, controlling the tendency of means to become
ends in themselves and seeing that the original and more
fundamental objectives are kept in perspective.
Holsti[9] identifies objectives of the states, which he arranges
according to the priorities depending upon a variety of external
circumstances and domestic pressures as:

Security
Autonomy
Welfare in the broadest sense
Status and prestige.

Not all the states pursue similar kinds of priorities and there may be
options between ‘guns’ and ‘butter’. Foreign policy objectives can,
therefore, be described as “the discovery of goals as much as it
involves using decisions to achieve particular outcomes”. The
objectives, may include projecting “image of future state of affairs
and future conditions that governments through individual policy
makers aspire to bring about by wielding influence abroad and by
changing or sustaining the behavior of other states”. Objectives may
be immediate, concrete or abstract, long-term or less concrete.
Expansion of territory like China’s aim in Tibet, or China’s boundary
tussles with India, and the wars fought and persisting animosity over
the border issues, several wars in the Middle East like the Iran–Iraq
war over the control of Shatt al-Arab, or Iraq’s attack on Kurdistan
may be seen as involving concrete objectives. Promotion of specific
set of values like “making the world safe for democracy”, creating a
new world order, such as the demand for New International
Economic Order, or “War on Terror” may be visualized as long-term
and abstract objectives. Sometimes governments pursue
incompatible objectives, either incompatible with the objectives of
another state as was the case during the Cold War days between the
United States and the Soviet Union, or incompatible with their
domestic objectives. This was the case with the Nixon
administration’s wheat deal with the Soviet Union in 1971–1972
which on the one hand aimed to help in the betterment of relations
with the Soviet Union, thereby facilitating American withdrawal from
Vietnam and on the other hand tried to control inflation, prices of
foods and ensuring the well-being of American society.
Undoubtedly, the ends that the states seek vary from one state to
another depending on several factors such as geo-strategic location,
needs, political culture, national interests and power factors. From
the many aims of states, Padelford and Lincoln have identified four
basic aims:
1. National security
2. Economic advancement
3. Safeguarding or augmenting national powering relation to other
states
4. International prestige.
Generally speaking, a wide range of private and public objectives,
some concrete, some abstract and some incompatible, are pursued
by states. To the realists, these objectives appear to be solely
concerned with military/security issues, and not involving economic
ones. For the transnationalists, the objectives involve long-term
economic and social welfare as well as security, issues, but not
solely military objectives, like the realists.
DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY
Various factors influence the making of foreign policy of a particular
country. Even the basic determinants vary in importance according
to circumstances. It is impossible to lay down any general rule
regarding the relative importance of each of these factors or a scale
of priorities which the decision-makers must permanently adhere to
in making their policy decisions. Nevertheless, certain basic
determinants can be identified which most of the states take into
account while making their policy.
Among the domestic determinants or internal determinants the
most significant ones are discussed now.
1. Geography: Perhaps this is the most stable determinant of
foreign policy. This includes the size of the territory, topography,
location relative to sea and landmasses relative to other nations and
control of strategic places.
Size means the total landmass that a state controls or exercises its
sovereign authority on. But a large area contributes only to a state’s
power if it is capable of providing it with the capacity of containing a
large population and a large and varied supply of natural resources.
More important than size is the geo-strategic location of the state in
the sense that the position of a state in relationship to other land
bodies and to other states profoundly affects the culture, economy
and both its military and economic powers. The insularity of Great
Britain and the isolated position of the United States have greatly
affected the foreign policy decisions of those states.
Climate is another geographical feature that plays a crucial role in
determining a state’s foreign policy. Extremes of climate make
functioning and development of a modern industrial society difficult.
Climate does affect national power of states and, therefore, its
foreign policy through its direct impact on agriculture, which is
required to support its population.
Topography is another important geographical feature affecting
foreign policy decisions. It not only determines the density of
population which a region can support, but also the climate of the
land. Wind, rainfall, temperature and, consequently, soil conditions
are influenced by the position of the land, sea and mountains. The
strategic position of mountains, valleys, rivers and plains and deserts
not only helps in communication but also in matters of security like
the Himalayas, the Alps which are like natural barriers.
Natural resources of a state improve its bargaining capacity,
internationally. Huge possession of resources does not add up to
one’s strength but the utilization of the particular product does. Thus,
huge quantities of oil have helped the West Asian and Gulf countries
to embark on the policy of oil diplomacy. The most noteworthy
incident that shook the international economy was the oil embargo
by the OPEC countries in 1973. Self-sufficiency in food, mineral and
energy resources has also helped the United States and Russian
foreign policy choices.
2. History and Culture: The political tradition of a state has its roots
in its history and culture. The historical and cultural traditions provide
the basic guidelines for formulating the basic foreign policy
objectives. The bitter experiences of colonialism, imperialism and
racialism have strengthened the resolve of many countries for
developing anti-imperialist, anti-colonial and anti-racist stance.
Gandhi’s idea of ahimsa (non-violence) and India’s policy of peaceful
coexistence, as reflected in the panchsheel, also have roots in the
history and culture of the country.
3. Economic Development: The economic performance of a state
in terms of GNP provides the key to understanding the state’s ability
to utilize its natural and human resources which, in turn, influences
its foreign policy choices and menu. The United States, by far the
largest economy recording the highest GNP, is always able to secure
its foreign policy objectives vis-à-vis underdeveloped and developing
states, and to some extent in relation to certain developed states too,
such as Britain and France. The levels of high economic
development provide leverage to the countries to flex their muscles
in their relations with economically weak countries. The developing
world, to a great extent, is dependent on the developed world for
capital, technology and military research and development and
supply of armaments. This places them in a disadvantageous
position and they have serious impediments in pursuing an
independent foreign policy. The level of economic development also
determines the state’s ability to gear up its military preparedness and
improvise its military capabilities, which in turn determines its foreign
policy objectives. Economic power has worked as a positive
leverage for USA, whereas economic decline has worked as a
negative factor in the case of Russia as far as their foreign policy
stances are concerned.
4. National Interest: To the realists, ‘national interest’ is the key
factor in determining a state’s behaviour with respect to other states.
National interest, whether political, economic or military, changes
with the changing needs of time and circumstances either in the
domestic front or internationally. But undoubtedly, national interest
while formulating the of foreign policy of a state, is of supreme
importance.
5. National Character and National Morale: Though many scholars
disregard the importance of national character as an important
input of foreign policy because of its metaphysical overtones, yet
national character finds expression in international relations through
the perceptions, reactions and behaviour patterns of decision-
makers. As Prof. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya suggests if worship
of wealth and power are regarded as chief attributes of America’s
national character, the foreign policy becomes logically one that is
consistent with these attributes. In India the culture and belief system
has moulded the outlook and foreign policy perspective of the
decision-makers too.
National morale is also an elusive category and consists of a state
of mind, which sometimes can be called patriotism or love of
country. Willingness to stand up and even sacrifice one’s life for
one’s country is not only an element of national morale of the troops
that fight in the front but also of the civilian population.
6. Political Structure: The political structure of a state and the
nature of the ruling elite to a great extent influence the formulation of
foreign policy of a state. A democratic state, with a high degree of
political accountability, is both responsive and responsible.
Therefore, the foreign policy pursued by such a system would be
different from the foreign policies pursued by totalitarian and
authoritarian states.
Sudden changes in the government of a state are also a source of
changes in the course of foreign policy. For example, changes of
government in Pakistan, from military regime to democratically
elected government for a brief period in the past and a new
democratic governmental coalition after the general election of 2008,
have led to some changes in their foreign policy outlook. Similarly,
changes in governments in India also have influenced foreign policy
choices from time to time. For instance, irrespective of the
government in power whether it is a full-fledged Congress led
government, or a BJP led NDA coalition, or a Janata Dal led
government, or Congress–UPA government—there have been
changes in foreign policy stances.
7. Social Structure: Foreign policy cannot be generated in a
vacuum. Just as political inputs are important, social factors too are
important. A strong cohesive society provides chances for a strong
foreign policy, whereas, a society with tensions along ethnonational
or religious factors or societies with unequal distribution of wealth
have a strong possibility of pursuing a weak policy due to the lack of
cohesion and cooperation among various groups. Thus, it is not
possible to ignore the internal components of the external policy of a
state.
8. Ideology: Ideology is defined as a cluster of interrelated, though
not necessarily logically interdependent, ideas about government,
economies, society and history. Ideology does often come to play an
important role in the conduct of foreign policies of states. But most
often, ideological principles are used by states or group of states, to
advance national interests through justifying or disguising their
policies and deeds in the struggle for power. The operation of
ideology many a time is a source of international conflict. The rise of
Fascism and Nazism had a profound impact in the international
ideological arena. After the Second World War, the world witnessed
strong ideological overtones in the foreign policy objectives of Soviet
Russia and the United States. The struggle was between
communism and efforts of Western democracies to ‘contain’
communism. However, one should not overestimate the importance
of ideology as a determinant of foreign policy because, in its true
sense, it is primarily used as a garb to hide the real intentions of the
actors in international relations.
9. Public Opinion: In a democratic state it is impossible for the
government to ignore the importance of public opinion in both
domestic and foreign policies. This is true today more than ever
before because of the revolution in information technology, mass
media, telecommunications, internet and the like. People are now far
more informed than was the case earlier. As such public opinion
dose set the limit for the domestic as well as the foreign policies. In
case of foreign policy, public opinion sets: (i) broad limits of
constraint regarding the choice of policies—the ‘mood’ of the public;
(ii) constraints in the policy execution. As in the case of the Vietnam
War, the then American government had to succumb to the public
opinion and was compelled to withdraw. In India, after the 1962 jolt
given by China and the defeat of the Indian army, there was severe
dent in Krishna Menon’s image as a Defence Minister, and he had to
face hostile public opinion which resulted first in his demotion to the
Position of Minister of Defence Production ; ultimately he had to
resign even though he had great personal equations with Prime
Minister Nehru.

External Determinants
International Regimes and Organization: The foreign policies of
the states have to operate taking into consideration the external
environment also. The first and the most important factor that
constrains or influences the making of the foreign policies is the
presence of international laws, international treaties, pacts, trading
blocs and various international and regional organizations. Several
bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements have to be taken
into consideration when foreign policy choices are set. Activities of
international organizations like the United Nations and its agencies,
the IMF, World Bank, WTO and regional organizations like ASEAN,
SAARC, NAFTA, APEC and military pacts like NATO have an
important bearing on the foreign policies of every state.
World Public Opinion: Domestic public opinion is an important
determinant of foreign policy. Likewise, world public opinion has now
come to play a crucial role in constraining foreign policy choices. In
this present world of fast communication and information exchange,
there has been an increased consciousness among the people at
large, and there is also an extensive people-to-people contact, all of
which have facilitated the generation of world public opinion on
issues such as human rights, environment, war and peace and other
related issues.
Foreign Policies of Other States: The external environment of a
state consists of the presence of other states. Therefore, the
formulation and the operation of foreign policy of a particular state
has to take into consideration the behaviour of their states as well as
their foreign policy choices. Foreign policy objectives of a state have
to be state specific in the sense that it should manoeuvre its foreign
policy choices according to its relations with states those that are
friendly and those that are hostile. Ultimately, it is the reaction of the
states that matter most. Therefore, foreign policy has to be
engineered to get the desired result.
TECHNIQUES OF FOREIGN POLICY
DIPLOMACY
The coexistence of separate political units necessitates a certain
degree of contact among them. There is a need for communication
between governments, and the business of communicating between
governments is technically termed as diplomacy. In the broadest
sense, diplomacy is often used to mean both the making and
execution of the foreign policy.
Diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy is nothing new and can
be traced to antiquity. Greece, Byzantium and Renaissance Italy
made the most notable contributions to its evolution. But the origins
of organized diplomacy dates back to the Congress of Vienna, 1815.
The Congress of Vienna, The Reglement of 19 March 1815 and the
subsequent regulations of Aix-la-Chappelle ultimately established
the diplomatic services and representation of the powers on an
agreed basis. Four categories of representatives were defined,
namely: (a) ambassadors, papal legates and papal nuncios; (b)
extraordinary envoys and plenipotentiary ministers; (c) ministers
resident; (d) Chargè d’Affaires.[10] Finally, at the Vienna Conference
on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, attended by 81 states in
1961, a comprehensive agreement relating to almost all aspects of
diplomatic practices was signed.
The Oxford Dictionary (Second edition, 1989) defines diplomacy as
“the management of international relations by negotiation”. Sir Ernest
Satow (Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 1922) defined diplomacy as
“the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official
relations between governments of independent States”. Another
definition, which closely relates the method to the substance, is that
diplomacy “represents the accumulative political, economic and
military pressures upon each side formalized in the exchange of
demands and concessions between negotiators”.[11]
Nicolson[12] gives five different meanings of diplomacy. He says that
in current language diplomacy is carelessly taken to denote several
things. Diplomacy is taken as:
 1. Synonym for foreign policy
2. Negotiation
3. The machinery by which such negotiation is carried out
4. A branch of the foreign service
5. “An abstract quality or gift, which, in its best sense, implies skill
in the conduct of international negotiation; and, in its worst
sense, implies the more guileful aspects of tact”.
Ultimately he agrees to the definition given by the Oxford Dictionary.
Organski[13] considers diplomacy as “only one part of the process by
which foreign policy is formulated and executed”. Morgenthau
referred to diplomacy as the brain of the state power.

Foreign Policy and Diplomacy

Although the terms diplomacy and foreign policy are used
interchangeably, the distinction between the two must be kept in
mind. In the interest of maintaining some precision of language in the
description of international relations, diplomacy encompasses a
“method or technique whereby states conduct their relationships with
one another”. Hence, diplomacy is not the substance of foreign
policy nor does it represent the process whereby governments
formulate foreign policy. It is but one of the ways in which policies
are being imple-mented, day-to-day, throughout the world.
Palmer and Perkins also point out the distinction between diplomacy
and foreign policy by quoting J.R. Childs (American Foreign Service,
1948) who suggested foreign policy as “the substance of foreign
relations”, and diplomacy as “the process by which policy is carried
out”. The purpose of diplomacy is to provide the machinery and
personnel by which foreign policy is executed. More precise
distinction has been provided by Sir Harold Nicolson in his study,
The Congress of Vienna (November 1814–June 1815). He said that
“foreign policy is based upon a general conception of national
requirements… Diplomacy, on the other hand, is not an end but a
means; not a purpose but a method… It is the agency through which
foreign policy seeks to attain its purpose by agreement rather than
by war”. He further opines that diplomacy becomes inoperative with
the outbreak of hostilities, as foreign policy, the final sanction of
which is war, becomes inoperative too. But Palmer and Perkins have
serious reservations on this and they contend that diplomacy does
not cease to function, as Nicolson suggests, in times of war.
Although its role may be different in wartime, the work of diplomats
and ministers expands during wartime. They cite the examples of
two World Wars as a convincing support for their argument. The crux
of the whole debate is that diplomacy is the method and foreign
policy is the substance, which is executed by the use of diplomatic
technique. A British diplomat once remarked, “foreign policy is what
you do; and diplomacy is how you do it”.
FUNCTIONS OF DIPLOMACY
Morgenthau[15] provides four functions of diplomacy. These functions
imply that one must:
1. determine the objectives of diplomacy in light of power actually
and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives;
2. assess the objectives of other nations and the power actually
and potentially available for the pursuit of those objectives;
3. determine to what extent these different objectives are
compatible with each other; and
4. employ the means suited to the pursuit of its objectives.
To him a diplomat fulfills three basic functions for his government:
symbolic, legal and political.
Palmer and Perkins classify the functions of diplomats as:
1. Representation
2. Negotiation
3. Reporting
4. Protection of national interests and nationals abroad.
To this category another one, can be added, that is, the maintenance
of international peace and promotion of international cooperation.
Poullada[16] points out that diplomacy performs five substantive
functions:
1. Conflict management
2. Problem solving
3. Cross-cultural interaction on a wide range of issues
4. Negotiation and bargaining
5. Programme management of the foreign policy decisions of one
country to another.
For the performance of these substantive functions, procedurally
communicating the views of one’s government and exchanging
information, is involved. This is best done by the diplomats using
certain procedural arts and crafts such as the refinements of
protocol, diplomatic drafting, press relations and even gastronomy.
White[17] has pointed out five major functions of diplomacy:
1. Information gathering
2. Policy advice
3. Representation
4. Negotiation
5. Consular services
Some basic functions of diplomacy are discussed below:
Representation: The diplomat is the symbolic, legal and political
representative of his country and government. His symbolic
functions involve attending ceremonial and social occasions,
address foreign groups and be present in all events with which his
country has a connection. In their symbolic capacity, the diplomats
have to deal with the totality of relations in all its facets between their
government and their host country.
As the legal and political representative of the country, he conducts
negotiations, signs treaties, represents his country in international
conferences and organizations, and casts vote according to the
directives of his government. He is also involved in the protection of
interests of his country abroad and protects nationals abroad. He is
also supposed to gather information and report to his government,
which are like raw materials, which help the government to chalk out
its foreign policies. Morgenthau points out, “As the foreign office is
the nerve center of foreign policy, so are the diplomatic
representatives its outlying fibres maintaining the two-way traffic
between the center and the outside world”.
Negotiation: This is by far the most important function of diplomacy.
This involves a variety of activities ranging from simple consultation,
exchange of views to full-fledged negotiation of specific issues.
Negotiation can be conducted through persuasion, compromise,
inducement and even pressure. It is said that the ability to persuade
other governments is central to the art of diplomacy. If persuasion
fails, then other measures are available, for example, imposing time
limits on the negotiation, seeking to isolate the other state
diplomatically or, in extreme situations, the threat of breaking off
diplomatic relations. Overall, the negotiation has to take into account
the mentalities, value system, and public opinion of both domestic
and foreign political systems. Professional diplomats conduct
negotiations or provide supportive roles if the political leaders or
other envoys are involved in the negotiation.
Obtaining Information: This is the most delicate task of the
diplomat as information and data are the raw materials of foreign
policy. Data concerning military potential, personalities and economic
trends or problems must be supplied to the policy makers in his
country so that they can decide their course of action. The diplomat’s
chief function is providing information by using his skills and
familiarity with the foreign society in order to interpret the data and
make reliable assessments and forecasts of responses of the
receiving government towards the policies of his own government.[18]
Reporting: The data and information collected from the receiving
country must be reported to the diplomat’s own government. These
reports cover every conceivable subject, which may be important for
his country. As a publication of the United States Department of
State states the American Foreign Service expects its diplomats to
“observe, analyze, and report on political, social and economic
conditions and trends of significance in the country in which they are
assignees”.[19]
Protection of National Interests: Although a diplomat is expected
to be persona grata to the government of the state, i.e., he must get
along with the government of the country he is accredited to, yet
protecting and furthering the national interest of his country is his
prime duty. This is the bedrock of the practice of the diplomacy.
Protection of Nationals Abroad: This involves protecting the lives
and promotion of interests of nationals residing or travelling abroad.
This is a routine task but during catastrophes or civil disorders, the
role of diplomats becomes crucial especially when the local
government fails or does not provide the security of the lives and
property of the foreign nationals.
Though diplomacy has evolved from its traditional form to its modern
form and considerable changes have taken place in foreign relations,
the essential functions of diplomacy and those of the diplomats have
remained unchanged. The chief functions of diplomacy: the
transmission of information and viewpoints between governments,
the representation of policy positions vis-à-vis others, the protection
of the interest of one’s nationals and perhaps, above all, the
negotiation of existing differences of interests and policy aims
through the process of finding the formulae to accommodate those
differences still continues to be the same. As Morgenthau wrote in
The Art of Diplomatic Negotiation,
that a nation which exists among other nations can deal with the
outside world in one of three ways: it can deny the importance of
the links between itself and other countries—which will lead to a
policy of isolation and nonparticipation; it can deny the equality
of other nations and try to impose its will on the others by
coercion—which will lead to a policy of hegemony and
imperialism; or it can attempt to pursue interests in contact with
other countries on the assumption that there are possibilities of
defining, redefining, adjusting and accommodating varying
interests of countries to one another
and the third course of action is the function which, in Morgenthau’s
judgement, diplomacy should serve.[20]
TRADITIONAL AND NEW DIPLOMACY
Till the end of eighteenth century, diplomacy was branded as old or
traditional diplomacy. The nineteenth century diplomacy is referred to
as modern diplomacy which involved newer methods and personnel
because of change in the very nature of diplomacy.
An academic interpretation of old European kind of diplomacy has
been provided by Kenneth W.Thompson (American academic and
author in the field of international relations). He described the
background of diplomacy in the following terms: “In theory at least, it
sought to mitigate and reduce conflicts by means of persuasion,
compromise and adjustment. It was a diplomacy rooted in the
community of interests of a small group of leaders who spoke the
same language, catered as often to one another as their own people,
and played to one another’s strengths and weaknesses. When
warfare broke out, they drew a ring around combatants and sought
to localize and neutralize the struggle. The old diplomacy… carried
out its tasks in a world made up of states that were small, separated,
limited in power and blessed ironically enough, by half-hearted
political loyalties. Patience was a watchword; negotiations and talks
would be initiated, broken off, resumed, discontinued temporarily and
reopened again by professionals in whose lexicon there was no
substitute for diplomacy”.
There were certain factors which brought about changes in the
theory and practice of diplomacy and ushered in a new era of
diplomacy. Nicolson speaks of “Old Diplomacy” and its disreputable
variant “Secret Diplomacy” which, he points out, saw a great white
light in the year 1918 and gradually moved on to its new form of new
diplomacy. Seventeenth or eighteenth century diplomacy now stood
in sharp contrast with its modern form—the nineteenth century
diplomacy. Nicolson[21] however, contends that no sudden
conversion has taken place, neither sharp contrasts of principle or
method could be recognized; only what has happened was that the
art of negotiation has gradually adjusted itself to changes in the
political conditions. Nicolson has called attention to these
developments as:
 The “growing sense of the community of nations”
The “increasing appreciation of the importance of public
opinion
The “rapid increase in communications”

Features of Traditional Diplomacy

The system of diplomacy, which is referred to as “traditional
diplomacy”, is also identified as “old diplomacy”, “bilateral
diplomacy”, the ‘French’ or the ‘Italian’ system of diplomacy.
Whatever may be the label, traditional diplomacy is characterized by
some distinctive features with regard to its structure, process and
agenda broadly relating to questions such as: Who is involved in
diplomacy? How is diplomatic activity carried out? What is the
substance of diplomacy?
Structure: The first and foremost feature of traditional diplomacy,
which marked its difference from its predecessors in the ancient and
medieval worlds, was that it constituted a communication process
between recognizably modern states rather than any other forms of
political organization such as the Catholic Church. Traditional
diplomacy was also Europe-centric, and five big powers England,
France, Prussia, Austria and Spain were the main actors? who could
act in harmony to an unusual extent and, hence, the system was
often referred to as the Concert of Europe. Most of Asia, Africa and
Latin America were either isolated or became subjected to
colonization. Therefore, diplomacy was virtually European
diplomacy.
Traditional diplomacy also witnessed gradual institutionalization and
by the seventeenth century, the diplomatic institutions became
professionalized because diplomacy ceased to be an ad hoc activity
and needed a permanent and dedicated workforce of diplomats.
Traditional diplomacy was the monopoly of the aristocratic class and
of the professional diplomats who shared a rapport with each other.
Process: Traditionally, diplomacy was organized largely on a
bilateral basis and was usually undertaken in secrecy characterized
by distinctive rules and procedures. From fifteenth century onwards,
diplomacy became a regularized process with the development of
diplomatic protocol and a series of rights, privileges and immunities
attached to both diplomats and diplomatic activities.
Agenda: The agenda of traditional diplomacy was parochial and
narrow in comparison to the present era. As White points out, the
agenda was not only set by the relatively underdeveloped state of
bilateral relationships between states but, more importantly, “the
preoccupations of diplomacy reflected the preoccupations of political
leaders”. Perhaps, the significant contribution of traditional diplomacy
came to be known, in a classic piece of overstatement, as the
“century of peace” in Europe between 1815–1914.

Features of New Diplomacy

The golden age of diplomacy together with the balance of power
system, which was soon followed by the drastic changes in
international politics since 1918, came to be replaced by the so-
called popular or new diplomacy. At the heart of this transition lay the
suspicion of the public about the whole system of balance of power
which they identified as the main cause of the First World War. They
were also suspicious about the role of diplomacy with its tradition of
secrecy. President Woodrow Wilson in his “14-points” agenda
expressed this new view of diplomacy when he said: “Open
Covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no
private international understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall
proceed always frankly and in public view”.[22]
A number of other factors also led to the change in the nature of
diplomacy. The first and foremost among them is the development in
technology and communication which, to a great extent, has
changed the role of a diplomat. Even an ambassador of the highest
level can no longer conduct his office as an independent agent, far
removed from the seat of his government, as he once could and was
expected to do. He has to shuffle between his own office and his
home office. Improved communications have reduced the authority
of a professional diplomat to make decisions and generally to
‘represent’ his own country. The superfast communication system
has reduced the importance of the diplomats, and to a large extent,
diplomacy now overlaps with policy making. New means of mass
communication have also opened up means of direct approach to
the people of other countries through other means like propaganda.
Moreover, public opinion has now come to play an important role
which, to a large extent, has intruded in the conduct of foreign policy.
Diplomacy has ceased to be dynastic or a matter of a handful of
people. It has assumed a democratic character where the statesmen
have to take the public into confidence.
Further, the structure of international society has also undergone
several changes. Europe is no longer the centre of international
affairs. Post-Second World War, following massive decolonization of
Asian and African countries, the number of independent countries
has increased. Therefore, the influence of non-European powers—
both Asian and African, has considerably increased; indeed, today
they have a greater say in international affairs. Multilateral
diplomacy, summit diplomacy or diplomacy by parliamentary
procedure have gained importance alongside bilateral diplomacy,
and “Open Covenants Openly Arrived” at these summits or
conferences show a consuming interest of significant numbers of
private citizens and groups. This has been regarded as the
“democratization” of foreign policy which is a significant development
in this regard. The United Nations has become an important
international organization which represents this new genre of
diplomacy.
Nicolson has criticized open diplomacy as he says that negotiations
require “concessions and counter concessions” and once the news
of concessions is divulged, the public might acquire a negative
attitude and force the diplomats to abandon the negotiations.
Nicolson has also raised serious shortcomings of diplomacy by
conference. Such kinds of multilateral diplomacy suffer from several
defects and cannot therefore function properly because political
statesmen are not often competent to handle diplomatic
negotiations. Further, as it involves many people, it fails to solve
certain fundamental problems because the members tend to take
rigid positions. Still, this new kind of diplomacy is popular and has
some basic characteristics as we now discuss.
Structure: The structure of new diplomacy almost remained the
same as that of the old diplomacy. States still remained the major
actors in this diplomatic system and there was well-established
permanent embassies abroad. The only difference was that the
stage had to be shared by the state with other non-state actors like
inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental
organizations.
Process: The changing international scenario influencing the menu
for choice of the states as actors, as also the increase in the number
of non-state actors, have all led to the changes in the nature of new
diplomacy and its process of negotiation. Diplomacy has become a
more complicated activity involving states and non-state actors.
Alongside bilateral negotiations on a state-to-state basis, groups of
states negotiated multilaterally in inter-governmental organizations
like the United Nations and with other non-governmental
organizations.
Agenda: The agenda of new diplomacy contained a number of new
issues like economic, social and welfare, commonly identified as low
politics, as well as military issues, and issues of war and peace,
identified as high politics.
TYPES OF NEW DIPLOMACY
Palmer and Perkins noted the most effective forms of diplomacy that
could be perceived in the twentieth century till the present. The chief
forms of diplomacy, among others, are democratic diplomacy,
totalitarian democracy, summit diplomacy, personal diplomacy,
diplomacy by conference, and parliamentary diplomacy.
Democratic Diplomacy: This had, particularly become the
commonest form of diplomacy by the turn of twentieth century. The
participation of the people in the politics of a state and the
importance of public opinion led to a democratization of diplomacy
where the governments were no longer the domain of aristocrats and
diplomacy the sole affair of diplomats and ministers. But the
experience of democratic diplomacy had not been satisfactory and a
number of shortcomings had been pointed out by Nicolson. The
most vehement criticism about democratic diplomacy is that it has
come to be associated with the diplomacy of the market place.
Further, Nicolson points out that the most potent source of danger is
the “irresponsibility of the sovereign people” which means the failure
of the common people to understand foreign policy intricacies which
arise not from the absence of facts but from their ignorance and
inability to apply their thoughts and intelligence to comprehend
foreign affairs. Foreign affairs appear too foreign for them; as a result
they create situations of embarrassment for diplomats and even
strong public opinion may pull down a diplomatic negotiation or dog it
with delay and imprecision.
Totalitarian Diplomacy: The rise of totalitarian states such as
Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union after the First World War introduced
a new but disturbing kind of diplomacy which was far different from
its predecessors. These totalitarian states used modern techniques
of military, political and psychological power to expand their spheres
of influence, gain control over other states and subvert other regimes
and further their aggressive policy of expansion. For this, they
invoked doctrines of racial superiority, mysticism, materialism and
militarism to further their national interests. Diplomacy came to be
used as an instrument of national policy and, in doing so, the
language and practice of diplomacy was thoroughly degraded. In
dealing with these totalitarian states, the old techniques of diplomacy
seemed quite inadequate as diplomats of these totalitarian regimes
became agents of conquest, double-dealing and espionage. Lord
Vansittart (The Decline of Diplomacy, “Foreign Affairs, XXVIII,
January, 1950) remarked that the object of totalitarian diplomacy,
quite contrary to the eighteenth or nineteenth century diplomacy, was
to create and maintain ‘bad’ relations among states.
Summit Diplomacy: This involves the direct participation of foreign
ministers, Heads of States and Heads of Governments in diplomatic
negotiations. This is nothing new and, during the course of Second
World War and even in the post-War years, a number of personal
meetings were held between Churchill and Roosevelt. The meeting
of 1941 resulting in the signing of Atlantic Charter, the Teheran
meeting with Stalin, the Yalta (February, 1945) and the Potsdam
Conferene (July–August, 1945) are the most noteworthy. Meetings of
Asian and African Prime Ministers, either through exchange of visits
on a bilateral basis or at major international conferences, have been
quite frequent in the past and also in the present, such as the Asian–
African Conference at Bandung in 1955, Conference of Non-Aligned
states in Belgrade in 1961 and in Cairo in 1964, the meetings of
OAU, SAARC and other international and regional organizations.
Personal Diplomacy: Personal diplomacy also takes other forms
where the normal channels of diplomacy are used only to a limited
degree. Heads of states have embarked on a practice of using their
personal agents or representatives to handle delicate problems in
international relations. They even sometimes grow a tendency to
consult their personal favourites rather than the foreign ministers.
This has been a practice for many decades as Henry Wriston*
pointed out in his study of Executive Agents in American Foreign
Relations that they have been employed in American diplomatic
relations from the colonial times. Wriston’s reliance on Colonel
House and Roosevelt’s on Harry Hopkins are best known examples.
Besides employing personal agents, another very common practice,
among Heads of states is to directly approach his counterpart in the
other country. Churchill and Roosevelt developed this practice to a
fine art and later on was used by Kennedy and Khrushchev, during
the détente days, through hotline.
Diplomacy by Conference: In the post-War period, international
conferences have proliferated in the conduct of foreign policies and
have assumed greater significance than normal channels of
diplomacy through foreign offices and diplomatic and consular
establishments. These, in most parts, involve periodic meetings of
regional and international organizations attended by a number of
representatives of the member states and sometimes the non-
member states too. The stimulus to this form of diplomacy was
provided by the League of Nations after the First World War. A
number of conferences followed the post-First World War period,
such as the Paris Peace Conference (1918), the Disarmament
Conference at Geneva (1927), the London Conference (1930), and
others. During the Second World War, a number of important
conferences were held. The most noteworthy among them are: the
Teheran Conference (1943), the Bretton Woods Conference (1944),
The Yalta Conference (1945), and the San Francisco Conference
(1945). Contemporary international relations have witnessed a
number of conferences pertaining to disarmament, nuclear regimes,
sustainable development and environmental issues.
Parliamentary Diplomacy: Kenneth W. Thompson has pointed out
that there has been a “novel, revolutionary and worldwide
institutionalizing of diplomacy”. This has generally been the result of
three developments, which are quite striking:
1. Increasing incidence of public multilateral negotiations
2. Expansion of diplomatic activity into the cultural and educational
fields
3. Multiplication of informal channels of contact among people and
nations.
These factors have led to the growing importance of what has been
called ‘parliamentary diplomacy’. Dean Rusk (Parliamentary
Diplomacy—Debate vs. Negotiation, World Affairs Interpreter, XXVI,
Summer, 1955) suggested that this type of multilateral negotiation
involves “a continuing organization”, a “regular public debate
exposed to the media of mass communication”, “rules of procedure
which govern the process of debate”, and “formal conclusions,
ordinarily expressed resolutions”. The United Nations General
Assembly and other UN bodies are examples of diplomacy through
parliamentary procedures.23
Economic Diplomacy: Economic diplomacy as a concept is not
new. In fact, trade diplomacy has a long history. But trade and aid
have been widely in use since the Second World War to obtain a
favourable outcome in negotiations. Hence, trade and aid are
continuously being used as a part of ‘carrot and stick’ policy in the
sense that either can be offered or withheld. During the Cold War,
economic trade and aid were used as instruments to win over allies
and to maintain respective spheres of influence by both the United
States and the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall
Plan are prominent examples of such aid to European countries
aiming at containing the spread of communism. The Soviet response
to Marshall Plan was the Molotov Plan which was a series of bilateral
agreements with the East European countries to help them tide over
their economic crises and, thereby, preserve communism. Post-Cold
War trade and aid, along with transfer of technology, capital and
information, are still used while conducting economic diplomacy.
Mostly the third world countries are the targets, and the usage of
these techniques by the rich countries gives leverage in bargaining
situations to the developed countries. Therefore, while economic
diplomacy between equal partners may bring out outcomes
beneficial to both, such diplomacy between rich and poor states
might result in inequitable returns from the negotiations. Even in
economic diplomacy, the quality of rule and pattern of governance in
a particular country might just take a back seat and national trading
interest might just become supreme. As human rights violations in
Myanmar surpassed all limits in September, 2007, ASEAN member
states—India, China, Russia and Japan—did little more than issue
bland statements calling for restraint after the September protests
followed by severe repressions by the junta. This is primarily due to
the economic interests, alongside strategic interests, that these
states have in Myanmar.
Nuclear Diplomacy: Nuclear diplomacy takes different forms and
meanings depending on whether the negotiating states are nuclear
haves or nuclear have–nots. Under these circumstances there can
be either deterrence or compellance or coercive diplomacy.
Deterrence comes into being if the parties involved in the negotiation
are all nuclear haves. Then possession of nuclear arsenal will deter
them from using the nukes. On the other hand if the other party does
not possess nukes then that party may be compelled into doing
certain things which the nuclear-haves might desire. But there is an
unprecedented risk attached to this type of nuclear diplomacy and a
crisis situation might escalate and reach the threshold of nuclear war
as manifested during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Public Diplomacy: This form of diplomacy which became popular in
the US in the 1960s signifies engagement with the foreign public in
the context of realising foreign policy objective. This assumes the
form of people-to-people contact which involves the inclusion of
academicians, NGOs, cultural groups, tourism, films, theatres,
internet and blogging. The chief aim is to increase people-to-people
contact and improve the image of a country abroad alongside the
traditional mechanisms of diplomacy. This public-private partnership
has immensely increased due to the improvement in
communications, information exchanges and media and internet
revolution. The USA, aptly uses public diplomacy to improve public
relations and its image in other countries through the Voice of
America, organization of academic exchanges (students and
teachers), seminars, film shows and host of other activities. These
activities are conducted by USIS in several countries. Educational
exchange programmes in India are conducted through USIEF
(United States-India Educational Foundation). However, for long,
public diplomacy was seen as a euphemism for propaganda.
Nevertheless, scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy have
tried to overcome this parochial interpretation of the term and have
embarked on policies that aim at enhancing people-to-people
contact.
DIPLOMACY AS A TECHNIQUE OF FOREIGN POLICY
As already noted, diplomacy entirely involves direct government-to-
government interactions so that a particular state can persuade
governments in their countries to act in the manner in which it wants
them to do. Therefore, diplomacy is considered as the central
technique of foreign policy implementations and effectively the only
direct technique where the central feature is communication. Most of
the rules of protocol, diplomatic immunities and non-interference
have been established and codified to facilitate communication and
reduce misunderstanding and distortion in inter-state
communication.
From the perspective of world politics “diplomacy refers to a process
of communication that is central to the working of the international
system”. If world politics is identified as being the interplay between
conflict and cooperation, then, war and diplomacy can be said to
represent the two defining institutions (see Figure 5.1). If conflict and
cooperation are placed at the two ends

Figure 5.1 Illustration of world politics.

[Source: Adapted from Brian White][17]

of a spectrum, diplomacy will feature at the cooperation and war on

the conflict end. This is because, the main focus of diplomacy is the
resolution of conflict by negotiation and dialogue and an attempt to
create some sort of order within the world politics to prevent a
conflict spilling over into war.[24]
“Diplomacy offers one instrument that international actors might use
to implement their foreign policy either as its own right or as a means
of communicating the use or threatened use of other instruments to
other parties concerned”.[25] “Pure diplomacy” based on negotiation
and persuasion is often linked with other instruments of conducting
foreign relations. This gives rise to a ‘mixed’ kind of diplomacy. Here,
diplomacy “becomes a communication channel through which the
use or threatened use of other instruments is transmitted to other
parties”. Diplomacy is often linked with a policy of either ‘carrot’ or
‘stick’ to successfully mould the behaviour of other parties
concerned. This is done by using either potential rewards or
punishments.
The message to use or the threat to use military force to obtain
leverage in a bargaining situation has long been used by the states.
The combination of the duo, diplomacy and military force may be
regarded as traditional instruments of foreign policy. The aim is to
convey to others the knowledge of the military capabilities one
possesses, in order to influence the menu of choice of the
adversaries that is done by using diplomacy.
Another instrument which is short of force is the use of economic
measures, sanctions and embargos. Trade and aid or the withdrawal
or refusal have been used increasingly since World War II to
influence the outcome of negotiations. This was amply illustrated in
the case of Iraq (where UN approved economic sanctions were
enforced for many years) and other countries for non-compliance of
international norms and regulations. Here also diplomacy gets mixed
up with the job of communicating either the offering or the
suspension of trade and aid.
The third and recently used instrument is subversion. This
instrument might not be linked to diplomatic process in a strict sense.
It is not directed towards government but targeted towards specific
groups within the other state through various techniques of
propaganda, intelligence activities and giving assistance to rebel
groups. All these are done with the ultimate aim of gaining leverage
in the diplomatic bargaining with the threat of undermining or
overthrowing the government of the opponent state.
However, the use of other instruments of conducting foreign policy
depends upon a number of factors, among which two important
considerations are the capability and availability of other instruments
and the cost effectiveness of these instruments. Therefore,
diplomacy continues to be the most favoured, advantageous and
cost-effective method.
After the conclusion of the Cold War, diplomacy has become more
global with the dilution of ideological differences and inclusion of
more states into normal diplomatic intercourse with others. It has
also made diplomacy more diverse and complex involving multiple
actors, complex bilateral and multilateral processes at work, levels of
interconnectedness or interdependence between societies and
revolution in communications technology. Complex political and
economic problems are being handled more by negotiations at an
international level than at the domestic level. Therefore, process of
negotiation, which was considered as an art in the past, still
continues to be an art but an art of management, as practised in
large bureaucracies, than the art of guile and concealment of any
particular diplomat.
PROPAGANDA
Propaganda is the next effective weapon used by the states after
diplomacy in conducting their foreign relations. It is completely
different from the diplomacy in essence and style. Propaganda is
more like a psychological warfare targeted at specific groups. It is
usually an attempt to persuade or influence leaders as well as the
general population of other countries. Since propaganda is generally
directed at the enemy or those who are hostile, it involves the
manipulation of facts and symbols to attain the desired effects on the
minds of an audience. Therefore, some scholars consider the term
‘propaganda’ to be too narrow and only a part of psychological
methods of conducting international relations. Scholars like W.P.
Davison (1963) prefer to use the term ‘political communication’ in its
place. Whatever one calls this method, it is undoubtedly true that this
particular method was and is being continuously used by
governments to realize their objectives.[26]
Holsti points out to the fact that due to the widespread involvement
of average citizens or subjects in foreign affairs and increasing
people-to-people contact between different nationalities, the
psychological and public opinion factors have now come to play a
decisive role in the conduct of foreign policy. The American
involvement in the Vietnam War witnessing a massive loss of lives of
American soldiers had a definite impact on the minds of the
American people, which got reflected in the ensuing Presidential
elections. The minds of people have evolved as an essential element
in international relations. It is hard to ignore public opinion, either
domestic or worldwide. Therefore, one of the unique aspects of
modern international political relationships “is the deliberate attempt
by governments, through diplomats and propagandists, to influence
the attitudes and behaviour of foreign populations, or of specific
ethnic, class, religious, economic, or language groups within those
populations” with the aim that these foreign groups or the entire
population will influence and mould the attitudes of their domestic
government as desired by the propagandists. The aim is “to create a
favourable image of their country abroad”.[27]
Palmer and Perkins refer to propaganda as “any attempt to persuade
persons to accept a certain point of view or to take a certain action”
which has a specific aim and method of action.
Couloumbis and Wolfe[28] point out that propaganda has been
effectively defined as a process involving a communicator whose
attention is to change the attitudes, opinions and behaviour of a
target population using spoken, written and behavioural symbols and
employing media such as books, pamphlets, films, lectures and so
on. They also project the disaggregation of the cooperative from the
conflictual types of propaganda in terms of white, gray and black
propaganda.
White Propaganda: It is referred to as those cooperative and
straightforward campaigns designed to explain the policies of a state
to audiences across its borders and over the seas. This generally
involves activities in cultural and educational domains involving
cultural and educational exchange programmes. Magazines,
pamphlets, films and lectures are the usual methods of orchestrating
the message for cultivation of mutually beneficial friendship and
cooperation.
Gray Propaganda: It begins when the relationship between the
communi-cator and the government of the target state begins to
deteriorate. Therefore, exaggeration and falsehood creep into the
communications and propaganda becomes combative and
competitive in content and philosophy (of propaganda).
Black Propaganda: It usually refers to those techniques, that are
used during the time of war when actual hostilities break out and
diplomacy and formal negotiations fail. Verbal and audio-visual
weapons are used in communication hiding the true identities of the
communicators and producing forged and fabricated documentations
aimed at creating confusion and chaos in the ranks of the enemy, for
example, forecast for large-scale unemployment, food scarcity,
labour, ethnic unrest, and famine.
According to Joseph Frankel, propaganda is generally understood as
any systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions, and actions of
a given group for a specific purpose. Like diplomacy, it is also verbal,
but it is different from diplomacy in two respects, though the dividing
line is not fully clear.

Propaganda is addressed to the people of other states and

rarely to their governments.
Propaganda is often guided by selfish motives, governed
solely by national interests of the propagandist and is
therefore, usually unacceptable to other states.

Selection of targets is essential in conducting propaganda. The

important factor is the identification of the targets whose attitudes
have to be changed. It is undeniable that despite increasing
development in communication, media, computer technologies,
internet, only a relatively small section of people in any given society
has access to the newer technologies and means of communication.
Therefore, this section of people becomes the likely targets of
foreign-oriented information because, in many developing countries,
most of the population is denied access to the means of
communication and is confined to their small region or province.
Propaganda again seems to be effective when directed towards
people sharing wholly or partially, the attitudes of the communicator.
The job becomes an easier one in strengthening the existing
attitudes or crystallizing the predispositions than in concerting those
that are already hostile. It is often seen that propaganda becomes
effective when targeted towards the crowds. Holsti points out that
there is some evidence that the arousal of any strong emotion may
make the individual in the crowd more suggestible, even if that
emotion is directed initially against the leader of the crowd.
To influence the target population or group is a difficult job and it
becomes tougher when the targets are hostile to the communicator.
Therefore, the propagandists use devices that tend to be
spectacular, colourful, unusual, and in no way related to the
substance of the message. The assumption is that the images of
other states, which the foreign populations possess, are generally
based on news reports, movies, cultural events, television
programmes and information on the Internet, rather than direct
experience. The effort, therefore, is to present spectacular news-
making foreign policy actions, which will be noticed by a larger
section of the foreign population whereas regular government
information will reach only to a smaller audience. The objective of
foreign information programmes is to sustain or alter the attitudes
and behaviours of politically relevant groups within the society.
TECHNIQUES OF PROPAGANDA
Holsti lists several techniques of conducting propaganda with the
ultimate aim to deliver the specific message to the targeted group.
These techniques are now enumerated.
Name Calling: It is the attaching of an emotion-laden symbol to a
person or country, for instance, calling the Soviet Union as the “evil
empire” during the Cold War days, or the “axis of evil” (used by
president George Bush) for Libya, Iraq and North Korea after the
Cold War, or naming the communists as “Reds” or constitutional
governments as “capitalist cliques”.
Glittering Generality: It is similar to the previous one but aimed at
describing a policy rather than an individual, for example, “free
world” used by the Western propagandists, or “Socialist solidarity”
used by the communists.
Transfer: It means identifying an idea, person, country or policy with
some other in order to make the target approve or disapprove it, for
instance, evoking hostility among religious people against
communism is equating it with atheism.
Plain Folks: It is to do away with the image as foreigner
propagandists appear to identify themselves as closely as possible
with the values and lifestyle of the targets using local slang, accent
and idiom.
Testimonial: It means using an esteemed person or institution to
endorse or criticize an idea or a political entity.
Selection: It refers to the selection of facts, although seldom,
specific in factual content. Propagandists tend to use those facts
only which are required to prove predetermined objectives.
Bandwagon: This technique plays on the audience’s desire to
belong to or be in accord with the crowd. Similar to the testimonial,
but rather a mass of people and not a single esteemed person or
institution, serves as the attraction. The messages of the communist
propagandists used such phrases as “the whole world knows that…,”
“all peace-loving people recognize that…” and others.
Frustration Scapegoat: It means releasing frustration by creating a
scapegoat and directing hostility and hatred towards it like the myth
created by Hitler that Germany’s internal and external problems were
created by “the Jews”, which led to the holocaust.
Fear: It means raising of consciousness resulting in changes of
attitudes when the audiences are made aware of an impending or
imminent threat to their lives and welfare, for example, fear of a
nuclear war to promote arms control and disarmament issues.[29]
Palmer and Perkins refer to four major methods and techniques of
propaganda:
1. Methods of presentation
2. Techniques of gaining attention
3. Devices for gaining response
4. Methods of gaining acceptance.
When propaganda is directed at foreign population, certain results or
consequences are kept in mind. Propaganda can be both offensive
and defensive. Where the policies of another government oppose
the purposes of the government employing propaganda, the
techniques might be used to create internal dissension and
opposition, thereby weakening the domestic support which those
policies might otherwise promote. A given government will leave no
stone unturned to create a positive support base for its own policies
and ward off negative impact emanating from the use of similar
policies by other states, in the absence of counter propaganda. This
might give rise to a counter-counter propaganda and at the end the
original purpose may be lost in the never- ending battle of words.
EFFICACY OF PROPAGANDA IN CONDUCTING
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Political communication and the systemic use of psychological
methods, of which propaganda is a prominent part, are nothing new
in the history of international relations. It was the Roman Catholic
Church which first used it and institutionalized it as the propagation
of faith through a special Sacred Congregation (Congregation de
Propaganda Fide, that is, the congregation of the Propagation of
Faith), from the title of which the word ‘propaganda’ is derived.
Though the British Government was the first to organize and
systematize the use of propaganda at home and abroad during the
First World War, it was the communists and then the Nazis who
developed the mechanism of propaganda during the inter-war
period. They built up such costly propaganda machineries that the
Western democracies were forced to develop the same to match
theirs. Post-Second World War and, even, in the present time, the
states continue to use propaganda as a useful tool for statecraft.
In the United States, the agency incharge of propaganda activities is
the United States Central Information Agency (CIA) and in the former
Soviet Union it was the Agitation and Propaganda Section of the
Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. British
propaganda (officially referred to as information services), though it
suffers from fund crunch, has been relatively successful in operating
through decentralized organs, the Central Office of Information, the
Overseas Services of the BBC, and also through the British Council.
[30]
In the Soviet Union before World War II, after the Bolshevik
revolution, they put into practice the process of ‘indoctrination’ on
individual. For this, they used mechanisms of propaganda through
party workers, the local Soviets of towns and villages, and the army.
As Lenin wrote, as early as 1905: “Propaganda is of crucial
importance for the triumph of the Party”. Twelve years later he
remarked that the revolution had succeeded “because it knew how to
combine force with persuasion”. The Soviets were masters in both
developing propaganda devices and in adapting techniques to
specific situations. The communist propaganda always had a
vocabulary of its own and they used such terms as ‘proletariat’,
‘communism’, ‘socialism’, ‘toiling masses’, and ‘revolution’, which
had a favourable meaning and ‘capitalism’, ‘bourgeoisie’, ‘classes’,
‘imperialism’, and ‘parliamentarism’ were treated as epithets that
communists used while referring to their enemies. After 1918, the
communists promoted the Third International (the Comintern), which
was a useful medium for directing the communist parties throughout
the world and exerting pressure on the foreign governments to follow
favourable policies towards the Soviet Union. After 1935, on the face
of an imminent Nazi attack, it was seen that the communist parties of
Europe followed the Moscow directive for a “People’s Front” which
meant cooperation with liberal groups against the Nazi threat.
Therefore, the former Soviet Union was highly successful in utilizing
its propaganda machinery.[31]
Nazi Germany had also used propaganda to hype several ‘big lies’. It
was effectively used by Hitler who believed that a lie, provided that it
is sufficiently big and is frequently repeated, will be at least partly
believed by the masses because the conviction is that most of the
people lack the imagination to conceive that repeated statements are
not all true. Hitler established a National Ministry of Popular
Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by the infamous Joseph
Goebbles. Goebbles defined his job as the achievement of “one
single opinion”. A few ideas circulated among the people soon after
the defeat of Germany and conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles
(1919) were: (i) the Versailles Treaty had been unjustly imposed
upon them; (ii) the leaders of the Weimar Republic had betrayed
their country; (iii) ‘Jew-Communists’ were the cause of their
grievances, and (iv) the ‘Herrenvolk’ “master race” needed
‘Lebensraum’ “living space”. Hitler and his followers manipulated
these ideas and made appeals to all the sections of society and got
unemployed youths recruited in the Storm Troops—all by means of
successfully using the propaganda machinery.
As far as Fascist Italy is concerned, Mussolini developed
propaganda machinery earlier to the Nazis, and the Nazis copied
some of his techniques. In his quest to consolidate power, Mussolini
appealed to all groups present within the society, like the army, navy,
monarchists, irredentists, clerics, discontented masses and others.
He used the “plain folks” technique that highlighted his low
background and distributed his pictures showing him toil on some
humble job. His role as IL Duce “the leader” was glorified and
heightened.[32]
The United States lacked proper machinery till 1939 either for foreign
propaganda or general public information programme. The Office of
War Information (OWI), incorporating the “Voice of America” was
established during World War II which functioned to support the
national policies in the war effort, both at home and abroad. The
OWI was abolished later and its functions were transferred to the
Department of State. To match the Soviet propaganda post-Second
World War, the US Congress enacted foundations of a
comprehensive programme of information and cultural relations in
tune with the US foreign policy. The purpose of such programme
was defined as “to promote mutual understanding between the
people of the United States and other countries and also to try to
correct the misunderstandings about America”. In 1953, the then US
President Eisenhower, by a reorganization plan, established the
United States Information Agency (USIA) as a separate executive
branch. Since its creation the USIA has played a major role in official
propaganda abroad. The well-known branch of USIS, USIA is the
“Voice of America”.
During the Cold War days, both the superpowers utilized their
propaganda machineries against each other in order to maintain
their spheres of influence. USA often identified the Soviet Union as
an “evil empire”. Post-Cold War, after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, it identified as the “axis of evil” (a term used by president
George Bush) Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Again, after the
9/11 terrorist attacks in its “War on Terror”, it identified Saddam
Hussain as an abettor of Osama bin Laden and Iraq as a potential
threat to humanity being the possessor of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs). In all these cases, though the periods may be
different, yet the Americans used their propaganda machinery
consisting of press, media, television, Internet blogs, and websites to
carry out massive propaganda campaigns against them. At the same
time, it also utilized the same to project a favourable image of itself in
the international arena.
From the foregoing discussion it is clear that propaganda has an
effective role in the conduct of the foreign policy of states.
Morgenthau[33] points out the importance of propaganda in his
celebrated work Politics Among Nations as “an autonomous
instrument of foreign policy” which “is a novelty”. He says that all
foreign policy aims at promoting one’s interests by changing the
mind of the opponent. To that end he remarks that “diplomacy uses
persuasiveness of promises and threats in terms of the satisfaction
or denial of interests; military force, the physical impact of actual
violence upon the opponent’s ability to pursue certain interests;
propaganda, the use and creation of intellectual convictions, moral
valuations, and emotional preferences in support of one’s interests”.
He, therefore, concludes that “all foreign policy, then is a struggle for
minds of men; but propaganda is so in the specific sense that it
endeavors to mould the minds of men directly rather than through
the intermediary of the manipulation of interests or physical
violence”. From the given discussion it becomes clear that
propaganda as a technique of foreign policy can be effective
depending upon the content of the propaganda, relations between
propaganda and the life experiences of those whom one tries to
reach, i.e., the target group, and the relations between propaganda
and the foreign policy whose instrument propaganda serves and
evaluates as to what extent psychological warfare is capable of
supporting the policy.
However, as Holsti[34] points out, there are serious limitations to the
use of propaganda as a technique of foreign policy. Information and
communication are central to propaganda and almost its life-blood.
But the point to be taken into consideration is the availability of
information and means to disseminate such information to the target
groups. In North, communication media and facilities such as
newspapers, magazines, radios, televisions, video recorders,
computer technologies and Internet connections are available along
the length and breadth of the country. But this is not a global picture.
The people in the poor, underdeveloped South do not have access
to most of these facilities.
Further, there is also asymmetry in communication patterns. The
governments of the major industrialized countries have an
advantage of accessing the global media and, hence, control the
flow of information. The messages of public and private
communication move predominantly between industrial countries
and towards South to the Third World countries, and never in the
opposite direction. Films, news service, products and television
programmes from the North flow to Third World countries with little
reciprocity. The Third World countries are always at a
disadvantageous position as far as the control of flow of information
and availability of means of transmission are concerned. The
developed countries of the North utilize the technique of propaganda
to carry out their neo-imperialist designs and impose a kind of
cultural imperialism through the control of the means of
communications and flow of information.
MILITARY POWER AS A TECHNIQUE OF FOREIGN POLICY
According to Garnett[35] the term ‘military power’ refers to the
capacity of a state to kill, maim, coerce and destroy. Though there
may be contenders of states in matters of use of violence as a
means to attain specific goals yet it is usually accepted, till date, that
military power and its use is exercised by states and used primarily
by governments to protect their countries from external aggression
and internal subversion. Even the Charter of the United Nations
under Article 51 acknowledges the use of force in self-defence.
According to the Article nothing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed
attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the
Security Council has taken necessary measures to maintain
international peace and security. Military power is therefore, “the
legally sanctioned instrument of violence that governments use in
their relations with each other, and, when necessary, in an internal
security role”.
From this definition, two assumptions can be derived. One is that
military power is a purposive and second is that it is a functional
thing. It is functional because it is one of the many instruments in the
orchestra of power that states use at various times in pursuit of their
national interests. It is purposive because use of military power,
which results in war or acts of aggression, is not always used as an
instrument of policy but as a purposive political act.
If the international system is thought to be like the Hobbesian ‘state
of nature’, following the realists, then to survive in that ungoverned
environment, military power has proved to be a powerful weapon.
Therefore, the use of military power as a rational technique for
pursuing foreign policy has been accepted under such situations of
insecurity. Its frequent use determines not who is right, but who is
going to prevail in the constant struggle for prosperity, prestige and
security. Michael Howard suggested “the capacity of states to defend
themselves, and their evident willingness to do so, provides the
basic framework within which the business of international
negotiations is carried on”. Military power is an intrinsic part of the
rather fragile international order associated with the international
system.[36]
Traditionally, the utility of military power has been upheld by several
strategic thinkers and political philosophers and its value is self-
evident despite mounting criticisms against its usage. Karl Von
Clausewitz, the Prussian strategic thinker, gave a dictum in which he
said “war is the continuation of politics by other means”.
His book ‘Von Kriegg’ (On War) contains ample examples from
history to illustrate the various concepts propunded by him. Some of
the prominent Clausewitzian principles are:
1. War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means
of physically forcing one’s will on an opponent.
2. The military objectives in war that support one’s political
objectives fall into two broad types: “war to achieve limited aims”
and war to “disarm” the enemy: “to render [him] politically
helpless or militarily impotent”.
3. The course of war will tend to favour the party who has more
resolve and resources.
Carr[37] in his Twenty Years Crisis upheld that the “supreme
importance of the military instrument lies in the fact that the ultima
ratio of power in international relations is war”. Every act of a state
from the aspect of its power is directed to war not as a desirable
weapon but as a weapon which it may require as the last resort. He
said that “war lurks in the background of international politics just as
revolution lurks in the background of domestic politics”. Therefore,
potential war becomes a dominant factor in international politics and
military strength becomes a recognized standard political value.
Military power is not only an essential element in the life of the state
but it sometimes becomes an end in itself. Carr contends that fewer
wars are fought for trade or territorial expansion, and he points out
that most serious wars had been fought to make one’s country
militarily strong or for preventing another country from becoming
militarily stronger. He says that “the principal cause of war is
war itself”.
Quincy Wright† in his Study of Wars defines war as “a violent contact
of distinct but similar entities” in a broadest sense, and in a narrow
sense, as “ the legal condition which equally permits two or more
hostile groups to carry on a conflict by armed forces”. He further
suggested the possible causes of war in his Causes of War and
Conditions of Peace (1935) as being in a sense the obverse of the
conditions of peace which are related to the following aspects of the
world situation:

A state of opinion violently hostile to the existing state of

affairs
Inadequacy of international organization to deal with conflicts
Inadequate system of law
Unstable equilibrium of material forces.

Wright points out that there can also be politico-technological, juro-

ideological, socio-religious, and psycho-economic causes of war.
However, the role of military power as an instrument of national
policy is often considered in a political rather than in a purely military
context. The validity of Clausewitz’s strictures against a rigid
compartmentalization of politics and military strategy turns out to be
more true, especially in the present context when advances in
military technologies have transformed war from a diversion of
monarchs to a potential menace against humanity. In the nuclear
age particularly military forces exist not solely for the purpose of
inflicting damage on enemies but also as a threat to gain leverage in
diplomatic bargaining or as a means of communicating one’s
intentions to potential adversaries.
Force and threat of use of force have existed in international
relations and development of military technologies has an important
impact on the structures and processes of political systems.
Thermonuclear weapons and long-range ballistics missiles are
qualitatively different from their predecessors or conventional forces.
Long range missiles such as intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs), and short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) have come to
constitute major strategic delivery vehicles which carry a warhead up
along a trajectory and let it drop on the target. Military analysts
consider the period starting from the 1991 Gulf War as a revolution in
military affairs, especially in the US forces. The 1999 Kosovo
campaign, and the 2001 US campaign in Afghanistan against the
Talibans witnessed sea changes in war tactics. Integration of diverse
forces, using information-rich battle management systems, forced
the adversaries to succumb. The 2003 Iraq war was another incident
where the chief aim was to ‘shock and awe’ the enemy. To this end,
the US used cruise missiles to disarm the enemy. In 1993, President
Bill Clinton attacked the Iraqi intelligence with dozens of cruise
missiles which became the first all-cruise-missile attack in history.[38]
Therefore, these newer generations of military technologies have
changed the military power calculation and have a definite impact on
the adversaries, which conventional forces might not have. States
often want to be perceived as militarily strong and are willing to use
their capabilities and thus do not want to be challenged or thwarted.
Demonstration of prowess might be explicit through display of
military capabilities or implicit, as may be the case with the
possession of nuclear weapons. India’s nuclear explosion of
Pokhran I and Pokhran II was an attempt to attain the status and
prestige among her neighbours which is, to a great extent, thwarted
by the presence of her northern neighbour China.
Possession of nukes has shaped the nuclear strategy adopted by
the nuclear powered states. Either it may be “first strike” as Pakistan
has adopted or “second-strike” as India has adopted. There can also
be a situation as was the case during the Cold War between USA
and the Soviet Union, which came to be known as mutually
assured destruction or MAD because both possessed second-
strike capabilities. But the important point is that mere possession of
nukes would deter an adversary from using its missile. During the
Cold War days it was acknowledged by both the Soviet and
American leaders that there are few, if any, goals that can be served
by the actual ‘use’ of nuclear weapons and the ‘threat’ to use nuclear
weapons plays a more decisive role. It is said, “A nuclear war cannot
be won and never be fought”. Therefore, deterrence can be
considered as one of the means by which one state can prevent
certain actions of political adversaries. Effective deterrence should
be ‘stable’ as well as ‘credible’. It should be both ‘threatening’ in the
sense that it will be sufficiently credible that adversaries are not
attempted to undertake prohibited actions and stable in the sense
that it will be reassuring enough to reduce any incentives to launch a
pre-emptive strike out of fear.[39] Deterrence or dissuasion is easier
to achieve than compellance. In Vietnam the Americans faced not
only the task of compelling a particular action but also of promoting
an effective political order which was hard to achieve. The Cuban
Missile Crisis was a test of nerves and undoubtedly it proved that
possession of nuclear arsenal is not a decisive factor. From these
arguments many scholars conclude that utility of military forces has
been reduced in this nuclear age because:

Nuclear might of one superpower balances that of the other.

Therefore, their effective power is reduced to zero. The best
and distinctive forces are least usable. As John Herz
remarked, “Absolute power equals absolute impotence”.
The fear of escalation strongly inhibits even the use of
conventional forces,especially by the USA or the Soviet
Union. Nuclear powers must fear escalation more than other
states, for, in any war that rises to the nuclear level, they will
be primarily targeted. They may resort to conventioal forces,
but the risks in doing so are higher than in the past. Besides,
in the nuclear age, enormous military power no longer
ensures effective control over even the most feeble
opponents.
The weak states of the world have tried to change world
opinion by asking the powerful nations to exercise restraint on
the use of force, either nuclear or conventional.[40]

The given arguments might give us the impression that advent of

nuclear and thermonuclear weapons has imposed new restraints
upon those who control them and has undermined the utility of
military power. But in the true sense, as Garnett[41] puts it, states
have developed strategies that emphasize the “political uses” of
military power even in war itself. T.C.Schelling (1966) has defined
war as a “bargaining process” or a sort of “tough negotiation” and as
“the diplomacy of violence”. All of these actually suggest that war
has become a part of diplomacy. He uses the terms ‘coercive
warfare’ and ‘compellance’ to describe the significance of military
power for achieving goals that are not strictly military at all and the
“object is to make the enemy behave”. The core of this policy is to
hurt, to cause pain and suffering. The classic example is that the two
atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the
Second World War which were not really aimed at these cities, but
rather the target was the decision-makers in Tokyo. In Schelling’s
words: “The effect of the bombs and their purpose were not mainly
the military destruction they accomplished but the pain and the
shock and the promise of more”. This was again illustrated during
the 2003 US military campaign against Iraq post 9/11 terrorist
attacks on USA. The whole strategy was to create “shock and awe”
in the minds of the enemies in order to force it to behave in the way
desired by the UN as well as the US.
Related to the military power there is the growing influence of a
powerful “military–industrial complex”. The whole concept of
“military–industrial complex” includes both labour unions and
politicians whose districts would benefit directly from military
spending. Even if American economy as a whole could survive and
prosper without military spending, some industries and geographic
areas would suffer from any sort of reduction in military expenditure.
Military–industrial complex tries hard to maintain their business and
add new contracts and, in this endeavour, they are helped by
government policies. Post-Cold War closures of domestic military
bases and the end of the Cold War itself have renewed the debate of
the importance of military–industrial complex. There have been
serious questions whether there will be a “peace dividend” of money
formerly spent on arms race to meet the welfare needs of the civilian
population. USA and many other countries are faced with a dilemma
between its large military establishment and its liberal democratic
prrinciples. President Eisenhower called the military–industrial
complex as a very real symptom of this dilemma. There have been
several attempts of disarmament and arms control, but without much
effect, and military security and use of military power still remains
central to the conduct of international relations.
 EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by foreign policy? Discuss briefly the
determinants of foreign policy.
2. What are the objectives of foreign policy?
3. What are the different techniques of foreign policy? In this
connection, discuss the role of diplomacy as a technique of
foreign policy.
4. What do you understand by diplomacy? What are the functions of
diplomacy?
5. Discuss the various forms of diplomacy.
6. How do you think traditional diplomacy differs from new
diplomacy? Elucidate.
7. Discuss the role of propaganda as a technique of foreign policy.
8. What do you mean by propaganda? What are the different
techniques of propaganda?
9. How far can the use of military power be an effective technique of
foreign policy?
10. In a nuclear world do you think military prowess can serve as a
powerful technique of foreign policy? Argue.
 REFERENCES
[1] Russett, Bruce and Harvey Starr, World Politics: The Menu for
Choice, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1996, pp. 162–
163.
[2] Padelford, Norman J. and George A. Lincoln, International
Politics, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1954, p. 306.
[3] Sharma, Urmila and S.K. Sharma, International Relations: Theory
and History, Vol-I, Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 112–
113.
[4] ibid.
[5] Russet and Starr, op. cit., n. 1, p. 164.
[6] Legg, Keith R. and James F. Morrison, “The Formulation of
Foreign Policy Objectives”, in Richard Little and Michael Smith
(Eds.), Perspectives on World Politics, Routledge, London, 1991,
p. 59.
[7] ibid., p. 60.
[8] ibid., p. 61.
[9] Holsti, K.J., International Politics: A Framework for Analysis,
Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 1967, p. 126.
[10] Nicolson, Sir Harold, Diplomacy, Oxford Universty Press,
London, 1969, p. 14.
[11] Mclellan, David S., William C. Olson, Fred A. Sondermann, The
Theory and Practice of International Relations, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974, p. 189.
[12] Nicolson, op. cit., n. 10, pp. 3–4.
[13] Organski, A.F.K., World Politics, Alfred A. Knopf, New York,
1960, p. 341.
[14] Russet and Starr, op. cit., n. 1, p. 138.
[15] Morgenthau, Hans. J., Politics among Nations: Kalyani
Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 563–564.
[16] Poullada, Leon B., “Diplomacy: The Missing Link in the Study of
International Politics”, in David S. Mclellan, William C. Olson, Fred
A. Sondermann (Eds.), The Theory and Practice of International
 Relations, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1974, p. 194.
[17] White, Brian, “Diplomacy” in John Baylis and Steve Smith
(Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University
Press, London, 1997, p. 259.
[18] Holsti, K.J., International Politics: A Framework for Analysis,
Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 1995, p. 138.
[19] Palmer, Norman D. and Howard C. Perkins, International
Relations: The World Community in Transition, A.I.T.B.S.
Publishers, New Delhi, 1967, p. 87.
[20] Mclellan, op. cit., n. 11, pp. 189–193.
[21] Nicolson, op. cit., n. 10, pp. 36–39.
[22] Frankel, Joseph, International Relations in a Changing World,
Oxford University Press, London, 1979, p. 125.
[23] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 19, p. 106.
[24] White, Brian, op. cit., n. 17, p. 250.
[25] ibid., 251.
[26] Mclellan, op. cit., n. 11, p. 207.
[27] Holsti, op. cit., n. 18, pp. 152–153.
[28] Couloumbis, Theodore A. and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations: Power and Justice, Prentice-Hall of India,
New Delhi, 1981, pp. 182–183.
[29] Holsti, op. cit., n. 18, pp. 158–159.
[30] Frankel, Joseph, op. cit., n. 22, pp. 131–132.
[31] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 19, p. 116.
[32] ibid., 115–117.
[33] Morgenthau, op. cit., n. 15, p. 353.
[34] Holsti, op. cit., n. 18, p. 163.
[35] Garnett, John, “The Role of Military Power”, in Richard Little and
Michael Smith (Eds.), Perspectives on World Politics, Routledge,
London, p. 69.
[36] ibid.
[37] Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis:1919–1939, The Macmillan
Press, London, 1981, pp. 109–111.
[38] Goldstein, Joshua S., International Relations, Pearson
Education, New Delhi, 2006, pp. 261–263.
[39] Holsti, op. cit., n. 18, pp. 214–224.
[40] Waltz, Kenneth N., “International Structure, National Force and
the Balance of Power”, in David S. Mclellan, William C. Olson,
Fred A. Sondermann (Eds.), The Theory and Practice of
International Relations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1974, pp. 297–303.
[41] Garnett, John, op. cit., n. 35, p. 80.

* Henry Wriston, Executive Agents in American Foreign Relations, The John

Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1929.
† Quincy Wright, A Study of War, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1942.
Cold War and Evolution of Post-Cold
War World
INTRODUCTION
Soon after the conclusion of the Second World War, the world was
engulfed in a different sort of a struggle for global leadership
between the two former allies, the United States and the erstwhile
Soviet Union. Both emerged as superpowers immediately after the
Second World War. Great Britain was exhausted and no longer was
able to hold on to the position of a global power. Germany being
partitioned and Japan being devastated by atomic bombs, failed to
emerge as great powers. This left only the United States and the
Soviet Union to play a decisive role in the international scenario.
However, the relation between the two became strained for a
number of reasons and assumed the form of Cold War, which was
short of hot war. This resulted in the bifurcation of the world into two
rival blocs and creation of a number of military alliances and counter
alliances. Though there was a temporary thaw in their relations,
regarded as détente, but that too was short-lived and soon
degenerated into another round of tensions and strained relations,
often called New Cold War. Ultimately, the Cold War ended in 1990,
with the dismemberment of the former Soviet Union.
MEANING
The term Cold War was popularized by the columnist, Walter
Lippmann and it came into common use by 1947. It came to acquire
a special meaning, signifying that the relations between the East and
the West, though bad and war like, and strained but had not reached
the point of hot war. It symbolized intense competition in political
economic fronts and even on ideological grounds but never assumed
the stature of hot war or actual armed conflict between the two blocs.
Calvocoressi[1] observes that Cold War was not an episode like other
wars, which had beginnings and ends, winners and losers. It
signified a state of affairs.
ORIGIN OF COLD WAR
It is an arduous task to trace the origin and development of Cold
War. Young and Kent[2] point out that there had been innumerable
debates regarding the nature and origin of the early Cold War which
had a definite impact on the ways the historians and social scientists
had interpreted the nature of international system, till 1989. The
origin of Cold War still remains a matter of long-standing historical
dispute.
The orthodox theories assume that the alleged Soviet aggression or
Soviet expansionism resulted in American counter reactions. They
opine that in essence the Cold War became a battle for global
influence because Stalin and the Soviet system made cooperation
impossible. For them, Stalin and Soviet Communism had to be
confronted and contained by the Western capitalist states for the
sake of international peace and security and the survival of the
liberal democratic values. To be more specific, an allegedly
expansionist Soviet Union threatened the ‘national security’ of the
United States and the Western Europe which required an economic
and military response. This can be viewed more or less as the realist
or neo-realist perception of the superpower rivalry. In this perception,
power and security as well as functioning of the capitalist and
communist states and their respective external requirements figure
more importantly rather than ideology or internal structure.
The orthodox view was challenged in the 1960s by the revisionist
historians who focussed less on the international state system and
the struggle to gain greater power and influence and more on the
alleged requirements of international capitalism, especially of the
United States in the 1940s. Revisionist interpretation laid emphasis
on the foreign policy requirements of the United States, which they
viewed was designed to meet the expansionist requirements of
capitalism. The Soviets, therefore, sought security in the form of
resisting expansion of capitalism into areas that would threaten the
existence of Soviet Communism. Thus, for the revisionists, the
blame for the Cold War lies with the aggressive US policies to which
the Soviets had to respond. According to this perception, therefore,
rather than Soviet expansionism creating insecurity for the United
States, the US commitment to the expansion of capitalism created a
sort of Soviet insecurity.
The post-revisionist writers have sought to focus more on factors
such as geo-politics, cultural traits and elite perceptions on
psychology, bureaucratic politics, security requirements,
misunderstandings and misperceptions, none of which is mutually
exclusive. Geo-politically, the pre-1917 development of two land-
based empires in Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere inevitably
meant that these two exploitative land-based systems would come
into conflict.[2]
Whatever may be the different perspectives on the origin of Cold
War, it can be said that the Cold War broke out because of
ideological confrontation, post-Second World War complications and
irreconcilability of vital interests of USA and the Soviet Union.

Causes of Cold War

The first and the foremost reason for antagonism between the two
superpowers was the opening of the Second Front to divide the
German army. The Soviet Union was pressurizing the opening of the
Second Front from June 1941 but finally, the Supreme Commander,
General Dwight Eisenhower (who later became the US president)
opened the Second Front in June 1944. The delay in opening the
Second Front created suspicion in the minds of the Soviets resulting
in antagonism between the two.
Soon after the conclusion of the Second World War, the two wartime
allies stood divided on the Polish and German questions. In the case
of Poland, though at the Potsdam Conference of July 1945, the
Oder–Neisse line was considered the de facto line between Poland
and Germany whose ultimate fate would be finalized through a
peace treaty with Germany, yet the future democracy or governance
of Poland remained undecided. The Soviets, considering that
Eastern Europe lay within their sphere of influence, installed a Polish
government dominated by the communists. The US president Harry
S. Truman, after assuming office, with the support of British Prime
Minister Churchill demanded that the composition of the Polish
government should be equally divided between the communists and
the so-called London Pols or the London-government-in-exile
backed by the British. Lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union was
suspended by Washington but Stalin refused to give in and the
emergent Polish government remained firmly oriented towards the
Soviet Union.
German question proved to be another stumbling block in the
superpower relations, which unfolded at the Potsdam Conference of
July 1945. The question of post-war reparations from Germany led to
sharp arguments. Soviet Union insisted that goods and assets worth
20 billion dollars should be ceased from Germany, of which 50 per
cent should be given to the Soviet Union and the rest to be shared
between the USA and the UK as war indemnity. But an element of
suspicion was harboured by the USA and the UK. The Western
powers insisted their right to fix the level of reparations in their own
zones of occupation and, by spring 1946, they suspended further
reparation payments to the Soviet Union from their zones of
occupation in West Germany.[3]
Post-Second World War, Soviet activities in Iran, Turkey and Greece
gave birth to suspicions in the West. Initially these factors embittered
the relations between the two superpowers, once the allies and
gradually assumed the shape of the Cold War. As years passed by
the Cold War between the two intensified because of different
misconceptions, misperceptions, threats to each other’s sphere of
influence, increased arms race, and alleged threats to each other’s
vital interests. Hence, the theatre of Cold War shifted from one part
of the world to the other and had unfurled itself in different phases,
virtually dividing the world into two antagonistic blocs. The
antagonism between the two became evident from the ‘long
telegram’ assessing the sources of Soviet conduct sent by George
F.Kennan, the then Diplomat in the American embassy in Moscow.
Kennan concluded “In summary, we have here a political force
committed fanatically to the belief that with [the] US there can be no
permanent modus operandi, that, it is desirable and necessary that
the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way
of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken,
if Soviet power is to be secured”. Thus, what Kennan contended was
that “In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any
United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-
term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive
tendencies”. His ideas became very popular soon after its publication
in an article in the Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym ‘X’. This
came to be known as the famous “X article”.[4]
Soon, situations in Greece and Turkey took such a turn that
President Truman made Kennan’s assessment the keystone of the
US foreign policy in the post-War years. The violence in Greece and
Turkey was viewed by the Americans as inspired and instigated by
the communists and, thus, Truman declared in March 1947, “I
believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support the
free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed
minorities or by outside pressures”. This ultimately came to be
identified as the Truman Doctrine. Thus, was born the policy of
containment which aimed at preventing the expansion of the Soviet
influence by encircling the Soviet Union and intimidating it with the
threat of a military attack. Therefore, by late 1940s, the world
witnessed the beginning of the formation of the two opposing blocs
and it was reinforced by the Marshall Plan of 5 June 1947. Earlier
on 5 March 1946, Churchill’s Fulton speech had signalled the
beginning of the Cold War as he described in his speech that an Iron
Curtain across Europe from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the
Adriatic had been drawn.[5] Only the Truman Doctrine and the
Marshall Plan reaffirmed his contention and set an emerging new
paradigm in the US foreign policy.
PHASES OF COLD WAR
1946–1949
The first phase of the Cold War was triggered off with the gradual
consolidation of the Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and its
inroads into the geo-strategic sphere of influence of the Western
powers in Iran, Turkey and Greece. The situations in Greece, Turkey
and Iran incited the United States to adopt an interventionist
foreign policy against its erstwhile policy of isolationism.[6]
The crisis in Iran started, especially when the Russian troops failed
to withdraw as per an allied agreement of 1942. Further, it was
alleged that in the Soviet-occupied Iran, the Soviets encouraged
local independence movements and even instigated a rebellion in
Northern Iran and forced it to sign a Treaty which would give Russian
access to Iranian oil. To ward-off the Soviet threat of expansion, the
United States mounted pressure in the United Nations Security
Council. With the United Nations intervention the Soviets finally
withdrew, but the damage was already done. Determined US support
for Iran was based on the belief that further Soviet expansion must
be contained at any cost.
In Turkey, the Soviets demanded the internationalization of the
Bosporus Strait, which had been under the Turkish control since
1936. During the Second World War, Churchill backed the Soviet
claim but, when the divisions between the superpowers became
evident, he fundamentally changed his position. Following the Soviet
activities in Iran, the Allies apprehended a possible effort on the part
of Soviet Union to expand its sphere of influence, and therefore,
adopted gestures to resist the Soviet expansion.
In Greece, the Civil War, resulting from the guerilla warfare, led by
the communists that launched attacks on the Greek government
posed a threat to the Western powers. Britain, the traditional arbiter
of the region, however failed to control the situation. Therefore, USA
was called upon to counter the growing threat of the communist
guerilla attacks. President Truman responded by approving
legislation passed in the US Congress that permitted the President
to send aid and military advisers to Greece. Subsequently, Truman
dispatched military forces to tackle the situation. It was in this context
that the Truman Doctrine was born which constituted a call to resist
outside forces which clearly was directed against international
communism and, by implication, it pointed at the Soviet Union.
This was soon followed by the Marshall Plan of 5 June 1947. The
conditions in Greece and Turkey made it inevitable to preserve
Western Europe from the Soviet influence. Around this time, the
communists were able to garner support in Europe, especially in
countries like Belgium, Greece, Italy and Hungary. In Belgium,
Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden, the communists
were able to mobilize an average of 10 per cent of the vote. Further,
the dwindling European national economies led to the instability of
these countries. Therefore, to thwart communist subversion and
restore stability of European countries by revamping the national
economies, the Marshall Plan was announced. The Marshall Plan
envisaged the transfer of significant amount of funds to Europe on
the assumption that only a massive monetary infusion would allow
Europe to resurrect from the ravages of war and stabilize its material
condition and political atmosphere. The main line of thinking was that
a stable Europe would be able to resist the indigenous and
exogenous communists.
The Soviet response to the Marshall Plan was the Molotov Plan of
July 1947 which included a series of bilateral agreements linking the
Soviet Union with the East European countries. This was the
economic response to the Marshall Plan. The political response was
the establishment of the Communist Information Bureau
(COMINFORM) (September 1947) to provide Moscow with the
institutional means to control foreign communist parties.
A year after the execution of the Marshall plan and the creation of
COMINFORM, the Soviets had been successful in repressing all
undesirable non-communists elements in Hungary, Romania,
Bulgaria and Poland. In Czechoslovakia there was a Prague Coup in
the end of February, 1948 and installation of a communist
government under Clement Gottwald. The fall of Czechoslovakia
raised apprehensions in the West European minds of a possible
military threat from the Soviet Union. Hurriedly, the Europeans
concluded the Pact of Brussels on 17 March 1948. It was a mutual
defence treaty, which directed the signatories to extend military
support to any member state in case of an attack by Germany or any
third party in Europe. Undoubtedly, it implied the threat coming from
the Soviet Union.
In protest to this Brussels Pact, in March 1948 the Soviet
representatives withdrew from the Allied Control Council, which was
the governing body of occupied Germany. But now the Cold War
tensions started over Germany. This, coupled with the creation of
West Germany in early June 1948 and the introduction of a separate
currency, the Deutsche mark, in the French, US and British zones
resulted in a strong Soviet response in the form of the Berlin
Blockade in the same year. The United States to beat the Soviet
blockade, which continued for 324 days had to airlift 13,000 tonnes
of supplies of food per day.[7] Finally, the blockade was lifted but it
increased rivalries and suspicions among the two superpowers. The
Berlin Blockade also led to the militarization of Europe resulting in
the formation of a military alliance—North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), 4 April, 1949—to counter Soviet expansionist
designs.

1949–1953
In the late 1940s, the theatre of Cold War shifted to Asia. Around this
time China became an important factor in the superpower relations.
The Korean War also dragged the superpowers to this region.
The formation of the Peoples Republic of China by the Chinese
communists under the leadership of Mao-Tse-Tung and the defeat of
the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) under General Chiang Kai-
shek were seen with great apprehension by the Western powers.
They perceived the rise of China as a part of an ‘ascendant
monolithic communist bloc’. Therefore, the vision of global expansion
of communism deeply influenced the US foreign policy.
The Korean War of 1950 further brought the two superpowers into
confrontation, if not directly, and embittered the relationship between
the two. North Korea under Kim II Sung, the leader of North Korean
Communist Party, wanted to unite the peninsula which South Korea
proceeded to proclaim as the Korean Republic. Therefore, the stage
was set for a major confrontation. Along the 38 parallel, skirmishes
broke out and on that pretext North Korea invaded South Korea on
25 June 1950. South Korea was battered badly by North Korean
forces and its Capital Seoul was conquered by the latter. On the
other side of the 38 parallel, substantial Soviet support to North
Korea further fuelled US fears of another communist bid to expand
further into Asia. So, USA came to the relief of South Korea and it
launched a counter-attack from Japan. Matters became worse when
Chinese intervention took place in the Korean War.
Simultaneously, USA was successful in moving a resolution in the
United Nations Security Council and declared North Korea as an
aggressor, and launched a full-fledged offensive against North Korea
with the help of UN troops. USA took advantage of the long absence
of the Soviet representation in the Security Council, bypassed the
Security Council, and passed the Uniting for Peace Resolution
(UPR), in 1950. By virtue of UPR, it could take actions even in the
absence of Soviet representation. However, with an armistice signed
in July 1953, after the death of Stalin there was a cessation of
hostility but much damage was done to the relations between the
two superpowers.
Further, the detonation of the first Soviet nuclear device in August
1949, also ended the US nuclear monopoly and created a sort of
fear in the minds of the Western European states. They now lacked
confidence in the United States and also in the Western military
strength, and harboured a fear of nuclear attack from Soviet Union.

1953–1959
After the Korean crisis, the Indo-China became the theatre of Cold
War tensions between the superpowers. The riding tensions
between the French colonial administration and the communist
national liberation movement, the Viet Minh was looked at with
suspicion by USA. By January 1950, the Soviets and the new regime
of China had given diplomatic recognition to the Viet Minh. By 1954,
the Viet Minh controlled large tracts of North Vietnam and made its
presence felt in the southern part of the country too. Further, to much
shock and awe of the Western powers, the communist influence
spread from Vietnam to the adjacent areas of Laos and Cambodia .
The United States tried to support the French economically and
militarily and President Eisenhower elaborated his apprehensions
regarding the situation in Vietnam in his famous Domino theory. He
said, “You have a row of dominoes set, you knock over the first one,
and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go
over very quickly. So you have a beginning of a disintegration that
would have the most profound influences”.[8] This Domino theory or,
in other words, “knocking over” one South-east Asian State after
another, led the United States into the Indo-China War, known as the
Vietnam War in the United States and the greatest debacle faced by
the United States in this war is known worldwide.
Finally, in the Indo-China Conference convened in Geneva in 1954,
Vietnam was divided along the 17 parallel and there was also the
recognition of Laotian and Cambodian independence.
Another flash point of Cold War rivalry was the Peoples Republic of
China and its tensed relation with the island of Formosa, better
known as Taiwan, which was taken over by the Nationalists under
Chiang Kai-shek with active support of USA. But in 1954, Beijing
declared that it is going to liberate Taiwan. Despite US warning, that
any action against Taiwan would prompt a determined response on
the part of the US, the People’s Liberation Army commenced
shelling of Quemoy and the proximate Tachen islands. The US
Congress passed the Formosa Resolution under which it pledged to
defend Formosa. After much nerve-wracking situations the Chinese
expressed their willingness for negotiation and accommodation with
the Nationalists. The First Taiwan Crisis came to an end, only to
begin soon after, with the re-equipping at a massive scale by the US
of the Nationalist army of Taiwan, raising suspicion in the Chinese
mind about a mounting threat. Followed by this was Khrushchev’s
visit to Beijing to assure the Chinese communists of the reliability of
Soviet nuclear deterrent in the face of an American nuclear attack.
This visit caused much unease and antagonisms in the United
States. Coupled with this was the increasing hostile relations
between Mao and Chiang Kai-shek which ultimately led to shelling of
Quemoy and Matsu, by the Chinese communist troops in August
1958. Ultimately, Eisenhower dispatched the Seventh Fleet in the
Taiwan Strait and reinforced US troops, stationed in Taiwan, and
realizing his determined stance China called off the attack in
October. But this incident ruptured the Sino-Soviet bonhomie on the
one hand as the Chinese communists realized the unreliability of
Soviet support and on the other escalated the tension between the
superpowers.
The Middle East became a hot bed of tension in the mid 1950s. The
Suez crisis set the stage for another bout of hostility between the
superpowers in the Middle East. Following the nationalization of the
Anglo-French Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956, Great Britain,
France and Israel decided to initiate a concerted attack against
Egypt as their trade and security interests were suddenly
jeopardized. Israel especially was vociferous against Egypt because
of the understanding between the Soviet Union and Egypt, followed
by mass influx of Soviet arms in the region. The Western powers
also apprehended a Soviet–Egyptian alliance. The French and the
British motive was to overthrow the Arab Nationalist Government of
Nasser because his pan-Arabism gave much trouble in the
respective overseas colonies of French and British in this region and
the Suez crisis gave them a pretext to save them from the
dissolution of their colonial empire.
President Eisenhower, in the face of a nuclear threat against Britain
and France by Moscow and decision to send Soviet volunteers to
support Egypt, proclaimed the so-called Eisenhower Doctrine in
January 1957. In a message to the Congress, he maintained that the
US troops would be used to protect the nations in the region from the
countries that were “controlled by international communism”. The
Eisenhower Doctrine had the same objective in regard to Middle
East as Truman Doctrine had towards Greece and Turkey, i.e.,
containment of communism[9], which automatically added to the
superpower rivalry.
The Soviet intervention in Hungarian Revolt of 1956 also embittered
the relations between the superpowers. Following the decision of the
Hungarian Prime Minister, Imre Nagy, to withdraw from the
WARSAW Pact and establish the country’s neutrality, on 4 Nov 1956,
the Red Army intervened in a bid to prevent Hungary from joining the
Western bloc and weakening the Eastern bloc. Secretary of State,
John Foster Dulles adopted the aggressive rhetoric of roll back, i.e.,
“rolling back” communism and used all means like Radio Free
Europe to encourage a Hungarian rebellion against Soviet
intervention. But his rhetoric rang hollow as thousands of Hungarians
lost their lives.
Side by side, the Berlin crisis again resurfaced following
Khrushchev’s Berlin ultimatum. He demanded the West to agree on
a peace Treaty along the lines of the Potsdam Accord for the
constitution of a confederated German state and exclude the two
Germanies from the two blocs and granting privileges of a free city to
Berlin. Therefore, there ensued serious tensions among the
superpowers. Ultimately, the Camp David of 1959 eased the
tensions.
Added to these developments was the US bid to consolidate its
sphere of influence, after the Korean War. The US entered into
treaties and made commitments in a number of different regions.
Before the Korean War, the US was only bound by the military treaty,
outside the Western hemisphere, the NATO. After the Korean War
the US concluded The Security Treaty between Australia, New
Zealand (ANZUS) on 1 September 1951, The Japanese Peace
Treaty on 8 September 1951, the South East Asian Treaty
Organization (SEATO) on 8 September 1954 and the Middle East
Defence Organisation on 24 February 1955. In 1955 the Baghdad
Pact was signed with the United Kingdom, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and
Iraq as members. In 1953, the US also entered into a defence
agreement with South Korea guaranteeing the security of South
Korea. With Taiwan also, after the island of Quemoy was bombed,
the Eisenhower administration entered into a Mutual Defence Treaty
to ensure the security of Taiwan in the event of Chinese communist
aggression. As Secretary of State, Dulles declared in the report on
the first 90 days of the administration that “the Far East has received
a high priority. Furthermore, it has been made clear that we think our
friends in the Far East, from Japan, Korea and Formosa to Indo-
China and Malaya face a united enemy front, which has to be met by
a common attitude and greater cooperation among the separate
links of freedom”.[10] The Soviet Union was not far behind and it also
organized its sphere of influence in the form of a military alliance, the
WARSAW Pact which was concluded on 14 May 1955. Pacts and
counter pacts, therefore, added to the Cold War tensions.

1959–1962
After the Camp David, it was decided to convene a four-power
summit meeting in Paris in May 1960. But the U-2 incident, where
the Soviets downed an American U-2 ‘spy plane’ loaded with
photographic equipment for gathering of intelligence data, came as a
setback to this effort. The diplomatic battle that started after the
incident made it inevitable that the Soviets would again raise the
Berlin problem. Undoubtedly, the Berlin problem again came to the
fore in 1961 and matters became worse with the erection of a 25-
mile long Berlin wall on 13 August 1961, which cordoned off the East
from the West and with the construction of the Berlin Wall, the ‘Iron
Curtain’ became a reality.
In Cuba, the failed Bay of Pigs, a counter-revolution against Fidel
Castro, signified the survival of a communist base from where the
Soviets could threaten the United States and also cause security
threats to other Western nations. Added to this apprehension, in the
fall of 1962, a U-2 reconnaissance plane photographed missile-
launching sites under construction by the Soviets in Cuba. The two
superpowers looked eyeball-to-eyeball and the world was on the
verge of witnessing a massive nuclear war. Ultimately, sanity
prevailed and the conventional superiority, especially naval
superiority of the United States, in the Caribbean, forced Khrushchev
to retract. In the words of the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, “We
were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked”. The period
following the Cuban Missile Crisis was a period of restraint and both
the superpowers took interest in easing of tensions between them.
This period is regarded in the history of Cold War as Détente.
TOWARDS TEMPORARY THAW—DÉTENTE
Détente—Meaning
The Cuban Missile Crisis was an eye-opener for both the
superpowers and also a catalytic learning experience for them. This
experience made them aware of the impending threat of mutual
destruction with the growing parity of American and Soviet military
capabilities that made co-existence or non-existence appear to be
the only alternative. Therefore, easing of tensions between the two
superpowers became necessary. At the American University, in
1963, President John F. Kennedy explained the necessity of
reduction of tensions and lessening the risk of war.
“Today, should total war ever break out again—no matter how—our
two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironical but
accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most
danger of devastation. We are both caught up in a vicious and
dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on
the other and new weapons beget counter weapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union
and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine
peace and in halting the arms race….
So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct
attention to our common interests and to the means by which those
differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our
differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity”.
[11]
Though Kennedy’s exposition signalled a shift in the American policy
towards Soviet Union, but the chief architect of détente was Richard
Nixon and his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger. In the
words of Kissinger, détente sought to create “a vested interest in
cooperation and restraint”, “an environment in which competitors can
regulate and restrain their differences and ultimately move from
competition to cooperation”.
Later, President Jimmy Carter defined détente as the easing of
tension between two nations and the evolution of new means by
which the two nations could live together in peace. The Soviets
looked at détente as a peaceful coexistence between different
political and social systems, as a need to prevent nuclear war and
resolve disputes by peaceful means and mutually advantageous
cooperation.
It is very difficult to give an exact meaning to such ambiguous
concepts like détente. Nevertheless, the initiatives and serious
developments that took place during the period of détente “were a
far cry from sustained cooperation between the ideological
antagonists, but they did signal a departure from the posture of
confrontation that had previously typified Soviet–American relations.
Cooperative behaviour was evident, however, intermittent and
fleeting, amidst a pattern of continued competition for advantage and
influence”.[12]

Causes of Détente
Détente, as it came to occupy the centre stage of US–Soviet
relations, naturally raised the question as to why both the
superpowers suddenly sought détente or temporary relaxation of
tensions. The point to be noted here of course is that before the
Cuban Missile Crisis also there were attempts to ease tensions. After
the Potsdam Summit, the two superpowers met in Geneva in 1955.
Though there was no such pathbreaking achievements, yet the
meeting was an expression of the altered climate between the East
and the West, the ‘spirit of Geneva’ as it came to be known.
President Eisenhower and Bulganin exchanged assurances that
nuclear warfare had no rational purpose and both the powers were
not interested in beginning such a war. Following the Geneva
Summit, Moscow joined the Olympic Winter Games in 1956,
negotiations on arms control also proceeded, though no final
agreement was reached. The death of Stalin in March 1953 also
brought about changes in the Soviet policy. Yet the spirit could not be
carried forward due to the suppression of Hungarian revolution by
the Soviets, the Suez Crisis and the German problem. But given the
intensity of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which almost turned the
Cold War into a hot war, the two superpowers gave a rethinking to
their strategies towards each other.
The causes for Détente can be seen as many. Some of the major
factors leading to détente are:
Attainment of Strategic Parity by the Superpowers: The shift in
the balance of power signalled a shift in the policies of both the
superpowers towards the path of détente. The USA so long used its
Strategic Air Command (SAC), later supplemented by the navy’s
nuclear submarines, to deter the Red Army. The US bombers and
missiles deterred the Soviets with their implied threat of destroying
their cities. But this strategic superiority, that was enjoyed by the
United States was soon challenged by the Soviets. The American–
Soviet balance had been asymmetric so far: the USA enjoyed
strategic superiority and an intercontinental reach, and the Soviet
Union enjoyed conventional superiority and a regional reach. But the
Soviets gained its inter-continental capability and capacity of
destroying USA as well as Western Europe from its massive build-up
that began after 1964. The number of Soviet intercontinental missiles
had surpassed the number of American land-based missiles. As
Northedge and Grieve[13] observed, “The fear of thermonuclear war,
which could annihilate both sides, and determination to avoid the
kind of confrontations between two superpowers from which
thermonuclear war could spring”.
American Compulsions: The first and the foremost factor, which
compelled the United States to walk in the path of détente, was the
rising public opinion which was very much critical about America’s
role as a “global policeman”. The mood within the United States
reflected its weariness resulting from its foreign policy burdens. For
Nixon and Ford, détente was necessary until the nation could
“recover its nerve” and once more play the leading role. Therefore,
détente was required to protect the US interests against Soviet
expansion. The Vietnam debacle had placed the United States in a
difficult position. Due to heavy involvement in the Vietnam War huge
amount of US resources had to be committed. The more the
Americans fought, the higher was the morale of the North Vietnam
and the Viet Cong. Even extensive bombing by the United States
could not prevent escalation of the war on the part of North Vietnam.
But the US involvement in the warfare and massive bombing raised
criticisms from many quarters, including the Americans themselves.
The truth was that the massive effort did not result in any visible
success, especially after the Tet offensive of North Vietnam and the
Viet Cong in 1968. Therefore, the United States wanted to end the
Vietnam War in an honourable way and thought that Soviet help was
necessary as the Soviets were also actively involved in the war and
provided economic and military assistance to North Vietnam.
Disengagement from Vietnam became the prime motivation for
Nixon and Kissinger to seek détente.
Soviet Compulsions: The change in the attitude of the policy
makers in Kremlin also became a factor for Moscow to seek détente.
Malenkov, who became the Russian Prime Minister after Stalin’s
death, had started his drive towards détente but it became more
evident in Khrushchev and later in Brezhnev–Kosygin period. They
embarked upon a policy of peaceful coexistence. Besides, there
were also economic compulsions on the part of the Soviet Union.
The lopsided development created shortage of wage-goods and
other consumer durables as a result unemployment was on the rise.
As Northedge and Grieve observed, “Again the rising living
standards in the Soviet Union probably gave that country a strong
interest, like Americans’; in reducing the massive scale of arms
expenditure in the cold war by arms control agreements, in
increasing its lagging technology by agreements with the Western
powers to make their skills and equipment available to Russian
industry and perhaps above all, in keeping status quo stable in
eastern Europe, when it was threatened by liberalization programme
of Dubchek of Czechoslovakia”.[14]
The China Factor: The emergence of China as another major
power led not only to easing of tensions between the two
superpowers but also ushered in the Sino–American
rapproachement. The rise of Communist China posed a direct
challenge to the Soviet Union as China became the alternative
source of aid and encouragement to the liberation movements in
South-East Asia and even communist states in Eastern Europe,
such as Albania and Rumania. Further, in 1964 China detonated its
first atomic bomb. What became evident was the growing Sino–
Soviet rift, which erupted into open clash in 1969 over the border
dispute regarding the number of islands located in the Ussuri River.
The bipolar world of the Cold War was becoming tripolar. The
worsening of relation of China with the Soviet Union led the United
States to take leverage of the Sino–Soviet split. Nixon and Kissinger
played the China card well. USA took the initiative to recognize
Mao’s regime as the rightful government of China in early 1971. USA
also sent a US table-tennis team to China, dubbed as a ping-pong
diplomacy, which was well-acknowledged by the Chinese. In
July 1971, Kissinger’s secret visit to China, followed by Nixon’s tour,
only six months later surely showed the US intentions of playing
China against the Soviet Union. Therefore, the US fostered good
relations with both the communists giants, and more precisely,
towards the Soviet Union using the policy of ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’.
Brandt’s Ostpolitik: The German Chancellor, Willy Brandt’s
Ostpolitik was largely responsible for easing of tensions between the
two superpowers. Bonn initially tried to extend relations with the
countries of Eastern Europe but that got a jolt with the Soviet
invasion on Czechoslovakia in 1968. Bonn realized that without
Moscow’s support this could not be achieved. Therefore,
improvement of relations with Moscow became a priority. On 12
August 1970, Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression treaty with
West Germany. This agreement with the Soviet Union laid the
foundation for similar agreements with Poland and East Germany.
Even Brandt acceded to the Oder–Neisse line as Polish frontier and
this was designed to propagate the spirit of Ostpolitik. This
normalized relations not only between West Germany and Soviet
Union but also between the Eastern and the Western blocs. Thus,
Summits between the East and the West became common.
Linkage Theory: The chief architects of détente, Richard Nixon and
Henry Kissinger, envisaged the easing of tensions on the basis of
linkage strategy. This aimed at binding the two rivals in a common
fate by making peaceful superpower relations dependent on the
continuation of mutually rewarding exchanges (such as trade
concessions), thereby lessening the incentives for conflict and war.
Implications of Détente
The crux of the matter is that shifts in the policy produced results as
relations between the Soviets and Americans ‘normalized’. Détente
was marked by several major visits, cultural exchanges, trade
agreements, joint technological ventures and, obviously arms
reduction endeavours, in place of threats, warnings and
confrontations.
Détente witnessed several developments such as the following:
1. Immediately after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a “hotline” was
installed in 1963 linking the White House and the Kremlin.
2. The Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963, the Outer
Space Treaty was signed in 1967, and the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1968. The Sea-Bed
Pact banned the testing of nuclear devices on the bottom of the
world’s oceans in 1971, and a year later, the Biological Warfare
Treaty aimed at curbing the use of biological agents for the
purpose of war.
3. Nixon’s visit to Moscow in 1972 culminated in the signing of the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). The talks produced two
agreements: The first in 1972, known as the SALT I, and the
second in 1979, called SALT II. However, the SALT II Agreement
was never ratified by the United States due to strong
congressional opposition.
4. A number of agreements pertaining to trade, agriculture,
oceanography, economic and culture followed. In 1973,Brezhnev
paid a visit to Washington. The newly elected US President,
Gerald Ford also visited Russia and in Vladivostok there was a
US–Soviet Agreement on guidelines for arms control and
reduction.
5. In Europe, détente culminated symbolically with the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in Helsinki in
August 1975. It was attended by 34 countries of Europe and
North America and formulated certain agreed principles
regarding the relationship between the states of the two blocs.
Though nothing concrete was achieved, yet it contributed to the
easing of tensions.
 6. The spirit of détente was carried forward with the United States
and Soviet Union’s Apollo–Soyuz joint mission in July 1975.
7. Détente also gave an opportunity to the United States to mend
its relationship with China.

Certain Uncertainties and End of Détente

Despite careful nurturing of détente, its spirit did not live long and
several irritants cropped up. Czechoslovakia experienced Prague
Spring or socialism with a human face, under the reformist leader,
Alexander Dubèhèk in 1967 who also decided to withdraw from the
WARSAW Pact. Brezhnev apprehended that Dubčhèk’s reforms had
been intended to foment a nationalist counter-revolution within the
Soviet sphere of influence and Dubčhek’s move signalled its
defection towards the West. Soon, Brezhnev proclaimed what came
to be known as the Brezhnev Doctrine which stipulated in no
uncertain terms that a communist state was within its rights when it
intervenes in the internal affairs of an East European state if such
action would prevent the re-introduction of a capitalist social system.
Working along the lines of this doctrine Brezhnev took steps to crush
the Prague Spring. This became an irritant in the East–West
relations.[15]
The Indo–Pak War of 1965–66 and the War of liberation of
Bangladesh in 1971 fuelled the superpower rivalry. Then there was
the Middle East crisis which also dampened the mood of the détente
in 1973. After the six-day-war, Israel occupied the Sharm El-Sheikh,
Sinai and drove the Jordanian troops from Jerusalem and savaged
the Syrian army in the Golan Heights. The defeat was a great
humiliation to the pan-Arab national pride. The Arab nations
continued their refusal to recognize Israel resulting in intermittent
raids and skirmishes. But matters came to a head again when Anwar
Sadat, who succeeded Nasser, with a combined Egyptian–Syrian
force, launched a surprise attack on 6 October 1973—the Jewish
Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)—against Israel. After the initial
shock, the Israelis were capable of stopping the advance of the
combined forces. At this stage the Arab nations imposed an oil
embargo on any country aiding Israel. The United States was the
largest supplier of arms to Israel and the oil embargo placed the US
and its allies in inconvenience. Added to this was the Israeli non-
compliance to the US–Soviet plan presented before the United
Nations, that earned the Soviet wrath. Brezhnev threatened to take
necessary steps to force Israeli compliance with the truce. The
superpower competition in the region raised the intensity of Israeli–
Arab wars. Though the Yom Kippur war ended with the Israeli victory
and ultimately an Israeli–Arab rapproachement reached at Camp
David in 1978, the spirit of détente was hard hit.[16]
The final blow to détente came with the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979 and symbolized the beginning of the New Cold
War.
END OF DÉTENTE BEGINNING OF NEW COLD WAR
Causes of New Cold War
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was perceived by the then US
President, Jimmy Carter as “Soviet Aggression in Afghanistan—
unless checked—confronts all the world with the most serious
strategic challenge since the Cold War began”. He retaliated by
proclaiming the famous Carter Doctrine, which declared America’s
willingness to use military force to protect its interests in the Persian
Gulf. He proclaimed that “any attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on
the vital interests of the United States. It will be repelled by the use
of any means necessary, including military force”.[17] The overthrow
of the Shah of Iran, in 1979, gave impetus to the American Plan for
Rapid Deployment Force under consideration. The United States
tried to secure bases in Kenya, Somalia and Oman in order to
protect the American interests in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf
regions. Along with this, he tried to organize a worldwide boycott of
the 1980 Moscow Olympics and suspended the US grain exports to
the Soviet Union.
Further the non-ratification of the SALT II by the American Senate
also increased tensions between the superpowers. The Soviets were
bitter regarding the US involvement in Nicaragua, Grenada and El
Salvador. The Americans, on the other hand, were critical about the
Soviet activities in Angola and the Middle East.
At this critical juncture the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan to the
Presidency of the United States led to the beginning of a New Cold
War. Brezhnev, in October 1982, admitted “Russia declares détente
with the USA as dead”.
President Ronald Reagan and his Russian counterparts, first
Andropov and then Chernenko, soon got embroiled in a barrage of
confrontational rhetoric. Reagan declared that Soviet Union
“underlies all the unrest that is going on” and considered the Soviet
Union as the “focus of evil in the modern world”. American
statements regarding the use of nukes and military intervention in
Grenada and Libya and US activities in Central America, especially
support for the contras in Nicaragua, increased the tensions between
the superpowers. Arms race resumed and arms control talks were
ruptured. The Soviets boycotted the 1984 Olympic Games in Los
Angeles. Under such ‘hot’ circumstances, Reagan proclaimed his
famous doctrine, generally known as the Reagan Doctrine. He
pledged US support to anticommunists insurgents to overthrow
Soviet-supported governments in Afghanistan, Angola and
Nicaragua.
President Reagan vowed to take the wars to the space. His
Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), dubbed Star Wars, had grave
consequences on the superpower relations. The SDI was a research
programme designed to explore opportunities of space-based
defences against ballistic missiles. This was not welcomed by the
Soviets and they took the threats seriously and it dampened the
relations. Ultimately, the SDI did not materialize and later on was
abandoned by Reagan’s successors. Nevertheless, the situations
became explosive and more complex because of the moves and
countermoves of the superpowers.
Though the situation became alarming it did not explode primarily
with the ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev as the President of Soviet
Union in 1985. His new thinking in foreign policy and his domestic
reforms (glasnost and perestroika) marked a new beginning in the
East–West relations. Therefore, there was again easing of tensions
between the two superpowers, which was followed by what is known
as New Détente and ultimately the end of Cold War.
END OF COLD WAR: THE NEW DÉTENTE
The ascendancy of Gorbachev as the President of the Soviet Union
marked a new beginning in the East–West relations. His ascendancy
to the Presidency paved the way for agreements on nuclear and
conventional forces. The Geneva Summit of 19–21 November 1985
was the first Soviet–American summit held after the outbreak of the
Afghanistan crisis. Here, both USA and the Soviet Union focussed
on the need for preventing any sort of war—nuclear or conventional
—between them. The Reykjavik Summit of 11–12 October 1986 was
the Second Summit where President Reagan and President
Gorbachev met to discuss various major problems of international
politics and other issues of mutual interest. This was followed by the
pathbreaking Washington Summit of 7–10 December 1987. In 1987,
Gorbachev travelled to the United States and signed the
Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty banning
intermediate range nuclear missiles including Cruise and Pershing II
missiles. Gorbachev and Reagan met at the Moscow Summit of May
1988, and the Malta Summit of 1989 marked a new beginning in the
US and USSR relations as well as in international politics. A host of
summits followed between Gorbachev and the new American
President George Bush (Sr.) symbolizing several agreements on
arms control, trade and also the question of German reunification.
There was also the Helsinki Summit regarding the Gulf Crisis of
1990, but the most important breakthrough came in the Moscow
Summit of 1991 and signing of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START). In July 1991, President Bush and President Gorbachev
signed the START for deep cuts in their strategic arsenals.[18] The
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty also reduced the Soviet
presence in Europe. The Soviet Union also agreed to withdraw their
aid and support to Cuba, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. All these
developments signalled the beginning of the end of Cold War.
In 1991 and early 1992, President Bush declared massive unilateral
nuclear arms cut and this was matched by Russia by substantial
reduction in the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. He had proclaimed
the end of Cold War in the early nineties but, on 1 February 1992,
President Bush and the visiting Russian Federation President, Boris
Yeltsin made a formal declaration of the end of the Cold War and to
beginning of a new era of relationship between the United States
and the Russian Federation. After intense talks at Camp David in
February 1992, the two leaders signed a declaration, which sought
to highlight the new relationship based on trust and commitment to
economic and political freedom. In June 1992, Yeltsin and Bush
signed the “Washington Charter” and six other documents relating to
economic, scientific and military cooperation between the two.[19]
Therefore, decades of hostility, antagonism and suspicion ended and
paved way for post-Cold War development in the relation between
the US and the Russian Federation and changes in the international
system in the post-Cold War era.

