International Relation Book For CSS Students

BOOKHTVE’S
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
For
Civil Services (Main) Exam

and
MJL ft B.A. (Hons.) Exam, of various Indian Universities
PARKASH CHANDBR
Principal, College of Vocational Studies, University of Delhi, New Delhi
and
PREM ARORA (I.A.S. Study Circle, New Delhi)
Sixteenth Edition (Thoroughly Revised and Enlarged)
1
<$£
• <(, f-m
.^f& >M&^
jfa&
COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P) LTD.

Delhi • Bombay • Chandigarh • Jaipur Phones: 3298103, 3298374 Fax : 011-3298416
No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented including photocopying and recording or in
any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Branch Office : 6 A Pink Apartments, 7 Bungalows,’ Andheri (West) Versova, Bombay-400 061. Ph:
6269914, 6269918
© Reserved with the Publishers
?i>%vsri-c,.>il’r:
Price : Rs. 225.00
Published by Manmohan Nanda. Director, Comtos Bookhive (P) LuL, CB-352, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi-
110028. Ph : 3298103, 3298374 Fax : Oi 1-3298416 Composed at: Amit Computer Centre. Carter Pun. Gurgaon-
122016 (Hr.) Primed at Star Offset Printers. New Delhi.
Preface to the Sixteenth Edition

In view of the fast changes taking place in the international arena, it is of vital importance
that a book on International Relations must contain latest facts and trend analysis. In this
revised edition of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, we have tried to incorporate the
latest facts and revised several chapters in the light of the current developments. We are
sure that the revised edition of this book will be found very useful by the students,
teachers and general readers. Our task of revision of book was rendered easy by the
innumerable suggestions received from the esteemed readers. We have fully utilised these
suggestions and request the readers to oblige us with their suggestions in future also.
We are grateful to our publishers for bringing out the revised edition of the book with
remarkable speed without compromising on the quality of the production.
AUTHORS
’»-..
Preface to the First Edition

In view of the revised curriculum for the Civil Services Examination a need was felt to
bring out a book on INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS strictly in accordance with the
syllabus of the Union Public Service Commission. This book has been written strictly
according to the syllabus. An endeavour has been made to present the issues in their
entirely starting with the genesis of the problem till the present state of affairs.
The book has been specially designed to cater to the needs of the candidates opting for
International Relations. The authors do not claim any originality and their main effort has
been to bring out relevant facts from a plethora of information to meet the requirements
of the candidates appearing for the Civil Services Examination. The book will also beof
interest to the general reader because it covers a wide range of subjects of current
international importance.
Suggestions for further improvement of the book are welcome and shall be gratefully
acknowledged and incorporated in the next edition.
AUTHORS
BOOKHIVE has been publishing the most standard books for I.A.S. competitive
examination for the last thirty eight years. Thousands of candidates have benefited from
our publications.
It was on the persistent demand of the candidates that BOOKHIVE’s I.A.S. Study Circle
was brought into being in
1968. Reputed college teachers for different subjects were selected to constitute the
faculty.
The meetings of the members of the faculty are periodically called. They review the
books in the light of the latest trends. Candidates who are selected in J.A.S. are also
invited to participate in these meetings. Their suggestions are given due weight. In the
light of these discussions the books are revised and brought uptodate.
BOOKHIVE’S I.A.S. Study Circle also invites the aspiring candidates to write about
their problems. The ’Circle’ prepares detailed answers to these problems.
If you are a candidate for Civil Services, you can become a member of the
BOOKHIVE’S I.A.& Study Cricle. Suggestions from the candidates for the improvement
of our books will be gratefully acknowledged.
MANMOHAN NANDA <«
DIRECTOR, ~- COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P) LTD.

Contents
1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-MEANING. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 15 •Meaning of International
Relations; International Relations or International Politics; Scope of International Relations; Significance of Study
2. NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE SYSTEM 6-12 Meaning and Origin o’f Naiion-
StateSystem; Contemporary State System; Elements of Modern Nation-State; Setback to Nation-State System
3. ELEMENTS OF NA nONALPOWF.R 13-26
: Domestic and international Power; Meaning; Foundations of Power^ Evaluation of :* National Power;
Limitation of National Power
4. NATIONAL INTEREST ’ 27-36 Development of the Concept of National Interest; The Kinds of National Interest;
Methods for the Promotion of National Interests; National Interest and Foreign Policy; Constraints on National Interest
5. BALANCE OF POWER AND POWER VACUUM 37-51 Meaning; Implications of the Term; Characteristics;
Historical Evolution of the Concept; Pattemsof Balance of Power; Assumptions of Balanceof Power; Techniques of
Balance of Power; Utility of Balance of Power; Criticism; Conclusion; Relevance of Balance of Power in Modern
Times; Power Vacuum
6. THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY QF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 52-66
Approaches; Classical or Traditional’Approach; Scientific Approach; The Realist and the Idealist Approach; Criticism;
The Classicists Behaviouralists Controversy; Defence of Classical Approach; Defence Of Scientific Theory;
Conclusion; The Systems Theory; The Systems qr General Systems Theory; Morton Kaplan’s System Theory; The
Decision Making Approach
/ 7. FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS DETERMINANTS 67-74
/ MeaningofForeignPoUcy;C*jectivesofForeignPoUcy(FartorsInfluencingFonagn
Policy); Internal Factors; External Factors
/ 8. THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY 7S-*2
Meaning of Interest and Ideologies; Important Ideologies; Impact of Ideology; Decline of Ideology
/ 9. FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES «-10§
Imperialism; Motives Behind Imperialist Policy; Technique; Imperialism in Modern Times; Effects of Imperialist
Policy; Alliances and Allegiances; Development of
y
y
Alliances; Kinds of Alliance; Impact of the Alliances; Allegiance; Isolationism; Nationalistic Universausm; Pax
Britannica; Pax Americana; New Hegemony of USA; Pax Sovietici; Middle Kingdom Complex of China; Further
Modifications in the Concept
10. COLD WAR-ORIGIN, EVOLUTION AND IMPLICATIONS 109-119 Origins; Evolution of Cold War; Basis of
Cold War Phases of Cold War; Implications of Cold War
11. DETENTE AND ITS IMPACT 120-130 Meaning; Factors which Prompted Detente; Evolution of Detente up to
1969; USSoviet Detente; Sino-American Detente; Impact of Sino-US Detente; Sefback to SinoUS Detente; Detente-
Foundations and Consequences
12. NEW COLD WAR AND ITS END 131-140 Development of New Cold War; Difference between New and Old
Cold Wars; Impact of New Cold War on World Politics; Cooling of Second Cold War; End of
’ * Cold War; Factor Contributing to End of Cold War; Formal End of Cold War; Impact on Future Course of
International Relations
l|fi NON-ALIGNMENT 141-163
Meaning; Non-Alignment as Antithesis of Alignment; Factors Responsible for Adoption of Non- Alignment; Motives
of Non- Alignment; Evaluation of the Concept; .’;.”_ Merits; Non-Aligned Movement and its Role; Relevance and
Roleof Non-Alignment ,’** in International Relations; Non-Alignment at Present; Threats to Non-Aligned
Movement; How to Strengthen Non- Aligned Movement; Role of the Non-Alignment in Present Conditions; Non-
Alignment in the Wake of End of Cold War; NonAlignment Movement and New International Economic order
14. DECOLONISATION AND EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 164-177 Meaning of

Colonialism; Varying Colonial Policies; Decolonisation; UN Charter and the Colonial People; Bandung Conference;
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People; Follow-up Action; Special Committee
oo Decolonisation; Expansion of International Community; Growth of Membership of UNO
15. NED-COLONIALISM AND RACIALISM ° 178-189 Why Neo-Coionialism ? Methods of Neo-Colonialism; How
far Nee-Colonialism is Better Than Colonialism.* Racialism; Forms of Racial -Discrimination; Role of Colonialism in
Promotion of Racialism; Racialism and Democracy; Eradication of Racialism
.
16. ASIAN-AFRICAN RESURGENCE 190-195 Emergence of Asia and Africa; Impact of Afro-Asian Resurgence on
17. THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER AND
QUEST FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER 196-211
Western Systems; The North-South System; East-West System; Main Features of the Present Economic OrderCrirkil
Evaluation of the PresentSystem; New International Economic Order; Goab and Means; Fresh Resolution by UN
General Assembly; Oncun Summit and New International Economic Order; Commonwealth Heads
%•
’i*
14.
and NIEO; South-South Meet or New Delhi Consultations; Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetingat New
Delhi, 1983; India and New International Economic Order
18. SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES 212-219 Introduction; Global Concern; The Role of UN;
NIEO and National Resources; Assertion by Developing Countries; Revolving Fund for National Resources
Exploration; UN’s Role in Assessment and Utilization of Natural Resources
19. THE CRISIS IN ENERGY RESOURCES 220-226 The Seriousness of Crisis; Efforts to Resolve the Crisis; Steps
to deal with Energy Crisis; Energy Cowervabon, Alternative Sources of Energy; Coal; Natural Gas; Oil Shale, Fuel
Wood; Electricity; Nuclear Energy, Biogas Plants, Solar Energy, Geothermal Energy, Wind Energy etc.
20. THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 227-236
. Meaning of International Law; Origin and Sources; International Law a Weak Law; Role of International Law in
21. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION
IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 237-247
Development of International Organisation; Treaty of Westphalia and International Organisation; Development of

International Organisation in Nineteenth Century; Congress of Vienna (IfjflS); The Concert of Europe; The Hague
Conferences; Public International Unions; The League of Nations, Classification of international organisation
22. THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES 248-330 Origin of UN, Objectives of the United
Nations, The Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, Principal Organs of the United Nations, General
Assembly, Functions and Powers, Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 and changed Role of the Assembly, The
Security Council, Functions and Powers, Relations between General Assembly and Security Council, Assessment of
Security council, The Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council and TrusteeshipSystem, International court of
Justice, The secretariat, The Secretary General, Specialised Agencies of United Natioris, Classification of Specialised.
Agencies, The International Labour Organisation (ILO), The World Health Organisation (WHO). Functions : Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO), International Bank For Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), United Nations
International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF), International Development Association (IDA), International
Finance Corporation (IFC), Universal Postal Union, Internal Telecommunication Union (ITU), International Civil
Aviation Organisation (K?AO), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), International Maritime Organisation
(IMO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (1FAD), United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
(UNIDO), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Accomplishment of the United Nations-Political.
Economic and Social Evaluation of UNO.
Z3 REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR ROLE IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 331 340
Organisation of American States (OAS/rOrganisation of African Union (OAU); The

Arab League; Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Arab Common Market; The ASEAN
(Association of South East Asian Nations); The European Economic community (EEC); Impact and Importance of
Regional Organisations
24. ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL 341 371
Arms Race after First World War; Arms Race after Second World War; Difference between Disarmament and Arms
Control; Disarmament; Disarmament after First World War; Disarmament after World War II; Atomic Energy
Commission; Commission on Conventional Armaments; Disarmament Commission: Atom* for Peace Plan (1953);
Anglo French Plan (1954); Soviet Proposal of May 1995; The General Summit and Open Skies Plan; Six Point Plan of
U.S.A. (1957); Nuclear Test Ban; Antarctic Treaty (1959); Ten Nations Disarmament Conference (1960); Eighteen
Nations Disarmament Conference (1962); Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963): Seven Point Plan (1966); Outer Space
Treaty of 1967; Treaty of Tlatelolco 1967; Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapons States (1968); Non-Proliferation
Treaty (1968);
- ’ . j Disarmament Decade; Sea Bed Treaty of 1971; Biological Weapons Convention
, (1972); Strategic Arms Limitation and SALT (1972): The SALT (Slategk Arms Limitation Treaty); US-Soviet Accord
on Limitation of Arms (1973); Threshold Test Ban Treaty; US-Soviet Accord on Limitation of Arms (1973); Threshold
Test Ban
;,,.. Treaty; US-Soviet Anns Pact 1974; The Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty (1976); Final Act of the Conference of
Security and Cooperation in Europe; Convention on ’Prohibition of Military or other Hostile use of Environmental
Modification Techniqi»e»;Spe<iaJSessionofDisannament;SALTn(1979);AgreementConcernmg Activities of States on
Moon and other Celestial Bodies; Soviet Proposals regard ing Prohibition on Stationing of Weapons in Outer Space;
Prohibition of Inhumane
_ Weapons; New Small; Arms Ammunition (1981): Efforts by the UN General Assembly; Reagan Plan of 18th
November 1981; INF Talks at Geneva November
1981; Brezhnev Announcement of March 1982;ST ART Negotiarions;Second Special Session on Disarmament; New
US Proposals on SALT; Efforts for Disarmament by General Assembly after11982; Talks between NATO and Warsaw
Pact Countries; Improvement of Hotline; Four Continent Peace Initiative; Initiative by India and Non-Aligned
Countries; Geneva Talks 1985; Six Nation Summit at New Delhi, 1985; Reagan Gorbachev Summit; Reykjavik
Meeting (1986), Intermediate Rjnge Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty (1987); New Six-Nation Disarmament Plan; Third
Special Session of UN General Assembly on Disarmament (]une 1988); Geneva Talks on Strategic Arms Reduction
(June 1989); Further Progress; US Proposes Cut in Chemical Weapons; Washington Summit; Treaty on Arms Cut;
Treaty between NATO and Warsaw Pact Countries; US-Russia offer to Cut Nuclear Arms; Five Power Accord to
Prevent Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (May 1992); Pact on Nuclear
- Arms Cut (June 1992); Nuclear Arms Control Treaty (START-II); Convention on Chemical Weapons (February
19V3); Imp’ itions of Arms Race and Suggestions for Future
25. THE ARMS TRADE AND ITS IMP ACT ON THIRD WORLD-ROLE IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 372 383
Factor* Influencing Arms Transfer; Arms Trade in Recent Years; Exports of Arms to Third World Countries; Soviet
Arms Exports; U.S. Arms Exports; West European Supptier*; Arms Export*by U.K.; Arms FxporNby France;
l.e.«iingfi«ports. >l Vu^r
Weapons to Third World Countries during the Period 1987-1991; Major Recipients of Arms during the Period 1987-
1991; Exports from Third World Countries; Impact of Arms Trade on Third World; Arms Trade Control; UN. Arms
Register.
26. DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE 3S4-MO
Usage of the Term; Definition of Diplomacy; Development of Diplomacy; Types of Diplomacy; Traditional
Diplomacy; Features of Traditional Diplomacy; The New Diplomacy; Why Changes in Diplomacy in Present Century;
Features of New Diplomacy; Old vs New Diplomacy; Which One of these Diplomacies is Better ? Decline of
Diplomacy; Critical Assessment of Diplomacy; Practice of Diplomacy; Career and Non-Oreer Diplomatic Agents;
Agregation or Agreement; Duties and Responsibilities of Diplomatic Missions; Qualities of Diplomat; Assumption of
Charge; Presentation of Credentials; Immunities and Privileges; Rignt of Inviolability; Other Immunities and
Privileges; Waiver of Diplomatic Immunities; Terminations of Missions; Dismissal and Recall; Breaking off
Diplomatic Relations
27. EXTERNALINTERVENrnON.IDEOliOGICAUPOLrnCAL AND ECONOMIC: CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

