Counter-Violent Extremism:

● What is extremism?

Definition: Extremism is a process through which someone becomes extremist. An extremist forcibly rejects the
existing norms of society and attempts to create a new narrative to bring about the change in societal, cultural, and
economical structure, and also give alternatives in place of the available ideologies/ norms.

● Types of extremism:
1. Cognitive extremism
Your extremist belief system. This type of extremism is more dangerous.
2. Behavioral extremism:
Extreme behavior under which you become violent.

● Stages of becoming a violent extremist:

There are five stages of becoming a violent extremist

1. Pre-radicalization stage:
In this stage, a person is slowly and gradually becoming radical. He classifies society into rational, religious,
and ideological lines. Once he passes through the pre-radicalization stage, he starts to identify himself.
2. Otherness: (self-identification stage)
This is the stage of self-identification. In this stage, the person classifies how is he different from others. He
separates himself from other identities. This identity is based upon ideological, ethical, religious, and cultural
identity. This whole process takes place in indoctrination.
The person observes his environment and gets indoctrinated in the company of his friends or is brainwashed
by his company. For example: In the post 9/11 war on terror era, Bush said that either you are with us or
against us. This is the thinking of an extremist. They think that they are on the right path and the others are
not.
3. Dehumanization:
When he starts considering his ideology, communities, his ways, culture, religion, group, ethnicity, and race
as superior to the others, he starts being radical. At the same time, he is dehumanizing others by considering
others his enemy.
4. Persecution:
Where he considers or prepared himself for violence and persecutes others.
5. Triumphalism:
It is the most dangerous stage than persecution. Triumphalism is where a person is involved in violence. He
is treated as a hero by the members of his community. His killings of other people are appreciated and his
violence is justified by his community and other people get inspired by his doings in his community. Violence
is being promoted in society and the act of violence of justified.

● Concept of CVE:

Counter-violent extremism is a realm of policy, programs, and interventions designed to prevent individuals from
engaging in violence associated with radical political, social, cultural, and religious ideologies and groups.

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) describes efforts to prevent violent extremists from gaining support for their
ideology. It is, in essence, soft power. CVE is an approach that uses diverse forms and tactics on and offline and
mainly relies on civil society groups to execute programs. Governments, foundations, and others work with civil
society NGOs to enlist the help of academics, media organizations, technology companies, and social scientists to
develop programs designed to inoculate communities from finding extremist ideology appealing. One example of a
type of CVE program is the use of former extremists to educate communities about what bad actors do to entice
them, what is true and false, and how to protect oneself.

Since 2001, there has been a constant increase in the number of victims of violent extremist movements. Groups
such as al-Qaida, the so-called “Islamic State” (IS), Boko Haram in Nigeria, and al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya have
managed to hold their ground despite international counterterrorism efforts. In 2015, terrorist attacks in Europe
further demonstrated the threat that violent extremists pose. The notion of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)
gained increasing traction in 2015 among state actors around the globe and has come to be perceived as a crucial
component of sustainable counterterrorism. Because violent extremism is no longer associated only with individual
terrorist attacks, but also with conflicts that have caused tens of thousands of deaths and injuries, CVE fosters closer
cooperation and exchange between the security services and actors in the fields of conflict management and
prevention. In 2015, the concept of CVE succeeded in establishing itself in official political jargon.

The Obama administration came up with a new strategy, that they should counter the ideology of terrorism, mainly
called the CVE.

This idea consisted of two major components:

1. De-radicalization:
It is a time-consuming process, which takes years and years to brainwash the terrorist. The short-term result
of this strategy would be the lessening of terrorist organizations. And the long-term result would be
changing the thinking of a terrorist. Changing a mindset is a hectic process though.
2. Community engagement:
It is a soft strategy to combat terrorism. In this process, people would be engaged with each other and
discuss the problems and their solutions.

The primary purpose of CVE:

1. To stop the growth of terrorist organizations.

2. Use of non-coercive means to dissuade individuals or groups from mobilizing towards violence and to
mitigate recruitment, support, facilitation, or engagement in ideologically motivated terrorism by non-state
actors in furtherance of political objectives.
3. To build resilience in the community to counter violent extremism.

Results of CVE:

CVE has had mixed results for several reasons—including that the programs have been ad hoc, uncoordinated, and
tiny compared to the threat. Going forward, policymakers need to properly scale efforts, increase funding, train
more personnel, and dramatically change how they attend to social media companies. The government lacks the
authenticity and trust within communities to do this alone. Societies need a multilayered approach that connects
with kids, parents, teachers, faith leaders, community activists, civil society leaders, local leaders, and others.
Programs of action should be scaled and happen at every level to influence the multiple factors that affect one’s
identity and sense of belonging. Such programs vary between communities even within a nation.

Because diminishing the ideological appeal of violent extremism is a vital U.S. interest, dramatic change is required
in mindset, focus, and funding. It requires the whole of society to take part; it requires everyone.
 ● Terrorism:
Definitional aspects of terrorism:

● Concept of terrorism:
There is no definite definition of terrorism. While we define terrorism, there is no subjective element
present but there are a few aspects on which we can provide a working definition of terrorism. The
following are the aspects:
1. Creation of fear: killing one person and threatening thousands.
2. Political objective: politically motivated
3. Act of violence: if an act of violence is organized, deliberate, has a motive, and is consciously done.
4. Ideological factor: to kill as many people as they want to purify society.
5. Non-combatants: the military people who are not in a battle land.
Definition: “An organized and deliberate act of violence perpetrated by a non-state organization against
non-combatants to create fear in society and to achieve political objectives.”

● Pakistan Counter-terrorism strategy:

The growing extremism and terrorism have affected Pakistan adversely. Despite heavy losses, Pakistan has
remained committed to eliminating terrorism. Considering the factors contributing to violent extremism,
countering it is a huge task that not only depends on the intent of the government of Pakistan but also on
international support.

We divide PCTS into two categories:

1. Military means:
i. Security operations: against militants in the tribal areas. Operations like Al-Mizan and Kalusha in
South Waziristan to clear the area of militants, particularly foreign militants that threatened the
Pakistan government.
ii. Swift operations: in the settled areas, particularly in the major cities to apprehend various leaders of
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
2. Non-military means:
i. We signed various peace agreements with militants.
ii. Anti-terrorism legislation: The main law that was used for anti-terrorism is called ATA (Anti-
Terrorism Act 1997), which called for targeting the entire terrorist network with severe punishment,
including the death penalty, to the people involved in aiding and abetting terrorism.
iii. NAP (National Action Plan) A major step to counter violent extremism was the initiation of the
National Action Plan (NAP) after the brutal attack on Army Public School in Peshawar on December
16, 2014. The 20–point NAP37 very clearly defines the government’s counter-radicalism and
counterterrorism strategy by announcing zero tolerance for militancy and the steps to strangle
terrorist organizations by choking their financing and dismantling their communication networks
physically and on media as well.
iv. NISP-I and II (National Internal Security Policy): NISP is established on mutual inclusiveness and
integration of national efforts. It is based on three elements: 1) dialogue with all stakeholders; 2)
isolation of terrorists from their support systems; 3) enhancing deterrence and capacity of the
security apparatus to neutralize the threats to the internal security of Pakistan.

● Why has PCTS remained ineffective?

There are three reasons that PCTS has failed or remained ineffective.

