SPCM 205

POSTGRADUATE COURSE
M.COM.
SECOND YEAR
THIRD SEMESTER

NON MAJOR ELECTIVE - I

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS
M.COM. SECOND YEAR NON MAJOR ELECTIVE - I
THIRD SEMESTER INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

WELCOME
Warm Greetings.

It is with a great pleasure to welcome you as a student of Institute of Distance Education,

University of Madras. It is a proud moment for the Institute of Distance education as you are
entering into a cafeteria system of learning process as envisaged by the University Grants
Commission. Yes, we have framed and introduced Choice Based Credit System(CBCS) in
Semester pattern from the academic year 2018-19. You are free to choose courses, as per the
Regulations, to attain the target of total number of credits set for each course and also each
degree programme. What is a credit? To earn one credit in a semester you have to spend 30
hours of learning process. Each course has a weightage in terms of credits. Credits are assigned
by taking into account of its level of subject content. For instance, if one particular course or
paper has 4 credits then you have to spend 120 hours of self-learning in a semester. You are
advised to plan the strategy to devote hours of self-study in the learning process. You will be
assessed periodically by means of tests, assignments and quizzes either in class room or
laboratory or field work. In the case of PG (UG), Continuous Internal Assessment for 20(25)
percentage and End Semester University Examination for 80 (75) percentage of the maximum
score for a course / paper. The theory paper in the end semester examination will bring out your
various skills: namely basic knowledge about subject, memory recall, application, analysis,
comprehension and descriptive writing. We will always have in mind while training you in
conducting experiments, analyzing the performance during laboratory work, and observing the
outcomes to bring out the truth from the experiment, and we measure these skills in the end
semester examination. You will be guided by well experienced faculty.

I invite you to join the CBCS in Semester System to gain rich knowledge leisurely at
your will and wish. Choose the right courses at right times so as to erect your flag of success.
We always encourage and enlighten to excel and empower. We are the cross bearers to make
you a torch bearer to have a bright future.

With best wishes from mind and heart,

DIRECTOR

(i)
M.COM. SECOND YEAR NON MAJOR ELECTIVE - I
THIRD SEMESTER INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

COURSE WRITER

Dr. R. Srinivasan
Professor of Political Science / Public administration
Institute of Distance Education
University of Madras,
Chennai - 600 005.

EDITING

Dr. R. Panchalan
Professor in Commerce
Institute of Distance Education
University of Madras,
Chennai - 600 005.

© UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS, CHENNAI 600 005.

(ii)
 M.Com., DEGREE COURSE
SECOND YEAR
THIRD SEMESTER
NON MAJOR ELECTIVE - I

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SYLLABUS
UNIT 1

Meaning, nature and Scope of International Relations - Approaches of International

Relations - National Power and National Interest - Diplomacy

UNIT 2

International morality – Protection of civilian population during war – Protection of

prisoners of war and disabled soldiers – North south relations – Responsibility of rich
national towards poor national – Challenges and Responses in the inter dependent
world – North – South divide.

UNIT 3

The Foreign Policy of New during Nehru Era – Post Cold War Era and the changing
scenario – India and USA. India and Russia – India and European Community – India
and Central Asia – India and the Persian Gulf and west Asia – India and her neighbours
: India and Pakistan – India and Bangladesh – India and Srilanka – India and her
neighbours India and China – India and Nepal – India and Bhutan.

UNIT 4

The nature and evolution of international organisations – World War I – league of Nations
– World war II – Background and birth of UNO – Atlantic charter - Sanfransisco

(iii)
conference – Adoption of UN Charter - Aims and Principles of UNO – The structure
UNO : The General Assembly – Powers and functions – Security council – Compositions,
Powers and functions – Veto power – Committees.

UNIT 5

The Economic and Social Council - Composition Powers and functions - the Trusteeship
council - International Court of Justice - International Law - Secretariat - Secretary
General - Specialized agencies - International Labour organisations - food and
Agricultural Organisations - UNESCO - World Bank - IMG - WHO - UNICEF.

Books Recommended for Study

1. H.J. Morganthau, Politics among nations, Scentific Book Agency, Calcutta.

2. A. Vandana, Theory of International Politics, Vikas Publishing House.

3. Mahindra Kumar, Theoretical aspects of International politics – Shivalal Agarwal.

4. S.J.R. Bilgrami, International Organisations. Vikas Publishing House.

5. A.L. Bennett, International Organisations : Principles and Issues, Prentice Hall.

6. S.S. Goodspeed, The Nature and Functions of International Organisations, OUP

(iv)
 M.Com., DEGREE COURSE
SECOND YEAR
THIRD SEMESTER
NON MAJOR ELECTIVE - I
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SCHEME OF LESSONS

Sl.No. Title Page

1. Nature, Scope and Importance of International Relations 001

2. Approaches to the Study of International Relations 012

3. Key issues in International Relations 029

4. National Power 041

5. National Interest 064

6. Diplomacy 080

7. International Ethics 104

8. World Public Opinion 115

9. World State 121

10. Nature of Foreign Policy 137

11. India and her Neighbours 149

12. UNO and International Relations 160

13. Collective Security 176

14. International Organizations and International Relations 196

15. Economic Globalisation 211

(v)
 1

LESSON - 1

NATURE, SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1.1 Introduction

According to Aristole, “man is a social and political animal. “This signifies that man
has to live in the society in co-operation with his fellow men. As a useful functioning member
of the society, his involvement in the domestic socio-political processes has been inevitable,
if not inseparable from him. His dependence on, and co-operation and co-existence with,
others is evident from the fact that his life is less self-sufficient and more in secured.
Negatively, no individual can live out side the society. Likewise, no state, whatever its
nature and stature or position and powers, can live outside the International community. No
state is self-sufficient and secured in all respects. Hence, no sovereign state can live a life
of isolation with disregard to mutual co-operation, dependence, peaceful co-existence and
what not. Thus, in modern times, every state of the world has to maintain and cultivate
relations with the other states of the world in the larger interest of the entire humanity. It is
undoubtedly a matter of utter necessity, especially when acrimony, aggrandizement,
aggression, conflicts, confrontations and the like engulf the community of nations, which
must be saved from the scourge of war. Hence, International relationship is as much a
product necessary as social existence itself.

1.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson you will be able to

 Describe the significance of International relations

 Understand the scope of the study

 Differentiate International relations from International politics.

Plan of study

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Objectives
2

1.3 Thematic Introduction

1.4 International Relations Vs International Politics

1.5 Nature of the Study

1.6 Contents and Scope of the study

1.7 Importance of the study

1.8 Summary

1.9 Key Words

1.10 Check Your Answers

1.11 Model Questions

1.12 Further Readings

1.3 Thematic Introduction

The world in which we live today has greatly shrunk as a result of scientific and
technological development. Consequently, the events in one part of the world have an
immediate impact on the rest of the globe. The states are, therefore, obliged to maintain
regular relations with their counter parts. These facts, then, account for the growing and
impelling importance of the study of International relations.

Ofcourse, some sort of International relations have been in practice since ancient
times. Ancient states like India, China, Egypt and Greece had evolved a certain code for the
conduct of these relations and those rules were basically moral in nature. Hence, these
relations generally embraced only the states of the same region. As such, they could be
appropriately described as “regional relations”. This, in a way, marked the beginning of the
International relations, as such.

It was only in the Seventeenth century that the states established relations with other
states beyond their region. Following the Renaissance and the Reformation, the territorial
states emerged and with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the tradition of International
relations between different states came to the fore. However, it may be noted that at that
time the International relations were concerned only with the study of diplomatic history, law
 3

and philosophy. The study has its thrust on facts – finding. No education of any universal
principles were made, which could be of help to understand the present or future relations
among states. As a result, no well conceived theory could be evolved which could help in
under standing the significance of the current events.

The Industrial Revolution made the World shrink further and reduced the distances
between the states. As a result, the local and regional problems began to assume the global
character. Consequently, the erstwhile regional relations were transformed into International
relations. Besides, the Industrial Resolution helped in the emergence of International relations
in another way also, In addition to revolutionizing the industries and the means of transport
and communications, it also gave rise to more destructive weapons and the war also entered
the machine age. “The limited war of the past was replaced by a total war, where no
distinction could be made between the combatants and non-combatants. The indiscriminate
bombardment by German aero planes during the First World War caused much suffering to
the civilian population”. As a result, an intrusive public campaign against secret diplomacy
started. For instance, Lenin, in his “Decree on Peace”, and Woodrow Wilson, in his “Fourteen
Points” pleaded for the abolition of secret diplomacy. They promised to conduct all diplomatic
negotiations openly before the whole people. President Wilson in his very first point stated:
“Open Covenants of peace openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private
International understandings of any kind, diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the
public view”. This demand for open diplomacy heralded the birth of a new science of
International Relations as a systematic discipline after the First World War. Since then, the
development of the discipline underwent different stages with different dimensions. This we
will see in a subsequent lesson.

Definition and Meaning of International Relations

It was Jeremy Bentham, the Utilitarian Philosopher, who used the term ‘International’
for the first time in the eighteenth century with regard to the law of the nations. Consequently,
the combined term of International relations was used to define the official relations between
the sovereign states. However, some scholars even included the economic, social and
cultural relations among the states also within the purview of the subject. Today, the world
is divided into a number of states which constitute the actors in the International political
system. These states have different sociological, political, economic and ecological systems,
Hence, variations of interest and demands are bound to arise among them and these
divergences give rise to hostile programmes towards each other. As L.N. Srivatsava
4

observes”, in the absence of a well-organized agency to adjust the varying interests of the
states, the states are often guided by self-interests. With the shrinking of the globe, the
actions of one state have a deep impact on the interests of others. Therefore, Trygve
Mathiesen says that even the internal 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; they also cover the relations conducted by other important groups, to the extent
they influence the interactions of the sovereign states. In other words, the relations conducted
by the sovereign states may be the most important subject – matter of International relations
but other important groups also exercise influence on the actions of the sovereign states.

1.4 International Relations Vs International Politics

What all said about the meaning of International relations is not enough. In order to
explicate its implications and nature, we are required to distinguish between International
relations and International politics as these terms are often used internchangeably and
synonymously. For example, E.H. Carr and Qunicy Wright treat them as identical. Many
other writers find it difficult to draw a line of demarcation between International relations and
International politics. Kenneth Thompson and Morgenthau consider International politics as
an inalienable part of International relations. But the fact remains that this superfluous
resemblance does not make International politics the core of International relations. Both
are different from each other as the following accounts would show.

The term International relations is wider in scope and includes in its study the totality
of relations of any people and groups in the world society. Many scholars include within its
purview all aspects of relations between countries and people political or non-political peaceful
or war-like, legal or cultural economic or geographic, official or non-official. In short, they
use the term, as Harold and Margaret point out, to desigrate all human behavior on the one
side of a national boundary affecting the human behavior on the other side of the country.
Since the term ‘relations’ has a variety of meanings as contacts, connections, actions and
reactions, the scholars have tended to define International relations as an action on the part
of a group – state or government-directed towards another group which reacts to it.
International politics includes only the political aspects of the over-all relations. In other
words, only those relations which arouse actions and reactions are the subjects of
International politics. Thus, it can be said that International politics is the political aspect of
International relations.
 5

Again, ‘International politics’ connotes the politics of International community in a rather

narrow sense concerning mainly diplomacy and the relations among states and other political
units. But, the term ‘International relations’ has a much wide connotation than International
politics in so far as it embraces all sorts of relations among people and groups in the world
society and these relations operate both at the official as well as non-official levels.
International politics includes only those aspects of International relations in which the conflict
of purpose or interest is involved.

Viewed methodologically, the study of International relations is descriptive, while that

of International politics is analytical. In the former, the factors are studied chronologically. In
the latter, the basis of study is what, when and how of the present with a relationship
between the past and future. But for International relations, International politics will be
devoid of any strength and substance.

Padelford and Lincoln have brought out the distinction between International relations
and International politics thus: “In its broadest sense, the field of International relations
comprises myriads of contacts among individuals, business organizations, 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 the states, which make the vital
decisions affecting peace and war and that it is 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 the states is described as ‘International politics’, that is,
the interaction of state policies. This is the core of contemporary International relations”.
Whatever the distinctions between the two, the fact remains that they are interrelated and
complementary.

1.5 Nature of the Study

The study of International relations has not attained for long the stature of a “well –
organized discipline”. It did not possess a clear – cut conceptual framework. Nor did it have
a systematized body of applicable theory. It relied heavily on other well – developed
disciplines. Long back, Sir Alfred Limner described International relations as “a bundle of
subjects”. Later on, relations among nations acquired greater complexity. Nevertheless,
some real progress has been achieved in more systematic presentation of the subject over
the years.
6

According to E.H. Carr, the study of International Relations was, for long, too subjective
in character and content. In its early stages, it was deliberately and markedly “utopian’, as
the passionate desire to prevent war determined the whole initial course of the study. The
failure of the League of Nations underlined the inadequacy of pure aspiration as the basis
for a science of International politics and made it possible for the first time to embark on
serious and critical, analytical thought about International problems”.

The horrible and heinous experiences of the Second World War pointed to a realistic
approach to International politics, if not International relations. The emphasis was shifted to
power politics and the virtual inevitability of war. After the Second World War, a new wave of
optimism gave way to “resurrection of utopian approach”. The cold war exposing the bitter
rivalries between the Communist and the non-communist world shattered the euphoria and
encouraged a more cautious approach to the study of International Relations.

There arose an upsurge in the theoretical analysis of International Relations after the
Second World War. Under the classical political tradition, the theory of International relations
was scattered and unsystematic. After the First World War, the study of International Relations
was enriched with specialized writings relating to the problems of security, war, disarmament,
imperialism, nationalism, balance of power and economic factors in war. After the Second
World War, increasing interests in the theoretical study became evident. Quincy Wright,
Morton A.Kaplan, Charles A. Meclelland theorized on the International system. Kenneth W.
Thompson dealt with the issue of political relations. R.C. Synder and his colleagues focused
on the foreign policy decision-making. John Herz shifted the attentions to the changing
perspective of International politics in the nuclear age. Richard N.Rosecrance interpreted
International politics in terms of actions and reactions processes through various diplomatic
periods. E.B. Hass laid emphasis on functional integration in International relations. Karl W.
Deutsch has sought to analyze the International relations as a development in communication.
Thomas C. Shelling approaches the subject in terms of conflict strategy and George Liska
in terms of equilibrium.

Inspite of these endeavors and attempts, no single theory is found to be adequate to

grapple with the increasing complexity of the International reality. In recent decades there
has been tremendous interest in approaches, methodologies and research techniques of
International Relations. The intellectual discipline of International Relations was previously
determined by the traditional scholars. It has now been exposed to scientific approaches.
While the traditional theories are said to be too vague and inclusive to provide useful
 7

explanation of International political behavior and flexible to with stand the rigorous scientific
test of verification, the scientific school believes in he empirical method and comprehensive
testing of deductive hypotheses. The scientific approaches have generated methodological
revolution in the field of International Relations. We will study about different approaches in
a subsequent lesson.

1.6 Contents and Scope of the Study

As a discipline, International Relations is a study of the International community in
transition. “Though many basic principles and underlying factors of International relations
remain unchanged, the International relations remain unchanged; the International, political
environment is fast changing. A number of factors, including modification of the state system,
remarkable technological developments, the expansion of International society through
emergence of many new states, rise of two super and other big powers with tremendous
destructive power, the growth of many International and supranational organizations and
the revolution of rising expectation, which has swept the underdeveloped world have
generated the unprecedented changes in inter-state relations. Many new elements stepped
in expanding and enlarging the scope and contents of International Relations”. Thus, Quincy
Wright has remarked, “varied types of groups – nations, states, governments, peoples,
regional alliances, confederations, International organizations must be dealt with in the
study of International relations.

According to Grayson Kirk, International Relations constitute the following five

ingredients: “(1) the nature and operation of the state system, (2) factors that affect the
power of a state, (3) the International position and foreign policies of big powers of the
world, (4) the history of recent International relocations, (5) the building of a more stable
world order”. This held good in 1947. In 1954, Vincent Baker listed seven topics that are
included in most courses of International Relations. These are: “(1) the nature and principal
forces of International politics, (2) the political, social and economic organization of
International life, (3) the elements of national power, (4) the instruments available for
promotion of the national interest, (5) the limitation and control of national power, (6) the
foreign policy of one or more major powers and occasionally of small state and (7) the
historical ingredient as a background for other factors and as a history of recent International
events”. Quincy Wright included eight topics in the study of “International Relations” such
as International law, diplomatic history, military science or technology of war, International
politics, International organization, International trade, colonial government, foreign policy
management and its control.
8

Vincent Backer focused other trends such as increasing concern with theory, greater
emphasis on policy making process, a trend to draw heavily upon other disciplines and the
increasing use of case studies of various types: Palmen and Perkins exclusive preoccupation
with International politics towards a leader approach to International relations”.

Since 1960, the Study of International Relation has been pre-occupied with such
problems like the nature of bipolarity, the diplomacy of alliances experiments in regional
integration, decolonization, emergence of the Afro – Asian states and International economic
issues. Investigations also focused on psychological strategy, conflict resolution, the role of
foreign policy elites and the nature of decision making process. Advanced weapon technology
has induced the detailed study on deterrence, arms control and disarmament. The recent
decades recorded a reaction against the states as sole – actors approach. Consequently,
new emphasis has been placed on the role of various other non-state actors including the
individuals and transnational organizations.

It is an uphill task to delineate the boundaries of International Relations once for all.
International politics has been assuming a dynamic nature. International environment is fast
changing’. With increasing tensions, unclear menace and global socio-economic ethmic
and other numerous issues, the scope of International relations, both as a discipline and a
practices and processes, is bound to enlarge without any settled contents. It is expanding
on various counts, covering numerous and multi-dimensional aspects.

In spite of the astounding expansion in the scope of International relations, some

scholars are of the opinion 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. It lacks a clear – cut
‘conceptual’ framework, ‘concept ional design’ and a systematic body of applicable theory;
it is heavily dependent upon the other letter organized disciplines”. Alfred Zimmern says,
“From the academic point of view, ‘International Relations’ is clearly not a subject in the
ordinary sense of the word. It does not deal with 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”.

Modern scholars are not desirous of treating International relations as an independent

discipline because any discipline should imply some sort of unit of subject – matter and
unanimity as regards its scope as well as a good degree of subjectivity. These requisites
are lacking in International relations. Scholars are still divided on the scope of the subject.
 9

“It also does not possess clear boundaries which separate it from political science because
both are concerned with the study of sovereign states and their behavior. It also lacks
objectivity and more often than not assumes subjective character. No doubt, scholars are
trying to search better and uniform foci, concepts and methods, but still the subject is far
from being an independent discipline”.

1.7 Importance of the Study

The world in which we are living today is an interdependent one. This, then primarily
and predominantly accounts for the great importance and significance of the study of
International Relations. It enables us to understand the basic motives underlying the policies
of various countries in the International sphere and the reasons which contribute to their
ultimate success or failure. Though such a study does not in any way increase the prospects
of world peace, it certainly provides the people of the world with an insight into their problems
and increases their boldness to live confidently in a world of immense diversity.

The study of International relations is also useful in driving home the point that narrow
nationalism is the bane of humanity and poses a serious turret to world peace. It cautions
that so long the various nations seek to view and try to analyze the problems subjectively
and given the precedence to national interest over all other considerations, conflicts are
bound to arise. If world peace is genuinely desired, an objective outlook is very much
necessary.

Similarly, it demonstrates that the traditional concept of national sovereignty is not in

keeping with the International relations points out that no state in modern times can claim
full authority to act as it likes. It emphasizes that the modern state has to operate within
several constraints inherent in the present International order. The acceptance of the
principles of discordant and collective security is a clear indication of this change.

Lastly, “the study of International relations has greatly contributed to eh strengthening

of feeling among the member states that they must try to conduct their relations along
peaceful line and avoid military pacts and alliances. In other words, they have come to
realize that they must avoid the policy of confrontation and adopt the policy of co-operation
and co-existence. This change in attitude will go a long way in promoting the feeling of
universal brother hood and elimination of wars. In sum, the study of International Relations
encompasses the entire relations among people and groups in the world community and
the forces, pressures, and processes that determine their relations and this, then, accounts
for its real importance.
10

Check Your Progress

1. What is the difference between International Politics and International Relations.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. What is the subject matter of International relations?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is the importance of the study of International Relations?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

1.8 Summary

According to Organski, “as a science, International Relations’ today is in its infancy;

at us still less a science than a mixture of philosophy and history and art. It’s theories are
few and shockingly unstable. Writings on the subject are largely descriptive. However, the
descriptive – historical approach has resulted in the collection of an immense amount of
data, and the daily papers provide us with more. New theorists are beginning to provide the
kind of theoretical framework that is necessary for ordering and interpreting the facts. We
are on the verge of great discoveries and within next few decades the basic foundations of
 11

new discipline will be laid”. Barring these views and forgiving the repetitive ideas, it may be
conclusively stated that the study of International Relations includes International law
International organization, International politics, International economic, social and cultural
systems, foreign policy, diplomacy, military science and peace research.

1.9 Key Words

Utopian : Idealistic reformer.

Optimism : Hopefulness and confidence about the future.

Confederation : A Union of States with some political power belonging to central

authority.

1.10 Check Your Answers

1. See section 1.4

2. See section 1.4

3. See section 1.5

1.11 Model Questions

1. Discuss the meaning, nature and scope of International relations.

2. Distinguish between International Relations and International Politics.

3. Bring out the importance of the study of International Relations.

1.12 Further Readings

1. Hans J. Morgenthau, “Politics Among Nations”.

2. N.D. Palmer and H.C. Perkins, ‘International Relations”.

3. Jack Watson, “Twentieth Century World Affairs”.

12

LESSON - 2

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
2.1 Introduction

As brought out in the first lesson, the scope of International Relations has greatly
expanded over the years. Of late, scholars have attempted to build up certain theories of
International politics. They are tirelessly striving to make the discipline more accurate a
study worthy to be called a science. Consequently, there are very many approaches to the
study of International relations. According to Quincy Wright, there are twenty three
approaches. Burton Spain described twenty seven, while Palmer and Perkins described
seven approaches.

2.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 Enumerate the list of various approaches to study International relations

 Describe the realistic and idealistic approaches

 Understand Mortan’s Kaplan’s systems approach

Plan of study

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Objectives

2.3 Thematic Introduction

2.4 Classical or Traditional approach

2.5 Eclectic Approach

2.6 Behavioural or Scientific Approach

2.7 Mortan Kaplan’s Six Systems Approach

 13

2.8 Decision Making Approach

2.9 Summary

2.10 Key Words

2.11 Check Your Answers

2.12 Model Questions

2.13 Further Readings

2.3 Thematic Introduction

Before we examine the various approaches, it must be necessary, to bring out the
meaning of the term ‘approach’. Vernon Van Dyke says that” an approach consists of the
criteria of selection – criteria employed in selecting the problems or questions to consider
and in selecting the data to bring to learn: it consists of standards governing the inclusion
and exclusion of questions and data”. In simple words, an approach is a set of standards
governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions and data for academic purposes. It
implies looking at the problems from a particular angle and explaining the phenomenon
from the same angle. Different scholars have adopted different criteria for selecting the
problems and data and adopted different standpoints. As a result, we have different
approaches to the study of International relation and we can examine them under the following
heads.

2.4 Classical or Traditional Approach

The classical approach was prominent till the middle of the present century, even
though at present certain writers continue to subscribe to this approach. These writers laid
emphasis on the descriptive analysis of International relations. The main objective of these
scholars has been “to report and analyze the current International problems and to speculate
on the sources and outcomes of various policy alternatives for the specific states or
International organization”. Hedley Bull says, “the traditional approach is the approach to
theorising that derives from philosophy, history and law, and that is characterized, above
all, by the assumptions that if we confine ourselves to strict standards to verification and
proof, there is very little of significance that can be said about International relations that
general propositions about this subject must therefore derive from a scientifically imperfect
14

process of perception or intuition, and that these general propositions cannot be accorded
anything more than the tentative and inconclusive status appropriate to their doubtful origin”.

The traditional approach is basically normative, qualitative and value – judgment

approach. This approach is mainly concerned with the historical dimensions. It lays emphasis
on diplomatic, historical and institutional studies. Accordingly, it has many variants, viz.,
historical approach, legal or International law approach, institutional or International
organization approach and philosophical approach. The philosophical approach itself has
important variants of realistic approach, idealistic approach and electric approach. The
classical or traditional approach with all these variants was adopted by most of the scholars
till the behavioral or scientific approach came to stay. But, still they have not gone to the
seeds.

2.4.1 Historical Approach

This was the earliest approach adopted for the study of International relations. It
focused on the past or on a selected period of history “to find out an explanation of what
institutions are – how they came into being and makes an analysis of these institutions as
they stands”. This approach helped in illuminating the present by drawing on the wisdom of
the past. Under this approach, diplomacy and inter-state relations were studied for a fixed
period of time. It worked well because in those times International relations were confined
only to the European States. As such, the area of the study was limited. But, after the
emergence of the independent states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the field of study
has very much widened. Consequently, the historical approach began to lose its value. But,
it has not gone to the seeds because it still emphasizes that the contemporary International
politics and relations are conditioned by the events of the recent past. This approach discovers
in the diplomatic history and relations the successes and failures of the statesmen. As the
store of the past experiences, it can teach the statement how they should be guided by the
course of events.

The historical approach is, however, inadequate in the present context of International
affairs. The history of the yester-years is of doubtful value for the current affairs. If at all
history repeats itself, it does so once in a blue moon. At recent and at every point, a new
problem crops up without any precedent. This being the case, history can serve only as a
“bad guide”. The statesmen and diplomats have to rely and trust more on bargaining and
decision making and not on the “dead records”. The application of this approach may
 15

wrongly influence the decision making and bring in conflicts in the inter-state relations.
This is helpful only in gathering the facts of the past and otherwise; it is repulsive to the
dynamic politics among nations. At best, it can enable us to find a superficial analogy
between the past and the present events. If history happens to be a based account, its
guidance for the current and future conduct of world affairs will be dangerous.

2.4.2 Legal Approach

This approach considers International laws as the ‘master-key’ to the interpretation

of International relations. It lays emphasis on the need to have a system of world law to
regulate the behaviour of the nation-states. It insists on a code of International conduct to
ensure world peace and security and on evolving some legal machinery for resolving state
conflicts through mediation, arbitration and judicial settlement. The advocates of this
approach constantly search for common elements in the different national systems and
uphold that there is an obligation upon the states to abide by them. However, they fail to
understand that ‘International politics and national politics’ or ‘domestic politics’ are two
different things and the principles applicable to national politics can not be applied to
International politics. Hence, as a key to interpreting the reality of inter-state relations, this
approach is also inadequate.

2.4.3 Institutional Approach

The institutional approach is also known as International organization approach. Its

focus is on the formal structure for the maintenance of peace and enforcement of the
principles of International law. It lays emphasis on the study of the organization and structures
of the League of Nations, United Nations and its other specialized agencies like the
International Labour Organization, World Health Organization etc. This approach gained
currency after the First World War. It seeks to understand the inter-state relations by studying
the behaviour of the states in the various International organizations. There is one serious
limitation in this approach. All the International activities of a state are not conducted through
International organizations. This approach excludes from its purview the study of all those
activities of a state, which are carried outside the International organizations. However, it
cannot be denied that this approach helps to understand how the various states are working
within the International community by examining their involvement in various issues. This
also helps us to understand the nature of the alignment of nations to tackle different problems.
16

2.4.4 Philosophical Approach

The philosophical approach studies primarily the human nature and then endeavours
to interpret the International politics and relations through it. It regards the state as “an
agent of moral improvement of International relations”, and stands for the accomplishment
of perpetual peace. Though “abstract, speculative and far removed from reality”, the
philosophical approach has not lost its ground. We can identify the following three variants
under the philosophical approach.

1. Realistic Approach

The realistic approach studies the events of International politics as they are. It does
not base the preconceived notions or ideas in the study of the events. The propounders of
the theory maintain that power is the primary factor underlying International relations and
that each state employs whatever means it can to attain its goals. Being “a struggle for
power”, International politics is to be understood in terms of national interests. In other
words, this approach holds that the national interests guide the statesmen more than any
other factors, viz., motives or ideologies. The statesman may talk in terms of philasophy
and ideologies but when it comes to actual action; they act only in terms of national interest.
Hans J. Morgenthau, Quincy Wright, Harold Lasswell and Spykman are the advocates of
this theory or approach. Morgenthau has argued that interest and power are the basic
ordering concepts and norms of International politics. The states pursuing them naturally
come into conflict. The study of these factors as they work in International politics is the
realistic or power approach.

The realistic or power approach theory held sway for maximum period and over
maximum number of people. In spite of its wide popularity and acceptability, this theory has
been criticized because it attaches too much importance to political power. Man is not
merely a political animal interested in controlling the action of others. Other considerations
like participation and community also determine his action. The realists consider that power
is the ultimate end. But the fact remains that it is only a means. It is also not correct to define
national interest in terms of power. This approach restricts the study only to the power
relationship, while the more vital part of the study ie., the study of values and goals which
unite the nations and the differences that divided them, has been neglected.
 17

2. Idealistic Approach

The second variant of the classical, philosophical approach is the idealistic approach.
It is utopian in nature. It regards the power politics as “the passing phase” of history. It
presents the picture of a future International society based on the notion of reformed
International system, free from power, politics, immorality and violence. Its aim is to bring
about a better world with the help of education and International organization. This approach
to the study of International relations is the result of the liberal idealism, which influenced
the American politics between the two world wars. Woodrow Wilson was its chief exponent.
The idealists like Condorcet, Butterfield, Russell and Wilson agree that “the society and
state are the results of evolution. This process of evolution is leading us towards the
perfection from imperfection. At this stage, we can establish peace and justice in the society.
Through the establishment of family of nations, war, violence and immorality can be curbed.
A world full of human happiness is not beyond human power to achieve”.

This approach lays greater emphasis on morality. The states should base their relations
on morality and uphold the ethical values. But “the philosophers and idealists have enriched
the thoughts of man, but they have not given the idea, which may solve the problems,
existing in reality. It’s why their ideas are to be respected and not obeyed in the study of
International politics”. But neither of these two approaches is completely satisfactory as we
will be discussing more details and criticisms about ‘realism and idealism’ in International
relations in the next lesson.

2.5 Eclectic Approach

No monistic theory can provide an adequate rationale for the full flow of International
politics and relations. Nor can a synthesis of all approaches answer the problem satisfactorily.
According to Stanley Hoffmann, “there are four significant components to the focus of world
politics: (1) the political structure of the world at any given moment, (2) the forces that are
cutting across the units of this structure and may be reinforcing or changing it, (3) the
relationship between domestic and foreign polices of respective units, and (4) the resultant
patterns of relationships among the first three components which are properly called
International relations”. Padelford and Lincoln have also supported this theory.

The Eclectic approach to the study of International politics and relations does not
rest on any specific theory. Instead, its emphasis is on understanding the environment –
the real world, which shapes national policies and International politics”. The student is
18

required to have a mental inventory of facts and ideas and some system of ordering them.
This approach is pragmatic and analytical. It does not repudiate the theory. On the contrary,
it invites theory, when appropriate to analysis. It is also scientific in that it does not base its
conclusions on the pre-conceived notions. “It emphasizes the study of facts, the interactions
of the actors of International scene and hence near the truth”. This is third variant of the
philosophical approach.

2.6 Behavioural or Scientific Approach

The behavioural or the scientific approach became popular in the wake of the Second
World War. It lays more emphasis on the methods of study rather than the subject-matter.
This approach proposes that “International politics, like any other social activity, involves
people and hence it could be explained by analysing and explaining the behaviours of the
people as it is reflected in their activities in the field of International relations”. The scientific
approach applies scientific method and “ignores the boundaries of orthodox disciplines”. It
emphasizes that the central aim of the research should be to study the behaviour of men. A
notable feature of this approach is that it is interdisciplinary and draws form various social
sciences like psychology, sociology and anthropology. According to K.J. Holsti, “the scientific
approach differs from the traditional approach in so far as there is a definite differs from the
trend away from description, legal analysis and policy advice… Its objective has not been to
assess the main issues in the cold war or describe current International developments, but
to create explanatory theories about International phenomena, and in some cases, even to
propose the development of general and predictive science of International relations”.

2.6.1 General Systems Theory or Approach

The systems theory is the result of the behavioral evolution in social sciences. The
new social scientists developed it to provide a general body of knowledge by integrating the
various disciplines of social sciences. The word system has multiple meanings. Hall and
Fagen define the system as a set of objects together with relationship between the objects
and between the attributes”. According to Colin, the system is a whole which is compounded
of many parts in the ensemble of attributes.” The systems theory has been applied in
various disciplines and assigned a variety of connotations.

The general systems theory is based on the assumption that “there are certain features
of relationships that are common to systems of all kinds. A system connotes relationship
between units or its various components”. The general systems approach was introduced
 19

in the late 1950s; and ever since efforts are being made to apply it, wherever appropriate to
the study of International relations. Those who adopt this approach maintain that a scientific
study of International relations can be made only if the relevant material is treated in terms
of systems action. The study of the actions of the parts of a political system can be made in
terms of an analysis of the actions of the participating units. They assume that there is
system in International relations. As Charles A. McClelland says, “The nations (systems)
being its parts involve in the process of interaction as each nation (a unit) is in constant
contact with ‘the whole’ or the International environment. It shows, therefore, that each
system besides being a system can be a sub-system in relation to a larger system. A nation’s
behavior is a two-way activity of taking from and giving to the International environment”.

In other words, the systems approach conceives nations to be in contact in the

complicated frame work of relationships resulting from the process of interactions. Although
sovereign in every respect, the nations do give and take to International system. To make it
more simple, the exponents conceive the world as a system in which the sovereign states
are components, whatever these sovereign states do, they affect the whole system. Hence,
although the activities of the states are directed to achieve their national interests, yet there
is some amount of participation in the International environment. The system approach,
thus, emphasis the significance of the states behavior. It is believed that in the interactions
of the states some order, some uniformity of action can be found. The events that occur in
the International arena, it studied in the context of the system, would appear systematic and
the study would be scientific.

Different scholars have given different meanings to the concept of system and used it
in different senses. “Firstly, the system is described as an arrangement of International
actors in which interactions could be identified. Secondly, as explanation it is referred to as
a particular arrangement in which the nature of the arrangement itself is considered the
most important variable in explaining the behavior of the states. Thirdly, system is used in
the sense of application of special types of approaches (methods) to the study of International
politics”. The first meaning is concerned with explanation and third with International reality.

James N. Rosenau represents the first usage. According to him, “a system is

considered to exist in an environment and to be composed of parts which, through interaction,
are in relation to each other”. The use of the term in this sense is made to describe the
pattern of action among the International actors. It is devoid of the theoretical explanations.
Hence, it does not possess much of theoretical value.
20

In the second sense, the term is used to convey that the world is divided into a
number of rational entities (states) possessing sovereignty which affects the nature of
International relations. With no system of law enforceable among these sovereign states,
conflicts leading to war are bound to occur. Kenneth Waltz, Kenneth Boulding and Charles
A. McClelland have used the concept in this sense.

The third sense or usage implies that the system is the application of special types of
approaches to the study of International relations. In other words, the system as a method
refers to particular approaches for bringing about a theoretical order in the vast data of
International politics or relations. “The system is used as a tool of analysis and the focus is
upon the arrangement of the actors, interaction of the actors or recovering pattern of individual
behaviour”. Thus, systems analysis in terms of methods makes International politics to be
viewed as a system in the meaning of ‘system as explanation’, based on certain assumptions
about the influence of values on human behaviours. The systems theory or approach was
first expounded by Charles A. Mc Clelland in 1955. Later it was developed by many other
scholars like Stanely Hoffmann, Kenneth Boulding, Harold Guetzkoo and Morton A. Kaplan.
However, Morton Kaplan’s six systems approach is the most systematic in its presentation.
According to Kaplan, “the systems approach provides the only possible method which can
ensure the development of scientific study of International politics and relations. He has
developed six models of hypothetical International systems that furnish a theoretical
framework within which the hypotheses can be tested.

2.7 Mortan Kaplan’s Six Systems Approach

Morton Kaplan is an acclaimed behaviouralist. He is one of the chief exponents of the

systems approach to the study of International relations. He believes that “there is some
coherence, regularity and order in the International relations. “International politics or relations
implies two things International system’ and nation-state system’. Kaplan says that the nation
– state system is the basis of the International system, which is most inclusive, because it
identifies these interests which are neither completely identical nor opposed to one another.
He as believes that physical force is necessary to keep the system intact and this force is
present in the state system and absent in the International system.

According to Kaplan, the state – system is a political system in the real sense of the
term. International system however cannot be regarded as a political system because the
role of the decision makers is subordinate and secondary in it. But in the national state
 21

system their role is primary and fundamental. In the International system, the sovereign
states constitute the International actors, who interact with one another and the result is
International politics. Kaplan says that the International actors can be divided into two
categories: national actors and supranational actors. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization is one of the supranational actors. In the words of Kaplan, “the internal system
of the actors serves as the perimeter in the International system and the International system
also serves as the perimeter for the national system. This shows their mutual dependence
and interaction. Hence, it is important to examine both what happens to the International
system as changes occur inside the system of the International actors and to examine how
the behaviour of the International actors is modified as the International system undergoes
a change”. Quite significantly, the role of the states changes with the change of the
International system. Kaplan has given the following six models of International system.

1. Balance of Power System

Strictly confining to the ideas of Kaplan and barring aside the details of the general
theory and practice of balance of power, (which otherwise one should find in one of the
subsequent lessons,) we must note the following details.

The balance of power system prevailed and operated in Europe in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. It implied and for what it is worth, it implies that a sort of equilibrium of
political power favorable to a particular nation at a particular time. In theory, it means even
distribution of power between various nations to prevent any particular nations from imposing
its will upon others. The operation of this system has six important rules or principles.

i. Each actor (state) should increase its power and capability through negotiations only.
In no case should it resort to war.

ii. The protection of national interests is the primary aim of the actors. They can be
successfully protected, if the capabilities are increased. So the actor – states will
have to increase their capabilities even at the risk of war.

iii. The actors will not be interested in eliminating the opponent as it will destroy the very
system it self. So the actors should ceasefire before the opponent is eliminated.

iv. The national actors, through all possible means, must not allow the other actors to
form a coalition or a group of predominance inside the system.
22

v. The national actors should prevent the other actors from subscribing to supranational
principles. In other words, supranationalism should be encouraged.

vi. The essential actors even after the defeat should be allowed to reenter the system.

2. Loose Bipolor System

The balance of power system cannot and does not remain stable for a long time
because of its own inherent weaknesses. Consequently, the balance of power system is
bound to transform itself into a loose one. In the loose bipolar system, each bloc has a
leading actor. Both supranational actor as well as national actors participate in this system.
Supranational actors are divided into bloc actors like NATO and Warsaw Bloc and the
universal actor like the UNO. The loose bipolar system is characterized by bloc actors (USA
and Russia) non-member bloc actors (non-aligned states) and universal actor (UNO). All of
them perform a unique and distinctive role within the system. But the rules of the system are
not uniform for all the actors. In other words, in the loose bipolar system the norms or rules
of the game are not observed uniformly. They differ from actor to actor. This system possesses
a considerable degree of inherent instability because the actors or the non-member actors,
or the universal actor are/is rarely of decisive importance in the matter of policy formulation.

3. Tight Bipolar System

The loose bipolar system may be transformed either into a number of other systems
or else into a tight bipolar system. “In this system, non-aligned states or non-member national
actors would either disappear or shall have no importance. Even the universal actor will not
be in a position to mediate between the two bloc-actors because after the disappearance of
the uncommitted national actors, the universal actor will not be wide frame of reference”.

4. Universal International System

Morton Kaplan equates the universal International system with an utopian ‘World
Federation’. It will be possible when the United Nations or such other International agency
becomes omnipotent and omnicompetent to check war and maintain peace for ever.
Consequently, the bipolar system would cease to exist. This agency would perform political,
economic, administrative and judicial functions. However, the nation-states would be
provided with adequate autonomy to deal with their internal affairs and activities.
 23

5. Hierarchical International System

This is one other utopian model, suggested by Kaplan. This system may come into
existence when the universal actor absorbs the entire world and only one nation is left out
as the universal actor. In this system, the states would become the territorial subdivisions of
the International system, rather remaining as sovereign, independent, political units and
with their own desirable forms of governments. Kaplan’s fifth model can be directive, or
non-directive as the case may be. It is directive if it is formed as a result of world conquest
by a national actor. It is non-directive, if it is based on political rules generally observed in
the democracies in a direct hierarchical system; the overall situation becomes very tense,
while in a non-directive one, it is less tense”. In short, the directive system will be based on
force and the non-directive one on will and proper distribution of powers.

6. Unit Veto System

The last model in Kaplan’s scheme is the unit veto system. The essence of this
system would be that all states would have equal potentialities and capabilities to destroy
each other, for which they would equip themselves with all the required war-weapons. The
unit veto system would remain stable only if all the states (actors) are prepared to resist
threats and retaliate in the event of any attack or aggression. If the national actors, or/and
the actor as such remain passive, their elimination, as the case may be, will be inevitable.

2.7.1 Kaplan’s Approach / Model – An Assessment

Mortan Kaplan’s approach / model or theory has some relevance in the prevailing
system of International relations. Yet, it is not free from some criticisms.

In the first place, the first two systems in the scheme of Kaplan belong to “the realm of
the actual”. An element of reality can be attached to them. The third system is of doubtful
possibility because of the growth and stability of the non-aligned nations and dispensation
in the International system. About the fourth, we can say that a partial International system
is growing. The fifth system is hard of realization. The emergence of the sixth system is very
much doubtful in the wake of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

“Kaplan’s six model scheme of International system has only a limited value. Any
theory of behavior of state must deal with the dynamics of value formation. Kaplan does not
discuss the dynamics of the forces which determine the scale of nation’s behavior. This is
24

his serious omission. The study of International relations in terms of International system
is the study of the behaviour of states as actors.

No doubt, Kaplan has laid emphasis on the concept of national interests, which are
inseparable from national values. But, he has ignored to state as to how the nations’ interests
and national values are formed and how they affect the collective behaviour of the states.
He has also overlooked the fact that the concept of national interest has undergone a
tremendous change. “In order to control the International system and transform it in
accordance with the demands of peace, one will have to know the source through which
the International system mostly changes”.

2.8 Decision Making Approach

The decision – making approach to the study of International relations is not entirely
new. Twenty-five centuries ago, Thucydides, the Greek historian, revealed keen interest in
the factors that influenced the statesmen of the different city –states to decide the issues of
war and peace, alliance and empire. Among the contemporary writers, Richard C. Synder,
H.W. Bruck and Burton Spain have popularized the decision – making approach and to our
study. Subsequently, W.G. Gore, J.W.Dyson, Sydney Verba and O.R. Holsti have made
detailed analysis of this theory or approach.

“Decision-making is a process or sequence of activities involving stages of problem

recognition, search of information, definition of alternatives consistent with the ranked
preferences identified in the earlier or primary stages that will maximize or satisfy the actors’
goals”. The decision – making theory may be described as a form of micro – analysis rather
than macro analysis. It lays emphasis on explaining the behaviour of human decision –
makers who formulate the official policies of the government. In other words, its focus is not
upon the states as metaphysical abstractions or on governments as such. The object of the
decision – making approach is to devise a conceptual framework that could help us in the
reconstruction of the situation as defined by the decision makers. Thus, the facts and data
for our study should be selected on the basis of what explains the behaviour of the decision,
makers. The setting in which the foreign policy decisions are made is the one which is
perceived by the decision makers. The setting consists of internal and external parts. The
internal settings include domestic policies, public opinion, personalities and organizations.
The external setting implies all the relevant factors in the total situation of the International
system existing at a particular time, e.g., the factors beyond the territorial boundaries of the
state, the decision of other states and the nature of their society”.
 25

The decision-making theorists have, however, followed different lines. The first line
gives importance to the environmental factors which influence the decision making. Joseph
Frankel admits that the decision – making theory must take into account the objective
environment and the interplay of both the rational and non – rational factors in the decision
– making process. The environment has two aspects – one which the decision – makers
can see and the other which is beyond their perception of estimate. Emphasizing this aspect,
Harold Sport and Margaret Sprout assert that “decision – marking is a process which results
in the selection from a socially defined, limited number of problematical, alternative projects
of one project intended to bring about the particular future state of affairs envisaged by the
decision – makers”. The second line lays emphasis on the personality factor. Accordingly,
the study of the personality of the decision – makers is or can be found useful in explaining
things atleast so long as the same decision – makers continue to control the foreign policy.
This factor has been emphasized by Alexander George and Juliettee George. In defense of
their assertion, they point out the important role played by the American President Wilson in
the determination of the International relations during his office. The personalities like Pandit
Nehru, Indra Gandhi determined much in the International affairs. Likewise, we can cite
many other greats in other countries. The third line approach is related to a study of those
actors who actually participate in the formulation of the foreign policy. There are atleast five
elements which influence the foreign policy making: the public opinion, interest groups, the
media of mass communication, and the specific committee of a legislature. As James
Robinson says, “the organization and internal process of the legislature determines the
actual foreign policy”. All these discussions indicate that the basic idea of the decision –
making approach the International relations should be taken as the interaction of foreign
policies and that for the understanding of the interaction, the only useful approach is to
study it in the context of foreign policy decisions. In brief, this approach stresses on the
importance of the decisional units as “the decision – making process is a function of
organizational structure”.

Defects of the Decision – Making Approach

The decision – making approach has the following shortcomings. In the first place, it
is too empirical. It completely ignores the norms, values and high principles which exercise
profound influence on International politics and relations. The fact remains that such values
and norms like ‘dharma’, ‘ahimsa’, ‘peace’ human dignity and rights and so on, hold good in
determining the foreign policy and the conduct of relations/affairs with other nations. In fact,
26

the ethical principles of the policy formulators greatly influence the formulation of policy.
Secondly, this approach is based on the principle of indeterminism because it fails to show
how the various factors like situation, environment, personality etc. influence the decision.
Third, it provides a ‘state – centric’ model of International relations, ignoring a comprehensive
view of the world politics. It merely seeks to explain that the decision – makers incline to fit
the incoming information into their existing images. Hence, this approach lacks the essentials
of a theory. Fourthly this approach mainly focuses on the motives and actions of the decision
– makes, disregarding the other factors which influence the pattern of International
developments. As such, “it does not supply any criteria either to explain the patterns of
power politics or to prescribe the rules of International behaviour”. Lastly, Stanley Hoffmann
points out that “Synder assumes that actions in International relations can be defined as a
set of decisions made by recognizable units. It implies that policy is made of conscious
moves and choices that can be analysed in terms of neat categories. But, it is not possible
to isolate actions in time, to break up them in separate clear-cut elements and to compare
them specifically”.