End of Cold War

Gorbachev’s new thinking reflected in his glasnost (openness) and
perestroika (political and economic restructuring) unleashed such
forces which ultimately became the reason of destruction of the
Soviet Union. Internally, there were several reasons which led to the
collapse of communism. Richard Crockatt pointed out some long-
and short-term causes which included structural weaknesses in the
economy, inflexible planning system, inability to modernize;
economic stagnation; poor harvest and ironically, Gorbachev’s
glasnost and perestroika also contributed to the disintegration of the
Soviet Union. The last one heavily damaged the existence of the
Soviet Union as it undermined the role of the Communist party and
also loosened the control over media which made the public opinion
out of control of Gorbachev. Following the elections of 1989, a
number of communist candidates were defeated and there took
place “a whirlwind of free debate that scattered every known
communist taboo”.[20] This was coupled with the demand for
independence and secessionist movements which finally led to the
crumbling of the Soviet Union. In reality, Gorbachev underestimated
the task of changing the Soviet Union overnight. This led to policy
errors and contributed to the failure of his programme of resurrecting
socialism built on the foundation of successful implementation of
perestroika and demokratzatsiya.[21]
Externally, as soon as Gorbachev became reluctant to enforce the
Brezhnev Doctrine marking non-intervention in the internal affairs of
its East European allies, the political changes in Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia and East Germany gathered momentum. The
Bulgarian and Romanian Communist governments collapsed by the
end of 1989. The climax was reached in November 1989 when
thousands of ordinary citizens broke the Berlin Wall and the security
guards stood there as mere spectators. The collapse of the Berlin
Wall marked the effective end of the Cold War. Ultimately, on
December 1991 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
ceased to exist and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
emerged. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, there was much
jubilation in the capitalist camps and scholars such as Francis
Fukuyama came up with The End of History and the Last Man, a
thesis where he celebrated the victory of liberalism over all other
ideologies and the globalization of liberal capitalism. The other thesis
which became very popular was Samuel Huntington’s Clash of
Civilization. Here, he upheld the implications of a post-Cold War
World which would come to witness an escalation of deadly conflicts
around the issues of ‘identity’ politics including culture, ethnicity and
religion. This changed scenario would induce the world community to
set a new agenda for international relations.
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
The Cold War was an important episode in the world history but, by
early 1990s, it was accepted that ‘Cold War’ is over. General Colin
Powell, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “We
have seen our implacable enemy of 40 years vaporize before our
eyes”. But the fact of the matter is that the end of Cold War may
have signalled a victory for the US as is evident from President
Bush’s (Sr.) much known hype that “We have won” but, at the same
time, the World witnessed a fundamental shift in the structure and
patterns of international relations.
The end of Cold War witnessed the dismantling of the Soviet bloc in
Eastern Europe, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the
disintegration of the Soviet Union with the simultaneous unification of
Germany, all of which redrew the map of Europe.
With the end of the Cold War and the dismemberment of the Soviet
Union, the WARSAW pact also met its doom. The alliance and
counter-alliances of the Cold War days presently have assumed a
peculiar characteristic with the ones formed by the United States still
continuing, for example, the NATO and its activities pertaining to the
politics of Europe. A reminder in this direction is the NATO bombing
of Kosovo. The gearing up of NATO activities during the mini-war
between Georgia and Russia in 2008 also suggests the same.
Post-Cold War scenario has come to be characterized by the return
of multipolarity where there is a presence of great powers and small
powers. Some scholars also uphold the view that the world has
become unipolar with the presence of the sole surviving superpower,
the United States. On the other hand, there are other scholars who
profess multipolarity and project the emergence of a five-way
balance of power system rotating around the United States, Europe,
Japan, China, and the present Soviet Union.[22]
Military power, though not a salient feature of world politics in the
post-Cold War scenario, still continues to be the most reliable
technique serving the interest of the big and powerful states. This
became evident soon after the end of the Cold War on the wake of
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and action taken by the US led coalition
powers under the auspices of the UN. The War on Terror, being
carried out by the US initially against Afghanistan and thereafter
against Iraq, post 9/11, show that the use of military power is still
important and its use by the reigning superpower and its allies to the
protection of their own interest is the rule of the day. The United
Nations is just side-tracked by these powers and, in these current
cases, unilateral actions are taken on the basis of the principle of
pre-emptive self defence by the states on their own.
The UN has been hijacked by the sole superpower, the United
States and it is used by the United States and the West to serve their
own interest and solidify their domination over the small and weak
states. It is a long way to establish the New International Economic
Order or an international system based on the rule of law and
greater sharing between the North and the South.
The condition of the Third World has remained unchanged in the
post-Cold War scenario. Although the superpower relationships were
formulated in the context of the Cold War, with the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the United States and the industrialized North continue
their old policy of intervention and domination. Only they have
modified it to make it more relevant in the current post-Cold War
scenario.
The Third World, especially the Middle East, still continues to be the
vital interest zone for the West, especially the United States. The first
post-Cold War National Security strategy report sent to the US
Congress in March 1990, recognized that military power must target
the Third World, primarily the Middle East, where the “threats to our
interests” that have required force “could not be laid at the Kremlin’s
door”.[23] Therefore, the prime concern continued to be the control of
the countries of the South.
The domination of South is now ensured not through the use of force
but by the use of economic weapons. The international financial
regimes such as the IMF, the World Bank and WTO (the Triad), with
their policies of structural adjustments, are spreading their tentacles
of domination all over the developing South. The other mechanism
includes multinational corporations (MNCs) through which the
developed West tries to reduce the functions of the Third World
governments merely to police functions while the MNCs and TNCs
gain free access to their resources, control their decision-making,
pattern of development, new technology and global investment. All in
all, the entire dependency syndrome and neo-colonialism would
continue even in the post-Cold War scenario.
In the post-Cold War context, the relevance of Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) is questioned. NAM originated against the
backdrop of the superpower rivalry but once that is over, scholars
question the relevance of NAM. Nevertheless, NAM countries, in the
post-Cold War scenario, are continuing to use this forum to achieve
a set of agenda relevant in the post-Cold War world. It includes,
among others, independence in foreign relations, sustainable
development, protection of environment, international cooperation in
political, economic and cultural fields, equity in trade relations,
democratization of the United Nations and NAM’s long-standing
goals of international peace and security, disarmament and arms
control, and protection of human rights.
The post-Cold War world is witnessing an increased regional
integration and growth of regional arrangements such as the
European Union, SAARC, ASEAN, OPEC, NAFTA, APEC, OAS, AU
and a host of others.
Post-Cold War, international relations has become more complex
with ethnic and identity movements in former Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia, Angola, Cyprus, Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda,
Burundi, Russia, Georgia, and elsewhere, rise of fundamentalist
forces gradually spreading over the world and often assuming the
character of international terrorism jeopardizing international peace
and security.
Last but not the least, the post-Cold War scenario did not witness a
cessation of arms build-up and all around the globe there has been a
proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destructions
(WMDs). The dangers increase manifold as there are chances of the
terrorists outfits of getting access to the nukes, especially in the
“failed states” where there is a lack of quality governance and
government is weak to control the polity as well as the nuclear
establishments.
 EXERCISES
1. Examine the causes of the origin of the Cold War in international
politics.
2. Discuss the phases of Cold War till its end in the 1990s.
3. What do you understand by détente? What were the causes of
détente between the United States and the Soviet Union?
4. Bring out the significance of détente with special reference to the
various developments in the relationship between the two
superpowers.
5. What were the causes of the demise of détente and the
emergence of the New Cold War?
6. Examine how the Cold War came to an end.
7. Discuss the features of international system in a post-Cold War
era.
 REFERENCES
[1] Calvocoressi, Peter, World Politics: 1945–2000, Pearson
Education, New Delhi, 2005, p. 3.
[2] Young, John W. and John Kent, International Relations Since
1945: A Global History, Oxford University Press, London, 2004,
pp. 19–27.
[3] Heller, Henry, The Cold War and the New Imperialism: A Global
History, 1945–2005, Cornerstone Publications, Kharagpur, India,
2006, pp. 29–30.
[4] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997,
pp. 85–86.
[5] Young and Kent, op. cit., n. 2, p. 49.
[6] Wenger, Andreas and Dorn Zimmermann, International Relations:
From Cold War to the Globalized World, Viva Books, New Delhi,
2006, p. 20.
[7] Young and Kent, op. cit., n. 2, pp. 92–93.
[8] ibid., p. 46.
[9] Lundestad, Geir, East, West, North South: Major Developments in
International Politics since 1945, Oxford University Press,
London, 1999, p. 71.
[10] ibid., p. 61.
[11] Kegley and Wittkopf, op. cit., n. 4, pp. 88–89.
[12] ibid.
[13] Northedge, F.S. and M.J. Grieve, A Hundred Years of
International Relations, Gerald Duckworth and Co., London,
1971, p. 268
[14] ibid., pp. 269–270.
[15] Zimmermann, op. cit., n. 6, p. 119.
[16] ibid., pp. 148–150.
[17] Lundestad, Geir, op. cit., n. 9, p. 124.
[18] Scott, Leon, “International History: 1945–1990”, in John Baylis
and Steve Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics,
 Oxford University Press, London, 1997, pp. 83–84.
[19] Malhotra, Vinay Kumar, International Relations, Anmol
Publications, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 253–256.
[20] Crockatt, Richard, in John Baylis and Steve Smith (Eds.), The
Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, London,
1997, pp. 93–94.
[21] Garthoff, Raymond L., “Why did the Cold War Arise, and Why
did it End?” in Michael J. Hogan (Ed.), The End of the Cold War :
Its Meaning and Implications, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1992, p. 131.
[22] Alperovitz, Gar and Kai Bird, “The Fading of the Cold War–and
the Demystification of Twentieth Century Issues,” in Michael J.
Hogan (Ed.), The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and
Implications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp.
207–208.
[23] Chomsky, Noam, “A View from Below”, in Michael J. Hogan
(Ed.), The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 137–138.
The Third World
INTRODUCTION
Post-Second World War, international relations not only did witness
the bifurcation of the globe into two rival camps, each headed by two
former allies, the Soviet Union and the United States but also the
emergence of a new group of states, the Third World countries. They
were mostly the countries belonging to the ‘South’, Asia, Africa and
Latin America. More on the economic criteria of growth and
development these countries were regarded as the Third World or
developing, rather than their ideological orientation. These Third
World countries shared a common history of exploitation by the
formal colonial powers and struggle for liberation from the yoke of
the colonial powers and post-Independence share the common
problem of economic underdevelopment. Each one of them, thus,
strives for economic growth and development. In this arduous task,
they seek to retain their economic independence and therefore, try to
keep themselves out of the power bloc rivalry and forge their
solidarity through forums like Non-Alignment Movement or United
Nations General Assembly and even fight for a just and equitable
international political and economic order.
DECOLONIZATION AND EMERGENCE OF THE THIRD WORLD
The end of Second World War witnessed a complete change in the
international scenario. Not only did the globe witness a tussle
between the capitalist world, led by the United States and communist
bloc led by the Soviet Union, but also there were major upheavals in
the Third World. There was a continuous struggle for liberation from
the colonial masters to seek political as well as economic
independence from the European imperialist powers.
By the end of the eighteenth century, the Third World struggle for
independence became manifest in many countries. History provides
numerous examples of such movements, for instance, the Tupac
Amaru revolt in Bolivia and Peru, the Pontiac rebellion in North
America, and the Great Slave Revolt in Haiti against the Spanish,
British and French colonial powers. Among other examples, the
Indian Sepoy Mutiny, the Save the Emperor Movement in Vietnam,
the Boxer Rebellion in China and others show the growing
resistance to the growing European incursions in the early
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Nationalist movements further
matured between 1914 and 1945 as traditionalist leaders like chiefs
or royal princes were replaced by nationalist leaders who were
equipped with western education and ideology. Thus, the colonies
once the prized possession of the colonial masters now became the
real burden of White men.
Such struggles for independence in the Third World, in principle
however, received support from both the Soviet Union and the
United States. The Soviet perspective considered such struggle for
national independence as progressive and constricted the field of
operation of imperialism and monopoly capitalism. Thus, there was a
growing support for national liberation movements in the Third World
by the Soviet Union. The United States, in principle, opposed
colonialism in the name of democracy and the right to self-
determination. But the real intention was market driven. The colonies
were part of the trading blocs, which hampered the progress of US
trade and investment. Therefore, post-1945, the US position was
tempered by strategies of tackling the ongoing weakness of their
European allies, containment of communism and threats to the US
interests.
Post-war decolonization began in Asia and the Middle East and then
spread to other parts of the world. The late 1940s saw a number of
countries emerging. These included the Phillipines (1946), India and
Pakistan (1947), North and South Korea (1948), Myanmar (1948),
Ceylon (1948), Indonesia (1949). Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos and
Cambodia) became independent from the French colonizers in the
1950s. Middle East experienced struggle for independence with the
expulsion of the French from Syria in 1946. North Africa, in the
1950s, witnessed a wave of political independence like Libya (1951),
Sudan (1956) and the French colonies of Morocco and Tunisia
(1956). Egypt remained a British protectorate until the overthrow of
monarchy in 1952 and proclamation of a Republic in 1953. Iraq could
also free itself from the British masters only with the ouster of King
Faisal II in a nationalist revolution of 1958. In sub-Saharan Africa,
Ghana got its independence in 1957 and Guinea in 1958. By late
1960s, almost all the colonies of Africa were successful in
establishing their political independence.[1]

Causes for Decolonization

1. Bankruptcy of the Imperial Powers: The First World War had
already exhausted the imperial powers and the Second World War,
fought in quick succession, left them bankrupt. Huge losses incurred
in terms of military, human and material resources exhausted them
economically and politically. Further, the growing resistance to their
domination in the colonies also made them fatigued and it became
almost impossible for them to retain the colonies in Asia, Africa and
Latin America. They had to concentrate on their socio-economic
reconstruction back home, which implied that they had to withdraw
from the colonies.
2. United States and Decolonization: USA, as already pointed out,
in principle, supported decolonization efforts in order to contain the
spread of Communism in these colonies. It championed the
principles of self-determination and efforts to establish democratic
governments that gave further impetus to the struggle against
colonial powers.
3. Rise of Communism: The Communist movement spearheaded
by the Soviet Union gave an undeniable support to the people
struggling for liberation in the colonies. The success of the Russian
Revolution of 1917 resulting in the overthrow of the Tsarist autocracy
and the rise of the USSR as a strong socialist state gave inspiration
to the anti-colonial movements in Asia and Africa. The belief that ran
high was that the imperialists were the exploiters and, therefore,
should be ousted. This boosted the spirit of the nationalists, to fight
against colonialism, with renewed vigour.
4. Rise of Nationalism and Nationalist Struggle and the Principle
of Self-Determination: While the roots of European nationalism can
be found in the European Renaissance, the emergence of Third
World nationalism can be traced to the struggle of the Third World
people against colonial powers. Imbued with the principle of self-
determination, various nationalist struggles launched massive
assault on their colonial masters. The struggle reached its peak in
the aftermath of the Second World War, finally culminating in the
withdrawal of the colonial powers and their subsequent
independence.
5. Role of the United Nations: The Declaration regarding Non-Self-
Governing Territories in the UN Charter imposed an obligation on the
members regarding the administration of territories, whose people
had not yet reached a full measure of self-government. The
Declaration, contained in Article 73 of the Charter states, “Members
of the United Nations which have to assume responsibilities for the
administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a
full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the
interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and
accept, as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost,
within the system of international peace and security established by
the present Charter, administration of territories whose people had
not yet reached a full measure of self-Government”.
Article 74 states that “Members of the United Nations also agree that
their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies,
no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on
the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being
taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in
social, economic, and commercial matters”.[2] This would be done to:
(a) Ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples
concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational
advancement, their just treatment and their protection against
abuses.
(b) Develop self-government, to take due account of the political
aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive
development of their free political institutions, according to the
particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their
varying stages of advancement.
(c) Further international peace and security.
(d) Promote constructive measures of development, to encourage
research, and to cooperate with one another and, when and
where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a
view to the practical achievement of the social, economic and
scientific purposes set forth in this Article.
(e) Transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information
purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional
considerations may require, statistical and other information of a
technical nature relating to economic, social and educational
conditions in the territories for which they are respectively
responsible other than those territroies to which Chapters XII
and XIII apply.
These provisions in the United Nations Charter gave an impetus to
the movement for decolonization. There were long debates and
tensions between the colonial and non-colonial powers regarding the
granting of status of self-governing territory and, most often, the
colonial powers deliberately kept the question of independence
outside the United Nations as was done by France in the case of
Indo-China, Morocco and Algeria. But still it is undeniable that the
United Nations did play an important role in ending the colonial rule
in certain African trust territories, such as Libya, Eritrea and
Somaliland.
6. Role of Third World Countries: Outside the United Nations, the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), launched by the Third World
countries also played an important role in providing support to the
people fighting for liberation, and was vociferous against colonial
designs. By 1960, the number of decolonized countries also grew
and these countries now came to enjoy numerical superiority in the
General Assembly so much so that they tried their best to utilize the
General Assembly and speed up the process of decolonization and
ensure emancipation of those territories still under the colonial
domination. To this end, on 14 December 1960, with a majority vote
of 90–0 and nine abstentions by the colonial powers, a resolution
was passed, which was in the form of a declaration. It came to be
known as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples. The Declaration proclaimed the
necessity of bringing speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in
all its forms and manifestations and to that end it declared that:
(a) The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and
exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is
contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an
impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.
(b) All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that
right they can freely determine their political status and pursue
their economic, social and cultural development.
(c) Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational
preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying
independence.
(d) All armed actions or repressive measures of all kinds, directed
against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them
to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete
independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be
respected.
(e) Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-
Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet
attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of
those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in
accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without
any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable
them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
 (f) Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the
national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is
incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the United Nations.
(g) All states shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of
the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and the present Declaration on the basis of
equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all states, and
respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial
integrity.[3]
All these factors increased the momentum of decolonization in the
Third World. The rise in the number of newly independent countries
changed the architecture of international relations. Once
independent, these countries began to support the struggle against
colonialism and racial discrimination of the other fellow Third World
countries. They became a powerful force and opposed any sort of
military alliances or alignment with any of the power blocs of the
Cold War days and established a strong position in the form of NAM.
They, by their sheer numerical majority, soon emerged as a powerful
voice in the United Nations and there arose a strong demand from
the Third World countries to change the unequal pattern of economic
relations and usher in a New International Economic Order (NIEO)
and also a New World Information and Communication Order
(NWICO).
CONCEPT OF THE THIRD WORLD
The nomenclature, “Third World”, definitely calls for a review,
particularly the usage of the term in common parlance. Though there
is no precise agreement on the meaning of the term yet what
constitutes the Third World or why certain countries are categorized
as the Third World is a matter of concern for academicians and
scholars of IR. It is true that the rapid decolonization of Asia, Africa
and Latin America had led to an immense increase in the number of
independent states but, at the same time, they were placed in a
lower tier of the international hierarchy. Generally, the countries
belonging to the Southern hemisphere were classified as belonging
to the Third World characterized by underdevelopment and poverty.
A wide array of terms have been used over the years to categorize
the countries falling under the Third World, and most of the time, the
vocabulary used is not neutral. Eric Toussaint[4] draws attention to
the variety of terms used to designate the countries belonging to the
Third World. In most cases the index of classification is economic.
‘Underdeveloped’ is the oldest term used and now it has become
obsolete as it appeared to be derogatory and carried a reference to
the developed countries. Developing countries, developed countries,
poor countries, countries of the South, peripheral countries,
emerging countries or countries in transition are some of the popular
terms used to refer to the Third World countries, presently. Frantz
Fanon*, the Algerian writer and author of The Wretched of the Earth
used the word “third world” at a time when the former colonies of
Africa, Asia and Latin America were emerging as newly independent
states. To Fanon, these former colonies, struggling for
independence, fighting against exploitation of the imperialist powers
and neo-colonialism constituted the Third World which lay between
the Capitalist and Socialist worlds.
If one tries to look into the origin of the term Third World, it would be
found that it was the French scholar, Alfred Sauvy who invented the
term and it became very popular during the Cold War. It was used to
refer to those countries adopting a position of non-alignment with
either of the bloc. Sauvy said, “We readily speak of two opposing
worlds, of their possible war, of their coexistence, etc., all too often
forgetting that there exists a third one, the most important, and in fact
the first one in chronological terms. This is the body of those that we
call, in United Nations fashion, the underdeveloped countries. (…)
The underdeveloped countries, the 3rd world, have entered into a
new phase (…). Because at last this ignores, exploited Third World,
looked down on as the Third State, also wants to be something
else”.
The term soon figured in the Bandung Conference of 1955, the first
forum of the Third World countries which laid the foundation of the
non-aligned movement. During the heydays of Cold War, the term
designated the countries neither aligned with the western powers
(the first world), nor the communist bloc (the second world). From
this perspective, the Third World more or less represented a kind of
‘Third Force’.
As Calvocoressi[5] pointed out, “It was a Third World because it
rejected the notion of a world divided into two worlds in which only
the United States and the USSR counted and everybody else had to
declare for the one or the other. It feared the power of the
superpowers, exemplified and magnified by nuclear weapons. It
distrusted their intentions, envied their superior wealth and rejected
their insistence that, in one case in democratic capitalism and in the
other in communism, they had discovered a way of life which others
need do no more than copy”. Therefore, these countries were neither
in favour of Moscow’s rigid communism nor Washington’s hatred for
communism and believed in non-alignment with any of the power
blocs.
The Chinese concept forwarded by Mao looked at the Third World
from a different perspective. For Mao, “The United States and the
Soviet Union form the First World. Japan, Europe and Canada the
middle section, which belong to the Second World. We are the Third
World. The Third World has a huge population. With the exception of
Japan, Asia belongs to the Third World. The Whole of Africa belongs
to the Third World and Latin America”. It is believed by the scholars
that the Chinese stratification was based on power and there was a
hidden objective of propounding this theory of Third World. China
wanted to declare itself as the leader of the Third World.
Yet, more often the term ‘Third World’ has been used to refer to
underdeveloped, less developed and the developing countries and,
obviously, the reference point is the developed countries. The goal of
the Third World countries is “catching up” with the developed
countries. Economically speaking, the First World was defined as the
countries with industrialized and free market economies. The
Second World countries were those with socialist and centrally
planned economies. The Third World countries form the largest
group consisting of countries of the three continents of Africa, Asia
and Latin America.
Irving Horowitz † also defined the Third World in terms of
development in his Three Worlds of Development. The First World,
made up of Western Europe, USA and Japan was characterized by
competitive capitalism. The Second World, that of Soviet bloc, was
characterized by socialism of both Soviet and Chinese models. The
Third World was made up of those newly independent countries that
faced the problems of development belonging to the three continents
of Africa, Asia and Latin America.[6]
According to Kegley and Wittkopf[7], “The Third World comprises the
poorer, economically less developed countries of the world. So
numerous are they that it is easier to say than to say who is not. The
underdeveloped countries include all of Asia and Oceania except
Japan, Australia and New Zealand, all of Africa except South Africa,
and all of the Western Hemisphere except Canada and the United
States. Some formulations also include a few European nations in
the class of developing economies” like Portugal, Spain, Greece,
Turkey, (erstwhile) Yugoslavia and Rumania.
In whatever way one tries to look at the Third World, it would seem
to reveal that the Third World is a geo-political concept based on
inclusion in a geographical area comprising the Southern
hemisphere sharing the common colonial past and put under similar
circumstances of underdevelopment. The dismemberment of the
Soviet Union and the fast dilution of the socialist model and the
socialist bloc has resulted in the gradual disappearance of the
Second World and there is a growing tendency of the Second World
getting merged with the First. Therefore, more than the term Third
World what is in vogue nowadays are the terms like developing
world or developing countries.
FEATURES OF THE THIRD WORLD
Colonial Past: The Third World countries share a common history of
being subjugated under European colonialism. The European
powers imposed their domination on the peoples of Africa, Asia and
Latin America as they carved out colonies for themselves. They
virtually converted these colonies into ‘raw material appendage’ in
order to feed their economies. The prosperity of the European
countries was at the cost of the underdevelopment and exploitation
of these colonies. Frustrations and discontent against the colonial
rule gave rise to nationalist struggles in all these colonies, which
ultimately forced the European colonial powers to grant them
independence. This colonial legacy prompted the Third World
countries to zealously guard their independence and gear up their
resources and energy towards development.
Poverty and Underdevelopment: Poverty and underdevelopment
linger in the South. The onus is not only on the North but also on the
internal structure of the South. If the South’s uncommitted
leadership, misallocation of its limited resources, huge population
growth and sluggish economic growth contribute to poverty, the
North’s tactics of trade and aid, WTO and IMF’s structural
adjustment programmes, world price fluctuations, financial instability
in the global stock markets, global financial crisis (2008),
protectionist regime of the North, and the role of MNCs have also
increased the underdevelopment of the Third World countries. The
World Bank has produced a list of 140 ‘failed states’ that are either
developing countries or former socialist countries, but with huge
natural resources. This has again given the North another
opportunity to intervene in these developing countries, and justify
their activities as efforts to save the failed states and spread
democracy so that they do not become the breeding grounds of
international terrorists.
Debt Crisis: In the 1980s there was a huge Third World debt crisis
from which the developing countries found it difficult to re-emerge.
The developing countries were encouraged to borrow more until the
trap finally closed on them. 1979 was the turning point, as we will
discuss in Chapter 14, when the theoretical virtuous circle of taking
out external loans to promote development and well-being, which
would result in self-perpetuating growth, turned into a vicious circle
of permanent debt for the Third World countries with enormous
capital flow to the creditors.
Dependence and Neo-Colonialism: The collapse of colonial
empire had put an end to the colonial domination of the European
powers after the Second World War. This, however, did ensure
political independence but not economic independence. The
underdevelopment of the former colonial countries made them
dependent again on their former colonial masters for finance, aid,
technology transfer, and research and development. The former
colonial masters, therefore, devised means of utilizing this
dependence to serve their own purposes. The colonies being
important source of raw materials and markets for their products, the
colonial powers sought newer methods to establish their domination
over them. The new form of colonial domination is referred to as
neo-colonialism. This concept, at present, covers the relationship of
the Third World with the United States, which was not a formal
colonizer, and the North–South relations.
A United Force: Resistance to Inequitable International Order:
The common problems of the Third World countries inspired them to
form a united front to fight for a just and equitable international
political and economic order. They had changed the architecture of
international relations since the 1960s. They had bargained
collectively since the 1970s for a New International Economic Order
in the United Nations. Along with NIEO, they have also demanded a
New International Information and Communication Order (NIICO).
They had also evolved the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to not only
safeguard their political independence but also to insulate
themselves from the superpower rivalry since the Cold War days.
The NAM also gave them a platform where they could fight for the
NIEO and crusade against neo-colonialism and initiate a North–
South dialogue. They have also forged a common front with the
creation of Group of 77. The Third World played a commendable role
in mobilizing world opinion and exploring the possibilities of an
alternative to the existing international order.
 EXERCISES
1. Discuss the concept of the Third World. Briefly analyze the
features of the Third World.
2. Examine the causes of decolonization and the emergence of the
Third World.
 REFERENCES
[1] Heller, Henry, The Cold War and the New Imperialism: A Global
History, 1945–2005, Cornerstone Publications, Kharagpur, India,
2006, pp. 75–79.
[2] The United Nations Charter.
[3] Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples.
[4] Toussaint, Eric, The World Bank: A Never Ending Coup d’état,
The Hidden Agenda of Washington Consensus, Vikas Adyayan
Kendra, Mumbai, 2007, p. xxvii.
[5] Calvocoressi, Peter, World Politics: 1945–2000, Pearson
Education, New Delhi, 2005, p. 184.
[6] Melkote, Rama S. and A. Narasimha Rao, International Relations,
Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, 1983, p. 130.
[7] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1997,
p. 101.

* Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, translation, Constance Farrington,

(1963 translation of the 1961 book), Grove Weidenfeld, New York, 1963.
† Irving Horowitz, Three Worlds of Development, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1966.
Decolonization and Emergence of the Third World
Decolonization and Emergence of the Third World
Concept of the Third World
*
*

Features of the Third World

References
Non-Aligned Movement
INTRODUCTION
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) belongs to the developing world
and is a coalition of small and middle-sized states of the developing
world, mostly former colonies. Taking its roots from the Belgrade
Conference in 1961 with the participation of 25 countries, NAM has
grown over the years through several conferences and now more
than 100 countries are its members. The non-aligned countries
devised a flexible organizational structure and they meet from time to
time in different regions of the world to garner support for some
specific issues and also to promote their objectives. The NAM has
been a major movement in international relations, primarily aiming at
changing the existing global structure and creating a more just, equal
and peaceful world order. In essence, it is an anti-imperialist
movement.[1]
NAM: GENESIS
The rapid decolonization process that followed after the Second
World War brought into existence numerous states in Africa, Asia
and the Caribbean which were mostly small or middle-sized and
were underdeveloped and politically weak. They faced twin tasks of
nation-building as well as tackling the internal dissenting forces
within their societies. Alongside they had a Herculean task of coping
up with underdevelopment and working towards development. It is
these nations whose governments came together under the umbrella
of the NAM.
Post-Second World War also witnessed the outbreak of Cold War
resulting in the hostilities of the two major powers, the United States
and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was further fuelled when the
USA adopted a policy of containment of Communism throughout the
world, as the USSR was doing the same by giving support to the
national liberation movements. The ultimate result was military pacts
and counter pacts, an increase in arms race, gradual polarization of
the world into different blocs, and the threat of nuclear war, which
could result in the total annihilation of mankind. The newly
independent states that wanted to tide over their own problems of
development and shared a similar kind of exploitative colonial past,
wanted to belong to neither of the camps and envisioned a position
of neutrality—non-alignment. The NAM originated under the
leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru (India), Marshal Tito (Yugoslavia),
Kusno Sukarno (Indonesia), Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) and Gamal
Abdel Nasser (Egypt). They forged a strong coalition of states from
Asia, Africa, Europe, The Arab World and Latin America and the
Caribbean.
The rationale behind the adoption of the policy of non-alignment by
the developing countries reflects numerous objectives, each differing
from one state to the other. For instance, in the case of India, her
foreign policy objectives rested on the pillars of peace, freedom from
colonialism, racial equality and non-alignment, which were very
much grounded in her experiences of colonial rule and her freedom
struggle against British colonialism. The Cold War that emerged
immediately after the conclusion of the Second World War and the
strategies of superpowers to maintain their spheres of influence
resulted in the formation of military pacts like the Australia, New
Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS, 1 Sept, 1951),
Central Treaty Organization, also known as Baghdad Pact, 1955,
(CENTO, 1958–1979, dissolved in 1979) and Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization, or the Manila Pact (SEATO, 8 Sept, 1954, dissolved in
1977), to which India’s neighbour Pakistan was being drawn into,
prompted India to embark upon the policy of non-alignment. Nehru
made it clear that India would belong to one camp—the camp of
peace, goodwill and cooperation. An essential aspect of the policy of
non-alignment is, in the words of Nehru, “the enlargement of
freedom and replacement of colonization by free and independent
countries and a large degree of cooperation among nations”.[2]
The Arab leaders’ choice of the policy of non-alignment primarily
arose from their desire to ward off a conflict in their area between the
great powers, or at any rate not to provide them a pretext for
intervention. The Suez Crisis was an eye-opener and the Arabs
realized the possibilities of other infamous self-serving intrusions in
their region. To this end, they pursued a non-aligned course and also
harped on Arab solidarity and enhanced military strength to deter
potential aggression from the Zionist [incubus] in the heart of the
Arab world.[3]
The African states imbibed the spirit of non-alignment in an effort to
retain the sovereignty of the newly independent states. They further
worked towards a common purpose to keep off the foreign powers
out of Africa, to solve inter se (their own) problems themselves, to
aid African National Liberation Movements and to fight against white
racism. The decision of the African states to join the non-aligned
group en bloc can be considered as essentially an anti-imperialist
gesture.
Cuba’s decision to join the non-aligned movement was one of its
pragmatic considerations. The US military base at Guantanamo was
one of the reasons that prompted Cuba to join a movement that was
opposed to the foreign military bases. Further, being isolated in Latin
America in the 1960s, Cuba felt a compelling need to belong
somewhere and non-alignment seemed to be a good choice which
would presumably secure a political insurance against the erosion of
its sovereign independence, which is otherwise impossible to retain
through proximity to one or the other of the major powers.[4]
However, non-alignment as a concept has often created confusion
as well as earned criticisms from different quarters. It is wrongly
perceived to be somewhat similar to neutrality which enjoys legal
recognition for several centuries as a position of non-belligerency
defined by some specific treaty obligations and rights. Nehru
attempted to dispel the confusion between the two concepts by
observing that “neutrality as a policy had little meaning except in time
of war”, whereas India preferred “to keep away from the power
politics of groups aligned against one another which had led in the
past to two world wars, and which might again lead to disasters on
an even vaster scale”.[5]
In practice, non-alignment has come to mean more than not joining
the military alliances or maintaining neutrality during cold or hot war.
Its main aim has been to reduce the risks of conflict between the
hostile blocs by keeping out of them and to broaden the area of
peace in the world. But like neutrality, which has sometimes
destroyed neutral nations and most of the time stood violated once
war broke out, non-alignment also ran the risk of a similar kind of
fate. Therefore, the non-aligned states embarked on the policy of
“peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations and
entangling alliances with none”.
Nevertheless, the negative connotation in non-alignment has been a
constant source of irritation to those who believed in the rightness of
formation of military blocs for preserving security. John Foster Dulles
once declared non-alignment as “immoral”, and Stalin too doubted
its motive. Stalin doubted India as “a running dog of British
imperialism” and ironically Dulles thought that Soviet Communism
exercised a strong influence in India.
Nehru at the first NAM Summit at Belgrade in 1961 said “We call
ourselves non-aligned countries. The word ‘Non-Aligned’ may be
differently interpreted, but basically it was coined and used with the
meaning of being Non-Aligned with the great power blocs of the
world…Non-aligned has a negative meaning. But if we give it a
positive connotation, it means nations which object to lining up for
war purposes, to military blocs, to military alliances and the like. We
keep away from such an approach and want to throw our weight in
favour of peace”.[6] Krishna Menon, once replying to a reporter’s
insistent questioning said, “Yes, in a sense non-alignment is an ugly
word; it is a negative word but when you use it in the way we do, it
becomes positive”. Professor J. Bandyopadhyaya contends that the
negative nomenclature bears the imprint of India’s cultural heritage,
which expresses many positive values in the negative terminology.
Nehru, the architect of non-alignment, once said, “I have not
originated non-alignment; it is a policy inherent in the circumstances
of India for freedom, and inherent in the very circumstances of the
world today”.[7] He also confessed to the Indian National Assembly
that “the natural result of our non-alignment has been that neither of
the big blocs looks upon us with favour. They think that we are
undependable, because we cannot be made to vote this way or that
way”. Krishna Menon, too, had observed that “Non-alignment is
more or less a residue of historical circumstances,…we cannot align
with the west with its colonialism, and there is no question of course
of joining the Soviet bloc”.[8]
The Bandung Conference of 18–24 April 1955 in Indonesia was an
Afro-Asian Conference, and it marked the beginning of the non-
alignment movement although it was formally initiated at the
Belgrade Conference in 1961. As Prof. V.P. Dutt observed that non-
aligned countries “despite their inner contradictions, their oft-differing
needs, their lack of military muscle and power, and their economic
backwardness, have become some kind of a force to reckon with
and at least one significant factor in international affairs”.[9]
MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF NAM
The leaders of 25 non-aligned countries met at the Belgrade
Conference in 1961 to create an independent path in world politics
that would shield them from becoming pawns in the struggle
between the major powers. Their common concerns became the
fundamental principles upon which the non-aligned countries based
their decisions and activities. They are a commitment to:

Peace and disarmament, especially the reduction of tensions

between the major powers.
Independence, including the right of self-determination of all
colonial peoples and the right of equality between all races.
Economic equality, with an emphasis on restructuring the
existing international economic order, particularly with respect
to the growing and persistent inequality between the rich and
the poor nations.
Cultural equality, with an emphasis on restructuring the world
information and communication order, and opposing cultural
imperialism and the Western monopoly of information
systems.
Universalism and multilateralism through strong support for
the United Nations system.[10]

These principles have been the underlying guidelines of the

Movement from its beginning, and no attempt was formally made to
enunciate them until the Sixth Summit in Havana in 1979. It should
be noted at this point that though the non-aligned countries share a
commitment to these basic principles, there are ideological
differences within the Movement as the Movement is a complex
grouping of states representing different histories, languages,
religions and cultures and a variety of political, social and economic
systems. These differences sometimes have come to influence the
course of the Movement, but it can be said that despite such
tendencies the Movement continues to reflect one single primary
concern—to engage in policies that reduce structural inequality in
the global system.
GROWTH OF THE MOVEMENT—FROM BANDUNG TO
PORLAMAR
The growth of NAM can be traced through various major meetings
from one Summit conference to another within the context of global
events. The various Summit conferences of NAM which have been
held till date are as follows:
Place Year

Bandung (Indonesia) 1955

Belgrade (Yugoslavia) 1961
Cairo (Egypt) 1964
Lusaka (Zambia) 1970
Algiers (Algeria) 1973
Colombo (Sri Lanka) 1976
Havana (Cuba) 1979
New Delhi (India) 1983
Harare (Zimbabwe) 1986
Belgrade (Yugoslavia) 1989
Jakarta (Indonesia) 1992
Cartagena (Colombia) 1995
Durban (South Africa) 1998
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) 2003
Havana (Cuba) 2006
Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt) 2009
Tehran (Iran) 2012
Porlamar (Venezuela) 2016

Prelude: The Bandung Conference (1955)

The Bandung Conference of 18–24 April 1955 was a landmark in the
process of giving a concrete shape to the collective thought on non-
alignment. It was an Afro-Asian Conference being attended by
leaders of 29 states which were mostly former colonies. Many Arab
states too joined the Conference to discuss the common concerns
with an objective to formulate joint policies in international relations.
Messages of goodwill were sent by the Soviet Union and the
presidiums of five Soviet Central Asian Republics, but the US
government was sceptical and secretly tried to control the outcome
of the meeting. Nehru, Sukarno and Nasser played pioneering roles,
along with the other Third World leaders, sharing their common
problems of resisting the pressures of major powers, maintaining
their independence, and opposing colonialism and neo-colonialism
as well as western domination. The Conference issued a final
communiqué on Economic and Cultural Cooperation, Human Rights
and Self-determination following the United Nations Charter which
highlighted:
(i) problems of dependent peoples and colonialism,
(ii) ways to promote a new world order based on the principles of
respect for fundamental human rights,
(iii) sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations,
(iv) recognition of the equality of all races and equality of all
nations, large and small,
(v) abstention from interference in the internal matters of other
countries,
(vi) refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force,
and
(vii) promotion of mutual interests and cooperation.
The conference instilled in the participants what came to be
recognized as ‘the spirit of Bandung’—the recognition of the
similarity of purpose and unity of action among oppressed people—
to address their common problems and take an active role in
changing the existing world order. The final recommendation was
that another conference should be held.

First NAM Summit, Belgrade (Yugoslavia), 1–6 September 1961

The spirit of Bandung was carried forward to the Belgrade Summit
Conference of 1961. If Bandung was the prelude, the Belgrade
Conference marked the official beginning of NAM in the history of
international relations. It was attended by 25 participant states and
three observer states, all from Latin America, observers from 19
liberation movements, all from Africa, representatives of 11 labour
and socialist parties from Europe, Asia and Latin America, and a
host of other organizations.
The timing of the Belgrade Summit was very crucial as it was
marked by nuclear testing in France (1960–1961) by Gerboise
Bleue, increased East–West tensions over Berlin, Laos, Cuba and
the Congo. In the Belgrade Declaration, the NAM countries
expressed their confidence in humanity to establish a peaceful world.
They strongly opposed the existence of military blocs, which
“necessarily provoke periodical aggravations of international
relations” and sought peaceful coexistence to avoid the possibility of
a nuclear disaster. They upheld the idea that peaceful coexistence
was based on the rights of the people to self-determination,
independence and the form of development of their own choice.
NAM supported the UN Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and demanded an
immediate stop to armed action and other repressions against
liberation movements. The Conference condemned apartheid in
South Africa, foreign intervention in Tunisia and the Congo,
demanded restoration of all the rights of the Arab people of Palestine
in accordance with the UN Charter and resolutions, and respect for
Cuba’s right to choose its own path of development. In sum, The
Belgrade Declaration listed 27 separate items, 14 dealing with anti-
colonialism, self-determination and non-interference, six relating to
disarmament and three on economic development.
Apart from the Belgrade Declaration, on Nehru’s suggestion, a
separate Statement on the Danger of War and Appeal for Peace was
approved. This was directed towards sending messages to the
United States and the USSR to suspend their preparations for war in
a nuclear age which might result in a total annihilation and start
negotiations on disarmament.

Second NAM Summit, Cairo (Egypt), 5–10 October 1964

The second NAM Summit was attended by 47 states as compared to
25 in Belgrade. Of the 22 new members, 20 were African states. The
number of observer states had increased from three to ten with the
majority coming from Latin America and the Caribbean. The
Movement stood strengthened by its increased membership and
wider international representation.
The international scenario at this point of time was marked by the
thaw in the Cold War and increase in the national liberation
struggles. Also, between 23 March and 15 June 1964, the First UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) met in Geneva
and the Group of 77 was born, composed of countries primarily from
the non-aligned movement.
The Cairo Declaration was anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. It also
welcomed the improvement in the East–West relations. The question
of disarmament also received equal attention and the Partial Test
Ban Treaty was commended, and there was a plea for a total ban on
nuclear weapons. There was also recommendation for setting up of
denuclearized zones, wherever feasible. The Conference also
opposed racial discrimination and the Declaration strongly
condemned the policy of apartheid in South Africa and called for
sanctions against the Republic of South Africa. It also recognized
nationalist movements as being the ‘authentic representatives’ of
colonial peoples and affirmed that those under the colonial rule,
foreign occupation or racist regime, might legitimately resort to arms
to secure their full independence. The Conference called upon the
member States to provide necessary material support—financial and
military—to the peoples engaged in freedom struggle. The NAM
countries asserted that political independence and self-determination
were primary conditions for peace and drew attention to the tensions
being caused by external interference in the Congo, Cyprus, Cuba
and Indo-China where people were trying to grapple with the
problems of development. Therefore, the Conference claimed that
world peace could only be established with the abolition of
imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism. On economic matters,
the NAM countries stated that “Persistence of poverty poses a threat
to world peace and prosperity”. They opined that peoples and
nations should have the right to control their national wealth and
resources for their own economic development and concluded that
“a new and just economic order” must be established to foster
development in the Third World countries. The Declaration also
called for cultural, scientific and educational cooperation at
international and regional levels. A number of recommendations
made in Cairo, especially those with regard to national liberation
struggles, were later adopted at the UN, largely through the untiring
efforts of the NAM countries.

Third NAM Summit, Lusaka (Zambia), 8–10 September 1970

The Third NAM Summit was held after a lapse of six years, mostly at
the insistence of Marshal Tito. Certain world events during the
intervening period had been very interesting. Explosion of China’s
first nuclear bomb in October 1964, shortly after the Cairo Summit,
removal of Khrushchev from his office, India’s war with Pakistan in
1965, followed by normalization of relations between the two
neighbours, primarily due to the mediatory role played by the Soviet
Union and not the NAM countries, end of specific policies of non-
alignment pursued by Indonesia, Ghana and Algiers due to coups
against Sukarno, Nkrumah and Ben Bella, Middle-East and Vietnam
were the major events influencing the course of NAM. However,
there was easing of tensions between the major powers following the
détente between them. But the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia
in 1968 revived the threat perception of Yugoslavia and Tito was
galvanized into convening a consultative meeting in Belgrade in July
1969. At this meeting the non-aligned countries decided to take a
more active approach internationally and within the United Nations.
This was followed by a preparatory meeting at Dar-es-Salaam from
13 to 17 April 1970. In this meeting it was agreed to have a Third
Summit Conference of NAM, prior to the 25th Session of the United
Nations, at Lusaka.
Thus, the Third Summit was held at Lusaka, 8–10 September 1970.
Fifty-three member countries, ten observer countries and two guest
countries, Austria and Finland, attended the Third Conference of
Heads of State or Government. Representatives from the United
Nations and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) were also
present as observers. The Lusaka Conference called upon the
members to rededicate themselves to the fundamental goals and
objectives of the Movement. Given the lack of progress during the
first UN Decade of Development, the major concerns of this
Conference were peace, decolonization, non-interference, and
support for the UN as well as economic development. The Summit,
therefore, recognized the need for more action and elaborate
programmes to create a new world order.
The Final Declaration consisted of two separate declarations, one
political and the other economic, along with a number of other
resolutions. The Political Declaration on “Peace, Independence,
Development, Co-operation and Democratization of International
Relations” was not only a reaffirmation of the raison d’être of the
Movement but also reiterated the opposition of the Movement to
intervention in the internal affairs of the states, especially regarding
the wars being waged in the Middle-East and Indo-China, the
continued oppression of the African peoples in South Africa, and the
arms race to racism, apartheid, colonialism and imperialism. The
Movement also demanded democratization of international relations,
cooperation between developing countries, and lessening of the gap
between the developed and developing countries.
In their Declaration on “Non-Alignment and Economic Progress”, the
NAM countries, for the first time, concluded that a “structural
weakness in the present world economic order” was responsible for
poverty and economic dependence, and pledged themselves to a
“spirit of self-reliance”, national socio-economic progress and mutual
cooperation. They expressed their determination to strengthen the
UN system to support the restructuring of the global economic
system.
At Lusaka, the NAM countries started a practice of adopting
resolutions on concerns that they deemed critical and in need of
support. Therefore, there were separate resolutions condemning
foreign intervention, occupation and wars in Indo-China, the Middle-
East, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and the Portuguese colonies of
Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau. In their Resolution on
Disarmament, the non-aligned countries sought their earlier demand
for world disarmament and welcomed the United Nations’
designation of the 1970s as the “Disarmament Decade”.
With the deaths of Nehru and Nasser and advanced age of Tito, the
Lusaka Conference recognized the need for developing new
leadership. It also decided to continue with the Standing Committee
established at Lusaka and designated President Kenneth Kaunda of
Zambia as the Chairman, with specific responsibilities till the next
Summit.
Fourth NAM Summit, Algiers (Algeria), 5–9 September 1973
The Algiers Conference was a historic moment for NAM for it was
the largest international gathering at that time outside the United
Nations. Seventy-five non-aligned countries attended, which was an
increase of 22 over the previous Summit, which equalled to nearly
two-thirds of the UN membership and over 90 per cent of the newly
independent countries post-Second World War. There were eight
observer states, all from Latin America and the Caribbean, and three
guest states, all from Europe. In addition, 15 national liberation
movements and political parties attended the Summit as observers
and made presentations. But the remarkable event was the address
by the Secretary-General of the UN, Kurt Waldheim, which indicated
the growing importance of the Movement.
Current international situation influenced the proceedings of the
Summit. The shift from confrontation to détente between the major
powers was welcomed by the NAM countries, but concerns were
expressed at the tensed situations in the Middle-East, continued
apartheid in South Africa, Sino–Soviet split and Chinese accusations
of Soviet ‘imperialism’, the situation in Indo-China, Liberation
struggles of Latin America being crushed by the United States, its
opposition to the Allende government in Chile, and continued
surveillance by USA to ensure Cuba’s political and economic
isolation in Latin America.
The Political Declaration reflected the outlook of the non-aligned
leaders to link the political and economic dimensions of global
security. Genuine independence was defined broadly and made
exhaustive by including cultural and social aspects as well as
economic and political concerns. Alongside, anti-imperialist and anti-
colonialist tenor of the Movement continued. Concerns were
expressed over the massive assault on the national liberation
struggles and the Movement reaffirmed its historic support for these
struggles and adopted a separate Declaration on the Struggle for
National Liberation. The Algiers Summit was noteworthy in the sense
that the NAM members adopted an Economic Declaration and
Action Programme, a radical statement demanding the
establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO).
For institutionalization of the Movement, a significant step was taken
towards maintaining the Standing Committee in the form of a 15-
member Co-ordinating Bureau which was to prepare for the Fifth
Summit Conference and other non-aligned gatherings and also to
coordinate the non-aligned activities, particularly at the UN and the
G-77, and to assist in the implementation of the Action Programme
for Economic Cooperation.
The oil embargo of the Arab countries against the Western
supporters of Israel had increased the price of oil by the OPEC and
placed many non-aligned countries in serious hardship and sort of
created a discontent against the Arab countries which took a long
time to heal.

Fifth NAM Summit, Colombo (Sri Lanka), 16–19 August 1976

One of the first Summits to be held in Asia was in Colombo, Sri
Lanka. The new Head of the Movement was Mrs. Bandarnaike,
Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. It was attended by 86 states—increase
of 11 states from the last Summit—which was attended by 75 states.
A number of observer states and guest states were present as well.
The number of heads of liberation movements attending the Summit
got significantly reduced from 15 at Algiers to five at Colombo due to
the success of the national liberation movements in gaining
independence. The Portuguese empire had crumbled and five new
African states joined the movement.
The Conference identified specific problems relating to Middle-East,
Cyprus, Southern Africa and Korea. Other concerns were the
militarization of Diego Garcia and unabated arms race, despite the
atmosphere of détente between the two major powers. But Southern
Africa was really an important region of concern for it was the one
region which still remained under colonial domination. Particularly,
independence for Zimbabwe and Namibia and majority rule for South
Africa were the disturbing factors, and the NAM countries
condemned the Western power’s collaboration with South Africa.
The NAM states, thus, reaffirmed their faith and support for national
sovereignty and the right of self-determination, especially for the
struggles in southern Africa. The NAM countries were extremely
critical about the use of veto by the five permanent members in the
Security Council of the UN which would be tantamount to abuse of
power.
The Political Declaration was the reaffirmation of non-aligned
principles of peace, disarmament, international cooperation, faith in
the UN, adoption of an ‘integrated approach’ linking both political and
economic aspects to solve problems of peace, development, and
disarmament and condemnation of increased interference in the
internal matters. The Colombo Summit reiterated NAM’s rejection of
a global system based on the power blocs, balance of power, and
spheres of influence in favour of mutual interdependence and the
democratization of international relations.
The economic concerns over the disparity between the rich and the
poor states were seen as the cause of tensions and conflicts. The
only possible solution was the establishment of the New International
Economic Order, which could be realized through a programme of
action, by UNCTAD. The Economic Declaration and the Action
Programme were reflections of the vision of the NAM countries.
The Colombo Summit witnessed the beginning of the
institutionalization of NAM with a major resolution being adopted on
the composition and mandate of the Coordinating Bureau. Another
important milestone was the setting up of the Press Agencies Pool of
Non-Aligned Countries and the formation of its one-member
Coordination Committee with a view to foster cooperation in the field
of information and mass media.
However, internal strains among the Movement also became visible
during this Summit. The ASEAN countries were uncomfortable with
the Economic and Political Declarations that were adopted and the
support being given to the liberation movements in South-East Asia,
and they expressed their concerns about the role of US lobby in the
Movement, especially of Singapore and Malaysia. Egypt’s
rapprochement with the West also raised concerns among the Arab
countries.

Sixth NAM Summit, Havana (Cuba), 3–9 September 1979

The Havana Summit of 1979 was held after much speculation about
the venue of the Sixth Summit. The Summit was attended by all
except two of the 95-member states of NAM. The new governments
of Grenada and Nicaragua also attended the Summit for the first
time as full-fledged members of the Movement. There was an
overwhelming presence of Latin American countries. Though it has
been a long-standing policy of the United States to isolate Cuba from
the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, yet 22 delegations from
the region came to the Havana Summit.
As far as the issues were concerned, they were similar to the
previous Summits. They were the struggles against neo-colonialism
and the right of the peoples to choose their own path of social,
economic and political development, including their choice of
external relations, without interference from the major powers in the
region.
However, there were several irritants in this summit. Disputes over
the position of non-aligned states erupted between Marshal Tito, the
sole surviving founding father of non-alignment and representative of
the ‘old guard’ of the theory of equidistance, and Castro, the ‘young
Turk’ who floated the theory of Socialist bloc as a ‘natural ally’. The
question of Kampuchean representation regarding the
representation at the Movement by the Pol Pot Government or the
Heng Samrin Government, and attempts to expel Egypt for the
Camp David Agreements, and the Egyptian–Israeli Separate Peace
Treaty seen as betrayal of the Arab cause—all seemed to create
split within the movement inevitable.
Yet, the final Political Declaration made no specific mention of the
natural ally thesis, sought by Cuba but cited the Western countries
for their violation of non-aligned principles and aggression against a
number of non-aligned states. Otherwise, peace and disarmament
support for national liberation, opposition to racism and
strengthening of the United Nations remained the chief concerns.

Seventh NAM Summit, New Delhi (India), 7–12 March 1983

The New Delhi Summit was attended by 99 member states. Twenty
countries were invited as observers and 19 countries and
organizations as guests. The Summit adopted political, economic
and other declarations in which it reiterated the need for collective
self-reliance among the non-aligned countries and other developing
countries by enforcing South–South cooperation.
The Political Declaration contained a call for immediate prohibition of
the use of the nuclear weapons and a comprehensive treaty, nuclear
disarmament under effective international control, nuclear-free
regions in different parts of the world, reduction of military presence
by the big powers in the Indian Ocean, and the return of Diego
Garcia to Mauritius. There was a call for withdrawal of foreign troops
from Afghanistan and Kampuchea as well as support for the people
of Palestine, Namibia and South Africa.
The Economic Declaration reaffirmed the position of the non-aligned
countries to usher in a New International Economic Order, early
establishment of a food security system for NAM member countries
and other developing countries, and also condemned the use of food
as an instrument of political pressure. Further, it reiterated the old
demand for elimination of restrictive, conditional, selective and
discriminatory measures with a view to promote world trade.

Eighth NAM Summit, Harare (Zimbabwe), 1–7 September 1986

The Eighth NAM Summit was held at Harare, the capital of
Zimbabwe and was attended by 101 states including Pakistan.
Among other issues, the punitive measures against the racist
Pretoria government were noteworthy. The Summit unanimously
adopted several punitive measures to be applied against the white
government in South Africa. These included prohibition of transfer of
technology to South Africa, cessation of export, sale or transport of
oil, snapping of air links, and termination of free entry privileges to
South Africa. The other issues discussed were the Iran–Iraq War, the
Afghan crisis, the Kampuchea crisis, the Palestine problem, the US
aggression in Libya, disarmament, debt burden of developing
countries, and strengthening of South–South cooperation.

Ninth NAM Summit, Belgrade (Yugoslavia), 4–7 September 1989

102 member states attended the Summit. The Summit, upholding
the principles of the Movement, called for a complete disarmament,
especially pertaining to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). It
also called for an increasing pressure and tightening of sanctions
against South Africa with a view to isolating the regime. The Summit
also urged for a speedy solution of problems pertaining to
Afghanistan, Kampuchea, democratization of Latin America,
restoration of rights of the people of Palestine, and establishment of
independence of Namibia. In the economic front, the Summit
highlighted the growing disparity between the wealthy North and the
poor South, the growing debt burden of the South, and called for a
collective self-reliance of the countries of the South.

Tenth NAM Summit, Jakarta (Indonesia), 1–7 September 1992

This summit was held in the backdrop of the dissolution of Cold War
and dismemberment of the Soviet Union. This was attended by 108
member states. Alhough discussions were held on crucial issues on
South Africa, Somalia, Palestine and the Middle East, the ethnic
problem of Yugoslavia occupied the centre stage of debates. Despite
differences over the Yugoslav issue, there was a consensus over the
policy of ethnic cleansing perpetuated by the local Serbs and
deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia–Herzegovina in
place of external troops. Alongside, there was a discussion on
NAM’s agenda, for example, democratization of the United Nations,
North–South dialogue, and the forging of a South–South
cooperation. The Summit also demanded the convening of a special
UN General Assembly Session to finalize the independence of
Namibia.
Eleventh NAM Summit, Cartagena (Colombia), 18–20
October 1995
The member countries, reiterating their faith in the spirit of NAM,
called for a unified effort to promote the restructuring, revitalization
and democratization of the United Nations based on the principles
contained in its Charter, as well as the restructuring of the
international financial system, including the Bretton Woods
institutions, all on the basis of the principle of sovereign equality of
states. They also took a pledge for achieving general and complete
disarmament, including the nuclear disarmament and the elimination
of type of weapons.
The Heads of state or government also emphasized that the high
social cost of the structural adjustment had hit the developing
countries hard. It is the developed countries that derived the greatest
benefits from the existing structure of the world economy. Therefore,
they found it unacceptable that the rich and the powerful nations
should continue to establish unilateral conditionalities on open trade
to gain advantages from the countries constituting the Movement.
While pressing for opening up of the economies of the developing
countries, developed countries imposed restrictions and tariff
obstructions on the products of the developing countries in their own
country. Thus, the Movement expressed grave concern over the new
protectionism of the developed countries.
Twelfth NAM Summit, Durban (South Africa), 2–3
September 1998
The NAM countries met at Durban, South Africa from 2 to 3
September 1998, to address crucial global issues affecting their
people with a view to agreeing to a set of actions in the promotion of
peace, security and development, conducive to a new system of
international relations based on the principles of justice, equality and
democracy.
There was a wide array of issues discussed in this summit. While
reviewing the international situation and the role of NAM, the
member countries discussed matters relating to agenda for peace,
strengthening and democratization of the United Nations,
disarmament, terrorism, and a host of other issues. They expressed
their concern at the slow pace of progress towards nuclear
disarmament, which constitutes their primary disarmament objective.
They further stressed the significance of universal adherence to the
CTBT, including adherence by all nuclear weapon states, and
commencement of negotiations in the Conference on disarmament
of fissile materials, which, interalia, should accelerate the process of
nuclear disarmament. They also reiterated their positions against
unilateral, coercive or discriminatory measures, which have been
applied against the non-aligned countries. They stressed the need
for bilateral dialogue to secure peaceful solutions on all outstanding
issues and the promotion of confidence and security-building
measures and mutual trust.
Thirteenth NAM Summit, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia),
20–25 February 2003
This was attended by 116 members and observers, guest countries
and guest organizations. There was a pledge to make the NAM more
relevant and effective. Along with this there was a general
consensus on international issues such as terrorism and
disarmament.
Fourteenth Ministerial Conference of NAM, Durban (South
Africa) (Mid-Term Review), 17–19 August 2004
Along with the member countries of the Movement, the Summit was
attended by observers from the African Union, Afro-Asian Peoples
Solidarity Organization (AAPSO), the League of Arab States, United
Nations Assistant Secretary-General, China, Costa Rica, Croatia,
Kazakhstan, Mexico, Ukraine, Paraguay, Serbia and Montenegro.
There were also 19 guest countries and 13 guest organizations.
The ministers reaffirmed the positions as expressed in the Final
Document of the Thirteenth Kuala Lumpur Summit on the review of
the international situation, and reiterated the determination of their
leaders to make every effort to further strengthen the Movement’s
capacity for action and to develop concrete modalities to enhance
the influence and impact of its decisions on world affairs. They also
reaffirmed their determination to preserve the noble ideals and
principles of the Movement as articulated at the Bandung
Conference in 1955, as well as the principles set forth in the United
Nations Charter, in order to consolidate the Movement’s role as a
leading force in the twenty-first century. The ministers reaffirmed and
reiterated the long-standing principled positions of the Movement on
disarmament and international security, including the decisions taken
at the Twelfth Summit in Durban, the Thirteenth Summit in Kuala
Lumpur and the Fourteenth Ministerial Conference in Cartagena.
They also upheld the adoption of the concept of Disarmament,
Demobilization, Reintegration and Rehabilitation (DDRR). This was
to be implemented during the United Nations peacekeeping
operations, along with the post-conflict peacebuilding (PCPB)
activities, which will boost the post-conflict reconstruction, upon
request and with the consent of the state concerned.
Fourteenth NAM Summit, Havana (Cuba), 15–16 September
2006
This was the second NAM Summit held in Havana (Cuba) after the
Sixth NAM Summit in 1979. Once again, in this Summit, Cuba tried
to give an anti-US outlook, but this was controlled and discussions
merely focused on the unilateral and hegemonistic approach of
some states. Terrorism became the focal point of discussion.
Concerns were expressed over issues such as cross-border
terrorism as experienced by India, functioning of terrorist groups
including former Talibans who were again regrouping in certain parts
of Afghanistan, providing support, protection and shelter to the
terrorists by some states. Condemnation of terrorism was followed
by a call for fighting terrorism by the international community. Other
issues discussed were: the inalienable rights of developing countries
to engage in research, production and development of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes without any discrimination and North–
South dialogue and better cooperation among developing countries
in the WTO negotiations with a view to project and protect interests
of the developing countries.
Fifteenth NAM Summit, Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt), 11–16 July
2009
This Summit has been held at a time when the world is passing
through a phase of global meltdown which started around mid 2008.
Alongside, the world is also experiencing increasing terrorist
onslaughts and threats to international peace and security.
Therefore, the focus of the Fifteenth NAM Summit has been, on one
hand, on creating a “new world order” to save the globe from further
economic recessions and on the other hand, addressing the ways
and means of combating terrorism. The NAM members expressed
their willingness to work for fundamental reform of the international
economic and financial systems, to address the flaws that have
come to the fore in the wake of global meltdown. Further, the 118
members of NAM took a pledge to bolster NAM Solidarity in
combating terrorism in accordance with the principles of the UN
Charter, international law and relevant conventions. The members
also upheld their commitment to enhance the voice and participation
of developing countries in international decision making and norm
setting including international financial institutions. They also showed
an urge for “expeditious” reform and expansion of the United Nations
Security Council. The spirit of the Fifteenth NAM Summit got
expression in the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit Declaration.
Sixteenth NAM Summit, Tehran (Iran), 26–31 August 2012
The Sixteenth NAM Summit was held in Tehran, Iran from 26–31
August 2012. The theme for the Sixteenth NAM Summit was
Lasting Peace Through Joint Global Governance. The Egyptian
President, Mohammad Morsi, officially handed over the Presidency
of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, during the inaugural ceremony of Leaders’ Meeting.
Iran will hold the NAM Presidency for three years until the
Seventeenth Summit in Venezuela, in 2015. The Tehran
Declaration was adopted which undertook a review of international
situation and reaffirmed faith in the NAM principles articulated in
Bandung (1955) and Belgrade (1961). In the Declaration, the NAM
members declared to build a fair, inclusive, transparent and effective
system of joint global governance, based on justice and equitable
participation of all countries and to address present challenges and
risks stemming from global security threats, environmental hazards,
climate change, migration, contagious diseases and extreme
poverty. The Sixteenth NAM Summit also adopted the Tehran Plan
of Action (2012–2015) which focused on global issues, reaffirmation
of faith on UN Charter and international law, promotion of
multilateralism through the UN and multilateral processes, peaceful
settlement of disputes and non-use or use of threat of force, culture
of Peace, dialogue among civilizations, religions and cultures, and
cultural diversity, right to self-determination and decolonization,
reform of the UN, and terrorism. NAM also adopted a Declaration
on Palestine Political Prisoners in which NAM members
expressed grave concerns regarding the deteriorating situation of
Palestinian political prisoners in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem. A Solidarity Declaration on Palestine
was also adopted in which they regretted that Israel’s obstructive
policies have made it impossible for the NAM Committee on
Palestine to convene the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting in
Ramallah, Palestine, on 5 August 2012. The Final Document
contains detailed report of the discussions on global issues, regional
and sub-regional political issues involving Occupied Syria Golan,
African countries like Libya, Somalia, Sudan and others, certain
countries of Asia like Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait and others, Latin
American and Caribbean countries. The Final Document also
contains reports on development, social and human rights issues.

Seventeenth NAM Summit, Porlamar (Venezuela), 13–18

September, 2016
The theme for the Seventeenth NAM Summit was “Peace,
Sovereignty and Solidarity for Development”. The member states
reiterated their faith in the guiding principles of NAM as enshrined in
Bandung (1955) and Belgrade (1961) Summits. Further, they
reaffirmed their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the UN. The Declaration adopted at the end of the Summit reflected
the issues of concerns to the member states of NAM like South-
South Cooperation, Refugees and Migrants, New World Information
and Communication Order, Democratization of the Bretton Woods
(IMF and World Bank), Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development), reform of the UN, Disarmament and
International Security, Climate Change, youth, women, peace and
security, human rights among others.

Eighteenth NAM Summit, Baku (Azerbaijan), 25–26 October,

2019
The Eighteenth NAM Summit was held under the theme “Upholding
the Bandung Principles to Ensure Concerted and Adequate
Response to the Challenges of Contemporary World.” The Baku
Declaration resolved to increase the effectiveness of NAM. The
issues taken up were related to building up of effective and
transparent system of global governance, support for multilateralism,
boosting the role of the United Nations, efforts towards combating
terrorism, full implementation of Agenda 2030 for Sustainable
Development, climate change, South-South Cooperation and other
issues involving NAM countries.
Azerbaijan became a full-fledged member of NAM in May 2011. It
holds the Current Chair and its term is from 2019 to 2022.
Structure and Organization
The founders of NAM and their successors recognized the possible
difficulties the Movement could face if formal structures like a
constitution or an internal secretariat were established. They also
realized that the Movement, being a multicultural transnational
organization made up of states with differing ideologies and
purposes, it would be difficult to create, a rational administrative
structure and even if created, be accepted by all. As a social
movement, it calls upon its members to respond to specific issues
relevant at that particular time. Therefore, to best suit its purpose,
the NAM members have created a unique form of administrative
style. The NAM administration is non-hierarchical, rotational and
inclusive, providing all member-states, regardless of size and
importance, with an opportunity to participate in global decision-
making and world politics. The structure of NAM is depicted in Figure
8.1.
 Figure 8.1 Structure of NAM.
[Source: Adapted from A.W. Singham and Shirley Hune, Non-alignment in an Age of
Alignments.]

The NAM countries meet from time to time in various regions and
hold discussions, share concerns, formulate policies and plan of
actions. The Summit conferences are of utmost importance because
at these conferences Heads of states or governments of non-aligned
countries meet to analyze the current international scenario. During
these summits, the Movement formally rotates its chairmanship, and
this happens generally in every three years. The Chair is the head of
the state of the host country of the Summit and holds office between
the Summits, who is also delegated some responsibilities for
promoting the principles and activities of the Movement. The creation
of the rotating chair was envisaged with the objective of delegating
the administrative responsibilities, with appropriate administrative
structure, to the country assuming the Chair. Therefore, when a
country assumes the Chair, it creates or designates an entire section
of foreign ministry to deal particularly with the NAM issues and
concerns. At each Summit, the venue for the next NAM Summit is
also selected. The NAM uses the method of consensus to arrive at
decision-making. Though there have been at times difficulties in
reaching a consensus, the NAM has achieved consensus on many
difficult problems in world politics over the years. It can be said that
the consensus has been achieved, in part, by a shared commitment
to certain basic principles and also by the use of many levels of
discussion before a decision is reached.[11]
The criteria for membership in the organization have changed from
the original requirements as well. As the organization has matured
and international political circumstances have changed, so too have
the requirements. There is an obvious attempt to integrate the
requirements of the NAM with the purposes and principles of the
United Nations. Originally, the criteria for membership required the
following:
1. The country should have adopted an independent policy, based
on the coexistence of states, with different political and social
systems and on non-alignment, or should be showing a trend in
favour of such a policy.
2. The country concerned should be consistently supporting the
movements for national independence.
3. The country should not be a member of a multilateral military
alliance, concluded in the context of Great Power conflicts.
4. If a country has a bilateral military agreement with a Great
Power, or is a member of a regional defence pact, the
agreement or the pact should not be one, deliberately
concluded, in the context of Great Power conflicts.
5. If it has conceded military bases to Foreign Power, the
concession should not have been made in the context of Great
Power conflicts.
The latest requirements are now that the country aspiring for NAM
mem-bership has:
(a) Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes
 and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
(b) Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.
(c) Recognitzed the equality of all races and of the equality of all
nations, large and small.
(d) Abstained from intervention or interference in the internal affairs
of another country.
(e) Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself singly or
collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
(f) Refrained from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
country.
(g) Settled all international disputes by peaceful means, in
conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
(h) Promoted mutual interests and cooperation.
(i) Respect for justice and international obligations.
CONTRIBUTION OF NAM
The NAM, which was born in the backdrop of the Cold War tensions
between the two superpowers, worked for peace, security,
disarmament, independence, development and cooperation among
nations. In short, it can be said that NAM’s contribution can be best
assessed in terms of six Ds—Decolonization, Détente,
Disarmament, Development, Democratization and Dissemination.
From its inception, the Movement primarily focused on peace and
disarmament and the need for peaceful coexistence among states.
There was also a strong support for freedom struggle against the
colonial rule in Algeria, Angola, Tunisia, South Africa and Cuba. The
process of decolonization also received support and attention in
Mozambique and other Portuguese colonies, French Somaliland,
Southern Rhodesia, Aden and Oman. The Movement vehemently
criticized the apartheid in South Africa and even went to the extent of
breaking off diplomatic ties with South Africa.
In the economic front, the NAM drew attention to the rising neo-
colonialism, and in the Lusaka Summit it was stated that “classical
colonialism is trying to perpetuate itself in the garb of neo-colonialism
—a less obvious, but in no way a less dangerous means of
economic and political domination over the developing countries”.
Therefore, the NAM demanded a revision of the unequal global
economic structure with a New International Economic Order based
on equity and justice.
As far as the institutionalization of NAM was concerned, a major
resolution was adopted in the Colombo Summit with the composition
and mandate of the Coordinating Bureau. Another important step
was the setting up of the Press Agencies Pool of non-aligned
countries with a view to foster cooperation in the field of information
and mass media and set up a New World Information and
Communication Order (NWICO) also known as New International
Information Order. The NAM also highlighted the need for collective
self-reliance among the developing countries, which would augment
their development and help in the establishment of New International
Economic Order (NIEO). In other words, it sought a South–South
cooperation.
Despite differences among the member countries on several
international and regional issues such as the Iran–Iraq war, and
problems in Kampuchea, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Central America,
South Africa, Namibia and others, the achievements of the
Movement in the field of Decolonization, Detente, Development,
Dissemination and Democratization of international relations cannot
be denied. The incoming Chairperson of NAM, Mrs. Indira Gandhi,
the Indian Prime Minister in her closing address to the Seventh
Summit (7–12 March 1983) stated, “the resolution to the two
dominating issues of our day, disarmament and development, cannot
be dramatic”. “We have only established the base camp and have a
long climb to the attainment of our goals and ideals”.[12]
The Tenth NAM Summit at Jakarta in 1992, the Eleventh at
Cartagena in 1995 all called for an introspection into the formulation
of new, elaborated platform of the non-aligned states through a
comprehensive world-view on the contemporary global issues, given
the post-Cold War scenario and the newer challenges of socio-
economic and political fronts. The Twelfth Summit at Durban
conceded that the non-aligned countries were standing on a
threshold of a new era—“an era that offers great opportunity yet
poses special danger for the developing world”. The Movement, to
make positive contribution in contemporary international relations,
should emerge as the power of the new millennium, the voice of the
peoples living in the South and work towards the noble principles for
which the Movement was established—international peace and
security. As Dr. G.N. Srivastava observed, “it has to be realized that
the world is interdependent as never before. The South–South Co-
operation is important to achieve North–South Co-operation. And
North–South Co-operation is essential to ensure a world based on
tolerance and genuine coexistence as aspired by NAM”.[13] To usher
in the New World Order, the NAM has a definite role to play and the
need of the hour is that the NAM-member countries should act in
unison and revive the Movement’s assertive role and forge a
stronger solidarity between South and South, ultimately leading to
North–South cooperation.
RELEVANCE OF NAM IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
The question which is raised under the given circumstances, when
the rivalry between the two ideologically driven power blocs led by
the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union have ceased
around 1990 followed by the dismemberment of the Soviet Union
with the world becoming unipolar, is the need and relevance of non-
alignment. Milos Minic, a Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia has
expressed his observation for such situation as one cropping out of
the end of the Cold War followed by the cessation of hostilities
between the superpower blocs and being replaced, in many
instances, by dialogue, negotiation and accommodation. The
emergence of this kind of new situation in international relations calls
for solution of international problems through negotiations and
understanding on a greater plane and more successfully by
revitalizing the United Nations. Under such changed circumstances
the NAM cannot historically and practically play the same role.[14]
The end of the Cold War has replaced the “nuclear bomb” with
“social bomb”, with poverty, underdevelopment, violence and
terrorism topping the priority list and getting intertwined with the
security problem of the South to which there can be no military
solution. The richest—20 per cent of the world population—hold
almost 83 per cent of the wealth and the poorest—20 per cent—hold
only 1.4 per cent.[15] Such adverse economic global structure
continues to negatively affect the developing countries, and NAM
has a definite role in working towards a New World Order to help its
member countries to alleviate the sufferings of its population.
India’s assertion at the Colombia Summit highlights that the culture
and logic of NAM are not passé, but “The cold war had been so
compulsive that many forgot the rationale of the origins of the Non-
Aligned Movement and understood it as only an exercise in
acrobatics between the overwhelming blocs. The permanent
principles of peace, struggle against dominations, cooperation
between nations, and the establishment of a world order more or
less took a back seat”.[16] But the culture of peace, cooperation,
striving for a new and just world order will continue as long as the
world is based upon an inequitable international system.
I.K. Gujral, the Indian Prime Minister put forward certain proposals
for rejuvenation of NAM before the Twelfth meeting of the NAM
Foreign Ministers while highlighting the re-emergence of the new
imperialism of the West. NAM, he asserted, should assume its
supreme responsibility to deplore the fundamentalism of
globalization and the market alongside addressing the burning
issues of terrorism, civil wars, ethnicity, human rights, respect for
democratic ideals, poverty, underdevelopment and democratization
of the United Nations. He reaffirmed that NAM should strive for a
more equitable World Order, and has to play a crucial role of
projecting the views of the developing countries in the international
fora. But to one’s dismay, NAM has not made any remarkable
breakthrough in either promoting the South–South cooperation or
adopting a positive plan of action regarding the problems of human
rights and social justice, environmental degradation, trafficking of
drugs and weapons, international terrorism other than expressing
concerns about them. Therefore, NAM should tide over such identity
crisis and establish its relevance and efficacy, once again, for it is an
international platform which provides opportunity to small, poor and
underdeveloped countries to have their voices heard.[17]
The need of the hour is an effort by all the member states to
strengthen the bargaining capacity of NAM, which can partly be done
by reaffirming faith in the Movement and by building a strong bond
among its member states once again, and partly by organizing some
form of institutional machinery for collective bargaining with the
developed countries. The latter was proposed by the Chairman of
the South Commission, late Julius Nyerere, the former President of
Tanzania. In a report published in 1990, he reaffirmed that the Third
World countries are in extremely weak bargaining position in their
dealings with the well-organized groupings of the developed
countries or with the transnational corporations, and that the Third
World countries are often ill-prepared for discussions with the North
which often decides the agenda of the meeting. The report
recommended, inter alia, “the Commission is firmly of the view that
the developing countries should establish a well-staffed Secretariat
for the South that would provide continuing institutional support for
analysis, interaction, negotiation and follow-up action—the technical
foundation for their collective function”. [18] The NAM should work
towards this end and establish a Secretariat to serve, coordinate and
follow-up the implementation of its decisions. A rejuvenated NAM is
the need of the hour. The NAM countries should come forward with a
vision to:

Reform and strengthen the United Nations

Encourage the South–South cooperation
Strive for an equitable world order
Consolidate the movement through necessary reforms
Adhere to the principles and objectives of the movement by its
members and build a common bargaining platform.
 EXERCISES
1. Trace the origin and evolution of the non-aligned movement. What
are its objectives?
2. Discuss the growth of the non-aligned movement. Has the non-
aligned movement lost its relevance?
3. Write a note on the growth, significance and contribution of the
non-aligned movement. Is it relevant in the contemporary world?
 REFERENCES
[1] Singham, A.W. and Shirley Hune, Non-alignment in an Age of
Alignments, Lawrence Hill and Co., Westport, USA and Zed
Books Ltd., London, 1986, p. 1.
[2] Jaipal, Rikhi, Non-alignment: Origins, Growth and Potential for
Worlds Peace, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1983, p. 10.
[3] ibid., p. 52.
[4] ibid., pp. 55–56.
[5] ibid., pp. 1–2.
[6] Jain, Narendra P., “A New Approach to International Relation”, in
D.R. Goyal (Ed.), Non-Alignment: Concept and Concerns, Ajanta
Publications, New Delhi, 1986, pp. 3–4.
[7] Jaipal, Rikhi, op. cit., n. 3, p. 10.
[8] ibid.
[9] Jain, N.P., op. cit., n. 6, p. 5.
[10] Singham and Hune, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 14–15.
[11] ibid., pp. 33–42.
[12] Misra, K.P., “Non-Alignment: Concept and Concerns”, in D.R.
Goyal (Ed.), Non-Alignment: Concept and concerns, Ajanta
Publications, New Delhi, 1986, p. 36.
[13] Josh, Harcharan Singh, “NAM and the New World Order”, in
Pramila Srivastava (Ed.), Non-Aligned Movement: Extending
frontiers, Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 82–83.
[14] Misra, K.P., “Aspects of Non-Alignment”, in Pramila Srivastava
(Ed.), Non-Aligned Movement: Extending Frontiers, Kanishka
Publishers, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 17–18.
[15] Vidyasekera, E.A., “Non-Aligned Movement and the Challenge
of Sustainable Development, in Pramila Srivastava (Ed.), Non-
Aligned Movement: Extending Frontiers, Kanishka Publishers,
New Delhi, 2001, p. 56.
[16] Misra, K.P., op. cit., n. 14, p. 19.
[17] Singh, K. Natwar, “The Importance and Relevance of Non-
Alignment,” in Pramila Srivastava (Ed.), Non-Aligned Movement:
 Extending Frontiers, Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, 2001, p.
29.
[18] Amate, C.O.C., “The Non-Aligned Movement Today”, in Pramila
Srivastava (Ed.), Non-Aligned Movement: Extending Frontiers,
Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi, 2001, p. 47.
Neo-Colonialism
INTRODUCTION
Post-Second World War, international system experienced a kind of
subjugation of the weak, underdeveloped and newly independent
states of the world by those powers who held their sway over these
states as parts of their colony. Though traditional or classical
colonialism did fade away with the former colonies asserting their
independence and establishing themselves as sovereign states yet,
in essence, their economic backwardness had made them heavily
dependent on their former colonial masters. This is a situation when
the former colonial powers exploit the resources of these newly
independent states and impose their domination over them by using
political, economic, social, military and technological forces—a
situation, which has come to be identified as neo-colonialism or neo-
imperialism. But before going into details about neo-colonialism it
would be most effective to have an overview on imperialism.
IMPERIALISM: AN OVERVIEW
The subjugation of large parts of the world constitutes an important
episode in the history of international relations. Realpolitik involves
the urge of states to acquire jurisdiction and exercise domination
over the territories and peoples of other states. The ultimate aim is
expansion and enhancement of national prestige and asserting their
power. This has led to the acquisition of colonies, setting up of
economic dependencies and satellites. When such practices
become a part and parcel of a foreign policy objective of a state, it is
often said that the state is engaging in imperialism.
Though imperialism and colonialism have long been employed as
instruments of national policy, there is no agreed definition about
imperialism. Some scholars try to define imperialism as “a policy
which aims at creating, organizing, and maintaining an empire; that
is, a state of vast size composed of various more or less distinct
national units and subject to a single centralized will”. According to
Charles A. Beard* “Imperialism is … employment of the engines of
government and diplomacy to acquire territories, protectorates,
and/or spheres of influences occupied usually by other races or
peoples, and to promote industrial, trade, and investment
opportunities”. Parker T. Moon † defines imperialism as “domination
of non-European native races by totally dissimilar European nations”.
Joseph Schumpeter ‡ , a distinguished Austrian economist, regarded
imperialism as an “atavistic force, ancient in inception, decadent and
self-conscious in an age of rationalism, yet still powerful enough to
lord it over its rival, the upstart capitalism”.
Charles Hodges§ offered a much more convincing definition of
imperialism as “a projection externally, directly or indirectly, of alien
political, economic, or cultural power of one nation into the internal
life of another people. … it involves the imposition of control—open
or covert, direct or indirect —of one people by another” and it “is to
affect the destinies of the backward people in the interest of more
advanced from the stand point of world power”.[1]
The terms ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’ are used interchangeably
although they mean two different things. Usually, ‘colony’ is a people
detached from a larger entity and settled in a distant place.
‘Imperium’ is the exercise of command or domination of one people
by a stronger people. Therefore, ‘imperialism’ implies pacification
and domination.[2]
Palmer and Perkins[3] point out that some scholars like Hobson, in
his famous work, Imperialism: A Study, gave the essence of
colonialism as “a natural overflow of nationality wherein groups of
colonists are sent out to a foreign, and ordinarily more backward,
land or go of their own volition to settle and take up the land”,
followed by the transplantation of their civilization and political
institutions and retaining the territory of the home country.
Imperialism, on the other hand, is regarded as “something more
organized, more military, more self-consciously aggressive”. The
distinction can be understood in teleological terms and in terms of
purposes and ends sought. When rule over foreign territories is
sought primarily for the economic, political or military benefit of the
central homeland, the action assumes the characteristics of
imperialism, though it may not always be regarded as such. Where
rule is undertaken within a colonial area, primarily for retaining the
control over the territory, it is said to be identified with colonialism.
Whatever may be the distinction between the two, both imperialism
and colonialism pertain to a relationship of domination and
subordination of one area and its people by another area and its
government. The most significant thing about colonialism and
imperialism is not that they can be precisely defined or that they
cannot always be distinguished from each other, but both express a
kind of relationship and thus used interchangeably and the
distinction is often not preserved.[4] In the modern times, colonialism
acquired more or less the same connotation as imperialism with the
rise of the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish Empires.
Over the past 400 years or more, European nations had subjugated
two-thirds of the non-European world. Spain and Portugal were the
early colonizers but their supremacy was challenged since 1600 AD
by Holland, England and France who joined the race for scramble for
colonies. The peak of colonization was reached in 1775 when the
entire American, Asian and African continents became subjugated to
European domination. A second peak was reached in about 1900
AD when about half the earth’s surface and a third of its population
were colonial possessions. By that time England had the highest
colonial possessions; second was France, and Germany held the
third position.
This experience of colonialism was not an uncommon feature in
history, because colonialism goes back to the ancient world. Great
colonial empires were created by Phoenicians, the Greeks, the
Romans and the Carthaginians. The Indians and the Chinese, the
Arabs and the Turks all had colonies. But the facts which
distinguished modern colonialism from the earlier forms of
colonialism are:

Modern colonialism was basically a European phenomena.

The colonies have all been far from homeland.
The colonies were inhabited by populations different from their
conquerors in both culture and race.

Modern colonialism got a spurt of life in the nineteenth century due

to the industrial revolution in Europe that induced the European
states to search for new markets for their products. The best
opportunities were held out by the Third World countries. Therefore,
subjugation of the Third World countries became the primary aim of
the European states and these often led to inter-imperialistic wars
like Anglo–French rivalry in India, France–Germany conflict over
Morocco, Anglo–French rivalry over Sudan, France–Germany
conflict over Congo, and so on. Nevertheless, a pattern of colonial
relationships, one that was of domination and subjugation, was
created when the European nations established and maintained their
sway over geographically external political units inhabited by
different people.
Primary motives behind imperialistic policies arise from a state’s
political motives, which may be aimed at increasing national power.
Spain, Britain and France setup colonies because it added to their
power and prestige. Imperialistic policy may also be pursued for
national defence as is reflected in the United States’ acquisitions of
bases in the Caribbean, the purchase of the Virgin Islands and the
exercise of influence in Central America from time to time which has
been determined by United States vital interest of protection of
Panama Canal and the American continent. In most cases, however,
imperialist policies have been motivated by economic interests.
Sometimes altruism has been emphasized as a motivating factor
and in most cases English colonialism was justified by some as
“shouldering the white man’s burden”. France also justified its
colonizing moves as a sort of civilizing mission. Sometimes
missionary zeal worked as a factor for colonialism. Religious
missionaries were active in Africa, India and China. In England,
Protestant missionary societies were a vocal impetus to British
imperialism. Although strong economic forces have worked behind
much of the growth of modern imperialism, it would be illogical if
other factors are ignored. “No simple explanation, no dogmatic
theory, will suffice”[5] as Imperialism is, in all its manifestations, the
result of the interplay of complex forces that may have psychological,
sociological, religious, political, military, intellectual, and personal-
rule roots.
Professor Joseph Schumpeter suggested that imperialism is “the
objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible
expansion”. He further stated, “It would never have been evolved by
the ‘inner logic’ of capitalism itself”, but must be regarded “not only
historically, but also sociologically, as a heritage of the autocratic
state”.[6]
A systematic economic explanation of the urge of the states to
expand was given by Marx. When “Capital grows in one place to a
huge mass in a single hand because it has in another place been
lost by many” a stage of monopoly capitalism is reached. Each
capitalist tries to increase profits by reducing the production costs,
especially by saving the wages, and competes to win larger sales of
product, which results in search for raw materials and new markets,
and hence outward expansion. Hobson attributed this expansion as
the “economic taproot of imperialism”. Lenin[7] in his seminal work
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, viewed imperialism as
a stage of capitalist development and not merely as one possible set
of foreign policy options among many. To him, monopolist capitalist
stage exhibits five basic features. They are:
1. Concentration of production and capital leads to the creation of
national and multinational monopolies—not as in liberal
economics, but as de facto power over their markets—while
“free competition” remains the domain of local and niche
markets:
Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production
generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the
latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry
and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and
carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown
and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the
capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same
time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the
latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very
acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from
capitalism to a higher system. (Ch. VII)

2. The fusion of banking capital with industrial capital and the

creation, on the basis of this financial capital, of a financial
oligarchy.
3. Finance capital exportation replaces the exportation of goods
(though they continue in production).
4. The economic division of the world, by multinational enterprises
via international cartels.
5. The political division of the world by the great powers, wherein
exporting finance capital to their colonies allows their exploitation
for resources and continued investment.
Though Lenin did not provide a foolproof theory of imperialism
nevertheless, he had set the tenor for analysing the causes of
inequalities in the world which have been later developed by full
names, Marxists like Andre Gunder Frank, Johan Galtung Immanuel
Wallerstein (discussed in Chapter 2) and others who, in their own
version utilizing the Marxian vocabulary, have tried to understand the
pattern of relationship between the developing and developed parts
of the world.
By the end of the nineteenth century, almost the entire globe was
under the colonial rule. Scholars have pointed out that the age of
discovery (fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), stimulated by ship-
building and navigation, the politico-economic theory of mercantilism
which held that national strength and security in a world of
competing states were dependent on a favourable balance of trade
and the accumulation of gold in the treasury, the rise of monopoly
capitalism, all brought the Third World countries under imperialistic
exploitation. As history moved on, colonialism and imperialism
created their own contradictions in the forms of national liberation
and urge for democracy. By the end of World War II, a process of
decolonization had started and almost all states under colonial
domination were able to shake off the yoke of this domination. This,
formally put an end to colonialism but the former colonies continued
and still continue to be dominated and exploited by the former
colonial powers. Thus, political economy of dependence and
exploitation continues. As Organski[8] remarks that classical
colonialism might have met a natural death but new forms of
colonialism are arising in its place. Nations, those who have won
nominal political independence, are not necessarily free and those
states which have never been colonies before also cannot escape
the new forces of colonialism commonly known as neo-colonialism.
NEO-COLONIALISM: CONCEPT
The term ‘neo-colonialism’ was popularized in the wake of
decolonialization, largely through the activities of scholars and
leaders from the newly independent states of Africa and the Pan-
African Movement. Many of these leaders came together with those
of other post-colonial states at the Bandung Conference of 1955,
leading to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement. The All-
African Peoples’ Conference (AAPC) meetings of the late 1950s and
early 1960s spread the critique of neo-colonialism. The Tunis
conference of 1960 and Cairo Conference of 1961 specified their
opposition to what they labelled as neo-colonialism. Their four-page
Resolution on Neocolonialism is cited as a landmark for having
presented a collectively arrived at definition of neo-colonialism and a
description of its main features. Throughout the Cold War, NAM as
well as organizations like the Organization of Solidarity with the
People of Asia, Africa and Latin America defined neo-colonialism as
a primary collective enemy of these independent states.
Neo-colonialism is best described as “The survival of the colonial
system in spite of formal recognition of political independence in
emerging countries which became the victims of indirect and subtle
form of domination by political, economic, social, military and
technical forces”.[9]
The mechanisms of neo-colonialism are designed to serve the
interest of continuation of economic dependence of former colonies
by the former colonial powers. This is ensured by the integration of
the dependent countries into colonial economic blocs through capital
investments, loans, aid, unequal exchange and finances directly
controlled by the colonial powers.

Difference between Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism

Kwame Nkrumah, who in 1957 became the leader of the newly
independent Ghana, expounded his idea in his book Neo-
Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, in 1965. He stated, “The
essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is,
in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of
international sovereignty. In reality, its economic system and thus its
political policy is directed from outside. Neo-colonialism is also the
worst form of imperialism. For those who practice it, it means power
without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means
exploitation without redress”.[10]
Therefore, to Kwame Nkrumah, the neo-colonialism of today
represented imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous
stage. In the past, it was possible to convert a country into a colonial
territory. Today, this process is no longer feasible due to the
presence of international laws and world public opinion. Once a
territory has become nominally independent, it is no longer possible,
as it was in the last century, to reverse the process. Existing colonies
lingered on for quite some time but no new colonies were created.
Therefore, in place of colonialism as the main instrument of
imperialism what exists today is neo-colonialism.
Denunciations of neo-colonialism also became popular with some
national independence movements while they were still waging anti-
colonial armed struggle and, after they gained independence, they
rejected both traditional colonialism and neo-colonialism. The NAM
countries were pioneer’s in their struggle against colonialism and
neo-colonialism and wanted the establishment of a New International
Economic Order.
In the late twentieth century, the Western nations, especially the
United States, were often charged for the perpetration of neo-
colonialism. They were charged with involvement in the affairs of the
developing nations. Proxy wars, many in former colonized nations,
were funded throughout this period. Cuba, the Soviet bloc, Egypt
under Nasser, as well as some governments of newly independent
African states, charged the United States with supporting regimes
which they felt did not represent the will of their peoples, and by both
covert and overt means, toppled governments which rejected the
United States.
The Third African People’s Conference held in Cairo in 1961 made a
comprehensive summary of manifestations of neo-colonialism. The
Conference considered neo-colonialism to be the survival of the
colonial system in spite of formal recognition of political
independence in emerging countries, which became victims of an
indirect and subtle form of domination by political, economic, social,
military or technical [forces].
The manifestations of neo-colonialism, as highlighted and
denounced by the Cairo Conference, are:
1. Puppet governments represented by stooges and based on
some chiefs, reactionary elements, antipopular politicians, big
bourgeois-compradors or corrupted civil or military functionaries.
2. Re-grouping of state, before or after independence, by an
imperial power in federation or communities linked to that
imperial power.
3. Balkanization as a deliberate political fragmentation of states by
creation of artificial entities, as in the case of Katanga,
Mauritiana, Buganda and others.
4. The economic entrenchment of the colonial powers before
independence, and the continuity of economic dependence after
formal recognition of national sovereignty.
5. Integration into colonial economic blocs which maintain the
underdeveloped character of African economy.
6. Economic infiltration by a foreign power after independence
through capital investments, loans and monetary aids or
technical experts of unequal concessions, particularly those
extending for long periods.
7. Direct monetary dependence as in those emergent independent
states whose finances remain in the hands of and are directly
controlled by the colonial powers.
8. Military bases sometimes introduced as scientific research
stations or training schools, introduced either before
independence or as a condition for independence.[11]
The neo-colonialism of the present time substitutes older form of
controls over the former colonies and uses newer and subtle
methods to perpetuate it. The mechanisms of neo-colonialism may
be political devices, economic instru-ments, treaties and
agreements, arms trade, technology transfer, military mechanisms
and cultural mechanisms.
MECHANISMS OF NEO-COLONIALISM
Political Devices
Formal or informal modes of political control of the old form of
colonialism are replaced by establishing the political control in varied
forms. They may range from nurturing the old economic and political
ties, wherever possible, like relationships formed within the Bristish
Commonwealth and the French Community, closed currency,
preferential trading systems, military alliances and political–military
pacts. Other forms of political control include economic, political and
cultural missions, labour union delegations, joint military training
programmes, military grants and bribes to local ruling classes in the
form of economic ‘aid’. When these fail, the older policies of force
are brought back, for example, the United States instigated counter-
revolution in Guatemala in 1954 against the Arbenz Government and
the accomplishments following it. The United States extracted an
agreement for the return of property expropriated by the ‘Arbenz
Guzman¶’ government (of Guatemala) for the United Fruit Company
subsidiary there. Post-1954, the Castillo Armas regime was
maintained in office via contracts with the United Fruit, Bond and
Share and other monopolies. Therefore, puppet governments serve
as important mechanisms of reinforcing neo-colonialism with vigour.
[12]

Foreign Aid
Foreign aid is the assistance given to the developing countries to
help them speed up their development or meet their basic
humanitarian needs. The foreign assistance given take different
forms and all serve different purposes. Some are humanitarian,
some are political, and yet others try to create advantages for the
donors. Most often, aid is used more as a weapon of foreign policy of
the donor states or international agencies and always released with
certain strings or conditions attached to it. But the truth is that the
Third World countries are reeling under the onus of debt-burden
which is making them more and more dependent on the developed
states. They are suffering from the problem of debt servicing which is
a constant drain of whatever surplus is produced by them. They may
default on debt repayment or attempt debt re-negotiation. Either way,
the Third World countries are losers and, as a result of heavy debt-
burden in the 1980s, a Third World debt crisis emerged, particularly
in Latin America. Africa today pays more money every year as debt
service payments to the IMF and World Bank than it receives in
loans from them, thereby often depriving the inhabitants of those
countries from actual necessities.
The conditions attached to the debt or aid given reveal the true
intention of the donor countries. The American PL 480 or “Food for
Peace” given to the Third World countries, including India, was
nothing but a US plan to dump their agricultural surpluses in the
name of aid. It also opened up opportunities for future commercial
markets for the US agriculture. Food aid also intended to discourage
local production thereby hindering self-sufficiency and ultimately
leading to continuous dependence of food supply from the foreign
countries.
Aid through international agencies such as the IMF and the World
Bank is also not less motivated. Generally an agreement to loan IMF
funds is based on the condition that certain government policies are
adopted, is worked out which is referred to as IMF conditionality
agreement. This means implementation of these conditions agreed
upon by the recipient country as a part of the “structural adjustment
programme”. Adjustments largely consisting of privatization
programmes, which they say, result in deteriorating health,
education, inability to develop infrastructure, and in general, lower
living standards. Undoubtedly, implementation of these conditionality
leads to the hardships of the average citizens and fails to deliver any
good, and sometimes may even result in political disturbances within
the country resulting in the toppling of the government. As in the
case of Ghana, the local poultry industry collapsed, impoverishing
400,000 small farmers because the market was flooded with cheap
subsidized frozen chickens from the EU and the United States.
Ghana’s attempt to raise the tariffs to prevent this dumping was
blocked by the IMF and the WTO because the conditionality of
structural adjustments had to be continued. The sub-Saharan
countries are suffering from the IMF and the WTO conditionality of
structural adjustments because they have been forced to open up
their economies to import from the industrialized North.[13]
Though aid from these agencies helps in fostering development of
the Third World countries, nevertheless, as the major contribution to
these International financial agencies comes from the United States
and Western countries, they have a greater say in the decision-
making of these agencies. They decide the amount of aid to be given
and conditions to be attached as a result of which, to a great extent,
the rate of economic development and the economic policies of the
poor countries get determined by the rich North. It is said that “The
benefits of such international aid have been marginal in the long run;
and had only perpetuated the dependence of third world countries on
such aid”.[14]

Multinational Corporations (MNCs)

Multinational Corporations are becoming crucial and powerful non-
state actors in international relations. Some of the industrial MNCs
have annual sales of tens of billions of dollars each and international
firms such as the IBM, Unilever, Coca Cola and others have become
more powerful than the sovereign states. Whether MNCs serve as
agents of national governments or national governments serve as
agents of MNCs, the truth is that both guard each other’s interests
and state interventions whether military or economic result when
their interests in the Third World countries are jeopardized. For
instance, nationalization of the Suez Canal Company in 1956 by
President Nasser invited a major Anglo–French invasion of Egypt.
The MNCs in Latin America, Africa and Asia exercise a powerful
influence on the government’s policy-making.
Critics of neo-colonialism point out that investment by multinational
corporations enriches few in the developing countries, and causes
humanitarian, environmental and ecological devastation to the
populations which inhabit the neo-colonies. This results in
unsustainable development and perpetual underdevelopment; a
dependency situation which renders those countries as reservoirs of
cheap labour and raw materials, while restricting their access to
advanced production techniques to develop their own economies
and, thereby, thwarting their pace of development and self-
sufficiency.
MNCs also prevent the use of indigenous technology. It is said that
the training of manpower in the advanced nations provided at a high
degree of sophistication which cannot be sustained by less
developed countries leads to brain drain from the poor
countries.Thus, increasing their dependence on the developed
countries continues.

Treaties and Agreements

The Global North tries to ensure its control over the developing
countries of the South through formal treaties and agreements which
are mostly designed to serve the interests of the neo-colonial
powers. These may be bilateral treaties like the Indo–US Nuke Deal
which, to some, have to be looked at with caution or multilateral
treaties such as the NPT or CTBT. Both the NPT and CTBT were
regarded by the developing countries as discriminatory and they did
not end horizontal expansion but tried to stop vertical extension of
the nuclear club. Economic agreements and treaties between the
developed countries and the poor states are intended to further the
neo-colonial exploitation of the poor countries. Therefore, treaties
and agreements are also mechanisms to extend control over the
developing countries which are mostly former colonies.

Arms Trade
The military–industrial complex is a complicated network of
governmental agencies, industrial corporations and research
institutes working together to meet a state’s military requirement.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union have huge military–
industrial complex. Other than meeting one’s own military
requirements, most often the developed states like the United States
and the Soviet Union are engaged in arms sale to the developing
countries. This serves a dual purpose. One is that they get rid of
outdated and also surplus military equipment, and the other is that
the money earned is pumped into the military–industrial complex for
its survival. Other Western countries such as UK and France also
have become major suppliers of arms to the Third World countries.
Arms trade diverts the precious foreign exchange from real
development of the people and the state to wasteful purposes such
as engaging in conflicts and war with other states, or simply
engaging in arms escalation resulting in unhealthy arms race with
the opponent state, thus obstructing the path of development and
continuing their phenomena of dependence.

Transfer of Technology
Transfer of technology is an endeavour on the part of the Third
World countries to acquire technology, knowledge, skills, methods,
designs and specialized equipments from foreign sources. This,
however, only adds up to the burden of the poor developing
countries. One UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development) study points out that contracts for transferring
technology involves purchases and even imports of raw materials
and intermediate inputs resulting in an increase in cost of such
transfers and also raises unit costs. This restrains the healthy growth
of the economies of the developing countries.

Cultural Device
One variant of neo-colonialism theory suggests the existence of
cultural colonialism, the alleged desire of wealthy nations to control
other nations’ values and perceptions through cultural means, such
as media, language, education and religion, purportedly ultimately
for economic reasons. For this, they use the latest innovations in
information and technology, mass media, particularly television with
multiple channels, movies, Internet and other devices, to impose a
sort of cultural domination on the people of the Third World
countries.
The overall international scenario bears testimony to the great divide
between the rich and the poor states in the world, with the former
extracting the maximum benefits by exploiting the economies and
resources, whether natural or human, of the poor countries. The
result is that the poor countries remain poor and the rich countries
get richer. The World Bank has produced a list of 140 ‘failed’ states
which are either developing countries or former socialist countries,
but with huge natural resources. In the wake of such a situation, neo-
colonialism is assuming its old character of colonialism but in a new
garb. This new manifestation of colonialism is referred to as Post-
modern Imperialism by American and other Western academicians.
The aim is to create a “New Imperial Order” to rescue the ‘failed’
states. The United States is now more interested in establishing a
form of international governance that may be described as neo-
trusteeship or post-modern Imperialism, and the signs of such post-
modern Imperialism is already being seen in Bosnia, Kosovo, East
Timor, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. The rationale behind
such thinking is that, left to their own devices, collapsed and badly
governed states will not be able to improve much with limited
administrative capacity and will fail to maintain internal security.
Therefore, to reduce international threats, alternative institutional
arrangements supported by external actors must be worked out. This
might include de facto trusteeships and shared sovereignty.[15]
A new dimension has been added to justify physical control of the
‘failed’ states in terms of inefficiency of their governments to have
sustained economic growth. The justification is that inefficient
governments breed international terrorism, and to eradicate this
menace, control has to be removed from the ‘failed’ states. As in the
Victorian era, the justification of colonialism in terms of “white man’s
burden” to civilize the “dark continent” now the justification is to save
the failed states and spread democracy.16
DEMAND FOR NIEO
The dismal picture of the international economic structure had
created a discontent among the developing countries. These
countries of South had been from the 1970s onwards, pressing for a
New International Economic Order where the developing world
would have a say. These countries have utilized the Group of G-77,
the UNCTAD, the Non- Aligned Conferences, and the General
Assembly of the United Nations to place their demand and realize
them through structural adjustment of the existing international
economic relations.
By the early 1960s, however, many developing countries were
frustrated with their growth prospects and started demanding a
better deal. Rallying in such organizations as the Non-Aligned
Movement, and establishing the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), they argued for fairer terms of
trade and more liberal terms for financing development. The North
responded with pious declarations of its good intentions—but also
with a hard-nosed insistence—that the proper forum for any
economic changes continued to be the Bretton Woods institutions
where they held the balance of power.
The success of the oil-producing countries of OPEC, in increasing
petroleum prices substantially, starting in 1973, served as a catalyst
to pull together the developing countries in support of a call for a
New International Economic Order in which their interests would be
better represented. This call integrated many of the proposals that
had been discussed previously at UNCTAD and other world forums.
Specific proposals for changes in the economic system were
advanced at the Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Nations held in
Algiers in September 1973. Following that, the Sixth Special Session
of the UN General Assembly was called hastily in April 1974. This
session adopted, without a vote, a manifesto entitled “Declaration
and Program of Action of the New International Order”. In December
1974, the General Assembly approved the Charter of Economic
Rights and Duties of States.
The UN General Assembly, in its Sixth Special Session held in 1974,
declared its determination to establish a New International Economic
Order (NIEO). It proclaimed that “We, the Members of the United
Nations…solemnly proclaim our united determination to work
urgently for the establishment of a New International Economic
Order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence,
common interest and cooperation among all states, irrespective of
their economic and social systems, which shall correct inequalities
and redress existing injustices, make it possible to eliminate the
widening gap between the developed and the developing countries
and ensure steadily accelerating economic and social development
and peace and justice for present and future generations.[17]
In another resolution, the General Assembly adopted at the same
Session a programme for establishment of an NIEO. The NIEO is
essentially an 18-clause document that seeks certain changes in the
international system, which would allow the less developed countries
an opportunity to build their way out of the never-ending cycle of
poverty. Some of the main clauses were:
1. Fundamental problems of raw materials and primary
commodities as related to trade and development
2. International monetary system and financing of the development
of developing countries
3. Industrialization
4. Transfer of technology
5. Regulation and control over the activities of transnational
corporations
6. Charter of economic rights and duties of states
7. Promotion of cooperation among developing countries
8. Assistance in the exercise of permanent sovereignty of states
over natural resources
9. Strengthening of the role of the United Nations system in the
field of international economic cooperation
10. Special programme for the most seriously affected developing
nations.
The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, as mentioned in the
Programme of Action, was adopted by the UNGA in its Twenty-Ninth
Session in 1974. This Charter provided, among others: full
sovereignty of states over their natural resources; control over
multinationals; nationalization of foreign investment; sharing of
common natural resources; equitable terms of trade; duty of the
developed countries (DCs) to transfer technology to the less
developed countries (LDCs), extension of generalized, non-
reciprocal and non-discriminatory tariff preferences by the DCs to the
LDCs and others.
Article 8 of the Charter explicitly stated the need for cooperation
among states to facilitate more rational and equitable international
economic relations and to encourage structural changes in the
context of a balanced world economy in harmony with the needs and
interests of all countries, especially the developing countries.
In its Twenty-Fifth Session, the UNGA had already declared the
period starting from 1 January 1971 to 31 December 1981 as the
Second United Nations Development Decade. The UNGA resolution
pertaining to the establishment of NIEO, adopted in its Sixth Special
Session, specifically recommended the International Development
Strategy for the realization of the NIEO. The International
Development Strategy aimed at a 6 per cent average annual rate of
growth in the GDP of the LDCs during this Second United Nations
Development Decade.
The most important provisions in the programme designed to
establish the NIEO deal with the management and pricing of at least
ten core commodities: cocoa, coffee, tea, sugar, hard fibres, jute,
cotton, rubber, copper and tin, and seven other commodities with
slightly lower priority: bananas, wheat, rice, meat, wool, iron ore and
bauxite. Specifically, the objectives of the commodity programme
were: (a) reduction of excessive price and supply fluctuations; and
(b) establishment and maintenance of commodity prices which, in
real terms, are equitable to consumers and remunerative to
producers.
To achieve these goals, the following integrated measures were
proposed:
1. Establishment of international buffer stocks
2. Creation of a common fund to finance these stocks
 3. Signing of multilateral trade commitments
4. Arrangement of improved compensatory financing to stabilize
export earnings.
Realization of these objectives necessarily depended on finding the
resources required to achieve the targets visualized in the
International Development Strategy. The responsibility of finding the
resources lay with the LDCs, which were asked to “continue to adopt
vigorous measures for the mobilization of the whole range of their
domestic financial resources, both internal and external”. A marginal
responsibility was also devolved on the developed countries and
each developed country was expected to provide by the year 1972,
annually to the LDCs financial resource transfer of a minimum
amount of 1 per cent of its GNP at market prices in terms of actual
disbursements, having regard to the special position of those
countries, which were importers of capital. Among other
responsibilities, the developed countries were asked to provide, to
the greatest extent possible, an increased flow of aid on a long-term
and continuing basis, and to make arrangements for the
rescheduling and refinancing of debts wherever necessary. The
LDCs were asked to “adopt appropriate measures for inviting,
stimulating and making effective use of foreign private capital”, while
the developed countries were asked to “consider adopting further
measures to encourage the flow of private capital to developing
countries”.
The adoption of International Development Strategy, the NIEO, and
the Charter of Economic Rights might seem to be grand
achievements of the developing states after decades of conference
diplomacy by the LDCs but the target remain unfulfilled. Both of
these UN documents blame the past exploitation under colonialism
and neo-colonialism for the low incomes in the South.
At the UNCTAD IV conference in Nairobi in May 1976, the proposals
for the establishment of a New International Economic Order were
reworded slightly in some instances, but their essence remained
unchanged when they were adopted as resolutions, with only the
United States and the Federal Republic of Germany voting against
them. Most significantly, the conference laid out a time table for the
study and implementation of one of the most controversial proposals
involving the integrated programme for commodities, giving them a
bureaucratic life of their own and raising exceptions about their
ultimate adoption. As things turned out, the NIEO never became
much more than a rallying cry for the South.
FATE OF NIEO PROPOSAL
If the resolutions adopted by the UNGA reflect the majority of the
LDCs in the UN, their non-implementation as Prof. Jayantanuja
Bandyopadhyaya[18] shows the oligarchic and neo-imperialistic
control of the developed countries over the total international
relations scenario. Even the Charter of the United Nations gave a
formal sanction to the neo-imperialistic structure of the international
system, which came into existence after the Second World War by
according permanent seats to the five members in the Security
Council and investing in them the power to veto. The UN sort of
revived an international oligarchy, which ruled the world during the
phase of European imperialism. Morgenthau asserts that this is a
kind of a new Holy Alliance constituting the five permanent
members. Therefore, it is too optimistic to consider that the efforts of
the LDCs to bring about a revision in the international economic
relations would be fruitful.
A UN study led by Wassily Leontief found out that the economic gap
between the developed countries and the LDCs would remain
unchanged even by the year 2000. If any change occurs that would
be marginal. The gloomy picture of the present day remains
unchanged and as previously discussed, the continuation of
exploitative international economic relations have created more and
more failed states. No major developed country has so far been kind
enough to transfer even one-third of 1 per cent of the GNP to the
LDCs in the form of official development assistance. Neither any sort
of international monetary reform, nor the external debt problem of
the LDCs have been addressed. Even the activities of the MNCs
have expanded and they enjoy their profit from the exploitation of
cheap labour and natural resources and transference of
technological obsolescence, rather than the supply of sophisticated
technology. Even the developed countries, by establishing
discriminatory nuclear non-proliferation regimes, have tried to
prevent the transfer of nuclear technology. Side by side the
developed countries have increased their arms sales compared to
the LDCs and definitely the technology transferred is militarily
obsolete. This transference of militarily obsolescence only helps to
sustain the expensive military–industrial complex of the developed
countries. Thus, the North–South dialogues between the developed
countries and the LDCs for the establishment of the NIEO, have
proved to be “little more than hollow mockery”.
The LDCs have alleged that the failure to realize the NIEO is due to
the lack of commitment and lack of their ‘political will’. The Havana
Summit Conference of 1979 of the non-aligned states, comprising an
overwhelming number of LDCs noted that even after five years of
adoption of the NIEO and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties
of States, there has been no structural change in the international
economic scenario and it “continues its pervasive deterioration
aggravated and accelerated by the effects of the world economic
crisis”. It also took into account “the intransigency of most of the
developed countries and their refusal to engage in serious
negotiations to implement the above-mentioned resolutions which
have prevented the fundamental restructuring of economic relations
included in the basic objectives of the New International Economic
Order”.[19]
Scholars also point out the failure of the LDCs to realize NIEO
primarily due to the South’s lack of power in world politics, and partly
because disparities within the South created divergent interests
among the member states. Also it became apparent that many of the
proposed commodity schemes were not simply a proposal for stable
prices, but, high prices. As such, the financial costs of implementing
these programmes were way beyond anything the advanced
countries were willing to fund. In the 1980s, the terms of trade further
deteriorated for the raw material exporters, and the debt problems of
many of the nations advocating the NIEO in international forums
surpassed all limits.
Under the chairmanship of the former West German Chancellor,
Willy Brandt, the Independent Commission on International
Development Issues examined the problems being faced by the
global economy in the early 1980s. Brandt’s panel of former world
leaders and other prominent figures found that developing nations
were economically dependent on developed nations, which
dominated the international rules and institutions for trade, money
and finance. This economic division resulted in political instability,
not just in poor nations but across the world. According to Brandt “At
the beginning of a new decade, only twenty years short of the
millennium, we must try to lift ourselves above the day-to-day
quarrels (or negotiations) to see the menacing long-term problems.
We see a world in which poverty and hunger still prevail in many
huge regions; in which resources are squandered without
consideration of their renewal; in which more armaments are made
and sold than ever before; and where a destructive capacity has
been accumulated to blow up our planet several times over” (North–
South). In North–South (1980) and Common Crisis (1983), the
Brandt Commission made a set of bold recommendations to change
the present unequal international economic order. The Brandt
Reports called for a full-scale restructuring of the global economy,
along with a new approach to the problems of development,
including an emergency programme to end poverty in the developing
nations.
On the recommendations of Brandt Commission, a Summit
Conference was held in Cancun, Mexico on 22–23 October 1981.
The Cancun Summit focused on the issue of structuring of global
negotiations. The United States however, had its own reservations
and it did not want to compromise the supremacy of IMF and the
World Bank to United Nations in global negotiations, for in these
specialized agencies, the developed countries were the major
decision makers than in the UN General Assembly. Though the spirit
of Cancun was thought to be providing a boost to NIEO but actually
by 1984, the North–South dialogue could not make headway and it
stood frozen.
The international community had not responded to NIEO proposals
in any meaningful way and though the Brandt Reports though were
widely read and discussed, developed nations had focused more on
their own interests solely and have not contributed to the realization
of NIEO. As documented by the United Nations Development
Programme, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and
other agencies, the economic disparities outlined in the Brandt
Reports had widened significantly since 1980s.
Failure to address the need for NIEO is a lost opportunity for
everyone in the world. One should not overlook the benefits of
mutual advantage and cooperation. As the Brandt Reports remind
us, prosperity in the South can lead to prosperity in the North; but
economic trouble in the South can wreak havoc in the North as well.
The only alternative in sight is mobilizing the South and working
towards a South–South cooperation. The emergence of a new
grouping of the developing states, G-15 in 1989 and their
subsequent summits are working for forging a strong South–South
cooperation. The NAM, CHOGM, G-77 and other international fora
outside the UN have also been mobilized to champion the cause for
a new world order of developing countries but without much effect.
The adoption of the International Development Strategy, the
Declaration on the New International Economic Order and the
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States have been the
outcome of decade-long diplomacy and untiring efforts of the
developing countries, but in practice, as Prof. Jayantanuja
Bandyopadhyaya[20] points out, “the acceptance of this demand by
the UN General Assembly has proved to be hardly anything more
than a mere nominal recognition of the urge of the LDCs for a
greater share in the world distribution of resources. If the resolutions
of the General Assembly reflect the majority of the LDCs in the UN,
their non-implementation by the developed countries shows the
oligarchic and neo-imperialistic control of the developed countries
over the concrete structure of contemporary international relations”.
 EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by neo-colonialism? How is it different
from colonialism and imperialism? Trace the growth of neo-
colonialism in the post-World War II era.
2. Examine the concept of neo-colonialism with special references to
the mechanisms of neo-colonialism.
3. Discuss the demand for a New International Economic Order
(NIEO). Has it been achieved by the developing countries? Argue.
4. What were the demands put forward by the developing countries
in the form of New International Economic Order (NIEO)? What
has been the fate of the New International Economic Order
(NIEO) proposal?
 REFERENCES
[1] As Quoted in Norman D. Palmer and Howard C. Perkins,
International Relations—The World Community in Transition,
A.I.T.B.S. Publishers, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 159–160.
[2] Melkote, Rama S. and A. Narasimha Rao, International Relations,
Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, 1983, p. 63.
[3] Palmer and Perkins, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 160–161.
[4] ibid.
[5] Padelford, Norman, J. and George A. Lincoln, International
Politics: Foundations of International Relations, The Macmillan
and Co., New York, 1954, pp. 227–239.
[6] Connor, James O’, “The Meaning of Economic Imperialism” in
Richard Little and Michael Smith (Eds.), Perspectives on World
Politics, Routledge, London, 1991, p. 277.
[7] Lenin, V.I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism”
Leftword, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 113–123.
[8] Organski, A.F.K., World Politics, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1960,
p. 246.
[9] Melkote and Rao, op. cit., n. 2, p. 138.
[10] http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-
colonialism/index.htm.
[11] Connor, James O’, op. cit., n. 6, pp. 283–284.
[12] ibid., p. 288.
[13] Basu, Dipak, “Colonisation in a New Garb”, The Statesman,
Friday 30 September, 2005, Kolkata.
[14] Melkote and Rao, op. cit., n. 2, p. 141.
[15] Easterly, William, The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s
Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good,
Oxford University Press, London, 2006, pp. 238.
[16] Basu, Dipak, op. cit., n. 12.
[17] Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja, North Over South: A Non-
Western Perspective of International Relations,” South Asian
Publishers, New Delhi, 1984, pp. 107–110 (see also
 http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/routledge_15b.htm).
[18] ibid., p. 10.
[19] ibid., pp. 107–115.
[20] Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja, op. cit., n. 17, p. 110.