1. Pakistan’s strategic interest in the region has a direct effect on PCTS:

 Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy is preoccupied with its strategic interests in the region, particularly in
India and Afghanistan. In the case of India, Pakistan’s strategic interests rest mainly in Kashmir,16 which the
latter considers an ‘unfinished agenda’ of the Partition Plan of June 1947. Pakistan’s failure to achieve
Kashmir’s independence from India through wars and bilateral negotiations compelled it to adopt the policy
of engaging the latter in a low-intensity conflict by using militant Jihadi groups as its proxies. As far as
Afghanistan is concerned, Pakistan embarks upon the policy of establishing a pliable government in Kabul,
which would fulfill the twin tasks of its security policy. First, such a government may not raise the issues of
Durand Line 17 and Pakhtunistan,18 thus, helping secure its western borders. Second, such a government
would also deter the growing Indian influence in Afghanistan, which is a major concern of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s vulnerabilities were enhanced when India signed the ‘Strategic Partnership Pact’ with Afghanistan
in October 2011.19 Moreover, Pakistan also blames the Indian consulates in Afghanistan for aiding the
Baluch insurgency, thus, threatening the very integrity of Pakistan. Pakistan’s security agencies view that the
growing Indian “influence can only be neutralized by building links with elements that encounter India-
friendly Kabul.” To achieve these goals, Pakistan has been yearning for the policy of supporting friendly
groups, which would ensure its strategic interests in the future Afghan political setup, particularly after the
scheduled withdrawal of American and NATO forces by 2014. For this purpose, the Military has avoided
targeting the Afghan Taliban, during the security operations in the FATA region, despite intense American
pressure.
2. Skewed civil-military relations:
The skewed civil-military relations in Pakistan have also undermined the efficacy of Pakistan’s
counterterrorism strategy. Pakistan’s political history is rife with a continuous tussle for supremacy between
the Military and the civilian forces, where most of the time, the balance of power has remained in favor of
the former. In the case of Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy, it is also the civil-Military strife, which has
made the task of devising an effective strategy very difficult. Both actors, civilian forces and the Military,
have different perspectives on formulating policies for counter-terrorism. The civilians link the formulation
of counterterrorism strategy with the country’s law and order problem, particularly to deal with the
sectarian violence, which is occurred mainly in the civilian domain. The Military, on the contrary, sees the
formulation of the strategy from the country’s national security problem, which is India-centric, and for
which it needs proxies. It is because of this Indian-obsessed security approach that the Military has
continuously followed the policy of raising and supporting those groups which accomplish its strategic
objectives in India and Afghanistan.
3. Lack of national consensus on :
a) the honors of the war on terror:
Various Pakistani governments since the 9/11 incident have also failed to develop a consensual narrative in
the society on the ownership of the US-led “war on terror.” The Military denotes the “war on terror” as the
nation’s war and calls for public support to win it. On the other hand, the major political parties and civilians
have clearly stated that the “war on terror” is not Pakistan’s war and that it is an American war.
b) Lack of consensus on the definition of terrorism:
we have also failed to define what terrorism is. Without defining it, we formulated our anti or counter-
terrorism strategies. In the absence of popular support, and the absence of the definition of terrorism, the
Military’s resolve to fight the internal threat not only has questioned its determination but also hampered
the effectiveness of Pakistan’s counterterrorism strategy, which, in turn, has surely affected its domestic,
regional, and international security.
c) Lack of consensus on defining the enemy:
Pakistan has indeed dealt with the domestic sectarian terrorist groups heavy-handedly, several
members and leaders of these outlawed Deobandi sectarian outfits have escaped the wrath of the state
as they also enjoy the overlapping membership of “Pakistan-friendly” militant Jihadi groups, which are
fighting in the Indian-held Kashmir and are considered as ‘strategic assets’ by the Military. They also use
 the same training camps, resources, and to a large extent same ideological inspiration. We have failed to
identify the Good and Bad Taliban. These multiple linkages have made the government’s task difficult to
identify the enemy.

● What Pakistan should do?

1. The definition of the word terrorism given by the Supreme court is so vast that it couldn’t serve the purpose.
Therefore, first, we need to define the word terrorism.
2. We need to identify our enemy. We are swinging like a pendulum between good and bad Taliban.
3. The formation of national security with a consensus.
4. Governance would be strengthened with better coordination and collaboration between civil institutions
and the military.
5. Greater willingness by the military to bring civilians into their military campaign planning processes and to
train and assist civil institutions (particularly the police force) in growing into their roles and responsibilities
would bolster security.
6. The central government should establish a clearer vision and a process for decision-making related to
antiterrorism and anti-militancy efforts; devote more resources to its security institutions, and better
organize its relationships with individual provinces.
7. Parliament should play a more active role in defining and measuring the success of efforts to counter
terrorism and militancy.
8. Civil society must play a more active and informed role in this process.
 ● Ind-Pak relation under 5 perspectives:
The Indo-Pak relationship is very complex. Pakistan-India relations can be studied from multi-dimensional
perspectives:

1. Religious/ideological perspective:
India-Pakistan rivalry is rooted in pre-partition; different political ideologies of Hindus and Muslims. M.A Jinnah
said that “Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literary
traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which
are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.” Religious disputes led to the decision, for the partition
India into the Islamic nation of Pakistan. Hindu extremists were against the partition of their motherland India.
(BJP is continuing this legacy). Keeping in view their historical enmity, hatred, incompatible state ideologies, and
mistrust, we can study India-Pak relations in the context of religious/ ideological perspective.

2. Territorial dispute:
The two states conflicted over the assessment and distribution of the colonial institutional and financial legacy; in
particular how the civil and military bureaucracy would be divided and the appropriation of the capital. In 1965,
India and Pakistan fought an inconclusive war over Kashmir. We can study Pak-India relations by applying this
perspective, where Kashmir is the bone of conflict between India and Pakistan. Kashmir is known as the
unfinished agenda of partition according to Pakistan. Pakistan says that the Kashmir issue should be resolved by
UN resolution but India is against it. India says that Kashmir is its integral part. Water disputes can also come into
this category. Pakistan argues that Pakistan’s agriculture has the right over the water coming from Kashmir,
which is also directly related to its economy.

3. Weak/Strong dynamics: (the question of power between India and Pakistan)

We know that India is powerful in the region. Their relationship is asymmetric in nature. Pakistan doesn’t allow
India to play a manager role and counters the hegemonic role of India by different tactics, i.e., by developing
nuclear weapons and alliance systems. In this stance, Pakistan is known as a reactionary state. (Weaker state is
always a reactionary state). The continuity of these conflicts has now resulted in prolonged/ unending and
unresolved conflicts.

4. Structural/Global perspective: (Cold war rivalry)

The bipolar world order established after the cold war impacted Pak-India relations. Pakistan and India had to
choose one side/bloc. Pakistan had to choose an ally because of the presence of a bigger enemy in the dispute.
Pakistan wanted its ally to supply arms to him. Since 1962, the dynamics of the region had moved. India moved
away from China and Pakistan moved close to China. The US moved towards India. The USA is using India to
counter China. As the world’s largest democracy, India has always served the interests of the United States and
has proved to be a potential balancer against China’s rise in the East. Since the incident in Indo-Pakistan 2019, the
United States has largely stayed above the fray, advising and aiding the construction of resiliency mechanisms to
terrorist attacks across the Indian government, while turning a relatively blind eye to Pakistani belligerence.
Because of the global rivalry between China and USA, Pakistan and India relations have always been in turmoil.

5. Cross-border terrorism:
 India blames Pakistan for the sponsorship of terrorists in India and Kashmir. India’s stance is that Pakistan should
end its sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir first and then will they talk on the issue, while Pakistan says that first
talk on the issue of Kashmir and then will it stop its military activities and sponsorship.
The movement of self-determination can also be studied from this perspective. India wants the status quo and
links it with the issue of terrorism. While Pakistan wants a change, which we couldn’t bring, and neither we can
alter the status quo. It means that there is an expanded form of India-Pak bilateral complex relations.

● Impact: (Conflict resolution)

This continued enmity can lead to a full fledge war, therefore, conflict resolution is important more than
conflict management.
Following are the reasons why conflict resolution is important:
1. Continuous nuclear threats should be resolved.
2. Kashmir issue has transferred into an indigenous one.
3. India wants the status quo.
4. Conflict regional and economic growth.
5. Growing menace of terrorism.
6. Improvement in Pak-India or Pak-Afghanistan relations can bring peace to Afghanistan and can bring
stability to the region.

The concept of a ‘failed state’ was introduced by foreign policy analysts

in the early 1990s, in the context of the post-Cold War, when scholars sought to describe the
the alarming proliferation of civil conflicts that engendered, in some countries, the fragmentation of
state institutions, economic recession, and deterioration of security conditions.
The concept of a ‘failed state’ was introduced by foreign policy analysts
in the early 1990s, in the context of the post-Cold War, when scholars sought to describe the
the alarming proliferation of civil conflicts that engendered, in some countries, the fragmentation of
state institutions, economic recession, and deterioration of security conditions.
The concept of a ‘failed state’ was introduced by foreign policy analysts
in the early 1990s, in the context of the post-Cold War, when scholars sought to describe the
the alarming proliferation of civil conflicts that engendered, in some countries, the fragmentation of
state institutions, economic recession, and deterioration of security conditions.
 ● Failed state:
What is a failed state?