However, “the decision – making framework is intended to show why and how a
nation acts in International politics. Since the direct method of acquiring knowledge is not
available, the choice of decision – making as focus is wise”. The knowledge acquired by
various disciplines like psychology, economics and sociology can be fruitfully utilized in the
study of International relations only by the decision – making approach. All the more, it
helps us to make comparative a study of various foreign polices. However, a general study
of International relations cannot be usefully made with the exclusive help of the decision –
making approach even though it is very useful as a tool in the foreign policy analysis.

Check Your Progress

1. What is an approach?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. What is ‘power’ according to the realists?

 27

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is the intention of the decision making of framwork?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2.9 Summary

In sum, the classical approach is adopted by the scholars who are concerned with
the ‘substance’ and the scientific method is adopted by those who are concerned with the
‘method’. But, it should not be assumed that these two approaches are necessarily
incompatible. In fact, many scholars have successfully combined these two approaches
and produced fruitful results, even while the two schools are in a state of constant debate
over the subject matter and the method of study. True that these two approaches have their
own inherent and implied merits and demerits. But the fact remains that at present both the
traditional and scientific methods can be used for a purposeful study of International relations.
In this context, David Singer observes that “science is not a substitute for insight and
methodological rigour is not a substitute for imagination and regiour are necessary, but
neither is sufficient”. That both the classical and scientific methods and approaches are
useful in the study of International relations can be substantiated with reference to the
systems approach of Mortan Kaplan and the Decision making approach of Richard C. Synden
and others.

2.10 Key Words

Behaviouralist : Scientific methods applied in analysing social and International problems.

Classical School : These writers laid emphasis on descriptive analysis of International

relations
28

2.11 Check Your Answers

1. See section 2.3

2. See section 2.4.4

3. See section 2.8

2.12 Model Questions

1. Discuss the different variants of the classical approach to the study of International
relations.

2. Give an account of the scientific approach.

3. Critically examine Mortan A. Kaplan’s six systems approach to the study of International
relations.

4. Estimate the decision – making approach in the study of International relations.

2.13 Further Readings

1. J. David Singer, The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations.

2. Quincy Wright, The Study of International Relations.

3. Mhaendra Kumar, Theoretical Aspects of International Politics.

 29

LESSON - 3

KEY ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

3.1 Introduction

The world community and mankind today are confronted with some basic problems
and key issues with their telling effects on International relations. These problems, according
to U Thant, the forms Secretary – General of the UNO relate to those of “a political or
ideological nature” and tensions arising out of the differences in political or ideological
beliefs; “of economic and social nature”, especially the issues released and generated by
“the discrepancies in the socio-economic statues of the people” the problems connected
with race or color, particularly, “the tensions unleashed by racial discrimination, in some
kind other, in many parts of the world”, and the problems connected with the legacy and
remnants of colonialism”. Besides these basic problems, we can also embark upon numerous
issues of various kind. Many scholars like T.A. Couloumbis and J.H. Wolfe painfully state
that the International system in which we are living today is infused with” substandard
regulatory institutions”, which are at the root of multiple challenges and issues. Consequently,
we are compelled to apprehend whether the present International system can survive the
existing and emerging challenges, problems, issues etc. It is also held in doubt whether the
human race itself can survive without changing its global and regional structures, especially
when the formation of a “world state” or “global federalism” is beyond our reach. In other
words, the problems and issues, which exist in today’s International relations, may be said
to constitute “the threats, facing the humankind”. These, then, invite the at most consideration
of the practitioners of world politics and the conductors of International relations.

3.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 Describe the various issues in International relations

 Understand the problem of Alienation and inequality

Plan of study

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Objectives
30

3.3 Thematic Introduction

3.4 Key issues in International relations

3.5 Summary

3.6 Key Words

3.7 Check Your Answers

3.8 Model Questions

3.9 Further Readings

3.3 Thematic Introduction

Before we respond to these and similar other questions and before we discuss a
number of important problems in the global system that constrain the International actors,
one thing must be ascertained that our social end political institutions such as governments,
political parties, International organizations etc., are “the conscious human inventions aiming
to serve concrete human needs and to facilitate collective living”. In other words, these are
not accidental phenomena. On the other hand, “they reflect the continuous efforts of
individuals and satisfaction and to facilitate through various regulatory mechanisms, the
challenge of collective living”. The fundamental problem of politics – domestic or International
– is to find ways to harmonies the needs and requirements of the human beings with those
of the collectivities, whether sub-national, national, regional or global. We have invented
many things like governments, laws, courts administrative systems etc. with the fond hope
of resolving the conflicts arising out of the individual and collective needs. Unfortunately,
situations very often exist in which the government become “the servants of the few against
the interests of the many”, who are oppressed or neglected.

Hunger, disease, squalor, alienation and war have been haunting the humankind. In
the present century, new and numerous “human – produced” issues and challenges to our
very existence have been added. Collective dangers from environmental pollution, high
noise levels, climate alternations, opinion control and nuclear holocaust to religious
fundamentalism, extremism, terrorism, ethnic atrocities and what not have come to stay.
Scientists are warning us against the destabilizing equilibriums in the bio-sphere that might
expose our planet to acute danger. The constrains on food and energy resources are very
 31

much visible, leave alone the population explosion, which, if unchecked, is sure to aggravate
the challenging issues and problems facing the International community. Freed from the
colonial yoke, the newly emerged and still the undeveloped or less developing countries
have been struggling to ensure their ‘nation-state’ status in various spheres – social, political,
economic etc. Their governments have been doing their best, in the midst of odds, to
strengthen their economy, defense etc., and fighting against their internal problems. They
are infact, effective in combating their national problems. But they are not institutionally
strong enough to fight challenges and issues that transcend their national boundaries.
Environmental pollution, natural resource-exhaustion, International economic complexity,
International terrorism, nuclear confrontations and so on are the types of issues and problems
that lay beyond the national control. In other words, these issues are subject to International
and supranational regulatory practices or/and measures. Still, the fact remains that the
existing International institutions do not have the authority or capability to legislate and
enforce the required regulatory measures to deal with such problems and issues. But the
fact remains that the world people are quite conscious and active in developing appropriate
supranational and sub-national institutions to ensure atleast the minimum goal of the global
survival. What then are the key issues we find in the International relations today? What the
steps and manners in which they are being, or have to be tackled? This lesson is a modest
attempt to provide answers to these questions.

3.4 Key issues in International relations

3.4.1 Menace of War

The history of International relations is imbued with numerous wars and battles. War
continues to remain as our constant, destructive companion. The causes of war, conventional
or otherwise, may be traced to the very nature of human beings, to the imperfections of
human institutions and to the greed and ambition of specific leaders of interest groups.

However, the phenomenon of the politically motivated violence has persisted through
history due to some reason or other. Ever since the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, in 1945, war has assumed a new and ominous dimension. The devastating
capacity of the nuclear weapons to self-defeating levels has increased due to technological
growth. Their destructive capacity is war entails the mutual annihilation of the belligerent
populations. As such, war as an instrument of policy ceases to be a rational state craft. The
history of diplomacy is full of decisions that defy rational explanation. The failure of the
32

American strategy of “mutually assured destruction” is a pertinent example for this. Since
the Second World War, the record of war has been quite active in ‘limited warfare’, but
“relatively modest in head on strategic confrontations” between the super powers. Though
there is a widening ideological rift between the Eastern and Western camps of the world,
we have not been threatened with a third world war. “But as time passes, we know that
through accident, plan, madness, or miscalculation we may find ourselves in the midst of a
nuclear holocaust. The fact that the global house has not caught fire does not mean that it
is fireproof”. Truly, as Couloumbis and Wolfe point out, “the universal and regional
organizations are grossly inadequate for keeping the nuclear genie in its brittle bottle. Our
safety so far is based on a system of mutual vulnerability and the developing countries of
the south are like deadly scorpions trapped in a bottle. Obviously, this is not time to rely for
security on imperfect institutions such as the balance of power, mutual deference, conflict
management and veto – blocked United Nations”.

If war is considered as the main product of inadequate global institutions, then the
way to prevent it is to develop the most needed institutions. One such effective institution to
prevent was is a kind of federal government of the world that possesses adequate centralized
power to enforce the UN charter and its other provisions for the peaceful settlement of
International disputes. Many scholars have suggested plans and principles for a world
government. But, we have not been able to connive the nation – states to transfer their
sovereignty to what is considered an ill-defined, alien and suspect global authority”. Assuming
that an effective global governmental body will be developed some day, we can not be sure
that people would keep themselves in a conflict – free environment. There would always
remain the global authorities and of other acts of insurrection”. If we assume that war and
armed conflicts are only the products of human nature and that conflict is just another
instinct like hunger, fear etc, then to eliminate the “conflict instinct”, we would have to
change the human nature through brain-washing and techniques of behaviour technology.
But, such attempts would be construed as interfering with the freedom and dignity of the
individuals and groups.

We may feel that a perfectly conflict-free state of affairs will never be attained. But we
can still try to reduce the conflict as we can. We must certainly reduce the probability of total
nuclear destruction to microscopic levels. To do this, we shall need institutions which are
capable of transcending national boundaries. As we know, many schemes of arms control
and disarmament have not proved effective because they are based on the assumptions of
 33

sovereignty which disallow credible methods of supranational inspection and thereby multiply
mutual national suspicions. How, then will human kind make the leap beyond the sovereign
nation-state? For certain, we can not afford to undergo another nuclear catastrophe before
we develop effective global institutions, which alone can cure the ill for war and assure the
peaceful settlement of disputes.

3.4.2 Ecocide and Environmental Pollution

We may define ecocide as “the multiple-capacity that humans have developed to

destroy the earth, or atleast to make it unfit for human life”. We are living in the post industrial
era with growth and productivity. At the same time, it has also unleashed some negative and
dangerous by-products. Most industrial nation-states are concerned about environmental
pollution caused by automobile exhaust fumes, aeroplanes, factories, and waste products
that are dumped into our rivers and seas and into the atmosphere. There is every reason to
fear that the “air” may become unfit to breathe and “water” unfits to drink. Oil spills and
dangerous chemical waste products are turning the lakes, streams, rivers and beaches into
vast “disease-infected sewers”. Toxic by-products of industrial processes like monoxide,
sulphur oxides etc., are threatening certain flora and fauna with extinction. They are slowly
undermining the health and life of the human species. Some of the controversial and critical
issues involved with the nuclear power, concern accidents that produce radiation leaks into
the Eco system around the nuclear power plant. Equally difficult is how to dispose of the
highly radioactive nuclear wastes that the nuclear power plants produce. Many countries
do not have safe disposal sites. Being a specimen of ‘collective bad’, environmental pollution
becomes a predominant and problematic issue which demand ‘global co-operation’, as
individual action cannot provide the ‘collective good’, of a clean environment.

The problems of controlling pollution and conserving natural resources extend beyond
the capabilities of national governments acting separately. Hence, in tackling this issue, as
in the case of war, new supranational, transnational and sub-national institutions are needed
to regulate the industrial production and pollution. These institutions must also provide for
the relatively equitable distribution of global resources and income. However, the less
developed countries (LDCs) raise some objections. They hold that the developed countries
are responsible for global pollution. The LDCs also desire to industrialize and they have a
right to do so. Hence, they argue that “the industrial slow downs should apply only to the
advanced countries until the gap that separates the world’s rich from the world’s poor is
narrowed”. These countries have been advancing this view for the past two decades. The
34

UN General Assembly adopted the Charter of Economic Rights Duties of States in 1974. In
terms of both liberalization and the protection of environment, the Charter us an appeal for
justice in favour of the LDCs. It called upon all the states to protect and preserve the
environment for the present and future generations. All the states were called upon to co-
operate in evolving “International norms and regulations” with respect to environment. But
the leading developed nations voted against the charter. Consequently, the prospects of
fulfilling the goal of International co-operation are not encouraging. The decentralized nature
of the present International system, the ever increasing competitiveness among the national
governments, and their desire to keep up the industrial output as a heavy ingredient of
national power and other things do not give us much room for optimism. Thus the key issue
of ecocide requires adequate solution.

3.4.3 Explosive Population Growth

One other key issue which attracts our serious attention is the population explosion.
“The population controllers are conjuring up frightful projections of an earth with standing
rooms only”. Hence, our task today is two-fold: (1) showdown the growth of world’s population,
and (2) to stabilize the number of human inhabitants at a fixed, and ideally an optimal
standard of living. Rapid population growth has been primarily due to a decisive reduction
of death rates and the maintenance of the previously existing birth-rates. The current estimate
is that the world’s population is growing at a rate of 3.6% per year. This means that the
earth’s population will double every 35 years or so. The world population stood at one
billion in 1830. It shot upto 2 billions in 1930, 3 billions in 1960, 4 billions in 1975 and it was
6 billions in 1995. Two more billions are expected by 2015 AD. Certain countries are especially
responsible for the alarming population explosion which is a post-second world war
phenomenon. Brazil, China, India and Indonesia are the major offenders” and their total
population alone accounts for over 50% of the world population. The population increase in
these countries is estimated to be 70 millions per year. As such, the challenges that will face
the future institutions of population control must be many. In out decade, birth – rates and
death – rates have been in a five-to-two ration. We cannot rationally argue for increasing
the death-rates by such means as war, medical negligence, famine and so on. But our
concern must be to reduce the birth rate.

True that the birth-control techniques and drugs of advanced nature are well known
and freely available. But certain governments are not prepared to give serious consideration
to legislative approach to population control for fear of the institutional control techniques
 35

would encroach upon the personal freedoms of action and preference. Even the religious
beliefs stand in the way of birth control or family planning. Unless the nations concerned
persuade the people to obey more and more restrictions, the multiplying dangers and other
related issues like poverty, famine, unemployment etc., of population explosion cannot be
controlled.

3.4.4 Food and Famine

One of the related issues to the menace of population explosion is that of food. “The
challenge of providing adequate food for the human is two pronged. First, despite the
statistical projections of aggregate food supply and demand, a serious global scarcity is
likely. Second, the sever inequality in production and consumption patterns that separates
the rich nation-states from the more populous, developing states is expected to cause more
material and psychological disturbances, ranging from mass starvation of the poor and guilt
for the rich to violent domestic and International conflicts, resulting from the elemental struggle
for survival”. It is disturbing to note that in more than one-third of the Third World War,
developing countries, 30 to 75% their population are reeling under object poverty. The
percentage of the population who are living below the level of poverty line in the remaining
developing countries range from 5 to 27.

Since 1972 the global food supply declines and it has been unable to meet the global
demand. There has been price spiral of food grains and the petroleum products needed for
the processing of chemical fertilizers. This hits the poor and the import-dependent countries
hard. This trend remains unabated. Consequently, “today, over half a billion people in
developing countries are suffering either from outright starvation or from serious nutritional
deficiencies which can have lasting consequences on human physical and mental
development”. The long-range outlook for food production is alarming. The world seems to
be moving into “a period of chronic security with steadily increasing prices”. Scarcity of
water, nitrogen fertilizer, land and energy has confounded the problem.

Of course, “we do possess the capacity to increase the current volumes of production
many times over. But this will be done only at high cost, and will deny food to those who
need it most, but who cannot afford it. There is inequitable distribution of food among the
population of the world. This has to be narrowed down so that newer issues may not arise
and thereby affecting the International relations. The consumption of livestock products is
even less equitable”.
36

The current global grain production is about 1.25 billion tons per year. It is being used
to feed an estimated world population of about 6 billions. If everyone were to eat at the
American level i.e., one ton of grain per head, per year, the grain production would have to
be more than 4.5 billion tons. The UN has estimated that by the end of 2000 A.D., which is
not far off, the world’s population will be more than 6.5 billions. This will require about 4
billion tons of grain annually, or about more than 2.5 times more than today’s production.
The challenging nature of this issue is clear. The food problem can be controlled, if the
growth of population in the developing and the undeveloped countries is also controlled.
The price of the food grains must also be kept within the reach of the poor countries.
Equally, then, the wealthy, rich nation-states must limit their consumption of food which is at
present “three times higher than their fair share” as compared to that of other countries.

This challenging issue or problem can be tackled by abandoning competitive and

state-centered foreign policies and by adopting attitude and institutions that look upon our
earth as “a single, highly interdependent, and vulnerable society”. An Internationally managed
food – reserve organization operating within the framework of the UN’s Food and Agricultural
Organization can help the producer and consumer nation – states to maintain certain minimum
levels of food stock in order to meet the needs of “dry – times”. This food reserve would be
released to or let into the markets during the periods of scarcity. This would also help to limit
the sharp and sudden price fluctuations. The said organization can provide for an emergency
food reserve to alleviate famine in the highly vulnerable areas like the Saharan Africa. Now
that the economic globalization and the new International economic order have come to
stay and we have to wait and see their effect in alleviating this problem, leave alone the
other issues. Incidentally, we will have more details about the economic globalization and
the new internati0onal economic order in two other subsequent lessons. But, when all is
said, the fact remains that the present International community with multifarious relations
among its members, remains refused or indifferent to realize that “morally it makes no
difference whether a man is killed in war or condemned to starve to death by the indifference
of others”. Morality converges with pragmatism when we realize that ‘human indifference
breeds inequalities and social problems that feed and fire the flames of war” and other
problematic issues.

3.4.6 Alienation

The conduct of International relations today is being, to a very great extent, affect by
what is known as “alienation”. Alienation can be described as ‘a state of mind of people who
 37

feel no affinity for their social and work environments. They perceive the society as being
indifferent or hostile to their existence, and are convinced that what they say or do, no one
else cares”. The causes of alienation are multiple and multi-dimensional, if not complex.
However, we can assume that “alienation is rooted in poverty, backwardness, illiteracy, ill-
health, and in general, in the conscious perceptions of social economic and political
inequality”. People may also be alienated by life styles of freedom, drabness and a lack of
challenge, not necessarily accompanied by material privation. The three important ingredients
of alienation are inequality, unemployment and rootlessness.

3.4.7 Inequality

Inequality is a common, universal problem. It exists among the people as well as the
countries. There exists a wider gap between the rich North and the poor South. This has
caused the star wars, North-South dialogues and the consequent establishment of New
International Economic Order, the details of which are discussed in one of the subsequent
lessons. Besides, there are zones of poverty and neglect in almost all countries. Hence, it
can be assumed that “the members of a society tend to become alienated, if they perceive
that an obviously unequal distribution of income in their society is being maintained at their
own expense. No matter how they seek to rationalize, it a ratio of one to forty between poor
person’s income and that of a rich person can result in extreme resentment utter frustration,
resignation and what not”. The unequal distribution of income and inequities of income
among the world people constitute the primary source of alienation. As noted already, over
half of the world populations are living near or below the subsistence level. We can hope to
solve this problem by instituting a world government with the power of progressive taxation
and public spending at the global level. But, there is no possibility for this. Hence only
through understanding, dialogues and a sense of self – sacrifice between the poor, developing
nations and the rich developed countries, that the problem can be solved. The NIEO is one
such effort in this regard.

3.4.8 Unemployment

The International relations are beset with the unemployment of various kinds. During
the 1970s and 1980s unemployment with dangerous proportion existed in the less developed
countries. It is progressively besetting the world nations, including the modern, industrial
ones. The primary cause of unemployment is technological progress. Advanced technology
with labor – saving techniques in both the industrial and agricultural sectors has accounted
38

for greater efficiency, increased productivity and serious unemployment. India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Indonesia, to mention a few; have been experiencing unemployment rates of
15% and more in the current decade. Even in such a highly developed country of the USA,
unemployment rates range from 8 to 10%. Unemployment together with inflation and
inadequate measures of social security contributes to alienation, which adversely affect the
International relations. Proposals for social and political remedies of unemployment continue
to generate serious debates. “Within some countries, only the government has the resources
and sufficient fund programmes that require massive employment of labour, but offer no
capital profit. Similarly, only the governments can bear the cost of social legislations necessary
to protect the industrial citizens from the negative impact of global shifts in the supply and
demand of key-commodities and service”. Internationally, the unrestricted flow of labour
immigration has been suggested as a remedy to contain world unemployment. But this is
opposed by the labour union all over the world. There are many arguments – social, political
cultural etc. – against the large scale movement of population that would upset the delicate
social and demographic balance existing in various parts of the world. Infact, there is resistance
to the settlement of immigrants and refugees in Great Britain, the USA, France, Russia and
India. To tackle the issue of unemployment, every nation has to go in far massive planning
short – term and long – term – and generate employment through various programmes and
by increasing the existing service or employment areas.

3.4.9 Rootlessness

Rootlessness is an ally of unemployment and immigration. It is a part of the large and

inevitable phenomenon of urbanization. Urbanization is responsible for the population
movement from small towns and villages toward the crowded cities. Urbanization is
proceeding rapidly at a galloping rate in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the cities of the
developing countries, the growth in urban population in each city is estimated to be 1,00,000
per year. At 8% growth, each city will have its population doubled every nine years.
Urbanization coupled with inadequate civic and other facilities and with unemployment in
both the heart and the periphery of large cities surely leads to despair and rootlessness,
leave alone poverty. Under such conditions and in order to ‘escape’ from the problems of
alienation, people give themselves to drugs, alcohol, and suicide. Alienation can thus become
the mother of a revolution and war. As such, planning, control and improved urban service
and facilities etc alone can help the countries to find solutions to these issues.
 39

Check Your Progress

1. Define Ecocide.
___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Explain population explosion.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is alienation?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3.5 Summary

In addition to all these, the present day world is also facing issues and problems
arising out of ethnic hostilities, terrorist movements and organizations like the Fatah in the
Middle – East, the Irish Republican Army in Ulster, the Gray Wolves in Turkey the Red Army
Faction in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, Omega (anti-Castro Cubans) in North America,
National Liberation movement in Uruguay, the Naxalites in many Asian countries, the Palestine
Liberation Organization; the Balance of terror caused by the nuclear tests; and religious,
communal and fundamentalist groups and their extremist activities that tell upon a peaceful
International order, and human life. All these issues require global action. However, these
40

issues do not exhaust the list and each and every nation must have a will and vigil in tickling
the issues or to nip them in the bud as the case may be.

3.6 Key Words

LDC : Less developed countries.

Eco System : Biological community of interacting organisms and their environment.

3.7 Check Your Answers

1. See section 3.4.2

2. See section 3.4.3

3. See section 3.4.6

3.8 Model Questions

1. Give an account of the key issues in International relations and suggest remedies to
solve them.

2. Write short notes: (1) Ecocide, (2) Alienation.

3.9 Further Readings

1. T.A. Couloumbis and J.H. Wolfe; International Relations.

2. N.D. Palmer and H.C. Perkins, International Relations.

 41

LESSON - 4

NATIONAL POWER
4.1 Introduction

International politics is very often labelled as power politics. As such, it is essentially

concerned with power relationship among different states and groups of states. J.W. Burton
states, “he concept of power politics is far more useful in describing a dynamic world in
which power is a means by which the demands for change and resistance to change are
advanced”. Power, thus, plays a crucial role in International politics. But, when we speak
power, we don’t mean man’s power over nature, or over means of production, or over
himself. We actually mean man’s control over the minds and actions of other men. When we
speak of political power, we give due consideration to the mutual relations of control among
holders of public authority and people at large. Political power and physical force become
the practical actuality, then it would amount to the very negation of power. It is altogether a
different thing that physical force can be an instrument of power, but it is itself not power in
any sense. “Political power is a psychological relation between those who exercise it and
those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions or the latter
through the influence which the former exerts over the latter’s minds”, says Morgenthau.

4.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 Know the meaning of National Power

 Distinguish between domestic power and International power

 Enumerate the elements of National Power.

Plan of study

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Objectives

4.3 Thematic Introduction

4.4 Power and International politics

42

4.5 Elements of National Power

4.6 Evaluation of National Power

4.7 Summary

4.8 Key Words

4.9 Check Your Answers

4.10 Model Questions

4.11 Further Readings

4.3 Thematic Introduction

The term ‘power’ is employed and used with many connotations and it is not easy to
arrive at a precise definition of power: Joseph Frankle says that power in human relations
“denotes the capacity to produce intended effects”. According to Berterand Russel, ‘Power
is the cumulative effect of the intended results”. To “Harold Lasswell”, Power is: who gets,
what when and how?” Organski observes that power is not a thing. “It is part of a relationship
between individuals or groups of individuals”. Power is essentially the ability to influence
the behaviour of others in accordance with one’s own ends. It may be ascertained that ‘to
the totality of a state’s effectiveness in world politics, we use the term power”. Power is not
a static characteristic. It is a part of a nation’s relations with other nations. It involves the
ability to influence the behaviour of others and this ability may be increased both by the
possession of certain instruments of power and by the skillful utilization of the available
instruments.

4.4 Power and International politics

The ultimate aims of International politics are many. But power is always the most
immediate aim of it. The statesmen usually describe their objectives and goals in terms of
religious, economic, social or philosophic ideals and may try to realize them through non
political means. But whenever they try to achieve these goals by means of International
politics, they do so by resorting to power. It is evident from the fact that ‘they do so by
resorting to power. It is evident from the fact that “the crusaders wanted to free the holy
places from domination by the infields. Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for
 43

democracy; the National Socialists wanted to open Eastern Europe to German colonization,
to dominate Europe, and to conquer the world. Since they all chose power, and to achieve
these ends they were actors on the scene of International politics”.

In this context, an attempt to distinguish between domestic power and International

power may enable us to grasp the essence of ‘power’. There are some differences in the
role of power in domestic affairs and International politics. In all civil societies we find a
number of alternatives to violence. Realizing that all the relations can not be regulated by
physical strength alone, a system of general rules of producers has been adopted by each
society to redress the wrongs in a non-violent, peaceful way. The fact remains that no
individual can take law into this own hands. In International relations the states have to
protect their rights at any cost and to rectify injuries through use of force because of lack of
generally agreed upon rules and devices.

It may be very easy for us to describe in a layman’s language that one nation is more
powerful than the other, but the difficulty is that we can not specify as to what power actually
consists of. For example, everyone knows that India is more powerful than Sri Lanka.
Likewise, Russia is more powerful than India. But what is it that makes India and Russia, as
the case may be, more powerful? Obviously, it is the sum total of power which a country
possesses in comparison to the other. The concept of power, then, is quite complex and it
can not be easily subscribed to a commonly acceptable definition. Keeping Moregenthau’s
definition of power in mind, we can state that “the struggle or power is unusual in time and
space and is undeniable fact of experience. Power, being the most immediate aim of
International politics, always remains as the ‘capacity’, to impose one’s will on others by
reliance on effective sanctions in case of non-compliance. It is apt to quote Charles P.
Schleicher. He says “the power, is the ‘ability’ to exercise such control to make others do
what they otherwise would not do by rewarding or promising to reward them, or by depriving
or threatening to deprive them of something they value”. Taking all these things into our
account, we can seek to define power as the ability or capacity to control others and also to
see that they do not do what one does not want them to do, Hence, it is the ability to control
the behaviour of other states in accordance with one’s own will, The power plays the same
role in International politics as money plays in market economy. There is no denying the fact
that ‘power’ occupies an important place and position in International politics, not only as a
means but also as an end. “Power is the capstone among the objectives which it employs”.
In itself, “power is neither good, nor an evil; it is socially and morally neutral”.
44

The foregoing things enable us to have the sense of ‘power’ but not its essence. This
is largely due to the fact that the concept of power in International politics and relations is
shrouded with two fallacies. First, it is often interpreted in military sense. Secondly, it is
assumed that power is measurable and quantifiable. But these fallacies are grounded on
wrong notions. The first thing to be noted here is that power in International relations consists
of many elements. Secondly, it is not at all easy to quantify and measure power accurately.
The correct valuation and the concrete judgement regarding power can not be easy because
numerous intangibles are involved. We can rely on William Ebenstein, who says”, in the
field of International relations, the central problem of the strength of a nation is essentially
the problem of qualitative judgment and measurement, as national power is more than the
sum total of population, raw materials, and qualitative factors. The alliance potential of a
nation, its civic devotion, the flexibility of its institution, its technical know-how, its capacity
to endure privations-these are but a few qualitative elements that determine the total strength
of a nation. “All these discussions and comments surely lead us to ponder that a nation’s
power is something more than its ‘ability’ or ‘capacity’. It is its ‘capability’, which signifies the
potential power of the state. The terms ‘ability’ and ‘capacity’, differ in their own relative
norms. But their difference with capability in degree is beyond any doubt. If that be so,
‘national power consists of several important elements described as ‘capabilities’. It also
holds good that the analysis of capabilities of a nation only ‘projects or highlights the state’s
political power’.

Joseph Frankel cautions that we should keep some factors in our mind while analyzing
the elements of national power. These factors are that; (1) “all power elements are relative
to those possessed by other states; (2) mere quantities do not reveal the true picture; (3)
any single element plays it role in the complete totality of national power and its importance
and significance can be assessed only against such background; (4) capabilities may be
used more or less efficiently; (5) in the present era of rapid technological change, the
relative saliency of different elements is constantly changing; (6) in comparing capabilities
of different nations, we must apply statistics and estimate strictly comparable in times”.

It is clear, then, the nature and extent of a state’s desire to achieve its objectives is
dependent on its capability. A nation’s ‘capability’, as already noted, is something more than
its ‘ability’ and ‘capacity’. “A state in any situation attempts to get as much as it can of what
it wants”. As such, we are interested in such matters like how a state estimates, how much
it can get in a given context, how these estimates find their way into policy decisions, and
 45

what factors and elements in a state’s possession contribute positively or negatively to

this ability to achieve atleast minimum satisfaction. All these things have their bearing on
the state’s capability’.

A state’s ability to persuade other states to agree to its designs is demonstrated in

two ways. A policy maker may be capable of obtaining the consent of another government
in an atmosphere of agreement. Consent may be given freely for any or a number of reasons
by a state. But another state may choose to remain neutral or uninvolved in the issue of the
problem in question, or it may prefer to disagree and still its disagreement may be so
negligible as not to be noticed of. More commonly, the desired approval may be expected or
forthcoming after some measure of positive inducement of ‘wooing’, the promise of direct
benefit, a modification of policy in some other area, or some other quid pro quo. All these
things are characterized by one important thing, i.e. the absence of direct confrontation or
open conflict. In other words, the aspect of capability involved here is that of influence and
mutual adjustment of positions. The state, in such a context, is able to gain adequate
consensus by various persuasive and/or harmonizing devices without questioning the issues
of force.

As a contrast to the above, if consent is and has to be won in a context of an atmosphere

of conflict and animosity, a state’s capability assumes another dimension in the from of
‘coercion’. This is what is known as the domain of the “power struggle” because each state
attempts to bring the other round to its will. But the forms of coercion are infinite, if not
insignificant, and they range from the mildest dialogue or argument through a protracted
pressure of threat to physical force or violence which is the ultimate coercive method.
Whatever be the level at which coercion is employed, it has only one purpose and that is “to
break the enemy’s will to resist” in order to secure his uncompromising and unqualified
agreement. This may even ultimately result in a war.

Influence and coercion are equally genuine and efficacious manifestation of state-
capability. Coercion is incumbent of conflict. Being a more exciting thing, it receives greater
attention through the press and other mass media. Hence conflict is very often mistaken for
state-capability. Yet operationally, statesmen first seek to influence or manipulate their
influence with other state and if it bears no fruit, they go in for coercion as their last resort.
But the fact remains that it costs little or less to win consensus by influence than resorting to
coercion.
46

Capability is a dynamic concept. A capability judgment involves correlation of a board

variety of factors within a state with an International situation, the elements of which are
moving at different speeds. A capability judgment and any conclusion about relative
capabilities must always be made only with reference to the existing situation and the future
projection of a state in relation to other state or states. In pure theory, any single capability
analysis must serve as the basis for only one action decision. Any later consideration of the
same situation would require new calculation of the relative status of all stages concerted. A
blind and literal adherence to this principle may result in the very impossibility of decision-
making. As such, most governments merely adjust a generalized capability formulation with
such additional data as they may be available and then proceeded to a new decision. Even
this partial calculation suggests the transitory character of the ingredients of a capability
comparison, and the constant necessity of keeping it upto date. When all is said, one must
be on his guard to note that capability is a relative, not an absolute, phenomenon. Any
absolute ‘objective’ formulation of a nation’s capability, irrespective of a situational and
policy context will be abortive and useless. Hence, it becomes admittedly desirable and
necessary to make atleast a rough catalogue of the elements and factors in a state’s
possessions that are contributory to its power, which is its ‘ability’ or ‘capacity’ or strength
’or‘,capability’. What, then, ultimately accounts for national power? What are the elements
of national power? How best we can evaluate national Power? Hans J. Morgenthau permits
everyone to rely on him to seek answers to these questions.

4.5 Elements of National Power

A nations very existence and survival accounts for its being strong, or able, or capable,
or powerful as the case may be, as it has to deal and encounter with the existing global
situation in which it lives and to keep itself in a state of preparedness for any future
eventualities with regard to its interests and stakes. If so, what are the factors that make for
the power of a nation vis-à-vis other nations? What are the components of national power?
It we want to determine the power of a nation’ what factors are we to take into consideration?
It is often believed that wealth, resources, manpower and armies are the real foundations of
power. But it is not the mere possession of these things that makes nation powerful. It is the
possession of certain elements and their skilful use which make a nation powerful. While
the ingredients of what we call ‘nation’ and ‘power’ constitute the root of national power, the
component elements of national power are really many. As Morgenthau points out, while
discussing the elements of national power, we must be on our guard to distinguish between
those elements which are stable and those which are subject to constant change.
 47

4.5.1 Geography

The most stable factor upon which the power of a nation depends is obviously
geography and its importance has been recognized since ancient times: The Geo-political
thinkers like Mackinder and Spykman have laid greater emphasis on geography. Mackinder
held, “who rules to east commands Heartland, who rules Heartland, rules the world islands,
and who rules the world islands, rules the world”, Spykman says about Rimland as follows.
“Who controls Rimland, rules Eurasia who controls Eurasia, controls the destiny of the
world”. Morgenthau has sought to explain the importance of geography as the stable element
of national power with the following impressive illustrations. “The fact that the continental
territory of the United States is separated from other continents by bodies of water three
thousand mile wide to the east and more than six hundred miles to the west is a permanent
factor that determines the position of the United States in the world. It is a truism to say that
the importance of this factor today is no what it was it was in the times of George Washington
or President Mc Kinley. But it is fallacious to assume, as is frequently done, that the technical
development of transportation, communications, and warfare has eliminated altogether the
isolating factor of the oceans. This factor is much less important to day than it was a
hundred years ago, but from the point of view of the power position of the United States, it
still makes a great deal of difference that the United States is separated from the continents
of Europe and Asia by wide expanse of water instead of bordering directly on France,
China, or Russia. In other words, the geographical location of the United States remains a
fundamental factor of permanent importance with the foreign policies of all nations”.

“Similarly, the separation of Great Britain from European continent by the English
Channel is a factor, which no one, whether Julius Caesar or Hitler could afford to overlook.
How ever, many other factors may have altered its importance throughout the course of
history. What was important two thousand years ago is still important today, and all those
concerned with the conduct of foreign affairs must take it into account. What is true of the
insular location of Great Britain is true of the geographic position of Italy. The Italian peninsula
is separated from the rest of Europe by the high mountain of the Alps. While the Valleys of
the Alps descend gradually southward toward the north Italian plain, they precipitate abruptly
toward the north. This geographical situation has been an important element in the political
and military considerations of Italy and of other nations with regard to Italy. For, under all
conditions of warfare of which we know, this geographical situation has made it very difficult
to invade Central Europe form Italy, while it has made much less difficult to invade Italy from
48

the north. Consequently, invasions of Italy have been much more frequent than invasions
by Italy, From the days of the Punic Wars to the second world war, this permanent geographical
factor has determined political and military strategy. The geographical situation of the former
Soviet Union is very enlightening on our point of discussion. The Soviet Union constituted
an enormous land mass. Her territory was the largest in the world, stretched over the
continents of Europe and Asia. This territorial extension is a permanent source of great
strength which has thus far frustrated all attempts at military conquest of Russia form the
outside. “This enormous land mass dwarfed the territory conquered by foreign invaders in
comparison with what still remained to be conquered”. A careful study of the Russian military
history points out that the conquest of the Russian territory has always been a difficult task.
Another geographical factor, however, constituted, at the same time, a weakness and an
asset for the International position of the Soviet Union. Neither high mountains nor broad
streams separate the Soviet Union from its western neighbours and that the plains of Poland
and Eastern Germany from a natural continuation of the Russian plain. There exists, then,
no natural obstacles to invasion on the western frontier of Russia, either on the part of the
Soviet Union or on the part of her western neighbours. Thus, from the fourteenth century to
the present, while Russia and the western most part of Russia proper have been the scene
of continuous thrusts and counter thrusts and a field of battle where Russia and its western
neighbours met. This lack of natural frontier, i.e., of a frontier, predetermined, like the Italian,
by geographical factors has been a permanent source of conflict between Russia and the
West”.

Bearing the illustrative accounts of Morgenthau in our mind, we have to reiterate that
the size of the territory increases the power of a nation. A small state cannot become powerful.
As we have already noted, England was more powerful as long as she had colonies. A large
state can accommodate a large population and can also have more manpower and larger
supply of natural resources on this account. For these reasons, then, in today’s world, the
U.S.A., the Russia, India, and China are bound to play effective roles in International politics.
Vast areas may also add to a nation’s power by providing military advantages. At the same
time, large states like Canada, with its frozen water, Brazil with its jungles, and Australia
with its deserts can not become powerful as a large portion for their territory is not of much
use. The size gives a nation room for maneuvering.

There are other geographical factors like the influence of climate, location, and
topography which go in the making and determine the nature of a nation’s power. In respect
 49

of climate, tropical and very cold regions are not suitable for the best for the health and
energy of the people which are instrumental in the nation’s productivity. Similarly, vagaries
of the monsoon, uncertain rainfall and periodic droughts also limit and tell upon the nation’s
power and these will make the country increasingly depend on foreign markets for food and
obstruct the development of national power and adoption of an independent foreign policy.

Location of the country is helpful in determining its security. England and Japan,
being islands, have been more secure. Similarly, the separation of the U.S.A from Europe
and Asia could render it to remain in isolation for a long time. There is a close relation
between location and foreign policy. It is evident from the fact that the Middle East and the
continental Europe have been the potential zones of power rivalry because of their geographic
and strategic locations. The location of a state in the sense of spatial relationship to other
areas affects a state’s economic and military power. Location also figures in the diplomacy
and strategy or war. Certain regions of the world are inherently strategic. The small countries
situated on the border of a great nation may find their power thwarted or reduced. Again, a
powerful nation surrounded by small and weak nations may find its power enhanced by
such location.

Topography has a direct influence on national power. Topographical features determine

the density of population which a region can support and the country’s security. They
determine the natural boundaries and barriers between the states and set limit to their
expansion. For example, the Himalayas have acted as a barrier to Chinese expansion into
India. The Pyrenes make a fortress out of Spain and the English Channel has guarded the
coast of England. Thus, the existence of any natural barrier demarcating national frontier
may increase a nation’s security. Topography has also its bearing on the culture and economy
of nation.

What all said above may be literally and theoretically alright and the importance of the
geographical elements remains unlost in the event of conventional warfare. But the
advancement of science and technology has belittled or heavily decreased the importance
of the element of geography. In the words of Padelford and Lincoln, “the astronomical
impact of technology in areas such as communications, air mobility, Inter Continental Ballistic
Missile systems, nuclear weaponry, intelligen

ce, gathering space satellites and the conquest of space, has drastically collapsed
the strategic obstacles to the projection of national power”.
50

4.5.2 Natural Resources

Another relatively stable factor that exerts an important influence upon the power of a
nation with respect to other nations is natural resources.

Food is the most elemental of the natural resources. Morgentahy writes, “a country
that is self-sufficient, or nearly self-sufficient has a great advantage over a nation that is
not, and must be able to import the food stuffs it does not grow, or else starve. It is for this
reason that the power and, in times of war, the very existence of Great Britain, which before
the second world war grew only 30 percent of the food consumed in the British Isles, has
always been dependent upon its ability to keep the sea lanes open over which the vital food
supplies had to be shipped in. whenever its ability to import food was challenged as in the
two world wars through submarine warfare and air attacks, the very power of Great Britain,
was challenged and its survival as a nation put in jeopardy”. It is well known that the Allied
Powers succeeded in bringing down Germany during the First World War because she
failed to procure food grains from other countries. But in the Second World War, Germany
became virtually self-sufficient with regard to food, not primarily through conquest, but through
the deliberates starvation and the outright killing of millions of people in conquered territories.

A deficiency in home-grown food had thus been a permanent source of weakness for
Great Britain and Germany, which they sought to overcome over a period of time and
retained their status as great powers ‘Countries enjoying self-sufficiency, such as the U.S.A.
and Russia, need not divert their national energies and foreign policies from their primary
objectives in order to make sure that their populations will not starve in war. Since they are
reasonably free from worry on that count, they have been able to pursue much more forceful
and single-minded policies than otherwise would have been possible. Self-sufficiency in
food has thus always been a source of great strength”.

“Conversely, permanent scarcity of food”, writes Morgenthau, “is a source of permanent

weakness in International politics, for the truth of this observation, India is the prime example.
The scarcity of food from which India suffers is the result of two factors: the increase in
population, our-stripping the supply of food, and the insufficiency of exports to pay for the
food necessary to make up the deficit. This dual imbalance, which makes the ever present
threat of mass starvation, is one of the main concerns of government, plus an in separable
handicap any active foreign policy India might want to pursue. Regardless of the other
assets of national power which are at its disposal, the permanent deficiencies in food compel
 51

it to act in its foreign policy from weakness rather than from strength”. This view of
Morgenthau is based on India’s position or condition during the fifties and sixties of this
century. This held good till India could rise up to the occasion and until then, the Government
could not pursue any vigorous foreign policy so long the country was dependent for her
food supplies on other countries. But this is not the case today as India has attained self-
sufficiency in food supplies following the Green Revolution to a manageable and controllable
limit, and it has been demonstrating greatest independence of action.

To fall back on Margenthau’s thesis, “self-sufficiency in food, or lack of it, is a relatively

stable factor in national power, but it is, sometimes, subject to decisive changes. There may
be changes in the techniques of agriculture which may increase or decrease the output of
agricultural products. The outstanding example of the influence of changes in the agricultural
output upon national power are, however, to be found in the Near East and North Africa as
power centers and in the descent of Spain from a world power to a third-rate power”. If the
agricultural systems are changed or modernized, if not revolutionsed the situation, as India
actually did by resorting to mechanization, of agriculture and by adopting the Japanese
system of agriculture, then the prospect of strengthening the national power would be
promising. This, Spain failed to realize and hence “wide regions of northern central Spain
were transformed into virtual deserts”.

4.5.3 Raw Materials

“What holds true of the above also true of raw materials which are important for
industrial production and, more particularly, for the waging of war. The absolute and relative
importance of natural resources in the form of raw materials accounts for the power of
nation, which depends necessarily, upon the technology of the warfare practiced in a
particular period of history. Before the large-scale mechanization of warfare, when hand to
hand fighting was the prevalent military technique, other factors, such as the personal
qualities of the individual soldier, were more important than the raw materials with which his
weapons were made. In that period of history which extends from the beginning of historic
time the nineteenth century, natural resources played a subordinate role in determining the
power of a nation”. With the increasing mechanization of warfare following the industrial
revolution at a faster peace than in all preceding history, national power has become more
and more dependent upon the control of raw materials in peace and war. To quote Morgenthau
again, “it is not by accident that the two most powerful nations today, the United States and
52

the Soviet Union, are most nearly self-sufficient in the raw materials necessary for modern
industrial development and they control atleast the access to the sources of those raw
materials which they do not themselves produce”.

The absolute importance of the control of raw materials for national power has increased
in proportion to the mechanization of warfare. Hence, certain raw materials have certainly
gained in importance over others. This has happened whenever fundamental changes in
technology have called for the use of new materials or the increased employment of the old
ones In 1636, Fredinand Freindensburg rated the share of a number of basic minerals in
industrial production for military purposes and assigned them the following values: coal 40,
oil, 20, iron, 15, copper, lead, manganese, sulphur 4 each, Zinc, aluminum, nickel, 2 each.
Five decades before, the share of coal would definitely have been considerably greater,
because as a source of energy it had at that time only small competition from water and
wood and none from oil. “The same would have been true of iron, which then had no
competition ‘from light metals and such substitutes as plastics. Great Britian, which was
self-sufficient in coal and iron, was the only great world power of the 19th Century”.

Margenthau is emphatic in telling us that “oil as a source of energy has become more
and more and more important for industry and war” since the First World War. Most
mechanized weapons and vehicles are driven by oil. Consequently, the countries that possess
considerable oil deposits have gained an influence in affairs and dealings which in some
cases, can be attributed primarily, if not exclusively, to that possession. “One drop of oil”
said Clemenceau during the First World War, “is worth one drop of blood of our soldiers”.
The emergence of oil as an indisputable raw material has really caused a significant shift in
the relative power of the politically leading nations. If at all the Unites States and Russia
remain more powerful than other nations, it is certainly due to their self-sufficiency in this
respect. At the same time, Great Britain has grown considerably weaker because of deficiency,
if not depletion, in her oil deposits. Contrastingly, the Near East gives a different picture.
Aside from its location as the land bridge of three continents, the Near East is from a
strategic point of view important because of the oil deposits of the Arabian Peninsula. “Control
over them is an important factor in the distribution of power, in the sense that whoever is
able to add them to his other sources of raw materials adds that much strength to this own
resources and deprives his competitors proportionately. It is for this reason that Great Britain
the United States and, for a time, France have embarked in the Near East upon what has
aptly been called “Oil diplomacy’, that is, the establishment of spheres of influence giving
 53

them exclusive access to the oil deposits of that region. The relatively important part the
States of the Arabian Penninsula are able to play in International affairs rests not on anything
resembling military strength. Aside from a precarious solidarity with the Moslems of Africa
and the rest of Asia, and the strategic location of the Arabian Peninsula the importance of
the Arab States derives from their control of an access to, regions rich in oil”.