AND COVERT
’ INTERVENTION 401-411
Definition of Intervention; Intervention in Theory; Ideological Basis of Intervention; Political Basis of Intervention:
Economic Basis of Intervention; Economic Intervention and the UN; Intervention in Practice; Cultural Imperialism;
Covert Intervention
28. NUCLEAR ENERGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 412-136 Uses and Misuses of Nuclear Energy;
Impact of Nuclear Weapons on International Relations; The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT); Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty; A pprovalof Non-Proliferation Treaty; Reactions toTrea ty; Peaceful NuclearExplosions (PNEs); India and the
Peaceful Nuclear Explosion
29. PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF INDIAN OCEAN BEING MADE AZONEOFPEACE 437-448 Geographical
Setting; Importance of Indian Ocean; Control over Indian Ocean; US Interests;Soviet Interests; British Interests; French
Interests; Japanese!nterests;Chinese. Interests; Diego Garcia; Indian Ocean and Zone of Peace; Suggestions for Making
Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace
30. THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WEST ASIA 449-488 Factors Responsible for the West Asian Conflict;
Conflict of 1948;Conflict of 1956; War of June. 1967; Efforts by Powers to Resolve the Crisis; War of October,’1973;
Peace Treaty of 1979; Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel; Annexation of West Bank by Israel; Israeli Attack on
Lebanon, Egypt Israel Agreement (N89); Israel and Palestinians; Role of Outside Powers in West-Asian Crisis;
Altitude of Powers Towards West-Asia during the War of 1973 and After; Atlanta Conference (November, 1983); Iran-
Iraq War; Attitude of the Arab Countries; Changes in Diplomatic Relations in the Middle East; Relation among Other
Countries; Mediation Efforts; Security Council’s Bid to Bring about Cease-fire; Islamic Conference Organisation’s
Efforts; Peace Efforts by Non-Aligned Movement; Mediation Efforts by Other States; Towards Settlement oj the
Problem; Gulf War; Impact of War and Future Trends, Appraisal of West Asian Crisis
31. CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 489-538 Conflicts in South Asia; Afghanistan. India;
Pakistan; Nepal; Bangladesh. Sri Lanka; Co-operation in’M’uth Asia; Effort>to End Conflicts and PromoteCo-
operation; South
Asian Association of Regional Co-operation (SAARC); Second SAARC Summit at Bangalore (1%61; SAARC Foreign
Ministers’ Meet (1987); Third SAARC Summit (1987); Fourth SAARC Summit (1<W); Fifth SAARC Summit (1990);
Sixth SAARC Summit (1991 i; Seventh SAARC Summit (1993); Eighth SAARC Summit (1995); Slow Progress of
Regional Co-operation: Achievement and Future Prospects; Challenges before the SAARC
32. FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS- USA. USSR (RUSSIA)
AND CHINA . 539 610
Meaning of Foreign Policy; Foreign Policy of U.S.A ; Policy after World War li: Developments* it US Foreign Policy;
Policy Towards For East; Policy Towards SouthEast Asia, Policy Towards South Asia; Policy Towards Middle-East;
Policy Towards Europe: Policy Towards Latin America; United States and UNO; United States and Disarmament,
Foreign Policy o/Soviet Union; Development of Soviet Foreign Policy; Policy in Post-Stalin Period; Policy under
Bulânin and Khruschev; Policy under Kosygin and Brezhnev; Policy after KosyginandBrezhnev; Policy
underCHFRNENKO and Curbachev, Policy Under Russia (BORIS YELTSIN); Policy Towards United States; Soviet
Policy Towards West Europe; Relations ywith Communist Countries; Soviet Policy in Middle East; Soviet Poficy in
South Asia; Soviet Union and the Third World; Soviet Union and the United Nations; Soviet Union and Disarmament;
Foreign Policy of China; Relations with Soviet Union; Relations with Russia; Relations with USA; Relations with Non-
aligned Countries; Relations with Japan; Relations with Neighbouring Countries; Relations with West European
Countries; Relations with Indfa; Relations with Pakistan; Policy Towards Nuclear Weapons, Policy Towards Third
World
33. THE THIRD WORLD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 611615 QwKtevUtics of the Third World; Role of the
Third World in International System
34. THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS ’
AND OUTSIDE ’ 616 626
Call for NIEO; BrandtCommission and its Reports; Cancun Summit Conference 1981; Second Brandt Commission
Report; Why Slow Progress in North-South Dialogue
35 INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS 627 688
Basic Principles of India’s Foreign Policy; India’s Foreign Policy after 1962; Foreign Policy undf-r Indira Gandhi;
Policy in Post Janata Period; Foreign Policy under Rajiv; Foreign Policy of National Front Government and Janata (S);
Foreign Policy under S’.irasimh.i Rao, Oitiawr of Foreign Policy; India and the Super Powers; Indut and USA;
Relation after 1962; Relations witn Soviet Union; India and its Neighbours; India dnd Pakistan; India and Nepal; India
and Bangladesh; India and Sri Lanka; India and China; India and Bhutan; India and Burma; India and South-East Asia;
Relations with ASEAN: India and Africa; India’s Economic Diplomacy; india and the Question of Nuclear Weapons;
Efforts at Nuclear Disarmament
1
International Relations Meaning, Nature and Importance
”The study of international relations is not a science with which we solve the problems of interna tional life. At its best
it is an objective and systematic approach to those problems. *.
- Palmer and Perkins
In Modern times the world has greatly shrunk as a result of scientific and technological development As a consequence
events in:one part of the world have an immediate impact on the rest of the world. Therefore the states maintain regular
relations with other states and the study of international relations has assumed great importance. Though some sort of
international relations have been in vogue since earliest times and some of the states like Egypt, China, Greece and
India had evolved code for the conduct of these relations, these rules were essentially based on morality and were not
scrupulously observed by the states. Further these relations generally covered States of the same region and therefore
can more appropriately be described as’regional relations’. It was only in the seventeenth century that the states
established relations with other states beyond the region. This in a way marked the beginning of the international
relations. The improvements in means of transport and communication and the industrial revolution further brought the
states closer and greatly contributed to the development of international relations.’lt may be noted that at that time the
international relations-, were concerned only with the study of diplomatic history, law and philosophy, the study was
mainly based on facts finding and no deductions of any universal principles were made which could be helpful in
understanding of the present or future relations among states. Asaresuit, no well conceived theory could be evolved
which could help in understanding the significance of the current events.
Meaning of International Relations
The term ’International’ was used for the first time by Jeremy Benlham in the later part of the eighteenth century with
regard -to the laws of nations. Consequently, the, term international relations was used tc define the official relations
between the sovereign states. However some scholars even included the economic, social and cultural relations
amongst the states also within the
• purview of the subject. Thus there are broadly two views regarding the meaning
2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
of’international relations. Those who take narrow view assert that international
• relations include only ”the official relations conducted by the authorised leaders of the state” To them the relations
between nations, other than the official rerations, such as trade, financial intercourse, missionary activities, .travel of
students, cultural relations etc. do not fall in the domain of international relations. Prof. Dunn takes a narrow view of
international relations and defines it as ”the actual relations thattake place across national boundaries or as the body of-
knowledge which we have of those relations at any given time.”
On the other hand some scholars have taken a broad view of international relations and included apart from the official
relations between states, all intercourse among states and all movements of people, goods and ideas across the national
frontiers, within its purview. The latter view has found wider favour with various authorities on the subject and they
have accordingly offered definitions of international relations. According to Quincy Wright ”It is not only the nations
which international relations seek to regulate. Varied types of groups-natrons, states, governments, people, regions,
alliances, confederations, international organisations, even industrial organisations, cultural organisations, religious
organisations must be dealtwith in the study of international relations if the treatment is to be made realistic.” Similarly
Hoffmann aiso says ” International relations is concerned with the factors and the activities which affect the external
policies and the powers of the basic units into which the world is divided”. He asserts that the outstanding feature of
international relations is •the decentralised nature of the milieu in which they take place. James Rosenau goes even
further and argues that as the events in the arena of world politics are linked with internal national events and vice
versa, and these relations even overlap each other at points, it is difficult’to draw a boundary line between international
and national relations. ’For example the decision of a country to devatue its currency may be purely a national action,
but it has far-reaching . international implications. Therefore Trygave Mathiesen says, that even internal affairs of the
state fall-within the jurisdiction of international relations. In short, it can be said that international relations do not
cover-only the official relations conducted by the leaders of 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 oilier important groups also exercise influence on the actions of the sovereign states.
International Relations and International Politics
Scholars have tended to’ ignore the distinction between international relations and international politics and treated
them as identical, for example E,H. Ca’rr, and Quincy Wright treat the two as identical. However, certain other
textbook writers have tried to draw a distinction between these two terms. They regard the term ’international relations’
as wider in scope and include in its study the total ity of relations of any people andgroup in the world society. They
include within its purview M aspects of relations between countries and people, political or non-political, peaceful or
war like, legal or cultural, economic or geographic, official cr non-official. In short they use the term, as Harold and
Margaret Sprout
INTfRNAT10NAL RELATIONS-MEANING. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 3
put it ”to designate all human behaviour on one side of a national boundary affecting the human behaviour on Ac other
side of the country.* Since the term ’relations’ has variety of meanings as contacts, connections and action and
reaction, 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. On the other hand the term ’international polities’
connotes the politics of international community in a rather narrow sense concerning mainly diplomacy and the
relations among states and other political units. In short the term ’international relations has a much wider 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. On the other hand international politics
includes only those aspects of international relations in which conflict of purpose or interest is involved. 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 organisations,
cultural institutions, and political personalities of many different countries. When people speak of international
relations, however, they are usually thinking of the relationship between states as such. This is to be expected in view
of the fact that it is 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 states’is described as ’international polities’, that is, the interaction of state policies. Thts is the core of
contemporary international relations.”
Scope of International Relations
The scope of international relations has greatly expandedin Modern times. Initially international relations was
concerned only with the study of diplomatic history. It concentrated on the study of contemporary foreign affairs with a
view to draw certain lessons. Later on emphasis began to be laid oo_the study of international-law and international
relations began to be studied within the framework of international law. The field of the study of international relations
was further widened with the establishment of the League of Nations after the First World War and the study of
international organisations and institutions was also included within its purview.
The scope of international relations in the post World War II period got further widened due to significant changes
which took place, viz., the emergence of USA and USSR as two superpowers; the entry of a large number of
nonEuropean states into the society of nations; the danger of thermo-nuclear war; increasing interdependence of states
and rising expectations of the people in the underdeveloped world, etc. Greater emphasis began to be placed on
scientific study of international relations, which led to development of new methodologies
1. N.). Padelford and C.A. Lincoln, International Politics Foundations of Intemabonaf Relations, pp. 3-5.
4 ” ’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
and introduction of new theories in the study of international relations. The scholars began to study the military
policy of the country as well as the behaviour of political baders. More emphasis began to be laid on area
studies. In the post World War II period the state ceased to be the sole factor in the study of international
retaions and more importance began to be attached to the individual and other corporate sectors.Thus at
present the scopeiof international relations is quite extansive and it embraces the study of diplomatic history,
international politics, international organisation and administration, international law, area studies as well as
psychological study of the motives of member states in their mutual relations. In recent years scholars have also
tried to study the forces underlying the practices of the states and tried to build a comprehensive theory of
international relationships. Scholars are making seriousefforts to utilise tfie social science techniques add
establish verifiable propositions.
Despite enormous expansion in the scope of international relations some writers still hold that as a subject of
study it is *a poor relation of political science and history and is still far from being a well organised discipline.
It lacks clear cut conceptional framework and a systematic body of applicable theory; it is heavi ry dependent
upon other better organised disciplines.” Accortllng to Alfred Zirnrnernythe distinguished Professor of History
who was offered the first chair of International Politics at the University of Wales in 1919, ’from the academic
point of view, International Relations is clearly not a subject in the ordinary sense of the word. It does not
provide a single coherent body of teaching material. It is not a single subject but a bundle of subjects. Of what is
this bundle composed? Of law, economics, political science, geography and so on - but not the whole range of
these subjects.”
Modern scholars are not wiHing to treat international relations as an independent discipline because discipline
implies some sort of unity of subjectmatter and unanimity regarding its scope as well as a good degree of
objectivity. These requisites ofdiscipline are lacking in international relations. Scholars are still divided on the
scope of the subject 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 behaviour. 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.
According to Organski ’Asa science, international relations today is in its infancy, it is still less a science than a
mixture of philosophy and history and art Its theories are few and shockingly un testable. 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)-.with in next few decades the basic foundations of anew discipline will be laid*1.
fNTWNATIONAL RELATIONS-MEANING, NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 5
Significance of Study
In the present day inter-dependent world the study of International relations-has great significance. 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. The study also enables us to have an i nsight in
to the problems facing the world and to face them boldly and confidently.
The s&dy of international relations is also helpful )n bringing home the point that narrow nationalism is the
bane of humanity and poses a serious threat to world peace. It teaches us that so long the various nations try to
view the problems subjectively and give precedence to national interest over all other considerations, conflicts
are bound to arise. If world peace is genuinely desired, an objective outlook is highly necessary.
Thirdly, the study:of internationafralaticns demonstrates dial the traditional concept of national sovereignty has
become outmoded in modern times and needs modifications. No state in Modern times can claim full authority
to act as it likes and has to operate within several constraints inherent in the present international order. The
acceptance of the principles of collective security and disarmament is a clear indication of this change.
Finally, the study of international relations has greatly contributed to the strengthening of feeling among the
member states that they must try to conduct their relations along peaceful lines and avoid military pacts and
alliances. In other words they ha.ve come to realise that they must avoid pol icy of confrontation and adopt
policy of co-operation and co-existence. This change in attitude is likely to go a long way in promoting feeling of
universal brotherhoodfend elimination of wars.
1. A.F.K. Orgahiki, WorM Politics, pp. 4-5.
Nature and Function of Sovereign Nation-State System
”Though the territorial stale as a phys/cJ/’ she-// /M* /vwi shattercdbylheforceofmodemnuclearpliysini.nnihingh.vi
thus far shattered the loyalty of the people to their nation: and so long as this is true, the motives, conduct, pollcy and
pattern of international relations will continue to be a function ofthe .: . behaviour of sovereign states.*’
-Karl W. Deutsch
The nation-state is a dominant feature of the international relations and is one of the major actors on the international
scene. The people al! over the world are divided into number, of groups which live in sovereign states. These states
maintain relations with each other out of sheer necessity. It has been argued that if men were not organised into notions
and willing to obey their government’s Commands no international relations would have been possible. Some scholars
have contended that the nation-state system is fast disappearing and is becoming increasingly inadequate in the present
context on account of the growing interdependence of the people and the imperativesof the nuclear and space age. John
Herz says that the technological revolution of post-war era has rendered the traditional slates <jbsplele because the state
is no longer capable of safeguarding Its citizens in the event of breakout of a war which involves nuclear, psychological
and economic weapons. He holds that soon the present international system would be replaced by a system dominated
by conflicting regional alliances. Similarly, Robert Sjrausz Hupe etc. say that ”the passing of nation-stale system
constitutes the true revolution of our times.” However, this view is not universally shared and has been refuted by a
number of scholars. According to Max Lerner *lt is not tire nation-state lhat is dying, but its untrammelled sovereignty
and the historic pattern of relations between nation states.” Palmer and Perkins also assert thai the state-system ”may be
in its sunset period,but there seems to have been little change in. its basic design, which is the co-existence of a large
number of states, including some pre-eminent military powers, all subject to the drive of their special interests and
emotions, all subscribing to the theory of .sovereignty, and all impelled to develop .national power as the
NATURE AND FUNCTION OF SOVEREIGN . NATION- STATE SYSTEM ’ 7
instrument of their national policies.” Likewise Karl W. Deutsch also says that ”Though the territorial state as physical
shell has been shattered by the force of modern nuclear physics, nothing has thus far shattered the loyalty of the people
to their nation; and so long as this is true the motives, conduct, pol icy and pattern of international relations will
continue to be a function of the behaviour ot sovereign states.” Emphasising the importance of states in international
relation^ Frankel says, their discontinuance might destroy the stability of the international system as a whole and
accentuate the possibility of a war.
Meaning and Origin of Nation-State System
Before we exnmine the nature and working of the modern nation-state system, it shall be desirable to know about its
meaning, origin and development. According to Palmer the nation-state system ”js the pattern of political life in which
people are separately organised into sovereign states that interacl with one another in varying degrees and in varying
ways.” These states are involved in conflict as well as co-operation. For the protection of their respective interesls Ihese
nation state* resort to methods of peaceful persuasion, and when these fail they resort to coercive methods. As such,
each state tries to build up its national power by organising its coercive resources.
Generally, the scholars trace the origin Of state system from the year 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia, which
brought the thirty year war to an end, was signed. No doubt even before that the states existed and entered into relations
with each other, but they were not sovereign states as their authority was restrained by th.e Roman Church and the
Roman Empire. The peace of Westphalia paved the way for the emergence of the-nation-state system by recognising
that the Empire no longer commanded the allegiance of its p^rts and that ihe Pope could not maintain his spiritual
authority every where. In other words, the rulers of a number of countries such,as England, France, Germany, Spain,
etc. shook off the authority of the Pope in religious affairs and that of the Emperor of Rome in secular mailers.
Henceforth, the supreme authority came to be identified with the slate. This meant that each state had the right to utilise
the,strength of the people and its resources as it liked without any restraint from within or from outside. Though
theoretically these states wereeqiial they differed from each other in matters of real powers.
In the course of time the state system underwent further development and changes on account of die rise of
representative government, industrial revolution, •change in population; growth of international law, development of
diplomacy, growing inter-dependence of the states in economic sphere, evolution of methods for peaceful settlement
ofDisputes and the expansion of the state system to non-western World. But the one factor which left most deep impact
on the state system was the emergence of nationalism, which created a strong sense of attachment amongst the people
towards the state. As a resuit an average citizen became more deeply involved in the political life of the country; In the
light of this development it was no mote possible for the statesmen to trade territories on the basis of ancient titles or
strategic considerations. It was generally accepted that Ihe only legitimate basis for*the organisation of the state was
the ethnic or
8 INTERNATIONALRHATIONS
linguistic affinity. As a result a number of multi-national states Uke Russia, Austria-Hungary and Sweden-Norway
faced nationalist insurrection and the movement for national independence gained momentum. This factor of mass
involvement was also used by the govommetits for military and diplomatic bargaining and states often mobilised the
popular support in support of their diplomacy or wars. This involvement of the common citizens also imposed
restrictions on the freedom of actions of government A* a result even the most autocratic regimes had tr_ Uke into
account the public reaction while formulating their diplomacy.
The development of more sophistka ted technique* of military warfare in the nineteenth and the twentieth, centuries
which involved extensive civilian mobilisation also affected the character of the state-system. During this period the
states fought with a view to annihilating the enemy and imposing its political and social institutions upon the defeated
nation.
Thirdly, the risk of ideology ami political doctrines has also transformed the character of the present siate-system. In
the earlier centuries the states werjs mainly motivated by territorial objectives- In the nineteenth century the conflicts
were given ideological colour. Thus most of the wars in Europe in the nineteenth century were fought in support cf the
principle of royal legitimacy against the radical French doctrines. In the Modern century also the various wars were
fought in support of or against a particular ideology such as Nazism) Communism and Liberal Democracy.
Another notable change which took place in the nature of state system . towards the close of the nineteenth century
(even though itsimplicationsbeGame clear only in the present century), was theextension of the European state system
to the rest of the world with the emergence of new political tin its in Asia, Africa and latin America. !n other words the
state-system is now no more confined to Europe alone and extends to the whole’of the world. Thfe number o( the states
has also greatly. muUipliedahd now there are more than 160 aaticw-states.
Contemporary State System
The contemporary nation-state system does not fundamentally differ from the state-system cf the nineteenth century.
As Prof. Holsti has observed ’Despite the great variety of cultural contexts in which relations between states occur
today, some important characteristics of the system represent merely an extension into new areas of the diplomatic,
economic, ideological and militarytraditions of the Europeans. What sets off the contemporary international system
from its European predecessors is the rise in number of states, great capacity for destruction, vulnerabil ity of states to
destruction and subversion and predominant position of influence that has been achieved by three essentially non-
European slates, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the United States.*
Elements of Modern Nation-State
. The ihreemain elements of the modern nation-state system, which also f Of met’ the basis of the state system in the
earlier centuries also, are sovereignty, territo ial integrity and legal equality of the states. Sovereignty implies that the
governments are the supreme law making authorities In their respective
NATURE AND FUNCTION OF SOVEREIGN NATION- STATE SYSTEM 9
territories. This principle was first established by the Treaty of Westphalia which provided that only sovereign states
could enter into treaty relations with each other and a political unit which lacked sovereignty could not become a legal
unit in the system. It could not conclude treaties with other states or become member of international organisation or
claim any other rights available to the sovereign . states under international law. At present times also a political unit
lacking sovereignty has no legal standing among other states. Palmer and Perkins have rightly observed that
sovereignty ”gives the state unique and virtually unlimited authority in all domestic matters and in relation to other
states”. It implies that a sovereign state has a right to govern the territory under its control as it deems necessary and
there is no external restriction on its authority, except the one which it might have accepted under some treaty.
However, in the international context sovereignly would imply only right of self-government and promotion of nation’s
interests through independent foreign policy. It is noteworthy that for the promotion of their national interests the states
have to make several compromises and adjustments with other nations which naturally restricts their absolute
sovereignty. The concep! of state sovereignty in international relations implies the equality of all nations? big or small,
great powers or small powers. Hence, if we take a realistic view, we shall tend to agree with Clyde Eagleton that
”Sovereignty cannot be an absolute terra It is just as foolish to say that sovereignty must be surrendered or eliminated
as to say that it must be absolute and unrestrained.” Despite alt the limitations on sovereignty, it cannot be denied the
”so long as the nation state system remains the basis of the prevailing pattern of international society, the substance of
society will remain.
The second important feature of a nation-state system is territorial integrity which is a logical corollary of the first. A
sovereign state does not like outside interference in its affairs and must therefore abstain from interference in the
internal affairs of other states. The states may influence behaviour of each other through established diplomatic
channels and must respect each other’s territorial integrity.
Thirdly, all the nation slates irrespective of their size, population, military capabilities, economic resources, etc. are
equal members of the international community. This principle of ”equal rights of all the nations large and small” has
been accepted by the UN Charter. It may be noted that this principle of equality of different independent states was
recognised almost at the same time when the nation-stales made their appearance. The various classical writers of the
eighteenth century such, as Pufendorf and Valtel also endorsed the principle of equality of states. For example Vattel
argued that ”all powers in the state of nature are equal, the persons of international law are in a state of nature,
therefore, they are equal.” In the nineteenth century the principle of equality was challenged by positivists who argued
that to assert that a ”state with the thousand inhabitants is equal to a slate with ten million inhabitants-is as false as to
assert that a thousand is equal to a million or that the canton of Geneva is equal to the continent of Europe.” This
inequality amongst states became apparent at the Peace Conference of 1919 when the Great Powers showed a tendency
to take decisions without the consent ”ofTR? small powers. The peace treaty was
negotiated by the Great powers with Germany and the small powers were merely isked to sign it. Under the UN Charter
the principle of equality of nation-states vas again accepted and the international organisation was based on the
principle of sovereign equality of all peace-loving states. This formal assertion >f equality of the sovereign slates by the
’UN Charier did not deter the great powers from asserting their greatness and special status. They impressed on the
small states that they could not make equal contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security and as
such the big powers had special responsibility in the matter. Accordingly they secured permanent seats in the Security
Council and acquired the right to veto important decisions of the Security Council. This virtually tanta.nounted to grant
of right to a murderer to vole on his own guilt. A< no nation could be expected to vote for action against itself in case
of threat la peace,’the organisation was rendered powerless to that extent. No doubt, the’small states were bitterly
opposed to this arrangement but they sccepted it in the hope that they would amend the same in course of time. !n the
light of this we can say that the right of ’sovr-reign equality of the states’ contained in Article 2’of the UN Charter has
virtually become a farce.
It is now admitted at all hands that all the states cannot be treated as equals because they do not possess equal jizo or
resources. Mere assertion of legal equa’ity cannot change the/act. As Samuel Grafton has observed ”Even after you
give the squirrel a certificate which soys he is quite as big as any elephant, he is still going to be smaller, and all the
squirrels will know stand all the elephants will know it. In simple words it means that even if all the states are legally
treated asequal they are not equal on account ot unequal distribution of powers among the states. The more powerful
states have always dominated the international field and a distinction between great powers and small powers has been
made on the basis of their power since the rise of the nation-state system. Generally a state which had general interest
and could protect those interests in all spheres was considered a great power. On the other hand a state which possessed
only . limited power to defend its limited interests was regarded as small power.
In the post ’World War II period a new category .pi states known as Superpowers-made appearance. The two
superpowers which emerged after
1945 were Soviet Union and United States. These superpowers were great powers and possessed great mobility of
power through which they influenced the pattern of international relations. The margin of superiority of the
superpowers over other states continued to increase over the years and the notion of balance of power, which
characterised the relations amongst the statescarlier, underwent a change and gave rise to the bipolar system. Under this
system there wa^ a great . disparity of power between the superpowers and other nation-states. These superpowers were
so much distrustful of each other that they were not willing to co-operate and tended to form blocs. As Aron has put it,
many stales feel that’ their security can be assured by integrating and concerting their behaviour with that of the leading
member of the bloc. After some amount of integration has been
1 reached between the various members of the bloc, it becomes extremely difficult for it.to withdraw. This bi-polar
system aggravated the struggle between the two power-blocs, each trying to secure a preponderant capability vis a vis
its competitor. . , .
NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE SYSTEM
11
In addition to the above two Woes, a large number of states preferred to keep out of these blocs because they
regarded the cold war between the two superpowers as a selfish struggle and did not want to get involved in it.
These non-aligned states tended to act in cooperation with each other and form a sort of bloc. Thus, in Modern
times the nation-states ceased to be important factors in international relations and the bloc factors started
playing more significant role.
Setback to nation-state cyttetn. in the post world war II period the concept ~v of Nation-State System suffered a set-
back- and its basic features underwent a change. The rise of several non state actors and constraints due to spread of
nuclear weapons and inter-dependence among the states, was responsible for weakening the nation-state system. In the
changed context while the role of the states considerably declined the non-state-actors started playing more important
role. The factors.which contributed to the weakening of the traditional statecentric system need further elaboration.
(i) Fifthly the growing interdependence of the states due to communications revolution and increased mobility of the
people ail over the globe, compelled the states to have greater international interaction, andenhancedtheirdependence
on’each other. While the rich nations were dependent on the poor states for raw materials, the poor states were
dependant on the rich and advanced nations for finished products which were badly needed by their growing
population. In view of this growing inter-dependence the states were often compelled to modify their national interests.
This naturally gave set back to the concept of national sovereignty. •
• (ii) Secondly the growing interdependence of the Sates obliged the states to reconcile their national interests and goals
with national interests and goals of other nations. The nation-states were compelled to formulate their goals and
national interests in’such a way that it did not obstruct the achievement of universally recognised objectives of
international relations.
(in) Thirdly, the nation-states to achieve quicker development resorted to integration at the regional as well as
international level, this is evident from the emergence of several regional organisations like EEC, ASEAN, SAARC
etc. These organisations tried to promote greater co-operation among states in the social, economic, cultural and other
fields. This in turn greatly contributed to the dilution of the nation-state system.
(iv) Fourthly, the rise of nuclear weapons has also greatly weakened the nation-state system. In the interest of their
national security, the non-nuclear states have tended to look towards the nuclear states, which has certainly given set-
back to the concept of equality of the states.
(v) Fifthly, the growing role of public opinion, in recent years has also affected the character of the nation-state system.
There have been several instances when the nation-states were forced to make the adjustments in their ._ policy goals
and methods due to pressure of public opinion. It is well known that US was forced to withdraw from Vietnam and
USSR from Afghanistan only on account of strong public opinion within and outside their country.
12
(vi) Sixthly, the concept of equality of nation-states, which was not a reality .even in the classical age of the
nation-state system, has be«n rendered further inoperate in the post world war II period. The international
scene since world war !l had mainly been dominated by two super-powers viz. US and USSR. In addition
Britain, France and China also played more dominant role. In recent years Japan and Germany have
emerged as two strong actors in the international arena, and exercise profound influence in the economic
sphere. Further, the growing dependence of the developing sates on the developed nations further renders
the principle of sovereign equality of nation states in-operative.
(vii) Finally, the growing role played by Multinational Corporations, in the post world -war I! period has
also greatly contributed to the weakening of the nation-state system. Though these Multinational
corporations, are primarily concerned with economic activities and are not formally associated with the
government, they actually play an important role in determining the economic policies and activities of the
third worid countries.
Alkhe above factors have greatly under-mined the concept of nation-state system. In fact some, of the
tritics go to the extent of suggesting that the nationstate system has become obsolete. For Example Herbert
Spire says ”International -» politics today is not conducted between or among nations, nor in its most
important phases even between states.” But this view is refuted by Palmer and Perkins who hold that ”the
nation-state system stillforms political basis and the political framework of international life.* Friedman
has also expressed almost similar views and observed. ”The nation-state still means political and legal
sovereignty, including the right to solve conflict with other nations by war; it claims the loyalties of its
citizens to an extent ultimately incompatible with allegiance to humanity at large and it means a Wast of
economic, social and cultural frontiers in a world which desperately needs understanding among the
ordinary citizens of different nations, strangles the free flow and interchange of ideas as well as of persons
and goods.”
In simple words, the nation-state is still a leading actor in international relations and the citizens of a state
look to it for their defence, well being and as an agency for conflict resolution and crisis management in
international L relations. ’
I
Elements of National Power
”The 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 res/stance to change are advanced.’
. -f.W. Burton
t
Introduction. When we speak of power we do not mean man’s power over nature, or over means of production,
cr over himself, we actually mean man’s control over the minds and actions of other men. When we .speak of
political power we refer to the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and people at
large. Political power and physical force a,«two different things. When violence or physical force becomes the
practical actuality it amounts to negation of power. Physical power can be an instrument of power but 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 of the latter through She influence which
the former exerts over the tatter’s mind.”
Whatever the ultimate aim of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. The statesmen usually
describe their goals in terms of religious, philosophic, economic or social ideal and may try to realize them
through nonpolitical means. But whenever they try to achieve these goals by means of international politics, they
do so by resorting to power. The crusaders wanted, to free the holy places from domination by the infidels.
Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy; the National Socialists wanted to open Eastern
Europe to German colonisation, to dominate Europe and to conquer the world. Since they all chose power to
achieve these ends they were actors on the scene of international politics.”
Domcftk and International Power. There are certain major differences in the role of power in domestic affairs
and in international politics. In civil societies there exist a number of alternatives to violence. Relating that aH
the relations cannot be regulated by physical strength alone, a system of general rules of procedures has been
adoptedt>y each society to redress the wrongs in a nonviolent way. Individuals no longer have the right to take
the law into their own hands, hi International Relations, due to lack of generally agreed upon rules and
1. (Friedman, Introduction to World Politics, P. 35)
1.
I MorgerthMj, Politics Among Nation*., p. 27.
14
devices, the states have to protect their right and to’rectify injuries through use offeree.
Meaning
In a layman’s language it is easy to describe one nation as more powerful than the other but is indeed
difficult to specify asto what that power consists of. For exampie everyone knows that U.S.A. is more
powerful than India. But what is that makes U.S.A. more powerful ? Obviously it is sum total of power
which a country possesses in comparison to the o*her.
The concept of power is quite complex and it i* net «wy to provide a commonly acceptable definition, it
shall, therefore, be desirable to discuss some definitions of power to reach an acceptable conclusion. Prof.
Morgenthau defines polities’ power as ”a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those
over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence
which the former exerts over she tetter’s mind.” He further siates that the struggle for power is unusual in
time and *pace and is at, undeniable fact of experience. Whatever the ultimate aim of international politics,
power is always the immediate aim.’ According to Schwarzenberger ’(he power is the capacity to impose
one’s wii! on others by reliance on effective sanctions in case of non-compliance.’ In the words of
CharlesP. Schlsicher ’power is the ability toexercise such control to make others -do what they otherwise
wou id not do by rewarding or promising to reward them, or by depriving or threatening to deprive them of
something they value’.
In the broad sense, power can be defined as the ability or capacity to control others and get them to do what
one wants them to do and also to see that they do not do what one does not want them to do. Therefore it is
the ability to control the behaviour of other states in accordance with one’s own will. According to
Organski, power is ”the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one’s OWR ends.
Unless a nation can do this she may be large, she may be wealthy she may even be great, but she is not
powerful.” Ebenstein says the ”National power is more than the sum total of population, raw materials and
quantitative factors. The alliance potential of a nation, Us civic-devotion, the flexibility of its Institutions,
its technical know-how, its capacity,to endure privation; these are but a few quantitative elements that
determine the total strength of a nation.” The power plays the same role in international politics as money
plays in market economy.-However, power occupies an important position not only as a means but also as
end. ”Power is both the capstone among the objectives which state pursues and the cornerstone among the
methods which they employ” (Vaman Van Dyke). It is neither good nor evil in itself. ”It is socially and
morally neutral.”
Foundations of Power
What are thelactors which contribute to the foundations of power ? It is often believed that wealth, resources,
manpower and armies are the real foundations of power. 6ut it is not the mere possession of these which makes a
ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER
15
nation powerful. It is the possession of certain elements and their skilful uses which make a nation powerful. Let us
examine those elements which serve as the basis or the foundation of political power.
(i) Geography. The importance of the geographical factor, upon which the power of a nation depends, has been
recognised since ancient times. The geopoliticians, especially Mackineter and Spykman, have attached great
importance to geography. Mackinder said ”who rules Eastern Europe commands Heartland, who rules Heartland ailes
the world islands and who rules world islands rules the world.” Spykman likewise says about Rhineland” who controls
Rhineland rules Eurasia; who controls Eurasia controls the destiny of the world”. Most important among geographical
factors are the size of country, i».s topography and location. The size of territory increases the power of a nation. A
small state cannot become powerful. England was powerful as long as she had colonies. A large state can accommodate
a large population and can also have large” supply of natural resources on this account. In today’s world U.S.A.,
Commonwealth of Independent States, China and India are bound to play effective role in the worW politics on
account of their vast size. No doubt, the large states like Canada with its frozen wastes, Brazil with its jungles and
Australia with its deserts cannot become powerful asa large portion of their territory is not of much use. Vast areas may
also add to a nation’s power by providing military advantages. The size gives a nation room for manoeuvre. Instead of
conquerors swallowing the territory it is rather the territory that swallows the conqueror. Napoleon and Hitler failed
when they tried to occupy Russia. Similarly, China was saved from total disintegration when Japan attacked it in 1937
on account of its vast size.
The large area of the country also helps it to establish vital industrial complexes far from the frontiers and organise
their effective defence.
The influence of climate on national power is also important. Tropical regions and very cold regions are not suitable for
the development of power. The.Y temperate regions are considered the best for the health and energy of the people
which lead to the nation’s productivity, in facial! great civilisations of the world have developed in temperate zones..
Similarly uncertain rainfall and periodic droughts also limit the power of a nation. It makes the country increasingly
dependent on foreign market for food and obstructs the development of national power and adoption of an independent
foreign policy.
Another geographical factor is the location. It determines the country’s security and its spatial relationship with outside
world. England and Japan being islands have been more secure. Similarly, U.S.A. being separated from Europe and
Asia could remain in isolation for a long time. There is a close relation between location and foreign policy. The
Middle East and Continental Europe have been the potential zones of power rivalry because of their geographic and
strategic locations.
Topography or the configuration of land also plays an important role in determination of a nation’s power. Topographic
features determine the natural boundaries between the states and set limit to their natural expansion. Thus Himalayas
have served as barrier between India and China and Chines*
16
expansion into India. Likewise Pyrenees make a fortress out of Spain and the English channel serves as a moat for
England. The topography exercises great influence in Other ways too. The high mountains give adequate rainfall and
act as barriers in trade routes. Likewise large rivers can be helpful in providing cheap and efficient water transport,
good ports and harbour etc. These rivers make the task of road building difficult and cause havoc during floods. In
short, we can say that topography provides the geographical setting of the national state and becomes a vital
determinant of the military and economic power of the state.
However, the geographic factor has lost much of its importance in recent times because of the advancement in science
and technology. According to Pedelford and Lincoln, ”The astronomical impact of technology in areas such as
communication, air mobility, ICBM systems, nuclear weaponry, intelligence gathering, space satellites has drastically
collapsed the strategic obstacles to the projection of national power.”
in) Natural Resources. The natural resources’ and (he raw materials available in a country also greatly contribute to the
national power. While the natural resources are the gifts of nature, the raw materials, are the resulj of human labour.
The natural resources include minerals, flora, fauna, fertility of soil, waterfall, etc. The raw materials include food,
rubber, cotton, etc. However, the natural resources do not by themselves create power. They have to be exploited with
the help of capital, technical know-how and skilled labour. For example though Brazil had rich iron deposits they did
not contribute to her national power till they were exploited with the technical assistance received from U.S. A. Again
the power of a nation does not depend on the availability of one or two natural resources, but on the availability of a
large number of them. In present times raw materials like oil, uranium and atomic energy have also greatly affected the
national power of the country. Another important natural resources is the foodstuffs. The countries enjoying self-
sufficiency in foodgrains are likely to be , powerful. If a country is dependent on foreign markets for the supply of
foodstuffs its independence of action is greatly reduced and its power automatically diminishes. It is well known that
the Allies succeeded in bringing down Germany during World War I because she failed to procure foodgrains from
other countries. In India also the Government could not pursue any vigorous foreign policy so long the country was
dependent for her food supplies on other countries. But once India attained self-sufficiency in food supplies following
the Green Revolution, it showed greater independence of action.
The other raw materials which-arc considered vital for the national power include coal, iron, copper, oil etc; Britain
emerged as a great power during the nineteenth century chiefly because of her industrial development, which was
rendered possible mainly due to presence of coal and iron ores in abundance. In our own times oil has come to be
regarded as an important source of national power. Thecoun tries possessing rich oil deposits have come to occupy a
position of great influence in the international sphere. The strength of U.S.A. and USSR
ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER” 17
is also greatly due to self-sufficiency in oil resources. Of late the natural gas and atomic energy have also come to be
regarded as important sources ”of national power. It may be again reiterated that the mere presence of natura I
resources and raw materials is not enough. They contribute-to the, national power only when they are fruitfully
exploited.
(Hi) Technology. Technology implies the application of science and newer methods of production. In recent years
technology has come to exercise profound influence on the power base of a state as well as the course of international
relations. Technology at least in three spheres: industrial, communications and military, has greatly influenced the
power of the state. The industrial technology adds to the power of the country by enabling it to increase its production
and attaining economic surplus. The transport technology has resulted in improvement in methods of transportation of
ideas, people and goods. It has exercised profound influence on the nature of diplomacy, and thereby affected the
nature of international relations. The diplomats are no longer expected to act on their own and receive full directions
from the Foreign office. The military technology has played even more important role in increasing the power of a
state. It is well known that Britain was able to dominate over vast colonies spread al! over the world chiefly due to her
military •advancement. Similarly, in the post World War II period LISA and Soviet Union were able to acquire
supreme .positions due to their military and industrial $• technology. Similarly, japan emerged as a powerful nation
because of • developments in industrial technology. In short, technological advancement in the various spheres is an
important factor in determining the power of a state.
(iv)Population. The population is another important contributory factor to the national power. Generally large
population is considered a source of stength, but sometimes it can also be 2 source of weakness foe the state. If the state
can utilise its human resources effectively and ensure them a decent standard of living and provide constructive outlets
for their talents a«d energies the large number can be an asset On the other hand if a state cannot provide necessities to
its large population the same is a source of weakness. Generally large population is a source of strength in the
developed countries while in the underdeveloped countries it is a source of weakness. Emphasising the importance of
large population Mussolini once said ’Let us be frank with ourselves. What are
40 million Italians compared with 95 million Germans and 200 million Sarvs ? Give that there are sufficient resources
available in the country the large population can help in increasing the agricultural aswell as industrial production. It is
helpful in raising large armies and acquiring effective hold over conquered territories. According to Morgenthau ’since
size of population is one of the factors apon 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
18
i of growth if the population of its competitor
19
view wHh alarm a declining rate of growth if the population of its competitor tends ID increase more rapidly.
But the stangth of the county does not depend on Ae number of people alone. The quality aithe population.!*
even more important If (he population «rf a country contains too many chiktem and old peopfe they are a
liability in so far as th*y constitute a serious strain on .the economic resources of the country. A coXmtty wkh
large adult population if assured of a strong labour force and can exploit the.avaiiawe resources more
profitably. Similarly, if population, of a country •* engaged in industrial activities the country shall be stronger
than the one who** population is primarily engaged in agriculture. Above all the educational background of the
people also greatly contributes to the national strength. Kite people poMeti greater technical capacity, ability,
they can exerdfe nvw *4l*t3rve control over the forces of nature and contribute to the growth rf«ati4n*lpow«r. t
(v)Natiat»ia*ncter*fidMof&ie. Quantity alone dees not contribute to the natkxlal s*»nftf». Quality of the population
has great bearing on national power, ^•tionaicharacter and national moral’stand out both for theirelusiveness froat the
point of view-of national progress and for their permanent and often decisjv« influence ufxm the weight 3 nation is able
to put into (he scales of internateflnal politic*/ it was aue to the national character of She small European nations that
(or long shey could dominate the targe Asian and African nations. National morale too contributes towards the national
character. National morale if defined as the degraa of determination with which a nation supports the foreign politics of
its government in peace or in war. In the form of public opinion it provide* an rntaogfeb factor without whose support
no government, democratic or Autocratic, w able to pursue its policies with ’full effectiveness’. In the words of Pabww
and Parkins ’Morale is a thing of the spirit made up of loyalty, c«irag«, (aiih, impulse to the preservation of personality
and dignity.’ According to KtofgerOhau ”National morale is the degree of determination with which anation supports
the home and foreign pol Icies of its government in times of peace ot war. It permeates ail activities of a nation,, its
agricultural and industrial production as well as its military establishment and diplomatic service/ In simple words it
refers to the sum total of the individual qualities of men in a nation in the form of their willingness to put the nation’s
welfare above their own regional welfare. It amounts to v/illingness to sacrifice. Studies have been made by the
sociologists and anthropologists with regard to national character- On the basis of these studies we tend to think of
’German in terms of thorough!***, discipline and efficiency, of American and Canadians in terms of
retourceft’lnessand inventiveness and of Russians in terms of relentless persistence and of thl English in terms of
dogged cdmmortsense.” In Russia and’Germany there is a strong tradition of obedience to authority of government and
fear of foreigner* Hence, Germans and Russians could easily switch over to warand tolerate dictatorial regimes of
Hitler and Stalin.
But it would be too much to draw tangible conclusions on the basi* of character traits of certain nations. Natioha!
character and national morale are of elusive and instabte character. The national character.keeps on changing from time
to time. The people are willing to subordinate their personal interests to the nation’s welfare during war period only,
even though this sacrifice is of equal significance during peace times as well. If a country is wrecked by internal
divisions jealousies and dissensions it will either not be able to demonstrate any morale or else if there is any morale it
will not be effective.
(vi) Economic Development. The economic development is another determinant factor of the strength of a country.
Mere possession of raw materials does not make a nation powerful. Much depends on the capacity of the state to
exploit and utilise these resources. For example, U.S.A., C.i.S, as well as India have coal and iron deposits, but lack of
industrial capacity by India has been responsible for her comparative weak position. The country must have surplus
production if it wants to become economically developed. Those nations whose industrial capacity is greater are
considered economically developed and therefore powerful. The decline of France as power in comparison to Germany
• after 1870 was due to her industrial backwardness. Similarly, She Soviet Union became great power after she
acquired; top level industrial capacity and improved her capacity to wage nuclear war. Prof. Margenthau has
emphasised the importance of economic development and the industrial capacity thus: The technology of modern
warfare and communicatioris has made the ovarall development of heavy industries an indispensable element of
national power. The quality and productive capacity of the industrial plant, the knew how of the working man, the skill
of the engineer, the inventive genius of the scientist, the managerial organisation-all these a re factors upon which the
industrial capacity . (economic development) of a nation and hence, its power depend/
(vii) Political Structure. The mere possession of abundance of material and human resources and formation of a good
foreign policy would prove useless if the potential structure or the government cannot play its rote effectively. The
government is required to choose the Objectives and methodsofjitsforeign policy in the light of the power available to
support them with a maximum success, a sort of balance between resources and policy. The next task of government is
to bring the different elements of national power into balance with each other and to ”secure the approval of its people
for its foreign policies and domestic ones designed to mobilise the elements of national-power irs support of them.’
Whatever type of political structure, a country may have it should be conducive to function effectively in the
formulation and execution of foreign policy.
The role of the government does not end with the formulation of the foreign policy. It must put that.policy in effect.
The policy cannotbe effectively executed unless the people of the state cooperate in carrying it out, ’whether as
soldiers, as consumers or merely as tax payers”. Consequently, one of the most important jobs of any government is to
ensure people’s participation. The government can
20
20 ’ • INTERNATIONA^ RELATIONS
arouse popular support through propaganda, through political parties and through bureaucracy.
Once foreign policy s formed and popular support secun^« the job of
translating into action begins. Here top the political institutions ptf Y a vita’role.
The foreign policy can be implemented through peaceful means Jil# negotiations
and persuasion: This task is performed by the diplomats. The dip!ornfcy P^Y*
an important role in this regard and is considered asthe key to pow^- Diplomacy
one might say, ”is the brain of national power, as national mora’6 ’s ’te .soul.”
The government also plays an important role in the natio”’5 economy.
Without the proper political support a Modern industrial system cannot exist.
Further it is the government which controls and directs the militaiY- The control
of government over armed forces is verf essential if the stale has to P*av its ro’e
effectively as an international power.
Mil) Ideological Element, ideas and ideology form the oth<” elements of power. The ideas which a government
holds or supports abPu’ the socioeconomic pattern go a long way in determining the extent of pop”’^ sympathy
and support for it at home and abroad. In the Modern world lh# ideologies of socialism, communism,
democracy, liberalism and rwtiona’’* have an international appeal. Communism for example had won staunch
support in one part of the world white it had aroused antagonism and hostility m tne otner •’» now on the
decline.
Ideology is defined by Pedelford and Lincoln ”as” a &<**¥ <* ideas concerning economic, social and
political values and goals whicn P056 action prograoMTsefor attaining these goals.” Ideology proceeds
with cerW’n assumptions about the nature of man and builds up a theory of human historf*a moral code of
conduct, a sense of misaionand a programme for action. It isa11 action related system oi ideas based on a
definite view of the worfd. The id«ol°gy g|ves unity tonation and a sense of common interest to people.
Italsohelps^S0*,61?111 in finding suj-’ ^crtfrom the people. Ideologies also serve as good*eaP°n to raise”
the morale of the people. . • •. .
The ideology is closely linked with national power.’Most 0* &* ideologies are concerned with the
achievement of power as the immedia? g03’ <* foreign policy by explaining and justifying it in ethical,
legal and bioto|j’ca’ terms. They are also used as a cover to hide the real nature of the objectives^3 foreign
policy. The ideology can be an effective instrument in forging unity amc^ various states professing faith in
similar ideologies and thus contribute to theennancernen*°f their power. It. is well known that Germany,
lialy and Japan folded an alliance against democratic countries during the inter-war period. He*yever’
ideology _, alone is not a binding factor because countries may concludea”’ances ê” ’f they hold faith in
different ideologies if the national interests50 demand. For example during Second World War USSR
joined hands with ^SA< Frar»ce and Britain and fought against fascist powers even iheugh they belied in
different ideologies.*) recentyears also Soviet Union and United States Become closer
21
despite differences in their idiologies. In fact the ideological barriers which divided these two super-powers since
the close of the Second World War, have started breakingup. .
(ix) Leadership. The quality and wisdom of leadership, both political and literary, is another important element
of power. In every political system important and crucial decisions are taken by political leaders. They have to
determine the proportions in which the allocation of resources should be’made between military and civilian
programmes. They decide the nature of relations with other states and declare war and conclude peace or
treaties of friendship. Their decisions if successful create direct impact on the power of the states. ’A country is
bound to be stronger and more powerfu I if its leaders have the strength of wisdom and intelligence’. .The word
intelligence needs further elaboration. It does not mean the mental ability of political leaders but the activity
designed to produce knowledge, a knowledge which contributes to the wisdom of governmental decisions
covering foreign affairs. The knowledge amounts to objective understanding of die relative strength and
weakness, vis-a-vis the home state. This knowledge is a power and is most important, particularly in times of
war. A government which lacks the knowledge would run the risk of heading towards a catastrophe. The
leadership must be possessed of both the ’wisdom’ and the ’knowledge’. The leaders can also greatly contribute
to the boosting of national morale during times of crises. History is replete with numerous examples to show that
the leaders succeeded in rousing their people as one man to give a concerted fight and brought laurels to their
country. During First World War President Wilson of USA won the’support ofAmerican people by giving the
projection that USA had joined the war to make the world safe for democracy’. Like-wise, during Second World
War Roosevelt won the support of ’ his people by highlighting Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Emphasising
the . important role of leadership Palmer and Perkins say ”without leadership people. cannot even constitute a
state; without it there can be no well-developed or integrated technology and without it morale is totally useless,
if indeed it can exist at all.” ,
(x) Military Preparedness. This factor has been recognised as element of power since the earliest times. Military
preparedness is the most apparent and tangible factor capable of supporting the foreign policy and promoting
national interest The technological innovation, leadership and quantity and quality of armed forces are vital
factors in the military preparedness of state. The technology of warfare have mostly determined the fate of
nations for which the inferior side was unable to compensate in other ways. For example, during early phase of
First World War, Germany gained superiority over British because of the use of submarines. In the same way
today the nations which possess the nuclear weapons have an advantage over their competitors.
~••• - ’- ”’-^
1. Palmer and Perkinf, International Relations, p.88. v