We define a “failed state” as a condition of “state collapse” – e.g., a state is generally considered to have “failed”
when it is no longer able to consistently and legitimately enforce its laws or provide its citizens with basic goods and
services, such as military defense, law enforcement, justice, education, or economic stability and has no effective
control over its territory and borders. Both internal and external factors contribute to the state’s failure. Typical
factors contributing to a state’s failure include insurgency, high crime rates, ineffective and impenetrable
bureaucracy, corruption, judicial incompetence, civil wars, absence of democracy, and military interference in
politics.

Example:

As of 2019, Yemen was considered the world’s most-failed state, followed by Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria.

Somalia

Widely considered the world’s most failed state, Somalia has been without a functional government since the
devastating Somali civil war in 1991. Notorious for its abuses of human rights, warring political factions, and lack of
security, the country is filled with displaced refugees. Besides over a million of its own displaced people, Somalia
faces an insurgency of Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Shabab Islamic jihadist terrorists.

In all assessments of a state’s degree of failure, both quantitative and qualitative measurements are typically
applied.

● Fragile state:
States are fragile when “state structures lack political will and/or capacity to provide the basic functions needed for
poverty reduction, development and to safeguard the security and human rights of their populations. Fragility can
be the result of a lack of financial, technical, and human capacity, and a lack of legitimacy.

● INDICATORS:
The Fragile States Index is based on a conflict assessment framework – known as “CAST”. The methodology uses
both qualitative and quantitative indicators, relies on public source data, and produces quantifiable results. The
FSI and other rankings similar to it evaluate each state’s weaknesses and level of development according to four
key indexes—social, economic, political, and cohesiveness—each composed of three indicators as follows:

A. Social and cross-cutting indicators:

1. Demographic pressures:
The Demographic Pressures Indicator considers pressures upon the state deriving from the population itself or the
environment around it. For example, the Indicator measures population pressures related to the food supply,
access to safe water, and other life-sustaining resources, or health, such as the prevalence of disease and
epidemics. The Indicator considers demographic characteristics, such as pressures from high population growth
rates or skewed population distributions, or sharply divergent rates of population growth among competing
communal groups, recognizing that such effects can have profound social, economic, and political effects. Beyond
the population, the Indicator also takes into account pressures stemming from extreme weather events
(hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, or drought), and pressures upon the population from environmental hazards.

2. Refugees and IDPs:

 The Refugees and Internally Displaced Person Indicator measure the pressure upon states caused by the forced
displacement of large communities as a result of social, political, environmental, or other causes, measuring
displacement within countries, as well as refugee flows into others. The indicator measures refugees by country
of Asylum, recognizing that population inflows can put additional pressure on public services, and can
sometimes create broader humanitarian and security challenges for the receiving state if that state does not
have the absorption capacity and adequate resources. The Indicator also measures the Internally Displaced
Persons (IDP) and Refugees by country of origin, which signifies internal state pressures as a result of violence,
environmental or other factors such as health epidemics. These measures are considered within the context of
the state’s population (per capita) and human development trajectory, and over time (year-on-year spikes),
recognizing that some IDPs or refugees, for example, may have been displaced for long periods.

3.External Intervention

The External Intervention Indicator considers the influence and impact of external actors in the functioning –
particularly security and economics – of a state. On the one hand, External Intervention focuses on security
aspects of engagement from external actors, both covert and overt, in the internal affairs of a state at risk by
governments, armies, intelligence services, identity groups, or other entities that may affect the balance of
power (or the resolution of a conflict) within a state. On the other hand, External Intervention also focuses on
economic engagement by outside actors, including multilateral organizations, through large-scale loans,
development projects, or foreign aid, such as ongoing budget support, control of finances, or management of
the state’s economic policy, creating economic dependency. External Intervention also takes into account
humanitarian intervention, such as the deployment of an international peacekeeping mission.

B. POLITICAL INDICATORS
4.State Legitimacy

The State Legitimacy Indicator considers the representativeness and openness of government and its
relationship with its citizenry. The Indicator looks at the population’s level of confidence in state institutions and
processes and assesses the effects where that confidence is absent, manifested through mass public
demonstrations, sustained civil disobedience, or the rise of armed insurgencies. Though the State Legitimacy
indicator does not necessarily make a judgment on democratic governance, it does consider the integrity of
elections where they take place (such as flawed or boycotted elections), the nature of political transitions, and
where there is an absence of democratic elections, the degree to which the government is representative of the
population of which it governs. The Indicator takes into account the openness of government, specifically the
openness of ruling elites to transparency, accountability, and political representation, or conversely the levels of
corruption, profiteering, and marginalizing, persecuting, or otherwise excluding opposition groups. The Indicator
also considers the ability of a state to exercise basic functions that infer a population’s confidence in its
government and institutions, such as through the ability to collect taxes.

5. Public Services

The Public Services Indicator refers to the presence of basic state functions that serve the people. On the one
hand, this may include the provision of essential services, such as health, education, water and sanitation,
transport infrastructure, electricity and power, and internet and connectivity. On the other hand, it may include
the state’s ability to protect its citizens, such as from terrorism and violence, through perceived effective
policing. Further, even where basic state functions and services are provided, the Indicator considers to whom –
whether the state narrowly serves the ruling elites, such as security agencies, presidential staff, the central bank,
or the diplomatic service, while failing to provide comparable levels of service to the general populace – such as
rural versus urban populations. The Indicator also considers the level and maintenance of general infrastructure
to the extent that its absence would negatively affect the country’s actual or potential development.
6. Human Rights and Rule of Law

The Human Rights and Rule of Law Indicator considers the relationship between the state and its population
insofar as fundamental human rights are protected and freedoms are observed and respected. The Indicator
looks at whether there is widespread abuse of legal, political, and social rights, including those of individuals,
groups, and institutions (e.g. harassment of the press, the politicization of the judiciary, internal use of the
military for political ends, repression of political opponents). The Indicator also considers outbreaks of politically
inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence perpetrated against civilians. It also looks at factors such as denial of
due process consistent with international norms and practices for political prisoners or dissidents, and whether
there is a current or emerging authoritarian, dictatorial, or military rule in which constitutional and democratic
institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated.

C. ECONOMIC INDICATORS
D.
7. Economic Decline and Poverty

The Economic Decline Indicator considers factors related to economic decline within a country. For example, the
Indicator looks at patterns of the progressive economic decline of the society as a whole as measured by per
capita income, Gross National Product, unemployment rates, inflation, productivity, debt, poverty levels, or
business failures. It also takes into account sudden drops in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign
investment, and any collapse or devaluation of the national currency. The Economic Decline Indicator further
considers the responses to economic conditions and their consequences, such as extreme social hardship
imposed by economic austerity programs, or perceived increasing group inequalities. The Economic Decline
Indicator is focused on the formal economy – as well as illicit trade, including drug and human trafficking, capital
flight, or levels of corruption and illicit transactions such as money laundering or embezzlement.

8. Uneven Economic Development

The Uneven Economic Development Indicator considers inequality within the economy, irrespective of the
actual performance of an economy. For example, the Indicator looks at structural inequality that is based on a
group (such as racial, ethnic, religious, or other identity groups) or based on education, economic status, or
region (such as an urban-rural divide). The Indicator considers not only actual inequality, but also perceptions of
inequality, recognizing that perceptions of economic inequality can fuel grievance as much as real inequality,
and can reinforce communal tensions or nationalistic rhetoric. Further to measuring economic inequality, the
Indicator also takes into account the opportunities for groups to improve their economic statuses, such as
through access to employment, education, or job training such that even if there is economic inequality present,
to what degree it is structural and reinforcing.