* Charles A. Beard, American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932–1940: A Study

in Responsibilities, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1946.
† Parker T. Moon, Imperialism and World Politics, The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1926.
‡ Joseph A. Schumpeter, “Imperialism and Social Classes”, 1951 (essay).
§ Charles Hodges, The Background of International Relations, Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1932.
¶ Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was the centre-left President of Guatemala from 1951
to 1954 when he was ousted in a coupd’état by CIA and was replaced by a military
junta headed by colonel Carlos Castillo Armas.
Regional Arrangements and their Role
in International Relations
INTRODUCTION
Since the end of the Second World War, the international scenario
has witnessed a certain urge among the states to ensure the well-
being, peace and security not only of the states themselves, but also
of the individual citizens. But the realization which dawned upon the
states was that such endeavour can succeed only if that effort is
supplemented by the cooperation of other states belonging to the
same region as its. This realization became the basis of regionalism
since the late 1940s. The roots of regionalism, therefore, lay in the
perception of the national policy-makers that there are certain
common interests shared by the states located in a particular region
and that these interests could be “most efficiently and effectively
promoted by the close and continuing cooperation within a regional
framework”.[1] Depending on the variety of interests, there arose a
number of regional organizations such as the NATO, ASEAN,
European Union, OPEC, the Arab League, and a host of others.
Regionalism has now become a powerful force in international
relations.
REGIONALISM AND INTEGRATION IN INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
Regionalism definitely pertains to a particular region. There have
been untiring efforts on the part of the scholars to define a region.
Prof. Palmer and Perkins[2] tried to emphasize that in international
relations “a region is invariably an area embracing the territories of
three or more states. These states are bound together by ties of
common interests as well as geography. They are not necessarily
contiguous, or even in the same continent”. There are no hard and
fast rules to determine what is meant by the term regions. Regions
are often constituted by countries sharing common bond of race,
institutions and political interests. When these states come together
and form an organizational association at the regional level to attain
specific objectives, regional arrangements are born. What is
important is that, most often, the states joining such regional
organizations need not belong to the same geographic region or
area. The factor, which reinforces such forging of bond, is perceived
as “common interests”.
At the San Francisco Conference of 1945, the Egyptian delegation
introduced an amendment to the draft text of the United Nations
Charter where they limited the term ‘regional arrangements’ by
definition, to “organizations of a permanent nature grouping in a
given geographical area several countries which, by reason of their
proximity, community of interest or cultural, linguistic, historical, or
spiritual affinities, make themselves jointly responsible for the
peaceful settlement of any disputes which may arise between them
for the maintenance of peace and security in their regions, as well as
safeguarding of their national interests and the development of their
economic and cultural relations”.[3] According to Dr. E.N. Van
Kleffens, “…regional arrangement or pact is a voluntary association
of sovereign states within a certain area or having common interests
in that area for a joint purpose, which should not be of an offensive
nature, in relation to that area”.[4]
Before discussing about some of the prominent regional
arrangements that exist today, it will be worthwhile to take a look at
the theory relating to regionalism and regional integration.

Functionalism
As opposed to the sole concerns of the discipline of international
relations with security and conflict studies, functionalism arose as an
operative philosophy, which visualized a gradual evolution of a
peaceful, unified and cooperative world. The earliest and influential
exponent of functionalism was David Mitrany. His celebrated work A
Working Peace System gives a clear exposition of his vision of
building peace in the international system. Other proponents were
Leonard Woolf, Norman Angell, Robert Cecil and G.D.H Cole. The
functionalists do not aim at creating a world federal structure rather,
they seek to build “peace by pieces”, through transnational
organizations, that emphasize the ‘sharing of sovereignty’, instead of
its total surrender. It is a ‘bottom up’ approach for building
cooperative links among states.
Beginning with the assumption that wars are the products of crudely
organized international system, which is founded on suspicion,
anarchy, sovereignty, and national exclusivism which, in turn,
considers war as an accepted means of settling international
disputes, functionalists opine that governments will not surrender
their national interests and will not dismantle easily. Therefore, they
prescribe a realistic means of attaining idealistic ends. They propose
a gradual approach towards regional or global unity, which will aim to
isolate and, at the end, will render obsolete the stubborn institutional
structures of international system, the nation-states.
Functionalists lay emphasis on the socio-economic and welfare
needs rather than on the political needs. Functionalism prescribes
the development of piecemeal non-political cooperative
organizations involving sectors such as economic, technical,
scientific, social and cultural. These are regarded as the functional
sectors. The basic calculation that works behind such assumption is
that “it is easier to establish narrow-in-scope functional organizations
(in sectors such as energy production and distribution, transportation
and communications control, health protection and improvement,
labour standards and exchanges and customs unions) than to
develop grandiose political institutions that jeopardize the national
sovereignty of member states”.[5] Such institutions, as Groom[6]
observes, would be “international, sub-national and transnational
according to their needs”. This, Mitrany felt, would to some degree
neutralize the antagonisms of the state system by the growth of
cross-cutting ties, and the development of a transnational community
would emerge with different people working together for different
purposes.
The outcome of such functional organizations, which are less
opposed by national governments because they revolve around non-
political issues and most of the time are mutually beneficial for the
participating states, has a ‘spillover’ effect. This means “if an
international cooperative venture works to mutual advantage in the
sector of coal and steel production, then it whets the appetite of and
creates additional administrative requirements for participating
governments to enter into cooperative ventures in related functional
areas, such as transportation, pollution control and eventually to
political unification”.[7]
Such ‘spillover’ effect will be reinforced by the ‘learning process’ and
ultimately will affect the basic unit of international system—the
states, the assumption being that, with the accumulation of a large
variety of functional organizations linking people and their interests
across national boundaries, a transformation in both national
attitudes and institutions will take place. Finally, transnational and
supranational attitudes and institutions would render the nation-
states useless. People would voluntarily transfer their allegiance and
loyalty from individual states to transnational units leading to the
emergence of a new ‘functional’ society with chief focus on
‘functional’ rather than ‘territory’. Therefore, following Mitrany’s vision
of functionalism, expanding network of international relations and
agencies would erase political divisions and integrate the interests
and lives of all nation-states. Hence, according to Mitrany[8], there
will be “one solid international block of flats” instead of “detached
national houses”.
Functionalism, however, was not without criticisms. Taylor who wrote
on international co-operation, contends that functionalism “is not and
never intended to be, a systematic descriptive analysis”.
Functionalists are regarded as piecemeal social engineers and not
the architect or purveyors of blueprints. Claude[9] is critical about the
length of time involved in the process of bringing about integration.
He says that “Functionalism is not in a hurry, and its claim to offer
hope to the world is implicitly based upon the supposition that a long
period is both necessary and available for working out solutions to
the problems”. Many scholars fail to acknowledge the fact that
cooperation exists in the social and economic fields; in other words,
the non-political sectors. However, such kind of separation between
high politics and low politics is hardly tenable. Political issues seem
to shape the social or economic activities of the structures of the
international system. As Kegley and Wittkopf[10] point out that “the
reality is that technical cooperation is often more severely impacted
by political considerations than the other way around. The
withdrawal from and the subsequent re-entry of the United States
into the International Labour Organization (ILO) because of the
politicized nature of the organization dramatized the primacy of
politics. Indeed, functionalism makes the naive assumption that
technical (functional) undertakings and political affairs can be
separated. They cannot”.
Despite such criticisms, it cannot be denied that functionalism was
perhaps the inspiration behind the integrative process in Europe and
also the functioning of international organizations like the United
Nations along with its specialized agencies.

Neo-Functionalism
Taking cue from functionalism and the experience of Western
Europe, theorists of international relations have used the term
‘integration’ to denote either a ‘process’ towards or an end product of
political unification among separate national units. Neo-functionalism
arose as a critique of functionalism, along with the publication of
most celebrated works of Ernst B. Hass’s Beyond the Nation-State:
Functionalism and International Organization and The Uniting of
Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957, and
Karl Deutsch and his associates’ Political Community and the North
Atlantic Area and France, Germany and the Western Alliance: A
Study of Elite Attitudes on European Integration and World Politics,
gave impetus to the study of regional integration. This also led to the
growth of a body of literature on integration, which tried to explain
the process of integration in Europe and other parts of the world,
especially the North Atlantic area.
According to Karl Deutsch*, “Integration… is a relationship among
units in which they are mutually interdependent and jointly produce
system properties which they would separately lack”. He argued that
integration between communities would be promoted by the increase
in transaction flows, and the multiplication of the channels of
communication. Mutually rewarding transactions would lead to better
understanding among people (and ultimately to peace). He
contended, “Political integration is the integration of political actors or
political units such as individuals, groups, municipalities, regions or
countries, in regard to the political behaviour”. For these integrative
efforts, he emphasized certain conditions such as increase in
transaction flows, mutual responsiveness, shared values, a relatively
high geographic and social mobility of persons.
The transactionalist view does not advocate the case of total
surrender of sovereignty or the absolute merger of states into a
world federation. The transactionalist simply desire the integration in
the form of regional, continental and inter-continental organizations
so that the units maintain their interdependence established by a
network of mutual transactions. Thus, what Deutsch and other
transactionalists do not assume is that the end stage of integration is
necessarily a unitary supranational state. Deutsch distinguishes
between “amalgamated security community” and “pluralistic security
community”. In the former, there is a common government that
presides over the merger of two or more independent units, into a
single larger unit and in the latter there is a peaceful change that is
guaranteed and institutionalized in some respects, but in which the
individual states retain their legal independence.
But the problems with transactionalists are that they fail to explain
whether community formation or integration is the result of increase
in transaction flows or precedes it, and also their basic assumption
that growth in integration leads to interdependence.[11]
Mitrany argued that international peace may be established through
the promotion of cooperation organized around basic functional
needs such as health, transportation, educational and cultural
activities, trade and other kinds of activities. He opined that there
would be as many as international organizations as required, and
these would be organized on a universal rather than a regional
basis. In contrast to Mitrany, Haas† was more interested in the study
of regional integration as a process “whereby political actors in
several discrete political settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties
and political activities towards a new center whose institutions
possess or demand jurisdiction over pre-existing national states”.
That is, he wondered whether the establishment of a supranational
organization among a group of states (in a region) and the issues
around which the process of integration would be set were primarily
of economic nature rather than political. For Haas, integration was
the tendency towards voluntary creation of larger political units
where each avoids the use of force in relations with the participating
units and groups. The primary actors in the integration process
would be the ‘integrationist-technocrats’ and various interest groups
who would persuade their governments to establish a regional
economic integration organization for a variety of ‘convergent aims’.
Achievement of integration then would result from a cumulative and
expansive process through which the functions of the organization
would slowly increase, and it would exercise authority over an ever-
expanding area of decision-making activities. The necessary
assumption that follows, according to Haas, is that progress from a
politically inspired common market to economic union, and finally to
political union would be automatic.[12]
According to Kegley and Wittkopf[13], neo-functionalism proposes to
reach its ultimate goal of a supranational community, not by avoiding
controversial issue areas but by stressing cooperation in areas that
are politically controversial. It proposes to overcome the political
obstacles standing in the way of cooperation by demonstrating the
benefits common to all members of a potential union.
Neo-functionalists like Schmitter and Haas, had developed neo-
function-alist paradigm for comparative analysis. They had identified
nine variables for this. Out of these nine, four were related to
background conditions, two pertained to conditions at the time of
economic union, and three were conditions of the process itself.
Through an automatic and gradual process of politicization of actor’s
purposes which had initially been technical or non-controversial, they
predicted, an organization that scored high in their categories would
“be transformed into some species of political union even if some of
the members are far from enthusiastic about this prospect when it is
argued in purely political terms”.[14]
Despite such enthusiasm regarding neo-functionalism, a number of
questions have been raised about the usefulness of the neo-
functionalist approach for comparative analysis of the degree of
integration. But it cannot be said that the total neo-functional
framework for analysis is futile because it consists of field work by
notable scholars. The original assumptions were later modified by
Hass, Nye, and Lindberg in order to explain the process of change in
Europe and to free the neo-functionalist theory of its Euro-centric
bias. Nye[15] suggested that the following revisions had to be made
to accomplish the modification:
1. The dependent variable, automatic politicization, is changed
2. More political actors are added
3. The list of conditions for integration is reformulated in light of the
comparative work that has been done on integration processes
in less developed areas
4. The idea of a single path from quasi-technical tasks to political
union by means of spillover is dropped and other potential
process, forces and paths are included.
Haas, in his The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory
(1975), has commented that the study of regional integration was
becoming more subsumed under the study of interdependence and
system change. He said that themes like interdependence and
systems change can profit from the incorporation of diverse aspects
of regional integration. “But they are sufficiently different in scope
and portent from integration as to suggest that theorizing about it is
no longer profitable as a distinct and self-conscious pursuit”. This
has been a case because the difference between integration and
interdependence has faded out.
However, in the face of globalization and with the end of the Cold
War, emergence of new forms of competition and cooperation
among advanced capitalist economies, increased interdependence
of production and trade, rapid growth and shifting patterns of
international finance have led to the rise of renewed interest in
regionalism and regional integration if not much on a political
platform but rather on an economic sphere. Regionalism is now
treated as a contingency plan and “as an intermediary between the
global and the national and as a market strategy to mitigate the
impact of global competition in goods and services”.[16] The outcome
of this is seen in the nature of adoption of new forms of regional
associations involving the development of a complex process of new
sets of relationships with other states and macro-regions. Therefore,
regions now have come to occupy a preferred place in the life of
states in a globalizing world and they are generally regarded as lying
at the intersection of the local and the global. Therefore, in the
present context, regionalism is viewed by many as “Overwhelmingly
the result of a set of strategic calculations by actors located inside
states and societies who push for integration as a way of positioning
themselves in response to global change”.[17]
PROMINENT REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Some of the prominent regional organizations are given hereinafter.
EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
Origin: The European Union (EU) is a geo-political entity covering a
large portion of the European continent. It is founded upon numerous
treaties and has undergone expansions from the original, six
member-states to 27.
After the Second World War which had devastated the European
countries, they expressed their desire to move towards the path of
integration. The War had left them totally bankrupt and had hit their
economies and human resources hard. The European countries
enjoying a dominant position in world politics so far, for example,
Great Britain, France and Germany, lost their position and the World
was soon dominated by the two superpowers—the United States
and the Soviet Union. This period was followed by an extreme
superpower rivalry, which came to be known as the Cold War. As
Europe had always been the centre stage of politics, even after the
Second World War and the outbreak of the Cold War, it continued to
be the focal point of the superpower politics. Despite the pulls and
pressures of the Cold War, there was a desire among the European
countries to move towards an integrated Europe, which would work
as a bulwark against aggressive nationalism as preached by the
Nazi Germany and prevent future holocaust demonstrated in the
horrors of war.
The first step towards integration came in the form of a regional
arrangement created by the Convention for European Economic
Cooperation, signed in Paris on 16 April 1948. The regional
arrangement that emerged out of this treaty was called Organization
for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). The chief function of
the organization was to act as a coordinating agency of the countries
receiving the Marshall Plan aid and it proved to be so useful that it
continued to exist even after the Marshall Plan had officially come to
an end in December 1951. The Marshall Plan was the primary plan
of the United States for re-building and creating a stronger
foundation for the countries of Western Europe and repelling
communism after World War II. It was within the OEEC that in 1950
the European Payments Union was created to facilitate trade and
economic transactions among the member countries. The next boost
to European integration came in 1946 with Winston Churchill’s call
for a “United States of Europe”. The ultimate outcome of his speech
was the establishment of the Council of Europe in 1949 as the first
pan-European organization. Although the Council of Europe was
only a limited form of European cooperation, nevertheless, it served
as a stimulus for future integration.
On 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman
proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of
France and West Germany under a common High Authority. The
goal of the proposed community was that France, Italy, West
Germany, and the Benelux countries could share the strategic
resources in order to “make war not only unthinkable but materially
impossible”, and to build lasting peace in Europe. The objective of
such an integration was made clear in the Schuman Declaration
which stated, “the pooling of coal and steel production should
immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for
economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe,
and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been
devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have
been most constant victims”.[18]
The realization of this proposal led to the creation of the European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) by the Treaty of Paris (1951)
and, on 18 April 1951, the leaders of the six member countries
signed a European Declaration stating that the signing of this Treaty
marked the true foundation of an organized Europe.
The resulting ECSC introduced a common, single steel and coal
market, with freely set market prices, and without import/export
duties or subsidies. The success of ECSC led to further steps of
integration. Leaders met at the Messina Conference and established
the Spaak Committee which produced the Spaak report. The report
was accepted at the Venice Conference (29 and 30 May 1956).
Finally, on the basis of the report, the Intergovernmental Conference
on the Common Market and Euratom focussing on economic unity
was held. This led to the signing of Treaties of Rome in 1957 which
established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) among the
members. From 1 January 1958, they started to function officially.
Another landmark in the process of European integration was the
Merger Treaty of 8 April, 1965, which came into force on 1 July 1967.
The Treaty established a single executive for the ECSC, the EEC
and Euratom, comprising the Council and Commission, based in
Brussels. The European Community signalled the coming together of
the institutions of the three organizations. There were also other
significant developments. For example, 1969 saw the establishment
of Customs Union and, in 1978, the European Currency Unit (ECU)
was introduced.[19] In 1979 the first direct, democratic elections to
the European Parliament were held.
In 1985, the Schengen Agreement created largely open borders
without passport controls between most of the member states. In
1986, the European flag began to be used by the European
Community. The other milestone towards integration was reached
with the signing of the Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 which set
1 January 1993 as the date by which a full internal market was to be
established. Through this Act, the process for constructing a truly
Single European Market began with the aim of lifting all trade
restrictions between the member states.
The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht
Treaty came into force on 1 November 1993. The Treaty of
Maastricht, which established the European Union, divided EU
policies into three main areas called pillars.

The Three Pillars

1. The first or “Community” pillar is formed of economic, social and
environmental policies.
2. The second or “Common Foreign and Security Policy” (CFSP)
pillar is made of foreign policy and military matters.
3. The third or “Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal
Matters” (PJCC) pillar cooperation in the fight against crime. This
pillar was originally named “Justice and Home Affairs”.
In 2002, Euro notes and coins replaced national currencies in 12 of
the member states.
The process of European integration has also received a boost with
the enlargement of the membership of EC. In 1973 the Communities
enlarged to include Denmark, the Republic of Ireland, and the United
Kingdom. Norway had negotiated to join at the same time but a
referendum rejected its membership and so it remained outside.
Greece, Spain and Portugal joined in the 1980s. In 1995, Austria,
Sweden and Finland joined the newly established EU. Since then,
the Eurozone has increased to encompass 16 countries, with
Slovakia joining the Eurozone on 1 January, 2009. In 2004, the EU
saw its biggest enlargement to date when Malta, Cyprus, Slovenia,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Hungary joined the European Union. On 1 January 2007, Romania
and Bulgaria became the EU’s newest members and Slovenia
adopted the Euro.
The European Constitution was signed on 28 October 2004.
Ratification of the treaty was primarily by parliamentary approval but
some states held referenda during 2005. The French and the Dutch
voters rejected it. Next, in December 2007, the European leaders
signed the Lisbon Treaty which was to be ratified before the end of
2008 so that it could come into force on 1 January 2009. This was
intended to replace the earlier, failed European Constitution.
However, the future of the Lisbon Treaty is also unclear because of
its rejection by the Irish voters in June 2008.

Stages of European Integration

1949— The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) signed.
1950— The Schuman Plan proposed.
1951— The European Coal and Steel Community established with 6
founding members (Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany,
France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).
1952— The Nordic Council formed to augment cooperation among
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
1954— The Paris Treaty setting up the Western European Union
(WEU).
1958— The Treaties of Rome set up the European Economic
Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy
Community (Euratom).
1960— The European Free Trade Association is set up.
1973— The Britain, Denmark and Ireland join the EEC.
1974— The European Council created. The European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) is set up.
1975— The Lomé Convention is signed between the European
Communities (EC) and the African–Caribbean–Pacific (ACP)
Group.
1978— The European Monetary System (EMS) proposed.
1979— The European Monetary System begins its operations.
1981— Greece becomes member of EC.
1986— Spain and Portugal join the EC.
1989— The fall of Berlin Wall.
1990— East and West Germany reunite. The European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development is set up to support
economic reforms and transition in the former Communist
countries with major contributions from the EC. The Schengen
Agreement to remove border controls is signed.
1991— Sweden applies to join EC.
1992— The Treaty of European Union signed in Maastricht on 7
February 1992. Finland and Switzerland apply to join the
proposed EU.
1993— The Maastricht Treaty comes into force on 1 November
1993. The European Union came into existence.
1995— Austria, Finland and Sweden join EU. European currency
named ‘Euro’.[20]
1999— The Treaty of Amsterdam comes into force. A step towards
the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
2000— The Treaty of Nice.
2004— Constitution of the European Union adopted on 19 June
2004 in Brussels (but never came into force). Malta, Cyprus,
Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia and Hungary join EU.
2007— Romania and Bulgaria join EU. Slovenia adopts the Euro.

The Institutions of European Union

1. Commission of the European Communities: This constitutes
the executive wing of the European Union. It is a body composed of
one appointee from each state, and at present there are 27
Commissioners. This body is to initiate proposal for legislation, to act
as a “Guardian of the Treaties”, and to be the manager and executor
of the EU policies and international trade relationships. But in
dispensing all its functions, the Commission is designed to be
independent of national interests. This body also has the
responsibility of dealing with the day-to-day running of the EU.
The Commission is led by a President who is nominated by the
Council, in practice the European Council, and approved by the
European Parliament. The remaining Commissioners are proposed
by the member states, in consultation with the President, and then
have to be approved by the European Parliament as a whole before
the Commission can take office. The present President José Manuel
Barroso and his Commission was elected in 2004 and reelected in
2009 and have a mandate till October 2014.
2. Council of the European Union: This Council of the European
Union is the principal decision-making institution of the European
Union (EU). It is often informally called the Council of Ministers or
just the Council. It is the more powerful of the two legislative
chambers, the other being the European Parliament.
The Council is composed of 27 national ministers (one per state and
one President-in-Office). However, the exact membership depends
on the topic being discussed. The European Union’s law is limited to
specific policy areas; however, it does override the national law. As
the EU operates on supranational and intergovernmental platforms,
in some areas the Council is superior to the Parliament, having only
to consult in order to get assent from the body. In many areas,
however, the EU uses the legislative process of co-decision
procedure, in which the two bodies are equal in power. Its
Presidency rotates between the states every six months, but every
three Presidencies now cooperate on a common programme like a
“triple-shared presidency”.
3. European Parliament (EP): It is the only directly elected
parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU). It is the
bicameral legislative branch of the European Union’s institutions and
has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the
world. The Parliament and Council form the highest legislative body
within the EU. However, their powers as such are limited to the
competencies conferred upon the European Community by the
member states. Hence, the institution has little control over the policy
areas held by the states and within the other two of the three pillars
of the European Union. The EP has supervisory, budgetary and
some legislative powers which were increased by the Single
European Act, the Treaty of European Union (Maastricht Treaty) and
the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The European Parliament has two meeting places: one at the Louise
Weiss building in Strasbourg, France, which serves for twelve four-
day plenary sessions per year and is the official seat, and the other,
the Espace Léopold complex in Brussels, Belgium, the larger of the
two, which serves for committee meetings, political groups and
complementary plenary sessions. The Secretariat of the European
Parliament, is based in Luxembourg.
The Parliament is composed of 785 MEPs (Members of the
European Parliament), who serve the second largest democratic
electorate in the world and the largest transnational democratic
electorate in the world (342 million eligible voters in 2004). It is
directly elected every five years by universal suffrage since 1979.
4. Court of Justice of the European Communities: The European
Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court of the European Union. It
has the ultimate say on matters of the EU law in order to ensure its
equal application across all EU member states. It has the function to
ensure that the Union’s law is uniformly interpreted and effectively
applied and has jurisdiction in disputes involving the member states,
EU institutions, businesses, and individuals.
The Court was established in 1952 and is based in Luxembourg. It is
composed of one judge from each of the member states. The
number of judges at present is 27, but only 13 of them can hear a
case at any one time in the ‘Grand Chamber’. The Court is led by a
President. Under the Single European Act, the Court is assisted by a
lower court, the Court of First Instance, which has jurisdiction over
direct actions brought by natural or legal persons, and by the Civil
Service Tribunal which hears cases brought by employees of the
EU’s institutions.
5. Court of Auditors: The European Court of Auditors, despite its
name, has no judicial powers. The Court provides an audit report for
each financial year to the Council and the Parliament. The
Parliament uses this to decide whether to approve the Commission’s
handling of the budget. The Court also gives opinions and proposals
on the financial legislation and anti-fraud actions.
It is composed of one member from each state appointed by the
Council, every six years. Every three years one of them is elected to
be the President of the Court.
6. European Economic and Social Committee (EESC): It was
established in 1957. It is a consultative assembly composed of
employers, employees and representatives of various industries and
work sectors. The committee advises on economic and social
policies (principally, relations between workers and employers). It
has 344 members, appointed by the Council, for four-year terms.
Members of the EESC are divided into three groups of equal
number: employers employees and a third group of various other
changing interests such as farmers, consumer groups, professional
associations, and so on. The members are appointed by the Council
following the nominations made by the governments of the
respective member states. However, once appointed, the members
are completely independent of their governments. The EESC shares
the Delors Building in Brussels as its seat, with the Committee of the
Regions.
Among the other prominent EU institutions are the Committee of the
Regions, European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank
and the European Investment Fund.
The present challenges before EU are legitimacy gap, ‘widening’ and
‘deepening’, and the future of Common Foreign Security Policy
(CFSP). As scholars have pointed out “the main challenge for the EU
is the current impossibility of creating a true parliamentary basis of
democracy”. Although the European Parliament exists, it is regarded
as the weakest of the main policy-making institutions. The Maastricht
Treaty saw the introduction of the procedure of co-decision with the
Council to give a greater say in the European parliament in the
legislative process, but this position of co-decision does not extend
to all the policy areas. Therefore, there is a so-called democratic
deficit in the EU. As a result of widening of the EU, there is a growing
demand for reforms of the EU norms to ensure distribution of powers
between the member states. Further, deepening of European
integration has been achieved through the process of economic
integration. However, in the policy fields the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality still operate which are rather abstract and the
difference between them is often blurred. The CFSP is another
crucial challenge before the EU. It is said, “If one digs deeper into
the structure and functioning, it [the CFSP] is neither common, nor
foreign, nor dealing with security, nor can be called a policy. Yet,
most observers and policy-makers use the acronym CFSP like a
magic formula: it is enough to invoke the name and the EU turns into
a major actor—if not a superpower—in world affairs. The paradox is
that this mantra effect is even stronger outside Europe than inside”.
[21]
The other kind of threats perceived by the EU range from
international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), failed
states, regional conflicts due to expansion of the EU to the conflict-
prone zone in Central Asia, and organized crimes (See also
Eurozone Crisis, pages 511–512).
AFRICAN UNION (AU)
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) or Organization de l’Unité
Africaine (OUA) was established on 25 May 1963. It was disbanded
on 9 July 2002 by its last Chairperson, South African President
Thabo Mbeki, and replaced by the African Union by the Sirte
Declaration to boost and accelerate the African unity and efforts of
integration in the context of the challenges posed by globalization.
The AU consists of 53 African States. However, 4 member states,
Guinea (2008), Madagascar (2009), Eritrea (2009) and Côte d’Ivoire
(2010) have been suspended.
When the OAU was formed, it had two primary aims:

To promote the unity and solidarity of the African states and

act as a collective voice for the African continent. This was
important to secure Africa’s long-term economic and political
future. Years of colonialism had weakened it socially, politically
and economically.
The OAU was also dedicated to the eradication of all forms of
colonialism, as, when it was established, there was still a
number of states that had not yet won their independence or
were minority-ruled. South Africa and Angola were two such
countries. The OAU proposed two ways of ridding the
continent of colonialism. First, it would defend the interests of
the independent countries and help pursue those of still-
colonized ones. Second, it would remain neutral in terms of
world affairs, preventing its members from being controlled
once more by outside powers.

The AU has also been formed with certain purposes and principles in
mind. These are reflected in the objectives of the AU.
The objectives of the AU are manifold such as to:
1. Achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African
countries and the people of Africa.
2. Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of
its member states.
 3. Accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the
continent.
4. Promote and defend the African common positions on the issues
of interest to the continent and its people.
5. Encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the
Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
6. Promote peace, security and stability of the continent.
7. Promote democratic principles and institutions, popular
participation and good governance.
8. Promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance
with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and
other relevant human rights instruments.
9. Establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to
play its rightful role in the global economy and in international
negotiations.
10. Promote sustainable development at the economic, social and
cultural levels as well as the integration of African economies.
11. Promote cooperation in all fields of human activity to raise the
living standards of African peoples.
12. Coordinate and harmonize the policies between the existing
and future Regional Economic Communities for the gradual
attainment of the objectives of the Union.
13. Advance the development of the continent by promoting
research in all fields, in particular, in science and technology.
14. Work with relevant international partners in the eradication of
preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the
continent.

The Organs of the AU

The Assembly: It is composed of Heads of State and Government
or their duly accredited representatives. The Assembly of Heads of
State and Government is the supreme organ of the African Union.
The Assembly meets once a year. The decisions are taken either on
the basis of consensus or by a two-thirds majority.
The Executive Council: This is composed of ministers or authorities
designated by the governments of member states. The Executive
Council is accountable to the Assembly.
The Commission: This body is composed of the Chairperson, the
Deputy Chairperson, ten Commissioners and staff members. Each
Commissioner shall be responsible for a portfolio.
The Permanent Representatives’ Committee: This is composed of
Permanent Representatives of the member states accredited to the
Union. The Permanent Representatives Committee is charged with
the responsibility of preparing the work of the Executive Council.
Peace and Security Council (PSC): By virture of AHG/Dec 160
(xxxvii) of the Summit of Lusaka, July 2001, a decision was made for
the creation of a Peace and Security Council (PSC), within the
African Union. The protocol establishing the PSC is in the process of
ratification. The protocol has devised the PSC as a collective
security and early warning arrangement to respond to conflict and
crisis situation arising among or within the states of Africa.
Pan-African Parliament (PAP): A Pan-African Parliament is an
organ created to ensure the full participation of African peoples in
governance, development and economic integration of the continent.
The protocol relating to the composition, powers, functions and
organization of the Pan-African Parliament has been signed by the
member states and is in the process of ratification. The PAP is
composed of 265 elected representatives of 53 member states.
ECOSOCC: The Economic, Social and Cultural Council
(ECOSOCC) is an advisory organ composed of different social and
professional groups of the member states of the Union.
The Court of Justice: A Court of Justice of the Union shall be
established and statute defining the powers and functions of the
court is under review.
The Specialized Technical Committees of AU: The following
specialized technical committees are meant to address the sectoral
issues and are at Ministerial level:

The Committee on Rural Economy and Agricultural Matters

 The Committee on Monetary and Financial Affairs
The Committee on Trade, Customs and Immigration Matters
The Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Energy,
Natural Resources and Environment
The Committee on Transport, Communications and Tourism
The Committee on Health, Labour and Social Affairs
The Committee on Education, Culture and Human Resources.

The Financial Institutions: The following are some of the financial

institutions of AU:

The African Central Bank

The African Monetary Fund
The African Investment Bank

AU has to go a long way to achieve African solidarity. Its

predecessor, OAU had chartered many a rough course and it had its
own share of achievements and failures. The OAU played a pivotal
role in eradicating colonialism and minority rule in Africa. It gave
weapons, training and military bases to colonized nations fighting for
independence or majority rule. Groups such as the African National
Congress (ANC) and PAC (Pacific Accreditation Cooperation),
fighting apartheid, and ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union)
and ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People’s Union), fighting for the
independence of Southern Rhodesia, were aided in their struggle by
the OAU. Various other initiatives undertaken by the OAU were
commendable, such as the Lagos Plan of Action (LPA) and the Final
Act of Lagos (1980), which incorporated programmes and strategies
for self-reliant development and cooperation among the African
countries. There was also The African Charter on Human and
People’s Rights (Nairobi 1981), and the Grand Bay Declaration and
Plan of Action on Human Rights are the two instruments adopted by
the OAU to promote Human and People’s Rights in the continent.
The Africa’s Priority Programme for Economic Recovery (APPER)
adopted in 1985 was an emergency programme designed to address
the development crisis of the 1980s, in the wake of protracted
drought and famine that had engulfed the continent and the crippling
effect of Africa’s external indebtedness. The New Partnership for
Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was adopted as a Programme of the
AU at the Lusaka Summit (2001).
Despite such laudable efforts, the OAU often faced and at present
the AU faces stiff challenges in fostering African Unity due to
differences among the member states, civil strife, ethnic conflicts,
continued dependence on the former colonizers, inability to enforce
its decision, policy of non-interference, making it virtually ineffective
in cases of human rights violation and others. The OAU was often
viewed as a bureaucratic ‘talking shop’ with little power and, thus,
the AU has a tough job of making itself a more credible regional
organization in the eyes of the international community.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a
permanent intergovernmental organization. This regional body was
created at the Baghdad Conference during 10–14 September 1960
by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Later, several
other countries joined the OPEC: They were Qatar (1961); Indonesia
(1962) which was suspended of its membership from January 2009;
Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab
Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973),
which was suspended of its membership from December 1992–
October 2007; Angola (2007); and Gabon (1975–1994).
According to OPEC statutes, one of its principal goals is the
determination of the best means for safeguarding the Organization’s
interests, individually and collectively. OPEC also pursues ways and
means of ensuring the stabilization of prices in international oil
markets with a view to eliminating harmful and unnecessary
fluctuations, giving due regard at all times to the interests of the
producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income
to the producing countries; an efficient, economic and regular supply
of petroleum to consuming nations, and a fair return on their capital
to those investing in the petroleum industry.
Therefore, OPEC has the vital objective to coordinate and unify
petroleum policies among the member countries, in order to secure
fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic
and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair
return on capital to those investing in the industry. This policy is also
designed to ensure that oil consumers continue to receive stable
supplies of oil.
Article 2 of the OPEC Statute embodies the principles of the
Organization. They are:

The principal aim of the Organization shall be the coordination

and unification of the petroleum policies of the member
countries and the determination of the best means for
safeguarding their interests, individually and collectively.
 The Organization shall devise ways and means of ensuring
the stabilization of prices in the international oil markets with a
view to eliminating harmful and unnecessary fluctuations.
Due regard shall be given at all times to the interests of the
producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady
income for the producing countries; an efficient, economic and
regular supply of petroleum to the consuming nations; and a
fair return on their capital to those investing in the petroleum
industry.

The OPEC Management

The OPEC Conference is a high-level body and below is the Board
of Governors. Below the Board of Governors is the OPEC
Secretariat which is a permanent inter-governmental body. The
Secretariat, which has been based in Vienna since 1965, provides
research and administrative support to the member countries. The
Secretariat also disseminates news and information to the World at
large. The official language of the Secretariat is English.
The Departments of the Secretariat are:

Office of the Secretary-General

Research Division
Data Services Department
Petroleum Market Analysis Department
Energy Studies Department
Public Relations and Information Department
Administration and Human Resources Department

The Secretary-General is the legally authorized representative of the

Organization and the Chief Executive of the Secretariat. In this
capacity, he administers the affairs of the Organization in accordance
with the directions of the Board of Governors. The Conference
appoints the Secretary-General for a period of three years, whose
term may be renewed once for the same period. This appointment
takes place upon nomination by the member countries, and after a
comparative study of the nominees’ qualifications (Article 28 of the
OPEC Statute). In the absence of a unanimous decision, the
Secretary-General is appointed on a rotation basis for a term of two
years, without prejudice to the required qualifications.
The Secretary-General is assisted in the discharge of his duties by
the Research Division, the Administration and the Human Resources
Department, the Public Relations and Information Department, and
by his own Office. The Senior Legal Counsel provides legal advice to
the Secretary-General, supervises the Secretariat’s legal and
contractual affairs, and evaluates the legal issues of concern to the
Organization and the member countries, and recommends
appropriate action.
The office of the Secretary-General provides him with executive
assistance, particularly in establishing and maintaining contacts with
governments, organizations and delegations in matters of protocol,
in the preparation for and coordination of meetings, and in carrying
out any other duties assigned by the Secretary-General.
This regional organization came into prominence during the 1970s,
in the backdrop of the Arab–Israeli conflict and marked the beginning
of oil diplomacy. The Yom Kippur War of 1973 resulted in a strong
Arab opinion against the West. It prompted the OPEC to initiate an
embargo against all the states supporting Israel. The rise of Iranian
nationalism and the series of clashes with Israel in 1946 and in early
1970s induced the Arab leaders to make use of oil as a weapon to
teach the West a lesson. When the United States and the West
European states began to supply Israel with huge quantities of arms,
which helped them to withstand Egyptian and Syrian forces, the Arab
world was infuriated and they imposed the 1973 oil embargo against
the United States and the Western Europe. OPEC realized its
potential and the significance of oil as a weapon and, thereafter,
raised the price of oil per barrel. Finally, long-term price levels were
normalized due to the pressure of Saudi Arabia, the richest member
of OPEC. The West had learnt a lesson from this crisis.
It is from this time onwards that the OPEC rose to international
prominence and it acquired a major say in the pricing of crude oil in
the world markets. Under such circumstances, the First Summit of
OPEC Sovereigns and Heads of States was held in Algiers in March
1975. The outbreak of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 also produced
another oil crisis, and concerted effort by OPEC had hit the oil
market hard.
Following the Iran–Iraq war, the 1980s witnessed another rise in oil
prices at the beginning of the decade but soon there was a dramatic
decline in prices, which culminated in a collapse in 1986 and set the
beginning of the third oil-pricing crisis. Oil prices faced a six-year
decline with a 46 per cent price drop in 1986. This also harmed the
OPEC unity as the Western nations searched for alternatives to
lessen the potential impact of the future price-shock induced by
OPEC. This included measures of increasing oil production outside
the OPEC like the Central Asian region to tide over the ‘oil politics’ of
the OPEC countries.
In the 1990s, the OPEC came to the relief of the world when a major
oil crisis was averted due to the sanctions against Iraq to export oil.
A sudden and steep rise in prices on panic-stricken markets was
offset by output increases from OPEC members. Collective action by
OPEC and some leading non-OPEC producers again brought about
a recovery when in 1998 there was a collapse, in the wake of the
economic downturn in South-East Asia. The global melt down of
2008, as well as the declining prices of oil, has again called for a
concerted effort of the OPEC countries to address the crisis.
ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a regional
organization for fostering Asia-Pacific Community. It was established
in 1989 to further enhance economic growth and prosperity of the
Asia-Pacific region with the objective of facilitating its economic
growth, cooperation, trade and investment.
APEC at present comprises 21 members. They are Australia, Brunei
Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People’s Republic of China, Hong
Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New
Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Republic of the Philippines,
the Russian Federation, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, the
United States of America, and Vietnam. APEC countries include the
NAFTA, ASEAN and ANZUS countries who are better known as
‘Member Economies’.
APEC operates on the basis of non-binding commitments, open
dialogue and equal respect for the views of all the participants.
Unlike the WTO or other multilateral trade bodies, APEC has no
treaty obligations required of its participants. Decisions made within
APEC are reached by consensus, and commitments are undertaken
on a voluntary basis.

Purposes and Goals

APEC works with a vision to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers
across the Asia-Pacific region. Its vision is best reflected in what is
referred to as the “Bogor Goals” of free and open trade and
investment in the Asia-Pacific by 2010 for industrialized economies
and 2020 for developing economies. These goals were adopted by
the leaders at their 1994 meeting in Bogor, Indonesia. In 1995, at the
Lusaka Summit, an Action Agenda was evolved on the principles of
voluntarism and flexibility and consensual approach. APEC also
works to create an environment for the safe and efficient movement
of goods, services and people across the borders in the region
through policy alignment and economic and technical cooperation.
By the year 2010, APEC leaders hope to achieve an additional 5 per
cent reduction in the trade costs. To this end, a new Trade
Facilitation Action Plan has been drafted that places greater
emphasis on the transparency initiatives. According to a 2008
research brief published by the World Bank as part of its Trade Costs
and Facilitation Project, increasing transparency in the region’s
trading system is critical if APEC has to meet its Bogor Goal targets.
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
The Organization of American States (OAS) is the world’s oldest
regional organization, comprising 35 independent states of the
Americas—the North, Central and South America—and the
Caribbean, with its headquarters in Washington, DC. Government of
Cuba, a member state, has been suspended from participation since
1962. Therefore, only 34 countries participate actively. There are
also permanent observers. As of 2008, there are 61 permanent
observer countries, including the European Union.
The notion of closer hemispheric union in the Americas was first put
forward by Simón Bolívar who, at the 1826 Congress of Panama,
proposed a creation of a league of American Republics with a
common military, mutual defence pact, and a supranational
parliamentary assembly. This idea of regional solidarity and
cooperation was again raised in 1889–1890, at the First International
Conference of American States. Eighteen nations meeting in
Washington DC, resolved to establish the International Union of
American Republics, served by a permanent secretariat, called the
Commercial Bureau of the American Republics. These
developments were the precursors to the present OAS and its
General Secretariat. Since then a number of other initiatives tried to
boost the American unity. Finally, in 1948 at the Ninth International
Conference of American States held in Bogotá and led by the US
Secretary of State, George Marshall, a pledge was taken by the
members to fight Communism in America. This perspective of
containing Communism ultimately gave birth to the OAS as it stands
today. The Charter of the OAS was signed by 21 American countries
on 30 April 1948, which came into effect since December 1951. The
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the world’s
first general human rights instrument, was also adopted in this
meeting.
Article 1 of the Charter embodies the goal of the member nations in
creating the OAS. It upholds its primary goal “to achieve an order of
peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their
collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity,
and their independence”.
Article 2 upholds the eight objectives of the organization. These
objectives are to:
1. Strengthen the peace and security of the continent.
2. Promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due
respect for the principle of non-intervention.
3. Prevent the possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the
pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the member
states.
4. Provide for common action on the part of those states, in the
event of aggression.
5. Seek the solution of political, judicial and economic problems
that may arise among them.
6. Promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social and
cultural development.
7. Eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the
full democratic development of the peoples of the hemisphere.
8. Achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will
make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the
economic and social development of the member states.
The OAS tries to strengthen cooperation among the member states
to enhance democratic values, defend common interests, and
debate the major issues facing the region and the world. The OAS is
the region’s principal multilateral forum for strengthening democracy,
promoting human rights, and confronting shared problems such as
poverty, terrorism, illegal drugs and corruption. It plays a leading role
in carrying out mandates established by the leaders of the
hemisphere through the Summits of the Americas.
SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
was established when its Charter was formally adopted on 8
December 1985 by the Heads of States or Governments of
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka
in their First SAARC Summit in Dhaka on 7–8 December 1985.
Afghanistan was added to the regional grouping at the behest of
India on 13 November, 2005, and became a member on 3 April,
2007. With the addition of Afghanistan, the total number of member
states now stands at eight. The observers are Australia, China, the
European Union, Iran, Japan Mauritius, Myanmar (Burma), South
Korea and the United States.
The South Asian neighbours began to take initiative towards regional
cooperation in the 1980s, primarily under the initiative of President
Zia-ur Rehman of Bangladesh. Between 1970 and 1980, he paid
visits to Nepal, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka to concretize the idea
of cooperation among the South Asian neighbours. Several Foreign
Secretary-level meetings followed in Colombo, Kathmandu,
Islamabad, and Dhaka. It was followed by the first meeting of the
Foreign Ministers at New Delhi in August 1983. It was at this meeting
that the Foreign Ministers adopted the Declaration on South Asian
Association Regional Cooperation. They also launched the
Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) in nine agreed areas, namely,
agriculture; rural development; telecommunications; meteorology;
health and population activities; transport; postal services; science
and technology; and sports, arts and culture.
At the inception of the Association, the IPA consisting of a number of
Technical Committees was identified as the core area of cooperation.
But given the changed circumstances over the years, the current
areas of cooperation, under the reconstituted Regional Integrated
Programme of Action which is pursued through the Technical
Committees cover:
1. Agriculture and Rural Development
2. Health and Population Activities
3. Women, Youth and Children
 4. Environment and Forestry
5. Science and Technology and Meteorology
6. Human Resources Development
7. Transport.
High-level working groups have also been established to strengthen
cooperation in the areas of Information and Communications
Technology, Biotechnology, Intellectual Property Rights, Tourism and
Energy.

Objectives of the Association

The objectives of the Association, as defined in the Charter, are to:
1. Promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve
their quality of life.
2. Accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural
development in the region and to provide all individuals the
opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential.
3. Promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the
countries of South Asia.
4. Contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of
one another’s problems.
5. Promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the
economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields.
6. Strengthen cooperation with other developing countries.
7. Strengthen cooperation among themselves in international
forums on matters of common interest.
8. Cooperate with international and regional organizations with
similar aims and purposes.

Principles
The Principles enshrined in the Charter are:
1. Cooperation within the framework of the Association is based on
respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity,
political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of
other states, and mutual benefit.
2. Such cooperation is to complement and not to substitute
 bilateral or multilateral cooperation.
3. Such cooperation should be consistent with bilateral and
multilateral obligations of the member states.

General Provisions

Decisions at all levels in SAARC are taken unanimously.

Bilateral and contentious issues are excluded from the
deliberations of the Association.

List of SAARC Summits

The list of SAARC Summits are given in details hereinafter.

First Summit: 7–8 December 1985

The First Summit was attended by the Heads of States and/or
Governments of Seven South Asian countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan,
India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Declaration of
the Dhaka Summit enumerated the objectives and principles of the
organization. The Heads of states and/or governments agreed that
the guiding principles of the organization will be based on respect for
principles of sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, political
independence, non-interference in internal affairs of others, and
mutual benefit.
The SAARC Declaration envisaged that the Heads of States and/or
Governments shall meet annually and a council of ministers
consisting of the foreign ministers of the member states shall be
constituted to formulate policies, to review progress of cooperation,
to establish additional mechanism, and to decide on matters of
general interest. The Declaration also envisioned the setting up of a
Technical Committee comprising representatives of the member
states for implementation of projects besides the establishment of a
SAARC Secretariat.

Second Summit: Bangalore, 16–17 November 1986

The Second Summit was significant as SAARC was institutionalized
through the establishment of a permanent Secretariat for
implementing, coordinating and monitoring SAARC programmes.
The Secretariat started functioning from 16 January 1987. It was
also agreed in the Summit to extend cooperation on five additional
fields:
(i) launching of South Asian broadcasting programmes covering
radio and television;
(ii) promotion of tourism;
(iii) provisions of facilities to students and academicians;
(iv) harnessing the idealism of the youth; and
(v) jointly combating terrorism.

Third Summit: Kathmandu, 2–4 November 1987

The Kathmandu Declaration provided a renewed thrust and direction
on the future course of regional cooperation. The Heads of States
and Governments emphasized that a fundamental goal of SAARC
was to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia. They
expressed their faith in the UN Charter, commitment to the principles
and objectives of NAM, resumption of North–South Dialogue, and
recognized the need for special measures in favour of the least
developed countries in light of recent decisions at UNCTAD VII. A
major breakthrough was the signing of the SAARC Regional
Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and the Agreement
establishing South Asian Food Reserve by the Foreign Ministers of
the SAARC member states.

Fourth Summit: Islamabad, 29–31 December 1988

In the Fourth Summit held at Islamabad, the Heads of the States and
Governments expressed their concern at the high incidence of drug
production, trafficking and abuse. The Year 1989 was, therefore,
declared as the “SAARC Year Against Drug Abuse” in order to focus
attention on drug-related problems in the region. The Summit
welcomed the establishment of a South Asian Food Security
Reserve in August 1988 and SAARC Agriculture Information Centre
(SAIC). It decided to declare 1990 as the “SAARC Year of the Girl
Child”. Further, it also agreed to launch “SAARC 2000—A Basic
Needs Perspective” which called for a regional plan with specific
targets to be met by the end of the century in core areas of interest
such as food, clothing and shelter.

Fifth Summit: Male, 21–23 November 1990

The Heads of the States and Governments reaffirmed their faith and
their commitment to the principles and objectives of SAARC. They
welcomed the signing of the SAARC Convention on Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances. It was decided to observe 1991 as
the Year of Shelter, 1992 as the SAARC Year of Environment, and
1993 as the SAARC year of Disabled Persons. In addition, it was
decided to observe the Decade of 1990s as the SAARC Decade of
the Girl Child. The Summit also decided to launch the Special
SAARC Travel Document, which would exempt its holders from visas
for travel within the region.

Sixth Summit: Colombo, 21 December 1991

The Sixth Summit was scheduled for November 1991, but could not
be held because of the failure of the member states to arrive at a
unanimous decision to hold the Summit in the absence of the King of
Bhutan who was unable to attend the Summit due to internal security
problems. Ultimately, the seven Heads of States and Governments
met for one day at Colombo, on 21 December 1991. The major
breakthrough was the approval of the Heads of States and
Governments on the establishment of the Inter-Governmental Group
(IGG) on the recommendation of the Committee on Economic
Cooperation, which had to formulate and seek agreement on an
institutional framework under which specific measures for trade
liberalization among SAARC member states could be furthered. It
was also expected to examine the Sri Lankan proposal to establish a
SAARC Preferential Trade Arrangement (SAPTA) by 1997.

Seventh Summit: Dhaka, 10–11 April 1993

The Seventh Summit was postponed twice on account of disturbed
situation in Bangladesh in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition in
India. Ultimately, it was held in April 1993. The Summit adopted a
declaration where the Heads of States and Governments reaffirmed
the need to liberalize trade as early as possible. They welcomed the
finalization of the framework agreement on SAPTA. The Summit also
endorsed an Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) on eradication of
poverty in South Asia, trade manufacture and services, environment
pollution, population growth, shelter for the homeless child labour,
youth unrest and unemployment, disabled persons, women’s
development, science and technology, terrorism, drug trafficking,
security of small states, people-to-people contact, and other.

Eighth Summit: New Delhi, 2–4 May 1995

In the Eighth Summit held in New Delhi, the Heads of States and
Governments expressed their satisfaction on the achievements of
the First Decade of SAARC and resolved to celebrate the completion
of the First Decade by the individual member states and collectively.
They endorsed the proposal of the Council of Ministers to convene a
Commemorative Session of the Council on the theme “SAARC-
Vision for the Second Decade”. In addition, they also agreed to
operationalize the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) and its
establishment to promote intra-regional trade. Further, they
welcomed the establishment of WTO and expressed the hope that it
would help to expand international trade particularly that of the
developing countries.

Ninth Summit: Male, 12–14 May 1997

In the Ninth Summit hed in Male, the Heads of States and
Governments welcomed the entry into force of the Agreement on
SAPTA on 7 December 1995. They also recognized the importance
of achieving a free trade area by the year 2001. Moreover, they also
vowed to fight poverty, combat terrorism and drug trafficking, and
create awareness and cooperation in such areas as women’s
development, child labour, youth unrest and unemployment, disabled
persons, shelter for the homeless, increasing literacy, and
environment pollution and management.

Tenth Summit: Colombo, 29–31 July 1998

In the tenth Summit held in Colombo, the Heads of States and
Governments reaffirmed their faith in the commitment to the
objectives and principles of SAARC and called for enhancing political
cooperation for promoting peace, stability and amity, and discussed
the operation of SAARC in a changed international environment
involving economic, technological, and social information. They also
called for an acceleration of SAARC economic cooperation, and
decided to adopt measures to remove structural impediments to
speedily move towards the goal of SAFTA.

Eleventh Summit: Kathmandu, 4–6 January 2002

After a long gap of 42 months, the Eleventh SAARC Summit was
held in Kathmandu. The Summit tried to overcome the animosity
between India and Pakistan due to increased military build-up of
both the neighbours along the LOC (Line of Control) in Kashmir. The
Summit resolved to move towards the achievement of the objective
of promoting mutual cooperation for the development of the region.
Regarding economic cooperation, the Heads of States and
Governments recognized the need to move quickly towards SAFTA
and they directed the Council of Ministers to finalize the text of the
Draft Treaty Framework by the end of 2002. The Kathmandu
Declaration called for an intensified coordination among South Asian
states on all WTO issues. They stressed the need to intensify
coordination among the SAARC missions in Geneva to begin the
necessary preparation to advance the common interest of the region
in the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference. In the discussions in the
Summit, along with other common concerns such as poverty
alleviation, women and children, international political and economic
environment, terrorism took the centre stage. The Heads of State
and Governments also reiterated their support for the UN Security
Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001 and resolved to
combat terrorism in all its manifestations. They reaffirmed their
commitment to SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of
Terrorism.

Twelfth SAARC Summit: Islamabad, 2–6 January 2004

The Heads of States and Governments resolved to accelerate the
economic and trade cooperation among the members and ensure
progress towards the realization of SAPTA and the emergence of
SAFTA. It was agreed to complete the first level of SAFTA by 2006
and its full operationalization by 31 December 2015. It was also
decided to establish an arbitration committee or a Dispute
Settlement Body. Overall there was an urge to develop SAARC as a
powerful organization like the ASEAN.

Thirteenth Summit: Dhaka, 12–13 November 2005

In the Thirteenth Summit held at Dhaka, three agreements were
reached on:

Limited multilateral agreement on avoidance of double

taxation and mutual administrative assistance in tax matters.
Mutual administrative assistance in customs related matters.
Establishment of the SAARC Arbitration Council.

The Heads of States and Governments also agreed to declare the

years 2006–2015 as the SAARC Decade of Poverty Alleviation and
set up a Poverty Alleviation Fund, to grant observer status to China
and Japan, to celebrate the year 2007 as the year of Green South
Asia, to induct Afghanistan as the eighth member of SAARC by the
year 2007, and to ratify the additional protocol to the SAARC
Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. The major
breakthrough came in as the Heads of State and Governments
agreed to launch the SAFTA with effect from 1 January 2006.
Further, it was agreed by the SAARC Foreign Ministers to grant
SAARC observer status to the United States, South Korea, and the
European Union.

Fourteenth Summit: New Delhi, 3–4 April 2007

The Summit was noteworthy as the bilateral issues did not find a
place in the agenda of the Summit proceedings. The Heads of State
and Governments reached an agreement to establish a South Asian
University and a Food Bank. The South Asian Development Fund
was also operationalized with an initial corpus of 300 million dollars.
The Summit resolved to work towards trade and economic
cooperation and expedite the process and also try to chalk out the
future plan for a South Asian Customs Union. It also agreed to
combat terrorism among other common concerns. The Indian Prime
Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh outlined four priority areas of
cooperation: water, energy, food and environment. The Summit
witnessed a high-level of maturity reached by the regional
organization.
Fifteenth Summit: Colombo, 1–3 August 2008
The Fifteenth SAARC summit took place during 1–3 August 2008.
The Heads of States or Governments reaffirmed their commitment to
the principles and objectives enshrined in the SAARC Charter. The
offer to host the Sixteenth SAARC Summit by the Maldives was
welcomed with appreciation. The Heads of States or Governments
stressed on the urgent need to develop the hydro potential, grid
connectivity and gas pipelines of the regions concerned.
They also expressed satisfaction at the adoption of a SAARC
Declaration on Climate Change for the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by the Twenty-ninth
Session of the Council of Ministers. The Heads of States and
Governments impressed the need for even more expeditious and
close regional cooperation in information and communication
technology. The Heads of States and Governments emphasized
their commitment to implement SAFTA in letter and in spirit, thereby
enabling SAARC to contribute to the dynamic process of Asia’s
emergence as the powerhouse of the world. Recognizing the need to
continue to address the major barriers hindering effective trade
liberalization in the region, which include sensitive lists of items and
Non-Trade Barriers (NTBs), they reiterated their commitment to
strengthen the legal regime against terrorism, including their resolve
to implement all international conventions relating to combating
terrorism to which member states are parties, as well as the SAARC
Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and the Additional
Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on the Suppression of
Terrorism.
At the Summit, one of the major points of discussion was the global
food crisis, by which they acknowledged the need to forge greater
cooperation with the international community to ensure food
availability and nutrition security.[22]
Sixteenth Summit: Thimpu, 28–29 April 2010
The Sixteenth SAARC Summit was slated for 2009 and was to be
hosted by Maldives, but it backed out from hosting the Summit due
to global recession. This opportunity was seized by Bhutan and it
hosted the 16th SAARC Summit from 28–29 April, 2010.
The theme of the 16th summit was “Towards a green and happy
South Asia”. Commemortaing the silver jubilee year, the 16th
SAARC Summit adopted the 36-point Thimpu Silver Jubilee
Declaration which upholds a pledge to make the regional association
effective. The Summit also announced the “Thimpu Statement on
Climate Change”.
The noteworthy developments in this Summit have been the signing
of the SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services and the SAARC
Convention on Environment. The leaders also held talks in the area
of strengthening regional cooperation by way of forming South Asia
Forum for generation of debate, discussion and exchange of ideas
on future development. The other issues were: people-centric
development and the concept of Gross National happiness, poverty
alleviation and realization of SAARC Development Goals (SDGs),
education, connectivity, food security, energy security, terrorism,
global climate change, women and youth, nomination of a Woman
Secretary General as the tenth Secretary General of SAARC, and
development of a SAARC Youth Action Plan to guide regional
cooperation. The summit further underlined the important role of the
SAARC Development Fund (SDF) for financing regional and sub-
regional programmes and projects.
However, there was no progress on SAFTA (South Asia Free Trade
Agreement) though the leaders reiterated to uphold their
commitment to implement the SAFTA in letter and spirit. No effort
was also made by the leaders of South Asia to find out any regional
solution to the Afghan problem.
Seventeenth Summit: Addu, Maldives, 10–11 November 2011
The Seventeenth Summit was held from 10–11 November 2011 in
Addu City, Maldives. The Meeting was opened by the outgoing Chair
of SAARC, Prime Minister of the Royal Government of Bhutan,
Lyonchhen Jigmi Yoezer Thinley.
The theme of Seventeenth SAARC Summit is Building Bridges.
The theme is significant as it can be seen as an attempt to bridge the
gaps created by uneven economic development and income
distribution, the gaps in recognizing
and respecting the equality of men and women, the closing of space
between intent and implementation. This Summit was seen as a
push to boost the building of bridges among SAARC countries to
establish an equitable SAARC region.
In this Summit, four agreements were signed which are SAARC
Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters, SAARC
Agreement on Multilateral Arrangement on Recognition of
Conformity Assessment, SAARC Agreement on Implementation of
Regional Standards, and SAARC Seed Bank Agreement. In addition,
the Addu Declaration on the theme Building Bridges was issued on
11 November 2011, in the Addu Summit. The member states
reaffirmed their commitment to peace, confidence building, liberty,
human dignity, gender-based violence, democracy, mutual respect,
good governance and human rights. They voiced their concerns over
terrorism in all its form: trafficking, maritime piracy, environmental
degradation and threats of
Climate Change. Further, the member states resolved to strengthen
the institutional mechanisms of SAARC in order to bolster and
enhance regional cooperation.
Eighteenth Summit: Kathmandu, Nepal, 26–27 November 2014
The eighteenth SAARC Summit was hosted by Nepal. It was held in
Kathmandu during 26–27 November 2014. The Summit, however,
began in the background of grim relation between India and Pakistan
over cross-border firing, terrorism and ensuing diplomatic thaw in
their relation. The SAARC countries however saw a need to
reinvigorate and revitalize SAARC. Despite coldness between India
and Pakistan, the SAARC Kathmandu Declaration upholds the
theme Deeper Integration for Peace and Prosperity. The
Declaration underlined deepening of regional integration for peace
and prosperity by promoting mutual trust, amity, understanding,
cooperation and partnership. The countries pledged to cooperate in
the fields of connectivity, energy, poverty alleviation, agriculture, food
and security, post-2015 development goals, blue economy, health
education, culture, tourism, environment, migration, science
technology, telecommunication, youth, women and children, social
protection, migration, media, governance, combating terrorism and
transnational crimes. They also underlined the importance of
progress of SAARC process along with efforts towards building
South Asian Economic Union (SAEU) and SAFTA and facilitation of
trade.
However, the coldness between India and Pakistan remained
throughout the Summit, and it became evident from Indian’s newly
elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that India was
also proposing several strategies to block China’s inroads into
SAARC.
Observers were from Australia, The People’s Republic of China, the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mauritius, the
Union of Myanmar, the United States of America and the European
Union.
The Leaders also agreed to the offer of Pakistan to host the
Nineteenth Summit.
However, the Nineteenth Summit of the SAARC could not be held
due to Uri attacks. India, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka and Maldives pulled out of the Summit as a mark of protest
against Uri terror attacks.
Twentieth Summit of the SAARC is scheduled to be held in
Islamabad. It is to be watched closely, whether the 2020 SAARC
Summit will take place in reality amidst tensions between India and
Pakistan.
Evaluation
The SAARC’s balance sheet of success is very limited to adoption of
several conventions like the SAARC Regional Convention on
Suppression of Terrorism, SAARC Convention on Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances as well as its concern with issues
pertaining to women, children, the youth, and the old and the
disabled. There have also been breakthroughs in the form of
agreements for establishing SAFTA and SAPTA, but their success at
the operational level is yet to be seen. The greatest impediment in
the path of achieving success is the political differences between the
member states, especially between India and Pakistan, which get
reflected during the SAARC sessions. Another inherent weakness of
SAARC is that, it totally excludes political issues from its ambit. The
operating principle of SAARC is that bilateral and contentious issues
must be excluded from the deliberations of the Association. But if
there is tension in high politics area, then low politics is sure to
suffer. Besides, there is an immense disparity in the developmental
pattern within the South Asian region. India, by its sheer size and
economic growth, is often considered as a ‘Big Brother’ of the South
Asian region which makes the member states always uncomfortable.
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH-EAST ASIAN NATIONS
The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional
organization formed by the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand through the Bangkok
Declaration which was signed by the Foreign Minister of ASEAN
countries on 8th August 1967. Since then the membership has
expanded and now it stands at 10. Brunei Darussalam joined on 8
January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Laos and Myanmar on 23
July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999.
The dialogue partners are Australia, Canada, the European Union,
Japan, New Zealand and the United States. Four more countries
have since joined the ASEAN dialogue system: China (1996), India
(1996), the Republic of Korea (1991) and Russia (1996). The United
Nations Development Programme (1997) is the only dialogue partner
that is not a sovereign state.

Objectives
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the
Association are to:
1. Accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural
development in the region.
2. Promote regional peace and stability by abiding respect for
justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in
the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations
Charter.
Fundamental Principles
The ASEAN member countries have adopted the following
fundamental principles in their relations with one another, as
contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia
(TAC) signed in 1976:

Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality,

territorial integrity and national identity of all nations.
The right of every state to lead its national existence free from
external interference, subversion or coercion.
 Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another.
Settlement of differences or disputes in a peaceful manner.
Renunciation of the threat or use of force.
Effective cooperation among themselves.

Structures and Mechanisms

The highest decision-making organ of ASEAN is the meeting of the
ASEAN Heads of States and Governments. The ASEAN Summit is
convened every year. The ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (Foreign
Ministers) is held annually. The other structures include: the ASEAN
Economic Ministers’ Meeting, the ASEAN Finance Ministers’
Meeting, and the Sectoral Ministers’ meeting. There is also the Joint
Ministerial Meeting (JMM). ASEAN also has a Secretariat and a
Secretary-General.
Ministerial meetings are held regularly in different sectors such as
agriculture and forestry, economics (trade), energy, environment,
finance, health, information, investment, labour, law, regional haze
and youth. Supporting these ministerial bodies are committees of
senior officials, technical working groups and task forces.
To support the conduct of ASEAN’s external relations, it has
established committees composed of heads of diplomatic missions
in different cities: Beijing, Brussels, Geneva, Islamabad, London,
Moscow, New Delhi, New York, and Washington DC among others.
The Secretary-General of ASEAN is appointed on merit and
accorded ministerial status. He has a five-year term; and he is
mandated to initiate, advise, coordinate and implement ASEAN
activities. The members of the professional staff of the ASEAN
Secretariat are appointed on the principle of open recruitment and
region-wide competition.
The ASEAN has also several specialized bodies and arrangements,
promoting inter-governmental cooperation through various fora such
as the:

ASEAN Agricultural Development Planning Centre

ASEAN-EC Management Centre
 ASEAN Centre for Energy
ASEAN Earthquake Information
ASEAN Specialized Meteorological Centre
ASEAN Timber Technology Centre
ASEAN Tourism Information Centre
ASEAN University Network.

In addition, the ASEAN promotes dialogue and consultations with

professional and business organizations with related aims and
purposes, such as the ASEAN Chambers of Commerce and
Industry, the ASEAN Business Forum, the ASEAN Intellectual
Property Association, and the ASEAN Institutes for Strategic and
International Studies. Further, there are 58 non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), which have formal affiliations with ASEAN.

ASEAN Plus Three Meeting

The ASEAN Plus Three is a meeting held between ASEAN, China,
Japan and South Korea, and is primarily conducted during each
ASEAN Summit.

Asia-Europe Meeting
The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) is an informal dialogue process
initiated in 1996 with the intention of strengthening cooperation
between the countries of Europe and Asia, especially members of
the European Union and the ASEAN, in particular.

ASEAN–Russia Summit
The ASEAN–Russia Summit is an annual meeting between leaders
of the member states and the President of Russia.

East Asia Summit (EAS)

The idea of EAS took root from the discussions regarding the
ASEAN plus Three Meetings. It actually became a reality in 2005
and it has become a forum where leaders of 18 countries participate
with the objectives of regional peace, security and economic
prosperity. The membership comprises ten ASEAN Member states,
Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, republic of Korea,
Russian Federation and USA.

Achievements
Unlike the SAARC, the ASEAN has been able to make major
breakthroughs in economic and political areas, which have resulted
either in major political and economic agreements and accords or
pledge to reach such agreements and accords, the major objective
being to enforce regional peace and stability, and to maintaining its
relations with other countries, regions and organizations.
Some prominent political accords are:
1. Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN): On 27
November 1971, the foreign ministers of the then five ASEAN
members met in Kuala Lumpur and signed the Zone of Peace,
Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Declaration. It commits all
ASEAN members to “exert efforts to secure the recognition of and
respect for South East Asia as a Zone of Peace, Freedom and
Neutrality, free from any manner of interference by outside powers”,
and to “make concerted efforts to broaden the areas of cooperation,
which would contribute to their strength, solidarity and closer
relationship”. ZOPFAN recognizes “the right of every state, large or
small, to lead its national existence free from outside interference in
its internal affairs as this interference will adversely affect its
freedom, independence and integrity”.
2. Asean Security Community (ASC): To forge political and
security cooperation, the ASEAN leaders have agreed to establish
the ASEAN Security Community (ASC) with the aim to ensure that
countries in the region live at peace with one another and with the
world in a just, democratic and harmonious environment. The
members of the Community shall pledge to rely exclusively on
peaceful processes in the settlement of intra-regional differences
and regard their security as fundamentally linked to one another and
bound by geographic location, common vision and objectives. It has
the following components: political development; shaping and
sharing of norms; conflict prevention; conflict resolution; post-conflict
peacebuilding; and implementing mechanisms.
3. Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Bali, 24 February 1976: This
Declaration upheld the pledge of the ASEAN countries to work
towards the expansion of political co-operation. To this end the
Declaration adopted principles for regional stability and a programme
of action for political cooperation such as the signing of Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia (TAC) and setting of
intraregional disputes “by peaceful means as soon as possible”.
4. Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia: Bali, 24
February 1976: The Treaty enshrines the following principles:
mutual respect for one another’s sovereignty; non-interference in the
internal affairs; peaceful settlement of intra-regional disputes; and
effective cooperation. The Treaty also provides for a code of conduct
for the peaceful settlement of disputes, and it mandates the
establishment of a high council made up of ministerial
representatives from the parties as a dispute–settlement
mechanism.
5. ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, Manila, 22 July
1992: This Declaration was adopted to create an atmosphere of
peace and stability in the South China Sea. This Declaration urged
“all parties concerned to exercise restraint in order to create a
positive climate for the eventual resolution of all disputes”.
6. ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994: In recognition of
security interdependence in the Asia-Pacific region, the ASEAN
established the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994. The ARF’s
agenda aims at evolving in three broad stages, namely, the
promotion of confidence-building, development of preventive
diplomacy and elaboration of approaches to conflicts. The present
participants in the ARF include 10 member countries, the dialogue
partners and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea),
Republic of Korea (South Korea), and Mongolia. The ARF discusses
the major regional security issues in the region, including the
relationship among the major powers, non-proliferation, counter-
terrorism, transnational crime, South China Sea and the Korean
Peninsula, among others.
7. Treaty on the South East Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone:
(SEANWFZ), Bangkok, 15 December 1997: The leaders of all the
ten South East ASEAN countries signed the Treaty on the South
East Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ). As a key
component of ZOPFAN, the SEANWFZ treaty expresses ASEAN’s
determination to contribute towards general and complete nuclear
disarmament and the promotion of international peace and security.
It also aims at protecting the region from environmental pollution and
the hazards posed by the radioactive waste and other toxic
materials. The SEANWFZ treaty came into force on 27 March 1997.
The ASEAN is now negotiating with the five nuclear-weapon states
on the terms of their accession to the protocol which lay down their
commitments under the treaty.
8. ASEAN Vision 2020, Kuala Lumpur, 15 December 1997: The
ASEAN vision 2020 was adopted by the member states of ASEAN
on the 30th anniversary of ASEAN. They agreed on a shared vision
of ASEAN as a concert of South East Asian nations, outward
looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in
partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring
societies.
9. Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, Bali, 7 October 2003: This
Declaration upheld the resolve of the ASEAN member states to
establish an ASEAN Community comprising three pillars: the ASEAN
Security Community, the ASEAN Economic Community and the
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.
In the economic sphere, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA),
launched in 1992, is now in place. It aims at promoting the region’s
competitive advantage as a single production unit. The elimination of
tariff and non-tariff barriers among the member countries is expected
to promote greater economic efficiency, productivity, and
competitiveness. A series of economic agreements followed, to
ultimately reach the ASEAN Vision 2020 of ASEAN Economic
Community by 2015. The prominent agreements are:

Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff

Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, Singapore, 28
January 1992.
Framework Agreements on Enhancing ASEAN Economic
Cooperation, Singapore, 28 January 1992.
Protocol to Amend the Agreement on ASEAN Preferential
Trading Arrangement, Bangkok, 15 December 1995.
Protocol for the Accession of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
to the Framework Agreements on Enhancing ASEAN
Economic Cooperation, Bangkok, 15 December 1995.
Protocol to Amend the Agreement on the Common Effective
Preferential Tariff Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area,
Bangkok, 15 December 1995.
Protocol for the Accession of Socialist Republic of Vietnam to
the Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff
Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area, Bangkok, 15
December 1995.
Protocol to Amend the Framework Agreements on Enhancing
ASEAN Economic Cooperation, Bangkok, 15 December 1995.
The ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of
Goods in Transit, Ha Noi, 16 December 1998.
Protocol on Notification Procedures, Makati, Philippines, 8
October 1998.
Protocol on the Special Arrangement for Sensitive and Highly
Sensitive Products, Singapore, 30 September 1999.
Protocol regarding the implementation of the CEPT Scheme
Temporary Exclusion List, Singapore, 22–25 November 2000.
Protocol to Amend the Agreement on the Common Effective
Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade
Area (AFTA) for the Elimination of Import Duties, 31 January
2003.
Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, Bali, 7 October 2003. The
establishment of an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) was
envisaged in this Declaration. This Declaration aimed at the
realisation of the ASEAN vision 2020 by the creation of a
stable prosperous and competitive ASEAN economic region. It
would be based on convergence of interests of the member
states with a view to deepen the economic integration. The
ultimate aim is the establishment of ASEAN as a single
 market and production base by using newer mechanisms and
utilizing the existing ones like ASEAN Free Trade Areas
(AFTA), ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS)
and ASEAN Investment Area (AIA).
First Protocol to Amend the Protocol on Special Arrangements
on Sensitive and Highly Sensitive Products, 3 September
2004.
Protocol to Provide Special Consideration for Rice and Sugar,
23 August 2007.
ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, Cha-am, Thailand, 26
February 2009.
Annexes of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, Cha-am,
Thailand, 26 February 2009.

All these are steps towards the creation of the ASEAN Economic
Community which is the end-goal of economic integration measures
as outlined in the ASEAN Vision 2020.
A positive step towards establishment of an ASEAN Community was
taken at the Twelfth ASEAN Summit at Cebu, the Philippines. The
leaders signed the Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the
Establishment of an ASEAN Community, by 2015. The ASEAN
Community as envisioned by the leaders is to comprise three pillars.
The first one being the ASEAN Political-Security Community, the
second one ASEAN Economic Community and the third ASEAN
Socio-Cultural Community. The ASEAN Charter was adopted at the
13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore in November 2007 and it came
into force in December 2008. The aim is to establish through the
Charter, the legal and institutional framework of ASEAN.

Recent Issues and Concerns

The chief issues affecting peace and security include territorial and
jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea, self-determination for
East Timor, nuclear proliferation in North East Asia and South Asia,
weapons of mass destruction and the impact of globalization. At the
turn of the twenty-first century, issues shifted to involve a more
environmental prospective. The ASEAN member states became
concerned with environmental issues. This induced them to sign the
ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution in 2002 as an
attempt to control the haze pollution in South East Asia which has
been disturbing the environment of the region for long. Unfortunately,
the attempt proved to be unsuccessful due to the outbreaks of the
2005 Malaysian haze and the 2006 South East Asian haze. The
Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security, the ASEAN-
Wildlife Enforcement Network in 2005, and the Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate are other significant
environment related Treaties.
However, in the arena of political cooperation, it suffered a setback
because of the ambivalent approach of ASEAN to address the
human rights and democracy issues in the junta-led Myanmar.
Despite global outrage at the military crack down on peaceful
protesters in Yangon, the ASEAN has refused to suspend Myanmar
as a member and also has rejected proposals for economic
sanctions against the regime. This has caused concern, as the
European Union, a potential trade partner, has refused to conduct
free trade negotiations at a regional level for these political reasons.
During the Twelfth ASEAN Summit in Cebu, several activist groups
staged an anti-globalization and anti-Arroyo (Head of state and
Government, the Philippines) rallies. According to the activists, the
agenda of economic integration would negatively affect industries in
the Philippines and would cause thousands of Filipinos to lose their
jobs.[23] Therefore, the present issues and agenda for integration and
furtherance of cooperation have to be worked out with utmost
caution.
 EXERCISES
1. Discuss the concepts of regionalism and integration in
international relations.
2. Describe the origin of European integration by mapping its journey
from the formation of European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC) to the European Union (EU).
3. Briefly discuss the institutions of the European Union (EU).
4. Write a note on the African Union (AU).
5. Briefly discuss the role of OPEC in international politics.
6. Comment on the role of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) as a regional organization in world politics.
7. Write a note on Organization of American States (OAS).
8. Comment on the role of South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) as a regional organization.
9. Examine the objectives of SAARC and trace its development over
time.
10. Write a note on the composition, objectives, structures and
mechanisms of ASEAN.
11. Evaluate the role of ASEAN as a prominent regional organization
with special reference to its achievements.
 REFERENCES
[1] Bhattacharya, Purusottam, “Globalization and New Regionalism:
The EU Experience,” in Anindyo J. Majumdar and Shibashis
Chatterjee (Eds.), Understanding Global Politics, Lancer Books,
New Delhi, 2004, p. 175.
[2] Palmer, Norman D. and Howard C. Perkins, International
Relations—The World Community in Transition, A.I.T.B.S.
Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1997, p. 559.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] Couloumbis, Theodore A. and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations: Power and Justice, Prentice-Hall of India,
New Delhi, 1981, p. 305.
[6] Groom, A.J.R., Approaches to Conflict and Cooperation in
International Relations: Lessons from Theory for Practice, The
Ford Foundation Lectures in International Relations Studies, M.S.
University, Baroda, 1991, p. 66.
[7] Couloumbis and Wolfe, op. cit., n. 5, p. 305.
[8] Mitrany, David, A Working Peace System, Quadrangle, Chicago,
1966.
[9] Claude, Inis L., Sword into Plowshares, Random House, New
York, 1971, p. 289.
[10] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1981,
p. 454.
[11] Banerji, Arun Kumar (Ed.), Integration, Disintegration and World
Order: Some Perspectives on the Process of Change, Allied
Publishers in collaboration with School of International Relations
and Strategic Studies, Jadavpur University, Calcutta, 1995, p. 5.
[12] ibid., pp. 5–6.
[13] Kegley and Wittkopf, op. cit., n. 10, p. 455.
[14] Nye, J.S., Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional
Organization, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1971, p. 56.
[15] ibid., pp. 56–58.
[16] Bhattacharya, Purusottam, op. cit., n. 1, p. 176.
[17] ibid., p. 179.
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_declaration
[19] Fink, Marcel and Jain Paterson, “The European Union: Its Past,
Present and Future”, West Bengal Political Science Review, Vol.
V, Nos. 1 and 2, January–December, 2002, pp. 36–37.
[20] Butler, Fiona, “Regionalism and Intergration”, in John Baylis and
Steve Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford
University Press, London, 1997, pp. 426–427.
[21] Fink and Paterson, op. cit., n. 19, p. 63.
[22] http://www.saarc-
sec.org/data/summit15/summit15declaration.htm.
[23] http://www.aseansec.org/1814.htm, and
http://www.aseansec.org/64.htm.

* Karl W. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations, Prentice-Hall of India,

New Delhi, 1989, p. 212.
† E.B. Haas, “The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces”,
Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1958.
The United Nations and International
Relations
INTRODUCTION
The devastating experience of the First World War left the world
shocked and petrified. Therefore, attempts were made by the world
community to check the horrors of war and search for international
peace and security. The League of Nations was the first attempt
made by the world community to accomplish world peace through an
international organization. However, the political situation and power
equations prevalent during the inter-War period paralysed the
League from functioning properly and it met a sudden death with the
outbreak of the Second World War. However, the idealism of
international peace and security did not die down with the League’s
failure and, with the outbreak of the Second World War, there was a
renewed concern for establishment of an international organization
as the guardian of international peace and security. This ultimately
led to the establishment of the United Nations.
BIRTH OF THE UN
The idealism of the founding fathers of the League of Nations to
prevent large-scale war was shattered as the world was caught up
again in another massive war—the Second World War. The League
failed to prevent the War and its fate became sealed with the
outbreak of the War. However, there was a renewed effort on the
part of the international community to establish an international
organization to save the future generations from the scourge of war.
The United States, under President Franklin Roosevelt was in favour
of a global peacekeeping agency and Roosevelt himself coined the
name “United Nations”. In the course of the War, the urge for such
an international organization led to the signing of the historic Atlantic
Charter on 14 August 1941.
The Inter-Allied Declaration of 12 June 1941 upheld a promise “to
work together, with other free people, both in war and in peace”.
Thereafter, on 14 August 1941 Franklin D Roosevelt, President of
the United States and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom, signed the Atlantic Charter during their meeting on
the ship HMS Prince of Wales. This marked the historic beginning of
the United Nations.
The next step towards the formation of the United Nations was the
Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942. Twenty-six allied
nations signed the “Declaration by United Nations” in Washington
DC. This document contained the first official use of the term ‘United
Nations’. This initiative was further given a boost in the Moscow
Declaration on 30 October 1943, which envisioned “a general
international organization based on the principle of sovereign
equality of all peace loving states… large and small, for the
maintenance of international peace and security”.[1] The endeavour
picked up momentum and, on 1 December 1943, the Tehran
Declaration was adopted, which drew up a plan for an international
organization for peacekeeping. The principles of these two
declarations were reaffirmed in the Dumbarton Oaks Conference
held between 21 September and 7 October 1944, where the
blueprint of the international body was prepared. Major decisions
relating to the structures and functions of the organs of the United
Nations were worked out amidst several objections, adjustments and
demands. At the Yalta Conference of 11 February 1945, Roosevelt,
Churchill and Stalin declared their resolve to establish “a general
international organization to maintain peace and security”. Finally,
the largest conference for framing of the UN Charter was held in San
Francisco from 25 April to 26 June 1945 and it was attended by 280
delegates from 50 invitee nations. After much scrutinization and
review of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and with important
changes, finally, the San Francisco Conference ended with the
signing of the Charter on 26 June 1945. After the ratification of the
Charter by the five permanent members (the P–5) of the Security
Council and the majority of the signatories, the Charter came into
force with effect from 24 October 1945. October 24 has, therefore,
been declared as the United Nations Day. This was the beginning of
the world organization and the First General Assembly opened in the
Central Hall, Westminster on 10 January 1946, with representatives
from 51 nations. The Security Council met for the first time in London
on 17 January 1946. Trygve Lie of Norway became the first
Secretary-General on 1 February 1946.

Purposes and Principles of the UN

The Charter of the United Nations begins with a Preamble which
outlines the purposes or objectives of this international organization.
The vision of a world based on the ideals of peace, justice, truth and
fraternity is contained in the Preamble. It reads as follows:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined, to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our
lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large
and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and
respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of
international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress
and better standards of life in larger freedom”.
The Preamble bears testimony to the devastating and nerve-
wracking experiences of the First World War and simultaneous urge
on the part of the founding members to save the future generations
from the scourge of war. Therefore, it carries a hope of establishing a
lasting peace based on respect for the human rights,
acknowledgement of sovereign equality of all states and ensuring
better living conditions, economic and social, to the peoples of the
world. Keeping this in mind, the Preamble to the Charter further
carries a set of pledges for realizing the ends whose aims are to:

Practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another

as good neighbours.
Unite in strength to maintain international peace and security.
Ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the
common interest.
Employ international machinery for the promotion of economic
and social advancement of all peoples.[2]

Despite such lofty ideals set forth in the Preamble, it is not above
criticisms. Scholars find the expression “We the peoples of the
United Nations” to be misleading. It neither represents the peoples of
the world nor have they created the international organization. The
governments representing their respective states concluded the
international treaty and these governments, and not the “peoples”
were represented in the San Francisco Conference. Nevertheless, it
can hardly be doubted that there was a genuine desire on the part of
the world community to establish an international organization which
would ensure world peace and security.
The purposes of the UN are embodied in the Charter under Article 1
which states that the UN would endeavour to:

Maintain international peace and security, and to that end:

take effective collective measures for the prevention and
removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to
bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the
principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
 settlement of international disputes or situations which might
lead to a breach of peace.
Develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace.
Achieve international cooperation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian
character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for
human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the
attainment of these common ends.[3]

Though the purposes of the UN are again quite novel but the very
purpose of Article 1(1) gets defeated with Article 2(7) of the Charter
debarring the UN from interfering in the cases of strife falling under
the domestic jurisdiction of the states. This handicaps the UN from
preventing or removing the threats to peace, which may be an
internal affair but has a potential to become a threat to peace
internationally.
Article 2, in pursuance of the purposes stated in Article 1, prescribes
certain principles for their realization. These principles are:
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign
equality of all its members.
2. All members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and
benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the
obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present
Charter.
3. All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security
and justice are not endangered.
4. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
 with the purposes of the United Nations.
5. All members shall give the United Nations every assistance in
any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and
shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which
the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not
members of the United Nations act in accordance with these
principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the
members to submit such matters to settlement under the present
Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of
enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.[4]
The problems with these principles are that, as far as
representations of member states are concerned, they have been
accorded equal status in the General Assembly, but the composition
of the Security Council is very much contrary to the principle of
sovereign equality with the preponderance of the permanent five (P-
5) members and the system of veto. Nicholas[5] points out that “The
Veto in Security Council still protects the Great Powers but at the
expense of heightening the disparity between them and the other
members, not only of the General Assembly but of the Security
Council itself”. Further, the procedure for the amendment of the
Charter also gives the P-5 a decisive role to play. The limits set by
Article 2(7) on the functioning of the international body also have
limited its scope. However, it was resolved by the General Assembly
that an issue ceases to be of domestic concern if it, having
international obligations, endangers international peace and security.
The working of the UN, therefore, suffers from structural problems
which make the purposes and principles difficult to attain.
Article 55 of the Charter further embodies principles of socio-
economic dimension, which are essential in developing friendly
relations among the states. It states that with a view to the creation
of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for
peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the
United Nations shall promote:

Higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of

economic and social progress and development.
Solutions of international economic, social, health and related
problems; and international cultural and educational
cooperation.
Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language or religion.

Thus, the UN Charter contains provisions that are noble and lofty but
their realization is mostly circumscribed by the oligarchic and
hegemonic structure of the UN as reflected in the composition of the
Security Council and the preponderance of the P-5.

Membership
Chapter II (Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6) embodies the principle relating to
the acquisition and revocation of membership of the UN. Article 3
enunciates that the original members of the UN are those states
which, “having participated in the United Nations Conference on
International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously
signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942, sign
the present Charter and ratify it” in accordance with their respective
constitutional process.
Article 4 states that the membership of the United Nations is open to
“all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained
in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are
able and willing to carry out these obligations” and the admission of
any such state to membership of the United Nations will be effected
by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of
the Security Council.
Article 5 contains provisions regarding suspension of exercise of
rights and privileges of membership, against whom preventive or
enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council, by the
General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security
Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored
by the Security Council.
Article 6 goes further to state that any member of the United Nations
persistently violating the principles contained in the present Charter
may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly
upon the recommendation of the Security Council.[6]
At present there are 193 member states of the United Nations.

Organs of the United Nations

Article 7(1) outlines the principal organs of the United Nations. They
are the:

General Assembly
Security Council
Economic and Social Council
Trusteeship Council
International Court of Justice
Secretariat

Article 7(2) contains such subsidiary organs, as may be found

necessary, may be established in accordance with the present
Charter.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Chapter IV of the UN Charter embodies the provisions pertaining to
the compositions, powers and functions of the General Assembly.
Established in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations, the
General Assembly occupies a central position as the chief
deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United
Nations. Comprising all 193 members of the United Nations, it
provides a forum for multilateral discussion of the full spectrum of
international issues covered by the Charter. It also plays a significant
role in the process of standard-setting and the codification of
international law. The Assembly meets in regular sessions
intensively from September to December each year, and thereafter
as required.

Composition
Regarding the composition of the Assembly, Article 9 states that the
General Assembly shall consist of all the members of the United
Nations and each member, big or small, shall have not more than
five representatives in the General Assembly.
It was at the San Francisco Conference that a limit of five seats was
evolved in place of three as in the League Assembly.

Sessions
The General Assembly meets in annual sessions, which usually
begins on the third Tuesday in September of each year. The
sessions continue almost for three months. At each session the
General Assembly elects one President and 21 Vice-Presidents (6
representatives from African States, 5 representatives from Asian
States, 1 representative from an Eastern European State, 3
representatives from Latin American States, 2 representatives from
Western European or other states, 5 representatives from the P-5 of
the Security Council subject to the condition that the election of the
President of General Assembly will have the effect of reducing the
number of Vice-Presidents by one), and Chairman of Committees.
The first session of the General Assembly was held in the Central
Hall of Westminster on the twenty-sixth birthday of the League on 10
January 1946.
The agenda for the sessions of the General Assembly revolves
around the isssues of International Peace and Security, Economic
Growth and Sustainable Development, Development of Africa,
Human Rights, Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance, Justice
and International Law, Disarmament, Drugs, Crime, International
Terrorism, Organizational and Administrative Matters.
Besides the regular sessions, the General Assembly can also meet
in special sessions which “shall be convoked by the Secretary-
General at the request of the Security Council or of a majority of the
Members of the United Nations”. [Chapter IV, Article 20]
Any member state can also request the Secretary-General to
summon a special session. On receipt of such a request, the
Secretary-General immediately informs the other members of the UN
of the request and makes sure that there is a general concurrence in
the Assembly on the particular matter to be debated. If within thirty
days from the date of communication to the Secretary-General, it is
found that a majority of the members concur with the request, then a
special session of the General Assembly can be summoned.
Several special sessions of the Assembly have been held since its
inception. The First Session (1947) and the Second Session (1948)
were on Palestine, followed by the Third Session (1961) on Tunisia;
many others have followed over the years. Some recent sessions
were held like the Session (2005) on the commemoration of the
sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps,
Session (2002) on World Summit for Children, Session (2001) on
Problem of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in all its aspects, Session
(2001) on Implementation of the outcome of the UN Conference on
Human Settlements (Habitat II).
The General Assembly can also meet for emergency special
sessions. Under the resolution 377A(V), “Uniting for peace”, adopted
by the General Assembly on 3 November 1950, an “emergency
special session” can be convened within 24 hours.
Several emergency sessions have been held on illegal Israeli actions
in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, the question of Namibia, the situation in Afghanistan, and
its implications for international peace and security (1980), the
question of Congo, and others.

Subsidiary Organs of the General Assembly

For the proper dispensation of its functions, the Assembly allocates
items relevant to its work among its six main committees which
discuss them, seeking, wherever possible, to harmonize the various
approaches of states, and then present draft resolutions and
decisions for consideration to a plenary meeting of the Assembly.
The main commitees are the:
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security
Committee) is concerned with disarmament and related international
security questions.
The Second Committee (Economic and Financial Committee) is
concerned with economic questions.
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee)
deals with social and humanitarian issues.
The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization
Committee) deals with a variety of political subjects not dealt with by
the First Committee, as well as with decolonization.
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary Committee)
deals with the administration and budget of the United Nations.
The Sixth Committee (Legal Committee) deals with international
legal matters.
Other Committees of the General Assembly are the Credentials
Committee, the General Committee which is composed of the
President and 21 Vice-Presidents of the General Assembly as well
as the chairmen of the six main committees. The committee makes
recommendations to the Assembly regarding the adoption of the
agenda, the allocation of items and the organization of work. Several
informal regional groupings have evolved in the General Assembly,
which facilitate the procedural work of the Assembly like the
groupings of the African states, the Asian States, the Eastern
European states, the Latin American and the Caribbean states and
the West European and other states.[7]
Article 22 entrusts the General Assembly to establish subsidiary
organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

Commissions
There are several Commissions established by the General
Assembly like the Disarmament Commission, the International Civil
Service Commission, the International Law Commission, the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the
United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and the
United Nations Peacebuilding Commission [established by GA
Resolution 60/180 and UN Securiy Council Resolutions 1645 (2005)
and 1646 (2005)].

Advisory Commission
There is also an Advisory Commission on the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
[established by GA Resolution 302 (IV), 1949].

Working Groups
Working Groups of General Assembly are:

High-level open-ended Working Group on the Financial

Situation of the United Nations [established by GA Resolution
49/143, 1994]
Working Group on the Future Operations of the International
Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of
Women [established by GA Resolution 56/125, 2001]
Working Group on the Finance of the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA) [established by GA Resolution 2656 (XXV), 1970].

Open-Ended ad hoc Working Groups

There is also an open-ended ad hoc Working Group of the General
Assembly on the Integrated and Coordinated Implementation of and
follow-up to the major United Nations Conferences and Summits in
the Economic and Social Fields [established by GA Resolution
57/270, 2002].

Councils
The Councils established by the General Assembly resolutions are:

The Human Rights Council [established by GA Resolution

60/251, 1948]
The Council of the United Nations University [established by
GA Resolution 3081 (XXVIII), 1973].

Governing Councils
The Governing Councils of General Assembly are:

The Governing Council of the United Nations Environment

Programme [established by GA Resolution 2997 (XXVII)]
The Governing Council of the United Nations Human
Settlements Programme, UN-Habitat [established by GA
Resolution 56/206, 2001].

Panel
There is also a Panel of External Auditors of the United Nations, the
Specialized Agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency
[established by GA Resolution 347 (IV) and 1438 (XIV)].

Functions and Powers

Deliberative Functions: It is needless to say that the General
Assembly, comprising all the members of the UN, is the central
organ of the organization but the primary responsibility of
maintaining world peace and security is left to the Security Council.
The role of the Assembly in such matters is limited to advisory. The
San Francisco Conference set the limits to the functioning of the
Assembly on matters pertaining to peace and security. Therefore,
under Article 10, the General Assembly may discuss any questions
or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to
the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present
Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make
recommendations to the members of the United Nations or to the
Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters. Under
Article 12, it should be noted that, while the Security Council is
exercising the functions assigned to it in the present Charter in
respect of any dispute or situation, the General Assembly shall not
make any recommendations with regard to that dispute or situation
unless the Security Council so requests. The Secretary-General
may, however, with the consent of the Security Council, notify the
General Assembly at each session of any matters relating to the
maintenance of international peace and security which are being
dealt with by the Security Council, and shall similarly notify the
General Assembly, or the Members of the United Nations if the
General Assembly is not in session, immediately when the Security
Council ceases to deal with such matters.
Functions Relating to Maintenance of International Peace and
Security: Under Article 11, the General Assembly may consider the
general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international
peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament
and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations
with regard to such principles to the members, or to the Security
Council, or to both. These functions are also referred to as teaching
functions. Acting under this authority, the Assembly has adopted
various resolutions, for example, the ‘Essentials of Peace’ in 1949,
“Declaration Concerning the Peaceful Coexistence of States”, and
also established the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946, the
Disarmament Commission in 1952, and the Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation in 1955.[8]
Further, the General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to
the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it
by any member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or
by a state which is not a member of the United Nations in
accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in
Article 12 and may make recommendations with regard to any such
questions to the state or states concerned, or to the Security Council
or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be
referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either
before or after the discussion. The General Assembly may also call
the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to
endanger international peace and security.
Under Article 14, subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General
Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of
any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the
general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including
situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present
Charter setting forth the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.
The 1950s, during the Korean crisis, saw an increase in the
importance of the General Assembly. In the backdrop of the Cold
War and the continuous tussle between the USA and the USSR
resulting in the exercise of veto, and later due to the continuous
absence by the Soviet Union, the Security Council reached a
deadlock. It was then that the historical “Uniting for Peace Resolution
(UPR)”, 1950, was adopted by virtue of which “action with respect to
threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression”,
which is solely the responsibility of the Security Council, would be
performed by the General Assembly. It was resolved that “if the
Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent
members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security in any case where
there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or
act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter
immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to
Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach
of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when
necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If
not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in
emergency special session within twenty-four hours of the request.
Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the
Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority
of the Members of the United Nations”.[9]
Under the UPR, the General assembly has acted in several
international crises, as in Korea, Suez and Hungarian crises, as well
as the Jordan and Lebanon crises. It should be remembered that the
Assembly reached its zenith acting under the UPR only in the fifties,
and from the sixties onwards it was again the Security Council which
resumed its responsibilities regarding issues of peace.
While the Assembly is empowered to make only non-binding
recommendations to states on international issues within its
competence, it has, nonetheless, initiated actions—political,
economic, humanitarian, social and legal—which have affected the
lives of millions of people throughout the world. The landmark
Millennium Declaration, adopted in 2000, and the 2005 World
Summit Outcome Document, reflect the commitment of the member
states of the UN to reach specific goals in order to attain peace,
security and disarmament along with development and poverty
eradication; safeguard human rights and promote the rule of law;
protect our common environment; meet the special needs of Africa;
and strengthen the United Nations.
Functions Relating to Codification of International Law: The
functions relating to codification of international law can be regarded
as a part of the ‘quasi-legislative function’ or, as Nicholas[10] refers
to, as functions that are “nearest to the law-making activities of a
national legislature”. According to Article 13 of the Charter, the
General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations
for the purpose of promoting international cooperation in the (a)
political field and encouraging the progressive development of
international law and its codification and (b) economic, social,
cultural, educational and health fields. The Assembly also assists in
the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
For performance of its quasi-legislative functions, the Assembly has
set up the International Law Commission in 1948 with the primary
task of making studies and preparing draft codes and declarations
for submission to the Assembly. On the basis of these
recommendations, the Assembly affirmed the principles of
international law to exist as embodied in the Charter of the
Nuremberg Trial and the judgements of that trial. There are also
other instances of such affirmations by the Assembly. Even without
the guidance of the Law Commission, the Assembly may prepare
and adopt conventions or declarations, which embody a code of
behaviour by states.
The General Assembly has also adopted several conventions
relating to human rights such as the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
(ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESR), the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1965), Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (1984) (CAT) and
others.
Supervisory Functions: The Assembly also performs certain
supervisory functions under Article 15. It receives and considers
annual and special reports from the Security Council. These reports
shall include an account of the measures that the Security Council
has decided upon or has taken to maintain international peace and
security.
The General Assembly also receives and considers reports from the
other organs of the United Nations. Under Article 85, the Economic
and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council have been placed
under the direct supervision of the General Assembly. All specialized
agencies should also submit their annual report to the General
Assembly.
Under Article 16 the General Assembly is entrusted to perform such
functions with respect to the international trusteeship system as are
assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of
the trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic.
Budgetary Functions: The budgetary functions form a vital financial
activity of the Assembly. Under Article 17, the General Assembly
considers and approves the budget of the United Nations. The
expenses are to be borne by the members as apportioned by the
General Assembly.
The General Assembly also considers and approves any financial
and budgetary arrangements with specialized agencies referred to in
Article 57, and also examines the administrative budgets of such
specialized agencies with a view to making recommendations to the
agencies concerned.
Amendment of the Charter: Under Article 108 relating to
amendments to the present Charter, the General Assembly, being
the forum where all the member states are represented, has been
assigned an important position. All amendments can come into force
when all the members of the United Nations have adopted it by a
two-third majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and
ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes
by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the
permanent members of the Security Council.
Elective Functions: The General Assembly elects the Secretary-
General, judges of the International Court of Justice, and admits new
members on the basis of the recommendations of the Security
Council. It also exercises exclusive powers to elect the non-
permanent members of the Security Council, members of the
Economic and Social Council, and several members of the
Trusteeship Council.

Voting in General Assembly

Article 18 contains the provisions relating to the voting in the
Assembly. These a provisions are:
1. Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall
be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and
voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with
respect to the maintenance of international peace and security;
the election of the non-permanent members of the Security
Council; the election of the members of the Economic and Social
Council; the election of the members of the Trusteeship Council
in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) of Article 86, the admission
of new members to the United Nations; the suspension of the
rights and privileges of the membership; the expulsion of
members; questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship
system; and budgetary questions.
 3. Decisions on other questions, including the determination of
additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds
majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present
and voting.
Article 19 contains provisions; which debar a member from
exercising the voting rights in the Assembly. It states that “A Member
of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its
financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the
General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the
amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full
years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a
Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to
conditions beyond the control of the Member”.
In recent years, efforts have been made to achieve consensus on
issues, rather than deciding by a formal vote. The President, after
having consulted and reached an agreement with the delegations,
can propose that a resolution be adopted without a vote.

Evaluation
The General Assembly is by far the most important organ of the
United Nations. It is the largest organ comprising all the member
states and is known as the town-meeting of the world. Given the
nature of limited membership of the Security Council, the General
Assembly becomes the platform of the developing nations and
provides a forum for collective bargaining. The Assembly’s power
reached its zenith with the passing of the Uniting for Peace
Resolution and it met several challenges to peacekeeping using this
resolution. But from the sixties onwards, with the resumption of
functions relating to matters of peacekeeping and international
security, by the Security Council, the role of General Assembly has
declined. But this has not made the Assembly an ineffective organ,
and it still continues to be the world’s Parliament and a forum for
deliberation and discussion. The supervisory functions of the
Assembly still continue and its effort to work towards a peaceful
secure world by promoting peaceful cooperation among nations still
remains its main objective. Further, to make the United Nations more
effective, the Assembly is the forum which generates ideas and
discussions for the proposed reform of the UN and review its work.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Composition
CHAPTER V, in particular Article 23 of the Charter, embodies the
provisions relating to the membership of the Council. It specifies that
the Security Council shall consist of fifteen members of the United
Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (now Russia), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be the
permanent members of the Security Council. The admission of
People’s Republic of China did not take place immediately after the
formation of UN due to American veto. At that time, Nationalist China
(Taiwan) represented the State of China. However, with the
recognition in 1971 of the Beijing Government by the UN, the
People’s Republic of China was finally admitted to the Council,
displacing Taiwan.
The ten non-permanent members are elected by the General
Assembly for two-year terms and they are not eligible for immediate
re-election. The non-permanent members are selected on the basis
of geographical distribution. They are chosen from Asian, African,
Latin American and the Caribbean, East European and West
European States. The number of non-permanent members was
increased from six to ten by an amendment of the Charter, which
came into force in 1965. Due regard is specially paid, in the first
instance, to the contribution of the members of the United Nations to
the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other
purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical
distribution. Each member of the Security Council shall have one
representative.
It has been pointed, however, that the structure of the Council is
undemocratic and not based on the principle of sovereign equality.
Only the number of non-permanent members was increased and not
that of the permanent. Besides, the council has been given sweeping
powers relating to the vital matters of international peace and
security as compared to the Assembly.
Sessions
Article 28 reflects the desire of the founding members to make it
function continuously. It states that the Security Council shall be so
organized as to be able to function continuously. Each member of
the Security Council shall, for this purpose, be represented at all
times at the seat of the Organization.
It also directs that the Security Council shall hold periodic meetings
at which each of its members may, if it so desires, be represented by
a member of the government or by some other specially designated
representative. The Security Council may hold meetings at such
places other than the seat of the Organization as in its judgement will
best facilitate its work.
Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security
Council adopted by the Council in its first meeting, and amended
thereafter several times, specify the procedure of holding sessions of
the Council.
The President shall call a meeting of the Security Council at the
request of any member of the Security Council and if a dispute or
situation is brought to the attention of the Security Council under
Article 35 or under Article II (3) of the Charter or, if the General
Assembly makes recommendations or refers any question to the
Security Council under Article 11 (2) or if the Secretary-General
brings to the attention of the Security Council any matter under
Article 99. Besides, periodic meetings of the Security Council called
for in Article 28 (2) of the Charter shall be held twice a year as the
Security Council may decide.
The provisional agenda for each meeting of the Security Council
shall be drawn up by the Secretary-General and approved by the
President of the Security Council.
The Presidency of the Security Council is held in turn by the
members of the Security Council in the English alphabetical order of
their names, and each President holds office for one calendar
month.

Voting in the Security Council

Article 27 of the present Charter lays down the provisions relating to
the voting procedure of the Security Council. The presence of the
system of ‘veto’ is the most conspicuous element in this voting
procedure. It calls for an affirmative vote of nine members to arrive at
decisions on procedural matters and an affirmative vote of nine
members including the concurring votes of the permanent members
for all other matters. Each member of the Security Council shall have
one vote.
Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of
at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters
require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five
permanent members. This is the rule of great Power unanimity, often
referred to as the “veto” power. The exclusive “veto” power of the P-5
reflects the unequal structure of the UN Security Council and also
most of ten hinders the UN from taking actions disapproved by the
P-5 of the Security Council.
A member state against which preventive or enforcement action has
been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the
exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General
Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. A
member state, which has persistently violated the principles of the
Charter, may be expelled from the United Nations by the Assembly
on the Council’s recommendation.
Any member of the United Nations, which is not a member of the
Security Council, may participate, without vote, in the discussion of
any question brought before the Security Council whenever the latter
considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected
(Article 31).
A State, which is a member of the United Nations but not of the
Security Council, may participate, without a vote, in its discussions
when the Council considers that the country’s interests are affected.
Both members of the United Nations and non-members, if they are
considered parties to a dispute by the Council, are invited to take
part, without a vote, in the Council’s discussions, and the Council
sets the conditions for participation by a non-member State (Article
32).
Under the Charter, all members of the United Nations agree to
accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While
other organs of the United Nations may make recommendations to
Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions and
under the Charter member states are obligated to carry out these
decisions.

