INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Unit I

Understanding International Relations

International relations is a pluralistic discipline, turning to disciplines such as history,

philosophy, behavioural psychology, and so on. When studying international relations,

political scientists often rely on theoretical or conceptual models to understand political

behaviour. For example, realists often interpret politics in terms of a struggle for dominance

between states in an anarchic world as well as flawed human nature. Conversely, liberals and

constructivists typically view the world through the lens of shared economic and trade

relationships. They emphasize institutions and values as a means of cooperation between

nations. There are many advantages to using political models. However, history provides yet

another prism to view international relations. It provides political scholars with a long view

of the nature of conflict and consensus on the global stage.

History offers two principal uses to international relations scholars. First, it serves as a means

for contextual understanding, particularly in conflict resolution or area studies analysis. It is

also a measure of themes and patterns of state interaction over time. For example, it would be

impossible to analyze the political dynamics in Northern Ireland or the former Yugoslavia

without first undertaking an intense study of centuries of diplomatic history to grasp the core

interests and narratives at play.

Secondly, the long-term analysis of trends and patterns can be equally insightful as scholars

develop awareness of the differing regional perceptions of global political issues. Americans

are notoriously future-oriented and tend to focus on tomorrow. In other parts of the world,

what we see as history can be very much part of the present. While visiting China in 1972,

Henry Kissinger engaged his Chinese counterpart, Zhou En-Lai, about what he saw as the

lessons of the French Revolution of 1789. “Oh, it’s much too early to tell,” Zhou replied.

Kissinger, who had himself taught European history at Harvard, noted that this experience

told him a great deal about the Chinese view of international politics.

Similarly, students of modern European politics have detected great parallels in the policies

undertaken by Germany respecting Russia, Eastern Europe, and asserting its fiscal strength

on the continent and those pursued by Bismarck in the late 19th century. Bismarck’s

1

“Ostpolitik,” which was predicated upon close ties to Russia, echoes into German foreign

policy in the 21st century—Germany is Russia’s primary trading partner—but natural gas

pipelines and lucrative trade connections have replaced purely military alignments as

measures of the balance of power. While no historical similarity is ever exact, historical

analysis does offer insight into understanding deeper motivations of states and how they have

defined and pursued interests over time.

Meaning of International Relations

The study of International Relations has been defined in a number of ways. The term

“International “ was used for the first time by Jeremy Bentham in the later part of the

eighteenth century with regard to the laws of nations. Consequently the term International

Relations was used to define the official relations between the sovereign states. However

some scholars even included the economic, social and cultural relations amongst the states

also within the purview of the subject. Prof. Schleicher defines international politics as the

relations among states. Let us discuss some of the important definitions now. According to

Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau, International Politics is a struggle for power among nations. A

good working definition of international politics is given by Harold and Margaret Sprout.

They define International Politics as those aspects of interactions and relations of independent

political communities in which some element of opposition, resistance or conflict of purpose

or interest is present.

According to Quincy Wright “It is not only the nations which International relations seek to

regulate. Varied types of groups – nations, states, governments, people, regions, alliances,

confederations, international organisations, even industrial organisations, cultural

organisations, and religious organisations must be dealt with in the study of Internationals

Relations if the world is divided”. James Rosenau goes even further and argues that as the

events in the area of world politics are linked with internal national events and vice versa and

these relations even overlap each other at points, it is difficult to draw boundary line between

internationals and national relations. For example the decision of a country to devalue its

currency may be purely a national action, but it has far-reaching international implications.

Therefore Trygave Mathiesen says that even internal affairs of the state fall within the

jurisdiction of international relations. In short, it can be said that international relations do

not cover only the official relations conducted by the leaders or representatives of a state,

2

they also cover the relations conducted by other important groups, to the extent they

influence the interactions of the sovereign states.

Nature and Scope of International Relations

International Relations is a subject which deals with various processes in which nations try to

sense their national interest by means of their policies and programmes. This subject matter

is growing and changing according to the change in the domestic as well as international

environment. The end of cold war brought drastic changes on all the existing theories of

International Relations because of the Uniplan system. However, this emergence of important

non-state players in the international area because of globalisation introduced a lot of changes

in the subject matter. Consequently, the scope of International Relations has greatly expanded

in Modern times. During 19th and early 20th Centuries, International Relations was

concerned with the study of diplomatic history and war. In due course it concentrated on the

study of contemporary foreign affairs and diplomacy in order to promote national interest.

Later on International Relations began to be studied within the frame work of law. The

establishment of League of Nations after the 1st world war further widened the scope of the

subject scholars, included International Organisations and other important institutions within

the purview.

The Second World War and the significant changes took place viz. the advent of Nuclear

Weapon as an ultimately weapon of mass destruction, emergence of two power poles-headed

by USA and USSR; the decline of the influence of colonial power of Europe; Resurgence of a

large number of Afro-Asian third world states in the society of nation; non-alignment; the

danger of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) because of the procession of nuclear weapons

by the Soviet Union; increasing interdependence of states further widened the scope of the

subject. Because of the emergence of new threats and challenges greater emphasis was given

by scholars on scientific study of the subject. Consequently they developed new

methodologies and came with new theories in the study of International Relations.

Apart from studying the military policies and policy formulations the scholars began to study

the behaviour of important policy makers of states. Further, emphasis began to be laid on

area studies. Universities and higher Research centres concentrated on different geographical

areas of their interest – American, Latin American, West Europe, Soviet Poles, South Asia,

China, Middle East, Far East, Down under, African Studies are the important areas of their

3

interest. The end of cold war, the disintegration of Soviet Union and the emergence of

Terrorism as a new threat to international security and proliferation of nuclear weapons

among the third world countries created new areas. The failure of communism and closed

economy and the acceptance of globalisation and liberalization even by the Chinese also

created new areas of study in the discipline. States are no more the only players of

International politics. There are so many non-governmental agencies and pressure groups

and mass media play important role in influencing international relations. Thus the present

scope of international relations are more comprehensive than before and it embraces the

study of diplomatic history, international law, international politics, international

organisations, area studies, International security, decision making, confidence building

measures, and Psychological study of the motives of the member states in their relations. The

end of cold war compelled the scholars to come with new theories and paradigms to study

international relations. Globalization is a major challenge to the traditional concept of

sovereignty and nation state as an independent entity. There emerged so many non-state

players at the intra-national and international levels to influence the policies and programmes

of the world of politics. Because of the changing international environment scholars are

making serious efforts to utilize the various techniques in social sciences in order to study the

subject systematically.

In spite of the growing importance of international relations, some scholars still hold that as a

subject of study it is “a poor relation of Political Science and History and is still far from

being a well-organized discipline. They argue that it lacks clear cut exceptional framework

and a systematic body of applicable theory. Further it is heavily dependent upon other better

organized discipline like political science, Law, Geography, History and Sociology. Prof.

Alfred Zimmern, one of the distinguished professors of history said in 1919, “From the

academic point of view, International relations is clearly not a subject in the ordinary sense of

the world. It does not provide a single coherent body of teaching material. It is not a single

subject but a bundle of subjects. Of what is this bundle composed? Of law, economics,

Political Science Geography and so on – but not the whole range of these subjects. Even the

modern and post-modern scholars are not willing to treat International Relations as an

independent discipline. They argue that there is no clear cut unity of subject, matter, or good

degree of objectivity or accepted scope of the subjects matter. Further, it does not possess

clear boundaries which separate it from Political Science. Because both are concerned with

the study of sovereign states and their behaviour. It is a disciple of so many disciplines, lacks

4

clear cut concepts, theories, boundaries and subject matter though scholars are trying to

search better and uniform foci, concepts and materials.

International Relations, International Politics and World Politics

It is necessary to understand the differences between the two words “International Relations”

and “International politics”. Some scholars like E.H. Cart and Quiney Wright argue that both

terms are identical and they used both the terms according to their convenience. However,

scholars like Horald, Margaret Sprout and others have tried to draw distribution between

these two terms. According to their view “International Relations” as wider in scope include

in its study the totality of relations of any people and group in the global village. They

include the official relations, people to people contacts, non-political relations, the activities

and interactions of various non-governmental organisation, cultural, legal, economic, sports

and other human assistance programmes.

The scholars argue that the term “Relations has variety of meanings as communication,

contacts, connections, actions, reactions and interaction on the part of the different groups

including the state of government. But term of “International Politics” discusses the politics

of International actors – states in a rather narrow sense concerning mainly diplomacy and

other official relations. As mentioned above, world is shrinking day by day because of

globalization which is breaking all the barriers. Now we are witnessing free flow of capital,

human resources, goods, services, technology and other assistance across the border. The

information explosion and the fast growing internet services brought the people of the

different corner of the world closer. Therefore, International Relations has a much accepted

and appropriate connotation than International politics, for it embraces all sorts of relations

among the leaders, people, non-governmental organisations and other internal groups.

International politics includes only those aspects of international relations in which conflicts

of interest of the nation states involved.

Lincoln and Padelford interestingly distinguished the two terms thus: “In its broadest sense,

the field of international relations compromises myriads of contacts among individuals,

business organisations, cultural institutions and political personalities of many different

countries. When people speak of international relations, however, they are usually thinking of

the relationship between states as such. This is to be expected in view of the fact that it is

5

their governments which have the authority to regulate business, travel, commerce, use of

resources, political ideas, territorial jurisdiction, nationality, communications, employment of

armed forces and other aspects of international affairs. The relationship between states is

classified as “International politics that is the interaction of states policies”. This is the core

of contemporary International Relation.

Likewise, International relations is sometimes loosely used by some scholars as world

politics. Bruce Russett and Harry Starr in their book World Politics, justified the term.

However, the term world politics is a narrower term than International Relations. Further

world politics is possible only when we are able to achieve world state and government.

Further, world affairs should not be confused with International Relations. World affairs is a

general term covering important matter of interest in the world. However, deep knowledge of

world affairs is necessary for the understanding of International Relations of present and

future. But world affairs only provide data for understanding and are not the exponent of

political process itself. From the above discussion we all agree to appreciate the term

“International Relations” instead of International Politics, for our subject.

Important Theories or Approaches of International Relations: Idealistic

and Realistic Schools

The scope of International Relations has been growing over the years and scholars are

interested in formulating theories to understand the subject in a better way. Behaviourlistic

revolution brought a sea exchange in the approaches of almost all social science disciplines

including International Relations. Among the theories of International Relations, two

approaches are considered to be very important-one is Realistic Theory and another is

Idealistic Theory. Let us study the two approaches. “An approach is a set of standards

governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions and data for academic purposes. It

implies looking at a problem from a particular angel and explaining the phenomenon from the

same angle.

The Realist Approach

The prominent realists are Thomas Hobbes; Nicolo Machiavelli, Kautilya, George Kannan,

Hans J. Morgenthan, Henry Kissinger etc., among them the best exposition of the realistic

6

theory of international relations has been offered by Morgenthau. The Realistic idea emerge

out of the individual belief that others are always ready to destroy him and therefore, he must

be always ready to destroy others whenever need to be in order to protect himself. According

to this theory a contest for power in going on in the world and this can neither be controlled

nor regulated by international law or world government or an international organization. It

accepts the perpetual existence of conflict among nations in one form or other for power.

Hans Morgenthau refers to six fundamental principles which are relevant

to an understanding of political realism:

The first principle is that politics is governed by objective laws which are based on human

nature and psychology. Society or political system cannot be improved without understanding

these laws. Moreover, these laws cannot be surpassed as this will only lead to utter failure.

The theory also believes that human nature is very much stable. Hence, the theory doesn’t

believe in necessity of novelty nor does it believe old age is at defects; rather it believes old

age is sound and good. The theories should pass two tests, one of reason; another of

experience. This theory consists in ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through

reason. To understand the foreign policy of a statesman one should examine not only

circumstances but also the possible ways which he might prefer to choose, under such

circumstances. Therefore, according to this theory, we can understand the political

phenomenon by developing a political theory based on human psychology and reason.

Secondly, Morgenthau argues that the main characteristics of International politics which also

enable one to distinguish it from other Social Sciences is the concept of National interest

which he defines in terms of power. It helps us to understand the International Politics in a

better way. He believes that the defence of national interest is the essence of any foreign

policy. Realists are not concerned with motives and have no ideological preferences but they

rely on a foreign policy which minimizes risks and maximizes national interest. Thirdly

Morgenthau asserts that realism is not particularly attracted towards any idea which is fixed

once and for all. Instead, the kind of interest determining political action in a particular

period or history depends upon the political and cultural context within which foreign policy

is formulated. Thus he assigns important role to environments in the determination of

7

political action. The realists stand for the manipulation of different forces which are already

in existence, in order to living social and political transformation.

Fourthly, realism is not ignorant of the moral significance of political action of an individual.

The individual say for himself, let justice be done even if the world perishes and may

sacrifice himself in defense of moral principles. But Morgenthau assets that universal moral

principles cannot be applied to states actions and these must be modified according to the

circumstances of time, place and need. Unlike the individual, the state is not expected to

observe the same standards of morality because the state has no right to sacrifice to liberty for

moral principles. Realism also holds that prudence is the supreme virtue in politics; without

prudence there cannot any political morality.

Fifthly, realists do not find any identity between moral aspirations of nation and the moral

law which governs the universe and assets that all political actors pursue their national

interest.

Lastly, Morgenthau, assets that political sphere is an autonomous as the sphere of the

economist, or the lawyer or the moralist. The political players think in term of interest as the

economist think in terms of utility; the lawyer in terms of confirmity of action with moral

principles. Further Realism assigns a particular importance to political actions but is not

unaware of the existence of other standard of thought. However, it subordinates these other

standards to the political one. Further it is definitely against the moralistic approach to

international politics.

Both Kennan and Morgenthau regard Power Politics as the basis of world political relations.

However Kennan insists on adopting moral approach in the formulation of policy while

safeguarding the national interests. On the other hard Morgenthau completely ignores the

moral aspects and insists on taking national interest as the real guide to the formulation and

understanding of International Relations.

Criticism

The realist approach is severely condemned and criticized by different writers on different

grounds:

First, Morgenthau’s theory suffers from ambiguity and is inconsistent with reality. He failed

to come with a universally acceptable definition of power. He takes power as “Psychological

8

relationship among states”, but psychological relations themselves are quite vague and it is

not possible to measure to study the same. The study of complex psychological relationship

among more than 190 sovereign states of modern world rendered them even more complex.

Secondly, the theory is criticized by many writers on the ground that it is an incomplete

theory. Herold Spencer objects to Morgenthau’s theory, because it neglects the objectives of

national policy. Quiny right criticizes this theory for not having considered the impact of

values on national policy. Raymond Aron objects to this theory for having ignored the

relation between ideologies and policies. Stanley Hoffman criticizes this theory because it

ignores the discussion of ends.

Thirdly, the realistic theory is also criticized because it is formulated based on the assumption

that all men and states seeks their national interests in terms of power. It considers that clash

of interest is the sole aspects of international politics. If this is so, there would be constant

struggle going in between various states and there would be no systematic conduct of

international relations. Here, the question naturally rises is about the fate of peace. For, if all

nations try to achieve their national interest, a clash of interests will then be an inevitable

result and international politics will appear as an endless struggle for power. Moreover, the

periods of peace will then be considered as deviations from the theory. Therefore, critics

point out the clash of interest cannot be considered as the sole aspect of international politics.

In fact, the elements of mutual co-operation at all levels among the members of international

community exercise profound influence on the conduct of international behaviour. Further,

21st century is known for more and more co-operation and co-ordination among various

nation states to solve the common problems of humanity. Even the decades old enemy states

realized the compelling importance of peace, co-existence and co-operation. India and

Pakistan are the recent test case.

Fourthly, the theory wrongly assumes that power is the most important tool which the nations

pursue. But Morgenthau ignores the other considerations like wealth, trade, investment,

cultural exchange, security, protection, people to people contact, non-governmental

organization, pressure group, religion values also greatly influence the actions of the states.

Fifthly, the idea of an objective national interest is also questionable in the world of

globalization. It makes sense only in the earlier periods in which the survival of the units of

International politics is rarely at stake and in which the states pursue limited ends and limited

end. As such the concept of national interest is of little use in the period of free flow of

9

capital, goods, technology, services and human resources. The multinationals emerge as

major non state actors without any national identity.

Sixthly, theory is defective for it treats the world as a static unit in which power is a

permanent guiding factor. This principle is against the well accepted fact that nations and

national interest keep on changing from time to time. As mentioned earlier, the globalization

has drastically changed the concept of nation states than ever before. Conflict, relations and

confidence building measures are the main mantras of so many antagonistic states for they

realized the negative impact of conflict and war.

Seventhly, Morgenthau’s theory is also open to criticism because it holds that there is hardly

any relationship or activity that does not involve power. But there exist a lot of non-political

activities than political now a days which do not involve power. For example International

sports, conferences, flow of goods, services, labour, books, informations, academic exchange,

students visit, pilgrimages, religions and trade union activities, tourism, circulation of books,

newsletter, information, private letters, e-mail, telegram etc are not political activities.