9. Human Flight and Brain Drain

The Human Flight and Brain Drain Indicator consider the economic impact of human displacement (for economic
or political reasons) and the consequences this may have on a country’s development. On the one hand, this
may involve the voluntary emigration of the middle class – particularly economically productive segments of the
population, such as entrepreneurs, or skilled workers such as physicians – due to economic deterioration in their
home country and the hope of better opportunities farther afield. On the other hand, it may involve the forced
displacement of professionals or intellectuals who are fleeing their country due to actual or feared persecution
or repression, and specifically the economic impact that displacement may wreak on an economy through the
loss of productive, skilled professional labor.
 E. COHESION INDICATORS
10. Security Apparatus

The Security Apparatus indicator considers the security threats to a state, such as bombings, attacks and battle-
related deaths, rebel movements, mutinies, coups, or terrorism. The Security Apparatus also takes into account
serious criminal factors, such as organized crime and homicides, and the perceived trust of citizens in domestic
security. In some instances, the security apparatus may extend beyond traditional military or police forces to
include state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected
“enemies,” or civilians who were seen to be sympathetic to the opposition. In other instances, the security
apparatus of a state can include a “deep state”, that may consist of secret intelligence units, or other irregular
security forces, that serve the interests of a political leader or clique. As a counter-example, the indicator will
also take into account armed resistance to a governing authority, particularly the manifestation of violent
uprisings and insurgencies, the proliferation of independent militias, vigilantes, or mercenary groups that
challenge the state’s monopoly of the use of force.

11. Factionalized Elites

The Factionalized Elites indicator considers the fragmentation of state institutions along ethnic, class, clan, racial,
or religious lines, as well as and brinksmanship and gridlock between ruling elites. It also factors the use of
nationalistic political rhetoric by ruling elites, often in terms of nationalism, xenophobia, communal irredentism,
or of communal solidarity (e.g., “ethnic cleansing” or “defending the faith”). In extreme cases, it can be
representative of the absence of legitimate leadership widely accepted as representing the entire citizenry. The
Factionalized Elites indicator measures power struggles, political competition, and political transitions, and
where elections occur will factor in the credibility of electoral processes (or in their absence, the perceived
legitimacy of the ruling class).

12. Group Grievance

The Group Grievance Indicator focuses on divisions and schisms between different groups in society –
particularly divisions based on social or political characteristics – and their role in access to services or resources,
and inclusion in the political process. Group Grievance may also have a historical component, where aggrieved
communal groups cite injustices of the past, sometimes going back centuries, that influence and shape that
group’s role in society and relationships with other groups. The Indicator also considers where specific groups
are singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression, or where there is
public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power “illegitimately”, which may
manifest itself in the emergence of fiery rhetoric, such as through “hate” radio, pamphleteering, and
stereotypical or nationalistic political speech.

● Humanitarian intervention:
Humanitarian intervention, particularly after NATO action in Kosovo, has become a new justification for military
action. Defining humanitarian intervention is problematic and implementation is contentious. A humanitarian
intervention is an armed intervention in another state, without the agreement of that state, with or without
authorization from the UN Security Council, to address (the threat of) a humanitarian disaster, in particular caused
by grave and large-scale violations of fundamental human rights or international humanitarian law.

Firstly, for an act of intervention, the sovereignty of the state being intervened in must be breached. Secondly,
where this intervention takes place, the state must be failed or fragile.

Types of Humanitarian Intervention:

1. Armed humanitarian intervention: (troops)

 2. Non-violent humanitarian intervention: (aid, loans, grants)

Difference between the cold-war and post-cold war eras of humanitarian intervention:

o Conditions during the Cold War

During the Cold War, the will and the possibilities to intervene collectively for humanitarian purposes were almost
nonexistent. There was no legitimacy in the cold war era as the world was bipolar, and nobody wanted to risk a third
world war on that account. In addition, the majority of the UN members 12 CHAPTER I considered the notion of
humanitarian intervention a relic of colonialism and dissociated themselves vigorously from it. The number of gross
violations of human rights including genocide throughout this period was, however, a strong moral challenge to
international public opinion as well as to governments, which were forced, in most cases, to remain passive
witnesses to the violations. The feeling of impotence gave rise to a dispute over whether humanitarian intervention
might be justified under specific circumstances.

o CHANGING CONTEXT OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA

The end of the Cold War has brought about a substantial change in the concept of humanitarian intervention as well
as in the practice. This change is rooted in different developments. Triumphalists hailed the victory of democracy
over communism. One of the main factors is the changing nature of the international system; the end of superpower
rivalry has to some extent removed the systemic constraints on intervention in domestic affairs. The end of the
ideological confrontation has also largely undercut the rationale for supporting 'friendly' repressive regimes to
prevent them from falling into the other camp. As the Cold War had made non-intervention a universal norm, with
the end of the Cold War, norms about the protection of individual rights have increasingly received general
acceptance, particularly among the Western states. This resulted in a suitable political atmosphere for initiating
interventions.

Strict definitions in the Cold War period created the idea that intervention was illegal per se because it breached the
principles of sovereignty and self-determination. But the shift of focus from Article 2(4) to 2(7) of the UN Charter has
opened the whole matter to reinterpretation and we have a situation where it is no longer tenable to assert
whenever a government massacres its people or a state collapse into anarchy that international law forbids military
intervention altogether. Instead of self-help by states, most of the post-Cold War interventions were in some way
related to regional or global interventions and legitimized or licensed by UN Security Council resolutions.

Conclusion:

Interventional employment of force in violation of the principles of national sovereignty laid down in the UN Charter
has been on the rise since the end of the Cold War. On the other hand unacceptability of genocide, war crimes and
gross human rights violations in states are the ostensible compulsions for the international community to endorse
and undertake such interventions. Defining legal, ethical, and security criteria to bridge the gap between these two
perspectives on relative weightage to be accorded to sovereignty and intervention could constitute an important
step forward. Interventions by great powers in pursuit of their strategic and geo-political interests tend to generate
major security vulnerabilities, particularly in developing countries and small states. Notwithstanding human rights
violations, social injustices and economic deprivation, interventions in disregard of sovereignty may not be advisable
options, more so when undertaken unilaterally and outside the UN dispensation.

The effectiveness of the UN in its charter of maintaining international peace and security has been long questioned,
with the elaborate provisions of Chapters VI and VII of the Charter producing mixed results during the last 55 years.
There is a case for change at the higher decision-making levels of the UN, particularly the UN Security Council. The
UN would require paying far greater attention to conflict prevention rather than post-facto actions. The serious
threat to international peace and security caused by the spread of small and highly lethal weapons across the globe
is another area that needs to be addressed seriously.
 ● Russia-Ukraine Crisis:
Sino-Russia relation:

Relationships among the world’s three most important and powerful nations, the U.S., China, and Russia, appear to
be increasingly based on a disarmingly simple principle: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Like many non-Western countries, China has formulated its stance on the Russia-Ukraine war in keeping with its
general foreign policy approach and its perception of the value and purpose of international alliances. In general,
China’s public pronouncements on the war have been confined to a few key messages:

● Not only Russia but also the West, in particular the United States, are to blame for what has happened in
Ukraine because the West has constantly ignored Russia’s security concerns.
● It is very important to establish a common security concept in the region and the world that takes into
account the interests and concerns of all parties and is not dominated by the West.

A challenge to US hegemony:

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow and Beijing have transformed their relationship from being Cold War
adversaries to becoming pragmatic partners with a common goal of pushing back at a Western-dominated
international system. Their relationship is tactical and opportunist but marked by increasingly compatible economic,
political, and security interests. Sharing a geopolitical worldview of multipolarity, they both have firm desires to
contain Western power and seek to accelerate what they see as the weakening of the United States. The United
States is bolstering NATO to oppose Russia and simultaneously expanding and intensifying its relations with Indo-
Pacific countries to check China. U.S.-China bipolarity has set in, but bloc-building is only proceeding on one side.

China and Russia are two of these great powers that contest the hegemony of the US and aim at dragging the
nucleus of the international order towards Asia. Russia and China support the idea of a multipolar world, thus they
both share the desire of challenging the US world dominance

Russia in cooperation with China has created such authoritative international organizations as BRICS and SCO; both
states have similar approaches to resolving crises in the world and changing the world order. The SCO is an
organization exclusive to America, which may potentially threaten U.S. security and interests. Russia has sought to
frame the SCO as a sort of anti-NATO. It has pushed for a reinforcement of the organization’s military dimension,
proposing a joint military exercise on Russian soil next year. Moscow sees the SCO as the core of a China- and
Russia-led anti-Western bloc The two countries have also used the SCO as a platform to cooperate on anti-terrorism
and countering separatist activities, including through multilateral military exercises.

The current Sino-Russia partnership is mainly a “defensive” one, enhanced by Beijing and Moscow’s shared view
that NATO and the United States pose a “palpable national security threat”. Russia’s war in Ukraine is not in China’s
interest, but given Western hostility, China does not oppose Russia.