Subsidiary Bodies of the Security Council

The Security Council has established subsidiary organs as it deems
necessary for the performance of its functions.
There are at present three Standing Committees, and each
includes representatives of all Security Council member states. The
three standing committees are:
1. Security Council Committee of Experts
2. Security Council Committee on Admission of New Members
3. Security Council Committee on Council Meetings away from the
Headquarters
There are also Ad-Hoc Committees which are established by the
Security Council as and when needed. They comprise all Council
members who meet in closed session. Ad-Hoc Committees such as
the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation
Commission established by the Security Council resolution 692
(1991), and the Committee set up pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001)
concerning Counter-Terrorism—were all established by the Security
Council.
The Security Council also formed several Sanctions Committee.
Some Security Council Sanction Committees established, inter alia
pursuant to resolutions adopted, relate to Somalia (1992), Rwanda
(1994), Al Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and
entities (1999), the Democratic Republic of Congo (2004) and Sudan
(2006).
There are also several Working Groups of the Security Council
such as the:
1. Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations
2. Security Council Ad-Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention
and Resolution in Africa
 3. Security Council Working Group established pursuant to
resolution 1566 (2004)
4. Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict
5. Security Council Informal Working Group on General Issues of
Sanctions
6. Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and
Other Procedural Questions
There is also the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the 1540
Committee, and the United Nations Monitoring Verification and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). International Tribunals have
also been constituted by the resolutions of the Security Council such
as the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), and for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the
Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for
Genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of
neighbouring states between 1 January and 31 December 1994.
Counter-terrorism bodies have also been constituted such as the:

Counter-Terrorism Committee
Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee
1540 Committee (non-proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction)11

Functions and Powers

Functions Relating to International Peace and Security: Article
24 entrusts the prime responsibility to maintain international peace
and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the
United Nations. Under this Article, the Security Council shall submit
annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General
Assembly for its consideration.
Under CHAPTER VI relating to Pacific Settlement of Disputes,
Article 33 stipulates that the parties to any dispute, the continuance
of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace
and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and resort to
regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their
own choice and the Security Council shall, when it deems necessary,
call upon the parties to settle their disputes, by such means.
Article 34 invests upon the Security Council to investigate any
dispute, or any situation, which might lead to international friction or
give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance
of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security.
According to Article 35, any member of the United Nations may bring
any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to
the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
Even a state which is not a member of the United Nations may bring
to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly
any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the
purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement
provided in the present Charter. This article also sets restrictions on
the proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters
brought to its attention under this Article. These will be subject to the
provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter.
Article 36 empowers the Security Council to, at any stage of a
dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like
nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of
adjustment. Further, the Security Council has to take into
consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute, which
have already been adopted by the parties. In making
recommendations under this Article, the Security Council should also
take into consideration that legal disputes must, as a general rule be
referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in
accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
If the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to
settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the
Security Council under Article 37 and, if the Security Council deems
that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide
whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms
of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
Article 38 stipulates that without prejudice to the provisions of
Articles 33–37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any
dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a
view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.
Under CHAPTER VII regarding action with respect to threats to
peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression, the Security
Council under Article 39 shall determine the existence of any threat
to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression, and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in
accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
Under Article 40, in order to prevent an aggravation of the situation,
the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or
deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the
parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it
deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be
without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties
concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to
comply with such provisional measures.
Articles 41 and 42 include clauses involving enforcement measures,
which the Security Council can undertake, as it deems necessary or
desirable.
Under Article 41, the Security Council may decide what measures,
not involving the use of armed force, are to be employed to give
effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the members of the
United Nations to apply such measures. These may include
complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea,
air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication,
and the severance of diplomatic relations. If these actions prove to
be inadequate, then under Article 42 the Security Council may
consider that it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces, as
may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and
security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade and
other operations by air, sea or land forces of the members of the
United Nations. In compliance with Article 43, all members of the
United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of
international peace and security, should undertake to make available
to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special
agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities,
including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining
international peace and security. Article 46 provides that plans for
the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council
with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee which shall be
established under Article 47 to advise and assist the Security
Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military
requirements for the maintenance of international peace and
security, the employment and command of forces placed at its
disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
The Military Staff Committee under the Security Council shall
consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the
Security Council or their representatives. Any member of the United
Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be
invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient
discharge of the Committee’s responsibilities requires the
participation of that member in its work. The Military Staff Committee
shall be responsible for the strategic direction of any armed forces
placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to
the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently. The
Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after
consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish
regional sub-committees.
Exceptions prevail to these functions of Security Council relating to
peace and security. According to Article 51, nothing in the present
Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-
defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. The measures taken by
members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any
way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council,
under the present Charter, to take at any time such action as it
deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace
and security. Another exception is provided under Article 53, which
specifies that the Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize
such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action
under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under
regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the
authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures
against any enemy state (as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article).
When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it,
the Council’s first action is usually to recommend to the parties to try
to reach an agreement by peaceful means. In some cases, the
Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation. It may appoint
special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so or
to use his good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful
settlement.
When a dispute leads to full-scale conflict, the Council’s first concern
is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On many occasions, the
Council has issued ceasefire directives which have been
instrumental in preventing wider hostilities. It also sends United
Nations peacekeeping forces to help reduce tensions in troubled
areas, keep opposing forces apart and create calm conditions in
which peaceful settlements may be sought. The Council may decide
on enforcement measures, economic sanctions (such as trade
embargoes), or collective military action.
Other Functions
Among other functions, the Security Council:
1. Has the power to recommend the name of Secretary-General
before he can be appointed by the General Assembly.
2. Shares the power of election of judges of the International Court
of Justice with the General Assembly.
3. Is authorized by Article 26 to take necessary measures for arms
control and disarmament.
4. Has been vested with powers regarding the amendment of the
Charter by Article 108 which states that the amendment proposal
must be ratified by the five permanent members.
5. Has the power of granting admission of new members to the UN
and approve expulsion of members for violation of the principles
 of the UN.

Evaluation
Though limited in membership and with sweeping powers to
permanent members, the Security Council is the most powerful of all
organs of the United Nations. It is the only organ which has the
authority to make decisions that are binding and take collective
actions to restore international peace and security. However, the
veto power is the most paralyzing of all the provisions and has led to
a number of deadlocks over the years especially during the Cold War
years. One such deadlock over the Korean issue arising from the
superpower rivalry had prompted the General Assembly to adopt the
Uniting for Peace Resolution (UPR) in order to take action whenever
the Security Council stands paralyzed. Acting under UPR (1950), the
General Assembly usurped the power of Security Council and took
action in Korea (1950–1953) and Congo (1960–1964), and virtually
bypassed the Security Council.
However, from the late 60s, when the Security Council again
resumed its powers and functions, it aptly handled the crises in
CONGO (ONUC), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Cyprus
Question (1964), the Rhodesian Embargo Issue (1968), the Arab–
Israeli War (1967 and 1973), the Indo–Pak War (1971), the South
Africa and Cambodia issues and the later operations. However, post-
Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union have left the
Security Council as a mere pawn in the hands of the United States
which is today the only superpower. For example, the Gulf Crises of
1991 and 2003 show outright assertion of the sole superpower in the
world. The action to be undertaken by the Security Council now rests
more on the consideration of the Big-Five, especially the US, and
much depends on the power relationship of the permanent-5 and
their relationship with the non-permanent members. Therefore, the
Security Council has failed to deliver its best. Demand is there for an
expansion and democratization of the organ and some emerging
powers like India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, along with some other
claimants desire to become permanent members of the Security
Council.[12] Nevertheless, the importance of Security Council in the
maintenance of international peace and security cannot be
underestimated.
THE UN SECRETARIAT AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
Secretary-General
At Dumbarton Oaks, this particular post was given prime importance
and the Secretary-General was described as the “Chief
Administrative Officer of the UN”. He was invested with greater
power by the Charter as compared with the league Covenant which
restricted the powers of the Secretary-General to the point that “he
shall act in such capacity at all meetings of the Assembly and
Council”. But the Preparatory Commission at San Francisco went
further and established the importance of the Secretary-General by
highlighting the executive role as a “quite special right, which goes
beyond any power previously accorded to the head of an
international organization”.

Appointment
Chapter XV of the Charter contains provisions relating to the powers
and functions of the Secretary-General and his Secretariat. Article 97
states that the Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and
such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General
shall be appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation
of the Security Council. He shall be the Chief Administrative Officer
of the Organization. The term of office has not been specified by the
Charter but a General Assembly resolution fixed the term for five
years with the provision of reappointment also.

Functions and Powers

Combining in himself the roles of a diplomat, advocate, civil servant
and CEO, the Secretary-General is a symbol of the United Nations’
ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world’s peoples, in
particular the poor and the vulnerable among them. The current
Secretary-General, and the eighth occupant of the post, is Mr. Ban
Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea (South Korea), who took office on
1 January 2007.
Being the Chief Administrative Officer of the UN, he plays a pivotal
role in the overall administration of the UN. From being the chief
channel of communication between the UN members and the organs
of the UN to being the coordinator of the UN bodies, he has a
definite role in determining the direction of the activities of the UN in
all its aspects.
Article 98 authorizes the Secretary-General to act in that capacity in
all the meetings of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the
Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council. It also
authorizes him to perform such other functions as are entrusted to
him by these organs. This executive function has been entrusted to
him to ensure the smooth working of the UN.
The Secretary-General is responsible for the day-to-day functioning
of the UN. This includes attendance at sessions of the United
Nations bodies, consultations with world leaders, government
officials and others, and worldwide travel intended to keep him in
touch with the member states and their people, and also keep him
informed about the vast array of issues of international concern that
top organization’s agenda. Further, the Secretary-General has to
submit an annual report to the General Assembly on the work of the
Organization which is an exhaustive record of all the activities of the
Organization. The report also contains some important proposals for
better functioning of the UN, such as the Agenda for Peace prepared
by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the proposals for the reform of the UN and
revision of the Charter by Kofi Annan. The Secretary-General,
therefore, is entrusted to make the widest possible recommendations
to the Assembly, but he has also acquired, by the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure, the right to put an item on the Assembly’s draft agenda
and, since 1947, the right “at any time [to] make either oral or written
statements to the General Assembly concerning any question under
consideration by it”.
The Secretary-General is also the Chairman of the Administrative
Committee on Coordination (ACC), which brings together the
Executive Heads of all UN funds, programmes and specialized
agencies twice a year for further coordination and cooperation in the
entire range of substantive and management issues facing the
United Nations System.
In financial matters, the Secretary-General performs the important
task of preparing the annual budget for approval by the General
Assembly and determines the direction in which the funds will be
allocated for different organs of the UN. He is also responsible for
collecting the contribution from the member states and also controls
the expenditure of the organs and specialized agencies of the UN.
Under Article 101, the Secretary-General, being the head of the
Secretariat, appoints the staff under regulations established by the
General Assembly. And it is his prime responsibility to secure the
highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity. Besides
these administrative functions, he has also been assigned a vital
political function under Article 99, which states that the Secretary-
General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter
which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international
peace and security. How the Secretary-General would exercise this
function is left to the discretion of the incumbent. He should act as a
conscience keeper for the whole world as, under Article 35, he has
been conferred the status equivalent to a member state or that of the
General Assembly. The most important thing to be remembered is
that, under Article 100, the Secretary-General has to be politically
neutral.
The Secretary-General represents the UN in all its negotiations and
interactions with the member and non-member states and other
international bodies. The Report of the Preparatory Committee
upheld that “The Secretary-General more than anyone else will
stand for the UN as a whole. In the eyes of the world, no less than in
the eyes of his own staff, he must embody the principles and ideals
of the Charter”.[13]
One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the
use of his ‘good offices’—steps taken publicly and in private, drawing
upon his independence, impartiality and integrity—to prevent
international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading. Each
Secretary-General also defines his role within the context of his
particular time in office.
The Secretary-Generals of the UN till date are:

Trygve Lie (Norway), from February 1946 until his resignation

 in November 1952
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), from April 1953 till his death in
a plane crash near Nodola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia)
in September 1961
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), from November 1961,
appointed as acting Secretary-General and formally from
November 1962 to December 1971
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), from January 1972 to December
1981
Javier Pèrez de Cuèllar (Peru), from January 1982 to
December 1991
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), from January 1992 to
December 1996
Kofi Annan (Ghana), from 1997 to December 2006
Ban Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea (South Korea), who
took office on 1 January 2007.
António Guterres (Portugal), is the Ninth Secretary General of
the UN. He took office on 1 January, 2017.

Secretariat
In the performance of his duties in the spirit of the Charter, the
Secretary-General, is assisted by a staff who are expected to exhibit
the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity. He
makes the necessary appointments according to the regulations
established by the General Assembly under Article 101[1]. Under
Article 101[2], appropriate staff shall be permanently assigned to the
Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and, as
required, to other organs of the United Nations. All these staff form
part of the Secretariat. The prime consideration is placed in the
employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of
service to secure the highest standards of efficiency, competence,
and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting
the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.
The staff of the Secretariat comprise linguists, economists, editors,
social scientists, legal experts, experts in the various fields of UN
activities, librarians, journalists, statisticians, broadcasters, personnel
officers, administrators, security officers, besides the clerical and
other staff.
Article 100 upholds the international character of the Secretariat. To
ward off the national pressures corroding the concept of international
loyalty of an international civil service, during the San Francisco
Conference (to which mention has already been made), there was a
proposal for constituting an independent and internationally
responsible Secretariat. Therefore, Charter under Article 100[1]
explicitly states that “in the performance of their duties the Secretary-
General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any
government or from any other authority external to the Organization.
They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their
position as international officials responsible only to the
Organization”. It also contains a plea that each member of the United
Nations should undertake to respect the exclusively international
character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the
staff, and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their
responsibilities.

Duties of the Secretariat

Nicholas[5] points out to the six-fold functions of the Secretariat. The
first function is similar to the role of a parliamentary clerk and even
much wider in scope as the UN requires a wide range of servicing.
This function includes interpretation, translation and preparation of
drafts, keeping records of proceedings, furnishing documentation
and library facilities as well as legal and procedural advice to the
General Assembly, the Security Council, the ECOSOC and their sub-
committees.
The second function is what is generally referred to as the
“information function” of the Secretariat. The collection, ordering and
providing of information to the centres, which require them, is one of
the greatest services rendered by the Secretariat. This enables the
delegates, committees and commissions to have access to a whole
range of data, technical and others, for the proper discharge of their
functions. In other words, it acts as a storehouse of information.
Third, the technical assistance provided by the Secretariat is a part
of the executive functions that it performs. It started with the point-4
programme and turned into the Expanded Technical Assistance
Programme.
The fourth function entails partly the security and partly the
administrative function related to transport, maintenance and
communication and overall security of the UN Commissions in the
field.
The fifth function, which involves the overall supervision of the
international bureaucracy, is performed by the Secretariat and
ranges from recruitment, allocation of functions, to performance
assessment of its staff.
Finally the Secretariat performs certain diplomatic and political
functions. The UN officials sometimes have to think of alternative
courses of action by considering the world public opinion and also
pressures of national sentiments and national forces when they
persuade and negotiate in crisis situations.[14]
Evaluation
The office of the Secretary-General is quite an important one. The
role of the Secretary-General is vital to the functioning of the United
Nations system. An analysis of the role played by the different
Secretaries-General would reveal that there has sometimes been an
increase in prestige of the office while sometimes the office has been
sidetracked by major powers.
Trygve Lie (Norway), the first Secretary-General of the United
Nations, was a dynamic and energetic person and wanted to ensure
a more active role of the Unied Nations in the maintenance of
international peace and security. He acted by using his rights under
Article 99 on the Spanish and Iranian questions at a time when the
big powers were at loggerheads.[15] However, given his background
as a former politician, he nurtured strong views on many subjects
and made no attempt to conceal them. Therefore, his actions in the
case of the Korean War won him both acclaim from some quarters
and wrath from the Soviet Union. His support for the decision of the
Security Council to defend South Korea in the wake of an attack by
North Korea in June 1950, led to the accusations by the Soviet
Union and her allies that the Secretary-General was acting on behalf
of the United States and its friends against the Communist states,
and they vetoed his nomination for a further term in February 1951.
Though the veto was later revoked and he continued his office
without a re-election, ultimately he earned the undying criticisms of
the USA too for allowing the ‘pro-Communist’ Americans to work in
the Secretariat. Lie finally resigned at the end of 1952 before his
extended term expired.[16]
Dag Hammarskjöld (Sweden), the second Secretary-General, was
more cautious in his approach. He embarked on what came to be
known as “preventive diplomacy” through conciliation and good
offices in many situations. He proved his worth in his conciliatory
endeavours using his good offices and personal contact with Zhou
En-lai (1898–1976), the Chinese Premier, and secured the release of
US airmen from China who were imprisoned there in 1955.
Thereafter, he played a commending role in the Suez Crisis and the
Lebanon Crisis followed by the organization of an observer force in
Lebanon in 1958. In 1960, during the Congo Crisis, Dag invoked the
powers of the Secretary-General under Article 99 of the Charter and
requested a meeting of the Security Council and creation of ONUC
and recommended the withdrawal of Belgian troops from Congo. But
these were accepted by the Security Council and he was authorized
to provide military assistance as he felt necessary. However, the
growing role of the Secretary-General was not liked by the Soviet
Union and they came up with a proposal known as the Troika Plan
whereby, instead of one Secretary-General, there would be three
Secretaries-General—one from a Western, another from a
Communist, and yet another from a neutral country. However, Dag
Hammarskjöld died in a plane crash on his way to a personal visit to
Tsombe (President of Katanga) in his bid to resolve the Congo
crisis.
U Thant (Burma, now Myanmar), succeeded Dag as the third
Secretary-General. He played a similar kind of role as that of Dag
and tried to expand the concept of preventive diplomacy. He played
a crucial role during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He also played an
effective role in the Congo and Cyprus crises. However, his Vietnam
venture could not succeed due to American intransigence and he
faced criticisms for removal of UN peacekeeping forces from Sinai
just before the Six-day War on the request of Nasser of Egypt.[17]
Still, under his leadership, the office of the Secretary-General gained
prestige and he tried to act sincerely to further the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
Kurt Waldheim (Austria), the fourth Secretary-General, played great
diplomatic role in a number of crisis situations. He presided over the
talks between the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus, toured
Middle East extensively to promote chances of settlement, and
helped the United Nations to undertake practical activities like
disaster relief, protecting the international environment, running a
world university and administering the deep seabed.[18]
Javier Pèrez de Cuèllar (Peru), the fifth Secretary-General,
understood the nerves of the office well as he had worked as the
Under Secretary-General of the UN. He undertook some significant
peacekeeping operations in Namibia, El Salvador and Cambodia.
The waning of the Cold War too helped him to dispense his duties in
a proper way. He introduced the concept of quiet diplomacy among
the P-5 members of the Security Council to prepare the Council to
take an agreed course of action on outstanding issues. Thus, Pèrez
de Cuèllar was able to strike peace agreements between contending
parties in Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, El Salvador
and Cambodia, and deploy UN peacekeeping forces to supervise
elections, disarm military units, and check human rights violations.
But during the Gulf Crisis of 1991, the position of the Secretary-
General got undermined as the US-led forces overstepped their
mandate and in many cases the United States did not keep him fully
informed.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt), the sixth Secretary-General played
an important role in several crisis situations around the world in
Somalia, Bosnia and Hebron, among the few. But the most
significant contribution he made, using his intellectual excellence,
was the 52-page “Agenda for Peace” proposing several reforms for
making the United Nations more active and functioning.
Kofi Annan (Ghana), the seventh Secretary-General, tried to make
the United Nations more active in facing the crises in the post-Cold
War era. The American war on terror against Iraq and Afghanistan
created a tight situation for the United Nations as a whole and
especially the Secretary-General. However, the post-War
reconstruction programme earned him praises. But he was accused
of corruption relating to the Oil for Food Programme that tarnished
the image of his office.
Ban Ki-Moon of the Republic of Korea, took over the office on 1
January 2007 as the eighth Secretary-General. He faced an
alarming situation in the tussle between Russia and Georgia over
South Ossetia and the increasing violence there. In the face of
strong demand for revamping the United Nations and more positive
actions of the UN in crisis situations places him in a tough position
where every move of his has to take into consideration the post-Cold
War international scenario, the presence of the sole superpower, and
demands of the developing countries as well as those of the rest of
the world community. Ban Ki-Moon has been voted unanimously for
a second five year term as the Secretary General of the UN. The
second term began from 1 January 2012 and will continue till 31
December 2016. This decision followed a recommendation by
members of the Security Council which made Ban the eighth person
to be re-appointed and serve a second term.
António Guterres, took over the office of the Secretary General on
1 January 2017. He has been a Portuguese politician and diplomat
and has been serving the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees for many years (2005-2015). He launched an appeal for
peace and conveys the message for fighting climate change,
terrorism and inequality, as well as rethinking about the role of the
72-year-old Organization. It has to be seen how he uses his
expertise and experience to enhance the prestige and effectiveness
of the UN.
Therefore, it becomes quite clear that the efficacy of the office of the
Secretary-General depends on the personality of the person
occupying the office, the current international scenario and, of
course, the political equation among the major international players
themselves and their relationship with the Secretary-General.[19]
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
Composition
Chapter X, Article 61 specifies the guidelines for composition of the
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It states that the Council
shall consist of 54 members of the United Nations elected by the
General Assembly. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, 18
members of the Council shall be elected each year for a term of
three years. A retiring member shall be eligible for immediate re-
election. The ECOSOC is composed of 18 members. Later the
number increased to 27 and at present it stands at 54. Each member
of the Economic and Social Council shall have one representative.
According to Article 68, ECOSOC shall set up commissions in
economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights,
and such other commissions as may be required for the performance
of its functions. Article 69 also confers upon the ECOSOC the power
to invite any member of the United Nations to participate, without
vote, in its deliberations on any matter of particular concern to that
member. Article 70 states that the Economic and Social Council may
make arrangements for representatives of the specialized agencies
to participate, without vote, in its deliberations and in those of the
commissions established by it, and for its representatives to
participate in the deliberations of the specialized agencies.
Voting
Article 67 stipulates that each member of the Economic and Social
Council shall have one vote. Decisions of the Council shall be made
by a majority of the members present and voting.
Article 72 states that the Economic and Social Council shall adopt its
own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its
President. The Council shall meet as required in accordance with its
rules, which shall include provision for the convening of meetings on
the request of a majority of its members.
Functions and Powers
Article 62 states that the Economic and Social Council may:
1. Make or initiate studies and reports with respect to international
 economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related
matters and Make recommendations with respect to any such
matters to the General Assembly to the members of the United
Nations, and to the specialized agencies concerned.
2. Make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect
for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all.
3. Prepare draft conventions for submission to the General
Assembly, with respect to matters falling within its competence.
4. Call, in accordance with the rules prescribed by the United
Nations, international conferences on matters falling within its
competence.
Under Article 63, the Council may enter into agreements with any of
the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the
agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United
Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the
General Assembly. It may also coordinate the activities of the
specialized agencies through consultation with, and
recommendations to, such agencies and through recommendations
to the General Assembly and to the members of the United Nations.
According to Article 64 the Council may take appropriate steps to
obtain regular reports from the specialized agencies. It may make
arrangements with the members of the United Nations and with the
specialized agencies to obtain reports on the steps taken to give
effect to its own recommendations and to recommendations on
matters falling within its competence made by the General Assembly.
It may also communicate its observations on these reports to the
General Assembly.
Article 65 specifies that the Council may furnish information to the
Security Council and shall assist the Security Council upon its
request.
Article 66 also specifies that the Council shall perform such functions
falling within its competence in connection with the carrying out of
the recommendations of the General Assembly. It may also, with the
approval of the General Assembly, perform services at the request of
the members of the United Nations and at the request of the
specialized agencies. It shall also perform such other functions as
are specified elsewhere in the present Charter or as may be
assigned to it by the General Assembly.
Under Article 71 the Council may make suitable arrangements for
consultation with non-governmental organizations, which are
concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements
may be made with international organizations and, where
appropriate, with national organizations after consultation with the
member of the United Nations concerned.
The Council has been assigned certain new functions as well. At the
2005 World Summit, Heads of States and Governments mandated
the Council to hold Annual Ministerial Reviews (AMR) to assess
progress in achieving the internationally agreed development goals
(IADGs) arising out of the major conferences and summits and a
biennial Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) to enhance the
coherence and effectiveness of activities of different development
partners.
The Council works through several commissions, committees and
other subsidiary bodies. The Functional Commissions of the Council
are the:
1. Statistical Commission
2. Commission on Populations and Development
3. Commission for Social Development
4. Commission on the Status of Women
5. Commission on Narcotic Drugs
6. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justices
7. Commission on Science and Technology for Development
8. Commission on Sustainable Development
There are five Regional Commissions of the Council such as the:
1. Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)
2. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(ESCAP)
3. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
4. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
(ECLAC)
 5. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)
The Standing Committees of the Council are the:
1. Committee for Programme and Coordination
2. Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations
3. Committee on Negotiations with Inter-Governmental Agencies
4. Committee for Natural Resources
5. Committee for Transnational Corporations
6. Committee on Human Settlement.
There are also certain ad-hoc bodies like the Ad hoc Open-ended
Inter-Governmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable
Development and Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on
Informatics.
There are certain expert bodies composed of governmental experts
such as the Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals and United Nations Group of Experts on
Geographical Names.
Besides, there are expert bodies composed of members serving in
their personal capacity, like the Committee of Experts on Public
Administration, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and others.
Other related bodies of the Council include the International
Narcotics Control Board and the Board of Trustees of the
International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of
Women.

Evaluation
Though the Economic and Social Council was created to fulfill the
aspirations of the peoples of the United Nations in many cases it has
been seen that the Council has been severely impaired and limited
to discussion and recommendation. As in the case of other organs,
the Council is also not free from big power politics. Therefore, it has
not been able to deliver the goods to the people across the world.
Therefore, from time to time, there have been suggestions for
reforms. In 1969, a laudable reform effort was made by Sir Robert
Jackson and he recommended a creation of a strong central
coordinating organization and restructuring of UNDP. In 1974,
another effort was made when a resolution was adopted during the
Special Session of the General Assembly where the member states
asked the Secretary-General to appoint a group of high-level experts
to propose structural changes in the United Nations to enable it to
deal with matters of international economic cooperation. The group
of high-level of experts were soon formed by the Secretary-General
and it made many bold recommendations such as clarification of the
responsibilities of the Council vis-à-vis the General Assembly and
assignment of new responsibilities for the Council in the operational
area. The recent proposals came from the former Secretary-General,
Kofi Annan in his report entitled In Larger Freedom. He made
several proposals like the Council arranging for annual ministerial
level assessments of progress towards agreed development goals,
especially the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).
The Council should also serve as a high-level development
cooperation forum. Further, the Council should institutionalize its
work in post-conflict management by working with Peacebuilding
Commission and various others. Much introspection and reform not
in the form of proposals but concrete measures, are needed to
increase the efficacy of ECOSOC.
THE TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL
Chapter XII of the Charter enumerates the provisions relating to the
International Trusteeship system and Chapter XIII contains
provisions related to the composition and functions of the
Trusteeship Council.
Article 76 embodies the basic objectives of the Trusteeship system
as to:

Further international peace and security.

Promote the political, economic, social, and educational
advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and
their progressive development towards self-government or
independence as may be appropriate to the particular
circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely
expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be
provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement.
Encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language,
or religion, and to encourage recognition of the
interdependence of the peoples of the world.
Ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial
matters for all members of the United Nations and their
nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the
administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of
the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of
Article 80.

Article 77 specifies the applicability of the Trusteeship system. It

says:
1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the
following categories as may be placed there by means of
trusteeship agreements:
(a) Territories now held under mandate
(b) Territories which may be detached from the enemy states as
a result of the Second World War
 (c) Territories voluntarily placed under the system by states
responsible for their administration.
Further, it will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which
territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the
trusteeship system and on what terms.
Article 78 enumerates that the trusteeship system shall not apply to
territories which have become members of the United Nations,
relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle
of sovereign equality.
Article 83 specifies matters relating to the functions of the trusteeship
system. It says that all functions of the United Nations relating to
strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship
agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised
by the Security Council. Further, the Security Council shall, subject
to the provisions of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice
to security considerations, avail itself of the assistance of the
Trusteeship Council to perform those functions of the United Nations
under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social
and educational matters in the strategic areas.
Article 85 states that the functions of the United Nations with regard
to trusteeship agreements for all areas, not designated as strategic,
including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements
and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the
General Assembly. Further, the Trusteeship Council, operating under
the authority of the General Assembly, shall assist the General
Assembly in carrying out these functions.
CHAPTER XIII contains the provisions relating to the constitution of
the Trusteeship Council.

Composition
Article 86 states that the Trusteeship Council shall consist of the
following members of the United Nations:
(a) Those members administering the trust territories.
(b) Those members mentioned by name in Article 23 and are not
administering the trust territories.
(c) As many other members elected for three-year terms by the
 General Assembly as may be necessary to ensure that the total
number of members of the Trusteeship Council is equally divided
between those members of the United Nations who administer
trust territories and those who do not.
It also states that each member of the Trusteeship Council shall
designate one specially qualified person to represent it in the
Council.

Functions and Powers

Under Article 87, the General Assembly and, under its authority, the
Trusteeship Council, in carrying out their functions, may:
1. Consider reports submitted by the administering authority.
2. Accept petitions and examine them in consultation with the
administering authority.
3. Provide for periodic visits to the respective trust territories at
times agreed upon with the administering authority.
4. Take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the
trusteeship agreements.

Voting
Article 89 states that each member of the Trusteeship Council shall
have one vote and that the decisions of the Trusteeship Council shall
be made by a majority of the members present and voting.
Regarding the procedure of the Trusteeship Council, Article 90
enumerates that the Trusteeship Council shall adopt its own rules of
procedure, including the method of selecting its President and that
the Trusteeship Council shall meet as required in accordance with its
rules, which shall include provision for the convening of meetings on
the request of a majority of its members. Article 91 holds that the
Trusteeship Council shall, when appropriate, avail itself of the
assistance of the Economic and Social Council and of the
specialized agencies in regard to matters with which they are
respectively concerned.

Evaluation
It should be noted that most of the trust territories have gained
independence and the burden of administering the trust territories
has been reduced to a great extent. By 1975, 10 out of 11 Trust
territories had gained independence and, after 1975, only one Trust
territory remained in the pacific islands with the United States as the
trustee. Finally, when this trust territory also gained independence in
1994, the Council was left without any work. The composition also
changed with the council now consisting of only the five permanent
members of the Security Council. There have been proposals from
different corners to eliminate the organ, in accordance with Article
108 of the Charter (amendment of the Charter).
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ
of the United Nations Organization (UNO). It was established in June
1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began its work in April
1946. The seat of the Court is at The Peace Palace in The Hague
(Netherlands).
The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law,
legal disputes submitted to it by the states and to give advisory
opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United
Nations organs and specialized agencies.
Chapter XIV of the Charter embodies the provisions relating to the
composition and functions of the International Court of Justice.
Article 92 specifies that the ICJ shall function in accordance with the
Annexed Statute, which is based on the Statute of the Permanent
Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and forms an integral part of the
present Charter.

Membership
Article 93 stipulates that all members of the United Nations are ipso
facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It
also states that a state, which is not a member of the United Nations,
may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of
Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General
Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Under Article 95, nothing in the present Charter shall prevent
members of the United Nations from entrusting the solution of their
differences to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in
existence or which may be concluded in the future.

Composition
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected for a term of nine
years by the concurrent vote of the UNGA and the Security Council.
These organs vote simultaneously but separately and in order to get
elected, a candidate has to secure maximum votes from both the
bodies.
Judges must be elected from among persons of high moral
character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective
countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are
jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law.
Once elected, a member of the Court is a delegate, neither of the
government of his own country nor of that of any other state. The
members of the Court are independent judges, before taking up their
duties, is to make a solemn declaration in open court that they will
exercise their powers impartially and conscientiously. In order to
guarantee this independence, no member of the Court can be
dismissed unless, in the unanimous opinion of the other members,
he no longer fulfils the required conditions.
A member of the Court, when engaged in the business of the Court,
enjoys privileges and immunities comparable with those of the head
of a diplomatic mission. Each member of the Court receives an
annual salary with a special supplementary allowance for the
President and, on leaving the Court, they receive annual pensions
after serving a nine-year term in office.
The Court elects its own President and Vice-President every three
years by secret ballot. The President presides at all meetings of the
Court and he directs its work and supervises its administration, with
the assistance of a Budgetary and Administrative Committee and of
various other committees, all composed of members of the Court.
During deliberations, the President has a casting vote in the event of
votes being equally divided.
The Vice-President replaces the President in his absence, in the
event of his inability to exercise his duties, or in the event of a
vacancy in the presidency. For this purpose he receives a daily
allowance. In the absence of the Vice-President, this role devolves
on a senior judge.

Jurisdiction
The Statute confers three types of jurisdiction upon the Court:

Voluntary
Compulsory
 Advisory

The Court usually entertains those cases that involve legal disputes
between states, which are submitted by them for resolution and also
requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to the ICJ
by the United Nations organs and its specialized agencies.

Voluntary Jurisdiction
The Court on many occasions has assumed jurisdiction on the
consent of the parties to any dispute and both the PCIJ and ICJ have
accepted the limits of such jurisdiction. The jurisdiction will be
extended to that extent which will be acceptable to the state parties
to the disputes. States which may use the ICJ fall into three
categories:
1. All states which have signed the Charter are automatically
parties to the Statute.
2. States which are not members of the UN can avail themselves
of the Court’s adjudication in terms fixed by the General
Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council. For
instance, Switzerland in 1948 and Liechtenstein in 1950 had
access to the Court this way.
3. States, not parties to the Court’s Statute, can also have recourse
to the Court on conditions laid down by the Security Council. As
in the Corfu Channel Case (1948–1949), Albania appeared
before the Court, which was a non-member of the UN at that
time.[20]
Therefore, the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to those cases, which
the parties refer to it. Though the UN Charter endeavours for pacific
settlement for disputes, it does not make it obligatory for members to
seek the assistance of the Court in all cases of disputes. Thus, the
jurisdiction of the Court is derived from the consent of the parties to a
dispute, which the Court never tries to overreach or overstep.
Compulsory Jurisdiction
In the exercise of this jurisdiction, Article 36 of the Statute (para 1)
states that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the
parties refer to it. Such cases normally come before the Court by
notification to the Registry by an agreement, known as a special
agreement and concluded by the parties especially for this purpose.
The states which are parties to the present Statute may at any time
declare that they recognize as compulsory, ipso facto and without
special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same
obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court regarding all disputes
concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of
international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established
would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the
nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an
international obligation.
Article 36 (para 6) of the Statute provides that, in the event of a
dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be
settled by the decision of the Court. There is also the ‘Optional
Clause’ of this Article under which the terms of compulsory
jurisdiction may belong to the Court through voluntary declaration by
the member states permitting in certain fields and limiting it in other
cases the exercise of such jurisdiction of the Court.[21]
Advisory Jurisdiction
Advisory jurisdiction of the ICJ is exercised when the United Nations
General Assembly and the Security Council may request advisory
opinions on “any legal question”. Other United Nations organs and
specialized agencies which have been authorized to seek advisory
opinions can only do so with respect to “legal questions arising within
the scope of their activities”.
On receipt of a request for an advisory opinion, the Court holds the
proceedings. The submission by parties may be in either the written
or oral form (pleadings). It is rare, however, for the ICJ to allow
international organizations, other than the one having requested the
opinion, to participate in advisory proceedings. With respect to non-
governmental international organizations, the only one ever
authorized by the ICJ to furnish information did not in the end, do so
(International Status of South West Africa). The Court has rejected
all such requests by the private parties.
It is of the essence of such opinions that they are advisory, i.e.,
unlike the Court’s judgements, they have no binding effect. The
requesting organ, agency or organization, remains free to give the
opinion by any means open to it; or, if it so wishes, it may not give
the opinion at all. Certain instruments or regulations can, however,
provide beforehand that an advisory opinion by the Court shall have
binding force.
Although the advisory opinions of the Court do not have a binding
effect yet the advisory opinions of the Court nevertheless carry great
legal weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of
preventive diplomacy and have peacekeeping virtues. Advisory
opinions also, in their way, contribute to the elucidation and
development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of
peaceful relations between the states.
According to Article 38 of the Statute, the Court in deciding the
disputes submitted to it applies international conventions
establishing rules recognized by the contesting states, international
custom as evidence of a general practice accepted by the law, the
general principles of law recognized by the nations, judicial decisions
and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the
various nations, as a subsidiary means for determining the rule of
law. The Court may decide ex aequo et bono (according to what is
just and good, i.e., on the basis of practical fairness rather than strict
law), but only if the parties concerned so agree.
All important decisions of the ICJ are taken by the majority of judges
present. In case the votes are equally divided, the President has the
right of his casting vote. Article 94 states that each member of the
United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the ICJ in
any case to which it is a party and, if any party to a case fails to
perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgement
rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the
Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make
recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give
effect to the judgement.
Article 96 upholds that the General Assembly or the Security Council
may request the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on any legal
question. Even other organs of the United Nations and specialized
agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General
Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal
questions arising within the scope of their activities.[22]

Evaluation
The ICJ has made a great contribution with its legal opinion on
contentious issues. It has given its judgements in several cases
which have led to a rich discourse on jurisprudence. Its landmark
judgements include inter alia, The Corfu Channel Case (1949),
Portugal’s Right of Passage Case over Enclaves against India
(1960) and the Case between El Salvador and Honduras. The Court,
in the Nicaragua case against USA (1984–1986), did not allow the
case to be removed from its list as desired by USA and issued
directions to the United States to refrain from making attacks against
Nicaragua. The Court also had given its advisory opinion in several
cases. But the problem with the ICJ is its limited operational sphere,
coupled with the power politics between the powerful states. This
became particularly evident during the Cold War. Even under the
present circumstances, the Soviet Union and former Communist
states of Europe refuse to submit their case before the ICJ. When a
mini-war ensued between Georgia and Russia in 2007, Georgia had
brought a case against Russia on the ground of violation of
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Georgia v. Russia). Russia was using all means to block the ICJ
from dealing with the case.
There is also a belief that legal solutions cannot always be an
acceptable one. As such, the activities of the Court are thwarted to a
great extent. What can be said is that, despite several weaknesses,
the ICJ has played a significant role in resolving disputes brought
before it and has contributed to a steady development of
international jurisprudence.
REVISION OF THE UN CHARTER
CHAPTER XVIII of the UN Charter contains provisions for the
amendments of the Charter. Article 108 of the Charter states that
Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all
members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a
vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and
ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes
by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the
permanent members of the Security Council.
Article 109 states that:
1. A general conference of the members of the United Nations for
the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a
date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of
the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the
Security Council. Each member of the United Nations shall have
one vote in the conference.
2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-
thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in
accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-
thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the
permanent members of the Security Council.
3. If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual
session of the General Assembly following the coming into force
of the UN Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall
be placed on the agenda of that session of the General
Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a
majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a
vote of any seven members of the Security Council.
Besides these formal procedures enunciated in the Charter, several
informal and formal changes have been brought to fore, such as in
1965 when the number of non-permanent members was raised,
thereby increasing the original membership of the Security Council
from 11 to 15. Likewise, the composition of Economic and Social
Council was also expanded from 18 to 27 in 1965. Changes can be
brought about by non-implementation of the textual provisions as in
the case of Articles 43, 45, 47 regarding the constitution of a Military
Staff Committee. Further, changes can be effected by institutional
adaptation as was the case during the Korean Crisis of 1950 when
there was a shift in balance from the Security Council to the General
Assembly, vide the Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950. Finally,
change can also take place due to the growth of new customs,
usages and interpretations. The General Assembly’s concerted effort
to deal with questions of colonialism and apartheid often led to a
non-restrictive interpretation of the domestic jurisdiction clause
(Article 2 para 7) on the face of severe reservations of colonial
powers like France, Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa and
Portugal. Judicial pronouncements in cases like The Corfu Channel
Case of 1948, Certain Expenses of the UN Case of 1963, South
West Africa Case of 1971, and the Case of Reparation for Injuries
Suffered in the Service of the UN of 1949 also have great impact in
ushering change in the UN system. Treaties, agreements and
conventions have also made necessary contribution to the UN
system.[23]
REFORM OF THE UN
The UN, facing stiff challenges in the present century with its
authority being questioned often and its existence being put under
great pressure, needs a makeover and needs reinvention. A
revitalized UN is the need of the hour. Given the unequal
representative structure of the Security Council, the history of
inaction of the Security Council during the Cold War, tussle between
the P-5 members of the Security Council, the veto factor and,
furthermore, hijacking of the Security Council in the post-Cold War
era by the United States have undermined the prestige and
importance of the UN. The US action in Serbia over the Kosovo
issue followed by NATO bombing of Kosovo, US invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan bypassing the UN—all have given deadly blow to the
credibility of this world organization. Even the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan in 1979 and bombing in Chechnya and Georgia have
also proved the ineffectiveness of the UN system. Further, the
allegation of corruption in the Oil-for-Food Programme tarnished the
image of this world body. An Independent Inquiry Committee led by
Paul Volcker, which unearthed the scandal, suggested measures to
strengthen the UN. There were also accusations of sexual
exploitation in peacekeeping missions and the Zeid Report entitled
“A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Future Sexual Exploitation
and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations” made
recommendations for remedial measures. Reform of the world
organization is the need of the hour. Many efforts have been made to
revitalize this world body and some measures have also been
implemented but the organization has miles to go before some
actual structural adjustments can be introduced which would enable
it to run effectively.
The Atlantic Council Working Group (1977) on the United Nations
proposed a number of reform strategies to revitalize the working of
the UN. Some of these strategies were:

Strengthening of the machinery of pacific settlement of

disputes.
 The Secretary-General to be allowed to use his full authority in
international diplomacy.
Development of international bodies and agencies for
international management of common problems in the fields of
trade, commodity pricing and stocks, monetary management
conflict prevention, peacekeeping and the like.
Effective development of relationship between the United
Nations and non-governmental organizations.

Even the former Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali

submitted an Agenda for Peace in which he recognized problems in
the UN’s capacity to maintain world peace, for instance, resulting
from shortages of funds, in particular for reconnaissance, planning
and start-up of peace operations. Problems with recruitment and
training of personnel proved severe constraints on the UN’s ability to
deploy its forces quickly, which can be crucial in the effective
management of peace processes. Boutros Boutros-Ghali also
highlighted the continuing damage to the credibility of the Security
Council and the UN in general when the Council made decisions that
could not be carried out because sufficient resources were not
forthcoming; he urged that in future the availability of necessary
troops and equipment be established before authorizing new
operations.
Although the Agenda was initially received enthusiastically by the UN
member states, this enthusiasm waned and many of its
recommendations were not implemented. It is observed by many
that if support for Agenda had been sustained, some of the ensuing
disasters, such as those in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda, may
possibly have been checked. Thus, many problems have not been
addressed adequately and remain a hindrance to the UN’s capacity
to maintain world peace today. Criticisms in Brahimi Report confirm
these failures which, for instance, reiterated problems emanating
from the Council authorizing mandates without providing sufficient
resources.
As a distinguished group, the Panel on United Nations Peace
Operations was asked by the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan to
outline the processes and changes which shall enable and allow the
United Nations to be better prepared to meet the challenges of
peacekeeping facing the member states and the United Nations in
the twenty-first century. This panel presented its report, which
popularly came to be known as the Brahimi Report, and sought
pragmatic and practical solutions to matters related to peacekeeping.
The Brahimi Report focuses on:

Shortcomings in the existing system

Frank and realistic recommendations for change
Political and strategic issues
Operational and organizational issues.

It also called for developing new strategies for peace operations and
conflicts, newer strategies of doctrine and mandates, newer system
of strategic analysis and intelligence, devising ‘rapid and effective
deployment capacity’, enhancing UNHQ capacity, creation of
Integrated Mission Task Forces, and developing a strong
responsibility centre for user-level IT strategy and policy in peace
operations, and the creation of a Peace Operations Extranet.
An Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) of the General Assembly
was established by the GA Resolution 48/26 in 1994 for an
expansion of the Security Council with an aim to democratize it, on
the question of equitable representation in the membership of the
Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. It
considered many innovative ideas and constructive proposals
related to the issues of enlargement and working methods of the UN.
In 1997, there was another bout of reform initiative to expand the
membership of the Council, but it failed. It included a so-called
‘quick-fix’ that would have included Germany and Japan as new
permanent members did not have much success. The ‘Rezali
formula’1 also proposed an addition of five new permanent members
—two from developed, three from the developing (one each from
Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean), and four new
non-permanent members. But power politics has prevented
introduction of such innovative measures and, therefore, the old non-
equitable structure of the Security Council continues.
In January 1997, former Secretary-General, Kofi Annan embarked
on a policy of UN reforms. He presented his reform proposals in the
following reports: Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for
Reform of 14 July 1997; Strengthening the United Nations: An
Agenda for Further Change of 9 September 2002; In Larger
Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All
in 2005; and Investing in the United Nations: For A Stronger
Organization Worldwide of 2006.
Kofi Annan proposed in his In Larger Freedom: Towards
Development, Security and Human Rights for All, that the General
Assembly should take bold measures to streamline its agenda and
speed up the deliberative process. It should concentrate on the
major substantive issues of the day, and establish mechanisms to
engage fully and systematically with civil society. The Security
Council should be broadly representative of the realities of power in
today’s world. The Secretary-General supports the principles for
reform set out in the report of the high-level panel, and urges the
member states to consider the two options, Models A2 and B3,
presented in that report, or any other viable proposals in terms of
size and balance that have emerged on the basis of either of the
models. The member states should agree to take a decision on this
important issue before the Summit in September 2005 (Millennium +
5 Summit). As far as the Economic and Social Council is concerned,
he stated that the Council should be reformed so that it can
effectively assess progress in the UN’s development agenda, serve
as a high-level development cooperation forum and provide direction
for the efforts of the various inter-governmental bodies in the
economic and social area throughout the UN system. Regarding the
Secretariat, the Secretary-General will take steps to realign the
Secretariat’s structure to match the priorities outlined in the report,
and will create a cabinet-style decision-making mechanism. He
requests the member states to give him the authority and resources
to pursue a one-time staff buy-out to refresh and realign staff to meet
the current needs, to cooperate in a comprehensive review of budget
and human resources rules, and to commission a comprehensive
review of the Office of Internal Oversight Services to strengthen its
independence and authority.[24]
Some of the proposals of the former Secretary-General, which were
accepted, were:
1. Creation of the position of a Deputy Secretary-General, and the
setting up of a senior management group and a strategic
planning unit.
2. Strengthening of the United Nations Office at Vienna while
downgrading the authority of the Nairobi and Addis Ababa
offices.
3. Replacement of the Committee on Administrative Coordination
by the Chief Executive Board.
4. Merger of several departments into one, creation of new
departments, and either integration of the United Nations
information centres in the resident coordinator’s office or their
consolidation in regional information hubs.
5. Application of the zero-growth budget, suppression by attrition of
personnel posts coupled with the creation of a staff college,
reduction of administrative expenditure by 33 per cent, and
transfer of such savings to a development account, and
reduction of documentation by 30 per cent.
6. Adoption of reforms regarding the UN development activities in
the field by establishing a UN House, creating the position of the
UN system’s resident coordinator, and by enhancing
collaboration with civil society components in tackling the various
challenges of the world.[25]
For the present Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, reform of the UN is
a top priority, thereby enhancing its relevance and effectiveness for
the world’s people in the twenty-first century. With the Organization
engaged in a range of pressing global issues in every part of the
world, a renewed, revitalized and more responsive United Nations is
needed more than ever before.
In January 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon outlined the broad
fronts on which the United Nations needs to advance if it is to meet
the challenges facing the member states and their peoples in the
twenty-first century. In areas like the environment, public health and
human security, the world is facing threats and challenges that
respect no boundaries. But by their nature, these challenges also
expand the possibilities for collective action by the states and other
entities and actors, such as civil society and the private sector,
enabling the UN to be the focus for concerted action to advance the
common good. The Secretary-General, in consultation with the
member states, is also making attempts at ensuring that an efficient,
relevant and accountable UN is ready to meet the challenges of
today and tomorrow. In other words, he has a vision for a stronger
United Nations for a better world.

In a statement he said: ‘Every day we are reminded of the need for a strengthened United Nations, as
we face a growing array of new challenges, including humanitarian crises, human rights violations,
armed conflicts and important health and environmental concerns. Seldom has the United Nations been
called upon to do so much for so many. I am determined to breathe new life and inject renewed
confidence into a strengthened United Nations firmly anchored in the twenty-first century, and which is
effective, efficient, coherent and accountable’.
UNITED NATIONS AND PEACEKEEPING
United Nations peacekeeping is a unique and dynamic instrument
developed by the Organization as a way to help countries torn by
conflict and create the conditions for lasting peace. The first UN
peacekeeping mission was established in 1948, when the Security
Council authorized the deployment of UN military observers to the
Middle East to monitor the Armistice Agreement between Israel and
its Arab neighbours. Since then, there have been a total of 63 UN
peacekeeping operations around the world. At present 15 Peace
Keeping Operations are going on along with 17 peace operations
under the direction and support of the Department of Peace Keeping
Operations.
The term ‘peacekeeping’ is not found in the United Nations Charter
and is difficult to find a simple definition. Dag Hammarskjöld, the
second UN Secretary-General, referred to it as belonging to
“Chapter Six and a Half” of the Charter, placing it between traditional
methods of resolving disputes peacefully, such as negotiation and
mediation under Chapter VI, and more forceful action as authorized
under Chapter VII.
Peacekeeping is the deployment of a United Nations presence in the
field, hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally
involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and
frequently civilians as well. It is a technique that expands the
possibilities for both the prevention of conflict and the making of
peace.
All members of the United Nations share the costs of UNPK
operations. The General Assembly apportions the expense for
meeting the expenses based on a special scale of assessment
applicable to UNPK. The scale often taken into account, is the
relative economic wealth of the member state. The permanent
members of the Security Council are required to pay a larger share
because of their special responsibility for maintenance of
international peace and security. As of January, 2008, the top 10
contributors have been the United States, Japan, Germany, the
United Kingdom, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain and the
Republic of Korea (South Korea).
With the end of the Cold War, the strategic context for UN
peacekeeping dramatically changed, prompting the UN to shift and
expand its field operations from ‘traditional’ missions involving strictly
military tasks, to complex ‘multidimensional’ enterprises designed to
ensure the implementation of comprehensive peace agreements and
assist in laying the foundations for sustainable peace. Today’s
peacekeepers undertake a wide variety of complex tasks, from
helping to build sustainable institutions of governance, to human
rights monitoring, to security sector reform, to the disarmament,
demobilization and reintegration of former combatants.
But the nature of peacekeeping has been changing over time,
especially after the end of the Cold War. Previously, such UN
peacekeeping operations were seen as a means of resolving the
conflicts involving states by deploying unarmed or lightly armed
military personnel from a number of countries with the consent of the
warring parties to keep peace between the armed forces when a
ceasefire was in place and to monitor the implementation of the
peace agreements. But since the end of the Cold War, peacekeeping
has become more complex and now operations involve more non-
military elements such as police officers and civilian personnel to
perform wide functions beyond assisting ex-combatants in
implementing peace agreements, DDRR (Disarmament,
Demobilization, Reintegration and Rehabilitation), confidence-
building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support,
strengthening of the rule of law, and economic and social
development.
UN peacekeeping continues to evolve, both conceptually and
operationally, to meet new challenges and political realities. Faced
with the rising demand for increasingly complex peace operations,
the United Nations in the past few years has been overstretched and
challenged as never before. The Organization has worked vigorously
to strengthen its capacity to manage and sustain field operations
and, thus, contributes to the most important function of the United
Nations to maintain international peace and security.

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations

In accordance with the purposes and principles enshrined in the
Charter of the United Nations, the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations (DPKO) has been established to assist the member
states and the Secretary-General in their efforts to maintain
international peace and security. The DPKO plans, prepares,
manages and directs UN peacekeeping operations so that they can
effectively fulfill their mandates under the overall authority of the
Security Council and General Assembly, and under the command
vested in the Secretary-General.
DPKO provides political and executive directions to UN
peacekeeping operations, and maintains contact with the Security
Council, troop and financial contributors, and parties to the conflict in
the implementation of the Security Council mandates. The
Department works to integrate the efforts of UN, and governmental
and non-governmental entities in the context of peacekeeping
operations. Peacekeeping operations may consist of several
components, including a military component, which may or may not
be armed, and various civilian components encompassing a broad
range of disciplines. The chief concerns are to alleviate human
suffering, and create conditions and build institutions for self-
sustaining peace. Depending on their mandate, peacekeeping
missions may be required to:

Deploy to prevent the outbreak of conflict or the spill-over of

conflict across borders.
Stabilize conflict situations after a ceasefire, to create an
environment for the parties to reach a lasting peace
agreement.
Assist in implementing comprehensive peace agreements.
Lead states or territories through a transition to stable
government, based on democratic principles, good
governance and economic development.
List of UN Peacekeeping Operations (1948–2008)
UNTSO United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (from May
1948 till present)
UNMOGIP United Nations Military Observer Group in India and
Pakistan (from January 1949 till present)
UNEF I First United Nations Emergency Force (from November
1956 to June 1967)
UNOGIL United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon (from June
1958 to December 1958)
ONUC United Nations Operation in the Congo (from July 1960 to
June 1964)
UNSF United Nations Security Force in West New Guinea (from
October 1962 to April 1963)
UNYOM United Nations Yemen Observation Mission (from July
1963 to September 1964)
UNFICYP United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (from March
1964 till present)
DOMREP Mission of the Representative of the SG in the Dominian
Republic (from May 1965 to October 1966)
UNIPOM United Nations India–Pakistan Observation Mission (from
September 1965 to March 1966)
UNAMET United Nations Mission in East Timor (1999)
UNEF II Second United Nations Emergency Force (from October
1973 to July 1979)
UNDOF United Nations Disengagement Force (from June 1974 till
present)
UNIFIL United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (from March 1978
till present)
UNGOMAP United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and
Pakistan (from May 1988 to March 1990)
UNIIMOG United Nations Iran–Iraq Military Observer Group (from
August 1988 to February 1991)
UNAVEM I United Nations Angola Verification Mission I (from January
1989 to June 1991)
UNTAG United Nations Transition Assistance Group (from April
1989 to March 1990)
ONUCA United Nations Observer Group in Central America (from
November 1989 to January 1992)
UNIKOM United Nations Iraq–Kuwait Observation Mission (from
April 1991 to October 2003)
MINURSO United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western
Sahara (from April 1991 till present)
UNAVEM II United Nations Angola Verification Mission II (from June
1991 to February 1995)
ONUSAL United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (from July
1991 to April 1995)
UNAMIC United Nations Advance Mission in Cambodia (from
October 1991 to March 1992)
UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force (from February 1992 to
March 1995)
UNTAC United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (from
March 1992 to September 1993)
UNOSOM I United Nations Operation in Somalia I (from April 1992 to
March 1993)
ONUMOZ United Nations Operation in Mozambique (from December
1992 to December 1994)
UNOSOM II United Nations Operation in Somalia II (from March 1993
to March 1995)
UNOMUR United Nations Observer Mission Uganda–Rwanda (from
June 1993 to September 1994)
UNOMIG United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (from August
1993 till present)
UNOMIL United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia (from
September 1993 to September 1997)
UNMIH United Nations Mission in Haiti (from September 1993 to
June 1996)
UNAMIR United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (from
October 1993 to March 1996)
UNASOG United Nations Aouzou Strip Observer Group (from May
 1994 to June 1994)
UNMOT United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan (from
December 1994 to May 2000)
UNAVEM III United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (from
February 1995 to June 1997)
UNCRO United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in
Croatia (from May 1995 to January 1996)
UNPREDEP United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (from March
1995 to February 1999)
UNMIBH United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (from
December 1995 to December 2002)
MICAH United Nations General Assembly International Civilian
Support Mission in Haiti (2000–2001)
UNTAES United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (from January
1996 to January 1998)
UNMOP United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (from
January 1996 to December 2002)
UNSMIH United Nations Support Mission in Haiti (from July 1996 to
July 1997)
MINUGUA United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (from
January 1997 to May 1997)
MONUA United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (from June
1997 to February 1999)
UNTMIH United Nations Transition Mission in Haiti (from August
1997 to November 1997)
MIPONUH United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (from
December 1997 to March 2000)
UNPSG United Nations Civilian Police Support Group (from
January 1998 to October 1998)
MINURCA United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic
(from April 1998 to February 2000)
UNOMSIL United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (from
July 1998 to October 1999)
UNMIK UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (from June
1999 till present)
UNAMSIL United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (from October
1999 to December 2005)
UNTAET United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor
(from October 1999 to May 2002)
MONUC UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (from November 1999 till present)
UNMEE United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (from July
2000 to present)
UNMISET United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (from May
2002 to May 2005)
UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia (from September 2003 till
present)
UNOCI United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (from April 2004
till present)
MINUSTAH United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (from June
2004 till present)
ONUB United Nations Operation in Burundi (from June 2004 to
December 2006)
UNMIS United Nations Mission in the Sudan (from March 2005 till
present)
UNMIT United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor–Leste (from
August 2006 till present)
UNAMID African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur
(from July 2007 till present)
MINURCAT United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and
Chad (from September 2007 till present)
From the aforesaid list given UNTSO, UNMOGIP, UNFICYP, UNDOF,
UNIFIL, MINURSO, UNOMIG, UNMIK, MONUC, UNMEE, UNAMA,
UNMIL, UNOCI, MINUSTAH, UNMIS, UNMIT and UNAMID are still
being continued.
(Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/list/list.pdf)
Evaluation
The UN Peacekeeping operations received a much deserved
international recognition when, in 1988, the peacekeepers were
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However, discussed earlier, the
nature of peacekeeping has changed over time, especially after the
end of the Cold War. Over the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved
to meet the demands of different kinds of conflicts and a changing
political landscape.
Peacekeeping operations have had their own share of successes
and failures. In El Salvador and Mozambique, peacekeeping
ensured ways to achieve self-sustaining peace. Sierra Leone, East
Timor and Liberia have been successful operations. But UN
peacekeeping fared badly and failed in Somalia where
peacekeepers were despatched without securing either a ceasefire
or the consent of warring parties. Other stories of failures include the
genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the massacre of Srebrenica in
Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995.
Added to this, there is also a mounting expenditure for peacekeeping
activities. The costs skyrocketed with the additional requirements for
new and expanded missions. Further, there are allegations of sexual
abuse by the UN peacekeepers and alleged corruption in
procurement by the UN executives in the field and the headquarters.
These failures called for introspection and reform of the
peacekeeping operations.
The Brahimi Report suggested an adoption of “peacekeeping
doctrine that stipulates that once deployed, the United Nations
peacekeepers must be able to carry out their mandates,
professionally and successfully, and be capable of defending
themselves, other mission components and the mission’s mandate,
with robust rules of engagement, against those who renege on their
commitments to a peace accord or otherwise seek to undermine it by
violence”.[26] In other words, a clear, credible and achievable
mandate drawn by the Security Council is to be a vital part of this
doctrine.
In 1992, Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in his An
Agenda for Peace, held out plans for preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking and peacekeeping. He tried to introduce a new
dimension to peacekeeping by introducing the concept preventive
diplomacy. The terms, ‘preventive diplomacy’, ‘peacemaking’ and
‘peacekeeping’, are intimately related and as used in this report, are
defined as follows: Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent
disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes
from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter
when they occur. Peacemaking and Peacekeeping are actions to
bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful
means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United
Nations. The report focused more on these actions to strengthen the
post-conflict peacebuilding to prevent recurrence of violence among
nations and people.
The former Secretary-General, Kofi Annan also suggested certain
reforms relating to the institutions of UN that are engaged in seeking
and promoting peace and security. The high-level Panel tasked by
him in its report in 2004 recommended the creation of a
Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and a Peacebuilding Support
Office (PBSO) to support the Commission. He, in his In Larger
Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All,
suggested that the member states should take steps “to strengthen
collective capacity to employ the tools of mediation, sanctions and
peacekeeping (including a ‘zero tolerance’ policy on sexual
exploitation of minors and other vulnerable people by members of
peacekeeping contingents, to match the policy enacted by the
Secretary-General”.
Much has been said without any positive actions on any of the
recommendations or proposals. The first and foremost thing that has
to be done is a full-fledged reform of the United Nations so that it can
resurrect with renewed energy and vigour and take up the
responsibility of the guardian of international peace and security.
 EXERCISES
1. Write a note on the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
2. Discuss the composition, powers and functions of General
Assembly.
3. Discuss the composition and functions of Security Council. Do you
think a reform of Security Council is much needed?
4. Analyze the role of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
5. Examine the powers and functions of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. How has his role evolved since the time of the first
Secretary-General Trygve Lie?
6. Discuss the composition, powers and functions of ECOSOC.
7. Examine the composition and jurisdiction of the International Court
of Justice.
8. Write a note on the procedure for the revision of the UN Charter.
9. Elucidate the various attempts to reform the United Nations.
10. Do you think that a reform of the United Nations is needed?
Argue.
11. Discuss the various peacekeeping attempts that have been
made by the United Nations, since its birth.
 REFERENCES
[1] Chakrabarti, Radharaman, UNO: A Study in Essential, K.P.
Bagchi & Co, Kolkata, 1998, p. 29.
[2] The Charter of the United Nations.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] Nicholas, H.G., The United Nations As A Political Institution,
Oxford University Press, London, 1971, p. 36.
[6] The Charter of the United Nations.
[7] Ping, Jean and Denis Dange Rawka, “Reform of the General
Assembly”, in Ajit M. Banerjee and Murari R. Sharma (Eds.),
Reinventing the United Nations, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi,
2007, p. 77.
[8] Nicholas, op. cit., n. 5, p. 114.
[9] Uniting For Peace Resolution, 1950.
[10] Nicholas, op. cit., n. 5.
[11] Basic Facts About the United Nations, Sales No.E.98.I.20.,
Press Release GA/9784 (10 Oct. 2000), and the Office of the
Director of Security Council Affairs Division, Department of
Political Affairs.
[12] Chakrabarti, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 50–51.
[13] Nicholas, op. cit., n. 15, p. 170.
[14] ibid., pp. 162–167.
[15] Chakrabarti, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 67–68.
[16] Luard, Evan, The United Nations: How it Works and What it
Does, Macmillan Press, London, 1979, p. 97.
[17] Chakrabarti, op. cit., n. 1, p. 69.
[18] Luard, op. cit., n. 16, p. 101.
[19] UN News Centre http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html.
[20] Chakrabarti, op. cit., n. 1, p. 59.
[21] ibid.
[22] ibid.
[23] Chakrabarti, op. cit., n. 1, pp. 159–160.
[24] http://www.un.org/largerfreedom.
[25] Ping, Jean and Denis Dange Rawaka, op. cit., n. 7, pp. 81–82
(for more check http://www.un.org/reform/index.shtml).
[26] Chowdhury, Iftekhar Ahmed, “Keeping and Building Peace: An
Evolving UN function,” in Ajit M. Banerjee and Murari R. Sharma
(Eds.), Reinventing the United Nations, Prentice-Hall of India,
New Delhi, 2007, p. 58.

1 Another reform initiative was taken during the 51st session of the UNGA. Rezali
Ismail, (Malayasia) the elected President of the 51st session of the UNGA (1996–
1997) proposed a plan for expansion of UN Security Council.
2 Model A proposes creation of 6 new permanent members, plus 3 new non-
permanent members for a total of 24 seats in the Security Council.
3 Model B proposes creation of 8 new seats in a new class of members who
would serve for 4 years, subject to renewal, plus one non-permanent seat, also for
a total of 24.
Disarmament and Arms Control
INTRODUCTION
National survival is the prime motive behind every action of each
state. Therefore, national security tops the list of ‘national interest’ of
each state. National security is unthinkable without military
preparedness and arms production. But military preparedness of one
automatically results in active military build-up of the other. This
results in an arms race with all the states indulging in massive arms
build-up. This, however, not only destabilizes international peace and
security but also makes war inevitable. In particular, the possession
of nukes, huge stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)
and chemical and biological weapons makes matters worse and
threatens the very existence of humanity and world peace.
Therefore, efforts need to be made to reduce the possibilities of war
and increase the chances of international peace and security
through disarmament and arms control.
MEANING AND CONCEPT
Both the terms ‘disarmament’ and ‘arms control’ might seem to be
synonymous but there is a subtle line of difference between the two.
Disarmament means the elimination or reduction of armaments to
preserve international peace and security by averting wars.
According to Morgenthau[1], “Disarmament is the reduction or
elimination of certain or all armaments for the purpose of ending the
armament race”. According to experts on disarmament and arms
control like Charles P. Schleicher disarmament “means of reducing
or eliminating the material and human instrumentalities for the
exercise of physical violence”. According to an authority in
international politics, like V.V. Dyke*, “Any regulation or limitation
having to do with armed power is treated as a measure of
Disarmament”.
Couloumbis and Wolfe[2], while showing the difference between
disarmament and arms control, opine: “In its absolute sense
disarmament requires the global destruction of weapons and the
disestablishment of all armed forces”. Disarmament for them is quite
inclusive and can mean anything from outlawing of all military
arsenals and establishments to the banning of particular weapons in
the interest of ‘humanization’ of war and even the implementation of
specific agreements designed to prevent the accidental outbreak of
war.
While complete disarmament may be difficult to achieve and in some
sense is unattainable, the concept of arms control has crept in and
has gained currency. Couloumbis and Wolfe[3] point out that, as
chances of total disarmament become so minimal, its advocates are
often regarded as utopians or propagandists and arms control
becomes more relevant in the literature of international relations.
Arms control is a generic term and it normally includes two
categories: arms reduction and arms limitation. Arms reduction
stands for partial disarmament and it implies a mutually agreed-upon
set of arms levels for the nation-states involved. The arms reduction
formula may apply either to all states worldwide or to a small number
of states on a regional basis. Arms limitation, on the other hand,
stands for the wide variety of international accords designed to limit
the impact of war and to prevent the accidental outbreak of war.
Under arms limitations there can be infinite measures such as the
installation of fail–safe devices designed to detonate nuclear missiles
in midair, should they be fired accidentally, hot lines to keep the key
decision-makers in constant contact during crises, moratoriums on
specific types of nuclear testing and agreements between two or
more countries restricting the sale of arms and the transfer of
nuclear technology.[4]
According to Schleicher, arms control is used to “include any kind of
cooperation with respect to armament which could curtail the arms
race, reduce the probability of war, or limit its scope and violence”.[5]
In the views of Kegley and Wittkopf[6], arms control means
“cooperative agreements between states designed to regulate arms
levels either by limiting their growth or by placing restrictions on how
they might be used. Arms control is less ambitious than
disarmament, since it seeks not to eliminate weapons but to regulate
their use or moderate the pace at which they are developed”.
Since the First World War, efforts towards disarmament and arms
control have been made by the world leaders to save humanity. US
President Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points upheld the need
for abolition of arms and ammunitions. He also stated that armament
should be reduced to “the lowest point consistent with domestic
safety”. Even the Treaty of Versailles (1919), concluded at the end
of the First World War specified that: “the maintenance of peace
requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point
consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common
action of international obligations”. Under the League of Nations too,
efforts were made to curb arms build-up. A Temporary Mixed
Commission was set up in 1921 followed by a Preparatory
Commission in 1925 on the issue of disarmament but these
commissions failed to deliver the goods.
However, a landmark development towards disarmament was seen
in 1925, namely, the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use
in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. The parties to the Protocol
condemned the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and
of all analogous liquids, materials or devices in war, and agreed that
this prohibition should be universally accepted as a part of
International Law, binding both the conscience and the practice of
nations.
Serious thoughts about disarmament and arms control began after
the devastation experienced by humanity in the Second World War.
The UN Charter emphasized the need for a regulation of armaments,
and thereafter several steps have been taken to effect disarmament
and arms control.
Some of the major developments that have taken place in the field of
disarmament and arms control since the Second World War are now
discussed.
1. The Four Power Declaration, 1945: The United States of
America, Great Britain, the erstwhile Soviet Union and China signed
a declaration on 3 October 1945 on general security by which these
four powers declared to bring about a practical agreement on
regulation of armaments in the post-War period.
2. Atomic Energy Commission: The United Nations Atomic Energy
Commission (UNAEC) was founded on 24 January 1946 by the first
resolution of the United Nations General Assembly “to deal with the
problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy”.
The Commission comprised one representative from each of those
states represented in the Security Council. The Commission was
expected to enquire into all phases of the problems of disarmament
and make recommendations from time to time and make specific
proposals for:
(a) Extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific
informations for peaceful ends.
(b) Control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its
use only for peaceful purposes.
(c) The elimination from national armaments for atomic weapons
and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction.
(d) Effective safegurads by way of inspection and other means to
protect the complying states against the hazards of violations
 and evasions.
The Commission was supposed to submit its reports and
recommendations to the Security Council. It started to work from 14
June 1946 by holding its first meeting but subsequently failed to
perform its function due to opening up of the hostilities between the
USA and the USSR. The Soviet refusal to sign the ‘Baruch Plan’
placed by the US (prepared by Bernard Baruch) to the UNAEC in its
first meeting in June 1946, was responded by the US with massive
nuclear weapons testing and development programmes. Therefore,
disarmament efforts got a deadly blow and the Atomic Energy
Commission was finally dissolved by the General Assembly
Resolution No 502 (VI).[7]
3. Commission on Conventional Armaments: The United Nations
Commission on Conventional Armaments was formally established
by the Security Council on 15 February 1947 in pursuance of the
General Assembly Resolution of December 1946. The Commission
was established with the goal of finding ways to reduce the size of
non-nuclear armaments around the world. It was expected to
prepare and submit within three months proposals for general
regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces to the
Security Council. Ultimately, the Commission adopted a resolution
on 12 August 1948 where it recommended the following measures:
(a) Setting up a system for the regulation and reduction of
armaments of all states, initially those having substantial military
resources.
(b) Taking measures for the reduction and regulation of armaments
to encourage further regulation and reduction.
(c) Establishment of an adequate system of international control of
atomic energy and conclusion of peace settlement with Japan
and Germany.
(d) Regulation and reduction of armaments to make possible the
least diversion for armaments of the world human and economic
resources and maintenance of armaments and armed forces
which are indispensable for the maintenance of international
peace and security.
(e) Adequate method of safeguards and provision for effective
 action in case of violation.
The five permanent members of the United Nation Security Council
could not, however, agree on how to achieve this aim and, therefore,
the first report of the Commission made no substantial
recommendations. When the resolution finally came up for
discussion, it was opposed by the Soviet Union and it presented its
own proposal for disarmament. The Soviet proposal looked forward
for disarmament to the extent of one-third of the military power by
the permanent members of the Security Council which was not
accepted by the members of the Security Council. Thus, not much
success was achieved by this disarmament effort also. Further, in
1950, the Soviet Union refused to sit with the representatives of the
‘Kuomintang group’, (the non-Communist Chinese representatives)
on the Commission. This brought an effective end to the
Commission’s discussion. It was formally dissolved in 1952. The
Commission on Conventional Armaments was finally dissolved by
the Security Council on 30 January 1952 following a
recommendation contained in the General Assembly Resolution 502
(VI).
4. Disarmament Commission: The General Assembly, by its
resolution 502 (VI) of January 1952, created the United Nations
Disarmament Commission under the Security Council with a general
mandate on disarmament questions.
5. Atoms for Peace: The speech of President Eisenhower on 8
December 1953 did not by itself spell out a disarmament plan, but
was like an initiative to open up the benefits of atomic energy to the
world community. The speech, however, contained proposals of
arms control and security considerations. Ultimately, this gave
impetus to organization of the Conference on the Statute of
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the UN headquarters
in New York in 1956. Following this conference on the IAEA Statute,
the Agency was formally inaugurated on 29 July 1957. The hidden
agenda of Eisenhower’s speech was a cut-off in the production of
fissile nuclear materials with an aim to curb the Soviet capacity of
procuring fissile materials and producing nuclear weapons to match
that of the United States. Therefore, the key idea of the speech was
transferring of significant amount of fissile materials to the IAEA by
the USSR and the USA to be used for peaceful purposes.[8]
MAJOR ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENT SINCE 1960
1. Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT): The PTBT was signed on 8
August 1963 in Moscow and it came into force on 10 October 1963.
The basic features of the treaty are:
(a) Under Article I, each of the Parties to the Treaty undertook the
responsibility to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any
nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion,
at any place under its jurisdiction or control: (i) in the
atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under
water, including territorial waters or high seas; or (ii) in any other
environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be
present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose
jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted.
(b) Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertook further
responsibility to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way
participating in, the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test
explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, anywhere which
would take place in any of the environments described, or have
the effect referred to, in paragraph 1 of this Article.
The Treaty though was a significant step towards disarmament as it
aimed to reduce the dangers of radioactive fallout from the nuclear
tests in the atmosphere; it was partial because it did not prohibit the
nuclear test underground. Both the Soviet Union and the United
States conducted a large number of tests underground. France and
China declined to sign the Treaty and continued with their nuclear
tests in the atmosphere.
2. Outer Space Treaty, 1967: The Outer Space Treaty opened for
signature on 27 January 1967 and came into force from 10 October
1967.
Article IV of the Treaty stipulates that Parties (states) to the Treaty
should undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects
carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass
destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such
weapons in outer space in any other manner. The Moon and other
celestial bodies shall be used by all Parties to the Treaty exclusively
for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases,
installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons,
and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be
forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for
any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any
equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon
and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited. Under Article
XII, all stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the
Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of
other Parties to the Treaty on a reciprocal basis.
3. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968: The NPT was
signed simultaneously in London, Moscow and Washington on 1 July
1968 and came into force on 5 March 1970. The Treaty aims at
limiting the spread of nuclear weapons globally. About 189 countries
are till date party to the treaty. Five members among these have
nuclear weapons. They are the United States, the United Kingdom,
France, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China. India, Israel,
Pakistan and North Korea are not signatories to this Treaty. India
and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs.
Israel has adopted a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its own
nuclear policy. North Korea acceded to the Treaty, violated it, and
later withdrew itself.
The Treaty consists of a Preamble and eleven articles and is
considered as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament,
and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
(a) Non-proliferation: Under Article I, the five Nuclear Weapon
States (NWS) agree not to transfer “nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices” and “not in any way to assist,
encourage, or induce” a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) to
acquire nuclear weapons. Article II contains that NNWS parties
to the NPT agree not to “receive,” “manufacture” or “acquire”
nuclear weapons or to “seek or receive any assistance in the
manufacture of nuclear weapons”. Article III states that NNWS
parties also agree to accept safeguards by the IAEA to verify
that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
 (b) Disarmament: Article VI urges all state Parties to the NPT, both
nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, “to
pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating
to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
(c) Peaceful use of nuclear energy: The NPT allows for and agrees
upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT
signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear
energy programmes in those countries, as long as they can
demonstrate that their nuclear programmes are not being used
for the development of nuclear weapons. The Treaty recognizes
the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be
exercised “in conformity with Articles I and II”.
There have been severe criticisms regarding the language of the
Treaty, especially from the countries interested in developing their
nuclear capabilities. India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina are among the
many countries who refused to sign the Treaty because they thought
that the Treaty was discriminatory. The Treaty, while on the one hand
was aiming to limit the vertical expansion was, on the other hand,
silent on horizontal expansion. In other words, it was silent about the
control of possessions of the nuclear capabilities of the states
belonging to the Nuclear Club. The Treaty was viewed as being
aimed at perpetuating nuclear dependence of non-nuclear states on
the nuclear states and, therefore, increased the gap between them.
The NPT failed to bring about any positive disarmament and arms
control.
4. Sea-Bed Treaty, 1971: On 11 February 1971, the UK, the United
States and the USSR signed the treaty and it came into force on 18
May 1972.
The provisions under this Treaty embody that the state Parties to this
Treaty undertake not to implant or emplace on the sea-bed and the
ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof, beyond the outer limit of a
sea-bed zone, any nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons
of mass destruction as well as structures, launching installations or
any other facilities specifically designed for storing, testing or using
such weapons. There are also various measures for verification and
it states that in order to promote the objectives of and ensure
compliance with the provisions of this Treaty, each state Parties to
the Treaty shall have the right to verify, through observations, the
activities of other state Parties to the Treaty on the sea-bed and the
ocean-floor and in the subsoil thereof beyond the zone referred to in
Article I of the Treaty provided that the observation does not interfere
with such activities.
5. Biological Weapons Convention, 1972: The Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their
Destruction opened for signature on 10 April 1972 and came into
force on 26 March 1975. Its objective was to achieve effective
progress towards general and complete disarmament, including the
prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass
destruction.
Under Article I, the state Parties to this Convention undertook to
develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain under any
circumstances: (a) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins,
whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in
quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or
other peaceful purposes; (b) Weapons, equipment or means of
delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes
or in armed conflict.
Article II underlines that state parties to this Convention, must
undertake to destroy, or to divert to peaceful purposes, as soon as
possible but not later than nine months after the entry into force of
the Convention, all agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means
of delivery specified in Article I of the Convention, which are in its
possession or under its jurisdiction or control. In implementing the
provisions of this article, all necessary safety precautions shall be
observed to protect populations and the environment.
Ariticle III enumerates that each state Parties to this Convention
undertakes not to transfer to any recipient state whatsoever, directly
or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any
state, group of states or international organizations to manufacture
or otherwise acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment
or means of delivery specified in Article I of the Convention.
6. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I): These refer to efforts
made by the two superpowers to ease off the Cold War tensions and
enhance the spirit of détente by developing means of arms
limitations. SALT I froze the number of strategic ballistic missile
launchers at existing levels, and provided for the addition of new
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) launchers only after
the same number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
and SLBM launchers had been dismantled.
After a long deadlock, the first results of SALT I came in May 1971
when an agreement was reached over ABM systems. The
Agreement included: (a) the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and (b) the
Interim Agreement between the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (now Russia) on Certain
Measures With Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive
Arms.
The Treaty required both the countries to limit the number of sites
protected by an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system to two each. The
Soviet Union had deployed such a system around Moscow in 1966
and the United States announced an ABM program to protect 12
ICBM sites in 1967. The Interim Agreement covered both land-based
ICBMs and SLBMs. The USSR was permitted to have 1618 ICBMs
while the number for USA was fixed at 1054 on the basis of their
actual strength as on 1 July 1971.
7. Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 1974: The Treaty on the Limitation
of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests, also known as the
Threshold Test Ban Treaty (or TTBT), was signed in July 1974 by
the USA and the USSR. It established a nuclear ‘threshold’, by
prohibiting nuclear tests of devices having an yield exceeding 150
kilotons (equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT).
The TTBT was militarily important since it prohibited the possibility of
testing new or existing nuclear weapons going beyond 150 kilotons.
The Treaty imposed a mutual restraint and thereby sought to reduce
the degree of explosive force of new nuclear warheads and bombs
which could otherwise be tested for weapon systems.
8. Convention on Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of
Environment Modification Techniques, 1977: This Convention
opened for signature in Geneva on 18 May 1977 and came into force
on 5 October 1978.
Article I contains provisions under which each state Parties to the
Convention undertook not to engage in military or any other hostile
use of environmental modification techniques having widespread,
long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage
or injury to any other state Party. The Treaty also required that each
state Party should refrain from assisting, encouraging or inducing
any state, group of states or international organization to engage in
activities contrary to the provisions of this article.
Under Article III, the state Parties to this Convention further
undertook responsibility to facilitate, and have the right to participate
in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological
information on the use of environmental modification techniques for
peaceful purposes. The provisions of the Treaty also upheld co-
operation among states parties and other states or international
organizations, to international economic and scientific cooperation
for the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the
environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing
areas of the world.
9. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II): This was the second
round of talks from 1972 to 1979 between the United States and the
Soviet Union and signified the continuation of the progress made
during the SALT I talks which aimed at curtailing the manufacture of
strategic nuclear weapons. This Treaty was to remain in force for five
years. It talked about real reductions in strategic forces to 2,250 of all
categories of delivery vehicles on both sides, such as the ICBM
launchers, Long Range Bombers and SLBMs. A ceiling was also
imposed on Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles
(MIRVs), and provisions were included for slowing down the pace of
new strategic weapons.
Six months after the signing of the Treaty, the Soviet deployment of
troops in Afghanistan and refusal of the American Senate to formally
ratify the Treaty, it met a fateful end. The outbreak of the new Cold
War embittered the relations between the two states and
disarmament missions received heavy blows.
10. The INF Treaty, 1987: This is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty which was an agreement between the United States
and the Soviet Union signed in Washington, DC by the US President
Ronald Reagan and the General Secretary of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987. It was
ratified by the United States Senate on 27 May 1988 and came into
force on 1 June of that year. The Treaty is formally titled as The
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-
Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.
Before the Treaty opened for signature, a series of negotiations and
tussle between the two superpowers took place. Finally, in January
1985, George Shultz, Secretary of State of the United States and
Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister agreed to have
separate but parallel negotiations on INF, Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START), and defence and space issues as part of a new
bilateral forum called the Nuclear and Space Talks (NST).
Thereafter, formal talks started in March 1985 covering all the three
areas.
Following the talks between President Reagan and General
Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva in 1985, where they issued a joint
statement calling for an “interim accord on intermediate-range
nuclear forces” and Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1986, both sides finally
cleared the obstacles to the INF Treaty. On 23 July 1987, Gorbachev
announced the Soviet acceptance of “double global zero”, i.e., total
elimination of INFs under NATO and the USSR, worldwide. Finally,
the Treaty was signed on 8 December 1987 in Washington, DC.
The provisions of the INF Treaty were aimed at elimination of the
ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between
500 and 5500 kilometres. This Treaty called for the elimination of
Pershing II and GLCMs on the US side and SS-4, SS-5, SS-12, SS-
20, SS-23 and SSC-X-4 on the part of USSR.
Scholars point out the novelty of the treaty, namely, its verification
procedures. Verification of the Treaty was assured through on-site
inspections and National Technical Means and was supposed to
continue for 13 years. The on-site inspections include baseline data
inspections, closed-out facility inspections, and missile systems
elimination inspections. The Treaty established continuous portal
and perimeter monitoring activities at former missile production
facilities in the territory of each Party. Moscow was given the right to
carry out 240 inspections in the USA and West Europe. The USA
obtained the right to carry out about 400 inspections in the former
USSR, the former GDR and Czechoslovakia. The United States was
given greater inspection quota because the USSR had a greater
number of missiles. Thirty-two facilities in the USA and 117 facilities
in the USSR were opened to each other’s inspection.[9]
11. Conventional Arms Cut Treaty, 1990: This Treaty was signed
by the European countries, the United States and the erstwhile
USSR on 19 November 1990 in Paris and it entered into force on 9
November 1992.
Under this Treaty, each state Party is under the obligation set forth in
this Treaty, including those obligations relating to the following five
categories of conventional armed forces: battle tanks, armoured
combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and helicopters. This
should be done within the area of application, as has been defined in
Article II of the Treaty. Article II defines the term “area of application”
as the entire land territory of the states Parties in Europe from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, and for the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the area of application includes all territories
lying West of the Ural River and the Caspian Sea.
Each state Party was required to limit and, as necessary, reduce its
battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and
attack helicopters so that, 40 months after entry into force of this
Treaty and thereafter, the aggregate numbers do not exceed: (a)
20,000 battle tanks, of which no more than 16,500 shall be in active
units; (b) 30,000 armoured combat vehicles, of which no more than
27,300 shall be in active units. Of the 30,000 armoured combat
vehicles, no more than 18,000 shall be armoured infantry fighting
vehicles and heavy armament combat vehicles; of armoured infantry
fighting vehicles and heavy armament combat vehicles, no more
than 1,500 shall be heavy armament combat vehicles; (c) 20,000
pieces of artillery, of which no more than 17,000 shall be in active
units; (d) 6,800 combat aircraft; and (e) 2,000 attack helicopters.
12. START I 1991: The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is a treaty
between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republic (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of
Strategic Offensive Arms. The Treaty barred both the signatories
from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop, a total of
1,600 ICBMs, submarine launched ballistic missiles and bombers.
START I was the most negotiated and the largest and complex arms
control treaty in history. It was proposed by President Reagan of the
United States. It was renamed START I after negotiations began on
the second START Treaty, which became START II.
However, START negotiation was delayed several times because of
differences between the United States and the Soviet Union
regarding the terms of the Treaty. President Reagan’s introduction of
the Strategic Defense Initiative Program in 1983 or his Star War was
regarded as a threat by the Soviet Union, and the Soviets withdrew
from further negotiations. Failure in these talks resulted in heavy
nuclear arms race during the 1980s and finally ended in 1991. The
Treaty was ultimately signed on 31 July 1991, five months before the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Its coming into force was delayed due
to the collapse of the USSR and awaiting an Annex that enforced the
terms of the Treaty upon the newly independent states of Russia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine. The latter three agreed to
transport their nuclear arms to Russia for disposal. It remains in
effect between the United States and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan
and Ukraine.
13. START II, 1993: The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)
was signed by the President of United States, George Bush and the
Russian President, Boris Yeltsin on 3 January 1993 which banned
the use of MIRVs on ICBMs.
However, the signing of the Treaty was postponed a number of times
following the non-ratification by the Russian Duma and also the
invasion of Iraq by USA. The Treaty was ultimately officially
bypassed by the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT),
agreed to by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at their
summit meeting in November 2001. It was signed at the Moscow
Summit on 24 May 2002. Both sides agreed to reduce by 2012, the
operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads from the existing
number to 1,700–2,200.
14. Chemical Weapons Agreement, 1993: The Agreement was
signed in Paris on 13 January 1993 and came into force on 29 April
1997.
Article I provides the general obligations of this Treaty. It states that
each state Parties to this Convention undertakes never, under any
circumstances to:
(a) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain
chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical
weapons to anyone.
(b) Use chemical weapons.
(c) Engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons.
(d) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in
any activity prohibited to a state Party under this Convention.
Article I also provides that each state Parties should undertake to
destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located
in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention. Simultaneously, it also contains
provisions that each state Party must undertake to destroy all
chemical weapons it has abandoned on the territory of another state
Parties, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, any
chemical weapons production facilities it owns or those possesses,
or those that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control,
in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and refrains
itself from using riot control agents as a method of warfare.
15. Indefinite Extension of NPT, 1995: On 11 May 1995, at a
Global Conference held to review the NPT, the state Parties to the
Treaty agreed by consensus and without formal dissent that the
Treaty would continue in force permanently and unconditionally. The
extension of NPT, however, legitimized the possession of nuclear
weapons by the five nuclear powers. India, Pakistan and Israel still
rejected the Treaty as discriminatory.
16. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), 1996: The Treaty
was opened for signature at New York on 24 September 1996 and it
is yet to come into force. It bans all nuclear explosions in all
environments, for military or civilian purposes. The general
obligations under this treaty are contained in Article I which states
that each state Party to the Treaty must ensure that it does not carry
out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear
explosion, and must take steps to prohibit and prevent any such
nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control. The
state Parties must also refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any
way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon tests
explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
Seventy-one states, including five of the eight the then nuclear-
capable states signed the Treaty. At present, the CTBT has been
signed by 180 states and ratified by 145 states. India, Pakistan and
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) did not
sign. In fact, India and Pakistan conducted back-to-back nuclear
tests in 1998, while North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and
tested a nuclear device in 2006.
17. Landmines Ban Treaty, 1997: The Treaty was formally signed
in Ottawa in December 1997 and entered into force on 1 March
1999.
The general obligations under this Treaty embody that each state
Party undertakes never, under any circumstances to:
(a) Use anti-personnel mines.
(b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or
transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines.
(c) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in
any activity prohibited to a state Party under this Convention.
Each state Party must also undertake to destroy or ensure the
destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention.
Unfortunately, the major landmine-producing and user countries of
the world such as China, India and Russia are non-signatories to the
Treaty. The United States rejected the draft Treaty and Japan
desired ‘more flexibility’.
DISARMAMENT AND THE UNITED NATIONS: STRENGTHENING
PEACE AND SECURITY THROUGH DISARMAMENT
The United Nations was founded on the belief that peace and
security for all peoples would only be possible through disarmament.
Article 26 of the United Nations Charter calls for “the establishment
and maintenance of international peace and security with the least
diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic
resources”. The UN Charter also provides for necessary
commitments towards disarmament and arms control. Article 11 of
the UN Charter declares “The General Assembly can consider the
general principles of cooperation for the maintenance of international
peace and security. These can include the principles governing
disarmament, and the regulation of armaments”. Article 26 outlines
the functions of the Security Council on matters relating to
disarmament. It states that in order to promote the establishment of
international peace and security, “the Security Council shall be
responsible for formulating plans to be submitted to the members of
the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the
regulation of armaments”. Article 47 embodies provisions for the
creation of a Military Staff Committee for advising and assisting the
Security Council “on all questions relating to the Security Council’s
requirements for the maintenance of international peace and
security, the employment and command of forces placed at its
disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmaments”.
The United Nations has worked for nuclear disarmament ever since
its first resolution in 1946 entitled “The Establishment of a
Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of
Atomic Energy”. The UN works for three types of nuclear
disarmament:

General disarmament: allows nations to keep minimum

necessary police force.
Quantitative and qualitative disarmament: involves overall
reduction and abolition of only certain types of armaments.
Total disarmament: the complete elimination of armaments.
The UNGA has adopted a number of resolutions and established a
number of international regimes to work towards effective
disarmament and arms control. The institutions comprise the:
1. General Assembly First Committee
2. The 1540 Committee (set up by Security Council Resolution in
2004)
3. UN Disarmament Commission
4. Conference on Disarmament
5. Secretary-General’s Advisory Board
6. UNIDIR (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research)
The United Nations also tries to reach the goal of disarmament
through its Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). The Office
promotes the goal of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and
the strengthening of the disarmament regimes in respect of other
weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons. It
also promotes disarmament efforts in the area of conventional
weapons, especially land mines and small arms. UNODA provides
substantive and organizational support for the norm-setting in the
area of disarmament through the work of the General Assembly and
its First Committee, the Disarmament Commission, the Conference
on Disarmament and other bodies.
PROBLEMS OF DISARMAMENT
The United Nations was founded on the belief that peace and
security for all peoples would only be possible through disarmament.
However, the track record of disarmament efforts is not praiseworthy.
Morgenthau[10] points out that success or failure of any particular
disarmament effort depends on:

The ratio among the armaments of different nations.

The standard according to which, within the ratio, different
types and quantities of armaments are to be allocated.
What is the actual effect in view of intended reduction of the
armaments.
Bearing of disarmament on the issues of international order
and peace.

The primary obstacles to disarmament arise from these problems,

especially the ones related to the ratios of strength. As there are no
fixed ratios among weapons, the questions of standards of allocation
of different types and quantities of armaments to be allotted to
various nations remain unresolved. Further, the existence of mutual
distrust among states frustrates disarmament efforts. National
interest and security also make the states cautious on the issues of
disarmament and arms control. Political rivalry and disputes also fuel
arms race and disarmament commitments break down.
Advancement in military R&D and technological innovations induce
the states to go on procuring arms and nukes which give rise to
proliferation of nuclear weapons and an ensuing nuclear arms race,
as was evident during the Cold War between the US and the USSR
or as seen between the two South Asian neighbours, India and
Pakistan. Besides, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) also
prevents any sort of policy barring the reduction of arms production.
The MIC is a lucrative industry in the United States, France, Britain
and Russia. The manufacture and sale of weapons is the most
profitable business, and unless the MIC is restrained, disarmament
measures will not reach its fruition.
Though states suffer from the fears of dangers of nuclear war or
destruction from the WMDs or international or regional instability
from unregulated arms race, they may gear their efforts towards
disarmament and arms control, yet a major breakthrough is still a
dream. Till then disarmament and arms control measures will
continue to be small and quite slow.
 EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by disarmament? Comment on the major
developments in the field of disarmament and arms control since
the Second World War.
2. Write briefly on any three: PTBT, NPT, INF, CTBT.
3. Discuss the disarmament attempts made by the United States and
Russia to reduce their armament stockpiles. (SALTI, SALTII, INF,
STARTI, STARTII, SORT).
4. Write on any four: Outer Space Treaty (1967), Sea-bed Treaty
(1971), Biological Weapons Conventions (1972), Convention on
Prohibition of Military or other Hostile Use of Environment
Modification Techniques (1977), Chemical Weapons Agreement
(1993).
5. Discuss the role of the United Nations in the field disarmament.
 REFERENCES
[1] Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, p. 419.
[2] Couloumbis, Theodre A. and James H. Wolfe, Introduction to
International Relations—Power and Justice, Prentice-Hall of
India, New Delhi, 1986, p. 233.
[3] ibid., p. 234.
[4] ibid.
[5] Quoted in Vinay Kumar Malhotra, International Relations, Anmol
Publications, New Delhi, 2006, p. 354.
[6] Kegley, Charles W., Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Politics—
Trends and Transformation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1990,
p. 404.
[7] http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-1(I).pdf.
[8] Howlett, Darryl, Nuclear Proliferation, in John Baylis and Steve
Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford
University Press, London, 1997, p. 351.
[9] Banerjee, Jyotirmoy, Strategic Studies, Allied Publishers, New
Delhi, 1998, pp. 143–144.
[10] Morgenthau, op. cit., n. 1, p. 424.

* Vernon Van Dyke, International Politics, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York,

1957.
Globalization
INTRODUCTION
As a central concept in the present day international scenario,
globalization is hard to define. Still, scholars have made attempts to
provide a basic understanding of the concept. The concept has got
inextricably linked with the process of transformation touching upon
every aspect of social, political and economic development around
the globe. It can be seen as a process by which the population of the
world is increasingly bonded into a single society. In the social front,
globalization signifies closer interaction of people and
homogenization of culture and values and the world being
transformed into a ‘global village’. Politically, it refers to the complex
networks of global governance and shared political values resulting
in the development of a tendency towards homogenization of global
political culture. Economically, it is manifested in the form of
liberalization tendencies, privatization, deregulation leading to a free
market regime. On a greater plane, globalization has posed
challenges to the raison d$prime$$être of the states—the dominant
actors in international relations.
CONCEPT OF GLOBALIZATION
Scholars like Anthony Gidden (1990) a British sociologist conceive
globali-zation as “the intensification of worldwide social relations
which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are
shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa”.
Robert Cox an American political Scientist (1994) visualizes
globalization from a different perspective. For him, “The
characteristics of globalization trend include the internationalizing of
production, the new international division of labor, new migratory
movements from South to North, the new competitive environment
that accelerates these processes, and the internationalizing of
state…making states into agencies of the globalizing world”. For
some others, “The world is becoming a global shopping mall in which
ideas and products are available at the same time”. According to
Scholte, globalization refers to processes by which social relations
acquire relatively distanceless and borderless qualities so that
human lives increasingly play out in the world as a single place.[1]
According to Deepak Nayyar1, eminent academic and administrator,
globalization can be more precisely defined as “a process associated
with increasing economic openness, growing economic
independence and deepening economic integration between
countries of the world economy”.
According to David Held a British political scientist and a notable
figure in the field of international relations and others, the
understanding of the world as reflected in the idea of globalization is
one that is “rapidly being moulded into a shared social space by
economic and technological forces and that developments in one
region of the world can have profound consequences for the life
chances of individuals and communities on the other side of the
globe”. Held and his fellow scholars look at globalization as
“widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide
interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life…”.[2]
The central point is that under the forces of globalization, the greater
part of social life is determined by global processes in which it seems
as if national cultures, national economies and national borders are
fast integrating under one universal umbrella. The term
‘globalization’ encompasses various aspects including expanded
international trade, telecommunications, monetary coordination,
multinational corporations, cultural exchanges of new types and
scales, migration and refugee flows, and relations between the
world’s rich and poor countries.[3]
FEATURES OF GLOBALIZATION
Globalization is marked by liberalization, privatization, free trade,
deregulation of tariff barriers, internationalization of national
economies, global movement of capital, information and technology,
increased activities of economic and political organizations, and
rapid growth in globalized social movements. Most importantly,
globalization has come to signify ‘deterritorialization’, and geography
is becoming less relevant to how people live and interact.
Globalization is characterized by increasing in flow of trade, capital
and information, as well as mobility of individuals across borders.
Therefore, globalization signifies:
1. Opening up of national economies to foreign capital, foreign
direct investment and foreign technologies.
2. Efforts of integrating national economies with the global
economy.
3. Free trade, meaning free flow of trade and removal of tariff and
trade barriers, protective regimes including granting of Most
Favoured Nation (MFN) status.
4. Privatization is the key to liberalization which means less and
less control of state over ownership of means of production and
distribution.
5. Increased proliferation of agents of globalization in the form of
multinational corporations and international institutions such as
the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary
Fund (IMF), the World Bank and others.
6. Information and technological revolution, bringing about a sea-
change in modes of communication, has resulted in fast
movement of capital, goods, information and people around the
globe.
7. Deterritorialization is making geography irrelevant. Global stock
and bond trading and fixation of international financial and
exchange rate transactions have really made geography a thing
of the past.
8. Globalized social movements have resulted in global civic
activism and range from movements for human rights, women’s
 issues, greenpeace and other environment movements to
HIV/AIDS.
9. Global governance is through suprastate agencies such as
international and regional organizations, the United Nations, the
IMF, the World Bank, WTO, and a host of regional arrangements
like the ASEAN, European Union and others.
EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION
The effects of globalization are difficult to discuss as some view
globalization as the fruition of liberal economic principles, while some
others are sceptical about it. The former perspective regards that a
global marketplace has brought prosperity and growth, not to all, but
positively to those integrated with the global market. They talk about
dilution of state authority and highlight the importance of
supranational institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and EU, and
also the pre-eminence of transnational actors like the MNCs. The
sceptics, on the other hand, regard the deepening of gap between
the rich and the poor countries and their contention that the
geographical distinction such as the North–South divide is
disappearing in favour of a single global market is hardly tenable.[4]
The world has witnessed series of protests and movements against
globalization with its apparatus, especially those like the IMF and the
World Bank, and the mantra of liberalization and privatization. The
movement against globalization took a concrete expression in
Seattle where thousands of people gathered to show their discontent
against globalization during the annual WTO meeting in 1999. That
was a significant beginning as, after Seattle meeting, there were
series of movements across the globe at different times. Another
significant protest was held in a big way in Genoa in 2001. From
Seattle to Genoa is a long history of struggle against globalization,
which has not yet died down and is still continuing. The world once
again witnessed violent anti-G 20 protest in Toronto in Canada
during the G-20 summit in June 2010. Police vehicles were set
ablaze and windows of stores and banks were thrashed with stones
and damaged by protestors.
Professor Bhagwati[5], in his In Defense of Globalization, points out
that there are two groups of critics of globalization. He identifies as
one of these two groups as hard-core protestors who have deep-
seated antipathy towards globalization. Though they come from
different intellectual and ideological backgrounds and do not share
the same kind of sentiments, yet they have some commonness in
their discontent, towards globalization. This discontent according to
Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati, is a trilogy. The trilogy of discontents against
globalization is:

Anti-capitalism
Anti-globalization
Anti-corporation mindset

The second group of critics, whose discontents are within the

parameters of mainstream dissent and discourse, engage in
translating their discontents into arguments that economic
globalization is the cause of several social evils today, such as
poverty in developing countries and deterioration of the environment
worldwide. He refuted the claim that globalization is the root cause of
many of the social evils and in several chapters in his book he
demonstrates that, in fact, the various social causes that we all
espouse, such as advancement of gender equality and reduction of
poverty, are advanced and not set back by globalization.[6]
Therefore, he rejected the arguments put forward by a prominent
women’s group who expressed their fears concerning the impact of
globalization on their agendas and interests involving global care
chains, unpaid housework, intra-family decision-making, and WTO
rulings without analyzing the gender effects of such rulings, the IMF
and World Bank conditionalities which are part of structural
adjustment programmes and their impact upon women, tourism
induced prostitution and trafficking of women. Professor Bhagwati
concluded that the broader criticisms that many women’s groups
have voiced about the negative effects of globalization on women
are not convincing.[7] He even rejects the claims that globalization
and democracy are at odds. For him, “It is precisely the growing
awareness that globalization creates a web of relationships that
introduce such complexity, and hence prudence and pause in the
policy choices of nation-states, has led to the charges that
globalization and democracy are at odds. But the question whether
democracy is enhanced or diminished by globalization is not so
easily answered”.[8] For him, it should be the endeavour of the world
community to consider the ways in which they can reinforce the
social effects of globalization.
Stiglitz,[9] in his Globalization And Its Discontent, however, is of the
opinion that opening up to international trade has helped many
countries to develop at a rapid pace though it may have hit the local
enterprises hard. Similarly, foreign aid, despite its pitfalls, has
succeeded to bring benefits to many. Globalization has also opened
up to millions in developing countries access to knowledge well
beyond their reach. Therefore, globalization is not all that bad.
However, Stiglitz opines that the proponents of globalization have
forwarded an unbalanced form of it. To them globalization, typically
associated with the American style, is progress, and developing
countries must accept it if they want to grow and fight poverty
effectively. But the fact remains that, despite embracing the forces of
globalization, the conditions of the poor and developing countries of
the world have not developed much and the world remains divided
between the haves and the have nots.
Stiglitz while analyzing annual publications of World Development
Report, World Economic Indicators and Global Economic Prospects
and the Developing Countries 2000 is quite critical and shows that
the Developed West has succeeded in forcing the poor countries to
remove trade barriers while retaining their own restrictive regimes
and deprived the poor countries from export income. Even the
developed countries retained their quotas on a multitude of goods
from textiles to sugar and continued subsidizing agriculture while
pressurizing the poor countries to eliminate their subsidies. Western
banks benefited from the loosening of capital market controls in Asia
and Africa, whereas these regions suffered when inflows of
speculative hot money got reversed.[10] Undoubtedly, these
economies suffered as can be seen during the Global Economic
Crisis of 2008. Therefore, globalization has neither succeeded in
reducing poverty nor has it brought in stability in the financial market.
The economic crises in Asia and Latin America in 1997 and 1998
and the current global crisis of 2008 have proved that collapse of
one emerging market currency will pull the others down. The benefits
of globalization appear to be too meagre compared to the price paid
in terms of the social, political, economic, cultural and environmental
problems it has created.
Economic globalization results in integration of national economies
into global economy such that the global forces that act upon the
domestic economies are out of control of national governments.
Nevertheless, globalization has been able to bring in certain positive
benefits too. A World Bank Report: Globalization, Growth and
Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy states that 24
developing countries of the world have managed to integrate their
economy into the world economy over two decades by the end of
1990s and have now achieved higher growth in incomes, longer life
expectancy, and better schooling as in the case of China, India,
Hungary and Mexico. Globalization has also enabled easy flow of
capital into domestic economy, commercial borrowings,
collaborations, transfer of technology, service-based knowledge, and
so on. But the global movement of capital and services, the MNCs
and global stock and bonding have given rise to such a system
where the sovereignty of the state becomes limited. Besides, world
organizations controlled by the developed countries of the West,
such as the WTO or the World Bank and their programme of
structural adjustments in the domestic economies of languishing
economies seeking aid clearly reduces the sovereignty of the state.
[11]

“Globalization often has been a very powerful force for poverty reduction, but too many countries and
people have been left out. Important reasons for this exclusion are weak governance and policies in the
non-integrating countries, tariffs and other barriers that poor countries and poor people face in accessing
rich country markets, and declining development assistance.
Some anxieties about globalization are well-founded, but reversing globalization would come at an
intolerably high price, destroying the prospects of prosperity for many millions of poor people. We do not
agree with those who would retreat into a world of nationalism and protectionism. That way leads to
deeper poverty and it is fundamentally hostile to the well-being of people in the developing countries.
Instead, we must make globalization work for the poor people of the world.”
—Nicholas Stern, Former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, The World Bank[12]

Cultural dimension of globalization has entailed a grave problem of

what is sometimes identified as cultural imperialism. The
predominant culture of globalization is the American culture, which
now seems to proliferate deep into indigenous societies and threaten
the very existence of such local indigenous cultures. McDonald’s,
Microsoft and Madona (to name a few) or Michael Jackson seem to
be reaching the remotest corner of the globe. Hollywood seems to
have its sway all around the globe. It is true when cultures come into
contact there is going to be some mixing, but the fact is that
American culture is the dominant culture that prevails. So it is not the
folk songs which attract the youth now but it is the American pop and
Indi-pop, and the Indian version of American pop that seem to be
popular in a country like India. Therefore, it is actually global culture
in the form of ‘Americanization’ that underlies fear and
apprehensions about vanishing indigenous culture.
The political dimension of globalization has resulted in the formation
of a universal political culture. This culture advocates the cause of
democracy and democratic institutions. The enthusiasts of
globalization with great vigour had championed the cause of
democracy and viewed globalization and democratization to be the
two sides of the same coin. With the collapse of communism and the
conceived victory of capitalism, the liberalists thought that this wind
of change would help in ushering democracy throughout the world
and in some instances also suggested exporting democracies to
countries which are under authoritarian rule. But in reality it has been
seen that in most cases even democratic states are unable to control
the global flows. They, in most cases, cannot secure public opinion
in matters related to global capital, information flow or environment
related issues. Actually, the whole idea of democratization is related
to market democracy. The market provides larger scope for the
popular participation. Money and materialism are the most sought
after. Traditional democratic concerns for human dignity and equal
opportunity have been replaced by obsessions for managerial
efficiency and product quality.
Globalization has also resulted in increased activities of transnational
agents such as the terrorists, transborder criminals, drug-traffickers,
and even arms transfer across the border. The pathbreaking
advancements in technology and information revolution have made
their work easier. The Mumbai terrorist attack of 26/11 revealed the
use of hi-tech equipment, including satellite phones by the terrorists.
Globalization, therefore, has brought human insecurity into the
forefront. It has gone into the psyche, specially of the city dwellers
and is keeping the security agencies on their toes all the time.
Professor Bhagwati recommends that globalization must be wisely
regulated to ensure its benign effects. Stiglitz[13] insists that
globalization must have a human face. He, while outlining certain
reforms, like the need for reforms in international public institutions,
system of governance of international monetary institutions like the
WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, and development assistance
and other reforms, opines that these would make globalization fairer
and more effective in raising living standards, especially of the poor.
The need of the hour is not just institutional changes but changing
the mindset about globalization. He concludes by saying: “If we are
to address the legitimate concerns of those who have expressed a
discontent with globalization, if we are to make globalization work for
billions of people for whom it has not, if we are to make globalization
with a human face succeed, then our voices must be raised. We
cannot, we should not, stand idly by”.
GLOBALIZATION AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE
The Westphalian model of state system has come under the threats
of globalization. Though the states, still surviving, exercise their
power and authority in certain respects, but the core of the
Westphalian model, that is, the concept of sovereignty, has been
deeply undermined in a fast globalizing world. The concept of
sovereignty pertains to a specific reference, to a specific territory
where governments exercise absolute authority. But the forces of
globalization have rendered the territorial limits useless. In other
words, there has been a deterritorialization of the world.
The state in a globalizing world has to work along with the forces
which are not under its control even such as surveillance by global
governance agencies, nationalism, global ecological problems,
satellite communications, electronic money transfers, multinational
companies, migration, information flows, technology transfers and,
most importantly, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction. Scholars point out that the concept of absolute
sovereignty was developed under conditions of relatively low level of
interdependence among the states. However, the complex level of
interdependence with large flow of capital, labour, technology and
information across border has now emerged within the changing
patterns of sovereignty and its meaning and conditionality are
continuously changing in a fast globalizing world.
The suprastate global governance system has also limited the state
sovereignty. In several fields, ranging from macroeconomic policy,
conflict management, to human rights and environmental
movements more than the state it is now the suprastate agencies
such as the United Nations, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, and
various regional arrangements have significant roles to play.
Global social movements have also now come to undermine the
sovereignty of states. These movements on various social, political,
economic issues or even ecological issues exploit the benefits of
globalization, that is, fast travel and communication, the Internet,
developments in telecommunication, awareness about global laws
help to conduct transborder social movements which pervade the
sovereign authority of the states. These social movements to some
extent succeed in bringing about changes in the policies of the
states.
The operation of MNCs and their interference with the domestic
policies of their host countries have really undermined the
sovereignty of the states. Some of the industrial MNCs have annual
sales of tens of billions of dollars each. No wonder, MNCs like IBM,
GE, Microsoft, Wall-Mart, and others have become more powerful
than many sovereign states.
Nuclear weapons have changed the whole perception of security of
the state. The states are no longer invincible. They have become
vulnerable preys to the latest technological discoveries of long-range
cruise missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), short-
range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), multiple independently targetable
reentry vehicles(MIRVs), and a host of other improved newer
weapons of mass destruction, which have completely made the
concept of territoriality passé.
It might seem that under such circumstances, globalization has really
brought an end to state sovereignty. But this argument is hardly
tenable. Experiences show that states do continue to be the most
powerful actors and, in times of turbulence, such as the present
global economic crisis states have again reaffirmed their authority as
ultimately it is the governments who are providing bailout packages
for the financial institutions in their respective countries. It becomes
clear that under the pressures of globalization today states have to
perform roles different from the earlier times, but in no way have
states become less significant.
 EXERCISES
1. Discuss the concept of globalization with special mention about its
features and effects on world politics.
2. Critically analyze the effects of globalization on state sovereignty.
Has globalization meant an end of state territoriality?
 REFERENCES
[1] Scholte, John Aart, “The Globalization of World Politics,” in John
Baylis and Steve Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World
Politics, Oxford University Press, London, 1997, pp. 14–15.
[2] Lawson, Stephanie, International Relations, Polity Press, UK,
Cambridge, 2003, First Indian Reprint, 2004, p. 118.
[3] Goldstein, Joshua S., International Relations, Pearson Education,
New Delhi, 2006, p. 330.
[4] ibid., p. 331.
[5] Bhagwati, Jagdish, In Defense of Globalization ,Oxford University
Press, Oxford India Paperbacks, OUP, New Delhi, 2007, p. 4.
[6] ibid.
[7] ibid., p. 91.
[8] ibid., p. 92.
[9] Stiglitz, Joseph, Globalization and Its Discontent, Penguin Books
India, New Delhi, 2003, pp. 1–22.
[10] ibid.
[11] World Bank Report Globalization, Growth and Poverty: Building
an Inclusive World Economy, World Bank Washington, DC
published in May, 2001.
http://econ.worldbank.org/external/defaultmain?menuPK=477838&
pagePK=64168092&piPK=64168088&theSitePK=477826.
[12] ibid.
[13] Stiglitz, Joseph, op. cit. n. 9, pp. 215–252.