Further, Morgenthau failed to suggest any criteria for the separation of political activities

from the non-political activities.

Finally, Prof. Hans Morgenthau’s theory is defective and is very much confusing. One of his

six principles it regards the political sphere as autonomous as the sphere of economics, or

lawyers or the moralists. But he is not clear in his mind as to what type of autonomy he had

been talking about. In his book ‘Politics among Nations’, he points out that a political realist

think in term of limited variables – interest; the lawyer of the conformity of action with legal

rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles. But in his book

Dilemmas of politics he asserts that politics must play the role of the common integrating

core. To him politics must be connected with all the variables with which the other

specialized spheres deal. So all contradictions lead to more confusion.

But, in spite of these deficiencies, it is worthwhile to bear in mind that Morgenthau’s theory

was a pioneering contribution towards the development of international theory. His theory

was the starting point for providing us theoretical orientation to the study of international

relations. And it was he who gave order and meaning to mass of international phenomena or

for even the scholars who criticize the bases of realism have tended implicitly to rely on

realistic perspectives, which is a great compliment to this approach. There is no doubt that

10

Morgenthau’s realist theory occupied the most important place in the study of international

relations.

The Idealistic Approach

Some thinkers and practitioners of world politics reject the idea that international affairs must

or should be played according to the dictates of power politics. Those who hold this belief

are called idealists. The important writers and leaders in whose works the approach found

expression include Jean Jacques Rosseau, Condorect, Kant, Woodrow Wilson, Saint Simon,

William Lodd, Richard Colden, Adous Husley, Berterand Russell, Mahatma Gandhi, Jimmy

Carter etc.,

Idealists trace their intellectual roots in part to the French philosopher

Rousseau which are reflected from Fragment on war. He says: “When thousands of bellicose

people have slaughtered their prisoners, when thousands of doctors in the keep of tyrants

have justified these crimes do in truth man’s error matter or their barbarity to justice? Let us

not search for what has been done but rather for what should be done and let us dismiss evil

and mercenary authorities who end up by making men slaves, evil and miserable. In 1795

Condoreet wrote a treatise which contained everything considered as the essential basis of

idealism in the International Relations. He visualized a world order free from war, inequality

and tyranny. This new order would be marked by constant progress in human welfare

brought about by the use of season, education and science. Kant also made a strong plea for

the prevention of war among states and creation of conditions for permanent peace. The

greatest advocate of idealist approach was President Wilson of USA who gave a concrete

shape to his idealism through the text of the Treaty of Versailles. He laid foundation for an

international organization for world peace by settling the disputes peacefully. The idealist

regard power struggle and conflicts as nothing but passing phase of history. They advocate

their theory with the assumption that the interests of various groups or nations are likely to be

adjusted in the larger interest of the mankind as a whole.

Idealists differ from realist in number of ways. First, they do not believe that acquiring,

preserving and applying power must be essence of International relations. They argue that,

instead of being based on power, foreign policy should be formulated according to co-

operative and ethical standards. Idealist also dismiss the charge of some realists that pursuing

ethical policy works against the national interest. Idealists further argue that the world must

11

seek a new system of order. The current would system is based primarily on sovereign states

that define, promote and defend their own interest. There is no effective central authority in

the world political system to regulate the relations among countries like the domestic political

system which have governments to regulate relations among the citizens.

Idealists have never been comfortable with the present world system based on sovereignty,

but they argue that it is imperative to find new organizational path to co-operation. The

spread of nuclear weapons, increasing economic interdependence among countries,

globalization, declining world resources, the daunting gap between rich and poor,

international terrorism, global warning must compel humanity to learn to co-operate more

fully because they are in grave danger of suffering a catastrophe of unparalleled propositions.

“An approach is a set of standards governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions and

data for academic purposes. It implies looking at a problem from a particular angel and

explaining the phenomenon from the same angle. At present many important antagonist

nation sate players in spite of their contrasting interests and ideology started realizing the

importance of co-operation, co-existence and development to reduce tension, hatred and war.

The recent confidence building measures initiated between India and China and India and

Pakistan demonstrated the leadership resolve to solve their traditional disputes through

negotiations and also through the promotion of multifaceted relations.

Based on their experiences, idealists argue that humans and their countries are capable of

achieving more cooperative, less conflictive relations. In this sense, idealists traced their

intellectual lineage to Rousseau. Humans joined together in civil societies, because they

“realized the point at which the obstacles were greater than the resources at the disposal of

each individual”. Having come to that point, people realized that the primitive condition can

then survive no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of

existence”. The possession of nuclear weapons by China, India and Pakistan compelled the

leaders to find ways and means to promote co-operation through soft borders instead of

prolonging the conflict.

Idealists are more encouraged by some developing trends in recent years like the emergence

of terrorism as a major threat to majority of states, spread of democracy and globalization.

Terrorism has become a unifying force among the important countries of the world for it has

emerged as a major challenge for international security and peace. Further, the third

democratic way sweeping the East European Countries and the possible fourth democratic

12

were spreading among the Islamic countries may democratize the decision making process

with more and more open diplomacy. Globalization is encouraging free flow of goods,

services capital, human resources and technology compelled even many traditional enemies

to go for a soft trader for promoting more trade and people to people contact.

Finally, idealist criticize bitter fruit of real politik. They argue that practicing power politics is

both futile and destructive. Because states intend to achieve balance of power on equilibrium

will never satisfy for the concept equilibrium or Balance is highly complex that would be

unlikely to be effective in securing peace. Therefore, the idealist charge that power politics

leads to an unending cycle of conflict and misery, in which safety temporary at best.

However, scholars are not ready to accept idealistic approach in International politics of

contrasting calculation and interest. Firstly, the critics argue that an ideal peaceful system

could emerge only be following moral principles in mutual relations in place of power; which

is not possible in practice. Secondly, to bring about such an order the totalitarian or

imperialist forces must be crushed by all means through the use of democratic methods and

the last necessity the establishment of the world government. But democratizing the whole

world is not an easy matter. Gorbachev Jailed to civilize the Soviets through democratic

means. Democracy is a highly matured form of political system should be a success among

the people who are highly matured politically. Otherwise, state will face more anarchy,

violence, bloodshed and even disintegration on ethnic ground. Therefore, imposing

democracy among the politically inexperienced people will be counter-productive.

Another criticism against the theory is that it runs short of factual position. The nations do

not behave as they are expected for all are after increasing their power and influence. As a

result realism in international relations appears to all more near the practical truth. A rigid

adherence to idealism by any state surrendered by the states with the expansionist “An

approach is a set of standards governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions and data for

academic purposes. It implies looking at a problem from a particular angel and explaining

the phenomenon from the same angle. “An approach is a set of standards governing the

inclusion and exclusion of questions and data for academic purposes. It implies looking at a

problem from a particular angel and explaining the phenomenon from the same angle. “An

approach is a set of standards governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions and data for

academic purposes. It implies looking at a problem from a particular angel and explaining the

phenomenon from the same angle ideology is likely to lead to frustration. India’s initiate for

13

peaceful co-existence or panchasheel was counter-productive when China invaded an

unprepared India and occupied its territories.

Therefore, some Scholars advocate a middle course. This middle course is called Eclecticism,

which others synthesis of the pessimism of realists and the optimism of idealists. Carr has

rightly suggested that the combination of realism and idealism is the best solution. He says

“where Utopianism has become a hollow and intolerable sham, which serves merely as a

disguise for the interest of the privileged, the realists perform an indispensable service in

unmasking it. But pure realism can offer nothing but a naked struggle for power, which

makes any kind of international society impossible. Having demolished the current utopia

with the weapons of realism, we still need to build a new utopia of our own, which will one

day fall to the seam weapons. Prof. Quincy Wright terms ‘realism’, and ‘idealism’ as

ambiguous. They can at the most used to distinguish between short run and long run policies.

Realism would aim at the fulfilment of the short run national policy aimed at the fulfilment of

the immediate necessities and idealism on the other hand represents the long run policy and

would aim at the objective to be realized in the future. In fact neither of these two approaches

is hardly correct and both possess objective merits and demerits. Therefore, for a balanced

understanding of international relations it is desirable that realism and idealism must be

intermingled.

Nature and Functioning of the Sovereign State System

The sovereign state system is also known as the Western state system, the nation-state system

and the national state system. The State system, in the words of Palmer and Perkins, is the

pattern of political life in which people are separately organized into sovereign states that

interact with one another in varying degrees and in varying ways. The nation-state system

constitutes the very basis of international relations.

The present state system is the continuation and development of the nation state system that

was born in Europe. The driving forces of contemporary international relations-nationalism,

sovereignty and other chief characteristics like foreign policy, diplomacy, national power,

balance of power, collective security, war, international law and international organization

were the result of the nation state system and became progressively pronounced with every

advance in the progress of the system. Coulombs and Wolfe rightly observe since the study of

international relations focuses primarily on the relations between nation-states, it is necessary

14

to analyze in some depth the social and ethnic composition of these relatively persistent units

of political action. Even if we were to assume that nation states are transitory phenomena

gradually being replaced by non-state actors, contemporary reality is such that most

individuals look to their nation-states for protection, identity and direction.

State and Nation

The terms state and nation have different meanings, yet they are often used interchangeably.

A state comes into existence when a people are residing in a definite territory under its own

sovereign government. According to this definition a state is made of four elements a people,

a territory, a government and the attribute of sovereignty. 

Since the French Revolution nationalism became the spiritual and emotional force

strengthening together all the elements of statehood in nation states. Whenever the nation

state was a reality, nationalism supported and reinforced the state; where it remained an

aspiration, nationalism endangered the existing multinational unit. Thus, relation between the

state and the nation became a subject of careful analysis.

Sovereignty

The Territorial awareness implies the exclusiveness of jurisdiction of a state within a defined

boundaries. Here the state exercises a complete and unrestrained authority and this supreme

authority is known as sovereignty. The doctrine of sovereignty emerged along with the nation

state system. It was evolved as a part of the supremacy won after a difficult and long struggle

of the political power over the papal power. Thinkers like Bodin, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke,

Rousseau, Hegel, Austin, and Herald Laski also contributed towards the doctrine

of sovereignty from seventeenth to twentieth century.

On the one hand, sovereignty has been regarded as the supreme political characteristic or the

central legal formula of international society on the other, its allegedly outdated nature has

been blamed for the present malaise of international life. Jean Bodin’s definition made in

1576 that sovereignty is the supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law is

still relevant even though Bodin’s sovereign unrestrained absolutist ruler has how been

replaced by the restrained nation. We are not concerned with the controversy around the

source and justification of the sovereignty, its relations with the citizens, its location, and the

15

issue of whether it can be divided or not. Sovereignty has both internal and external

aspects. But international relations is concerned only with external sovereignty which means

freedom to conduct foreign relations, its impact upon international life in general and the

state system in particular.

External sovereignty strengthens the state in two principal ways, first, the equality of status,

and second, freedom in the determination of foreign relations. Theoretically this freedom is

absolute but an international system consisting of completely sovereign states is not feasible

as anarchist society consisting of fully free individuals. A compromise has been gradually

reached between state sovereignty and a modicum of international order on the lines of

reconciliation between individual freedom and authority within the state. The absolute

sovereignty or the power monism of the Austinian type have become obsolete in the modern

international life. The historical experience of the state-system clearly shows that the nation

states have, from time to time, shared sovereignty for accomplishing national interests.

With the passing of time nation states are no longer fastidious about external sovereignty.

The doctrine of sovereignty has suffered a setback. It has been receded owing to various

factors such as advancement of science and technology resulting in the decline of the

territorial state rise of class interests instead of national interests; the proliferation of

sovereign states that led to a feeling of coexistence among them common political, economic

and environmental problems of the states; economic interdependence; emergence of

international organizations and non-state performers fear of a total war etc. In such a situation

nation states prefer giving up absolute sovereignty to denial of their own existence. Thus

sovereignty is not absolute and does not obstruct the interaction among states and their

integration into larger units. No doubt sovereignty has witnessed a decline and recession in

the present times yet it has neither been abandoned completely nor considered invalid.

16

Unit II

Power in International Relations

In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of

people. The term "authority" is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social

structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as

endemic to humans as social beings. In business, power is often expressed as being "upward"

or "downward". With downward power, a company's superior influences subordinates. When

a company exerts upward power, it is the subordinates who influence the decisions of their

leader or leaders. The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion).

At one extreme, it more closely resembles what English-speaking people might term

"influence", although some authors distinguish "influence" as a means by which power is

used. Much of the recent sociological debate about power revolves around the issue of its

means to enable. In other words, power is a means to make social actions possible as much

as it may constrain or prevent them. The philosopher Michel Foucault saw power as a

structural expression of "a complex strategic situation in a given social setting" that requires

both constraint and enablement.

Nature of Power

Power in international relations is defined in several different ways. Political scientists,

historians, and practitioners of international relations (diplomats) have used the following

concepts of political power:

Power as a goal of states or leaders;

Power as a measure of influence or control over outcomes, events, actors and issues;

Power as reflecting victory in conflict and the attainment of security;

Power as control over resources and capabilities;

Power as status, which some states or actors possess and others do not.

Modern discourse generally speaks in terms of state power, indicating both economic and

military power. Those states that have significant amounts of power within the international

system are referred to as middle powers, regional powers, great powers, superpowers, or

hegemons, although there is no commonly accepted standard for what defines a powerful

17

state. The G7, the BRIC and the G20 are seen as forum of governments that exercise varying

degrees of influence within the international system.

Entities other than states can also acquire and wield power in international relations. Such

entities can include multilateral international organizations, military alliance organizations

like NATO, and multinational corporations like Wal-Mart, non-governmental organizations,

the Roman Catholic Church, Al-Qaeda, or other institutions such as the Hanseatic League.

Power as a Goal

Primary usage of "power" as a goal in international relations belongs to political theorists,

such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Hans Morgenthau. Economic growth, military growth,

cultural spread etc. can all be considered as working towards the ultimate goal of

international power.

Power as Influence

Political scientists principally use "power" in terms of an actor's ability to exercise influence

over other actors within the international system. This influence can be coercive, attractive,

cooperative, or competitive. Mechanisms of influence can include the threat or use of force,

economic interaction or pressure, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.

Power as Security

Power is also used when describing states or actors that have achieved military victories or

security for their state in the international system. This general usage is most commonly

found among the writings of historians or popular writers. For instance, a state that has

achieved a string of combat victories in a military campaign against other states can be

described as powerful. An actor that has succeeded in protecting its security, sovereignty, or

strategic interests from repeated or significant challenge can also be described as powerful.

Power as Capability

American author Charles W. Freeman, Jr. described power as the following:

Power is the capacity to direct the decisions and actions of others. Power derives from

strength and will. Strength comes from the transformation of resources into capabilities. Will

infuses objectives with resolve. Strategy marshals capabilities and brings them to bear with

18

precision. Statecraft seeks through strategy to magnify the mass, relevance, impact, and

irresistibility of power. It guides the ways the state deploys and applies its power abroad.

These ways embrace the arts of war, espionage, and diplomacy. The practitioners of these

three arts are the paladins of statecraft.

Power is also used to describe as the resources and capabilities of a state. This definition is

quantitative and is most often used by geo-politicians and the military. Capabilities are

thought of in tangible terms—they are measurable, weighable, quantifiable assets. Thomas

Hobbes spoke of power as "present means to obtain some future apparent good." Hard power

can be treated as a potential and is not often enforced on the international stage. Chinese

strategists have such a concept of national power that can be measured quantitatively using an

index known as comprehensive national power.

Spheres, Blocs, and Alliances

Under certain circumstances, states can organize a sphere of influence or a bloc within which

they exercise predominant influence. Historical examples include the spheres of influence

recognized under the Concert of Europe, or the recognition of spheres during the Cold War

following the Yalta Conference. The Warsaw Pact, the "Free World", and the Non-Aligned

Movement were the blocs that arose out of the Cold War context. Military alliances like

NATO and the Warsaw Pact are another forum through which influence is exercised.

However, "realist" theory attempted to maintain the balance of power from the development

of meaningful diplomatic relations that can create a hegemony within the region. British

foreign policy, for example, dominated Europe through the Congress of Vienna after the

defeat of France. They continued the balancing act with the Congress of Berlin in 1878, to

appease Russia and Germany from attacking Turkey. Britain has sided against the aggressors

on the European continent—i.e. the German Empire, Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France or

Habsburg Austria, known during the Great War as the Central Powers and, in the World War

Two were called the Axis of Powers.

Meaning of Power

Much effort in academic and popular writing is devoted to deciding which countries have the

status of "power", and how this can be measured. If a country has "power" (as influence) in

military, diplomatic, cultural, and economic spheres, it might be called a "power" (as status).

19

There are several categories of power, and inclusion of a state in one category or another is

fraught with difficulty and controversy.