Role of Russia in US-China rivalry:

● Russia supports China’s core interests;

● Russia helps to magnify China’s global reach at the expense of Western influence;

● Russia enhances China’s military power through arms sales and joint military exercises; and

● Russia assists China in meeting important economic and energy needs.

The changing nature of China, US, and Russian rivalry:

The rivalry between the United States and China has become a paradigm of international relations over the past two
years. Today, it is not ideologically based but it shapes both strategic debates and real political, military, and
economic dynamics.

China has embraced capitalism, doesn’t export its ideology, and doesn’t pose an existential threat to liberal
democracy and the Western way of life in the way the Soviet Union once did. Since 2017 China has been treated as a
“long-term strategic competitor” in official US government strategy documents. And in its London Declaration of
December 2019, NATO spoke for the first time about the challenges (and opportunities) presented by China’s
influence and international policies. China’s political elite is – rightly – convinced that the United States is seeking at
the very least to prevent any further expansion of Chinese influence. And while disputes over trade policy and trade
balances feature most prominently in the US President’s statements and directly affect the global economy, they
represent but one aspect of the rivalry and by no means the most important. The conflict is, as Peter Rudolf shows,
multi-dimensional. Analytical clarity is an absolute prerequisite if Germany and the European Union are to pursue
their autonomous strategic approach to the Sino-American rivalry: Only if we understand the multidimensionality of
the conflict constellation will we be able to find appropriate political answers and develop the necessary instruments

The impact of the Ukraine crisis on Europe:

The main sufferer of the Russia-Ukraine war is “Europe”. Since the second half of 2021, there has been a sharp hike
in energy prices in the EU and worldwide. Energy is the main spillover channel for Europe as Russia is a critical
source of natural gas imports. Wider supply-chain disruptions may also be consequential. These effects will fuel
inflation and slow the recovery from the pandemic. Eastern Europe will see rising financing costs and a refugee
surge. It has absorbed most of the 3 million people who recently fled Ukraine. European governments also may
confront fiscal pressures from additional spending on energy security and defense budgets.

The impact on the global level:

The consequences of Russia’s war on Ukraine have already shaken not just those nations but also the region and the
world, and point to the importance of a global safety net and regional arrangements in place to buffer economies.
The world is moving towards bloc politics. While some effects may not fully come into focus for many years, there
are already clear signs that the war and the resulting jump in costs for essential commodities will make it harder for
policymakers in some countries to strike the delicate balance between containing inflation and supporting the
economic recovery from the pandemic. As the Ukraine crisis escalates Middle East countries will be forced to pick a
side. The prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine would put them in the difficult position of choosing between
doing business with the West or with Moscow.

Will Pakistan distance itself from the USA and get closer to Russia?

Since the famous American raid in 2011 that killed Osama bin Laden and gave the US exceptional favor to India’s
nuclear ambitions, Pakistan has gradually moved away from the United States, deepened its relations with China,
and sought rapprochement with Russia. While Pakistan’s strategic relations with China have been developing for
more than five decades, Islamabad’s relations with Moscow are new, evolving for less than a decade.

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit to Moscow to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine
crisis came under great scrutiny. Many political analysts questioned the timing of the visit, as it presumably gave the
wrong signals about where Pakistan stood diplomatically in the Russia-versus-West confrontation.

At first, under the government of PTI, it seemed that we would move closer to Russia, but the current situation
demonstrates that it is impossible for us to distance ourselves from the USA because of trade and military aid.
Under Khan’s government, Pakistan’s refusal to join the democracy summit and Khan’s subsequent visits to Beijing
and Moscow did not suggest a shift away from the liberal order and an embrace of autocratic regimes. Nor did it
mean that Islamabad would pursue anti-West and pro-Russia/China policies. It only meant that after the U.S.
withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan understands that Washington will pursue a strategy that focuses on China as
a primary strategic threat and the Indo-Pacific region as a primary theater of engagement. With the exit of the
United States from its immediate region, Pakistan wanted to increase its engagement with other major powers that
have major sway in the security and economy of the South and Central Asian region.

Events like the killing of Osama Bin Ladin, the Salar check post-attack and the Reymond Davis case, have created
huge mistrust between Pakistan and the U.S.

From the Pakistan side, a balanced and neutral foreign policy towards the two major powers, the US and Russia, and
from Russia’s perspective, a balanced approach towards Pakistan and India would be a challenge to overcome for
materializing their plans of good bilateral relations. Pakistan needs to develop a balanced approach and support the
side from where it gets most of the benefits.

What would be the impact of Pak-Russia relations on India-Russia relations?

Pakistan and Russia have moved a long way in warming up to each other, and in the past decade or so, they have
reduced their trust deficit significantly. The Russia-Pakistan relationship has been on the ascent for quite some time,
with the two militaries establishing new mechanisms for cooperation in recent years. As a matter of principle, India
“won’t be happy to see its Pakistani rival positioning itself to acquire more arms”. That is the reason that India would
never let Russia get close to Pakistan.

Russia is aware of the growing asymmetry of its ties with China and the weakness of its position in the rapidly
growing Asia-Pacific. In this situation, if India senses any formation of a Russia-China-Pakistan axis, it would be
deeply detrimental to Moscow’s interests. Not only is India a time-tested strategic partner, but it is also a
significantly larger market than Pakistan, the relationship with whom forms a critical part of the multi-vector policy
Russia aims to follow. Also, Russia would not consider a win for itself if its actions push India to move further closer
to the US. India, with its growing economic and strategic influence, is important for Russia’s pivot to Asia to succeed.
India too benefits from its close partnership with Russia and would do well to proactively improve the bilateral
relationship to prevent any deterioration in ties even as it seeks to build new partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.
Already, despite the concerns over growing Russia-China bonhomie, it has sought to strike a balanced approach in
its foreign policy through engagement in non-Western multilateral forums like RIC, SCO, and BRICS. While some
restructuring is bound to happen in the bilateral relationship on account of both domestic priorities and changing
global order, the two sides can take steps to strengthen the Indo-Russia ties.

India has some very good reasons for its silence on Ukraine. Russia is India’s biggest arms supplier. Just as India can’t
afford to lose Russia, the U.S. can’t afford to lose India. They need each other, to face off against the ultimate
challenger to America’s global dominance, which is China. For India, Russia remains an important supplier of
weapons and, most recently, oil. India has not joined the West’s sanctions on Russia. By doing so, it has
demonstrated its independent foreign policy. For Russia, India is an important market for arms and oil. The Indian-
U.S. security relationship is relatively new, whereas India-Russia ties have endured for over two generations. India
has no reason to forsake the benefits of this relationship. Nor does Russia.
 ● The South China Sea:
Importance of the South China sea:

The South China Sea is one of the most important sea lines of communication (SLOCs) in the world, connecting Asia
with Europe and Africa, and its seabed is rich with natural resources. One-third of global shipping, or a total of US $6
trillion of international trade, passes through the sea, in which the USA has a share of around $2 trillion.

China is building up artificial islands in the South China Sea. These islands are creating disputes with their regional
neighbors on overlapping claims. Yet, China is imposing its power by raising its military forces.

China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and
190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. As early as the 1970s, countries began to claim islands and various zones in the
South China Sea, such as the Spratly Islands, which possess rich natural resources and fishing areas.

China has increased its efforts to reclaim land in the South China Sea by physically increasing the size of islands or
creating new islands altogether. In addition to piling sand onto existing reefs, China has constructed ports, military
installations, and airstrips. China has also militarized Woody Island by deploying fighter jets, cruise missiles, and a
radar system.

US interest in the South Asian region:

The relations between the US and China have been complicated by a power transition process, or power struggle, in
recent decades, triggered by the economic rise of China. The competition does not seem to just fade away as the
tension between China and the US in the South China Sea (SCS) escalated throughout 2016.

The United States views China’s increasingly assertive actions in the South China Sea as the most pressing threat to
the existential order in the Indo-Pacific region.

On one hand, in response to China’s territorial claims and military activities in the region, the US has been working
closely with its allies and partners to contain and counter China’s efforts. On the other hand, the US has been
enhancing its own deterrence, surveillance, and combat readiness capabilities in the area. Also, in response to
China’s assertive presence in the disputed territory, Japan has sold military ships and equipment to the Philippines
and Vietnam to improve their maritime security capacity and deter Chinese aggression.