22
INTERNATONAl RELATIONS
The quality of military leadership is another (actor which hat alwaysexercised a decisive influenceupon national
power. The power of Ruiaia hi the
18th centurywasaretlection of the military gento of F^^ early 19th century Nepoieon displayed superior military
leadership and emerged victorious everywhere. Quantity and quality of armed tercet is the moat important
factor in th is direction. A nation to be strong must possess a sufficient army composed of highly trained and
heavily armed units. A small army may not prove to be effective. Similarly, a vary large army, ill-equipped and
ill-trained also proves weak.
(xi) Diplomacy. Finally, the national power of a country ’» greatly determined by the quality of diplomacy
perSued by the state. According to Morgenthau’ it is the quality of a nation’s diplomacy which gives ’direction
and weight/ to other elements of national power. A good diplomacy can, bring the different elements of national
power to bear maximum effect upon those points in the international situation which have a direct bearing on
the national interesU,Morgenthauhighlighutheimportanceofdipk)rracythii«T)ip!omacy ... 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 .a diplomacy commensurate with them,
may achieve temporary successes through the sheer weight of its natural assets, in the long run, it is likefy to
squander the natural assets by activating them incompletely, haltingly and wastefuily for the nation’s
international objectives,* However, this view of Morgenthau is not universally shared. A sizeable number of
scholars hold that diplomacy has considerably lost its importance in recent years due to the development of
rapid means of communications which has reduced the diplomats to the position of dignified clerks. Further the
impact of public opinion and the emergence of open diplomacy has also greatly contributed to the reduction in
importance of diplomacy No doubt, in our times diplomacy has suffered a setback due to above noted factors,
but it still piays an important role in promoting the national interests. Palmer and Perkins have rightly observed
’Diplomatic effectiveness, like military effectiveness, is a combination of various elements of national power.
Both of them are likefy to be measured by the skill or genius of individuals. An astute diplomacy often achieves
success out of proportion with a state’s power potential, just as brilliant generalship may win victories.that upset
all sober calculations. One might conclude that diplomatic and military talents ought to be regarded as more or
less distinct elements of national power.” . •
Evaluation of National Power ..’.-.-
; The task of evaluation of power is quite difficult because so many tangible factors are involved in the
measurement of a nation’s power. The result of war
ELEMENTS Of NATIONAL POWER 23
cannot provide an adequate criterion of power because power in the war is not the only kind of power. A nation
may be powerful otherwise but may be defeated in the war. One cannot depend upon the results of war as a
criterion of the measurement of national power. A victorious nation is not necessarily a powerful
• nation. According to Prof. Morgenthau the nations commit three %yjjes of errors in evaluating their own
power and the power of other nations, viz.. the relativity of power, the permanency of a certain factor and the
fallacy of the .ingle factor. When we say that one nation is powerful and the other nation is weak we always
irnph/a comparison. In other words the concept of power is always »relative one. One of the most elementary
and frequent errors committed by the states is that they neglect the relative character of power and treat it in
absolute terms. If a particular nation ispowerfu I today it may become relatively weak tomorrow and some other
nations may emerge powerful. This fact must be borne in mind while making evaluation of power.
Secondly, it is wrong to assume that the factors of national power are permanent and immune from change. On
the other hand these factors undergo constant change. Therefore, one should never view a particular factor as
the source of power of a nation in the dynamic, ever-changing character of the power relations between nations.
The third typical error made in assessing the power of different nations is the undue weightage attached to a
single factor and the neglect of the others. Such single factor can be militarism, geopolitics or nationalism.
Geopolitics is a pseudo science erecting the factor of geography into an absolute that is supposed to determine
the power. Similar errors are committed when reliance is made upon the other single factors lfke militarism or
even nationalism.
Thus we see that the task of evaluation of power is not so simple and miscalculations can prove disastrous.
Underestimation of one’s own power and overestimation of that of other lead to policies of peace and status quo
while oyerestimation of one’s own power and .underestimation of that of other leads to policies of war.
limitations on National Power
After examining the various elements of national power, it shall be desirable to examine the factors which limit
the powers of state. The most important {imitations on the national power are the balance of power;
international moraiity; world public-opinion; international law and the United Nations. Let us examine these
limitations in some details.
(I) The ba/ance of power. The balance of power means checking power with power, Like checks and balance in
domestic politics, in the field of international politics also the power of one nation or a group of nations is used to
prevent a particular nation from imposing its will upon others. The common patterns of balance of power are
direct opposition and the pattern of competition. In the former, one slate offers direct opposition to the other
state with a view to
22 INTERNATIONAL REUTJONS
The quality of military leadership is another factor which hat ahVaytexercised a decisive inftuenceupon national
power. The power of Runic in th»
18th century was a reflection of the military genius of Frederick die Great to th» early 19th century Nepoleon
displayed superior military leaderahlp and errwyd victorious everywhere. Quantity and quality of armed force*
it the moot importamfactorinthMirertion. A nation tp be strong nri^ army composed of highly trained and
heavily armed units. A small army may not prove to be effective. Similarly, a vary large army, ill-equipped and
ill-trained also proves weak.
(xi) Diplomacy. Finally, the national power of a country is greatly determined by the quality of diplomacy
penued by the state. According to Morgenihau it is the quality of a nation’s diplomacy which gives ’direction
and weighf to other elements of national power. A good diplomacy can, bring the different elements of national
power to bear maximum effect upon those points in the international situation which nave a direct bearing on
the national interests, Morgenthau highlights theimportance of diplomacy thus ”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 .a diplomacy commensurate with them,
may achieve temporary successes through the sheer weight of its natural assets, fn the long run, it is likely to
squander the natural assets by activating them incompletely, haltingly and wastefully for the nation’s
international objectives.’ However, this view of Morgenthau is not universally shared. A sizeable number of
scholars hold that diplomacy has considerably lost its importance in recent years due to the development of
rapid means of communications which has reduced the diplomats to the position of dignified clerks. Further the
impact of public opinion and the emergence of open diplomacy has also greatly contributed to the reduction in
importance of diplomacy. No doubt, in our times diplomacy has suffered a setback due to above noted factors,
but it still plays an important role in promoting the national interests. Palmer and Perkins have rightly observed
’Diplomatic effectiveness, like military effectiveness, is a combination of various elements of national power.
Both of them are likely to be measured by the skill or gen ius of individuals. An astute diplomacy often achieves
success out of proportion with a state’s power potential, justas brilliant generalship may win, victories that upset
all sober calculations. One might conclude that diplomatic and military talents ought to be regarded as more or
less distinct elements of national power.”
Evaluation of National Power
: Thetaskofevaluationofpowerisquitedifficultbecausesomanytangible. factors are involved in the