Methods of Power: Hard, Soft, and Smart Power

Some political scientists distinguish between two types of power: Hard and Soft. The former

is coercive while the latter is attractive.

Hard power refers to coercive tactics: the threat or use of armed forces, economic pressure or

sanctions, assassination and subterfuge, or other forms of intimidation. Hard power is

generally associated with the stronger of nations, as the ability to change the domestic affairs

of other nations through military threats. Realists and neo-realists, such as John Mearsheimer,

are advocates of the use of such power for the balancing of the international system.

Joseph Nye is the leading proponent and theorist of soft power. Instruments of soft power

include debates on cultural values, dialogues on ideology, the attempt to influence through

good example, and the appeal to commonly accepted human values. Means of exercising soft

power include diplomacy, dissemination of information, analysis, propaganda, and cultural

programming to achieve political ends.

Others have synthesized soft and hard power, including through the field of smart power.

This is often a call to use a holistic spectrum of statecraft tools, ranging from soft to hard.

Kinds of Power

In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of

power, which include the following:

Superpower: In 1944, William T. R. Fox defined superpower as "great power plus great

mobility of power" and identified 3 states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the

United States of America. With the steady decline of the British Empire by the mid-1950s

and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States is currently the only country

considered to be a superpower.

Great power: In historical mentions, the term great power refers to the states that have

strong political, cultural and economic influence over nations around them and across the

world.

20

Regional power: Used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a

region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of

power. A primary regional power has often an important role in international affairs outside

of its region too.

Middle power: A subjective description of influential second-tier states that could not

quite be described as great or small powers. The majority of them exert a strategic degree of

influence as minor or secondary regional powers. A middle power has sufficient strength and

authority to stand on its own without the need of help from others.

Small power: The International System is for the most part made up by small powers.

They are instruments of the other powers and may at times be dominated; but they cannot be

ignored.

Elements of National Power

It is very difficult to categorize power factors for the world in complex. Scholars have

grouped power factors according to a variety of categories and sub categories, with one

common distinction being between tangible and intangible factors of power. This distinction

is an important one. The elements of tangible power are those that can be readily measured.

Population, industrial output, and number of soldiers, warships are examples. Elements of

intangible power are those that cannot be measured easily. Leadership is an example.

Further, there are problems with the distinction between tangible and intangible also. For

example “education”. An educated population is an asset, but is it tangible or intangible? We

can count the number of people educated and measure the amount of their education. This

makes education somewhat tangible. Then there is the quality of education, somewhat

tangible. Then there is the quality of education, which is not tangible. Likewise, the number

of tanks and military forces are tangible but the technological sophistication, moral and

quality of the commanders and soldiers are intangible. In reality all these factors work

together on the battlefield. Based on this background let us examine those determinants

which serve as the basis of the foundation of political power.

1. National Geography

The importance of geographical factor has been recognized since ancient civilization.

Ancient Greeks prefer red small city states. The location of a country, particularly in relation

21

to other countries, is significant. This significance of the Chinese army as a power factor is

different for the country’s relations with Canada and Russia. The huge Chinese Army can do

little to threaten Canada for across the Pacific Ocean. By contrast, Russia and China have a

border, and Peoples Liberation Army could march into Siberia. Similarly, England and Japan

being islands have been more secure. The English Channel has helped to save England from

European conquest for nine centuries.

Topography or configuration of land - its mountains, rivers, and plains – is also important in

determination of a nation’s power. Topographic features determine the natural boundaries

between the states and set limit to their natural expansion. The topography exercises great

influence in other ways also. The high mountains give adequate rainfall and acts as barriers

in trade routes. Likewise large rivers can be helpful in providing cheap and efficient water

transport, good ports and harbour.

Another geographical factor is the size and shape of a country. A country’s size and shape

can be an advantage, a disadvantage, or both. The vast land Russia, for example, saved it

from Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler. By contrast Israel’s, size gives it no room to

retreat, and in particular, its east – west narrowness leaves it in constant dangers of being cut

into two. Similarly, a country’s climate also plays a powerful role.

However, the geographic factor has lost much of its importance in recent times because of the

advancement in Science and Technology, air mobility, ICBM systems, nuclear weapons,

intelligence gathering, space satellites and fast transport.

2. People

The second element of the national core is a country’s human characteristics. As is true for

geographic size, the size of a country’s population can be a positive or a negative factor.

Generally a large population is considered as a source of strength because it supplies military

personnel and industrial workers. A large population may also be disadvantageous. For

instance India had a tough time during 60’s to feed its population. Even now population

explosion is a major problem for India. But in developed countries it is a source of strength.

However, the strength of the country does not depend on the number of people alone. The

quality of the population is even more important.

22

3. National Character and Morals

A final factor that effects the population element of national power is the national character

and morale of a country’s citizens. It was due to the national character of the small European

nations, that for long they could dominate the large Asian and African nations. National

morale is defined as the degree of determination with which a nation supports the foreign

policies of its government in peace or in war. In the form of public opinion it provides an

intangible factor without whose support no government democratic or autocratic, is able to

pursue with full effectiveness. At the same time, the collapse of morale can bring about civil

unrest, fall of government and even disintegration of a nation state.

4. Leadership

“I am afraid of an army of ten thousand goats led by a lion than an army of ten thousand lions

led by a goat” skill Leadership also adds to the governments, Leadership is one of the most

intangible elements of national power. Leadership plays a major role in establishing will,

strength it also often influence and how well an actor takes advantage of other parameters of

power. Leadership may be either jointly managed or undertaken individually, but in either

case it is a key. Particularly, during the time of peace and prosperity, decision often maker

prefer leadership roles to be shaped. Conversely, during periods of economic and military

crises, actors often opt for a more centralized form of leadership. This phenomenon occurs in

democratic as well as authoritarian societies.

5. The National Infrastructure

The infrastructure of a state might roughly be equated with skeleton of a human body for a

building, its infrastructure would be the foundation. Likewise for a developed state its

infrastructure is the back bone. To examine the infrastructure of the state as an element of

national power let us discuss technological sophistication, transportation systems and

information and communication capabilities.

6. Technological sophistication

From the industrial revolution, technology has come to exercise profound influence on the

power base of a state as well as the course of international relations. A country with more

fire power and latest technology was able to expand it frontier of influence. In the modern

era technology plays important role in three areas: industrial, communication and defence.

23

The industrial technological Sophistication in the USA, Japan, South Korea and West

European countries put them war ahead of other countries. These countries, because of their

technological sophistication, increase its production and attaining economic surplus. The

military technology has played more decisive role in international politics. Similarly, a

country’s information and communication capabilities are becoming increasingly important.

In short, technological sophistication at all levels is an important factor in determining the

power of a state.

7. The National Economy

Another factor which could be considered for power calculation is a country’s economic

strength. The center of any country’s health is its basic financial position. The growth of the

gross national product, international reserves, (holdings of foreign currency and gold), the

balance of payments, the sum of all the flow of money in and out of a country, and the budget

surplus or deficit of the central government are important measures to understand the

economic strength of any country. Further, the possession or lack of natural resources has

become an increasingly important power factor. However, the natural resources do not by

themselves create power. They have to be exploited with the help of capital technical know-

how and skilled labour.

8. Political Structure

The quality and efficiency of a country’s government or political structure is another element

associated with the natural power. The question is not what form of government, such as

democracy an authoritarian or oligarchy system, a country has. Instead, the issue of

administrative competence: Whether a state has a well-organized and effective administrative

structure to utilize its power potential fully. A country with abundance of raw materials,

natural resources and human resources and good foreign policy would prove useless if the

political structure cannot play its role effectively. The success and failure of any state

depends upon its government ability to choose its objectives, plan on the objectives and

working on the plan by winning the support of the people.

9. Ideology

According to Pedelford and Lincoln, “Ideology is a body of ideas concerning economic social

and political values and goals which pose action programme for attaining these goals.” It

24

proceeds with certain assumptions about the nature of man and builds up a theory of human

history, a moral code of conduct, a sense of mission and a programme of action. Ideology

plays a great unifying force from the inter-war period to the end of cold war.

10.The Military

Another important category of power which has been recognized since the earliest period is

military. Like the other categories it has tangible aspects, such as spending and weapons

levels, and intangible aspects such as leadership a morale. Throughout history, a state with

dynamic leadership, superior army with latest weapon system subdued and controlled the

other civilizations. Therefore, almost all state players are very particular about a strong

military force either to defend its territorial integrity or with the purpose of expanding its

frontier of influence. Without a strong military force no country can play respectable role in

international politics. But over emphasizing the importance of military might at the expense

of nation’s economy is also dangerous. For instance ancient Sparta and modern Soviet Union

miserably in spite failed their strong military.

11.Diplomacy

A country’s diplomacy must also be considered an element of its power. According to

Morgenthau, it is the quality of nation’s diplomacy which gives direction and weight to other

elements of national power. He said, “Diplomacy is the brain of national power, as national

moral is its sole. If its vision is blurred its judgement defective, and its determination feeble,

all advantages of geographical location of self-sufficiency in food, raw materials and

industrial production, of military preparedness, of size and quality of population will in the

long run avail a nation little. A nation that can boost of all these advantages, but not of a

diplomacy commensurate with them, may achieve temporary success through the sheer

weight of its natural assets. In the long run, it is likely to squander the natural assets by

activating them incompletely, haltingly and wastefully for the nation’s international

objectives. Skilful diplomats could influence other countries to act in ways that will promote

their own country’s interest. Conversely, unskilled diplomats allowed other countries to

improve their positions relative to the diplomats own country by inattention to detail, by

failing to think through implications of the agreement, by not staying attuned to ongoing

events, and in many other ways.

25

12.Allies

The last element of national power of a country is its dependable and strong allies, even

though it is surrounded by antagonistic powers. Israel and Kuwait are the small Middle East

states heavily depending on American Security cover. However, a country heavily depending

on another country for its national security cannot play effective role in international politics.

Definition of Foreign Policy

The world is becoming a global village day by day. Therefore in modern times, no state can

isolate itself from international affair states are adopting different strategies to deal with other

states in order to promote their national interest. The principles and purpose of a state is

reflected in the foreign policy. Foreign policies are the strategies used by governments to

guide their actions in the international arena. Foreign policies spell out the objectives state

leaders have decided to pursue in a given relationship or situation as well as the general

means by which they intend to pursue those objectives. Prof. Joseph Frankel says that

“foreign policy consists of decisions and actions which involve to some appreciable extent

relations between one state and others. Cecil V. Crabb Jr., defines as “....reduced to its most

fundamental ingredients, foreign policy consists of two elements: national objectives to be

achieved and means for achieving them. The interaction between national goals and the

resources for attaining them is the perennial of statecraft. In its ingredients the foreign policy

of all nations, great and small is the same.”

According to Padelford and Lincoln, “A state’s foreign policy is the totality of its dealings

with the external environment. Foreign policy is more than the collection of official

documents, formal records of actions and public statements. A foreign policy statement can

be simple and succinct... or it may be complicated and imprecise... policy is the overall result

of the process by which a state translation its broadly conceived goals and interests into

specific course of action in order to achieve its objective and preserve its interest”. Charles

Burton Marshall defines foreign policy as “the course of action undertaken by authority of

state and intended to affect situations beyond the span of its jurisdiction”. From the above

definitions, it has been understood an all scholars agree that the foreign policy is concerned

with the behaviour of a state towards others.

26

Imperialism & Neo-Colonialism

What is Imperialism?

Imperialism is the process of extending the rule of government beyond the Boundaries of its

original state. Imperialism establishes a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state

uses direct military or Economic means, to control the political sovereignty of another

Political entity. Imperialism therefore implies the policy of extending the control or authority

over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through

direct control of territories or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics

or economies of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country

in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country

calls itself an empire. Imperialists normally hold the belief that the acquisition and

maintenance of empires is a positive good, combined with an assumption of cultural or other

such superiority inherent to imperial power. However, imperialism has often been considered

to be an exploitative evil. Marxists use the term imperialism as Lenin defined it: "the highest

stage of capitalism", specifically the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes

dominant, forcing the empires to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over

resources and markets all over the world. This control may take the form of geopolitical

machinations, military adventures, or financial manoeuvres. It is worth noting that Marx

himself did not propound a theory of imperialism, and in contrast with later Marxist thinkers

generally saw the colonialism of European powers as having a progressive aspect, rather

than seeing it as the pillage of those countries in favour of the European centre countries.

Objectives of Imperialism

EconomicGain: to secure raw materials, or gain access to trade routes or to the sea

National Prestige: imperialism is often portrayed as `manifest destiny' or intrinsic

superiority

Military or Defense Needs: to gain control over strategic areas

Surplus Population: over populated states can find relief through migration to colonies

`White Man's Burden': obligation to civilize savages

Marxist-Leninist View: imperialism compelled by control markets for surplus

production and investment, Communists were imperialist too.

27

Examples of Imperialism

US Imperialism: under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) the US exerted control over

Latin America under the guise of protecting interference of the European powers in the

affairs of independent states of the New World.

Russian Imperialism:  initially the imperialistic urge was confined to contiguous

territories but with advent of the Cold War, Russian imperialism spread to the Asian, African

and South American continents, filling in the vacuum left by the decreasing influence

of colonial European powers.

Japanese Imperialism: As Japan industrialized and became increasingly militarized

prior to the World War-II, it annexed parts of Korea and China. Thereafter Japanese

imperialistic influence has primarily become economic later it ventured its capital investment

into technology. Through the science and technology particularly the electronic industrial

based economic growth and its expansion of market across the globe made Japan as

Economic super power.

Definition of Neo-Colonialism

Neo-colonialism implies political control of an underdeveloped people whose socio economic

life is directed by a former colonial power. Dependency Theorists like Andre Gunter Frank

argued that neo-economic colonialism would lead to net transfer of wealth from the

underdeveloped colonies to colonial powers, inhibiting successful development.

The essence of neo-colonialism in terms of economic is that the state, which is subject to this

phenomenon is in the ‘theory of independent’ and has all outward trappings of international

sovereignty, but in reality its economic system and its political policy is directed from the

outside. The 3rd All Parties African People's Conference held in Cairo in 1961 described Neo-

Colonialism as: "the economic infiltration by a foreign power after independence, through

capital investment loans and monetary aids or technical experts, of unequal concessions,

particularly those extending for loan periods”.

28

Why Neo-Colonialism Occurs

Weakness and growing resentment after WW II made direct colonization impractical.

Previously united colonial territories were divided into mostly unviable states, compelling

them to depend on their former colonial powers for economic and defense needs

to fund welfare policies within their own countries, former colonial powers needed resources

which were

easy to generate through former colonies still reliant on them, thus encouraging neo-colonial t

ies to develop.

Types of Neo-Colonialism

Economic Dependencies: control over financial strings of nation allows control over its politi

cal and social institutions as well.

Satellites: formal independence but political and economic control still exercised by colonial 

power. Control

exercised by colonial power over a satellite is more extensive than that exercised by

imperial states.

Balance Of Power: Definition

It is very difficult to come with an exact and acceptable definition of Balance of power.

Martin Wright said; “the notion is notoriously full of confusion”. However, the main idea of

balance of power is to achieve ‘equilibrium’ to avoid one or group powers to dominate

international politics. Palmer and Perkins said “…. that through shifting alliances and

countervailing pressures, no one power or combination of powers will be allowed to grow so

strong as to threaten the security of the rest.” Prof. Sydney B-Fay speaks of balance of power

as just, “equilibrium in power among the members of the family of nations as will prevent

any or one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the others.”

Similarly George Schwarzenberger speaks as “an equilibrium or a certain amount of stability

in international relations.”

According to Lord Castlercagh, balance of power may be described as “the maintenance of

such just equilibrium between the members of family of nations as should present any of

them becoming sufficiently strong to impose its will upon the rest”. Quincy Wright described

balance of power as “a system designed to maintain a continuous an invincible combination

of the others”. To Prof. Morgenthau, “it is an actual state of affairs in which power is

29

distributed among several nations with approximate equality. Thus, in its pure form the

balance of power means the maintenance of an equilibrium in international politics so that no

state or states can be an aggressor. In other words we can say that the theory an application

of the checks and balance theory of domestic policies to international politics. The main

purpose of balance of power is to establish or maintain such a distribution of power among

states as will prevent anyone of them from imposing its will upon another by the threat or use

of violence. Though peace is not the real purpose, indirectly by keeping a balance the nation

players admire peace in spite of continuous uncertainty and tension.