The part the United States plays in the South China Sea disputes is also crucial since providing a security umbrella to
Japan and Taiwan, Washington toughens its stance against Beijing proposing China’s claims to the South China Sea
are “unlawful.” Therefore, the US-China rivalry topped with Japan’s siding with Vietnam creates further tension
between Japan and the PRC, increasing the gap between the two countries and deteriorating trade relations.

Where does Japan fall in this context? Japan has become more involved in regional disputes regarding the SCS in
terms of its economy and energy security. Japan’s role in the region is crucial, given the country’s increasing trade
partnership with ASEAN. Intending to bypass China’s investments in ASEAN countries, Japan harbors considerable
political, economic, and strategic interests in Southeast Asia as one of the top world trading nations with Southeast
Asian countries. Moreover, Japan has been the security alliance partner of the US, China’s most influential rival
shielding other claimant nations in the region. In all senses, from a political perspective, Japan’s interests in the
South China Sea are increasing, and the country has become one of the inevitable political actors in the region.

BRI as a threat to the US and its alliances:

China is also contending with the US and Japan for influence in the economic realm. Since 2010, China has extended
its economic influence across the region as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which offers infrastructure
development projects and loans. Through the BRI and the closely linked Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China
has sought to develop a range of projects around Southeast Asia. Malaysia, Indonesia, and other ASEAN states have
welcomed the BRI.27 China has launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), rivaling the World Bank.
All 10 ASEAN states, Britain, France, and other US allies have joined the AIIB. In addition, China has countered
Japanese efforts to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership by pushing for the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Program, which excludes the United States.

Recommendations:

As long as the U.S. does not ratify UNCLOS itself, it will remain a flawed spokesperson for a rules-based order.
Washington’s unilateral display of naval power can send a message of deterrence, but it will take painstaking
multilateral diplomacy to persuade China to commit to negotiations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) to find a rules-based solution. Washington’s military maneuvers and bilateral security arrangements have to
be matched by efforts to shore up ASEAN’s capacity.

The military actions by both China and the US in the SCS, and especially the deteriorating US-China relations have
put the Southeast Asian claimant countries in a tough spot. The US has now maintained that the Indo-Pacific region
and the South China Sea have become a zone of big power contestation, involving China. The ASEAN countries have
always tried to dodge or stay away from taking sides in such situations. There are indications that the South China
Sea is rapidly getting transformed into a militarized zone. If the American FONOPs have increased this year, China’s
military activities have also- the PLA has taken a confrontational response to the US Navy vessels transiting the
Paracels and the Spratlys. This is raising the chances for a bigger crisis in US-China relations about the SCS.

De-hyphenate U.S. engagement in the region from the Chinese question.

It would be prudent to pitch American assistance on its own merits and intrinsic value. It should be delinked from a
broader anti-China thrust, and it should not be held hostage to the focus countries tempering their relationships
with China. As small countries, it is unlikely that Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, or Sri Lanka can afford to explicitly
choose among relationships with bigger powers. Any sort of conditionality reduces the avenues for cooperation.
Communicating a positive agenda, not just a negative one, will win greater favor among governments, businesses,
and the public.
 ● Origins of Cold War:
When did it start?

Causes of the Cold War

● During World War 2 the United Kingdom, France, and the United States aligned another to defeat Nazi
Germany. The USSR would join this alliance following Operation Barbarossa – the invasion of Russia by Nazi
Germany. There were promises that the alliance would continue well after the war.

●  After the war, however,  tensions started rising. The USA was the strongest power that emerged after the
war. It was a superpower in economic and military strengths.

● The USSR was the second most powerful country and it had played a key role in Germany’s defeat in the
war. This increased its prestige in the world.

● After the war, in eastern Europe, many countries had communist governments. These nations saw the USSR
with favorable eyes. Those that did not, were replaced by governments that looked at the USSR in a similar
way

● The USA, as also the western European countries saw communism as a threat to its way of life and towards
freedom also.

● The world was polarised into two blocs – the communist powers led by the USSR and the powers opposed to
communism led by the USA. The former group comprised mostly eastern European nations while the latter
was by the western European countries.

● The USA began to view every development in the world as either supportive of or against the rise of
communism. It even went to the extent of supporting colonial powers in their subjugation of the people if it
meant curbing communism. This was their reasoning behind supporting the colonial domination of France in
Indo-China. 

● The arms race by the two powers also was a factor in rising tensions between them. It even extended
beyond the far reaches of the Earth itself, when both the superpowers developed technology that would put
their respective nations on a higher technological footing than their rivals.

● Many scholars agreed that the cold war started in 1945 when things started to tangle up between USA and
USSR.
The divided Europe, breaking trade networks and splitting communities between East and West. These
economic divisions spread to separate military alliances in each zone. Germany became a Cold War
battleground. East and West Germany had separate governments and capital cities, The city of Berlin
became a microcosm (small-scale representation) of the Cold War, with British, French, and Americans
controlling West Berlin while the Soviets controlled East Berlin. To prevent defections, the communists built
the Berlin Wall in 1961. It divided the city. They set up checkpoints to control border crossings. The wall
became the most important symbol of the Cold War.

Who was responsible?

from the viewpoint of the 1950s and 1960s, historians cited Soviet ideology and aggression as the primary
factors responsible for igniting the conflict.  American leaders, faced with communist aggression in Europe
and Asia, had no choice but to stand firm against Soviet belligerence. American leaders, unsure of Stalin’s
motivations, viewed the Soviet dictator’s actions in Eastern Europe as a threat to their own political and
economic objectives.   Both the United States and the Soviet Union, in seeking to promote their country’s
interests, caused the Cold War.

Developments happened in the cold war era:

Some of the important developments in the cold war period are given below:

Korean War

In the first major conflict since the end of World War 2, a crisis occurred in the Korean peninsula when Communist
North Korea invaded democratic South Korea. This was the first test for the newly-formed United Nations to stop
escalation between the two superpowers who were using their proxies to fight for them. A United Nations Army
under the command of American General Douglas Mac Arthur pushed back North Koreans following the decisive
battle of Inchon. However, the push into North Korea and China threatened to escalate matters when the Soviet
Union pledged to support its allies for what they saw as a fight “against capitalist tyranny”. The war began on 25th
June 1950 and ended on 27th July 1953 with the establishment of the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Tensions between
North and South Korea persist to this day despite decades after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Cuban Missile Crisis

The USSR deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba which were ready to be launched onto the cities of the USA. The USA
responded with a naval blockade of Cuba and both superpowers are on the verge of war. The standoff ended after
13 days when the USSR withdrew the missiles.

Vietnam War

The US intervened in the Vietnam crisis in 1965 by sending troops to aid South Vietnam in its fight against
communist North Vietnam. North Vietnam was supported by the USSR and China. The Vietnam war (Which ended
on April 30, 1975)proved very costly for the US where they lost about 58000 men. The losses and anti-war sentiment
by its people forced the US to withdraw its troops from Vietnam. In 1975, the Vietnam war ended with the fall of
Saigon, the capital of the South Vietnamese government, with a decisive victory for the communists.

Prague Spring

This occurred in 1968. The communist government of Czechoslovakia tried to bring in reforms such as multiparty
democracy and more freedom for the media. This alarmed the powers that be in Moscow. They feared this would
cause a domino effect in Eastern Europe with every other nation asking for more concessions if the Czechoslovak
government was allowed to continue its present course. The USSR sent in troops on the pretext of restoring order,
leading to the collapse of the Prague Spring was thwarted by the USSR which intervened with troops.

Afghan Invasion

Tensions between the US and the Soviet Union were abating in the seventies. But the situation in Afghanistan
reversed this trend. The Afghanistan crisis further escalated when the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan to help the
communist government there fight the insurgents called Mujahideen. The United States responded by supporting
the Mujahideen elements in a war that lasted ten years there. The Taliban emerged directly as a result of this war.
The US funded the Mujahideen through Pakistan’s ISI. The Afghan war ended in 1989 when Soviet troops withdrew
from there. This had long-lasting consequences for South Asia itself. The fighters from the Afghan-Soviet war were
funneled into Kashmir, leading to a rise in the insurgency in the state.

Mikhail Gorbachev
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev rose to become the leader of the USSR. He initiates capitalist reforms known as
perestroika and glasnost. He also let the Berlin Wall crumbled on October 30, 1989. Finally, in 1991, the Soviet Union
was disbanded and new countries Russia and others emerged as independent nations. Most of the eastern
European countries have popular uprisings against communist governments.