measurement of a nation’s power. The result of war
(ELEMENTS Of NATIONAL POWER 23
cannot provide an adequate criterion of power because power in the war is not the only kind of power. A nation
may be powerful otherwise but may be defeated in the war. One cannot depend upon the results of war as a
criterion of the measurement of national power. A victorious nation is not necessarily a powerful nation.
According io Prof. Merger*thau the nations commit three types of srrors in evaluating their own power and the
power of other nations, viz , the reladvity of power, the permanency of a certain factor and the fallacy of the
single factor. When we say that one nation is powerful and the other nation is weak we always imply a
comparison. In other words the concept of power is always »relative one. One of the most elementary and
frequent errors committed by the states is that they neglect the relative character of power and treat it in
absolute terms. If a particular nation is powerfu I today it may become relatively weak tomorrow and some
other nations may emerge powerful. This fact must be borne in mind wh ile making evaluation of power.
Secondly, it is wrong to assume that the factors of national power are permanent and immune from change. On
the other hand these factors undergo constant change. Therefore, one should never view a particular factor as
the source of power of a nation in the dynamic, ever-changing character of the power relations between nations.
The third typical error made in assessing the power of different nations is the undue weightage attached to a
single factor and the neglect of the others. Such single factor can be militarism, geopolitics or nationalism.
Geopolitics is a pseudo science erecting the factor of geography into an absolute that is supposed to determine
the power. Similar errors are committed when reliance is made upon the other single factors like militarism or
even nationalism.
’” *
Thus we see that the task of evaluation of power is not so simple and miscalculations can prove disastrous.
Underestimation of one’s own power and overestimation of that of other lead to policies of peace and status quo
while overestimation of one’s own power and .underestimation of that of other leads to policies of war.
limitations on National Power
After examining the various elements of national power, it shall be desirable to examine the factors which limit
the powers of state. The-most important limitations on the national power are thebalance of power;
international morality; world public opinion; international law and the United Nations. Let its examine these
limitations in some details.
(i) The balance of power. The balance of power, means checking power with power. Like checks and balance in
domestic politics, in the field of international politics also the power of one nation or a group of nations is used to
prevent a particular nation from imposing its will upon others. The common patterns of balance of power are
direct opposition and the pattern of competition. •» the former, one state offers direct opposition to the other
state with a view to
1
.• . • /
preserve status quo. In the latter, two nations compete with each other to establish control over the third nation.
The other common methods used to maintain the balance of power are ’divide and rule’, compensations and
acquisitions, armaments and intervention, alliances and counter alliances and buffer state formation. They are
discussed in detail in one of the subsequent
chapters.
(ii) International Morality. Power fs a crude and unreliable method of limiting the aspirations for power on the
international scene. Had the struggle for power taken independent course it would have resembled the
Hobbesian ’state of war7 and ’might would have been the right’. But in the civilised world the struggle for
power cannot go unchecked as it is bound to lead to disruption of society and enslavement and extinction of the
individual. To preserve the
• society certain moral precepts have been put forward wh ich the ’statesmen and diplomats ought to take to
heart in order to make relations between notions more peaceful and less anarchic, such as keeping of promises,
trust in the others’word, fair dealing, respect for international law, protection of minorities, repudiations of war
as an instrument of national policy, etc.’ That limits the actions of statesmen and diplomats. They do not pursue
certain ends and use certain means .because of moral limitations. Thus this type of norms of morality impose
limitations on the use of power a country possesses to achieve the desired goals. All states are expected to
observe universally accepted moral code of conduct. This universal code is often described as international
morality.
(Hi) the World Public Opinion. Another limitation on the. power of a nation, which is more elusive and lacks
analytical precision, is the concept of world public opinion. No nation can exercise the power at its disposal to
secure its selfish ends in violation of the world public opinion. Accord ing to Morgenthau ”World public opinion
is obviously a public opinion that transcends national boundaries and that unites members of different nations
in a consensus with regard to at least certain fundamental international issues.” This world public opinion
effectively guardsthc interests of the humanity as a whole whenever any government or nation executes a
particular foreign policy which is against the interest of mankind.
Another question which pose* itself is that does such a public opinion exist and does it exert a restraining
influence upon the foreign policies of national government ? The answer is both negative as well as positive.
Modern history testifies that the world public opinion had never acted as a deterrent against any ’ state which
insisted on following a particular policy. The kalian attack against Ethiopia in 1936 and Russian suppression of
Hungarian revolution in 1956 can be cited as examples, where the public opinion failed to restrain these powers.
But this is one side of the picture..The other side of the story is that the answer to the above question can be
given in the affirmative. Us proponents quote the example of the formation of League of Nations which was the
result of the world public opinion. Similarly, Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points, which were the
25
basis of the peace talks at the end of the First Worid War and were accepted by nearly the entire human ity
regardless of national boundaries as principtesfor just and enduring peace settlement Thece examples clearly
prove that there existed a world public opinion.
(iv) International Law. Another limitation of national power is the international law. As there are rules for the
human conduct in all societies, similarly in the society of nations there exists moral and legal norms, for the
regulation of the conduct of nations. The sum total of these norms is know.t as International Law. In the field of
international relations, the execution of national policy for the fulfilment of the national interests requires the
use of force. The most common method of use of force is war or threat of war. If each nation uses its power in
unlimited terms against her neighbour-or opponent, the world society would come to an end. There would be no
peace or stability. It would be perpetual state of war and the life would become ’nasty, brutish and short’. There
would be no progress in the field of art or literature,, science or technology. To overcome all this a code of
conduct in the nature of international law is necessary to limit the national power. International law in the strict
sense is not a law, because of certain inherent deficiencies likethe absence of a common law making,
lawenforcingorlawadjudicatingbody. l»s implementation is dependent , on the will of the states. The
implementation of these laws by consent or use of external force limit the scope of use of national power by any
state.
Further the international law permits the formation of arrangements called collective security by a group of
nations to oppose collectively, in case a particular nation or another group of nations possessed of preponderant
power, to jeopardise their independence. Here also the object of international law was to impose such limits on
the exercise of national power by virtue of which the international society remains intact. •
(v) Disarmament. Efforts at disarmament through League and U.N. have also limited the national power. This
aspect has acquired much importance in our days. An effort has been made through various conventions to
control the use of nuclear weapons which have the potentialities to destroy the en tireworld. This has inevitably
resulted in the curtailment of the national power.
(vi) International Organisation. Jbeformationcf international organisations like the League of Nations and the
United Nations has also restrained the power of the states. To understand this point it shall be desirable to have
an idea of the objectives of the U.N. which inter alia stipulate ”to maintain internal peace and security and to
that end to take effective-collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats of peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression 01 otfter breaches of peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of inU -national
disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.*
The states are expected to act in accordance with the principles stated in the Charter. It is true that United
Nations cannot intervene in the internal matters of any state except when tljey pose a threat to the peace, but it
certainly acts as
a check on the unfair and unlimited use of power by the states and hence is a limitation on national power.
the record of United Nations since its establishment shows that the organisation has done commendable work
not only in the direction of preserving the peace of the world but also limiting the ambitions of the superpowers.
It is a world forum where the individual grievances can be ventilated in public. It is relevant to mention here
that the open forum helps the formation of the public opinion. The operation of the United Nations since 1945
shows that in quite rany cases it restrained the big powers from coming into open conflict However, it cannot be
denied that the efficacy of United Nations was limited in situations where the super powers were on opposite
sides of the conflict. But /vhen the two super powers worked with consensus, as in the castf of Gulf Crisis, he
Uniied Natrons proved very effective. Regarding the future rote of United Nations it can be said that after the
end of the cold war arid the collapse of iipolarity which has rendered the regional organisations ineffective in
dealing
- >viththechallengesofrealpoliUc,theUnitedNationsstillappearstobethehope jf mankind, in future also it is
expected’tp play an important role with regard to jeace -keeping operations, sharpening coordination with
regional bodies, removal if causes of tension and helping in rebuilding shattered economies. However, *hile
doing a|| this the UK is expected to respect the sovereignty of the states.
.;-^^--
••^1 •*
National Interest
”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 statemen!, although the propriety of its
application to 9 particular instance may call for demonstrations ...it is just as true now as ever that tt is vain to
expect governments to set continuously on any other ground than national interest. They have no right to do so,
being agents and principals.”
-AHndT.Mahan
The concept of national interest is very vague and carries a meaning 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, HansMorgentha.u
who has dealt with the concept in his various writings also used the term ’national interest’ in different ways and
assigned variety of meanings. The use of terms like common Interest and conflicting interest, primary and
secondary interest, inchoate interest, community of interests, identical and complementary interests, vital
interests, material interests, etc. by Morgenihau in his Writings further atfds to the confusion. The problem of
defining the concept is also complicated by the fact thsS researchers have tended to give the definitions cf
national interest according to the particular approach adopted by them. Frankel divides the various approaches
adopted to define the concept of national interests into two broad categories~-objecttvist and subjectivisi. !n the
first category he includes all those approaches which view national interest us a concept which can be defined or
examined with theneip of some definable criteria. In the second one he includes those dtrfinJticm which seek to
Interpret national interest as a ’constantly rhartging pluralistic set of subjective references.’1
But probably the rnosi important reason which has added to the confusion regarding the frteaning of fhe concept cif
nation&l interest is the disagreement between those who view it in brosd sense snd Jhose who conceive it in terms of a
number of concrete single interest ’Generally the decisions ait Irre operational ievei *re concerved in a narrow cor.text
and only few dimensions are taken into
1. Joseph Frankel, National Intends, pp. 16-5 7.