1 Deepak Nayyar (ed.), Governing Globalization: Issues and Institutions, Oxford

University Press, Oxford, 2002.
Development and International
Relations
INTRODUCTION
Development has been a central theme of discussion in social
science discourses for a long time but what is noteworthy is the
expansion of the meaning of the term development. The economic
disparity between the rich and the poor countries, the obstacles
faced by the poor developing countries in the path of their
development and the causes behind their underdevelopment have
created immense enthusiasm among the scholars belonging to the
different genres to probe into the questions of development. Whether
development should be, strictly speaking, seen to be something
related to economic growth or it is something beyond that has
created myriad perspectives on development. There are the liberal
and alternative views on development accompanied by the Marxian
concept on what constitutes underdevelopment. There is also now
the current definition of development provided by the United Nations,
Development Programme (UNDP) along with the Human
Development Index (HDI), 1990. The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) and also referred to as the
Rio Summit or the Earth Summit), 1992 gave a new direction to the
concept of development which upheld 27 principles intended to
guide the future sustainable development around the world.
CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT
Since the end of the Second World War, the dominant understanding
of development was akin to the concept of economic growth within
the context of a free market international economy. It was believed
that only economic growth was a panacea for poverty. Therefore,
measurement of economic growth in terms of Gross Domestic
Product per capita, industrialization and agriculture came to be
acknowledged as criteria for categorizing countries on the scale of
development. Likewise, World Bank reports reflected categorization
of countries as low-income, lower middle-income, upper middle-
income, or high-income countries.
This perception of development, as synonymous with economic
growth, took firm root in the aftermath of the Second World War. In
post-War years, the reconstruction of the war-torn economies of the
developed world, especially of Europe, became a priority. The
course of the reconstruction process was, however, guided by the
Cold War calculations and it saw huge transfer of money from the
United States to Europe in the form of bilateral aid through the
Marshall Plan of 1947. Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the
United States, gave meaning to the concept of development and
also adopted it as a goal of state policy. It is generally accepted that
Truman’s Point Four Program, launched on 10 January 1949,
endowed the term ‘development’ with a special meaning in the sense
that development was linked with economic growth (in the war torn
Europe) which in turn was linked with the growth of liberal
international economic order and containment of communism.
Therefore, post-War international order exhibits an attempt by the
West to create a stable international order through the United
Nations and its affiliates, such as the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) the World Bank and GATT. These affiliates were supposed to
provide the institutional bases of a liberal international economic
order. Simultaneously, around this time, there was a wave of
decolonization and numerous countries emerged on the political
scenario. They were ascribed as ‘Third World’ countries and now the
focus shifted towards them. The international organizations and
agencies as well as the United States and the West now tried to
focus on the needs of the developing countries. With the
international atmosphere already charged with the Cold War
temperament, there started a tussle between the Western bloc and
the Eastern bloc to win over the ‘Third World’. Each presented its
model of development as the best. The United States believed that
there always is a possibility of unlimited economic growth in a free-
market system. Economies would reach a ‘take-off’ point and
thereafter wealth would trickle down to those at the bottom. The
underlying assumption was the superiority of the ‘Western’ model
and knowledge. The process would involve reliance on ‘expert
knowledge’, generally Western and external, large capital
investments in large projects, advanced technology, and expansion
of the private sphere. On the other hand, the USSR projected its
pattern of development as the model means of progress in which
they upheld the central planning in the socialist sphere by the state
as the preferred method of ushering in economic growth as opposed
to market-driven economic growth in the capitalist system. But both
these models heavily relied on industrialization and GDP per capita
economic growth. But the assessment of the post-War international
economic order portrayed a dark picture of the Third World
economies. On the one hand, the developing countries were caught
up in a vicious circle of debt trap and could not disentangle
themselves from it and, on the other, they were suffering so severely
from the structural adjustment programmes of the IMF and the World
Bank that they neither could register a positive rate of development
nor could they ensure the well-being of their people. An estimate
shows that from 1970 to 1982, the developing countries were
encouraged to borrow more since the real interest rates were
extremely low. Further, the export revenue with which they were
reimbursing their debt increased due to the increase in the price of
raw materials. However, by the end of 1979, the sudden increase in
the interest rates imposed on the world unilaterally by the United
States resulted in an increase in the sums to be repaid. Matters were
made worse with the fall in commodity prices followed by drop in the
price of crude oil. This made it difficult for the oil-producing countries
such as Mexico to repay the loan. Many Latin American, Asian and
the sub-Saharan countries faced an extreme debt crisis.[1]
Therefore, it was thought that there was a necessity for
reassessment of the post-War international economic order. What
emerged was obviously a critical alternative assessment of the post-
War international economic order and a critical alternative view of
development. The first and the foremost thing that was focused was
the statistical measurements of economic growth, and the GDP per
capita did not reveal the true story of development process in the
developing countries, especially the quality of life in a particular Third
World country. The critics of development orthodoxy emphasized
more on the pattern of distribution of gains within the global society
and within the individual state. The economic liberalism has fostered
a great divide between the rich and the poor countries and increased
dependency of the developing states on the developed ones.
The great divide led to a revival of Marxist and neo-Marxist tradition,
identified as the dependency school which highlighted that the
under-development of the Third World countries placed in the
periphery was the result of the development and growth of wealth of
the Western countries placed in the core. The dependency scholars
like Andre Gunder Frank (1967) and others highlighted that:

Underdevelopment is a historical process. It is not a condition

necessarily intrinsic to the Third World.
The dominant and the dependent countries together form a
capitalist system.
Underdevelopment is an inherent consequence of the
functioning of the world system. The periphery is plundered of
its surplus; this leads to development of the core and
underdevelopment of the periphery.

They also highlighted how multinationals add up to the

underdevelopment of the periphery. Further, these scholars
emphasized that MNCs:

Impose a universal consumption pattern, without taking local

needs into account.
Use capital-intensive techniques in areas with large labour
 resources.
Out-compete national capital, or undertake joint ventures with
local capital.
Use a variety of methods to transfer the capital.
Involve themselves in national, political and economic affairs
via (among others) their relationships with the local
bourgeoisie.

Frank’s ideas were further reinforced by the World Systems theorists

like Immanuel Wallerstein. Like Frank, Wallerstein also saw that a
capitalist world economy had existed since the sixteenth century,
that is, from the beginning of the Colonial era. Increasingly, countries
which were previously isolated and self-supporting were drawn into
the world economy. This ultimately resulted in the creation of an
industrialized core, the underdeveloped periphery, and the Newly
Industrialized Countries (NICs) semi-periphery. The relation between
the core and the periphery is one of dependency and that between
core and periphery is a go-between. Semi-peripheral countries
import sophisticated and advanced technologies from the core and in
return export semi-manufactured goods to the core. There is also
import of raw materials from the periphery and export of industrial
end products.[2] Therefore, a consciousness grew regarding such
exploitative international economic order.
On the practical front, this was reflected in the demand of New
International Economic Order (NIEO). Specific proposals for
changes in the economic system were advanced at the Summit
Conference of Non-Aligned Nations held in Algiers in September
1973. Following that, the Sixth Special Session of the UN General
Assembly was called hastily in April 1974 where it declared its
determination to establish a New International Economic Order. But
this was highly unsuccessful. The Session adopted, without a vote, a
manifesto entitled “Declaration and Program of Action of the New
International Order”. In December 1974, the General Assembly
approved the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
However, even with all the Declaration and the approval of the
Charter, the exploitative and unequal international economic order
continues.
Despite such failure, what was realized was that the traditional or the
orthodox conception of the ‘trickle down’ failed to bring about
substantial development, and inequalities continued in the
international economic order. Some of the developing countries did
see an increasing rate of growth in terms of GDP per capita, but this
was not reflected in their societies at large, that is, in terms of the
well-being of the majority of the population. The South Commission
observed, “Inequalities tended to widen as the economy grew and
became more industrialized… Increasingly, the rich and powerful
countries of the South were able to enjoy the lifestyle and
consumption patterns of developed countries of the North. But large
segments of the population experienced no significant improvement
in their standard of living, while being able to see the growing
affluence of the few”. [3]
Further, the plight of the sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s identified
as the ‘lost decade’, with declining GDP per capita in most of the
developing countries, coupled with the stringent structural
adjustment policies, increasing debt burden, declining terms of trade,
uncertain markets for goods, protectionist policies pursued by
developed countries, and insufficient technological and financial
transfers to the developing world from the developed countries
provided impetus to think in different terms while looking at
development.
Thus, there was the 1987 UNICEF report entitled Adjustment with A
Human Face, which highlighted the social cost of structural
adjustment policies. This report also argued for a redesigning of the
structural adjustments taking into account the social costs.
A breakthrough came in 1990 with the attempt of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) to define development. The First
Report on Human Development tries to define it “as a process of
enlarging the range of people’s choices increasing their opportunities
for education, health care, income and employment and covering the
full range of human choices from a sound physical environment to
economic and political freedom”. The Report further stated, “This
report is about people and about how development enlarges their
choices. It is about more than GNP growth, more than income and
wealth and more than producing commodities and accumulating
capital. A person’s access to income may be one of the choice, but it
is not the sum total of human behaviour”. It viewed human
development as “a process of enlarging people’s choices. The most
critical of these wide-ranging choices are to live a long and healthy
life, to be educated and to have access to resources needed for a
decent standard of living. Additional choices include political
freedom, guaranteed human rights and personal self-respect”. The
1990 report introduced the Human Development Index (HDI) and
identified three essential elements as essential to human life: life
expectancy, knowledge, and decent standard of living. Subsequent
Human Development Reports have led to the broadening of the
concept of development.
The Human Development Report 1995 talked about gender equality
and it stated, “human development if not engendered is
endangered”. Further, the 1997 Human Development Report
considered poverty eradication to be the prime objective of human
development. It not only looked at poverty from the perspectives of
income, basic needs and capacity but also outlined the criteria of ill-
being which is inevitable for assessing capacity-building and
measurement of well-being. This included criteria like being disabled,
lacking land, livestock, etc., being unable to bury their dead ones,
being “poor in people” lacking social support, having to accept
demeaning low status work and others. Another aspect of this report
was the preparation of Human Poverty Index (HPI-1) and (HPI-2) for
the developed and the developing countries, respectively.
Considering the three elements of human life as prescribed by the
Human Development Index, the HPI highlighted deprivation of these
three elements in the form of deprivation related to:
1. Survival—vulnerability to death at a relatively early age.
2. Knowledge—being excluded from the world of reading and
communication.
3. Decent living.
The Human Development Report of 2003 was a reflection of a
pledge by the international community to combat poverty and
hunger. It set the “Millennium Development Goals: a compact among
nations to end human poverty”. The declaration made by the Heads
of States made it binding on them to “attack inadequate income,
widespread hunger, gender inequality, environmental deterioration
and lack of education, health care and clean water”. These also
included actions on the part of the developed countries to reduce
debt and increase aid, trade and technology transfer to poorer
countries. Some of the targets outlined by the Millennium
Development Goals were:

Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger

Achieving universal primary education
Promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women
Reduction of child mortality
Improvement of maternal health
Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Ensuring environmental sustainability
Development of a global partnership

Therefore, there was a sea-change in the concept of development,

so much so that the critical assessment of the post-War international
economic order led to the formation of a critical alternative view of
development. This view stated that the process of development
should be

need-oriented (material and non-material);

endogenous (coming from within a society);
self-reliant (in terms of human, natural and cultural resources);
ecologically sound; and
based on structural transformations (of economy, society and
power relations).

This vision of development championed by the NGOs and the two-

year preparatory process before the UN Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) in Rio in June 1992, gave a chance to
the voiceless groups like the indigenous people, women and children
to express their views. This further got a boost with the organization
of an alternative NGO forum in Copenhagen, parallel to the UN
World Summit for Social Development there in 1995. The Alternative
Declaration produced by the NGO Forum at the Copenhagen
Summit highlighted the principles of community participation and
empowerment. Equity, participation, self-reliance, role of women and
youths and sustainability were also given importance. The Summit
Declaration condemned economic liberalism and identified trade
liberalization and privatization as the causes of concentration of
wealth. It also demanded immediate cancellation of debt, improved
terms of trade, transparency and accountability of IMF and the World
Bank, and the regulation of the activities of the multinationals.[4]
Therefore, the mainstream debate is now centred around
sustainable development. The concept of development now not only
stands broadened but also related to environment and sustainability.
This brings us to the discussion of sustainable development at
length.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The idea of sustainable development found roots in the thinking of
some scholars, popularly known as ‘Club of Rome’ in the year 1972.
They argued that if the pattern of limitless growth continued, then
there would arise problems of sustainability.
The same year, the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference) was held
under the auspices of the United Nations in Stockholm Sweden,
during 5–16 June 1972. There were serious concerns about the
patterns of ongoing limitless development as the world was
becoming incapable of supporting and sustaining present rates of
economic and population growth vis-à-vis resource depletion and
ecological crisis. It was the UN’s first major conference on
international environmental issues, and marked a turning point in the
development of international environmental politics. The Conference
was opened and addressed by the Swedish Prime Minister Olof
Palme and the UN Secretary-General, Kurt Waldheim to discuss the
state of the global environment. It is recognized as the beginning of
modern political and public awareness of global environmental
problems. It was attended by the representatives of 113 countries,
19 inter-governmental agencies, and more than 400 inter-
governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The landmarks, however, in the sustainable development thinking
are obviously the World Conservation Strategy (1980), Our Common
Future (1987), and Caring for the Earth (1991).[5]
The World Conservation Strategy (WCS) was prepared in the 1970s
by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and published in 1980. It
represented a shift in thinking about conservation as it highlighted
cure for the loss of wildlife species and habitats rather than
prevention. It upheld that both conservation and development were
the key to a sustainable society. The WCS identified three objectives
for conservation. The first two were maintenance of essential
ecological processes and preservation of genetic diversity. The third
principle followed from the above two. It was the sustainable
utilization of resources.
A more concrete development towards the concept of sustainable
development came with the publication of the Report of the
Brundtland Commission. The Report of the Brundtland Commission
(officially known as the World Commission on Environment and
Development) was prepared under the aegis of the United Nations
World Commission in 1983 on Environment and Development
elucidating the concept of sustainable development. The
Commission was created to address the growing concern “about the
accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural
resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic
and social development” and it was felt that it was in the common
interest of all nations to establish policies for sustainable
development. The Report entitled Our Common Future was
published in 1987. The report tried to recapture the spirit of the
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment—the
Stockholm Conference—which had introduced environmental
concerns to the formal political development sphere.
According to the report of the Commission, sustainable development
is “Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs, improved living standard for all, better protected and
managed ecosystem and a safer; more prosperous future”.
The critical objectives for environment and development policies
proposed in the Brundtland Report are:

Reviving growth
Changing the quality of growth
Meeting essential needs for jobs, food energy, water and
sanitation
Ensuring a sustainable level of population
Conserving and enhancing the resource base
Reorienting technology and managing risk
Merging environment and economics in decision-making.[6]
Caring for the Earth was prepared in 1991 by the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and it
identified nine principles of sustainable development. The priority
requirements of Caring for the Earth are as follows:

Respect and care for the community of life

Improve the quality of human life
Conserve the Earth’s vitality and diversity
Minimize the depletion of non-renewable resources
Keep within the Earth’s carrying capacity
Change personal attitudes and practices
Enable communities to care for their own environments
Forge a global alliance.[7]

The publication of Our Common Future* and the work of the World
Commission on Environment and Development laid the groundwork
for the convening of the 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, and also the establishment of the
Commission on Sustainable Development.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED also referred to as the Rio Summit or the Earth Summit)
was held from 3 June to 14 June 1992. The chief achievement of this
Summit was the Agenda 21: Green Paths to the Future or the Rio
Declaration of 1992. The Rio Declaration consisted of 27 principles
intended to guide future sustainable development around the world.
Some of the principles contained in the Rio Declaration may be
regarded as the third generation rights.
PRINCIPLES OF RIO DECLARATION
PRINCIPLE 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They
are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
PRINCIPLE 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits
of national jurisdiction.
PRINCIPLE 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
PRINCIPLE 4
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall
constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be
considered in isolation from it.
PRINCIPLE 5
All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating
poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order
to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of
the majority of the people of the world.
PRINCIPLE 6
The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least
developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special
priority. International actions in the field of environment and development
should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
PRINCIPLE 7
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and
restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different
contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but
differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the
responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable
development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global
environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.
PRINCIPLE 8
To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people,
States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and
consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.
PRINCIPLE 9
States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for
sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through
exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the
development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new
and innovative technologies.
PRINCIPLE 10
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned
citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have
appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by
public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in
their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making
processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and
participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial
and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be
provided.
PRINCIPLE 11
States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards,
management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and
developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some
countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to
other countries, in particular developing countries.
PRINCIPLE 12
States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international
economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable
development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental
degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised
restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental
challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided.
Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental
problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.
PRINCIPLE 13
 States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the
victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also
cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further
international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of
environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to
areas beyond their jurisdiction.
PRINCIPLE 14
States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and
transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe
environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.
PRINCIPLE 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used
as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
PRINCIPLE 16
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of
environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account
the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution,
with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade
and investment.
PRINCIPLE 17
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be
undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse
impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent
national authority.
PRINCIPLE 18
States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other
emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the
environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international
community to help States so afflicted.
PRINCIPLE 19
States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to
potentially affected States on activities that may have a significant adverse
transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an
early stage and in good faith.
PRINCIPLE 20
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development.
Their full participation is, therefore, essential to achieve sustainable
development.
PRINCIPLE 21
The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized
to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and
ensure a better future for all.
PRINCIPLE 22
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a
vital role in environmental management and development because of their
knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support
their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the
achievement of sustainable development.
PRINCIPLE 23
The environment and natural resources of people under oppression,
domination and occupation shall be protected.
PRINCIPLE 24
Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall,
therefore, respect international law providing protection for the environment in
times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.
PRINCIPLE 25
Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and
indivisible.
PRINCIPLE 26
The states shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by
appropriate means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
PRINCIPLE 27
The states and the people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of
partnership in the fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in
the further development of international law in the field of sustainable
development.[8]

The momentum continued and another Summit, the United Nations

World Summit for Social Development, was held at Copenhagen in
1995 to discuss the issues of poverty reduction, social disintegration
and employment. But due to the differences of opinion between the
countries of the North and South no successful breakthrough was
achieved. There was disagreement on issues such as debt,
structural arrangements, regulation of multinationals and reform of
the Bretton Woods Institutions. Therefore, the intergovernmental
Summit Declaration and Programme of Action contained only
passing references to these issues.
Thus, it is clear that there has been a substantial change in the
mainstream thinking about development. There has also been an
encouraging shift from economic growth to sustainable development.
However, this has not altered the dominant position enjoyed by the
orthodox development paradigm. A long and continuous struggle has
to be embarked upon to make the core values of the alternative
model of development more credible and acceptable. Therefore,
some scholars are of the opinion that to ensure the long-term
credibility of sustainable development, the proponents have to focus
on certain issues. They have to:

Reject the temptation to focus on economic growth.

Recognize the ‘internal inconsistencies and inadequacies of
neo-classical economics’ and redirect economic analyses.
Accept the structural, technological and cultural causes of
poverty and environmental degradation.
Understand that sustainable development has multiple
dimensions.
“Explore what patterns and levels of resource demand would
be compatible with different forms or levels of ecological or
social sustainability, and different notions of equity and
justice”.[9]

Nevertheless, the alternative view of development has led to serious

changes and modifications in the orthodox view of development and,
in future, might be able to represent a clearer concept and come to
occupy a sound position within the development discourse.
RIO + 20-UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT, 13–22 JUNE 2012
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED and also referred to as the Rio Summit or the Earth
Summit) was held during
3–14 June 1992. The chief achievement of this Summit was the
Agenda 21: Green Paths to the Future or the Rio Declaration of
1992. The Rio Declaration consisted of 27 principles intended to
guide future sustainable development around the world. Some of the
principles contained in the Rio Declaration may be regarded as third
generation rights. [See Chapter 14, pages 328–332]
Rio + 20 was a 20-year follow-up to the 1992 Rio Earth
Summit/United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) and the 10th anniversary of the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. It
was hosted by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro from 13–22 June 2012.
Rio + 20 Summit was focussed on two themes: A green economy in
the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and
the institutional framework for sustainable development. The
Conference focused on critical issues like jobs, energy, cities, food,
water, oceans and disasters and preparedness to tackle them.
The outcome document of Rio + 20 is The Future We Want By, For
and With All Stakeholders Redefining the Multi-Stakeholder
Partnership Contract. The Future We Want emphasizes the process
to establish sustainable development goals; detailing how the green
economy can be used as a tool to achieve sustainable development;
strengthening the UN Environment Programme (UNEP); promoting
corporate sustainability reporting measures; taking steps to go
beyond gross domestic product to assess the well-being of a
country; developing a strategy for sustainable development
financing; and, adopting a framework for tackling sustainable
consumption and production. Alongside, the document underscores
the importance of establishing gender equity; recognized the
importance of voluntary commitments on sustainable development;
and stressed the need to engage civil society and incorporate
science into policy; among other points.
Rio + 20 harped on the concept of inclusion of stakeholders at all
levels, which will benefit in decisions which will be participatory
rather being ad hoc. Partnership between government and
stakeholders will ensure viability, equitability and sustainability of
environment and life on the Earth. Rio + 20 was an exercise by
countries attending the Conference to rethink and redefine the way
in which all stakeholders can engage, participate and shape
decisions at all levels of government processes.
A follow up of Rio + 20 is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Its uniqueness is its universality. It means that it is
applicable to all countries having different levels of development. It
focuses on shared responsibilities and mutual accountability on the
basis of global partnership. 2030 Agenda included 17 Sustainable
Development goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. Heads of states and
governments adopted the Transforming Our World: The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development on 25 September, 2015 at
the UN Summit on Sustainable Development. In 2019, there was an
all out call for decade of action to work towards sustainable
development and achieve goals by 2030.
The SDGs include eradication of poverty, hunger, ensuring good
health, well being, education, clean water and sanitation, affordable
and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry,
reducing inequality, sustainable cities and communities, responsible
consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on
land, peace, justice and strong institutions and partnership for the
goals.

Gender and Development: GDI, GII and GEM

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) very much uphold
gender equality and women’s empowerment and identified goals for
achieving the same. The Millennium Project Task Force on Gender
Education has developed a framework outlining why gender equality
is so important to each of the MDGs. The Framework in the line of
the Task Force is provided in Table 14.1.
Human Development Index (HDI) gave a new dimension to
development by considering factors or indicators, other than the
economic ones. HDI components include the basic dimensions of
human development-health, knowledge and living standards. HDI,
however, does not reveal the disparity of development between
males and females. Therefore, keeping the same components of
HDI, the UNDP formulated a Gender Development Index (GDI) in
its Report in 1995. The GDI is the ratio of the HDIs calculated
separately for females and males using the same methodology of
HDI. It is a direct measure of gender gap showing the female HDI as
a percentage of male HDI. Gender gap reveals the percentage of
under-development of females in the three indicator areas, i.e.,
health, knowledge and living standards as compared to their male
counterparts. A diagrammatic exposition of GDI is given in Figure
14.1.

Figure 14.1 Gender Development Index (GDI).

Source: Adapted from UNDP
The GDI is calculated at present for 166 countries which are grouped
into five categories based on the absolute deviation from gender
parity in HDI values: [1] Very High Human Development, [2] High
Human Development, [3] Medium Human Development, [4] Low
Human Development and [5] Other Countries or Territories.
Along with GDI, another measure which is used to calculate gender
inequality is Gender Inequality Index (GII). GII was introduced in
2010 Human Development Report in the 20th Anniversary Edition by
the UNDP. It measures Gender inequality in three important aspects
of human development – [1] Reproductive health, measured by
maternal mortality ratio and adolescent birth rates, [2]
Empowerment, measured by proportion of parliamentary seats
occupied by females and proportion of adult females and males
aged 25 years and older with at least some secondary education and
[3] Economic status expressed as labour market participation and
measured by labour force participation rate of female and male
population aged 15 years and older. The higher the GII value the
more disparities between females and males amounting to low
human development gender-wise. A diagrammatic exposition of GII
is given in Figure 14.2.

Figure 14.2 Gender Inequality Index (GII).

Source: Adapted from UNDP
Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) was also introduced by
UNDP Human Development Report of 1995. This uses estimated
earned income based on non-agricultural wages, percentage of
Parliamentary seats by gender, percentage of technical positions
held by women and percentage of legislators, senior officials and
managers who are women as indicators. The three dimensions
considered in GEM are [1] political participation and decision
making, [2] economic participation and decision-making and power
over economic resources. The index runs from 0 to 1 with 1 being
the maximum, a higher score is always desirable.
If we consider the case of India and its ranking or values in each of
the categories we can assess the gender gap in India. According to
Human Development Report 2015 India ranks 130 as far as HDI is
concerned. The value of Gender Development Index (GDI) is 0.795
and falls under Group 5 of the GDI groups. The Gender Inequality
Index (GII) value is 0.563 which shows great disparity between male
and female in the indicators and indices shown in Figure 14.2.
Percentage of female participation in Parliament is 12.2%.
A striking development took place in the year 2016. 8 March, which
is celebrated every year as International Women’s Day, saw the
adoption of a pledge by the UN on 8 March, 2016, for working
towards and achieving ‘gender equality’. The 2016 theme for
International Women’s Day was “Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step It Up
for Gender Equality”. The 60th session of the UN Commission of the
Status of Women, held on 24 March 2016, reaffirmed the
commitment of the member states for gender-responsive
implementation of Agenda 2030 which among other goals of
sustainable development highlighted the most important goal that is
to be achieved as ‘gender equality.’
As is the usual practice of the UN to declare a theme for
International Women’s Day every year, the 2017 theme was “Women
in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030”. This theme
pointed towards dismal representation of women in global labour
force. The 2018 theme was “Time is Now: Rural and Urban Activists
Transforming Women’s Lives”. This highlighted gender issues like
sexual harassment, femicide, equal pay and women’s political
representation. The 2019 theme for International Women’s Day was
#Balance for Better. This aimed at working towards a gender
balanced world in all spheres of life. The significance underlying the
themes is the necessity to ensure gender equality to achieve
sustainable development.
 EXERCISES
1. Discuss the concept of liberal and alternative views of
development.
2. Outline the growth of the concept of sustainable development.
Discuss the 27 principles of sustainable development as
enunciated in the Rio Declaration of 1992.
3. Discuss the following concepts: Gender Development Index
(GDI), Gender Inequality Index (GII) and Gender Empowerment
Measure (GEM).
 REFERENCES
[1] Toussaint, Eric, The World Bank: A Never Ending Coup D’état,
The Hidden Agenda of Washington Consensus, Vikas Adhyan
Kendra, Mumbai, 2007, pp. 158–159.
[2] Schuurman, Frans J., Beyond the Impasse: New Direction in
Development Theory, Zed Books, London, 1993, pp. 1–9.
[3] Thomas, Caroline, “Poverty, Development, and Hunger” in John
Baylis and Steve Smith (Eds.), The Globalization of World
Politics, Oxford University Press, London, 1997, pp. 456–457.
[4] ibid., p. 460.
[5] Schuurman, op. cit., n. 2, p. 208.
[6] Schuurman, op. cit., n. 2, p. 212.
[7] Schuurman, op. cit., n. 2, p. 218.
[8] Annex 1 of Report of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992).
[9] Schuurman, op. cit., n. 2, p. 218.
[10] Grown, C., Rao Gupta, G. and Kes, A (2005) Taking Action:
Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women, UN
Millennium Project Task Force on Education and Gender Equality,
London and Sterling, VA, Earthscan
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Gender-
complete.pdf

* “Our Common Future”, United Nations World Commission on Environment and

Development; 1987.
Human Rights
INTRODUCTION
“Of all animals with which this globe is peopled, there is none
towards whom nature seems, at first sight, to have exercised more
cruelty than towards man, in the numberless wants and necessities
with which she has loaded him, and in the slender means which she
affords to the relieving of these necessities”.[1] This was the view of
David Hume. Therefore, from this observation it is clear that that
there is a need for protection of man not only from society but also
from his fellow human beings in fulfilling his wants which invariably
make it necessary to have certain ‘rights’ for man. From this urge,
therefore, there arose a whole new way of looking at rights of man,
which came to be identified as the human rights. These are currently
embodied in several international treaties, declarations and charters
as well as contained in several constitutional provisions of the states
of the world.
EVOLUTION
The concept of rights is nothing new and its genesis can be traced to
the philosophical foundations of the liberal democratic tradition in
Europe, especially in Great Britain, France and also the United
States. Human rights got philosophical treatment in the works of
Thoreau* in his treatise, Civil Disobedience, of the English
Philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty (1859), and of
the American Political theorist Thomas Paine in his essay, The
Rights of Man (1791). But before that the Reformation and the Age
of Reason (Renaissance), the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious
Revolution of the seventeenth century also saw contributions of
philosophers to the issue of rights of man in the works of Hobbes in
his Leviathan (1651), Locke in his Two Treatises on Government
(1689), and Rousseau in his Contract Sociale (1762) through his
notion of vox populi or General Will. The ideas expounded by these
philosophers to a great extent influenced the formulation of human
rights documents, declarations, conventions and treaties at
international, national and regional levels.
One of the earliest documents on human rights was the Magna
Carta, which was forced on King John in 1215 by the English
Barons. The Magna Carta embodied such principles as trial by jury
of peers, an end to feudal forced labour, no confiscation of property
without compensation, equality of all before the law, and the right to
free migration. It established the right of widows who owned property
to choose not to remarry and the principles of due process. It also
contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct.[2]
Almost a century later, in 1776, most of the British colonies in North
America, which proclaimed their independence from the British
Empire in the document, “The American Declaration of
Independence”, said, with reference to natural rights, that “We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It
further enumerated, “that to secure these rights Governments are
instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or
abolish it”.[3] This was the reflection of Locke’s idea of resistance,
which conveys the idea that Government is not their master; it is
created by the people voluntarily and maintained by them to secure
their own good. Individuals give up to the society those rights which
are essential to perform certain functions but retain all other natural
rights to himself including the right to resistance if the government
endeavours to invade the arbitrary rights, liberties or fortunes of the
people.[3a]
However, the American Declaration contained relatively very few
explicit guarantees of individual rights. Under strong demands, the
first ten amendments to the US constitutions, generally referred to as
the Bill of Rights, were made to address the shortcomings. Additional
amendments, adopted in succeeding years, guaranteed equal rights
for racial minorities and for women. The French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and the Citizen adopted in 1789 was analogous to the
British and American traditions. The second Article of this
Declaration proclaimed, “The aim of all political association is the
conservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man”. The rights
being liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression. This
Declaration proclaimed major rights of man, which came to be
identified as civil and political rights. The basic principle that all men
are born free and remain so and are equal in their rights; in case of
particular rights, such as equality before law, freedom not to be
arrested except in conformity with law, freedom of opinion, freedom
of expression which were upheld in the Declaration.[4] This liberal,
democratic tradition of human rights were later incorporated in the
Constitution and legal systems of the other countries of the world in
varying degrees. But conspicuous developments have taken place
after the Second World War when efforts were made to
institutionalize and guarantee human rights, either through the
United Nations or through other regional instruments.
The formation of the United Nations was a landmark in the
institutionali-zation of human rights. The UN Charter and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the most explicit
expression of human rights and dignity. Human rights, as enshrined
in the major international instruments, are embodiments of basic
rights of individuals, which they are entitled to enjoy as human
beings. These are certain standards set to induce the states to
respect the fundamental freedoms of their citizens. Apart from the
UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
of 1948, a host of other international instruments on human rights
such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESR) 1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) 1966, the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crime and Genocide (1948), the Convention relating
to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954), the Convention on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1979), the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of
Punishment (1984), the Convention on the Rights of Child (1989)
and others have been adopted. Certain regional instruments have
also been adopted pertaining to human rights and fundamental
freedoms, such as the European Convention of Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) and the American
Convention on Human Rights (1981). These are nothing but
exuberant and exotic expressions of the basic rights of individuals,
which supposedly should be guaranteed by the states to their
citizens. These constitute the first and second generations of
human rights, which mainly aim at seeking economic, political and
social rights for men by asking for or forbidding some kind of actions
on the part of the state Parties to the treaties and conventions.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law,
in the form of treaties, customary international law, general
principles, and other sources of international law. International
human rights law lays down obligations of governments to act in
certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and
protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or
groups.
A third generation of rights has come up for discussion pertaining
to environment and sustainable development. This got expression in
a number of efforts by world leaders and NGOs relating to
environment, climate change, ozone depletion, carbon emission, and
a host of other problems, making the future of the Earth bleak.
Among these, the most significant was the Rio Declaration of 1992
underlying the 27 principles of sustainable development.
Through ratification of international human rights treaties,
governments undertake to put into place the domestic measures and
legislation compatible with their treaty obligations and duties. Where
domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses,
mechanisms and procedures for individual complaints or
communications are available at the regional and international levels
to help ensure that international human rights standards are indeed
respected, implemented and enforced at the local level. The principle
of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international
human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in
numerous international human rights conventions, declarations and
resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights,
for example, noted that it is the duty of the states to promote and
protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, irrespective of
their political, economic and cultural systems.
THE UN AND HUMAN RIGHTS
The Preamble to the UN Charter of 1945 contains a number of
provisions pertaining to the promotion of human rights. It proclaims,
“We the peoples of the United Nations, determined…to reaffirm faith
in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large
and small…have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish
these aims”. The purpose set forth in the Preamble among others is
“to cooperate…in promoting respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all”. Article 1(3) stating the purposes and
principles of the UN, envisages, “To achieve international co-
operation in solving international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.
Article 55 calls for promotion of, inter alia, “universal respect for, and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.[5] Apart from
the UN Charter, a major breakthrough in the development of an
international human rights regime was achieved when the UN
General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights on 10 December, 1948. Since then, 10 December is observed
as the World Human Rights Day.
The Preamble to the Declaration embodies that “recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice
and peace in the world, whereas disregard and contempt for human
rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the
conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human
beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from
fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of
common people”. The General Assembly proclaimed that “this
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the
peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of
territories under their jurisdiction”.[6]
Initially, the United Nations Human Rights Programme
organizationally started as a small division at the United Nations
Headquarters in the 1940s. The Division later moved to Geneva and
was upgraded as the Centre for Human Rights in the 1980s. At the
World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, the international
community decided to establish a more robust human rights
mandate with stronger institutional support. Accordingly, the member
states of the United Nations created the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) by a General Assembly
Resolution in 1993.
All the principal organs of the United Nations are involved in the
protection of human rights. Article 13 enshrines the responsibility of
the General Assembly to: “The General Assembly shall initiate
studies and make recommendations for the purpose of: a. promoting
international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the
progressive development of international law and its codification; b.
promoting international co-operation in the economic, social, cultural,
educational, and health fields, and assisting in the realization of
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion”.
The Economic and Social Council has been charged with the
responsibilities, which are directly linked to the protection and
upliftment of the human rights. Under Articles 62/1 and 62/2 the
Council may make or initiate studies and reports with respect to
international economic, social, cultural, educational, health and
related matters and may make recommendations with respect to any
such matters to the General Assembly to the members of the United
Nations, and to the specialized agencies concerned. It may also
make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for,
and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
Under Article 68, the Council shall set up commissions in economic
and social fields and for the promotion of human rights, and such
other commissions as may be required for the performance of its
functions.
Even specialized bodies such as the ILO, UNICEF, UNESCO and
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are
engaged in human rights protection in one form or the other.
The growth in United Nations human rights activities has seen an
increase with the growth of the strength of the international human
rights movement since the United Nations General Assembly
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December
1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two
Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, form the “International Bill of Human
Rights”.
Alongside the development of international human rights law, a
number of United Nations human rights bodies have been
established to respond to changing human rights challenges. There
are certain Charter-based bodies and eight treaty-based bodies
which work towards the monitoring of human rights situations
worldwide. These constitute the Human Rights Monitoring
mechanisms under the UN. There is also the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to support and assist
these human rights monitoring mechanisms of the UN.
The Charter-based bodies include the former Commission on
Human Rights, the Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic
Review and Special Procedures. Between 1946–2006, the Human
Rights Commission, which was established by the UN Economic and
Social Council, was responsible for monitoring human rights
protection. The Universal Declaration, the ICCPR, the ICESR all
were formulated with active help from this body. However, in 2006
this Commission was replaced by the Human Rights Council.
Human Rights Council was created by the UNGA on 15 March
2006 by adopting the resolution A/RES/60/251 which replaced the
Commission on Human Rights. It held its first meeting on 19 June
2006. This intergovernmental body, which meets in Geneva 10
weeks a year, is composed of 47 elected United Nations member
states who serve for an initial period of three years, and cannot be
elected for more than two consecutive terms. The Human Rights
Council is empowered to prevent abuses, inequity and
discrimination, protect the most vulnerable, and expose the
perpetrators.
The Human Rights Council is different from OHCHR as both have
separate mandates given by the General Assembly. Nevertheless,
the OHCHR provides, substantive support for the meetings of the
Human Rights Council, and follow-up to the Council’s deliberations.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process by which a
review of the human rights records of all the member states of the
UN is done once in every four years.
Special Procedures constitute the mechanisms established by the
Commission on Human Rights and assumed by the Human Rights
Council after its creation in 2006 to address either specific country
situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special
Procedures are either an individual—a special rapporteur or
representative of the Secretary General, or an independent expert—
or a working group.
Special Procedures’ mandates usually call on mandate-holders to
examine, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights
situations in specific countries or territories, known as country
mandates, or on major phenomena of human rights violations
worldwide, known as thematic mandates. There are 30 thematic
mandates and 8 country mandates. All report to the Human Rights
Council on their findings and recommendations. They are sometimes
the only mechanism that will alert the international community on
certain human rights issues.
There are nine core international human rights treaties, two of which
—on persons with disabilities and enforced disappearance—have
not yet come into force. Since the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, all UN member states have
ratified at least one or more of core international human rights treaty.
There are eight human rights treaty-based bodies which are
committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of
the core international human rights treaties. They are created in
accordance with the provisions of the treaty that they monitor.
OHCHR assists the treaty bodies in harmonizing their working
methods and reporting requirements through their secretariats.
The eight human rights treaty-based bodies that monitor
implementation of the core international human rights treaties are:
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
2. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
3. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
4. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW)
5. Committee Against Torture (CAT) and Optional Protocol to the
Convention against Torture (OPCAT)—Subcommittee on
Prevention of Torture
6. Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
7. Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
8. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

(OHCHR)
The High Commissioner for Human Rights is the principal human
rights official of the United Nations. The High Commissioner heads
the OHCHR and works towards the realization of the United Nations
human rights efforts. This body offers leadership, works objectively,
educates and takes action to empower individuals, and assists
states in upholding human rights. The OHCHR, with its headquarters
in Geneva, is a part of the United Nations Secretariat.
It supports the work of the United Nations human rights
mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council, and the core
treaty-based bodies set up for monitoring the state Parties’ in
compliance with the international human rights treaties, promotes the
right to development, coordinates United Nations human rights
education and public information activities, and strengthens human
rights across the United Nations system. This body works to ensure
the enforcement of universally recognized human rights norms,
including promoting both the universal ratification and
implementation of the major human rights treaties and respect for
the rule of law.

Mandate
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is
mandated to promote and protect the enjoyment and full realization,
by all people, of all rights established in the Charter of the United
Nations and in international human rights laws and treaties. OHCHR
is guided in its work by the mandate provided by the General
Assembly in resolution 48/141, the Charter of the United Nations, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent human
rights instruments, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,
the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, and the 2005 World
Summit Outcome Document.
The OHCHR mandate upholds the broad principles of preventing
human rights violations, securing respect for all human rights,
promoting international cooperation in protecting human rights,
coordinating related activities throughout the United Nations, and
strengthening the United Nations activities in the field of human
rights. The OHCHR also makes efforts to integrate a human rights
approach within all work carried out by the United Nations agencies.

Mission Statement
The mission of the OHCHR is to work for the protection of all human
rights for all people; to help empower people to realize their rights;
and to assist those responsible for upholding such rights in ensuring
that they are implemented.
In carrying out its mission, OHCHR:

Gives priority to addressing the most pressing human rights

violations, both acute and chronic, particularly those that put
life in imminent peril.
Focuses attention on those who are at risk and vulnerable on
multiple fronts.
Pays equal attention to the realization of civil, cultural,
 economic, political and social rights, including the right to
development.
Measures the impact of its work through the substantive
benefit that is accrued through it to individuals around the
world.

Operationally, OHCHR works with governments, legislatures, courts,

national institutions, the civil society, regional and international
organizations, and the United Nations system. This, it does to
develop and strengthen capacity, particularly at the national level, for
the protection of human rights in accordance with international
norms. It serves a forum for identifying, highlighting and developing
responses to as human rights challenges, and encourages in human
rights research, education, public information, and advocacy.
OHCHR’s method of work focuses on three major dimensions:
standard-setting, monitoring and implementation of programmes. It
offers the expertise, and substantive and secretariat support to the
different United Nations human rights bodies. It also tries to ensure
that the international human rights standards are implemented in
reality.
 EXERCISES
1. Examine the evolution of the concept of human rights in
international relations.
2. How is the United Nations involved in the noble mission of
protecting and safeguarding the human rights of the ‘peoples’ of
the world?
 REFERENCES
[1] Laqueur, Walter and Rubin, Barry, The Human Rights Reader, A
Meridian Book, New American Library, Times Mirror, New York,
1979, p. 3.
[2] ibid., pp. 101–102. (See also http://www.hrweb.org/history.html.)
[3] Pandey, Veena Pani, International Perspectives on Human
Rights, Mohit Publications, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 4–7.
[3a] Ghosh, Birendranath, Glimpses of Political Thought: Western
and Indian, Mahila Mangal Prakashani, Kolkata, 2004, p. 63.
[4] Pandey, op. cit., n. 3, pp. 4–7.
[5] United Nations Charter of 1945,
http://www.un.org/en/documents/Charter.
[6] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
[7] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhoWeAre.aspx and
http://www.un.org/rights/.

* Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, an essay published in 1849.

Terrorism
INTRODUCTION
The September 11, 2001 attacks on the twin towers of the World
Trade Center, New York, the symbol of prowess and of prestige of
the most powerful state in the world, came as a rude shock not only
to the Americans but also to the people in other parts of the world.
The attacks signalled to the fact that states are no longer
impermeable and even a superpower like the United States of
America can easily become a victim of attacks launched, not by
states but by invisible actors, the most dangerous being the forces of
terrorism, which are at work globally.
TERRORISM: A THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND
SECURITY
The terms, terrorism and terrorist are used very frequently in the
present day world but their origin can be traced to the French
Revolution when they were used to mean different persons/events of
that time. The 1798 supplement of the Dictionnaire of the Académie
Française gave the meaning of terrorism as système, régime de la
terreur. These terms referred to that period of French Revolution
between 1793–1794, identified as the Reign of Terror. Later, it came
to acquire a much broader connotation and one of the few attempts
made to define and explain ‘terrorism’ has been that of Hardman’s
entry in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences published in 1930s.
Here he tried to define terrorism as the method (or the theory behind
the method), which an organized group or party sought to achieve its
avowed aims chiefly through the systematic use of violence.[1] The
central point is that terrorism is an act which uses violence to
achieve its ends and is characterized by certain forms of actions
such as assassinations, bombings, taking people as hostages, and
hijacking of planes. The striking feature is the globalization of
terrorism. Most of the countries in the world like Afghanistan, Brazil,
Myanmar, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, United Kingdom, USA,
India, Indonesia, Italy and others suffer from terrorist onslaughts.
The Ejercito Revolutionary del pueblo (People’s Revolutionary
Group) of Argentina, the Front de Liberation due Quebec (Quebec
Liberation Front) of Canada, the Baader Meinhoff Group (Baader
Solidarity Group) of Germany, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front,
the United Liberation Front of Assam (among others) in India, the
Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) of Ireland, the Red Brigades
of Italy, the Japanese Red Army of Japan, the Palestinian Liberation
Movement and other Arab terrorist Groups such as Black September
Organisation of Palestine, the Huklalahaps of the Philippines, the
Tupamaros of Uruguay, etc. are some of the terrorist organizations in
the world which are disrupting peace and security. But the new
epicentre of terror since the 9/11 tragedy is the Al-Qaeda and the
name associated with it is that of Osama bin Laden. Worldwide
improvement in telecommunications, transportation and technology
have helped to heighten the links between terrorist outfits that are, in
some way, connected with each other either through finances,
training or common enemy, commiting terrorist acts assuming
transnational character. International terrorism of the 20th Century
made its debut in the 1970s, with the Lod airport assault in Israel on
30 May, 1972 when three terrorists killed 27 persons and injured 77
others in an operation carried out by the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). What is remarkable is that, from the
1970s onwards, terrorism assumed a global nature, i.e. it became
international.
International terrorism has often been described as warfare without
territory, waged without armies…It is warfare that is not limited
territorially, sporadic battles may take place worldwide. It is warfare
without neutrals, and with few or no civilian bystanders. International
terrorism covers the categories of terrorist outfits outside the country
of their origin or where they are active. It is also said to comprise
“those incidents of terrorism that have clear international
consequences: incidents in which terrorists go abroad to strike
targets, select victims or targets, because of their connections to a
foreign state (diplomats, executives of foreign corporation), attack
airliners on international flights, or force airlines to fly to another
country”.[2]
Certain key criteria have been identified with terrorism such as
target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the
act. Acts of terrorism can be identified from some of the features
usually associated with it. They are:
1. Use of Violence: Acts of terror are usually associated with
violence, the chief aim being to create shock in the minds of the
people at large as well as the ruling elite. The aim is to send their
message clearly to the target audience by using violence, organized
crimes and destruction of property. To give a jolt to the national
morale and blow to the national security becomes the ulterior motive
of the terrorist. The Mumbai siege of 26/11 and the destruction of the
heritage building of Hotel ‘Taj’, Oberoi Trident Hotel and Nariman
House, alongside butchery of the foreign nationals as well as Indians
inside the sieged buildings were nothing but use of violent methods
to send tremors of terror to India and Indians.
2. Psychological Impact and Fear: Along with the use of violence,
the terrorists aim at breaking the morale of the people by raising
insecurity in their minds. With the severity of the attacks the terrorists
try to create massive psychological impact and fear in the minds of
the people. The objective is to shock and awe large audiences with
acts of terror. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their
power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are
opposed to. This may sometimes negatively affect a government’s
legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist
organization and or ideology behind a terrorist act. The Mumbai
siege and attack on the Taj are pointers in this direction. The attack
on the World Trade Center was a direct assault to American national
pride.
3. Perpetration for a Political Goal: Most often terrorist attacks
have, as their goal, the achievement of a political purpose. Terrorism
then becomes a political tactic. The perpetration of terrorist acts is
often directed in giving shocks to the government so that the
government succumbs under its pressure.
4. Deliberate Targeting of Non-Combatants: The choice of targets
also becomes important. Generally, terrorists aim soft targets like
civilians. Most of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not
because they are threats, but because their suffering accomplishes
the terrorists’ goals of instilling fear, sending a message out to the
world, to the specific government, specific community or just trying to
accomplish their political ends indirectly.
5. Use of Disguise: Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-
combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of
non-combatants. This was seen during the Mumbai siege of
26/11/2008.
6. Unlawfulness or Illegitimacy: Though some official definitions try
to characterize terrorist activities on the basis of illegitimacy or
unlawfulness, there is an inherent difficulty in this. The use of the
criteria on terrorism becomes problematic when one considers the
cases of state-sponsored terrorism.
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: AN OVERVIEW
The history of terrorism, however, can be traced to the 1st century
C.E. when two Jewish groups, the Zealots and the Sicarii were
formed to launch terrorist campaigns against the Roman occupation
of Judea. In 666 C.E., a radical Muslim group, the Kharjites carried
out routined assassinations of Muslim leaders who were found to be
at fault by them. The ‘Assassins’ were another Muslim terrorist
group, which was active during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
The ‘Hashashin’ was another such group of medieval Islam.[3]
The Nardonaya Volya (the Peoples Will) of the nineteenth century
was one of the first modern kind of terrorist groups and it targeted
the Czarist officials for assassinations to arouse social revolt. The
assassinations of Czar Alexander II in 1881 and that of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand in 1914 are some of the noteworthy events of the
nineteenth century where violence was used by some political
groups especially by the anarchists and the nationalists to achieve
their goals.[4] The 1920s witnessed an active right-wing terrorism
among the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists to intimidate
political enemies and attract public attention. However, the
functioning of some groups in Eastern Europe, unlike the present
terrorists, were almost like that of criminal gangs. Similarly, the
contras of Nicaragua associated with the anti-communist dictatorship
in Haiti, Argentina and Mozambique relied heavily on the right-wing
‘death-squads’. They were active throughout the 1980s but their
functioning was more or less like the criminal gangs. But the irony is
that the West working with their Cold War calculations seemed to
tolerate terrorism by such gangs regarding it as a lesser menace
than the threat of communism. Therefore, President Ronald Reagan
and George W. Bush (Sr.) regarded the contras and the Mujahideen
guerillas of Afghanistan as ‘freedom fighters’ and at present the
paradox is that against the backdrop of 9/11, the USA is fighting the
War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personal interpretation plays
a critical role in assessing modern terrorism. Terrorist to one is often
a ‘freedom fighter’ to another. Sometimes, other terms are also
euphemistically used such as separatists, liberator, revolutionary,
militants, guerilla, rebel, jihadi or fedayeen or any other terms in
other languages by either the terrorists themselves or, by their
supporters, or protectors or by the victim states.
It is on the basis of such personal interpretation that guerilla warfare
or movements against the colonial rule became the dominant form of
terrorism after the Second World War in the developing world which
were dubbed as legitimized movements by the political leaders of
this part of the world. A plethora of examples are available to support
such argument. Irgun and Stern Gang used terrorism against the
British rule in Palestine. Algerian revolutionaries systematically
assassinated the French police officers during the 1950s and the
anti-British ‘Mau Mau’ activities in Kenya during the same period are
a few to add to the list. The African National Congress (ANC) of
South Africa too was engaged in bombings and other acts of
terrorism against the system of apartheid and racial segregation
policy of the Whites.
Apart from that, the 1980s witnessed the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism in several Muslim countries, which became the
harbinger of Islamic terrorism on a global scale affecting the safety,
security and sovereignty of the nation states. In 1992, Algeria
witnessed Islamic revolt when a military takeover of the independent
government in Algeria had denied the Islamicists, engaged in aircraft
hijackings, a parliamentary victory in Algeria. Acts of violence and
counter-violence on the part of Islamicists started against the local
governments in Israeli occupied territories and Egypt clearly
revealed that the terrorists’ target was the Western-style secular
governments in this part of the world.[5] This reflected their
unacceptability and intolerance towards the Western model of
democracy. Facing the challenges of globalization and spread of
liberal democratic ideals, this intolerance grew more virulent and got
its ultimate expression on 11 September 2001 when two planes
crashed into the WTC Twin Towers—the symbol of US pride and
prudence—another crashed into the Pentagon and the other missed
the White House by sheer luck. This was followed by an all out ‘War
on Terror’ on the part of the United States and its allies in
Afghanistan and Iraq. But this has backlashed in the form of a series
of terrorist attacks since then on the United States and its allies,
globally. Thus, terrorism has transcended from the local character
and has assumed perilous proportions and transnational character at
an alarming pace (See page 510 for ISIS).

State-Sponsored Terrorism
Another form of terrorism, which has emerged, is the state-supported
terrorism. Between 1970s and 1980s it became quite clear that an
increasing number of states supported the idea of providing support
to the insurgents and terrorists in another state as an instrument of
statecraft. Shultz*, an expert on Low-Intensity Conflict, observes that
“it is an indirect and potentially low-cost means of attacking an
adversary without having to resort to open, interstate armed conflict”.
The USSR and its East European allies, the Western bloc as well as
several Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya
have allegedly been aiding and abating terrorism. Cuba, North Korea
and Yemen reportedly also support terrorism. In the South Asian
context, Pakistan is alleged of extending support and training to the
separatist elements in India and the Mumbai terror siege of
26/11/2008 revealed the Pakistani connections. Bangladesh too
serves as a safe haven for terrorist elements who also have links
with the Pakistani intelligence and international terrorist
organizations. They too pose a security threat to the Indian state.
Therefore, state-sponsored terrorism is a real challenge to the
security and existence of a state with a number of adversaries, each
wanting to score a victory over it through subversive means.

Cyber-Terrorism
Improvement in technologies and telecommunication system is
gradually changing the face of terrorism. Attacks by terrorists are not
confined to the real world only, for they have made inroads into the
virtual world too. Security risks emanating from disruption of working
of computer systems, networks, Internet with an objective to cause
harm, threaten or shock the target audience/group, individual or a
particular government tantamount to cyber-terrorism.
There may be ordinary to professional hackers who might also
commit cyber crime, but that may be a bit different from the cyber-
terror attack. These people or group might perform such functions
purely for economic gains and not for the sake of committing terror
attacks. However, scholars and intelligence officials find it difficult to
draw a line of distinction between cyber crimes and suspected
terrorist cyber attacks. What can be said is that, the latter aims to
generate fear in the similar fashion as a traditional terrorist attack
would do or may even try to cause severe economic, political or
security damage.
E-mail bombings, defacing websites, hacking governmental
confidential database, disrupting computer systems either by
jamming or by sending computer viruses, and credit card frauds are
the most common kinds of cyber terrorism. Besides, internet, e-mails
and improvised telecommunication systems help the terrorists to
stay connected, pass on information and commands, plan and
conduct operations, proselytize, recruit, train and obtain logistical
and financial support. The serious part is that more and more
terrorist outfits are collaborating and hiring professional hackers and
cyber criminals to facilitate them to perform these functions and also
conduct narco-terrorism.
Therefore, use of the cyber space by the terrorist either for
complimenting large conventional attacks or using it to communicate
or conduct planning and operation, equals to loss of confidentiality,
security and integrity.
Despite significant investment in technology and infrastructure, cyber
terrorism represents one of the greatest challenges when it comes to
combating terrorism. Every day, the Internet and countless other
computer systems are under attack. A global strategy and policy for
combating this type of terrorism is the need of the hour.

Narco-Terrorism
Terrorist activities are not limited to only causing physical or
psychological damage to a state or even tarnishing its image. The
effects of terrorism go much deeper into the society when it destroys
the very basis of the state—the population, especially the younger
generation, by creating addiction among its population to drugs,
heroin, cocaine, and the like. This is solely done by the terrorist
organizations to pump in money to support their planning and
conduct their operations. Illegal drug trafficking carried out through
the nexus between terrorist outfits and the transnational criminal
gangs or mafia is a threat to national as well as international peace
and security.
Earlier, narco-terrorism was identified as activities or methods used
by drug mafia to carry out assault on anti-narcotics agencies/forces
which roughly used the tactics of terrorist organizations like the use
of car
bombs, assassinations and kidnappings, against anti-narcotics
police forces. Narco-terrorists in this context refer to individuals such
as the drug lord Pablo Escobar from the Medellý´n cartel in
Colombia and other members of drug cartels, mafia or other criminal
organizations. But the present world scenario reveals that more and
more terrorist organizations are using narcotics trafficking for the
purpose of gaining revenue and for this they are developing
partnerships with transnational drug cartels, mafia or other criminal
organizations. The U.S. Department of State’s International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report documents report that there is a
direct connection between traditional Colombian drug trafficking and
money laundering organizations and Middle Eastern money
launderers tied to Hezbollah. The Talibans even collected money
from drug trafficking to facilitate their resurgence in Afghanistan.
Alongside narco-terrorism, terrorist organizations are linked with
transnational criminal organizations of all kinds in carrying out illegal
arms trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, prostitution and human
trafficking,
credit card fraud, social security and immigration fraud and identity
theft, tax fraud; counterfeiting currencies, pharmaceuticals,
cigarettes, alcohol, pirating videos, compact discs, tapes, and
software and illegal oil trade. The unity and integrity of a state,
therefore, is challenged from many corners, which is making the task
of maintaining law and order a problem. When state leaders like
Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela are on the side of the drug
cartels, then the problem becomes more acute. He stopped
cooperating with the U.S. drug eradication efforts in 2005 and
provided safe haven to the anti-American narco-terrorist groups,
which facilitates transfer of money, arms and operatives to and from
Syria, Southern Lebanon and Iran.[6] The international community
must gear up to tackle these transnational criminal activities to save
the future generations.
COMBATING TERRORISM
There have been several International Conventions which someway
or the other aimed at combating terrorist kinds of activities prior to
9/11/2001, when terrorism reached its climax. Some prominent
among them are the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Acts
Committed on Board Aircraft, 1963, the Hague Convention on
Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970, the International Convention
against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training Mercenaries
adopted by the General Assembly in 1989 and others.
Some other Conventions adopted by the UN are:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes

against Internationally Protected Persons, including
Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 14 December 1973.
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages,
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17
December 1979.
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on 15 December 1997.
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on 9 December 1999.
International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of
Nuclear Terrorism New York, 13 April 2005.

The UN has been quite active in dealing with the problem of

Terrorism worldwide. In 1994, the UNGA condemned “all acts,
methods and practices of terrorism, as criminal and unjustifiable,
wherever and by whomever committed, including those which
jeopardize the friendly relations among States and peoples and
threaten the territorial integrity and security of States”, and for this
purpose it noted that the states should “refrain from organizing
instigating, facilitating, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist
activities…”. The UN Millennium Summit Declaration also upheld the
immediacy of preventing and eliminating international terrorism. After
the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon the UN members found it
necessary to develop international legal framework to tackle
terrorism. The September 11 attacks called for more serious
measures in combating terrorism. The United Nations Security
Council (UNSC) in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 attacks passed
the Resolution 1373 under Chapter VII of the United Nations on 28
September 2001. This resolution imposed several obligations on the
member states including efforts to prevent and suppress financing of
terrorist acts, to criminalize the willful provision or collection, by any
means, of funds, by their nationals or in their territories, to freeze
without delay the funds, financial assets and economic resources of
persons committing or participating in the commission or facilitating
commission of terrorist acts.[7]
Some of the regional instruments to combat terrorism are:

Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, signed at a

meeting held at the General Secretariat of the League of Arab
States in Cairo on 22 April 1998.
Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on
Combating International Terrorism, adopted at Ouagadougou
on 1 July 1999.
European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism,
concluded at Strasbourg on 27 January 1977.
OAS Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism
Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related
Extortion that are of International Significance, concluded at
Washington, DC on 2 February 1971.
OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of
Terrorism, adopted at Algiers on 14 July 1999.
SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism,
signed at Kathmandu on 4 November 1987.
Treaty on Cooperation among States Members of the
Commonwealth of Independent States in Combating
Terrorism, signed at Minsk on 4 June 1999.
Despite several attempts to tackle the menace of terrorism, it is on
the rise. A word of caution rings all over the globe that states now
have to counter invisible forces with might equivalent to a state,
operating transnationally, involved in smuggling, narco-terrorism,
running a risk of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear
terrorism. As President Bush has opined, “This is a different kind of a
war. Our enemies are not organized into battalions, or commanded
by governments. They hide in shadowy networks and retreat after
they strike”.[8] The peoples of the world, not guided by their narrow
interests, acting in accordance to the principles as envisaged in the
Charter of the United Nations have to come together and fight
against these invisible forces and protect the future generations from
the scourge of not only visible wars but also invisible wars.
 EXERCISES
1. Critically discuss how terrorism has become a menace to the
international community.
2. Write an overview of international terrorism and also discuss the
various mechanisms to combat international terrorism.
3. How do you think that terrorism has become a threat to
international peace and security? Elucidate.
 REFERENCES
[1] Laqueur, Walter, A History of Terrorism, Transaction Publishers,
New Brunswick, USA, 2002, pp. 6–7 and 135.
[2] Panna Kaji Amatya, International Terrorism: Threat to Global
Security, in Verinder Grover (Ed.), Encyclopedia of International
Terrorism: History and Development, Vol-1, Deep & Deep
Publications, New Delhi, 2002, pp. 316–317.
[3] Magill, Frank N. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Government
and Politics, Vol-2, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Chicago, 1996,
pp. 1350–1352.
[4] Krieger, Joel (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Politics of the
World, Oxford University Press, London, 2000, pp. 829–831.
[5] Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Defeating Narco-Terrorism”, Huffington Post,
17.3.2009.
http://www.acdemocracy.org/article/invent_index.php?id=683
[6] Magill, Frank N. (Ed.), op. cit., n. 3, pp. 1350–1352.
[7] Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, “An Indian Response to
International Terrorism: A Comprehensive Convention on
International Terrorism”, in Omprakash Mishra and Sucheta
Ghosh (Eds.), Terrorism and Low Intensity Conflict in South Asian
Region, Manak Publications, New Delhi, 2003, pp. 190–193.
[8] “A different war against terror: Bush” The Statesman, 24 August,
2005.

* Richard H. Shultz, “The Low-Intensity Conflict Environment of the 1990’s”

Annals, AAPSS, September, 1991.
International Law, International
Morality
and World Public Opinion
INTRODUCTION
Securing national interest is the prime motive of states in
international relations and to that end they strive to amass national
power vis-à-vis the other states, in order to gain control over them.
But international relations is not left to the whims of the states as
actors, and there are certain limitations to the actions of the states.
These limitations act as constraints on the exercise of national
power. International law, international morality and world public
opinion act as definite constraints on national power. Even the sole
surviving superpower, the United States, is not above international
law, international morality, and world public opinion. It may
manipulate, manoeuvre all the three to justify its actions, but it
cannot ignore the three principal restraining factors in international
relations.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Even before the emergence of the sovereign states as major political
units in the Westphalian sense, sovereign political units had always
felt the need to regulate their relations with other states by adopting
rules and institutions, thus, enabling them to conduct their relations,
in a peaceful manner, abhorring the path of war and violence.
The modern system of international law is mainly a product of the
customs, usages and practices of modern European states and have
been greatly influenced by the writings of the jurists of the sixteenth,
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. These customs and practices
in the course of time have developed and some were even codified
and have gradually come to constitute the body of International Law.
However, we may note that treaties, usages of war, immunities for
diplomatic personnel, and other customary laws were prevalent in
ancient India, China and Egypt for many centuries before the advent
of Christianity.
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) is regarded as the “Father of International
Law”. His De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace),
published in 1625, codified international law as it had developed up
to that time. Later, various attempts were made by the jurists to
codify international law. In 1863, Francis Lieber (1800–1872)
prepared A Code for the Government of Armies used during the
Franco–Prussian War. In 1868 Bluntschli (1808–1872) made a more
comprehensive attempt towards codification. In 1872, David Dudley
Field (1805–1894) issued a Draft Outline of an International Code.
An Italian jurist, Pasquale Fiore (1837–1914) published in 1899 a
code covering various fields of international law.[1]
Besides, individual attempts by jurists, several institutes also
contributed sufficiently towards the codification of international law.
The prominent among them is the Institut de Droit International
(founded in 1873) and the Association for the Reform and
Codification of the Law of Nations, which in 1895 changed its name
to International Law Association. The American Institute of
International Law also made notable contributions. Codification
attempts were also made under the auspices of the League of
Nations. In 1924, the League Assembly and the Council set up a
Committee of Experts to codify certain international laws. A
Codification Conference met at the Hague to consider the subjects
related to nationality, territoriality and responsibility of states for
damage caused within their territory to the person and properties of
foreigners. The United Nations created the International Law
Commission in 1927 which prepared a Declaration on Rights and
Duties of States, and formulated some principles underlying the
Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal (1946) and others. The Human
Rights Commission drafted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic Social and
Cultural Rights (1966), and the Convention on Genocide (1948).
International law is generally acknowledged as a body of rules
accepted by civilized nations, which define their rights and
obligations and the procedures enforcing them.

Definitions of International Law

According to Oppenheim[2] international law is “the name for the
body of customary and conventional rules which are considered
legally binding by civilized states in their intercourse of states with
each other”. And it is “a law between, and not above, the single
states”.
Stowell[3] defined international law as embodying “certain rules
relating to human relations throughout the world, which are generally
observed by mankind and enforced primarily through the agency of
the governments of the independent communities into which
humanity is divided”.
According to Jessup[4], in the study of international law, “The recent
trend in the West, particularly in the United States, is toward a less
technical view of the law. The increasingly influential School of
International Law created by Myres S. McDougal of Yale University
regards law as a process of decision into which all relevant factors,
and not merely technical norms, enter. It virtually identifies law with
policy and calls the study of law a policy science”.
Fenwick[5] regards international law as primarily “the body of rules
accepted by the general community of nations as defining their rights
and the means of procedure by which those rights may be protected
or violations of them redressed”.
According to Starke[6] “International law may be defined as that body
of law which is composed for its greater part of the principles and
rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe, and
therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other…”.

Sources of International Law

The material sources of international law fall into five principal
categories: These are now briefly dealt with.
1. Custom: Customs and usages over a long period of time have
come to acquire legal validity with their recognition by the
international community. In the Paqueta Habana (175 US 677 1900),
the US Supreme Court upheld the validity of customary international
law. Though the preponderance of traditional customary laws has
declined due to the conclusion of a large number of law-making
treaties, for example, the Vienna Conventions of 18 April 1961, of 24
April 1963 and 22 May 1969 on Diplomatic Relations, Consular
Relations, and the Law of Treaties, respectively, scholars still
acknowledge the significant role played by international customs.
2. Treaties: Even before Grotius codified international law, treaties
existed as a source of international law since the written records of
man. Treaties are binding on states who are parties to them and are
under the obligation to respect the terms contained therein. A treaty
can be
(a) law making, laying down the rules of universal or general
applications such as the Covenant of the League of Nations and
the Charter of the United Nations; or
(b) contracts between two or only a few states concerning a
specific matter involving these states exclusively.
3. Decisions of Judicial or Arbitral Tribunals: International judicial
decisions of International Court of Justice and its predecessor, the
Permanent Court of International Justice, are important sources of
international law. The advisory opinions of both these Courts
contributed to the development of international jurisprudence. The
judgement delivered by an international judicial body like the Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 laid down important principles
pertaining to crimes against peace and humanity. The newest body
in this regard is the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC
became a reality on 1 July 2002 when the Rome Statute came into
force. Initially, the Court has jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity. The crime of aggression will be added
once a definition has been agreed upon and added to the Rome
Statute by an amendment. The ICC is meant to complement national
legal structures, and will act only when the national systems are
either unwilling or genuinely unable to proceed. Besides the regional
courts, international courts also play an important role in the
development of international law. The decisions of the state courts
also lead to the formation of rules of international law.
4. Juristic Works: The works of reputed jurists also contribute to the
development of international law. Article 38 of the International Court
of Justice directs the Court to apply judicial decisions and the
teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various
countries as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
5. Decisions or Determinations of the Organs of International
Institutions: These may lead to the formation of rules of
international law when they have been adhered to in practice, or are
in the form of binding determinations and sometimes may be general
decisions or directives of quasi-legislative effect.
Under Article 38, paragraph 1 of its present Statute, which is similar
to the corresponding provision in Article 38 of the Statute of
Permanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of
Justice is directed to apply the following:
(a) International treaties
(b) International customs, as evidence of a general practice
accepted as law
(c) The general principles of law recognized by the civilized
nations. “General principles” refer to those principles accepted
by all nations in the municipal sphere, such as certain principles
of procedure, the principle of good faith, and the principle of res
 judicata.
(d) Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various countries as subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of law.

Scope of International Law

The scope of international law is ever expanding and is generally
considered to include the following laws.
1. Laws of Peace: These include laws relating to states as subjects
of international law pertaining to the birth, recognition and death of a
state, succession, territorial sovereignty, rights and duties of states,
jurisdiction, laws of the sea and maritime highways, state
responsibility, nationality, international economic and monetary law,
disarmament, development and environment.
2. Laws of War: International Humanitarian Law (IHL), often called
the law of armed conflict and earlier referred to as the law of war, is
a special branch of law governing situations of armed conflict, i.e.,
war. IHL seeks to mitigate the effects of war by limiting the choices
and methods of conducting military operations and also obliges the
belligerents to spare persons who do not or no longer participate in
hostile actions. IHL has been formulated through various codes and
conventions such as the Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field (22 August 1864)
which was first revised in 1906, Four Geneva Conventions adopted
in 1949, the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (12
August 1949), the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
condition of the Wounded and Sick and Shipwrecked Members of
Armed Forces at Sea (12 August 1949), the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (12 August 1949), the
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War (12 August 1949), and Protocols Additional to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
In the First Peace Conference in Hague, in 1899, four Conventions
were established and in the Second Peace Conference, in 1907, 13
Conventions were established. The 1907 Conventions on the Laws
and Customs of War on Land and the annexed Hague Regulations
contained provisions on the treatment of prisoners.
3. Laws of Neutrality: The status of neutrality relates to the rights
and duties of neutral states on the one hand and of belligerent states
on the other. The duties under such circumstances of both the
neutrals and the belligerents include:
(a) duties of abstentions from giving any sort of assistance direct or
indirect to either belligerent sides by the neutrals and the
prohibition of commitment of warlike acts on the neutrals by the
belligerents.
(b) duties of prevention by the neutrals within their territory and
warlike measures, enlistment of troops and the like, and also the
belligerent’s duty to prevent the ill-treatment of neutral envoys or
neutral subjects and any injury to neutral property on enemy
territory occupied by it.
(c) duties of acquiescence in the acts of the belligerent states by
the neutral states with respect to the commerce of its nationals if
they are duly warranted by laws of war-like seizure of vessels
under its flag for carriage of contraband, adjudications by Prize
Courts and the like. Similarly, belligerent states must also
acquiesce in by neutral states of such members of its armed
forces as taking refuge in neutral territory or in granting of
temporary asylum by the neutral ports to hostile warships so that
necessary repairs may be effected.

Is International Law a Proper Law?

Many consider international law as the vanishing point of
jurisprudence. The characteristic feature of international system is
the sovereignty and unaccountability of states, which makes the
applicability of international law less effective. Hoffman[7] argues,
“International law like its Siamese twin and enemy, war, remains a
crystallization of all that keeps world politics sui generic”. In times of
political harmony, international law is applicable and, in times of
dissonance, war takes over.
One theory has upheld that international law is not a true law but a
code of moral force only. The forerunner of this school of thought
was the English Jurist, John Austin (1790–1859). He in his Lectures
on Jurisprudence (published posthumously by Sarah Taylor Austin in
1863) enunciated the Austinian theory of law. According to Austin,
law is the command of the sovereign and international laws are
issued not from a sovereign authority which is politically superior.
Therefore, in the absence of a visible sovereign authority the rules
cannot be legal rules, but rules of moral of ethical validity only.
Austin, contends that, in case of international law, as there is no
visible authority with the legislative power and even with any
determinate power over the society of states, rules on international
law is not true law but positive international morality or opinions or
sentiments current among nations generally.
However, there are some scholars who consider international law as
a law. Starke gives certain arguments refuting the Austinian view on
international law. He contends:
1. Austin’s general theory of law has been refuted by modern
jurists. They have shown that earlier times many communities
without a formal legislative authority had a system of law, which
was observed and had also the binding effect like the law of any
state with true legislative authority.
2. At present a huge body of ‘international legislation’ has come
into existence as a result of law-making treaties and conventions
and, therefore, the proportion of customary international law has
diminished in proportion. Though there is an absence of
sovereign legislative authority at the international level, the
procedure for formulating these rules of international legislation
by means of international conferences or through international
organizations is settled, if not quite similar or as efficient as any
legislative procedures of a state.
3. The authoritative agencies responsible for conducting
international business like those occupying positions in various
foreign offices, do not consider international law as merely a
moral code.
Therefore, Starke opines that international law is law proper and not
the vanishing point of jurisprudence. It has a binding force which
limits the exercise of national power, though its nature is different
from the nature of municipal law as it is law among states and
regulates the conduct of the states.
There exists another debate regarding the relationship between
international law and municipal law. Which one has a primacy over
the other? If municipal law is taken in the first instance, one would
find that it is generated by well-developed legislative institutions such
as the Parliament (UK, India, for instance) or the Congress (e.g.
USA) or the like. International law, as compared to the municipal law,
has no institutionalized legislative sources. The United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) may resemble a legislature of a state
and can be regarded as a global legislature, but the decisions taken
in the UNGA reflect the aspirations and wishes of the majority of
governments represented in the United Nations. These resolutions
have neither legal nor substantive binding power.
Further, municipal laws have proper agents for their execution such
as the executive branch of a government of a state. Such institutions
do not exist at the global level. Even the United Nations cannot be
regarded as an executor of International law. In case of municipal
law there is also a system which enables such laws to be interpreted
and applied to specific cases by the municipal courts that have
compulsory jurisdiction regardless of consent over their subjects. On
the other hand, the International Court of Justice can hear only those
cases referred to it by the consenting governments or international
organizations. The greatest weakness of this whole system is that
there is no executive authority to enforce the Court’s decision. It is
entirely up to the states to adhere to the verdict of the Court.
The adoption or adherence to international law in most cases
depend on how far the specific municipal measure of statutory or
judicial incorporation has been undertaken by a state so that the
international law becomes binding within the municipal sphere too.
Therefore, regarding the question of primacy, it is often considered
that municipal laws enjoy a primacy over international laws. In India,
e.g., the Directive Principles of the State Policy under Part IV of the
Indian Constitution, Article 51 contains provisions that the state shall
endeavour to:
1. Promote international peace and security.
 2. Maintain just and honourable relations between nations.
3. Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the
dealings of organized peoples with one another.
4. Encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
In Britain, the customary rules of international law are deemed to be
part of the law of the land and are applied by the British municipal
courts with certain qualifications. The rules must not be inconsistent
with the British statute and that once the scope of such customary
rules has been decided by the British courts of final authority, all
British courts are thereafter bound by that decision even though a
divergent customary rule of international law later develops. As far
as treaties are concerned, the negotiation, signature and ratification
of treaties are matters belonging to the prerogative powers of the
Crown and the legislative domain of the Parliament.
The American practice relating to customary rules of international
law is very similar to the British practice. Such rules are administered
as part of the law of the land. Regarding treaties, the American
practice rests upon the provisions of the US Constitution stipulating
that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of
the United States”, shall be “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article
VI, para 2).
However, it has also been pointed out by experts on international law
that if international law draws its validity from a state constitution, it
will cease to be in force once the constitution on which its authority
rests, disappears. The operation of international law has proven that
it is independent of change or abolition of constitutions. The London
Conference of 1831 upheld that “treaties do not lose their force
despite internal constitutional changes”. Even the entry of new states
into the international society binds the new states with international
law without its consent and such consent, even if it is expressed is
merely declaratory of the true legal position. The dismemberment of
the erstwhile Soviet Union and the emergence of new states did not
end the Soviet Union’s Treaty obligations with other states, and the
newly independent states could not make themselves insulated from
international law. Above all, it is the duty of every state to bring not
only its laws but also its constitution into harmony with international
law so that international peace and security can be preserved.
In reality, states conduct their relations with other members of the
international community on the basis of international law and in most
cases they do adhere to or uphold international law. During peace
and also during war, the states try to justify their actions as valid in
the eyes of international law. Despite the weaknesses of
international law, when compared to the municipal laws, it cannot be
said that international law is a weak law. It upholds the sovereignty of
states and preserves that sovereignty by defining the rights and
obligations of the states.
INTERNATIONAL MORALITY
International morality is not only difficult to define but it also involves
a cumbersome exercise to understand its effectiveness on the
actions of states in pursuit of their national power. In such a
discussion, there is always a chance of either overestimating the
impact of ethics or underestimating its influence on the actions of
statesmen and diplomats. If international politics is perceived as a
Hobbesian state of nature, then the statesmen and diplomats would
exceed all limits to pursue their power objectives. In reality, however,
they do much less than they actually could have done and this is
because their actions violate or are limited by certain moral rules.
The restraining function of the moral rules is “most obvious and most
effective in affirming the sacredness of human life in times of peace”.
[8] This is international morality which consists of moral principles

agreed upon by the comity of nations. They comprise rules of

customary international law, general principles, conventions and
treaties.
The sanctions behind international morality are domestic public
opinion and world public opinion. While domestic public opinion is an
internal constraint on the foreign policy decision-makers, world public
opinion is the external restraint on the actions of statesmen and
diplomats. It is for their own interests that the states subject
themselves to such restraints. States are always concerned with
their image and in no way can risk jeopardizing their ‘decent’ image
by dishonouring domestic or world public opinion. Even, a
superpower like the United States, due to its heavy involvement in
the Vietnam War in the 1960s, had to succumb ultimately to the
growing adverse domestic as well as world public opinion.

Role of International Morality

Morgenthau highlights the importance of international morality.
According to him, it has three dimensions.
1. Protection of Human Life in Peace: The Covenant of the
League of Nations contained and the Charter of the United Nations
contains provisions regarding the use of force by states. Force can
only be used either for self-defence or in pursuance of a decision
made collectively by the members of UNO. In other words, the UN
Charter is the embodiment (earlier the Covenant was) of protection
and safeguard of international peace and security.
Various Conventions and Declarations also try to safeguard human
life and dignity such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(1966), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights (1966), the Convention on Genocide (1948).
2. Protection of Human Life in War: Moral limitations are also
imposed during times of war by various Conventions and
Declarations. In Chapter IV, Book III of On the Law of War and
Peace, under the heading “On the Right of Killing Enemies in a
Public War and on Other Violence against the Person”, Grotius
presented a catalogue of acts of violence committed in ancient
history against enemy persons without discrimination. He himself
justified some on the ground that the war was waged for a just
cause. Since then the whole concept of war has undergone change
and it is now accepted that war is not a contest between whole
populations, but only between the armies of the belligerent states.
Therefore, a distinction between combatants and non-combatants
became fundamental legal and moral principles governing war.
These found expressions in the Hague Conventions, with respect to
the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1899 and 1907 and the
Geneva Conventions of 1864 superseded by those of 1906, 1929
and 1949, and their additional Protocols. The International Red
Cross Society (ICRC) is entrusted with the mandate to uphold the
International Humanitarian Law.
3. Moral Condemnation of War: There is increasing realization on
the part of the states that use of war as an instrument of foreign
policy is restricted by certain moral limitations. The two Hague
Conferences of 1899 and 1907, the League of Nations (1919), the
Kellog–Briand Pact of 1928—all outlaw aggressive war, and the
United Nations (1946) upholds the avoidance of war as its ultimate
objective. War in the present has assumed perilous proportions due
to the advent of newer technologies and nuclear materials resulting
in the production of weapons of mass destruction like the nuclear
bomb. Therefore, efforts towards disarmament and arms control are
also being made to prevent arms race and outbreak of war among
states.
WORLD PUBLIC OPINION
It is widely acknowledged that world public opinion acts as an
external restraint on the foreign policy decision-makers of any state.
However, the effectiveness of the world public opinion of restraining
a particular state from performing an action, which might violate
international law and morality, is questionable. It is equally difficult to
define and even harder to prove the existence of world public
opinion.
Morgenthau has offered a definition which partially covers the
element and extent of world public opinion. He states, “World public
opinion is obviously a public opinion that transcends national
boundaries and that unites members of different nations in a
consensus with regard to at least certain fundamental international
issues”. The question which arises is: Does such consensus exist
and if so, can it be regarded as world public opinion? It is true that
human beings have a desire for freedom, self-expression, self-
development, and therefore, develop a certain perspective, opinions
or expectations regarding certain fundamental aspects of foreign
policy behaviour of states. It is hardly tenable that there is a
tremendous psychological unity of the world and upon this
psychological conviction, similar ethical postulates and political
aspirations may be shared by all men under certain conditions. Most
often this is not the case. This world is an unequal world with
unequal distribution of power and great economic disparity dividing
the globe into the haves and the have nots, the North and the South,
the Developed World and the Third World, and so on. Even the same
moral precepts may assume different meanings in different
environments. As imperialism, racialism, colonialism, neo-
colonialism and dependency might have different interpretations for
the once colonial powers and the Third World, perceptions regarding
some particular issues like the given ones may give rise to
consensus among some groups of states which in most cases are
driven by their common historical experiences and their struggle
against particular actions of other groups of states, which for them
might be exploitative and discriminatory. Earlier, such common
perceptions had united a certain part of the world and given rise to
powerful movement like the NAM. However, it can hardly be agreed
upon that this movement was able to forge world public opinion as it
was critically viewed by the Western states.
Massive technological revolution and invasion of information
technology have undoubtedly removed the barriers between the
individuals and have increased the chances of their contacts, and
thus greater opportunity for building up of world public opinion; but
very rarely we can perceive the existence of world public opinion on
fundamental issues in international relations. Morgenthau points out
that the information and ideas that are transmitted are reflections of
the experiences that have moulded philosophies, ethics and
conceptions of different people belonging to different states. If these
experiences and their intellectual derivatives are identical throughout
humanity, then the free flow of information and ideas would indeed
create by itself a world public opinion; but this is hardly the case.
Thus, an American perception would differ from a Russian and an
Indian perception from a Pakistani. Therefore, it is hard to get an
aggregate of their opinion, that will give rise to world public opinion.
In the past there have been attempts to mobilize public opinion
against the foreign policy of certain governments like the Japanese
aggressions against China in the 1930s, the German foreign policies
since 1935, the Italian attack against Ethiopia in 1935, and the
Russian suppression of the Hungarian revolution of 1956. However,
even if these attempts were successful in generating world public
opinion, these did not have restraining effects on the policies of
those opposed. A more recent example is the US action in Iraq and
Afghanistan in the name of “War on Terror” disregarding the world
public opinion alongside projecting its action as justified and trying to
build up a consensus globally to support its action in the name of
‘War on Terror’.
Nationalism also prevents the crystallization of world public opinion.
Morgenthau stated that between the elemental aspirations for life,
freedom and power which unite mankind and which could provide
the roots for a world society and universal morality and the political
philosophies, ethics and objectives held by individuals, there
intervenes the nation. Therefore, the intellectual derivatives from this
nation and nationalism conception disunite the human beings of the
world. Hence, for an American, the image of the Soviet Government
during the Cold War days was that of a deceitful, untrustworthy,
aggressive, unreliable nation which represented an evil empire and
must be “contained”.
However, it would be too pessimistic to totally negate the importance
of world public opinion. World public opinion was supposed to be the
foundation of the League of Nations (1919) which was to be the
enforcement agency for the Kellog–Briand Pact of 1928, the
decisions of the Permanent Court of International Justice and
international law in general. Under the present situation, because of
globalization and immense revolution in technological front and
information technology (IT), common problems relating to peace,
war, environment, development, sustainable development,
disarmament, equity and justice, democracy and other issues have
induced individuals to transcend national barriers and establish a
psychological unity among peoples of different states and thus pave
the way for the development of world public opinion. It must also be
acknowledged that world public opinion does have a restraining
effect on the actions of the states. Even the sole surviving
superpower, viz. USA, cannot disregard the world public opinion and
hence it is often engaged in the task of justifying its action as one
upholding international law, international morality and world public
opinion. Most governments are very much concerned with their
prestige and cannot afford the world to be critical of its policy abroad.
It is only under certain crisis situations that the states are bent on
defending their objectives even at the risk of breaking commitments,
violating norms while strictly following national imperatives. But
under normal conditions, the statesmen and diplomats choose policy
alternatives which are likely to meet less hostile reaction and evoke
world public opinion.
 EXERCISES
1. Define the concept of international law. Is it a proper law?
2. What are the sources of international law?
3. Discuss the nature and scope of international law.
4. What do you understand by international morality? Examine the
role of international morality in international relations.
5. Comment on the role of world public opinion in restraining the
actions of states in international relations.
 REFERENCES
[1] Sharma, Urmila and S.K. Sharma, International Relations,
Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi, 2000, p. 31.
[2] Oppenheim, L., International Law, Longmans, Green & Co., New
York, 1905, p. 2.
[3] Stowell, Ellery C., International Law, Holt, New York, 1931, p. 10.
[4] Jessup, Phillip C., Transnational Law, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1956.
[5] Fenwick, Charles G., International Law, Century, New York, 1924,
p. 34.
[6] Starke, J.G., Introduction to International Law, Aditya Books,
New Delhi, 1994, p. 3.
[7] Hoffman, Stanley, “International Systems and International Law,”
in Richard Falk and Saul H. Mendlovitz (Eds.), The Strategy of
World Order, International Law, Vol. 2, World Law Fund, 1966, p.
134, cited in Theodore A. Couloumbis and James H. Wolfe,
Introduction to International Relations: Power and Justice,
Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 1981, p. 257.
[8] Morgenthau, Hans. J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 1985, p. 249.
Indian Foreign Policy
INTRODUCTION
India has travelled a long way since her Independence in 1947 and
is gradually assuming the status of an ‘emerging power’. Despite
several challenges from within her polity arising from her unique
character as a sub-continental, multilingual entity, severely
constraining her ability, India has managed to exhibit her prowess in
terms of nuclear as well as military capabilities while exercising
restraint whenever required.
India’s foreign policy has evolved over the years under the influence
of the country’s geo-strategic location, economic conditions, political
tradition, societal fabric, national character, national morale and
personality traits of the leaders. If these constitute the internal factors
shaping the Indian Foreign Policy, then international political
environment, foreign policies of major powers and those of the
neighbouring countries comprise the external determinants of Indian
foreign policy. It must be noted here that Indian foreign policy has
never been a static one and it has undergone changes due to the
changing domestic as well as international scenario.
BASIC OBJECTIVES
It can be said with certainty that certain basic objectives, which
enshrine the main principles of Indian foreign policy, have remained
unchanged overtime and constitute the pillars of Indian foreign
policy. These basic principles are now outlined.
1. Non-Alignment: The chief architect of non-aligned policy was
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. His main
concern was consolidating the Independence earned after years of
struggle and ensuring peace and economic development of India.
Nehru’s ardent desire, therefore, became an effort to keep India out
of ‘entangling alliances’. However, the immediate impetus to the
formulation of non-alignment was provided by the Cold War between
the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, which
divided the world into two hostile camps. Further, the US attempt to
rope in a number of Asian countries into various military alliances
like the Baghdad Pact (1955–1958), SEATO (1954) and CENTO
(1958–1979) as part of their ‘containment’ policy, and to which
India’s neighbour Pakistan was also being drawn into, made non-
alignment a better option to Nehru.
Nehru professed distancing India from the two power blocs, with the
aim of ensuring development and fighting social evils such as
poverty, hunger and death. India also preferred to keep away from
the power politics of groups aligned against one another which had
led in the past to two World Wars, and which might again lead to
disasters on an even vaster scale in the future. Nehru felt that “to
enter into an alliance was to lose one’s independence because at
times of emergency the recipient country will have to take orders
from the country supplying the arms. Worse still, Asian countries
entering into alliance with the West, would give the West an
opportunity to solve Asian problems minus Asia”.[1]
2. Anti-Colonialism and Anti-Imperialism: The roots of India’s anti-
colonial and anti-imperialistic politics lie in her own experience of
British imperialism. The anti-imperialist feeling, which gathered
during the Indian freedom movement, through mass struggles such
as the Swadeshi Movement, Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil
Disobedience Movement, and Quit India Movement, got expression
in the foreign policy posture adopted by India after Independence.
Therefore, post-Independence, India expressed solidarity with the
national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
India used the NAM forum and also the UN platform to fight for the
cause of the people still under the colonial rule. India extended help
to the people fighting for independence of Indonesia, Libya, Tunisia,
Algeria, Morocco, and most importantly, the decolonization of
Namibia and South Africa. She even played a vital role in the
evolution of independent Bangladesh with her support to the people
of East Pakistan to liberate themselves from the yoke of West
Pakistan. India never ceased its struggle against colonialism as
increasingly traditional colonialism was being replaced by neo-
colonialism. India also continued to play a vital role in the Third
World’s struggle to establish a New International Economic Order
(NIEO), with a vision of international equity and justice.
3. Anti-Racialism: Like imperialism, racialism also can be traced to
India’s historical experiences. The British racialist policy in India
“permeated all the services and constituted the distinguishing
characteristic of British rule in the East in the nineteenth century”.[2]
Therefore, post-Independence anti-racialism became one of the
major principles of Indian foreign policy. By 1947, anti-imperialism
and anti-racialism became categorical imperatives of the Indian
national mind and Nehru only expressed a deep Indian sentiment
when in 1946 as the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of
India, he stated that anti-imperialism and anti-racialism were the
“kernel of our foreign policy”.
Soon after Independence, India began to play a pioneering role in
condemning the policy of apartheid and racial discrimination pursued
by the Government of South Africa. India sought to rally the
international community to force the Pretoria Government to
abandon its policy of apartheid. In 1952, India, along with 12 other
Afro-Asian states, raised the issue of apartheid in the UN and
expressed her grave concerns regarding the practice as it was
tantamount to open violation of the UN Charter and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and constituted a threat to international
peace. India also took up the cause of the ‘black’ population in USA
and also the African population of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). She had
also used the NAM platform to support the struggle of the people
against racialism and apartheid. India still believes in the relevance
of its anti-racial policy, and therefore, continues to fight against such
practice against humanity.
4. Panchsheel or Peaceful Coexistence: The cardinal principle of
Indian foreign policy is Panchsheel or peaceful coexistence. It was in
1954 that Beijing and New Delhi jointly proposed Five Principles of
Peaceful Coexistence (known as Panchsheel in India) primarily to
guide the bilateral relations between them. The Five Principles of
peaceful coexistence, collectively known as Panchsheel, were
enunciated by the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and the Indian Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru during the negotiations on the India–
China Agreement on Tibet concluded on 29 April 1954. But the Five
Principles were nothing new to India and can be found in the ancient
scriptures. Moral, spiritual, religious and cultural teachings have
been inculcating the spirit of mutual respect, tolerance, peaceful
coexistence and respect for each other’s integrity and independence
among its people for centuries.[3]
These five principles of Panchsheel are:
1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty
2. Mutual non-aggression
3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs
4. Equality and mutual benefit
5. Peaceful coexistence.
The Panchsheel became the moving force behind Asian and African
movements for equality and freedom against domination of the world
by colonial and imperialist powers and was also endorsed by the UN.
Although the Five Principles of Panchsheel are quintessentially
reflected in the UN Charter, drafted a decade earlier than the
Panchsheel, the then UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold
aptly described them as “reaffirmation of the aims and obligations of
the United Nations”. Panchsheel got wider acceptability when the
resolution moved by Yugoslavia, Sweden and India on 11 December
1957 in the UN was adopted unanimously in the UN General
Assembly.
Although the 1962 Sino–Indian crisis came as a Chinese betrayal,
India continues to have faith in these principles in her relations with
her neighbours as well as with other members of the international
community. In his bid to improve India’s relations with her
neighbours, Prime Minister I.K. Gujral reaffirmed those principles and
gave them a new dimension. This was known as the Gujral
Doctrine. Under this doctrine, unilateral concessions were made to
the neighbouring countries with regard to trade and travel without
expecting reciprocity.
5. Disarmament: Another important foreign policy posture of India is
that of disarmament and arms control. India herself is not a signatory
to Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT, 1968) and Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996) as these international regimes are
considered discriminatory and create nuclear ‘haves’ and ‘have
nots’. It was under India’s initiative that broad proposals were
forwarded at the Six-Nation Summit in 1985 held in New Delhi. But
the irony is that India and Pakistan have entangled themselves in an
arms race and both conducted nuclear tests in 1998. Experts opine
that this arms race might destabilize the peace and security of the
South Asian region. The danger increases manifold as Pakistan,
India’s menacing neighbour, is involved in clandestine transfer of
nuclear R&D from North Korea, Libya and Iran, which poses a threat
not only to India but to the entire South Asian region. Besides,
Pakistan being a country facing political turmoil, economic instability
and gradually becoming a safe haven for the terrorists with
increasing intrusion of Talibans into Pakistan and their increased
activities, there is every possibility that the nukes might fall into the
wrong hands, which will be the worst nightmare coming true. On the
other hand, Indian democracy faces stiff challenges from within, but
the polity is still strong enough to adopt a nuclear doctrine
characterized by restraint and notable non-proliferation credentials.
India earned criticisms after the 1998 nuclear tests but she has
shown restraint and has adopted the posture of No-First-Use (NFU),
unlike Pakistan which proposes First-Use (FU) of nukes. Besides,
India has always championed the cause of peaceful use of nuclear
energy. Even the Indo–US Nuclear Deal of 2008 contained
provisions for use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes.
6. Faith in the United Nations: India has always reposed great faith
in the United Nations and always upheld its basic principles and
objectives. It has also taken part in a number of peacekeeping
activities under the auspices of the United Nations. India contributed
an infantry battalion to UN operations in the Gaza strip from 1956
onwards. Another large contingent of the Indian Army and Air Force
was sent for the Congo peacekeeping mission in 1961. Smaller
groups comprising Indian military personnel have been involved in
UN monitoring and peacekeeping exercises in Korea (1953), Indo–
China (1954), Lebanon (1958), Angola (1988) and along the Iran–
Iraq border. Troops were also sent to Rwanda in 1994, Somalia in
1993–1994, and to a host of other UN peacekeeping missions.
Simultaneously, India has made a strong plea for an overall reform of
the United Nations in order to make it more representative and
democratic. India is also striving for a permanent seat in the United
Nations Security Council. Just before the G–8 Summit in July 2009,
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has called for reform in the UN
and also pleaded for inclusion of India as a permanent member of
the UN Security Council.
7. Ties with Commonwealth: India continues to nurture her relation
with the Commonwealth. Though, initially there were apprehensions
about India’s membership to the Commonwealth as a compromise
on its sovereignty, yet India with its Republican constitution
continues to have good ties with the Commonwealth which in reality
helps India to develop economic and other relations with the
members of the Commonwealth.
8. Fight against Terror: International terrorism is an increasing
menace to international peace and security. India herself bore the
brunt of terrorist onslaughts over the past several years. India has
always voiced her concern over the issue of terrorism. After the 9/11
attacks on the US, terrorism became a global concern and there
have been several attempts to combat terrorism. India has used the
UN, the NAM and the SAARC platforms to mobilize the international
community to fight terrorism. India and the other South Asian states
signed the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of
Terrorism, at Kathmandu on 4 November 1987. India continues her
fight against terrorism along with the world community.
EVOLUTION OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY: 1947–PRESENT
Foreign Policy under Jawaharlal Nehru: The Formative Years
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (1947–1964) was not only the first Prime
Minister of India but also the chief architect of the Indian foreign
policy; for nearly twenty years, he guided the country’s participation
in the world affairs. Even after his death, his legacy continued till the
end of the Cold War and cessation of bipolar politics. This was more
because of the fact that the environment of Indian foreign policy did
not change much—bipolarity continued till 1990, incessant bitter
relations with Pakistan and the China factor remained as constant
determinants of the course of Indian foreign policy.
Further, Nehru’s views persisted because he was succeeded by
individuals who were either unskilled in foreign policy [Lal Bahadur
Shastri (1964–1966)] or those who were committed to Nehruvian
principles [Indira Gandhi (1966–1977) and (1980–1989) and Rajiv
Gandhi (1984–1989)] who were also his daughter and grandson,
respectively. Though both had introduced changes in Indian foreign
policy, yet they expressed their commitments to the Nehruvian
principles. Besides, the long single party domination of Indian politics
by the National Congress created generations of Indian politicians
and bureaucrats committed to Nehruvianism.[4]
Under Nehru’s guidance, Indian foreign policy was the inevitable
consequence of the geo-strategic realities of India. Nehru’s
worldview was conditioned by his belief that the world is not
necessarily friendly to a weak and vulnerable state such as India,
and that national interests must shape the foreign policy of any state.
This way, Nehruvian internationalism was realistic but it was also
liberal in the sense that he thought states can rise above “the rigors
of anarchy and fashion at least seasons and locales of peace and
cooperation. They must do so because power politics is flawed and
will end in catastrophe”. Therefore, in many instances, Nehru himself
wavered continually between idealism and national egoism or
realism and, under such reductionist realism, Nehru pursued policies
that advanced national interest as well as included a good measure
of idealism or liberal internationalism.
India under Nehru, therefore, embarked on the policy of non-
alignment as she was keen to preserve her national interest by
keeping away from either the Western capitalist bloc led by the
United States or the Socialist bloc led by the Soviet Union. Nehru
told the Constituent Assembly on 4 December 1947: “Whatever
policy we may lay down, the art of conducting foreign affairs of a
country lies in finding out what is most advantageous to the country.
We may talk about international goodwill and mean what we say. But
in the ultimate analysis government functions for the good of the
country and no government dare do anything, which in the short or
long run is manifestly to the disadvantage of the country”.[5]
Another major challenge faced by India was economic development.
After independence, India faced the serious problem of poverty
alleviation and for that she realized that dependence on both the
blocs was necessary to spearhead India’s economic and industrial
development. Nehru was quite realistic to recognize the economic
strength that was central to the stability and social coherence of the
country. Economic development would help to build up a strong
India. Therefore, in March 1947, he stated in the Constituent
Assembly, “if we had been some odd little nation in Asia or Europe it
would not have mattered much, but because we counted and
because we’re going to count more and more in the future,
everything we do becomes a matter of comment and many people
do not like our counting so much. It is not a question of our viewpoint
or of attaching ourselves to this or that bloc, it is merely a fact that
we are potentially a great nation and a big power and possibly it is
not liked by some people that anything should happen to strengthen
us”.
Simultaneously, Nehru rejected isolationism and he clearly stated
that “ we maintain our old ties with those countries because no
nation can live in isolation….That some people obsessed by passion
and prejudice disapproved of our relations with the Anglo-American
bloc is not sufficient reason for us to break any bond which is of
advantage to us”. Thus, Nehru, despite vehement criticisms, forged
the membership of the Commonwealth. He viewed that it did not
compromise the country’s freedom in international affairs, but it acted
as a shield against the reigning powers of the day.
Nehru was against the creation of military blocs in Asia and Africa
and he saw their creation as a manifestation of neo-colonialism. He
also abhorred racialism and delivering the Presidential address of
the Indian National Congress session on 24 January 1954, Nehru
said the issues confronting the Third World countries were
colonialism and racialism. India under Nehru also showed a strong
commitment to the struggle against imperialism and colonialism as
well as a commitment to the unity of the struggling nation of the
world. India gave a call for the freedom of all countries under the
colonial rule and solidarity with the worldwide anti-imperialist struggle
and was vocal in various international fora like the General
Assembly, Conferences of Non-aligned Movement, and spoke in
unison with the Third World countries for a New International
Economic Order.
Regarding Nehru’s policy towards India’s neighbour, it can be said
that India’s bilateral relations with Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka
remained, by and large, cordial. There were some irritants in Indo–
Nepal relations, which stemmed from Nehru’s reaction to the Royal
Coup in Nepal in 1960 and also in India–Sri Lankan relations
because of granting citizenship to the Tamil plantation workers in
northern Sri Lanka.[6]
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI TO INDIRA GANDHI—
THE CONSOLIDATION PHASE
Lal Bahadur Shastri (1965–1966)
After the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri became
the Prime Minister of India for a very brief period. He gave currency
to the slogan Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan on the wake of the first real Indo–
Pak War, which took place in September 1965. Under his leadership
India gave a befitting reply to Pakistan between Indian and Pakistan
and the Indian army reached almost the outskirts of Lahore.
Ultimately, ceasefire was declared under the auspices of the United
Nations Security Council. The Soviet Union took the initiative to bring
about peace negotiations between India and Pakistan and Shastri
met Field Marshall Ayub Khan, President of Pakistan, in Tashkent
(now the capital of Uzbekistan) and the Tashkent Declaration was
signed on 10 January 1966. This provided for the following:
1. Restoration of normal and peaceful relations between India and
Pakistan.
2. Reaffirmation of their obligations under UN charter to settle their
disputes through peaceful means.
3. Agreement to base their relations on the principle of non-
interference in the internal affairs of each other.
4. Meetings at the highest level as also at other levels to discuss
matters of direct concern to both.
Lal Bahadur Shastri also took initiative to improve India’s relationship
with her other neighbours such as Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
With Sri Lanka, Shastri signed an Agreement with Sirimavo
Bandaranaike in October 1964. Under this agreement, out of the
775,000 Indian Tamil settlers in Sri Lanka, 300,000 were to be
granted Sri Lankan citizenship and 325,000 were to be repatriated to
India within a period of 15 years. The status of the future of the
remaining 150,000 Tamils was to be settled later.
He also tried to build good relations with both the superpowers and
succeeded in procuring military and economic assistance from them.
Only the 1965 War between India and Pakistan provided the
occasion for Washington and London to suspend the military aid and
sales programmes to both India and Pakistan.
Shastri’s greatest achievement was the Indo–Pak War of 1965,
which, partly helped boost the morale of the army that had been
shattered by the border war with China in 1962. Unfortunately,
Shastri passed away with a massive heart attack soon after signing
the Tashkent Agreement. In January 1966, Indira Gandhi became
the first woman Prime Minister of independent India.

Indira Gandhi (1966–1977) and (1980–1984)

When Indira Gandhi came to power, India was grappling with hard
times during 1966–1969. The troubles had arisen in the aftermath of
border war with China and these increased with two years of severe
drought accompanied by flooding in other parts of the country which
had grave impact on the economy of the country and also
constrained India’s assertiveness and capacity to take initiatives in
international relations and on her policy of non-alignment.
Soon after Indira Gandhi assumed the office, she expressed her
solidarity and moral support to the principles of non-alignment. Tito
and Nasser arranged a meeting with her and she visited UAR and
Yugoslavia in July 1966. The Third Tripartite Conference of the
leaders of UAR, Yugoslavia and India was held in New Delhi in
October 1966. The proceedings of these meetings and the joint
communiqué reflected the concern of Mrs. Gandhi and others over
the imposition of various forms of imperialism and neo-colonialism
and the threat to world peace posed by gross interference in the
internal affairs of independent countries followed by economic and
financial assistance as an instrument of pressure. The three, Gandhi,
Tito and Nasser, also expressed their deep concern for the sufferings
of the Vietnamese people and demanded a cessation of the bombing
of North Vietnam. This was rather a courageous stand taken by
Mrs. Gandhi as the economic crisis had made India heavily
dependent on the United States.
Mrs. Gandhi visited the United States from 28 March to 1 April 1966
and agreements on US aid followed one after another in the coming
years in the fields of supply of fertilizers, mineral exploration and a
food agreement in which Washington undertook to supply 3.5 million
tons of food grains, 856,000 bales of cotton and other commodities.
This was a supplement to the PL–480 Agreement of 30 September
1964. Another food agreement under PL–480 was implemented on
20 February 1967. This was followed by further food agreements
and also funds to finance development projects mutually agreed
upon.[7] The point to be noted here is that, the US administration,
while publicly giving the impression that it was going all out to help
but actually it was trying to twist India’s arm with regard to her foreign
policy, particularly in relation to her friendly ties with Moscow.
Further, the Indo–US relations suffered several setbacks because of
India’s role in the Bangladesh crisis, Nixon’s tilt towards Pakistan
and the Pokhran explosion of 1974. Still Mrs.Gandhi continued her
efforts to improve India’s relation with the United States. She met
President Ronald Reagan for the first time during a World Summit at
Cancun (Greece) in October 1981. This was followed by her visit to
the United States in September 1982 with the objective of reducing
the differences and enhancing mutual understanding. However,
basic differences persisted over West Asia, the Indian Ocean, and
South-East Asia.
The revival of economic and political momentum between 1969 and
1971 once again helped India to regain her assertiveness in her
foreign policy decisions as well as voicing the concerns of the
developing world. Mrs. Gandhi projected India’s image abroad as not
an image of a country which follows any group or country, but as an
image of a country standing or trying to stand on her own feet.
The most critical and dangerous challenge to India which she faced
in the 1970s was the Bangladesh crisis. She gave top priority to this
crisis as India’s security and stability were jeopardized. Refugee
influx became a grave concern for India. But India, under Mrs.
Gandhi took calculated move at every stage of the crisis. Besides
the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, a nucleus for high-level
planning was made by the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime
Minister, Mr. P.N. Haksar and the Foreign Secretary, Mr. T.N. Kaul.
At about the same time, simultaneous developments could be seen
in other parts of the world where the Nixon–Kissinger duo was eager
to mend fences with China, and China too under Mao–Zhou
partnership was determined to end her isolation. Therefore, there
developed a rapprochement between the two to balance off Russia.
It was under these circumstances that India concluded with the
Soviet Union, The Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace Friendship and
Cooperation in August 1971. This treaty provided that the two
countries would keep in touch with each other on major international
problems affecting the interests of both the parties. They agreed not
to enter into or participate in military alliance, which is directed
against any one of them. The treaty stipulated that if there was
aggression against any of the two parties, they would immediately
consult each other on how to meet the aggression. They would
abstain from providing assistance to any third party that emerged in
armed conflict with one of them. The Treaty was like a shield against
both Washington and Chinese designs of any military action against
India in the unfolding Bangladesh Crisis.
India played a prominent role in the emergence of Bangladesh,
which became an independent state on 16 December 1971 after the
surrender of the Pakistani troops in the erstwhile East Bengal to the
Indian army. India gave immediate recognition to the state of
Bangladesh. Ultimately, the Indo–Pak relations were normalized with
the Simla Summit held on 1 July 1972 which sought to resolve
several thorny issues in their bilateral relations. The Simla
Agreement provided that:
1. Both the parties would resolve their differences by peaceful
means through bilateral negotiations, and committed themselves
to peaceful coexistence, respect for each other’s territorial
integrity, sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s
internal affairs.
2. Hostile propaganda against each other would be stopped.
3. Meeting between the Heads of the two countries would be
convened to discuss the future ways and means for the
establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations.
Mrs. Gandhi too was keen on improving India’s relations with other
neighbours such as Nepal and Sri Lanka. She adopted a soft policy
towards Nepal and even visited Nepal in October 1966 and held out
largest aid package for India’s small neighbour. She always tried to
win the goodwill of India’s other neighbour, Sri Lanka.
During both her terms, Mrs. Gandhi had tried to improve India’s
relation with China. She met Hua Guofeng, the then Chinese Prime
Minister in Belgrade in 1980 and later Premier Zhau Ziyang at
Cancun in 1981. Beijing also made efforts for the betterment of
relations to that end and sent, one of its senior Vice Premiers, Huang
Hua to New Delhi in June 1981.
India again faced another dilemma when the Soviet Union invaded a
non-aligned country like Afghanistan. It was a tightrope walk for
India. India’s response to the Afghanistan issue disappointed the
Americans as they thought New Delhi would come down heavily on
the presence of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. India again was
vocal against the US supply of the most advanced and lethal
armaments to Pakistan as a part of its containment policy. It was only
during the Cancun Summit that President Ronald Reagan and Mrs.
Gandhi evolved a good personal equation that served to limit the
damage caused.
India also hosted the Seventh NAM Summit in 1983 and Mrs.
Gandhi was elected as the Chairperson for the next three years. The
1982 Asian Games was another achievement of Mrs. Gandhi’s
government. In 1983 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
(CHOGM) was held in New Delhi. These events showed that India
was gaining a prominent position in the international arena.

The Janata Party (1977–1979): Good Neighbourly Policy

The Janata Party came to power for a very brief period from 1977 to
1979. This was the first non-Congress government formed under
Morarji Desai since the time of Nehru. It was expected that there
would be drastic changes in the foreign policy posture of India under
the Janata Government. This was specially so because they
vehemently criticized India’s intimacy with the Soviet Union as a
violation of the principle of non-alignment. On the Janata Party’s
assumption of office, the leaders talked about genuine non-
alignment and maintaining distance from both the superpowers. But
soon they were disillusioned as Jimmy Carter’s Government refused
shipment of enriched uranium to Tarapore plant on the ground that
India was non-commital to the signing of the NPT and was
“insensitive to human rights violations in Kashmir”. Therefore, Indo–
US relations did not improve but the Janata government realized the
utility of special relationship that was initiated in 1971 with the Soviet
Union. It got itself reconciled with the tilt in non-alignment and
continued good relations with the Soviet Union.
As far as India’s relations with her neighbours were concerned, there
were tremendous improvements. The Janata government made
possible the Salal Agreement with Pakistan. The Indo–Bangladesh
Agreement on Ganga Water Sharing was also concluded. Two
separate agreements on Trade and Transit were signed with Nepal.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then External Affairs Minister, made every
effort to improve India’s relation with her South Asian neighbours
which he propounded as ‘beneficial bilateralism’. Critics often point
out that the shifts in the policy that were visible in the foreign policy
under Janata government were neither new nor a marked departure
from the earlier policies. They were just continuing adjustments
according to the needs of the time in domestic and external contexts.