The influence the control of raw materials can exert upon national power and the
shifts in the distribution of power, which it can bring about, are demonstrated in our own day
most strikingly by the case of uranium. Only a few decades ago, the control of lack of
uranium deposits was totally irrelevant for a nation’s power. Ferdinand Friendsburg did not
even mention this mineral in his evaluation of the relative military importance of minerals.
The release of atomic energy from the uranium atom and the use of that energy for warfare
have alone modified the actual Nations that control deposits of uranium, such as Canada,
Czechoslovakia, Russia, the Union of South Africa, and the United States, have risen in the
power calculations. Others that neither posses nor have access to deposits of that mineral
have fallen”. Of late, the natural gas and atomic energy have also been regarded as important
sources of national power. It may be reiterated that the mere presence of natural resources
and raw materials is not enough. They contribute to the national power only when they are
fruitfully exploited.

4.5.4 Industrial Capacity

The example of uranium illustrates, however, the importance of another factor for the
power of a nation-industrial capacity. The Belgian Congo has vast deposits of high-grade
uranium, Yet, while this fact has augmented the value of that colony as a prize of war and,
hence, its importance from the military-strategic point of view, it has not appreciably affected
the power of Belgium in relation to other nations. The reason is not far to seek. There does
not exist either in the Belgium is placed at a far off distance from the Congo for the ore to be
transported to it for processing in the event of war. On the other hand, for Great Britain,
Canada, and the United States, as for Czechoslovakia and Russia, the possession of uranium
signifies an enormous increasing power. In these countries the industrial plants exist or can
be built, or they can be easily used in a neighboring country, where uranium can be
transformed into energy to be employed in both peace and war.

The same situation can be exemplified by iron and coal. The United States and Russia
gain a good deal of strength, nay, ‘national power’ because they possess vast amounts of
54

these two raw materials, Not only this, they also possess industrial plants that can transform
them into industrial products. Russia has built its plant, and is perpetuating the building of it
constantly, at enormous human and material sacrifices. Its justification is based on the
recognition that without the industrial plant it can not build and maintain a military
establishment commensurate with its foreign policy. This fact, then accounts for Russia’s
significant role in International politics. India follows Russia and the United States closely as
a depository of coal and iron. India’s reserves of iron ore entrenched in the States of Bihar
and Orissa, to the tune of 2.7 billion tons. Further more, India’s output of manganese, which
is indispensable for the production of steel, was a million tons in 1939 and it is more than
that today. But despite India’s richness in raw materials, which enables a nation to attain
first rank in modern times, India cannot be classified as a first rate power even faintly
comparable to America or Russia.

The reason for this lag between the potentialities and actualities of power, which
concern us in the context of this discussion, is the lack of an industrial establishment common
surate with the abundance of raw materials. There is no denying the fact that India can be
proud of having a number of renowned, modern, steel industries. But India lacks productive
capacity especially for finished products that can be compared with every one of the second
– rate industrial nations.

In 1939, only three million Indians-less than one percent of the total population-were
employed in industry, So, we see that India possesses, in abundance some of the key raw
materials, that go into the making of national power, and to that extent it may be regarded as
a potentially great power, Actually, however, it will not become a great power so long as it is
lacking in other factors without which no nation in modern times can attain the status of
great power. Of these factors, industrial capacity is one of the most conditions that prevailed
in India during the 1960’s and 1970s. But it is not the case today’ as India is forgoing ahead
in her industrial and nuclear capability with all her might and she is big power to reckon
with.

The technology of modern and communication has made the over-all development of
heavy industries an indispensable element of national power. Victory in modern war depends
upon the number and quality of highways, railroads, trucks ships, airplanes, tanks and
equipments, weapons of all kinds, from mosquito nets and automatic rifles to guided missiles,
Hence the competition among nations for power transforms itself largely into competition for
the production of bigger, better, and more implements of war. The quality and productive
 55

capacity of the industrial plant, the know-how of the working man, the skill of the engineer,
the inventive genius of the scientists, the managerial organization-all these are factors
upon which industrial capacity of a nation and hence, its power depend.

Thus it is inevitable that the leading industrial nations should be identical with the
great power, and a change in industrial rank, for better or worse, must be accompanied or
followed by a corresponding change in the hierarchy of power. This can be substantiated
by the fact that so long as Great Britain, as an industrial nation had no equal, it was the
most unquestionable, powerful nation on earth, the only nation one that deserved to be
called a world power. But this is not the case with her today. Again, the decline of France as
a power in comparison with Germany was in part the political and military manifestation of
the industrial backwardness of France and of the industrial prominence of Germany on the
European continent, when we say that the United States and Russia are at present the two
most powerful nations or super powers on earth, we base this estimate of the American and
the Russian power primarily upon their industrial strength.

4.5.5 Military Preparedness

What gives the factors of geography, natural resources, and industrial capacity their
actual importance for the power of a nation is military preparedness. The dependence of
national power upon military preparedness is very much obvious that it requires no detailed
or greater elaboration. As Morgethau points out, military preparedness demands or requires
a military establishment capable of supporting the foreign policies pursued. Such ability
derives from numerous factors of which the most significant, from the current point of view
of discussion, are technological innovations, leadership and the quantity and quality of the
defense forces.

4.5.6 Technology

The fate of nations has been determined constantly by “a differential in the technology
of warfare for which the inferior side was unable to compensate in other ways”. To continue
the illustrative defense of Morgenthau, “Europe, in the period of its expansion from the
fifteenth through the nineteenth century, carried its expansion from the fifteenth through the
nineteenth century, carried its power on the Western Hemisphere, Africa and the Near and
the Far East. The addition of infantry, firearms, and artillery to the traditional weapons in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries spelled a momentous shift in the distribution of power in
56

favour of those who used those weapons before their enemies dies. The feudal lords and
independent cities, who in the face of theses new weapons continued to rely upon cavalry
and the castles which until then had been practically immune against direct attack, now
sound themselves suddenly dislodged from their position of preponderance”.

Margenthau cites two examples for this shift in power which politically and militarily
marks the end of the middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Era of history. First in
the battles of Morgenthau in 1315 and of Lau pen in 1339, armies composed of Swiss
infantry inflicted disastrous defeats upon feudal cavalry demonstrating the superior strength
of the solider over an aristocratic and expensive army of equestarians. The second is the
invasion of Haly in 1494 by Charles VIII of France. With infantry and artillery, the French
Emperor broke the power of the pound Italian city-states which were until then secure
behind their walls.

The twentieth century has thus far witnessed four major innovations in the techniques
of warfare. They gave atleast a temporary advantage to the side that used them before the
opposition did or before it was able to protect itself against them. First, the submarine was
used in the First World War by Germany against British hipping and seemed to be capable
of deciding the war in favour of Germany until Great Britain found in the convoy an answer
to that menace, second, the use of tanks by the British and her allies against Germany
towards the closing phase of the First World war which stressed their victory. Third, strategic
and tactical coordination of the air force with the land and naval forces contributed greatly
to the German and Japanese superiority in the initial stages of the Second World War.
Pearl Harbour and the disastrous defeats that the British and the Dutch suffered at the
hands of the Japanese on land, at sea and in air, in 1941 and 1942 were the penalties to be
paid for technological backwardness in the face of a more progressive enemy. Finally,
nations which possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them have an enormous
technological advantage over their competitors. Added to these, the superior quality of
military leadership as demonstrated by Frederick the Great, Nepolean and Hitler, and the
quantity and quality of the armed forces also account for a nation’s power. In spite of the
relative strength exhibited by different nations in the Second Churchill and Stalin and the
superior technology of the U.S and the superior man power of the Soviet Union brought the
downfall of Hitler and his allies.
 57

Human Factors

When we turn from material factors and those compounded of material and human
elements to the purely human factors that determine the power of a nation we have to
distinguish their quantitative and qualitative components. While the former is to be discussed
in terms of size of population, the latter include such things like national character, national
morale and the quality of diplomacy and of government in general.

4.5.7 Population

It would, of course, not be correct to say that the larger the population of a country,
the greater the power of that country, There can be no such unqualified correlation between
the size of population and national power. If that be so, China would be the most powerful
nation, to be followed by India. But this is not the case. The large number can be an asset,
if the state its human resources effectively and ensure them a decent standard of living and
provide constructive outlets for their talents and energies. Where a state cannot provide the
necessities to its population, the large size of population will be a source of weakness.
Generally, large population is a source of strength in the developed countries, while in the
underdeveloped ones it is a source of weakness. Given that there are sufficient resources
available in the country, the large population can help in increasing the agricultural and
industrial production. It is also helpful in raising large armies and acquiring effective hold
over conquered territories. According to Morgenthau “since size of population is one of the
factors upon which national power rests and since the power of one nation is always relative
to the power of others, the relative size of the population of countries competing for power
and especially the relative rate of their growth, desire careful attention”. A country with less
population than its competitor will view with alarm a declining rate of growth, if the population
of its competitor tends to increase rapidly.

But the fact remains that the strength of a country does not depend on the number of
people alone. The quality of the population is even more important, if the population of a
country contains too many kids and old hags, they are a liability in so far as they constitute
a serious strain on the economic resources of the country. On the other hand, a country
with large adult population is assured of a strong labour force and it can exploit the available
resources more profitably. Likewise, if a country’s population is engaged in industrial activities,
the country will be stronger than the one whose population is primarily engaged in agriculture.
All the more, the educational back ground of the people also greatly contributes to the
58

national strength. If the people possess greater technical capacity and ability, they can
exercise more effective control over the forces of nature and contribute to the growth of
national power.

4.5.8 National Character

“Of the three human factors of qualitative nature which have a bearing on national
power, national character and national morale standout both for their elusiveness from the
point of view of rational prognosis and for their permanent and often decisive influence
upon the weight a nation is able to put into the scales of International politics”. This statement
of Morgenthau deserves due consideration.

“National character cannot fail to influence national power; for, those, who act for the
nation in peace and war, formulate, execute, and support its policies, elect and are elected,
mould public opinion, produce and consume, all bear to a greater or lesser, degree the
import of those intellectual and moral qualities which make up the national character. The
elementary force and persistence of the Russians, the individual initiative and inventiveness
of the Americans, the undogmatic common sense of the discipline and thoroughness of the
Germans are some of the qualities which will manifest themselves, for better or for worse, in
all the individual and collective activities in which the members of a nation may emerge. In
consequence of the differences in National character, the German and Russian governments,
for instance, have been able to embark upon foreign policies that the American and British
governments would have been incapable of pursuing and vice versa”. Hence, Morgenthau
points out that one must take national character into account, while as assessing the relative
strength of different nations. Any underestimation of a nation’s character by the other might
lead to its defeat or loss in war in which the Russian staying power was underestimated by
Germany.

4.5.9 National Morale

More exclusive and less stable, but no less important than all the other factors in the
bearing upon national power is national morale. In the words of Morgenthau, “national
morale is the degree of determination with which a nation supports the foreign policies of its
government in peace or war. It permits all activities of a nation, its government in peace or
war. It permits all activities of a nation, its agricultural and industrial production as well as its
military establishment and diplomatic service. In the form of public opinion, it provides an
intangible factor without whose support no government can pursue its policies effectively”
 59

Its presence or absence and its qualities reveal themselves particularly in times of national
crisis, when either the existence of the nation is at stake or else a decision of fundamental
importance must be taken upon which the survival of the nation might well depend” Frankel
comments that morale describes the extent to which the people support their leaders, believe
in the rightness of their cause”. It is dependent on many factors and circumstances as well
as on quality of national leadership. As said above, the national morale is put to test during
national crisis especially during war. National morale is high when the people closely identify
themselves with the objectives and activities of the government. For example, a very high
degree of national morale was exhibited by the Indians in 1962 when china committed
aggression in India. On the other hand, the national morale of a country tome by severe
socio-economic conflicts may be in a precarious state. Thus national unity and solidarity
constitute the essential ingredients for high national morale.

Margenthau ascertains that national morale is dependent on the quality of its

government. A truly representative government has the greater choice on mobilizing national
energies in support of its objectives. Without national morale, national power is nothing but
material force or a potentiality that cannot be translated into reality. The improvement of the
quality of government is a prime requisite for improving national morale. In fact, national
character and morale increase the national prestige, which helps a nation to secure
necessary social response from others and thereby to exhibit its power in relation to others
countries.

4.5.10 Quality of Government

The national power of a country is heavily dependent on its having “a good

government”. The actual power of a nation depends on efficient utilization of potential
elements of power. That depends to a great extent on the quality of the government. The
sudden change of government may bring change in the power position of the state.
Morgenthau notes that a good government must be viewed as an independent requirement
of national power. As such, a good government sticks to maintain a balance between material
and human resources that contribute to national power, and it chooses the objectives and
methods of foreign policies keeping in view the power available to support them. The
government must also bring different elements of national power into balance with each
other. The government must secure the approval and support of its people for its domestic
as well as foreign policies. It is not suffice for a government to arouse national public opinion
in favour of its own policies; it must strive to gain the support of public opinions of other
60

countries in favour of its own policies. The power of a nation also depends on attractiveness
for other nations of the political philosophy, political institutions, and policies. This is true
particularly with regard to the two super powers viz. America and Russia, which represent
two different political philosophies, systems of government, ways of life and compete with
each other for gaining popular support of other nationals in favour of their socio-economic
systems and political philosophies. In this, then the quality of civil service is also no less
important.

4.5.11 Quality of Diplomacy

“Of all the factors that make for the power of a nation, the most important, however
unstable, is the quality of diplomacy. All the other factors that determine national power are,
as it were, the raw materials out of which the power of a nation is fashioned. The quality of
a nation’s diplomacy combines those different factors into an integrated whole, gives them
direction and weight, and awakens their slumbering potentialities by giving them the breath
of actual power. The conduct a nation’s foreign affairs by its diplomats is for national power
in peace what military strategy and tactics by its military leaders are for national power in
war. It is the act of bringing the different elements of national power concern the national
interest most directly. Morgenthau continues to bear with maximum effect upon those points
in the International situation which concern to write that ‘diplomacy is the brain of national
power, as national morale is its soul. If its vision is blurred, its judgement defective, and its
determination feeble, all the 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 boast of all these
advantages, but not of 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. Diplomacy of high quality will bring the end and means of foreign
policy into harmony with the available resources of national power. It will tap the hidden
sources of national strength and transform them fully and security into political realities. By
giving direction to the national effort, it will intern increase the Independent weight of certain
factors, such as industrial potential, military preparedness, national character and morale”.

However, this view of Morgenthau is not universally shares. Many scholars hold that
diplomacy has considerably lost its importance in recent years due to the development of
rapid means of communication, which has reduced the diplomats to the position of dignified
 61

clerks. Further, the impact of public opinion and the emergence of open diplomacy and the
hot-line have also greatly contributed to the reduction in the importance of diplomacy.
However, despite its setback, diplomacy still plays an important role in promoting national
interests.

4.6 Evaluation of National Power

The task of evaluation of power is very much difficult because so many tangible
factors are involved in the measurement of a nation’s power. The foreign policy makers and
national leaders must evaluate the impacts of different elements on their national power as
well as well as on power of other nations. All elements, except geography, are constantly
changing, influencing each other and are being influenced in m by unforeseen natural events
or human intervention.

According to Morgenthau, “the nations commit three typical errors in evaluating their
own power and the power of other nations. The first disregards the relativity of power by
erecting the power of one particular nation into an absolute one. The second takes for
granted the permanency of a certain factor that has in the past played a decisive role, thus
overlooking the dynamic change to which most power factors are subject. The third attributed
to one single factor a decisive importance to the neglect to all the others. In other words, the
first error consists in not correlating the power of one nation to the power of the other
nations; the second consists in not correlating actual power at one time to possible power
at some future time; and third consists in not correlating one power factor to other of the
same nation”.

Check Your Progress

1. Define the term ‘power’.

___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. What is the essence of the national power?

___________________________________________________________________
62

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Define the term coercion in International Relations.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

4.7 Summary

When we say that one nation is powerful and the other nation is weak, we always
amplify a comparison. In other words, the concept of power is always a relative one. It
should not be treated in absolute terms. If particular nation is powerful today, it may become
relatively weak tomorrow and some other nations may emerge powerful. This fact should
not be lost sight of while evaluation of power is made. It is wrong to assume that the
elements or factors of national power are permanent and free from change on the other
hand; these factors are subject to constant change because the power relations between
nations are dynamic and ever changing in character. The third typical error made is the
undue weight age given to a single factor like geopolitics or nationalism or militarism.
Geopolitics endeavors to explain national power in terms of geography. Nationalism purports
to explain national power in terms of national character. Militarism attaches sole importance
to military strength. All of them suffer from serious shortcomings. Thus, the task of evaluation
of national power is not so simple and miscalculations may prove disastrous. Underestimation
of one’s own power and overestimation of that of the other leads to policies of peace and
statues quo. While the over estimation of one’s own power and underestimation of that of
the other leads to policies of war. Hence it calls for a creative imagination and foresight to
reduce the recurring errors in measurement of power. Further national power is also subject
to certain constraints and limitations caused by such things like the balance of power,
International morality, the world public opinion, International law, International organizations
and diplomacy. As such it is very difficult to make a precise measurement of power.
 63

4.8 Key Words

Oildiplomary : Establishment of spheres of influence giving them exclusive exccess

to the oil deposits of that region.

Militarism : The belief that country should possess and readily use strong armed forces.

4.9 Check Your Answers

1. See section 4.3

2. See section 4.4

4.10 Model Questions

1. Discuss the importance of geographical and human factors in determining national

power.

2. Examine the tangible elements of national power.

3. Discuss the problems involved in the evaluation of national power.

4.11 Further Readings

1. Hand J. Morgenthau-Politics Among Nations.

2. Padelford and Lincoln-International Politics.

64

LESSON - 5

NATIONAL INTEREST
5.1 Introduction

It has always remained a very great and serious problem in International politics to
determine the precise nature of relationship between national interest and ideology. This
problem has assumed a momentous proportion of seriousness because of the growth of
communism and the growing concern for peace in the present century. This, then, calls
upon us to clearly understand the relationship between national interest and ideology in the
light of their precise meaning. It is also debatable in International politics whether national
interest or ideology that takes precedence over the other. An answer to this question can be
offered only by understanding the meaning of national interest and ideology.

5.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 Know the meaning of national interest

 Correlate the national interest with foriegn policy

 Explain the various methods to improve national interest

Plan of study

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Objectives

5.3 Thematic Introduction

5.4 National Interest, security and survival

5.5 National Interest and foreign policy

5.6 Methods of Promoting National Interests

5.7 Constrains on National Interests

5.8 Summary
 65

5.9 Key Words

5.10 Check Your Answers

5.11 Model Questions

5.12 Further Readings

5.3 Thematic Introduction

The concept of national interest has a long history. In the ancient and the medieval
times the states pursued certain substantial interest on the basis of which their relations
were conducted. In the early middle ages the laws of Christianity, formed the basis of
these relations and the states were expected to ensure that their laws and other things
were in consonance with these principles. However, with the emergence of the secular
power, the Church began to be looked upon as the enemy of national interest and the
national interests were equated with the interests of the ruling dynasty. At that time, the
national interest meant the interest of a particular monarch in holding vast territories he
already had in his possession, in extending his domains, and in aggrandizement of his
power. As such, expressions like “will of the prince” and “dynastic interest” were vague.
But in course of time, the popular bodies challenged the authority of the monarchs and
asserted themselves. This resulted in the growth of democracy and the replacement of
“the honour of the prince” by the “honour of the nation”. In other words, the significance of
the nation came to be recognized and the concept of national interest came to be adopted
as representing the wide interests of the people of a nation as a whole as against the
narrow and limited interests of the rulers. Thus, the concept passed from the monarchical
and feudal system to the republican and the democratic one and soon gained a common
usage in the political and diplomatic literature.

In short, as Charles A, Beard states, “the term ‘national interest’ gained currency
only with the emergence of the modern nation-state system, increase in popular political
control, and the great expansion of economic relations”. The growing importance and the
unquestionable role of national interest in International politics is well brought out by Alfred
T. Mohan thus: “self-interest is not only a legitimate but a fundamental cause for national
policy: one which needs no cloak of hypocrisy. As a principle, it does not require justification
in general statement, although the propriety of its just as true now as ever that it is vain to
expect governments to act continuously on any other ground than national interest. They
have no right to do so, being agents and not principles”.
66

But the developments during the last three centuries or so have brought about a
great deal of vagueness in the concept of national interest. So much so, this concept has
now become anything but concrete, both “as an analytical tool and as an instrument of
political action”. In other words, the concept of national interest is very much vague and
carries a meaning, if not significance, according to the context in which it is used. As a
result, it is not possible to give any universally acceptable interpretation of this concept.
Hans J. Morgenthau, who has dealt with the concept in his various writings, also used the
term ‘national interest’ in different ways and assigned a variety of meanings. The use of te
like ‘common interest’ and ‘conflicting interest’, ‘primary and secondary interest’, community
of interests-identical and complementary interests’, ‘vital interests’, and so on, by
Morgenthau further adds to the confusion.

Whatever definitions of national interest have been developed, they represent a

particular approach adopted by a researcher. There is a great deal of semantic ambiguity
attached to the concept of national interest. To put it otherwise, the problem of defining the
concept is also complicated by the fact that researchers have tended to give the definitions
of national interest according to the particular approach adopted by them.

The various approaches adopted to define national interest can be divided into two
broad categories, which Joseph Frakel calls the “objectivist” and “subjectivist” approaches.
In the first category, he includes all those approaches, which view national interest as a
concept, which can be defined or examined with the help of some definable criteria. In the
second one, he includes those definitions which seek to interpret national interest as a
“constantly changing pluralistic set of subjective references”.

The definition of national interest depends upon the position which a particular person
assumes between several pairs of extremes such ideals versus self-interest, idealist versus
realist, short-term and long term concerns, and traditional and individual concerns. The
task of defining national interest becomes very much difficult also because of the reason
that there is a very thin boundary line between the domestic and International activities of a
state.

The fact that the concept of national interest is at variance with global ideal also
accounts for our difficulty in defining national interest. This situation, characterized by a
clash between the idea of unitary national interest and global ideals, has arisen as a result
of the great movement going on in the direction of International integration. The concept of
national interest has been kept most alive in the foreign policies of the communist countries
and as an important basis of the foreign policies of new states.
 67

But, probably the most important reason which has added to the confusion regarding
the meaning of the concept of interest is the disagreement and contradiction between
those who view it in a broad way and those who conceive it in terms of a number of
concrete single interests. This, then, accounts for national interest being interpreted in a
mixed way, and, this interpretation, in fact, depends upon several sets of contradictory
considerations Firstly, “decisions at the operational level tend to be conceived of within a
narrow context in which also a few dimensions are considered. Secondly, at the operational
level, the process of reasoning tends to be inductive”. Thirdly, “people with a theoretical
interest take greater interest in the aggregate, whereas those with a scientific bias put
more emphasis upon the single dimension of the concept”.

Those difficulties have tended some writers to conclude that the concept of national
interest is very vague and that it does not permit any meaningful analysis. In view of the
vagueness of the concept, some scholars like Raymond Aron and James Rosenau have
gone to the extent of suggesting that “it is a meaningless or a pseudo theory”.

But there is no denying the fact that national interest is an important concept in policy
making and that its significance in International politics can best understood in the light of
the definitions given to it. Thus, Brookings Institute defined national interest as “the general
and continuing ends for which a nation acts”. Charles Leche and Abdul Said define it as
“the general long-term and continuing purpose which the state, the nation, and the government
all see themselves as serving”. According to Dyke, national interest is the one which the
states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other”. It covers desires on the part of
the sovereign state and these vary enormously from state to state and from time to time.
While the first two definitions interpret national interest in terms of a permanent guide to the
action of the state, the definition of Dyke mainly refers to national interest as the action
itself. As such, the first two definitions seem to be more logical than that of the Dyke’s. What
a state attempts to achieve or protect and what it desires to have in relation to other states
are, generally speaking, the aims of foreign policy. These aims may be categorized into
goals and objectives.

Generally speaking, both goals and objectives refer to the achievement of the state
of affairs which a state is seeing to bring about. But they differ from each other in regard to
the span covered by them. Thus a goal is always set in terms of the maximum time span
that can be anticipated analytically. On the other hand, an objective is only immediate or
short-range in terms of time. As such, an objective can very well be a long-range goal and
68

a goal, the short-range objective. A goal represents the best conceivable state of affairs,
while an objective is the closest approximation to the goal that decision makers consider
feasible. In other words, “a goal represents the best that is realistically possible”.

National interest does not constitute “the desirable best” or “the possible best” only.
On the other hand, it is both and yet something more. It severs as a guide to the policymakers
and it continuously implies them to keep in view “the desirable best” and try to achieve “the
possible best” and to seek a closer approximation of one to the other. Thus, national interest
has an element of perpetuity and ultimate because it always keeps the state involved in the
problem of definition what is “the desirable best” and what is “the possible best”. The
definition is often determined by the sociopolitical consciousness and cultural identity of the
people. But in practice, national interest is synthesized, and given form, by policy-makers
and the process of synthesis is peculiar to a society and its history and tradition. Naturally,
then, it imparts an environment-oriented outlook to foreign policy. These facts, then, point
out that national interest amounts to the application of a generalized value-synthesis to the
overall global situation in which a state is obliged to formulate and execute its foreign policy.

No one can deny that there is an intimate relationship between the goal, the objective,
and the national interest. This relationship is engendered because the nature of the goal
and the objective is determined by the concept of the generalized value-synthesis. But,
value-synthesis is limited by different formulations of different statesmen and in different
times. This accounts for the in absolute nature of the content of national interest. It is very
much a matter of interpretation given to it by a state.

In spite of the foreign things, it is held that there is an irreducible core of national
interest for any state at any given time. This is called the “vital interest” of a nation. This is
also known as “vital core” or “nerve centre”, which is most important from the point of view
of a country’s foreign policy. It is defined as that on which a state is unwilling to make
compromise or concessions and on which, if necessary, it is prepared to go to war. The vital
interest of a country is considered as the most basic and permanent and to which all other
aspects of the national interest are subordinated. The vital nature of national interest has
always an emotional appeal-to the people. All states keep and hold the protection and
preservation of their independence and territorial integrity as their vital interests. Though
basic and fundamental, the vital nature of national interest may change under the impact of
some facts like a change in the concept of the vital interest. It may also so happen that an
interest devoid of any intrinsic value or importance may become vital if it assumes symbolic
value or if it is concerned with the question.
 69

As compared to the above, countries also have non-vital or secondary interests. These
interests refer to those ambitions of individual states, which they would like to have fulfilled
and but for which they will not resort to war. While the vital interests stand for the goals, the
secondary ones are the objectives of foreign policy. The material welfare of the people, the
safeguarding of prestige, the protection of ideology and the acquisition, retention, and
enhancement of power, for example, are the objectives that national normally seek to pursue.
However, we must note that each state defines its objectives within each category in such
specific language as suits its interest in changing circumstances.

5.4 National Interest, Security and Survival

National interest is a very important concept in the study of International politics

because it provides the material on the basis of which foreign policy is formulated. The
purpose of foreign policy is to conduct foreign relations in consonance with favorable national
interest. In formulating a foreign policy, it is necessary to pronounce what is aimed at in
accurate terms. But it is not so easy to determine precisely what a country’s national interest
is. For example, it is commonly held that the American foreign policy is anti-Communist. But
this is a very simple formulation without offering any precise indication as to how such a
vague aim can be consummated. The same logic is applicable to the anti-imperial and anti-
capitalist foreign policy of Russia. But it is not to say that these two countries are pole as
under without any common interests, no matter their foreign policies differ.

In fact, they have “common interest in upholding” the U.N. as an instrument of world
peace and in cherishing the value of disarmament. Even during the Second World War, the
Allied and Axis powers had some common interests like the treatment of the prisoners of
war, evacuation and repatriation of enemy diplomats captured in the hostile territory etc.
Thus, even in the midst of war the enemy states can retain some points of common interest.
But the degree to which common interest exist between two nations largely depends upon
the nature of general International relations and the particular policies of the states in question
at a given point of time. For example, the range of common interests between America and
Russia in 1944 was greater than what it was ten years later. Similarly, the range of common
interest between India and China was very well defined in the early 1950s whereas it gradually
declines and became ill-defined after 1962. Further, as relations of states are complex and
dynamic, the range of common interests between them undergoes change. In other words,
the area of commonness between states is subject to change, hence, at any given time, two
70

states are likely to have many opposed as well as common interests. It is also likely that
even in the field of common interests; they may have opposed reasons for the commonness.
As time goes on, the number of common interests and the opposed ones of each nation
grows or declines, depending on what the current evidences of International relations
demand.

The question of national interest has assumed many new dimensions after the Second
World War because of the growing seriousness attached to the problem of quantifying
national interest. This problem is still more serious in the context of the problem of security.
All nations, old and new, are very much concerned with the problems of security. The
present day world is living under the impact of cold war and threats of external aggression.
Hence, the formula of national interest has become synonymous with that of national security.
According to Walter Lippmann, “a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger
of having sacrificed the core values, if it wishes to avoid war and is able, if challenged, to
maintain them by victory in such a war”. This definition implies that security is a matter of
nation’s ability to deter an attack and, if need he, to defeat it. In this sense, security itself
becomes a value and is identified with power or wealth.

While the importance of security can not be denied, it remains very much debatable
whether security is an intermediate or ultimate national interest. If it is an intermediate
interest, it must be judged as merely a means to some other ultimate interests. The
Machiavellian followers consider security as the ultimate goal. However, there are some
thinkers who emphasize that national security is not the real goal; and that it must be
justified in terms of higher values which it is the purpose of national security to serve. In
spite of these, everyone agrees that “security to serve. In spite of these, everyone agrees
that “security is the most important element of national interest. Security has been and also
is such a great concern of nations that it is often identified with national interest, so much so
that the interrelationship between the goal and the objective of foreign policy on the one
hand and national interest on the other is never applied to the examination of what is
national security”. In fact, security can be both an objective and a goal. If it is sought in the
long run it would be a goal, otherwise, it would be an objective. For example, security is
conceived as an objective of India’s foreign policy so long as the unfriendly relations persist
between India and Pakistan or China. But the fact remains that security has always been a
goal of every country’s foreign policy, no matter security is an objective or not.
 71

That security can be both a goal and an objective accounts for its being a part of
national interest. But it can not be a synonym with national interest. National interest only
dictates as a goal. Hence, the distinction between national interest on the one hand and
objectives and goals of foreign policy on the other must be preserved, while the concept of
national interest is analyzed. National interest then, serves as a guide whose primary function
is to review the International reality constantly and suggests to policymakers the order of
priorities among objectives and goals.

In fact, there is a great deal of complexity in the concept of national interest because
the criterion that it provides for determining the order of priorities is based on an assessment
of the demands of, and the limitation put by the existing International reality. One importance
aspect of the understanding of the International reality is related to the problems of survival.
This has now become a serious problem because of the nuclear weapons and the
consequent change in the nature of war, the significance of which has very much affected
the concept of security as a symbol of national interest. As such, we are now not concerned
with the security of an individual nation but with the survival of all nations. The concern for
mankind as a new factor has come to stay, seeking accommodation in the framework of the
concept of national interest. Thus, national interest as a guide has the important function of
reviewing International reality in the light of the new factor of survival and at which level
national interest can be defined.

In spite of the above realities, Stanely Hoffmann has got to say something else. He
has suggested that since survival is always at stake in the modern times, the concept of
national interest is not subject to any precise definition. This suggestion is based upon is
the tendency to treat security as the essence of national interest and to emphasize that the
current problem of survival is more serious than the traditional problem of security. Hoffmann
does not agree that the emergence of the problem of survival has enabled us to have a
fruitful and clearer conceptualization of national interest. He argues that national security is
now linked to International security. Hence, “National interest can be viewed as something
that is not completely identifiable with national security. The real meaning of national interest
has not been established so far because national security has always been uppermost in
the minds of statesmen. Now that national security is fast becoming part of International
community, it is the function of national interest to suggest what could be the other objectives
of foreign policy”. International co-operation and Internationalization are instructing the values
and facts of International affairs and that the concept of International interest has come to
72

stay. As such, Hoffmann says, “the main function of national interest will, consist in its
gradual merger with International interest and with the interest of all mankind. Thus, in the
ultimate analysis, national interest will be able to perform its function only by its own
elimination”. But this view of Hoffmann is subject to the test of time and until the concept of
national interest is totally dissolved in the acid of International interest, it will have its role
and importance undiminished in International politics. It may have to suggest such an order
of priorities among foreign policy objectives as may not obstruct the growth of International
integration.

5.5 National Interest and Foreign Policy

A careful rendering of the foregoing accounts makes us infer that the concept of
national interest, until it is totally or completely dissipated and dislodged, will continue to
have its say and influence in the formulation of the foreign policy of a country though the
relationship between the two may be subject to various interpretations. Though the states
generally do not publicly admit that their foreign policies are based on their self-interest,
many a time responsible people have admitted this fact. For example, Mr. Hughes, the
American Secretary of State, declared in 1920 that “foreign policies are not abstractions but
the results of practical concepts of national interest”. Morgenthau also emphasizes that
“the foreign policy seeks the defense of the national interest by peaceful means”. Another
scholar observes, “National leaders as a rule never pursue national policies that are in the
interest of any nation, other then their own. Different national interests may overleap or be
in consonance with one another but no President. Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary in
full possession of his faculties-especially the sense of his own political and personal survival
would openly and knowingly initiate or implement policies that would favour another nation
and damage his own”. Iyo D. Duchacek continues to assert, “in planning formulating, adopting,
and executing foreign policy, national leaders and their aides are confronted with a veritable,
spider’s web conflicting claims and values.

Yet priorities, that is, the practical, not ideal, contents of the national interest, must
finally be established in terms of preferred goals and in relation to the power of one’s own
nation and that of other nations. Both national goals and national means must simultaneously
be related to dangers or opportunities on the International scene; not only other nation’s
power but also their own nations must be properly evaluated”. In brief, it has been asserted
that the national interest is the predetermining factor in the formulation of a country’s foreign
policy.
 73

On the other hand, Prof. Reynolds holds a different view According to him “it is not
always possible to base the foreign, policy of a state on its national interest alone”. His
argument is that “the foreign policy of a state can be based on national interest only if the
interests of the various nations are homogeneous. On the other hand, it shall indeed be a
costly proposition to pursue a policy based on national interests, when the interests of the
various nations are of heterogeneous character”. As each state shall try to resist the imposition
of the alien value, this may inevitably lead to a war. Prof. Reynolds continues to argue that
“since self-existing heterogeneous values of ultimated range must almost certainly lead to
major armed conflict, national interests must require their limitations”. Hence, “national
interest cannot always in all circumstances be identified with the value of the community,
and when to this is added disagreement about the basic general purposes for which human
exist… the difficult of giving any generally applicable empirical content to the notion of
national interest becomes apparent”.

True that the national interest occupies a position of preeminence in the foreign policy
of all countries. But the truism is such that the leaders of the states do not consider it
necessary to promote the national interest alone. They are very much inclined to use foreign
policy as a means to strengthen their own position in International affairs. To illustrate this
point, the Indonesian President, Sukarno, resorted to all possible means to divert the attention
of his people from the acute socio-economic problems to secure his own position by adopting
the policy of confrontation towards Malaysia.

The concept of national interest remains very much vague or ambiguous for the
reasons already noted in this lesson. The ambiguity of the concept of national interest
makes things quite difficult. Very often national interest is equated with maintenance of the
existing political institutions even at the cost of the general popular interests. For instance,
the statesmen normally consider that the survival of their states is the supreme national
interest. Logically it may not always be so. If, for example, attempts to preserve the state
lead to the veritable destruction of its people, then these attempts can never be in the
national interest. It is a universal fact that it is in the national interest of England that its
people’s standard of living should rise even if it could be accomplished by merging England
completely into the European Economic Community, no matter it might mean the ultimate
disappearance of Great Britain as an demise of the very state itself is not likely to be
approved by the political leaders of whatever political party they belong to. This clearly
reveals that if at all England has joined the E.E.C. it is only to sustain here national interest
74

and at sometime it also shows that the decisions of the political leaders are not always
taken in the larger national interest.

Prof. Reynolds contends that “the concept of national interest is an unfortunate and
an unhelpful one. It is normally attached to the nation of the state and so sacrifices state
goals. It directs attention to a particular human group into which it ought to be organized
and the preservation and advancement of which accordingly ought to be the criteria for
judgment of action. But, if individuals are the proper referents, a distinction needs to be
drawn between, strictly the state goals and the goals that national interests prescribe”.
Continuing his argument, he further states that, in essence, “national interest should relate
to the real interest of the people, and this interest is not to be seen as being necessarily
contained within the state context. This notion of a real interest is difficult to conceive. But
even if it can be seen as a theoretical means of judging particular decisions or particular
actions, the state decision makers who claim to be acting in the national interest misuse the
notion, cannot have the prefect information necessary to validate their claims and so are
pulling the wool over other people’s eyes and possibly over their own”.

5.6 Methods of Promoting National Interests

Broadly speaking, there are three methods for promoting national interest. These
are: (1) Coercive measures, (2) Alliances, and (3) Diplomatic negotiations.

Charles Beard states that the coercive measures employed by the states for the
enforcement of national interest fall into two broad categories: a) “the measures taken
within the state, which do not infringe directly upon the states against whom they are taken
and b) measures directly operating against the state which is the object of enforcement
procedure”. The first category consists of those acts which are negative in character, though
they are capable of producing positive effects. Such acts or measures like non-inter-course,
embargoes, boycotts, retaliation and reprisal, severance of diplomatic relation etc., taken
by the state come under this category. Any one or all of these measures can be employed
by the state, depending upon the nature of the issue or the problem in relation to the other
states, for the advancement and enforcement of its national interest. But there is a peculiar
aspect about these measures. These measures are considered coercive, but they are
nonviolent in character and do not bring about any crisis on the International scene. On the
other hand, the measures taken against the state to be coerced or influenced, actually
involve the use and display of physical force. Apart from the use of force, the state can take
 75

certain measures on its own soil to advance its national interest, which may ultimately
operate against the hostile state. These include actions like confiscation and seizure of the
property of the offending state or its people by way of compensation in value for the wrong,
suspension of the operation of treaties and agreements, embargo of ships belonging to the
offending states lying within its ports, seizure of ships at sea etc. all these methods are on
the face of them acts of war and the state, against which they are directed, has to determine
whether it wants to give the developments the shape of a war or not. In extreme form, these
measures can taken the shape of actual bombardment of coastal areas or military occupations
of an inland centre.

Two or more nations may come together and conclude alliances for the protection
and promotion of their common interest. As a consequence of the alliance, it becomes the
legal obligation on the part of the member states to protect the common interests and they
are duty-bound to discharge their responsibility. Alliances may be concluded for the protection
of a large variety of national interests and their nature depends on that of the interests
sought to be protected. Thus the relative strength and importance of those interests would
determine the nature and the duration of the alliance. In the words of Robinson, “the
advantage of pursuing the national interest through alliance, of course, lies in the translation
of inchoate, common or complementary interests into common policy and in bringing the
nation’s power directly to bear on questions of national interest”.

Morgenthau has got the following propositions to say about the relation of alliance to
national interests.

The first proposition is that “the degree of generality of common interests expressed
in alliance is related to the duration of the alliance. Thus, the general alliances will be of
short duration while the limited alliances shall be long-lasting”.

Second, “The relative degree of primary national interests expressed in alliance is

inversely proportional to the power of the nation. Thus, a weak and a strong nation will
enter into alliance to defend the primary and secondary interests respectively”.

Third, “The weaker partner of alliance is dependent on the stronger one and is tolerated
as long as there is completed identity of interests between the two”.

Fourth, “Even if an alliance is based on equality, it will not succeed unless there is
identity of interests”.
76

Fifth, “A one-sided alliance, in which one party receives the benefits and the other
party carries most of the burden, can be concluded, only if there are complementary
interests”.

Sixth, “It is not essential that every community of interests should be given the shape
of an alliance because the legalities between two nations cannot over-balance the national
interests of the nation”.

Eight, “Ideology can help is strengthening the bonds of an alliance provided the alliance
is based on common or complementary interests. If there is no community of interests in the
alliance, the alliance based on ideology alone cannot be effective”.

Lastly, “The alliances built by the nations against a third country or common enemy
are generally vague and lack concrete objectives”.

One other important method for the protection of national interest is the use of
diplomatic negotiations. The main purpose of diplomatic negotiations is to reconcile the
divergent interests of the state by adopting the process of “mutual give and take”. But such
negotiations will bear fruit, if and only when the interests of the concerned states are
compatible and complementary. In such cases, an agreement can be reached through mutual
bargaining. If, on the other hand, the interests are incompatible or conflicting, negotiations
will be totally impossible.

In addition to the interests of their own, the states must seek to protect certain common
interests in the larger interest of the world community. For example, the states must avoid
the use of nuclear weapons and not resort to war because of the highly destructive nature
of these weapons. A total war world means global destruction. Hence, the states must shun
war and prefer diplomacy.

5.7 Constraints on National Interests

Any foreign policy must operate in the national interest. Hence, it must have some
reference to the physical, political and cultural entity called the nation. Morgenthau states
that “it must be determined in the light of possible usurpation by sub-national, other national
and supra-national interests, which constitute serious constraints on the national interest”.
At the sub-national level, we find group interests, represented particularly by ethnic and
economic groups which tend to identify themselves with the national interests and thus
 77

confuse the issue. Similarly, the other national interests can usurp the national interests of
a state in two ways viz., through reason and criminology. For instance, an individual may
committ reason on behalf of a foreign government either out of conviction or out of monetary
gains. Criminology may also prompt a person to promote the interests of a foreign government.
In other words, there is every possibility of an ethnic minority of a country identifying itself
with a foreign government and promote its interests under the guise of the national interests
of its own country. Again “the national interests of a country may be usurped by the supra
national interests in two ways – through religious bodies and International organizations.
Though religious bodies have ceased to be effective instruments of supra-national interests
at present, the International organizations certainly operate against the national interests of
the states by compelling them to pursue only such policies which do not operate against the
interests of other member-state”.

While formulating a country’s foreign policy, its decision – makers are also subject to
a profound influence exerted by the International environments. The state is after all, a unit
of the International community. Hence, it is contained by certain v\conventional, customary,
ethical, legal and institutional regulations and the foreign policy is very much obliged to give
due consideration to their own national interests and those of other states, that are equally
determined to fight for their national interests. They must be on their guard to watch the
policies and actions of other states and post themselves with various International
developments. This naturally implies that a state which wants to play a decisive International
role must take decisions keeping in mind the conditions prevailing around and should be
willing to overhaul its foreign policy according to the exigencies of time. Failure to do so will
actually mean that the state is cut off from the main streams of the world affairs and its
leadership is not worth of farsightedness. Hence, the agreed observation of the fact tells us
that “the major influence on foreign policy making thus derives from the fact that it is made
with reference to other similarly acting bodies over which the policy makers of the state in
question have no authority of jurisdiction, and that the International arena within which
policies are made is in high degree anarchical”.

Morgenthau asserts the need of a country to compromise her national interests with
those of the other nations. He says, “The national interests of a nation which is conscious
of not only of its own interests, but also of that of other nations must be defined in terms
compatible with the latter. In a multi-national world this is a requirement of political morality;
in an age of total war. It is also one of the conditions for survival”.
78

Check Your Progress

1. Define National Interest.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. What are the methods of promoting National Interest?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What are the constraints on National Interest?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

5.8 Summary

Above all, while formulating the foreign policy, the political leaders must necessarily
and compulsorily take all the domestic factors from geography to demography and the
strategic position of the country into their almost consideration. It cannot be denied that the
resources available for the pursuit of the national interests are necessarily limited in quantity
and quality or kind. At the same time, all the states cannot promote their objectives with
equal vigour. Hence, it is of insurmountable importance that the states must necessarily
allocate their scarce resources as rationally as possible.
 79

5.9 Key Words

Common interest : Collected interest.

Criminology : The scientific study of crime and criminals.

5.10 Check Your Answers

1. See section 5.3

2. See section 5.6

3. See section 5.7

5.11 Model Questions

1. Define national interest and examine its implications.

2. Discuss the methods of promoting national interest.

5.12 Further Readings

1. Kenneth E. Boulding – Conflict and Defiance

2. Thomas C. Schelling – The Strategy of conflict.

3. Joseph Frankel – National interests

4. James Rosenau - National interests

80

LESSON - 6

DIPLOMACY
6.1 Introduction

Defined in classical terms, “diplomacy is the application of tact and intelligence to

the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states”. But this
definition is adequate only for the eras of periods when both foreign policy making and
negotiations were functions reserved for a few powerful and competent practitioners of the
diplomatic pursuits and acts. Prior to world war I, the major powers alloted their foreign
policies to be implemented and sometimes even framed by professional diplomats. After
world war I, however politicians took over not only the framing of policies, but at times even
the conducting of negotiations.

In this lesson, we shall discuss the functions and processes of diplomacy at two
levels. The higher level statecraft concerns the activities of national leaders and other high-
ranking officials and involves foreign policy-making. The lower level concerns the activities
of professional diplomats and involves foreign policy implementation through negotiations.
Policy making and negotiations are mostly inter-dependent processes. If at all we separate
them, we do so only for the analytical purpose. However, the separation must be made
because each level of diplomacy involves different assumptions, calls for different methods
of operations, and demands different skills of t he diplomat, whose business is “to go abroad
to lie for his country”.

6.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 explain the meaning of diplomacy

 describe the functions of diplomatic missions

 identify the modern changes in diplomacy

Plan of study

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Objectives
 81

6.3 Thematic Introduction

6.4 Diplomatic exchanges among Nation-states

6.5 The functions of diplomatic missions

6.6 The structure and instruments of diplomacy

6.7 Modern changes in diplomacy - old and new diplomacy

6.8 Diplomacy - secret and open

6.9 Some general rules for good diplomats and leaders

6.10 Summary

6.11 Key Words

6.12 Check Your Answers

6.13 Further Readings

6.3 Thematic Introduction

Diplomacy-organised relations among governments is the foundation of statecraft.

The Persian Minister of State, Nizamal-Mulk (1018-92) sagaciously advised his sovereign
to treat a foreign ambassador as if he were the king who sent him. This advice remains as
relevant as it was then, for “Diplomacy is one of the few regulating devices shown to be
effective in the often anarchical setting of modern world politics. Whether conducted at the
summit by heads of government or at the ambassadorial level by their personal
representatives, diplomacy offers hope for those endeavouring to build a just International
order”.