The end of the Cold War

The Cold War finally ended in the 1990s. The USSR could no longer keep up with US military spending. Meanwhile,
economic problems in the Eastern Bloc meant that goods were in short supply. To keep citizens from revolting, the
new Soviet leader, Mikhael Gorbachev, proposed reforms to stimulate communist economies. The economic
reforms were known as perestroika, or "restructuring." He also relaxed restrictions on freedom of expression, a
policy called glasnost, or "openness." These reforms were too little too late.

In 1989, the most iconic symbol of the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall, which divided the German city, was torn down
by Germans on both sides seeking to unify Germany. Similar waves of anti-communism spread throughout the
Eastern Bloc. The end of the Cold War was marked by the disintegration of the USSR into over a dozen independent
nations.

Fear of a nuclear war likely prevented direct combat between the Americans and the Soviets. Though they did not
engage in all-out warfare, the two superpowers supported many of each other's enemies in combat. They created a
bipolar system of global power that forced other nations to choose sides and ripped communities apart. The
economic troubles created by the Soviet war in Afghanistan left the USSR unable to maintain control of the Eastern
Bloc. Once self-determination was possible in the 1990s, many Eastern European countries chose a different path.
They elected non-communist parties and joined the European Union. Outside of Europe, communists in places like
Cuba and China have remained in power while other nations removed pro-US dictators. Whichever path nations
have chosen since the collapse of the USSR, the Cold War has left a major imprint.

● POST-COLD WAR:
● How post-cold war is different from the cold war?

After the end of the Cold War, the new millennium has also witnessed a number of remarkable changes in the
international system. Globalization, technological advancements, the emergence of non-state actors along with
nation-states, the rise of international organizations, disarmament and arms control, international law, and
neoliberal capitalist world order become one of the main characteristic features of the post-Cold War era. In the
post-Cold War period, the process of globalization deeply influenced international politics and relations among
states. The current international world order which is primarily driven by neo-liberal and capitalist ideology gives
rise to the growing importance of the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and TNCs as significant economic anchors in
international politics. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Eastern bloc after 1989, neo-classical
economic policies that favored a minimalist state and an enhanced role for the market became predominant
under the economic logic of globalization. Furthermore, due to the process of globalization, many of the issues
and regimes get a global understanding and become international in their nature and scope. For instance,
terrorism, environmental protection or climate change, etc., are all no longer remain domestic issues rather
these become the concern of all states in the rapidly changing world scenario. Now with the end of the Cold
war, the concept of ‘security’ and ‘development’ has also increasingly come to be scrutinized by scholars and
practitioners of international relations. In other words, the end of the Cold War enforced a redefinition of
security and development in the post-Cold War era. In the classical formulation, security and development have
only narrow and one-sided views. Earlier security only refers to territorial integrity and handling the military
threats from other states but in today’s context the scope of security become more comprehensive, broaden
 and inclusive which includes not only military threats from other states but also encompass disease, terrorism,
poverty, environmental degradation, economic and cultural threats or dangers etc. The idea of human security
becomes so popular in the post-Cold War period.

● Assumptions in the post-cold war era

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States became the world’s sole superpower, dominant
economically and militarily.
In the post-Cold War period, some have tried to define Islam as a new threat or an 'enemy' of the West after the
collapse of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union. In a 1990 address, Bush Junior Vice President, Dan
Quayle, listed Islam with Nazism and Communism as the challenges the Western civilization must undertake to
meet collectively. Furthermore, the USA saw Islamic fundamentalism as a major threat to the Western alliance
as communism once was. Therefore, it is fair to claim that concerning political Islam, the US policy particularly in
the post-Cold War era, is being to contain it much the way communism was during the Cold War. The increase of
political Islam or according to the Western term Islamic fundamentalism in some of the Islamic countries since
the 1970s, the establishment of an Islamic regime in Iran, and increasing of militant groups and terrorist attacks
on the US embassies and buildings, which uncertainly linked to some Islamic countries, led the United States to
pursue different policies toward the Muslim world.
The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 have affected US global policy.
Regarding US relations with the Islamic World, the 9/11 attacks have created a new wave of anti-Islam
movements in the USA and other Western countries. In fact, the events confirmed the importance of the Islamic
World to the US’s vital interests. Accordingly, the US policymakers came to believe that the deeper their
presence, the more likely they were to achieve their objectives. This new approach has necessitated new US
steps in engagement, significantly reorientating its foreign policy, and attempting to enhance involvement with
the Muslim world.
The US-led anti-terrorism campaign since September 2001 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan and Iraq have
greatly affected Washington’s policy in the Islamic world, and have led the United States to establish more
footholds in some of the Muslim countries, such as Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.
In the post–Cold War order, the challenge arose regarding the compliance of Saddam Hussein with Council
mandates after the First Gulf War, the compliance of Iran and North Korea with their nuclear nonproliferation
obligations, and the Russian invasion and seizure of Crimea in Ukraine.
The rapid spread of Islamic movements or political Islam in the last two decades is seen as a serious threat to US
security and national interest, particularly in the Middles East. In fact, central to the US policy is the fear of the
spread of Islamic regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, which to the US leaders, might threaten American
interests. Therefore, its policy toward those Islamic nations who follow this kind of Islam or might be affected by
that has been to prevent it or if necessary to fight against it.
In general, reviewing US policy towards the Islamic World indicates that Washington’s involvement with Muslim
countries has been shaped by the framework of its global hegemony during and after the Cold War. In other
words, Washington’s multiple engagements with the Islamic World are part of a broader US global strategy,
which seeks to restrain potential adversaries and strengthen US power throughout the world. Therefore, one
can assume that from the Realpolitik point of view US policy in Muslim nations has been geared to develop its
hegemonic influence.
The post-Cold War world also witnessed an increased regional integration and growth of regional arrangements
such as the European Union, SAARC, BRICS, ASEAN, OPEC, NAFTA, APEC, OAS, AU, and a host of others which
can pose a threat to the US supremacy.

● Impact and reasons for SU disintegration:

REASONS:

1. According to Triumphalist:

The communist party regime (single-party rule) for around 70 years turned authoritarian. There was widespread
corruption, nepotism, and a lack of transparency. Gorbachev’s decision to allow elections with a multi-party system
and create a presidency for the Soviet Union began a slow process of democratization that eventually destabilized
Communist control and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Once people started to enjoy freedom under Michael Gorbachev’s reforms, they demanded more. The demand
grew into a big force that turned difficult to control. The people wanted to catch up with the west quickly.

2. According to declinists:

The US was exhibited as a declining power but the threat to Islamic communism was present. The Soviet Union kept
up its military commitments and tried to match the United States in the arms race, further straining its economy.
The weakness of the economy was the major cause of dissatisfaction among the people in the USSR. There was a
severe shortage of consumer items. The reason for economic weakness was the following.

1. Huge military spending.

2. Maintenance of satellite states in Easter Europe.

3. Maintenance of the Central Asian Republics within the USSR.

IMPACTS:

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Socialist system in East European countries had major
consequences on World Politics:

a. End of Cold War- The collapse of the Soviet Union brought an end to the Cold War politics. It ended the
mutual suspension, fear, tensions and hostilities that existed between the two blocs, that is, the US and the
USSR. The dispute that had triggered off a massive arms race and formation of military alliances between
the two superpowers was no longer in existence.
b. Capitalism emerged as a dominant ideology- The collapse of the Soviet Union also revealed the
weaknesses of the communist system and represented the defeat of the socialist model of economy and
governance, with liberal democratic capitalist system emerging as the dominant ideology. Following the
collapse of the socialist model, many countries including India adopted more liberal economic policies
endorsing liberalisation, privatisation, opening up the economy to foreign investors, etc.
c. Change in power equation- The disintegration of the Soviet Union ended the bipolarity that had
characterised world politics after the Second World War. It opened the options of a unipolar world, where
one country would dominate the world affairs, or a multipolar world, where a number of powerful countries
would influence world politics.
d. Emergence of a unipolar world- The fall of the Soviet Union resulted in the shift of power towards the US,
which emerged as a superpower dominating and influencing global politics. The world witnessed the rise of
the US as a hegemon, with its largest military base, dominant capitalist economic system and profound
cultural influence over other countries, including India. In this regard, we may cite the example of India’s
rethink on its policies with the US after the disintegration.
e. Emergence of new countries- The fall of the Soviet Union resulted in the rise of many new countries. The
15 Union Republics of the former Soviet Union became independent countries with their own distinct
identity and political aspirations. While many of these countries chose to become members of the EU and
NATO, others maintained close ties with Russia. Thus, we saw the rise of many new players in international
politics.
● MID 1990s:
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 created a massive shift in the international balance of power and left
the United States as the sole remaining superpower. Early conflicts like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that led to
the Gulf War and clashes in the newly independent Balkan states brought the United States together with new
allies to solve international problems. President George H. W. Bush defined the shift as a "New World Order,"
and for the first time since World War II, the United States and Russia fought together on the same side of a
conflict. The administrations of President William J. Clinton during the 1990s were shaped by attempts by
American foreign policymakers to redefine what constituted a "threat" and what foreign policy would serve the
"national interest" in the post-Cold War era. Some experts argued that the United States should work toward
preventing ethnic conflict and genocide in places such as Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda,
and Kosovo. Others maintained that U.S. foreign policy should focus instead on preserving U.S. economic and
trade interests.
1. Economic crises (East Asia) affected areas including Japan, Maldives, and Indonesia.
2. Challenges in the mid-1990s were not a threat to USA’s power
3. 9/11 reinforced the centrality of the USA’s power in the world.
4. Post 9/11 preemptive strike was allowed.
5. World supported USA in the war against terrorism, also supported in the containment of Islamic
fundamentalism, by the use of brutal force.

q. is the Islamic fundamentalism capable of removing US ideology?

● Developments in the Islamic world:

The Suez Canal crisis, the overthrowing of Musaddiq with the involvement of CIA, the Arab-Israeli wars, and the
invasion of Afghanistan were the occasions of global rivalry that culminated the foreign domination in the region.
Although the Cold War period has not made any change on the map of the Middle East, except for Israel’s
expansion, the development of political Islam can be traced back to this period. The invasion of Afghanistan by the
Soviet forces in 1979 created two severe outcomes for the future of the region. On the one hand, the Soviets
constituted the formation of ethnic conflicts through the manipulation of the volatile dynamics of the country and
left the uncontrolled nuclear weapons on the other hand Western forces encouraged uncontrolled violent militias
motivated by Islam. During that period, Islamism had been promoted in several Middle Eastern countries in order to
reduce the influence of left-wing ideologies. 63 The creation of violent anti-communist militias in Afghanistan, which
was a part of a greater plan applied in Central America and Angola, showed up as the initial cause of September 11.
Ironically Al-Qaida, which had been used as a tool against the Soviet power, paid back America with its own coin.

Post-Cold War Period

The events of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990, the war in Afghanistan launched by the leadership of America
to retaliate Taliban in 2001, the Anglo-US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the ongoing unresolved conflict between
Israeli and Palestine in the post-Cold War period proved the continual interest of foreign powers in the region. These
consecutive events generated widespread support and sympathy for Islamism that bolsters up the notion of anti-
Americanism among Muslim societies. Thus, the ideas of Muhammed Abduh, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Mawlana
Maududi, Hasan Al Banna, and Sayyid Qutb obtained the support of masses that have known as their strong
Western opposition. The disappointment of being the subject rather than the object of international order is one of
the factors that nurtured political Islam. The public opinion polls done in the Middle East demonstrate that anti-
Americanism substantially has risen year by year. The invasion of Iraq has fortified this anti-American sentiment
because it is considered a political choice that only seeks material gain with the control of oil resources and backing
up Israeli in the region. The collective sense of frustration and anger to America and American supported local
regimes has been considerably manipulated by the Islamists to realize their own agendas.
● POST 9/11:

The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003—a fatal mistake. The hollowing out of the Iraqi military and the
collapse of the administration led to a civil war, fostering an environment for the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S.
drawdown created the self-proclaimed Islamic State, a movement that swept across Iraq and Syria. Al-Qaida gained
the Muslim population’s sympathies around the world and its strategy got succeeded in Muslims spreading anti-
Americanism. Al-Qaida say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving
Muslims. Thus, Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens,
when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern
islands.

America’s public opinion was proved against America’s brutal use of force policies.

G.W. Bush’s statement “You are either with us or against us” divided the world into two parts.

The U.S. got involved in a situation where it was impossible to retreat.

Different interpretations regarding 9/11:

1. 9/11 incident should be taken as a symbol of protest displayed by the Muslim world.
2. The attack was a very clever and well-planned move by the attackers, hitting the hegemon that would affect
the most i.e., the Twin towers and the Pentagon were the center of trade and symbols of the economy of
USA.
3. 9/11 incident would be beginning of 3 rd world war (Islamists v/s West).

The 9/11 attacks did not change the world. They were further steps along a well-signed path leading to two decades
of conflict, four failed wars and no clear end in sight.

● New Cold War:

Strategic competition between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for economic
opportunities and political influence in the developing world has been compared to Cold War competition for the
“Third World” between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The two superpowers are now engaged in conflict across multiple geographic theatres (South Asia, Southeast Asia,
Australia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America) and multiple vectors (trade, investment, technology, espionage,
international institutions, health policy, naval, airpower, missiles, and territorial disputes).

The superpowers have articulated a lengthening list of grievances and almost no significant interests in common.
Both are attempting to push third countries into an alliance system that would see the world carved into two
decoupled blocs. Red versus Blue. With us or against us. Total confrontation. Basically, the definition of the cold war.

Some policymakers and strategic studies analysts still hesitate to employ the cold war concept, wary of the analogy
with the decades-long U.S./USSR conflict and its implications for international relations in the medium-long term.

But there is no doubt both countries increasingly see and describe the conflict in existential terms. If it looks like a
cold war and sounds like a cold war, it probably is a cold war, and the concept illuminates more than it hides.

Beyond the economic conflict, there is a long list of potential flashpoints that could spark actual fighting, including
Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Some Cold Warriors on both sides welcome the “strategic clarity” of more open competition and conflict between
the United States and China.

How is the new cold war different?

The coming Cold War with China will be fundamentally different from the worldwide confrontation with the Soviet
Union in five fundamental respects: China will encounter an international system with more peer competitors, the
rivalry will coincide with high levels of trade, China’s confrontation with the West will endure considerably longer
than the 45-year long contest with the USSR, the revolution will be the instrument of the West rather than
Communist China, and there will be smaller strategic arsenals but accelerated nuclear proliferation.

Unlike the opportunities for influence available to the USSR in the mid-twentieth century, there are no divisive
domestic labor politics that look to China for an ideological solution (as Western unions did during the Great
Depression of the 1930s), or anti-colonial revolutionary movements for China to exploit. In fact, the commercially-
driven emergence of middle classes across the world will empower Western democracies with a strong incentive to
back liberal social movements and color revolutions against authoritarian regimes.

Cold war 1 was bilateral but this new cold war is trilateral; the USA, China, and Europe.

Both the superpowers couldn’t afford major wars, as the question of what would happen to their technical military
mechanism arises and if a war occurs, it would definitely be a nuclear war.

The differences between the Cold War and the recent worsening diplomatic relations between the United States
and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that began around 2013 seem indisputable.2 The difference that stands out
most starkly is the degree of economic integration between the two countries, each the other’s largest trading
partner with substantial bilateral direct investment. Even by 1990, trade between the United States and the Soviet
Union was minimal compared to American trade with Western Europe and other non-communist bloc countries.

With or without the label “cold war,” the United States and China are locked in a protracted conflict over core
national values, including economic and geopolitical interests. The fact that the Chinese economy is stronger than
the Soviet Union’s decrepit economy, playing a key role in integrated global supply chains, while many Western
countries suffer from internal divisions, makes the strategic competition more challenging for the West than the
Cold War of the late twentieth century was. Of particular concern is the fact that the United States has suffered a
steep fall in its Freedom House “Freedom in the World” score since 2010, denting much of its soft power.
Consequently, the contestants in today’s conflict appear to be more evenly matched, making for a difficult struggle
ahead

Conclusion:

What all of these developments are telling us is that it is too early to say that a new cold war has begun. We cannot,
however, let it go unsaid that, given past experiences, the conditions of “hegemonic war” -- the division of the
system into status quoist and revisionist blocks, the uncertainty of alliance relations, and the normalization of the
use of military power -- observed during periods of international system transformations, are becoming more
prominent by the day.