Rajiv Gandhi (1984–1989): The Globalization Spree

After the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi in October 1984, Rajiv
Gandhi became the youngest Prime Minister of India. He was
inexperienced but “A young man with a modern outlook, Rajiv
Gandhi was a technophile with great faith in modern management
ways”.
His foreign policy did not mark a departure from his predecessors’.
His worldview reflected the perspectives of Nehru and Mrs. Gandhi.
Rajiv Gandhi was in favour of nuclear disarmament, consolidation of
non-aligned movement, reaffirming faith in the United Nations,
supporting the struggle against racialism, and was inclined to work
for narrowing the international economic disparities.
On 28th January 1985, a Six-Nation Meeting was held in New Delhi
attended by Sweden, Mexico, Greece, Tanzania, Argentina and India
which was presided over by Rajiv Gandhi. He made an appeal to the
five nuclear powers (USA, Russia, France, Britain and China) to stop
further production and testing of nuclear devices as the “first credible
and reassuring step” towards nuclear disarmament and reduce their
stockpiles. This appeal was reiterated in the joint statement issued
by the leaders of the six countries at the end of the meeting.
He also had a vision of improving relations with the Soviet Union, the
United States and China. Simultaneously, he gave priority to the
betterment of relations with the neighbours, especially Pakistan and
Sri Lanka. With the neighbours he was bent on pursuing a bilateral
foreign policy based on the spirit of peace, friendship and
cooperation, non-interference and also intended to work towards the
concept of common regional development in South Asia.
Rajiv Gandhi realized the complexities in the relation between the
United States and India. Thus, he took an early opportunity to visit
the United States in June 1985 and struck a rapport with President
Ronald Reagan. He, however, took the opportunity and pointed out
the lurking dangers of a rapidly nuclearizing Pakistan. The initial
bonhomie was, however, over by the time he visited the United
States in October 1985, coinciding with the 40th Anniversary of the
United Nations, as the American desire of dilution of Indo–Soviet
relationship was never materialized. Despite such irritants, Indo–US
relationship did not reach a nadir and there was considerable
interchange in various fields like political, economic, cultural and
social.
Rajiv Gandhi adopted caution while cultivating yet protecting, India’s
ties with the Soviet Union. This bilateral tie served the interests of
both the sides. It not only enabled India to fend off a number of
hostile challenges that came from China, Pakistan and from the
West in the form of support to Pakistan but also helped Soviet Union
to expand its ties with non-aligned countries in the face of continuous
attempts of the West to Isolate it form world politics. Rajiv Gandhi
went on his first visit to Moscow from 21 to 26 May 1985 which
resulted in fruitful interactions in strategic as well as economic fields.
The return visit by the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to India in
November 1986 was a landmark in India’s relation with the Soviet
Union. New agreements were signed between India and the Soviet
Union in the field of economic and technical cooperation.
Rajiv Gandhi was successful in melting the ice in Indo–China
relations. His visit to China in December 1989 was symbolic in the
sense that India accepted the Chinese viewpoint of broadening
exchange in other areas without making these developments
contingent on the resolution of the border issue. A much more
relaxed relationship evolved after Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China, which
was briefly disturbed due to the Pokhran explosion of May 1998.
Nevertheless, after a short interregnum of strained relations between
the two, normalcy returned and relations continued on the course set
by Rajiv Gandhi.
Rajiv Gandhi tried to mend fences and took several confidence-
building measures to boost India’s relations with Pakistan. After the
death of General Zia-ul-Haq (17 August 1988) in a plane crash,
democracy was restored in Pakistan for a very brief period under
Benazir Bhutto, which was welcomed by India. Rajiv Gandhi even
went to Islamabad to attend the SAARC Summit (1988) and held
“constructive and cordial talks” with his Pakistani counterpart. But his
hopes were soon belied and he became apprehensive of Pakistan’s
endeavour to develop its nuclear capacity, particularly Benazir
Bhutto’s visit to Pyongyang to negotiate a deal for the exchange of
missiles and missile technology from North Korea. Thus, Rajiv
Gandhi made efforts to secure India’s security by advocating nuclear
and general disarmament.
The tensions emanating in Sri Lanka due to ethnic conflict also
affected India’s domestic politics and also her security when a large
number of Tamilians fled from Sri Lanka and crossed over to India.
This created a serious refugee problem for India. Tensions cropped
up between India and Sri Lanka, especially due to air-dropping of
supplies for the suffering Tamilians. Improvement of bilateral
relationship began with the signing of the accord between Rajiv
Gandhi and President Jayewardane on 29 July 1987. The Indian
Peacekeeping Force’s (IPKF) action thereafter, drew criticisms from
different quarters and is seen as India’s greatest foreign policy
blunder, yet it had helped in restoring peace in Sri Lanka.
Alongside the traditional concerns of Indian Foreign Policy, Rajiv
Gandhi realized the changed global economic scenario. Therefore,
on the economic front due to the globalization and liberalization
spree, Rajiv Gandhi wanted to introduce changes to the old
economic conservatism and dogmas. Thus, he introduced newer
dimensions to India’s development strategy so that India could
respond favourably to the global market forces. This was followed by
the policy of liberalization, deregulation and privatization, which was
furthered by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao with the active effort of
the then Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

V.P. Singh (December 1989–1990)

When the National Front came to power in 1989 under Prime
Minister V.P. Singh, the world scenario was rapidly changing and the
Indian foreign policy posture needed to be adjusted accordingly.
While Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait under Saddam Hussein resulting in
the First Gulf War of 1990 marked the beginning of American armed
superiority, the break-up of the Soviet Union altered the balance of
power in the world. The collapse of the communist regimes in
Eastern Europe and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union
substantially changed the world order and a new post-Cold War
order emerged. India’s foreign policy had to be formulated keeping
these changes in mind.
Under such circumstances, V.P. Singh made a visit to the Soviet
Union in July 1990. During this visit, he and the Russian President
Gorbachev reaffirmed the continuation of their traditional ties of
friendship and cooperation and also readjusted their economic and
trade ties according to the needs of the time. Simultaneously, under
him India’s relationship with the other superpower, viz. the United
States, began to show improvement and financial assistance from
world agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF increased.
which helped India to tide over the economic crisis caused by the
First Gulf War. With China, the National Front Government did not
deviate from the course set by Rajiv Gandhi and made efforts to
maintain cordial relationship.
V.P. Singh’s National Front Government also tried to improve India’s
relations with her neighbours, especially with Nepal, Sri Lanka and
Bangladesh. With Nepal several irritants had developed soon after
the expiry of the Trade and Transit Treaty in 1989 including Nepal’s
attempts for overland import of weapons from China. However, the
then Foreign Minister I.K.Gujral’s visit to Kathmandu in August 1990
eased the tensions and improved the relation. Regarding the pull out
of the IPKF, which had created tensions between Sri Lanka and
India, India under V.P. Singh withdrew the forces even before the set
deadline of 31 March 1990. Gujral’s visit to Bangladesh and talks
about river water sharing also turned out to be fruitful.
V.P. Singh held office from 2 December 1989 to 10 November 1990.
After the BJP withdrew support to the V.P. Singh government, he
resigned after losing the trust vote. Chandra Shekhar broke away
from the Janata Dal with 64 MPs and formed the Samajwadi Janata
Party. He got outside support from the Congress and became the
11th Prime Minister of India. He finally resigned on 6 March 1991,
after the Congress withdrew support from his government. For the
brief term when Chandra Shekhar became the Prime Minister, he did
not introduce any radical change in the course of Indian foreign
policy.

Narasimha Rao (1991–1996): The Phase of Liberalization

The Indian National Congress with a nominal majority came to power
with Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister after the general election
of 1991. When Rao assumed office, India faced a crumbling
economy with a balance of payment crisis which had left India’s
foreign exchange reserves for only two weeks. Therefore, Dr.
Manmohan Singh, the then Finance Minister began a more
substantial economic reform to help the dwindling economy and
boost production. Therefore, greater emphasis was placed on
economic diplomacy a departure from the traditional foreign policy
stance of India.
Now that the Soviet Union or the USSR had disintegrated and a new
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) comprising Russia,
Belarus and Ukraine had emerged, the Rao Government was forced
to renegotiate various ties which were in place with the erstwhile
Soviet Union. India also slipped from the privileged position, which it
used to enjoy under the USSR. To India’s greatest dissatisfaction,
Russia voted in favour of a Pakistani-sponsored resolution declaring
South Asia as a nuclear-free zone. Further, the supply of cryogenic
engines by Moscow to aid India’s space programme for peaceful
explorations was disrupted under immense US pressure which also
created apprehensions in Indian minds. However, the initial
misunderstandings soon gave way to newer bonds between the two.
Relations improved greatly with Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s
visit to India in January 1993. During this visit not only was the
Rupee–Rouble exchange rate was resolved but also the 1971 Indo–
Russian Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was
substituted by a new 14-clause Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation
valid for 20 years. This Treaty stipulated that the two countries would
refrain from taking any action that might affect the security interests
of the other, pledging support to each other’s territorial integrity and
non-interference in internal affairs.
Alongside, the Rao government began pursuing a policy of
improving relation with the United States. There persisted several
hiccups in the Indo–US relation centring around Kashmir, India’s
nuclear and missile programmes, the US tilt towards Pakistan,
attempts to modify Pressler amendment and supply of military
equipment to Pakistan, differences on Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), and nuclear free zone in South Asia. Despite such irritants
there was a remarkable improvement in the Indo–US relations and
the two countries held Joint Naval Exercise in May 1992. In 1995,
following the visits by the US Defence and Commerce Secretaries
the signing of several agreements took place. Prime Minister
Narasimha Rao paid an official week-long visit to the United States
in May 1994 which helped to strengthen ties and was followed by
signing of several Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs).
India established full diplomatic ties with Israel during this period.
India, on 29 January 1992 announced its decision to establish full
diplomatic ties with Israel and opening of embassies at Tel Aviv and
New Delhi “as soon as it is physically possible”. India also supported
the US-sponsored resolution, which sought to repudiate the 1975 UN
Resolution equating Zionism with racism.
With China, India under Narasimha Rao continued her efforts to
nurture good relations. This was followed by several high-level visits
from both the countries. The Prime Minister of China visited India
from 11 to 16 December 1991. The first Indian President to visit
China was President R. Venkataraman. He made a six-day trip to
China from 19 to 25 May 1992. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao also
visited China in 1993. On all these occasions the border problem
was kept aside and negotiations were held in other fields of interests
of both the countries.
Rao also tried to improve India’s relation, with her neighbours,
especially with Nepal, though with Sri Lanka there remained a little
irritant over forcing a SAARC Summit in the absence of the
Bhutanese King. Indo–Pak relations continued to be strained
following the accelerated pace of development of Pak’s nuclear
capability with assistance from China and North Korea. Further, the
demolition of Babri Masjid on 7 December 1992 deteriorated the
relation between the two.

I.K. Gujral (1997–1998): The Gujral Doctrine

The 11th Lok Sabha elections resulted in a hung Parliament and two
years of political instability during which the country had three Prime
Ministers. First A.B.Vajpayee took over as the Prime Minister on May
16 and tried to get support from the regional parties in Parliament.
He failed and resigned 13 days later. Then Janata Dal leader Deve
Gowda formed a United Front coalition government on 1 June 1996.
His government lasted 18 months. I.K. Gujral, who was the Foreign
Minister in Gowda’s cabinet, took over as the Prime Minister in April
1997 after the Congress agreed to support a new United Front
Government from outside. But Gujral was an interim arrangement.
The country witnessed another round of elections again in 1998.
The United Front Government, first under Deve Gowda and then
under I.K. Gujral did not introduce any significant change in India’s
foreign policy posture. Both inherited a stable economy registering a
good rate of growth. The foreign exchange position also showed
improvement. The most noteworthy contribution was made by Prime
Minister I.K. Gujral who gave to the world an innovative doctrine.
This came to be identified as the Gujral Doctrine and it was chalked
with a vision to improve India’s relations with her neighbours without
expecting reciprocity. India held out unilateral concessions to the
neighbouring countries in matters relating to trade and travel without
expecting reciprocity. The basis of his thought was that India being
the largest country in the region could afford to be more generous
while protecting her fundamental interests.
Thus, there was considerable improvement of relations with
Bangladesh and the greatest breakthrough came in the form of
signing a 30-year Treaty between the then West Bengal Chief
Minister, Jyoti Basu and the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Abdus
Samad Azad on the sharing of the Ganga waters. Relations with Sri
Lanka also showed a general improvement after the temporary thaw
following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. The rise of democratic
and friendly governments in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in the
1990s helped to instill the spirit of good relations between India and
her neighbours. With Pakistan, no significant development was
planned out because of its efforts to develop nuclear capability and
provide sanctuary to terrorists.
With regard to India’s emerging ties with the major global powers
such as the United States, Germany, France, United Kingdom,
Canada and Japan, the United Front Government continued with the
existing policy of mutually beneficial cooperation on issues such as
trade, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and technical assistance.
With Russia, defence ties were strengthened with the signing of a
number of agreements. Regarding India’s relation with the United
States, it also improved significantly despite the differences over the
CTBT and India’s refusal to sign the Treaty. But there was also a
failure to be taken into account during the United Front
Government’s tenure. There was an all round criticism for India’s
dismal performance and failure of her diplomacy for which she lost a
race with Japan for a non-permanent Asian seat at the UN Security
Council.
With China, the United Front Government followed the course
chartered by Rajiv Gandhi and made significant developments and a
high-level visit was made by the Chinese President and General
Secretary of the Communist Party, Jiang Zeminin, in November
1996.
Before the Gujral government could make its impact felt, it fell when
the Congress withdrew its support leading to fresh elections, which
was again followed by a period of political instability.

A.B. Vajpayee (1998–2004): The Pokhran Explosion

The 12th Lok Sabha was constituted on 10 March 1998, and a
coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Atal Bihari
Vajpayee was sworn in nine days later. It had a lifespan of 413 days,
the shortest till date. The dissolution came in the absence of a viable
alternative after the 13-month-old Bharatiya Janata Party-led
government was ousted by one vote on 17 April, 1999. This was the
fifth time the Lok Sabha was dissolved before completing its full
tenure. On April 26, the then President of India, late K.R. Narayanan,
dissolved the Lok Sabha and called for early elections. Vajpayee
continued as the caretaker Prime Minister. As General Elections had
previously been held in 1996 and 1998, those of 1999 were the third
in 40 months. In the election of 1999 the National Democratic
Alliance (NDA), a conglomeration of 32 right-wing centrist and
regional parties, won majority of seats and A.B.Vajpayee was sworn
in as the Prime Minister on 13 October 1999.
The highlight of the Vajpayee government’s foreign policy was the
Pokhran explosion on 11 May 1998 and the Kargil War. With the
nuclear tests of 1998, codenamed Shakti 1–V, India proved to the
world that she had developed nuclear capability to miniaturize
nuclear weapons and mount warheads on Agni and Prithvi missiles.
These nuclear explosions, however, earned criticisms from the world
community, especially the United States, which imposed sanctions
on India. The United States also pressurized the World Bank and the
IMF and other international financial institutions to withhold new
assistance. The nuclear powers organized themselves into Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG) that decided how much and to whom nuclear
materials, even for peaceful purposes, would be supplied. Hence,
the United States denied any such hi-tech and scientific exchanges
to India. However, due to increased activities of terrorists in Pakistan,
the US stance towards India began to change and President Clinton
visited India in March 2000. When President Bush assumed office in
2001, despite several irritants, he did not stop searching for avenues
for new relationship with India. However, it was only after 9/11
attacks on the United States and the 13 December attack on the
Indian Parliament in 2001 did Indo–US relationship take a new turn
as both pledged to fight against international terrorism.
India’s relation with Russia also improved and was followed by
continuation of their defence ties. A ten-year defence cooperation
programme was finalized in 1998 between India and Russia. India
and Russia also signed a $2.5 billion deal to set up a nuclear power
station in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. Further, Indo–Russian ties
were strengthened by Putin’s visit to India in October 2000. India and
Russia also signed the technology transfer deal for production of 150
Sukhoi Su–30 MKI multirole jets in India under Russian licence in
December 2000.
China sent a high-powered delegation, led by her Chief of General
Staff of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), General Fu Quanyou to
India in April 1998 to discuss several bilateral issues. But the Indo–
China relations got a jolt due to the Pokhran explosion and also
because of identifying China as a potential threat to India’s security.
This earned the Chinese wrath and the Chinese condemnation of the
nuclear tests along with the other major powers. However, gradually,
Indo–China relationship began to get normalized following visits by
the then External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh in 1999 and
President K.R. Narayanan in 2000 to China.
India in her bid to normalize relationship sent feelers to Pakistan too.
Vajpayee as a part of confidence-building measure with Pakistan
inaugurated a bus service from Lahore–Amritsar in February 1999
and he himself took the inaugural bus service to visit the then Prime
Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif in February at Lahore. This was
followed by signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
reaffirming their unilateral moratorium on further nuclear testing and
spelling out their confidence-building measures. But the Kargil
adventurism of Pakistan during May–June 1999 under General
Pervez Musharraf disrupted the peace process. Gradually, relations
showed impro-vement and this was followed by General Musharraf’s
visit to India for talks held in Agra in July 2001. But the talks failed to
make any notable breakthrough and even later the strain in Indo–
Pak relation continued because of Pakistan’s insistence of linking
Kashmir as the core issue which has always been rejected by India,
and India’s stand on cross-border terrorism which Pakistan always
rejects out of hand. The Kandahar episode revealed the Pakistani
connection with the militants, either helped or given shelter by
Pakistan. Therefore, like the efforts of the previous governments, the
Vajpayee government failed to melt the ice in the Indo–Pak relations.
The Vajpayee government also sought to improve relations with
India’s neighbours Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. With Nepal,
India signed a new Transit Treaty in January 1999 and worked out
matters relating to hydro-power, flood control, terrorism and
extradition. Bangladesh and India expressed their commitments to
further bilateral relations and a bus service was started between
Dhaka and Kolkata in June 1999. With Sri Lanka, India signed a
Free Trade Agreement in 1998.

Dr. Manmohan Singh (2004–2009) and (2009–2014): The Nuclear

Deal
The BJP-led NDA government, headed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee completed five years of its rule in 2004 and elections to the
14th Lok Sabha was held in 2004. Congress was able to manage a
majority of more than 335 members out of 543 (including external
support from parties like the BSP, SP, MDMK, and the Left front) with
the help of its allies and formed the post-poll alliance, which came to
be known as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Dr.
Manmohan Singh, who had previously served as the Finance
Minister in the Narasimha Rao Cabinet in the early 1990s, became
the Prime Minister.
Manmohan Singh’s foreign policy posture marked a continuity rather
than a change, except that he sped up the process of improving
relations with the United States, China and Pakistan and India’s
neighbours. In case of Nepal there were a few problems because
Nepal was suffering from Maoist insurgency and political instability.
The most remarkable breakthrough that Manmohan Singh’s
Government was able to make was the Nuclear Deal with the United
States. The process started with Dr. Singh’s assumption of office and
met its culmination in October 2008 when the final nuclear deal was
signed between the two countries. Earlier on 18 July 2005, India and
the United States signed the landmark Civilian Nuclear Agreement in
Washington DC. Next on 2 March 2006, a Separation Plan was
initiated by India and the United States which listed out which
reactors would New Delhi put under safeguards. On 18 December
2006, the Hyde Act was passed by the US Congress which led to the
amendment of the US Atomic Energy Act. The next breakthrough
came in 27 July 2007 when the 123 Agreement was signed by India
and the United States outlining the terms of nuclear trade between
the two countries. On 1 August 2008, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) cleared India-specific Safeguards Agreement that
defined the level of supervision of civilian plants. The Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver came ultimately after intense
negotiation among its 45 members to allow nuclear trade with India
on 6 September 2008. Ultimately, India and the United States struck
the Nuclear Deal on 8 October 2008. As the nuke deal is in place
now, India can formally begin trade in civilian nuclear technology
while continuing its nuclear weapons programme but expecting
severe consequences if it conducts a test in future.[8] The real factor
behind the US decision to sign the Nuclear Deal was to balance off
China in Asia that would help to maintain its primacy in the region
without isolating China. India, therefore, was key to the US game
plan. Besides the strategic factor, Washington’s decision to upgrade
its relation with India was also a result of the growing worldwide
acknowledgement of the image of India as a rising power,
particularly in economic terms.
With Russia also Dr. Singh’s Government tried to work out the
glitches involved in the relationship. Some of the irritants in the
relationship between Russia and India were related to the pricing
and supply of the spare parts and the Intellectual Property Rights
(IPRs) issue over the supply of latest armaments by Russia to India.
These became the subject matter of a marathon Summit between
Russian President Putin and Dr.Singh in New Delhi on 3 December
2004. No positive outcome was visible then until the Putin–
Manmohan Singh Summit in December 2005, where some of the
glitches were sorted out.
Regarding India’s relation with China, she was making a laudable
progress and the highlight of the relationship during this period was
the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s visit in April 2005 and
President Hu Jintao’s visit in November 2006. Yet irritants still
remained centring around issues of unresolved border problems and
Chinese policies towards Pakistan.
In respect of relations with Pakistan, despite several confidence-
building measures, bus diplomacy and summit meetings, no
improvement was noticed and stalemate continued. President
Musharraf, during his second visit to New Delhi on 17 April 2005,
declared that the peace process had become irreversible and,
despite fresh confidence-building measures, such as pledge to solve
the Kashmir issue, the possible resumption of Lahore–Amritsar bus
service and reestablishment of consulates at Karachi and Mumbai,
nothing concrete was actualized in reality. Efforts of peace dialogue
made, thereafter, were severely paralyzed due to the increasing
number of terrorist acts in India and alleged involvement of Pakistan
or of terrorists based in Pakistan. India under Dr. Singh expressed a
grave concern over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, as there
always looms a possibility of the nuclear arsenals falling into the
hands of the terrorists, especially the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda.
Therefore, stalemate continued as far as the Indo–Pak relation is
concerned.
India’s vote against Iran in International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) general body was in favour of a resolution warning Iran that
its case could be referred to the UN Security Council for possible
sanctions if it did not fully cooperate with the IAEA on its
investigation about any secret efforts at enrichment of uranium to a
degree that would make it possible for Iran to develop an atomic
device. This had opened floodgates of criticisms against the
Manmohan Government as India had to pursue the Oil Pipeline
Programme from Iran through Afghanistan and Pakistan. India under
Dr. Singh also strove to improve ties with the Association of South
East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU).
The second term of Dr. Manmohan Singh began with the victory of
the Congress and its allies in the 15th Lok Sabha election. The
highlights till now have been the Indo–Pak relations, Indo–US
Nuclear deal and climate-change related emission issue.
On the sidelines of the 15th NAM Summit (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2009)
Dr. Manmohan Singh met the Pakistani PM Yousuf Raza Gilani and
both strove to make serious efforts towards positive improvement in
Indo–Pak relations despite several glitches. India dropped her
insistence of holding talks with Pakistan only after those involved in
Mumbai terror attacks have been punished. India delinked
‘composite dialogue’ from terrorism. The joint statement issued after
the second top level meeting since the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks
declared “Both the Prime Ministers recognized that dialogue is the
only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the
composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”[8]
Kashmir did not figure in the joint statement which is always under
the composite dialogue process. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
expressed India’s readiness to “discuss all issues with Pakistan
including all outstanding issues”. Responding to Dr. Singh’s
statement in the Lok Sabha on the India–Pakistan joint statement in
Egypt, Pakistani PM Gilani reciprocated the ‘sentiments of peace’
and expressed the meeting as one where both leaders had agreed
that terrorism was a common threat and dialogue is the only way to
take relations in a positive direction. But the opposition slammed
New Delhi’s stance for delinking of the “composite dialogue”[9] with
Pakistan. Dr. Singh, however, reaffirmed that delinking of dialogue
process with Pakistan from its action against terrorism was not a
dilution of India’s stand but strengthening of it.
As far as the Indo–US relation is concerned, there are serious
apprehensions among the oppositions following the visit of the US
Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary R. Clinton in July 2009. The message
of the Obama administration is to link the implementation of the
nuclear deal to an end-use monitoring agreement for military
supplies from America which would result in the signing of a defence
pact with the US. India’s stand on entering into an understanding on
End-Use-Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) has raised severe criticisms
from the opposition. PM Dr. Singh has tried to defend his
government’s posture on the face of allegations about dilution of
India’s stand on the EUMA. He said that the text of EUMA contains
no provisions that compromises India’s sovereignty and calls for
unilateral verification by the USA on imported defence equipment.
A recent development of Dr. Singh’s government has been the
signing of a partial free-trade agreement with ASEAN on 13 August,
2009 at the beginning of the 41st ASEAN Economic Ministers
meeting in Thailand. With this agreement in place the annual
bilateral trade would get a boost.
The year 2010 began with several developments in Indo-Pak
relations, though not very fruitful in every respect. Despite Pakistan’s
accusation that India has broken off the Composite dialogue process
and tried to isolate it diplomatically, the major events have been – (i)
Foreign Secretary Level Talk (FSLT)—February 25, 2010; (ii)
Sidelines Meeting at the 16th SAARC Summit, Thimpu, April 2010;
(iii) Foreign Secretary Level Talk, June 24, 2010; and
(iv) SAARC Home Ministers Meeting, Islamabad, June 25, 2010.
The February FSLT between Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama
Rao and Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir took place in
the backdrop of a bomb blast in a popular Café in Pune, after a 14
month lull that followed 26/11, which was seen as an attempt to
derail the dialogue process. Still, the talks took place and can be
regarded as the first official dialogue and an ice-breaker since the
2008 Mumbai terror attack as India insisted that there would be no
resumption of dialogue with Pakistan until it took action against the
perpetrators of 26/11 terror attacks. The issues included terrorism,
Kashmir, Afghanistan and water sharing. Although both the sides
claimed the talks to be encouraging, Pakistan reiterated the
resumption of composite dialogue while India insisted that it has to
wait till greater trust and confidence is built.
On the sidelines of the 16th SAARC Summit at Thimpu on April 29,
2010, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met and agreed that foreign secretaries
of both countries should meet again and Indo-Pak dialogue should
resume as without dialogue there was no other means of addressing
the bilateral issues. On the sidelines of Nuclear Security meeting in
April 2010, there were no meetings between the two countries, but
India made it clear that it will only resume talks if Pakistan takes
action against Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and perpetrators of 26/11 terror
attacks.
On the completion of one year of the second term of the UPA
government on May 25, 2010, while producing the ‘report card’ of the
government’s performance in a press meet, Manmohan Singh stated
that Indo-Pak relation was suffering from ‘trust deficit’ and reducing
this ‘trust deficit’ was essential to improve their relations.
Another FSLT was planned on 24th June, 2010 which was thought to
be aiming at reducing this ‘trust deficit’ and, as advocated by India,
to find “creative solutions” on Jammu and Kashmir and other issues
to build on the progress made earlier through the Composite
Dialogue and back channel diplomacy.
But before the June 2010 Indo-Pak talks, both countries got engaged
in another major dispute. Both got set to fight a legal battle over
Kishenganga power project under construction in J&K in an
international court of arbitration. Pakistan is objecting to construction
of 330 MW hydropower plant on Kishenganga, a tributary of the
Jhelum under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.
Uneasiness arose just before June 24, 2010 when Pakistani troops
fired on Indian positions on the Line of Control in J&K, killing 2
civilians and injuring 2 jawans. However, India made it clear that it
will focus on cross-border terrorism and would adopt “an exploratory
approach” to work out steps to reduce post-Mumbai attack trust
deficit between the two countries.
June 24, 2010 FSLT took place in Islamabad. Though there was no
breakthrough, a positive step towards bridging the trust deficit
between the two countries was made. During the talks, India raised
the “core concern of terrorism” including the activities of the Laskar-
e-Taiyyaba (LeT) and Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) and Hafiz
Muhammad Saeed. The other issue discussed was Pak’s concern
about Indian presence in Afghanistan, and the Indian stand was
clarified by making it related to the developmental works in
Afghanistan. India, however, made it clear that attacks on Indian
assets could not be allowed to continue as it affected relations
between New Delhi and Islamabad. The FSLT, though not very
substantial consequencewise, was not merely “exploratory” as both
sides tried to “understand each others’ position”.
SAARC Home Ministers’ Meet, Islamabad, June 25, 2010 witnessed
a meeting between Indian Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram and
his Pakistani counterpart Mr. Rahman Malik during the conference.
He was the first Indian Minister to visit Pakistan in three decades
where he was accorded a red carpet welcome and a ceremonial
Guard of Honour. He pressed for action against JuD Chief Hafiz
Saeed and the handlers of the 26/11 terrorists including those who
are believed to be in the Pak army. Chidambaram is believed to have
sought voice samples of the Pak handlers and raised issues such as
infiltration in J&K also.
However, the mood that was set by these two meetings was
suddenly dampened by a diplomatic show down during the Foreign
Ministers’ Meet in Islamabad on 16 July, 2010. Indian Foreign
Minister S.M. Krishna and his Pak counterpart Shah Mahmood
Qureshi soon got caught in a diplomatic imbroglio when Pak refused
to engage in any substantial manner with the critical areas of 26/11,
cross-border terrorism and infiltration by arguing that it could not
speed up the judicial process. Further, a diplomatic spat broke off
during the joint press conference on Balochistan and infiltration in
J&K. Another undiplomatic posture adopted by Pak Foreign Minister
Qureshi spoiled the whole atmosphere when he spoke to the Pak
journalists while Mr. Krishna was still in Islamabad that Indian
delegation was not “fully prepared” for the talks and that his
counterpart had repeatedly sought directions from Delhi when the
deliberations were on. Thus, the diplomatic parleys ended amidst
sharp differences and undiplomatic gestures ruining the spirit of
bilateral negotiations. Further, the Wagah land export deal between
Pakistan and Afghanistan shuts out India completely, where no
Indian export to Afghanistan would be allowed through Wagah, but
Afghanistan would have the opportunity to export to India. This was
signed in the presence of the US Secretary of States, Hillary Clinton.
India, faced with a dilemma, cannot obstruct the entry of Afghan
goods because that will antagonize Kabul and add to its ever-
increasing poverty. But this treaty can give strategic one-upmanship
to Pakistan. US, however, wanted continuation of Indo-Pak talks.
Soon after the diplomatic showdown between India and Pakistan,
the US Secretary of States, Hillary Clinton, during her visit to
Islamabad for the US-Pakistan strategic Dialogue in 19 July 2010,
made it clear that USA is interested that the process between
Pakistan and India is sustained and both amicably resolve their
outstanding issues.
Indo-US relations saw new developments with Manmohan Singh’s
four-day visit to the US in November 2009. The visit was followed by
high level talks on strengthening cooperation in counter-terrorism,
counter-intelligence to prevent Mumbai-type attacks, implementation
of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, US-India financial and economic
partnerships and strengthening and reforming global economic and
financial architecture in the G-20 and the World Bank. India and the
US also agreed to expand trade and investment in sectors such as
infrastructure, informatics and communication technologies.
Manmohan Singh expressed India’s willingness for a strong and
sustained engagement between India and the US. US President
Barack Obama acclaimed India as an “indispensable partner” as
both nations, the two global leaders, would strive to build a future of
security and prosperity for all nations. Further, he assured India that
the US-China Joint Statement on the Indo-Pak dialogue does not
mean involvement of a ‘third power’ in the bilateral engagement.
During the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 11, 2010,
Manmohan Singh met President Obama once again and discussed
the key concerns of both the countries, including US policies towards
Pakistan and Afghanistan’ as well as other bilateral matters. Singh
conveyed India’s concern about the enduse of military aid given to
Pakistan by America and expressed apprehensions of their usage
against India’s national interest. Among other issues discussed were
Afghanistan, Civil Nuclear Liability Bill (then caught in a political
battle between the government and the opposition), and David
Coleman Headley, the chief plotter of Mumbai terror attack and
activities of LeT.
The Indo-US Strategic Dialogue took place on June 3, 2010 when
Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna visited the United States. The issues
discussed included the situation in Afghanistan-Pak region and
expansion of cooperation in a wide range of areas such as defence,
security, nuclear energy, climate change, education and agriculture.
The two sides exchanged views regarding necessary reforms of the
international economic and security architecture including the UNSC.
Recognizing India as a “rising global power”, the US Secretary of
State, Hillary Clinton declared that the USA today was definitely
committed “to consider India’s bid for a permanent seat in the
UNSC.” The two countries also pledged to deepen people-to-people
contact, business-to-business and government-to-government
linkages for the mutual benefit of both the countries and also for the
promotion of global peace and stability, economic growth and
prosperity. President Obama also expressed his intention to visit
India in November as he considered India to be a rising and
responsible global power “indispensable” to a future American
strategy.
The US President Obama’s visit to India from 6–9 November, 2010
has been a visit of a President who has just lost ground in the
elections to the Senate and the House of Representatives and who
wanted to show that his four-nation visit to India, Indonesia, South
Korea and Japan were aimed at opening up new markets for US
companies and create jobs at home. His visit ultimately proved to be
full of promises of US supporting India’s membership to multilateral
export control regimes like NSG, MTCR, the Australian Group (AG)
and the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) in a phased manner and
removal of India’s defence and space related entities from the US
‘Entity List’. But the former cannot be done soon, for the membership
criteria for these have to be amended to make India eligible and the
latter, as US Fact Sheet reveals that such changes have been
initiated by Obama administration from 2009 and will bring about
fundamental changes in the export relationship with India. This is yet
to be seen how it influences Indo-US export relationship. Another
promise made by President Obama is the US support for India’s bid
for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. In his address to
the Indian Parliament, Obama, however, clearly said that to earn this
seat, India has to follow Washington’s line on key global issues like
Iran and Myanmar with whom India has good relations. Regarding
terrorism and Pakistani safe havens for terrorists, India was upset
because in October 2010 the US announced $2-billion annual
defence aid package to Pakistan. Again, Obama in his address
stated that India and the US both have an interest in an Afghanistan
and a Pakistan that is stable, prosperous and democratic. In other
words, he tried to justify the aid that had been given to Pakistan just
before his arrival in India. On the Kashmir issue, he said that the US
was not in favour of imposing any solution but can always lend a
helping hand if needed. Behind the scene, of course, another motive
of trying to win over India comes from the US compulsion to have
India as a strategic ally, which would help to contain a rising China.
The US President, as discussed earlier, came with lots of promises
in order to secure financial benefits, which would help in recovering
the dwindling American economy. India hosted a US business
delegation of 200 CEOs of US Corporations and the deals struck are
expected to bring benefit export wise and jobwise to the US. Twenty
deals were struck which were worth $10 billion and can create
53,000 jobs in America. Therefore, Obama has tried to push
American strategic and business interests during his visit, with
holding out promises for lots of things for India. Time can only say
that whether Obama’s visit has been gain for India or the US.
Obama was also silent about the corporate accountability in the
1984 Bhopal Gas Disaster while he has insisted on corporate
accountability in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Indo-Russian relations saw an upsurge with several pacts signed
between both the countries in the course of the visits by Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to New Delhi and Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh to Moscow.
India and Russia reinforced their ties with an expanded civil nuclear
deal and three military pacts. They also raised voices of concern
over growing menace of terrorism. This was done in the course of a
three-day visit to Moscow by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
during December 2009. Dr. Singh also upheld that India’s relations
with third countries will never be at the cost of “time-tested ties” with
Russia.
Again, during Russian Prime Minister Putin’s visit to New Delhi
during March 2010, 19 pacts were signed. Some prominent among
them are Agreement on Cooperation in the use of Atomic Energy for
Peaceful Purposes, Agreement on Road Map for the Serial
Construction of Russian Designed Nuclear Power Plants (Russia to
build 6 atomic plants in Kudankulan and 6 in Haripur, West Bengal),
Agreement on Protocol of Cooperation signed between ONGC and
Russia’s Gazprom, revised agreement on Gorshkov aircraft carrier
deal, agreement for sale of MiG-29K aircraft carrier-based fighters by
Russia to India under a USD 15 billion contract, two pacts in the field
of fertilizers and five pacts in the diamond sector.
Besides, on bilateral issues, both the Prime Ministers had
comprehensive talks regarding regional situation as in Afghanistan
and some Central Asian Republics. On the whole, both sides
expressed their desire to deepen their relationship.
In December 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited
India. The outcome of the visit was reflected in the signing of 30
agreements during his visit on 21–22 December 2010. The
agreements were signed in key areas like defence, energy, nuclear,
space, science & technology, pharma, IT, bio-technology etc.
Russian President also showed strong and unambiguous support to
India’s bid for the UNSC permanent membership. He also expressed
a strong desire to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan through joint
efforts. Therefore, Indo-Russian relationship received another boost
with Medvedev’s visit to India.
India and Britain also looked afresh at their relations with the new
leadership in Britain under the youngest Prime Minister of Britain,
David Cameron. Cameron came on a two-day visit to India at the
end of July 2010. There was delegation level talk between the two
Prime Ministers and both addressed a joint press conference. Terror
was seen as a biggest threat and Cameron emphasized that
existence of terror groups like Laskar-e-Taiyyaba (LeT) on Pakistani
soil was unacceptable and must be eliminated. MoUs were signed
for cooperation in the areas of culture. Both sides agreed to establish
a new India-UK CEOs Forum to help boost bilateral trade and India-
UK Infrastructure Group to identify barriers to investment and
potential solutions. There was also talks regarding cooperation in the
education sectors and British Minister for State for universities David
Willets evinced interest in the proposed Innovation Universities
during meeting with Indian HRD Minister Kapil Sibal. The British
Prime Minister also met the Indian President Pratibha Devisingh Patil
and discussed a number of bilateral issues, including trade, counter-
terrorism and cultural ties, but ruled out the return of Kohinoor
diamond to India.
Indo-French relations also took a new turn with President Nicolas
Sarkozy visiting the country in December 2010. In a joint press
conference with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Sarkozy backed
India in its efforts to tackle terror and offered unlimited French
cooperation on counter-terrorism. India and France also signed five
atomic pacts for building two 1,650 MW nuclear reactors at Jaitapur
in Maharashtra including an early works agreement and a general
framework agreement between French nuclear giant Areva and the
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) for
implementation of two European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) at
Jaitapur.
With Germany, India for the first time discussed the possibilities of
entering into a bilateral cooperation in civil nuclear energy. This has
given a boost to India-Germany partnership. Germany also
expressed its willingness to back India’s bid to secure membership
of the NSG. There were also discussions about relaxation of German
export control laws which was thought to increase the volume of
bilateral trade.
On the regional front, India also tried to improve her relations with
neighbours like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Bhutan.
As far as Indo-Sri Lankan relation is concerned, there have also
been significant developments. After the 26th January, 2010
Presidential elections in Sri Lanka, the newly elected President
Mahindra Rajapakse met the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama
Rao in Colombo on March 7, 2010. An official statement released
from the Presidential Secretariat upheld India’s willingness to assist
Sri Lanka in the resettlement of the Tamil IDPs (Internally Displaced
Persons) from the war-ravaged areas in North Sri Lanka. India also
expressed her intention to assist Sri Lanka in the restoration of the
railway line in the North. Other issues discussed were problems
being faced by fishermen of both countries, proposed coal power
powered project in Trincomalee, environment related issues and
other issues of mutual concern.
The Sri Lankan President Rajapakse visited India on June 9, 2010
and there was a wide-ranging delegation level talk between the
President and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The main
focus was the settlement of the longstanding Tamil issue. Other
matters included bilateral and global issues, economic ties, energy
security and increased cooperation in the areas of development and
counter terrorism. An MoU on interconnecting electricity grids of the
two countries, two MoUs on the transfer of sentenced persons and
mutual legal assistance in criminal matters that aim at enhancing
counter-terror cooperation, a pact on laying Talaimannar-Madhu rail
link, and an MoU on special projects and community learning centre
by SEWA were signed.
With Bangladesh, India maintained cordial relations. Bangladesh
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited India in early January 2010.
India extended a line of credit worth one billion dollars on the terms
of Asian Development Bank for infrastructural upgradation of
Bangladesh. India also agreed to construct the Akhaura-Agartala rail
link, provide 250 megawatts per day from the Indian power grid and
deferred plans to construct the 1500 MW Tipaimukh hydroelectric
dam on the Barak in Manipur to which Bangladesh has reservations.
It was also agreed that border markets would be set up along the
Bangladesh-Meghalaya border and land customs posts on the
Mizoram border. Forty-seven commodities were removed from the
negative list, despite serious concern about the fallout. Bangladesh
promised India access to the Ashuganj inland port and India, Nepal
and Bhutan access to deep-water ports at Mongla and Chittagong.
Bangladesh also expressed willingness to revive old land-border rail
transit points and also prevent its soil from being used against India.
Bangladesh also agreed to negotiate an extradition treaty, formation
of a joint boundary group to address the land border and a team
from Bangladesh to discuss maritime boundary. Sheikh Hasina
expressed her satisfaction over the visit.
With Bhutan, India continues to nurture the good relation it had
maintained for years. Earlier, in December 2009, the Bhutanese King
Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck visited India and held wide-
ranging talks with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
both sides signed several pacts in different sectors. Again in 2010,
the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held a bilateral meeting
with Bhutanese King on the sidelines of 16th SAARC Summit in
Kathmandu in April. Dr. Singh also laid the foundation stones of the
India-funded state-of-the-art medical institute, two hydroelectricity
plants and an IT project before returning to India after the three-day
trip to the Himalayan kingdom to attend the SAARC summit. The
Bhutanese King again graced the 2010 Convocation ceremony of
the Calcutta University and delivered the Convocation address on 5
October, 2010.
Indo-China relations also witnessed certain ups and downs. The
Indian President Pratibha Devisingh Patil arrived in Beijing on 27
May 2010 for a six-day visit to China and was welcomed by Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao at the Purple Light Pavilion. She received red
carpet welcome as the first Indian Head of the State to visit China in
a decade. Both sides discussed bilateral issues pertaining to trade
and commerce. Particularly, sources said that Mrs Patil sought
China’s support for India’s bid for the permanent seat in the UNSC.
Further, an agreement streamlining the visa formalities of airline staff
of two countries by Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and
Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue during Mrs. Patils’s
visit to China was signed. A MoU for cooperation in the field of civil
services and public administration was also signed between the two.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his Chinese counterpart Wen
Jiabao at Hanoi on the sidelines of ASEAN Summit. The
controversial issue of stapled Chinese visa to Kashmiris and Sino-
India economic ties were the core issues of the talks. This was the
first top-level contact since the Sino-India defence exchanges were
suspended in July 2010 following Beijing’s decision to issue such
stapled visa to India’s Northern Area Commander Lt-Gen B.S.
Jaiswal. The two sides agreed to work out solutions to the “difficult”
problems, and Wen Jiabao’s visit to India in December 2010 would
be an effort to find ways to cooperate and collaborate, as there was
enough space in the world for both the countries.
Premier Wen Jiabao’s arrived in India on a three-day visit on 15
December, 2010. Before his arrival, the Chinese envoy to India
stated that relations between the two countries are “fragile and can
be damaged easily.” Thus, Wen’s visit can be seen as an effort to
shore up “fragile” Indo-China relations. But the focus of the Chinese
delegation was more on economic issues of trade and commerce
rather that China’s support for India’s candidature for the permanent
seat in the UN Security Council or Pakistani support of terrorists. The
issue of stapled visa was, however, brought up by Wen and it was
agreed that Indian and Chinese officials should meet and resolve the
issue. The positive thing that happened was launching of a hotline
between the two Prime Ministers of China and India as a step
towards building up trust. India and China signed six agreements in
areas like media and cultural exchanges, green technologies,
sharing of hydrological data on the Sutlej river and collaboration
between their banks.
With several other countries, in the year 2010, India tried to draw
new roadmaps for strategic partnerships. The External Affairs,
Minister S.M. Krishna, went on a three-day official visit, to Republic
of Korea (RoK) in June 2010 and he co-chaired the 6th meeting of
India-Republic of Korea (RoK) Joint Commission along with his
Korean counterpart Yu Myung- Hwan. During this visit India and
Korea inked 3 accords to enhance economic and cultural ties in
Seoul and also agreed to launch negotiations for the conclusion of
an Inter-Governmental Agreement on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear
Energy nuke energy pact. The two countries also signed three
MoUs, including one on Cooperation in the field of Small and
Medium Enterprises, Cooperation between ICCR and Korea
Foundation and Cooperation between Indian Council for World
Affairs (ICWA) and the Institute for Foreign Affairs and National
Security (IFANS) of the RoK.
With South Korea, India reached an agreement on civil nuclear
operation, making it the ninth country with which India signed nuclear
agreement after it got the NSG waiver in 2008. This announcement
was made after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met South Korean
President Lee Myungbak at Hanoi on the sidelines of the ASEAN
Summit. The $12 billion dollar Posco project of South Korea, the
largest foreign investment project in India, has got delayed because
of clearances. Korea has been concerned about the delay. Thus, on
the eve of the meeting Indian Commerce Minister promised to
address the issue of clearance in a “very constructive manner.”
With Saudi Arabia, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was able
to forge a major advance in the two countries’ bilateral relation. Dr.
Singh had the opportunity to address the Shura Council and was
conferred an honorary degree. The two countries agreed the India-
Saudi ties to a strategic relationship. The Riyadh Declaration
underpins the partnership to which the two countries aspire.
India, in its spree to develop her look-east policy, has also nurtured
the existing relations with her eastern neighbours. As far as Indo-
Myanmar relation is concerned, it received a boost when Myanmar’s
Military ruler General Than Shwe visited India in July 2010. The
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Than Shwe
signed five agreements to increase cooperation in counter-terror
activities, legal assistance in criminal matters and others. Talks were
also held on a wide range of issues including counter-terrorism,
enhanced energy ties, collaboration in several developmental
projects.
India also set a positive tone in her relation with Malaysia. Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Malaysia on 27 October
2010 ahead of his ASEAN-India and East Asia Summits at Hanoi.
Both countries formally announced boosting up of Comprehensive
Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) for improving trade
relations and cooperation in various sectors including freer
movement of goods, services and investments which would come
into effect from 1 July, 2011. Five other pacts were signed after wide-
ranging talks between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
his Malaysian counterpart Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak.
India’s relation with Japan also saw improvement. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh went for a two-day visit to Japan in October 2010.
He met his Japanese counterpart Mr. Naoto Kan and held
discussions on several issues including civil nuclear energy
cooperation, free trade agreement, situation in Afghanistan, ways to
combat climate change and reform of UN. After the extended
delegation level talks, the two leaders officially endorsed the
Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). This was
seen as a historic achievement, which would hopefully open up new
economic opportunities.
In the international sphere, India too had quite a number of
progresses made. In the Nuclear Security Summit held in
Washington on 11 April, 2010, India had raised the twin dangers of
clandestine nuclear proliferation and international terrorism and the
resonance of the same could be found from the views expressed by
the 47 nations gathering of heads of states and governments.
After attending the N-Security Summit, Dr. Singh left for Brazil to
participate in the IV BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China) Summit. On
the sidelines, Dr. Singh held talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao
on several bilateral issues, particularly trade and investment. The
Chinese President looked forward to Indian President Pratibha
Patil’s visit to China. The Indian President Pratibha Devisingh Patil
visited China in May 2010.
Following his BRIC Summit, Dr. Singh also went to attend the IBSA
(India-Brazil-South Africa) Summit where Iran’s controversial nuclear
programme and the impending UN sanctions were the ‘focused
agenda’.
On Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Hanoi during the
ASEAN Summit, he expressed high hopes regarding the completion
of all formalities of India-ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement signed
in Bangkok in August 2009 after six years of negotiations and
coming into force from 1 January 2010. He also announced
extension of visa-on-arrival facility to travellers from Cambodia,
Vietnam and Philippines as part of the overall package for the
initiative for ASEAN integration. He pushed for ASEAN unity and
emphasized that the ASEAN is the “core around which the process
of economic integration of the Asia-Pacific region should be built.”
On the whole, the year 2010 has been quite an eventful year for
India, with a number of visits by important dignitaries from important
countries and consequential diplomatic parleys. What is most
remarkable is that in one year there were visits from P-5 members
countries in 2010. India has also been elected as a non-permanent
member of the United Nations Security Council with an
overwhelming number of countries endorsing its sole candidature
from the Asian group. In polling for 10 seats that took place at the
UN headquarters in New York on 10 October, 2010, India received
the highest number of votes—187 out of 192—among all countries in
the fray. However, given the background of power equations, one
cannot be jubilant over the Security Council membership until and
unless a permanent seat is not secured by India.
There has been certain setbacks in Indo-Pakistan relations, but
attempts have already been made by India to decrease the trust
deficit. Indo-US relations also saw improvements.
2011 was also an eventful year as far as Indian foreign policy is
concerned. The year began with the visit of the President of
Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was the Chief Guest at
the Republic Day celebrations on 26 January 2011. This can be seen
as a further boost to India’s Look-East Policy. This visit was followed
by signing of a number of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) and
agreements for cooperation in combating terror, extradition, curbing
money laundering and others.
India’s Minister of External Affairs, S.M. Krishna, and the US
Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, met in New Delhi on 19
July 2011, for the second Annual Meeting of the India-US Strategic
Dialogue. The leaders recognized the achievements made since the
inaugural Strategic Dialogue in June 2010, and President Obama’s
visit to India in November 2010 in advancing two countries’ shared
interests—pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for
fundamental freedoms and human rights. They committed to
continue to broaden and deepen the India-US global strategic
partnership for the benefit of their countries; and for peace, stability,
and prosperity in Asia and the world.
Three focal areas of interaction were highlighted by Ms. Clinton.
They are like lower tariff barriers along with further opening of
markets, involving India in maritime security and selling equipment
especially to the Navy and civil nuclear cooperation. India-US
Strategic Dialogue Joint Statement issued on 19 July 2011 also
made reference to a number of other issues like the UN and
peacekeeping operations, bilateral defence cooperation in maritime
security and strengthening further defence cooperation through
technology transfer, joint research, development and production of
defence items. Ms. Clinton also visited Tamil Nadu, and shared her
concern over Sri Lankan Tamils living in camps, with Chief Minister
Jayalalithaa. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa also requested Ms. Clinton
to restore the quota of HIB visas to original level of 1,95,000.
Dr. Manmohan Singh paid a five-day visit to China and Kazakhstan
from 12–16 April 2011. He visited China to attend the BRICS
Summit. Thereafter, he arrived at Astana in Kazakhstan to finalize
the long-pending oil exploration contract which will give India an
opportunity to get access to the Caspian oil.
In the sidelines of the BRICS Summit, Dr. Singh met Chinese
President Hu Jintao. Both sides agreed to work towards removing
the major irritants in the Sino-Indian relation and initiate coordination
and consultation on border related matters, along with resumption of
senior-level defence exchange, initiation of economic dialogue for
redressal of investment and market-related grievances.
In April 2011, Dr. Manmohan Singh visited Asatana, Kazakhstan, to
consolidate strategic partnership with Kazakhstan. Both sides signed
seven pacts, including a framework agreement in civil nuclear field
and a stake-sharing accord in oil sector. The Kazakh President also
announced that Kazakhstan would supply India with 2,100 tons of
uranium. A great breakthrough was a package of three agreements
signed by India and Kazakhstan in the hydrocarbon sector. Under
these, ONGC Videsh Limited would acquire 25 per cent stake in
Satpayev oil block in Caspian Sea. The two sides also signed a
mutual legal assistance treaty and agreed to intensify dialogue in
counter-terrorism and drug trafficking. This can be seen as a major
boost to India’s Central Asian policy and her quest for an alternative
source of oil and natural gas supply besides West Asia and the Gulf
countries.
As far as Indo-Sri Lankan relations is concerned there was a visit by
the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka in May 2011. Delegation-level talks,
between the two External Affairs Ministers, were held on 16 May
2011. Issues relating to regional and international issues of common
concern were mainly focussed. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister also
upheld his country’s commitment to ensuring expeditious and
concrete progress in the ongoing dialogue between the Government
of Sri Lanka and representatives of Tamil parties. On 17 August
2011, IRCON and Sri Lankan Railways signed a pact for supply and
installation of signaling and telecommunication system for railway
network in Northern province of Sri Lanka.
Uzbek President’s visit on 17 May 2011 was followed by signing of
34 agreements relating to important strategic issues as well as
several business contracts in Telecom & IT, Pharmaceuticals,
Textiles & leather, Chemicals and fertilizers and hydrocarbons. Joint
Statement on Strategic partnership between the Republic of India
and the Republic of Uzbekistan declared a strategic partnership
between India and Uzbekistan detailing the outcomes of the visit
along with a vision for future cooperation.
In May 2011, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited two African
countries—Ethiopia and Tanzania. He arrived in Ethiopia to attend
the Africa-India Forum Summit on 23 May 2011. He offered, at the
plenary on 24 May 2011, lines of credit to Africa to achieve
development goals.
Japan and India on 6 June 2011, signed seven agreements under
which loans would be provided as Official Development Assistance
(ODA) for various infrastructure development projects in different
states including Bangalore Metro. In December 2011, the Prime
Minister of Japan paid a three day visit to India. Japan expressed its
desire to expand cooperation in the nuclear sector while taking into
consideration of safety aspects.
On the India-Pakistan relations front, the Minister of External Affairs
of India, S.M. Krishna and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan,
Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar met in New Delhi on 27 July 2011. The
meeting reviewed the status of bilateral relations on the issues of
Counter-Terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial) and
Narcotics Control; Humanitarian issues; Commercial and Economic
cooperation; Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project; Sir Creek;
Siachen; Peace and Security including CBMs; Jammu and Kashmir;
and promotion of friendly exchanges. The Ministers attached
importance to promoting peace and security, including confidence-
building measures, between India and Pakistan and agreed to
convene separate meetings of the Expert Groups on Nuclear and
Conventional CBMs, in Islamabad in September 2011. The
Ministerial level talks were preceded by a meeting between the
Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan on 26 July 2011.
President Pratibha Devisingh Patil visited Seoul in July 2011, and
also to Mongolia thereafter. India and Republic of Korea signed an
agreement for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Indo-Bangladesh relations also got a boost with the Prime Minister’s
visit to Bangladesh in September 2011. The two countries discussed
matters like mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, transfer of
sentenced persons and fight against international terrorism,
organized crime and illicit drug trafficking. The highlight of this
meeting has been the signing of a new land border agreement to
resolve long-standing border dispute. A vision statement laying out a
long-term relationship between India and Bangladesh was signed.
However, on sharing of waters of Teesta River, no deal could be
struck due to the objection raised by the Chief Minister of West
Bengal, Smt. Mamata Banerjee.
There was a visit by the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai in
October 2011. Two MoUs signed during visit of President of
Afghanistan, were Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in
the field of Development of Hydrocarbons, and Memorandum of
Understanding on Cooperation in the field of Mineral Resources
Development. The first ever Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA)
was signed during this visit on 4 October 2011. The agreement was
aimed to provide training to the Afghan National Security Forces.
Prior to this visit there was a visit by the First Vice President of
Afghanistan to India on 16 June 2011. Soon after this, there was
again another visit by Professor Burhanudin Rabbani, Chairman of
the High Peace Council and former President of Afghanistan, who
visited India from 14–15 July 2011. During this visit, there was a
detailed discussion on the peace process in Afghanistan. On 3 June
2011, India under its Duty-Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) scheme
agreed to provide duty-free market access to Afghanistan.
President of Vietnam visited India on 12 October 2011. An
agreement was signed between India and Vietnam during this visit to
promote oil exploration in South China Sea along with other pacts
regarding extradition, trade, security and strategic ties between the
two countries. Six agreements were signed after comprehensive
talks on issues of mutual interest along with a desire to launch a
biennial security dialogue between Home Ministries of India and
Vietnam.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met the President Thein Sein
during his visit to Myanmar in October 2011. Both agreed to examine
the feasibility of railway links, accelerate work of two hydel projects
in Myanmar, review working out a rout into north-east, and also the
Mae Sot road linking India and Thailand via Myanmar which would
be a direct link between ASEAN and India.
Prime Minister was on a visit on November 17 to attend the Ninth
ASEAN-India Summit and the Sixth East Asia Summit in Bali,
Indonesia. The visit to Bali was followed by an official visit to the
Republic of Singapore from 19–20 November 2011. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh met President Obama at Bali on 18 November
2011, and both explored how both countries can work together not
only on bilateral issues, but also in multilateral fora, like the East
Asia Summit and on a wide range of issues, such as maritime
security or non-proliferation, strengthening cooperation on disaster
relief and humanitarian aid.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Addu to attend the
Seventeenth SAARC Summit from 10–11 November 2011. In the
sidelines of SAARC he met the Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Bhutan,
Bangladesh and Presidents of the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
India and Nepal signed a revised Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreement (DTAA) on 27 November 2011, to improve Indian
investment in Nepal and ease procedures for stakeholders with
commercial interest in both countries. Earlier during the visit of
Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai to India in October
2011, both sides formalized the long pending Bilateral Investment
Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA). The visit was aimed
at building trust between the two countries and two people.
Indo-Russian relation took a positive turn with the visit of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to Russia on 15–17 December 2011. The
India-Strategic Summit focused on economic ties as well as
cooperation in the fields of nuclear, defence, science and space.
Talks were held regarding Comprehensive Economic Partnership for
East Asia (CEPEA), Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu among
other issues. As far as international issues are concerned both sides
expressed concerns over Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, terrorism and
security in the Asia-Pacific region. Russian also supported India’s bid
for permanent membership in UNSC and also her membership in the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
On 23 December 2011 there was a visit by Foreign Minister of
Thailand. There was a wide range of discussions covering bilateral,
regional and international issues. Both leaders affirmed the strong
bilateral ties between India and Thailand, and discussed ways to
further strengthen cooperation in diverse areas such as trade,
investment, security and defence cooperation, tourism, education,
culture, science and technology, energy, infrastructure and civil
aviation, etc.
There were also visits of German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel, 30
May 2011, followed by signing of several MoUs and agreements.
There were also visits by Dr. Ram Baran Yadav, President of Nepal
from 27 January–5 February 2011, Foreign Minister of Bahrain to
India, 30 March 2011, visit of Secretary General of the National
Security Council of Saudi Arabia, 29 March 2011, Foreign Minister of
Nigeria for Joint Commission Meeting, 15–17 March 2011, visit of
Foreign Minister of Philippines for the Meeting of India-Philippines
Joint Commission on Bilateral Cooperation, 15 March 2011 and
Foreign Ministers of Brazil and South Africa on 7–8 March 2011.
There were also visits of Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister on 10
March 2011, visit of Prime Minister of Thailand, 5 April 2011, and visit
of Foreign Minister of Cyprus on 19 April 2011. Month of May 2011
was followed by visits by Foreign Minister of Egypt and Iceland.
Prime Minister of Slovenia, John Key visited India on 14 June 2011.
Prime Minister of New Zealand paid a State visit to India in June
2011. July 2011 also saw a series of visits by Foreign Minister of
Netherland, Libya and Poland and on 01August 2011 Foreign
Minister of Syria.
The year 2012 began with the visit of Minister of State (External
Affairs) to Vietnam for attending the commemorative event for the
40th anniversary of establishment of full diplomatic relations between
India and Vietnam (5 January). This was followed by another visit by
Minister of State (External Affairs) to Palestine and Israel (10
January). External Affairs Minister, S.M. Krishna visited Sri Lanka
from 16–19 January 2012. Both sides reviewed progress in various
areas, including trade, services and investment, development
cooperation, science and technology, culture and education. MoUs
were signed for Housing Project, on cooperation in the field of
Agriculture, and also a MoU between Telecom Regulatory Authority
of India and Telecommunication Regulatory Commission.
The External Affairs Minister visited China on 8 February 2012. They
reviewed the outstanding issues in Indo-China relations and agreed
to work towards resolving them. To take the relations beyond
bilateral cooperation they agreed that these irritants do not adversely
affect the growing cooperation in other areas. Both sides pledged to
carry that forward into 2012 and agreed to mark as the “Year of
India-China Friendship and Cooperation.”
The External Affairs Minister also visited Egypt and Singapore in
early March 2012. The Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh
paid an official visit to the Republic of Korea (ROK), at the invitation
of President Lee Myung-bak, on 25 March 2012. The India-Republic
of Korea Joint Statement: Deepening the Strategic Partnership
upheld the multi-faceted bilateral relationship, which has rapidly
acquired greater depth and vitality since its elevation to a Strategic
Partnership during the landmark State visit to India of President of
ROK in 2010 and State visit of President Pratibha Devisingh Patil to
the Republic of Korea in July 2011. They expressed satisfaction at
the increasing high-level exchanges, growing economic, trade,
security and cultural ties, as well as people-to-people exchanges.
The two leaders also held wide-ranging discussions on regional,
international and multilateral issues. This visit was followed by
signing of an agreement and MoU, (i) Agreement on Simplification of
Visa Procedures, (ii) MoU on Cooperation between KNDA (Korea
National Diplomatic Academy) and FSI (Foreign Service Institute).
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visited Seoul on 27 March
2012, to attend the Nuclear Security Summit. He presented the
national progress report. He upheld that India supports
implementation of the Washington Summit Communiqué and Work
Plan. India contributed to the NSS process, including hosting of a
meeting of the Sherpas in New Delhi 16–17 January 2012.
The External Affairs Minister visited Russia on 13 April 2012 to
attend the Eleventh Trilateral Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of
India, Russia and China. The Joint Communiqué of the Eleventh
Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the
Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China upheld the
importance attached by Russia, India and China to their constructive
cooperation in the trilateral format. They stressed that this
cooperation was not directed against any other country, was
conducive to the promotion of regional peace, security and stability
and served to benefit their peoples. The External Affairs Minister
also talked about the multi-dimensional relationship that has evolved
in different ways on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of
establishment of India-Russia Diplomatic Relations.
The Prime Minister visited Myanmar on 28 May 2012. The Indian
Prime Minister and U. Thein Sein, President of the Republic of the
Union of Myanmar held a restricted meeting, followed by delegation
level talks on bilateral, regional and international issues of mutual
interest. They agreed to cooperate in the areas such as border area
development, transportation, connectivity, agriculture, trade and
investment, promotion of friendly exchanges and human resource
development. They recognized that peace and stability in the region
is necessary for development and well-being of the people. Several
MoUs were signed during this visit between India and Myanmar.
President of India visited Seychelles and South Africa from 29 April–
7 May 2012.
In the months of June and July 2012, the External Affairs Minister
visited a number of countries which included Cuba, USA, Tajikistan,
Japan and Cambodia.
The External Affairs Minister participated in the 10th ASEAN-India
Ministerial Meeting, the 2nd East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers
Meeting and the 19th ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial Meeting in
Phnom Penh, Cambodia from 11–12 July 2012. In his statement at
the 10th ASEAN-India Ministerial Meeting he upheld India’s
commitment to its partnership with ASEAN. He reiterated India’s
conviction that this partnership’s would help in the achievement of
the goal of the ASEAN Community by 2015, the Initiative for ASEAN
Integration (IAI), the Master Plan on ASEAN Plus Connectivity
(MPAC), the Declaration for a Drug Free ASEAN by 2015 and to the
collective capacity building in this region.
S.M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs, co-chaired with US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the third India-US Strategic
Dialogue on 13 June 2012 in Washington DC. The Joint Statement
contained a satisfaction of both the sides on the remarkable
expansion and growth of the bilateral relationship since the inaugural
Strategic Dialogue in 2010. Both USA and India committed to further
broaden and deepen the US-India global strategic partnership and
charted a vision for the future, centered on promoting shared
prosperity, peace and stability. On the sidelines of this Strategic
Dialogue, number of sub-dialogues took place on various issues like
the Global Issues Forum, S&T Joint Commission Meeting, the
Counter terrorism Joint Working Group, the Higher Education
Dialogue, Cyber Consultations, the Information and Communi-
cations Technology Working Group, the Women’s Empowerment
Dialogue, Homeland Security Consultations and other events. Prior
to this meeting, the US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta visited
India from 5–6 June 2012.
In 15 June 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Los
Cabos, Mexico, to attend the G-20 leaders Summit. He also visited
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to attend the Rio + 20-United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development, from 13–22 June 2012.
Prime Minister had bilateral meetings on 21 June 2012 in the
sidelines of Rio+20 with Prime Minister of Nepal Mr. Baburam
Bhattarai and with President of Sri Lanka Mahinda Rajapaksa. With
President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, PM had first a one-on-
one discussion and then a delegation-level meeting. The issues
discussed were economic relations, updating on Sampur Power
Project, a joint venture between the Ceylon Power Board and the
NTPC and also the rehabilitation of Internally Displaced People. As
far the Prime Minister’s Meeting with the Prime Minster of Nepal was
concerned, Manmohan Singh felt that as the constitution-making
process is underway, soon investment climate would improve. There
was a hope that investment would be favourable as India and Nepal
have entered into both a Bilateral Investment Promotion Agreement
and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in 2011 which have
also been ratified.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also had a meeting with the
Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Rio de Janeiro on sidelines of
Rio + 20 Summit in June 2012. Both agreed to carry on close
political dialogue as well as dialogue among sectoral level officials.
They also made reference to the boundary question and agreed the
working of joint mechanism as a positive step. They also discussed
issues pertaining to continuance of Defence and Strategic Dialogue,
boosting bilateral trade, addressing the Indian trade deficit,
investment flows, trans-border rivers and increasing people to
people contacts with creating more scope for academics, media and
other sections of civil society to engage with each other between
India and China.
Prime Ministers visited Iran to attend XVI NAM Summit on 26 August
2012. While highlighting the radical changes in West Asian and
North African region, Dr. Singh underscored India’s support for
popular aspirations for a democratic and pluralistic order. He urged
all parties to recommit themselves to resolving the crisis peacefully
through a Syrian-led inclusive political process that can meet the
legitimate aspirations of all Syrian citizens. Dr. Singh also harped on
an early resolution of the Palestinian question. Regarding India’s
policy towards the NAM movement, the Indian think-tanks have
envisaged a policy which they have identified as NAM 2.0: A
Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty First
Century (January 2012). This is an attempt to a re-work for present
times of the fundamental principle that has defined India’s
international engagements since Independence. Nam 2.0 prescribes
that Indian foreign policy must be defined keeping in mind the broad
perspective and approach which India should adopt as it works to
enhance its strategic autonomy in global circumstances that, for
some time to come, are likely to remain volatile and uncertain.
In the sidelines of NAM Summit, a trilateral meeting between the
Deputy Foreign Ministers of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and Foreign Secretary of the Republic of
India was held in Tehran on 26 August 2012. The objective of the
meeting was to explore ways to expand trade and transit
cooperation, including investment among the three countries. Setting
up of a Joint Working Group (JWG) comprising representatives of
the three countries would meet within next three months at
Chahbahar to take the discussions forward.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan Hina Rabbani Khar, and
the Minister of External Affairs of India S.M. Krishna met in
Islamabad on 8 September 2012, for a meeting to review progress in
the dialogue process. The ministerial level talks were preceded by a
meeting between the Foreign Secretaries of Pakistan and India on 7
September 2012. They held substantive discussions on a wide range
of issues within the framework of the dialogue process, and
expressed satisfaction over the progress achieved since their last
review meeting in July 2011. They upheld the importance of carrying
forward the dialogue process with a view to resolving peacefully all
outstanding issues through constructive and result-oriented
engagement, and to establish friendly, cooperative and good
neighbourly relations between Pakistan and India.
During 5–6 November 2012, the External Affairs Minister, Salman
Khurshid visited Lao PDR to attend the 9th ASEM Summit. Prime
Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visited Cambodia to attend the 10th
India-ASEAN Summit on 19 November 2012. He attended the 7th
East Asia Summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 20 November
2012. He welcomed the launch of the Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership negotiations and also extended support for
the Phnom Penh Declaration on East Asia Summit Development
Initiative. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh met Prime Minister of
Japan Mr. Yoshihiko Noda on the sidelines of 7th East Asia Summit.
Dr. Singh also met Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Phnom
Penh on 19 November 2012, and talked about a variety of
cooperative initiatives in global as well as bilateral arenas as well as
growing dialogue in international for a like BRICS, G 20, East Asia
Summit (EAS) and also on issues of climate change.
During 14–15 December 2013, the External Affairs Minister, Salman
Khurshid visited Myanmar. This visit aimed at strengthening the
multifaceted ties with Myanmar.
There was also a number of incoming visits from foreign dignitaries
to India in the year 2012. On 13 January 2012, the EU High
Representative Baroness Catherine Ashton, the High Representative
of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, visited
India. During this visit there were discussions over issues covering
the entire spectrum of EU-India relations ranging from bilateral,
regional to international issues of mutual interest.
On 09 February 2012, President of the European Council, Herman
Van Rompuy and José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the
European Commission visited India to attend the 12th India-EU
Summit held in New Delhi on 10 February 2012. Both sides
discussed bilateral, regional and multilateral issues of mutual
concern with a view to, inter alia, strengthen their multifaceted
bilateral cooperation, coordinate responses to regional issues, and
tackle international challenges including the current financial crisis.
This was followed by signing of a MoU and an agreement between
EU and India.
President of the General Assembly of the United Nations visited
India on 14 February 2012. There were discussions on several
global challenges that the United Nations is currently seized with. At
the same time India reiterated its commitment to principle of
multilateralism and to the UN’s leadership in confronting the current
global challenges.
On 27 February 2012, there was a visit by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Italy to India. This was the first high level visit from Italy
since the new government was formed in Italy in November 2011.
India hosted the Fourth BRICS Summit 2012 from 26 to 29 March
2012. Discussions were held on the broad theme, “BRICS
Partnership for Global Stability, Security and Prosperity”. The
Summit was held under the leadership of Prime Minister Dr.
Manmohan Singh. Ms. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, Mr.
Dmitry Medvedev, President of Russia, Mr. Hu Jintao, President of
China and Mr. Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa attended the
Summit. An ambitious action plan was drawn which was adopted on
the 29 March along with the BRICS Delhi Declaration. India stated
that BRICS countries must collaborate and cooperate with each
other to shape global developments and bring tangible benefits to
their people.
The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari paid a visit to India on 08
April 2012. President Zardari was on a private visit to Ajmer Dargah.
However, Prime Minister Dr. Singh and President Zardari met for
forty minutes and discussed various bilateral issues. Both sides felt
that the dialogue process should steadily progress, addressing the
bilateral problematic issues step by step and moving forward in
trade-related issues. The leaders discussed the problem of terrorism,
and Dr. Singh told President Zardari that it was imperative to bring
the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice, and prevent
activities aimed against India from Pakistani soil especially the
activities of Hafiz Saeed. President Zardari said the matter needed to
be discussed further between the two Governments.
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan to India visited New Delhi
from 30 April–2 May 2012 at the invitation of S.M. Krishna, External
Affairs Minister. The Ministers co-chaired the inaugural session of
the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council, which has been
mandated to implement the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed
by the Prime Minister and the President of Afghanistan in October
2011. Both sides acknowledged the successful conduct of the first
meeting of the Joint Working Group on Political and Security
Consultations. Further, they decided that the three Joint Working
Groups on Trade and Economic Cooperation, Capacity Development
and Education, and Social, Cultural, Civil Society and people to
people contacts will be worked out expeditiously.
At the invitation of the External Affairs Minister, the Foreign Minister
of Bangladesh Dr. Dipu Moni paid an official visit to India during 7–8
May 2012. The first meeting of the India-Bangladesh Joint
Consultative Commission (JCC), as envisaged in the Framework
Agreement on Cooperation for Development signed during the visit
of the Prime Minister of India to Bangladesh, was held in New Delhi
on 7 May 2012. Discussions were held around issues like political
and security cooperation, trade and connectivity, development
cooperation, bilateral cooperation in water resources and power,
sub-regional cooperation and people-to-people contacts.
US Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton paid a visit to India on 08
May 2012. External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna projected an
optimistic vision of Indo-US relation in the future. However, India
expressed her concerns about the continuing difficulties on mobility
of professionals, especially for our IT companies, and protectionist
sentiments in the US with regard to global supply chain in services
industry. Further both sides had an in-depth discussion about
fostering commercial cooperation in civil nuclear energy. As far as
Afghanistan is concerned, India stressed the need for sustained
international commitment to build Afghan capacity for governance,
security and economic development, and to support Afghanistan with
assistance, investment and regional linkages. India also underscored
the importance of peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue
through dialogue and negotiations. There was also discussion on the
Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean region, including relations with China,
and developments in countries in India’s immediate neighbourhood.
Both sides exchanged views on their recent interaction with their
Bangladeshi counterpart also.
Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic
Republic of Iran visited India from 31 May–1 June 2012 as Special
Envoy of the President of Iran to hand over an invitation to Prime
Minister to attend the 16th NAM Summit to be held in Tehran in
August 2012. Sharing the same neighbourhood, India and Iran both
are interested in the stability of Central Asia and the Gulf and also
share the same concern about terrorism. Iran is not only an
important neighbour but also a crucial trade partner for India, and
also a major source of our energy supplies. Therefore, this visit was
crucial and the timing is also noticeable as it followed immediately
after the visit of US Secretary of State.
The Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong paid a State Visit
to India from 10–12 July 2012 at the invitation of Prime Minister Dr.
Manmohan Singh. Several important MoU related to facilitation of
cooperation in field of vocational education and skills development,
facilitation of the setting up of a Greenfield World Class Skills
Development Centre in Delhi to provide state-of-the-art facility for
skills development and continuation of armed forces joint training
and exercises.
On 27 July 2012, Dr. Marty Natalegawa, Foreign Minister of
Indonesia visited India to co-chair the fourth meeting of the India-
Indonesia Joint Commission with S.M. Krishna. Two agreements
were signed during the visit. They are: avoidance of Double Taxation
and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income,
and Agreed Minutes of the 4th Joint Commission Meeting between
Republic of India and Republic of Indonesia.
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) is a
newly formed regional group comprising 33 Sovereign States of
Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC) region. The First
India-CELAC Troika Foreign Ministerial meeting was held on 7
August 2012 in New Delhi. Thus, there were visits of Foreign
Ministers of Chile and Venezuela and Vice Foreign Minister of Cuba
for the First CELAC Ministerial TROIKA Meeting to India on this
occasion. Discussions revolved around regional and multilateral
issues of mutual interest like strengthening the multifaceted bilateral
cooperation between India and CELAC, coordinating responses to
regional issues and addressing international challenges including UN
reforms, the international financial crisis, climate change and
international terrorism. The Foreign Ministers agreed to enhance
exchange of visits at all levels including at the Summit level leading
towards realization of a strategic partnership between India and
CELAC.
On 7 August 2012, there were visits by the Deputy Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister of Belgium. Emomali Rahmon, President of
Tajikistan was on his fifth State Visit to India on 31 August 2012.
Tajikistan is a key partner of India in the Central Asian region. This
visit is significant from the perspective of India’s gaining access to
Central Asian hydrocarbon reserves. India and Tajikistan both have a
common interest in the security transition in Afghanistan as well as
counter-terrorism cooperation.
There were quite a number of significant visits in the month of
September 2012. There were visits by the President of Palestine, 9
September 2012, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, 11
September 2012, President of Burundi, 17 September 2012 and
President of Sri Lanka, 19–22 September 2012.
Deputy Chairman of Russian Federation, Dmitry Rogozin, visited
India on 13 October 2012. India and Russia reviewed bilateral
collaboration in the field of Science and Technology and welcomed
the operationalization of the offices of the India-Russia Joint
Technology centres in the two countries. Both countries emphasized
on strengthening contacts in the IT and hydrocarbons sector,
particularly the energy sector as an important area for expansion of
cooperation between our two countries.
The Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard visited India on 15–17
October 2012. Three Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) were
signed pertaining to:
1. Civil Space Science, Technology and Education;
2. Field of Wool and Woolen products;
3. Student Mobility and Welfare;
4. Mining and National Skill Development Cooperation.
The second India-Japan 2 + 2 Dialogue was held in Tokyo on 22
October 2012. The Indian delegation was led by Foreign Secretary
Ranjan Mathai and Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma. The
Japanese delegation was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Akitaka
Saiki and Administrative Vice Defence Minister Hironori Kanazawa.
These 2 + 2 consultations at Senior Official level are mandated by
the Action Plan to Advance Security Cooperation concluded between
the two countries in December 2009. These consultations were built
on the last round of the 2 + 2 Dialogue held at New Delhi in June
2010. Apart from briefing each other on their respective defence and
security policies in the background of each country’s security
environment, there was a review of bilateral security and defence
cooperation and discussed ways of further expanding such ties. The
two delegations also exchanged views on maritime, cyber and outer
space security. They agreed to an early meeting of the new India-
Japan Cyber Security Dialogue.
There was a State Visit of King of Spain to India on 26 October
2012. Five agreements/MoUs were signed during the visits
pertaining to:
1. The avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital;
2. Roads and Road Transport Sector;
3. Defence Cooperation;
4. Audiovisual Co-production;
5. Technical cooperation in the field of railway sector
Increased Chinese activities in the South China Sea provide the
background for India, USA and Japan to work out cooperation in
maritime security and shaping the Asia-Pacific architecture. India
hosted the 3rd round of India-Japan-US Trilateral Dialogue on 29
October 2012. The trilateral dialogue seeks to address the three
major themes—the evolving Asian security architecture, non-
traditional security issues, and prospects and challenges for this
process.
Begum Khaleda Zia paid a visit to India from 28 October to 3
November 2012. She met new External Affairs Minister of India,
Salman Khurshid. She focused on the future vision of Indo-
Bangladesh relations without harping on the past.
The External Affairs Minister of India, Salman Khurshid met Jean
Paul Adam, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Seychelles, Samson
Ongeri, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kenya, Pierrot Jocelyn
Rajaonarivelo and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Madagascar on 1
November 2012.
India hosted the 12th Meeting of the Council of Ministers of IOR-
ARC on 02 November 2012. The Gurgaon Communiqué - IORARC
at 15 – The Next Decade was adopted which pledged for stronger
cooperation within the maritime domain of the IOR-ARC member
states. In the sidelines of the IOR-ARC meeting the External Affairs
Minister of India, Salman Khurshid met the Foreign Minister of Oman
Yousuf Alawi, Foreign Minister of Yemen Abu-Bakr Al-Qirbi, Foreign
Minister of Sri Lanka Prof. G.L. Peiris, and Foreign Minister of
Comoros Mohamed Bakri Ben Abdoul Fatah.
Prime Minister of Canada Mr. Stephen Harper paid a visit to India
from
4–9 November 2012. Both the Prime Ministers in their joint
statement pledged to work out a forward-looking relationship by
deepening bilateral engagement at strategic level as well as
identifying areas of mutual interests like energy security, agriculture,
food security, education, science and technology, mineral resources,
infrastructure, defence and the like. The visit was significant as it
marked the 65th Anniversary of the opening of the High Commission
of Canada in India.
William Hague, the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, of United Kingdom visited India from 7–9
November, 2012. During this visit India and the United Kingdom
issued a Joint Statement on Cyber Security. They also agreed to
hold ‘Cyber Dialogue’ on a bi-annual basis.
The 2nd India-China Strategic Economic Dialogue took place in New
Delhi on 26 November 2012, which emphasized the increasing
economic engagement between India and China.
Aung San Suu Kyi, Chairperson of the National League of
Democracy of Myanmar visited India from 13–18 November 2012.
She delivered the Nehru Memorial lecture to mark the birth
anniversary of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru on 14 November 2012. From 9–
13 November, President of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid
Karzai was on a State Visit to India. Both countries looked forward to
consolidate their strategic partnership and also took up bilateral,
regional and global issues for discussions.
India hosted the ASEAN-India Commemorative Summit in New Delhi
on 20–21 December 2012. This marked the 20th anniversary of the
ASEAN-India dialogue partnership and the 10th anniversary of
ASEAN-India Summit-level partnership. The theme of the Summit
was ASEAN-India Partnership for Peace and Shared Prosperity.
The summit witnessed the adoption of the ASEAN-India Vision
Statement 2020. This can be seen as a major achievement for India
in marking a tremendous progress of ASEAN-India relations.
The Russian President Vladimir Putin was on an official visit to New
Delhi on 24 December 2012 to attend the 13th India-Russia Annual
Summit. A joint statement was issued during this Summit under the
theme Partnership for Mutual benefit and a Better World. The year
2012 ended with the official visit of the President of Nepal, Dr. Ram
Baran Yadav from 24–29 December 2012.
India’s foreign policy is showing signs of maturity. It is reflecting
India’s intent on the improvement of its Look-East policy, boosting its
Central Asian policy, engaging with Latin American and Caribbean
States and improving economic engagements with the newer
economic arrangements as well as negotiating bilateral CECAs and
CEPAs with countries like Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia,
Japan, South Korea and Bangladesh to mention a few. As part of the
foreign investment policy of the Government of India negotiations
have been undertaken with a number of countries to enter into
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement
(BIPAs/BIPPAs) in order to promote and protect on reciprocal basis
investment of the investors. Government of India have, so far, (as on
July 2012) signed BIPAs with 82 countries, out of which 72 BIPAs
have already come into force and the remaining agreements are in
the process of being enforced. Alongside, India is also engaging in
various security dialogues with various countries like Japan and the
US. However, India has to aim at stabilizing relations with her
neighbours especially with Pakistan. With China, India has to be
cautious, as in 2013 there would be a change in Chinese leadership
which means re-orientation of India’s policy towards China. Indo-US
relations now has to be adjudged from the view-point of President
Obama’s disposition towards India in his second term, in addition to
how he balances China and India. Another important factor will be
the direction of his Af-Pak policy.
INDIA AND THE MAJOR POWERS
India and United States of America
In the present international scenario, with the overwhelming
presence of United States of America as the sole surviving Super
Power, it is important for any student of Indian foreign policy to
analyze the ever-evolving Indo-US relations in the post-cold war
international relations.
Immediately after independence, till the end of Cold War, and a
decade after that, Indo-US relations did not mark any significant
developments. Bilateral relations between the two could not develop
properly, because of Cold War calculations that conditioned Indo-US
relations. Initially, India’s posture of non-alignment did not find favour
in the US. John Foster Dulles condemned non-alignment as
“immoral”. Later, certain other issues cropped up which obstructed
the natural growth of bilateral relations between the two. Kashmir
has been one such issue and the US favouring a plebiscite in
Kashmir as per the UN resolution of 1948 and 1949, made India
cautious about the US. Moreover, India’s recognition of Communist
China in 1949, roping in of Pakistan into military alliances like
Baghdad Pact (1955–1958), SEATO (1954) and CENTO (1958–
1979) and subsequent US arms supply to Pakistan to “contain”
Communism became major irritants in the Indo-US relations. The
Korean crisis and India’s refusal to endorse the US sponsored
“Uniting for Peace Resolution” distanced the two. The Indo-Russian
Treaty of Friendship of 1971 further embittered the Indo-US
relations. Again during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, relations
reached a low point. The US supported Pakistan and even tried to
negotiate a cease-fire through the UNSC. However, the Soviets
vetoed it. The US even moved their 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal to
create pressure on India. The Soviet Union had come to India’s
rescue and they sent their Fleets to Bay of Bengal to counter the US
pressure. The 1974 Pokhran Nuclear explosion by India also
distanced the two countries. But one point of consideration is that,
despite such irritants, in the spheres of economic, culture and
education, cooperation continued. The US also provided technical
assistance and also supplied food grains (PL-480) to meet the
scarcity of food (see Indian Foreign Policy under Indira Gandhi page
373). A Joint Commission was also established to explore
possibilities of fostering cooperation in economic, commercial,
scientific and technological, educational and cultural sectors.
Bilateral relations suffered a setback in 1979 due to Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan. India refused to rally behind the US and ascribe
Soviet Union as an aggressor (see page 374). India also was critical
about US supply of arms sell to Pakistan. During the tenure of
Ronald Reagan, bitterness increased due to differences over Diego
Garcia and India wanted dismantling of the US base in Diego Garcia.
India demanded establishment of Indian Ocean as a ‘Zone of
Peace’. The US refused to supply nuclear fuel to Tarapur Atomic
Power Station. Refusal of India to sign NPT and US intent on
enforcement of Super 301* and Missile Technology Regime against
India further added to bitterness.
It was only during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure that little improvement could
be perceived. He visited the United States in June 1985, and struck
a rapport with President Ronald Reagan. He, however, took the
opportunity and pointed out the lurking dangers of a rapidly
nuclearising Pakistan. During the National Front Government, there
was further improvement in the Indo-US relations and financial
assistance from world agencies like the World Bank and the IMF
increased which helped India to tide over the economic crisis caused
by the First Gulf War. For the first time also the US agreed to drop its
insistence for a plebiscite in Kashmir and resolution of the crisis on
the lines of the Simla Accord, 1972. In 1990-1991, the collapse of
Soviet Union, the end of Cold War and the economic liberalization of
India, the two countries looked afresh at their bilateral relations.
During Narasimha Rao’s tenure, therefore, despite several irritants
both sides tried to move forward with their bilateral relations. Two
countries held Joint Naval exercise in May 1992. Prime Minister
Narasimha Rao paid an official week-long visit to the US in May
1994, which helped to strengthen ties and was followed by signing of
several Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs).
In 1995, following the visits by the US Defence and Commerce
Secretaries several agreements were signed. However, US trade law
Super 301 still affected India’s export which again was a disturbing
factor in Indo-US relations which was only removed in 1994.
Relations saw set back by the passing of Pressler Amendment in
1995 regarding sale of 28 F-16 aircrafts to Pakistan. Again supply of
nuclear fuel to Tarapur reactor suffered, cryogenic sales was hit and
the issue of Super 301 resurfaced, which created discomfort
between the two.
In 1998, relations totally took a reverse turn with the Pokhran II
explosion and India’s refusal to sign the CTBT during the tenure of
Vajpayee Government. However, due to increased functioning of
terrorists in Pakistan, the US stance towards India began to change
and President Clinton visited India in March 2000. When President
Bush assumed the office in 2001, despite several irritants did not
stop searching for avenues for new relationship with India. Only after
9/11 attacks on the United States and the 13 December attack on
the Indian Parliament that Indo-US relationship took a new turn as
both pledged to fight against international terrorism.
India and the US both agreed to foster military cooperation according
to the Kickleighter proposals. However, differences over reforms of
US, supply of
F-16s to Pakistan, GATT negotiations, Cryogenic engine sales,
refusal to supply nuclear fuels for Tarapur reactor, imposition of tariff
restrictions of India’s textile exports and other issues persisted.
Relations took off significantly in the 1999–2000. In 1999, both India
and USA entered into Bilateral Extradition Treaty, Treaty on Mutual
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and several defence
cooperation deals. President Clinton visited India in March 2000, and
Prime Minister Vajpayee visited the US in September. In 2001, the
US lifted the nuclear sanctions. In 2002, a major milestone was
achieved when Vajpayee and Bush met in New York. They identified
sectors of cooperation like high technology, space research, civilian
nuclear technology, economic, defence and also addressing various
global issues. In 2002, National Security Strategy was agreed upon
and in January 2004 President Bush announced ‘Next Steps in
Strategic Partnership’ (NSSP) with India. With these India acquired
the status of ‘strategic partner’ of the US.
The year 2008 is important in the sense that with the assistance of
US and other countries India managed to get a Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG) waiver. The 123 Agreement was rectified. The ultimate
result was that India and USA struck the historic nuke deal.
In July 2009, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State paid a visit to
India to further boost the Indo-US relations. Indo-US relations saw
new developments with Manmohan Singh’s four-day visit to the US
in November 2009. The visit was followed by high level talks on
strengthening cooperation on various global and regional issues like
counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence to prevent Mumbai-type
attacks, implementation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal to mention
a few. The US President, Barack Obama acclaimed India as an
“indispensable partner” as both nations would strive to build a future
of security and prosperity for all nations. Thus, a new phase of
‘strategic partnership’ between India and USA took off. In November
2009 only, India and US signed the India-US Counter Terrorism
Initiative which aims at strengthening cooperation to counter
terrorism.
The Indo-US Strategic Dialogue took place on 3 June 2010 when
Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna visited the United States. Recognizing
India as a “rising global power”, the US Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton declared that the USA today was definitely committed “to
consider India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC.” The US
President Obama’s visit to India from 6–9 November 2010, further
brought the two countries closer. President Obama expressed US
support for India’s membership to multilateral export control regimes
like NSG, MTCR, the Australian Group (AG) and the Wassenaar
Arrangement (WA) in a phased manner and removal of India’s
defence and space related entities from the US ‘Entity List’. (see
pages 387–388)
India’s Minister of External Affairs, S.M. Krishna and the US
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met in New Delhi on 19
July 2011, for the second Annual Meeting of the India-US Strategic
Dialogue. Three focal areas of interaction were highlighted by Ms.
Clinton. They are—lower tariff barriers along with further opening of
markets, involving India in maritime security and selling equipment
especially to the Navy and civil nuclear cooperation.
US Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton paid a visit to India 08 May
2012. External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna projected an optimistic
vision of Indo-US relation in the future. However, India expressed her
concerns about the continuing difficulties on mobility of
professionals, especially for our IT companies, and protectionist
sentiments in the US with regard to global supply chain in services
industry. S.M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs, co-chaired with
the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the third India-US Strategic
Dialogue on 13 June 2012 in Washington DC. The Joint Statement
contained a satisfaction of both the sides on the remarkable
expansion and growth of the bilateral relationship since the inaugural
Strategic Dialogue in 2010.
As far as Indo-US economic relations are concerned, it started
improving after 2000. The year 2000 witnessed the initiation of trade
partnership between the two countries. On 21 March 2000, Prime
Minister of India and President of United States released a document
in the theme India-US Relations: A Vision for the 21st Century at
New Delhi. Obviously, despite such remarkable steps, scholars point
at the slow rate of progress as compared to progress of US-China
trade. In 1991, the figure stood at US $ 5.91 billion, in 2000 US
$14.35 billion, in 2004 US $ 37.1 billion, in 2008 US $43.4 billion and
in 2010 the figure stood at US $ 48.75 billion. US-China trade in the
year 2010 has been to the tune of US $ 456.82 billion. Despite such
sluggish pace of progress of Indo-US trade India seems to be
lucrative destination for FDI and huge market for US exports and
MNCs. IT sector is the major sector of cooperation between the two
countries. However, outsourcing has been a serious problem and the
domestic public opinion in USA is quite averse to outsourcing of jobs
to India, China and elsewhere. In 2010 both countries to boost the
bilateral trade in macroeconomic policy, financial sector and
infrastructure financing launched a new Economic and Financial
Partnership between India’s Ministry of Finance and the Department
of the Treasury in April 2010. Earlier in 2005, to promote real and
meaningful cooperation in trade and investment a US-India Trade
Policy Forum set up followed by the establishment of a Private
Sector Advisory Group (PSAG) in 2007.
The Indo-US Nuke deal is well-known and quite a path-breaking
success for India. The most remarkable breakthrough that
Manmohan Singh’s government was able to make was to enter into
the nuclear deal with the United States. The process started with Dr.
Singh’s assumption of office and met its culmination in October, 2008
when the final nuclear deal was signed between the two countries.
Earlier on 18 July 2005, India and the US signed the landmark
Civilian Nuclear Agreement in Washington DC. Next on 2 March
2006, a Separation Plan is initialed by India and the US which listed
out which reactors New Delhi would put under safeguards. On 18
December 2006, the Hyde Act was passed by the US Congress
which led to the amendment of the US Atomic Energy Act. The next
breakthrough came in 27 July 2007 when the 123 Agreement was
signed by India and the US outlining the terms of nuclear trade
between the two countries. On 1 August 2008, IAEA cleared India-
specific safeguards agreement that defined the level of supervision
of civilian plants. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver came
ultimately after intense negotiation among its 45 members to allow
nuclear trade with India on 6 September 2008. Ultimately India and
the US struck the nuclear deal on 8 October 2008. As the nuke deal
is in place now India can now formally begin trade in civilian nuclear
technology while continuing its nuclear weapons programme but
expecting severe consequences if it conducts a test in future.
As far as cooperation in other sectors is concerned, both countries
pledge to work towards achieving energy security, use of clean
energy and working out climate change negotiations. Both sides look
forward for fruitful cooperation in the health, science and technology.
USA and India also cooperate in high technology area pertaining to
aerospace, IT and communication, pharmaceuticals and bio-
technology. Education is also another significant area of cooperation.
During Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington in
2009 both countries launched Obama-Singh 21st Century
Knowledge Initiative aimed at increasing linkages and faculty
development programme between US and Indian Universities. USA
is also a vocal supporter of India’s bid for a permanent seat in the
UNSC.
However, certain grey areas still persist. India’s stand on entering
into an understanding on End-Use-Monitoring Agreement (EUMA)
with the US, which has raised severe criticisms from several
quarters. Some see the provisions of EUMA as a compromise of
India’s sovereignty. CITBT can again prove a stumbling block. Doha
rounds of negotiations under WTO and the continuing stalemate
brings to the fore the differences of perspectives of the US and India
on matters hurting the developing world especially subsidies on
agriculture by USA and other developed countries. Differences exist
over climate change and global warming issues, especially regarding
matters on carbon emission level and necessary cut to be imposed
by India and China. Above all, US Af-Pak policy immensely affects
India. USA is soft on Pakistan, and in the war against terrorism,
Pakistan has emerged as the major ally of the US. India’s hue and
cry over Pakistan’s policy of sheltering terrorists and evidences given
by India after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks did not result in change in
the US policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan goes on receiving
generous amount of military and economic aid from the US. Just
before President Obama visited India in November 2010, the US
announced $2-billion annual defence aid package to Pakistan in
October 2010. US Drone attacks (starting from 2004) in the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along Afghan border on
northwest of Pakistan and killing of Osama bin Laden by the US
Navy SEAL in May 2011 prove beyond doubt the gravity of the
terrorist activities in Pakistan. Again, regarding the Haqqani group,
US has warned Pakistan of military action in North Waziristan.
However, the US administration refused to endorse the ISI and
Haqqani linkage. The haziness over US stand on David Coleman
Headley also is a distressing factor between India and the US. The
Chicago Court sentenced Headley to 35 years of imprisonment in
January 2013. India has pleaded for his extradition in the past and
also would like to have Headley now but this has not been
responded favourably by the US.
Therefore, what emerges in the present scenario is that India should
not become a tool in the hands of the US in her strategic design in
the Asia-Pacific. India must not try to alienate herself from the
Chinese and be blind on containing China. Again India must also
engage with the US to balance the overwhelming presence of China.
Thus, engagement and accommodation of the three powers can
ensure peace and stability in the region.

India and Russia

Indo-Russian friendship is a time-tested relationship. No one has
been such a trusted friend as has been Russia for India.
Undoubtedly, there have been some hiccups immediately after the
disintegration of Soviet Union and certain matters related to defence
deal, yet both have nurtured strong bond over the years.
Immediately after the independence of India, there were some
differences on international issues related to India’s membership to
Commonwealth, opposition to Communist revolution in Malaya,
adoption of non-alignment policy, and also support to Greece among
others. Soviet Union was suspicious about India’s foreign policy
posture as pro-West. However, the initial misgivings soon
disappeared with the death of Stalin and Khrushchev’s assumption
of office of the President. In the 1950s when military pacts were
being formed by USA to counter Communist threat, India’s refusal to
join such pact/alliances as opposed to Pakistan, and sticking to non-
alignment, brought the two countries together. Thereafter, both had
agreed on matters like Suez crisis and disagreed on Hungary, yet
both moved on amicably in their bilateral relations. In 1962, during
the Sino-Indian war, Soviet Union supported India whole heartedly,
sided with India and also extended proposals for defence
cooperation like manufacture of M.I.G Fighter Planes. During the
1965 Indo-Pak war, Soviet Union mediated peace between India and
Pakistan and thus the Tashkent Declaration (1966) was signed.
The year 1971 was eventful, and Soviet Union and India entered into
the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. The Preamble to the
Treaty reaffirms both countries’ faith in “the principles of peaceful co-
existence and co-operation between states with different political and
social systems.” The noticeable point of this treaty was that there
would be reciprocal consultations in case either of parties was
subjected to an attack. Both also pledged to refrain from concluding
military alliances against each other. Both also committed to
enhance economic, scientific and technological cooperation. Thus,
we find that Soviet Union helped India to set up Iron factory at Bhilai
and Iron and steel factory at Bokaro. Arya Bhatta, the first artificial
satellite was sent from Soviet Union. During the Janata
government’s tenure, it was expected that there would be drastic
changes in the foreign policy posture of India. This was specially
because they vehemently criticized India’s intimacy with the Soviet
Union as a violation of the principle of non-alignment. However, it got
itself reconciled with the tilt in non-alignment and continued good
relations with the Soviet Union.
With the coming back of Indira Gandhi, relations became more
cordial which were further strengthened by Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv
Gandhi went on his first visit to Moscow from 21–26 May 1985,
which resulted in fruitful interactions in strategic as well as economic
fields. The return visit by the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to
India in November 1986, was a landmark in India’s relation with the
Soviet Union. New agreements were signed between India and the
Soviet Union in the field of economic and technical cooperation.
During all these years one thing that was happening was that there
was voluminous rise of bilateral trade between both the countries.
The National Front Government under V.P. Singh and then Chandra
Sekhar did not dramatically change Indo-Russian policy and
continued the same traditional policy of amity and cooperation.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union in December 1991
problems surfaced. There was no clear idea about what the Russian
policy towards India would be. Yeltsin and his close associates like
Gaider and Kosyrev were pro-West. Therefore, Indo-Russian
relations suffered a setback. In the meantime, the historic Indo-
Soviet Treaty of Peace and Friendship and Cooperation was
extended for another two decades. Several irritants cropped up
regarding the cryogenic deals, arms transfer, rupee-rouble
exchange, and Kashmir issue among others. Narasimha Rao
Government had to renegotiate various ties in place with the
erstwhile Soviet Union. India also slipped from the privileged
position, which it used to enjoy under the erstwhile USSR. To India’s
greatest dissatisfaction, Russia voted in favour of a Pakistani-
sponsored resolution declaring South Asia a nuclear-free zone. The
supply of cryogenic engines by Moscow to aid India’s space
programme for peaceful explorations, ultimately disrupted under
immense US pressure, also created apprehensions in Indian minds.
However, the initial misunderstandings soon gave way to newer
bonds between the two. Relations improved greatly with Russian
President Boris Yeltsin’s visit to India in January 1993. During this
visit not only was the rupee-rouble exchange rate resolved but also
the 1971 Indo-Russian Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation
was substituted by a new 14-clause Treaty of Friendship and
Cooperation valid for 20 years. This Treaty stipulated that the two
countries would refrain from taking any action that might affect the
security interests of the other, pledging support to each other’s
territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs.
The visit of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to Moscow in June 1994
saw further improvement of relations. Russia also refrained from
supply of arms to Pakistan. Primakov, first as Russian Foreign
Minister, 1996 and then as Prime Minister in 1998 made all effort to
boost the bilateral relations. During the visit of Indian Prime Minister
H.D. Deve Gowda to Moscow in March 1997, Russia agreed to help
India set up a nuclear power plant at Kudankulam. The United Front
Government first under Deve Gowda and then under I.K. Gujaral did
not introduce any significant change in India’s foreign policy posture.
During Vajpayee’s Prime Ministership, a breakthrough came in the
year 2000. In the same year relations took a new turn with Putin
assuming the office of the President of Russia. Putin visited New
Delhi in 2000. The Declaration on strategic partnership was signed in
2000. This was not directed against any State/groups of states, and
did not aim at creating military-political alliances. This declaration
also set up the framework for convening Annual Summit Level
Meetings, closer cooperation at international and regional forums,
deepening and diversifying cooperation in sectors such as
metallurgy, fuel and energy, information technology, communications
and transport, consolidating defence and military cooperation,
cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and outer space,
cooperating in combating international terrorism and organized
crimes among others. The idea of North-South Corridor was also
floated in September 2000.†
Again during the Vajpayee Government’s tenure, the relations got a
boost with another visit form Putin to New Delhi in 2002. The Delhi
Declaration was signed on ‘Further Consolidation of Strategic
Partnership’. Both countries agreed to set up a joint group on fighting
terrorism, and emphasized on promotion of scientific and cultural
cooperation.
During UPA-I and UPA-II Indo-Russian relations saw an upsurge with
several pacts being signed between both the countries in the course
of the visits by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to New Delhi,
and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Moscow. India and
Russia reinforced their ties with an expanded civil nuclear deal and
three military pacts. They also raised voices of concern over growing
menace of terrorism. This was done during the course of a three-day
visit to Moscow by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during
December 2009. Dr. Singh also upheld that India’s relations with
third world countries will never be at the cost of “time-tested ties”
with Russia. Again during Russian Prime Minister Putin’s visit to New
Delhi during March 2010, 19 pacts were signed. Some prominent
among them are Agreement on Cooperation in the use of Atomic
Energy for Peaceful Purposes, Agreement on Road Map for the
Serial Construction of Russian Designed Nuclear Power Plants
(Russia to build 6 atomic plants in Kudankulan and 6 in Haripur,
West Bengal), Agreement on Protocol of Cooperation signed
between ONGC and Russia’s Gazprom, revised agreement on
Gorshkov aircraft carrier deal, agreement for sale of MiG-29K aircraft
carrier-based fighters by Russia to India under a USD 15 billion
contract, two pacts in field of fertilizers and five pacts in the diamond
sector. In December 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
visited India. The outcome of the visit was reflected in the signing of
30 agreements during his visit on 21–22 December 2010. The
agreements were signed in key areas like defence, energy, nuclear,
space, science & technology, pharma, IT, bio-technology, and so on.
Russian President also showed strong and unambiguous support to
India’s bid for the UNSC permanent membership. He also expressed
a strong desire to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan through joint
efforts. Therefore, Indo-Russian relationship received another boost
with Medvedev’s visit to India.
Indo-Russian relation took a positive turn with the visit of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to Russia on 15–17 December 2011. The
External Affairs Minister visited Russia on 13 April 2012 to attend the
Eleventh Trilateral Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of India, Russia
and China. Deputy Chairman of Russian Federation, Dmitry
Rogozin, visited India on 13 October 2012. (see Indian Foreign
Policy developments in the Year 2011-2012 for details).
India and Russia have been successful in forging strong ties at the
international levels too. The India-Russia-China Trilateral is showing
signs of positive development. The 10th IRC Ministerial Meeting was
held in Wuhan in November 2010. Russia’s solid support gave India
access to Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) despite initial
Chinese stubbornness. Russia backs India’s full-fledged
membership of SCO. This is essential to give India’s Central Asian
policy a major boost. Both are involved in the East Asia Summit
(EAS) which gives both access to conduct strategic dialogue and
enhance security cooperation in Asia-Pacific Region. Russia also
backs India’s entry into APEC. India supports Russia’s entry into the
Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) for better enhancement of cooperation
in Eurasia. BRICS ‡ has given both India and Russia another
dialogue forum for enhancing cooperation. Both interact and share
similar views in various international organizations like the UN, G20,
ASEAN Regional Forum on Security (ARF) and the Asia
Cooperation Dialogue (ACD). In case of voting in UNSC for passing
Resolution 1973 for establishing no-fly zone over Libya, Russia and
India abstained among 10 other abstaining members. Russia has
outrightly supported India’s bid for a permanent seat in the Security
Council.
Defence cooperation between India and Russia is quite old, and has
been growing over the years. Both sides have, on their agenda,
issues related to ongoing projects like Fifth generation Fighter
Aircraft, Multi-role Transport Aircraft, T-90 tanks, AWACS, SU-30
MKI upgrade, aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and Medium Lift
Helicopters. Both sides are keen on expediting the projects. The
10th Indo-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission on Military
Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC) was held in New Delhi in 2010,
which pointed to the positive dynamics of the defence cooperation.
The tenure of the Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on
Military Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC) was extended by
another ten years on the expiry of its term in 2010. However, the
delay in delivery of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov is causing
discomfort in the bilateral relations. The delivery was pushed back to
2013, and in 2012 reports came out of further delay. This is costing
India more than the amount signed in the original contract in 2004.
India defence supply diversification has also caused displeasure at
the diplomatic level. India has developed closer ties with Israel,
France, UK and Germany to name a few of the prominent countries
with which India is negotiating defence deals. In a latest historic
purchase by the Indian Air Force in January 2012, the Dassault
Rafale won the bid from among the chief contenders like the Russian
MIG-35, Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Falcon, Boeing’s F-18 Hornet, the
Swedish Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon. This deal shows
how India has diversified her defence procurement and also plans to
issue global tenders for future purchases too.
In the Indo-Russian trade front however, things are not showing
positive signs. There has been a trade slump. It is slowly picking up
from $1,339 million in 1997 to $1,406 million in 2000–2001 and
further to $1,954 million in 2004–2005 and $2878 in 2006–2007.
Sino-India trade witnessed an upsurge of $33.4 billion in 2006
whereas Indo-Russian trade showed a bare $3.3 billion figure.
However, both sides still continue to forge ties in the fields of
Science and technology, energy and nuclear sectors. Both sides
have ongoing cooperation in the Russian Global Navigation Satellite
System (GLONASS), joint lunar exploration (Chandrayan-2), joint
development and launch of youth satellite for educational purposes,
joint collaborative ventures in technology and bio-technology among
others. In the field of nuclear cooperation, Tarapur and Kudankulam
are worth mentioning. As far as energy cooperation is concerned
Indian and Russian oil companies have acquired 20% stake in
Sakhalin-1 project from Rosneft-S. Both have huge prospect of
cooperation in these sectors.
The Russian President Vladimir Putin was on an official visit to New
Delhi on 24 December, 2012 to attend the 13th India-Russia Annual
Summit. The mechanism of Annual Summit began with the signing
of the Declaration of Strategic Partnership between India and the
Russian Federation in October 2000. The Summits are held annually
on a rotational basis. A joint statement was issued during this
Summit under the theme Partnership for Mutual benefit and a Better
World. Both sides emphasized the deepening of the strategic
partnership between the two countries. Both sides stressed to
improve ties in the fields of trade and investment, energy, science
and technology, culture and humanitarian exchanges, education,
military-technical cooperation, space, terrorism, regional and
international issues, disarmament and non-proliferation efforts as
well as matters concerning Syria, Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear
programme, recovery of global economy, and environment and
sustainable development. A number of agreements/MoUs were also
signed between India and Russia.
From the above analysis of indo-Russian relation, one can come to
the conclusion that the irritants have not been able to dampen the
cooperative spirit of both the countries at the bilateral level.
Currently, in the various international fora like the SCO, G 20 and the
BRICS, they are getting along well. So both India and Russia must
make earnest effort to nurture the cooperative spirit that they have
cultivated over the years.