We have ample evidence of crude practices of diplomacy in the literature or hoary

India, China and Egypt. These practices involved primarily the delivery of messages and
admonitions; the pleading of causes and the transfer of gifts or tribute. The diplomatic
activities of rudimentary nature were refined and institutionalized during the ancient Greek
and Roman times. Consequently, envoys became negotiators, not just messengers. But no
system of permanent embassies was established during this era; so emissaries remained
transient. The systematic use of envoys declined during Middle Ages. It is not until the XIV
82

century after the establishment of a system of independent city-states in Italy that we find
the earliest examples of ‘resident embassies’. Since that time, diplomatic activity has grown
without any impediments.

By the seventeenth century there arose piece-meal in Europe an extremely complex

and disjointed code of diplomatic procedures, a code that resulted in confusion about
precedence and protocol. Frequent and violent disputes over questions of diplomatic status,
prestige, and power came to stay. It was not until the Congress of Vienna (1815) and Aix-la-
Chapple (1818) that a serious effort was made to simplify the classification of diplomatic
agents and formalize their functions. Finally, one hundred and fifty years later, at the Vienna
Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and immunities (1961) attended by 81 states, a
comprehensive agreement covering nearly all the aspects of diplomatic activity was signed.

6.4 Diplomatic Exchanges among Nation-States

In 1961, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was held and this convention
divided the heads of diplomatic missions into three general categories. The first two
categories comprise ambassadors and ministers respectively. These diplomats are accredited
to the head of the host state. The third category is made up of charged affairs. Those lower-
rank diplomats are accredited to the foreign minister (or Secretary of State) of the host
state.

A fundamental rule relating to diplomacy states that “high-ranking envoys must be

acceptable to the authorities of the host state”, which issues a document called the
‘agreement’, (consent), signifying the acceptability of a proposed chief of mission. The host
state may withhold the consent without giving any formal reasons for the unacceptability of
a designated diplomat to establish whether he or she has been involved in any activities
that are contrary to the interests of the host state or that might otherwise create mutual ill-
feelings, resentment, and friction. After arriving at a new post, the ambassador-designate
presents a ‘letter of credence’ to the head of the state of the host country. This is what is
known as ‘presentation of credentials’. After this ceremony is over, the ambassador becomes
fully accredited and is free to engage in formal diplomatic activities in the host country.

“Over the centuries, a legal fiction has developed that the ambassador, his or her
premises, and the surrounding property are to be viewed as small islands of sovereignty of
the sending state in the capital of the host state. This status has been supported by the
principle of extra territoriality. In recent years, however, the practice of extra territoriality has
 83

been weakened, and diplomatic premises and personnel have returned to a status of relative
dependency on the host state. The turbulent and frustrated events (1979-81) surrounding
the hostage taking of American embassy personnel in Teheran, Iran, have dramatized the
need to clarify the status of diplomatic missions through our planet, as well as protect them
more effectively’.

However, certain privileges and immunities are granted to all diplomats. Duly accredited
diplomats are exempt from the host state’s criminal and civil jurisdiction, as well as from all
host state taxation. Embassies are generally immune from searches and other intrusive
acts by the authorities of the host state. Diplomats are, however, very much obliged to
comply voluntarily with the host state’s laws and regulations. If they get involved in violent
or boisterous behaviour, they may be restrained, temporarily detained, and eventually
deported to the authorities of their native country, which are ultimately responsible for
prosecuting them. Further, if diplomats become involved in private business and investment
activities, not related to their official duties, they are liable to taxation and legal suit under
the host state’s laws.

Mention must be made of the consular function and derivative services which are
related to the diplomatic function. Consular functions were codified in the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations in 1963. These functions include “processing and issuing entry and
exist visas and certificates of all types, facilitating commercial and other activities related to
investment, processing ships’ papers, and providing information about the sending state to
all interested parties. Consuls and their staffs are not exempted from host state jurisdiction
as comprehensively as diplomats, but they too retain immunity from taxation and are exempt
from host state jurisdiction in performing their official duties”.

The extent of the inviolability of the ambassador, staff, and embassy facilities is a
function of the warmth or coolness of relations between countries and the relative tension
or détente that prevails in the International system at a given time. For example, “those who
indulge in counter espionage policies would be treated as unfriendly envoys and subject to
travel restrictions, and even be followed, have their telephones tapped, and have their
personal effects secretly searched”.

6.5 The Functions of Diplomatic Missions

The functions of diplomatic and consular missions range from routine activities to
difficult decisions made usually with minimal instructions during times of crisis. “Routine
84

functions include registering the births, deaths, and marriages of citizens of the sending
state residing in the host state, demanding the extradition of criminals claimed to be under
the jurisdiction of the sending state; and generally affording protection to the person, property,
and other interests of the citizens of the sending state. A sizable portion of routine activities
consists of social and ceremonial affairs, such as luncheons, benefits, cocktail, parties,
ground-breaking ceremonies, and parties hosted by important members of the local
government as well as by other embassies in the diplomatic community”.

“The substantive functions of a diplomatic mission are (1) ‘reporting’ and (2) ‘negotiating’.
Reporting involves the observation of the political, economic, military and social conditions
of the host country and the accurate transmission of findings to the home office. Basically,
what is reported to home could be called ‘intelligence’. Economic attaches, for example, will
send reports to their home offices containing general information on the balance of payments
and trade, growth rates, inflation, and unemployment of the host state. If they represent
western trade and investment-oriented countries, they will pay special attention to the
investment opportunities, contractual terms offered locally, and the possible development
and stimulation of new markets for the sending state’s export industries”.

The reports of the political officers focus on the structures, processes and personalities
of political parties and movements in the host country. Further, they assess the relative
electoral strength (in Western-types democracies) or the political influence (in authoritarian
systems) of various parties, personalities and factions. In doing these, the reporting diplomats
must assess the friendliness or hostility of the various political groupings toward their home
state, and the power potential of each party or movement.

The strategic location of the host state and the attitude of its government, whether it
is friendly, neutral, or potentially hostile to the interests of the sending state, decide the
nature and the intensity of military reporting. Whatever the case, the diplomat attempts to
assess accurately the military intentions and capabilities as well as the strategic importance
of the host state. Military attaches are usually involved in gathering information about the
state’s military force; the quality of its military leadership; the nature, source and condition
of military equipment and related information. The military intelligence reports may also
include photographs of new weapons systems exhibited in military parades, pictures of
strategic military installations, and depictions of other tactical sites, such as bridges, factories,
air and seaport facilities, shelter areas, and traffic-control points.
 85

Social, cultural, and educational reporting is assuming great importance. It is usually

carried out to the extent that it relates to political, economic, and military affairs. For instance,
reports about religious activities and youth affairs are sometimes of great political analysis.
Information about class structures and statuses, vital statistics, and ethnic, religious, and
social group activities is of potential importance to political, economic and military analysis.

“Diplomats of different nation-states engage one another frequently, at luncheons, at

meetings, or even in casual conversations at cocktail parties and other social functions
given by important personalities of the host state. As soon as possible after important
discussions, they compose what is known as a ‘memorandum of conversation’, which is
transmitted to the diplomat’s home office. An effort is made in such documents to reflect the
attitudes of one’s conversational partner, his or her personal likes and dislikes, political
allies and opponents and noticeable mannerisms and idiosyncrasies. The result is a mountain
of information – usually referred to as new intelligence - which has to be stored, verified,
analysed, evaluated, and synthesized into an estimate of the host country’s political
situation”. Information’s can be gathered and is conducted overtly and covertly’. When it is
conducted overtly, it is called ‘diplomatic reporting’. When it is done covertly, it is called
‘spying’. Thus, diplomatic reporting includes diverse subjects from technical studies to
analysis of psychology of a nation.

Negotiating is the second substantive function of the diplomats. It involves the

transmission of messages between the foreign ministers of the sending and the host states.
Regardless of t he nature of a given message, much depends on the manner and style in
which it is delivered. A negative message, for example, can be variously interpreted,
depending on the tone and medium of its delivery. Frequently, the diplomats do not
adequately understand the acceptable manner and style of discussion and bargaining with
agents of the host country. Thus, they arouse unnecessary hostility, which is more the
result of their style of operation than the objectionable substance of their message. As the
process of negotiations is central to both the policy and implementation levels of diplomacy,
the ambassadors must be well-informed and briefed. Diplomats are by definition negotiators.
As such, diplomatic negotiation may be conducted through persuasion and compromise,
inducement and pressure. A diplomat while conducting negotiation must navigate between
and reconcile conflicting interest groups. In all diplomatic negotiations a major stumbling
block is failure to understand different mentalities and value systems of foreign nations.
86

The negotiating function and all the activities of ambassadors ands their staffs are
subject to certain restraints. “They are not supposed to pass judgment publicly on t he
internal policies of the host government or on the views of domestic opposition groups. In
general, they are to avoid meddling in internal politics, labour-management church-state,
student-professor, and other disputes”. But it is disheartening to note that the principle of
non-interference, of the diplomats in the internal affairs has been bluntly violated and in
serious cases of interference, a diplomat may be asked by the host government to go back
to his country of origin within a few hours, declaring him as ‘persona non grata’. Hence, “a
prudent diplomat will play a low-profile role and thereby avoid becoming the target of local
politicians who seek to stigmatise a foreign embassy as the source of their country’s problem.
This is well exhibited by the diplomats of great powers, if not others, especially during
periods of cold war powers, if not others, especially during periods of cold warf tensions”.

“In an International system consisting of states of diverse size and power, it is logical
that the most powerful states will tend to interfere consciously in the affairs of smaller and
dependent states. Truly, then the covert operations carried out by the various national
intelligence agencies render claims of diplomatic non-interference in domestic affairs of
host states quite inadequate, if not hypocritical.

Taking all these things into consideration, we can say that diplomacy continues to
perform its functions on the Morgenthauian precepts, viz. (1) of determining its objectives in
the light of the power actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives;
(2) of assessing the objectives of other nations and the power actually and potentially
available for the pursuit of those objectives; (3) determining to what extent these different
objectives are compatible with each other; (4) employing the means suited to the pursuit of
its objectives”. There is also no denying the fact that the diplomats, while fitting themselves
with in the garb of the above, do fulfil the three basic, symbolic, legal, and political
representative functions of their nations. Notwithstanding the traditional instructions to, and
modern influences on diplomacy, one has to necessarily post himself with its structure and
instruments.

6.6 The Structure and Instruments of Diplomacy

Most nation-states carry out their formal diplomatic responsibilities through their foreign
services. But the present century is very much characterized by “industrial growth and
technological complexity”. These two things have, therefore, allowed a progressively larger
 87

number of governmental agencies to involve in the making and implementation of foreign

policies. As we have already seen in the previous lesson, important foreign policy decisions
in the U.S. are made by the President. This he does in, and after, consultation with the
National Security Council, leave alone the other White House and Capitol Agencies. The
President weighs heavily the policy options presented by cabinet- level advisors, primarily
those generated by the Departments of State and Defence. The information the President
considers consists of ‘integrated intelligence estimates’ prepared by intelligence gathering
agencies operating at home and abroad. The President must also be concerned with
Congressional advice and consent as well as with public opinion, as reflected in political
parties, special interest groups, and the mass media”. The responsibility for the
implementation of the U.S. foreign policy rests with the Department of State and the Foreign
Service.

“The style content and instrument of the foreign policy of one state toward another
are determined by its diplomatic relations with that state. Thus, if the relations between two
governments are good, the diplomats of each adopt instruments of policy that reflect this
atmosphere of cordiality. Positive instruments of diplomacy involve goodwill gestures and
propaganda emphasizing the strong relations between two governments and their people.
There are a number of economic rewards that one government can bestow upon a friendly
government, such as foreign and (military and economic) through grants, loans, and low-
priced sales, technical assistance, co-operative, economic, social and scientific projects
and exchange of students, players, scientists and other elites”.

When relations between one government and the other worsen, diplomatic exchanges
stiffen proportionately and all positive instruments mentioned above, cease to be effective.
Diplomatic speeches and actions begin to reflect disappointment. Propaganda services are
put into high gear. A climate of suspicion, designed to influence the people and especially
the opposition groups within the host states and to isolate and eventually remove its errant
government, is methodically cultivated. The economic measures are discontinued. One
government, wishing to punish, deter, or isolate another government, may introduce a variety
of economic and political sanctions like the imposition of import and export quotas, increasing
punitive tariffs, instituting selective or general trade embargoes and boycotts, freezing
payments of outstanding loan, canceling the planned investments and so on.

“The more the climate of hostility grows between two governments, the more their
diplomats shed co-operative styles and adopts the roles of propagandists, agitators, plotters,
88

and verbal warriors. Just before diplomacy yields to war, nation-states lower the profile of
diplomatic relations, reduce the size of diplomatic missions, and their controversy before
world organizations such as the U.N.O. enter into offence and defensive alliances against
the hostile nation-state, and begin to mobilize economically and militarily possible war”.
However, negotiations may continue even during times of war. But such negotiations are
carried out – directly or through intermediaries – during truces or cease-fire and their purpose
is to arrange for short and long-term peace settlements. There is, therefore, no single style
characteristic of diplomats at all times.

6.7 Modern Changes in Diplomacy – Old and New Diplomacy

In the early twentieth century, the old or traditional diplomacy was transformed into a
new one popularly known as ‘open diplomacy’. This new diplomacy differs from the traditional
diplomacy at least in three respects, viz. greater openness, extensive use of multilateral
diplomacy in various forms in addition to traditional bilateralism, and personal or summit
diplomacy. No doubt, the new diplomacy is quite different from the diplomacy of the previous
centuries, but it would be certainly wrong to assume that these changes are in the matter of
sharp contrasts between darkness and light, and that there are differences in their methods
and principles. It is in this context that Jules Cambon has observed that “the difference
between old and new diplomacy is a ‘popular illusion’. To talk about new and old diplomacy
is to make a distinction without a difference”.

It may be asked then, why changes in diplomacy become necessary in the present
century. This has been due to the fact that diplomacy is greatly influenced by the political
systems under which it operates. The traditional diplomacy prevailed at a time when the
dominant political systems were monarchical aristocracies. All the authority rested with the
sovereign and the people had no say in the foreign affairs. Naturally, the negotiations were
carried out by the sovereign or his professional diplomats in strict secrecy. However, by the
end of the nineteenth century, the political system in most of the European countries underwent
a change. Absolute monarchy was replaced by constitutional monarchy and democracy.
The people came to acquire greater power and naturally felt concerned with the foreign
policy of their countries. Consequently, the diplomacy also ceased to be dynastic and
assumed democratic character. The democratic diplomacy, in the words of Nicolson, meant
“The execution of foreign policy, either by politicians themselves, or through the medium of
untrained negotiators, whom they have selected from among their own supporters or personal
friends”. He attributes the growth of democratic diplomacy to three factors in the main,
 89

namely, “growing sense of community of nations; an increasing appreciation of the importance

of public opinion; and rapid increase in communication”. Accordingly, as a result of the
Napoleonic wars, the idea of community of nations emerged and the states instead of
thinking in terms of national came to attach greater importance to International interests.
The growing importance of the public opinion was realized and it was felt that “opinions are
stronger than armies”. Hence, it was felt desirable to take the public into confidence on vital
diplomatic issues. This attitude was in complete contrast to the earlier attitude when it was
held that any knowledge of diplomacy by the general public was dangerous for the country.
Lastly, the development of the modern means of communication like aeroplanes, telegraphs,
telephones, hot-line link between the various heads of states or governments, computer,
supersonic air transportation, etc. made the diplomats more and more dependent on the
foreign offices and they were left with very little initiative in matters of diplomatic negotiations.
In view of the changed context, the diplomats were virtually reduced to the status of “Glorified
Clerks”, at the end of the telephone, while the real initiative passed into the hands of the
Foreign Office.

The new diplomacy differs greatly from the traditional diplomacy in methods and not
in purpose. To quote Nicolson, “while the old diplomacy was oligarchic, maleficent, and
abscure, the new diplomacy is democratic, beneficient and limpid”. As such, scholars have
sought to draw a distinction between the old or traditional diplomacy and the new or open
diplomacy. As it is argued that whereas, the old diplomacy was characterized by secret
treaties, secret articles in treaties, and secret agents, the present diplomacy is open and
conducted in the full view of the public. However, if we view deep, we will find that there is
only one difference in the methods of the two diplomacies, but so far as their purpose is
concerned, it is the same, namely, the promotion of the national interest. Highlighting this
point, Nicolson says, “whereas the new diplomacy aims at satisfying the immediate wishes
of the people (electorate) the old one was concerned with the ultimate interests of the
nation”. As already, noted, though Nicolson would not like us to assume, that the difference
between the old and the new diplomacy is like the sharp contrasts between the darkness
and light, nevertheless, they do differ in respect of the following matters:

(1) The old diplomacy was essentially European in character, concerned with European
politics alone. Africa and Asia were either isolated or decimated by the European
nations, and did not figure in the then diplomacy. While the old diplomacy was confined
to great powers only, the modern diplomacy is concerned with both great and small
powers.
90

(2) Under old diplomacy only great powers were responsible for the maintenance of world
peace, while today it is the equal concern of all nations.

(3) Traditional diplomacy was the monopoly of the royal and aristocratic class and the
professional diplomats had similar social status, education, and better understanding
with others. As a result, the old diplomacy was friendly, humane, and a polite art,
carried on with much fairness and a great deal of mutual tolerance. The new diplomacy,
on the other hand, is under the thumb of civil servants drawn from all sections of
society, who possess a democratic outlook.

(4) Traditional diplomacy was secret. All negotiations were conducted in secret. New
diplomacy is conducted in the open through various conferences, where decisions
are taken openly.

(5) In old diplomacy, the diplomats had a good amount of discretion. The home government
of the foreign minister had to accept the views of the diplomats. New diplomacy, on
the other hand, expects them to faithfully carry out the instructions from the Foreign
Office.

(6) The modern diplomat has to perform a much larger number of functions than his old
counterpart did. This is because the modern nations have become next-door
neighbours on account of the revolution in the means of transport and communications
and the consequent annihilation of distance and saving in time. The functions of
modern nations have increased voluminously. Most modern nations are welfare states.
Hence, governments of these nations, besides protecting the population from internal
disorder and external invasion, have to provide for social, economic, medical,
education, and cultural services. In other words, the volume and the range of state
activities have increased enormously. This has correspondingly increased the relations
among nations ands the functions of diplomats. Old diplomats could content themselves
with a few peace or war treaties and occasional commercial pacts. But, as already
noted elsewhere, today’s diplomats have to do much more. They must not only arrange
and facilitate the conclusion of various kinds of treaties, but must also keep track of
the trends in thinking, public opinion, market conditions, statistics of agricultural and
industrial production, etc. They must also safeguard the interests and welfare of their
countrymen abroad. Thus, the functions of modern diplomacy have increased greatly,
and its pace has become brisk.
 91

(7) The modern diplomats are, generally, better fitted by qualifications and training to
carry out their duties than their old counterparts. Career diplomats have come to stay.
Since the men to man the foreign services are selected through open competition,
and are well trained, the running of the services is becoming increasingly democratic.
In other words, diplomatic service is no more the privilege of a particular class or
group of persons in society. The selection of the old diplomats was almost always a
chance selection of t he personal favourites of the kings or rulers. There is a certain
amount of fixity and regularity relating to salary scales, service conditions, and privileges
of the modern diplomats. There was no such fixity or regularity relating to salary or
service conditions of the old diplomats. Unlike in old diplomacy, in the modern one,
the rules and the procedures of business and ranks are well established and there
are no disputes or duels over them. On account of the revolution in the means of
transport and communications, the modern diplomats can perform their duties more
smoothly, comfortably and efficiently than their old counterparts. Today’s diplomats
can reach any capital in the world in a matter of few hours. In the performance of their
duties, they can seek, if needed, close and frequent consultation with, and detailed
guidance from, the heads of states or foreign ministers. The old diplomats lacked all
these.

Keeping what all has been said above in mind, we can say that the diplomatic method
of the present century reflects the changes brought by the revolution in technology and
communications, the political transformation of societies throughout the world and the
replacement of Europe as the center of International politics. Because of all these new
developments, some new forms of diplomacy have come to stay with credence. The public
awareness of foreign policy issues has popularized open diplomacy as against secret
diplomacy. Rapid development in communication has paved the way for personal or summit
diplomacy. The growth of many International organizations and regional settings has enabled
the parliamentary diplomacy and conference or multilateral diplomacy to grow. Incidentally,
all these things also indicate the basic features of the new diplomacy.

6.8 Diplomacy – Secret and Open

Most of the pre-twentieth century diplomacy was secret diplomacy. In the public mind,
secret diplomacy had created the sense of deviousness and dishonesty. To lay men, “An
ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for this country”. The Congress of Berlin
held in 1878 represented secret diplomacy of the highest order. People were shocked to
92

know that World War I was largely brought about by the practice of secret diplomacy, that is,
by a number of secret agreements among the nations such as Britain, France, Germany,
Austria, Italy, Russia, etc. After World War I, therefore the traditionally practiced secret
diplomacy cam e to be distrusted and condemned. It was widely held that the replacement
of secret diplomacy by open diplomacy was one of the fundamental ways of saving nations
from the courage of war. Idealist American President Woodrow Wilson was the leading and
the most eloquent spokesman of the school of open diplomacy. He advocated the principle
of “open covenants openly arrived at”, which was incorporated into his famous fourteen
points (which formed the basis of the Treaty of Versailles). This demand for open diplomacy
caught the imagination of people, because open diplomacy implied democratic diplomacy,
that is, diplomacy to be practiced with the knowledge and the consent of the people. It was
widely held that diplomats arrived at secret understandings and involved unwary people
into war. Henceforward, they were not to go about their business deviously in an aristocratic
and ‘unconcerned’ manner but were to function open ly and with the mandate of the people.
As such, after the First World War, there was a shift from secret to open diplomacy. It was
coincided with the establishment of the League of Nations. But, it would have come in any
way and the open diplomacy came into fashion because of the feeling that, “No system
should ever again be tolerated which can commit men and women without their knowledge
or consent, to obligations which will entail upon them, either a breach of national good faith,
or the sacrifice of their property and lives”.

The defence of open diplomacy rests on the defects of the secret diplomacy. But it is
not to say that secret diplomacy is devoid of advantages. The exponents of secret diplomacy
argue that “diplomatic negotiations and bargaining can be conducted secretly in more efficient
ways”. They contend that “secrecy is the key to success in diplomacy”. They contend that
“public debates tend to deprive nation-states of the advantages of swift decision-making”. It
is also argued that “public opinion may provoke the policy-makers to uphold adventurist
policy involving great risks”. Again, they hold that “people are generally ill-informed and
disinterested in foreign affairs. Only the professional diplomats possess expertise, skill and
knowledge to conduct diplomatic activities. So they are most competent to carry on diplomatic
negotiations and activities in such a way as to promote national interest”.

Quite contrastingly, open diplomacy is credited with the following merits and
advantages. Where there is open diplomacy, “the people can act as a check and balance to
the whims or excesses of powerful individual policy-makers”. Again, “open diplomacy reduces
the vices of secrecy, and uncertainty and thereby decreases the probability of diplomatic
 93

miscalculations and nuclear holocaust”. Public debates on foreign policy again may help
“to improve policy and may prevent the involvement of unchecked and unaccountable policy-
makers in foreign adventures that can bear dangerous consequences”. There is one other
argument in favour of open diplomacy, “in a democracy the people have the moral right to
know about negotiations, agreements and obligations undertaken by the government with
foreign powers as the people have to bear ultimate responsibility arising from all International
agreements and arrangements”.

In spite of the banquets supplied in favour of open diplomacy, there are also many
bullets and brickbats shot against it. In other words, while many scholars support open
diplomacy, many others have expressed dissenting opinion. They assert that effective
negotiations are not possible under the glaring light of the press and television. Nicholson
strongly recommends that “negotiations as opposed to foreign policy-making must be made
by seasoned and expert professional diplomats.” So foreign policy-making should be “open
and conducted by politicians with the advice of diplomats. Negotiations should be conducted
privately and discretely by professional diplomats”.

We can cite at least three categories or instances from the recent International political
theory and practice that it is not easy to practice open diplomacy and that it creates more
problems than in settles. In defence of this observation and argument, Nicholson has got to
owefully observe, that, “it is interesting to note that President Woodrow Wilson, the apostle
of open diplomacy, himself had to resort to secret to closed-door diplomacy in his efforts to
help the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles. Barely a year after his ardent advocacy of
open diplomacy, when he was called upon to bring about peace among the victor and the
vanquished nations of World War I, he held a secret meeting in his study with Lloyd George
(of Britain) and Clemenceau (of France); not only Germany and her allies but also the minor
(victor) powers were excluded from the discussions; the press was not given anything beyond
meager bulletins; and an armed sentry was posted to see that the experts, the diplomats,
and indeed even President Wilson’s own colleagues on the American delegation did not
intrude into the secret discussions”.

So the three things that stand the salience and the significance of open diplomacy,
the first one is that it is difficult to get nations to sign honestly and openly arrived at
agreements and then to implement them dependably. In 1928, the KellogBriand pact was
signed in Paris. The signatory-nations agreed to renounce war as a method of settling
International disputes. But experience showed later that the pact was observed mostly in its
94

breach, because, the signatory nations would not really and honestly agree to the observance
of the pact. They signed the pact, but evidently not with sufficient honesty and commitment
to observe it. Thus, there is always the fear that nations would not sign agreements with
sufficient honesty and commitment, if they do sign, they would be hypocratic, and would not
observe the agreements. Most idealistic agreements would meet such a fate.

Secondly, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the ‘process of diplomacy’

and the ‘results of diplomacy’. According to the theory of democracy, people must know
what the results of diplomacy are – treaties, agreements pacts etc. But it is neither necessary
nor desirable that they know the process of diplomacy. The nations have their own stakes
to achieve them; that is to say, the nations have their own capabilities of attaining them.
Once t he foreign policy goals of the nations are inconsistent or incompatible with each
other, agreements among such nations, be they of military, political, territorial, or economical
nature, have to be arrived with a great deal of patience, persuasion, indirectness, and
politeness. Bargaining over agreements often involves delicate points of prestige and national
honour, compromise, concession, and higgle-haggle. These are the essential features of
the process of any negotiations and agreements; to appear to the public as contradictions
and inconsistencies. The public does not like its diplomat who must often use flexibility and
calculated vagueness in negotiations. The public like heroes who do horse trading in a
patient and pedestrian manner. Thus, the publicity to the process of diplomacy is detrimental
to the bargaining positions of the parties and the eventual results of diplomacy. Hence, it is
desirable that while full publicity is given to the results of diplomacy the process of diplomacy
is protected from public glare so that the diplomats can bargain in a polite, informal and
friendly atmosphere in which compromise and accommodation of the different interests are
possible and in which they are not driven to take impossible positions.

Thirdly, it is neither practicable nor desirable to practice open diplomacy – that is, the
process of diplomacy – under democratic conditions. This is because diplomatic negotiations
on a mass scale are not practicable, and even if they are held, they would stoop down to
the level of ‘bazaar place diplomacy’. Nor can all people be expected to have a keen or
sustained interest in International politics or problems of foreign policy. Even those who
have a keen interest may not have the required type of education and training. Again, unlike
diplomats, people are not capable of rational and realistic discussion of negotiations, with
due attention to all the antecedents and the consequences of a given problem. Hence,
trusting people with conducting diplomacy (process) is not only the least desirable but also
 95

dangerous. Indeed, if diplomacy were to be conducted by people at large, there would be

more breakdowns and impossible situations in International politics.

The ‘shuttle-diplomacy’ practiced by Henry Kissinger on behalf of the U.S. confirms

the validity of this statement. “Kissinger represented President Nixon and his successor-in-
office, President Gerald Ford, as regards the diplomatic moves that were to be made to
bring about several changes in America’s foreign policy. One of the objectives was to bring
reconciliation with Communist China and establish eventually diplomatic relations with that
nation. The concomitant aims were to bring about the admission of China into the UN and
to assure China that America’s relations with Taiwan would not be allowed to interfere with
the atmosphere and the policy and friendship with China. All these things cannot be explained
in public. The attitudes to be adopted or the statements to be made had to be private,
informal, secret and discrete. Even the air route one took had to be decided secretly without
attracting the attention of certain parties. This indeed was what Henry Kissinger did on
certain occasions. The fact that America arrived at a substantial but secret understanding
with China was proved by the Japanese shock and surprise that the Americans straight
came to Asia and went over to China instead of first taking them into confidence about the
change in the policy”. Kissinger achieved similar success with regard to the complicated
negotiations and steps to be taken relating to the policy of ‘denote’ in Europe. He also did
play a decisive role in efforts for the settlement of the Israel-Arab conflict in the Middle East.
All these efforts and steps taken by him resembled the classical, traditional diplomacy of the
private or secret type and not open diplomacy.

Indeed a curious form of diplomacy is practiced today. It represents a combination of

“private conversation and public spectacle”. The modern requirement of informing the public
has increased popular control over foreign policy. But it has aggravated the restriction on
freedom of detailed manoeuvre. Such restrictions are implicit in open diplomacy.

6.8.1 Other Forms New Diplomacy

A new form of diplomacy, known as ‘political diplomacy’ is applied frequently. Such

diplomacy is carried on personally by the makers of policy themselves, such as foreign
ministers, or even heads of states or by their politically appointed representatives.

The personal diplomacy conducted by foreign secretaries has been useful on many
occasions. There are many gatherings today that demand the personal attendance of a
96

foreign secretary, such as meetings of N.A.T.O. Council or Conferences of the O.A.S. or

the ANZUS pact powers. By advance planning, a foreign secretary can engage in many
personal conversations that would otherwise necessitate separate trips. This has paved
the way for ‘conference diplomacy’ according to which the business of International
conferences and the periodic meetings of International organizations.

‘Summit diplomacy’ can be useful where there is a genuine will to seek mutual
agreement, provided there has been careful preparation. Summit talks between heads of
states or governments may be fruitful in finding solutions of impasse reached at lower levels
on specific, narrowly defined questions. They can quite often useful at the time of finalizing
an agreement whose content has already been negotiated. The Regan-Gorbachev agreement
is an example at point.

The American Secretary of State, Dean Rusk has coined the phrase ‘parliamentary
diplomacy’ to describe e the diplomatic negotiations in the U.N. General Assembly and
other organs of the U.N. where nations deal with International problems in accordance with
rules of procedures to those applying in national parliaments. An important development in
parliamentary diplomacy is the crystallization of voting blocs within the U.N . It stimulates
‘corridor diplomacy’, a familiar aspect of proceedings in the U.N. Headquarters where
representatives meet one another for private exchange of opinion and fore mobilizing votes.
While this diplomacy can assist in focusing world opinion on critical issues of International
community and promote multilateral collaboration, it has the defect of creating tension, and
inflaming narrow national sentiments. Bloc politics may degenerate into crude and
irresponsible power politics.

All these forms of diplomacy are inter-connected in many ways. None is self-sufficient
in the present complicated world. Each has a place in the armoury of techniques for promoting
its objectives and interests. A negotiation introduced through routine ways of diplomacy
may be changed overnight into personal diplomacy by a quick decision. Some party may
prefer to place the issue in the U.N. to focus world public opinion on it. On many occasions,
a nation conducts negotiation through various forms of diplomacy simultaneously to achieve
the desired goal. All these developments have let out changing practices of diplomacy with
a telling effect on the modern diplomat who cannot enjoy the exclusive importance which
his old counterpart usually did, Bilateral and multilateral conferences, personal and summit
conferences and the parliamentary diplomacy have been attributed to the decline of the
role of today’s diplomat. Some analysts have argued that technological growth has reduced
 97

the importance of ambassadors and their staffs to practically marginal proportions. But a
case is also made to the contrary. In classical times, ambassadors acted as representatives
of nation-states during ceremonial occasions and as transmitters of important messages in
times of crisis. These messages usually involved threats, requests, or demands (or response
to demands) concerning territorial, commercial and other disputes. Technology has added
a vast array of new functions to the traditional responsibilities of diplomats. Now, ambassadors
supervise a complex network of attachees, whose duties range from military and scientific
operations to propaganda, cultural, educational, labour, commercial, financial, and political
operations, not to mention covert intelligence operations. Consequently, we notice more
and more induction of specialists into diplomatic services shifting the generalists. In short,
while the negotiating part of the diplomats may be said to have been overshadowed, their
reporting functions and missionary activities are technically improving and increasing in
greater proportions. Hence, we cannot deny that notwithstanding all these developments,
the fundamental nature and need for diplomacy remain unchanged. In fact, the diplomats of
today have to remain effective in their pursuits and performances.

6.8.2 Profiles of the Effective Diplomat

A late-sixteenth-century European conception of the successful ambassador would

disqualify most diplomats of our day. According to this conception, based on Ottaviano
Maggi’s formula, “an ambassador should be a trained theologian, should be well-versed in
Aristotle and Plato, and should be able at a moment’s notice to solve the most obtruse
problems in correct dialectical form; he should also be expert in mathematics, architecture,
music, physics and civil and canon law. He should speak and write Latin fluently and must
be proficient in Greek, Spanish, French, German and Turkish. While being a trained scholar,
a historian, a geographer, and an expert in military science, he must also have a cultured
taste for poetry. And above all he must be of excellent family, rich, and endowed with a fine
physical presence”.

Times have changed considerably since the sixteenth century, and so have the
requirements for the contemporary diplomat who represents and protects his or her nation’s
interests abroad. According to Nicholson, seven qualities are indispensable for a successful
ambassador, “truthfulness, precision, calmness, good temper, patience, modesty, and loyalty”.
Truthfulness is essential because “it contributes to a good reputation, which enhances an
ambassador’s long range credibility and subsequent effectiveness”. Precision involves what
Nicholson calls intellectual description of the reality perceived by t he ambassador. moral
98

accuracy is the ability of ambassadors to express their views and interpretations boldly and
to avoid providing the home office with equivocal, ambiguous, or politically agreeable reports”.
Calmness, good temper, and patience permit ambassadors to maintain the detachment and
precision of true professionals. Nicholson argues that “the worst kind of diplomats are
those with fanatic or missionary temperaments; the best are reasonable and humane
skeptics.” Modesty is a central quality. All good diplomats should studiously avoid vanity
and should not be flattered by or, worse, boast about their diplomatic victories and successes
and let them appear as fair compromises. Finally, ambassadors must be loyal to their
governments, their ministries, their own staffs, their fellow-ambassadors, and to a certain
degree, the host country. Their highest loyalty naturally, should be reserved for their country’s
overall foreign-policy objectives.

Added to these seven primary qualities, Nicholson points out the effective ambassadors
must possess qualities such as intelligence, imagination, knowledge, discernment, prudence,
hospitality, charm, industry, courage and of course, tact.

It is not beyond our imagination or intellect to synthesis the Nicholsonian prerequisites.

Hence we can definitely construct a set of guidelines for effective diplomats.

(1) “Suppress personal likes and dislike; think only of national interests, as defined in the
policy directives of your governments”.

(2) “Implement executive instructions faithfully. If you seriously disagree with your
government’s policy, seek reassignment or resign, if necessary, so that you can
legitimately add your voice in public policy criticism.”

(3) “Understand the needs and interests of the host country without losing sight of your
own country’s overall policy objectives”.

(4) “Recognise and assess public opinion, but do not be entrapped by it”.

(5) “Do not dramatist your reports merely to attract high-level attention at home and
abroad”.

(6) “Do not be over-suspicious”.

(7) “Do not act only for the time frame of your incumbency as ambassador, think also of
your successors”.
 99

(8) “Do not be contemptuous of the host country’s customs and traditions or for the
constraints resulting from protocol.”

Nicholson is very much optimistic to assert that diplomats of this century have improved
considerably over the predatory diplomats of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
However, he cautions that the diplomats of our day must give up their tendency “to acquire
an excessively Internationalist frame of mind”, which, in the long run, allows them “to become
skeptical and even cynical about their own country and its culture, ideology and virtues”.
They must be ‘naturalists’ rather than ‘organicist’, as organicism, including lethargy, may
blur their vision and wisdom in their dealings with other nations, no matter that these two
defects may at times be blessings in disguises. In short, the diplomats must be slowly and
cauthiously active with an attitude of seeing events in relative rather than absolute terms in
what all they are required to do – negotiation and reporting, leave alone the other things.
But what to speak about the profiles of the effective diplomat if the profile of state craft
happens to be ineffective? Fortunately, then, Machiavelli has already given us certain
aphorisms, which many generations of leaders have read and unreservedly obeyed. It is
needless to recount or recall the Mahiavellian precepts of the “means determining the end”
and their moral (not moral or immoral) nature, because of their unquestionable relevance in
today’s politics – national and International. Setting aside all the philosophical and classical
orientations of diplomacy, one must be prudent enough to say that the politics among nations
and their practitioners must subscribe themselves to the theory and practice of what we call
‘real politics’.

6.9 Some General Rules for Good Diplomats and Leaders

In summary, it appears that the major functions of diplomacy have been to establish
and maintain communication and to negotiate and bargain for tolerable agreements and
other arrangements between sovereign centres of decision making in the International system,
which, however, continues to remain as a political system in its most primitive form. “In
contrast, the governmental process within well-developed nation-states is highly
institutionalized and rule-bound. Intragovernmental disagreements are, therefore, quite likely
to be settled effectively and conclusively by legitimate high-level political and judicial organs.
For example, in the Watergate affair in the United States, deep divisions and fundamental
disputes between the chief executive (Richard Nixon) on the one hand and the significant
Congressional groups, the press and the public on the other hand had reached explosive
100

proportions. The dispute was eventually resolved by a mix of executive, legislative and
judicial process involving the U.S. Supreme Court and the relevant lower courts,
Congressional investigating and impeachment committees, and the office of the special
prosecutor. But, are there mechanisms of these kinds in the International political system to
solve disputes of critical nature?”

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on one’s point of view, major International

disputes can be settled only by diplomacy, an admittedly primitive political process relying
on mixtures of threats and persuasion during negotiations and war. Diplomats perform the
basic functions of regulation in the nearly anarchic International system. Yet, despite the
primitiveness of this system, its agents – diplomats – are expected to abide by certain rules
that promote the relational conduct of diplomacy Hans J. Morgenthau has given us four
such rules, with which we can close this lesson.

1. Diplomacy must be Divested of the Crusading Spirit

“Diplomats who act as crusaders for higher moralistic, legalistic, or ideological causes
cease to be pragmatic and flexible and may impede the process of negotiation and look
themselves into belligerent and uncompromising stances. It is nearly impossible for crusaders
and other fighters for ‘truth’ to compromise their principles without seriously embarrassing
themselves”.

2. The objectives of Foreign Policy must be defined in Terms of National

Interest and be supported by adequate power

“This rule qualifies and clarifies the previous one. If the diplomats are to avoid the
crusading stance, what are they to do?” Irrespective of their involvement and participation
in the formulation or the implementation of policy, “they must present their positions on the
basis of the national interest (strategic, economic and political) of their countries, and no
more. They must, that is avoid acting sentimentally, promoting the interests, of a nation-
state or group, being motivated by hatred or spite and, finally, seeking to promote the
interests of a particular pressure group within their own country. But defining the objectives
in terms of the national interest is not enough. One’s diplomatic hand ought to be fortified
with adequate power, which includes, perhaps primarily, military force and economic capability.
To define national interests that are beyond one’s country’s power to achieve is to court
either or defeat and destruction at the hands of more powerful opponents”.
 101

3. Diplomacy must look at the political scene from the point of view of other
nations

“Defining foreign policy objectives in terms of one’s own national interests is inadequate
in diplomacy. Most of the time, one’s interest can best be served only at the expense of the
interests of someone else. It is important, then, for prudent diplomats to develop a very
good understanding of the interests and perceptions of foreign nation-states. The threat of
war is magnified when conflicting and vital interests of two nation-states intersect”. It is the
task of diplomats to diffuse such situations and to avoid war by using techniques of bargaining
and compromise. To return briefly to an analogy, when rats are involved in disputes they
settle them with fierce violence, for they can accept only victory or death. Mice, on the other
hand, allow themselves a third alternative between total defeat – compromise. Diplomats,
as a minimum, should emulate mice in this respect and avoid the behaviour of rats.

4. Nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to
them

We must look at this rule with great care, for much depends on what we mean by the
word ‘vital’! For instance, we could arbitrarily call vital anything from defending one’s territory
and system of government to securing lucrative markets and military bases abroad to
continuing one’s imperial and semi-colonial presence in distant territories. To offer an
example, America’s objectives and interests in South Vietnam were considered vital by the
Johnson and early Nixon administrations, but not so vital in the later phases of the Nixon/
Kissinger/Ford foreign policy calculations. Hence the question remains, who is going to
define and interpret the word ‘vital’ for us? A given government at a given time, wise men
and women in academic, a computer, or an abstract entity signifying the collective will and
presumed to be public opinion?

Check Your Progress

1. Define Diplomacy.
___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
102

2. Who is an effective diplomat?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Explain open and secret diplomacy.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

6.10 Summary

We should also ponder the possible results of the use of Morganthau’s fourth rule by
super powers confronting one another in this nuclear era. If, say, the Soviet Union and the
United States were to find themselves locked in acute controversy over what both perceive
to be vital interests, according to our interpretation of this rule, they must not compromise. If
they do compromise, they may escalate into war. A conventional war might escalate further
into a nuclear war, which might entail mutual suicide and the destruction of our planet.
Hence, it must be suggested that morgenthau’s fourth rule requires serious consideration in
this nuclear and space era. The option of ‘no compromise’ might just be the luxury of a by
gone era. After all, there is nothing more vital than life itself. In the end, it may take mutual
compromise on vital issues to secure mutual survival.

6.11 Key Words

Envoys : Messenger or Representative.

Protocol : The official system of rules governing affairs of state or diplamatic occusions.
 103

6.12 Check Your Answers

1. See section 6.3

2. See section 6.8.2

3. See section 6.8

6.13 Model Questions

1. Distinguish between classical and modern diplomacy.

2. What are the profiles of a good diplomat?

3. Discuss the need and relevance of diplomacy in the modern era.

4. Write short notes on:

(a) Secret Diplomacy

(b) Parliamentary Diplomacy

(c) Summit Diplomacy

(d) Diplomatic Immunities.

6.14 Further Readings

1. Harold Nicolson, Diplomacy.

2. Panikkar, K.M., The Principles and Practices of Diplomacy.

3. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.

104

LESSON - 7

INTERNATIONAL ETHICS
7.1 Introduction

We have studied in a previous lesson as to how the International law played a pivotel
role in International relations. In this lesson, we shall learn about a very relevent and
contemporary theme on International ethics.

7.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 understand the concept of International ethics

 describe the factors and elements related to International ethics

 compare International ethics with world public opinion.

Plan of study

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Objectives

7.3 Thematic Introduction

7.4 Elements and factors

7.5 Aristocratic and Democratic ethics in International relations

7.6 International Ethics and World Public Opinion

7.7 Summary

7.8 Key Words

7.9 Check Your Answers

7.10 Model Question

7.11 Further Readings

 105

7.3 Thematic Introduction

According to Morgenthau, “International politics is all about the struggle for power”.
Its manifestations are many. By International politics or for that matter International relations,
we mean “the continuing effort to maintain and enhance the power of one’s own nation”. Its
aim is to keep in check or reduce/weaken the power of other nations. In this pursuit, a
nation adopts various means – fair or foul – to accomplish the ends. Hence, it actually
happens to be a process of competition with frequent conflicts. The conflicts signify and
represent it the extreme form of competitions, based on the basically important national
interests. In the conduct of International relations, conflicts of different kinds must be restrained
and resolved. Hence, the world relies to a great extent on the existence and observation of
International morality during the times of both war and peace. The importance of International
ethics is felt essential especially when the nations have a tendency to throw the principles
and tenets of International law in the wind. International ethics lays emphasis on the moral
principles and the binding force of public opinion in the conduct of relations among nations.

7.4 Elements and Factors

Moral principles of humanity and the states are many and diversified, if not varied and
variegated. These principles seek to protect the human life. Morality in a state and
International affairs or foreign relations carries its own meaning. Individual ethics or private
morality should not be confused with diplomacy which justifies such heinous acts like murders,
assassinations, destruction of life and property, genocide and so on. To illustrate the point,
Germany was geographically surrounded by hostile powers. Hence, from the time of Bismarck
to Adolf Hitler, Germany flouted the moral principles during the war times. The German
leaders, particularly, Hitler, followed or pursued a calculated and calumnious policy of ruthless
extermination of the Jews, leave alone his other enemies. This practice of destroying the
enemies was pursued by France also. The recent attack of Iran by Saddam Hussain of Iraq
has been a story of the miseries of millions. The destructive nature of this war over the flora
and fauna, the physical and natural environment, etc. has been such that the American
President, George Bush, was forced to remark, “I wish Saddam Hussain is dead!” The
French statesman Clemenceau justified his policy/action much against the public opinion
and remarked, “twenty million Germans had to be allowed to live on the Borders boarders
of France. The mutual hatred was very severe. Hence, a foreign policy that did not prevent
the mass termination of the enemies as a means to its end did not impose any limitation
upon the French activities”.
106

The diplomatic/foreign relations in times of crises function between the two extremes
of ruthless destruction of the enemy and pardoning the enemy. The first one i.e., the end
justifies the means was advocated by Kautilya and Machiavelli and the Romans actually
exhibited this when they razed Carthage to the ground, not to rise again. The two world
wars have demonstrated the savagery in a very extensive form, which could find no ethical
sanction or support.

Equally then, the world is very much concerned about ethical principles and morality
during peace, though they become the most forgotten things in the battle fields i.e., when
the wards are waged. The sound philosophies and ethical tenets born out of the same
minds go unheard and unheeded amidst the notice made by the gunshots. The moral
restraints or other wise over war remain ignored because of the very nature of the war itself.
Even in times of peace, national leaders and rulers are assassinated as was the cases with
the Gandhis in India and J.F. Kennedy in the USA, leave alone a score of others. All these
and what all come hereunder point out the need to subscribe to moral principles and shun
unethical practices in the conduct of International relations.