The theory is mainly based on certain assumptions. First, balance of power implies that states

are determined to protect their vital interest by all means at their disposal, including war. The

vital interests of the states refer to such values as independence, territorial integrity, security,

preservation of the domestic political or economic system etc. Second, it is assumed that the

vital interest of the state may be threatened by other players of world politics, in one way or

other. Therefore, a system of balance of power is a necessity in international politics. Third,

a balanced power, it is assumed, will deter an aggressive adversary state from launching an

attack on other. Four, the relative power position of states can be measured with a significant

degree of accuracy and this helps projection of proper policy for the future. Fifth, it is

assured that statesmen can and will make foreign policy decisions on the basis of power

consideration. Collective security in international relation, is the commitment of a group of

states to maintain the security of each member by co-operating in measures to prevent or

frustrate aggression against any of them by another member of the group. It also implies

acceptance by all members of rules of international law defining and prohibiting aggression

and of the procedures for applying them. George Sehwarzenherger defines collective

security as a machinery for joint action in order to prevent or counter any attack an

established international order. According to Prof.Charles P. Schleicher, “Collective security

is an arrangement among states in which all promises, in the event of any member of the

system engages in certain prohibited acts against another member, to come to the latter’s

assistance.” While traditional international law leaves the enforcement of its rules to the

injured nation, collective security envisages the enforcement of the rules of international law

by all the members of the community of nations, whether or not they have suffered injury in

the particular case. In real sense collective security presents the ideal solution of the problem

of law enforcement in a community of sovereign states. It assumes that common action will

30

be taken against any member of the group that is found to have committed an act of

aggression with in the group.

Devices for maintaining the Balance of Power

Balancing is a dynamic affair and equilibrium is temporary and unreliable. It requires special

efforts. Among the various devices that are used for maintaining the balance of power the

following methods may be discussed with special emphasis.

Alliances and Counter Alliances

Alliances and Counter alliances are the most commonly employed devices of balance of

power system. It has been the traditional instrument to strengthen one’s position vis-à-vis the

opponent. According to Prof. Morgenthau alliances are necessary functions of the balance of

power operating within a multiple system. When a state feels that it cannot defend itself

against another big state, it enters into alliance with another state or states in order to deter the

powerful state form its aggressive design. It is again maintained that the greater the number

of nations involved in the system of alliances, the greater is the balances of power will work

in the satisfactory manner and the smaller the number of nation involved in alliances the

more rigid and unworkable the balance is likely to became.

The alliances are two types offensive and defensive. The third type is progressive alliances.

The offensive alliance seeks to upset the balance of power in favour of its members and a

defensive alliance aims at restoring the balance. Further, the alliances are built up out of

necessity of common interests and are treated against a common enemy. For, instance, the

U.S.A. and the Soviet joined together against the Nazis and fascists. The end of 20th century

and the present century is known for progressive alliances among nations to achieve

economic co-operation. There are so many regional organizations formed to promote

operation and to avoid conflict. An alliance is concluded when there is a feeling of

community of interests among the nations concerned. Another, factor of common ideology

and common interest. There are other factors like strategy, geography, cultural similarities,

economic interdependence also help nations to form alliances.

European history is familiar for alliances and counter alliances. Counter alliances are formed

mainly because of fear factor. In order to restore the balances of power when the same is

threatened by other states who have entered into a system of alliances.

31

Allegiance

An allegiance is a duty of fidelity said to be owed, or freely committed, by the

people, subjects or citizens to their state or sovereign. In a same way, a sovereign state can

also assure its allegiance to a particular country. This happens mostly where a weak state, in

terms of economy, population, territory, military, etc. pledges its allegiance to a powerful

state, for its own benefit. Many of the small island states pledges its allegiance to a super

power or a regional power.

Isolationism

It is a category of foreign policies institutionalized by leaders who assert that their nations'

best interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One

possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into

dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from

avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

Isolationism can be defined as:

A policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by

declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements,

and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the

entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically,

while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

Korea - In 1863, Emperor Gojong took the throne of the Joseon Dynasty when he was a

child. His father, Regent Heungseon Daewongun, ruled for him until Gojong reached

adulthood. During the mid-1860s he was the main proponent of isolationism and the principal

instrument of the persecution of both native and foreign Catholics. Following the division of

the peninsula after independence from Japan in 1945–48, Kim il-Sung inaugurated an

isolationist totalitarian regime in the North, which has been continued by

his son and grandson to the present day. North Korea is often referred to as "The Hermit

Kingdom".

Peaceful coexistence 

It was a theory developed and applied by the Soviet Union at various points during the Cold

War in the context of primarily Marxist–Leninist foreign policy and was adopted by Soviet-

32

allied socialist states that they could peacefully coexist with the capitalist bloc (i.e., U.S.-

allied states). This was in contrast to the antagonistic contradiction principle

that socialism and capitalism could never coexist in peace. The Soviet Union applied it to

relations between the western world, particularly between the United States

and NATO countries and the nations of the Warsaw Pact.

Debates over differing interpretations of peaceful coexistence were one aspect of the Sino-

Soviet split in the 1950s and 1960s. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the People's Republic

of China under the leadership of its founder, Mao Zedong, popularly called as Mao, argued

that a belligerent attitude should be maintained towards capitalist countries, and so initially

rejected the peaceful coexistence theory as essentially Marxist revisionism. However, their

decision in 1972 to establish a trade relationship with the United States also saw China

cautiously adopting a version of the theory to relations between itself and non-socialist

countries. From that point through to the early 1980s and Socialism with Chinese

characteristics, China increasingly extended its own peaceful coexistence concept to include

all nations.

In South Asia, though India and Pakistan has fought wars between them and there are serious

issues of state sponsored terrorism from the Pakistani side, a condition of peaceful

coexistence has been put in place by India that is helping both the nations though there are

issues persisting in many areas of their relations particularly with security.

Neutrality

The legal status arising from the abstention of a state from all participation in a war between

other states, the maintenance of an attitude of impartiality toward the belligerents, and the

recognition by the belligerents of this abstention and impartiality. Under international

law this legal status gives rise to certain rights and duties between the neutral and the

belligerents. A neutral country is one that chooses not to take part in a War between

other countries. International law allows a country to remain neutral during a period of war

between two or more states When a country declares it is neutral, it cannot allow any part of

its territory from becoming a base for one side. It may not construct warships,

recruit soldiers or organize military expeditions on behalf of one. It is also called "armed

neutrality" when declaring itself neutral during a war. This is not the same as "neutralization",

or permanent neutrality. A neutral country is also different from the neutrality claimed

by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or United Nations peacekeeping groups.

33

Bearing in mind the raison d’être of a State, neutrality may be considered an instrument of

foreign policy through which the State pursues its national interests. Traditionally, neutrality

has fulfilled various political functions. Among those so-called “realistic functions,” the most

important objective is to ensure political independence while remaining on the sidelines of

armed conflicts.

Status Quo

It is a term from Power Transition Theory within the wider field of International Relations. It

is used to describe states unlike Revisionist States see the international system of states,

international law and often even free market economics as integral aspects of the

international spectrum that should be upheld. Written on The Origins of Revisionist and

Status-Quo States by J. Davidson, status-quo state seekers strive to preserve things as they

are. Whereas revisionists seek to change the way things are in international politics. When

scholars categorize states as revisionist or status-quo seeking they are able to explain

important outcomes in international politics, such as war and peace.

Generally, there is a direct correlation between a state's hegemony, both political and

economic and its standing as either a Status Quo State or a Revisionist State Powerful and

influential nations in International Relations such as the United Kingdom, France and other

nations like Japan who have benefited from western liberalism, are likely to fall under the

category of Status Quo States, while North Korea, Iran and other nations dissatisfied with

their place on the international stage are often considered Revisionist States.

34

Unit III

Definitions of Diplomacy

Diplomacy, meaning making a deal with other countries, is the art and practice of conducting

negotiations between representatives of states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the

conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with

regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, environment, and human

rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by

national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to

gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one

set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner. It is

the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries.

Diplomacy is skill in dealing with others without causing bad feelings; the profession or skill

of preserving or creating friendly relationships between countries. Diplomacy is the ability to

deal with people in a sensitive way that does not upset or offend them. It is the art and

practice of conducting negotiations between nations (particularly in securing treaties),

including the methods and forms usually employed. Diplomacy is dexterity or skill in

securing advantages; tact. To say nothing, especially when speaking, is half the art of

diplomacy.

The dictionary definition of diplomacy is "the art and practice of conducting negotiations

between nations," and "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility." Reaching back

into antiquity, diplomacy involved mediation, or managing an entity or an individual's

relationships with an "other" (sometimes defined as "enemy," sometimes not). It was only

with the development of the modern state system, dating from the 16th century, that

diplomacy took on its more narrow contemporary meaning: managing the foreign affairs of

states at the governmental level.

To "be diplomatic," however, has long involved astute skills of tactful conciliation and

negotiation. Diplomacy has always included the notion of communication, as well. Added to

those meanings in recent decades have been persuasion, conflict resolution, and a whole host

of managerial activities centered around economic development and nation-building, such as

economic aid and Peace Corps activities. These tasks have required organizational structures

that many nations are now being forced to adjust to significantly changed circumstances.

35

Nature of Diplomacy

Diplomacy is often confused with foreign policy, but the terms are not synonymous. The

foreign policy of a country comprises the general goals it seeks to achieve in its relations with

other countries, together with strategies for achieving them. Diplomacy is the chief, but not

the only, means of carrying out a country's foreign policy. Diplomacy is the art and science of

international politics. It has also acquired a domestic political thrust. Possessing in modern

times the dimension of organization, it faces the serious problem of how personal and

creative political skills in foreign affairs can be married to bureaucratic procedures. If

diplomacy is to be dynamic, capable of providing an effective alternative to war, organization

must become its servant rather than its master. While generally viewed as the means of

carrying out foreign policies, diplomacy generates resources needed for the formulation of

sound policy, and its practitioners should therefore be fully utilized in the policy-forming

process. At the same time, the resources of diplomacy must be considerably amplified in all

its dimensions: intellectual and cultural, political, research and analysis, planning, education

and training, and others. We should develop and use the total human resources of the

diplomatic establishment, including those of consular and junior personnel, in the pursuit of

the nation’s international objectives, providing officers with an education and training

commensurate to the demands placed upon them by modern diplomacy. For this purpose, the

possibilities of a Foreign Service (Foreign Affairs) Academy deserve further consideration.

Diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between states and between states

and other actors. From a state perspective, diplomacy is concerned with advising, shaping and

implementing foreign policy. As such it is the means by which states, through their formal

and other representatives, as well as other actors, articulate, coordinate and secure particular

or wider interests, using correspondence, private talks, exchanges of views, lobbying, visits,

threats and other related activities. Diplomacy is often thought of as being concerned with

peaceful activity, although it may occur within war or armed conflict or be used in the

orchestration of particular acts of violence, such as seeking overflight clearance for an air

strike. The blurring of the line, in fact, between diplomatic activity and violence is one of the

developments distinguishing modern diplomacy. More generally, there is also a widening

content of diplomacy. At one level, the changes in the substantive form of diplomacy are

reflected in terms such as ‘oil diplomacy’, ‘resource diplomacy’, ‘knowledge diplomacy’,

‘global governance’ and ‘transition diplomacy’. Certainly, what constitutes diplomacy today

goes beyond the sometimes rather narrow politico-strategic conception given to the term. Nor

36

is it appropriate to view diplomacy in a restrictive or formal sense as being the preserve of

foreign ministries and diplomatic service personnel. Rather, diplomacy is undertaken by a

wide range of actors, including ‘political’ diplomats, advisers, envoys and officials from a

wide range of ‘domestic’ ministries or agencies with their foreign counterparts, reflecting its

technical content; between officials from different international organizations such as the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations (UN) Secretariat, or involving

foreign corporations and a host government trans-nationally; and with or through non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) and ‘private’ individuals.

However, in terms of diplomatic functions, it is defined here as the acquisition of data from

public sources in a receiving state (such as press, television, radio, journals and other media

outlets) about the reporting or presentation of the sending state. The concern is with the

image being presented of that state, and the accuracy of press reports on its policy or actions

in the media. Monitored reports are used to form the basis for a variety of diplomatic

responses, including press rebuttals by a resident ambassador, television interviews, informal

exchanges, through to formal protest. Other types of monitoring involve detailed tracking of

foreign press, media and other communications sources for information on attitudes, foreign

policy activity and indications of shift or changes. In laying the groundwork or preparing the

basis for a policy or new initiatives, diplomacy aims to float an idea or promote information

or evidence relating to an issue, in order to gain acceptance or political support for the

proposals. The function of international negotiations is at the core of many of the substantive

functions set out so far. It is, however, no longer the preserve of the professional diplomat.

The duty of protection is a traditional function, which has assumed increased significance in

contemporary diplomacy. The growing mobility of citizens, international sporting events and

international conflicts have all added a variety of types of protection problems with which

embassies and consulates now must deal.

In the final category are the diplomatic functions relating to conflict, disputes and

international order. As part of the development of international order, an important function

of diplomacy is the creation, drafting and amendment of a wide variety of international rules

of a normative and regulatory kind that provide structure in the international system. In the

event of potential or actual bilateral or wider conflict or dispute, diplomacy is concerned with

reducing tension, clarification, seeking acceptable formulae and, through personal contact,

‘oiling the wheels’ of bilateral and multilateral relations. An extension of this is contributing

37

to order and orderly change. As Adam Watson suggests: ‘the central task of diplomacy is not

just the management of order, but the management of change and the maintenance by

continued persuasion of order in the midst of change’.

In short, the Nature of Diplomacy are:

Diplomacy is not immoral

Diplomacy is a means of International Relations

Diplomacy is machinery for action

Diplomacy acts through Settled Procedures

Bilateral as well as Multilateral in Form

Diplomacy handles all types of Matters

Breakdown of Diplomacy always leads to Crisis

Diplomacy operates both in times of Peace as well as War

Diplomacy works in an environment characterised both by Conflict and Cooperation

Diplomacy always works for securing national interests of the nation it represents

Diplomacy is backed by National Power

Functions of Diplomacy

Diplomacy serves a number of purposes, all of which are concerned with the implementation

of a state's policy towards other states or non-state actors. Skilful diplomacy projects a

favourable image of a country and in so doing, aids the country in its efforts to achieve its

objectives. The essential functions which diplomacy has fulfilled within the modern states

system include communication, negotiation of agreements, gathering of intelligence or

information, minimalisation of the effects of friction and symbolizing the existence of the

society of states.

Diplomacy facilitates communication between the political leaders of states and other entities

in world politics. Without communication, there would not be any international system as

there will not be any interaction among states. The negotiation of agreements is important for

advancing relationships and achieving mutual benefits. The diplomats have to determine the

areas of overlapping interests and through reason and persuasion bring the parties to some

arrangements. Information and intelligence gathering is an important contribution to the

formulation of a state's coherent and intelligent foreign policy. As policy is not formulated in

a vacuum, knowledge and information about the particular state towards which the policy is

formulated is essential for peaceful inter-state relations. Diplomacy is important for

38

minimizing friction, which is inevitable in inter-state relationships. Friction is a source of

tension and discord that may be unrelated to the true interests of the parties concerned and as

such, it must be minimized to avoid hostilities and to maintain peaceful relationships.

Diplomacy also functions as a symbolic representation of a society of states. The presence of

diplomats in states is a visible manifestation of a certain set of rules to which states and non-

state actors in the international system follow, establishing some degree of international

order. All these functions of diplomacy contribute to the security of nation-states and

establish some form of international order. Through the functions of communication,

negotiation, intelligence; and through its symbolic function and establishment of rules,

diplomacy helps states to interact with ease.

Diplomacy has existed since the beginning of the human race. The act of conducting

negotiations between two persons, or two nations at a large scope is essential to the upkeep of

international affairs. Among the many functions of diplomacy, some include preventing war

and violence, and fortifying relations between two nations. Diplomacy is most importantly

used to complete a specific agenda. Therefore without diplomacy, much of the world’s affairs

would be abolished, international organizations would not exist, and above all the world

would be at a constant state of war. It is because of diplomacy that certain countries can exist

in harmony.

There has not been a documented start of diplomacy; however, there have been instances

ranging back to the 5th century B.C. where diplomacy arose in certain nations. Dating back to

432 B.C, the Congress of Sparta was an “illustration of diplomacy as organized by the Greek

City States”. The origin of the word “diploma” comes from different sides of the earth. In

Greece diploma meant “folded in two”, while in Ancient Rome the word was used to describe

travel documents. Often times the word diplomacy is given many meanings. Many times will

the words “policy” and the word “negotiation” be seen as synonyms; hence the word

“diplomacy” and “foreign diplomacy” are deemed to be similar. These “synonyms” of

diplomacy are all faulty. While they may be very similar in some cases, they are not exactly

the same. Sir Harold Nicolson who was an English Diplomat born in Tehran, Persia, states

that:

“Diplomacy is neither the invention nor the pastime of some particular political system, but is

an essential element in any reasonable relation between man and man and between nation and

nation”.

39

For the upkeep of the International System, diplomacy is used in every corner of the world.