28
INTERNATIONAL RELATlO,
account At this level the process of reasoning is inductive while at other level* it becomes more deductive. Again
the people with theoretical inclination take greater interest in the aggregate, while those with scientific bias lay
more emphasis on the single dimension of the. concept. As a result of all these difficulties the concept of national
interest has got confused and various mean ings have been assigned to it. In v iew of the vagueness of the concept
some scholars like Raymond Aron have gone to the extent of suggesting that it is a meaningless or a pseudo-
theory.
However,, some of the definitions given below will help in clarifying the concept of national interest. Brooking’s
Institute defined national intend as ”the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts.” Charles Lerch” -
»nd Abul Said define it as ”the general long-term and continuing purpose which the,state, the nation, and the
government all see themselves as serving.”1
Dyke describes national interest as an interest which the states seek K> protect or achieve in relation to each
other. An analysis of the above definition will highlight the difference of approach. While the.first two
definitions interpret national interest in terms of permanent guide to the action of the state, the definition of
Dyke mainly refefs to national interest as an action. Obviously, the first two definitions seem to be more logical.
„
Development of theConcept of National Interest The concept of nationa I interest is comparatively a new
concept. In the ancient and the medieval times also the states pursued certain substantial interests 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 etc. conformed to these principles. However with
the emergence of, the secular power Church began to be looked upon as the enemy of national interest and the
national interests were equated with the interests of the prince of the ruling dynasty. At that time the national
interest meant the interest of a particular monarch in holding fast to the territories he already possessed, in
extending his domains and in aggrandizement of his house.. 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
’honour of the Prince was replaced by the honour of the nation’. Thus the concept passed from the feudal and
monarchical system to the republic.and democratic system and soon gained a common usage in the political and
diplomatic literature. In short, the term ’national interest’ gained currency only with the emergence of the
national state system, increase in popular political control and the .great expansion of economic relations.
The Kinds of National Interest An examination of the various kinds of national interests will further help in
clarifying the concept itself. According to Thomas W. Robinson, the national interest, can be broadly classified
into six
1. Chartes O Lerehe, Jr. and Abol A. Said, Coo«ptf or”M«w>aJwrw/flp/JOa, p. 6.
NATIONAL INTEREST
29
categories, viz., primary interest, secondary interest, permanent interest, variable interest, general interest, and
specific interest1 Let us examine the various kinds of interests in some details.
The Primary interests of a nation include the. preservation of physical, political, and cultural identity of the state
against possible encroachments from outside powers. Those interests are permanent and the state must defend
them at all costs. No compromise of these interests is possible. „
The Secondary interests though less important than the first one are quite vital to the existence of the state. These
include the protection of the citizens abroad and ensuring.of diplomatic immunities for<he diplomatic staff.
Thirdly Permanent interests refer to the relatively constant and long-term interests of the state. The change in
the permanent interests, if any, is rather slow. An example of this type of national interest is provided by the
determination of Britain to maintain freedom of navigation during the past few centuries for the protection of
her overseas colonies and growing trade.
Fourthly, the Variable interests refer to those interests of a nation, which a nation considers vital for national
good in a given set of circumstances. In this sense the variable interest can diverge from both primary and
permanent interests. The variable interests of a state are largely determined by ”the cross currents of
personalities, public opinion, sectional interests, partisan politics, and political and moral folkways.” • ’
Fifthly, the General interests of a nation refer to those positive conditions which apply to a large number of
nations or in several specified fields such as economics, trade, diplomatic intercourse etc. For example it was the
general national interest of Britain to maintain balance of power on the European continent.
Finally, Specific interests through the logical outgrowth of the general interests are defined in terms of time or space.
For example, Britain has considered ita speciftt national interest to maintain the independence of the Low countries for
the sake of preservation of balance of power in Europe.
In addition to the above six types of national interests Prof. Robinson refers to three other interests which he describes
as ”international interests”. These include the identical interests, complementary interests and conflicting interests. The
Identical interests refer to interests which are held in common by a number of states. For example both U.S.A. and
Britain have been interested that Europe should not be dominated by any single power. The. Complementary interests
of-.. the nations refer to those interests, which though not identical, can form the basis of agreement on some specific
issues. For example Britain was interested in the independence of Portugal against Spain because she wanted to control
the reign of the Atlantic Ocean. Likewise, Portugal was interested in the British maritime hegemony.because this was a
safe means of defence against Spain. The interests other than the identical and the complementary interests fall in the
category of
1. Thomas W. Robinson, ’National Interest’ in )nmest<i.Rcnenau.lnternatioralPolitirs and Foreign Policy, pp. 184-85.
30
NATIONAL INTEREST
31
Conflicting interests. It may be noted that the conflicting interests are not fixed and undergo a change due to the
force of events and diplomacy. Thus, the present time conflicting inierests may become complementary interests.
Likewise, the complementary and identical interests can also get transformed into conflicting interests.
Methods for the Promotion of National Interests •
Generally the states adopt the following methods for the promotion of their national interests.
1. Coercive Measures. Coercive measures are one of the most popular method for the promotion of national
interests, whic.h have been frequently used by the states. According to Beard the coercive measures adopted by
the states tor the enforcement of national interest broadly fall into two categories (a) the measures taken within
the state which do not infringe directly upon the state against whom they are taken and (b) measures directly
operating against the state which are the object of enforcement procedure. The acts failing in the first category
are of negative character, even though they may produce positive effect Some of the important measureslaken
by the state which fall in this category include acts of non-intercourse, embargoes, boycots, retaliation and
reprisal, severance of diplomatic relations etc. Any one or all of these measures can be employed by the stale for
the advancement and enforcement of its national interest It may be observed that even though these measures
are considered coercive they are non-violent in character and do not produce any international crisis. On the
other hand the measures operating directly upon the state to be influenced or coerced, actually involve the use of
physical force. These measures are of quite a wide range and include actual display of force. •History is replete
with numerous examples when different states resorted to the display of force to enforce their national interest
Apart from use of force, the state can take certain measures on its own soil to advance its national interests
which ultimately operate against the enemy state. These include action like seizure and confiscation of the
property df the offending state or its objects by ypty of compensation n vj Jue for the wrong, suspension of
operation of treaties, embargo of ships belonging to the offending states ry iog within its ports, secure of ships it
sea etc. All these methods are prima facie act of war and the state against whom they are’directed has to
determine whether it wants to give the developments the shape of war or not. In extreme form these measures
can take the shape of actual bombardment of coastal areas or military occupation of art inland centre.
2. AHiancss, Alliances are generally concluded by two or more nations-for the protection and prorpotion of commou
interests. As a result of the alliance the
protection of these common interests becomes a legal obligation which the member states are duty bound to
discharge. These alliances may be concluded for the protection of a large variety of national interests and their
nature depends on the nature of the interest sought to be protected. Thus the nature and the duration of the
alliance will depend on the relative strength of those interests. According to Prof Robinson ’the advantage of
pursuing the national interests through alliances, of course, lies in the translation of inchoate, common or
complementary interest into common policy and in bringing the nation’s power directly to bear on questions of
nationaf interest.”
Prof. Mbrgenlhau has adduced the following propositions regarding the relations of alliance to national
interests.2 ; 1. Thedegreeof generality of common interests expressed in alliance are
’ related to the duration of the alliance. Thus the general alliances will
*? ’ be of short duration white the limited-alliances shall be long-lasting. :>! 2. The relative degree of primacy of
national interests expressed in an
t jrij alliance is inversely proportional to the power of the nation. Thus a j-ji, weak and a strong nation will enter
into alliance to defend the primary
^ and secondary interests respectively.
3. The weaker partner of alliance is dependent on the stronger one and is tolerated as long as there is complete
identity of interests between
*’ ” the two.
4. Evenifanatlianceisbasedonequalityitwillnotsucceedunlessthere is identity of interests.
’ f5. A one-sided alliance, in which one party receives the benefits and th«> s: t other party carries most of the
burden, can be concluded only if there ,,;;..,• are complementary interests.
. 6. The degree of cohesion of an alliance depends on the community of interests felt by the participants.
7. It is not essential that every community of interests should be given the shape of an alliance because the legal
ties between two nations cannot overbalance the national interests of the nation.
8. Ideology can help in strengthening the bonds of an alliance provided the a! Ihnce 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.
9. Finally, the alliances built by She nations against a third country or common enemy are generally vague and
lack concrete objectives.
3. Diplomatic Negotiations. Diplomatic negotiations are another important methodforthe protection of national
in’.erest. Generally diplomatic negotiations are used to reconcile the divergent interests of the state through process of
’mutual’give and take.” !t may br noted that diplomatic negotiations prove fruitful only if the interests of concerned
states are complementary or compatible.
- IM ^ 137 : •; : -
2. Quoted in Ibid, pp. 187-88.