India and China

India and China, two big neighbours vying for leadership in Asia,
have over the years cultivated bilateral relations involving rivalry and
engagements. A number of irritants have severed the relation
between the two. Long pending border dispute, territorial claims,
Chinese incursions, Tibet and Dalai Lama, burgeoning trade deficit,
assistance to Pakistan, developing closer ties with India’s
neighbours, China’s strategy of ‘Strings of Pearls’ and Indo-US
Nuclear deal are some major drawbacks in the Sino-Indian relations
among others.
As far as the border dispute is concerned which is a pricky and
disturbing factor there have been claims and counter claims over
certain territories by both. China has forwarded claims over
Arunachal Pradesh and the dispute centres around the acceptance
of McMohan Line [Line of Actual Control (LAC)] by China. China
refuses to accept the LAC while India regards McMohan Line as a
permanent border. There is also bitterness over Aksai Chin and
again the dispute is regarding the acceptance of John Ardagh-
Johnson Line and the Macartney-MacDonald Line by one and
rejection by the other. The former puts Aksai Chin within Indian
territory and the latter puts it outside the Indian territory. Such
divergent perspectives had been uncompromising and complicating
relations. In 1963, against Indian objections, Pakistan handed over
the Trans-Karakoram Tract to China as this area is claimed as a part
of Jammu and Kashmir. There are also eight pockets of disputes
between the two. In the Western sector—(1) Trig Heights and (2)
Demchok; in the Middle sector—(3) Barahoti; in the Eastern Sector-
(4) Namka Chu, (5) Sumdorong, (6) Chantze, (7) Asaphila, and (8)
Lonju. Chinese incursions into the Western Sector (Ladakh), Middle
(Uttarakhand and Himachal) and Eastern (Sikkim and Arunachal)
have also disturbed the relations. China also has made a claim over
the Finger Area§ in Sikkim.
Tibet has been a vexing issue since the Chinese started their
mission to liberate Tibet in the late 1940s and completed its
occupation by 1951. Dalai Lama following the uprising in Tibet in
1959 fled to India and established a government in exile in India in
Dharamshala. From then onwards, the issue of Dalai Lama has been
a vexing topic in Sino-India relation. China alleges the hands of Dalai
Lama for formenting troubles in Tibet. China uses all means to
integrate Tibet into mainland China. It has built roads and rail links
like the Beijing-Lhasa road, and had plans for constructing a road up
to Mount Everest. With the Chinese occupation of Tibet India lost a
buffer state between China and herself, and now every single
Chinese defence designs involving Tibet gives her a nerve shock,
because these connectivity between Tibet and China can well be
mobilized to move troops upto Indian border.
The widening trade gap is a matter of worry for India. In 2006, the
Joint Economic Group (JEG) which met in New Delhi made
commitments to diversify India’s exports and improve market access
for Indian companies to China. However, the trade deficit has grown
from US $4 billion to US $14 billion in 2009.
Bilateral trade fell by 20% in 2009 due to global meltdown and hit
Indian exports. However, one big allegation against China is
‘dumping’ of Chinese goods in India and thus spoiling the domestic
market of India. India since September 2008 has extended a ban on
milk and milk products from China due to high amount of melamine
content. Further, China has also tried to block the US $2.9 billion
development fund for India out of which $60 million development
project was meant for Arunachal Pradesh from the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) in March 2009. China insisted that
Arunachal Pradesh must be removed from the development project
plan. Earlier China also had attempted to block a waiver by the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which cleared global nuclear trade
for India.
China’s closeness to Pakistan is a matter of concern for India. China
has given assistance both in the military and the nuclear sector
which are disturbing factors in the Sino-Indian relations. Sino-
Paksitani collaboration in the building up of the nuclear reactor
(Khusab Nuclear Reactor) has made Indian allegations of
clandestine dealings between China and Pakistan proved beyond
doubt. Further, Chinese design of ‘Strings of Pearls’ which is a
strategy to encircle India by building or developing relations with
States around India and isolate India in South Asia and limit her
extension of activities beyond this region and also check India’s
activities in the South China Sea, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.
China also is aware that it has to limit growing India’s influence in
South-east Asia, Central Asia and Persian Gulf to ensure China’s
energy security supplies. China wants to achieve this by establishing
economic and military nodes in various countries by using diplomacy
and economic packages. China has targeted countries like
Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius and
Seychelles, Thailand and Cambodia and above all Pakistan. In 2005,
Chinese Premier Prime Minister Wen Jiabao inaugurated the deep-
seaport at Gwadar on the coast of Arabian Sea which obviously was
constructed with Chinese assistance. In Sri Lanka, China is assisting
in construction of Hambantota port in southern Sri Lanka. Strategic
investments are being made by China in Hainan Island in the South
China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, port developments in Chittagong
in Bangladesh, Sittwe, Coco, Hianggyi, Khaukphyu, Mergui and
Zadetkyi Kyun in Myanmar, Laem and Chabang in Thailand and
Sihanoukville in Cambodia.
The issue of stapled visas is another recent irritant in the Sino-Indian
relation. Chinese and Indian Naval warships had been paying
goodwill visits to each other’s ports since 2004. The armies of both
countries also had conducted joint military exercises in 2008 in
China and in India in 2009. These naval exchanges were suspended
on July 2010 after issuance of stapled visa¶ to Lt. Gen BS Jaswal
who was commanding Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, before the BRICS summit in China, Beijing issued normal
visas to four Kashmiri. Yet during the meeting between Manmohan
Singh and Hu Jintao during the BRICS Summit in Sanya in April
2011 they could not resolve the issue of stapled visa. Earlier China
began issuing visa on a separate piece of paper to the citizens of the
Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which challenges the territorial
integrity of India.
The Sino-Indian relations in the present international scenario has to
be perceived by taking into consideration the presence of USA.
India’s nuclear deal with USA can be seen as a strategy to balance
off China. Therefore, a balance of power situation in South Asia has
emerged where US economic and strategic partnership with India
can help India to gain a stronger foothold in South Asia.
India was quick in extending official recognition to the emergence of
Peoples Republic of China in 1949. Diplomatic relations between the
two were established on 1 April 1950. In 1954, a pathbreaking
agreement between China and India which recognized the five
principles of Panchsheel of mutual existence. India also formally
recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. From the year 1954–56,
the spirit of friendship hindi-chini bhai bhai flourished. There were
visits by Chinese Premiere Zhou Enlai to India and also Nehru to
China. However, this spirit soon witnessed a downturn with
publications of Chinese maps showing large portion of Indian
territory as Chinese possessions. In late 1950s, the Chinese started
building Sinkiang-Tibet road followed by several Chinese incursions
in Barahoti and Aksai Chin areas. In 1958, Chinese troops intruded
Lohit division of NEFA/Arunachal. In 1959, Chinese suppression of
Tibetan revolt and fleeing of Dalai Lama to India where he was given
political asylum hurt terribly the bilateral relations. The year 1962
was an eventful year as the two neighbours clashed. The Sino-
Indian border war embittered relations further. Taking advantage of
Sino-Indian animosity, Pakistan seized the opportunity to develop
friendly relations with China. However, relations eased in early
1970s. Mao emphasized the re-establishment of friendship in 1970
which came to be known as ‘Mao Smile’. In 1971, an Indian Table
Tennis team participated in the Afro-Asian Friendship Table tennis
Championship. During the Bangladesh war and India’s role in it,
China though was not on Indian side yet reaction was not hostile.
Again a jolt in the relationship came with the Pokhran-I explosion
and Sikkim’s accession to India. In 1975, there was restoration of
normalcy, and K.R. Narayan was designated as India’s ambassador
to China. Later in the 1970s economic relations witnessed a positive
turn. In 1979, after 30 years of any visist by high level dignitary to
China, Vajpayee visited China but midway terminated the visit and
returned due to Chinese aggression of Vietnam. The year 1980
again saw differences over Chinese policies towards Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia and boundary issues. Regarding
border negotiations differences arose over whether there would be
separate discussions on each sector as per Indian demand or a
package deal as per Chinese intentions. In 1986, despite boundary
negotiations, China intruded into Indian territory in Arunachal
Pradesh.
However, a positive change in the bilateral relations with Rajiv
Gandhi’s visit to China. His visit to China in December 1989, was
symbolic in the sense that India accepted the Chinese view-point of
broadening exchange in other areas without making these
developments contingent on the resolution of border issue. A much
more relaxed relationship evolved after Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China,
which was briefly disturbed due to the Pokhran explosion of May
1998. Nevertheless, after a short interregnum of adverse reaction
between the two, normalcy resumed and relations continued on the
course set by Rajiv Gandhi. Two sides arrived at a decision to
constitute a Joint Working Group (JWG) to deal with boundary
dispute. In December 1991, the Chinese Premier Li Peng visited
India, the first visit by a Chinese PM after a lapse of 31 years. Both
sides agreed to maintain tranquility in the area along LAC pending
final settlement. The first Indian President to visit China was
President R. Venkataraman. He made a six-day trip to China from
19–25 May 1992. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao also visited China
in 1993. On all these occasions, the border problem was kept aside
and negotiations were held in other fields of interest of both the
countries.
In 1993, another major breakthrough came when P.V. Narasimha
Rao visited China, and two signed an Agreement on Maintenance
of Peace and Tranquility Along the Line of Actual Control in the
China-India Border Areas. The implication of this agreement was
that the two sides would respect the LAC along the Himalayan
frontier and not to conduct military manoeuvre in the designated
zones. It was also agreed to set up India-China Expert Group of
Diplomatic and Military officers to assist the work of JWG. During the
United Front Government tenure, with China, the UF Government
followed the course chartered by Rajiv Gandhi and made significant
development and a high level visit was made by the Chinese
President and General Secretary of the Communist Party, Jiang
Zeminin November, 1996.
In 1995, both India and China agreed to dismantle four closed
military posts, setting up of four border pots, establishment of four
meeting points between their military personnel and pull back their
troops in close proximity to the Sumdorong Chu Valley in the eastern
sector. The year 1996 also saw the visit by the First President of
China till then. Jian Zemin visited India and both sides agreed to take
several confidence building measures.
In the year 1998, with Vajpayee as the Prime Minister there were
some ups and downs in Sino-Indian relations. China sent a high-
powered delegation led by China’s Chief of General Staff of the
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Fu Quanyou to India in April
1998 to discuss several bilateral issues. But the Indo-China relations
got a jolt due to the Pokhran explosion and also because of pointing
out to China as an impending danger to India’s security. This earned
the Chinese ire and its condemnation of the nuclear tests along with
the other major powers. However, gradually, Indo-Chinese
relationship began to get normalized following visits by the then
External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh in 1999, and President K.R.
Narayan in 2000. In 1999, border negotiations were held. In 2000,
both countries celebrated 50th anniversary of their diplomatic
relations between the two countries. In 2001, Li Peng visited India. In
2002, Chinese Premier Zhu Ronji visited India. Several agreements
and MoUs were signed pertaining to tourism, sharing of hydrological
information regarding the Brahmaputra river, peaceful use of outer
space, cooperation in science technology and exchange of
personnel. In March 2002, Air links were established with China
Eastern Airlines starting direct services and Air India commencing
services from December 2003. In 2003, Indian Prime Minister
Vajpayee paid a visit to China. The signing of a memorandum on
opening border trade through Sikkim is thought to have its obvious
implications in starting the process of China recognizing—de facto
first, but eventually de jure—that Sikkim is a part of India after its
accession in 1975 to India. Sikkim was also dropped from the
Chinese website after Vajpayee’s path-breaking visit to China. In
2004, India and China signed an agreement on border trade which
aimed at opening a border trading point through Nathu La followed
by China’s acceptance of status of India as part of India. Border
Trade with India through Nathu La was opened in 2006. The other
two passes were opened earlier in 2003. They are Namgaya Shipkila
in Himachal Pradesh and Lipulekh (Gunji) in Uttaranchal.
During the first term of UPA-I in April 2005, Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao visited India, and in November 2006 President Hu Jintao
visited India. Yet irritants remained regarding unresolved border
problems and Chinese and Pakistani bonhomie. In 2007, Chinese
President visited India and 13 Agreements and MoUs were signed.
In 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited China and both
sides expressed eagerness to strengthen India-China Strategic and
Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity and upheld the
success of first joint military training exercise. In 2009, the 13th
round of border talks took place despite China reassertion of
Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory. The 14th round of
boundary talks focussing on finding a framework for a final
settlement of disputed areas was held in Beijing in November 2010.
There was no headway in this round of talks like earlier ones and
deadlock still continues, because of mutual accusation of retaining or
intruding and occupying areas along boundary.
The year 2010 marked the 60th anniversary of establishment of
diplomatic relations between the two countries. The Indian President
Pratibha Devisingh Patil arrived in Beijing on 27 May 2010 for a six-
day visit to China and was welcomed by Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao at the Purple Light Pavilion. She received red carpet welcome
as the first Indian Head of the State to visit China in a decade. Both
sides discussed bilateral issues pertaining to trade and commerce.
Particularly, sources said that Mrs. Patil sought China’s support for
India’s bid for the permanent seat in the UNSC. Further, an
agreement streamlining the visa formalities of airline staff of two
countries by Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and Chinese
Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue during Mrs. Patils’s visit to
China was worked out. A MoU for cooperation in the field of civil
services and public administration was also signed between the two.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his Chinese counterpart Wen
Jiabao at Hanoi in the sidelines of ASEAN Summit in July 2010.
Premier Wen Jiabao’s arrived in India on a three-day visit on 15
December 2010. (See details on pages 391–392).
In 2011, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited China to attend the
BRICS Summit at Sanya, China. In the sidelines of the BRICS
Summit, Dr. Singh met Chinese President Hu Jintao in April 2011.
The External Affairs Minister visited China on 8 February 2012.
India-China relations were aimed at transcending differences in their
bilateral matters. They reviewed the outstanding issues in Indo-
China relations and agreed to work to resolve them. To take the
relations beyond bilateral cooperation they agreed that these do not
adversely affect the growing cooperation in other areas. Both sides
pledged to carry that forward into 2012 and agreed to mark it as the
“Year of India-China Friendship and Cooperation.” Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh also had a meeting with the Chinese Prime
Minister Wen Jiabao in Rio de Janeiro on sidelines of Rio + 20
Summit in June 2012. He met his Chinese counterpart on the
sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Cambodia, where the two leaders
discussed ways to move forward on the vexed boundary issue in
November. However, soon after this a fresh row erupted again over
China’s depiction of Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as part of its
territory in maps of China in its new e-passports. Despite such
uneasiness, the 2nd India-China Strategic Economic Dialogue took
place in New Delhi on 26 November 2012, which emphasized the
increasing economic engagement between India and China.
China has bypassed USA, as India’s largest trading partner in 2008.
However, the trade imbalance is a worrying factor. India’s trade
deficit stands at over $20 billion, which is higher that the trade deficit
in 2009 that stood at $15.87 billion. Both again are competing in
African and Latin American countries to get access to oil reserves.
China’s intention to divert the Brahmaputra River is also a major fear
for India. With much reluctance and initial negation, China
accommodated India into Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
as an observer. This was again done to protect its Central Asian
interest and curb growing American presence in the Central Asian
and Caspian Sea region for the hydrocarbon reserves. China openly
does not support India’s bid to permanent member of UNSC.
However, both India and China have started interacting at the BRICS
multilateral. They also participate in the Trilateral Summit involving
Russia, China and India. The Tenth Trilateral Foreign Ministers Meet
was held in Wuhan in 2010. The Eleventh Trilateral was held in April
2012. However, India is worried about the border problems and
China’s military design over Indian territories like Aksai Chin, Sikkim,
Arunachal Pradesh and road buildups in Tibet and largest land port
in Nepal, which will connect Xigaze with Nepal by rail. To ward-off
the Chinese threat, India has plans to upgrade six air-strips
(Advanced landing Ground) along the 40 km of the border, revamp
border posts modernization of Airfield infrastructure and other
measures.
Nuclear deal signed between India and United States of America can
be seen as a strategy by India to balance China’s growing influence
over India’s neighbours. The India-Japan-South Korea trilateral
seeks to reinforce the India-Japan-US trilateral dialogue that also
focuses on expanding strategic and maritime cooperation. Beijing
has not come out in the open about the India-Japan-South Korea
trilateral, but it has been uneasy about the three powers in the region
getting together which can be dubbed as an exercise in encirclement
of a rising China.
INDIA AND HER NEIGHBOURS
India and Pakistan
Two Countries, India and Pakistan were born out of the partition of
British India, in 1947. The two, since their births, have been
archrivals. Their relationship has seen many ups and downs. The
major irritants in their relation have been disputes pertaining to
borders, distribution/sharing of river waters, territorial disputes,
Afghanistan, cross-border terrorism and above all Kashmir.
Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 and India’s role in it still disturbs
the Pakistani minds.
The two countries have problem over the Siachen Glacier. India’s
position is that Pakistan should accept the actual ground position
line (AGPL) on Siachen where its troops have been in position since
1984. Pakistan demands that India should pull back to the position
occupied in 1972. The Siachen figures as one of the eight issues of
the composite dialogue process. Regarding Sir Creek** both sides
are forwarding their claims and undefined boundary is complicating
the issue. Fishermen are often caught and jailed. The Wullar
Barrage-Tulbul Project dating back to 1985 also invited the Pakistani
ire. Pakistan saw it as a violation of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT),
1960. After rounds of failed negotiations in the recent years both
sides have agreed to work out an early and amicable solution on the
basis of technical consultations and the provisions of the IWT, 1960.
The Baglihar Hydropower project was started by India in 1999. This
has also been objected to by Pakistan on similar grounds. Pakistan
alleges India of violating the IWT, 1960. In January 2005, Secretary-
level talks were held, but without much result. Ultimately the matter
was referred to the World Bank which appointed Prof. Raymond
Lafitte as the Neutral Expert (NE) to study the project and consider
Pakistan’s objections to the project. The Kishenganga Hydropower
project being built by India on the Jhelum River has been objected to
by Pakistan. Similar arguments and allegations of violation of IWT,
1960 have been raised. There is also apprehension on the part of
Pakistan regarding manipulation of water flow of river by India.
Pakistan has also objected to the construction of the Nimoo Bazgo
project in Leh on the grounds of pondage level and slit flushing.
However, the two major irritants that have embittered the Indo-Pak
relations have been the issues of Kashmir and terrorism. Kashmir,
from the very inception has been a contentious issue. Failing to
wrest Kashmir from India immediately after independence by
sending the Pushtun raiders in September 1947, and in 1965,
Pakistan opted for subversive means of disturbing peace and
security of India. Proxy war in Kashmir and Punjab was damaging for
India. In 1971, following the Bangladesh liberation war, another Indo-
Pak war was fought. In the context of the 1965 and 1971 war two
milestone agreements were reached between India and Pakistan.
The first one was the Tashkent Declaration of
10 January 1966 and the other one was the Simla Agreement of
1972. However, Kashmir still is a thorny issue between the both, and
relations suffer much due to Pak support of militants who receive
training and sanctuary in Pakistan.
Significantly attached to the Kashmir issue is the case of terrorism
and Pakistani involvement not only in Kashmir but also aiming to
destabilize entire Indian peace and security. The 26/11 Terrorist
attack in Mumbai, Pune blasts and a series of blasts in different parts
of India, and their Pakistani connection have pushed the Indo-Pak
relations to a nadir. The David Headley episode and the ISI
connections and operations of militant groups in Pakistan like the
Lashkar-e-Taiba point to the gravity of India’s security concerns.
Added to this was the military buildup and ensuing arms race
between both the countries, which threatens the stability of South
Asian region. Alarming is that Pakistan from very early stage
received arms and financial assistance from USA who aimed at
containment of Communist expansion. Apprehensions of diversions
of these assistances against fuelling proxy war against India have
always troubled India. Another worrying factor for India was roping in
of Pakistan into US sponsored Military alliances like the Baghdad
Pact (1955-58), SEATO (1954) and CENTO (1958-79). This had
conditioned Indian posture of adopting the non-aligned stance.(see
Chapter 8 on Non-Alignment-Page 164) The Indo-China war of 1962
derailed the relations and taking advantage of the animosity between
India and China, Pakistan began cultivating ties with China.
Despite such differences, both sides have struggled to move ahead
in their bilateral relations. In 1983 Joint Commission was set up to
increase cooperation in various sectors like industry, culture,
education, tourism, information and scientific exchanges. Both
reiterated to develop peaceful relations on the basis of mutual
cooperation. This positive development got a jolt due to acquisition
of Harpoone missiles by Pakistan and supply of arms and training to
Sikh militants. In 1984, after the assassination of Indira Gandhi when
her son Rajiv Gandhi became the PM he took up measures to
improve relations with Pakistan. Another Joint Commission was set
up to look into various aspects of bilateral cooperation.
In 1985, both countries pledged not to attack each other’s nuclear
installations. However, again relations got a blow and Rajiv Gandhi
postponed his visit to Islamabad. In 1987, virtually the relations got
ruptured due to heavy troop movements on both sides and clashes
in the undemarcated region of the Siachen Glacier as well as
acquisition of sophisticated weapons by Pakistan from USA. In 1988,
with the restoration of democracy in Pakistan and assumption of the
office of PM by Benazir Bhutto, relations again eased. Rajiv Gandhi
visited Islamabad an signed three accords pertaining not to attack
each others nuke installations, promotion and development of
relations in the sectors like art, culture, archeology, education, mass
media and sports and avoidance of double taxation on income
derived from international air transport to facilitate airlines operation
to both countries. India also facilitated Pak’s entry into
Commonwealth from which Pak had withdrawn in 1972. Again
relations got strained as Pakistan tried to develop nuke capacity.
Bhutto visited Pyongyang to negotiate a deal for exchange of
missiles and missile technology from North Korea. In 1989, there
was slight improvement of relations with several cooperative
measures in economic, medical, agricultural and cultural fields and
easing of travel facilities as well as decision for coordinated patrolling
by both sides. The years 1990 and 1991 also saw some more
improvements and high-level meetings between the two countries.
However, there were clashes between Pak troops and Indian army in
September in the Kemi area of Poonch sector, and in October 1991
there was a Pak attack on an Indian outpost in Kargil. In 1992,
tension arose due to Ayodhya crisis, failure of Siachen talks and
even attempt by Azad Kashmir force to cross border. In 1994, Indian
Consulate in Karachi was closed.
During the Prime Ministership of P.V. Narasimha Rao (1991–1996)
Indo-Pak relations continued to be strained following the accelerated
pace of development of Pak’s nuclear capability with the assistance
from China and North Korea. Further, the demolition of Babri Masjid
on 7 December 1992 deteriorated the relation between the two.
In 1996, when the United Front Government under I.K. Gujral came
to power, Prime Minister Gujral introduced a new dimension of
India’s foreign policy. He introduced a concept which came to be
identified as Gujral Doctrine, and it was chalked with a vision to
improve India’s relations with her neighbour without expecting
reciprocity. India tried to melt the ice by initiating the process of
bilateral talks, but Pakistan under Bhutto backed out. With the
assumption of office of PM by Nawaz Sharif there were certain
improvements in the Indo-Pak relations. Though there was no
substantial breakthrough and Kashmir remained the most
contentious issue, yet both sides agreed to carry out the dialogue
process.
With the assumption of Prime Ministership of A.B. Vajpayee,
relations suffered due to the Pokhran explosion on 11 May 1998.
Pakistan responded by nuke explosions at Chaghai on 13 May 1998.
India however, again made efforts to improve the bilateral relations.
Vajpayee as a part of confidence-building measure with Pakistan
inaugurated a bus service in February 1999, and he himself took the
inaugural bus service to visit the then Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Nawaz Sharif in February at Lahore. This was followed by signing of
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) reaffirming their unilateral
moratorium on further nuclear testing and spelling out their
confidence-building measures. But the Kargil adventurism of
Pakistan in May-June 1999 under General Musharraf disrupted the
peace process. Gradually, relations showed improvement and this
was followed by General Musharaff’s visit to India for talks in Agra in
July 2001. But the talks failed to make any notable breakthrough and
even later the thaw in Indo-Pak relation continued because of
Pakistan’s insistence of linking Kashmir as the core issue always
rejected by India and cross border terrorism being highlighted by
India and rejected by Pakistan. The Kandahar episode (hijacking of
an Indian Airlines Plane IC 814 after it left Kathmandu to Kandahar)
revealed the Pakistani connection of the militants either helped or
given shelter by Pakistan. Therefore, like the efforts of the previous
governments, the Vajpayee government failed to melt the ice in the
Indo-Pak relations and stalemate continued.
President Musharaff during his second visit to New Delhi on 17 April
2005 declared that the peace process had become irreversible and
there was again another round of fresh confidence-building
measures, pledge to solve the Kashmir issue, the possible
resumption of Lahore-Amritsar bus service and re-establishment of
consulates at Karachi and Mumbai. However, nothing concrete was
actualized in reality. Efforts of peace dialogue made thereafter were
severely paralyzed due to increasing number of terrorist acts in India
and alleged involvement of Pakistan or of terrorists based in
Pakistan. India, under the Prime Ministership of Dr. Manmohan
Singh expressed grave concern over
the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, as there always looms a
possibility of the nuclear arsenals falling into the hands of terrorists.
Further relations got derailed with the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks
and revelations of Pakistani connections.
However, again on the sidelines of the 15th NAM Summit (Sharm el-
Sheikh, 2009) Dr. Manmohan Singh met the Pakistani PM Yousuf
Raza Gilani and both strove to make serious efforts towards positive
improvement in Indo-Pak relations despite several glitches. India
dropped her insistence of holding talks with Pakistan only after those
involved in Mumbai terror attacks have been punished. India
delinked ‘composite dialogue’ from terrorism. The joint statement
issued after the second top level meeting since the 26/11 Mumbai
terror attacks declared, “Both the Prime Ministers recognized that
dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be
linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be
bracketed.” Kashmir did not figure in the joint statement which is
always under the composite dialogue process. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh expressed India’s readiness to “discuss all issues
with Pakistan including all outstanding issues”. Responding to Dr.
Singh’s statement in the Lok Sabha on the India–Pakistan joint
statement in Egypt, Pakistani PM Gilani reciprocated the ‘sentiments
of peace’ and expressed the meeting as one where both leaders had
agreed that terrorism was a common threat and dialogue is the only
way to take relations in a positive direction. But the opposition
slammed New Delhi’s stance for delinking of the ‘composite
dialogue’ with Pakistan. Dr. Singh, however, reaffirmed that delinking
of dialogue process with Pakistan from its action against terrorism
was not a dilution of India’s stand, but strengthening of it.
The year 2010 began with several developments in Indo-Pak
relations though not very fruitful in every respect. Despite Pakistan’s
accusation that India has broken off the composite dialogue process
and efforts to isolate it diplomatically, there were Foreign Secretary
Level Talk (FSLT) on 25 February 2010; Sidelines Meeting at the
16th SAARC Summit, Thimpu, on April 2010; Foreign Secretary
Level Talk on 24 June 2010; and SAARC Home Ministers Meeting,
Islamabad, 25 June 2010. However the Indo-Pak relations suffered a
setback during the Foreign Ministers Meet in Islamabad on 16 July
2010. Indian Foreign Minister Krishnan and his Pak counterpart
Shah Mahmood Qureshi soon got caught in a diplomatic imbroglio
when Pak refused to engage in any substantial manner with the
critical areas of 26/11, cross-border terrorism and infiltration by
arguing that it could not speed up the judicial process (see page
385–387 for details).
On 28–29 March 2011, a meeting was held between the Home
Secretary of India, G.K. Pillai and Interior Secretary of Pakistan, Q.Z.
Chaudhury. This was a step towards further easing of the tensed
bilateral relations and resumption of talks. These talks were followed
by a meeting of the India Pakistan Judicial Committee on Prisoners
to discuss the issue of inadvertent boundary crossers and other
related issues like verification of nationality and humane treatment of
prisoners especially women and children. Both sides had released a
number of fishermen and civilians who were languishing in the jails
of the two countries.
The Minister of External Affairs of India, S.M. Krishna and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar met in
New Delhi on 27 July 2011. The Ministerial level talks were preceded
by a meeting between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan
on 26 July 2011. The meeting reviewed the status of bilateral
relations on the issues of Counter-Terrorism (including progress on
Mumbai trial) and Narcotics Control; Humanitarian issues;
Commercial and Economic cooperation; Wullar Barrage/Tulbul
Navigation Project; Sir Creek; Siachen; Peace and Security including
CBMs; Jammu and Kashmir; and promotion of friendly exchanges.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan Hina Rabbani Khar and
the Minister of External Affairs of India S.M. Krishna met in
Islamabad on 8 September 2012, for a meeting to review progress in
the Dialogue process. The Ministerial level talks were preceded by a
meeting between the Foreign Secretaries of Pakistan and India on 7
September 2012. They held substantive discussions on a wide range
of issues within the framework of the dialogue process, and
expressed satisfaction over the progress achieved since their last
review meeting in July 2011. They upheld the importance of carrying
forward the dialogue process with a view to resolving peacefully all
outstanding issues through constructive and result-oriented
engagement, and to establish friendly, cooperative and good
neighbourly relations between Pakistan and India. Keeping with the
spirit of the Agreement reached between the two countries on 8
September 2012, the Seventh Round of Expert Level Talks on
Nuclear CBMs was held on 28 December 2012. India and Pakistan
reviewed the implementation and strengthening of Nuclear CBMs
like the existing Agreements on pre-Notification on Flight Tests of
Ballistic Missiles and Reducing the Risk from Accidents relating to
Nuclear Weapons. However, in early January 2013, the alleged
killing of two Indian soldiers along the LOC by Pakistani troops and
insistence of Pakistan to involve UN Military Observer Group for
India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to probe the incident have again
derailed the bilateral relation between India and Pakistan.
India’s relation with Pakistan is always not at ease. The Kashmir
issue and cross-border terrorism haunt the relations especially with
India insisting action being taken against those involve in a spate of
terror acts/attacks in India. India has handed over a list of “most
wanted” including the names of Hafiz Saeed (founder of Lashkar)
and also Dawood Ibrahim and others involved in 26/11 attack, 1993
Mumbai serial blasts, IC-814 hijacking, 2001 attack on Parliament
and other terror activities in Punjab, J&K and in other parts of India.
Operation Neptune Spear conducted by US Navy SEAL that
carried out the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad surely
affirms India’s hue and cry over the issue of cross-border terrorism
and security threat is not unreal. The closeness of Pakistan to China
and the latter’s interest to fully utilize Pakistan’s strategic position as
a gateway to the Persian Gulf, West Asia and Africa is surely of a
great concern to India. With this intention China has helped Pakistan
develop it Gwadar Port. Pakistan’s nuclear design is a sure threat to
India’s security. The emergence of the Beijing-Pyongyang-
Islamabad-Naypyidaw-Tehran axis must condition India’s foreign
policy concern. Internal condition of Pakistan which is quite unstable
is a concern for India. How much political power is under the control
of civilian government is questionable. Military plays a decisive role.
The ISI is alleged to be operating from the soil of India’s other
neighbours like Nepal and Bangladesh, and also trying to establish
links with India’s insurgent forces, which is hindering security of
India. Further, Pakistan is a prominent member of Coffee Club.†† Yet,
the silver lining is that both are keen to increase their economic
cooperation. Pakistan gave India the assurance to grant MFN status.
India has to make efforts to reduce the ‘trust deficit’ if she wants to
ensure the actualization of the Turkey-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India
(TAPI) and Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipelines. Both should think
beyond the contentious issues and try to improve relations and
establish peace and security in the South Asian region by combating
terrorism and other subversive activities hindering peace and
security.

India and Bangladesh

India had played a pivotal role in the emergence of the current state
of Bangladesh on 26 March 1971. India had given full-fledged
support to the Bangladesh’s ‘Mukti bahini’ in its fight for the liberation
of Bangladesh from Pakistan. India and Bangladesh share a
common border of approximately 4096 km bordering 4 Indian states
of West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Both
countries share cultural affinities, especially the state of West Bengal
and also ethnic linkages with the North Eastern states.
However, tensions in the Indo-Bangladesh relation crop from various
issues like the Farrakha Barrage, Moore island, border-dispute
(including Teen Bigha Corridor), border fencing, illegal migration,
Chakma refugees, border crimes, human trafficking, smuggling,
trade and transit issues and Land Boundary Agreement.
Right after its birth, Bangladesh entered into a 25 year Treaty of
Cooperation, Friendship and Peace. This was patterned almost on
the lines of Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation
signed in 1971. Both countries pledged to fight against colonialism,
racialism, imperialism and work towards strengthening peace and
security. Both countries also agreed to cooperate in various sectors
like economic, scientific, technical, trade, transport and
communication. The Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) was signed
between both the countries in 1974. However, the LBA has not been
implemented in totality. Three issues still create trouble in Indo-
Bangladesh relation. They are like the demarcation of 6.5 km of the
border in three sectors of Lathililla-Dumabari (Assam Sector), South
Berubari (West Bengal Sector) and Muhuri river/Belonia sector
(Tripura Sector), exchange of adverse possessions and exchange of
enclaves. In 2001, the two countries established the Joint Boundary
Working Group (JNWG) to make recommendations for the
contentious border issues.
The Nuclear test by India in 1974 was not looked at adversely by
Bangladesh. However, later differences over Farakka barrage,
Mujib’s policies, New Moore island dispute and Chinese and
Pakistani propaganda against India as having an imperialist agenda
over Bangladesh embittered the relation. However, beginning of
1980s saw a change. In 1977, a short-term agreement was signed.
This agreement specified the quantum of water that the two
countries were to withdraw. In 1982, the two countries reached an
interim accord on Ganga water. Under this agreement the Farakka
Agreement of 1977 was terminated. Subsequently in 1983, 1985
accords were signed for sharing of Ganga water. However, tensions
continued over inclusion of Nepal and plan of action for dry season
flow of Ganga and augmentation of water supply at Farakka and
sharing of waters. In 1996, Indo-Bangla Ganga Accord was signed.
This was a 30 year water sharing Treaty, which was signed in New
Delhi. This Treaty is reviewed after every five year. It was agreed
that if water level drops sharply then both sides will share the
available quantum of water on a 50:50 basis.
The Chakma problem have disturbed for long the Indo-Bangladesh
relations. For long, there have been allegations against India of
supporting the Shantibahini (the armed wing of the Parbatya
Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti (PCJSS). However, with the
signing of the Peace Accord between the Chakmas and the Awami
League, and finally assassination of Manabendra Narayan Larma,
the movement faded. In 1997, Bangladesh agreed to repatriate
80,000 tribal Chakma refugees from India. In 1999, both countries
started Calcutta-Dhaka bus service followed by signing of an
agreement to resume goods train link after 26 years in 2000. In
2003, India gave some trade benefits to Bangladesh. India agreed to
grant duty-free access to some Bangladesh products. The year 2003
marked the beginning of comprehensive talks about Free Trade
Agreement (FTA). The External Affairs Minister of India Natwar
Singh visited Bangladesh in August 2005. Further, Prime Minister of
India visited Dhaka in November 2005 on the occasion of attending
SAARC Summit and met Bangladesh Prime Minister Begum
Khaleda Zia. Begum Khaleda Zia also visited India in March 2006.
This visit was followed by two agreements which were regarding
Revised trade Agreement and the Agreement for Mutual
Cooperation between India and Bangladesh for Preventing Illicit
Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In 2007
the then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited
Bangladesh and extended invitation to the Bangladeshi Prime
Minister to participate in the 14th SAARC Summit which was to be
held in New Delhi from 3–4 April 2007. The Foreign Office
Consultations (FOC) were held in Dhaka in June 2007. Eighth Home
Secretary level talks were held in New Delhi in August 2007
regarding border management. The biannual border coordination
conference was held in New Delhi in October 2007. According to the
decision of the third Joint Boundary Working Group meeting which
was held in Dhaka July 2006, delegations from both sides for the first
time made joint visits to a few enclaves and adverse possessions in
May 2007.
In 2008, Sheikh Hasina won the election and became the new Prime
Minister of Bangladesh. India extended its feelers to Bangladesh.
Former External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited
Bangladesh and held comprehensive discussions regarding security
matters, issues of common concern like cross-border terrorism,
peaceful management of the indo-Bangladesh borders, demarcation
of land boundaries and Indian maritime boundaries. Two agreements
were signed on bilateral trade and bilateral investment promotion
and protection. This was followed by visit by Foreign Minister of
Bangladesh Dipu Moni to India from 7–10 September 2009. This visit
was followed by discussions on bilateral issues and also the
contentious issue over a proposed hydel dam in India’s North-east.
Both India and Bangladesh agreed to conclude three agreements
pertaining to—mutual legal assistance on criminal matters; transfer
of sentenced persons; and combat of international terrorism,
organized crime and illegal drug trafficking.
During 10–13 January 2010, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh,
Sheikh Hasina visited India. India extended a line of credit worth one
billion dollars on the terms of Asian Development Bank for
infrastructural upgradation of Bangladesh. India also agreed to
construct the Akhaura-Agartala rail link, provide 250 megawatts of
electricity per day from the Indian power grid and deferred plans to
construct the 1500 MW Tipaimukh hydroelectric dam on the Barak in
Manipur to which Bangladesh has reservations. It was also agreed
that border markets would be set up along the Bangladesh-
Meghalaya border and land customs posts on the Mizoram border.
Forty-seven commodities were removed from the negative list,
despite serious concern about the fall out. Bangladesh promised
India’s access to the Ashuganj inland port and also India, Nepal and
Bhutan’s access to deep-water ports at Mongla and Chittagong.
Bangladesh also expressed willingness to revive old land-border rail
transit points and also prevent its soil from being used against India.
Bangladesh also agreed to negotiate an extradition treaty, formation
of a joint boundary group to address the land border and a team
from Bangladesh to discuss maritime boundary. Sheikh Hasina
expressed her satisfaction from the visit.
In August 2010, the Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited
Dhaka to witness the signing of US $1 billion Line of Credit
Agreement to Bangladesh. In November 2010, Bangladeshi Foreign
Minister, Dipu Moni visited Tripura and ‘Bharat-Bangladesh Maitree
Udyaan’ was also inaugurated at Chottakhola in Tripura. Her visit
was followed by visit by Advisors to Prime Minister to India in
December 2010. They held discussions on bilateral issues and
follow up of the spirit of Joint Communiqué issued during the visit of
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. In May 2011, a high powered Indian
delegation visited Bangladesh under the Vice President of India,
Hamid Ansari to commemorate the 150th birth anniversary of
Rabindranath Tagore.
In July 2011, the External Affairs Minister of India, S.M. Krishna paid
a visit to Bangladesh and held discussions with Bangladeshi Foreign
Minister Dipu Moni. Both sides reviewed the progress made in the
bilateral relations since the signing of the Joint Communiqué during
the visit of Sheikh Hasina.
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visited Bangladesh in
September 2011. The two countries discussed matters like mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters, transfer of sentenced persons
and fight against international terrorism, organized crime and illicit
drug trafficking. The highlight of this meeting has been the signing of
a new land border agreement to resolve long-standing border
dispute. A vision statement laying out a long-term relationship
between India and Bangladesh was signed. However, on sharing of
waters of Teesta River, no deal could be struck due to the objection
raised by the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Smt. Mamata Banerjee.
At the invitation of the External Affairs Minister, the Foreign Minister
of Bangladesh Dr. Dipu Moni paid an official visit to India during 7–8
May 2012. The first meeting of the India-Bangladesh Joint
Consultative Commission (JCC), as envisaged in the Framework
Agreement on Cooperation for Development signed during the visit
of the Prime Minister of India to Bangladesh, was held in New Delhi
on 7 May 2012. Discussions were held around issues like political
and security cooperation, trade and connectivity, development
cooperation, bilateral cooperation in water resources and power,
sub-regional cooperation and people-to-people contacts.
Begum Khaleda Zia, leader of the opposition party in Bangladesh,
the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), was on a week-long visit to
India from 28 October to 3 November 2012. She met new External
Affairs Minister of India, Salman Khurshid. She focused on the future
vision of Indo-Bangladesh relations without harping on the past. Her
party Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has traditionally taken anti-
India stance. She met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External
Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid. She reassured that Bangladeshi
soil will not be used for anti-Indian activities. She also pressed India
for signing the Teesta Pact. Her visit however, was not received with
much ease by Sheikh Hasina’s Government. A number of
outstanding pacts between India and Bangladesh involving Teesta
water sharing, land demarcation and land boundary agreements may
well be used by Begum Zia during election in 2013. India is quietly
performing a balancing act. India’s traditional pro-Awami League
policy is being balanced by India’s efforts to reach out to the BNP as
in the 2013 elections, there may be change in government in
Bangladesh. So India by inviting Begum Zia kept the doors of
negotiations open.
Problems persist in the Indo-Bangladesh relations relating to
boundary, water sharing, terrorism and other issues. Yet both
countries have taken steps to do the damage control. A Joint
Boundary Working Group (JBWG) has been established which aims
at resolution of outstanding land boundary related issues. India also
had offered support to the Cyclone Sidr hit Bangladesh, in 2007. The
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA)
signed on 9 February 2009, and enforced on 7 July 2011, is hoped to
improve investment flows between the two. Substantial duty
concession has also been extended by India to Bangladesh under
SAFTA, SAPTA and APTA. India already has declared at the 14th
SAARC Summit held in New Delhi in April 2007, that it will give zero
duty market access, w.e.f. 1 January 2008, for products originating
from SAARC LDCs including Bangladesh except for some items on
the sensitive list. India also has extended a huge line of credit to
Bangladesh. Various MoUs related to trade, enhanced power sector
cooperation and waiving of ban on rice and wheat export to
Bangladesh among others show a positive progress in the bilateral
relations. Bangladesh also supports India’s bid to the permanent
membership in the UNSC.
However, there are certain issues which continue to estrange
relations. The illegal cross-border migration from Bangladesh which
is creating tensions in India’s North-east. Most importantly, the
increase of fundamentalist forces in Bangladesh and their
connection with international terrorist organization is a matter of
serious concern for India. Added to this is the ISI links with the anti-
Indian terror outfits operating from Bangladesh or aiding those
operating in India. In 2007, only several hundred alleged members of
two banned organizations, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Bangladesh
(Huji-B) and Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) were arrested.
There are reports of other groups operating in Bangladesh and some
having links with international terrorist organizations. Above all,
Chinese connection with Bangladesh again is a worry for India.
Sheikh Hasina visited China in March 2010, and the two countries
have agreed to help each other. Bangladesh has agreed to provide
transit facility to China, requested China to assist in construction of a
highway passing through Myanmar to Yunnan province of China and
construction of a rail network following the same path. Bangladesh
has also sought assistance in development of the Chittagong port
and deep sea port at Sonadia Island along with defence cooperation.
In 2008, Bangladesh with the assistance of China constructed a
missile launch pad near Chittagong port. Chinese Vice President Xi
Jinping paid a return visit to Bangladesh. Even Begum Khaleda Zia,
prior to her visit to India, paid a visit to China on 14 October 2012.
Thus, this growing influence of China over Bangladesh must be
taken into consideration by India. India must try to bolster bilateral
relations with Bangladesh as it is trying to do so by concretizining
economic relation. Territorial dispute, illegal migration, terrorism and
even problem of water sharing are problems quite difficult to be
resolved so India must enhance strategic cooperation with
Bangladesh.

India and Sri Lanka

India has very old ties with Sri Lanka dating back to the times of
Ashoka. Ashoka had sent his son Mahendra and daughter
Sanghamitra for propagation of Buddhism in the island country. The
year 2011 marked the celebration of 2600th anniversary of the
enlightenment of Buddha in both India and Sri Lanka.
The major irritants however, in Indo-Sri Lankan relations have been
the issue of stateless persons of Indian origin, issue of Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), demand of establishing Indian Ocean
as a zone of peace, differences on the issue of NPT and CTBT,
declaration of South Asia as a nuclear free zone, issue of trade
imbalance between both the countries among others. The major
disturbing factor over the years has been the issue of civil war in
Sri Lanka and the case of the Sri Lankan Tamils.
Since independence of the island country in 1948, Sri Lanka has got
embroiled in ethnic problems between the Sinhalese and the Tamils
of Indian origin. Since the very inception, the Tamils have been
deprived of basic rights, and successive governments in Colombo
have adopted discriminatory policies pertaining to land settlement,
citizenship rights, official languages, employment opportunities,
inclusive education, political freedom and host of other fundamental
rights against the Tamils. Matters came to a head with the enactment
of the Official Languages Act of 1956. This Act introduced the
‘Sinhala only’ language policy. Further, there was a massive
disenfranchisement of the Tamil workers following the abolition of the
colonial system of contractual labour, followed by simultaneous
denial of citizenship to these people. They became the ‘stateless’
people. The Tamils had often been victims of ethnic clashes taking
place in the 1950s, 1970s and 1980s. The rise of Tamil insurgency
especially after the armed attack and killing of Tamil prisoners and
attacks on Tamils in general during 1983 more or less started civil
war in Sri Lanka. The demand for a separate ‘Eelam’ crystallized.
Several Tamil militant organizations like Eelam Revolutionary
Organization of Students (EROS), the Tamil Eelam Liberation
Organization (TELO) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) formed a united front. They also received support from the
People Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE).
It is in this context that India-Lanka relation has to be assessed.
India’s commitment to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka was upheld
in the Nehru-Kotelewala Pact, 1954 (addressing the problem of
citizenship) and the Sirimavo-Shastri Pact, 1964 (regarding
repatriation of 5,25,000 stateless people to India and granting of Sri
Lankan citizenship to 3,00,000 Tamils.) However, with the escalation
of Tamil insurgency and subsequent suppression by the Sri Lankan
Government, India had to take notice of the situation in 1983. A large
number of Tamils left Sri Lanka and crossed over to India, and
created refugee problem in 1984–85. Under such circumstances,
there was a strong demand from the Tamil Nadu state government
on the intervention of the Indian Government. India however,
resisted from such intervention and pressed the Sri Lankan
Government for finding out a political situation.
Around May-June 1987, India responded in the wake of large scale
massacre of Tamils in Jaffna by security forces of Sri Lanka
Government. India air-dropped humanitarian assistance to the
suffering Tamils. This created tension in the Indo-Sri Lanka relation
as Sri Lanka viewed it as an interference/intervention by India.
However, things started showing improvement with the signing of an
accord between the then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri
Lankan President Jayewardane on 29 July 1987. Relations eased
after the accord. India sent the Indian Peace-keeping Force (IPKF)
for fulfillment of the obligations under the accord. India assumed the
responsibility of disarming the Tamil militants, but very soon troubles
began to emerge. The LTTE refused to surrender arms and engaged
in violence against other Tamils preferring to contest provincial
elections. The IPKF also got embroiled in many controversies like
human rights violations and its presence on the Sri Lankan soil
started to be protested by Sri Lankans. Even Sri Lankan President
Premadasa wanted India to recall the IPKF and as a protest Sri
Lankan Foreign Minister did not participate in the meeting of Foreign
Ministers of SAARC held in 1989. Ultimately, the IPKF was
withdrawn in 1990. In 1992, following the SAARC Summit President
Premadasa taking advantage of India’s absence left no room for
pouring out his bitter feeling against India. He even held informal
talks with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives where he displayed
open hostility against India.
However, relations again became normal in 1992. By July 1992,
more than 23,000 of Tamil refugees in India were repatriated.
President Premadasa visited India in October 1992. India expressed
her willingness to extend support for effective devolution of power
within the framework of an early solution to the ethnic problem.
President Chandrika Kumartunga visited India again in 1995. Her
visit greatly helped in re-establishing friendly tie between the two
countries. In 1997, India’s External Affairs Minsiter I.K. Gujral visited
Colombo and announced certain concessions in various matters
including trade without expecting any reciprocity. In December 1998,
the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) was signed
which became operational from March 2000. Under this agreement
both sides are committed to eliminate tariff barriers in a phased
manner. India has kept its commitment of reducing its duty to zero
except for 429 items in the negative list. In 2003 breakthrough in the
economic relation of both the countries took place with the signing of
Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA). A
defence agreement also followed the CECA.
With the assumption of Office by Mahinda Rajapakse, Indo-Sri
Lankan relations took a new turn. He visited India in 2004. India
agreed to help in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of North-
eastern province of Sri Lanka. India time and again reassured Sri
Lanka that the only way the ethnic problem can be solved is by
pursuing a dialogue process and not a ‘military solution’. India even
backed Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council in 2009. In 2009,
things again took a different turn as the LTTE leader Prabhakaran
was killed. With his death the process of devolution started, and
India assured Sri Lanka of her assistance for rehabilitation of the
displaced people.
After the 26th January 2010 Presidential elections in Sri Lanka, the
newly re-elected President Mahinda Rajapakse met the Indian
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao in Colombo on 7 March 2010. An
official statement released from the Presidential Secretarial upheld
India’s willingness to assist Sri Lanka in the resettlement of the Tamil
IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) from the war-ravaged areas in
North Sri Lanka. India also expressed her intention to assist Sri
Lanka in the restoration of the railway line in the North. Other issues
discussed were problems being faced by fishermen of both
countries, proposed coal powered project in Trincomalee,
environment related issues and other issues of mutual concern.
Again in June 2010 President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapakse
visited India. This visit was followed by a number of agreements like
the contract for the reconstruction of the Madu-Talaimannar railway
line by IRCON, Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance on criminal
matters and Agreement on Transfer of Sentences Prisoners.
In October 2010 President Rajapakse along with his External Affairs
Minister, G.L. Peiris, visited India to attend the closing ceremony of
the Commonwealth Game in New Delhi. On 26 November 2010 on
the Seventh session of the Sri Lanka-India Joint Commission was
held in Colombo which was co-chaired by Indian External affairs
Minister S.M. Krishna and Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka
G.L. Peiris.
In January 2011, Foreign Secretary of India visited Sri Lanka and
expressed his concern for the violent clashes in the waters between
India and Sri Lanka resulting in the deaths of two fishermen. In May
2011, G.L. Peiris visited India. Both sides upheld their commitment
for the resolution of the crisis and resettlement in a progressive
manner. India focused on the meaningful devolution of power on the
basis of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution and also
assurance for every possible assistance in the task of rehabilitation,
resettlement and reconstruction. Both sides in keeping with the spirit
of the Joint Declaration of June 2010, agreed to expedite the
process of signing agreements related to Joint Venture Thermal
Power Projects at Sampur, and Trincomalee, finalization of the
agreements including reconstruction of Palai-KKS railway line,
cooperation in the energy sector, continuance of the ongoing
dialogue for the finalization of Comprehensive Economic Partnership
Agreement (CEPA) and others. Some important projects which have
been launched in Sri Lanka in collaboration with Indian companies
are a 500 MW coal-based thermal power plant at Trincomalee by
NTPC, exploration of oil and gas blocks in Mannar by ONGC and
upgradation of Colombo-Matara railway by RITES-IRCON.
The External Affairs Minister, S.M. Krishna visited Sri Lanka from 16-
19 January 2012. Both sides reviewed progress in various areas,
including trade, services and investment, development cooperation,
science and technology, culture and education. MoUs were signed
for Housing Project, on cooperation in the field of Agriculture, and
also a MoU between Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and
Telecommunication Regulatory Commission. President of Sri Lanka
visited India during 19-22 September 2012. However, on 19 October
2012, the Cabinet took a tough decision to silently send a message
to Sri Lanka that India would not keep mum and watch China expand
its influence in Sri Lanka, especially after the Sri Lankan
Government awarded the Colombo Port expansion project to China,
whereas a major source of income of Colombo Port come from
trans-shipment cargo coming from Indian ports. The cabinet took a
decision to relax India’s policy on granting the right to operate in its
waters (“cabotage policy”) as per the Merchant Shipping Act of 1958
for trans-shipment of export-import (EXIM) containers to and from
the International Trans-shipment Terminal (ICTT) at Vallarpadam,
Cochin. The outcome of this relaxation is to attract trans-shipment of
Indian cargo from ICTT, Vallarpadam and reduce dependence on
nearby foreign ports (read Sri Lanka).
Sri Lanka, like the other neighbours of India, suffers from the fear of
‘big brother’ India. This threat perception, not only is difficult to
overcome but also both cannot avoid the pangs of proximity which
affects their bilateral relation. Sri Lanka has tried to assert its
independent stance many a times. It has been vocal for establishing
a nuclear free zone in South Asia and played ambivalent role during
the Indo-China war of 1962, Indo-Pak war of 1971 and even Indian
Peaceful Nuclear explosion of 1974. Yet currently, Sri Lanka
supports India’s bid for permanent membership in the Security
Council. Certain issues still persist and stir tensions at times or have
the potential of causing bitterness between the two in future. The first
of it is the Kachhativu island, where Sri Lanka wanted to establish a
military base which was ceded by India as per the 1974 agreement.
The rights of Sri Lanka were established by the 1974, and 1976
Treaty. However, some disturbing incidents do occur between the
Sri Lankan naval patrols and the India fishermen. Further, the 18th
Amendment to the 1978 Constitution has lifted the two term limit on
the post of the President. India has to be cautious because a longer
reign of a pro-Chinese President would be quite alarming for India.
Already China has extended its feelers to Sri Lanka. China is
developing Sri Lanka’s Hambantota harbour. Sri Lanka has also
announced purchase of equipments for its Northern province from
China. Sri Lanka is also increasing its collaboration with Pakistan.
This became evident with the visit of President Asif Ali Zardari to Sri
Lanka in November 2010. India has every point to become
concerned about such developments. India needs to look afresh at
its relation with Sri Lanka and concentrate on gaining more
economic clout, and thereby more meaningful partnership which will
ultimately help in betterment of political relation and help in
neutralizing Chinese and Pakistani influence in Sri Lanka.

India and Nepal

Indo-Nepal relations has to be viewed from the perspective of
Nepal’s political regime with long period of monarchy and
interjections by brief periods of experiments with democracy, Maoist
insurrection and capture of power and ultimately abolition of
Monarchy and emergence of Nepal as a republic. Relations between
these two countries must be analyzed from the geo-strategic location
of Nepal sandwiched between two major powers and from the lens
of Chinese threat and India’s counter measures. The main guideline
of Indo-Nepal relation has been the Indo-Nepal Peace and
Friendship Treaty of 1950. The Treaty provides that, “neither
government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a
foreign aggressor. To deal with any such threat the two governments
shall consult with each other and devise effective counter
measures.” This was primarily aimed at blocking Nepal’s bid to
develop relations with China. Therefore, India gave huge economic,
technological and other kinds of support to Nepal to help in
emergence of a strong Nepal. Nepal is dependent on India for its
trade and transit which was also given by India. India’s sole aim was
to secure her northern frontier. Therefore, when India became
independent she tried to create a ring of buffer states to secure her
northern frontier. She thus, concluded a Treaty with Bhutan in 1949
and ‘Standstill agreements’ with Nepal and Sikkim in 1950. Further,
with the Chinese occupation of Tibet the outer line of defence of
India was abolished. Thus, India became desperate to develop
closer ties with Nepal and also ensuring internal stability in Nepal.
In her bid to have a strong Nepal, India had played a central role in
abolishing Rana oligarchy in Nepal and restoration of Monarchy and
gradual working towards Parliamentary democracy. Under the
auspices of India, a tripartite negotiation was held among King
Tribhuban, Nepali Prime Minister Mohan Shamsher Janga Bahadur
Rana and the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in
February, 1951. All through, the anti-Rana movement, India made it
clear that the primary objective of India is to make Nepal,
independent, progressive and strong. Further, from the 1960–1990
political parties were banned in Nepal, but parties like Nepali
Congress, Communist Party of Nepal and other parties operated
from India. India always wanted a strong and democratic Nepal to
act as a bulwark against Chinese designs. Under the
Primeministership of B.P. Koirala, the Nepali Congress formed the
government after the elections in 1958. However, this government
was short-lived and was brought to an abrupt end by the ‘Royal
Coup’ in December 1960. King Mahendra assumed direct and
absolute control of the state.
With the assumption of Mahendra of complete state power, Nepal
gradually tried to assert itself independent of Indian directions. He
tried to cultivate relations with China quite against the provisions of
the 1950 Treaty. Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 made Nepal and China
come closer. The Chinese even proclaimed to provide help to Nepal
if it were attacked. They also signed with Nepal an agreement to
construct a road to link Kathmandu with the Chinese border.
Thereafter, King Birendra who succeeded King Mahendra, even
raised a plea to declare Nepal as a ‘Zone of Peace’. India looked at
this as a violation/dilution of the 1950 Treaty. Nepal tried to develop
relations with Pakistan too which was reciprocated by Pakistan.
Even a trade agreement was signed between both in 1962, whereby
Pakistan extended port facilities to Nepal through Chittagong.
Another transit agreement was also signed with Pakistan. However,
during the India-Pakistan war of 1965, Nepal maintained a neutral
stance and emphasized on the re-establishment of friendly relations
between India and Pakistan. India also tried to mend fence with
Nepal around this time. Nepal had to do a tight rope walking while
maintaining good relations with both China and India. The era of
1970s could be seen as a period when the Indo-Nepal relations saw
a positive turn. King Birendra emphasized peace and amity between
countries with contiguous borders. During this time, minor irritants
were kept aside and both tried to settle problems mutually and
peacefully.
In 1983, India extended the treaty of trade for another five years
which underscored cooperation of both as well as many trading
facilities being provided by India. India also committed to purchase
power generated from the proposed MW Karnali hydro-electric
project. However, in 1987, India’s action of air dropping food supplies
and aid to Tamils in Jaffna in Sri Lanka created tension between
India and Nepal. The signing of the peace Accord between India and
Sri Lanka in July 1987 was welcomed by Nepal. With the
introduction of work permit to foreigners seeking employment, which
also included India, created tension. Again this was seen as a
violation of the terms of 1950 Treaty. Yet relations between both the
countries went on well. Both signed an agreement for setting up of a
Joint Commission to increase cooperation. Tensions again surfaced
in 1989 with the differences between the two over signing of a new
trade and transit Treaty. With the lapse of the Treaty, Nepal was
badly hit and there was acute shortage of diesel, petrol and essential
commodities. With the coming of the National Front government,
things again started taking a positive turn. While Nepal insisted on
two separate trade and transit Treaties, India insisted on a single
consolidated Treaty. Both sides however, struck at a cordial note and
restored status quo ante on 1 April 1987 in trade and transit
agreement. This was followed by India reopening its land customs
stations and reactivating transit points. Nepal also agreed to restore
tariff preference for Indian goods. The Treaty of 1950 contained
formal provisions of trade which was modified in 1961 and 1971 and
provisions for transit facilities were incorporated. In 1978, in place of
a single Treaty, three different agreements were signed. These
treaties were modified significantly in 1991. In December 1991, a
Summit meeting at New Delhi was held between Prime Ministers of
both the countries which was followed by signing of several
agreements. India also signed two treaties on trade and transit with
Nepal in 1991. The Treaty of Trade was again revised and renewed
through an exchange of letter on 3 December 1996. The Treaty of
Transit, 1991 came up for renewal in December 1998, and following
bilateral talks, a renewed Transit Treaty was signed on 5 January
1999. The Protocol to the India-Nepal Treaty of Trade was renewed
with some modifications in February 2002.
In 1992, an understanding was reached between increasing bilateral
cooperation and providing duty free and quota free access to
Nepalese exports to Indian market. They also reached an agreement
to prepare project reports for Karnali, Pancheshwar, Sapta Koshi,
Buri Gandaki, Kamala and Bagmati Projects and to install flood fore
casting and warning system.
In 1994 however, doubts loomed in the minds of Indian foreign policy
makers over the assumption of political power by the first Communist
Government in Nepal as they had long opposed the terms of the
1950 Treaty. However, relations by far remained amicable and a
number of agreements were signed pertaining to construction of
bridges on the Kolhapur Mahakali Sector, Raxaul Sirsya broad
gauge rail link, joint survey of East-West Electric Railway and others.
India additionally agreed to provide transit facilities for Nepalese
goods at Kandla and Mumbai. In February 1996, Nepalese Prime
Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba visited India, and this resulted in the
signing of Treaty on Integrated Development of Mahakali River. This
Treaty was on integrated development of Mahakali basin along with
construction of Pancheshwar power project. With the coming of
United Front government and introduction of Gujral Doctrine
relations further improved. India unilaterally gave Nepal greater
access for Nepal’s civil aviation sector, free movement and access to
jobs for Nepalese citizens and provision of corridor through the
Chicken Neck to Bangladesh on an experimental basis. The years
1997 and 1998 also witnessed good relations between the two
neighbours followed by signing of MoU in civil aviation sector,
providing alternate 61 km transit route to Bangladesh, opening of
Kakkarbitta-Phulwari-Bangband route on an experimental basis
holding of secretary level meeting for review and implementation of
Sarada Barrage, Tanakpur Barrage and the Dodhara-Chandani and
Tanakpur Mahendragarh road under the Mahakali Treaty. In 1999,
another Treaty was signed which simplified transit of Nepal’s Cargo
through Kolkata port. However, in December 1999 relations received
a jolt with the hijacking of IC 814 Indian Airlines aircraft from
Kathmandu. Before this even India had been complaining about the
use of Nepalese soil by ISI to sponsor insurgency in India especially
in the North-east. Relations became strained further when a
Pakistani embassy employee was found to possess fake Indian
currency. However in 2000, the Nepalese Foreign Minister visited
India and convinced India to resume the flights of Indian Airlines and
lift the travel restrictions.
The Royal killings in June 2001, and accession of Gyanendra as the
King followed by resignation of G.P. Koirala and intensification of the
Maoist activities the situation within Nepal became turbulent and
unstable. Sher Bahadur Deuba assumed Prime Ministership and
tried to seek peace with the Maoists but failed. State of emergency
was imposed. In 2002, Gyanendra dismissed Deuba, dissolved the
Parliament and indefinitely put off elections. He appointed Lokendra
Bahadur Chand as the PM who resigned in 2003. Thereafter, Surya
Bahadur Thapa was appointed as PM who resigned in 2004. Sher
Bahdur Deuba was again appointed as the PM. However, under the
pretext of continuance of Maoist insurgency, Gyanendra declared a
state of emergency, dismissed the Deuba government, and took
complete control over the administration in February 2005. Indian
condemned the ‘Royal Coup’ as a setback for democracy. Indian PM
Manmohan Singh cancelled his visit to Dhaka for the SAARC
Summit. India, USA and Britain stopped supply of arms to Nepal
which put the Nepalese government in trouble and it faced difficulty
in tackling Maoist insurgents. In April 2005, after a meeting between
King Gyanendra and Manmohan Singh in the sidelines of the Afro-
Asian Summit, India agreed to provide non-lethal military supplies to
Nepal if the King facilitated the restoration of democracy. Seizing this
strong stand of India, China jumped into the scene and Gyanendra
responded quickly and started playing the China card. China
promised to help Nepal to fight the Maoists. Chief of Army Staff of
Nepal visited Beijing in June 2004. Gyanendra also met Chinese
President Hu Jintao in the sidelines of the Afro-Asian Summit who
reciprocated quite positively and impinged upon improving Sino-
Nepal relations as China sees Nepal as an entry point into South-
Asia.
In 2006, anti-monarchy sentiment became strong. G.P. Koirala
became the PM and the Parliament curtailed the power of the King
and his legal immunity was removed and he was brought under the
ambit of taxation. At the same time, a Comprehensive Peace
Agreement was struck that ended the 10 year Maoist conflict in
Nepal. However, the future of the Maoists remained uncertain. In
2007, there were some visits from both sides. Nepalese Foreign
Minister Pradhan visited India from 6–9 December and participated
in the SAARC Council of Ministers Meeting. Indian Foreign
Secretary, Shivshankar Mennon visited Nepal in September 2007. In
October 2007, Shyam Saran, Special Envoy of PM visited Nepal.
However, around this time anti-Indian sentiments were high in Nepal.
There were massive anti-Indian demonstrations near the Indo-Nepal
border gate, and they agitated against the suppressive and land
expansionist policies of India.
In 2008, there was change in the political scenario in Nepal. King
was removed and Nepal became a Republic. Prachanda became the
PM and Ram Baran Yadav, a Madhesi, became the first President of
Nepal. Prachanda soon started developing closeness with China. He
visited China and both sides arrived at a large number of
agreements on various sectors like hydro-power, agriculture, tourism
and infrastructure in Nepal. Prachanda visited India soon thereafter,
but without much effect followed by a visit by Pranab Mukherjee
former Minister of External Affairs to Nepal in November 2008.
However, Prachanda had to resign on 4 May 2009 after his attempt
to sack the army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal, was opposed
by President Ram Baran Yadav. Thereafter, Madhav Kumar Nepal
became the PM of Nepal. There have been efforts on both the sides
to improve relations. Indian Foreign Secretary visited Nepal in
February 2009. In August 2009, Nepalese Foreign Minister Sujata
Koirala was on an official visit to India in order to bridge the widening
gap between the two neighbours. She had tried to downplay the
growing Chinese influence and underscored the necessity of
increasing cooperation with India for collaborating on more projects
and also cooperation on development of water resources, bilateral
trade and transit, control of cross-border crimes, border issues and
inundation problems among many other things. In the sidelines of
the SAARC Summit at Thimpu in April 2010, PM Manmohan Singh
and Nepalese PM Madhav Kumar Nepal met and had talks. Jairam
Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment and Forests visited Nepal
in October 2010 to attend an international symposium on Climate
Change. In January 2011, India Foreign Secretary visited Nepal and
held talks to expand the bilateral cooperation. President of Nepal
Ram Baran Yadav visited India from 27 January to 5 February 2011.
His visit was aimed at consolidating the bilateral relations. In 2011,
there were further visits by the External Affairs Minister to Nepal in
April and before that in March a group of 6 Young MPs from India
visited Nepal. Therefore, both the countries are trying to put the
relations back into proper track. India and Nepal signed a revised
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on 27 November
2011, to improve Indian investment in Nepal and ease procedures
for stakeholders with commercial interest in both countries. Earlier
during the visit of Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai to
India in October 2011, both sides formalized the long pending
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA).
The visit was aimed at ‘building trust between the two countries and
two peoples.’
Yet tensions persists on issues of water sharing, border dispute
including the Kalapani issue where Nepal has sought Chinese help
in its resolution, insurgents and connections with Nepalese Maoists,
pending extradition treaty, fake currency, persecution of India
traders, and above all the fear of growing Chinese influence into
Nepal jeopardizing India’s security interests. However, India and
Nepal must embark on more confidence building measures and work
out bilateral problems amicably.

India and Bhutan

Bhutan seems to be sandwiched between its two gigantic neigbours
—India and China. Therefore, this geo-strategic location of Bhutan
has raised geo-political concerns for her two ‘big’ neghbours as well
as for itself. Bhutan being a buffer state between India and China
has significantly figured in foreign policy postures of both its giant
neighbours on its north and south. Besides, both India and China
embark cautious policy towards Bhutan in order to preserve their
national interests vis-à-vis each other, respectively. Therefore, China
is a constant factor in Indo-Bhutan relation.
India’s big and powerful neighbour China is a constant worry for New
Delhi. Bhutan along with Nepal and Sikkim had acted as buffers
between India and China since the British period. For long however,
China had laid claim to all three Himalayan Kingdoms and parts of
Indian territory in north and north-east. China claimed that the
Himalayan region was “within her natural sphere”. China even drew
an analogy in its relation with Bhutan when it compared the Union of
China, Tibet, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan to the blending of the five
principal colours, yellow, red, blue, black and green. China further
compared the position of Tibet, Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan to that of
the molar teeth side-by-side in a man’s mouth. Therefore, when India
became independent, she tried to create a ring of buffer states to
secure her northern frontier. She thus, concluded a Treaty with
Bhutan in 1949 and ‘Standstill agreements’ with Nepal and Sikkim in
1950. Bhutan too needed to protect itself from Chinese menace. So
the need was both ways.
China’s attempts to win over Thimpu have made India reluctant to do
anything significant and risky, losing an important diplomatic and
economically. Bhutan had 15 rounds of boundary talks with People’s
Republic of China since 1984. Though the talks have not yielded
positive results for Bhutan yet both countries have signed an
agreement on “Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility in Bhutan-
China Border Areas” during the 12th round of talks in Beijing in 1998.
This is a matter of concern for India.
Further, India is worried about the presence of anti-Indian insurgents
especially from North-east who are alleged to be using the
Bhutanese soil for their activities. The North-east insurgency
problem has made India sensitive towards Bhutan for without its
active cooperation India would not be able to combat the insurgency
problem. After years of hesitation, the Bhutan National Assembly in
the year 2000 finally authorized the use of force to tackle terrorism
by the Government against the ULFA and Bodo militants operating
from Bhutan. This was a welcome step by India. This has exactly
been proved when on 15 December 2003 the Royal Bhutan Army
launched an offensive against the Indian Insurgent groups operating
from its territory. The move was closely coordinated with the centre,
and the goal was to wipe out the 30 camps of the militant outfits in
southern Bhutan. The Royal Bhutanese army has just 6,000 soldiers
fighting against 2,500 insurgents, which might seem too insufficient
for the “Operation All Clear”.
The Gorkhaland problem has also made India very cautious towards
her relations with Bhutan. The resurgence of the Gorkhaland
problem in 2007-2008 under Bimal Gurung and the Gorkha
Janamukhti Morcha (GJM), with their demand for a “Gorkhaland”
which plans to incorporate areas within the plains in Siliguri and
Duars as well, the India Government continues to be cautious while
addressing the Lhotshmapa ‡ ‡ refugee crisis. It continues to exhibit
the posture of neutrality regarding the crisis and treats the matter as
a bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan.
However, China has always been a constant factor in Indo-Bhutan
relation. The British India Government was also cautious about
Chinese intentions and so is the Government of Independent India.
The 1949 Treaty concluded between Bhutan and Independent India
is nothing but a continuation of the British legacy and it continued to
be the guiding principle of Indo-Bhutan relation till 2007 when the
Treaty was renegotiated and a new Treaty came up in its place.
Article 2 of the 1949 Treaty upheld that:
“The Government of India undertakes to exercise no interference in
the internal administration of Bhutan. On its part the Government of
Bhutan agrees to be guided by the advice of the Government of
India in regard to its external relations.”
Article 2 of the new Indo-Bhutan Friendship Treaty of 2007 now
read as follows:
“In keeping with the abiding ties of close friendship and cooperation
between Bhutan and India, the Government of the Kingdom of
Bhutan and the Government of the Republic of India shall cooperate
closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests.
Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities
harmful to the national security and interest of the other.”
Recognizing Bhutan’s maturity as a nation and its transition to a
democracy, the language in the Treaty pertaining to foreign policy
now talks in terms of “co-operation”. The new Treaty in essence
emphasize Bhutan’s sovereignty and it’s right to pursue an
independent foreign policy as long as it does not compromise Indian
interests.
Although relations remained close and friendly, the Bhutanese
government expressed a need to renegotiate parts of the Treaty of
1949 in order to enhance Bhutan’s sovereignty. Following the India-
China border war of 1962, Bhutan was facing a tough choice. On the
one hand, the Royal Government harboured doubts about India’s
capability to assist, and on the other hand, Bhutan was apprehensive
of Chinese designs in the Himalayan region. Bhutan also realized its
vulnerability to possible Chinese threat emanating from its alignment
with India. Therefore, for the time-being, the Royal Government of
Bhutan tried to follow the ‘Nepali model’ of equal friendship with India
and China. But in the long run, Bhutan relinquished the ‘Nepali
model’ as the fear of Chinese policies in Tibet influenced the Royal
Government to extend closer ties with India. Formal bilateral
relations between Bhutan and India were established in January
1968 with the appointment of a special officer of the Government of
India to Bhutan. The India House (Embassy of India in Bhutan) was
inaugurated on 14 May 1968 and Resident Representatives were
exchanged in 1971.
Bhutan began to slowly assert an independent attitude in foreign
affairs by joining the United Nations in 1971, recognizing Bangladesh
and signing a new trade agreement in 1972 that provided an
exemption from export duties for goods from Bhutan to third
countries. Bhutan exerted its independent stance at the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) summit conference in Havana, Cuba also in 1979,
by voting with China and some South-east Asian countries rather
than with India on the issue of allowing Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge to
be seated at the conference. Bhutan also signed the Nuclear Non-
proliferation Treaty in 1985 to which India is a non-signatory. Bhutan
also took steps to rechristen the Bhutanese Embassy in New Delhi
as the Royal Bhutanese Embassy (1978), opening of diplomatic
relations with Bangladesh (1979) and the inauguration of Druk Air
Service (1983) in order to expand Bhutan’s external contacts. All
these steps account for attempts made by Bhutan to come out of
India’s influence and assert itself internationally. However, unlike in
Nepal, where the 1950 Treaty with India is subject of great political
controversy and nationalist resentment for decades, the nature of
Bhutan’s relationship with India has not been affected by concerns
over the Treaty provisions and differences between India and Bhutan
in certain cases.
Thereafter, relation between Bhutan and India which started-off due
to their mutual need of preservation of their respective national
interests has come a long way and has become stronger. India has
maintained a position of neutrality regarding more than 20 years long
Lhotshampa refugee crisis, whereby Bhutanese Royal Government
drove out a large section of its population who are of Nepalese origin
from southern Bhutan. The reason is obviously geo-strategic,
political and security considerations which have been discussed
above. Most importantly, India refrains herself from antagonizing
Bhutan, which had launched operations against anti-Indian
insurgents operating from its soil from 2003 to 2004. Furthermore, as
long as China remains a potential threat to India, Bhutan will figure
prominently in Indian foreign policy posture.
On the whole, relations between India and Bhutan has been one of
peace and amity. There has been a number of Treaties between the
two countries pertaining to matters of trade and commerce and also
extradition. The Treaties in place are the Indo-Bhutan Trade Treaty
of 1972, the Chukha Hydropower Project Agreement of 1974, Indo-
Bhutan Trade Treaty of 1995, the Extradition Treaty with India of
1997. Bhutan began its planned economic development growth in
1961. The First Five Year Plan was launched in 1961. Since then
India has provided generous financial assistance for Bhutan’s Five
year Plans. Tala Hydro Electric Project, Kurichu Hydro Electric
Project and Dungsum Cement Plant are three major projects which
were taken up during the VII Five Year Plan. Other important projects
were Sankosh Multipurpose and Bunakha Projects, Hospitals, Paro
Airport Development Project, Renovation of Punakha Dzong and
Pasakha-Monitar Road, Indo-Bhutan Microwave link, Exploration of
Mineral Resources and Survey and Mapping. In August 2003, during
the visit to India by the Crown Prince and the present King the India-
Bhutan Foundation was established. In 2005, the India-Bhutan Trade
and Commerce Agreement was renewed for another ten years.
MoUs were also signed for Air Service Management and also
cooperation between UPSC and Royal Civil Service Commission of
Bhutan also in 2005.
During the visit of the King of Bhutan in July 2006, an Agreement
laying down the framework for cooperation in the field of hydropower,
Protocol to the Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Tala
Hydroelectric Project which worked out the commercial
arrangements for purchase of power from the project and the
Agreement on Trade, Commerce and Transit were signed. In 2007,
the 57 year long Treaty of 1949 was renegotiated and a new Indo-
Bhutan Friendship Treaty was signed. Other MoUs between the two
countries are the twelve MOUs/Agreements in areas of hydropower,
IT, health/medicine, narcotics, civil aviation, agriculture and
environment which were signed during the visit of His Majesty Jigme
Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck in December 2009. Another MoU is on
Nehru-Wangchuk Scholarship, which was signed during External
Affairs Minister’s visit to Bhutan in June 2009. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh during his visit to Bhutan in May 2008 announced
the proposed construction of the 17.5 km railway line starting from
Hasimara in West Bengal going through Satali, Bharna Bari and
Dalsingpara to Toribari in Bhutan. This was named as the Golden
Jubilee Rail Line to mark the golden jubilee of the visit of India’s
first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to the Himalayan kingdom in
1958. The rail link, was envisaged to counter China’s design of
building railway network to enter into South Asia. However, this
project is now facing uncertainties due to problems of land
acquisition in Bengal. During Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s
visit to Bhutan in April 2010 for the 16th SAARC Summit,
Implementation Agreements for the Punatsangchhu’II and
Mangdechhu Hydro Electric Projects (HEPs) were signed by the
Minister of Economic Affairs of Bhutan Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk
and the External Affairs Minister of India S.M. Krishna, in the
presence of the Prime Ministers of India and Bhutan. Bhutanese
King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk was the Chief Guest for the
64th Republic Day celebrations on 26 January 2013.
The new Treaty of 2007 is most unlikely to bring in qualitative
changes in Indo-Bhutan relation. Given the need, both ways, India
and Bhutan most likely would follow the same amicable relations.
The updated Treaty of 2007 like the 1949 Treaty, reiterates that there
shall be perpetual peace and friendship between India and Bhutan.

India’s Look-East Policy

It was only in 1992 that India’s Look East Policy (LEP) was
launched. This was a foreign policy posture of India to reach out to
their South-eastern neighbours and also connect with East Asia. The
chief objectives of LEP are to renew political contacts with the
countries of South-east Asia and East Asia, increase economic
cooperation and most importantly secure strategic defence
cooperation to balance expanding Chinese influence in South-east
Asia and South China Sea and areas beyond that.
Earlier, during the Cold War years, India’s insistence on non-
alignment had retracted India to limit her activities to South Asia.
Again, with the defeat of India in the hands of China compelled India
to restrain herself to expanding beyond South Asia. Further, India
refrained from entering into a broad alliance being envisaged by the
South-east Asian countries to counter China. This also distanced
India from them. Later, also India’s obsession with South Asia greatly
hindered her vision of expanding beyond this region. With the end of
Cold War, followed by economic liberalization of India, launching
LEP became a need of the hour for India. Seeking economic
cooperation of immediate neighbours was a viable option rather than
negotiating economic ties with the bigger countries, especially the
developed ones. With this objective an initiative to develop policy
towards South-east Asia and East Asian countries started making
rounds in the MEA in the early 1990s. Ultimately, the LEP was
launched in 1992.
Immediately, it started reaping dividends for India. India’s contact
with ASEAN was rewarding. India was made the Sectoral Dialogue
Partner in 1992, and become the Full Dialogue Partner in the Fifth
ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) on 23 July 1996. India became
Summit Level Partner (A+1) in 2002. At the Second India-ASEAN
Summit in Bali, Indonesia in October 2003, India and ASEAN signed
a Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic
Cooperation aiming at creation of Free Trade Area (FTA) by 2011 in
goods, services and investments. India also acceded to the Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation in South-east Asia. Both also signed an
agreement on forging cooperation to combat international terrorism.
Another event took place in the Third India-ASEAN Summit is
historic Partnership Pact for Peace, Progress and Shared Prosperity
in Vientiane, Laos in 2004. In 2007, India and ASEAN agreed on
different modalities for FTA with the acceptance of a list of products
that would not be subject to any tariff cuts till 2022. In the case of
these products, the total value should not exceed 5 per cent of the
total. On the rest of 95 per cent goods there would be elimination or
reduction of duties by 2022. In 2009, the Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) in Goods was signed between India and ASEAN as part of the
Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement (CECA) in Bangkok. This
aimed at integration of two economic blocks as well as regions.
Areas of economic cooperation are quite wide including food,
energy, security, infrastructure, human resource development, oil
and natural gas, agro-chemicals, fertilizers, healthcare, tourism,
pharmaceuticals and automobiles. Both can exploit each other’s
market for capital investment in various sectors. ASEAN-India
partnership can gain fullest expression with gradual emergence of
ASEAN Community of nations. This would be ‘arc of advantages’ for
India.
At the sub-regional level India has bolstered (MGC) strong ties with
South-east Asian countries in economic arrangements like Mekong-
Ganga Cooperation (MGC), BIMSTEC and IOR-ARC (see Chapter
20 for details).
At the bilateral level, India is cultivating her relations at economic
and also defence spheres with Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos PDR, the
Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore. Some
important achievements in strengthening economic cooperation with
individual ASEAN countries are either completion or ongoing
negotiation for signing Comprehensive Economic Cooperation
Agreements (CECAs) with Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and
Indonesia.
China is the largest trading partner of the ASEAN countries. As of
2007 Chinese trade with ASEAN is around US $202 billion. China
replaced USA as the largest trading partner in 2006. Therefore, by
forging strong economic ties with South-east Asian countries, India
must try to cut a niche for herself in the economic sector. Growing
Chinese influence in the South China Sea is of increasing strategic
concern for India. The geo-strategic importance of South China Sea
as far as the world shipping activities are concerned cannot be
denied. In addition to this it has huge oil and gas reserves. Yet, it is
at the centre of controversy as China, the Philippines, Vietnam,
Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia all have conflicting claims to parts of
the South China Sea. China claims almost the entire body of South
China Sea. China is also trying to restrict India’s activities in the
South China Sea. In November 2011, China send out a warning to
India when it said that it would not allow “outside forces” and “foreign
companies” to either get involved in the South China Sea dispute or
engage in oil exploration with littoral states. USA too has geared up
its presence in South China Sea to counter China. Under such
circumstances India has to stay guard and forge more strong bonds
with the ASEAN Countries in order to fulfill her economic as well as
strategic interests while balancing-off Chinese threat in a rational
way.
To further boost the LEP, India is making all out effort to reach out to
Japan, Korea and Australia. India and Japan have entered into a
global partnership after the conclusion of joint statement titled
Japan-India Partnership in the New Asian Era: Strategic
Orientation of Japan-India Global Partnership in 2006. Both
concluded a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement
(CEPA) in October 2010 and further strengthened their global and
strategic partnership. India-Japan 2+2 Dialogue is another platform
for defence cooperation which is a very recent initiative. Further, both
have multi-layered cooperation in several regional forums like
ASEEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Regional Cooperation Agreement
on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia
(ReCAPP) processes and most importantly East Asia Summit (EAS).
Both have also agreed to cooperate in areas of energy, security,
youth exchange and evolving Comprehensive Economic Partnership
in East Asia (CEPEA). With Republic of Korea (RoK) India has
started cultivating her relations. The Long Term Cooperative
Partnership is the bedrock of India-RoK relationship concluded in
2004. With Australia, India is developing closer economic and
strategic cooperation. India is negotiating a CECA with Australia.
Both interact with ARF, EAS, and Asia-Europe Meeting. India
envisions to extend her LEP beyond South-east Asia to East Asia
and gradually India is consolidating her relations with these
countries.
India also has another interest in successful fruition of LEP. India
wants to foster economic development of its North-eastern states by
cultivating economic ties with South-east Asian neighbours who are
in closer proximity to India’s North-eastern frontier. North-east which
touches upon the border with Mynamar can be considered as the
gateway to ASEAN. India envisions increasing connectivity with her
South-eastern neighbours through North-east. To realize this vision,
India embarked on projects like the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit
Transport facility connecting Indian ports on the eastern sea board to
the Sittwe Port in Myanmar and upgradation of the Tamu-Kalewa-
Kalemyo Road in Myanmar. Negotiations are going on to establish
connectivity between Moreh in Manipur to Mae Sot in Thailand via
Bagan in Myanmar. Projects have been undertaken for upgradation
of road links too. An ambitious project, if turned into reality, will be a
great achievement of LEP is a road link from Jiribham in Assam to
Hanoi in Vietnam via Myanmar. ASEAN countries also want to
cultivate the huge potential of India’s North-east. Laos sees huge
potential in North-east’s tourism and agricultural sectors. There were
visits to North-eastern states in 2007 and 2008 by Thai Minister of
Commerce and Thai Deputy Ministry of Industry, to give a further
boost to investment and explore potentials of trade. India has issued
Visas on Arrival (VoA) to foreign tourists of 10 countries including
Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar,
Cambodia, Japan among others.
ASEAN and India share some common interests like combating
trans-national terrorism in all its forms like drug trafficking,
smuggling; securing Indian Ocean and maritime resources; exploring
oil and gas reserves; counterbalancing China; protection of sea
lanes; combating piracy to mention a few. India must continue
cultivating her ties with ASEAN countries and East-asian countries
which will necessarily bring her rich dividends and give her a strong
foothold in Asian politics vis-à-vis China.
INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY UNDER PM NARENDRA MODI (2014–)
The 16th Lok Sabha elections conducted during April–May, 2014 in
phases witnessed a landslide victory for NDA led by Bharatiya
Janata Party. Sri Narendra Modi became the new Prime Minister of
India, and with his assumption of office there were much activities on
the foreign policy front as the Prime Minister made many outgoing
visits to neighbouring countries as well as important countries of the
world.
The first State Visit made by PM Modi was to Bhutan, India’s most
significant neighbour from 15–16 June 2014, on the invitation of the
King of Bhutan Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk. They held talks
on bilateral relations and economic cooperation along with
cooperation in regional and multilateral forums. India promised to
double the Nehru-Wangchuk Scholarship to Rs/Nu. 20 million per
year as well as assistance in setting up digital section/E.library in the
National Library of Bhutan in all 20 districts too. Both sides
expressed satisfaction at the completion of the Supreme Court
Building and commencement of the Kholongchhu Hydroelectric
Project. The President of India also visited Bhutan from 7–8
November 2104. The President held wide-ranging discussions with
His Majesty the King of Bhutan including bilateral and regional
issues. Among other issues, GOI reiterated its commitment to
support Bhutan’s socio-economic development and also support for
successful implementation of 11th Five Year Plan of the Royal
Government of Bhutan (2013–2018).
During 26–30 June 2014, the Vice-President of India, Mr. Hamid
Ansari went on an official visit to China. Memorandum of
Understandings were signed regarding cooperation on Industrial
Parks in India, communication and cooperation of training in area of
Capacity Building of Public Officials and Implementation Plan for
Provision of Hydrological Information of the Yarlung
Zangbu/Brahmaputra River in Flood Season by China to India. The
Vice-President of India also conveyed his good wishes on the
occasion to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of Panchsheel
during his visit.
PM Modi also visited Brazil for attending 6th BRICS Summit from
14–16 July 2014. This was his first visit to the BRICS Summit. He
hinted at restoration of climate of peace and stability which is an
urgent global need. For this, he called for newer avenues of
cooperation and collaboration. He said that BRICS brings together a
group of nations on the parameter of ‘future potential’ rather than
existing prosperity or shared identities. BRICS, therefore, should
play an active role in global discourse on Growth and Development
including shaping the post-2015 Development Agenda to alleviate
poverty, reforming international financial institutions and UN Security
Council.
With Brazil, India signed Implementing Arrangement for Establishing
Cooperation in Augmentation of a Brazilian Earth Station for
receiving and processing data IRS satellites and Memorandum of
Understanding on establishment of a consultation mechanism on
consular and mobility issues on 16 July 2014.
Prime Minister, Mr. Modi also visited Nepal during 3–4 August 2014.
The Indian PM addressed the Constituent Assembly and legislature
Parliament of Nepal and prior to this address PM had a meeting with
the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, Rt. Hon’ble Subhas
Chandra Nembang. The Indian PM had a meeting with the PM of
Nepal Mr. Sushil Koirala followed by delegation level talks. The two
PMs were the witneses to the signing of the Exchange Letters
regarding Terms of Reference of the Pancheshwar Development
Authority. The two sides also signed MoUs on Cooperation in the
Goitre Control and on Cooperation between Doordarshan and the
Nepali television. Nepal urged India to adopt measures to help Nepal
to tide over the trade deficit it is facing vis-a-vis trade with India.
From 30 August–3 September, PM Modi visited Japan to strengthen
the global strategic partnership between the two countries. On 1
September 2014, PM Modi held the Japan–India Summit with
Japanese PM Shinzo Abe. A number of important agreements were
signed, and both sides talked about deepening of comprehensive
security and defence cooperation as well as strengthening of Japan–
India 2 plus 2 dialogue along with establishment of the Trilateral
foreign Ministers Meeting of Japan, US and India to bolster regional
security. Economic cooperation was discussed along with
cooperation in infrastructural development in India and improving of
business environment in India. India was able to get $35 billion worth
of Japanese investment including Official Development Assistance
(ODA) during a 5-year period will be under the aegis of India–Japan
Investment Promotion Partnership for development of projects
including infrastructure and building of smart cities. Partnership city
arrangement between India’s Varanasi and Japan’s Kyoto was also
worked out and also agreement for public-private partnership for
setting up of Industrial Electronic Parks in India and Japan. India’s
maiden bullet train project with Japanese funding was also promised
by Japan. Japan also agreed to remove six of India’s space and
defence related entities from its Foreign End User List and for the
first time since World War II Japan agreed to sell military equipment
to India and expedite the talks for sale of US-2 amphibian aircraft for
maritime security. Though the Japan–India Summit was a mega
success yet the two countries despite their efforts to forge a special
strategic global partnership did not conclude a civil nuclear deal with
Japan agreeing to speed up the talks for nuke deal.
The Secretary of State of USA paid a visit to India from 30 July–1
August, 2014. External Affairs Minister, Smt. Sushma Swaraj and US
Secretary of State, John Kerry co-chaired the 5th India-US Strategic
Dialogue which was launched in 2009. Both sides reiterated their
commitment to fight terrorism, proliferation of WMDs, nuclear
terrorism, cross-border terrorism, cross-border crime and address
the misuse of the internet for terrorist purposes in compliance with
respective laws. They reaffirmed their commitment to the full
implementation of the India–US civil nuclear agreement. They
welcomed the Authorization to Proceed provided to Westinghouse to
implement the pre-Early Works Agreement with NPCIL as of
September 2013 and also commitment to work towards a successful
outcome in Paris in 2015 of the work of the AD-hoc Working Group
on the Durban Platform under the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
The Indian PM visited USA from 26–30 September 2014. He
address the 69th Session of UNGA on 27 September 2014. He
addressed the public at the Global Citizens Festival, Central Park,
New York City on 28 September 2014. The Indo–US talks saw the
unfurling of a vision of a transformative relationship as trusted
partners in the 21st century which would be a model for the rest of
the world. Both leaders announced on 29 September 2014, the
Vision Statement for the US–India Strategic Partnership—
Chalein Saath Saath: Forward Together We Go.
Another significant event was the State visit of President of China
Xi Jinping to India from 17–19 September 2014. The two sides
decided to strengthen political communication, deepen strategic trust
and political dialogue and consultations at all levels. The two sides
decided to designate 2015 as the Visit India Year in China and 2016
as the Visit China Year in India. Among others, the agreements on
establishing a provincial partnership between Gujarat and Guandong
Province and Sister-City relationship between Mumbai–Shanghai
and Ahmedabad–Guangzhou were signed. Both sides recognized
that there are several mutual interest areas, like climate change,
Doha Development Round of WTO, energy, food security, reform of
international institutions and global governance. This is reflected in
their cooperation and coordination in BRICS, G-20 and other fora.
The leaders assigned Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) to explore
new areas for economic cooperation in different fields, like industrial
investment, infrastructure development, energy conservation and
environment protection, high-tech industry, clean energy and
sustainable urbanization. Both sides evaluating the progress in their
relations focused on considering the relation form an overall
perspective.
Australia was also on the agenda of PM Modi. He visited Australia
from 14–18 November 2014. His visit followed a visit by PM of
Australia Tony Abbot from 4–5 September 2014. Both countries in
New Delhi signed agreements regarding Cooperation in the Peaceful
Uses of Nuclear Energy, MoUs on Cooperation in Technical
Vocational Education and Training (TVET) and Cooperation in Sport
as well as Renewal of MoU on Cooperation in the Field of Water
Resources Management.
PM Modi while in Australia attended the BRICS Leader’s Meeting in
Brisbane on 15 November 2014. In the bilateral talks held between
two countries during 16–18 November, both sides recognized that
the partnership has a great room for growth and agreed to unlock the
vast potential of the economic relationship in priority areas such as
resources, education, skills, agriculture, infrastructure, investments,
financial services and health. Both countries have decided to
establish a Framework for Security Cooperation to intensify bilateral
cooperation and consultation on areas of mutual interests which will
be implemented by an Action Plan which was also worked out.
Agreements were signed concerning Social Security, Transfer of
Sentenced Persons and MoUs concerning cooperation in the field of
Arts and Culture and field of Tourism as well as combating narcotics
trafficking and developing police cooperation.
PM Modi again visited Nepal in November to attend the 18th SAARC
Summit. Against the backdrop of cynicism and scepticism, he said
that SAARC countries are gradually coming together and are trying
to forge bonds through rail, road, power and transit. He said that
India is aware of its own share of responsibility and announced
India’s gift of satellite for SAARC region by the SAARC Day, 2016.
However, India has maintained its stance of keeping China out of
SAARC. PM Modi announced India’s pledge to provide regional
investments in infrastructure, health facilities, and lucrative export
facilities for smaller countries. All these evidently were steps to
counter China’s growing inroads into India’s backyard. China has
been already lobbying Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh for
SAARC membership. It was Pakistan which mooted the idea, in the
18th SAARC Summit, of pushing for China’s full-fledged membership
from observer status. India-Pakistan coldness in their bilateral
relations overshadowed the atmosphere of SAARC. In the sidelines
of SAARC, PM had bilateral talks with all other members of SAARC
except PM Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. Pakistan also blocked three
projects—an electricity grid and trade in electricity and road and rail
connectivity on the ground that it has still to conclude its “internal
processes.”
Another landmark event has been the India Global broadcast on
AIR FM Gold on 28 November 2014 which is a mark of India’s
relationship with Germany.
The last month of year 2014 saw the visit by President of Russian
Federation Vladimir V. Putin from 10–11 December 2014. Both
leaders acknowledged “Our partnership and the strong sensitivity
that we have always had for each other’s interests will be a source of
strength to both countries.” Putin came to attend the 15th Annual
India–Russia Summit. A Druzhna-Dosti: A Vision for
Strengthening the Indian Russian Partnership over the next
decade was announced in a joint statement on 11 December 2014.
The leaders expressed their confidence that a strong bilateral
strategic partnership advances the national interests of the two
countries and contributes to a more stable and secure world order.
Both countries pledged to further their cooperation in fields of
energy, technology and innovation, expanded economic
engagement, global order, world peace and people-to-people ties.
India always considers the importance of Russian relationship and
its unique position in Indian foreign policy. Both sides felt confident to
propel their bilateral relationship to a new level where aspirations of
the people will be met. Both sides acknowledged that Indo-Russian
relationship has been a time-tested one based on trust and will grow
in future. A number of bilateral agreements and commercial
contracts were signed during this visit. The most notable among
them were Strategic Vision for Strengthening Cooperation in
Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Supplement to the General
Framework Agreement (GFA) for Units 3 & 4 of Kudankulam Nuclear
Power Project between Nuclear Power Cooperation of India Limited
(NPCIL) and ATOMSTROYEXPORT (ASE) and Contract between
NPCIL and ASE for Units 3 & 4 Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
However, India–Pakistan relation reached a nadir in 2014. There
were cross-border firing and violations of LOC and mutual
accusations of violations along with stagnation over terrorist issue
and extradition of Mumbai blast terrorists. India called off the talks
with Pakistan slated for August 2014 on the grounds that New Delhi-
based High Commissioner of Pakistan invited Kashmiri separatist
leaders or consultation ahead of the Summit. The coldness in their
relation was reflected in 18th SAARC Summit also. Even after suicide
bombers massacred a Peshawar Army School killing over hundred
school kids and Tehreek-e-Taliban claiming the responsibility for the
attack on 16 December 2014, on 18 December 2014, the anti-
terrorism court in Pakistan gave bail to Lt. commander Zakiur
Rehman Lakhvi, the key planner of Mumbai 2008 attacks. After
India’s reaction and international pressure, he was detained under
the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) rules for three more months
at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. It is to be seen how both sides take
initiatives to improve relations. India-Pakistan relationship is an
integral ingredient of sustainable peace in Afghanistan also.
The President of Bangladesh, Mr. Md. Abdul Hamid, paid an official
visit to India from 18–23 December 2014 on an invitation of the
Indian President Sri Pranab Mukherjee. Earlier the First India–
Bangladesh High Commissioner’s Summit was held on 14
November 2014. This visit is supposed to strengthen and expand the
bilateral relations between the two countries.
On the regional front, pursuing “Look East Policy”, India hosted the
round table Meetings on innovations among Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM) countries and Inauguration Virtual Knowledge Portal (VKP)
and meetings of the 24 × 7 Points of Contact (PoC) of the East Asia
Summit (EAS) countries on 4–5 December 2014 at New Delhi. It
focused on innovative technologies for disaster risk reduction and
disaster rescue efforts amongst participating countries with a plan for
broad structure and functioning of VKP.
On 17 December 2014, the Minister of State for External Affairs
General (Dr.) V.K. Singh (Retd.) held interactions with African Heads
of Missions in New Delhi. India assured that safety and security of all
foreign nationals including those of African countries as India has a
long history of inclusive and cosmopolitan culture and has zero
tolerance for racism in any form.
The First Meeting of the India–US Contact Group on Civil Nuclear
Cooperation was held from 16–17 December 2014. This Group was
formed in pursuant of the Joint statement of 30 September 2014
during PM Modi’s visit to the US. The discussions were held
between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) from Indian
side and Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi from the US side regarding
implementation issues, administrative issues, liability, technical
issues and licensing to facilitate US designed power plants in India.
Besides the PM’s visit to important countries, the External Affairs
Minister also visited Dhaka in June 2014, Nepal in July 2014 prior to
PM’s visit to Nepal, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, Vietnam and Singapore
in August 2014, Bahrain, Tajikistan and Afghanistan in September
2014, United Kingdom, USA (prior to the visit of the PM) in October,
2014, Mauritius, Maldives, UAE and Nepal in November 2014.
The year 2015 started with the high profile visit of the US President
Barack Obama to India. He was the Chief Guest for the Republic
Day celebration on
26 January, 2015. There were high level talks and indications of
intensifying Indo-US ties in field of climate change, PACE
(Partnership to Advance Clean Energy), incentivizing trade
investments among others.
The year 2015 has witnessed frequent visits of PM Modi to a number
of countries in his bid to engage India in constructive relationship as
well as project the prowess of India in international fora. There were
about 28 foreign trips made by the PM in 2015 to countries like USA,
UK, Russia, France, China, Germany, some other European
countries, Canada, Japan as well as neighbouring countries in
South-east Asia and South Asia, island countries deep down into the
Indian Ocean like Mauritius and Seychelles, Central Asian countries,
Iran, Turkey to mention a few. His multilateral engagements have
been followed up by his visits to BRICS Summit at Ufa, G-20 at
Antalya, EAS Summit at Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) Summit at UFA and India-Africa Summit at New
Delhi. The most surprising moment came when suddenly PM Modi
made a visit to his counterpart Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan on 25
December, 2015. However, this not reciprocated equally by Pakistan,
as soon after this visit, there were terror attacks on India’s Pathankot
Airbase (2–5 January, 2016). Still it can be said that India under his
leadership is following an active foreign policy. It is said to be based
on five pillars:
1. Economic development and technological progress,
2. Greater orientation of domestic and foreign policies towards the
fulfillment of these objectives,
3. Recognition of importance of national power both economic and
military,
 4. Focus on ‘soft power’ which can be said to be utilizing cultural
diplomacy and interacting with India Diaspora, and
5. Eliminations of constraints while engaging with other countries.
It can be said that the focus is now on South Asia, South-East Asia
(from Look-East to Act-East), Far-East, Central Asia, rediscovery of
the importance of Indian Ocean, strengthening of cultural linkages,
winning the Diaspora and renewed focus on climate change, nuclear
power and terrorism.
As a part of his ‘Act-East Policy’ PM Modi gave a strategic boost with
the inauguration of Bogibeel bridge in December 2018. It is about 4.9
km long over the River Brahmaputra and connects Dibrugarh to
Dhemaji (Assam and Arunachal Pradesh). The Bogibeel bridge is
the longest rail-cum road bridge in India. This can act as a game
changer as it has fortified the Indo-China border. Another bridge has
been the Dhola-Sadiya beam bridge in upper Assam’s Tinsukia
district linking Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
The other high points of the first term of PM Modi have been the
surgical strikes by India across the Line of Control following the Uri
terror attack in September 2016. There was also failed attempt of
Pakistan to internationalize the Kashmir issue at the United Nations.
India was successful in garnering support of the US, the UK, France,
Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) also condemned the Uri terrorist attack. The
SAARC Summit to be held in Islamabad was called off as a mark of
protest by the member states.
Following the Pulwama terror attacks on the jawans in February
2019, India carried another round of surgical strikes in Balakot,
Pakistan. There was worldwide condemnation of the Pulwama terror
attack. The US even urged Pakistan to cooperate in investigation
and punish the offenders. However, China blocked the UN Security
Council resolution to declare the mastermind behind the attack,
Masood Azhar as a global terrorist for a long time. Only in May 2019,
China pulled out the blockade and Masood Azhar was declared as a
global terrorist.
The 2019 Lok Sabha elections was a big win for the NDA with the
BJP getting 303 seats alone and NDA total of 353 seats. The second
term of
PM Modi was no different from the first term. It is based on the
principles of good neighbourly policy (neighbours first), fast track
diplomacy, Act-East policy, Link West (engaging with Gulf countries),
Connect Central Asia, multilateral engagements in BRICS, G 20, the
UN among others.
In his second term PM Modi’s government abrogated the Article 370
which ended the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in August
2019. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019
reconstituted Jammu and Kashmir into two Indian-administered
union territories, one to be called Jammu and Kashmir, and the other
Ladakh, on 31 October 2019. This obviously created a further
downturn in India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan tried again to raise the
issue in international forums like the United Nations but not much of
success did it meet. Being an internal issue as well as a bilateral
issue, the US and other countries played it low. China, though
dissatisfied with the government’s move on Ladakh on which it puts
is claim, did not side with Pakistan. The OIC refrained from any sort
of anti-Indian reactions. Russia was in full support of India’s decision
on Article 370.
A Community Summit was organized in the honour of PM Modi titled
“Howdy Modi” in Houston in USA by the Texas India Forum (TIF).
The US President Donald Trump also attended the programme. It
was like reaching out to the Indian diaspora at Houston.
As a part of multilateralism PM Modi is active in G 20 summits. In
2018, in the sidelines of G 20 he met the Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed Bin Salmann and got a Saudi offer of supply of oil and
petroleum products to meet India’s growing energy demands. PM
Modi also met the US President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe in a bid to create an Indo-Pacific regional
cooperation for strategic purpose of the Trio (JAI). There was also
the trilateral meeting among Russia, India and China (RIC).
In 2019 in the sidelines of G 20, PM Modi held six bilateral meetings
with leaders of Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, Australia, Singapore and
Chile with the aim of deepening the multifaceted strategic
partnerships.
India hosted the 2019 BIMSTEC Summit at Vishakapatnam (7
November–8 November, 2019). This was the first BIMSTEC
Conclave of Ports. This can be read as India’s boost to its Act-East
Policy as well as countries like Thailand and others Look-West
Policy. SAARC falling out of gear this forum can help India to
enhance its outreach cooperation to counter China with a strong
bond with the BIMSTEC countries.
The recent passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in
December 2019 amended the earlier Citizenship Act of 1955. It
contains provisions for acquiring citizenship for Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian religious minorities who are
fleeing persecution from three countries, namely, Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
It is to be seen how these pro-active engagements are beneficial for
India and what dividends it can bring for India.
 EXERCISES
1. Discuss the basic objectives of Indian Foreign Policy.
2. Trace the evolution of India’s foreign policy from Nehru to Indira
Gandhi.
3. Examine the changes and shifts in Indian foreign policy in post-
Indira Gandhi era.
4. Examine India’s foreign policy in the post-Cold War era.
5. Analyze the development of the Indo-US relations during the
tenure of UPA-I and UPA-II and the nuke deal.
6. Comment on the evolution of Indo-US relations.
7. Do you think an Indo-Russian relation is a ‘time-tested’ tie? Argue.
8. Discuss the evolution of Indo-Russian relations in the post-Soviet
era.
9. Highlighting the major irritants discuss the Indo-China relations.
10. Discuss the major disturbing factor leading to the ‘trust deficit’
between India and Pakistan.
11. Comment on the development of Indo-Pak relations over the
years.
12. Point out the major irritants in the Indo-Bangladesh relations.
Analyze the trend of development of Indo-Bangladesh relations.
13. How has the Indo-Sri Lankan relations have grown over the
years?
14. Discuss the evolution of Indo-Nepal relations.
15. Why do you think Bhutan figures significantly in the India-Bhutan
relations? In this context discuss how both have cultivated their
relations over the years?
16. Comment on India’s Look-East Policy (LEP).
 REFERENCES
[1] Doctor, Adi H., Essays on India’s Foreign Policy, National
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977, p. 36.
[2] Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja, The Making of India’s Foreign
Policy, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1991, p. 74.
[3] Asopa, Sheel K., “Fifty Years of Panchsheel and India–China
Relations,” in Mahavir Singh (Ed.) Panchsheel: Retrospect and
Prospect, Maulana Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Kolkata,
Shipra Publications, New Delhi, 2005, pp. 89–90.
[4] Cohen, Stephen P., Emerging Power India, Oxford India
Paperbacks, New Delhi, 2006, p. 38.
[5] Dutt, V.P., India’s Foreign Policy Since Independence, National
Book Trust, New Delhi, 2007, p. 5.
[6] Mishra, Pramod Kumar, “Responding to the Changing Global
Milieu From Nehru to Vajpayee,” in Nalini Kant Jha (Ed.), India’s
Foreign Policy in a Changing World, South Asian Publishers, New
Delhi, 2000, p. 51.
[7] Dutt, V.P., India’s Foreign Policy, Vikas Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1987, p. 83.
[8] Chengappa, Raj, “The New Nuclear Future”, India Today, 20
October, 2008, pp. 44–47.
[9] “PM, Gilani agreed: Talks must resume”, The Statesman, 17 July,
2009.
 SUGGESTED READING
Chakrabarti, Radharaman and Lahiri, Iman Kalyan (Eds.), India’s
Constructive Engagement in Asia and Around, Academic
Excellence, Delhi, 2012.
Dubey, Muchkund, India’s Foreign Policy: Coping with the Changing
World, Pearson Education, Delhi, 2012
Kothari, Rajkumar (Ed.), Indian Foreign Policy in the New
Millennium, Academic Excellence, Delhi, 2010.
Kothari, Raj Kumar (Ed.), Emerging India as a Global Partner:
Growing Ties and Challenges, Atlantic Publishers and
Distributors, New Delhi, 2012.

* Super 301 Section 301 of the US Trade Act, 1974

† North-South Corridor-stretches from the ports of India across the Arabian Sea
to the Southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and then goods transit Iran and the
Caspian sea to the ports in the Russian sector of the Caspian Sea. From there,
the corridor stretches along the Volga River to the port of Astra Khan before
reaching Moscow and finally Europe.
‡ BRICS—an economic grouping comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and
South Africa. (see Chapter 20)
§ Finger Area is a territory which is located in the north of Gyangyong in Sikkim
and strategically overlooks the important valley-Sora Funnel. This is the
northernmost tip of Sikkim which appears like a protruding finger on the map.
¶ Stapled Visas When the visas for a visiting country are issued on a separate
paper rather than on the passport it is called stapled visa. After the immigration,
officers would not stamp one’s passport if one is carrying a stapled visa’s.
** Sir Creek A 60 miles of long strip of watery marsh with patches of land
situated in the Rann of Kutch. Sir Creek divides the Kutch region of Gujarat and
the Sind province of Pakistan.
†† Coffee Club* Countries that strongly oppose the G4 countries—Brazil,
Germany, India, and Japan’s bids for permanent seats in the United Nations
Security Council have formed the Uniting for Consensus movement, or the
Coffee Club. The most vocal countries of this group are Italy, South Korea,
Mexico, Argentina and Pakistan. In East Asia, both China and South Korea heavily
oppose Japan’s bid. In Europe, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands all oppose a seat
for Germany. In Latin America, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico are opposing a
seat for Brazil. In Asia, Pakistan is opposing India’s bid.
‡‡ Lhotshampas The southern Bhutanese of Nepalese origin who have been
evicted from Bhutan in the early 1990s. They have been staying in the UNHCR
administered refugee camps in Nepal for over 20 years. Following Bhutan’s
stringent attitude of continuous refusal to take back the Lhotshampas, UNHCR
have started the process of Third Country Resettlement of Bhutanese refugees in
Nepal.
Environment and International
Relations

The Earth Day (April 22) and the World Environment Day (June 5)
are celebrated every year, all around the globe, to raise awareness
about environmental problems and to work for a more concerted
action towards tackling them. But the question is, how far is the
world community aware of the challenges to the environment? As
discussed in Chapter 4 under the section on sustainable
development, the environment has been a prime concern of
international community for a long time. With the onset of
globalization, growth of market economy and technological
revolution, the global environment, especially that of the developing
countries, stands threatened. Therefore, time has come to rethink
about international relations and its connection with the environment.
The noteworthy initiative that was taken by the international
community to voice their environmental concerns was the Stockholm
Conference (1972) on Environment under the auspices of the United
Nations. Since then, a number of summits and conferences have
been held and a number of conventions have been passed to
sensitize the states and the world population about the
environmental problems such as global warming, climate change,
pollution (air, water and sound) and sustainable development.
GLOBAL INITIATIVES, CONFERENCES AND SUMMITS
RELATING TO ENVIRONMENT SINCE 1972
As we have seen in Chapter 14, the whole initiative regarding the
world environment took root with the formation of ‘Club of Rome’ in
the year 1972. They argued that if the present increasing trend in
population, food and pollution continue, given finite resource
supplies, the limits to growth on the planet will be reached within the
next 100 years and there would arise problems of sustainability.
The same year, the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference) was held
in Stockholm, Sweden, during 5–16 June 1972. It was the UN’s first
major conference on international environmental issues, and it
marked a turning point in the development of international
environmental politics. The Declaration of the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment, or Stockholm
Declaration, was adopted on June 16, 1972 by the United Nations
at the 21st plenary meeting as the first document in the international
environmental law to recognize the right to a healthy environment.
The other landmarks in the environmental awareness thinking were
obviously the World Conservation Strategy (1980), Our Common
Future (1987), and Caring for the Earth (1991) (see Chapter 14).
Besides these landmark events in arousing environmental
awareness, the other remarkable summits and conferences were as
follows:
1. UNEP, 1972: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
was formed as a result of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment in June 1972. Its main function is to coordinate
the UN environment programmes at the global and regional levels.
2. Bucharest Population Conference, 1974: The year 1974 had
been designated as the World Population Year and with this theme in
the backdrop, the first World Conference on Population was held in
Bucharest, Romania under the auspices of the UN. 135 countries
participated in the Conference. The Conference focused on the
relationship between population issues and development, and
proposed the World Population Plan of Action. It was followed up by
the International Conference on Population, which was held in
Mexico City in 1984.
3. Cocoyoc Declaration, 1974: A symposium in Cocoyoc, Mexico
was held in 1974. It was chaired by the late Barbara Ward. This
symposium was organized by the UNEP and the United Nations
Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The remarkable
feature of this symposium was the adoption of the Cocoyoc
Declaration, which was viewed as a proclamation of sustainable
development.
The Cocoyoc Declaration ends with the following observation:
The road forward does not lie through the despair of doom watching or through
the easy optimism of successive technological fixes. It lies through a careful and
dispassionate assessment of the ‘outer limits’, through cooperative search for
ways to achieve the ‘inner limits’ of fundamental human rights, through the
building of social structures to express those rights, and through all the patient
work of devising techniques and styles of development which enhance and
preserve our planetary inheritance.1

4. Rome Food Conference, 1974: This was the first World Food
Conference held in Rome in 1974 under the auspices of the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The outcome was the
formation of the World Food Council and World Food Programme. It
also also led to the follow-up World Food Conferences.
5. Habitat Conference, 1976: The United Nations convened the
Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in
Vancouver, Canada, from 31 May till 11 June 1976. This Conference
focused on the plight of cities as a result of increased urbanization,
especially in the developing countries, and it resulted in the
establishment of a new Habitat programme in the UN system.
6. Green Belt Movement, 1977: Professor Wangari Maathai
established the organization in 1977, under the auspices of the
National Council of Women of Kenya in order to take a holistic
approach to development by focusing on environmental
conservation, community development and capacity building.
7. Desertification Conference, 1977: This Conference on
Desertification was held under the auspices of the UN in Nairobi,
Kenya from 29 August to 9 September, 1977. This was the first
international conference where the issue of desertification on a
global scale was addressed. The outcome of this conference was
the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification.
8. Water Conference 1977: This United Nations Water Conference
was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina from 14 to 25 March, 1977. This
Conference recognized the central role of water in public health and
environmental planning. Freshwater issues were thus discussed and
that too in the context of sustainable development. It also recognized
that:

global climate change could affect freshwater resources and

the hydrological cycle through higher temperatures and
decreased precipitation leading to decreased water supplies
and increased demand for water;
increases in climate extremes, such as floods or droughts,
could further stress water resources;
a sea level rise would put low-lying countries at risk; and
atmospheric pollutants could affect freshwater resources.

The Conference recommended a number of measures/techniques

that the international community can develop and apply in assessing
the potential adverse effects of the above.
9. World Climate Conference, Geneva, 1979: The World Climate
Conferences actually are a series of international meetings
organized by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on
global climate issues. The First World Climate Conference was
held on 12–23 February 1979 in Geneva and it focused on the
increasing emission of carbon dioxide resulting in “greenhouse”
effect. The outcome of this Conference was the establishment of the
World Climate Programme (WCP), the World Climate Research
Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) by WMO and UNEP in 1988. The Second World Climate
Conference was held from 29 October to 7 November 1990,
Geneva. The notable feature of this Conference was the
establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCC) amidst differences over climate change
issues. The Third World Climate Conference was held from 31
August to 4 September, 2009 Geneva. The focus was on climate
predictions and information for decision-making that help to cope
with the changing conditions.
10. Brandt Commission Report, 1980: The Brandt Commission
was the Independent Commission on International Development
Issues and it was chaired by the former West German Chancellor,
Willy Brandt. In the report entitled North-South: A Programme for
Survival, he recommended an increase in aid to developing
countries and also called for environmental impact assessments of
development proposals.
11. Charter for Nature, 1982: The UN General Assembly adopted a
World Charter for Nature prepared by IUCN on 28 October, 1982. It
proclaimed five “principles of conservation by which all human
conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged.”
The general principles of the World Charter for Nature are:
(i) Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not
be impaired.
(ii) The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the
population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be
at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary
habitat shall be safeguarded.
(iii) All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be subject to
these principles of conservation; special protection shall be given
to unique areas, to representative samples of all the different
types of ecosystems and to the habitat of rare or endangered
species.
(iv) Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and
atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be
managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable
productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of
those other ecosystems or species with which they coexist.
(v) Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare
or other hostile activities.2
12. Montreal Protocol, 1987: This Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was a protocol to the
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. This
protocol aimed at reducing depletion of the ozone layer and it was
negotiated in Montreal under the auspices of UNEP. The treaty was
opened for signature on 16 September, 1987, and was brought into
force on 1 January, 1989. Since then, it has undergone seven
revisions, in 1990 (London), 1991 (Nairobi), 1992 (Copenhagen),
1993 (Bangkok), 1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal), and 1999 (Beijing).
13. Global Environment Facility (GEF): The World Bank, UNDP,
and UNEP created this intergovernmental financial organization.
GEF provides grants to developing countries for projects related to
biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation,
the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.
14. Rio Conference, 1992: The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), also referred to as the Rio
Summit or the Earth Summit, was held from 3 June to 14 June 1992.
The major breakthrough achieved in this Summit was the Agenda
21: Green Paths to the Future or the Rio Declaration of 1992. The
Rio Declaration consisted of 27 principles intended to guide future
sustainable development around the world [see Chapter 14 for
details]. The UNGA created the Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD) to coordinate the implementation of Agenda 21
into the programmes and processes of the UN system.
15. Cairo Conference, 1994: The United Nations coordinated an
International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt from 5 to 13 September 1994. The
recommendations that came up from this Conference were in the
issues of improving reproductive health services and the position of
women in society. The outcome of the Conference was the
Programme of Action, which became the guiding document for the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
According to the official ICPD release, the conference delegates
arrived at a consensus on four qualitative and quantitative goals for
universal education, reduction of infant and child mortality, reduction
of maternal mortality and access to reproductive and sexual health
services including family planning.
16. Habitat II, 1996: The Second United Nations Conference on
Human Settlements, called Habitat II, was held in Istanbul, Turkey
from 3 to 14 June, 1996. The primary focus of Habitat II was
adequate shelter for all and sustainable cities.
17. Kyoto Protocol, 1997: The third meeting of the Conference of
Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention in Kyoto, Japan
adopted the Kyoto Protocol (features discussed later) to reduce
global emissions of greenhouse gases.
18. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 2000: At the United
Nations Millennium Summit, the UN General Assembly approved
eight Millennium Development Goals, all of which are interrelated,
aimed at ensuring “environmental sustainability” (Goal-7).
Goal-7, aimed to ensure environmental sustainability, upholds:

Target 7A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development

into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of
environmental resources.
Target 7B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a
significant reduction in the rate of loss.
Target 7C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population
without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation.
Target 7D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant
improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers.