Without it many nations would not be able to conduct successful negotiations. While many

are not able to find a clear beginning or creation of diplomacy, modern diplomacy has

become much more advanced and many aspects have changed over the years. The Peace of

Westphalia in 1648 created the first modern diplomatic congress in addition to creating a new

world order in central Europe based on state sovereignty. Much of Europe began to change

after the introduction of modern diplomacy. For example, “France under Cardinal Richelieu

introduced the modern approach to international relations, based on the nation-state and

motivated by national interest as its ultimate purpose”. The New World Order began to

bloom in all of Central and Western Europe. Great Britain argued for the “balance of power”

which kept European diplomacy alive for the next 200 years. Every country in Europe

contributed a little to the diplomacy the world has today. The balance of powers theory that

many famous realists such as Francsesco Sforza, Machiavelli, and Guiciardini argued was

and still is an essential component of modern diplomacy. Many could argue that diplomacy is

a product of society and history itself. As countries progress, different aspects are added to

diplomacy. Separation of powers, national interest, and a country’s sovereignty are only a

few elements that were added to modern diplomatic history. Therefore, diplomacy can be

seen as an ever-changing concept, the same way International Relations between countries

fluctuate. Author of The Pure Concept of Diplomacy José Calvet De Magalhães stated that

“continuity of the diplomatic institution throughout thousands of years and in all known

civilizations shows that diplomacy is an institution inherent to international life itself, one

that may undergo transformations or may be used with more or less intensity, but cannot be

dispensed with”. As Henry Kissinger states “By pursuing its own selfish interests, each state

[is] presumed to contribute to progress, as if some unseen hand were guaranteeing that

freedom of choice for each state assured well-being for all”. In the course of all diplomatic

history “[…] no country has influenced international relations as decisively and at the same

time as ambivalently as the United States. No society, has more firmly insisted on the

inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of other states, or more passionately

asserted that its own values were universally applicable. No nation has been more pragmatic

in the day-to-day conduct of its diplomacy, or more ideological in the pursuit of its history of

moral convictions. No country has been more reluctant to engage itself abroad even while

undertaking alliances and commitments of unprecedented reach and scope”.

40

The United States’ headstrong tendencies to succeed have made it one of the most influential

countries in the course of diplomacy. “The most famous of all peace proposals following

World War I was the program of Fourteen Points, delivered by President Woodrow Wilson in

1918”. Most can argue that without the United States, much of modern diplomacy would be

gone.

There are, in fact, many functions of diplomacy that make diplomacy an essential ingredient

for any peaceful and efficient change. The reason to negotiate with other persons has always

been the same, to have better relations. Over the course of diplomacy being in existence, the

structure of diplomatic posts has changed from a loose one to an organized institution made

for a specific purpose. While the structure of diplomatic posts has changed, the functions

have always remained the same.

There are four functions of diplomacy. The first function involves “representing a state’s

interests and conducting negotiations or discussions designed to identify common interests as

well as areas of disagreement between the parties, for the purpose of achieving the state’s

goals and avoiding conflict”. Representations of a state as well as negotiation are the most

important functions of diplomacy. Negotiations between two representatives are a key

component in diplomacy, because in doing so the representatives find a common interest.

Finding a common interest is vital in conducting negotiations because with a common

interest representatives are able to devise a solution that is in the interest of both sides.

Negotiation “can produce the advantages obtainable from the cooperative pursuit of common

interests; and it is only this activity that can prevent violence from being employed to settle

the remaining arguments over conflicting ones”.

The second function of diplomacy involves “the gathering of information and subsequent

identification and evaluation of the receiving state’s foreign policy goals”. Diplomatic posts

are concerned with gathering information; however, when the information is sent back to

their native country, a Foreign Ministry analyzes the data and determines what foreign policy

should be enacted. Political leaders choose what path is right for their country then.

The third major function of diplomacy is expansion of political, economic, and cultural ties

between two countries. For example, after WW II countries such as the United States and

Britain aimed their foreign policy at the extermination of communism. In present day, the

United States State Department engages international audiences to speak about politics,

security, and their values to help create an environment receptive to US national interests. In

41

addition, “the State Department annually sponsors more than 40,000 educational and cultural

exchanges”.

Finally, the fourth function of diplomacy is that “diplomacy is the facilitating or enforcing

vehicle for the observation of international law”. It is the diplomat’s job to promote the

country’s national interests and keep ties with other countries open. The emphasis put on

diplomacy is not just dominant in today’s world. However, it was a developing concept in the

Renaissance as well.

Great thinkers such as Machiavelli, Guicciardini, Grotius, Richelieu, Wicquefort, Satow,

Nicolson, and Kissinger had a profound impact on diplomacy. For Machiavelli diplomacy

was a tool of deception to grant more power to the state. Machiavelli’s impact on leaders was

a major one because he argued for leaders to be headstrong as well as reserved. Guicciardini

promoted the upkeep of good relations; to be careful with whom one deals with and that

reputation is key in a negotiation. His contribution to diplomacy was that diplomatic posts are

given to people who can be trusted and can promote their country’s state interests. What these

great thinkers contributed to diplomacy was immense. All of them contributed a different

element to the ever-growing concept of diplomacy. Since the subject of diplomacy is always

growing and changing, it can be said that because of its vast effect on the world, everybody

needs diplomacy to survive. It has become such a vital part of everyone’s life that is

indirectly becoming a trait for survival.

Throughout the course of history, diplomacy has been a paramount element in the upkeep of

peace and in the creation of positive change. Without diplomacy much of the world’s affairs

would not exist. There are many examples of how diplomacy has affected countries, and even

individual citizens. An example of how negotiation positively can affect someone is Clinton’s

negotiation with Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Their peaceful negotiation resulted in the

release of two American citizens. An example of how power can corrupt diplomacy is Libya

and Switzerland. With the introduction of power, in other words oil, countries such as Libya

with the leader Ghaddafi were able to have a stronger presence in the world and say things

that can normally not be said. Power corrupts. However, diplomacy seeks to rid corruption

and reinforce the international system as well as international law. It is for diplomacy that

international organizations can exist. In a diplomatic way, an international organization is

merely many members finding a common ground on a particular subject. In the United

Nations, for example, all the members try to find a common interest for positive change.

42

Although it is sometimes perceived to be slow change, the method of diplomacy causes fewer

casualties than any other one. If diplomacy were not in existence, international organizations

would not exist. The world would be at a constant state of war, and war would, in fact, never

end because they normally end with diplomatic negotiations.

Types of Diplomacy

Preventive diplomacy can be defined as a means of diplomacy through quiet means (as

opposed to “gun-boat diplomacy” backed by threat of force or “public diplomacy” which

makes use of publicity). It is also understood that circumstances may exist in which the

consensual use of force (notably preventive deployment) might be welcomed by parties to a

conflict with a view to achieving the stabilization necessary for diplomacy and related

political processes to proceed. This is to be distinguished from the use of “persuasion”,

“influence”, and other non-coercive approaches explored below.

Public diplomacy - It differs from traditional diplomacy, which is carried out by people with

a special profession (diplomats, politicians). Public diplomacy is a means by which the

government of one country tries to influence the society of another country. It is the ability to

achieve goals through attractive offers, rather than bribery and coercion. When we tell other

states and societies of our values, we shouldn't do this in a short-term mode. Instruments of

public diplomacy must be tailored to specific tasks. Foreign broadcasting is also suitable for

foreign policies, and countries can arrange talks about their cultures, exhibitions and tours. To

understand the culture of another country there is need to communicate with its inhabitants,

for example, through education. Values are also spread through educational exchanges; this is

how state branding is carried out.

Dollar diplomacy or Economic Diplomacy – It is a specific area of modern diplomatic

activity connected with the use of economic problems as an object, means of struggle,

cooperation in international relations. It presupposes diplomatic service activities focused on

increasing exports, attracting foreign investment and participation in work of international

economic organizations, that is, actions focused on reaffirming a country's economic interest

at international level. This type of diplomacy involves the use of economic methods (for

example, loans) to achieve state's goals. It is the economic enslavement of the small states

and submission to the domination of large foreign banks and the industrial companies. In this

case, dollars literally act as bullets or weapons in the hands of diplomats. Economic

diplomacy, like diplomacy in general, is an integral organic part of foreign policy and

43

international activities of a state. Foreign policy determines the goals, objectives of economic

diplomacy.

Gunboat diplomacy or Military Diplomacy - The essence of gunboat diplomacy consists in

demonstrating strength to achieve foreign policy goals. This type got its name from the word

"gunboat" - a small ship with a serious artillery armament. The basis of gunboat diplomacy is

full recognition of the legitimacy of using military force to achieve goals of foreign policy.

Unlike classic policies with its complex games, all sorts of unions, principles and relations

with those who are unlikely to inflict damage are simple and primitive.

Nuclear diplomacy is the area of diplomacy related to preventing nuclear proliferation and

nuclear war. One of the most well-known (and most controversial) philosophies of nuclear

diplomacy is Mutually Assured Destruct ion (MAD).

Appeasement - It is a policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid

confrontation; because of its failure to prevent World War 2, appeasement is not considered a

legitimate tool of modern diplomacy.

Coercive diplomacy or "forceful persuasion" is the "attempt to get a target, a state, a group

(or groups) within a state, or a non-state actor - to change its objectionable behavior through

either the threat to use force or the actual use of limited force." This term also refers to

"diplomacy presupposing the use or threatened use of military force to achieve political

objectives." Coercive diplomacy "is essentially a diplomatic strategy, one that relies on the

threat of force rather than the use of force. If force must be used to strengthen diplomatic

efforts at persuasion, it is employed in an exemplary manner, in the form of quite limited

military action, to demonstrate resolution and willingness to escalate to high levels of military

action if necessary."

Regional Diplomacy - refers to the conduct of relations between states that belong to an

identifiable geographic region. Regional diplomacy (RD) has become a strong force in

international relations. Globalization and interdependence have made all states aware that

neighborhood cooperation works to mutual benefit. Small countries see the benefit of

numbers for economic and political advantage. Many regions attempt to emulate successful

exemplars, such as the EU, and ASEAN, with varying degrees of success. In South Asia we

have SAARC, BIMSTEC, etc.

44

Shuttle Diplomacy - In diplomacy and international relations, shuttle diplomacy is the action

of an outside party in serving as an intermediary between (or among) principals in a dispute,

without direct principal-to-principal contact. Originally and usually, the process entails

successive travel ("shuttling") by the intermediary, from the working location of one

principal, to that of another. The term was first applied to describe the efforts of United States

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, beginning November 5, 1973, which facilitated the

cessation of hostilities between Israel and Egypt following the Yom Kippur War.

Track II Diplomacy - This refers to "non-governmental, informal and unofficial contacts

and activities between private citizens or groups of individuals, sometimes called 'non-state

actors'". It contrasts with Track I diplomacy, which can be defined as official, governmental

diplomacy that occur inside official government channels. However, track two diplomacy is

not a substitute for track one diplomacy. Rather, it is there to assist official actors to manage

and resolve conflicts by exploring possible solutions derived from the public view and

without the requirements of formal negotiation or bargaining for advantage. In addition, the

term track 1.5 diplomacy is used by some analysts to define a situation where official and

non-official actors cooperate in conflict resolution.

Role of Diplomacy in Modern Times

From the evolution of diplomacy, it can be seen that diplomacy has been adapting and

changing with the requirements of international politics. The functions of diplomacy have

constantly found new meaning to the prevailing conditions of the world. It has been argued

that since WW I, the conduct of relations between states by professional diplomats has been

in decline due to changing circumstances. The role of the resident ambassador and his

mission has declined in relation to that of other channels of international business. Heads of

government and other ministers, who meet frequently in direct encounters, have bypassed the

resident ambassador, as it is sometimes more effective and efficient to discuss matters

directly with their counterparts. Due to the increasingly technical nature of key issues in areas

such as in the military; and in economic, social, educational, scientific, ecological areas, etc.,

the diplomats do not have such specialized knowledge and need to rely on the respective

experts for negotiations. In the 21st century, bilateral diplomacy has also declined in relation

to multilateral diplomacy, as a consequence of the proliferation of international organizations.

Many important issues are dealt with at least in part in a multilateral context such as

45

diplomatic issues through the United Nations and defence issues in the framework of NATO

or ARF.

A decline in the role of professional diplomacy or a change in its character as shown above

does not mean that diplomacy has ceased to make a central contribution to international order

in the 21st century. The various functions of diplomacy, all of which have contributed greatly

to state security, remain important in the 21st century. In the area of communications,

diplomats are specialists in precise and detailed communication. They are able to convey

moods, intentions as well as information in messages. Although the negotiation of

agreements between states can and does take place without the mediation of diplomats, the

latter are still indispensable in this area. The conclusion of agreements by heads of state or

foreign ministers is often only the climax of a long process of negotiation by the diplomats.

In the gathering of information about foreign countries, diplomats are uniquely skilled in

getting information about the views and policies of a country's political leadership. It is the

knowledge of personalities which is important, as leaders shape a country's policy. The

function of minimizing friction in international relations might be carried out without

diplomats, as others might be capable of applying intelligence and tact in international

exchanges. However, diplomats are the best persons for this role as the diplomatic profession

embodies traditions and conventions that equip them for performing the role. Although the

function of symbolizing the existence of the society of states can be fulfilled not only by

organized diplomacy but also by universal international organizations such as the United

Nations, the presence in capital cities of a diplomatic corps is a sign of the existence of

foreign states.

The contributions that diplomacy makes to the security of nation-states cannot be quantified

easily as skilful diplomacy enhances the survival of nation-states. Diplomacy remains a key

instrument for peacefully managing problems in the world community, contributing to

international order and nation-states' security.

Terrorism and Fundamentalism

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means

to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. It is

used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in context of war

46

against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). To define terrorism

is akin to attempting to define any human experience, if only in the fact that terrorism defines

itself to each person differently. Socio-political realities, religious affiliation, and cultural

identification play into an individual’s definition, creating difficulties in expression within

universally understood terms. In each instance of terrorism (regardless of definition) one

might view an act as “terroristic” while another may not. If a hard and fast definition must be

constructed, it should be simple and open to interpretation. We know the following: terrorist

acts are violent (or at least inherently dangerous), typically involve more than one target, and

are perpetrated to initiate change (whether societal, political, religious, or ideological).

Therefore, one may choose to define an incident as an act of terrorism if the violence or the

threat of violence was used against more than one person in order to instigate change on a

societal, political, religious, or ideological level.

Fundamentalism, however, is much easier to define. Simply put, it is an unwavering faith to a

religious belief system, though some assert that the term ‘fundamentalism’ is another way of

excusing ‘normal’ religion and isolating problems into a deviant form of the doctrine. Though

originally used to describe certain sects of Christianity, this strict adherence to theoretical

doctrine of terrorism has stretched to include all major world religions. Multiple terrorist acts

have been committed by “followers” of other religions following certain sects or groups like

that of Buddhist (Sri Lanka, Myanmar), Hindus (India), and Muslims (many parts of the

world).

Terrorism as a threat to World Peace

Terrorism is a menace and is like an aching tooth which needs to be rooted out but has no

immediate remedy. The magnitude of destruction, loss of life, injuries and disabilities have

all made human kind fail to find comfort in their governments as citizens are left vulnerable

to indiscriminate attacks of terrorists. The effects of terrorism range from short, medium and

even long term. The economic effects of terrorism are enormous and they erode the savings

of the state, divert some money designed for other projects to fighting terrorism and

rebuilding of infrastructure as well as relief services. While death, injuries and capital

destruction are the most visible effects of terrorist attacks, fear, violence, uncertainty and

indirect effects of terror are harmful to the economy in the long term. The effects of terrorism

are contagious in a global village where there is interconnectedness of activities including

trade routes. Terrorism has significant fiscal effects and both direct and indirect effects on

47

growth. A policy issue of the defense against terror requires awareness of the motivations and

objectives of terrorism. The policy can result in changed perceptions thereby affecting the

majority in the way they execute their functions. Terrorism is deemed to be a usurper of

human security in general such that there is chaos among the civilians after being denied

access to the securities. The perpetrators of violence must receive severe punishment because

of the crimes against humanity and it is the human’s burden to restore destroyed

infrastructure and the environment. As environment degrades and change due to human

influence, new diseases arise and old diseases in lethality. It can be argued that terrorism

highly affects individual security and education of both adults and young. The continued

killings and bombings leaves people with no sense of pride in education as the fruits are not

realised due to terrorism. Terrorism has negatively affected collective state effort in

maintaining international peace and security especially the period between 2000 and 2010.

The concept is usually favoured during large conferences whose idea is to stimulate research

while on the ground states act together with friends than enemies. Politics is thus the struggle

for power and peace. Some of the research provides that terrorism has negatively affected

collective state effort in maintaining international peace and security especially from 2000 to

2010. These problems are very difficult to mitigate given that the states are driven by their

individual interests rather than collective efforts. If the economy is deteriorating, then many

people, especially, in Africa fail to send children to Primary School, High School, College

and University for an education of their desire. Individual security allows children to find

better educational facility. But terrorism seeks to break all that. In turn, the nation as a whole

will not function properly. There is need to observe human rights and all protocols relating to

the protection of civilians. There is also need to provide stiffer measures to terrorists who

target civilians once they are multilaterally caught and tried.