32
In such cases an agreement can be reached through mutual bargaining. On the • other hand in the case of incompatible
or conflicting interests negotiations are virtually impossible.
In addition to the national interests the states must try to protect certain common interests in the larger interests of the
international community. For example, they must avoid use of nuclear weapons and not resort to-war in view of the
highly destructive nature of these weapons. They must realise that the outbreak of a war will not only mean the
possibility of their defeat in*the’ traditional sense but also destruction of the domestic society and civilization. They
must prefer diplomacy over war. . . .
4. Economic Aid. This method of promotion of national interest can be made use of only by the affluent and developed
states. Such states provide economic aid and loans to the poor and less developed countries to promote their national
interests. It is well known that US provided enormous economic aid under Marshall Plan to enhance its influence in
Europe. Likewise, Soviet Union also used this instrument to preserve her interests in Eastern Europe. In the Middle-
East the OPEC countries used export of oil to secure support for their
interests. •
5. Propaganda. Propaganda can be used as an effective instrument for the promotion of national interests. In the words
of Frankel ’Progaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions and actions of a given group for a specific
public purpose’. The importance of Propaganda as .a method has
’ greatly increased in recent years due to revolution in the means of communications. Realising the importance of this
instrument most of the states maintain Cultural Attachees and Information Centres in foreign countries.
6. Collective Security. The system of collective security, which operates on the principle that international peace and
security is the common objective to be secured by all the states through collective action against any violation of
internal peace and security, also restricts the national power. Due to presence of system of collective security, each
state is restrained from taking any action which violates the freedom, sovereignty or territorial integrity of another state,
due to the realisation that any such action taken by it would be met by the collective power of all other states.
Thus we find that the National Power is. limited by several factors and is . not absolute.
NATIONAL INTEREST
National Interests and Foreign Policy
33
Another proposition which deserves attention is as to how far the national interests influence the formulation of the
foreign policy of a country. Though the states generally do not publically admit that their foreign policies are based on
their self-interest, sometimes responsible people have admitted this fact. For example Hughes, American Secretary of
State admitted in the 1920’s that ”Foreign policies are not abstractions but the results of practical concepts of national
interest.” Margenthau in his article ”Another Great. Debate: The National Interest of United States’” also asserts that
the foreign policy ”seeks the defence of the national interest by peaceful means’* and to defend the national interest
restrictively and rationally defined ”against the national interests of other nations which may or may not be thus
defined”. Another scholar has observed ”national leaders as a rule never pursue national policies that are in the interest
of any nation other than their own.” Different national interests may overlap or be in harmony with one another but no
president, prime minister or foreign secretary in full possession of his faculties-especially sense of his own political and
personal survival would openly and knowingly initiate or implement policies that would favour another nation and
damage his own1. He further asserts ”In planning, formulating, adopting and executing foreign policy, national leaders
and their aides are confronted with a veritable spider’s web of 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 intentions must be properly evaluated. In short, it has been asserted that the national interest is the predominant
factor in the formulation of a country’s foreign policy.
On the other hand Prof. Reynolds is of the view that is not always possible to base the foreign policy of a state on its
national interests alone. He argues 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
Ivo. D. Duchacek, Nations and Men-International Politics Today, p. 187. Ibid., p. 188.
34 ’ . INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
interests of the various nations are of a heterogeneous character. As each state shall try to resist the imposition
of the alien values this is inevitably likely to lead to a.war. As Reynolds puts it ’Since self extending hetrogeneous
values of unlimited range must almost certainly lead to major armed conflict, national interests musl require
their limitations. National interests cannot, therefore, always in all circumstances be identified with the values of
the commun ity; and when to this is added disagreement about the basic general purposes for which humans
exist... the difficulty of giving any generally applicable empirical content to the*notions of national interest
becomes apparent.””
Even if it is admitted that the national interest occupies a prominent position in the foreign policy of all
countries, the leaders of the state-do not necessarily always try to promote the national interest alone. Quite
often they use foreign policy as a tool to strengthen their internal position. For example, Sukarno of Indonesia
diverted the attention of the people from the acute economic and social problems by adopting the policy of
confrontation towards Malaysia. Likewise, Pakistan has consistently raised the boggy,of danger from India to
divert the attention of people from the international problelms.
Again, the vagueness of the concept of national interest makes the things quite difficult Quite often the national
interest comes to be equated with the maintenance of the existing political institutions even at the cost of the
interests of the general people. For example, the statesmen normally assume that the
• survival of the state, over which they preside, is the supreme national interest Logically it may not always be
so. For example if attempts to preserve the state lead to the destruction of its people, then these attempts could
not be in the national interest. It is an accepted fact that it is in the national interest of Britain that the standard
of living of its people should rise even if it could be achieved by the complete merger of Britain into the EEC
community and its ultimate disappearance. In other words the national interest of the people of Britain could be
served by the demise of the state! But such an action is not likely to be approved by the political leaders, to
whatever political party they may belong. This clearly shows that the decisions of the political leaders are not
always taken in the larger national interest.
Prof. Reynolds asserts that ”the concept of national interest is, therefore,
•an unfortunate and on the whole unhelpful one.” It 4s normally attached to the
’ notion of the state and so sacrifices stage goals. It directs attention to a particular
human group into which human ought to be organised-and the preservation and •
advancement of which accordingly ought to be the criteria for judgement of
action. But if individuals are the proper referent, a distinction needs to be drawn
between strictly state goals and the goals that national interest prescribes1. He
further argues that in essence national interest ”should relate to the real interests
of the people, and this interest is not to be seen as being necessarily contained
1. PA. Reynolds, An rnftyfaetfan to MerruffemJ fabfonf. p,44.
NATIONAL INTEREST
35
within the stale con text. This not ion of a’real interest/ isdifficulttoconceive....But even if it can be seen as a
theoretical norm, it cannot in practice to be identified and will not serve as a means of judging particular
decision or particular actions. State decision-makers who claim to be acting in the national interest misuse the
notion, cannot have the perfect information necessary to validate their claims and so are pulling the wool over
other people’s eyes; and possibly over their own.”’
Constraints on National Interest

Any foreign policy which claims to operate in the national interest must have some reference to the physical,
political and cultural entity called the nation. According to Morgenthau it must be determined in the light of
possible
’usurpation by subnational, other national and. supranational interests, which are indeed serious constraints on
the national interest. At the subnational level we find group interest, represented particularly by ethnic and
economic groups, which tend to identify themselvejjtoith the national interest and thus confuse the issue.
Similarly, the other national interests can usurp the national interest of a state in two ways, viz, through treason
and criminology. For instance an
îndividual may commit treason-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 supranational interests in two ways-through religious bodies and international
organisations. Though religious bodies have ceased to be effective instruments of supra-national interests at
present, the international organisations 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 memberstates.
The international environments also exercise a profound influence on the decision makers in the formulation of
a country’s foreign policy. As a unit of the international community the stale is bound by certain regulations-
conventional, customary, ethical, legal or institutional and the framers of the foreign policy have to operate
within these limitations. The framers of the policy have not only to keep the national interests in mind but also
give due weightage to the interests of ojher states who are equally determined to fight for their national
interests. They must keep a watchful eye on the policies and actions of other states and keep a track of various
international developments. This naturally implies that a state which wants to play an active 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 only mean that the state is cut off from
the main currents of the world affairs and its leadership is not far-sighted. In short, we can agree with the
observation
».*’,
l./fcid., p.48
2.lbid..p.50
36
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 policymakers of the state in question have no authority or
jurisdiction, and that the international arena within which policies are made is in high degree anarchical.”
Prof. Morgenthau has also asserted the need of compromising the national interests with the interests of
other nations. He says ”the national interest of a nation which is conscious 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 sn age of total war it is also one of the conditions for
survivar.”
Above ail, in formulating the foreign policy the political leaders must not lose sight of the domestic factors
like geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, demography, impacts of various groups and interests
in the society, strategic position of the country etc. As the resources available for the pursuit of the national
interest are necessarily limited iruiuantity and kind; and alftbe states cannot promote their objectives with
equal vigour, it is of paramount importance that the states should allocate their scarce resources as
rationally as possible.
I Balance of Power and

Power Vacuum ”States are interested only in a balance which is in their favour. Not an equilibrium, but a
generous margin in their objectives. There is no real security in being just as strong as a potential enemy,
there is security only in being -a little stronger^” ..
-Nicholas John Spytauii
I Introduction. Power and its distribution is one of the major determinants
, of international behaviour. The traditional relations among the independent | nations have often been
explained in terms of Balance of Power. The national I power was used for peace keeping, peace making or
even war making. It has I been effective instrurnent for halting aggres»ion\ That is v^yrrwny theorists have
I described the theory of ”Balance of Power* as a basic principle of international I relations and ”a
fundamental law of politics”.
• Meaning. The balance of power in the ordinary sense means that there is
{ at least a rough equilibrium, of power between various notion!. The concept of equilibrium has been
taken from the field of mechanics and is being/put to use in many other sciences, such as physics, biology,
economic* and sociology. No ; nation can live in isolation, A large number of nations with varying
degree of power exist and each nation tries to maximize its power. To achieve this end various nations form
groups so that no single nation or other group of nations become strong enough to dominate others. The
power of one group is balanced :: by the other opposing group. So long as there is this type of balance,
there is I peace. War is the test for the existence of disequilibrium. .
It is indeed difficult to give an exact definition of ”balance of power’ because as Martin Wight says the
notion is ”notoriously full of confusions.” In is L. Claude also says: The tremble with the balance of power
is not that it has no meaning but that it has too many meanings.” But the essential idea of Balance of Power
is very simple. It implies the ’equilibrium of the type represented by a pair of scales’. If the weights in the
scales are equal the balance results. But when the principle is applied to the fntemationa I relations, the
concept of balance of power means ”that through shifting alliances and countervailing pressures, no one
power or combination of powers will be allowed to grow so strong as to threaten the security of the rest*
(Palmer ami Perkins). Prof. Fay defined the balance of power in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences as
”just equilibrium
38 ’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
in power arrsng the mambers of the family of nations as will prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently
strong to enforce its will upon tine others.” George Schwarzitgwrger describes balance of power as ”an
equilibrium or a certain amount of stability in international relations.’ According to Hartman, • balance of
poster may be described as a system in the sense that one power bioc leads to fat c»menj«<nc£of other and it
ultimately leads to a network of alliances.” Thus the concept of balance of power rests on the basic assumption
that excessive power anywhere in the system is a threat to the existence of other’un its and that the raoti effective
antidote to power is power.
Therear&twc types of balances, 77»es/mpteba/ancewhich exists between •two nations or *ny two groups of
nations of nearly equal power. The multiple balance, exists among many nations or group of nations, balancing
one another. Lord Casttereagh referred to balance of power as ’the maintenance of such just equilibrium
between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any of them becoming sufficiently strong to
impose its will upon the rest.” But the fact is that the nations in practice, in the name of balance of power, have
usually preferred preponderance of power.
Nicholas). .Spykman observes: The truth of the matter is that states are interested only in a balance which is in
their favour.” To Quincy Wright, ”it is a system designed to maintain a continuous conviction in any state that if
it attempt aggresssa^ it would e-TKounler an invincible cornbination of the others.” In the wonk of Morgenthau
*tt is an actual state of affairs in which power is distributed among several nationswitfi approximate
equality.”The theory is thus an application of the checks and balance theory of domestic politics to international
politics. It is based on a simple principle that the effective antidote to power is power only and exclusively. The
term has often been used in several contradictory meanings. The views of Morgenthau and Haas are of
relevance to be mentioned here. Morgenthau attached four different meanings to the term:
(1) As a policy aimed at a certain state of affairs at bringing about s certain power distribution;
(2) As an actual state of affairs in which power’is distributed among

• several nations with approximate equality;
(3) A* an approximately equal distribution of power; and .
(4) As any distribution of power. .
Eame* B. Haas too has mentioned four uses of the term as follows: (T) a* description;
(2) as a propaganda and ideology;
(3) as analytical concept; and
(4) as prescription.
White explaining the meanings of the term, Haas give* eight different interpgctatkms of balance of power, viz.,
distribution of power, a balance or equilibrium, hegemony or imbalance/stability and peace, instability and war,
power politics, a universal law of history and a system and guide to policy makers. Depending on die intention of
the users, it is employed simply to
BALANCE OF POWER AND POWER VACUUM
39
T
I describe, as propaganda, to analyse, or to provide a guiding principle for those who make foreign policy
decisions. >
Implications of the term, (DBalanceofPTwerasdescrpfionindicatesthe character of situation in which the power

relationship is roughly equalised, e.g., when one group is referred to as having the balance of power in relation
to other groups.
(2) Balance of power when identified as 3 policy means that unbalanced power is dangerous. Thus as a safe
guide to policy in a multi-state system, lie undesirable behaviour of other states could be prevented only by
confronting power with counteracting power.
(3).When the balance of power is viewed as a system of international politics, it refers to a kind -of arrangement
for the conduct of international relations in a multi-state world. Wright, Taylor and Charles Lorche all treat the
balance of power as a system?
(4) The termbalance of power used as a symbol of realism is based on the view that a <iisregard far balance of
power shows the neglect of power factor in international politics. On the other hand the policies based on
balance of power explicitly imply the existence x>f power factor in international politics. The realists view the
international politics as nothing but a struggle for power. When the term is used in this context it indicates the
reality of power politics.
Characteristics. The real nature of the concept could be better understood by discussing its. characteristics.
Firstly, the balance of power is subject to constant changes - from

• equilibrium to disequilibrium. Secondly, it is not a gift of God but is achieved by the active-intervention of man. No
state can waitfor long to allow the balance of power to establish automatically, they must be ready to go to war to
preserve a balance against the growing preponderance of power. Thirdly, balance of power favours the ’status quo’ but
to be effective, the policy must be changing and dynamic one.’ Fourthly, real balance of power, seldom exists. Its real
test is war. If war takes place it means the real balance of power was not there. Fifthly, it offers both an objective
approach of a historian and subjective approach of a ’ statesman. The historian will say that there is a balance when the
opposing
• . groups seem to be equal in power. The statesman will say that there is a balance when he thinks that his side is
stronger than the other. Hence nations which play the balance of power game seek not a balance, but an imbalance-in
theirfavour. Sixthly, it is sometimes identified as a policy. Seventhly, this game is meant for big powers only-and the
small’powers are like weights in a balance used by others. Lastly, to keep the balance, it requires a balancing power for
the successful operation of the system. -
Historical Evolution of the Concept
The origin of the concept of balance of power coincided with the growth °f the present state system’. It operated
successfully, in Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. The rivalries among the princes of
northern Italy and •”WngSpain, France and Prussia which attempted tointervene in Italian politics, se*rned to
represent a conscious application of the system. The first explicit
40
statement of the doctrine is credited to Bernardo Rucellian (1449-1514). It was further elaborated by Machiavelli
(1467-1527) in ’The Prince’. Machiavelli said whoever contributes towards advancement of another power ruins his
own.
In the sixteenth century the concept was applied to a larger theatre than Italian city states. Morgenlhau states thai ”the
alliances Francis I concluded with with Henry VIII and the Turks in order to prevent Charles V of Mapsburg from
estabilising and expanding his empire arc the first modern example on a grand scale of the balance of power operating
between an alliance and one nation intent upon establishing a universal monarchy.” In the sixteenth century, England
held balance between France and the Holy Roman Empire, though she always supported the stronger, which is
considered as the violation of the principle of balance of power, Francis Bacon (1558-1603)clearly elaborated and
analysed the doctrine as it existed io his essay ’of empire.”
In the seventeenth century, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) can be analysed from the pointofview of the balance of
power. The treaty of Westphalia (1648) firmly established the nation state system and clearly determined the general
pattern of international relations. As a consequence, the balance of power began to play oven greater role than before.
When the ambitious policy of Louis XIV of France threatened to destroy the balance, he was checked by the combined
opposition of England and the Netherlands.
In the eighteenth century the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht (1714) which closed the War of Spanish .Succession,
provided for the division of the Spanish inheritance between Bourbons (France) and Hapsburgs (Austria) in order to
restore the balance of power in Europe. The doctrine was formally incorporated for the first time in an international
agreement ad conser\’ondum in Europa equilibrium. The period from the treaty of Utrecht to the partition of Poland
(1713-1772) has been regarded as the golden ageof the balance of power in theory as well as practice. ’
In the nineteenth rpntury the rise of Napoleon once again disturbed the balance of power in Europe. The Congress of
Vienna sought to establish a new balance of power based on the principles of ’legitimacy’ and status quo. The Monroe
Doctrine (1823) marks the beginning of its gradual extension on a worldwide scale. The balance of power was further
extended beyond European soil when in 1854 France, Britain and Austria formed a coalition against Russia declaring
”that the existence of the Ottoman Empire in its present extent, Is of essential importance to the balance of power
among the states of Europe.” The Crimean War (1854-56) followed this declaration. The Congress of Berlin (1878)
was another attempt to prevent a great power from gaining a dominant position in the Balkan area. It forced Russia to
revise the treaty of San Stefano which she had imposed upon defeated Turkey (1877-78).
In the twentieth century the Europe was divided into two camps. Triple Entente (1907) powers-England, France and
Russia vs. Triple Alliance (1882) powers-Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy. When the balance of power in the
Balkan area was disturbed in 1914 it led to the First World War.
41
During the inter war years (1919-39) the doctrine was followed only in theory as it was incompatible with the concept
of collective security. But the weakness of the League of Nations provided some strength to the system. There was
formation of alliances and counter-alliances in the name of balance of power which ultimately led tcfSecond World
War. After the war, the conditions seemed to be peculiarly unfavourable for the operation of the old system. The newly
emerged ’bipolar and now the multipolar’ system is the most unstable and dangerous form of the balance of power.
What we experience today is the conspicuous absence of the holder of balance - the balancer.
Patterns of the Balance of Power
Professor Morgenthau mentions in his book Politics Among Nations two main patterns of the balance of power- -tlxj
pattern of direct opposition and the pattern of competition. The pattern is one of direct opposition when there are two
nations confronted with each other. One nation wants toestablish its power over another while the other refuses to yield.
On the other hand the pattern of competition exists when one or the other nation tries to establish its domination over
third power and neither of the two powers allow each other to disturb the status quo. The competition between the
United States and China for control of the countries of South-East Asia offers an example of this pattern. In the pattern
of direct opposition the balance of power results directly fromthe desire of either nation to see its policies prevail over
the policies of the other. Both the nations try to increase their respective powers to make attempt to control the
decisions of the other or to resist the pressure of the other. This balancing of opposingforces goes on until the
concerned nations change their objectives’of imperialistic policies or until one nation gains a decisive advantage over
the other.
Assumptions of Balance of Power. According to Dyke the concept of balance of power rests on the following
assumptions:
(1) Each state protects its vital interests, rights and privileges through all possible means-both peacefuland violent
Some of the vital interests which states generally try to protect include territorial integrity, independence, security,
preservation of domestic’economic and political and social systems, protection of certain rights etc.
(2) Each state keeps itself concerned with power relationship to protect its vital interests.
(3) The balance of power either deters the threatening state from launching an attack or permits the victim to avoid
defeat if an attack takes place. The states normally do not attack unites they have preponderance of power and they
resort to war only in the hope that the distribution of power will turn out to be in their favour.
(4) Relative power positions of states can be measured with significant degree of accuracy, even though the task of
calculation of power is quite complex Without such calculations the stales cannot decide about the proportion of their
resource* to be allocated to military preparations.
42
BALANCE OF POWER AND’POWER VACUUM
.. 43 \
(5) The statesmen make foreign policy decisions on the basis of power considerations. If it is no^ done, the deliberate
balancing of power
cannot occur.
Types of balance of power.
* There are three types of balance of power, as under: .
(i) Simple or Complex Balance of Power. If the balance of power aims at preservation of safety of the nationalities of
the world, it is known as simple balance of power. On the other hand, the balance of power is considered complex if it
concentrates or; thf preservation of peace due to warring positions of the two militant nations. The two types of.
balance of power can run concuircntly among the vattous nations of the world. While some states may follow policy of
co-existence and solve their problems on the basis of simple balance of power, the other nations, particularly those in
the turbulent regions of the worid, may resort to arms or seek alignments, which make the balance of
power complicated or complex. .
*• •.
(ii) Locai, Xegioratai World-wide 8 itence of Power. Balance of power can be local, regional or world-wide, depending
on the area of its operation. If the balance of power seeks to checkmate only one power or state, which poses a threat to
the freedom of other neighbouring states, it is regarded as locai. If the balance of power aims at maintainingIwlance in
a particular geographical or political region, it is regarded as regional balance of power. The struggle amongst the
European power*, in the nineteenth century aimed at maintenance of regional balance of power. The Balance of Power
is regarded as world-wide if it concerns more than one region, During the two world wars the principle of world
balance of power motivated the actions of various states.
(in) Rigid or flexible Balance of Power. A balance of power is regarded as rigid if two groups or” states take a
particular stand and are not willing to deviate from that stand. TV rigid stand taken by USA and USSR as leaders of the
two groups which emerged after, the second worU war, is art example of this type of balance of power On the other
hand if the member states change their alignments and seek fresh alliances di»e to changed circumstances, the balance
of power is regards! as flexible.
Techniques of Balance of Power
The balance of power is not a natural phenomenon and requires special efforts. The techniques and devices
which contribute to its operation are as under:
i i) Alliances and counter alliances. The most common ly used device of the balance ,of power system has been the
alliances. It has been »he traditional instrument to strengthen one’s position vis-a-vis the opponent. When a state feels
that it cannot defend itself against another big state, it enters into alliance with another weak or powerful state for
achieving its goal. The alliances are of two types-offensive and defensive. The offensive alliance seeks to upset the
balance of power in favour of its members and a defensive alliance aims <U restoring the balance The alliances are
buiiUjp put of necessity of common interests and are’ directed against a common enemy. The alliances rniy break up
after the objective is achieved.
The essentials of a stabte long lasting alliance are-enough power to achieve the purpose may be through aggression or
defence; common interest between She allying state; strategy, geography, common ideologies, cultural similarities,
complementary economics, etc.
Alliances generally lead to counter alliance, e.g. Tripla Alliance (1882) vs.Trip’e Entente (1907) but they do play a
major role in the preservation ofthe balance of power. The alliances tend to give use to suspicion and rrwy ^ven result
in war. The Stance-between the Axis powers was counter-weight against the alliance between France and European
nations which ultimately culminated in : Second World War. !ri the past Second World War’ pencd also !he two
superpower, entered,into several’aMiances to counter-balance the growing power of the opponent
(ii) Compensations, Compensations of a territorial naruw were a common method for maintaining a baiance af power in
the eighteenth artcJ nineteenth centu.ies. Territorial compefssatiejis have frequently ten made by strong’’ powers at !h*
expels of weafcercnes, and almost invariable by victor nations at the end of a .-war. -In 19*9.lhis tech’fikjue w*s
abandoned a? the instance of President Wilwo. Ms repudiated the diplomacy-of balance of power jnd . • substituted
itwith his famous £ our«eetn Pofots programme, However, the -nethoco? cofnpfnsa?Eon was-delair«d In an Wis^c?
m.apj-»f. The’ M^ndat^ System, -’ whereby, a imitor/ cauy be giws to a oovw? in the foroi of trust, was invented.
After ih« Second WcwkTWarthii technique has been.--tkogether given up.
iii’’f’iff’tioii.Pattitioncanai?obeu$3d4|saninst;u(ne’r)tôr*Hi;rr.ainteo’3nce ’ of ihe b.-ii&ttcii! of poM<er. Usuaity the