19. Johannesburg Summit, 2002: World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD) (also known as Rio+10) under the auspices of
the UN was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, to assess the global
situation and progress in implementing international agreements
adopted at Rio in 1992 and at the 1972 UN Conference on the
Human Environment in Stockholm.
The Political Declaration that was adopted stated that the members
would undertake “a collective responsibility to advance and
strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of
sustainable development, economic development, social
development and environmental protection at the local, national,
regional and global levels” and a Plan of Implementation for
achieving this.
20. Vienna Climate Change Talks, 2007: A round of climate
change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Vienna,
Austria. At Vienna, the “Ad Hoc Working Group” (AWG) on Further
Commitments of Annex I Parties (industrialized countries) under the
Kyoto Protocol officially recognized the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s indication that global emissions of greenhouse
gases need to peak in the next 10–15 years and then be reduced to
very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000 by mid-century, if
concentrations are to be stabilized at safe levels. The group also
officially recognized that avoiding the most catastrophic forecasts
made by the IPCC, including very frequent and severe droughts and
water-shortages in large parts of the world, would entail emission
reductions.
21. High-level conference on World Food Security, 2008: The
High-level Conference on World Food Security: The Challenges of
Climate Change and Bioenergy was held from 3 to 5 June 2008 in
FAO Headquarters in Rome. 181 member countries participated in
this Conference. The highlight of the Conference was the adoption of
a declaration calling on the international community to increase
assistance for developing countries, in particular the least developed
countries, which are affected by high food prices.
22. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Alongside the noteworthy developments mentioned before in the
environmental sphere, another progress took place after the Rio
Summit, better known as the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro from
3 to 14 June 1992. This was the creation of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The treaty itself sets no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas
emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement
mechanisms, but it provides for updates (called protocols) that would
set mandatory emission limits. The principal update is the Kyoto
Protocol of 1997. The UNFCCC was opened for signature on 9 May
1992. It came into force on 21 March 1994. As of December 2009,
UNFCCC had 192 parties. The significance of the UNFCCC since it
has come into force, can be found in the annual Conferences of the
Parties (COP) to assess progress made in dealing with climate
change. Since 1995 till the present, COP meets annually to discuss
issues of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is the result of such
meetings.
Since 1995, sixteen such annual COPs have been held in Berlin
(1995), Switzerland (1996), Kyoto (1997), Buenos Aires (1998 and
2004), Bonn (1999 and 2001), The Hague (2000), Marrakech (2001),
New Delhi (2002), Milan (2003), Montreal (2005), Nairobi (2006),
Bali (2007), Poznañ (2008), Copenhagen (2009) and Cancún (2010).
Some of the important Conferences and their outcomes are
discussed below.
UN Climate Change Conference 2005 was held in Montreal. This
was significant as this was the first Meeting of the Parties (MOP-1)
to the Kyoto Protocol since their initial meeting in Kyoto in 1997. The
Montreal Action Plan is an agreement reached out at the end of the
conference to extend the life of the Kyoto Protocol beyond its 2012
expiration date and negotiate deeper cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions.
UN Climate Change Conference 2007 was held at Bali, Indonesia
where the notable event was the adoption of the Bali Action Plan
for structured negotiation on the post-2012 framework (the end of the
first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol).
UN Climate Change Conference 2009 was held at Copenhagen,
Denmark. It was the 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties to
the UNFCCC and the fifth Meeting of the Parties (MOP). The goal of
this meeting was to establish a successor to the Kyoto Protocol so
that a global climate agreement could come into effect from 2013
after the expiry of the first commitment period under the Kyoto
Protocol.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2010 that took
place in Cancun, Mexico, was the sixteenth Conference of the
Parties (COP) and the sixth Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the
Kyoto Protocol.
The UN Climate Change Conferences have never been able to
register historical breakthroughs ever since their initiation chiefly
because of the North-South divide on climate change and other
environment issues. Consensus among the participating countries is
always difficult. The Kyoto Protocol has been only a major
achievement, but negotiations for the post-Kyoto successor are
proving to be a stumbling block. The Copenhagen Conference 2009
could not hammer out a new treaty.
Again, the differences between the developing countries and
developed countries came to the fore. The developing countries,
least developed countries and small island countries refused to
budge from their position and reiterated the historical responsibility of
the developed countries for maximum greenhouse emission. They
demanded that climate change action should be guided by principles
of historical responsibility and common and differentiated
responsibility. They also wanted the extension of the Kyoto Protocol
which gives some relief to developing countries. However, the US
and the developed countries wanted to replace the Kyoto Protocol
whereby cuts in emission of greenhouse gases become applicable to
poor countries too and also wanted large emitters like India and
China to be more transparent about domestic emission curbing
actions. India did not shift her position during the Copenhagen
negotiations, but clauses in the Accord suggest that emission cut by
her even those not supported by foreign finance may be open to
international consultations. Further, there was no agreement on
designing a legally binding instrument that will govern climate
change beyond 2012. Thus, the Copenhagen Accord has failed to
deliver the goods to the countries of the South, and many feel that
there is a tilt towards the developed countries.
The Cancun Conference, 2010 also could not be said to be
successful in delivering the goods to the world. The Cancun
documents recognize emission targets set by industrialized and
developing countries and require that inventories of the national
emissions are shared annually by industrialized countries and once
every two years by the developing countries. The agreements are
expected to be transformed into a legal treaty at next December
2011 conference in Durban, South Africa. There is also a pledge of
$30 billion fast-start finance from industrialized countries to support
climate action in developing countries. However, the environment
groups point out that the Cancun Agreement has failed to establish
any mechanism to ensure that the industrialized countries did not
break the pledges made. They also fear that the Cancun Agreement
might finally provide a platform to abandon the Kyoto Protocol.
Further, India’s action has been criticized. India has shifted from her
earlier position and has given a hint that she would eventually
consider legally binding curbs on emissions, which has been viewed
as a betrayal. The poor countries have seen this as a keen India to
become a part of the global alliance of polluters at the cost of poor
countries. Thus, the politics of environment will continue in the future
also as long as there is the North-South divide and the world is
divided into haves and have-nots.
SOME INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT
AND ENVIRONMENT RELATED MATTERS
Several Global Conventions relating to environmental protection
have been ratified by a large number of states. Some of them are:

Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), 1973
The Convention on Wetlands of international Importance
Especially as Waterflow Habitat, 1971
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, 1972
International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, 1973
International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High
Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution
Damage, 1969
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
CONVENTIONS REGARDING REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of

Dangerous Goods by Road, Geneva, 1957
FAO International Code of Conduct on the distribution and use
of Pesticides, Rome, 1985
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Basel,
1989
Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during
Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail, and Inland
Navigation Vessels (CRTD), Geneva, 1989
Convention on the ban of the Import into Africa and the
Control of Transboundary Movements and Management of
Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, 1991
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial
Accidents, Helsinki, 1992
Convention to ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries
of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the
Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous
Wastes within the South Pacific Region, Waigani, 1995
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade, Rotterdam, 1998.
European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of
Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways, Geneva, 2000
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,
Stockholm, 2001
CONVENTIONS RELATING TO NUCLEAR SAFETY

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage,

Vienna, 1963
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in
Outer Space, and Under Water, (PTBT) 1963
Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident
or Radiological Emergency (Assistance Convention), Vienna,
1986
Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident
(Notification Convention), Vienna, 1986
Convention on Nuclear Safety, Vienna, 1994
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 1996
FEATURES OF KYOTO PROTOCOL, 1997
The final shape to the Kyoto Protocol could be given after much
bargaining and adjustments. It was adopted on 11 December, 1997.
The main features of the Kyoto Protocol are as follows:
1. Under the Protocol, 37 countries (“Annex I countries”) commit
themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG)
(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride)
and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries
give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce
their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% relative to
levels prevailing in 1990.
2. Most non-Annex I Parties belonged to the low-income group,
with a very few classified as middle-income. They are not
obligated by the limits of emissions in the Kyoto Protocol. Fast
growing economy countries like China, South Africa, India and
Brazil are still in this non-obligated group.
3. The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of
six greenhouse gases by 2008–12. Cuts in the three most
important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O) and cuts in three long-lived industrial gases
– hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) were agreed upon.
4. The commitment period was to be from 2008–12.
5. Inclusion among cuts of sources and removal of defined ‘sinks’
or carbon absorbent material was limited to aforestation,
reforestation and deforestation since 1990.
6. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), emissions trading and
joint projects implementation were agreed upon towards fulfilling
emission cuts which came to be identified as ‘voluntary’
commitments of non-Annex 1 or developing countries.
7. Absence of any mechanism to ensure compliance or punitive
measures for non-compliance.
The Kyoto Protocol was about to expire at the end of 2012 but it was
extended at the UN Climate Change Conference which was held at
Doha, 26 November–8 December 2012. It was extended till 2020. In
this Climate Change Conference it was also agreed that a successor
to the Kyoto Protocol would be formulated by 2015 and implemented
by 2020.
The environment is the prime concern of the international community
at present. But a lot of politics is involved in it as we have seen in the
UN Climate Change Conferences or any of the environment related
negotiations. Despite such lack of consensus among the members of
the international community, certain landmark agreements and
conventions have come into force. Several of these legal instruments
are based on the realization that environmental protection alone is
not sufficient and that it must be seen within the overall context of
the many socio-economic and developmental issues that challenge
the nations of the world. Sustainable development is the key to
progress as well as to a safe earth that we can give to our future
generations. A common concern of mankind should prevent the
world community from committing the ‘tragedy of the commons’1.
The motto should be “Give Earth a Chance” and thereby secure our
future.

Highlights of United Nations Climate Change Conference,

Paris, 2015–till date
The UN Climate Change Conference held in Paris, 30 November–11
December, 2015 has to be analysed in the backdrop of UN Climate
Change Conference of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
The UN Climate Change Conference held in Durban from November
28– December 9, 2011 (COP17/CMP7) showed a pledge on the part
of International Community to implement the Kyoto Protocol, 1997,
Bali Action Plan, 2007 and the Cancun Agreement, 2010. A decision
was also taken by the Parties to adopt a universal legal agreement
on climate change which was to take effect in 2020.
The UN Climate Change Conference held in Doha, 26 November–8
December, 2012 was quite remarkable as it agreed to extend the
validity of the Kyoto Protocol till 2020. It also for the first time
incorporated the ‘Loss and Damage’ mechanism by which the rich
nations agreed finance to help developing countries to work towards
clean energy and adapt to climate change. It also agreed to
formulate a successor to Kyoto Protocol.
The UN Climate Change Conference held in Warsaw, from 11
November– 23 November, 2013 (COP19/CMP9) ended with the
adoption of key decisions regarding (1) further advancing the Durban
Platform, (2) the Green Climate Fund and Long-Term Finance, (3)
the Warsaw Framework for REDD Plus, (4) the Warsaw International
Mechanism for Loss and Damage among others.
The UN Climate Change Conference, held in Lima, 1 December–12
December, 2014 (COP20/CMP10) was intended to increase the
pace of adoption of a Universal Climate Agreement in Paris in 2015
and to galvanize transformative action in all countries to reduce
emissions.
The UN Climate Change Conference held in Paris, 30 November–11
December, 2015 (COP21/CMP11) was a breakthrough in a sense
that 195 nations agreed on a plan, which they have been
deliberating for years, to reduce the greenhouse gases and address
the problem of global warming. The goal of the Paris Plan is to bring
down pollution levels so that the rise in global temperature can be
limited to 2 degrees celsius. It includes commitments by majority
countries of the 195 signatories to cut or limit the rise of their
greenhouse gas emissions. The signatories also agreed to the
convening of meetings every 5 years to take stock, and realfirm their
pledges so that the 2 degrees goal is not lost midway. The Paris
Agreement also includes regular transparent reporting of every
country’s carbon reductions. The stupendous job involved in the
signing of the Paris Agreement by countries between 22 April, 2016
(Earth Day) and 21 April, 2017 has to be followed by
adoption/ratification according to national procedures of signatories.
However, observers pointed out that much success of the Paris
Agreement depend on the goodwill of individual signatories
especially the two largest carbon emitters of the world—the USA and
China. However, it must be noted that in November 2014, both the
USA and China had agreed to limit greenhouse gases emissions
(US–China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean
Energy Co-operation, 2014). Only future can speak whether Paris
Agreement will live upto its expectations or not. Never-the-less the
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called it a “monumental success
for the planet and its people”. A safe and green planet needs to be
ensured for our future generations and for this climate change issue
needs to be addressed on an emergency basis. Unfortunately, the
entire effort got a jolt when the US refused to sign the Paris accord
and decided to withdraw from it in 2017. However, France, Germany
Italy, Japan, Canada and United Kingdom proclaimed that the Paris
agreement is irreversible and its full integrity will contribute to the
security and prosperity of the planet, societies and economies. It
becomes clear that it is a tough battle that has to be fought amidst
oddities to secure the Earth for our future generations.
COP24 was held in 2018 at Katowice, Poland. A comprehensive
“rule book” was created to specify the details of the guidelines
towards the implementation of Paris Agreement. The new Special
Report on Global Warming of 15°C by Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) received lukewarm response regarding
cutting of carbon emission by 2020. Negotiations got strained over
issues like climate finance and differentiation of responsibilities
among developed and developing countries. One achievement was
the signing of the “Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration”
to tackle the transition towards low carbon economy which is sure to
face stiff social resistance on the home turf of the countries trying to
implement global climate policy.
The United Nations Climate Change Conferece, the COP 25 took
place in Madrid, Spain from 2 December to 13 December, 2019
under the Presidency of Chile (there was a change of venue of the
conference due to inability expressed by Chile to host the
conference). There was no major breakthrough as negotiations got
fraughted and no consensus could be reached regarding Article 6
pertaining to rules for carbon market requiring transparency and
common timeframes for climate pledges. This was stalled till 2020.
Disappointment with COP 25 was expressed by UN Secretary
General António Guterres as a lost opportunity to show increased
ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle climate
change issue.
 EXERCISES
1. Discuss the gradual evolution of the consciousness about the
environment through various conferences and adoption of various
conventions.
2. Discuss the UNFCCC and the efforts of the subsequent UN
Climate Change Conferences to tackle global climate change.
Briefly state the features of the Kyoto Protocol.
 REFERENCES
[1] http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/045.htm.
[2] http://eelink.net/~asilwildlife/wcn.html.

1 The notion that ‘rational’ individual actions can lead to ‘irrational’ collective
practices resulting in catastrophic over-exploitation of common resources.
Migration and Refugees
INTRODUCTION
With time, the engagement with international politics by scholars
have assumed different dimensions. The developments in the
international scenario, improvement of transport and communication,
globalization, expansion of labour market, outbreak of armed
conflicts, civil wars, identity politics and various other crucial factors
have led to the movement of people across the globe. This
movement has been labeled as ‘migration’ by the international
community. Migrations take several forms but those of migrants who
fall under the category of refugees have become a great concern for
the states in international politics. This chapter will look into
migration and those groups of people categorized as refugees and
various predicaments involving the refugees.
MIGRATION
Migration usually is referred to as movement of people either
individually or in a group. Movement involves a temporal (time
related) and spatial (space related) movements. Movements of
Nomads, gatherers, tourists, trips related to work, long-term or short-
term labour migration and permanent migration are certain kinds of
migrations which can be cited. These involve movements related to
both time and space. However, in international relations migration is
considered on the basis of some parameters/criteria which may not
be inclusive. Certain parameters have been set by international
bodies to classify migration and types of migration. It is always
difficult to conceptualize migration and give a substantive definition.
The International Organization of Migration (IOM) gives a definition
for migration. It refers to the movement with respect to one’s habitual
residence. A person may have to leave habitual place of residence
and move within a border of a State or across an international
border. This definition emphasizes on the movement from the
habitual place of residence irrespective of the legal status of the
person and causes of the movement or even the duration of the
person’s stay in another place.
The definition of migration provided by the World Health
Organization (WHO) is almost in the line of IOM definition with
specifying categories of migrants as displaced people, refugees,
economic migrants, and people moving for various purposes like
family reunification. Further, WHO’s definition identifies different
categories of migrants as ‘settlers’, ‘transit migrants’ and ‘circular
migrants’. ‘Settlers’ may live in their home country or cross border in
a host country. ‘Transit migrants’ are those who move on to another
country using one country for transit purpose. ‘Circular migrants’
move into and leave countries periodically like seasonal workers.
Migration involving spatial movement, usually at international level, is
considered while classifying migrants. As there can be voluntary
migration and involuntary migration. There can be legal immigrants
and illegal immigrants in a country. There can be refugees and
asylum seekers crossing international boundaries and entering or
trying to enter a country and becoming a cause of concern for the
countries concerned. This might also lead to straining of relations
among states.
Now looking at the reasons of migration a wide variety of causes
seem to work behind migration as push factors and pull factors. If
the case of involuntary, specifically forced migration is considered,
then there are a wide range of causes which can be identified. The
causes can be like war, civil war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and
even natural calamities. Economic factors like good wage condition,
availability of job market, high standard of living and other factors
can act as pull factors for migration. The opposite can result in the
push factors for forced migration. Lack of economic opportunities
and wellbeing can force a section of the population to migrate to
lucrative destinations.
Another striking feature of forced migration is human trafficking and
forced labour. Forced labour according to ILO Report (2016) include
victims of human trafficking for labour and sexual exploitation. ILO
estimates 16 million people in forced labour; (9.2 million) women and
girls and (6.8 million) men and boys are victims of forced labour in
2016. Almost 15.4 million people were living in a forced marriage in
2016. Considering the cases forced labour of women and girls, they
account for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry, and 58%
in other sectors.
Voluntary migration includes migrant workers, students,
professionals, permanent settlers but all with valid documents of
immigration. The problem arises with ‘undocumented’ migrants who
exist in one country without valid documents permitting their
presence within that country. The United Nations General Assembly
(UNGA) Resolution #3449 (1975) however, insists on the usage of
term “non-documented” or “irregular migrants”. Undocumented
migrants can also become ‘non citizens’ and ‘stateless’ on their
arrival in another country if the ‘country of origin’, they have fled
disowns them and the ‘country of destination’ refuses them ‘asylum’.
There can be another category of people who might be forced to
leave their place of residence but they do not cross international
boundaries. These are groups of people who are put under the
category of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).
There is another category of people who may have lost their
nationality by certain laws of a country. Further, they may not be
considered as nationals by any country. They are disowned by any
country. These people, then as per the United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Stateless persons, are stateless people
[Article 1]. These people then might be forcibly evicted or have to
leave the country under compulsion. Since their legal status is
undetermined they suffer a lot of hardship and denial to access to
minimum basic facilities. They may seek asylum in another country.
Then they will be put under the category of ‘asylum seekers’. If that
country grants them asylum and recognizes them as refugees, to
some extent their hardships get mitigated. The international
agencies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) might provide humanitarian assistance. This is a difficult
process and depends upon various political and security
considerations of host countries.
The UNHCR estimates that till the end of 2018 there are about 70.8
million forcibly displaced persons around the globe. There are about
41.3 million Internally Displaced Persons globally. Refugees account
for 25.9 million people. Whereas, 3.5 million people fall in the
category of asylum seekers. The largest number of asylum seekers
came from Venezuela in the year 2018. Syria, South Sudan and
Afghanistan are three of the largest refugee producing countries.
About 57% of refugees came from these three countries.
Specifically now, turning towards those migrants who are
categorized as ‘refugees’, will be the focus of our discussion. Though
in common parlance refugees, migrants and asylum seekers are not
differentiated but under international law there are differences among
them which are discussed in the next section.
REFUGEES AND REFUGEE LAW
Territory is an important element of state. Crossing over territory
leading to forced or voluntary migration, legal or illegal migration, is
central to securing the borders of the states. ‘Territorialization’ is
central towards immigration policies of states, especially when it
comes to migration issues. Donald Trump, for example, proposed
building of a Wall along the US-Mexico border to curb illegal
immigration from Mexico. He also many a times came down upon H-
1B visas relating to granting of work permit to foreign workers. Trump
also proposed policies of banning Muslim immigration from areas
with history of terrorism. This clearly shows how states are sensitive
towards migration issues and are moving towards tough immigration
regimes.
If we consider refugees and their entering into the territory of another
state either in groups or individually then it can be said that it has
become the centre of international politics and policy making of
states. The important element involved in this category of migrants
being classified as ‘refugees’ is ‘crossing over international
boundary’. Refugees mostly are cases of forced migration seeking
‘asylum’ and protection of the ‘country of destination’ and fleeing the
‘country of origin’. The Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees, 1951 was adopted to address the status of persons
outside their country and their rights and freedoms without
discrimination.
The important causes of behind the adoption of this Convention have
their roots in the World Wars I and II. In the aftermath of the World
War I (WWI) and formation of the League of Nations, 1919, several
attempts were made to tackle refugee problem in Europe. Refugees,
especially from Russia, making inroads into Europe became a
concern of the international community. First attempt made towords
this was an appointment of a High Commissioner for Refugees
whose name was Fridtjof Nansen* (Nansen Passport). Following the
outbreak of the Second World War (WWII) and still the presence of
League of Nations, several Conventions were adopted by the
League to control the refugee flow from Germany (mostly Jews).
One of them was a Provisional Arrangement Concerning the Status
of Refugees coming from Germany in 1936. This Arrangement
helped to issue travel documents to the German and the stateless.*
The League further adopted another Convention Concerning the
status of Refugees coming from Germany. They were partially able
to tackle refugee crisis. When the United Nations was formed after
dissolution of the League, on 24 October, 1945, the International
Refugee Organization (IRO) was established [UNGA Resolution:
Question of refugees, G.A res.8/1, (Feb.12, 1946)].
The IRO made attempts towards resettlement of displaced people in
Europe in various countries like USA, Canada and Australia. Huge
volume of refugee generated in the aftermath of Second World War
(WWII) necessitated a more apt body to address the refugee
problem. Therefore, the statute of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was adopted by the UN
General Assembly (UNGA) on 14 December, 1950. It became
operative from 1 January, 1951. This was followed by the adoption of
the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees on 28 July, 1951.
This Convention came into force on 22 April, 1954.
The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a person who
“as a result of events occurring before 1 January, 1951 and owing to
well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group of political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or,
owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the
country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is
unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” Those who
have committed crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against
humanity, or serious nonpolitical crimes abroad are exempted from
the category of refugees.
Therefore, a timeline and a geographic location are present along
with causes of moving out of one’s country. This was the heydays of
Cold War and people were fleeing East Europe out of fear of
communism. Thus, one of the causes as political opinion had been
added. Later, the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 31
January, 1967 removed the timeline of 1 January, 1951. It also stated
that the present Protocol should apply without any geographic
limitation as the 1951 Convention by “events occurring before 1
January, 1951” referred to events occurring in Europe and
elsewhere.
Some important clauses of the 1951 Convention are given below:
As refugees more often enter a territory without lawful documents
and permission to enter the territory, the Contracting States were
directed not to impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or
presence. This is because they enter their territory directly from a
territory where their life or freedom was threatened as given in Article
1 of the Convention. [Article 31]
The Contracting States should not expel a refugee lawful in their
territory other than grounds of national security or public order.
[Article 32]
The most significant feature of the 1951 Convention is the principle
of non-refoulement. [Article 33 (1)]. No refugee shall be expelled or
returned (“refouler”) to the frontiers of the territories where that
person’s life is threatened by the reason’s mentioned in the
Convention.
A few other human rights documents which are applicable in case of
refugees are given below:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 1966
The UN Declarations on Territorial Asylum, 1967
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, 1981
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984
The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights
of All Migrant Workers and Members of Families.
Among the regional instruments relating to the refugee regime,
mention has to be made of the Cartagena Declaration on
Refugees, 1984 pertaining to refugee problem in Latin America. The
noteworthy point about this Declaration is that this took a much
broader view of the causes of forcible eviction of people who
ultimately become refugees. It included the definition of refugees
under the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol as well as
categories of people fleeing their country of origin due to threats of
generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive
violation of human rights or other circumstances which have
seriously disturbed public order.
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing
the Specific Aspects of Refugees Problems in Africa, 1969, further
broadened the scope of the definition of a refugee. As Africa suffers
from acute refugee problem, therefore the causes of fleeing one’s
country included were quite comprehensive and quite different from
the earlier instruments. The causes came to include external
aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously
disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of
origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual
residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside one’s
country of origin.
Therefore there have been attempts at international and regional
level to address refugee and migration related problems. However,
many states have not acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention as
well as its 1967 Protocol. The South Asian states have not signed
the refugee convention. Every attempt to have a regional refugee
convention relating to the refugees never could take fruition in the
South Asian region. South Asian states deal with the refugee
problems on an ad hoc basis which is conditioned by their national
interest and bilateral equations with the other countries.
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR
REFUGEES (UNHCR)
The UNHCR is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is
mandated to help and protect the refugees worldwide. It was created
in the aftermath of Second World War (WWII), in order to address
the refugee problem in Europe vide General Assembly Resolution
428 (V), 14 December, 1950. Initially it had a mandate for three
years. Later, with the adoption of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the
UNHCR continued delivering its service to refugees globally. The
Statute of the Office of the High Commissioner provides that UNHCR
would be a non-political body. It will be humanitarian catering to
those falling under the category of refugees as provided in the
Statute and also in the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The UNHCR is mandated to promote the cause of refugees through
adoption and implementation of international conventions relating to
the refugees. Improving the conditions of refugees through
negotiations with governments, assisting voluntary repatriation and
even assimilation and resettlements, admitting the refugees to a
territory of a state, obtaining information from governments regarding
number and conditions of the refugees and various other related
activities.
The UNHCR would work under the authority of the General
Assembly. It reports annually to the General Assembly through the
Economic Social Council. As of June 2019, 20.4 million refugees are
displaced under the mandate of UNHCR and 5.5 million refugees
from Palestine under the mandate of United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).
The UNHCR has won two Nobel Peace Prizes in 1954 and 1981.
The agency has also won Prince of Asturias Awards for International
Cooperation in 1991.
THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MIGRATION (IOM)
As far as migration is concerned, the IOM is a significant
organization making necessary contribution towards migration
issues. It acts as a specialized agency of the United Nations. The
IOM provides services and advice to governments regarding
migration related issues. It also plays an important role in
management of migration and searching for practical solutions with a
humane face. It also carries out sensitization programmes regarding
the laws on migration, rights of migrants and their protection and
wellbeing. It provides humanitarian assistance to migrants including
refugees and IDPs. The IOM comprises 173 member states and 8
observer states.
A point to be mentioned over here is that of the Sustainable
Development Goals or 2030 Agenda (see Chapter 19) adopted in
2015. Here specifically the issue of migration or issues related to
migration have been mentioned. This is because the 2030 Agenda
emphasizes “leave no one behind” even the migrants. The Target
10.7 specifically mentions about management of migration. These
include responsible, safe, regular migration and mobility of the
people with properly designed migration policies. Other targets
directly related to migration mention trafficking, remittances,
international student mobility and more. Various other cross-cutting
targets can also be applied to cases of migration.
CONCLUSION
The ‘Boat people’ in Europe shows the graveness of the problem of
migration and national security issues. The immigration policies
being pursued by states are further challenging human security. The
causes of migration forcing the people to enter Europe from Middle
Eastern countries and Africa are political unrest and threats to lives
of the people. Large number of people are flocking in countries of
Europe as asylum seekers, refugees, unlawful and undocumented
immigrants. This is a reality not only in Europe but migration is a
worldwide problem. As is revealed from the data of migrant
population in 2019 given above. The UNHCR and IOM are trying
their best to ameliorate the sufferings of their mandated categories of
people and raise awareness about migration. A more concerted
effort by the international community is needed. [See Chapter 22 for
Boat People.]
 EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by the concept of migration?
2. What are various types of migrants usually found globally?
3. What are the causes of migration?
4. Who is a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention?
5. Point out the major provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. Write Briefly on the role of UNHCR.
7. What are the major activities of IOM.
 REFERENCES
[1] Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC), International
Organization for Migration (IOM), Global Migration Indicators,
2018, GMDAC and IOM, Berlin, Germany, 2018.
[2] IOM UN Migration, “Key Migration terms” https://www.iom.int/key-
migration-terms, accessed on 31 October, 2019, 11.30 pm.
[3] International Labour Organization (ILO), Global Estimates of
Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced marriage, Geneva,
September 2017.
[4] United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons, 28 September, 1954, [Article 1].
[5] United Nations, Shaping Our Future Together,
https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/migration/index.html,
accessed on 1 November, 2019, 11.30 pm.
[6] UNHCR, India, Basic, International Legal Documents on
Refugees, UNHCR, New Delhi, 1999.
[7] UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining
Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR, Geneva,
1992.
[8] UNHCR, India, The UN Refugee Agency, https://www.unhcr.org/,
1 November, 2019, 11.00 pm.
[9] UNHCR, India, The UN Refugee Agency, “Figures At a Glance”,
https://www.unhcr.org/en-in/figures-at-a-glance.html, 1 November,
2019, 11.45 pm.

* Nansen passport was the first legal instrument used for the international
protection of refugees particularly the Russian and Armenian refugees during the
1920s. This document gave an identity to the stateless people as well as helped
host states to keep a track of refugees.
Prominent Economic
Institutions/Arrangements
INTRODUCTION
We have seen in Chapter 10 that how States located in a particular
region identifying their common mutual interests have created
regional arrangements. Thus, what we observe in the present
international scenario is that Regional Trading Agreements (RTAs)
have gained increased prominence. Repeated failures of multilateral
negotiations, especially at various ministerial meets of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), have lead to an increase in the number
of RTAs. Another trend which is noticeable is that emerging
economies are fostering economic bonds among themselves. There
has been steady rise of many a new economic groupings and
initiatives alongside the existing international institutions like IMF,
World Bank and WTO and regional arrangements like, European
Union, SAARC, ASEAN, AU, OPEC and several others. In the
context of Indian foreign policy these have important bearings.
Therefore, this Chapter attempts to take up a few of such
groupings/initiatives for analysis. This will enable the students to
grasp the current trend of international political economy.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was conceived by 45
States in the United Nations Monetary and Fiscal Conference held
immediately after
the Second World War in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, 1944. As
a part of the “Bretton Woods Agreement” the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD) were evolved to stabilize the international
monetary system in the aftermath of the ‘Great Depression’. IMF
came into existence on 27 December 1945 when 29 countries
signed the agreement, with a goal to stabilize exchange rates and
assist the reconstruction of the world’s international payment system.
IMF therefore, functions as an organization to foster global monetary
cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade,
promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and
reduce poverty around the world. As of 2011, IMF had 187 members.
In April 2012, Republic of South Sudan joined the IMF, becoming the
institution’s 188th member.
The purposes and functions of the IMF were stated to be:
1. to promote international economic cooperation,
2. to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international
trade,
3. to create more employment opportunities,
4. to promote exchange rate stability,
5. to assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of
payments,
6. to solve the problems of international liquidity by suggesting
various measures including efforts by which resources are made
available to member countries to meet balance of payments
needs.
Its headquarter is in Washington, D.C. Each member country of the
IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative size in the
world economy. It is on the basis of this quota that a member’s
organizational relation with IMF determines its voting power, Special
Drawing Rights (SDR) and also access to financing. On 28 June
2011, Christine Lagarde was named Managing Director of the IMF,
replacing Dominique Strauss-Kahn (1 November 2007–18 May
2011).
India joined the IMF on 27 December 1945 and IMF credit during
turbulent period of India’s economy in 1981–1982 and 1991–1993
had helped to tide over the balance of payment deficit. Yet, India and
other emerging economies like the BRICS countries have been
demanding reforms of the quota system and voting rights. The G-20
countries also want a dynamic system of calculating the economic
weightage of a country.
THE WORLD BANK
The World Bank is also the outcome of the Bretton Woods
Conference in 1944 like the International Monetary Fund. The World
Bank is headquartered in Washington D.C.
The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical
assistance to developing countries around the world. Its mission is to
“fight poverty with passion and professionalism for lasting results,
and to help people help themselves and their environment by
providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity and
forging partnerships in the public and private sectors.”
World Bank is not a usual bank we are used to. As it targets to
alleviate poverty and augment development among poorer nations of
the world, it functions through collaborative institutions which are two
in number. These, in turn, embark on development projects for the
targeted countries. These development institutions are owned by
188 member countries, collectively. The two development institutions
are the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). IBRD
target middle-income, but credit worthy poorer countries and IDA
target poorest countries. These development institutions are
supported by International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral
Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and the International Centre
for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

World Bank Group Branches

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

(IBRD)
International Development Association (IDA)
International Finance Corporation (IFC)
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
(ICSID)

Together, these branches provide low-interest loans, interest-free

credits and grants to developing countries for a wide array of
purposes that include investments in education, health, public
administration, infrastructure, financial and private sector
development, agriculture and environmental and natural resource
management.
To become a member of the Bank, under the IBRD Articles of
Agreement, a country must first join the International Monetary Fund
(IMF). Membership in IDA, IFC and MIGA are conditional on
membership in IBRD. Member countries govern the World Bank
Group through the Boards of Governors and the Boards of Executive
Directors. These bodies make all major decisions for the
organizations.

India joined the World Bank in 1944, and therefore, is one of the
oldest members. It is the World Bank’s largest single borrower, in
market-based loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (IBRD) and development credits from the
International Development Association. Andhra Pradesh was the first
state to benefit from of state-focused lending and Uttar Pradesh the
Second in 2000.
However, the World Bank activities like the IMF have invited
criticisms from the developing world. There is a hegemony of
developed world, and the transactions lack transparency and
democracy. The Structural Adjustment Programmes have created
hurdles for the poor developing countries, and have added to their
dismal economic performance. The 1980s witnessed the sub-
Saharan countries facing tremendous crisis due to the Structural
Adjustment Programmes. There is strong demand for
democratization of the institutions dominating the international
political economy.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was
established in 1 January 1948 after the end of the Second World
War. It was a multilateral instrument with the aim to liberalize world
trade with a view to promote economic growth and development and
welfare of the people all around the globe. The significant rounds of
GATT were the First Round at Geneva in 1947, the Kennedy Round
of 1964–1967, the Tokyo Round of 1973–1979 and the Uruguay
Round of 1986–1994. The Final Act of the Uruguay Round
establishing the WTO regime was signed in 15 April 1994 during the
Ministerial Meeting at Marrakesh, Morocco. With the signing of the
Marrakesh Agreement the WTO came into existence on 1 January
1995.
Members can join the system of WTO through negotiation and
consequently acquire memebership. For this, they have to make
commitments to open their markets and to abide by the rules. These
commitments arise out of membership or accession to negotiations.
Countries at present negotiating membership are WTO “observers”,
and they are 27 in number including the Holy See. With the
exception of the Holy See, observers must start accession
negotiations within five years of becoming observers. The total
number of members is 157 as on 24 August 2012. Laos has
negotiated its membership accession package to WTO in October
2012. After ratification, Laos will become 158th member of WTO
after thirty days of ratification.
The WTO agreements provide legal basis of rules. These are
negotiated in bulk and also signed by the world’s trading nations in
bulk, as mentioned above, in several rounds of GATT negotiations.
Currently, negotiations are on through the Doha rounds. The
objective of the WTO is to ensure free trade flow by removing
obstacles on the basis of rules which will be transparent and
predictable.
WTO has a unique dispute settlement procedure through rulings by
a panel which are then either endorsed or rejected by the all the
members of WTO. Disputes may continue for a long period of time
and sometimes even there can be ‘out of court’ settlement. As of
January 2008, out of 369, 136 cases have been settled by the Panel
and rest of the cases have been mostly ‘out of court’ settlement.
The functioning components of the WTO are:
1. Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA)
2. Agreements on Agriculture (AoA)
3. Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)
4. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
5. General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS)
The WTO is currently the host to new negotiations, under the ‘Doha
Development Agenda’ launched in 2001. The Doha Round began
with a ministerial-level meeting in Doha, Qatar in 2001. Subsequent
ministerial meetings took place in Cancún, Mexico in 2003, and
Hong Kong in 2005. Related negotiations took place in Paris, France
(2005); in Potsdam, Germany (2007); and Geneva, Switzerland
(2004, 2006, 2008) and as of May 2012 the future of the Doha
Round remains uncertain.
The WTO regime has been fraught with controversy. The developing
countries allege that WTO policies are discriminatory. The
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Patent regime, labour policies,
environment, dumping, agricultural, subsidies among many have
raised waves of controversies. India’s position for a long time is to
have a kind of fair use of the IPR regimes, and allowing the best use
of the existing modalities of the IPR regimes under the WTO in the
TRIPS.
THE GROUP OF TWENTY (G-20)
Group of Twenty (G-20) is a group of Finance Ministers and Central
Bank Governors from 20 economies. The G-20 comprises 19
countries plus the European Union, which is represented by the
President of the European Council and by the European Central
Bank.
The backdrop for the formation of G-20 was provided by the
economic crisis of the late 1990s. This crisis brought the emerging
market countries closer, and their regular interactions at fora like the
G-7, G-22 and G-33 showed the benefit of regular dialogue with a
constant set of participating countries to address global financial
issues and reduce the risk of global economic crisis. This gradually
led to the institutionalization in the form of G-20 in 1999. From 2008
the G-20 Heads of State Summits initiated.
The objectives of the G-20 Summit are:
1. Policy coordination between its members in order to achieve
global economic stability, sustainable growth;
2. To promote financial regulations that reduce risks and prevent
future financial crises; and
3. To create a new international financial architecture.
The member countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Turkey,
United Kingdom, United States of America. Several countries that
are not permanent members of the G-20 are extended invitations to
participate in the summits. The invitees are chosen by the host
country. As in the 2010 Summits, both Canada and South Korea
invited Ethiopia (Chair of NEPAD), Malawi (Chair of the African
Union), Vietnam (Chair of ASEAN), and Spain. Canada also invited
the Netherlands, while South Korea invited Singapore. Both Canada
and South Korea invited seven international organizations— the
United Nations, the International Labour Organization, the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade
Organization, and the Financial Stability Board.
The G-20 has made quite a progress on a wide range of issues
since 1999, including agreement about policies for growth, reducing
abuse of the financial system, dealing with financial crises and
combating terrorist financing. It also tries to establish international
financial standards based on transparency and exchange of
information on fiscal matters to tackle problems like money
laundering and financing terrorism.
The global melt down of 2008 made it essential for the G-20 to
address the global recession. G-20 member countries pledged to
strengthen their cooperation to tackle the economic crisis. It was
from 2008 that the G-20 Leaders Summits started to be organized.
Accordingly, the G-20 Summits have been held in Washington in
2008, in London and Pittsburgh in 2009, and in Toronto and Seoul in
2010. The Seoul Summit was the first G-20 Summit to be hosted by
an emerging country. At this Summit, the Leaders endorsed the
Seoul Action Plan, a comprehensive package of country-specific
policy actions to support strong, sustainable and balanced economic
growth.
The G-20 2011 Summit in Cannes pledged to strengthen the
progress of G-20, and ensure an active follow-up on processes
already underway. It also addressed the critical issues such as the
reform of the international monetary system, volatility of commodity
prices, adoption of coherent measures to guide the management of
capital flows, common principles for cooperation between the IMF
and Regional Financial Arrangements and to an Action Plan for local
currency bond markets and also the Eurozone crisis.
The G-20 Summit 2012 was held in Los Cabos from18-19 June
2012. The Los Cabos Declaration addressed issues like supporting
economic stabilization and the global recovery, employment and
social protection, trade, strengthening the international financial
architecture, reforming the financial sector and fostering financial
inclusion, enhancing food security and addressing commodity price
volatility, meeting the challenges of development, promoting longer-
term prosperity through inclusive green growth and intensifying the
fight against corruption. Table 20.1 shows the list of G-20 Summits.
India has been successful in G-20 in pursuing her objective of
inclusion of things like the Mutual Assessment Process (MAP) for
measuring imbalances between surplus and deficit economies. India
has been cautious over competitive devaluation and advocated that
any resurgence of protectionism be resisted and is also against
putting a cap on current account balance, proposed by the US at 4
per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the 2010 Summit
for it was difficult for individual countries to reach the proposed
sustainable current account balances given the structural differences
across the countries. In April 2012, prior to the Los Cabos Summit,
former Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee made clear India’s
intentions. India has called upon G-20 nations, to work out a
“credible and ambitious” action plan to put the global economy firmly
on the path of recovery as also promote strong, sustainable and
balanced growth. In future, India is expected to play greater role in
the G-20 along with her BRICS partners.

Eighth G-20 Heads of the States Summit, 5–6 September, 2013,

Streina, Saint Petersburg, Russia
G-20 Summit took place in Streina, Saint Petersburg, Russia during
5–6 September 2013. It was the Eighth G-20 Head of the States
Summit. There was a bit of a rift between Russia and USA
regarding providing asylum to Snowden charged of leaking classified
information from the National Security Agency (NSA). President
Obama called off meeting with President Putin just before the G-20
Summit slated for September 2014. However, the summit took place
and the G-20 5th Anniversary Vision Statement reaffirmed the
commitment of the G-20 countries to act together to

Raise growth, create jobs and boost confidence;

Maintain fiscal sustainability;
Continue to reduce internal and external imbalances;
Keep markets open for trade and investment;
Promote a rule-based international economy;
Ensure a stable, well-functioning and transparent global
financial system;
Support strong and more representative global institutions;
Promote open and transparent governments; and
Build an inclusive and sustainable global economy for all.

For these, the G-20 countries proposed strong collective action. The
St. Petersburg Action Plan upheld strengthening of growth and
creation of jobs as top priority and the commitment of G-20 countries
to take decisive actions to return to a job-rich, strong, sustainable
and balanced growth path.

Ninth G-20 Heads of the States Summit 15–16 November, 2014,

Brisbane, Australia
The Ninth Summit of G-20 Heads of the States was held in
Brisbane, Australia, which was hosted by the Australian President,
Tony Abbott, from 15–16 November 2014. There was a tremendous
reaction whether Russia should be allowed to participate in the G-20
meeting or not. This was because of Russia’s policy towards
Ukraine, Russia’s response over crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight
17 and also sending of fleet of warships into international waters
near Australia to accompany Putin’s visit. Stephen Harper, the
Canadian President, created an uncomfortable atmosphere for
President Putin by asking him to ‘get out of Ukraine’. The joint
communiqué released after the Summit highlighted the efforts to act
together to lift growth and create jobs, to build a stronger, more
resilient global economy, to strengthen global institutions, and also
addressed issues like energy supply, climate change as well as
Ebola virus in west Africa.
Turkey assumed the Presidency of G-20 from 1 December 2014.
The priority for Turkish Presidency Summit has been upheld as
‘Collective Action for Inclusive and Robust Economic Growth’.This
can be done by three ‘I’s- Inclusiveness, Implementation and
Investment for growth. Three pillars for fulfilling this objective will be:
[1] Strengthening the global recovery and lifting the potential
[2] Enhancing resilience
[3] Buttressing sustainability

Tenth G-20 Heads of the States Summit, 15–16 November, 2015,

Belek, Antalya, Turkey
The backdrop of Tenth G-20 Summit was much tensed because it
took place immediately after the terrorist attacks on Paris. It took the
centre stage of the
G-20 leaders’ discussion. Terrorism, mass migration and global
refugee issues were of great concern to the G-20 leaders, and they
deliberated on them at full length. Syria, which has a border very
close to Antalya, also topped the agenda. Fullest implementation of
Bali package addressing the climate change was also discussed and
they looked forward for a commitment to a successful Paris Climate
Conference. As the global economic growth is uneven and falling far
short of expectation, the G-20 leaders discussed concrete steps to
boost growth and job creation. The aim is achieving strong,
sustainable and balanced global economic growth as well as an all
inclusive global economic growth.
G-20 leaders also talked about ways of strengthening global financial
system. These were reflected in the Antalya-Action Plan which
provides for G-20’s plan for decisive action for global economic
recovery.

Eleventh G-20 Summit, 4–5 September, 2016

The 2016 G-20 Summit was held in Hangzhou, China from 4–5
September, 2016. The major thrust was to take collective measures
and to adopt effective steps to address challenges and enhance
market functions and adjustments like sharing more information and
encouraging cooperation by forming global forum to address the
issue of excess capacity as in case of steel industries. Major steel
producing countries like China, India and Japan along with other G-
20 countries have pledged to work out structural problems and
excess steel capacity which have caused a negative impact on trade
and labour market.

Twelfth G-20 Summit, 7–8 July, 2017, Hamburg, Germany

The 2017 G-20 Summit was held from 7–8 July, 2017 at Hamburg,
Germany. The G-20 Hamburg Action Plan set forward the G-20’s
strategy for achieving strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive
growth as well as closer partnership among member countries which
would boost confidence and contribute to shared prosperity.

Thirteenth G-20 Summit, 30 November–1 December, 2018,

Buenos Aires, Argentina
The Thirteenth G-20 Summits clearly showed differences
especially with the US being led by the President Donald Trump.
Even in the final declaration of the G-20 Summit, 2018, which is titled
Building Consensus for Fair and Sustainable Development, United
States’ decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement was
reaffirmed. Other members of course reiterated their pledge for the
full implementation of the Paris Agreement. There was also
disagreement regarding trade and protectionism especially between
the US and China. Among other issues which were considered in the
Summit were reforms of WTO, functioning of IMF, fighting corruption
(India provided 9 point agenda to tackle fugitive economic
offenders), working towards reducing gender gap and other issues of
global importance.
Fourteenth G-20 Summit, 28–29 June, 2019, Osaka, Japan
The Fourteenth G-20 Summit took up eight themes for discussion.
They pertain to global economy, environment and energy, innovation,
trade and investment, women’s empowerment, development,
employment and health. The US reiterated its position on Paris
Agreement regarding Climate Change. Other countries recommitted
to Paris Agreement. The US and China agreed to open trade talks.
Modernization of WTO, digital transformation, commitment to 2030
Agenda as well as challenges of inequalities and ageing societies
were other points of discussion.
G-20 2020 Summit will be hosted by Saudi Arabia and to be held in
the city of Riyadh.
BRICS (BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA, SOUTH AFRICA)
BRIC was a grouping acronym that referred to the countries of
Brazil, Russia, India and China. South Africa was officially admitted
as a BRIC nation on
24 December 2010 after being invited by China and the other BRIC
countries to join the group. The capital “S” in BRICS now stands for
South Africa. In April 2011, South African President Jacob Zuma
attended the 2011 BRICS summit in Sanya, China, as a full member.
There can be further expansion of BRICS and there is proposed
inclusions of Mexico and South Korea.
Goldman Sachs Bank predicted that the economic potential of Brazil,
Russia, India and China is such that they could become among the
four most dominant economies by the year 2050. Vladimir Putin,
President of Russia, was the driving force behind this original
cooperative coalition of developing BRIC countries. BRICS countries
hold regular Summit level meetings. Table 20.2 gives the list of
BRIC/BRICS Summits.

2011 BRICS Summit took place in Sanya on the island of Hainan,

China, on 14 April 2011, and the Theme was Broad Vision, Shared
Prosperity. The main agenda of the Summit was current
international scenario, international economic, financial and trade
issues, challenges of sustainable development and cooperation
among BRICS countries. The Summit focused on the following:
1. Early conclusion to deadlocked talks on anti-terror law under UN
auspices that would curtail funding for illegal groups that partake
in violence against states and deny their supporters access to
funds, arms, and safe havens
2. United Nations Security Council reform
3. Withdrawal from loans in American dollars
4. Libyan conflict among others
The leaders of BRICS states expressed misgivings about NATO air
strikes and urged an end to the two-month conflict in Libya. It is to be
noted that in 2011 all five members were present in the UNSC, two
as permanent members and other three as non-permanent members
and all of them abstained from voting on a resolution 1973
authorizing establishment of ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya.
The Sanya Declaration upheld that by cooperating in economic,
financial and trade matters, the BRICS countries will ensure that they
enjoy strong and sustained economic growth, unaffected by
uncertainties of global economic ups and downs. The Sanya Summit
emphasized reforms and improvement of the international monetary
and financial system and also proposed for introduction of Special
Drawing Rights (SDR) which can be swapped with dollars at a pre-
fixed rate. This will give BRICS countries an alternative if not
replacement of dollar as the global currency. BRICS countries also
envision mutual payments of loans in national currencies rather than
in dollars. They propose strict international financial regulation to
curb price volatility and strengthening of policy coordination and
financial regulation and cooperation to check functioning of
international financial and banking systems.
India hosted the Fourth BRICS Summit in New Delhi on 29 March
2012 under the leadership of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.
Ms. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil; Mr. Dmitry Medvedev,
President of Russia, Mr. Hu Jintao, President of China; and Mr.
Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa attended the Summit. The
theme of the Summit was BRICS Partnership for Global Stability,
Security and Prosperity.
The Delhi Declaration, put forth common position of BRICS
countries on various economic and political issues of global and
regional importance was issued at the end of the Summit. The
Declaration included Delhi Action Plan which highlights the activities
to be undertaken under India’s chairmanship of BRICS for further
cooperation. Leaders focused their discussions on issues of global
governance—both political (UN) and economic (IMF and World
Bank). They also covered global economic and financial situation,
with special focus on the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis, as well as
the political issues like developments in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc.
The Delhi Declaration also focused on BRICS efforts towards
sustainable development and prepared the ground for Rio+20 in
Brazil and Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological
Diversity (CBD-COP11) to be held in Hyderabad in October 2012.
BRICS Leaders held an informal meeting on 18 June 2012 ahead of
the formal opening of the G-20 Summit in Los Cabos. Among other
issues the Leaders discussed swap arrangements among national
currencies as well as reserve pooling. They agreed that G-20 must
take serious measures to combat the Eurozone crisis. Therefore, the
importance of BRICS as a dialogue forum cannot be denied. If the
members are able to sustain this coordination and cooperation to
tackle international issues, then BRICS will be a success.

Fifth BRICS Summit 26–27 March, 2013, Durban, South Africa

The Fifth BRICS Summit was hosted by South Africa and held at
Durban during 26–27 March 2013. With the Durban Summit, BRICS
completed the first cycle of all the member countries hosting the
summits. The BRICS Summit being held in South Africa coincided
with 50th Anniversary celebrations of Organization of African Unity,
now renamed as African Union. Landmark decisions taken were
regarding establishment of new Development Bank, Contingent
Reserve Arrangement (CRA), establishment of BRICS Think Tank
and BRICS Business Council. Two Agreements were concluded
under auspices of the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism.
 1. The BRICS Multilateral Infrastructure Co-Financing Agreement
for Africa paves the way for the establishment of co-financing
arrangements for infrastructure projects across the African
continent.
2. The BRICS Multilateral Cooperation and Co-Financing
Agreement for Sustainable Development sets out to explore the
establishment of bilateral agreements aimed at establishing
cooperation and co-financing arrangements, specifically around
sustainable development and green economy elements.
The BRICS Countries reiterated their position of demanding reform
of International Monetary Fund and election to the post of Director-
General of World Trade Organization to be held in 2014.

Sixth BRICS Summit, 14–16 July, 2014, Fortaleza and Brasilia,

Brazil
The Sixth BRICS Summit was hosted by Brazil and held at
Fortaleza and Brasilia during 14–16 July 2014. This summit
witnessed the official inauguration of New Development Bank.
BRICS leader also met eleven leaders from Union of South
American Nations (UNASUR)* on 16–17 July 2014. The Summit
outcome documents known as the eThekwini Declaration and
Fortaleza Action Plan were adopted at the conclusion of the
Summit.

Seventh BRICS Summit, 8–9 July, 2015, Ufa, Bashkortostan,

Russia
The Seventh BRICS Summit was hosted by Russia in Ufa. Here the
leaders deliberated on issues like rising terrorism, inclusion of India,
Brazil and South Africa as permanent members of UN Security
Council, the Ukraine issue and imposition of sanctions by the West
of Russia, climate change, greater South-South cooperation,
cooperation in Scientific research and innovation initiatives,
reaffirming faith in the UN as it celebrated 70th Anniversary of its
foundation in the year 2015 and also commemorated the victims of
WWII at the 70th Anniversary of the end of the War among other
issues. It must be noted that the BRICS Summit took place ahead of
the G-20 Heads of the States Summit. BRICS leader reviewed the
progress made in setting up of the New Development Banks as well
as a $100 billion liquidity reserve fund for boosting up the emerging
economies. India, as PM Narendra Modi, emphasized will guide the
BRICS nations’ $50 billion New Development Bank in BRICS’s effort
to build a rival to the World Bank. The prime objective will be to
finance “inclusive and responsive” needs of particularly emerging
economies of the world. BRICS leaders are looking forward for the
8th BRICS summit to be hosted by India in 2016.

Eighth BRICS Summit, 15–16 October 2016, Goa, India

The Eighth BRICS Summit was held in Goa, India. India held the
Chair of the BRICS from February to December 2016. The theme of
this Eighth Summit was “Building Responsive, Inclusive and
Collective Solutions”. The Goa Declaration reaffirmed the
determination of the member countries to use all policy tools,
monetary, fiscal and structural, individually and collectively to
achieve the goal of strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive
growth. The Goa Declaration also highlighted faith and commitments
of the BRICS countries in working towards an equitable international
order, working towards gender equality, pledge for implementing
Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, engaging with BIMSTEC
countries, meeting current security challenges, collective and
peaceful settlement of disputes, staging concerns over Middle East
and North Africa, Afghanistan among many other goals.
However, there was a tight battle over naming terrorist organizations.
China was able to shield Pakistan’s terror connections despite
India’s strong voice in naming the organizations. Russia was also
disinclined to support Indian’s case and this resulted in an adoption
of a Declaration which failed to mention the names of Pakistan
based terrorist outfits designated by the United Nations as terrorist
entities.
Ninth BRICS Summit, 3–5 September 2017, Xiamen, China
The Ninth BRICS Summit was hosted by China in Xiamen in
September, 2017. The most noteworthy thing about the Xiamen
Declaration has been that for the first time the Pakistan based
terrorist organizations were named like Lashkar, Haqqani network
and Jaish as terror concerns. The Declaration called for a
comprehensive approach to tackle the scourge of terrorism.
Tenth BRICS Summit, 25–27 July, 2018, Johannesburg,
South Africa
The Tenth BRICS Summit was held under the theme BRICS in
Africa: Collaboration for Inclusive Growth and Shared
Prosperity in the 4th Industrial Revolution. The Johannesburg
Declaration reiterated faith on multilateralism and apprehensions
about growing unilateralism. The other themes highlighted were
climate change, sustainable development, agriculture, energy,
environment, population, terrorism [finalization and adoption of
Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT)] by the
UNGA, international peace security, economy, trade, corruption
among others.
Eleventh BRICS Summit, 13–14 November, 2019, Brasilia, Brazil
The theme for the Eleventh BRICS Summit was Economic
Growth for an Innovative Future. The Brasilia Declaration
adopted at the end of the Summit, highlighted issues like
multilateralism, reforms of multilateral organizations like the UN,
WTO and IMF, central role of the UN in world affairs, respect for
international law, sustainable development, implementation of 2030
Agenda, Paris Agreement, concern over biological and toxic
weapons, arms race in outer space, tackling terrorism among others.
INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA (IBSA) TRILATERAL
IBSA is a trilateral, developmental initiative between India, Brazil and
South Africa to promote South-South cooperation and exchange.
During the G-8 meeting that took place in Evian in 2003, the Heads
of State and Government of the IBSA countries floated the idea of
this trilateral initiative. This was followed up by trilateral
consultations, and finally, the trilateral took concrete shape when the
Foreign Ministers of the respective countries met in Brasilia on 6
June 2003. At this meeting between Ministers Nkosazana Dlamini
Zuma from South Africa, Celso Amorim from Brazil and Yashwant
Sinha from India, the launching of the IBSA Dialogue Forum was
formalized through the adoption of the Brasilia Declaration.
The main objectives of the IBSA Dialogue Forum are as follows:
1. To promote South-South dialogue, cooperation and common
positions on issues of international importance
2. To promote trade and investment opportunities between the
three regions of which they form a part
3. To promote international poverty alleviation and social
development
4. To promote the trilateral exchange of information, international
best practices, technologies and skills, as well as to compliment
each other’s competitive strengths into collective synergie.
5. To promote cooperation in a broad range of areas, namely
agriculture, climate change, culture, defence, education, energy,
health, information society, science and technology, social
development, trade and investment, tourism and transport.
The IBSA Dialogue Forum has regular consultations at Senior
Official (Focal Point), Ministerial (Trilateral Joint Commission) and
Heads of State and/or Government (Summit) levels, but also
facilitates interaction amongst academics, business and other
members of civil society. Table 20.3 shows the list of IBSA Summit.
The areas of cooperation of IBSA countries are primarily agriculture,
climate change, culture, defence, education, energy, health,
information society, science and technology, social development,
trade and investment, tourism and transport. In the backdrop of the
global melt down, the Third IBSA Summit was held at New Delhi in
2008. The major thrust of this Summit was therefore the financial
crisis as well as energy and food security, WTO, Climate Change
and terrorism. A trilateral trade target of US $25 billion was set to be
achieved by 2015. The fourth IBSA Summit held at Brazil adopted
two documents along with the Brasilia Declaration. One was the
Social Development Strategies and the other was the Future of
Agricultural Cooperation in India, Brazil and South Africa. Two MoUs
were also signed pertaining to Science, Technology and Innovation
and Solar Energy.
IBSA is a fast-emerging trilateral initiative and has a great prospect.
IBSA envisions partnership among equals, and if it can successfully
prove its credentials, then the members countries would be playing
important role in international arena too. These three IBSA countries
are the ones which are also forwarding their bid for permanent
membership in the UNSC. Therefore, forging a strong tie at this
trilateral level would definitely give them an advantage of pushing
forward their views at the international level on matters of common
concerns of these three countries.
India hosted the Sixth IBSA Summit in New Delhi, on 6 June 2013,
which was preceded by a number of meetings of Joint Working
Groups and People-to-People Forums. This Summit was very
significant as it marked the completion of 10 years of the
establishment of the dialogue forum, and the 10th anniversary of the
Brasilia Declaration. The IBSA members reiterated their pledge to
bolster South-South cooperation and not to slip away the agenda.
They talked about three concern areas where cooperation can be
developed like reaching out to other democracies, sharing of IBSA’s
democratic experiences and developing new format for ocean
governance. Its time they thought for IBSA to mature and deliver.
INDIAN OCEAN RIM ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL
COOPERATION (IOR-ARC)/INDIAN OCEAN RIM ASSOCIATION
(IORA)
Mauritius Government sought to enhance economic co-operation
among countries of the Indian Ocean Rim. Therefore, it convened a
meeting in March 1995 which was attended by representatives from
the government, business sectors and academia, from Australia,
India, Kenya, Mauritius, Sultanate of Oman, Singapore and South
Africa, known as the “Core Group States” or M-7. What emerged out
of this meeting was a joint statement with a vision to practice
Principles of Open Regionalism and Inclusivity of Membership,
with the objectives of Trade Liberalization and Promoting Trade
Co-operation. Activities would focus on Trade Facilitation,
Investment Promotion and Economic Co-operation. The IOR-
ARC was formally launched at the first Ministerial Meeting in
Mauritius on 6–7 March 1997. This meeting adopted the IOR-ARC
Charter, and determined a number of administrative and procedural
matters.
All Sovereign States of the Indian Ocean Rim are eligible for
membership. To become members, States must adhere to the
principles and objectives enshrined in the Charter. Member states
can decide on the expansion of membership of the association. The
member countries of IOR-ARC are Australia, Bangladesh, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Oman, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania,
Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The Seychelles
announced its withdrawal from the Association in July 2003, but
rejoined in November 2011 taking the membership to 19. The
Dialogue Partners are China, Egypt, France, Japan, United
Kingdom. The IOR-ARC Observers are currently limited to the Indian
Ocean Tourism Organization (IOTO) and the Indian Ocean Research
Group (IORG).
IOR-ARC activities include several on-going projects and work
programmes conducted by member countries with shared interests,
all of which are under the umbrella of three separate working groups.
These are the Working Group on Trade and Investment (WGTI), the
Indian Ocean Rim Business Forum (IORBF), and the Indian Ocean
Rim Academic Group (IORAG). The Association holds a Council of
Ministers meeting once every two years. The working groups have
business and academic representatives to ensure that different
points of view and interests are fully reflected in IOR-ARC’s work
programme.
The IOR-ARC Action Plan is a vision enumerated in Article 3.2 of
IOR-ARC Charter. IOR-ARC aims to formulate and implement
projects for economic co-operation relating to trade facilitation,
promotion and liberalisation; promotion of foreign investment,
scientific and technological exchanges, and tourism, movement of
natural persons and service providers on a non-discriminatory basis;
and development of infrastructure and human resources, as laid
down in the Work Programme of the Association. (Art. 3.2 of IOR-
ARC Charter)
India is interested in reaching out to the Indian Ocean Rim countries
not only for economic engagements but also to counter the menace
of piracy. India also calls for people-to-people contact and more joint
projects between India and the Rim countries. The Government of
India is offering scholarships to meritorious students from Malaysia,
for Postgraduate courses only, for the academic year 2011–2012
under the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation
(IOR-ARC) Scholarship scheme. The Indian Council for Cultural
Relations (ICCR) administers the scholarship programme. The first
Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC)
Film Festival was hosted by New Delhi on 22 February 2008. India
had offered to host this Festival at the 7th Council of Ministers
Meeting of IOR-ARC held in March 2007.
The IOR-ARC must engage more in maritime cooperation which
have got a very little attention and only been limited to developing,
upgrading and management of ports. The Indian Ocean forms an
important channel for drugs and arms. Afghanistan, Iran and
Pakistan, form the ‘Golden Crescent’ and two member countries, viz,
Iran and Pakistan are part of it. Again Myanmar and Thailand are
part of the ‘Golden Triangle’ encompassing Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos
and Thailand. Both ‘Golden Crescent’ and Golden Triangle’ are
infamous for illegal drug production. Therefore, there arises a prime
need to address the issues of transnational threats encompassing
narco-terrorism, arms running and sea piracy. The IOR-ARC must
also beef-up cooperation for providing assistance during natural
disasters such as cyclones, famines, Tsunamis which can be dubbed
as “out of area operations.” The Tenth Council of Ministers Meeting
held on 5 August 2010 at Yemen, emphasized cooperation among
IOR-ARC members in the areas like promotion of trade and
investment, tourism, culture, education, combating communicable
diseases and natural disasters and challenges of Climate Change.
They also agreed to take up initiatives for combating piracy in the
Gulf of Aden and other parts of Indian Ocean. India has assumed the
Chair of IOR-ARC from 2011.
The12th Meeting of the Council of Ministers of IOR-ARC was hosted
by India. The Gurgaon Communiqué-IORARC at 15—The Next
Decade underlined the geo-strategic importance of the Indian Ocean
and garner the capabilities at hand of the Rim countries to meet
common challenges. They reaffirmed the maintenance of freedom of
navigation and safety and security of Sea Lanes of Communication
the Indian Ocean as piracy is a growing threat and also pledged to
fight natural disasters in the IOR-ARC maritime domain. Union of
Comoros was inducted into the IOR-ARC as the twentieth member
of the Association. The members of IOR-ARC also have agreed to
admit the United States of America as the 6th Dialogue Partner of
IOR-ARC.
Currently the name of this regional bloc has been changed to Indian
Ocean Rim Association (IORA).
The Government of Mauritius in collaboration with the Indian Ocean
Rim Association hosted the First IORA Ministerial Blue Economy
Conference on the theme “Enhancing Blue Economy Cooperation for
Sustainable Development in the IORA Region”, at Le Meridien,
Pointe aux Piments, Republic of Mauritius from 2-3 September 2015.
The Council of Ministers’ Meeting of IORA on 6-9 October 2014 in
Perth, Australia adopted the Blue Economy as the top priority for
generating employment and ensuring sustainability in business and
economic models. An IORA Secretariat draft paper identified eight
priority areas for cooperation in the Blue Economy:
 1. Fisheries and Aquaculture
2. Renewable Ocean Energy
3. Seaports and Shipping
4. Seabed Exploration and Minerals
5. Marine Biotechnology, Research and Development
6. Tourism
7. Ocean Knowledge Clusters
8. SIDS and LDCs
The First IORA Ministerial Blue Economy Conference addressed the
first four priority areas. The remaining priority areas will be
addressed in subsequent meetings, events and deliberations. How
best the IOR countries can use such windows of opportunities and
gear up their economic cooperation and undertake plans of actions,
will determine the direction of IOR region in world politics.
BAY OF BENGAL INITIATIVE FOR MULTI-SECTORAL
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION (BIMSTEC)
Another regional initiative which is to emerge as an important
economic bloc connecting South Asia and South-east Asia is the
BIMSTEC. Earlier it was BIST-EC, an economic cooperation initiative
comprising Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand. It came to
existence on 6 June 1997 in Bangkok with the adoption of the
Bangkok Declaration. Later, with Myanmar joining the grouping in a
Special Ministerial Meeting in Bangkok in December 1997,
the name was changed to BIMSTEC. Nepal became an observer
country in the Second Ministerial Meeting in Dhaka in 1998, and
acquired full membership in 2003. Bhutan also became a full-fledged
member in 2003.
The Bangkok Declaration on the Establishment of BIST-EC
embodies the aims and objectives of BIMSTEC. They are:
1. to create an enabling environment for rapid economic
development and to accelerate social progress in the sub-region,
2. promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters
of common interest,
3. provide assistance to each other in the form of training and
research facilities,
4. cooperate more effectively in joint efforts that are supportive of,
and complementary to national development plans of member
states,
5. maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing
international and regional organizations, and
6. cooperate in projects that can be dealt with most productively on
a sub-regional basis, and which make best use of available
synergies.
BIMSTEC was initiated with the goal to combine the ‘Look West’
policy of Thailand, and ASEAN with the ‘Look East’ policy of India
and South Asia. Thus BIMSTEC may be seen as a link between
ASEAN and SARRC, i.e., South Asia and South-east Asia.
In the first Summit on 31 July 2004, leaders of the group agreed that
the name of the grouping should be known as BIMSTEC or the Bay
of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic
Cooperation.
The Chairmanship of BIMSTEC is done on a rotation basis. Table
20.4 gives the list of Chairmanship and years of assumption of the
Chair by member countries.
The BIS-TEC or Bangkok Declaration, 1997, lays down the
organizational arrangement of BIMSTEC. It comprises the Annual
Ministerial Meeting to be hosted by member states on rotational
basis according to the alphabetical order, Senior Officials
Committee, A Working Group for preparatory works before each
Annual Ministerial Meetings and Specialized Task Forces, which may
be deemed necessary.

BIMSTEC has identified six priority sectors at the 2nd Ministerial

Meeting in Dhaka on 19 November 1998, and for each there is a
‘lead country’. Trade and investment is under Bangladesh,
technology under Sri Lanka, transport and communication under
India, energy under Myanmar, tourism under India and fisheries
under Thailand. After the 8th Ministerial Meeting in Dhaka on 18-19
December 2005, a number of new areas of cooperation emerged
which include agriculture, public health, poverty alleviation, counter-
terrorism and transnational crime, protection of
Biodiversity/Environment and natural disaster management, culture
and people to people contact.
One achievement of BIMSTEC is the setting up of BIMSTEC Free
Trade Area Framework Agreement on 8 February 2004. The
Framework Agreement includes trade in goods, trade in services,
investment and economic cooperation and the products, except
those included in the Negative List, shall be subject to tariff reduction
or elimination on the basis of fast track or normal track. BIMSTEC
grouping also signed a convention in December 2009, to combat
terrorism and agreed to conclude a Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
soon. Apart from the convention on terrorism, the grouping adopted
a Memoranda of Association (MoA) on the establishment of a
BIMSTEC Energy centre, a centre for Weather and Climate and a
Cultural Industries Observatory.
India views the seven-nation organization as ‘a bridge’ linking South
and South-east Asia with India’s north-eastern states, and underline
the need for greater regional economic integration. This is also part
of India’s Look-East Policy. If India succeeds in cementing her ties
with BIMSTEC, then economic engagements with the member
countries would help India to tackle Chinese policy of isolating India.
Second Summit of BIMSTEC was hosted by India, New Delhi on 13
November 2008. Member states agreed to intensify efforts to
strengthen cooperation and also establish institutional structures to
implement and coordinate Summit decisions, Ministerial meetings
and other official meeting follow ups and establish a permanent
secretariat.
The Third BIMSTEC Summit Meeting took place on 1–4 March 2014
at Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar and was attended by Prime Ministers of
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and
Thailand. It was decided that the fourth BIMSTEC Energy Ministerial
Meeting was to be held in Bhutan in 2015 after the Third in Nepal.
Among other important activities of the BIMSTEC, the member
countries applauded the creation of BIMSTEC Network of Policy
Think Tanks, agreed to promote BIMSTEC Network of National
Centres of Coordination, recognized the role of BIMSTEC Energy
Centre in Bengaluru, expressed desire to improve people-people
exchanges and linkages including facilitating BIMSTEC Business
Visa Scheme and BIMSTEC Visa Exemption Scheme and
implementation of BIMSTEC Poverty Plan of Action.
Three BIMSTEC Instruments were signed as follows:
[1] Memorandum of Association on the Establishment of the
BIMSTEC Permanent Secretariat
[2] Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the
BIMSTEC Cultural Industries Commission (BCIC) and
BIMSTEC Cultural Industries Observatory (BCIO)
[3] Memorandum of Association Among BIMSTEC Member
Countries Concerning Establishment of a BIMSTEC Centre for
Weather and Climate
Since March 2014, the Chairmanship is with Nepal.
Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina inaugurated the
permanent secretariat of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-
Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) in Dhaka
in September 2014. During the 13th BIMSTEC ministerial meeting
held in Nay Pyi Taw in Myanmar in 2011, it was unanimously decided
that the secretariat would be set up in Bangladesh and the first
Secretary General would be appointed from Sri Lanka. The
secretariat has been set up in Dhaka’s diplomatic enclave of
Gulshan. The first Secretary General, Sumith Nakandala, of Sri
Lanka joined the secretariat in July and assumed office in Dhaka
from August 2014.
The year 2015 was marked by series of meeting of BIMSTEC
countries over a number of issues. The Sixth Meeting of the
BIMSTEC Sub-Group on Legal and Law Enforcement Issues
discussed counter-terrorism and transnational crime during 17-18
December, 2015 at New Delhi. Negotiations were held to outline the
Draft Text of the BIMSTEC Convention on Transfer of Sentenced
Persons.
The Second meeting of the BIMSTEC Network of Policy Think Tanks
was held in Bangkok, Thailand from 08-09 October 2015. They
focused ways and means of revitalizing cooperation among the
Member States to further enhance people-to-people contact in the
Bay of Bengal region, and also to increase visibility of BIMSTEC.
The Twentieth Meeting of BIMSTEC Trade Negotiating Committee
was held during 7-9 September 2015, Pullman Khon Kaen Raja
Orchid, Thailand.
The Third Meeting of the BIMSTEC Expert Group on the
Establishment of the Technology Transfer Facility was held from 25-
26 August 2015 at Colombo, Sri Lanka.
The Seventh Meeting of the BIMSTEC Joint Working Group on
Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crime was held in Bangkok,
Thailand from 04-05 August 2015. They discussed issues pertaining
to Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime in the Bay of Bengal
Region. The Meeting also finalized the BIMSTEC Convention on
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.
Till date four BIMSTEC Summits have been held. The first was in
Bangkok, 2004, second in New Delhi, 2008, third in Nay Pyi Taw,
Myanmar, 2014, the fourth in Kathmandu, Nepal, 2018 and the latest
in Visakhapatnam, India, 2019.
The 4th BIMSTEC was held in Kathmandu, Nepal in August 2018.
Prime Minister of Nepal, K. P. Sharma Oli handed over the
Chairmanship to the then Sri Lankan President, Maithripala Sirisena.
The BIMSTEC leaders pledged to strengthen the organization. The
Kathmandu Declaration upholds collective wisdom and a future
vision for a sustainable and peaceful BIMSTEC region through the
BIMSTEC declaration, Towards a Peaceful, Prosperous and
Sustainable Bay of Bengal Region. Among other highlights, the
leaders affirmed their faith in building future plans for cooperation
among BIMSTEC countries with required institutional reforms of
BIMSTEC, reaffirmed their faith in the Charter of the UN, pledged to
fight terrorism and transnational crimes, alleviate poverty, improve
transport and communication, boost trade and investment,
expressed concern for environment and disaster management,
climate change, energy, pledged to increase cooperation in field of
energy, technology, agriculture, fisheries, public health, culture,
tourism and increasing people-to-people contacts. The other focus
areas were developing mountain economy and blue economy.
India hosted the 2019 BIMSTEC Summit at Visakhapatnam (7
November-8 November, 2019). This was the first BIMSTEC
Conclave of Ports. The chief focus of the Conclave included “Port led
Industrial Development and Tourism Development”, role of ports in
the global supply chain, secured ports, port services-delivering value
and green port operations. Three Memorandum of Understanding
(MOUs) have been signed. The signatories involved Ranong Port
(Port Authority of Thailand) and the Ports Trusts of Chennai,
Visakhapatnam and Kolkata. The objective is to increase
connectivity among these three ports that will help in curtailing sea
travel time between India and Thailand from 10-15 days to 7 days.
MEKONG-GANGA COOPERATION (MGC)
The MGC was formally launched on 10th November 2000 in the
Laotian capital of Vientiane. MGC focuses on building cooperation in
sectors of tourism, culture, educational contacts and transport and
communications between India and these five Greater Mekong Sub-
region (GMS) countries which are Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar,
Thailand and Vietnam. These five GMS countries had begun, much
before the formation of MGC, a cooperation initiative named
‘Mekong-Ganga Swarnabhoomi Programme’. MGC only
institutionalized their cooperation by providing a much stronger
platform.
First MGC Ministerial Meeting was held at Vientiane (Lao, PDR) on
10th November 2000. This led the foundation of the MGC. The
outcome of the Meet was the adoption of the Vientiane Declaration.
This Declaration underscored the identification of the member
countries’ common heritage and desire to enhance friendship. The
Declaration outlined MGC objectives in four specific sectors of—
Tourism, Culture, Education and Transport and Communications. It
also committed the member states to strengthen their cooperation in
the development of Information Technology (IT) infrastructure. The
Second MGC Ministerial Meeting was held in Hanoi, 28 July, 2001.
The Meet concluded with the adoption of the Hanoi Programme of
Action affirming their commitment to cooperate in four areas of
cooperation. The Hanoi Programme of Action targeted 6 years
timeframe from 2001 to 2007 with the progress of its implementation
being reviewed after every two years. The Third MGC Ministerial
Meeting was held in Phnom Penh on 20 June 2003. The Phnom
Penh Road Map was adopted as a plan to accelerate the
implementation of all MGC projects and activities. In the absence of
Fourth Ministerial Meeting taking place in 2004 or 2005, the Annual
MGC Senior Officials Meeting was held in New Delhi on 25th May
2005. The long-awaited Fourth MGCI Ministerial Meeting was held in
New Delhi on 12 October 2006. The then Indian foreign minister,
Pranab Mukherjee reiterated India’s commitment to strengthen
India’s cultural and commercial ties with GMS countries. The Fifth
MGC Ministerial Meeting, Cebu, 12 January 2007. In this meeting,
Thailand has handed over the chairmanship of MGC to India.
The Sixth Mekong–Ganga Cooperation meeting was held in New
Delhi on 3-4 September 2012 ahead of the ASEAN-India
commemorative summit. This Summit is slated for 20–21 December
2012 to be held in New Delhi. This ASEAN-India commemorative
Summit will mark the 20th anniversary of the ASEAN-India dialogue
partnership and the 10th anniversary of ASEAN-India Summit-level
partnership. Therefore, the MGC meeting was significant as it
provided another platform for the member countries to strengthen
cooperation, especially among the overlapping members of MGC
and ASEAN. The Sixth MGC Meeting recognized the need for short
gestation projects that could directly benefit local communities, with
results that are immediate and visible. The Ministers felt that these
would give fresh impetus to cooperation under MGC. In this context,
the Ministers welcomed the announcement by India on the
establishment of the India-Cambodia-Laos-Myanmar-Vietnam
(CLMV) Quick Impact Projects (QIP) Revolving Fund with an annual
contribution of $ 1 million. The members of the meet appreciated the
completion of construction of the MGC Traditional Asian Textiles
Museum building at Siem Reap, Cambodia in December 2011.
India’s association with MGC cannot be seen in isolation but must be
viewed as a part of India’s Look-East policy. Therefore, India is
making all out efforts to solidify the cooperation with her MGC
partners.
A boost to Mekong-Ganga cooperation was given during the visit of
India’s Vice-President Hamid Ansari to Cambodia during September
2015 where he signed two MoUs on tourism and Mekong-Ganga
Cooperation with Cambodian PM. The Mekong-Ganga MoU was
related to five “quick impact projects” related to [1] $50,000 grant to
Cambodia for the upgradation of an Entrepreneurship Development
Centre, [2] two projects in health care, [3] one project in agriculture
[4] one project in women’s empowerment.
As per the Press release of the Ministry of External Affairs dated 23
December, 2015, it has declared that through the ASEAN-India
Cooperation Fund, India has granted six scholarships to students
from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to pursue Masters
degree at Nalanda University. Selected students are eligible for
waiver of full fees, including tuition fees, boarding, lodging and travel
fare, for the period of study. A total of 4 students (2 from Laos, 2
from Myanmar and none from Cambodia) are currently studying at
Nalanda University under this scholarship.
NAFTA
The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was
implemented on 1 January 1994 among United States, Canada and
Mexico. This agreement was arrived at with the aim to remove trade
and investment barriers among these three countries. Remaining
duties and quantitative restrictions were eliminated in 1 January
2008. USA and Canada signed the Canada-USA Free Trade
Agreement (CUFTA) in the year 1989. Some provisions of CUFTA
like those related to agriculture were incorporated into NAFTA.
Under NAFTA all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between
USA and Mexico were eliminated. Further, some major tariff barriers
were removed immediately after emergence of NAFTA while others
were being passed out over periods of 5 to 15 years. Mexico and
Canada arrived at a separate NAFTA agreement on market access
for agricultural products. This agreement eliminated almost all the
tariffs, some immediately and others over a period of 5 to 15 years.
However, tariffs affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs and sugar
remained. NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, which
now links 450 million people producing $17 trillion worth of goods
and services.
Trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners has soared
since the agreement entered into force. US goods and services trade
with NAFTA amounted to $1.6 trillion in 2009. Exports amounted to
$397 billion. Imports were to the tune of $438 billion. The US goods
and services trade deficit with NAFTA was $41 billion in 2009. Not
only this, NAFTA had a great impact on US job market. Some allege
NAFTA responsible for huge job loss. Some uphold creation of huge
employment. Others contend that high-paying manufacturing jobs
are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing
wage deflation in certain sectors. For Canada the picture is also not
so pleasing. Canada also did not benefit much from NAFTA. Mexico
has been worst affected. Subsidized corn supplies (read ‘dumping’)
from USA are destroying the income opportunities of poor Mexican
corn farmers. Mexico witnessed Zapatista Uprising in response to
NAFTA in Chiapas. Indian trade with NAFTA countries are mostly
dominated by Indo-US trade exchanges. The India-United States
Commercial Dialogue was signed on 23 March, 2000. The India-US
Trade Policy Forum (TPF) was announced during Manmohan
Singh’s visit to the US in July 2005. India has emerged as a thriving
market for US exports and FDI destination. With Canada India has
modest trade partnership while with Mexico it is much below the
actual potential.
MERCOSUR
If NAFTA is a trading arrangement among the North African
countries, then MERCOSUR, is a trading bloc among the Latin
American Countries. It came into existence with the conclusion of the
Treaty of Asunción, 1991. This 1991 Treaty was amended and
updated in 1994 by the Treaty of Ouro Preto. The member countries
are Argentine, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. The
associate members are Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
This trading bloc also envisages free movement of goods, services,
capital and people among the member countries. MERCOSUR is
growing from strength to strength when compared to already existing
regional arrangements like European Union, NAFTA and ASEAN.
India also aims at developing her economic relations with
MERCOSUR. A Framework Agreement was signed between India
and MERCOSUR in June 2003 at Asunción. There were twin
objectives to the Agreement. Firstly, both countries would grant
reciprocal tariff preferences and this will pave way for both to
negotiate for establishment of a Free Trade Area (FTA) between
India and MERCOSUR. To further strengthen their efforts to
establish the FTA, both concluded a follow up of the Framework
Agreement in the form of a Preferential Trade Agreement in New
Delhi, in January 2004.
Further, the five Annexes of the PTA have been signed in New Delhi,
in March 2005. However, as far as India is concerned the PTA is not
much lucrative as the Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) that have
been concluded between MERCOSUR and Andean Community*. Yet
India should move ahead with the economic cooperation with
MERCOSUR as developing ties with Latin American countries will
enhance South-South cooperation and definitely will increase market
opportunities for emerging India.
 EXERCISES
1. State the modus operandi of IMF in the international political
economy.
2. Comment of the activities of World Bank.
3. What does the WTO stand for? How does it function? Comment
on the Doha Rounds.
4. Discuss the role of G-20 in the current international scenario.
5. Discuss importance of BRICS as an emerging economic
arrangement.
6. Comment on the role of IBSA as a new economic initiative.
7. Discuss the importance of the functioning of IOR-ARC.
8. Comment on BIMSTEC as an economic grouping.
9. Analyze the importance of Mekong Ganga Cooperation.
10. Comment on NAFTA as an important economic arrangement.
11. Analyze the importance of MERCOSUR AS A REGIONAL
ECONOMIC ARRANGEMENT.

* Andean Community The Andean Community is a customs union comprising

the South American countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. With the
new cooperation agreement with MERCOSUR, the Andean Community gained
four new associate members: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in July
2005.
Current Concerns in International
Relations: India and the World
PATHANKOT TERROR ATTACK (INDIA)
The year 2016 for India started with a terror attack on her
Pathankot’s Air Force Station on 2 January. It was a few days after
PM Narendra Modi’s surprise visit to his counterpart Nawaz Sharif in
Pakistan on 25 December 2015. There were six attackers who put
up a long and tough fight, in which seven security personnel were
martyred. The fight continued for almost 38 hours and rest of the
time was spent on combing operations. Some reports suggested that
the attack took place at this time to derail the high level talks
between the two neighbours. Again allegations are that the Pakistan
based militants are behind this terror attack. This disastrous incident
proves beyond doubt how terror attacks can aim not only ‘soft’
civilian targets, but also defence targets. If the security and
intelligence are not beefed up and coordination among countries are
not designed strategically, the countries all across the globe will fall
easy prey to terrorists whether state-sponsored or Al-Qaeda or any
other terror outfit.
URI AND PULWAMA TERROR ATTACKS AND SURGICAL
STRIKES (INDIA)
In September 2016 there were terror attacks on Indian Army Brigade
Head Quarters in Uri border along the Line of Control (LOC) by Pak
sponsored militants. Seventeen (17) army personnel were killed in
this devastating terror attacks. India retaliated 11 days after the
attack with surgical strikes across the LOC against the militant
launch pads in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). The SAARC
Summit was called off by the member states, which was supposed to
be held in Islamabad, as a mark of condemnation of the Uri attacks.
Again on 14 February 2019 there were attacks on vehicles carrying
Indian security personnel on J&K National highway at Pulwama. This
time it was a vehicle-borne suicide bomber which carried out the
attacks. Forty six (46) Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
personnel were killed. India retaliated by another round of surgical
strikes across the LOC in the surroundings of the town of Balakot in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan at the end of February
2019. Pakistan tried to internationalize the Kashmir issue, but in
vain. Both the Uri and Pulwama terror attacks have been
condemned by the international community.
ISIS
The November 2015 Paris terror attacks followed by the devastating
terror explosions in the Brussels airport (March 2016) show the
emergence of a new pivot of terror alongside the existing ones – the
ISIS. It would be too far-stretched to say that the Al-Qaeda has
become non-functional, but currently the focus is on increased
activities of the ISIS.
The ISIS is the acronym for the Jihadi militant outfit who calls
themselves as Islamic State of Syria and Iraq. By mid-2014, the ISIS
took control of Mosul, Fallujah and Tirkit. They have extended their
activities into Libya too and has established a strong foothold in
Sitre.
An international coalition of almost 60 countries has been fighting
against the ISIS since 2014. The USA is taking a leading role in
these actions against ISIS. It is leading two coalitions carrying out air
strikes targeting ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Libya. Britain, France and
Russia are among other major coalition partners. Germany’s lower
House of Parliament also gave a green signal for Germany to join
the international coalition against ISIS at the end of 2015.
In early 2016, the US-backed forces were successful in pushing
back the ISIS from the Syrian town of Shadadi. Iraq has also
launched military offensive to reclaim its largest city of Mosul. No
solution is in sight and terrorism and counter-terrorism activities will
go on, but sufferers will be innocent people who are fleeing their
countries and taking refuge in other countries especially European
countries. Europe is experiencing the tragedy of ‘boat people’ from
Syria and Iraq.
EUROPE’S BOAT PEOPLE: A REFUGEE CRISIS IN EUROPE
UNFOLDING
Since the World War II, the world has not experienced such a
massive emergency refugee crisis where thousands of “boat people”
from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and war-torn Libya and Somalia are
seeking asylum or have set up migrant camps or are heading
towards many European Countries like Greece, Germany, Italy and
others. This reminds the world of the “boat people” crisis after the
Vietnam War in the 1970s. Around 1975 and even over next two
decades more than 3 million people fled from Vietnam, Cambodia
and Laos after Communist victories in these countries. Unwilling to
live under Communist regimes, people started fleeing these
countries. Almost 80,000 Vietnamese according to UNHCR Reports
fled by boats. It was a massive exodus during peacetime. A large
number of people died even before reaching shores from pirate
attacks, drowning or starvation.
But current crisis is unprecedented and of a larger volume. At least
60 million people have been displaced because of war, conflict,
persecution and unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen
and elsewhere. More than
4 million refugees have escaped Syria where Civil War has out-
broken and has killed people in large numbers. Since the beginning
of the conflict in Syria in 2011, two million Syrians have been
registered as refugees with the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR). Most have crossed over to other countries
and live in shanties, camps or poor local communities in Turkey,
Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt to mention a few. Others have tried
to reach some other countries via sea-route. The exodus trends
show the direction towards Europe. Greece is becoming a first
destination for Syrian escaping the civil war back at home. Many are
taking a direct but a longer sea route to Italy. In 2014 Italy was
mainly the destination of refugees from Eritrea and Syria. However, a
sizeable number have been given refugee status by mid-2014.
The UN reports that since the war began, more than 500,000
Syrians (of the 4.2 million Syrian refugees overall) have applied for
asylum in Europe. Sweden accepted around 10,000 Syrian asylum-
seekers in 2013 alone. The EU as a whole permanently resettled
some 30,000 Syrian refugees from 2011 through 2014 and several
thousand Iraqi refugees during the Iraq War.
The world is facing a humanitarian crisis. It is not only a migration
issue or a refugee issue but also the ‘vulnerability’ of a section of
people fleeing persecution by boats. The women and young girls and
children are the worst sufferers. The most important question for the
‘boat people’ is the question of ‘survival’ in the sea and when
touching a territory their safety and security in that territory. The
international community might feel that cessation of war in these
war-torn countries might stop such exodus. However, the reality
shows that stability and peace in these countries are far too long to
achieve very fast. Concerted effort on parts of international
community and the United Nations and the European Union is the
only visible conflict resolution method in site.
EUROZONE CRISIS AND BREXIT
The Global recession of 2007-2008 followed by world-wide recession
from 2008-2012 and bubble burst had already send nerve shocks
around the world. The Eurozone was not immune from it too.
Coupled with this were the fiscal policies of some of the peripheral
Eurozone countries. The net result was that the Eurozone was
caught in sovereign-debt crisis. To make matters worse in 2009
Greece’s new Government unveiled the fact that the previous
government had grossly under–reported its budget deficit which was
a sheer violation of EU policy and raised fears of a Euro collapse via
political and financial contagion (financial pollution or corruption).
Soon it came to be known that the financial positions of several
Eurozone countries have made them unsustainable.
The problem spiraled in 2010 with rising spreads on sovereign bond
yields among the peripheral Eurozone countries like Greece, Ireland,
Portugal and Spain and also Germany. Greece was alone burdened
with debt amounting to 113% of GDP-nearly double the Eurozone
limit of 60%. The Greece yield diverged in 2010 and Greece needed
eurozone assistance. It received two bailout packages from the EU
over the following five years during which the country adopted EU-
mandated austerity measures to cut costs while Greece experienced
a further economic recession but faced massive social unrest and
protest. By mid-2015 the sovereign debt crisis became acute. In July
2015, the Greek people however, voted against further austerity
measures. There was also a possibility of Greece moving towards an
exit from European Monetary Union or ‘Grexit’. Greece in total
received three bailout packages but it is still grappling with an acute
crisis, and Eurozone leaders are searching for solutions. Greece’s
matters have become worse as there is a heavy influx of refugees
from Iraq, Syria and other war-torn countries. The Greece debt crisis
has put the future of European political and economic union at stake.
Britain went on a referendum on the issue of ‘Brexit’ from the EU in
June 2016. Approximately 51.9% vote for Brexit and approximately
48.1% voted against Brexit. This definitely has created uneasiness in
EU, and developments have to be watched seriously in the
Eurozone regarding the future of EU. Even the British politics is
going through a rough weather while negotiating the BREXIT deal
with EU. There was resignation by Prime Minister Theresa May (7
June 2019) following the three times rejection of the BREXIT deal by
the MPs and BREXIT being stalled till October 2019. The BREXIT
was supposed to take place on 31 March 2019. It had been delayed
twice during the term of Theresa May. The current Prime Minister
Boris Johnson won the Conservative leadership contest in July 2019.
He advised the Queen to prorogue the Parliament from 10
September to 14 October. This was quite a controversial move by
Johnson. The Supreme Court ruled out such action to be an unlawful
one. In a snap general election held in December 2019, Johnson
could lead the Conservative Party to a big victory.
He renegotiated the deadline and it was extended till 31 January
2020 with a withdrawal deal. In the next step Britain will enter into a
transition period till 31 December 2020. By this time it is expected
that Britain and EU chalk out future trend of relationship including
trade, data sharing and security and law enforcement. The road
block to BREXIT is the Irish backstop or the land border between UK
and EU and the problem of customs check at the Irish borders. It is
to be seen how events unfurl after 31 January 2020.
DOKLAM STANDOFF BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA
The Doklam plateau is a geo-strategically significant area, as it is
located in the tri-junction of Bhutan-China-India, overlooking the
Chumbi valley and lying between the two Silk road entry points from
China to India—the Nathu La and Jelep La. The Doklam became a
point of rift between the two big neighbours— India and China—
following China’s attempts to construct a paved road which will be
able to carry vehicles up to 50 tonnes. This move is like a threat to
the security of Siliguri Corridor or the ‘Chicken’s Neck’, and once the
project is completed it would be able to empower China to cut-off the
north-eastern states from the rest of India by blocking the narrow
bottleneck region of Siliguri Corridor.
Doklam has been a contended territory between Bhutan and China
and the two has entered into an agreement by which both agreed to
maintain a status quo in Doklam. China objected to India’s
intervention in the Doklam row. India however, clarified its position
and said that it had acted upon the request of Bhutan as per the
2007 Friendship Treaty. The Doklam row almost led to collision of
two giant neighbours and the crisis lasted for about a little over two
months. It was like an eye-ball-to eyeball confrontation. Ultimately, in
the sidelines of BRICS Summit in September 2017, Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met, and
both the leaders vowed to move forward in ties, and also decided to
boost military cooperation to avoid future confrontation. Japan had
asked China to maintain the status quo at Doklam. This infuriated
China, but Indo-Japan strategic relationship can see a new upsurge
in the future. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to India in
September 2017 carries a positive message in that direction.
NUKE TESTING BY NORTH KOREA
The World is yet again going through a nerve wrecking situation as
North Korea under Kim Jong-un accelerates the pace of nuclear and
missile tests. There is much of a speculation whether the danger of a
Third World War is lurking the future years since North Korea has
been quite stubborn with its nuke programmes. North Korea even
fired a missile at end of August 2017 from Pyongyang which flew
over Japan and plunged into the northern Pacific Ocean. USA has
raised quite an alarm over the North Korean Nuke adventurism.
However, North Korea has just sidelined China and South Korea and
is ready to deal with USA on its own. There can be either a Third
World War or United Nations brokered peace or diplomatic
negotiations with the USA resulting in easing of sanctions against
North Korea and withdrawal of American troops from South Korea.
Since 2018 there have been two summits between President Donald
Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June 2018. Efforts
are on for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and assurance
of discontinuance of Joint Military exercises between the US and
South Korea. There were also reports of North Korea destroying
nuclear missile sites. Even before this, in April 2018 there was an
Inter-Korean Summit between Moon Jae-in, President of South
Korea and Kin Jong-un towards easing of tensions between both
and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Another round of
unsuccessful meeting was held between President Donald Trump
and Kim Jong-un in February 2019. The meeting could not progress
because of differences between the two regarding lifting of UN
sanctions against North Korea imposed during 2016-2017. Another
round of meeting was held between the two Koreas and the US in
the Korean Demilitarized Zone in June 2019 which signaled the
resumption of working level nuclear talks.
 EXERCISES
1. Comment of the terror attacks at the Pathankot’s Air Force Base
on
2 January, 2016.
2. How do you think that the ISIS is a threat to world peace?
3. Analyze the fall in crude prices in international market and its
necessary fall outs.
4. Write a note on the ‘boat people’ moving towards Europe.
5. Examine the Eurozone crisis as a growing threat to the
sustainability of the EU.
6. Comment on the Doklam Standoff between China and India.
7. What do you think about North Korea’s brinkmanship and whether
it is moving the world towards a Third world war?
Index
A Code for the Government of Armies (1863), 366
African National Congress (ANC), 358
African Union (AU), 224–226
All-African Peoples’ Conference (AAPC), 197
Alternative Approaches, 14
American Convention on Human Rights (1981), 348
American Declaration for Independence, 347
Ancien Régime, 85
Angell, Norman, 4, 21, 213
Annan, Kofi, 274, 278, 282
ANZUS (1951), 144, 169
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, 358
Archibugi, Danielle, 24
Arms Control, 303
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 230–231
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), 242–248
achievements of, 244–247
structures and mechanisms of, 243–245
Atlantic Charter (1941), 252
Atlantic Council Working Group (1977), 291
Atomic Energy Commission, 305
Atoms for Peace, 307

Baghdad Pact, 379

Balance of Power, 83–85
Bay of Pigs, 145
Beard, Charles A., 193
Bentham, 23
Berlin Blockade (1948), 141
Bhagwati, Jagdish, 322–325
Bhutto, Benazir, 390
BIMSTEC, 512–516
Biological Weapons Convention, 310
Bluntschli, 366
Boat People, 522
Bobbio, Norberto, 24
Bogor Goals, 231
Brahimi Report, 292
Brandt Commission Report (1980), 476
Brandt, Willy, 148, 208
Brezhnev Doctrine, 150
BRICS, 503–507
Brussels Pact (1948), 141
Bull, Hedley, 86
Bucharest Population Conference (1974), 474
Bush, George W. (Sr.), 152–153, 314
Buzan, Bary, 9

Cairo Conference (1994), 477

Camp David, 144
Caring for the Earth (1991), 334–335
Carr, E.H., 6, 20, 27
Carter, Jimmy, 146
Carter doctrine, 151
Castro, Fidel, 145
Cecil, Robert, 213
CENTO, 89, 169, 379
anti-colonialism, 379
anti-imperialism, 379
anti-racialism, 380
Chanakya, 4, 26
Charter for Nature (1982), 476–477
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, 204
Chemical Weapons Agreement, 314
Children of Light/Children of Darkness, 25
Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang), 141
Chiang Kai Shek, 141
Churchill, Winston, 218, 252
Civil Disobedience, 347
Clausewitz, Carl von, 26
Club of Rome, 334
Cocoyoc Declaration (1974), 474–475
Cold War, 136–155
causes of, 138–139
end of, 152–153
meaning of, 139
origin of, 139–140
phases of, 136
Common Crisis (1983), 208
Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP), 223
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), 153
Communications Approach, 45–46
Communist Information Bureau (COMINFORM), 141
Complex Interdependence, 8
Concert of Europe, 114
Conference on
disarmament, 316
security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE), 149
Constructivism, 50
Containment of Communism, 144, 159
Contract Sociale (1762), 347
Convention on
elimination of discrimination against women (1979), the convention
against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of
 punishment (1984), 348
elimination of racial discrimination (1965), 348
genocide (1948), 348
prevention and punishment of crime and genocide (1948), 366
prohibition of military or other hostile use of environment
modification techniques, 311
rights of child (1989), 348
status of stateless persons (1954), 348
Conventional Arms Cut Treaty, 313
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, 150
Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907), 369
Core, 9, 39–41
Court of First Instance, 223
Cox, Robert W., 320
Cuba, 145
cuban missile crisis (1962), 145
Cybernetics, 45
Czar Alexander II, 358
Czechoslovakia, 149

Davies, David, 5
De Cuellar, Javier Perez, 275
De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), 366
Debt Crisis, 350
Decision-Making Theory, 46–47
Declaration and Program of Action of the New International Order,
204
Declaration by United Nations (1942), 252
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
and Peoples, 164
Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories, 162–163
Decolonization, 161–166
Deep Structure, 9
deFredericking, 86
de-Nazified, 86
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), UN, 296
Desai, Morarji, 388
Desertification Conference (1977), 475
Détente, 145–149
causes of, 146–149
implications of, 149–150
meaning of, 145–146
Deutsch, Karl. W., 7
Dickinson, G. Lowes, 86
Diplomacy, 109–110
and foreign policy, 110–111
functions of, 111–113
as a technique, 121–123
traditional and new, 114–121
Disarmament, 303, 381
meaning and concept of, 304
problems of, 317
and UN, 315–317
Disarmament Commission, 307
Domino Theory, 142
Draft Outline of an International Code (1872), 366
Dubcèk, Alexander,150
Dulles, John Foster, 144, 170
Dumbarton Oaks Conference (1944), 252

ECOSOC of UN, 276–280

Eisenhower, Dwight, 138
doctrine of, 140
Engels, 35
English School, 10
European Community, 219
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), 219
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), 220
European Economic Community (EEC), 219
European Convention of Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (1950), 346
European Currency Unit (ECU), 219
European Economic Cooperation, 219
European Payments Union, 218
European Union, 219
Eurozone, 523–524
Explanatory/Constitutive Theories, 10–11

Failed States, 203

Fanon, Frantz, 163
Fascists, 358
Fay, Sidney B., 85
Feminism, 51
Fenwick, 367
Field, David Dudley, 366
Fiore, Pasquale, 366
First Peace Conference, Hague (1899), 369
Foreign Policy, 100–135
definitions of, 101–102
determinants of, 104–108
objectives of, 102–104
techniques of, 108
Foreign policy of India, 378–469
Foundational/Anti-Foundational Theories, 11
Frank, Andre Gunder, 37, 196, 330
French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 347
French Revolution, 355
Fukuyama, Francis, 23, 154
Fulton Speech (1946), 139
Functionalism, 212–214

G20, 425, 498–503

Gallagher, John, 39
Galtung, Johan, 40–41, 196
harmony of interests, 212
Gandhi, Indira, 378–380
Gandhi, Rajiv, 383–384
GATT, 329
Gender Development Index, 341, 343–344
Gender Empowerment Measure, 344
Gender Inequality Index, 343–344
General Assembly, 251–260
Geneva Conventions, 369
Ghali, Boutros Boutros, 274, 278
Gidden, Anthony, 320
Glasnost, 152
Globalization, 319–327
concept of, 320
effects of, 321
features of, 320
Global Environment Facility (GEF), 477
Goebbles, Joseph, 126
Gorbachev, Mikhail, 152
Gottwald, Clement, 141
Grotius, Hugo, 366
Green Belt Movement (1977), 475
Gujral, I.K., 381–382
Gujral doctrine, 381
Guzman, Arbenz, 77, 199

Habitat Conference (1976), 474

Habitat II (1996), 478
Hammarskjold, Dag, 277
Hartman, F.H., 88
Hashashin, 358
Hass, Ernst B., 7, 214
Held, David, 24, 320
Herrenvolk, 126
High-level Conference on World Food Security (2008), 479
Hobbes, Thomas, 26
Hobson, 194
Hodges, Charles, 193
Horowitz, Irving, 164
Human Development Index (HDI), 328
Human Development Reports (1995), (1997), (2003), 332
Human Poverty Index (HPI-1) and
(HPI-2), 333
Human Rights, 346
Human Rights Council, 351
Hume, David, 346
Huntington, Samuel, 154

IBSA, 508–509
ICBMs, 311
Idealism, 4, 24
Idealists, 21
IDPs, 488, 492
IL Duce, 127
IMF, 200, 321–322, 495–496
Imperialism, 192
Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF), 390
INF Treaty, 312
Institut de Droit International, 366
Interdependence Model, 7
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 260, 396
International Court of Justice, 256
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966),
263
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESR) (1966), 263
International Criminal Court (ICC), 368
International Law, 368
definitions of, 368
scope of, 369
International Law Commission (1927), 366
International Morality, 373
International Political Economy (IPE), 9
International Process, 100
International Relations, 1–16
evolution of, 4–11
meaning of, 2–4
nature of, 12–13
scope of, 14–16
Intra-state actors, 32
IOM, 487, 492–493
IOR-ARC, 420, 509–512
ISIS, 521

Japanese Peace Treaty (1951), 144

Jayewardane, 390
Jessup, 367
Johannesburg Summit (2002), 478
John Austin, 370

Kant, Immanuel, 23
Kaplan, Morton A., 7, 94
Kargil War, 394
Kellog–Briand Pact (1928), 374
Kennan, George F., 6, 26, 139
Kennedy, John F., 145
Keohane, Robert, 7, 9, 31–32
Kharjites, 358
Kissinger, Henry, 146
Korean War, 141
Kyoto Protocol (1997), 478

Landmines Ban Treaty, 315

League of Nations, 5, 373
Lenin, 9, 36, 195
Leontief, Wassily, 207
Leviathan (1651), 347
Liberal
approach, 20–24
idealists, 20
institutionalism, 22
internationalism, 22
Lippmann, Walter, 137
Locke, John, 21
Look-East policy, 514–517

Maastricht Treaty, 219

Machiavelli, Niccolò, 4
Magna Carta, 347
Mao Tse Tung, 141
Marshall Plan (1947), 139
Marx, Karl, 36
Marxist approach, 36–39
Mau Mau, 358
McClelland, Charles, 7
Menon, Krishna, 171
MERCOSUR, 518–519
MGC, 516–517
Migration, 486–493, 502, 522
Military Staff Committee, 270
Mill, John Stuart, 347
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2000), 478
Mitrany, David, 212
Modern World System Theory, 9, 20
Montreal Protocol (1987), 477
Moon, Ban Ki, 278
Moon, Parker T., 193
Morgenthau, Hans J., 6, 27–28
Mussolini, 127
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD),
94, 131
Myrdal, Gunnar, 39

NAFTA, 517–518
Nagy, Imre, 144
Nardonaya Volya (The Peoples Will), 358
Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 169
National Interest, 70–71
National Power, 66
elements of, 69
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) (1949), 71, 141
Nayyar, Deepak, 320
Nazis, 125
Nehru, Jawahar Lal, 169
Neo-Colonialism, 192
mechanisms, 192
Neo-Functionalism, 214
Neo-Idealism, 24
Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, 24
Neo-Liberal Internationalism, 23
Neo-Realism, 30
New Cold War, 136
New Imperial Order, 203
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 6, 25
NIEO, 163, 177
demand for, 203
fate of, 206
Nixon, Richard, 146
Nkrumah, Kwame, 169, 197
Non-Aligned Movement, 155
Non-refoulement, 490
Non-State Actors, 32, 58
North over South, 41
North-South (1980), 207
NPT (1968), 149, 308, 388
Nuclear and Space Talks (NST), 312
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), 394
NWICO (New World Information and Communication Order), 163
Nye, Joseph, 7, 33, 193
Nyerere, Julius, 190

Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), 316

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 350
On Liberty (1859), 347
OPEC, 228
Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) (1994), 281
Oppenheim, 367
Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), 218
Organization of American States (OAS), 231
Ostpolitik, 148
Our Common Future (1987), 334
Outer Space Treaty (1967), 149, 308

Palme, Olof, 334

Pathankot Terror Attack, 520
Pan-Arabism, 143
Panchsheel, 380
Peacekeeping, UN, 277–278
Perestroika, 152
Periphery, 9, 38–40
Permanent Court of International Justice, 368
Pluralism, 7, 32
Pollard, A.F., 85
Post-Cold War Era, 154
Post-Structuralism, 48
Potsdam Conference (1945), 138
Prague Spring, 150
Prebisch, Raúl, 38
Preventive Diplomacy, 300
Propaganda, 122
techniques of, 124
PTBT (1963), 307

Rao, Narasimha, 390

Rationalist/Reflectivist, 11
Reagan, Ronald, 422
 Reagan doctrine, 151
Reform of the UN, 290
Refugees, 489–491
Reign of Terror, 356
Relations of India with
Bangladesh, 443
Bhutan, 456
China, 431
Nepal, 452
Pakistan, 437
Russia, 426
Sri Lanka, 448
United States, 421
Revision of the UN Charter, 289
Rezali Formula, 292
Rights of Man (1791), 346
Rio Conference (1992), 477
Rio Declaration (1992), 477
Robinson, Ronald, 39
Rome Food Conference (1974), 475
Rome Statute, 368
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 252
Rousseau, 347

SALT I (1972), 149, 310–311

SALT II, 149, 311–312
San Francisco Conference (1945), 252
Sauvy, Alfred, 163
Schengen Agreement, 219
Schuman, Robert, 218
Schuman declaration, 218
Schumpeter, Joseph, 193
Schwarzenberger, George, 85
SDI (Strategic Defence Initiative), Star War, 151
Sea-Bed
pact (1971), 149
treaty, 309
SEATO (1954), 89, 144, 169, 379
Seattle, 322
Security Council of UN, 265
Security Dilemma, 30
Semi-periphery, 9–10, 40
Shakti 1–V, 394
Shastri, Lal Bahadur, 378
Shotwell, James T., 5, 21
Shultz, Richard H., 359
Singh, Manmohan, 396
Singh, V.P., 427
Single European Act (SEA), 219
Society of States/International Society, 10
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, 232
general provisions, 234
South Commission, 190
Soviet Aggression in Afghanistan (1979), 151
Special Procedures, 351
Spykman, Nicholas. J., 27, 88
SRBMs, 326
State, 58
elements of statehood, 58
Stateless people, 488
Stockholm Conference (1972), 334, 473
Stowell, 367
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) (1991), 90, 152
START I, 313
 START II, 313
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), 314
Sukarna, Kusno, 169
Surgical strikes, 469–470, 521
Sustainable Development, 334
principles of, 336
Systems Theory, 43

Taiwan (Island of Formosa), 265

Tehran Declaration (1943), 183
Terrorism, 355
cyber, 360
narco, 361
state-sponsored, 359
Terrorist, 359
Thant, U., 275
Third World, 166, 329
concept of, 166
features of, 167
Thompson, Kenneth W., 6, 27
Thoreau, 347
Thucydides, 4, 25
Tickner, J.A., 31
Transnational Actors, 33
Treaty of Paris (1951), 218
Treaty of Versailles (1919), 305
Troika Plan, 277
Truman, Harry S., 138, 329
Truman doctrine, 139
Trusteeship
council, 282
TTBT, 311
Two Treatises on Government (1689), 347

U-2, 145
UN Charter, 349
UN Secretariat, 272
UN Secretary-General, 295, 334
UNDP, 341, 343–344, 477
UNEP (1972), 474
UNHCR, 488, 490–493, 552
UNICEF Report (1987), 332
United Nations, 294
birth of, 294
purposes and principles of, 295
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), 476, 579
Uniting for Peace Resolution (UPR) (1950), 142
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948), 348
Uri and Pulwama Terror Attacks, 521
Utopians, 21

Vajpayee, A.B., 393

Vienna Climate Change Talks (2007), 478
Viet Minh, 142
Vietnam War, 143
Vox Populi, 347

Waldheim, Kurt, 277

Wallerstein, Immanuel, 9, 38, 196, 331
Waltz Kenneth, 8, 30, 86
War on Terror, 358
WARSAW (1955), 144
pact, 89
Washington Charter (1992), 153
Water Conference (1977), 475
Wilson, Woodrow, 5, 21
WMDs, 303
Woolf, Leonard, 213
World Bank, 200, 321, 496–497
World Climate Conference (1979), 476
World Commission on Environment and Development, 335
World Conservation Strategy (1980), 334
World Public Opinion, 365
Wright, Quincy, 6–7, 95, 130
WTO, 497–498

X Article, 139

Yalta Conference (1945), 252

Yeltsin, Boris, 153
Yom Kippur, 150, 229

Zealots, 358
Zimmern, Alfred, 4–5, 21