Arms Race and Disarmament

Meaning of Arms Race

An arms race, in its original usage, is a competition between two or more parties to have the

best armed forces. Each party competes to produce larger number of weapons, greater armies,

or superior military technology in a technological escalation. International conflict specialist

Theresa Clair Smith, defines the term as "the participation of two or more nation-states in

apparently competitive or interactive increases in quantity or quality of war material and/or

persons under arms." Nowadays the term is mostly used to describe any competition where

48

there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other competitors,

essentially the goal of proving to be "better".

Cold War and Nuclear Arms Race

A nuclear arms race developed during the Cold War, an intense period between the Soviet

Union and the United States. This was one of the main causes for the cold war. On both sides,

perceived advantages of the adversary (such as the "missile gap") led to large spending on

armaments and the stockpiling of vast nuclear arsenals. Proxy wars were fought all over the

world (e.g. in the Middle East, Korea, Vietnam) in which the superpowers' conventional

weapons were pitted against each other. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end

of the Cold War, tensions decreased and the nuclear arsenal of both countries were reduced,

but not totally eliminated.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

Mutually Assured Destruction is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in

which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause

the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory

of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents

the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which,

once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

Cuban Missile Crisis

Shortly after Fulgencio Batista took control of the Cuban government and became dictator,

revolutionaries started to emerge to challenge Batista. However, it wasn't until December 2,

1956, when Fidel Castro landed on Cuba that the resistance blossomed into an armed revolt.

The Soviet Union supported and praised Castro and his resistance. On January 1, 1959, the

Cuban government fell, propelling Castro into power, and was recognized by the Soviet

government on January 10. When the United States began boycotting Cuban sugar, the Soviet

Union began purchasing large quantities to support the Cuban economy in return for fuel and

eventually placing nuclear ballistic missiles on Cuban soil. These missiles would be capable

of reaching the United States very quickly. On October 14, 1962, an American spy plane

discovered these nuclear missile sites under construction in Cuba.

49

President Kennedy immediately called a series of meetings for a small group of senior

officials to debate the crisis. The group was split between a militaristic solution and a

diplomatic one. President Kennedy ordered a naval blockade around Cuba and all military

forces to DEFCON 3. As tensions increased, Kennedy eventually ordered U.S. military forces

to DEFCON 2. This was the closest the world has been to a nuclear war. While the U.S.

military had been ordered to DEFCON 2, reaching a nuclear war was still a ways off. The

theory of mutually assured destruction seems to put the entry into nuclear war an unlikely

possibility. While the public perceived the Cuban Missile Crisis as a time of near mass

destruction, the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union were working behind the

sight of the public eye in order to come to a peaceful conclusion. Premier Khrushchev writes

to President Kennedy in a telegram on October 26, 1962 saying that, "Consequently, if there

is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of

thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us

take measures to untie that knot." It is apparently clear that both men wanted to avoid nuclear

war due to mutually assured destruction which leads to the question of just how close the

world was from experiencing a nuclear war.

Eventually, on October 26, through much discussion between U.S and Soviet officials,

Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union would withdraw all missiles from Cuba.

Shortly after, the U.S. withdrew all their nuclear missiles from Turkey in secret, which had

threatened the Soviets. The U.S.'s withdrawal of their Jupiter Missiles from Turkey was kept

private for decades after, causing the negotiations between the two nations to appear to the

world as a major U.S. victory. This ultimately led to the downfall of Premier Khrushchev.

The End of the Cold War

During the mid-1980s, the U.S-Soviet relations significantly improved, Mikhail Gorbachev

assumed control of the Soviet Union after the deaths of several former Soviet leaders, and

announced a new era of perestroika and glasnost, meaning restructuring and openness,

respectively. Gorbachev proposed a 50% reduction of nuclear weapons for both the U.S and

Soviet Union at the meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland in October 1986. However, the proposal

was refused due to disagreements over Reagan's SDI. Instead, the Intermediate Nuclear

Forces (INF) Treaty was signed on December 8, 1987 in Washington, which eliminated an

entire class of nuclear weapons.

50

In the late 1980s, after the signing of this treaty, much of the Soviet Union began to declare

independence and slowly became free of Soviet influence. One of the most iconic events of

the collapse of the Soviet Union was the destruction of the Berlin Wall on November 10,

1989. On December 8, 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS) was established. This event marked the end of the 45 year long

Cold War.

Disarmament

Disarmament is the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons. Disarmament generally

refers to a country's military or specific type of weaponry. Disarmament is often taken to

mean total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear arms. General and

Complete Disarmament was defined by the United Nations General Assembly as the

elimination of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD), coupled with the “balanced reduction

of armed forces and conventional armaments, based on the principle of undiminished security

of the parties with a view to promoting or enhancing stability at a lower military level, taking

into account the need of all States to protect their security.”.

History of Disarmament

Before World War-I at the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907 government

delegations debated about disarmament and the creation of an international court with

binding powers. The court was considered necessary because it was understood that nation-

states could not disarm into a vacuum. After the war, dislike at the futility and tremendous

cost of the war was widespread. A commonly held belief was that the cause of the war had

been the escalating build-up of armaments in the previous half century among the great

powers. Although the Treaty of Versailles effectively disarmed Germany, a clause was

inserted that called on all the great powers to likewise progressively disarm over a period of

time. The newly formed League of Nations made this an explicit goal in the Covenant of the

league, which committed its' signatories to reduce armaments ‘to the lowest point consistent

with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations’.

One of the earliest successful achievements in disarmament was obtained with the

Washington Naval Treaty. Signed by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United

States, Japan, France, and Italy, it prevented the continued construction of capital ships and

limited ships of other classification to under 10,000 tons displacement. The size of the three

51

countries' navies (the Royal Navy, United States Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy) was set

at the ratio 5-5-3.

In 1921, the Temporary Mixed Commission on Armaments was set up by the League of

Nations to explore possibilities for disarmament. Proposals ranged from abolishing chemical

warfare and strategic bombing to the limitation of more conventional weapons, such as tanks.

A draft treaty was assembled in 1923 that made aggressive war illegal and bound the member

states to defend victims of aggression by force. Since the onus of responsibility would, in

practice, be on the great powers of the League, it was vetoed by the British, who feared that

this pledge would strain its' own commitment to police the empire.

A further commission in 1926, set up to explore the possibilities for the reduction of army

size, met similar difficulties, prompting the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand and US

Secretary of State Frank Kellogg to draft a treaty known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which

denounced war of aggression. Although there were 65 signatories to the pact, it achieved

nothing, as it set out no guidelines for action in the event of a war.

A final attempt was made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference from 1932–37, chaired by

former British Foreign Secretary Arthur Henderson. Germany demanded the revision of the

Versailles Treaty and the granting of military parity with the other powers, while France was

determined to keep Germany demilitarized for its own security. Meanwhile, the British and

Americans were not willing to offer France security commitments in exchange for

conciliation with Germany. The talks broke down in 1933, when Adolf Hitler withdrew

Germany from the conference.

Nuclear Disarmament

United States and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945-2006, defies imagination.

The numbers include warheads not actively deployed, including those on reserve status or

scheduled for dismantlement. Stockpile totals do not necessarily reflect nuclear capabilities

since they ignore size, range, type, and delivery mode. Nuclear disarmament refers to both

the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons and to the end state of a nuclear-free

world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated.

In the United Kingdom, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) held an inaugural

public meeting at Central Hall, Westminster, on 17 February 1958, attended by five thousand

people. After the meeting a few hundred left to demonstrate at Downing Street. CND's

52

declared policies were the unconditional renunciation of the use, production of or dependence

upon nuclear weapons by Britain and the bringing about of a general disarmament

convention. The first Aldermaston March was organized by the CND and took place at Easter

1958, when several thousand people marched for four days from Trafalgar Square, London,

to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment close to Aldermaston in Berkshire, England,

to demonstrate their opposition to nuclear weapons. The Aldermaston marches continued into

the late 1960s when tens of thousands of people took part in the four-day marches.

In 1961, US President John F. Kennedy gave a speech before the UN General Assembly

where he announced the US "intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but

to a peace race - to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete

disarmament has been achieved." He went on to call for a global general and complete

disarmament, offering a rough outline for how this could be accomplished:

The program to be presented to this assembly - for general and complete disarmament under

effective international control - moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a

gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create

machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war. It would proceed through

balanced and safeguarded stages designed to give no state a military advantage over another.

It would place the final responsibility for verification and control where it belongs, not with

the big powers alone, not with one's adversary or one's self, but in an international

organization within the framework of the United Nations. It would assure that indispensable

condition of disarmament - true inspection - and apply it in stages proportionate to the stage

of disarmament. It would cover delivery systems as well as weapons. It would ultimately halt

their production as well as their testing, their transfer as well as their possession. It would

achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in

force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except

those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that

process now, today, even as the talks begin. In short, general and complete disarmament must

no longer be a slogan, used to resist the first steps. It is no longer to be a goal without means

of achieving it, without means of verifying its progress, without means of keeping the peace.

It is now a realistic plan, and a test - a test of those only willing to talk and a test of those

willing to act.

53

Major nuclear disarmament groups include Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Greenpeace

and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. There have been many large

anti-nuclear demonstrations and protests. On June 12, 1982, one million people demonstrated

in New York City's Central Park against nuclear weapons and for an end to the Cold War

arms race. It was the largest anti-nuclear protest and the largest political demonstration in

American history.

Disarmament has been on the agenda of the big powers for a considerable length of time, but

nothing substantive was achieved. Mutual distrust could be cited as a reason. Of course,

there were other reasons as well. With innovations in science and technology, those nations

that could afford went about adding more and more sophisticated weapons systems to their

already.

54

UNIT IV

The Foreign Policy of India

The foreign policy of India can be defined as its interactions with foreign nations and how it

sets standards of interaction for its organizations, corporations, system and citizens of India.

As is necessary for any nation, India's principal priority is ensuring conventional security for

its country and its people. The Ministry of External Affairs of India (MEA), also known as

the Foreign Ministry, is the government agency responsible for the conduct of foreign

relations of India. With the world's fifth largest military expenditure, second largest armed

force, sixth largest economy by nominal rates and third largest economy in terms

of purchasing power parity India is a regional power, a nuclear power, a nascent global

power and a potential superpower. India has a growing international influence and a

prominent voice in global affairs.

India faces serious economic and social issues as a result of centuries of economic

exploitation by colonial powers. However, since gaining independence from Britain in 1947,

India has become a newly industrialised country, has a history of collaboration with several

countries, and is a component of the BRICS and a major part of developing world. India was

one of the founding members of several international organisations—the United Nations,

the Asian Development Bank, New Development BRICS Bank, and G-20—and the founder

of the Non-Aligned Movement. India has also played an important and influential role in

other international organisations like East Asia Summit, World Trade

Organization, International Monetary Fund (IMF), G8+5 and IBSA Dialogue Forum India is

also a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Shanghai Cooperation

Organisation.

Regionally, India is a part of SAARC and BIMSTEC. India has taken part in several UN

peacekeeping missions and in 2007, it was the second-largest troop contributor to the United

Nations. India is currently seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, along with

the other G4 nations.

Basic Principles of India’s Foreign Policy

There are some core principles of India’s foreign policy which doesn’t change with time.

These principles continue to guide India in realising certain foreign policy aims. Such core

principles include:

55

Panchsheel: This in turn consists of 5 principles viz. mutual respect for each other’s

territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non- interference;

equality and mutual benefit; peaceful co-existence. Panchsheel emphasises that India avoids

using force and prefers peaceful methods in settling differences.

Strengthening Multilateralism: India supports multilateral approach to deal with global

issues like disarmament, terrorism, unfair trade etc. This principle also explains

India’s efforts in making institutions of global governance like the UN, World Bank, the

IMF, the WTO more legitimate and effective.

Independence of decision making: India doesn’t want its foreign policy to be dictated by

other countries. India engages with all the major powers irrespective of their relationship with

each other. This explains India’s policy of non-alignment during the Cold War era and

the policy of multiple alignment in the present times.

Respecting International Law: India doesn’t choose to violate any international law-

Conventions, treaties, standards- once it has give its consent and act in a manner that disturbs

peace or promote injustice. An application of this principle can be seen in India’s decision to

accept UNCLOS verdict with regard to the issue of resolving maritime boundary with

Bangladesh; in approaching the International Seabed Authority for exploring polymetallic

nodules in Indian Ocean; in abiding with Indus Water Treaty with regard to Pakistan etc.

Finally, by adhering to these core principles India hopes to be recognised as a peace loving,

mature, law abiding and trust worthy country.

Objectives of India’s Foreign Policy

National interest has been the governing principle of India’ foreign policy even at the time,

of Nehru who was inspired by the ideal of world peace, toleration and mutual respect among

nations. In operational terms, the idea of national interest takes the form of concrete

objectives of foreign policy. According to Appadorai and M. S. Rajan, there are three

fundamental objectives of India’s Foreign policy:

1. The preservation of India’s territorial integrity and independence of foreign policy: The

territorial integrity and protection of national boundaries from foreign aggression is the core

interest of a nation. India had gained a hard earned independence from foreign rule

after long time. Thus, it was natural for her to give due emphasis on the independence of

56

foreign policy. India’s effort to strengthen Afro-Asian solidarity endorsement of principles of

non-interference, in the internal affairs of other nations and finally the adoption of the policy

of non-alignment should be seen in this light.

2. Promoting international peace and security: India as a ‘newly independent and developing

country rightly realized that international peace and development are correlated. Her

emphasis on disarmament and the policy of keeping away from the military alliances is

intended to promote global peace.

3. Economic development of India: Fast development of the country was the fundamental

requirement of India at the time of independence. It was also required to strengthen the

democracy and freedom in the country In order to gain financial resources and technology

from both blocks and to concentrate her energy on the development, India opted away from

the power block politics, which was the defining feature of cold war international politics.

The foreign policy practice of India also reveals its two other objectives; 1. Elimination of

colonialism and racial discrimination. 2. Protection of the interests of people of Indian origin

abroad. An official statement of Ministry of External Affairs (2010) notes that India’s foreign

policy seeks to safeguard her enlightened self-interest. Its primary objective is to promote and

maintain a peaceful and stable external environment in which the domestic tasks of inclusive

economic development and poverty alleviation can progress rapidly. Thus, India seeks a

peaceful periphery and works for good neighborly relations in her extended neighborhood.

India’s foreign policy also recognizes that the issues such as climate change, energy and food

security are crucial for India’s transformation. Since these issues are global in nature, they

require global solutions.

Basic Principles of Nehru’s Foreign Policy

Jawaharlal Nehru was the architect of India’s foreign policy. His vision and the

understanding of the world helped him to forge certain principles in Indias foreign policy that

has stood its time in these many decades after Independence. These principles which were

envisaged and formulated in 1954, were mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity

and sovereignty; non-interference in each other's military and internal affairs; mutual non-

aggression; equality and mutual benefit and finally, peaceful coexistence and economic

cooperation. Even today, many of these principles are at the core of India’s foreign policy

without much of a change and there is continuity by and large, except for certain economic

considerations and alliances.

57

Post-Nehruvian Era

After the demise of Nehru, India’s foreign policy though remained to the basic tenants of his

policy formulation, India has also managed to change its foreign policy in certain where it

benefits the national interest. Accordingly India became somewhat assertive towards its arch

rival Pakistan during the times of Indira Gandhi when Bangladesh was created out of East

Pakistan. India also became a nuclear power during her time. Rajiv Gandhi also pursued a

world view that is beneficial to India and other non-congress government had some kind of

continuity in foreign policy matters. Effort was made to normalise relations with China,

SAARC was created that significantly showed the India’s interest in its region and to

strengthen its relations with its neighbours. There was also a marked difference in India’s

approach towards the UN. India not only engaged actively in the UN system, it also tried to

create its own space and put its effort in becoming a permanent member of the UNSC. After

the liberalisation process in the early 1990s, India’s relations with US become closer in terms

of economic relations and later part geo strategically too. These were all marked by some sort

of continuity and change with that of Neheruvian era policies.

Seen through the lens of four key relationships — with the United States, China, South Asia,

and the UNSC — India’s foreign policy, during the post Nehruvian era, has evolved in

interesting ways as its power has increased in international affairs. While the quest for

strategic autonomy has remained a fundamental objective, the content of Indian foreign

policy has undergone a pragmatic transformation and is far more oriented toward economic

diplomacy today than ever before. At the same time, India’s domestic politics are now more

fragmented, allowing smaller parties and groups to determine the nation’s external agenda on

an issue-by-issue basis. While political fragmentation is certainly a sign of greater democratic

participation in India, it does have significant implications for the stability and predictability

that India seeks in its relations with the world. Finally, India’s approach to the international

order has changed over time as well. India today is less of a rule taker and rule breaker than

before, seeking instead to actually shape the international order in ways that suit its interests,

be they in opening new markets to Indian trade, promoting sovereignty and non-intervention

in the affairs of states, reconnecting with global markets for civilian nuclear technology, or

addressing domestic and regional security challenges. Although its efforts have not always

borne fruit, their success and India’s level of engagement with the international order will

depend on the extent to which the order and its dominant powers can make room for India’s

growing power and ambitions. Much is therefore at stake in the world of Indian foreign

58

policy, both at home and abroad. Charting a course for the future will be challenging, but

Delhi is fortunately endowed with an excellent (though thinly staffed) corps of foreign

policymakers that possesses the capability and the skill required to navigate the politics of an

increasingly multi-polar world in which India is already a nation to be reckoned with.