Political instability and dissensions may occur within a state and these are very much
desired, if not directly or indirectly engineered by its enemy states. Hence, such things are
either expected to occur in due course or instigated. The existence and the continued
authority of persons in power in nation haunts the enemies. Hence, they do or dream for the
downfall of the powerful persons. For example, as long as Hitler and Mussolini were very
powerful, many western countries were dreaded and the latter dreamt of the formers’ downfall
in the Second World War. The history of International relations bears testimony to this fact
and the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan fell weak to the point of their defeat
following the actual downfall of Hitler and Mussolini. The end of the Second World War
brought in its heels cold war. During the cold war period, the USA expected the distingration
of the Soviet Union, which became a fait accomplish, though only after four decades. Internal
political stabilities in many Afro-Asian and the African nations were mostly due to the
instigation or clandestine activities of one or the other greater power. Thus, there is also a
tendency on the part of a nation to plan and work for the removal of the mighty or
unacceptable rulers of other states by unethical means, and the consequent plots constitute
the major portion of diplomatic affairs in times of peace.

The history of the Medieval Italy, reveals the kind and nature of such a diplomacy.
“The Republic of Venice planned or attempted about two hundred murders or assassinations
 107

for purposes of its foreign policy from 1415 to 1565. From 1456 to 1472 it accepted twenty
offers to kill Sultan Mehmood II. In 1514, John of Regusa offered to poison any body anybody
selected by the Government of Venice for an annual salary of 1500 Du cats”. Such methods
to attain the ends of a nation at the cost of the others and the political or other motives for
employing them have not totally disappeared from the realm of International relations. More
often than not, whenever a leader is killed or assassinated or when a government is pulled
down in a country, we come across with the news of some foreign involvement behind such
an event.

Instances of genocide are found in human history. Men, women and children were
often done to the sword or sold in slavery by the victors in ancient times. Hugo Grotius has
given an account of the acts of violence committed without any discrimination or justification
against the enemies in those times. The invasions of the Huns and Timur, and the battle of
Talaikkotta of A.D. 1545 can be edited as examples from the Indian History in which all
moral principles and ethical values were totally destroyed along with the victims. In those
times, war was considered as a contest among the inhabitants of the territories of the
belligerent states.

However, since the end of the Thirty Years War (1618 – 1648) the idea that “War is
more a contest among the whole states” has come to stay. The concept of “war as a
contest between the armed forces” was developed by Grotius. It had the grains of some
benign principles of International morality and obligations. Accordingly, “as many as 291
International agreements were concluded between 1581 and 1864 for the purpose of
protecting the lives of the wounded and the sick in the war. The Hague Conventions of
1899 and 1907 with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, the Geneva
Conventions of 1929 and 1949 gave universal, legal sanction to the above principle”. The
International Red Cross is both the symbol and an outstanding institutional realization of the
moral concepts of saving, restoring and rehabilitating the wounded and the sick, leave
alone the other affected lives.

The Declaration of Paris laid emphasis on limiting the maritime warfare. The Declaration
of St. Peters Burg (1868) prohibited the use of light weight projectiles charged with explosive
substance. The Hague Declaration (1899) prohibited the use of expending bullets. Numerous
International conventions prohibited gas, chemical and bacteriological warfare. The explosion
of the “Little Boy” over Hiroshima not only crippled Japan but also the moral restraints over
warfare. The menance of nuclear stock-piling compelled the concerned nations to abandon
108

the arms – race and to adopt a policy of disarmament. The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1962),
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks during the 1970s and 1980s etc. are nothing but the moral
restraints on the world over nuclear warfare.

In spite of these, the contemporary warfare has become inevitably total in four ways
with regard and respect to: “(1) the fraction of population engaged in activities essential for
the conduct of war: (2) the fraction of the population affected by the conduct of war; (3) the
number of people fully identified in its convictions and emotions with the conduct of the war
and (4) the objectives of the war”. Warfare has been very much affected by the speed and
swiftness of fire power. Mass or huge armies supported by the productive effort to the
majority of the national population have come to stay by replacing the relatively population
have come”, to stay by replacing the small armies of the previous countries. The national
interest in the destruction of enemy productivity and the will to resist have had a deteriorating
effect upon International ethics and morality. This deterioration is further accelerated by the
emotional involvement of the great masses of the warring population in modern war. “If at all
the modern citizens fight, they do so, not for their ruler, but for an ‘ideal’ and ‘a way of life’.
This attitude and the highly mechanized push-button nature of war have belittled or eliminated
what little humanism that had been respected in the warfare. The deterioration of International
morality and ethics has very far reaching effects upon the day – to – day operations of
diplomacy”.

7.5 Aristocratic and Democratic Ethics in International

Relations

Before the First World War broke out, International morality was the wholesome concern
of certain individuals and dynastic rulers. The princes and the aristocratic rulers of a particular
nation were in close and constant contacts with those of the other nations. They were
joined by family ties’, a common language, common cultural values and common moral
convictions about war and peace. The princes and rulers who competed for power considered
themselves as co-partners in a game whose rules were whole heartedly and scrupulously
accepted and followed by all of them.

But, in respect of the diplomats, the desire for material gains was stronger in their
hearts than the dynastic or national loyalties. For example, “in 1716, the French Cardinal,
Dubois offered the British Minister, Stanhope, 600,000 Pounds for an alliance with France.
The Prussian Minister, Hadenberg, received things worth 30,000 Francs for the Prussian
 109

withdrawal from a war against France by the Treaty of Basel. The spoils system and nepotism
also ruled high. For example, in 1757, when comtede Stalville was officiating as an Austrian
Minister in Paris, his son was made a major in the Hungarian army and his another son was
made as the ambassador of France in Vienna. Even Bismarck was lured to join the Russian
Diplomatic service”. Thus, the moral standards of conduct of the International aristocracy
were one of supernational character. Their moral obligations were purely personal rather
than national.

With the outbreak of the First World War, the ethics of foreign policy was, however,
subjected to a lot of transformation. Until the beginning of the present century, aristocratic
rulers were responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs and the display of International
politics in most countries. As time wore on, democratic governments were installed in many
countries as a result of decolonization and national movements. Consequently, the mass
recruitment of diplomatic personnel from the whole population through a system of competitive
examinations came to stay. All these things tended to change the nature of the old diplomacy
and International ethics. As a result, while the individual statesmen of the aristocratic
governments followed conscience in their conduct of foreign policy, the rulers and the
diplomats of the democratic governments have to follow the ethics of national loyalty and
interest. Nation is always kept above the self in the affairs of the state.

However, the democratic selection and the responsibility of the government officials
and the diplomatic personnel told upon the International ethics and morality to serve as an
effective system of restraints. Nationalism destroyed the International society itself, within
which the morality had to be activated and operated. It was a slow process of corrosion
monarchy and the nobility of the yester-centuries came to an end for all practical purposes.
Barring these, one has to necessarily highlight the three factors which characterize the
International morality of the present as distinguished from that of the past. “First, the ability
of the nation – state has enormously increased and this exerts the moral compulsions upon
its members. Second, the extent of national loyalty has increased. Third, compulsions on
the individuals to be loyal to supernational ethics”.

7.6 Nationalisation – Transformation Towards Internalism

That nationalism has always remained a determinant factor in International relations

and affairs is a matter beyond any doubt. Curiously, its very nature has undergone
considerable changes in the current century. These changes have gone hand in gloves
110

with the nature of the governments and their diplomatic personnel. The nations cannot
afford to be in a state of being pole as under as they were in the past. Now, they have to
work within a framework of certain shared beliefs and common values which impose effective
limitations on the ends and means of their struggle for power. The Revolutionary France,
intoxicated with the ideals of “liberty equality and fraternity”, was unacceptable, nay,
anathematic, to the royal families of the other European nations. So also the Communist
Russia has become intolerable to the capitalist America and vice-versa. But, now each of
them claims and aspires to provide a super national framework of moral standards, which
all other nations are obliged to accept. As Coulombis and Wolfe remarks, “the days of
common system of arts, laws and manners; the level of politeness; the cultivation and the
sense of honour and justice have been transformed with the Communist revolution of 1917.
The nations of the present century are very much ferocious about their national interests,
and fanatic of their ideologies, which they seek to accomplish at any cost.” True that the
super powers or big nations have converted possibly every other nation to their sides and
in this process they have persuaded or compelled them to sacrifice their values and interests
for their self-interests and benefits. This, then, points out that the principles and practices of
the big powers run counter to the interests of the dependent or needy nations. This is
repugnant or opposed to the principles of International morality or ethical values. In a way,
this only reveals the unethical practice of exploiting the weaker nations by the other states
i.e. the superpowers.

7.6 International Ethics and World Public Opinion

Public opinion plays a predominant role in the International politics and relations of
modern times. It exerts a deeper impact on International affairs. It transcends the national
boundaries and unites the members of various nations in a consensus with regard to certain
fundamental issues of global importance. Whenever the government of a nation proclaims
a certain policy or takes some action at the International level, which runs counter to the
welfare of the other nations and which rides rough shod over the opinion of mankind, the
world populace will rise against it, regardless of their national affiliations. The world wide
demonstrations condemning the American installation of the sophisticated missiles in Europe
and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the recent past are the appropriate examples
here. However, it can not be upheld that public opinion is capable of restraining the foreign
policies of the national governments. Nor can we cite any instance from the modern history
of International relations for the excommunication of a government t as a response to world
public opinion. In defense of this one can cite the case of the still favoured or followed policy
 111

of ‘apartheid’ or, for that matter, ‘terrorism’ encouraged by some nations, much against the
rousing public opinion all over the world against them and still no nation following these
policies has been excommunicated or detered fully. Mostly, world public opinion with respect
to International affairs is moulded by the agencies of national policies. It is a sort of a
mixture of national and International ethics.

The UNO is the institritionalised expression of the world public opinion. No nation can
hope or afford to see its demise. Every nation wants the UNO to exist for ever and grow in
its stature and strength. In spite of it, we are painful and disheartened to hear that “the UNO
remains a very sad, sad institution in a bad, bad worlds” because it is deprived of the most
required financial support and the whole hearted co-operation from its member nations,
particularly from the ‘big duos’ – America and Russia. But the authentic fact remains that a
nation’s ethics and expectations about International morality need the existence and services
of a world body, but the self interests of the nations prevent them from whole heartedly co-
operating with the UNO.

Many factors go into the making and moulding of world public opinion, especially, the
psychological, technological and national factors. At the root of the political and other conflicts
and contentions, we can see the psychological aspirations or reasons, which are t he
common possession of all mankind. All human beings by nature, want to live peacefully,
desire to possess things, aspire to be free and are determined to seek power and prestige,
social distinction, to express their feelings and what not. This psychological disposition, is
common to all men and on which disposition the edifice of the philosophical convictions,
ethical postulates and political aspirations is raised. Any thing done against this or any
violation of standards of this global opinion, would certainly unleash spontaneous reactions
and all men would fear that what happens to one group may happen to any other group.

But the reality is something different, may be quite unavoidable. Many variations are
found in the standard of life, in the nature of freedom, and the quantum of power etc.
enjoyed by people in different nations. Thus, a nation may enjoy so much of freedom and it
may starve. Likewise, a well-fed nation may strive and long for freedom. As such, it is likely
that a move or action in the International sphere condemned by one group as unethical,
immoral and unjust may be approbated or hailed by another group. For this mixed type of
receptions or reactions, we can cite such International events like the American involvements
in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc. the Russian intervention in Afghanistan; the detention of the
diplomats by Ayatulla Khomeni; the British response to Argentina’s moves; the aggressive
112

activities of Israel over Palestine refugee camps; the American invasion of Greneda; the
most recent nuclear explosions of India and Pakistan etc. All these events received both
supportive and disdainful psychological opinions from various quarters of the world. Truly,
then, the evaluation of the acts under the sense of the common good of law, peace, liberty,
national self-interest and security etc. is subject to divergent views in the realm of International
politics and the sphere of International relations.

The scientific and technological advancements have brought the people very much
closer, but the development of the governmental machineries and their rules and regulations
and procedures keep them apart, there has been a tremendous development in transport
and communication. In spite of it, a person cannot easily go to any foreign country without a
proper diplomatic sanction, which is cumbersome and hard to receive. Technologically, if
not utopianly, we are proud of having ‘one world’, but still it is one of many worlds-morally
and politically. Again, one and the some idea or piece of information may mean something
different to an Indian, an American and a Russian because of its interpretation by the
media. The world has been unified with men, matters, news and ideas, which move freely
regardless of ‘national boundaries’, thanks to technological advancement. Yet, we do not
have a world public opinion because men are not capable of communicating with each
other due to political and other impediments. The modern technology has enormously
facilitated the communication systems among the nations of the world and at the same time,
it has also given their governments and other agencies unprecedented power to make such
communications not available to the people.

In the contemporary International politics, opinion about war and peace is widely held
all over the world. Everyone thinks alike about war and its destructive results, irrespective
of his nationality and residence. The world public opinion acquires importance when it is
expressed with reference to the divided national interests. So, whenever a war breaks out
affecting the interests of many nations, the global opinion ceases to operate as a united
force. Even the UNO is resplendent with divided opinion at times of war, conflicts and
crises. The uniting for peace resolution has become inactive. Thus, whenever a concrete
threat to peace develops, war is vehemently opposed, not by world public opinion, but by
the opinion of those nations whose interests are endangered.

We do not have any such things a global political humanity, or community. A world
public as such restraining the International or foreign relations of national governments is a
mere postulate. Hence, it is extremely difficult to trace the reality of International relations in
 113

terms of ethics or morality. As a matter of fact, whenever a nation appeals for International
morality and public opinion, very often it ends in fiasco.

Check Your Progress

1. What is International ethics?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Explain the concept of public opinion.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Do world society and universal morality exist?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7.7 Summary

The above discussions lead us to conclude that “world society and universal morality
do not exist. The desires and wants of men all over the world remain the same, but their
minds and hearts are filled with national feelings. As such, the members of the human race
live and act politically, not as members of one world society, applying the standards of
universal ethics, but as members of their respective national societies, guided by their own
national standards of morality”.
114

7.8 Key Words

Refugees : A person who has been force to leave their country because of war.

aparthy : Discrimination on racial ground.

7.9 Check Your Answers

1. See section 7.4

2. See section 7.6

3. See section 7.6

7.10 Model Questions

1. Discuss the factors that constitute a system of International ethics.

2. Discuss the efficacy of International morality.

3. “World society and universal morality do not exist” – Critically examine.

4. Institute the relationship between International ethics and world public opinion.

7.11 Further Readings

1. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.

2. N.D. Palmer and H.C. Perkins, International Relations.

3. A.F.K. Organski, World Politics.

 115

LESSON - 8

WORLD PUBLIC OPINION

8.1 Introduction

We have discussed the role and importance of International ethics in the previous
lesson. That International relations are governed by certain basic principles of morality is
an undeniable fact. If so, the conduct of International relations at all times of war and peace
is very much conditioned by world public opinion, which sustains the principles of International
ethics. In other words, International morality is very much abetted by world public opinion.
This being already indicated, we turn our attention to the importance and other details of
world public opinion in this lesson.

8.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson you will be able to

 explain the concept of world public opinion

 evaluate the factors responsible for moulding world public opinion

Plan of study

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Objectives

8.3 Thematic Introduction

8.4 World public opinion

8.5 Factors moulding world public opinion

8.6 Summary

8.7 Key Words

8.8 Check Your Answers

8.9 Model Questions

8.10 Further Readings

116

8.3 Thematic Introduction

As in the case of national politics, public opinion plays a significant and predominant
role in International politics also. It exerts a deeper impact on International affairs and relations
in the current century. It is the public opinion that transcends the national boundaries and
unites the members of different nations in a consensus with regard to certain fundamental
International issues. Its moral import has been very much revealed and realized on several
occasions in the world. For example, the British Civil War and later the Glorious Revolution
(1688), the American War of Independence, the French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions,
the Indian Freedom movement, the events and effects of the World Wars and now the
daunting problem of the so called Killer – “Aids”, to mention only a few, have attracted the
attention of the world and its opinion.

8.4 World Public Opinion

Whenever the government of a nation proclaims a certain policy or takes a certain

action on the International scene, which runs counter to the welfare of the other nations and
rides rough shod over the opinion of mankind, humanity will rise against it, regardless or
irrespective of national affiliations. The world wide demonstrations condemning the American
move over the installations of sophisticated missiles in Europe may be cited as an appropriate
example for this. However, it cannot he ascertained that public opinion is capable of exerting
a restraining influence upon the foreign policies of national governments.

There is no single recorded instance, in the modern history of International relations,

of excommunication of any government as a result of public opinion. For example, ‘apartheid’
is a universally condemned policy. There has been rousing public opinion against this
pernious policy. Still, it was unstinchingly followed by the pre-Mandelan South Africa and
the World nations could not deter it fully. Again, Iraq has not been deterred by the world
nations fully for Saddam Hussain’s destructive policy.

Mostly, world public opinion with regard and reference to International affairs is moulded
and shaped by the agencies of national policies. It is a soret of a blend or mixture of a
national and International ethics. To substantiate this, we can say that the League of Nations,
Kellong Briand Pact and the United Nations Organisation are nothing but the expression
and embodiment of the world public opinion. In fact, no nation can desire to see the demise
of the UNO. In other worlds, every nation wants the UNO to exist forever with growing
 117

stature and strength. In spite of it, and quite unfortunately, “the UNO remains a very sad,
sad institution in a very bad, bad world” because it is deprived of the required financial dues
and other support, including the whole-hearted co-operation from the world nations. A nation’s
ethics and expectations about International morality and polity need the existence of a
world body, but her interest prevents her from cooperating with the UNO. Examples are
many in which certain nations have flouted the resolutions of the UNO in their national,
selfish interests.

8.5 Factors Moulding World Public Opinion

The World public opinion is moulded and shaped by many factors-psychological,

technological and national. At the roof of all political contentions and conflicts, we can see
psychological aspirations, traits and convictions, which are the common possession of all
mankind. They are shared by the entire humanity. For instance, all human beings, by nature,
want to live, want to possess things, want to be free, want to express feelings and to seek
power and pelf, and social distinction. This psychological tradition is the same for all men,
regardless of their being the rules or the ruled. it is upon this psychological tradition and
foundation that the edifice of philosophical convictions, ethical postulates and political
aspirations is raised. Any breach or violation of the standards of this world public opinion is
bound to cause or unleash spontaneous reactions and all men would fear that what happens
to one group may happen to any other group.

But the reality is very much different. “Many variations are found in the standard of
life, in the nature of freedom and the quantum of power enjoyed by the people. A nation may
enjoy freedom and still it may starve. Likewise, a well – fed nation may long for freedom”.
Again, a nation may be highly developed technologically or otherwise advanced, rich and
wealthy. But its people may be highly fashionable with questionable character. As such, it is
likely and quite possible that a move on the International seen condemned by one group as
unjust and immoral may be hailed or praised by another group. For this kind of mixed
receptions or for that matter reactions, we can cite such International events like the American
involvement in Vietnam, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, detention of the diplomats by
Ayatullah Khomeni, the British response to Argentina’s move, the aggressive activites of
Iran over Palestine, the American invasion of Grenada, India and Pakistan Involvement in
Bangladesh war, the nuclear blasts of India etc. All these events received both supportive
or otherwise (unsupportive) psychological reactions and opinions from various quarters in
118

the world. If it is not out of place here, we can cite one singular case in which, the almost
entire world public opinion or people’s psychological reaction was rejected. That was the
case of Z.A. Bhutto’s hanging by Zia-Ul-Hug of Pakistan. Truly then, the evaluation of the
common good of law, justice, peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is subject to
divergent views in the realm of International relations and politics.

The scientific and technological advancements have brought the people closer, but
the development of governmental machineries, rules and procedures keep them apart. There
has been a tremendous development of unthinkable magnitude in transport and
communication. In spite of it no person can go easily to any foreign country without a proper
diplomatic sanction. Technologically, we may be proud of having ‘one world’, but still it is
one of many worlds politically and morally, leave alone the economic factors. One and the
same idea or an item of information may mean some thing different to an American, a
Russian and an Indian because of the interpretations attempted by the media. The idea of
“socialism” interpreted in different terms is an example here. The world has been actually
unified by modern technology with men, matters, news and ideas which move freely
regardless of “national boundaries”. Yet, we do not have a world public opinion because
men are not capable of communicating with each other without political and other impediments.
In other worlds, the modern technology has enormously and qualitatively and quantitatively
facilitated communications among the countries. At the same time, is has also given their
governments and private agencies unprecedented power to make such communications
not available to the people.

In the current International politics and relations, the opinion about war and peace is
widely held all over the world. Everybody thinks alike about war and its destructive results
and devastating effects whether he is in New Delhi, Moscow, Paris, London, New York or in
Tokyo. The world public opinion becomes important ands gains currency when it is expressed
with reference to the divided national interests. As such, whenever a war breaks out, affecting
the interests of a few nations, the world public opinion ceases to operate as a united force.
Even the UNO, which is working for the emancipation of mankind as the embodiment of
world public opinion, stands divided at times of wards disputes and various kinds of crises.
“The uniting for peace” resolution of the UNO has become inactive, if not a dead letter.
Thus, whenever a concrete threat to peace develops, war is hectically opposed not by a
common, united world public opinion, but by the public opinion of those nations whose
interests are in jeopardy due to that war.
 119

Check Your Progress

1. What is political humanity?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Enumerate the factors which are responsible for national feelings?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Mention the factors that mould world public opinion.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

8.6 Summary

There is no such a thing as political humanity. A world public opinion restraining or

conditioning the International policies of national governments is mere postulate, if not a
mirage. It is extremely difficult and hard to trace the reality of International affairs in terms of
morality. As a matter of fact, whenever a nation appeals for International morality and global
opinion, it seems to be a futile attempt. More often than not, such a thing ends in a fiasco.
Assuming that on rate occasions a kind of global opinion may be expressed on some issue
or the other, the realiability and measureability of which may be held in doubt. It may also go
uncared for by one or the other nation.
120

When all is said, it can be concluded that “world society and world morality do not
exist. The wants and desires of men all over the world remain mostly the same, but their
minds and hearts are filled wit h national feelings. As such, the members of the human race
live and act politically, not as members of one world society applying the standards of
universal ethics, but as members of their respective national societies, guided by t heir own
national standards of morality”.

8.7 Key Words

Diplomacy: Skill of managing International Relations.

Emancipation : The action of emanating.

Emissory : Person sent as a diplomatic representative on a special mission.

8.8 Check Your Answers

1. See section 8.4

2. See section 8.5

3. See section 8.5

8.9 Model Questions

1. “Public opinion plays an important role in International relations”-Discuss.

2. Define word public opinion and explain the factors that shape and mould it.

3. “In the absence of a World Society, the world opinion is futile and a mirage”-Examine.

8.10 Further Readings

1. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.

2. A.F.K. Organski, World Politics.

3. N.D.Palmer and A.C. Perkins, International Relations.

 121

LESSON - 9

WORLD STATE
9.1 Introduction

According to the thesis of Prof. Amold J. Toynbee, the size of a political community is
directly proportional to the pace of the means of locomotion. In other worlds, an increase in
the pace of locomotion will also mean an increase in the size of the political community.
Thus, we can say that faster the means of communications, the greater will be the size of
the political community. In the seventeenth century B .C. the taming of the horse introduced
the era of the city-states and the ancient empires. In the fifteenth century A.D., the ocean
sailing ship introduced the era of inter-continental empires. And in this age of jet and automic
propulsion and supersonic speed, nothing short of a world-state or a federation is desirable.

9.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to,

 understand the concept of world state

 explain the theme of National societies

 ascertain the role of state

Plan of study

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Objectives

9.3 Thematic Introduction

9.4 National Societies

9.5 Expectation of Justice

9.6 Role of the state

9.7 Problem of the world state

9.8 Summary
122

9.9 Key Words

9.10 Check Your Answers

9.11 Model Questions

9.12 Further Readings

9.3 Thematic Introduction

Hans J. Morganthau has rightly stated that “the experience of two world wars within a
quarter of a century and the possibilities of a third one to be fought with nuclear weapons
have necessitated and imported the idea of a world state. What is needed to save the world
from self-destruction is not to set the limitations on the exercise of national sovereignty
through various International agencies but the conversion of the sovereignties of the individual
nations with a world authority”. This world body will have ultimate authority and supremacy
over the nations under the sun. The International society of sovereignations the is to be
replaced by a supernational community of individuals. Thus, the lovers of peace advocate
and argue for the establishment of a world federation, especially when the present
International bodies have failed to provide permanent peace to the world. However, we
must look into some important things about the nation-state system before we embark upon
the issues and problems involved in forming a world-state. As the argument for a world-
state rests upon analogy with national societies, it is very much essential for us to find out
how peace and order are preserved in national societies.

9.4 National Societies

National societies are composed of a multiplicity of complex and heterogeneous social

groups where economic disparities, religious denominations, racial groupings, regions and
localities meet in contests and conflicts. Everyone seeks to identify himself with more than
one group. For example, A and B may differ and opposite religiously. But they may be united
by language or religion. C and A may oppose each other region-wise but politically they may
have to unite. A and D may differ politically but still class interests may unite them. What is
said of A can be said of others in their relations with each other.

Every individual has to play a number of roles in a society. This plural role of being a
friend of foe which A plays in relation to his fellowmen, imposes restraints upon him as both
a friend and a foe. As a result, he is compelled to adjust himself with other fellow-men.
 123

Being the members of the same state and in spite of their differences, “they partake of the
same language, same customs, historic recollections or traditions, same fundamental social
and political philosophy”. In day to day life, they undergo similar experiences. As a matter of
fact, they read the same newspapers, listen to the same radio programmes, observe the
same holidays and follow the same leader. A, who differs on some of the topics or items
mentioned above from somebody, may join with some others for the same reasons. The
fact remains, however, that no two individuals totally differ from each other on all matters.
Like A, every individual differs in some issues and joins with others at several situations.
Moreover, they know that what they have as national character and prestige are common to
them. Thus, the national societies survive the national as well as the International differences.
Loyalty to the nation is a paramount commitment of all citizens. The following figure illustrates
the diverging union of individuals in national society.

9.5 Expectation of Justice

National societies owe their peace and order to the existence of a state which, endowed
with supreme power within the national territory, keeps peace and order. This was the
doctrine of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that “without such a state national societies would
resemble the International scene and the war ‘of e very man against every man’ would be
the universal condition of mankind”. This, then, leads to the logically inevitable conclusion
that peace and order, and justice would be secure only within a world-state comprising all
the nations of the earth. Since the breakdown of the universal order of the Middle Ages and
the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War, this conclusion has
been advanced from time to time.

How do national societies create the expectation on the part of the hostile social
groups that none of their claims will be completely ignored, but that all have a chance for
atleast partial satisfaction? How are all contending groups enabled to expect atleast an
approximation of justice from the national society to which they belong? Morenthau has got
to say the following by way of answering these questions.

“In national societies, the problem of justice is posed on two levels. One is the level of
general principles shared by society as a whole; t he other is the level of specific claims
advanced by particular groups. On the level of general principles, no threat to the peace
arises, for all are agreed upon the general principles by which the common good of society
is defined. Principles such as democracy, social justice, equality and freedom of speech do
124

not give rise to conflicts endangering the peace of society so long as they remain in the
realm of abstractions defining the ultimate goal of society’s collective endeavours”.

These abstractions, however, become potent weapons in social conflicts when seized
upon by social groups that advance their conflicting claims in the name of these principles.
These claims confront society with its supreme challenge. Society may be able to disregard
the claims of small and weak groups without endangering its peace. Its social cohesion and
monopoly of organized violence are strong enough to keep the resentment and disaffection
of such small and weak groups from turning openly against the social order. “Yet society
cannot afford to remain deaf to the claims for justice of large and potentially powerful groups
without inviting the risk of revolution and civil war; that is, without endangering its peace
and its very survival as an integrated whole”.

“It is here that the intricate mechanism of peaceful change comes into play, giving all
groups a chance to submit their claims for justice to the arbitrament of public opinion, of
elections, of parliamentary votes, of examination boards and the like. These mechanisms
guide the conflicting claims of social groups into peaceful channels by giving them a chance
to make themselves heard and to compete with each other for recognition according to
rules binding upon all. Under the conditions of these contests, no group can be sure to
prevail; in the long run, but all groups can rely upon the chance of taking at one time or
another some forward steps toward the attainment of justice”.

The third factor in preserving peace within national societies is the overwhelming
power with which society can nip in the bud all attempts at disturbing the peace. But the
same cannot be said about the things that seek to disturb International peace or world
order. It is not possible to speak about the overwhelming power with which International
society can curb the International crimes. This is evident from the fact the world is not
capable of preventing South Africa from practicing ‘apartheid’! But the national society exerts
enormous unorganized pressure upon its members to keep and maintain peace.

9.6 Role of the State

What is the contribution of the state to the maintenance of domestic peace? “State” is
but another name for “the compulsory organization of society – for the legal order that
determines the conditions under which society may employ its monopoly of organized violence
for the preservation of order and peace”. When we have spoken in the preceding pages of
the compulsory organization and of the legal order of society, we have really spoken of the
 125

state. Its functions for the maintenance of domestic peace are twofold: “(1) The state provides
the legal continuity of the national society. It, thus, enables the individual to experience the
nation as a continuum in time and space, as a personality in whose name men act, who
demands and receives services, and bestows benefits, to whom one can feel personal
loyalties that are felt church. (2) The state provides most of the institutionalized agencies
for the enforcement of its laws.”

It remains for us to determine how important the state’s contribution to domestic peace
is. The answer to this question is twofold. The state’s contribution to domestic peace is
indispensable, but it is not in itself sufficient. Without the state’s contribution there can be
no domestic peace, but with nothing but the state’s contribution there can be no domestic
peace without the state, is already implicit in what we have studied about the problem of
national power and of the balance of power. When the state becomes weak by negligent of
interests of a particular group, the national society is disintegrated into a number of smaller
units whether permanently or temporarily. Truly, then, the national societies have split into a
number of smaller units whenever the state was incapable of maintaining its monopoly of
organized violence and of using effectively whatever means of violence it retained for the
purpose of maintaining peace and securing its own survival.

It brief, the above mentioned mechanisms guide the conflicting claims of social groups
into peaceful channels by giving them a chance to make themselves heard and to compete
with each other recognition according to rules binding upon all. Under the conditions of
these contests no group can be sure to prevail in the long run, but all groups can rely upon
the chance of taking at one time or another some forward steps towards the attainment of
justice.

According to the Hobbesian philosophy, “the state is indispensable for the maintenance
of domestic peace”. Yet the state by itself cannot maintain domestic peace; such is the
great omission of Hobbes’ philosophy. That the power of the state is essential, but not
sufficient to keep the peace of national societies is demonstrated by historic experience of
civil wars. If there had been only a few of them over a long period of history, they might be
disregarded as exceptions to the rule. However, of a total of 278 wars fought between 1840
and 1941, 78 (28% of the total) were civil wars. In the period from 1840 and 1941, the ratio
between civil and International wars was, with 18 of the former and 60 of the latter,
approximately one to three. For the period between 1900 and 1941, the figures are 28 civil
wars and 85 International wars, leave alone the heavy costliness of these wars in terms of
resources, human lives and the rest.
126

As Morgenthau states, “the frequency and destructiveness of civil wars demonstrate

that the existence of the state does not assure the preservation of domestic peace”. The
reason lies in the very nature of the state, which “is not the artificial creation of a constitutional
convention, conceived in the image of some abstract principles of government and
superimposed upon whatever society might exist. On the contrary, the state, from which it
has sprung, prospers and decays as society prospers and decays. The state, far from
being a thing apart from society, is created by society”.

When inter-group conflicts are unlimited, unrestrained, and non-neutralised and the
forces of compulsion are insufficient to impose conformity upon those groups, the peace of
such a society cannot be saved by the state, however strong. The destructive forces arising
within a national society in the form of class, racial, religious, regional or purely political will
erupt in the form of revolutions, coups and civil wars. The state cannot escape them because
“it cannot stand apart from these configurations as a fire department stands apart from fires
ready to extinguish them when they break out. The state is inevitably involved in these
configurations in a dual sense. On the one hand, the state is the prime target of revolution,
against which it must defend itself through the use of force. On the other hand, the dissensions
that disrupt society also split its compulsory organization, the state. The state, then, will
either cease to operate as one body with its unity being dissolved in civil war, or else – and
this is more likely in our time in view of t he monopoly of effective power which modern
technology gives to the state – the issues that divide the people will be fought out not by the
people at large but through intervening struggles within the organization of the state in the
form of coups d’etat, conspiracies and purges”.

9.7 Problem of the World-State

The foregoing analysis of domestic peace has shown that the argument of the
advocates of the world-state is unanswerable. There can be no permanent International
peace without a state coextensive with the confines of the political world. As such, we have
to direct our attention to the manner in which a world-state can be created.

The prophesies and the attempts to establish a world-state or federation are not new.
Wandel Wilkis dreamt of creating a single, unified global system – ‘One world’. Bertrand
Russell argued for a strong world federal state. In the 18th century Abbede-Saint and J.J.
Rousseau came forward with their project of ‘Perpetual Peace’. Robert Owen in 1818
appealed to the governments of Europe assembled in the Congress Aix-la-Chapple and
 127

America on behalf of the working classes, for this purpose. He said: “Yet, the finest
opportunity that has ever occurred in history now presents itself to this Congress, to establish
a permanent system of peace, conservation and charity, in its true sense, and effectively
to superseded the system of war, destruction, and of almost every evil arising from
uncharitable notions among men, produced solely by the circumstances of birth”.

The ideas of Pierre and Rousseau were realized in the establishment of the League
of Nations and that of Owen in the International Labour Organization. Of course, in both
these cases, the realization was more formal than factual. The League and the U.N.O. and
all of their agencies are not and cannot be, substitutes for a world-state. They are at best
loose confederations, and will continue to remain so as long as the present concept of
sovereignty shall be there. All International organizations are still based on the individualistic
theory of states. As pointed out in a previous lesson, unless and until the emphasis is
shifted from the individualistic sovereign states to the ‘collective whole’, there is very little
hope for the world federation; or even the success of any global organization.

9.7.1 Two Schools of Thought

John Stuart Mill observes in his “Considerations On Representative Government”

that there are two conflicting conceptions of what political institutions are and of how to
create a world-state or government.

By one school of thought, “government is conceived as strictly a practical art, giving

rise to no questions but those of means and an end”. They hold that “governments are
wholly an affair of invention or contrivance. Being made by man, man has the choice either
to make them or not, and how or on what pattern they shall be made”. They look upon a
constitution as “a threshing machine”.

The other school of thought regards government “as a sort of spontaneous product…
and forms of government are not a matter of choice. We must take them, in the main, as we
find them. Governments cannot be constructed by premeditated design. They are not made,
but grow. “This school considers the fundamental political institutions as a sort of organic
growth from the nature and life of that people: a product of their habits, instincts, and
unconscious wants and desires, scarcely at all of their deliberate purposes”.

Mill took his stand between the extremes of these two doctrines availing himself “of
the amount of truth which exists in either”. To him, political institutions are the work of men.
128

They owe their origin and whole existence to human will. On the other hand, “it is also to be
borne in mind that political machinery does not act of itself. As it is first made, so it has to
bed worked by men, and even by ordinary men. It needs, not their simple acquiescence, but
their active participation; and must be adjusted to the capacities and qualities of such men
as are available. This implies three conditions. The people for whom the form of government
is intended must be willing to accept it; or atleast not so unwilling as to oppose an
insurmountable obstacle to its establishment. They must be willing and able to do what is
necessary to keep it standing and to fulfill its purpose. They must be capable of fulfilling the
conditions of action, and the conditions of self-restraint, which are necessary either for
keeping the established polity in existence of for enabling it to achieve the ends, its
conduciveness to which forms its recommendation”. The failure of any of these conditions
renders a form of government whatever favourable promise it may otherwise hold out
unsuitable to the particular case.

9.7.2 Popular Sentiments for a World-State

The triple test devised for specific forms of government may well be applied to the
world-state. The world contains a variety of peoples. There are primitive peoples completely
lacking in institutionalized education, who are generally peace loving and receptive to the
influence of foreign culture to the point of suicide like the Africans. There are other peoples
highly educated and steeped in classical culture, such as the Germans who most of the
times have been nationalistic and warlike. The Chinese respected the learned people and
hated the profession of soldiers. The British and the French had warlike policies and
cosmopolitan ideas. Can we fulfill the requirement of the world-state as advocated by J.S.
Mill with this heterogeneous population? Keeping this in our mind and by applying the triple
test mentioned above, one has to entertain the following questions. Are the peoples of the
world willing to accept the world government or are they unwilling? Would they be willing
and be able to do what is necessary to keep the world government standing? Would they
be willing and be able to provide what the world-state requires of them to do? The answers
to these questions are implicit in the problems of ‘nationalism’, ‘nationalistic universalism’,
‘International morality’ and ‘world public opinion’. The answers are also implicit in what has
been said already about the conditions for the maintenance of domestic peace. The answers,
in short, are bound to be in the negative.

No society exists co-extensive with the presumed range of a world-state. What exists
is an International society of sovereign states or nations. There does not exist a supernational
 129

society that comprises all individual members of all national and, hence, is identical with
humanity politically organized. The most extensive society in which most men live and act in
our times is the national society. The nation is the recipient of man’s highest secular loyalties.
Beyond it there are other nations, but no community for which man would be willing to act
irrespective of what he understands the interest of his own nation to be. Men are willing to
give food, clothing and money to the needy, regardless of nationality. But they prefer to
keep the needy where they are, rather than to allow them, to go where they please and thus
become useful citizens again. The reason for this is very simple, i.e., while International
relief is regarded as compatible with national interest, the freedom of immigration is not.
Under the present moral conditions of mankind, few men would act on behalf of a world
government course of action. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority would put what
they regard as the welfare of their own nation above everything else, the interests of a
world-state included. In other words, “the peoples of the world are not willing to accept
world government, and their overriding loyalty to the nation erects and insurmountable
obstacle to its establishment”.

“Nor are the peoples of the world”, writes Morgenthau, “willing and able to do what is
necessary to keep world government standing. For they are not prepared to perform that
revolution of all values, that unprecedented moral and political revolution, which would
force the nation from its throne and put the political organization of humanity on it. They are
willing and able to sacrifice and die so that national government may be kept standing. The
odds are so much in favour of the nation that men who might be willing and able to sacrifice
and die that the world-state be kept standing do not have even the opportunity to do so in
the world as it is constituted today………for above one’s own nation there is nothing political
on behalf of which a man could act. There are only nations besides one’s own”.

Finally the peoples of the world are not willing and able to do what the world-state
requires of them so that it may fulfill its purposes. The primary purpose of a world-state
would be to maintain the peace of the world. To that end the world-state would have to
perform three functions: (1) it would give humanity a legal personality which would keep the
unity of mankind before its eyes; (2) it would create and keep in motion agencies for
worldwide social change which might allow all groups of mankind to expect alteast establish
enforcement agencies that would meet any threat to the peace with overwhelming strength.
It can be conceded that the peoples of the world would support the world-state in the
performance of function. But even this is liable to be qualified, if not restricted, by certain
reservations of the following kinds.
130

Even if we were able to form a world-state, we will have to face several legislative
problems that would always remain unsettled. For example, we may not be able to apply
democratic means based on the distribution of population. Numerical representation would
be unacceptable to the White races, as it puts the world under the domination of the coloured
peoples or races. A global parliament representing peoples of such different moral convictions,
political interests and abilities for self-government such as the Americans, the Chinese, the
Indians, and the Russians would hardly be able to create out of these differences as operating
whole. None of its constituent groups would willingly submit to the majority vote of a legislative
assembly thus constituted. The threat and the actually of civil war would hand over such
institutions, which would have to substitute compulsion for the lacking of moral and political
consensus.

We must also consider two concrete issues with regard to which the claims of different
nations traditionally collide: immigration and trade. A world-state, like any other federal
state, could not leave the regulation of inter-state migration and interstate trade to the
discretion of its component parts. It would itself have to regulate these issues. Even if the
authority of the world-state in these two respects were strictly circumscribed by the world
constitution, the immigration of people from one country to the other will not be tolerated by
the local population. Nor would the U.S. or the Soviet Union be prepared to give a world
government power to authorize and allow the regular immigration of people into their countries.
Likewise, in respect of trade, it is very much doubtful whether the American people would
allow the import of any quantity of foreign agricultural products which might compete with
domestic ones on equal terms. Nor would the Russians allow cheap consumer goods to be
imported which might upset their planned economy and undermine confidence in their political
system as well. If that be the case, how is a world-state expected to govern at all? How is a
world-state expected to be able to resolve peacefully the tensions between nations which
threaten the peace of the world?

The establishment of a world government, then, is not an easy problem. It depends

on many factors, the most important being a change in the concept of national sovereignty
and a consequent psychological change in the attitude of nations. Before we can establish
a new International order, based on a new psychology, we will have to achieve certain
objective standards of conduct – national as well as International. According to Prof. Amold
J. Foster, the most important prerequisite of the building up of a new world order is a radical
change in the system of education. The future world citizen must be trained to become one,
 131

and this training can only be provided by proper education. A most important change in this
field should be in the teaching of history. History till now has always been written from
purely national view point, glorifying one sown national and under-estimating the other
nations. Such a teaching of history from the national view point develolps in every generation
a permanent hatred against the foreigner. It provides them a false sense of conviction, that
whatever we do is right and whatever the others do is wrong. It ultimately leads to the idea
that my country right or wrong, and a false sense of patriotism sedulously fostered by back
writers of history forces them to support their own country and all its actions.

This attitude of glorifying or justifying one’s own national standpoints leads to false
propaganda, which creates a barrier in the path of mutual understanding and co-operation
between nations. We not only do not know the man across the between nations. We not
only do not know the man across the border, but we refuse to know him as he really is, and
are prepared to believe everything, which our government tells us or wants us to believe.
To stop this, the channels of news and truth should be the objective of every journalist. The
governments should also abolish all censorship and dilution and manufacture of news or
distortion of views. Right teaching of history by teachers and the right reporting of news by
journalists can go a long way towards the establishment of Internationalism and correct
International understanding. Views should be objective and criticism should not be for the
sake of criticism, and should never come down to the level of abuse and slander. Calling of
names of the leaders and vilifying political and economic systems of other peoples can
never create a psychology, for Internationalism or world government. Yellow press should
be curbed and suppressed in all countries. International agencies should be established for
safeguarding freedom of travel, news and views.

We can also advance towards Internationalism by promoting co-operation in those

spheres which are non-political, e.g., social, economic cultural and humanitarian fields.
Goodwill and cultural commissions should be exchanged more frequently so that people of
one country may have the opportunity of meeting and discussing their common problems
with people of other countries. Common man everywhere wants peace and prosperity through
International co-operation.

It is the politicians and statesmen who beguile him and develop an atmosphere of
tension and frenzy. The common man should be protected against the demagogues, and
war mongering should be made a positive crime to be tried by International tribunal as a war
crime. As war crimes are to be punished, so the advocacy of war should also be punished.
132

Before we can think of International order, we have to think of International peace.

Both the problems are so allied that we cannot separate one from the other. For peace will
beget order and co-operation leading ultimately to a true world government. Democracy is
the most peaceful form of government. It is a fact, that democracies are usually found
unprepared for war. The representatives of the people dare not talk of war unless and until
they have produced hate psychosis. But this is true only of developed and mature
democracies. In half-backed democracies of the East, a government may incite the people
to war in the name of religion or patriotism. Wars are also a necessity for dictatorship. It is
an accepted principle of state-craft, since Aritstotle onwards that oppression at home should
be compensated by glory abroad. To compensate the loss of freedom at home, a vigorous
foreign policy is pursued by dictatorships. The dictator tries to focus and transfer the attention
of the people from the problems at home, to manufacture International issues. Dictatorship,
there form thrives on hatred and war. If we really want to have a sound International order,
we must have democratic systems of governments in all the national units. Dictatorship
should be abolished. But this is not possible for a very long time to come. Democracy is the
most difficult form of government and it requires centuries of heritage, training, and exceptional
qualities in the common man to work it successfully. We will never be able to establish a
true International organization or any sound and durable world federation, as long as dictatorial
systems which openly stand for aggressive nationalism, war and aggrandizement exist.

No International order can be effective or can even survive for long if wars are
continuously going on between the members of the family nations. A major world war will
destroy the organization. The example of the League is before us. Not only this, but the
existence of national armies is a serious hindrance to the establishment of the authority of
any International organization. The world organization cannot police the policemen, neither
can take any action against the so called great powers at this moment, because any such
action will mean a world war and the end of the organization itself. It is, therefore, necessary
that atomic and conventional weapons should be banned, and not only the possession of
such need throughout the world. There should be effective super weapons but production
such weapons should also be ban-vision and inspection to enforce this complete
disarmament. The world government should have its own army, which should be used
impartially as an International police force. But this is impossible in the present atmosphere
of suspicion and distrust. Without such an army there can come into being or be effective
only after total disarmament. Moreover, even this army will not inspire confidence among all
the nations. Regions and continents, which will control the world executive and legislative,
may use it is partial manner or for their own ends.
 133

Still greater difficulties face us in building any institutional fabric of the government.
Let us recall and first of all consider the case of a world parliament. Its composition baffles
solution. If the representation in the lower house is based on population basis, then the
peoples of Asia and Africa will attain a permanent majority and the predominance of the
white people will come to an end. The upper house, even if composed on the basis of
equality of states, will have preponderance of the non-white states. The white people,
accustomed to predominance in world affairs during the last five hundred years, will not
agree to such a parliament, and there are no other lines on which it could be impartially
based. The election to such a parliament should be left in the hands of a world election
commissioner. For securing complete impartiality and true representation, the election officers
in every national unit should be the citizens of other units.

Such a federal International parliament should legislate on matters in which inter-

dependence of nations is a necessity. It will have the exclusive responsibility to maintain
peace. It must codify International law and legislate on the subjects assigned to it.

Such a world federation must have its own civil service. This civil service should be
open to all the citizens of all the national units and recruited on the basis of competition and
merit. It should also have it sown army. The units of the world army should be stationed in
nations other than the nation of their origin.

There should also be an International language which should be taught as a second

language in every school of the world. All the principal works of the world will have to be
translated in the International language. There should be a World Radio and national radio
systems should be abolished, so that the propaganda of hatred will not be possible. A
uniform currency and free trade will also have to be adopted. All the seas and air space
should be under the authority of world government and free for the use of all nations. Civil
aviation, aerodromes, railways, road systems, posts and telegraph, cables and wireless,
weights and measures, currency, defense, preservation of International peace, enforcement
of International law, and providing of International justice, should be the powers of the
proposed federal world government.