m,?icsr.ôwars dtv<<ji» th« territory (i? such a v»ay ”has th«r?i i$ no-ciUngtY of any ons? «# shem ijcq«i»*ng a
precSominac»«
44
position. Thus, Poland was partitioned between Russia, Prussia, and AustriaHungary in 1772 so that relative
power of each of the three major states of the time could be maintained. •
(iv) Armament and Disarmament. Military preparedness is the best means of national defence. This policy is bound to
lead to armaments race. The advancement in science and technology as well as the methods of warfare has increased
the fear of destruction. To attain the balance of power consistent efforts at disarmament are essential. In the twentieth
century, the first stem in the direction was taken by the Treaty of Versailles. The next serious effort was made at the
Washington Naval Conference in 1922. The technique of stabilising the balance of power by means of proportionate
reduction of armament is somewhat similar to the technique of territorial compensation.” . (v) Intervention and War.
These two techniques of the balance of power are usually adopted as a last resort. Intervention is a dictatorial
interference in the internal affairs of another country by a powerful nation in order to extract some specific concessions,
Italy and Germany intervened in the Spanish Civil. War in favour of General Franco, Britain intervened in Greece,
United States in Cuba, Lebanon and Laos, the Soviet Union in North Korea, Hungary and Eastern Europe. The ultimate
form of intervention is war.
’Non-intervention’ is a political term meaning virtually the same thing as intervention. This kind of policy isXmially
followed by small states, and also by those great powers which are satisfied with the political order and can very well
follow peaceful method to preserve the balance. France and Britain followed policy of non-intervention is the Spanish
Civil War of 1936-39.
(vi) Divide and Rule. This device has been resorted to by nations who want to keep their competitors weak by keeping
them divided. This isa time honoured policy. It was employed by the Romans to maintain their control over scattered
people. Britain often used it to keep her large empire intact. France adopted such a policy towards Germany from the
seventeenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century. Similarly, the Soviet Union from the twenties to the
present has consistently opposed ail proposals for the unifications of Europe. During the inter-war period even
Germany took advantage of the differences between France and England and flouted the terms cf the treaty of
Versailles. Britain also made use of policy of divide and rule in the international sphere and played Jews and Muslims
in Palestine against each other. In the post World War II period also the superpowers continued to follow this policy of
divide and rule, though in a different way, with a view to bring the maximum number of non-aligned states under their
influence.
(vii) Buffer States. This is another technique for majntaining the balance of power between two powerful states. ’Buffer
states are of great importance because of their cushioning effect between great powers. Because of their interest in the
preservation of equilibrium of power, the two adjoining states agree to follow a policy of non-interference towards the
in.-between small state.
45
The examples of buffer states are Afganistan In the 19th and early twentieth century when it acted as buffer between
Russia and British India. The Soviet intervention in Afghan isatn in recent years destroyed the ’buffer state’ character
of Afghanistan and posed a threat to the balance in the region. Similarly, France tried to maintain Rhine-land as a
buffer slate between her and Germany.
. (viii) Neutralisation. Sometimes a country is neutralised to create a sort of buffer between two powerful countries and
they pledge not to attack it or unnecessarily interfere in its affairs. Thus Belgium was neutralised in Europe and when
Germany violated its neutrality in 1914, it was strongly resented by England and France. .
Utility of Balance of Power. The theory of balance of power has proved quite beneficial in many respects.
In the first place it has greatly contributed to the preservation of peace in the absence of system of collective security.
The principle has ensured peace by maintaining balance of power thus checking aggression. In the face of an
equilibrium of power, no state can be sure about its victory and hence shall not dare to resort to war. According to Carr
the peace in Europe in the nineteenth century was largely due to Iwlancs’bf power. Even Harold Macmillan subscribes
to this view and argues that between 1810 and 1914, which is.regarded as the classic era of the doctrine of balance of
power, peace was maintained virtually unbroken. •
Secondly, the principle of balance of power has greatly c6ntributed to the preservation of the modern state system by
guaranteeing independence of smaller states. This was ensured by preventing any single state ora group of states
becoming too powerful as to threaten the existence of smaller and weaker states.’ Highlighting this point Prof. Taylor
has observed: ”No one state has ever been strong enough to eat up all the rest; and the mutual jealousy of the Great
Powers has preserved even the small states, which could not have preserved themselves.
Thirdly, in the absence of any effective machinery for the enforcement of international law, die balance of power has
extorted obedience of international law. According to Oppenheim: ”Balance of power is an-indispcnsable condition of
the very existence of international law. A law of nation can exist only if there is an equilibrium,.a balance of power
between the members of the fa.mily of. Nations”. He further argues that as there is not, and never can be, a central
political authority above the sovereign slates that could enforce the Law of Nations, a balance of power must prevent
any member of (He family of nations from becoming omnipotent.
Criticism.Thoughthetheoryofpowerhasprovedbeneficialinmanyways, • it has been severely criticised by the critics. In

the first place it has been argued . that balance of power does not necessarily bring peace. On the other hand it has
encouraged wars. Organski has expressed the view that the periods of balance were periods of war, not periods of
peace. For example, the First World War occurred because Germany miscalculated that her power was equal to that of
her adversaries. On the other hand peace was established after world war due to preponderance of power of the Allies.
46
Secondly, the theory wrongly assumes that- all actions of states are motivated by the consideration of increasing their
power. No doubt power is one
• of the goals of tl\e state bin it is not the sole goal. The economic and cultural interests of the states >ilso greatly
influence their actions.
Thirdly, the theory of balanceof power wrongly assumes that the states are static units. The states increase their power
not only through armaments, conquests or alliances but also through industrialisation, improvement in national
character and several other methods.
Fourthly, the theory wrongly assumes that states can shift sides according to (heir sweetwill. in fact the states are
chfefly motivated by the consideration of their national interest and choose allies to promote the same. Of course the
states can change sides temporarily, as Italy did during the First World War, but generally they are tied to their friends
by political, economic and psychological interests. Each state selects its friends on the basis of its national interests, it
supports those nations that uphold international order from which it benefits and it opposes those who seek to upset the
international order.
Fifthly, the theory of balance of power assumes that balance rif power is the rule and preponderance of power is an
exception. In fact, history shows that there has been preponderance of some power at most of the times. Thus Britain
enjoyed a preponderant position after the industrial revolution. At present United States has preponderance of power.
Hence we can say that balance of power is an exception and the preponderance of power has been the rule in
international arena. .
• Sixthly, the theory wrongly assumes that preponderance of power of one nation or group of nations poses a threat to
the independence of smaller nations and threatens the world peace, This is contrary to the facts of history. The world
peace has been disturbed by less powerful states Shan by the preponderant powers. For example between 1815 !o 1914
shece was comparative pfcace In Europe because of preponderance of France and England, rather than balance of
power.
Seventhly, the theory of balance of power flout* al! norms of international morality and justice and attaches more
importance to self-interest in other word? it jays emphasis on principles! of expediency rather than justice and fairphy. .
.
EighthSy, the *£no;pt of ’balancer’ which occupies key position in the theory of balance oC power, has also been
criticised. U is assumed thai the balancer would )0ir> she vvaakar side in oftiur to redeems the balance. This is fio? a
correct assumpuon. ’n foci, asOrgamki has put it: ”There is no such thing & a ’balancer’ and nevef has been. There Is
no ssnsfe nat/ori motivated primarily by a ’desira to maintain the baiartee.* England, which played the role of a
traditional baianct-r foe a io«ig itr;<e, was also’motivated by the consideration of promoting her national interests
rather !h<a» just acting as balancer.
BALANCE Of POWER AND POWER VACUUM
47
Ni,,dily, it is indeed difficult to measure the power position of states at a given time of history and claim that a balance
of power exists. Unlike the mechanical forces which can be measured accurately there is no yardstick to measure the
political power. The only way to assess the subjective strength of the various states is through a war which is not
conducive to world peace.
Conclusion. The balance of power has not attempted to preserve the peace but resulted in power struggle among the
states and divided the world into hostile camps. But despite its demerits the concept cannot be completely ignored. The
existence of multiple state system necessitates its preservation either through ’collective security’ or through the
’balance of power’. Palmer and Perkins say ”as long as the nation state system is the prevailing pattern of the
international socioty, balance of power policies will be followed in practice, however, roundly they are condemned in
theory. In all probability they will continue to operate, even if effective supematicnal groupings on a regional or world
level are formed.*
Relevance of Balance of Power Principle in Modern Times

In view of the changed conditions in the post World War II period certain scholars have asserted that the doctrine of
balance of power is no more relevant and would ultimately become obsolete. Prof. Palmer and Perkins also hold that in
the present context the doctrine has become ”too simple and too difficult apolicy*. To quote them: ”The impact of new
forces-nationalism, industrialism, democracy, mass education, new methods and techniques of warfare, the growing
importance of publicopinion, developments in international organisation and international law, the growing economic
interdependence of nations and peoples in a shrinking world, the disappearance of colonial frontiers, the emergence of
many new nations, the advent of the nuclear and space age-HI these and many other forces have shaped our
contemporary world and made the balance of power at once too simple and too difficult a policy.’ This decline inv the
doctrine of balance of power can be attributed ?.o the following factors:
(i) Si-Polarity.. In the first instance the bi-pobr power system which emerged in the post Wt/rld War II period gave a
serious sat back to the system of balance of power. In the post World War II period Britain’s power greatly declined
and she could no more play the roie of a balancer which she had played for such a long time. Instead two Superpowers-
USA and .USSR emerged with most of the lesser powers rallied around then*.. As both these powers were actively
involved in the policies of cold war they could not play the roie of a balancer. According to Morgentnau: The power of
the United States and of the Soviet Union in comparison with the power of their actual or prospective allies has become
so overwhelming that through their own preponderant weight they determine she balance of power between them. The
balan ce canntSf73rpresenl, be decisively affected by changes m the alignments of one op the other of their allies,
The’baiaice of power has bên transformed from/a tnultipplar into a bipolar one.” With I he disintegration of the Soviet
Unidn, United States-Has
1. Palmer and Perkini, lr>(em»t’Kxfal Xetetiorx, p.231. 1