59

UNIT V

What Is Third World?

"Third World" is a phrase frequently used to describe a developing nation. Despite its current

usage, the phrase emerged during the Cold War to identify countries whose views did not

align with NATO and capitalism or the Soviet Union and communism. The First World

described countries whose views aligned with NATO and capitalism and the Second

World referred to countries that supported communism and the Soviet Union. In other words,

during the Cold War, the term Third World referred to the developing countries of Asia,

Africa, and Latin America, the nations that are not aligned with either the First World or the

Second World. ... Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than an economic,

grouping. Third World countries referenced the nations, mostly in Asia and Africa that were

not aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union. The United States was

considered a member of the First World, and Russia was considered a member of the Second

World. Now, because the Soviet Union no longer exists, the definition of "Third World" is

less precise and, thus, more open to interpretation.

Key Points

A Third World country is a developing nation characterized by poverty and a low standard of

living for much of its population.

The term developing country is a preferred term when referring to economically developing

nations. 

The WTO provides certain rights and assistance to countries that declare developing country

status.

Developing Nations and Third World Countries

Third World countries are typically poor with underdeveloped economies. In these countries,

low levels of education, poor infrastructure, improper sanitation, and limited access to health

care mean living conditions are inferior to those in the world's more developed nations. There

is no agreed-upon definition of "developing nation." The terms Third World country and

developing nation have become increasingly interchangeable in recent decades. The World

Trade Organization (WTO), for example, has no exact definition for a developing country

60

although it recognizes the United Nations' list of least-developed countries, which include

Afghanistan, Haiti, Uganda, and Yemen, among dozens of others.

World Trade Organization members self-declare whether they are developed or developing

countries. Certain rights come with developing country status with the WTO. For example,

the WTO grants developing countries longer transition periods before implementing

agreements that aim to increase trading opportunities and infrastructure support related to

WTO work. While a country can self-declare its developing status with the WTO, other

member nations can challenge that member's declaration. Should this happen, it would

threaten the declaring member's ability to use the WTO provisions provided to developing

countries. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a metric developed by the United Nations

to assess the social and economic development levels of countries. The HDI measures and

then ranks a country based on schooling, life expectancy, and gross national income per

capita.

Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, anthropologist, and historian, is credited with coining

the term Third World during the Cold War. Sauvy observed a group of countries, many

former colonies that did not share the ideological views of Western capitalism or Soviet

socialism. "Three worlds, one planet," wrote Sauvy in a 1952 article published

in L'Observateur. Sentiment exists that the term Third World is not politically correct because

of its association with poverty. 

Balance of Power

The idea of balance of power in international politics arose during the Renaissance age as a

metaphorical concept borrowed from other fields (ethics, the arts, philosophy, law, medicine,

economics, and the sciences), where balancing and its relation to equipoise and

counterweight had already gained broad acceptance. Wherever it was applied, the “balance”

metaphor was conceived as a law of nature underlying most things we find appealing,

whether order, peace, justice, fairness, moderation, symmetry, harmony, or beauty. In the

words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “The balance existing between the power of these diverse

members of the European society is more the work of nature than of art. It maintains itself

without effort, in such a manner that if it sinks on one side, it re-establishes itself very soon

on the other.”

61

Centuries later, this Renaissance image of balance as an automatic response driven by a law

of nature still suffuses analysis of how the theory operates within the sphere of international

relations. Thus, Hans Morgenthau explained, “The aspiration for power on the part of several

nations, each trying either to maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity, to a

configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving

it.” Similarly, Kenneth Waltz declared, “As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics

abhors unbalanced power.” Christopher Layne likewise avers, “Great powers balance against

each other because structural constraints impel them to do so.” Realists, such as Arnold

Wolfers, invoke the same “law of nature” metaphor to explain opportunistic expansion:

“Since nations, like nature, are said to abhor a vacuum, one could predict that the powerful

nation would feel compelled to fill the vacuum with its own power.” Using similar structural-

incentives-for-gains logic, John Mearsheimer claims that “status quo powers are rarely found

in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to

look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of those

situations when the benefits outweigh the costs.”

From the policymaker’s perspective, however, balancing superior power and filling power

vacuums hardly appear as laws of nature. Instead, these behaviors, which carry considerable

political costs and uncertain policy risks, emerge through the medium of the political process;

as such, they are the product of competition and consensus-building among elites with

differing ideas about the political-military world and divergent views on the nation’s goals

and challenges and the means that will best serve those purposes. As Nicholas Spykman

observed many years ago, “political equilibrium is neither a gift of the gods nor an inherently

stable condition. It results from the active intervention of man, from the operation of political

forces. States cannot afford to wait passively for the happy time when a miraculously

achieved balance of power will bring peace and security. If they wish to survive, they must be

willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the

period.”

In an era of mass politics, the decision to check unbalanced power by means of arms and

allies—and to go to war if these deterrent measures fail—is very much a political act made by

political actors. War mobilization and fighting are distinctly collective undertakings. As such,

political elites must weigh the likely domestic costs of balancing behavior against the

alternative means available to them and the expected benefits of a restored balance of power.

Leaders are rarely, if ever, compelled by structural imperatives to adopt certain policies rather

62

than others; they are not sleepwalkers buffeted about by inexorable forces beyond their

control. This is not to suggest that they are oblivious to the constraints imposed by

international structure. Rather, systemic pressures are filtered through intervening variables at

the domestic level to produce foreign policy behaviors. Thus, states respond (or not) to power

shifts—and the threats and opportunities they present—in various ways that are determined

by both internal and external considerations of policy elites, who must reach consensus

within an often decentralized and competitive political process.

Meanings of Balance of Power and Balancing Behaviour

While the balance of power is arguably the oldest and most familiar theory of international

politics, it remains fraught with conceptual ambiguities and competing theoretical and

empirical claims. Among its various meanings are (a) an even distribution of power; (b) the

principle that power ought to be evenly distributed; (c) the existing distribution of power as a

synonym for the prevailing political situation; that is, any possible distribution of power that

exists at a particular time; (d) the principle of equal aggrandizement of the great powers at the

expense of the weak; (e) the principle that our side ought to have a preponderance of power

to prevent the danger of power becoming evenly distributed; in this view, a power “balance”

is likened to a bank balance, that is, a surplus rather than equality; (f) a situation that exists

when one state possesses the special role of holding the balance (called the balancer) and

thereby maintains an even distribution of power between two rival sides; and (g) an inherent

tendency of international politics to produce an even distribution of power.

The conceptual murkiness surrounding the theory extends to its core concept, balancing

behavior. What precisely does the term “balancing” mean? Some scholars talk about soft

balancing, others have added psycho-cultural balancing, political-diplomatic balancing, and

strategic balancing, while still others talk about economic and ideological balancing. Because

balance of power is a theory about international security and preparations for possible war, I

offer the following definition of balancing centered on military capabilities: “Balancing

means the creation or aggregation of military power through either internal mobilization or

the forging of alliances to prevent or deter the occupation and domination of the state by a

foreign power or coalition. The state balances to prevent the loss of territory, either one’s

homeland or vital interests abroad (e.g., sea lanes, colonies, or other territory considered of

vital strategic interest). Balancing only exists when states target their military hardware at

each other in preparation for a possible war. If two states are merely building arms for the

63

purpose of independent action against third parties, we cannot say that they are engaged in

balancing behaviour. State A may be building up its military power and even targeting

another state B and still not be balancing against B, that is, trying to match B’s overall

capabilities with the aim of possible territorial conquest or preventing such conquest by B.

Instead, the purpose may be coercive diplomacy: to gain bargaining leverage with state B.”

Character of Balance of Power

Palmer and Perkins describe several major features of Balance of Power (BOP):

1. Some Sort of Equilibrium in Power Relations:

The term Balance of Power suggests ‘equilibrium which is subject to constant, ceaseless

change. In short, though it stands for equilibrium, it also involves some disequilibrium. That

is why scholars define it as a just equilibriums or some sort of equilibrium in power relations.

2. Temporary and Unstable:

In practice a balance of power always proves to be temporary and unstable. A particular

balance of power survives only for a short time.

3. To be Actively Achieved:

The balance of power has to be achieved by the active intervention of men. It is not a gift of

God. States cannot afford to wait until it “happens”. They have to secure it through their

efforts.

4. Favours Status quo:

Balance of power favours status quo in power positions of major powers. It seeks to maintain

a balance in their power relations. However, in order to be effective, a foreign policy of

balance of power must be changing and dynamic.

5. The Test of BOP is War:

A real balance of power seldom exists. The only test of a balance is war and when war breaks

out the balance comes to an end. War is a situation which balance of power seeks to prevent

and when it breaks out, balance power comes to an end.

64

6. Not a Device of Peace:

Balance of Power is not a primary device of peace because it admits war as a means for

maintaining balance.

7. Big Powers as Actors of BOP:

In a balance of power system, the big states or powerful states are the players. The small

states or less powerful states are either spectators or the victims of the game.

8. Multiplicity of States as an Essential Condition:

Balance of Power system operates when there are present a number of major powers, each of

which is determined to maintain a particular balance or equilibrium in their power relations.

9. National Interest is its Basis:

Balance of Power is a policy that can be adopted by any state. The real basis that leads to this

policy is national interest in a given environment.

The Golden Age of BOP:

The period of 1815-1914 was the golden age of Balance of Power. During this period, it was

regarded as a nearly fundamental law of international relations. It broke down due the

outbreak of First World War in 1914. It was tried to be unsuccessfully revived during 1919-

1939. However, the attempt failed and the world had to bear the Second World War.

The Second World War (1939-45) produced several structural changes in the international

system as well as in the balance of power system. Under the impact of these changes, the

Balance of Power system lost much of its relevance as a device of power management. It is

now lost much of its relevance in international relations.

Underlying Principal Assumptions of Balance of Power:

The Balance of Power rests upon several fundamental assumptions.

Five Principal Assumptions:

(1) Firstly, Balance of Power assumes that states are determined to protect their vital rights

and interests by all means, including war.

65

(2) Secondly, vital interests of the states are threatened.

(3) The relative power position of states can be measured with a degree of accuracy.

(4) Balance of Power assumes that “balance” will either deter the threatening state from

launching an attack or permit the victim to avoid defeat if an attack should occur.

(5) The statesmen can, and they do make foreign policy decisions intelligently on basis of

power considerations.

The Goals, Means, and Dynamics of Balance of Power

International relations theorists have exhibited remarkable ambiguity about not only the

meaning of balance of power but the results to be expected from a successfully operating

balance of power system. What is the ultimate promise of balance of power theory? The

purpose or goal of balance of power—if such a thing can be attributed to an unintended

spontaneously generated order—is not the maintenance of international peace and stability, as

many of the theory’s detractors have wrongly asserted. Rather it is to preserve the integrity of

the multistate system by preventing any ambitious state from swallowing up its neighbours.

The basic intuition behind the theory is that states are not to be trusted with inordinate power,

which threatens all members of the international system. The danger is that a predatory great

power might gain more than half of the total resources of the system and thereby be in

position to subjugate all the rest.

It is further assumed that the only truly effective and reliable antidote to power is power.

Increases in power (especially a rival’s growing strength), therefore, must be checked by

countervailing power. The means of accomplishing this aim are arms and allies: states

counterbalance threatening accumulations of power by building arms (internal balancing) and

forming alliances (external balancing) that serve to aggregate each other’s military power.

Because the “balance of power” primarily refers to the relative power capabilities of great

power rivals and opponents (it is, after all, a theory about great powers, the primary actors in

international politics) in the event of war between them, fighting power is the power to be

gauged. In determining what capabilities to measure, context is crucial: “To test a theory in

various historical and temporal contexts requires equivalent, not identical, measures.” An

accurate assessment of the balance of power must include (a) the military capabilities (the

means of destruction) each holds and can draw upon; (b) the political capacity to extract and

apply those capabilities; (c) the capabilities and reliability of commitments of allies and

66

possible allies; and (d) the basic features of the political geography (viz., the military and

political consequences of the relationships between physical geography, state territories, and

state power) of the conflict. While the exact components of any particular power capability

index will vary, they typically include combinations of the following measures: land area

(territorial size), total population, size of armed forces, defense expenditures, overall and per

capita size of the economy (e.g., gross national product), technological development (which

includes measures such as steel production and fossil fuel consumption), per capita value of

international trade, government revenue, and less easily measured capabilities such as

political will and competence, combat efficiency, and the like.

In summary, balance of power’s general principle of action may be put as follows: when any

state or coalition becomes or threatens to become inordinately powerful, other states should

recognize this as a threat to their security (sometimes to their very survival) and respond by

taking measures—individually or jointly or both—to enhance their military power. This

process of equilibration is thought to be the central operational rule of the system. There is

disagreement, however, over how the process, in practice, actually works; that is, over the

degree of conscious motivation required for the production of equilibrium. Along these lines,

Claude provides three types of balance of power systems: the automatic version, which is

self-regulating and spontaneously generated; the semi-automatic version, whereby

equilibrium requires a “balancer”—throwing its weight on one side of the scale or the other,

depending on which is lighter—to regulate the system; and the manually operated version,

wherein the process of equilibrium is a function of human contrivance, with emphasis on the

skill of diplomats and statesmen who carefully manage the affairs of the units (states and

other non-state territories) constituting the system.

The manually operated balance of power system is consistent with the English School’s

notion that states consider balance as something of a collective good. The role of great power

comes with the responsibility to maintain the balance of power. It is “a conception of the

balance of power as a state of affairs brought about not merely by conscious policies of

particular states that oppose preponderance throughout all the reaches of the system, but as a

conscious goal of the system as a whole.”

Nine Conditions that Promote the Smooth Operation of the Balance of Power

Recognizing the confusion and flexibility attending the term “balance of power,” any attempt

to construct a list of conditions that make a balance of power system most likely to emerge,

67

endure, and function properly should be seen as a worthy, if not foolhardy, exercise. In that

spirit, I offer the following nine conditions, which are jointly sufficient to bring about an

effectively performing balance-of-power system.

1. At Least Two Egoistic Actors under Anarchy that Seek to Survive. Within an anarchic

realm, which lacks a sovereign arbiter to make and enforce agreements among states, there

must be at least two states that seek self-preservation, above all, for a balance of power to

exist. Further, states must be more self-interested than group-interested. Each desires, if

possible, greater power than its neighbours. If states act to promote the long-run community

interest over their short-run national interest (narrowly defined), or if they equate the two sets

of interests, then they exist within either a Concert system or a Collective Security system.

Simply put, states in a balance-of-power system are not altruistic or other-regarding; they act,

instead, in ways that maximize their relative gains and avoid or minimize their relative losses.

2. Vigilance. States must be watchful and sensitive to changes in the distribution of

capabilities. Vigilance about changes in the balance of power is not only salient with respect

to actual or potential rivals. It is also necessary with regard to one’s allies because (a) when

its allies are growing weaker, the state must be aware of the deteriorating situation in order to

take appropriate measures to remedy the danger; conversely, (b) when its allies are growing

rapidly and dramatically stronger, the state should be alarmed because today’s friend may be

tomorrow’s enemy.

3. Mobility of Action. States must not only be aware of changes in the balance of power, they

must be able to respond quickly and decisively to them. As Gulick points out: “Policy must

be continually readjusted to meet changing circumstances if an equilibrium is to be preserved.

A state which, by virtue of its institutional make-up, is unable to readjust quickly to altered

conditions will find itself at a distinct disadvantage in following a balance-of-power policy,

especially when other states do not labour under the same difficulties.” Here, Gulick echoes a

concern at the time (during the early Cold War period) that democracies are too slow-moving

and deliberate to balance effectively, putting them “at a distinct disadvantage” in a contest

with an authoritarian regime.

4. States Must Join the Weaker (or Less Threatening) Side in a Conflict: As Kenneth Waltz

puts it, “States, if they are free to choose, flock to the weaker side; for it is the stronger side

that threatens them.” According to structural realists, the most powerful state will always

appear threatening because weaker states can never be certain that it will not use its power to

68

violate their sovereignty or threaten their survival. Stephen Walt’s balance of threat theory

amends this proposition to say: States, if they are free to choose and have credible allies,

flock to what they perceive as the less threatening side, whether it is the stronger or weaker of

two sides. For Walt, threat is a combination of (a) aggregate power; (b) proximity; (c)

offensive capability; and (d) offensive intentions. This last dimension, offensive intentions, is

a non-structural, ideational variable, which some critics of realism see as an ad hoc

emendation—one that is only loosely connected, if at all, to neorealism’s core propositions.