This world government should be assigned separate sources of revenue, and should
not be dependent on the contributions of national units. It may be assigned by indirect taxes
such as excise and income taxes throughout the world.
134

Many will undoubtedly reject the above as visionary, idealistic and, therefore,
impracticable. We can also agree with them. But let us pause and consider one fact, that
without some such federal plan, the world government can neither come into being nor can
successfully discharge its functions. Our experience of the League and the U.N.O. clearly
proves that any International organization which has sovereign independent units as its
members, can achieve very little, and nowhere approximates a world government. Hence,
only a true world federation can institute a true world government.

Then, how can a world-state be created? The solutions have been offered – (1) world
conquest, and (2) constitutional conventions of the U.S. and Swiss models. But the fact
remains that the attempts made by the Napoleon and Adolf Hitler in respect of world-state
created by conquest and lacking support of a world community can exist only if it is capable
of maintaining complete discipline and loyalty among the millions of soldiers and policemen
who are required to control the society. Such a world-state will not be loved or liked by the
people but will be looked upon as a monster to be despised and hatred. Hence, the formation
of a world-state by or through global conquest stands ruled out especially in this era of
nuclear war of total destruction.

The other way of attaining a world-state may be in the manner that the Swiss and the
American people succeeded in forming their federal states. Even here, one has to be on his
guard to say that the Swiss and the American federal states were accomplished only due to
their respective regional and local compunctions. Hence, given the global complexities and
the non-amicable minds of the world countries, neither of the Swiss and American models
can help us in creating a world-state.

Check Your Progress

1. What is a world state?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Explain national society.

 135

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is global mind?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

9.8 Summary

In spite of what all said above, we cannot evade the conclusion that International
peace cannot be permanent without a world-state, and that a world-state cannot be
established under the present moral, social and political conditions of the world, leave
alone the menacing nuclear and space control of the super powers. Again, there is also no
shirking the further conclusion that in non-period of modern history were the moral, social
and political conditions of the world less favourable for the establishment of a world-state.
There is, finally, no shirking the conclusion that, as there can be no state without a society
willing and able to support it, there can be no world-state without a world community willing
and able to support it. What is required then, is the creation of a ‘global mind’. Milton has
already suggested that ‘mind is its own place where we can make a hell of heaven or a
heaven of hell’. Hence, we can be optimistic that the institution of a world-state cannot be a
wild-goose chase as the entire world community with a universal mind must hope to live,
and live for ever in a state of permanent peace.

9.9 Key Words

Universalim : Comprehensive or applicable in all cases.

Cosmopolititan : Consisting of people from different countries.

136

9.10 Check Your Answers

1. See section 9.3

2. See section 9.4

3. See section 9.7

9.11 Model Questions

1. “International peace cannot be possible without a world-state”. Do you agree?

2. Examine the arguments for and against the establishment of a world-state.

3. Write Short Notes on:

(a) ‘One World’

(b) World Community

(c) Internationalism

9.12 Further Readings

1. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.

2. N.D. Palmer and A.C. Perkins, International relations.

3. J. Jerard Mangone, The Idea and Practice of World Government.

4. Quincy Wright, The World Community.

 137

LESSON - 10

NATURE OF FOREIGN POLICY

10.1 Introduction

Every nation seeks to attain self-sufficiency in various spheres. But no nation can be
totally self-sufficient because the ends or goals that the nation seeks to achieve always
outweigh the resources that it possesses. At best a nation can hope to be self-reliant and
for this too; it has to depend upon others. The desire to satisfy the various needs of national
interest and the inability to achieve all t he goals of national interest independently gives
rise to the need for interdependence of nations. Interdependence is a controvertible fact in
International relations and this precisely is the reason as to why each state gets involved in
International relations. For giving a meaning and direction to her behaviour at the International
level, each nation adopts a set of principles, a rational guide i.e., the foreign policy. It is
through her foreign policy that the nation formulates, adopts and attempts to secure the
goals of national interest. The behaviour of each nation is always conditioned by her foreign
policy. Again, it is foreign policy that reflects the goals that a nation is trying to accomplish,
as well the means that are being employed or adopted for securing these goals. By studying
the foreign policies of various nations, we can realistically analyse the behaviour of the
nations at International level. This will also help us in theorizing foreign policy and International
relations. In brief, a state without a foreign policy will be like a ship without a radar or rudder
and will drift aimlessly without any direction by every storm and sweep of events. The
foreign policy creates a sense of purpose as well as the confidence to achieve that purpose.
As Taylor remarks, “foreign policy of a sort will go on so long as there are sovereign states”.

10.2 Objectives
After reading this lesson, you will be able to,

 understand the concept of foriegn policy

 enumerate the inputs of foriegn policy

Plan of study

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Objectives
138

10.3 Thematic Introduction

10.4 Definitions of foreign policy

10.5 Inputs of foreign policy

10.6 Summary

10.7 Key Words

10.8 Check Your Answers

10.9 Model Questions

10.10Further Readings

10.3 Thematic Introduction

Simply stated, foreign policy is the set of principles adopted and followed by a nation
for securing the objectives of national interest during the course of its relations with other
nations. It has been variously defined by various scholars. George Modelski was one of the
earliest scholars to conceptualise foreign policy. According to him, “foreign policy is the system
of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting
their own activities to the International environment”. The foremost task of foreign policy in
Modelski’s view,” must be to throw light on the ways in which states attempt to change, and
succeed in changing, the behaviour of other states”. He further adds that foreign policy always
aims at successfully changing the behaviour of other nations by bringing about such a future
state of affairs in which other states behave in a desirable manner. Modelski asserts that
foreign policy should aim at the change of behaviour of other states to suit the interest of
one’s own state. But to say that the behaviour which cannot be changed or a change in it is
not in one’s own interest does not fall within the purview of foreign policy, as Modelski considers,
is an over simplification. But the fact remains that the aim of foreign policy must be to ‘regulate’
or to ‘maintain’, and not merely to change, the behaviour of other states. As Feliks Gross
says, it involves even the policy “to have no relations” also. In other words, even a decision
not to have a definite foreign policy is also a foreign policy. It is for each individual state to
decide as to what degree of its involvement in its relations with another state would guarantee
and safeguard its interest. Thus, foreign policy has both positive and negative aspects. It is
positive when it aims at adjusting the behaviour of other states by changing it and negative
when it seeks such an adjustment by not changing that behaviour.
 139

10.4 Definitions of foreign policy

According to Norman Hill, “foreign policy constitutes the substance of efforts to promote
its interests Vis-à-vis other nations”. True that the aim of a foreign policy is always to secure
the objectives of national interest yet it is foreign policy which has to formulate and give
direction and meaning to national interest. The defining and the designing of foreign policy
must also give place to this aspect.

Padelford and Lincoln define foreign policy as, “the key element in the process by
which h one state translates its broadly conceived goals and interests into concrete courses
of action and to attain these objectives and preserve its ‘interests”. In other words, foreign
policy involves both a formulation of objectives and the attempts to achieve these objectives.

Cecil V. Crabb offers a simple and effective definition of foreign policy, when he writes,
“reduced to its most fundamental ingredients, foreign policy consists of two elements: national
objectives to be achieved and the means for achieving them”.

F.S. Northedge says that foreign policy implies “the use of political influence in order
to induce other states to exercise their law-making power in a manner desired by the state
concerned. It is an interaction between forces originating outside the country’s b orders and
those working within them”.

Huge Gibson defines foreign policy as “a well-rounded comprehensive plan based on

knowledge and experience for conducting the business of government with the rest of the
world. It aims at promoting and protecting the interests of the nations. This calls for a clear
understanding of what those interests are and how far we can hope to go with the means at
our disposal. Anything less than this falls short of being a foreign policy.

Joseph Frankel observes that “foreign policy consists of decisions and actions which
involve to some appreciable extent relations between one state and others”.

That “foreign policy is a though-out course of action for achieving objectives in foreign
relations as dictated by the ideology of national interest” is the view of Mahendra Kumar.
Thus, taking all these definitions into consideration, we can say that foreign policy is a set
of principles and means adopted by a nation for defining, justifying and securing the
objectives of national interest. Besides, the foreign policy also contains the nature of the
means that are to be used for achieving the goals by the policy – makers – cum-rulers of the
140

nation, the guidelines for conducting relations with other nations through diplomacy,
negotiations etc. the assessment of the gains and failures of the nation, and the attempts to
maintain continuity and change in relations as the case may be. The foreign policy enables
one to analyse the actions of a state towards the external environment i.e., other states,
and the conditions, usually domestic under which those actions are formulated. Again, the
inexhaustive list of definitions only lets out the contents of foreign policy touching upon its
general nature. But we are obliged to get at the real and specific nature of foreign policy by
analyzing its other components or inputs.

10.5 Inputs of Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of a nation is formulated and implemented by the policy makers. In
doing so, they take into account the national interests with respect to the internal and external
environments and the inherent, cherished values of the nation. In analyzing these, they are
governed by their own conceptions of these factors and preferences. All this accounts for the
complex nature and task of foreign policy affair. There are many factors that influence the
foreign policy of a nation. These factors are also known as the determinants of foreign policy.
J.N. Rosenau refers to these as the “foreign policy inputs”. To understand the significant
nature of foreign policy, one has to identify and analyse these factors as stated hereunder.

1. Size of the State

The size of the state is an important factor of foreign policy. It influences the
psychological and operational environment within which the foreign policy makers and the
public respond. According to Rosenau, it includes both human and non-human resources.
Nations with large such resources always try to be big powers in International relations and
their foreign policy is bound to be different from that of the small-sized states. Public and
foreign policy makers of the big-sized states have their determined say in their relations
with other nations. Size has been a factor in the foreign policies of the USA, Russia, China
and India. However, size alone is not an independent determinant of foreign policy. Resources
of the state are always not dependent upon the size Middle – Eastern countries, even with
small size but with the largest quantity of oil resources, are playing an influential role in
International relations. Before 1945, Britain, with a small size, could play a dominant role in
world politics. Large size poses the problem of defence, security and maintenance of
communications. In the absence of natural boundaries, the large size of a nation very often
creates the problems of relations with the neighbouring states.
 141

2. Geographical Factors

Geography is a permanent and stable factor underlying a nation’s foreign policy. It is

relatively the most permanent and stable factor of foreign policy. The topography of land,
its fertility, climate and location are the major geographic factors which influence and
determine the nature of the foreign policy of a nation. These factors determine the needs
and the capability to fulfill the needs of the people of a nation. Suitable or desirable
geographical conditions can help and encourage the nation to adopt and pursue higher
goals. The role played by English Channel in the development of England as a major naval
power and consequently as an imperial power is a recorded fact. The influence of the
Atlantic Ocean on the American policy of isolationism is another example. India’s policy of
the Indian Ocean bears a definite influence of its geographical location as the largest littoral
state of the Indian Ocean. The relatively unsuitable geographical conditions of Canada
have been a factor in the determination of her foreign policy. The location of Pakistan too
has influence its relations with India, China and Russia. The geographical separation from
Pakistan has been a factor in the foreign policy of Bangladesh.

The natural resources and the food production capacity of a nation is directly linked
with its geography. These factors also count much in the formulation and implementation
of foreign policy. Adequate existence of vital nature resources – minerals, food production
and energy resources have been the helping factors for American and Russian foreign
policies. Food shortage was a source of limitation on Indian foreign policy during the 1950s
and 1960s. Large quantities of oil have enabled the West Asian Nations to adopt oil diplomacy
as a means of their foreign policies. Thus, no country can escape the impact of geography
in determining the nature and formulation of its foreign policy. Yet it is not the sole
deterministic factor. The tremendous developments in communications and modern
warfare, the ability of the nations to overcome the geographical hindrances have tended to
reduce the role of geography. English Channel now cannot materially help England to
recover its old status. The geographical conditions of India and China have not changed.
Yet the latter are now playing a vigorous role in International policies. As such, geography
serves as one of the factors and not as the only single factor in the foreign policy of a
nation.

3. Historical Factors

The foreign policy of a country is a legacy of her history, which provides the guidelines
for the foreign policy at the present. “British habit of muddling and meddling. French concern
142

with security, the German ruthlessness, the Russian secrecy and the American moralism”,
leave alone India’s policy of peaceful co-existence, have definite historical roots. These
traits have exercised considerable influence on the policies of these countries.

4. Economic and Industrial Development

The high degree of economic and industrial development t of the USA is one of the
main reasons for the successful nature of its foreign policy in securing its national objectives,
particularly in relation to the poor and economically under developed states of the world.
The super and big powers of our times are highly industrialized and economically developed
states. They can use foreign aid as a tool for securing their foreign policy goals. Their
global perspectives and policies are governed by their economic and industrial resources.
As such, they are playing a more vigorous role in International politics than the developing
or otherwise nations. The total commitment of the foreign policies of the lowly developed
and developing nations to the cause of New International. Economic Order is again a proof
of the role of economic factors in the foreign relations. The level of economic development
also determines the scope of relations that a nation desires to establish with other nations.
The foreign policy of Japan in the post-war period has been directly related to its stupendous
economic development. The military preparedness and military capability of a nation is
again directly related to the factor of economic development and industrialization. That the
only industrially and economically developed nations can hope to become major and stab le
military powers is a fact beyond doubt. However, the fact remains that the economic and
industrial factors are in themselves related to natural resources, man-powe4r and even
ideological commitments of the nation. In spite of the economic and industrial constraints,
the foreign policies of India and Pakistan have been very active ones.

5. Power Structure

International relations constitute a power structure in which the more powerful nations
or for that matter the big powers play a more vigorous and leading role than the relatively
less powerful nations. As such, the foreign policy of every nation is influenced by the nature
of power structure in International politics. The power vacuum caused by the weakened
power of the formerly powerful European states, because, of their involvement in two world
wars within a short interval, made the USA come out of its isolationism and assume a new
global role in International relations. The change in the American foreign policy and its
attempt to influence the European states paved the way for the erstwhile Soviet foreign
 143

policy to keep close with the East European friendly socialist nations. After the second
world war American and Russia emerged as super powers and there existed cold war
between them. This made it imperative for India and other new states to adopt a policy of
non-alignment and still attempt to have friendly co-operation with both super powers for
securing the much need help and aid for meeting the needs of their peoples.

The making of foreign policy decisions of all the nations has been very much influenced
by the existing system-bipolar or multi Polar or polycentric or unit-polar-in the world. Though
sterile at the global level, at least at regional levels a particular conception of balance of
power system still guides the foreign policy making of the nations belonging to a particular
region. The foreign policies of India and China bear the impact of power structure in Asia.
Indo-Pakistan foreign policy interactions are governed by the consideration of balance of
power in South Asia. The power structure in the Middle East and West is an input factor of
foreign policy of the great powers. Likewise, International treaties and alliances serve as a
source of foreign policy of the nations. In re cent times, a number of International treaties
and agreements on various aspects and counts have been made due to greater realization
for mutual inter-dependence. The foreign policy of a nation is always conscious of these
treaties and agreements and it seeks to uphold those which it favours and to overcome the
hindrances caused by the unfavourable treaties. The pressures of Non Proliferation Treaty
on India’s relations with America and other nuclear powers is a case at point.

6. Social Structure

The structure and nature of the society for which the foreign policy operates is also
its important input. The social structure determines the nature of groups and the degree of
conflict and harmony that characterize their mutual relations. A society infused with conflicts
and strifes can not have a strong foreign policy. A society of united, enlightened and
disciplined population with an appreciable degree of group harmony is a source of strength
for the foreign policy. The democratization of process of policy – making in recent times
has augmented the importance of social structure as an element of foreign policy. The
linkages between the domestic and International environments have tended to strengthen
the role of this element in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy.

7. Government Structure and Political Accountability

One other important element or determinant of foreign policy is the organization and
structure of the government i.e., the organizational agencies which handle the foreign policy
144

making and implementation. The nature and shape of foreign policy is also determined by
the democratically constituted nature or otherwise of the government agencies handling it.
It has also got to do with the authority relations, whether centralized or decentralized. In a
democratic and decentralized system, the foreign policy decision – making is free and open,
because it takes into account the views of various personalities and agencies. It has to
adapt to the environment. In a centralized and authoritarian system, the foreign policy often
remains isolated from the domestic environment. The nature of the legislative – executive
relations too is an influential factor in foreign policy decisions. The harmony between the
two, as exists in a parliamentary system like India and England is a source of strength for
the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and the foreign office. The checks and balances
relationship between the two, as found in the American presidential system can be a source
of hindrance for the President and the Foreign Secretary of the state. Similarly, the nature
of the party system, elections and the electorate are other influential factors, which enable
the continuity in foreign policy, as for example in India. The existence of military – dominated
system in a country, as it was for long in Pakistan and Bangladesh, will render the military
security oriented foreign policy. The centralized authority system of the Communist China
has helped the Chinese foreign policy decision makers in frequently changing, rather reversing
many of their foreign policy decisions.

Again, as Rosenau says, “the degree to which public officials are accountable to the
citizens through elections, party competitions, or other means, can have important
consequences for the timing and contents of the plans that are made and the activities
undertaken in foreign affairs”. Accordingly, in an open political system, the foreign policy is
more responsive and responsible to public opinion and public demands than the one in a
closed political system, which is not accountable to the people. This fact, then, accounts for
the difference between the foreign policies of a democratic state and a totalitarian or
authoritarian system. Added to these are also the values, talents, experiences and
personalities of a country’s leaders, leave alone their ideological moorings and diplomatic
mettle which go a long way in determining / deciding the nature of foreign policy, which is
also influenced by both domestic and International public opinion.

8. Situational Factors (External)

Foreign policy has to operate in the International environment which is exposed to

many frequent and significant situational changes. Hence, the foreign policy has to adapt to
these changes. Consequently, these situational changes constitute the foreign policy inputs.
 145

For example, “socialist revolution in a neighbouring state or a military coup, or the emergence
of dispute between two friendly relations, or the rise of a controversy in the United Nations,
or the nationalization of industries by a major nation or the devaluation of a popular currency,
or the aggression or intervention by a nation against another nation etc., are some of the
situational changes that keep on taking place in the International environment. These
changes are always instrumental in brining changes in the decision-making and
operationalisation of a foreign policy.” The American foreign policy underwent a dramatic
change with respect to Communist China after the Sino-Soviet rift assumed an alarming
proportion in making China as its ally and even putting her as a permanent member with
veto-power in the UN Security Council by replacing the Nationalist China. The Bangladesh
war of 1971 and its impact on the power structure in the South Asia produced changes in
India’s foreign policy. The overthrow of Z.A. Bhutto’s government and the military dictatorship
of Zia-Ul-Hugg in Pakistan; the assassination of Mujib – Ur – Rehman and the establishment
of military regime under regime under Zia-Ul-Rehman in Bangladesh; the crisis in Afghanistan;
the supply of advanced technology F-16, AWACS (military weapons) to Pakistan by the
USA, to mention a few eases, have been t he external situational inputs of Indian Foreign
Policy in South Asia.

Further, the foreign policy of a nation is always made and implemented with an eye
on the situation in various regions of the world. Thus, a situational change in the South-
East Asia or West Asia or Africa may compel or necessitate a change or modification of
foreign policy. Likewise, certain International issues and crises are also important factors of
foreign policy. The issue of NIEO, the distribution of International economic resources etc.
are at present the major factors in the foreign policy decisions of India and other developing
nations. The recurring or persistent International crises like the Lebanon crisis, the unabated
Iran – Iraq war, the simmering Cuban crisis and the most recent ones caused by the break
up of the USSR, etc. are the other important external situational inputs of the foreign policies
of various nations.

9. Situational Factors (Internal)

The nature and course of foreign policy of a country is greatly influenced by such
factors like sudden political and other changes, crises of various kinds, disturbances etc.,
within the internal environment of a nation. The resignation of President Nixon over the
issue of the Watergate scandal considerably limited the foreign policy of the USA under
President Gerald Ford. The persistent opposition to Zia’s military regime in Pakistan and
146

his death in an air crash and the consequent developments brought sweeping changes in
Pakistan’s foreign policy. The declaration of emergency in India in 1975 did materially affect
the relations of India with other countries, leave alone the subsequent events like the rise
and fall of the Congress and non-Congress governments, the assassinations of Mrs. Gandhi
and Rajiv Gandhi, and still the later developments till the assumption of the BJP led coalition
government and its nuclear fete in May 1998 – all these replenish the changes brought into
the nature of India’s foreign policy. The death of Mao and Chou-en-lai within a short duration
and the rise of new leadership in China has been an important input of the Chinese foreign
policy of the post – Mao period. What happened in Russia in recent times under Brezhnev
and Gorbachev also substantiate that a country’s internal situational factors have a say in
determining the nature and import of its foreign policy.

Check Your Progress

1. What are the foreign policy inputs?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. What are the situational factors?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is national interest?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
 147

10.6 Summary

These are then the inputs or factors of a foreign policy. These are popularly known
as the determinants of foreign policy and its nature, components and goals. One thing must
be borne in mind that all these factors are interrelated and interdependent. They act together
or in combination, and influence the making and implementation of foreign policy. None of
these is an independent determinant of foreign policy. As such, these must be analysed
together for understanding the nature of a foreign policy. However, the fact remains that out
of all such factors which influence the nature of foreign policy of a nation, the factor of
national interest plays a fundamental and predominant role. National interest is the objective
that foreign policy seeks to achieve. It is the very basis and the objective of a foreign policy.
As such, there exists a very close relation between the two. The details about national
interest are discussed in a separate lesson.

10.7 Key Words

Harmony : Quality of forming a pleasing combination of things.

Monopoly : Controlled by one.

10.8 Check Your Answers

1. See section 10.5

2. See section 10.5 (8)

3. See section 10.5 (8)

10.9 Model Questions

1. Define foreign policy and bring out its nature.

2. Discuss the input factors of foreign policy with suitable examples.

3. Critically examine the extern al and internal situational, factors that determine the
nature of a foreign policy.

4. “Foreign policy of a nation cannot exist in vacuum” Comment.

148

10.10 Further Readings

1. George Model Ski, A Theory of Foreign Policy

2. Feliks Gross, Foreign Policy Analysis.

3. F.S. Northedge, “The Nature of Foreign Policy” in Foreign Policies in a World of

Change.
 149

LESSON - 11

INDIA AND HER NEIGHBOURS

11.1 Introduction

India is land where people believe in cooperation and maintain healthy relationship
with its neighbour. India has always been known as a “peace-loving country”. India has
official political relations with most nations. India is considered as the world’s second most
populous and democratic country. Its economy is the fastest growing around the world.
With the world’s eighth largest military expenditure, third largest armed force, seventh largest
economy by nominal rates and third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity.
India is a regional power, an embryonic global power and has capability to become
superpower. India has a developing international influence and a prominent voice in global
businesses.

Plan of study

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Objectives

11.3 Thematic Introduction

11.4 India - Bangladsh

11.5 India - China

11.6 India - Pakisthan

11.7 India - Srilanka

11.8 Summary

11.9 Key Words

11.10 Model Questions

150

11.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

• Understand the relationship of india with Bangaladesh

• Eonesmenalt in detail the Indo-Chinese relations.

• Highlight about India’s relationship with Srilanka and Pakistan

11.3 Thematic Introduction

India is a progressing industrialised nation. It has a history of partnership with several

countries, is a component of the BRICS and a major part of developing world. India was one
of the founding members of several international organisations, most notably the United
Nations, the Asian Development Bank, G-20 major economies 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 Organisation, International Monetary Fund
(IMF), G8+5 and IBSA Dialogue Forum. Locally, India is a part of SAARC and BIMSTEC.

Foreign policy of India has always regarded the concept of neighbourhood as one of
broadening concentric circles, around a central axis of historical and cultural commonalities.
Millions people of Indian origin, live and work abroad and constitute an important link with
the mother country. An important role of India’s foreign policy has been to guarantee their
welfare and wellbeing within the framework of the laws of the country where they live.

The Ministry of External Affairs is the Indian government’s agency look after the foreign
relations of India. The Minister of External Affairs holds cabinet rank as a member of the
Council of Ministers. Sushma Swaraj is current Minister of External Affairs. When reviewing
historical approach, India’s international influence varied over the years after independence.
Indian prestige and moral authority were high in the 1950s and enabled the acquisition of
developmental assistance from both East and West. Although the prestige stemmed from
India’s nonaligned stance, the nation was incapable to prevent Cold War politics from
becoming intertwined with interstate relations in South Asia.

In the decade of 1960 and 1970s, India’s international position among developed and
developing countries faded in the course of wars with China and Pakistan, disputes with
other countries in South Asia, and India’s effort to balance Pakistan’s support from the
 151

United States and China by signing the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in
August 1971. Although India obtained substantial Soviet military and economic aid, which
helped to strengthen the nation, India’s influence was undercut regionally and internationally
by the perception that its friendship with the Soviet Union prevented a more forthright
disapproval of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. In the late 1980s, India developed relations
with the United States, other developed countries, and China while continuing close ties
with the Soviet Union. Relations with its South Asian neighbours, especially Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, and Nepal, occupied much of the energies of the Ministry of External Affairs.

In the mid-1990s, India fascinated the world attention towards the terrorism supported
by Pakistan in Kashmir. The Kargil War resulted in a major diplomatic victory for India. The
United States and European Union recognised the fact that Pakistani military had illegally
infiltrated into Indian Territory and pressured Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil. Several anti-
India militant groups based in Pakistan were labelled as terrorist groups by the United
States and European Union.

After disastrous terrorist attack in September 11 in 2001, Indian intelligence agencies

provided the U.S. with significant information on Al-Qaeda and related groups’ activities in
Pakistan and Afghanistan. India’s extensive contribution to the War on Terror, along with a
surge in its economy, has assisted India’s diplomatic relations with several countries.

India championed the cause of peace in the world. Being a large country, India has a
long border and many neighbours with them have traditionally maintained welcoming and
good neighbourly relations. Countries nearby India include Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh,
China, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bhutan, and Nepal. These neighbourhood
countries are the member countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC). The constituent countries individually as well as collectively represent a world of
historical links, shared legacies, commonalities as well as diversities which are elaborately
reflected in their ethnic, linguistic, religious and political fabric. China and Myanmar, the
other two neighbours, are no less complex.

The South Asian region is also full of inconsistencies, disparities and paradoxes. In
the post-colonial period, the South Asia has been a theatre of blood spattered interstate as
well as civil wars. It has witnessed liberation movements, nuclear rivalry, military dictatorships
and continues to suffer from insurgencies, religious fundamentalism and terrorism, besides
serious problems associated with drugs and human trafficking.
152

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has remained in
existence for over two decades, yet South Asia is considered as the least integrated of the
global regions. This is despite the stipulation in its Charter that “bilateral and contentious
issues shall be excluded” from its deliberations, thus making it possible to put the contentious
issues on the back burner and focus on areas of possible cooperation. On the positive side,
the region has been registering good growth during the past several years. Also democratic
forms of governance are beginning to gain some ground in most parts of the region.

India’s position is unique in its neighbourhood. As a matter of geographic factor, India

shares borders with all other South Asian nations whereas no other South Asian nation
(except Afghanistan and Pakistan) shares borders with any other South Asian nation.
Notwithstanding some inadequacies, democracy and rule of law as instruments of political
governance are well engrained in India. Transfer of power has been more or less peaceful
and transparent. In relative terms, India can be debatably considered as the most stable
country in the region, progressing at speedy rate, even though the growth has of late
slowed down. In terms of its population, territory, GDP, its image as an evolving world
economy and a responsible de-facto nuclear State, and as a country which is intended to
play vital role at international stage.

India has many achievements. But, in the regional perspective, there is neighbours’
bitterness. There are unfair and erroneous perceptions about India floating around in the
region. India treats its neighbours as an ignored courtyard. There are vested interests and
lobbies for whom being anti-Indian is synonymous with being patriot and nationalist. There
are strong institutions within the framework of a more or less failed State in the neighbourhood
(Pakistan) which would like to see relations with India in a state of perpetual suspension.
India’s intentions are suspected even in cases of innocent proposals for economic cooperation
which would lead to win-win situations.

11.4 India - Bangladesh

Indian government believe in maintaining good relations with neighbouring countries.

Bangladesh is one of its close neighbour. India had recognised Bangladesh as a separate
and independent state, did so on 6 December 1971. India fought together with the
Bangladeshis to liberate Bangladesh from West Pakistan in 1971. Bangladesh and India
share a common tradition. They are pleasant and both nations make great efforts to solve
the problem of waters of Ganga at Farakka and Tin Bigha corridor in a spirit of give and
take. India has helped Bangladesh in the recovery of cyclone victims in 1985. In broad
 153

sense, the relations between the two nations continue to be amiable. But major issues in
relation with these two nation is that of about 145,000 Chakma refugees who crossed over
to India. Bangladesh’s relationship with India has been difficult in terms of irrigation and
land border disputes post 1976. Nevertheless, India has maintained favourable relationship
with Bangladesh during governments formed by the Awami League in 1972 and 1996. The
solutions of land and maritime disputes have taken out nuisances in ties.

At the beginning, India’s relations with Bangladesh have not been stronger because
of India’s absolute support for independence and opposition against Pakistan in 1971.
During the independence war, many refugees fled to India. When the struggle of resistance
matured in November 1971, India also interfered militarily and has helped in bring international
attention to the issue through Indira Gandhi’s visit to Washington, D.C. Afterwards India
furnished relief and reconstruction aid. India also withdrew its military from the land of
Bangladesh when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman requested Indira Gandhi to do so during the
latter’s visit to Dhaka in 1972. Indo-Bangladesh relations have been somewhat less friendly
since the fall of Mujib government in August 1975. But as the time passed, many issues
emerged such as South Talpatti Island, the Tin Bigha Corridor and access to Nepal, the
Farakka Barrage and water sharing, border conflicts near Tripura and the construction of a
fence along most of the border which India explains as security provision against migrants,
insurgents and terrorists. Bilateral relations began to friendly in 1996, due to soft Indian
foreign policy and the new Awami League Government. A 30-year water-sharing agreement
for the Ganges River was signed in December 1996, after an earlier bilateral water-sharing
agreement for the Ganges River lapsed in 1988. Both nations also have cooperated on the
issue of flood warning and readiness. The Bangladesh Government and tribal insurgents
signed a peace accord in December 1997, which allowed for the return of tribal refugees
who had escaped into India, beginning in 1986, to escape violence caused by an insurgency
in their homeland in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Bangladesh Army maintains a very
strong presence in the area presently. The army is progressively concerned about problem
of cultivation of illegal drugs.

There are also small pieces of land along the border region that Bangladesh is tactfully
trying to reclaim. Padua, part of Sylhet Division before 1971, has been under Indian control
since the war in 1971. This small strip of land was re-occupied by the BDR in 2001, but later
given back to India after Bangladesh government decided to solve the problem through
diplomatic negotiations. The Indian New Moore Island no longer exists, but Bangladesh
repeatedly claims it to be part of the Satkhira district of Bangladesh.
154

India has increasingly complained that Bangladesh does not secure its border well. It
fears an increasing flow of poor Bangladeshis and it accuses Bangladesh of sheltering
Indian separatist groups like ULFA and alleged terrorist groups. The Bangladesh government
has snubbed to accept these allegations. India estimates that over 20 million Bangladeshis
are living unlawfully in India. Since 2002, India has been building an India - Bangladesh
Fence along much of the 2500 mile border. The failure to resolve migration disputes bears
a human cost for illegal migrants, such as imprisonment and health risks, namely HIV/Aids.
Presently, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bangladeshi counterpart Sheikh
Hasina have completed a revolutionary deal redrawing their disordered shared border and
there by solving disputes between India and Bangladesh. Bangladesh and India have signed
a historic agreement to simplify their border by exchanging more than 150 enclaves of land.

Bangladesh also offer India transit route to travel through Bangladesh to its North
East states. India and Bangladesh also have free trade agreement in June 7, 2015. Both
nations solved its border dispute on June 6, 2015. To connect Kolkata with Tripura via
Bangladesh through railway, the Union Government on 10 February 2016 sanctioned about
580 crore rupees. The funds were sanctioned for constructing the 15-kilometer railway
track between Kolkata and Tripura. The project that is expected to be completed by 2017
will pass through Bangladesh. The Agartala-Akhaura rail-link between Indian Railway and
Bangladesh Railway will reduce the current 1700 km road distance between Kolkata to
Agartala via Siliguri to just 350-kilometer by railway. These projects are high level and on
Prime Minister’s ‘Act East’ Policy, and is anticipated to increase connectivity and increase
trade between India and Bangladesh.

11.5 India - China

China is also close neighbour of India. The relation between these two nations are
changeable. Though it is observed that India had traditionally friendly relation. In 1962,
China invaded India and occupied huge areas. After that the relations between the two
countries became strained. India always make efforts to improve relation with China. India
wants good solution of the boundary issues. But China wants to delay solution to the border
issue. With respect to the boundary disagreement, India’s has clear position. In 1988, former
P.M. Rajiv Gandhi said that any solution to Indo-China boundary issue must be reasonable
not only to the two government but also to the people of the two countries. Rajiv Gandhi’s
visit to China in December 1988 was considered as beginning in the relations between the
two nations. It was sensed that a favourable climate and condition should be created for
 155

good solution to the issues between two nations. Chinese P.M. Li Peng also visited to India
in December 1991and helped to develop good understanding. However co-operation and
exchange of delegations in areas like culture, sports and trade has been resumed, but the
boundary issue remained to be sorted out.

In spite of persistent suspicions remaining from the 1962 Sino-Indian War and
continuing boundary disputes over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, Sino-Indian relations
have improved progressively since 1988. Both countries have sought to reduce tensions
along the frontier, swell trade and cultural ties, and normalise relations.

In both nation, high-level delegates and ministers regularly visit. Such efforts have
helped to improve relations. In December 1996, PRC President Jiang Zemin visited India
during a tour of South Asia. While in New Delhi, he signed with the Indian Prime Minister a
series of confidence-building measures for the disputed borders. Sino-Indian relations suffered
a brief setback in May 1998 when the Indian Defence minister justified the country’s nuclear
tests by citing potential threats from the PRC. Nevertheless, in June 1999, during the Kargil
crisis, then-External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh visited Beijing and stated that India did
not consider China a threat. By 2001, relations between India and the PRC were improved,
and both nations handled the move from Tibet to India of the 17th Karmapa in January 2000
with delicacy and tact. In 2003, India formally accepted Tibet as a part of China, and China
recognised Sikkim as an official part of India in 2004.

Since 2004, the economic growth of China and India has also helped furnace closer
relations. Sino-Indian trade reached US$65.47 billion in 2013-14, making China the single
largest trading partner of India. The growing economic reliance between India and China
has also bought the two nations closer administratively, with both India and China excited to
resolve their boundary dispute. They have also worked together on several issues ranging
from WTO’s Doha round in 2008 to regional free trade agreement. Alike Indo-US nuclear
deal, India and China have also agreed to cooperate in the field of civilian nuclear energy.
Though, China’s economic interests have conflicted with those of India.

Indian government always tries to improve relations with Islamabad and the PM has
developed an excellent relationship with the Chinese leadership “The Prime Minister has
particularly developed an excellent relationship even with the Chinese leadership. India has
a boundary issue with them. And the boundary issue is unresolved. There are other several
issues related to China, which are of our concern. But at least the tense situation around
the boundary does not exist.
156

11.6 India - Pakistan

Pakistan has been antagonistic when maintaining relations with India. But India has
made extreme efforts to improve and stabilize relations with Pakistan. Pakistan has been
buying arms from the USA. From Indian viewpoint, it would create tension in the region.
Reports indicated that Pakistan assist and conduct training for terrorists in Punjab and
Kashmir. Pakistan has been raising the Kashmir issue on various international media. India
has conveyed its concern to Pakistan over all these issues. India has assured Pakistan that
it would never attack Pakistan, but the actions of Pakistan are conflicting to the ideologies
of bilateralism enshrined in the Simla Agreement. Thus the relations between India and
Pakistan are bitter.

Though there are historical, cultural and ethnic links between them, relations between
India and Pakistan have been afflicted by years of distrust ever since the partition of India in
1947. Major cause of dispute between India and Pakistan has been the Kashmir conflict.
After an invasion by Pashtun tribesmen and Pakistani paramilitary forces, the Hindu Maharaja
of the Dogra Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, and its Muslim Prime Minister,
Sheikh Abdullah, signed an Instrument of Accession with New Delhi. The First Kashmir War
started after the Indian Army entered Srinagar, the capital of the state, to secure the area
from the occupying forces. The war ended in December 1948 with the Line of Control
dividing the erstwhile princely state into territories administered by Pakistan and India. Pakistan
challenged the legality of the Instrument of Accession since the Dogra Kingdom has signed
a standstill agreement with it. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 began following the failure of
Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and
Kashmir to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India. This five-week war took thousands
of human life on both sides. It ended in a United Nations (UN) instructed ceasefire and the
successive issuance of the Tashkent Declaration. In 1971, India and Pakistan went to war
again. This time the conflict being over East Pakistan. The large-scale atrocities committed
there by the Pakistan army led to millions of Bengali refugees entering into India. India,
along with the Mukti Bahini, overpowered Pakistan and the Pakistani forces surrendered
on the eastern front. The war resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.

In 1998, India performed the Pokhran-II nuclear tests which was followed by Pakistan’s
Chagai-I tests. Following the Lahore Declaration in February 1999, relations between two
nations slightly improved. A few months later, Pakistani paramilitary forces and Pakistan
Army, penetrated in huge numbers into the Kargil district of Indian Kashmir. This started the
 157

Kargil War after India moved in thousands of troops to successfully kick out the infiltrators.
Although the conflict did not result in a full-scale war between India and Pakistan, relations
between the two nations again worsened even further following the involvement of Pakistan-
based terrorists in the hijacking of the Indian Airlines Flight 814 in December 1999. India
again tried to make friendly relations and came forward to organize the Agra summit held in
July 2001, but it also failed. Some devastating events, an attack on the Indian Parliament in
December 2001, which was blamed on Pakistan. This resulted in military standoff between
the two countries which lasted for nearly a year raising fears of a nuclear warfare. However,
a peace process, started in 2003, led to improved relations in the following years.

To begin the peace process, several confidence-building-measures (CBMs) between

India and Pakistan have been taken. The Samjhauta Express and Delhi-Lahore Bus service
are two of these successful measures which had played vital role to expand people-to-
people contact between the two countries. The initiation of Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Bus
service in 2005 and opening of a historic trade route across the Line of Control in 2008
augment keenness between the two sides to improve relations.

The 2008 Mumbai assaults seriously destabilised the relations between the two
countries. India alleged Pakistan of harbouring militants on their land, while Pakistan fervently
denies such claims.

11.7 India - Sri Lanka

India and Sri Lanka has conventionally close to each other. Huge numbers of Tamil of
Indian origin live in Sri Lanka. This created cultural problem in Sri Lanka. Although the
problem of the people of Indian origin settled in Sri Lanka was solved by P.M. Lal Bahadur
Shastri in a friendly manner, but the killings of the Tamil in that country worsen the relations
between the two countries. With the signing of Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in 1987 relations
improved. The Indian Peace-keeping Forces have returned to India after having performed
their job. Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by LTTE activities put the relations between the
two countries in melancholies.

Though bilateral relations between Sri Lanka and India have been generally pleasant,
but were affected by the Sri Lankan Civil War and by the failure of Indian intervention during
the civil war as well as India’s support for Tamil Tiger militants. India is Sri Lanka’s only
neighbour, separated by the Palk Strait. Both nations occupy a strategic position in South
Asia and have sought to build a common security authority in the Indian Ocean.
158

Over the years, India-Sri Lanka relations have undergone major transformation. Political
relations are close, trade and investments have increased radically, infrastructural linkages
are continually being increased, defence collaboration has increased and there is broad-
based improvement across all sectors of bilateral cooperation. India was the first nation to
respond to Sri Lanka’s request for assistance after the tsunami in December 2004. In July
2006, India evacuated 430 Sri Lankan nationals from Lebanon, first to Cyprus by Indian
Navy ships and then to Delhi and Colombo by special Air India flights.

Political relations are built through high-level exchanges of visits. Prof. G.L.P eiris,
Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka visited India for the eighth meeting of the India-Sri
Lanka Joint Commission which was held on 22 January 2013. Former President of India,
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam visited Sri Lanka from 20-24 January 2012 to launch the ‘National
Plan for a Trilingual Sri Lanka’, at the invitation of the President of Sri Lanka.

There is an agreement within the Sri Lankan polity on the importance of India in Sri
Lanka’s external relations matrix. Both the major political parties in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lanka
Freedom Party and the United Nationalist Party have contributed to the rapid development
of bilateral relations in the last many years. Sri Lanka has supported India’s contention to
the permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

News report have shown that from being in the middle of a disturbed neighbourhood,
under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s relations with its neighbours
have improved.

India and Sri Lanka has also close commercial relations. India and Sri Lanka has
good trade and investment relationship, with bilateral trade growing speedily in last decade
and a numerous big Indian private sector companies investing in Sri Lanka and establishing
a presence in this country. Sri Lanka is India’s largest trade partner in South Asia. India in
turn is Sri Lanka’s largest trade partner globally. Trade between the two countries grew
particularly rapidly after the entry into force of the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement in
March 2000.

It is assessed that both nations have built upon an inheritance of intellectual, cultural,
religious and linguistic intercourse. Relations between the two countries have also matured
and diversified with the passage of time, encompassing all areas of contemporary relevance.
Recently, the relationship has been marked by close contacts at the highest political level,
 159

growing trade and investment, cooperation in the fields of development, education, culture
and defence, as well as a broad understanding on major issues of international interest.

11.8 Summary

India is a huge country with manifold cultures. It has high status in the South East
Asia. India has vast cultural advancement therefore nation has maintained good and sociable
relations with all its neighbours. India’s foreign policy is to maintain peace, freedom and
mutual co-operation among the nations. Its foreign policy is based on the philosophies of
Panchsheela, nonalignment disarmament. India’s immediate neighbours are Sri Lanka,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Burma, China and Afghanistan. India has
cordial historical, religious, economic, ethnic and linguistic relationships with all of these
states. Preferably, India would prefer a peaceful, wealthy neighbourhood responsive to its
own needs and wishes. But from the outset of its history as an independent country, India’s
major challenges have included the promotion of internal cohesion and the management of
its often troubled relations with its neighbouring countries, the two often being closely linked,
for example in relation to Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In India, political leaders and
populace always look forward for friendly relationship with neighbouring countries, though
many conflicts emerged in past.

11.9 Key Words

bilateral Relation : Conduct of relations between two sovereign stiles

disarmament : Reducing weapons

Intrenal cohesion : Fit together

11.10 Model Questions

1. Bring out the relationship between India and Bangladesh

2. Ciritically examine the Indo-Chinese relationship

3. Pakisthan has been antagonistic when maintaning relation with India - Comment on
this statement

4. Elucidate on the statement that “India-Srilanka relations have undergone major

transformation”
160

LESSON - 12

UNO AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

12.1 Introduction

We have already noted in the very first lesson that the study of International politics
cannot do away with its institutional aspects, especially the need and role of “International
organisation”. Interational organization is a complex and inclusive concept”, appearing elusive
to be defined. However, we can define it at three different t levels. “First, International
organization could be defined in terms of existing International institutions. Second, it could
be defined in terms of its intoned purposes. Third, International organization could be defined
as a process approximating government regulation of relations among Nation-states and
non-state actors”. Hence, the effort is made in this lesson to explain the concept of
International organisations.

12.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 Trace out historical development of International organisations.

 Understand structure and functions of various organisations.

Plan of study

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Objectives

12.3 Thematic Introduction

12.4 League of nations

12.5 United nations background

12.6 Summary

12.7 Key Words

12.8 Check Your Answers

 161

12.9 Model Questions

12.10Further Readings

12.3 Thematic Introduction

Theodore A. Couloumis and James H. Wolfe write, “International organizations have

generally been established in order to accomplish all or some of the following purposes: (1)
Regulation of International relations primarily through techniques of peaceful settlement of
disputes among Nation-states. (2) Minimisation, or at the least, control of International conflict
and war. (3) Promotion of co-operative, developmental activities among Nation-states for
the social and economic benefit of certain regions or of human kind is general. (4) Collective
defense of a group of Nation-states against external threat”.

Institutions

International institutions fall under two major categories: “inter-governmental

organizations” (IGO’s) and “non-governmental organizations” (NGO’s). “IGO’s, as the name
suggests, are institutions whose members are official governmental delegations of nation-
states”. The best-known IGO is the United Nations. NGO’s are private International
associations, consisting of private groups of scientific, religious, cultural, philanthropic,
technical or economic orientation. There is no direct government participation in them. The
International Red Cross, the Interparliamentary Union, the World Veteran Federation, the
International Chamber of Commerce etc., are examples of NGO’s.

There has been a steady growth in the number and scope of both the IGO’s and
NGO’s, and they are bound to increase in the future. For example, while there were 37
IGO’s and 176 NGOS in 1909, they increased to 289 and 2420 respectively in 1978. Despite
their greater numbers, “NGO’s are by and large modest in size and modestly funded
organizations”. The average annual budget of NGO’s is below “one million dollars, and the
average staff consists often professionals”. The bulk of IGO’s and NGO’s are headquartered
in major western cities like Paris, London, Brussels, Geneva, Washington, Copenhagen,
Rome, Zurich, Stockholm and Vienna”. It is, however, to be noted that most political science
literature on International organization has concentrated on the study of IGO’s and the
study of the NGO’s is treated under the heading of “transnational politics”, which is out of
our scope here,.
162

The institutional structure of the IGO’s exhibits a characteristic pattern. For example,
all IGO’s have permanent offices staffed by full-time professionals. These permanent
bureaucracies are called secretariats. Their employees are supposed to be International
civil servants, who are expected to develop and sustain supranational organizational rather
than national loyalties. The long-range objectives of the IGO’s are usually defined by bodies
called general assemblies or conferences. All member states are represented in these
assemblies which meet in plenary session at periodic intervals and set the limit of the
general policies and range of action of each IGO. Finally, most IGO’s are governed by
executive councils, which are made up of a small elected or selected number of governmental
delegations and some of which are permanent and others alternate. The councils come
closest to assuming executive responsibility for the IGO’s, and the secretariats carry out the
administrative functions of implementing the specific decisions of the councils.

According to Couloumbis and Wolfe, the IGO’s can be classified into four major
categories on the basis of membership and purpose.

(1) “General-membership and general – purpose organizations: This category refers

primarily to the League of Nations and the U.N. Being global in scope, such
organizations serve a variety of functions, such as security, socio-economic co-
operation, human-rights protection, and cultural growth and exchange”.

(2) “General-membership and limited – purpose organizations”. These are also known
as ‘functional organizations because they are devoted to a specific function”. Typical
examples are the U.N. agencies as the I.B.R.D., I.L.O., W.H.O., U.N.E.S.C.O. etc.