Obviously, balance of power predicts best when states balance against, rather than

bandwagon with, threatening accumulations of power. But it is not necessary that every state

or even a majority of states balance against the stronger or more threatening side. Instead,

balancing behaviour will work to maintain equilibrium or to restore a disrupted balance as

long as the would-be hegemon is prevented from gaining preponderance by the combined

strength of countervailing forces arrayed against it. The exact ratio of states that balance

versus those that do not balance is immaterial to the outcome. What matters is that enough

power is aggregated to check preponderance.

5. States Must Be Able to Project Power. Mobility of policy also means mobility on the

ground. If all states adopt strictly defensive military postures and doctrines, none will be

attractive allies. In such a world, external balancing would, for all intents and purposes,

disappear, leaving balance-of-power dynamics severely limited. This condition is a very

small hurdle for the theory to clear, however, since “great powers inherently possess some

offensive military capability,” as John Mearsheimer has forcefully argued.

6. War Must Be a Legitimate Tool of Statecraft. Balancing behaviors are preparations for

war, not peace. If major-power war eventually breaks out, as it did in 1914 and 1939, there is

no reason to conclude that the balance of power failed to operate properly. Quite the opposite:

balance of power requires that “war must be a legitimate tool of statecraft.” The outbreak of

war, therefore, does not disconfirm but, in most cases, supports the theory. As Harold

Lasswell observed in 1935, the balancing of power rests on the expectation that states will

settle their differences by fighting. This expectation of violence exercises a profound

influence on the types of behaviours exhibited by states and the system as a whole. It was not

just the prospect of war that triggered the basic dynamics of past multipolar and bipolar

systems. It was the anticipation that powerful states sought to and would, if given the right

69

odds, carry out territorial conquests at each other’s expense that shaped and shoved actors in

ways consistent with the predictions of realism’s keystone theory.

7. No Alliance Handicaps. For a balance-of-power system to operate effectively, alliance

formation must be fluid and continuous. States must be able to align and realign with other

states solely on the basis of power considerations. In practice, however, various factors

diminish the attractiveness of certain alliances that would otherwise be made in response to

changes in the balance of power that threaten the state’s security. These constraints—rooted

in ideologies, personal rivalries, national hatreds, ongoing territorial disputes and the like—

that impede alignments made for purely strategic reasons are called “alliance handicaps.” In

effect, they narrow the competitive alternatives available to states searching for allies.

Parenthetically, alliance handicaps explain why the alliance flexibility that seemingly derives

from the wealth of physical alternatives theoretically available under a multipolar structure

should not be confused with the actual alternatives that are politically available to states

within the system given their particular interests and affinities. Indeed, the greater flexibility

of alliances and fluidity of their patterns under multipolarity, as opposed to bipolarity, is more

apparent than real. Seen from a purely structural perspective, a multipolar system appears as

an oligopoly, with a few sellers (or buyers) collaborating to set the price. Behaviourally,

however, multipolarity tends toward duopoly: the few are often only two. This scarcity of

alternatives due to the presence of alliance handicaps contradicts the conventional wisdom of

the flexibility of alliances in a multipolar system.

8. Pursue Moderate War Aims. Because today’s friend may be tomorrow’s enemy, states

should pursue moderate war aims and avoid eliminating essential actors. In Gulick’s words,

“An equilibrium cannot perpetuate itself unless the major components of that equilibrium are

preserved. Destroy important makeweights and you destroy the balance; or in the words of

Fénelon to the grandson of Louis XIV early in the 18th century: ‘never … destroy a power

under pretext of restraining it.’” This lesson is easily grasped when one considers the

composition of alignments before and after major-power wars. During the Second World

War, for instance, the United States was allied with China and the Soviet Union against Italy,

Germany, and Japan. After the war, the United States, victorious but wisely having chosen

not to eliminate its vanquished enemies, allied with Japan, Italy, and West Germany against

its erstwhile allies, the Soviet Union and Communist China.

70

For structural realists, moderate outcomes result because of, not in spite of, the greed and fear

of states—to behave too forcefully, too recklessly expansionist, will lead others to mobilize

against you. This is a very different understanding of moderation than the one that Edward

Gulick and members of the English School have in mind when they speak of moderation

within a balance of power: “restraint, abnegation, and the denial of immediate self-interest.”

What is required is “the subordination of state interest to balance of power.” For most

realists, these notions better describe a Concert system than one rooted in balance-of-power

politics, where states simply follow their narrow, short-run self-interests.

9. Proportional Aggrandizement (or Reciprocal Compensations). Sometimes moderation

toward the defeated power is unachievable. Under such circumstances, “if the cake cannot be

saved, it must be fairly divided.” What is fair? Gulick suggests that “equal compensation” is

fair. The concept of reciprocal compensation or proportional aggrandizement, he claims,

“stated that aggrandizement by one power entitled other powers to an equal compensation or,

negatively, that the relinquishing of a claim by one power must be followed by a comparable

abandonment of a claim by another.” Such an “equality” rule, however, would disrupt an

existing balance. If, for instance, one state is twice as powerful as another, and together they

are dividing up a third state, a division down the middle, giving them each half, will

advantage the weaker power relative to its stronger partner. Instead, “proportional”

compensation is not only fair but will maintain an existing equilibrium among the great

powers. Simply put, the rule governing partitions must be that “the biggest dog gets the

meatiest bone, and so on.” Returning to our example, a balance will be maintained if the

defeated state is partitioned such that two thirds of it goes to the state that is twice as strong

as its weaker associate, which receives the remaining third. Such proportional

aggrandizement prevents any great power from making unfair relative gains at the expense of

the others.

The Balance of Power as an International Order

At its essence, balance of power is a type of international order. What do we mean by an

international order? A system exhibits “order” when the set of discrete objects that comprise

71

the system are related to one another according to some pattern; that is, their relationship is

not miscellaneous or haphazard but accords with some discernible principle. Order prevails

when things display a high degree of predictability, when there are regularities, when there

are patterns that follow some understandable and consistent logic. Disorder is a condition of

randomness—of unpredictable developments lacking regularities and following no known

principle or logic. The degree of order exhibited by social and political systems is partly a

function of stability. Stability is the property of a system that causes it to return to its original

condition after it has been disturbed from a state of equilibrium. Systems are said to be

unstable when slight disturbances produce large disruptions that not only prevent the original

condition from being restored but also amplify the effect of the perturbation. This process is

called “positive feedback,” because it pushes the system increasingly farther away from its

initial steady state. The classic example of positive feedback is a bank run caused by self-

fulfilling prophesies: people believe something is true (there will be a run on the bank), so

their behaviour makes it true (they all withdraw their money from the bank); and others’

observations of this behaviour increases the belief that it is true, so they behave accordingly

(they, too, withdraw their money from the bank), which makes the prophesy even more true,

and so on.

Some systems are characterized by robust and durable orders. Others are extremely unstable,

such that their orders can quickly and without warning collapse into chaos. Like an

avalanche, or peaks of sand in an hourglass that suddenly collapse and cascade, or a spider

web that takes on an entirely new pattern when a single strand is cut, complex and delicately

balanced systems are unpredictable: they may appear calm and orderly at one moment only to

become wildly turbulent and disorderly the next. This inherent instability of complex, tightly

coupled systems is captured by the popular catch phrase, “the butterfly effect,” coined by the

MIT meteorologist, Edward Lorenz, to explain how a massive storm can be caused (or

prevented) by the faraway flapping of a tiny butterfly’s wings. The principal lesson of the

butterfly effect is that, when incalculably small differences in the initial conditions of a

system matter greatly, the world becomes radically unpredictable. Indeed, we can seldom

predict what will happen when a new element is added to a system composed of many parts

connected in complex ways. Such systems undergo frequent discontinuous changes from

shocking impacts that create radical departures from the past.

International orders vary according to (a) the amount of order displayed; (b) whether the

order is purposive or unintended; and (c) the type of mechanisms that provide order. On one

72

end of the spectrum, there is rule-governed, purposive order, which is explicitly designed and

highly institutionalized to fulfil universally accepted social ends and values. At the other

extreme, international order is an entirely unintended and un-institutionalized recurrent

pattern (e.g., a balance of power) to which the actors and the system itself exhibit conformity

but which serves none of the actors’ goals or which, at least, was not deliberately designed to

do so. Here, international order is spontaneously generated and self-regulating. The classic

example of this spontaneously generated order is the balance of power, which arises though

none of the states may seek equality of power; to the contrary, all actors may seek greater

power than everyone else, but the concussion of their actions (which aim to maximize their

power) produces the unintended consequence of a balance of power. In other words, the

actors are constrained by a system that is the unintended product of their coactions (akin to

the invisible hand of the market, which is a spontaneously generated order/system).

There are essentially three types of international orders:

1. A negotiated order. A rule-based order that is the result of a grand bargain voluntarily

struck among the major actors who, therefore, view the order as legitimate and beneficial. It

is a highly institutionalized order, ensuring that the hegemon will remain engaged in

managing the order but will not exercise its power capriciously. In this way, a negotiated

rule-based order places limits on the returns to power, especially with respect to the hegemon.

Pax Americana (1945–present) and, to a lesser extent, Pax Britannica (19th century) are

exemplars of this type of “liberal constitutional” order.

2. An imposed order. A non-voluntary order among unequal actors purposefully designed and

ruled by a malign (despotic) hegemon, whose power is unchecked. The Soviet satellite

system is an exemplar of this type of order.

3. A spontaneously generated order. Order is an unintended consequence of actors seeking

only to maximize their interests and power. It is an automatic or self-regulating system.

Power is checked by countervailing power, thereby placing limits on the returns to power.

The classic 18th century European balance of power is an exemplar of this type of order.

The predictability of a social system depends, among other things, on its degree of

complexity, whether its essential mechanisms are automatic or volitional, and whether the

system requires key members to act against their short-run interests in order to work properly.

Negotiated (sometimes referred to as “constitutional”) orders are complex systems that rely

73

on ad hoc human choices and require actors to choose voluntarily to subordinate their

immediate interests to communal or remote ones (e.g., in collective security systems). As

such, how they actually perform when confronted with a disturbance that trips the alarm, so

to speak, will be highly unpredictable. In contrast, the operation of a balance-of-power

system is fairly automatic and therefore highly predictable. It simply requires that states,

seeking to survive and thrive in a competitive, self-help realm, pursue their short-run

interests; that is, states seek power and security, as they must in an anarchic order.

Here, it does not mean to suggest that balance-of-power systems always function properly

and predictably. Balancing can be late, uncertain, or nonexistent. These types of balancing

maladies, however, typically occur when states consciously seek to opt out of a balance-of-

power system, as happened in the interwar period, but then fail to replace it with a

functioning alternative security system. The result is that a balance-of-power order, which

may be viewed as a default system that arises spontaneously, in the absence or failure of

concerted arrangements among all the units of the system to provide for their collective

security, eventually emerges but is not accomplished as efficiently as it otherwise would have

been.

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-

Proliferation Treaty, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread

of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses

of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and

complete disarmament. Between 1965 and 1968, the treaty was negotiated by the Eighteen

Nation Committee on Disarmament, a United Nations-sponsored organization based

in Geneva, Switzerland.

Opened for signature in 1968, the treaty entered into force in 1970. As required by the text,

after twenty-five years, NPT Parties met in May 1995 and agreed to extend the treaty

indefinitely. More countries have adhered to the NPT than any other arms limitation and

disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty's significance. As of August 2016, 191

states have adhered to the treaty, though North Korea, which acceded in 1985 but never came

into compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of

74

nuclear devices in violation of core obligations. Four UN member states have never accepted

the NPT, three of which possess nuclear weapons: India, Israel and Pakistan. In

addition, South Sudan, founded in 2011, has not joined. The treaty defines nuclear-weapon

states as those that have built and tested a nuclear explosive device before 1 January 1967;

these are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other states

are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, and North Korea have

openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel is deliberately

ambiguous regarding its nuclear weapons status.

The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain:

The NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT

nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology

and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

The treaty is reviewed every five years in meetings called Review Conferences of the Parties

to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Even though the treaty was originally

conceived with a limited duration of 25 years, the signing parties decided, by consensus, to

unconditionally extend the treaty indefinitely during the Review Conference in New York

City on 11 May 1995, in the culmination of U.S. government efforts led by

Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr.

At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25–30 nuclear weapon states

within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, five states are not parties to the NPT, and they

include the only four additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons. Several

additional measures have been adopted to strengthen the NPT and the broader nuclear

nonproliferation regime and make it difficult for states to acquire the capability to produce

nuclear weapons, including the export controls of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the

enhanced verification measures of the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol.

Critics argue that the NPT cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or the motivation

to acquire them. They express disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear

disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads in

their combined stockpile and have shown a reluctance to disarm further. Several high-ranking

75

officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear

reactors to produce nuclear weapons.

India as a Non-signatory to NPT

Four states—India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan—have never signed the treaty. India

and Pakistan have publicly disclosed their nuclear weapon programs, and Israel has a long-

standing policy of deliberate ambiguity with regards to its nuclear program.

India has detonated nuclear devices, first in 1974 and again in 1998. India is estimated to

have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. India was among the few countries

to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an

adversary using nuclear weapons, however India's former NSA Shivshankar Menon

signaled a significant shift from "no first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon

states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of the National Defence

College in New Delhi on 21 October 2010, a doctrine Menon said reflected India's "strategic

culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence".

India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear

have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested

them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is

valid. India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in

2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-

proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the

need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment." Although there have been

unofficial discussions on creating a South Asian nuclear weapons free zone, including India

and Pakistan, this is considered to be highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

In early March 2006, India and the United States finalized an agreement, in the face of

criticism in both countries, to restart cooperation on civilian nuclear technology. Under the

deal India has committed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants as being for civilian use

and to place them under IAEA safeguards. Mohamed El-Baradei, then Director General of

the IAEA, welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation

regime."

In December 2006, United States Congress approved the United States-India Peaceful

Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, endorsing a deal that was forged during Prime Minister

76

Singh's visit to the United States in July 2005 and cemented during President Bush's visit to

India earlier in 2006. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to

India. Despite its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear cooperation

with India was permitted on the basis of its clean non-proliferation record, and India's need

for energy fueled by its rapid industrialization and a billion-plus population.

On 1 August 2008, the IAEA approved the India Safeguards Agreement and on 6 September

2008, India was granted the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in

Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived after overcoming misgivings expressed by

Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a

country, which has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty (CTBT). While India could commence nuclear trade with other willing countries The

U.S. Congress approved this agreement and President Bush signed it on 8 October 2008.

When China announced expanded nuclear cooperation with Pakistan in 2010, proponents

of arms control denounced both the deals, claiming that they weakened the NPT by

facilitating nuclear programmes in states which are not parties to the NPT.

As of January 2011, Australia, a top three uranium producer and home to world's largest

known reserves, had continued its refusal to export Uranium to India despite diplomatic

pressure from India. In November 2011 the Australian Prime Minister announced a desire to

allow exports to India, a policy change which was authorized by her party's national

conference in December. On 4 December 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard overturned

Australia's long-standing ban on exporting uranium to India. She further said "We should

take a decision in the national interest, a decision about strengthening our strategic

partnership with India in this the Asian century," and said that any agreement to sell uranium

to India would include strict safeguards to ensure it would only be used for civilian purposes,

and not end up in nuclear weapons. On Sep 5, 2014; Australian Prime Minister Tony

Abbott sealed a civil nuclear deal to sell uranium to India. "We signed a nuclear cooperation

agreement because Australia trusts India to do the right thing in this area, as it has been doing

in other areas," Abbott told reporters after he and Indian Prime Minister Narendra

Modi signed a pact to sell uranium for peaceful power generation.

International Law

77

International law, also known as public international law and law of nations, is the set of

rules, norms, and standards generally accepted in relations between nations. It establishes

normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states to follow across a broad

range of domains, including war, diplomacy, trade, and human rights. International law thus

provides a mean for states to practice more stable, consistent, and organized international

relations.

The sources of international law include international custom (general state practice accepted

as law), treaties, and general principles of law recognised by most national legal systems.

International law may also be reflected in international comity, the practices and customs

adopted by states to maintain good relations and mutual recognition, such as saluting the flag

of a foreign ship or enforcing a foreign judgment.

International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily—though not

exclusively—applicable to countries, rather than to individuals, and operates largely through

consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign

states. Consequently, states may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break a

treaty. However, such violations, particularly of customary international law and peremptory

norms (jus cogens), can be met with coercive action, ranging from military intervention to

diplomatic and economic pressure.

The relationship and interaction between a national legal system (municipal law) and

international law is complex and variable. National law may become international law when

treaties permit national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of

Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva

Conventions may require national law to conform to treaty provisions. National laws or

constitutions may also provide for the implementation or integration of international legal

obligations into domestic law.

78