(3) “Limited-membership and general-purpose organizations. These are regional

organizations like the Arab league, OAS, OAU, and European Communities (EC) with
a wide range of security, political and socio-economic functions and responsibilities.

(4) “Limited-membership and limited-purpose organizations: These are subdivided into

socio-economic and military defence organizations. Examples of the former are the
Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) and the Soviet-East European
Common Market.. Regional military defence organizations are institutionalized alliance
developed in conjunction with the cold war, such as the NATO and Warsaw Treaty
Organisation (Warsaw Pact”).
 163

International organization can be defined in terms of “ideal or heuristic model of world

government” that are likely to be created sometime in the future. Over the centuries, there
have developed countless legal and institutional plans envisioning a transition to World
Government of one form or another. Morton A. Kaplan’s hypothetical models of global political
organization, such as the loose-bipolar, tight-bipolar, the unit-veto or nuclear proliferation
models and the multibloc and the hierarchical or monopolar models and Wendell Wilki’s
‘One World’ paradigm-all fall within this category.

Processes

“The third and perhaps most elusive definitional approach to International organization
is in terms of processes. One can ask, for example, what the process of International
organization is and how it differs from those of national governments. Is International
organization a rudimentary and ineffective form of global government?”. One can also ask
whether it is an attempt by powerful and independent countries to institutionalize and legitimize
the existing power distribution and there by preserve their privileged position against the
attempts of less privileged countries to redistribute territory, wealth, status and other things.
One other question raised against International organizations is whether the latter is an
experiment of the weaker nations to create institutional constraints to limit the unaccountable
behaviour of the most powerful states. An answer to these questions is found in the synthesis
of all the three choices implied in the very questions themselves. Hence, the process of
International organization may be described as “a rudimentary form of global regulation that
is so fundamentally different from advanced forms of national government that it merits
special classification”.

There is a good amount of difference between national governments and International

organizations. Individuals, families, villages, social classes, corporations, cities, and other
national groups constitute the “subjects” of national governments. The “subjects” of
International organizations, in contrast, are “states as represented by their governments”.
While the functions of national governments are inclusive and penetrate into the life and
style of their subjects, International Organizations maintain at best an indirect influence
upon their members. Further, their functions are limited to such activities like security and
political questions dividing small states, information gathering and reporting, and technical
assistance. All these activities are peripheral to the vital domestic interests of the great
powers. In spite of these differences, one parallel line can be drawn between the processes
of International organizations and those of national governments. “National governments
164

regulate the relations of their subjects and seek, ideally, to protect the integrity of each
citizen. None the less, through institutions and laws they tend to serve the needs and
interests of the more powerful groups and individuals in the society. Similarly, International
organizations seek to protect the integrity of their members by attempting to regulate their
relations and to prevent them from engaging in armed conflict”. Both national governments
as well as International organizations usually serve to protect the interests of the weak
against the excesses of the strong. In other words, “all nation – states, whether powerful or
weak, serve their needs and interests through International institutions and laws and in the
absence of government or other institution a society could degenerate into a jungle where
the strong devour the weak”.

12.4 League of Nations

The historical developments surveyed above and the painful experience of the First
World made substantial contribution to the establishments of the League of Nations. Many
people considered that the outbreak of the First World War was mainly due to failure and
the out breakdown of the balance of power system. Secret allowances were arrived at.
Shady and unsavory deals were made in private rooms. There was an atmosphere of
mutual suspicion. The International system was infused with amorality. During the war period,
the International institutions came to an almost stand still, preventing cool-off periods and
objective information gathering. All these and other factors led to innumerable threats and
counter-threats that escalated the political murder of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand and
attribution war that “cost the earth 40 million souls”.

The League of Nations was the brain child of President Woodrow Wilson. It was
designed to provide the necessary institutional structures and legal and ideological norms
that would prevent another world war. The League’s institutions included a ten-member
Council with four major powers as permanent members. The Council reflected the philosophy
of the Concert of Europe and the needs and capabilities of major powers. It met not less
than four times year, though extraordinary sessions could be called in as and when required.
The League Assembly was attended by all members of the organization and it had to meet
once a year. Both of these organs made deep concessions to the principle of national
sovereignty and worked on unanimous decision on important issues. The routine and day-
to-day housekeeping, planning, and programming aspects of the League were assigned to
the Secretariat, which was headed ably by Sir Eric Drummond, a renowned British civil
 165

servant. Drummond’s performance in office has been and still remains a model of an
efficientation leadership. Finally, the prestigious permanent Court of International Justice
was established at the Hague. Remaining formally outside the League, it was designed to
become the court of the last resort of the International community.

The League had most of the European states as members in its fold. At its peak, its
total membership stood at fifty- nine. True that the League was designed to be a global
organization. But, unfortunately it suffered a set back or a hard blow, because the United
States decided not to join. This decision was due to “a fearful and isolationist Senate
unwilling to accept the League’s Covenant”, which it considered to be “erosive of the
sovereignty of the U.S.” The Senate was prepared to join the League only with “reservations”
and only under certain stipulations”. But President Wilson did not accept the stipulations of
the Senate. May be, better communication and more adjustments between the President
and the Senate might have brought the U.S. into the League.

It will not be out of place here to recall the prophetic remark made in 1919 by the
French Marshall, Ferdinand Foch about the post-World War I settlement at Versailles: “This
is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years”. The League was soon put to the peace-
keeping test. During a period of two decades, the new world organization became involved
in over sixty political disputes. In the same period, about sixty more disputes were legally
defined and eventually presented before the Permanent Court of International Justice. Many
other disputes were dealt with by preparation commissions, conferences of ambassadors,
and other subsidiary bodies which continued to operate for a time as a result of World War
I.

Many a person has remarked that the League was “a dismal failure in maintaining
peace”. In spite of this general impressions, we can turn to the statistical record which gives
a different picture. Plano and Riggs hold that “the League was successful in solving more
than half of the disputes that came to its attention. The League failed decisively only in five
major instances. Japanese occupation of Manchuria, the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, the
Chaco War (a destructive conflict between Bolivia and Paraguay), the Spanish Civil War,
and the Soviet attack on Finland. Unfortunately for the League, however, the importance
and magnitude of failure gave it a bad reputation”.

As we have already seen in other lesson, many lapses were found in the endeavours
of the League in the settlement of the disputes to the mutual satisfaction of the parties
166

involved and with reference to required standards of fairness and justice. However, the
fact remains that it is extremely difficult to assess the success or failure of an International
organization as a mediator. After all, mediation is process in which may intermediaries do
play a role in settling a dispute, overshadowing the role of the International organization. An
evaluation of the twenty year peace keeping record of the League made in the light of the
above observation would tell us that the first decade (1920 to 30) was unsuccessful years
to the League. Typical dispute s settled by the League in the 1920’2 involved marginal
issues dividing small and intermediate sized nation states like Aaland Islands, Finland,
Sweaden, Italy and Greece. To facilitate this, there was also a harmonious state of the
International political system, economic prosperity and growth in the early 1920s. The big
powers that had joined t he League were united in support of a policy of “approachment”
with Germany. Further, “the raw memories of the bloody and indecisive war, the ‘war to end
wars’ in Woodrow Wilson’s wishful words, cemented the will of nation-states to see disputes
settled with words in conference rooms rather than with swords and weapons on battlefields”.

This state of affairs, unfortunately, did not last long. The spirit and structure of the
International environment took a sharp and drastic turn for the worse. The great American
depression in the 1930s, the menacing spread of fascism and malignant authoritarian
nationalism over the continent of Europe, the mutual mistrust between the Victorious Britain
and France, and the underestimation of the geometric growth of the Nazi Germany’s power-
all these things came to say. The world was moving once more on a potentially destructive
collision course. All these problems told upon the efficacy of the League. Hence, much
against the early state of hopefulness and success, the setback of the 1930 became very
much disheartening.

In its attempts to deal with relatively clear-cut cases of aggression, the league was
unable to sanction great powers. Had it resorted to sanction great powers militarily in a
decentralized balance of power system, it might have resulted in a generalized war. To
sanction them economically might create economic strain within the states applying the
sanctions. Finally, “to sanction great powers only verbally is to leave them substantially
unaffected or is merely to invite them to withdraw from the world organization, as was the
case with some of the grate powers during the late 1930S”. The inability of the League to
modify the activist and expansionist behaviour of Japan, Italy, Germany, and the Soviet
Union was crystal clear. Nor could the league find any solution to Spanish Civil war by
taking any bold action.
 167

In sum, “the league failed in the 1930s because the International system itself, of
which the league was a dependent part, had broken down. Depression, economic nationalism
and exclusivisms, xenophobia aggravated by mass nationalism, and the rise of exclusivist
and expansionist ideologies together with American isolationism-all contributed to the great
catastrophe that was World War II. The league, however, left us with an institutional legacy
upon which the United Nations experiment has been elaborated”.

12.5 The United Nations Background

While the Second World was still going on with all range, the optimistic Allied Powers
agreed through the Atlantic Character of August 14, 1941 and the Moscow Conference of
Foreign Ministers held in October 30, 1943, that a new world organization should be
established for the purpose of regulating the post-war International situations all the more,
to “save the world from the courage of war”. Important preparatory conferences, viz., the
Dumberton Oaks Conference Washington, D.C. on August 21, 1944, and the Yalta
Conference in February, 1945 were held. During these preparatory meetings, the victorious
great powers laid the foundations on which the edifice of the future post war World
Organization would be erected. Many a disagreement about the scope and authority of the
organization, questions on membership, voting and great power veto procedures had arisen
and all these things were slowly and with difficulty settled.

As Coulomubis and Wolfe point out that, “these extensive preparations should make
it clear that the great powers considered the development of multilateral and multifunctional
world forums too important a task to be left to chance or to the whims and needs of smaller
nation states. The great powers had to guarantee their status of pre-eminence in the
International setting-for instance, by demanding the power of veto-prior to conceding to the
drafting of the United Nations Charter”. After a hard deliberation for over two months, the
representatives from 51 countries produced the U.N. Charter and the final version of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice. Being the result of composite forces and
interactions, the U.N. Charter “was the product of past experience in the building and
operation of International institutions, war time planning, great power and particularly
American leadership, intensive negotiation amid an intricate pattern of national disagreements
and conflicts of interests, and popular pressures for realization of the desperate demand
and noble aspiration for a just and durable peace”.

The drafters of the Charter were mainly the representatives of the victor nation states
of the Second World War. They rushed the Charter through while the final phase of the war
168

was till being fought. They had a reason for doing so, because only the war time unity and
co-operation (both bonds that only disaster, peril and fear can create) would remove the
obstacles that arise more easily in times of peace and security. They were also anxious to
dissociate the U.N., Charter from any post-war peace treaty, such as Versailles after World
War I, that might hamper and dampen the smooth operation of t he world organization in the
long run. It was also felt essential to dissociate the U.N. from its defiled predecessor, the
League, whose dismal record and alienation from great powers like the U.S. and the Soviet
Union could at best inhibit the willing participation of these countries in the new International
institution.

12.5.1 Objectives and Organs of the U.N.

The goals and objectives of the U.N. could be clarified with an overview of its structures
and processes. The U.N. has six major organs, viz., the General Assembly, the Security
Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court
of Justice, and the Secretariat.

The General Assembly is the deliberative body whose voting membership includes all
governments which have ratified the Charter. In addition, selected non-state actors, such
as the Palestine Liberation Organization, have the observer status in the Assembly, without
having any voting right. Following the principle of one government, one vote, the Assembly
passed the resolutions dealing with the self-determination of nation states, the new economic
order, and a wide range of other vital issues of global concern. In its elective role, the
Assembly joins hand with the Security Council to select the secretary-general and the judges
of the International Court of Justice. Finally, the U.N. Budget is subject to the approval of
the Assembly.

The Security Council consists of 15 members, of whom five are permanent members
viz., U.S. U.S.S.R., (Now Russia) in Great Britain, France and China. The ten non-permanent
members are elected by the General Assembly for two year terms. Under the Charter, the
Council has the authority to formulate and to implement policy. To take action on important
questions, the five permanent members must concur and be supported by at least four of
the ten non-permanent members. Should one of the permanent members cast a negative
vote, called veto, no decision is possible. Security Council may set in motion the machinery
for collective security, impose economic sanctions, or authorize the deployment of peace
keeping forces in such troubled areas as Cyprus, Lebanon, the Sinai, and Indonesia. The
 169

Council recommends a candidate for the post of Secretary-General to the General Assembly
and with that body elects the members of the I.C.J.

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) consists of 54 members who are elected
by the General Assembly for a three-year term, one third being replaced each year. Reaching
decisions on the basis of a simple majority, the Council focuses on human rights, world
trade, the status of woman, and related social and economic questions. Functional
commissions as one on human rights, implement its programmes. ECOSOC has, among
other functions, the responsibility if supervising the activities of all the important specialized
agencies.

The Internatiional Court of Justice, already discussed in a previous lesson, is the fifth
deliberative organ. The 15 judges of the ICJ are elected for a period of 9 years. No two
judges may be of the same nationality and the composition of the Court reflects the world’s
principal legal systems. Members of the UN or the Security Council itself may refer a case
to the Court, and the tribunal renders advisory opinions at the request of either the General
Assembly or the Security Council. With a quorum of nine judges, decisions reflect the
consensus of the majority.

Last, the Secretariat administers the world organization under the direction of the
Secretary-General, whom the Security Council recommends ands the General Assembly
appoints for a term of five years. The Secretary-General provides “good offices designed to
help resolve International disputes”. Sometimes, he even serves as a “mediator” between
the contending parties, as in the case of Cyprus. The staff of the Secretariat organizes
conferences, collects data on social and economic trends, maintains peace keeping
operations, and supplies the media with information on the activities of the U.N.

12.5.2 U.N. and Peace-keeping

The U.N. was designed to be an organization of global membership, an organization

whose functions were to spread well beyond the political and security areas, and an
organization of realistic scope and activities. The sovereignty of participating nation-states
was generally to be respected, and the special rights and responsibilities of the great powers
were to remain at the core of the world body. In sum, the U.N. would be a reflection of widely
acceptable International norms of behaviour designed to reinforce co-operation and to
moderate conflict”.
170

More than forty years after the establishment of the U.N. one can see that the
organization has evolved in ways the framers of the U.N. Charter could not have imagined.
Collective security was made the political basis for the operation of the U.N. This principle
provided for the operation of small, medium, and great-power nation-states independently
of one another. This balance of power environment, permitting flexible and short lived
alignments, was meant to deter future aggressors. Under this system, an aggressor would
be subjected to various sanctions imposed by all the remaining nation-states in the aligned
group. It was expected to result in a world free of courage of war. Details relating to t he
definition of aggression, identification of specific aggressor and devising ways t o impose
collective economic and military sanctions were left for the U.N. to develop gradually with
time and experience.

But, very soon the hopes of the proponents of collective security were smashed by
the cold war and the entrenched bipolar system with U.S., and the Soviet Union on two
sides maintaining permanent alliance systems. These coalitions of two different camps
faced each other in a situation like ‘armed peace’, ‘cold war’, ‘balance of terror’ and ‘nuclear
deterrence’. This bipolar system which pitted two “permanent” alliance systems against
each other while the non-aligned countries looked hopelessly on, undermined the political
environment of balance and fragmented that was considered a basic prerequisite for collective
security. In a global confrontation of uncompromising political, economic and social systems,
t he problem of defining aggression became practically irrelevant. As a result, half the world
stood ready to denounce the other half as the aggressors, and vice versa. “It is in this
system of institutionalized suspicion and hatred that the United Nations has sought to develop
itself since the early days of the cold war”.

Unlike in the case of the league, it is difficult to assess the record of the U.N. in the
areas of peaceful settlement of disputes and peace-keeping. The Cold War, the balance of
terror and the like lessened the effectiveness of the Security Council in the early years. In a
way, these things and not the U.N., have deterred a new global war. The Soviet Union often
found itself in a minority and hence employed its veto right to the maximum against the
admission of new members. The U.S., sensing a favourable balance of political forces,
shifted the focus of the U.N. activity to the General Assembly. Thus, the fundamental
differences between Russia and the U.S. had made it almost impossible for the U.N. to
smoothly implement the concept of collective security which was promised on “collective
military sanctions to the other bloc would have only invited a collective declaration of war in
 171

the nuclear era. Hence, gradually it became clear that the U.N. could not act (especially
through the Security Council) as an effective deterrent to great-power-sponsored aggression.

Following the Korean War (1950-58), collective security became almost a nullity as
the dominant peace keeping approach of the U.N. Consequently, the U.N. has settled for
the more realistic and less risky approach to “preventive diplomacy”, which is successfully
employed in many cases like the recurrent Middle East Crisis (1956 to the present), the
Congo Crisis (1960-65), and the Cyprus crisis (1968-to Tate). “Preventive diplomacy attempt
to crisis arising in the Third World from involving the great powers directly and thyus
endangering the earth with explosive cold-war confrontations. Unlike collective security,
preventive diplomacy does not seek to pinpoint the aggressor country, to apply sanctions
against it, and to restore order. Rather it accepts conflict as an objective condition of
International relations”. It is also preoccupied with the control of conflict rather than to
identify the wrong doers and punishing them effectively. Preventive-diplomacy-oriented peace
keeping forces have been relatively small military contingents, exacted from smaller and/or
non-aligned nations. These forces act as ‘armed shields’ between combatants and as war
time mediators, seeking to channel the conflict in streams of negotiation. However, with the
gradual muting of the cold war, the unveiling of détente, and the inclusion of the People’s
Republic of China in the Security Council, t he political centre of gravity returned from the
General Assembly to the Security Council. This is evident from the declining number of
vetoes from 80 in 1954-55 to 31during 1956 and 65 to 33 during the next decade and to 50
from 1976 to 1985. Some scholars have foreseen that “the International system is moving
away from Russo-American by-polarity, and towards a structure of five poles of power as
represented by the permanent members of the Security Council. We might even witness
one day “a new concert of the world system’ and the gradual resuscitation of a modified
collective security environment founded on great power consensus”.

12.5.3 Beyond Peace Keeping, Decolonisation Human Rights

The bulk of the activities of the U.N. have been in the realm of “low politics” (economic
development, technological regulation, and cultural and social co-ordination) as compared
to “high politics” (issues of war and peace). The U.N. budget indicates this focus of interest.
For example, only 4.7% of the 1981-82 budget and 5.7% of the subsequent budget of the
U.N. was devoted to the security sector, whereas a sizable 33.4 and 31.9 percents of the
budgets were devoted to socio-economic activities.
172

The consent of the U.N. for the global socio-economic problems has been great.
However, it has failed to solve many of them. For instance, disease and malnutrition-two
central problems of underdevelopment, continue to tell upon two thirds of the world population.
Disease control is improving, but “the problems of inadequate food and energy, explosive
population growth, environmental pollution, and resource exhaustion are reaching the
proportions of gradual “ecocide”. This and other issues in International politics, as seen in a
previous lesson, constitute the threats facing humankind.

To sum up, regarding the socio-economic record of the U.N. and its specialized
agencies, we can look at each of t he major functions they have been performing. These
functions include: “(1) Production of information-through research and publication carried
on by nearly all organizations. (2) Regulation of International activities-through agencies
such as the International Monetary Fund, The International Labour Organization, and
Universal Postal Union, (3) Redistribution of resources-through programmes of technical
assistance, loans, and development assistance, (4) Rudimentary legislation-through yearly
conferences, meetings, and publications directed toward the standardization and improvement
of national legislation of member states”.

The U.N. has been quite successful in all but the redistribution of resources, which is
undoubtedly the weakest function. Being a rudimentary form of global government, the U.N.
is totally bereft of any means of taxation or other forms of revenue production. Nor would
most national governments allow the U.N. system to grow to such proportion that it could
begin competing with the national governments. Nonetheless, there has been a steady and
impressive growth pattern in the U.N.’s socio-economic activities. For example, in 1952,
only 1733 U.N. experts of all types were sent to developing countries. By 1968, the figures
went up to 10,317. From 1946 to 1970, the World Bank and its affiliates loaned over 17
billion dollars for reconstruction and development projects. Now that the World Bank has
been loaning or allocating 13.5 billion dollars annually to developing countries. Likewise the
International Monetary Fund has been financing troubled countries like Brazil, Mexico, Turkey,
Pakistan etc.

The U.N. is credited with resounding success in decolonization. At the beginning of

World War II, there were well over 120 colonial territories. In 1980, the number of dependent
and non-self-governing territories shrank to 57. Notably 95 of the 158 members of U.N. (in
1984) gained their independence since the end of World War II. However, “crediting U.N.
 173

for the birth of new nation-states is like crediting the obstetrician for the conception as well
as for the delivery of children”. The U.N. was apparently one of many factors, and not
necessarily the most important one, that led to decolonization. The fatigue of the colonialists,
the struggle for decolonization by the ex-colonial states in the General Assembly, where
they can easily get majorities with the help of the Latin American and the Soviet-bloc nation-
states, rather than the Trusteeship Council and the like have gone in the process of
decolonization.

In the International system, individual human beings are considered as the objects
rather than the subjects of International law. As such, it is of paramount importance to
safeguard and protect their rights and render justice, especially when the earth is divided
geographically, culturally, linguistically, politically, and legally. In 1948, the General Assembly
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, laying emphasis on “the right to life,
liberty, and security of person; the right to freedom of thought, speech, and communication
of information and ideas; freedom of assembly and religion; the right to government through
free elections; the right to free movement with the state and free exist from it; the right to
asylum in another state; the right to nationality; freedom from arbitrary arrest and interference
with the privacy of home and family; and the prohibition of slavery or torture”. The economic
and social rights include the following “the right to work, to protection against unemployment,
and to join trade unions; the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-
peeing; the right to rest and leisure”.True that the declaration has moral but not legal authority.
Yet, the fact remains that most countries have incorporated these rights in their constitutions
with all sanctity. Since 1948, the U.N. has tried hard to spearhead an effort to develop
covenants with treaty binding powers, calling upon the member-countries to respect, to
recognize, and to protect human rights.

Check Your Progress

1. What is the purpose of International organisations?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
174

2. Asses the role of NGO’s.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is the major function of the UN?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

12.6 Summary

“Depending on one’s outlook, expectations, philosophical orientation, and even

educational background, one can conclude that the United Nations is a dismal failure, a
resounding success, or something in between”. The optimists and the protagonists who
believe in :” the ability of humankind to live in good order, given enlightened leadership and
strong global institutions, have concluded by and large that the U.N. has been a failure. To
them, the U.N. is merely a ‘talk shop’, ‘a bar room of International diplomacy, and ‘a toothless
little institutional monster whose roar is much greater than its bite’. On the other hand, those
who have trusted in a multi sovereign and quasi-anarchic International system have become
seriously alarmed at the growth of what they consider supranational institutional cancers
that are slowly undermining the health of sovereign nation –states. However, the U.N.
cannot be considered either a success or failure because effective standards for assessing
its success or failure have not been evolved or devised. There is no denying the fact that
the U.N. has sought to peacefully mediate and reduce International conflicts. But it is difficult
for us to effectively measure the degree to which this peace keeping has succeeded. Hence,
we can only assume that “the U.N. is a positive factor in the maintenance of peace and in
the development of International co-operation”.

We should then, conclude that “the U.N. is an institution that reflects but not shape
the political realities of the International system. It evolves when political consensus and to-
 175

operation evolve, and it retrogresses when political disagreement and conflict arise. It is an
especially good reflection of the extent to which the great powers in the International system
consider themselves as privileged senior partners in a great global enterprise. A political
compromise appears to be emerging among the most important centers of power in the
world. To the extent that this compromise is realized, we can predict that in a progressively
technologically independent system, the United Nations system of organizations will continue
or grow in size, scope, and importance. The stakes are high. In fact, they are tantamount to
global survival”.

12.7 Key Words

Covenant : A formal agreement

Prudent : Showing care for future.

12.8 Check Your Answers

1. See section 12.3

2. See section 12.3

3. See section 12.5.2

12.9 Model Questions

1. Point out the achievements and failures of the League of Nations.

2. Estimate the services and the future of the U.N.O.

3. Write short notes: WTO, IMF & EEC.

12.10 Further Readings

1. James Barroos, The United Nations: Past, Present and Future.

2. Leon Gordenker, The United Nations in International Politics.

3. Hans. J. Margenthau, Politics Among Nations.

4. T.A. Couloumbis and J.H. Wolfe, Introduction to International Relations.

176

LESSON - 13

COLLECTIVE SECURITY
13.1 Introduction

International politics and International organization are closely interconnected and

both determine the nature of each other to a certain extent. The basic purpose of International
organization is to help in the evolution of peaceful International relations. There are various
ways through which this purpose is sought to be fulfilled and one such way is collective
security, which was supposed not only to be the basis of the League of Nations but is also
supposed to be the basis of the United Nations. The goal, which the League sought and the
U.N. is seeking through collective security, has been to prevent war by providing a deterrent
to aggression and to defend the interests of peace-loving states in case of a war by
concentrating a preponderance of power against the aggressor. Being a device of maintaining
peace and deterring aggressor, collective security is obviously an important subject of study
in International politics. As such, its theory, tenets, practice and performance can be studied
in relation to, such things like balance of power, disarmament, regional alliances and
International, organizations.

13.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 Understand the nature and Definitions of collective security

 Explain the relation between collective security and other International concepts

 Describe the process of collective security under UN

Plan of study

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Objectives

13.3 Thematic Introduction

13.4 Development of the Concept of Collective Security

 177

13.5 Collective security and balance of power

13.6 Collective security and Disarmament

13.7 Collective security and regional alliances

13.8 Efforts for collective security during the twenties

13.9 Summary

13.10Key Words

13.11 Check Your Answers

13.12Model Questions

13.13Further Readings

13.3 Thematic Introduction

The principle of collective security is one of the cooner stones of International efforts
to establish and to institute a peaceful order within the pluralistic society of sovereign states
through the collective action of most of the other states in fulfillment of voluntarily assumed
obligation. Its basis is the assumption that maintenance of peace and security is the common
responsibility of all states and further peace must be enforced and aggression restrained by
bringing overwhelming power to bear on a violation. In other words, the concept of ‘Collective
Security’ is based on the idea of an indivisible world, where peace can be maintained only
by the join pledge of the states to take action against a state which resorts to war Such an
action prevents the states from having recourse to war and if at all they resort to war in
extreme cases, it compels them to bring the same to an end at the earliest possible
opportunity. As such, the doctrine of collective security may be said to be an extension of
the principle of unity in the field of International Law and affairs.

George Schwarzenberger defines collective security as “the machinery for joint action
in order to prevent or counter any attack against an established International order”. Schliecher
says, “collective security is an arrangement among states in which all promise, in the event
of any member of the system engages in certain prohibited acts against another member, to
come to the latter’s assistance. It may, in addition, aim to prevent or punish attacks by non-
members on any of its own members”. According to Morenthau, collective security is based
178

on the principle of “one for ail and all for one”. That is, under the collective security system,
all nations take care collectively of the security of each of them as if the security of all of
them were in danger. If one nation threatens the security of a second nation, all other
nations will take measures on behalf of the threatened nation and the defeat of the aggressor
being sure and the peace is certain because no nation can be enough to defy the collective
actions of all. But collective security does not mean collective defence.

Broadly, then, collective security may be defined as an arrangement arrived at by

some nations to protect their vital interests – safety of integrity – against a probable threat
of menace over a particular period, by means of their “collective power”. Analyzing this
definition, we find, firstly, that collective security is an arrangement for securing the interests
of nations; the other related means or device of securing the interests of nations are
diplomacy, balance of power, disarmament, etc.

Secondly, collective security implies a joint arrangement for a collective action. Hence,
the device of collective security can be practiced only by more than one nation in union.
This means the powers have to be exercised or used in collaboration and the benefits have
to be shared in common among the concerned nation.

Thirdly, the arrangement of collective security is arrived at in order to protect the

sovereignty or the integrity of the agreed nations against some probable threat or menace,
which may be actual or potential.

Fourthly, since the threat or menace lasts for a particular period, the arrangement of
collective security also lasts for that particular period.

Fifthly, from this analysis it becomes clear that the main idea behind collective security
is that the nations agreeing for collective security want to prove a effectively as possible to
the source of probable threat or menace that endangering their sovereignty or integrity
would not pay; it would involve war, which would be costly, prohibitive, and difficult to win. In
other words, collective security is a way of averting war by threatening to wage a war. Seen
in this light, collective security serves as a powerful instrument to conduct foreign policy of
the nations that do not disagree on collective security, it is also a powerful instrument of
bringing about changes in International politics because it influences that policy goals and
the behaviour of the nations defending collective security and the nations against which the
nations defending collective security is employed.
 179

The Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente are typical examples of collective security
arrangements of alliances. Germany defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.
Consequently, Germany was, however, anxious to see and be secured that France did not
avenge the defeat. In order to contain the threat and to meet the danger of war, should it
arise. Germany borned in 1882 an alliance with Austria and Italy. France and Britain, who
took an anxious view of this alliance and who were alarmed by Germany’s ambitious
programme of developing her army and navy formed a counterbalance with Russia to meet
the ever-growing threat of Germany. Thus, both the alliances were formed by combining
the powers of safety or integrity. They were formed to meet probable threat or menace, and
they lasted for a limited or specified period, that is, until World War I. After the war, the
alliances went out of existence because, the purpose for which they were made had been
served, and changes in the powers and the foreign policy goals of the supporting nations
had rendered the alliances inconsequential and irrelevant, outdated or unnecessary, but,
while they lasted, they were powerful instruments of conducting the foreign policy of the
nations supporting them and influenced their policy goals and the behavior of the nations
concerned. This, then strengthens and sustains the significance of collective security.

13.4 Development of the Concept of Collective Security

There is no denying the fact that the collective security system did emerge after the
establishment of the League of Nations. But it is not to say that it was not there before the
League. Numerous efforts were actually made before the First World War and many scholars
have interpreted them as adumbration’s of collective security. Thus, it is held that the treaty
of Osnabruck provided in Article 17 that “all and each of the dispositions of this peace,
against whomsoever it may be”. William Penn, the Quaker, also put forth schemes for
‘European order. Likewise, William Pitt of England alarmed in 1805 that all major European
powers should jointly support a new status quo against “any future attempts to trouble the
general tranquility”.

Apart from these adumbrations, the idea of collective security is generally taken to
have started in the beginning of the twentieth century. Theodre Roosevelt declared in 1902
that it was “incumbent on all civilized and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of
the world”. He pressed his propaganda in full capacity to explain nations to work for a
device by which aggression could be checked by the combined forces of all C. Van
Valleenhoven, a Duth scholar, had already emphasized in 1910 the need for an International
enforcement mechanism and this idea was blessed and supported by the American
180

Congressional approval. During the First World War an International association functioned
at the Hague to promote the idea of collective security. In the United States, the League to
Enforce Peace attracted a number of prominent intellectual and political figures who worked
enthusiastically for enlisting support for an International organization to uphold peace by all
possible means including force. The association called for the abandonment of the balance
of power system and the creation of a machinery for the mobilization of diplomatic, economic,
and military sanctions against those states which refused to settle their disputes for pacific
settlement.

President Woodrow Wilson of the US was the most prominent figure behind the
movement for a project for collective enforcement of peace. But, by the time he took a clear
stand in favour of collective security, the idea had already become an established passion
in International life, so much so the concept of collective security was generally accepted at
Paris negotiations, which led to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment
of the League of Nations. The various drafts which formed the basis of the Covenant of
League clearly showed that, “there was an awareness of the need for an International
mechanism by which peace could be ensured by the combined use of force”.

Thus, it was only in the League of Nations that the idea of collective security was
accepted for all practicable purposes. Once accepted, this idea was sought to be effective
in the efforts made during the interwar period for the improvement of the machinery of
International organization. The United Nations was also founded on the principle of collective
security, the same principle which formed the basis of the League of Nations. From the
point of view of the genesis of the idea of collective security, therefore, the credit goes to
the League of Nations and not the UN. For, collective security under the League was a
reflection of the acceptance of a new idea, while collective security under the UN is a
reflection of the concern with a more effective functioning of an idea already accepted by its
predecessor. Thus, collective security under the League marks a revolution in International
politics and under the United Nations it represents an attempt to consolidate the fruits of
that revolution. Nevertheless, it can be asserted that the UN offers a comparatively more
effective machinery for the operation of the collective security system. This is so primarily
because the UN is a better form of International organization than the League. This, in turn,
is due to the expansion of participation in International organization both in terms of the
number of participating units and the degree of participation, which disqualifies the isolationist
policy of security. Both the League and the UN were responsible for the encouragement
 181

and establishment of collaborationist policy by the member-nations within the requirements

of their Charters. This, then, accounted for the entrenchment of collective security system
as against the isolationist policy and collective defence (a collaborationist policy pursued
outside the UN) Thus, the doctrine of collective security attained its legal status in the
Covenant of the League, which imposed an obligation on the members to refrain from
action which threatened International peace and security, as well as to accept the competence
of International authority to take appropriate counter measures. The United Nations
strengthened and further intensified the system of collective security which, as matters
stand today, serves as a bastion against threat to peace and security. Hence, it would be
only appropriate and necessary to examine as to how collective security remained and
remains under the League and the U.N. respectively. But this examination must be preceded
by a study of collective security with reference to balance of power, disarmament and regional
alliances with which the former is closely related to preserve International security and
peace.

13.5 Collective Security and Balance of Power

The concepts of collective security and balance of power are related, no doubt; but
they are not identical. While collective security stands for an arrangement by which some
nations seek to protect collectively their security against a probable threat of menace, balance
of power is a state of dynamic equilibrium characterizing relations among nations.

In the first place, the aim of both collective security and balance of power is to avoid
war. Collective security aims at avoiding war as affecting “some nations”, supporting the
arrangement. Balance of power is at avoiding war as affecting “all nations”. In other words,
collective security and balance of power work in the same direction; the object of the former
is immediate, while the object of the latter is long-ranger; or the aim of the first is very much
particular, the object of the second is more general.

Secondly, collective security functions as one of the elements of the devices of balance
of power, the other devices being the technique of “divide and rule”, the principal of
compensation, intervention and non-intervention, armament and disarmament and the buffer
states. Thus, collective security, functions as a part of the phenomenon of balance of power.

Thirdly, as an extension of the above point, we may point out that the functioning of
collective security and balance of power is terdependent and mutually contributory. That is
182

to say, the existence of balance of power helps and allows the existence of collective
security arrangement and the existence of collective security arrangement allows or
facilitates the maintenance of balance of power. Conversely, the breakdown of the collective
security machinery whether due to occurrence of war, can considerably affect or upset the
balance of power; and the breakdown of the balance of power can cause a corresponding
breakdown of the machinery of collective security. This can be substantiated by the fact
that the breakdown of the balance of power led to World War I and this breakdown also
meant the breakdown of the collective security alliances such as the Triple Alliance and the
Triple Entente.

Lastly, from the above analysis it becomes clear that both collective security and
balance of power are important instruments of conduction the foreign policy of nations. As
noted above, the functioning of both the instruments is similar and complementary though
not identical. President Woodrow Wilson of the US greatly emphasized the value and
worthiness of collective security as an interment in defence and support of democracies.
However, after World War I, the distinction between collective security and balance of power
came to the fore and appeared for sometime to be very clear, and the instrument of balance
of power appeared to work to the advantage of non-democratic nations and not democratic
nations. Hence, collective security was emphasised for the defence of democratic nations.
But today the lines of distinction are blurred. The instrument of collective security is used by
the nations of the democratic camp led by the United States and the non-democratic or the
totalitarian, communist Russia and the nations of both the camps are keen on influencing
the balance of power in their own favour.

13.6 Collective Security and Disarmament

We should be on our guard to specify and realize that collective security and
disarmament are the two sides of the same problem of war. Collective security seeks, as a
device, to prevent war by threatening to make war a costly business or pursuit, prohibitive
and un-paying to the potential war-making nations. Disarmament is a device to reduce or
ban progressively the production and the use of weapons so that war cannot be fought.

It comes out from the above fact as a corollary that the successful working of
collective security helps the successful implementation of disarmament programme and
vice versa. As long as the device of collective security works satisfactorily, the potential
war-making nations are prevented from resorting to war; and an atmosphere is created in
 183

which it becomes possible to implement the programmes of disarmament. On the other

hand, when the disarmament programme is carried out or implemented properly, war is
avoided because nations cease to possess arms with which to fight war.

There is no denying the fact that the relationship between collective security and
disarmament is the least hatred as far as it goes, but, unfortunately, it does not go sufficiently
far. On deeper reflection, we find that there is a basic contradiction between collective
security and disarmament. If the goal is to avoid or to stop war, it is superfluous to employ
both the devices. If collective security is just enough to stop war, there should be no need
for undertaking the programme of disarmament; and if the disarmament programme is
implemented properly, there is no need for adopting collective security.

The crux of the matter is that while nations seek disarmament as an ideal condition
under which they will not have arms to make war with, disarmament is not easy to bring
about. There is no supranational authority to see that all nations carry out the programme
of disarmament simultaneously and dependably. In the absence of such an authority, the
nations that are agreeable to carry out disarmament apprehend and fear the competing or
the hostile nations may not do the same; and if the latter do not do the same, they will have
a decisive advantage over the former and can dominate the world scene.

Hence, nations are not prepared to carry out a disarmament programme unilaterally
or unconditionally. So, while they would like to proceed with a programme of disarmament,
they would also make sure that they have sufficient strengtrh to defend themselves in
case the competing or the enemy nations cheat them in the implementation of the
disarmament programme. In other words, nations, while proceeding with the disarmament
programme also proceed with collective security, that is, ensuring that their collective
strength in arms is enough to defend themselves in the event of deceitful practices of the
hostile or enemy nations. The result is that the basic contradiction between collective
security and disarmament is permitted to persist, that is to say, while disarmament demands
that nations give up arms, collective security entails that they continue to take up arms in
their defence and security, to be on the safe side. This is how the nuclear powers like the
United States, Russia, France, Britain etc. proceeded with the disarmament programme,
while at the same time, entertaining collective security through alliances like the NATO and
SEATO, and the Warsaw Pact as the case may be.

13.7 Collective Security and Regional Alliances

The relationship between collective security and regional alliances attracts or
demands our attention at two levels regional and International. At the regional level, the
184

relationship between collective security and alliance can be said to be consistent. The
alliances constitute the very instruments of collective security. The success or failure, the
dependability or otherwise, of a collective security system can be determined by the working
of the alliances.

Quite contrary to the above, alliance at the International level, however, appear to be
inconsistent with the goal of collective security as conceived at the global level. In recent
years, this inconsistency has been sustained and borne out by the working of the United
Nations on the one side and the alliances within the communist camp, such as Warsaw
Pact, COMECON etc., on the other. These alliances are intended to provide regional
collective security – those led by the United States against the communist nations and
those led by the old Soviet Union the non-communist, “Capitalist” nations. This is also
relative to the maintenance of balance of power between the two different spheres. However,
sometimes they appear to militate against the goal of International collective security which
the United Nations, as a kind of International alliance, is supposed to provide. Articles 51 to
54 of the United Nations Charter do permit the establishment and the operation of regional
alliances, provided they do not impair the authority and the responsibility of the United
Nations (of providing International collective security). But, whether in a particular situation
the regional alliances have worked so as to impair the authority and the responsibility of the
United Nations, or having arrogated to themselves the role of the United Nations, has been
very much controversial. For example, America insisted that her intervention in the Dominican
Republic in 1965 was within the purview and context of the regional alliance – OAS – and
did not undermine the authority or the responsibility of the United Nations. However, some
members of the UN felt that it actually impaired the authority and the responsibility of the
U.N. Thus. At the International level, the authority and the jurisdiction of the United Nations
and the regional alliances seem to be inconsistent and controversial. However, the fact
remains that such inconsistencies and controversies should not hamper or compare peace
and security at a larger, International level. It would not, then be inappropriate or out of
place here to examine the role and function of collective security under the League of
Nations and the United Nations, in the light of the status accorded to it by the Covenant to
the League and the Charter of the UN.

Collective Security Under the League

The Covenant accorded legal basis to the principle of collective security by

incorporating a number of provisions relating to it. Article10 of the Covenant laid down.
“The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external
 185

aggression, the territorial integrity and existing political in dependence of all members of
the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such
aggression, the Council shall advice upon the means by which this obligation shall be
fulfilled”.

Regarding the procedure of the settlement of disputes Article 11 laid down: (1) “Any
war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the member of the League or not,
is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take any
action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard, the peace of nations. In case
any such emergency should arise, the secretary-general shall on the request of any member
of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council; (2) It is also declared to be the
friendly right of each member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or the
Council any circumstances whatever affecting International relations which threaten to disturb
International peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends”.

Articles 12, 13 and 15 called upon the members of the League to settle disputes
arising between them either through arbitration, or judicial settlement, or inquiry by the
Council, as the case might be. They were not to resort to war until three months after the
award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or the report by the Council. But the most
significant provisions which gave legal forces to the principle of collective security were
contained in Article 16 of the Covenant. This Article laid down the following :

(1) “Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its Covenant under
Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war
against all other members of the League, which hereby undertake medially to subject
it to the severance of all intercourse between their nations and the nations of the
covenant-breaking state, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal
intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the nationals
of any other state, whether a member of the League or not”.

(2) “It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several
governments concerned what effective military, naval or airforce, the members of the
League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenant
of the League”.

(3) “The members of the League agree further that they will mutually support one another
in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article in order to
186

minimize the less and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that
they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one
of their members by the covenant-breaking state, and that they will take the necessary
steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of
the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League”.

(4) “Any member of the League which has violated any covenant of the league may be
declared to be no longer a member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred
by the Representatives of all members of the League represented thereon”.

The obligations of the League were also to apply to non-members. In case a non-
member did not accept the procedure for peaceful settlement laid down by the covenant,
the council could take measures and make such recommendations which prevented hostilities
and resulted in the settlement of dispute.

Thus, the Covenant of the League sought to evolve the principle of collective security.
However, there were two shortcomings in the system. First, members of the League strictly
limited the circumstances in which they would consider forceful action by a state of violation
of the convenient and hence, unlawful, this left large areas of permissible hostility, extending
to full-scale war, for which the League of Nations had no responsibility. Second, the League
lacked clear legal authority to undertake enforcement action until an act of war, violating the
Covenant had actually occurred.

13.8 Efforts for Collective Security During the Twenties

After the establishment of the League of Nations, five major efforts were made for the
establishment of the system of collective security.

The first effort was the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, 1923, approved by the
Assembly of the League. The treaty declared aggressive war an International crime. Under
the terms of the treaty the League’s Council was expected to name the aggressor within
four days of the out-break of hostilities. It was also to indicate the measures of financial or
military assistance to be given to the victim of aggression.

The second effort for collective security was made by the Geneva Protocol of 1924.
The signatories to the protocol agreed not to resort to war except with the consent of the
Council or Assembly. The Council of the League was to decide the aggressor in doubtful
cases and also apply sanctions against the aggressor.
 187

The Locarno Pact of 1925 was the third important attempt at collective security. The
pact provide that the powers “collectively and severally” guarantee both “the maintenance
of the territorial status quo resulting from the frontiers between Germany and Belgium and
Germany and France”, as fixed by the Treaty of Versailles. All the signatories to the Pact
also pledged themselves to help the state which was the victim of aggression.

The next effort of collective security was made by the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928 by
which the signatories solemnly declared “in the names of their respective peoples that they
condemn recourse to war for the solution of International controversies, and renounce it as
an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another”.

The fifth effort at collective security was the General Act of 1928, which provided for a
Permanent Conciliation Commission for amicable settlement of disputes were to be referred
to the Permanent Court of International Justice and all non-legal issues were to be referred
to a committee of arbitrators. But many states did not sign accession for which the time was
given till September 1938, and if proved to be the last attempt by League of Nations to
establish a system of collective security.

Causes for the Failure

Although the provisions of the League regarding collective security were quite bold,
they failed in actual operation. For example, when Italy attacked and conquered the Greek
Island of Corfu in 1923, the League could not take any action against Italy under Article 16
because the Italian delegate pleaded that the Article could not be applied to her since she
did not intend to commit an act of war. As a result, the Council allowed the Conference of
Ambassadors to settle the dispute in favour of Italy. Thus, the League protected the aggressor
in this case.

In 1931, again, when Japan occupied central Manchuria and China appealed to the
League of Nations for an action under Articles 10, 12, 15 add 16 no action was taken
against Japan as the same was not favoured by Great Britain. The League’s Council merely
passed a resolution calling upon the disputants to withdraw their troops. Even the resolution
of the Council was ignored by Japan.

In 1932 again when China appealed to the Assembly against Japanese attack of
Shanghai, the Assembly did pass a resolution calling Japan to evacuate Shanghai. Japan,
no doubt, left Shanghai, but she continued to occupy Manchuria, now into “Munchukuo”. As
188

a result, the League Assembly adopted another resolution condemning Japan, but the
latter simply ignored the resolution. The members of the League did nothing except to
refuse recognition to Manchuko. In short, the League failed to take many effective action
against Japan. This lapse on the part of the League encouraged Germany to repudiate the
military clause of the Treaty of Versailles and start rearmament in violation of the League’s
Covenant. League failed to check Germany as well.

A little later, when Italy attacked Ethiopia, League once again failed to take necessary
action as per the terms of the Covenant.

In brief, the system of collective security as envisaged by the Covenant of the League
proved to be ineffective as most of the member-states, especially the then Great Powers,
were not willing to subordinate their national interests to the world community. The system
of collective security failed not merely because of the inherent shortcomings in the system,
but because the members lacked moral courage and were reluctant to show responsibility
for great decisions where greatness was needed.

13.8.2 Collective Security Under the U.N.O.

The U.N. Charter, like the Covenant of the League of Nations, contains elaborate
provisions regarding collective security, which is one of the most basic aims of the U.N.
These provisions are contained in Chapter VII of the Charter (Articles 39 to 51). By virtue of
these provisions, the Security Council can determine threat to peace and recommend
measures for maintaining and restoring International peace and security. The member states
can also be asked to make available to Security Council armed forces, assistance etc. To
assist the Security Council on matters regarding military requirements, employment and
command of forces, etc., a Military Staff Committee has been provided. The members of the
U.N. are also authorized to take measures for individual or collective self-defence pending
measurers by Security Council. But they have to intimate the measures taken by them to
the Security Council.

Thus, we find that the U.N. Charter has avoided the shortcomings of the League
Covenant with regard to collective security. It does not permit big power supremacy, action
is taken on legal considerations, members have an obligation to render every assistance
in all actions taken in accordance with the decisions of the Security Council; and lastly it
authorizes preventive action against both members and non-members.
 189

The United nations, since it s establishment after World War II, has done commendable
work in the direction of collective security. The potentials of collective security under the
U.N. were for the first time put to test during the Korean war. The Security Council passed a
resolution condemning the Korean attack and called for immediate cessation of hostilities
and withdrawal of forces by North Korea. Failure to comply with the resolution, prompted
the Security Council to set up United Command and requested the member states to provide
military assistance, sixteen states offered forces for the U.N. command. This was a historic
decision because for the first time in 1950 that the organized community of nations employed
armed forces against the aggressor.

Next, to ensure that Soviet Union did not block any action similar to that taken in
Korea a Uniting for Peace Resolution was passed in the same year. By this resolution it
was decided that (1) if the Security Council failed to take any action, the General Assembly
could consider any situation threatening International peace and security; (2) a Peace
Observation Committee with 14 states as members was constituted to observe and report
to the General Assembly as to where International tensions existed; (3) it impressed

upon.

The member-states to keep special contingents ready to be made available to the

U.N. promptly; (4) it urged the members to meet and discuss collectively all problems, which
were likely to threaten International peace and security with a view to reach an agreement
in accordance with the spirit of the U.N. Charter.

In short, by virtue of the Uniting for Peace resolution, the General Assembly became
the ultimate custodian of collective security. With the support of the two-thirds of the members,
the Assembly could determine, when a danger to peace and security had arisen, and
recommend necessary measures to counter the same. In other words, now both the Security
Council and the General Assembly became competent to take collective security measures.

In 1956, the United Nations Emergency Force was created by which the U.N.
established another important tradition of creating a kind of emergency force out of the
contributions of the member-nations to meet emergency situations. Thus, in Suez Canal
case it succeeded in restoring peace and secured withdrawal of Israeli, British and French
troops. In Congo, the Peace forces of the U.N. restored peace in 1960, in the strife torn
country. In the Hungarian crisis of 1956, the General Assembly passed a resolution asking
190

the Soviet Union to withdraw her troops from Hungary and reaffirmed the right of the
Hungarian people to have self-government. However, the Soviet Union did not fully co-
operate with the Secretary-General of the U.N.

Simultaneously, the U.N. has also been performing immensely useful functions such
as pacific settlement of International disputes and relaxation of International tensions which
contribute to the maintenance of collective security.

Lastly, the U.N. has permitted the formation and the operation of regional alliances
such as NATO, SEATO Warsaw Pact and so on, so that they may help promote the cause
of collective security consistent with its own authority and responsibility.

13.8.3 Assessment of Collective Security Under the U.N.

The provisions of the U.N. Charter concerning collective security have been subjected
to service criticism. Morgenthau, for example, holds that “collective security is not only
unworkable but also unwise and dangerous principle, mainly because under it no war could
be localized and that every war would become a world war”. Schwarzen Berger observes
that “until the day when the Western and Eastern worlds no longer consider each other as
the potential aggressor, collective security, as envisaged under the Charter of the United
Nations must remain a dead letter.

A constant observer of the International events and affairs will not fail to note that very
often the U.N.’s policies and activities aiming at the maintenance of collective security have
been hampered and undermined on account of the operation of several factors. The most
important of the factors is the conflicting interests and policies of member-nations, which
are reflected in the working of the U.N. and its debates, decisions, emergency and peace-
keeping operations etc. Since powerful member-nations such as the US and USSR had
vested interests in the problems, situations such as those in Korea, the Congo, and Vietnam,
the policies and the sanctions of the UN could not be implemented whole heartedly and
effectively.

The second important factor that frustrates the goals and policies of the U.N. is a set
of undesirable and obstructive practice practices such as the abuse of the veto to paralyse
the security Council, bloc voting, which vitiates the deliberations and prevents the
consideration of issues on merits, and reluctance or refusal of some member-nations such
as the Soviet Union and France to pay their arrears of membership of peace-keeping costs
 191

as those incurred in the Congo. These practices undermine the strength and the efficiency
of the U.N. and its ability provide for collective security.

The third important factor is the dubious working of the regional alliances. The working
of the alliances was envisaged as being supplementary to the working of the U.N. for
achieving the goal of collective security. However, the actual experience of the working of
the alliances has shown that the member – nations have a tendency to regard the alliances
as superior to the U.N. This tends to weaken the authority and the prestige of the U.N. and
prevents it considerably form achieving the goal of collective security.

The system of collective security as envisaged by the U.N. Charter is fraught with
some other weaknesses and drawbacks, a summary statement of which is as follows.

The right of the neutral countries to maintain normal relations with both the sides has
been accepted within limits permitted by belligerents under recognized rules of warfare.
There is no place in the system for neutrality between an aggressor on the one hand and
the law-enforcing U.N.O. on the other. In other words, under the U.N. Charter a state can
be either be subverted of peaceful order or a member of the collective enforcement body.
There is no room for the neutrals under the system of collective security. As a result of this,
Switzerland, a neutral country, has chosen to stay out of the U.N. However, in recent times,
to accommodate the practice of neutrality, the states are permitted to become members of
the U.N. even though they refrain from joining the position undertaken by the organization
to enforce peace.

The U.N. Charter concedes the right of self defence to member nations, which curtails
the need for collective security. Another notable and apprehensive factor is that the cold
war between the two super powers which has weakened the U.N. to exercise its control
over the action of the states, undertaken in the name of self defence. As collective security
measures can be undertaken only if the Security Council approves the same with the
required number of votes, such actions are rendered impossible by the cold war among
the permanent members. No doubt, this difficulty was surmounted during the Korean crisis
and a Uniting for Peace Resolution was adopted for the purpose. As already noted, by this
resolution the General Assembly is authorized to take action for the preservation of peace
and security of the world if the Security Council is unable to take a decision because of
‘veto’ of a permanent member. It is also pointed out that one of the basic principles of
collective security, is that all the states must have equal say in arriving at collective security
192

decisions. Infact, the small states should have more say in collective security because
they are dependent on collective security than on their independent action and forces. No
doubt, the success or failure of collective security efforts is very much dependent on the
support of powerful states, but, normally, they are reluctant to put their weight and power
behind an effort, which does not conform to their national interests.

In the light of the above facts and observations, we can say that the U.N. Charter did
not intend the U.N. to be a full security arrangement. It had to admit certain limitations of
necessity. The failure of the collective security is evident from the fact that in spite of the
salutary provisions, there has been a lot of aggression in all parts of the world and the U.N.
members have failed to come together to meet the menace. No doubt, the U.N. made an
effective interference in Korea in 1950, but the fact remains that the effective role was played
by the forces of the US under the banner of the U.N. The participation of other states was
merely nominal. To substantiate this, “when Trygve Lie on July 14, 1950 appealed to 50
states to send combat troops to Kores, 35 declined or failed to respond. When the Collective
measures Committee asked all members in April, 1951 to earmark troops for U.N. service
and to ‘reply as a matter of urgency, the U.S.A. delayed a reply until June 8, and then declined
to do what was asked, as did all members. The war was U.N. war in name only!”.

The experience of the working of collective security shows that the U.N. has been
effective only against middle powers and small nations, but it could not take any action
against the big powers or states supported by a big power. When the Soviet union
intervened in Hungary in 1956, the system of collective security was not invoked. The
same was the case, when, in 1968, the Warsaw Powers invaded Czechoslovakia. When
China attacked India in 1962, no help came to India in the name of collective security,
though she received abundance of help from her friendly countries, including the U.S.
leaves alone Russia, to whom India was only a friend, and China, the brother!

Check Your Progress

1. What do you mean by the term collective security?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
 193

2. What is the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance - 1923?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. What is the importance of the geneva protocal of 1924?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

4. What is the Locarno Pact of 1925?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

5. What do you mean by Triple Entente powers and triple alliance?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
194

13.9 Summary

In the end, we can say that even though the goal of collective security is very much
desirable, at present, it seems to be quite unattainable, if not impossible. It all depends on
the extent to which the world powers subscribe themselves to the principle: “where there is
a will, there is a way”. But the will of the big powers being such, as is evidenced by their
own self-interests, we have to think about Quincy Wright who said, “this goal will be reached
only when the balance of power has been so stable that attention has been diverted from it
and when a democratic organization of the world able to supersede the balance of power
as the basis of security has been created”. It is apt to repeat Schwarzenberger’s admonition
that “until the day when the Western and Eastern Worlds no longer consider each other as
the potential aggressor, collective security, as envisaged under the Charter of the U.N.
must remain a dead letter”.

13.10 Key Words

Armament: Equiping or improving militory weapons for war.

Disarmament : The reduction or with drawal of military forces and weapons.

13.11 Check Your Answers

1. See section 13.3

2. See section 13.8

3. See section 13.8

4. See section 13.3

5. See section 13.8

13.12 Model Questions

1. Account for the failure of the Collective Security under the League.

2. Discuss the main attempts to establish Collective Security in Europe between 1919-
29.

3. “The system of collective security is unworkable, unwise and dangerous” (Morgenthau)

Discuss.
 195

13.13 Further Readings

1. Martin A. Collective Security: A Progress Report.

2. Trygve Lie, In the cause of peace.

3. Leland M. Goodrich and Anne P. Simons, The United Nations and the Maintenance of
International Peace and Security.

4. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.

196

LESSON - 14

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
14.1 Introduction

Large, global International organizations are the phenomena of the 20th century and
we can trace their ancestors back to the early years of recorded history. Looking into the
past, we find, however, fewer examples of global institutions and more examples of
exhortations by philosophers urging the development of “one world”.

14.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson you will be able to

 understand the structure and functions of the various International organisation.

 assess the role world bank in International politics.

Plane of study

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Objectives

14.3 Thematic Introuduction

14.4 Historical Development of International Organizations

14.5 Other International Organizations

14.6 Summary

14.7 Key Words

14.8 Check Your Answers

14.9 Model Questions

14.10Further Readings
 197

14.3 Thematic Introduction

Turning first to the city-state system of ancient Greece, we find that this system
reflected in miniature most of the essential characteristics of contemporary International
politics. In his portrayal of the Peloponnesian war (431 -404 BC) between Sparta and Athens,
Thucydides has made us realize that, ‘the Greeks were involved in the intricacies of
International bargaining, such as alliances, negotiations, dependencies, threats and bribes,
and coolings off periods. It would not be incorrect to suggest that the alliance-dependency
systems of Sprata and Athens are the prototypes of regional military and defence
organizations such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

14.4 Historical Development of International Organizations

The Greek city-states also developed the first model of a universal general-purpose
International organization by conceiving the ‘Amphictyonic League’. The League was originally
a religious organization of 12 neighbouring tribes constiututed for the purpose of safeguarding
the temple of Delphi. Its functions gradually increased to include the protection of its members
from aggressive acts, both within and without the league. Each tribe was entitled to send
two delegates to league conferences and had two votes of equal weight. Each tribe took an
oath pledging never to annihilate any of the other tribes during warfare. Those considered
guilty of acts of aggression were to be confronted collectively and with all available means
by the remaining tribes.

Francis W. Hinsley says, “comparison-oriented students could also study global

organizational patterns exhibited by the Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Arab,
Ottoman, and British empires. These students could, for example, learn a lot about
International regulation and interdependency by studying the system of incentives and
rewards as well as sanctions and other threats that helped the powerful metropolises to
maintain various forms of control over their dispersed and culturally heterogeneous subjects”.

According to T.A. Couloumbis and J.H. Wolfe, “Certain fundamental problems have
recurred throughout history’s twists and turns. For example, how does one regulate relations
in societies of unequal actors? Can there be justice among unequals? Should arbitrations
and judgments be left in the hands of a complex and crowded coalition of weaklings of the
world, or should they be left to a small but powerful directorate of giant?”.
198

“Over time, the human genius has devised various forms of political institutions, both
loose and tight in order to prevent societies from descending into anarchy. Thus, from
ancient times to the present, human kind has experimented with diverse styles of government,
such as democracy and polity (participatory styles) and aristocracy and tyranny (elitist styles).
Governmental structures have varied in their range and mode of political authority. They
have included the band, the tribe, the city – state, the nation-state, the empire, the
confederacy, and finally various forms of International and regional organizations. In each
case, the role of those in charge of political institutions has been balanced between service
to their communities and attempts to stay in power. Political competition has hovered between
the desire to curb the incidence of war and the need to promote and defend one’s sectional
and individual interest”.

Throughout recorded history, the forces of conflict and bloodshed have been matched
by the ardent desire of well-meaning people for “peace, justice, and harmony”. The Siamese
twins of war and peace have co-existed in an uneasy and spotty truce. Many a wise individual
has urged fervently for a global attack on the apparently incurable problem of conflict and
war. Thinkers such as the Italian poet Dante (13th Century); William Penn (17th Century);
Abbe St. Pierre, Jean Jaques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Jeremy Benthem (18th Century)
and Saint Simon, William Ladd, William Jay, Gustave di Molinari, Johan Casper Bluntschli,
and James Lorimer (19th Century), have advocated various approaches with which to attain
global government and perpetual peace. Despite the politically disparaging labels like “idealist”
and “utopian” stamped against them, most of these scholars advocated only moderate
transfers of national sovereignty to a central world authority. Many of these utopian
suggestions have been gradually incorporated in the avowed experiments of International
organization of the present century.

Most idealist paradigms for world organization have certain common characteristics.
They have demanded “the peaceful settlement of disputes, the rule of law, adequate
representation of the governed in the global government, and respect for the autonomy of
member states’ domestic affairs”. No wonder, then, these principles have been reflected,
to varying degrees, in the League of Nations and the United Nations.

One other important precursor of International organization has been the practice of
‘Multinational Conferences’ which has gone along with the growth of nation-state system
since the peace of Westphalia (1648). Towards the end of the destructive Thirty Years’ War
(1 18 – 48), assemblies of victorious and vanquished nation-states met for over thirty years
 199

at Osnabruck and Munster (in the German Province of Westphalia) in what was known as
the First European Congress. The result of the war and the protracted negotiations was
“the establishment of the first International balance of power system”. The balance of power
concept has since provided the political framework of the International system except during
the reigns of Louis XIV, Nepolean Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler.

Major conferences have been convened in every century since the Westphalia
conference. Together with the gradual codification of International law, these conferences
have contributed to the structuring and restructuring of Europe. “The Peace of Utrecht
(1713) reaffirmed the principle of balance of power as the only key to peace. The French
revolutionaries advocated non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, the renunciation
of wars of conquest, and national a self-determination in the form of plebiscites. The Congress
of Vienna (1815) structured the 19th Century balance of power system and enriched the
body of International law. Among other rules, the Congress established categories of
diplomatic envoys and provisions for the suppression of the slave trade”.

The Monroe Doctrine (1823) of the U.S. was a proclamation of regional independence
against external (i.e., European) intervention and manipulation. The Peace of Paris (1856)
following the Crimean war reaffirmed the principle of national self-determinations”. In the
Declaration of parts in 1856, “Laws of war and rights of neutrals” were identified. This year
marked the take off point of International law. The Brussels Congress (1874) resulted in “a
code of land warfare” approved by 15 nation-states. The Berlin Conference (1884-85)
continued the earlier attempts to abolish the slave trade.

Simultaneously, public International unions such as the Rhine River Commission (1804),
the Danube River Commission (1857), the International Telegraphic Union (1865), and the
Universal Postal Union (1874) became permanent International institutions. Their
subdivisions-bureaus, councils and conferences-served as institutional prototypes for the
League of Nations and the U.N. Beyond this, the public International unions contributed to
the development of International administrative law in the so called functional (technical
economic and social) areas.

“With the Hague Conferences (1899 and 1907) an important threshold was crossed
on the way to International institutionalization. These conferences established rules that
were designed to regulate the International system and to remove the causes of crisis and
war. unlike the great power conferences which had been the work of the few and powerful,
200

and were designed to achieve settlements immediately after wars, the Hague Conferences
were preventive and regulatory in nature and exhibited the legitimization process that only
full participation of small as well as great powers can bring about. The 1899 Hague
Conference produced major regulatory instruments, such as the convention for the pacific
settlement of disputes, the convention on laws and customs of the land warfare, and the
convention of naval warfare. The 1907 conference updated the 1899 conventions and
produced ten more conventions on neutrality and land and sea warfare”.

Claude, an authority on International organization, has summarized the ancestors of

International organizations in terms of what he considers as three “major streams of
development” in the 19th Century. In the Concert of Europe, and the adhoc great power
conferences that followed, Claude sees the precursor of the U.N. Security Council. The
Hague Conferences have been portrayed by Claude as the precursors of the U.N.: General
Assembly. The Concert of Europe was the product of a consensus among great powers
that only they could define the security questions and the tolerable limits within which the
balance-of-power system could shift. The Hague movement reflected the egalitarian concept
of “one-nation, one –vote Resolutions adopted by majority vote gradually became an
acceptable rule of organization. The third stream of development was the creation which
have paved the way for the establishment of various specialized agencies of the U.N. such
as the FAO, WHO, IMF, UNESCO and so on. A major contribution of these early unions was
that their structure (conference, council, and secretariat) was subsequently adopted by the
most advanced International organizations. Thus, it can be argued that “the public
International unions are the precursors of such grand International institutional experiments
as the European Communities”.

14.5 Other International Organizations

14.5.1 International Labour Organization

The ILO was set up in 1919 and was associated with the League of Nations. It was
dedicated to the work of improving living conditions of workers throughout the World. In
1946, it became associated with the United Nations as a specialized agency.

Organization

The ILO has three organs-

 201

1. International Labour Conference.

2. The Governing Body.

3. International Labour Office.

International Labour Conference is the legislative organ of the ILO. Each member of
the ILO sends 4 delegates to it. The delegates vote as individuals. The resolutions or
recommendations are adopted by a 2/3 vote. The Conference-

(1) Lays down the minimum international standards of working and living conditions.

(2) Elects members of the governing body.

(3) Approves the annual budget of the ILO.

(4) Examines reports from the member-states regarding the implementation of

recommendations of the International Labour Convention.

The Governing Body is the executive organ of the ILO and it consist of 40 members.
Its main functions are:

(1) to select items for the agenda,

(2) to appoint the Director-General,

(3) to supervise the work of the ILO,

(4) to direct various committees and commissions,

(5) to draft budgetary proposals.

The International Labour Office is the Secretariat of the I.L.O.

Functions

The ILO has adopted a number of “international labour conventions, some of which
call for freedom of association, an eight-hour a day work, protection of wages, and holidays
with pay; and some forbid night work for women and the young, employment of women in
mines and forced labour and peonage. The ILO helps countries raise living standards
through advice in a variety of technical fields and, in particular, by teaching workers,
employers, and governments how to produce more and better goods. It also helps
governments cross the barriers that prevent the flow of workers from over-populated
countries to countries remaining under-developed for lack of man-power”.
202

14.5.2 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

It came into existence on October 16, 1945 with 42 founding member-states. It deals
with farming, forestry and fisheries.

FAO is governed by a Conference in which each member of the UN has one vote.
The Conference meets biennially. It is the policy-making body of the FAO.

The Council, composed of 34 members, acts as the governing body and executes the
policy laid down by the ‘Conference’.

The ‘Staff’ of the FAO is headed by the Director-General, who is appointed by the
‘Conference’. The staff works through five technical divisions- (i) agriculture, (ii) economic,
(iii) fisheries, (iv) nutrition, and (v) forestry.

Functions

“Its chief aims are to help nations raise the standard of living; to improve nutrition of
the people of all countries; to increase the efficiency of farming, forestry and fisheries; to
better the conditions of the rural people, and, through all these means, to widen the
opportunity of all people for productive work. It does three things:

(1) It collects basic information and makes it available in useful form.

(2) It gives technical assistance to member countries requesting it by supplying experts,

holding regional demonstrations, meetings, supplying technical materials, and
sponsoring international conferences of technicians.

(3) It promotes action-collectively among all its member-countries; among countries in

region or those interested in the same problems, and in member countries individually”.

14.5.3 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)

The World Bank otherwise known as the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD) came into existence on December 27, 1945. In 1947 it became a
specialized agency of the UN. It has its headquarters at Washington.
 203

Purpose

Article 1 of the Bretton Woods Agreement specifies the purpose for which the Bank
is founded. They are-

1. To assist in the reconstruction and development of territories of members by facilitating

the investment of capital for productive purposes;

2. To promote private foreign investment by means of guarantees or participations in

loans and other investments made by private investors, and when private capital is
not available on reasonable terms, to supplement private investment by providing
loans for productive purposes out of its own capital funds raised by it and its other
resources;

3. To promote the long-range balanced growth of international trade and the maintenance
of equilibrium in balances of payment by encouraging international investment for the
development of the productive resources of the Bank’s members.

4. To arrange the loans made or guaranteed by it in relation to international loans through

other channels.

5. To conduct its operations with due regard to the effect of international investments on
business conditions in the territories of members and the immediate post-war years,
to assist in bringing about a smooth transition from a war-time to peace-time economy.

Organization

The main organs of the Bank are:

1. The Board of Governors,

2. Executive Directors,

3. President and Chairman of the Executive directors, and

4. Staff

The Board of Governors: All powers of the Bank are vested in a Board of Governors,
consisting of one Governor appointed by each member state. It normally meets once a year.
204

The Executive Directors: The Board of Governors have delegated most of their powers
to 21 Executive Directors (6 appointed by members having the largest number of shares
and 15 elected by the Governors of the remaining members). They meet once a month in
Washington.

Conduct of the Bank’s business is the responsibility of the President who is selected
by the Executive Directors. He is also the ex-officio Chairman of the Executive Directors
and chief of the operating staff of the Bank.

Functions

The Bank is a long-term lending institution whose functions may be stated thus:

1. The resources and facilities of the Bank shall be used exclusively for the benefit of
the members with equitable consideration to projects for development and projects
for reconstruction alike.

2. The Bank may make or facilitate loans, which satisfy the general conditions of Article
3.

14.5.4 The European Communities

The European Communities consist of the European Coal and Steel Community, the
European Economic Community (Common Market), and the European Atomic Energy
Community (Euratom). The European Coal and Steel community came into effect on July
25, 1952, while the other two Communities started to operate on January 1, 1958. Their
membership is identical, consisting of Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,
and The Netherlands. Their organs, originally similar but separate, were merged in 1967. In
consequence, the Communities operate now under a common executive authority called
the European Commission, a common parliament called the Assembly, and a common Court
of Justice; a Council of Ministers and an Economic and Social Committee round out the
organs. Since the common institutions are patterned after those of the European Steel and
Coal Community, an analysis of the latter will serve to elucidate the governmental structure.

The European Coal and Steel Community was established for the purpose of creating
a single market for the coal and steel production of its members. The High Authority,
predecessor of the European Commission, was the executive organ of the Community.
Supposed to act “in complete independence, in the general interest of the Community”
 205

without instructions from any government, it was a truly supranational agency. It had the
power to make binding decisions with regard to prices for coal and steel, taxation, fines for
violations of its orders, the direction of investments, borrowing and lending. The Common
Assembly was composed of 78 members chosen either by the national parliaments or
popular election. It had to approve the annual report of the High Authority and could, by a
two-thirds vote, force its members to resign. The Council of Ministers, composed of one
representative from each member state, served as the link between the High Authority and
the member states and also as a check upon the High Authority, since for the most far-
reaching decisions of the latter the concurrence of the Council was required. The Court of
Justice decided appeals from decisions of the High Authority and annulled unconstitutional
acts of the Common Assembly and the Council of Ministers.

The importance of all the European Communities as functional organizations comes

to the fore in the political purpose they are intended to serve. Aside from trying to compensate,
through united effort, for the loss of power of the individual European nations, the European
Communities are a revolutionary attempt at solving an age-old political problem. That problem
is characterized by two basic facts. One is the natural superiority of Germany among the
nations of Europe; the other is the unwillingness of the other European nations to accept
that natural superiority. Since 1870, the great convulsions on the European continent, and
the diplomatic moves preceding those convulsions, have all been dominated by those two
facts.

Before and after the First World War, France tried to deal with those two facts by
using the methods suggested by the balance of power as it had been practiced in previous
centuries. It tried to make up for its own inherent weakness by a system of alliances, which
would counterbalance that natural superiority of Germany. In those attempts France failed.
In both would wars, France was saved neither by its own strength nor by the strength of its
Continental allies, but by the intervention of Great Britain and, more particularly, of the
United States. This failure is another fact that we must keep in mind in assessing the
chances of the European Communities.

These Communities constitute a revolutionary departure from the traditional methods

by which inferior powers have tried to counter a superior one. For instead of countering that
potentially superior power by a system of alliances, the other nations of Western Europe
are trying to draw, as it were, Germany into their arms in order to disarm it and to make the
superior strength of Germany innocuous. The European Communities are, in other words,
206

an attempt at fusing a superior power with an inferior one for the purpose of creating a
common control of their pooled strength. Thus Western Europe hopes to be able to forestall
the use of that superior German power for hostile purposes, especially for the creation of
a new German hegemony on the European continent.

The European Communities are equally revolutionary in the manner in which they try
to realize this objective. In former times, and especially in the interwar period, the unification
of Europe was attempted, as it were, from the top. That is to say, an all-comprehensive
legal organization was proposed or established; a legal framework for an over-all government
was the goal of those attempts. The Council of Europe, composed of a Committee of Ministers
and a Consultative Assembly of national delegates, today moves in that tradition. The
European communities start, as it were, from the opposite end of the envisaged structure.
They start from the bottom rather than from the top. They try to create a functional unity
within a limited sphere of action, expecting that the operation of that unity within that limited
sphere will lead, first of all, to a community of interests within that particular sphere, and that
this example will then spread to other functional fields, such as agriculture, transport,
electricity, military forces. Finally, it is hoped that out of this series of functional units political
unity will grow organically. Once all the functional organizations have been established as
going concerns, sovereignty will have been transferred in fact to a common European
government by gradual steps, without the individual nations really being aware of it.

14.5.5 International Monetary Fund (IMF)

International Monetary Fund was established on 27th December 1945 as a specialized

agency of the United Nations.

The primary objectives of the plan for a Monetary Fund are to re-establish an
international monetary system with stable currencies and for providing machinery for
international monetary collaboration and co-operation with a view to attaining a high level of
international trade.

Organization

It has three main organs

1. A Board of Governors (which is the highest authority, normally meeting once a year),

2. Executive Directors (20 members), and

3. A Managing Director (He is also the head of the staff of the Fund).
 207

WTO

The world trade organisation came into effect from January 1, 1995. The members
also adopted the marrakesh declaration, which reiterates their commitment to the new
multilateral trade frame work. The final Act of WTO is in effect since 1995 and it is the
longest and most detailed body of rules. It governs the international trade - relations among
its members with a quasi-judicial binding system of dispute settlement, which in some ways
goes beyond the existing state of international law and relations among states.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is

a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) based in Paris, France. Its declared purpose
is to contribute to promoting international collaboration in education, sciences, and culture
in order to increase universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along
with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.It is the successor of
the League of Nations’ International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. UNESCO
has 193 member states and 11 associate members.Most of its field offices are “cluster”
offices covering three or more countries; national and regional offices also exist. UNESCO
pursues its objectives through five major programs: education, natural sciences, social/human
sciences, culture and communication/information. Projects sponsored by UNESCO
include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programs, international science programs,
the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press, regional and cultural history
projects, the promotion of cultural diversity, translations of world literature, international
cooperation agreements to secure the world’s cultural and natural heritage (World Heritage
Sites) and to preserve human rights, and attempts to bridge the worldwide digital divide. It
is also a member of the United Nations Development Group. UNESCO’s aim is “to contribute
to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural
dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information”. Other
priorities of the organization include attaining quality Education For All and lifelong learning,
addressing emerging social and ethical challenges, fostering cultural diversity, a culture of
peace and building inclusive knowledge societies through information and communication.
The broad goals and objectives of the international community—as set out in the
internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs)—underpin all UNESCO strategies and activities.
208

World Health Organization (WHO)

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United

Nations that is concerned with international public health. It was established on 7 April
1948, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHO is a member of the United
Nations Development Group. Its predecessor, the Health Organization, was an agency of
the League of Nations. The constitution of the World Health Organization had been signed
by 61 countries (all 51 member countries and 10 others) on 22 July 1946, with the first
meeting of the World Health Assembly finishing on 24 July 1948. It incorporated the Office
International d’Hygiène Publique and the League of Nations Health Organization. Since its
establishment, it has played a leading role in the eradication of smallpox. Its current priorities
include communicable diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, Ebola, malaria and tuberculosis; the
mitigation of the effects of non-communicable diseases such as sexual and reproductive
health, development, and aging; nutrition, food security and healthy eating; occupational
health; substance abuse; and driving the development of reporting, publications, and
networking.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), originally known as the United
Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, was created by the United Nations
General Assembly on 11 December 1946, to provide emergency food and healthcare to
children and mothers in countries that had been devastated by World War II. The Polish
physician Ludwik Rajchman is widely regarded as the founder of UNICEF and observed as
its first chairman from 1946 to 1950, when he had to flee the United States in the wake
of McCarthyism. Rajchman is to this day the only person that served as UNICEF’s Chairman
for longer than 2 years. On Rajchman’s suggestion, the American Maurice Pate was appointed
first executive director, serving from 1947 until his death in 1965.[1][2] In 1950, UNICEF’s
mandate was extended to address the long-term needs of children and women in developing
countries everywhere. In 1953 it became a permanent part of the United Nations System,
and the words “international” and “emergency” were dropped from the organization’s name,
though it retained the original acronym, “UNICEF”.

Check Your Progress

1. Write a note on world bank.

 209

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Assess the role played by EEC.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Enumerate the objectives of FAO.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

14.6 Summary

Apart from maintaining International peace and security, the International organisations
are equally concerned with promotion of conditions in which geniune peace and development
would be possible. The very objectives of the all the International organisations includes
achievement of International co-operation in solving International problems of economic,
social, cultural or humanitatian charecter.

14.7 Key Words

Egalitatian: Working class

Annitilate : Destroy

Prototype : Earlier form

210

14.8 Check Your Answers

1. See section 14.5.3

2. See section 14.5.4

3. See section 14.5.2

14.9 Model Questions

1. Define ‘International Organization’ and trace the historical development of International

organizations.

2. Critically evaluate the organisational structure and activities of the world bank.

14.10 Further Readings

1. Leonard, L.L., International organisations, New York (1951).

2. Levi, N., Fundamentals of world organisations, Minneapolis (1950).

 211

LESSON - 15

ECONOMIC GLOBALISATION
15.1 Introduction

Globalisation is a multi-faceted activity. Internationalisation of commercial activities

is a significant part of the process. Unification or integration of the domestic economy with
world economy is called globalization of the economy or economic globalization. It is an off-
shoot of the Drunkel Draft, which seeks to evolve what is known as a “global village”.
Economic globalization, being a recent comer, seeks to create a new economic environment
in the conduct of International relations, and it has come to stay. In this environment, different
economics tend to become highly interdependent on each other as they explore International
markets with their products and services which hold “comparative advantage in costs of
production, because the restrictions and trade barriers are softened or lifted.

15.2 Objectives

After reading this lesson, you will be able to

 understand the meaning of globalisation

 acertain the features of economic globalisation

Plan of study

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Objectives

15.3 Thematic Introduction

15.4 Meaning of globalisation policy

15.5 Economic globalisation and the Developing Nations

15.6 Summary

15.7 Key Words

15.8 Check Your Answers

212

15.9 Model Questions

15.10Further Readings

15.3 Thematic Introduction

Today, the world economy is getting globalised in such a proportion that would have
been unimaginable or unthinkable three decades ago, when there were numerous and
enormous hurdles to the International flow of money, goods, ownership etc. But, now the
markets for finance have become truly global. Trillions of dollars flow across the world at
the touch of computer keys, flows that no government can hope to control. International
trade has persistently grown than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the world, often
twice as fast. Consequently, the nations have become inter dependent on each other to an
unprecedented degree. “They produce less and less of what they consume and prefer to
export some specialized goods and import others”. In many countries, several enterprises
have spread their production activities to other nations apart from their country of origin.
Portfolio investment is no longer confined or restricted to the domestic economy. The
manager of a pension fund, for example, may invest in different places like Mexico, Hungary,
Hong Kong, Indonesia and so on.

15.4 Meaning of Globalisaation Policy

Not with standing the sophisticated information technologies and the speed with which
communications take place around the world, effective International economic bonds of
interdependence are formed where actual commercial transactions take place between
countries. These transactions are usually carried out by business organizations. Thus,
transnational corporations form the major “sinews” of the global business net work. Present
trend towards globalization is based on business relationships. In other words, in today’s
integrated world economy, International trade is progressively becoming the internal trade
of the multinationals. It has been found that trade between firms and their overseas affiliates
accounts for more than half of all trade between OECD (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development) countries. For example, “a third of America’s exports go t o
American owned firms abroad. Another third is accounted for by the goods shipped by
foreign firms in America to this home country”. In brief, “the policy of globalization means
that the external sector has to form an important ingredient of national macro-economic
aggregates and thus, linking with it, almost all important sectors like industry, banking, and
above all, the growth of the economy.”
 213

15.4.1 Forces Affecting Internal and International Markets

There are certain forces which affect the economics of markets and International
competitions. We can identify them as: “(a) growing similarity of countries in terms of available
infrastructure, distribution channels, and marketing approaches: (b) fluid global capital
markets i.e., national capital markets are growing into global capital markets because of the
large flows of founds between countries; (c) technological restructuring – the reshaping of
competition globally as a result of technological revolutions such as micro-electronics. (d)
the integrating role of technology – reduced cost and increased impact of products have
made them accessible to more global consumers; and (e) new global competitors – a shift
in competitors from traditional country competitors to emerging global competitors.

Now a days, the multinational corporations are conducting their operations world-
vide. Their aim is to offer products of superior quality at a lower cost and to achieve greater
efficiency.” Resource capabilities are developed by laying emphasis on labour cost in one
country, raw materials in another and information technology in still another. Manufacturing
operations may be world-wide in an attempt to match the lower labour costs of foreign
competitors.

15.4.2 Needs for complete globalization

Globalisation requires or needs the opening up of the economy. It implies that the
trans-border traders are allowed to trade on equal footing with the domestic ones. Rules of
customs and other related things are to be simplified and tariff reduced so that competitors
from abroad are not ‘out priced’ or delayed because of rigidity. Exchange rate system should
be made easily tractable without much of a controlling mechanism. This will enable the
traders not to face unnecessary problems and impediments. These things must be done
across all countries world-over irrespective of the status of any economy – socialist,
capitalist, mixed or otherwise. All these things will facilitate for the achievement of
globalization in its true sense.

15.4.3 Organisation of Trade

The operation of economic globalization will be fair and competitive devoid of pitfalls,
if the different nation-states follow uniform rules and regulations in foreign or International
trade. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), formed in 1945, is entrusted with
the job of facilitating trade by bringing in negotiated trade laws that are to be followed by all
214

the member countries. The Uruguay Round of negotiation held in 1986 sought to induce a
huge chunk of catalyst in improving the global trade. It promised to relax the constraints on
the globalization of production and hence the second-order constraints on the globalization
of finance. On April 13, 1994, trade ministers of 124 governments signed the Uruguay
Round Final Act, which embodies the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
Consequently, the World Trade Organisation came into effect from January 1, 1995. The
ministers also adopted the Marrakesh Declaration, which reiterates their commitment to the
new multilateral trade framework. The final Act of the WTO is in effect since 1995 and it is
the longest and most detailed body of rules. It governs the International trade-relations
among its members with a quasi-judicial binding system of dispute settlement, which in
some ways goes beyond the existing state of International law and relations among states.
Apart from this, there are other regional trading blocs such as EEC (European Economic
Community), NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement), APEC (Asia Pacific Economic
Co-operation), the Pacific Rim, etc. with which globalization is justaposed. These blocs
have lifted or reasonably reduced the trade barriers among themselves and are said to
have increased their total volume of trade to a great extent. For all these, then, the Drunkel
Draft paved the way for reducing the protective barriers substantially.

15.5 Economic Globalisation and the Developing Nations

The response of the developing nations or for that matter the less developed countries
to t he globalization of economy is rather late. Most of the developing countries were anxious
and vigilant to protect their domestic infant industries from the competition of the
technologically efficient industries of the developed countries. But, the opening up of the
economy has proved successful in the developing countries like Taiwan, Singapore,
Indonesia, to mention a few. The GDP of these countries has improved many-fold since
they have adopted trade policies tilting towards the world market. Some other developing
countries, including India and Pakistan are trying to follow suit with the acceptance of the
Drunkel Proposals, the developing nations can improve their share in the global trade,
because a lot of package is argued to be there in the proposals for the third world countries.
There is also a strong argument and the case for the developing countries to adopt the
policy of globalization to reduce or lessen their internal, domestic economic problems.
However, the realities are such that unless the developing countries are given preferential
treatment and helped to increase their export earnings, the problem of external debt cannot
be solved. The augumenting debt burden of the developing nations will in turn adversely
affect the growth rate of the developed countries.
 215

India followed a policy of delinking herself from the global economy for forty years
since independence. She sought to build a self-sufficient economy based on the ideas
inspired by the Soviet model of planning. This economic policy was one of “inward looking
and control bound. Initially this policy yielded some good results. But the failure to revise
our economic policies in the light of the changing times and changing circumstances has
nullified our initial lead in development. Today, the Soviet model is a matter of past. At the
same time, the outward looking, market friendly policies in t he Far East have made several
developing countries richer than some European countries. But India failed to benefit form
the investment, production, technology and exports which foreign investors have provided
to the Asian neighbours like Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan and Indonesia. Having realized the
failures of the fold fashioned inward looking economy and suffered a lot from it, India has
recently chosen for a radical change in its economic policies. It has; finally, decided to join
the global economy by reversing its attitudes towards International trade and foreign
investment.”

The new economic policy has made the Indian economy outwardly oriented such that
its activities are now being governed both by domestic market as also the world market.
This, then accounts for the unification and/or integration of the domestic economy with

the global economy. Previously, India was cautious to protect its domestic industries
from the foreign high-tech competition and so their competitiveness in terms of quality and
servicing could not match the world standard”. In a bid to globalize the economy, the reform
policy laid emphasis on the following steps.

15.5.1 New Policies

(1) Devaluation of the Rupee in July 1991was intended to abandon the artificially controlled
overvalued exchange rate of the Rupee, and to bring it down to the realistic level, and
the world price level. Subsequently, in 1994, the Rupee was made fully convertible on
current account of the balance of payments. This has left the fate of the exchange
rate in the hands of the market forces.

(2) The removal of licensing of many import items has also enabled the importers to shop
for their imports anywhere they like with foreign exchange available in the market.

(3) The high customs duties on imports too have been reduced with a view to bringing
them in line with duties in other countries.
216

(4) Entry of foreign direct investment is made possible under the policy. Thus can be
upto 51% of the investment in a project, and can be even cent percent in certain
specified projects”.

All these add upto an economy which is open with respect to exchange rate, foreign
exchange, imports, exports and foreign direct investments. As such, it is now a part and
parcel of the global economy. Contextually, the Drunkel proposals culminated into the Final
Act in December, 1993 and India signed the agreement on 15 April, 1994 with hopes of
prosperity, not with standing the opposition from various quarters. In fact, the leaders of the
BJP, leave alone others, raised their voice of protest. Their apprehension was that in the
name or fete of globalization and liberalisation, the Indian fate of economy would fall a prey
to ‘Dollarisation’ and/or ‘Yensinisation’. In spite of these apprehensions, the Indian Government
under P.V. Narasimha Rao, as Prime minister and Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister
pursued this policy. Later, the government of the National Front also was vigorous with the
policy of globalization and liberalization of Indian economy. Now the tottering BJP Government
is on the saddle with its own reservations and it is too early to arrive at any conclusive views
or decision about the prospects of the globalization of our economy. let them be; and viewed
from the performance or otherwise of the Indian economy since 1990-91, we can note the
following results.

15.5.2 Results of Globalisation

The policy changes towards globalizing the Indian economy have started to show
results. The relaxation of rules made it possible or facilitated for the foreign direct investment
to flow into India to the tune of two billion dollars in 1993-94 as compared to a few hundred
million in 1990-1991. Exports leaped by an astonishing 21% in dollar terms in the first
eleven months of 1993-94. The multinational tycoons are flooding to invest in India in different
fields. Still, there is a lot to do as expectations from this sector are high”. The success of the
Asian countries like South Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan, leave alone the other ones, is
inducing or luring India to bustle in that path and to send all hurdles in between. Initial
results are equally attractive”. Hence, it seems the result of the chronic melodies of India
has found “a healing doctor”.

15.5.3 Criticism in the Indian Context

India’s economic isolation for a long period has created a series of vested interests in
favour of continuation. Hence the efforts of globalize the economy have been facing stiff
 217

resistance from these vested interests. Foreign investment has been criticized on many
counts – that foreign investors are uninterested in exports, that they are not interested in
bringing in good technology and are draining the country through monopoly profits. We
have to be on our guard to take note of the genuine criticism in order to safeguard the
country’s interests and the other ones motivated by the vested interest must be exposed
through public education so that the process of economic reform is not disrupted.

“Attracting the multinationals must be a part of a drive to join the globalization of the
world economy. If India keeps the multinational out, it will in effect be keeping International
trade out. No longer is it feasible beyond a point, to delink export growth from going
multinational. Either Indian companies themselves must go multinational (as Japanese and
Korean ones have) or else India must attract multinationals on a large scale. Direct foreign
investment is an essential and indispensable part of the globalization of the world economy,
where national boundaries no longer determine ownerships, sales or investment.” Without
eroding India’s self-reliance, foreign investments will strengthen it. India’s reliance on foreign
debt has led it into a debt trap. It needs a judicious mixture of foreign loans and equity. Latin
American countries have lost all self-reliance because they relied entirely on foreign debts.
Asian countries that attracted foreign equity over the years are much stronger and more
self-relient. “Moreover, earnings on equity tend to be ploughed back in a manner that interest
of loans is not. Foreign equity can also bring specialized skills and technology that cannot
be purchased outright.”

One need not be apprehensive of the criticism that “the market-oriented globalization
will worsen the condition of t he poor and disadvantaged people. On the contrary, nothing
will help our poor more than the prosperity which globalization will bring. The social indicators
are, by most yardsticks, far better in the market economies of the West than they ever were
in the Soviet Union. Social Democrats in Sweden and West Germany have long proved that
social justice is entirely compatible with markets and multinationals, and that the two in fact
aid one another”.

For globalization, the business environment in India must be changed to resemble

those in the global economy. Discrimination against export production must be abandoned.
Materials and capital must be available to Indian Exporters, including the subsidiaries in
India, at International prices. Companies must have free hand in their plan for diversification
and expansion. This does not rule out protection for the Indian companies. As in other Asian
countries there is every need and case for protecting our industries. But the protection must
218

be limited and open-ended and there must be enough competition to penalize inefficient
firms. Our efforts to globalize should not be on the assumption that foreign resources obviate
the necessity of maximizing our own resource mobilisation. Otherwise, we may be repeating
the error of the past when we forgot that over a long period our surplus on current account
had also to be raised for foreign debt redemption and to add requisite foreign savings to
internal saving. We must give due consideration to the fact that capital resources from
abroad could be inflationary, unless the internal saving-investment frame work has the
necessary saving – investment resulting in a larger output so that when foreign money is
converted into our currency, the resulting increases in money supply do not raise the price
level.

Check Your Progress

1. What is OECD?
___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Explain GATT.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Write a note on WTO.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
 219

15.6 Summary

Summing up, globalization is inevitable. We may wish to wish it away. We may be

tempted to bury our head in the sands of self-created past ideological prejudices while the
opportunities go past us. There is an urgent need to see the world afresh, abandoning our
historical biases and self-delusions. There is a lot to learn from the world around us. An
analytical perception of International reality is essential. It is time to rethink our assumptions.
A time for caution as well as optimism. A time to be honest in understanding our problems
and a time to clear our vision of the options before us. The world scenario is on the fast
forward move. In the current phase of globalization, entrepreneurs are the lead players.
Politicians and bureaucrats have to take up the support roles. The process of liberalization
coupled with globalization has started to yield good results. There is every reason to speed
up this process. Globalisation is not a zero – sum game. As a country India has to reconsider
its national and International priorities. It is time to critically review our global alliances and
identify our areas of interest in the new evolving global scenarios.

15.7 Key Words

GDP : Gross domestic product

OECD : Organisation of economic co-operation and development

15.8 Check Your Answers

1. See section 15.4.3

2. See section 15.4.3

3. See section 15.4.4

15.9 Model Questions

1. Given an account of globalization of the economy.

2. Discuss the impact of globalization of economy with reference to India.

220

15.10 Further Readings

1. T.N. Sindhwani, India’s Role in Globalisation.

2. Sumitra Sharma, Development Strategy and the Development Countries.

3. R.K. Sinha, Essays in Economic Policy and planning.

 221

MODEL QUESTION PAPER

M.Com., DEGREE COURSE

SECOND YEAR - THIRD SEMESTER

NON MAJOR ELECTIVE - I

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Time : Three hours Maximum : 100 marks

Part - A (10 x 2 = 20 marks)

Answer all the questions

All questions carry equal marks

1. What do you mean by International Relations?

2. Define the term National interest.

3. What is the essence of the national power?

4. What is diplomacy?

5. What is international ethics?

6. What is word state?

7. What are the foreign policy inputs?

8. What is the purpose of International organisations?

9. What do you understand mean by the term collective security?

10. Write a note a world bank.

11. Enumerate the objectives of FAO.

12. What is EEC?

222

Part - B (5 x 6 = 30 marks)

Answer all the questions

All questions carry equal marks

13. Bring out the importance of the study of International Relations.

14. Estimate the decision making approach in the study of International Relations.

15. Enumerate the elements of National Power.

16. Discuss the methods of Promoting National Interest.

17. Dicuss the need and relevance of diplomany in the modern era.

18. “Would society and universal morality do not exist” - Critically examine.

19. “Foregin policy of a nation cannot exist in vacuum comment.

Part - C (5 x 10 = 50 marks)

Answer all the questions

All questions carry equal marks

20. Discuss the impart of globalization of economy with reference to India.

21. Trace the historical developments of Intrenational aganization.

22. “The system of collective security is unworkable, unwise and dangerous Discuss

23. Dicuss the efficacy of Intranational Morality

24. Bring out the Problems involved in the evalulation of National powers.