48
emerged as the main power and the bi-polar power system has undergone transformation, though some have contended
that this has resulted in unipolar system with United States acting as the sole arbitrator in international arena, in actual
practice United States cannot by itself mould the international events as it likes and it has to secure widespread
international support.
(ii) Disappearance of Balancer. With the emergence of two Superpowers which were strong enough to determine*the
position of the scale with their weight alone, no third power could afford to play the role of a balancer. In other words
the role of a balancer came to an end. There did not exist any nation or group of nations which could play the role of a
balancer, which was earlier played by Great Britain.
(in) Fear of Destructive War. With the development of the modern nuclear
•• weapons any future war could result in total destruction of the world. This factor
discourages any country to play the role of a balancer. The only agency which
can perform this function is Ihe United Nations but it has demonstrated its
• incapacity because of its inherent limitations.
(iv) The Limitations imposed by Ideology. The ideology of nationalism,
• democracy etc. have imposed limitations. While nationalism has prevented the , feasibility of changing the frontiers
of any state, the democracy and the public
opinion have imposed checks on the freedom of statesmen to play independent role in the world politics. Similarly, the
ideology has infused in the group of people and has undermined the possibility of readjustment of any kind in the
international political and multiple state system. Palmer and Perkins have rightly observed: ”Where the foreign policy
of a state is highly flavoured by ideology, that state is usually not much interested in the balance of power and is
poorly*
- equipped to pursue it. •
(v) Increasing Disparity in the Power of States. The small states or lesser powers are becoming weak day by day while
the great powers are becoming more and more powerful. This new phenomenon on the world scene resulted in
upsetting the balance of power.
(vi) Impact of New Forces. The system has been branded as outdated on the plea that certain new forces are working
against the operation of the system. According to Prof. Palmer and Perkins ”nationalism, industrialism, democracy,
• mass education, new methqds of warfare, importance of public opinion, development of international law and
international organisations, the,fact of economic interdependence of nations and disappearance of colonial frontiers-all
these make the balance of power too difficult a policy”. Likewise Inis L. Claude also says that the most fundamental
tendencies affecting the political realm in recent generations run counter to the requirements of a working system of
balance of power. There is nothing to indicate that the global setting is likely to become more, rather than less,
appropriate to the operation of a balance system.”’
>. ton L. Claude, Power and International Relations, pp. 92-93.
- ’”• •
BALANCE OF POWER AND POWER VACUUM 49
In view of the above developments certain scholars have contended that
•the concept of Balance of Power has become obsolete and is incompatible with
the present conditions. For example, Quincy Wright says, ”If democracy and
human liberty .are to survive, the nations that espouse these principles must find
some device other than the balance of power to give them political security. The
balance of power as the structure of world politics is incompatible with
democracy, with free enterprise, with welfare economy and with peace.”
Similarly, Friedrich also says : ”One could damn the principle today for not
offering any solution at all, either in the light of justice, or of clarity or even of
understanding.” No doubt, the changes in the world society have removed
conditions which allowed the balance of power to function effectively, but it
wou Id be too much to assert that it has ceased to be a factor in the power struggle
and that the balance of power is nothing but a device of management of power.
In fact, if the power factor is eliminated from the world society then the balance
of power would become defunct. So long power continues to be factor in the
conduct of international relations the balance of power shall continue to have
relevance. Its relevance would depend on how far its mechanism rs modified to
suit the new conditions. So long such alternative is not provided, the doctrine.
of balance of powers shall continue to play an important role in the international
politics. Morgenuthau says: ”The balance of power and policies aiming at its
preservation are not only inevitable but arc an essential stabilising factor in a
society of sovereign nations*! He further asserts ”The instability of the international
balance of power is due not to the faultiness of the principle but to the particular
conditions under which the principle must operate in a society of sovereign
nations. Palmer and Perkinsalso say: ”as yet the nations and peoples of the world
have not been willing to create any effective substitute. Such a substitute can
•probably be found only through world organisation on the supernational level,
backed by a world public opinion and worldwide acceptance of the principles
of international law.” These writers further assert that ”as long as the nation-state
is the prevailing pattern of international society, balance of power politics will
be followed in practice, however, roundly they,are damned in theory. Jfi all
probability they will continue to operate/’even if effective supernational
groupings, on a regional or world level are formed.” •
Thus the main problem before us is either to discover an alternative to the balance of power or to make the conditions
favourable for its operations. However, the discovery has to be made in the context of two factors, viz., the role of non-
aligned nations in maintaining balance between the bigpowers and the role of the bigpowers in maintaining an
equilibrium between the countries directly involved in a situation of crisis. Till such discove ryis made the doctrine of
balance of power shall continue to operate. Friedrich also says that the principle of balance of power ”serves asa
fundamental law of political life, much as the, law of gravity governs the behaviour of matter. So- construed,
Venezeula is actuated fully as much by the balance of power precept as West Germany, the’’ Arab States and Israel
agree on this principle, if on nothing else. Communistand non-Communist states alike subscribe to this elementary
maxim of survival.”
50 . INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Power Vacjwrn
As noted above the concept of balance of power underwent complete transformation in the pc& WoHd War il period
and international relations came to be . completely dominated by two superpower*-USA and. USSR. These two
superpowers tended to strengthen their hold over areas from which the other smaller powers were obliged to withdraw,
to prevent the opponent from gaining an advantageous position. They justified their actions on the basis of ’vacuum
theory’. .”
Though the concept of power vacuum’has been in practice since the post Second World War period, it was given a
definite shape by the United States in the wake of British decision to withdraw East of Suez. United. States put forth
this , theory with a view to justify her naval presence in the Indian Ocean. It argued that the harsh reality is that a
complete withdrawal from the Indian Ocean ”would lead to dangerous power vacuum over a vast and volatile area
which the US and Britain’s other allies would find extremely difficult to fill, a vacuum that would serve neither
Britain’s longterm interest nor its stake in world peace and stability.” The Americans argued that if they did not move
into the Indian Ocean, the vacuum would be filled by the Russians. In short, the United States put forth , vacuum theory
to justify the entry of US forces into the area.
The vacuum theory naturally did not find favourwith India and other major littoral states of the area and they
completely rejected this theory. For example Mrs. Indira Gandhi, India’sformer Prime Minister, during hervisitto some
SouthEast Asian countries in May 1966 said that the withdrawal by the British did not create any vacuum, and if at all
it did so, she asserted that it should be filled by the local Powers aitd not by outsiders. Mr. Swaran Singh, India’s then
Minister of Defence firmly rejected this theory in the Lok Sabha on 10 April 1968. He said, ”Government does not
accept the validity of the proposition that a vacuum will be created
inthehidianOceanontheBritishdecisiontowithdrawfromtheareas east of Suez.” He refused to accept the validity of the
concept that any vacuum can be created and said: ”If any foreign power leaves any particular area, then it is for that
area and for that territory to take adequate steps to safeguard their own safety and their own country.” He further
asserted that ”the withdrawal of any political power or any outside military presence in any part of the world” is
something which we greatly welcome. It is for the countries and the region concerned to take appropriate measures for
their safety.”
it may be noted that even the American Congress did not approve the ’power vacuum’ theory. However, despite this
the U.S. Defence Department continued to increase its naval presence in the region. In fact the U.S. defence department
had been insisting on the need for a permanent military presence in the Indian Ocean since early sixties. In 1964 an
Anglo-American team made a joint survey of the Indian Ocean to select islands for military bases. In 1965, following
mod ifications in Britain’splan to withdraw completely from the (rattan Ocean, USA co-operated with Britain in the
creation of British Indian Ocean
51
Territory (BIOT) for the construction of defence facilities by the British and the US governments. USA entered into a
contract with Britain and acquired the right to use it as a base for 50 years!
It may be noted that USA tried to penetrate into the area with the help of the local allies, for example, a day before the
British control was to end in the Persian Gulf, the Shah of Iran sent his troops to occupy Tumb and Abu Musa Isalands,
which controlled approaches to the Hormuz Strait. He also despatched troops to the Sultanatoof Oman to crush the anti-
imperialist movement io Dhofar and established control over the southern shores of the Hormuz Strait. Obviously the
Shah did all this at the instance of Britain and America. This became quite evident when a Httte later the Sultan signed
a secret treaty with USA and permitted it to establish bases in Masirah, on the approaches, to the Oman Bay.
By the beginning of the Seventies America had established control over all the main entrances to the Indian Ocean.
Thus it had established control over Simonstown, at tho entrance of the Atlantic Ocean; Masirah which served as an
•approach to the- Persian Gulf; on Diego Garcia which commanded central position in the Indian Ocean; and Malacca
Straits which controlled what was the most important route from the Pacific through their political proximity to the
ASEAN countries. In short, USA converted the Indian Ocean into an American Lake. However, with the disintegration
of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the earlier formulations of security became redundant and there was
considerable decline in the interest of United States and Russia in this region.
THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
53
Theories or Approaches to the Study of International

Politics
(The Realist Theory, Systems Theory and DecUon Making Theory)
’One of the reasons for the wide range of approaches to the study of international affairs and for the absence of an agreedupon
frame of reference is the lack of a basic theory.”
-Morgenthau
As noted in the introductory chapter the scope of international relations has greatly expanded over the years and of late
scholars have tried to build up certain theories of international politics. Tilt very recent times scholars studied international
politics as it is and paid no attention to the problem of policies as it ought to be. They conceived international relations as a
generalised picture of the international scene and did not build up any theories with a view to explain the behaviour on the
international scene. However/ in recent years scholars. under the impact of behavioural sciences have tried to build up theories
of international politics and the scope of the subject has undergone great changes. The scholars instead of giving a historical
narrative of the world events have preferred to discuss the events with a view to theorise.
Approaches
Scholars have adopted different approaches for the study of international politics. Before we examine these approaches it shall
be desirable to understand the meaning of term ’approach’. According to Vernon Van Dyke, an approach ”consists of a
criteria of selection-criteria employed in selecting the problems or questions to consider and in selecting the data to bring to
bear; 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
problem from a particular angle and explaining the phenomenon from the same angle. As different scholarshave adopted
different criteria for selecting problems and data and adopted different standpoints, this has resulted in different
• approaches for the study of international relations.
’-The various approaches for the study of international policy have been divided by Hedley Bull into two categories (1)
classical approach and (2) scientific approach.
CLASSICAL Oft TRADITIONAL APPROACH
The classical approach it also known as traditional Approach. This, approach was in vogue till the middle of the present
century, even though at present certain writers continue to subscribe to this approach. These writers mainly made descriptive
analysis of international relations, the main objective of the scholars adopting traditional approach was ”to report and analyse
current international problems and to speculate on these sources and outcomes of various policy alternatives for specific states
or for international organisation.” According to Hedley Bull the traditional approach is ”the approach to theorising that
derives from philosophy, history and law, and that is characterised above ail by explicit reliance upon the exercise of
judgement and 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 thissubject must therefore derive
from a scientifically imperfect 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.”
In other words the traditional approach is basically normative, qualitative and value judgement approach. According to
Grieves, the value of a work based on this approach is ”usua I ly measured by the reputation of the scholar, the exten t . to
which his or her judgement is trusted, the evidence of thorough research, the lucidity with which the discussion’is presented,
or the nerves touched with an eloquent or moving philosophical discourse.* The traditional approach was adopted by most of
the scholars til! the scientific approach made its appearance. It nouri shed two dominant scholars of international pol itical
thought;’ ideal ism’
• and ’realism’ and greatly con&ibuteci to the sophisticated understanding of the nature and determinants erf international
relations.
The’traditional approach mainly concerns itself with the historical dimensions and laysemphasis on diplomatic, historical and
institutional studies. No wonder, theclassical[approach had various variants, viz., historical approach; philosophical approach;
legal approach and institutional approach. The historical approach focussed 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
stand. This approach helped in illuminating the present by drawing on the wisdom of the past The philosophical approach
regarded the state as an agent of moral improvement of international relations, and stood for attainment of perpetual peace.
But this approach was defective in so far as it was abstract and speculative and far removed from reality. The legal approach
laid emphasis on the need of having a system of world law to regu late the behaviour of nation-states and insisted on a code of
International law to ensure world peace and security. It insisted on evolving some legal machinery for resolving state conflicts
through mediation, arbitration or judicial settlement Finally, the institutional ”approach focussed on the formal structure for
.the
1. Hedley BuH. International Theory: The Ca*efar a C!ai«c^ Approach,* JVortW PoHtia, April 1966,p-J61.
5* - INTERNATIONAL REtXTiONS
maintenance q{ peace and enforcement of principles of international law. It laid special emphasis on the study cf the
organisational law. It laid special emphasis on the study of the organisation and structureof the League of Nations, the
United Nations, and other specialised agencies like !LO, UNESCO, etc. It is noteworthy that all the above traditional
approaches possessed an element of normativism and the scholars adopting these approaches rrfede no effort to convert
the study i of international relations into a science.
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
On the other hand the scientific or the behavioural approach for the study of international politics, which became popu
la r in the wake of tfte Second World War, lays more emphasis on the methods of study rather than the subject-matter.
This approach is based on the simple proposition that international politics like any other social activity involves peopie
and hence it could be explained by analysing and explaining the behaviour of 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 insists • that central aim of the research should be to study the behaviour of men. A notable
feature of this approach is that it is inter-disciplinary and draws from various social sciences tike sociology, psychology
and anthropology. The scientific approach differs from the traditional approach in so far as there is a
definite 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 a
generaland predictive science of international relations”.’
In short, it can be said that the^scholars who are concerned with the substance rather than the method adopt classical
approach, while the scholars who are concerned with the method rather than the substance adopt scientific approach.
However, it would be wrong to assume that these two approaches are _ neceaari ly incomplete, in factaitttmber of
scholars have successfully combined these two approaches and produced fruitful results.
THE REALIST AND THE IDEALIST APPROACH
Before we examine the controversy between the classicists and the behaviouraiists, it shall be desirable to examine the
two variants of the classical approach, viz., Realists and Idealists. . (a) The Realist Approach
Realism in international relations-does not mean reality as abstract ideas as Ploto expressed to the political expediency
which Machiavelli propounded, or the philosophic doctrine of empiricism given by John Locke. ”It is rather a set of
ideas which take into account the implications of security and power factors.” The ideas emerge out of the individual’s
belief that others are always trying to destroy him and therefore, he must be always ready to destroy others whenever
need be in order to protect himself. Thus the basic assumption underlying the
-• 1.K.).Hofeti, ln»eataaonf!i>oiMcKAFnmewoik(orAnafysit,^.9.
THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 55
realist theory is the perpetual existence of conflict among nations in one form or the other. This is taken as a fixed
doctrine. It is, therefore, evident that a contest for power is going on in the world and thiscan neither be controlled nor
regulated by international law or world government or an international organ isation. Thus, realism unequivocally
accepts as its guiding principle the permanence of the » „ struggle for power.
The prominent realists include the classical theorists Thomas Hoboes and Nicolo Machiavelli. in.recent years George
Kcnnan and Hans j. Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger etc- have been the leading exponents of the realist theory. The best
exposition of the realistic theory of international relations has been offered by Morgenthau. He says: ”International
politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always
the immediate aim. Statesmen and people may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity or power itself. They may
define.their goals in terms of a religious, philosophic, -economic or social ideal. They may hope that this ideal will
materialise through its own inner force, through divine intervention, or through the natural development of human
affairs. They may also try to further its realisation through non-political means, such as technical co-operaJion.with
other nations or international organisations. But whenever they strive to realise their goal by means of international
politics, they do so by striving for power.”
Morgenthau in his Realist Theory laid emphasis on six principles which are as under:
Firstly, politics is governed by objective laws which are based on human nature and psychology. We can understand
the political phenomena by developing a political theory based on human psychology and reason. He laid emphasis on
ascertaining of facts and giving them meaning through reason.
Secondly, Morgenthau lays great emphasis on the concept of national interest which he defines in terms of power. He
says that politics cannot be understood in moral or religious terms. It can be understood only on rational basis. In other
words he laid emphasis on presentation of a rational theory rather than indiscriminate description of the political, study.
Thirdly, Morgenthau holds that interest is not fixed and is moulded by the environments. Thus he assigns important role
to environments in the determination of political action.
Fourthly, Morgenthau asserts that universal moral principles cannot be applied to state’s actions and these must be
modified according to the circumstances of time and pJaceTHe says that the state is not expected to observe the same
standards of morality as are observed by the individual. He argues, the individual may say for-nimself ”Let justice be
done even if the world perishes” but the state has no r|ght to say so. The individual may sacrifice himself in defence of
moral principles’ but the state has no right to scarifice its liberty for moral principles. Realism also fields that prudence
is the supreme virtue in politics; without prudence khere cannot be any political morality.” .
Fifthly, Morgenthau does not find any identity between moral aspirations of a nation and the moral law which govern
the universe and asserts that al!
politics! actors pursue their national interests. It is this concept of interest which saves the nation from political folly
and moral excess.
Finally, Morgenthau says that political sphere is as autonomous as the

• spheres of the economist, or the lawyer or the moralist. The political actors think ’ in terms of interest as the
economist thinks in term of utility; thelawyer in terms of conformity of action with moral principles. Though the realist
theory admits •* the relevance of non-p’.iiitical standards of thought, but treats them as subordinate to the standards of
politics.
Similarly Ken nan also asserts that the national interest is a reliable guide to intelligent policy and each state tries to
safcgaurd its national interest. However, Kennan insists on adopting moral approach in the formulation of policy while
safeguarding the national interests. On tha other hand Morgenthau completely ignores the moral aspect and insists on
taking national interests as they are, the real guide to the formulation and understanding of international relations.
However, both of them regard the power politics as the basis of world political relations.
Criticism
The realist approach hasbeen severely criticised on the following grounds: First, the theory suffers from ambiguity and
is inconsistent with reality. No universally acceptable definition of power is offered. For example Morgenthau takes
power as a ’psychological reakionship among states’, but the psychological relations themselves are quite vagua and it
is not possible to measure to study the same. The study of complex psychological relationship among more than
160 nation states of the modern work! renders them even more complex.
. Secondly, the iheory wrongly assumes that all men and states seek their national in teresis i n terms of power. If it
were so. (here wou id be constant struggle going on between various states arid there would be no systematic conduct
of international relations. In fact, ihe element of mutual co-operation among the members of the International
community exercises profound influence on the conduct of international relations. Stanley Hoffmann’has rightly
observed: ”It is p’articularly uncomfortable when one’s basic postulate about human nature is such that history cannot
be anything’but a tale-full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. For’ins a postulate which stresses the inevitability aiyj
universality of evil and which assumes that reason far from following its own inherent impulses is driven
towardsltsgoal by the irrational forces the end of which it serves. Now, this view makes it almost impossible to
understand how there could be a rational theory of rational human behaviour.”1
Thirdly, the theory wrongly assumes that power is the most important goal which the nation* pursue. In fact other
considerations like wealth, cultural welfare, security, protection and promotion of ideology also greatly influence the
actions of the states.
Fourthly, theory is defective in so far it treais the world as a static unit in whic’i power isa permanent guiding
factor.Thisisagainst the wei I-accepted fact that ihe nations keep on changing from time to lime.
1 Stanley Hortmnrm, Contemporary Theory in international Relations, p. 30.
Fifthly, Dyke has severely criticised the Realist theory. He says ”If power were always the end in itself, politics could
be likened to a game the object of which is to select the current. U would presumably be a more bloody game than is
chess or baseball, but still the outcome would be without moral significance. The victory of one participant in the game
would be followed sooner or later by the victory of another, and life ’would be made up of endless round of
meaningless struggle. Each victor would have demonstrated his power and that would be that,”
Sixthly, the critics point out that Morgenthau’s conception that national interest carries its own morality holds good
only during the stable periods when accommodation of national objectivesis possible. But in the present conditions
when different nations are often ready to eliminate on other nations, it would be wrong to assume that national interest
carries its own morality.
Seventhly, the realist theory is defective in so far it assumes thai there is hardly any relationship or activity which does
not involve power. Actually there exist a number of non-political relationships and activities which do not involve
power, such as international sports events, circulation of books and other reading matter, private letters and telegrams
etc. which are not political activities. Morgenthau does not suggest any criteria for the separation of the political
activities from the non-political activities,
Finally, the realist theory, that of Morgepthau, \z defective in so far as it regards the political sphere as autonomous as
the spheres of economists, or lawyers moral ists, but he is not qu ite clear about the nature of autonomy. Though he
maintained that a political realist should only deal with limited set of variables, yet in his book Dilemmas of Politics he
asserts that politics must play the roles of the common integrating core In other words he says that politics must be
concerned with all the variables with which the other specialised spheres deal. All this leads to confusion.
Despise these shortcomings of the realist approach, it cannot be denied that the approach has three distinct advantages.
First it is persuasive and is supported by historical experience. Secondly, the realist approach has given a jolt to
scholars and compelled them to re-evaluate their own assumptions. Thirdly, even those scholars who challenge the
bases of realism havp tended implicitly to rely on realist perspectives, which is a great compliment to^tnis approach.
(b) The’ldealist Approach
The other aspect of the classical approach is the.utopian or the idealist approach. It regards the power politics as the
passing phase of history and presents the-pictufe-oCa future international society based on the notion of reformed
international sysfertvfreefrom power politics, immorality and violence. It aims at bringing about a better .world with
the help of education and international organisation. This approach is quite old and found its faint echos in the
Declarations of the American War of Independence of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789. The most important
writers in whose works the approach found expression include Condorcet, Rousseau, Kant, Woodrow Wilson etc. In
1795 Condorcet wrote a treatise which container) everything considered as the
58
essential basis of idealism in the international relations, He visualised a world »order free from war, inequality and
tyranny.vThts new order would be marked by constant progress in human welfare brought about by the use of reason,
education and science. Rousseau’s ideal istyiews are reflected from Fragment on War. He says: ”When thousands of
bdlic^se people have slaughtered their prisoners, when thousands cf doctors in ihe keep of ’yrants have justified these
crimes, co in truth man’s errors matte’ or their barbarity to justice? l«t us not search for what has been done but rather
for what should be done and let us dismiss evil and mercenary authorities who tnd up by marking men slaves, evi! and
miserable.” Similarly, Kant made a strong plea for the prevention of war among states and creation of conditions for
perpetual peace. But probabfy the greatest advocate of ihe ideal ist approach was President Wilson of USA who gave a
concrete shape to his idealismihrough the text of the Treaty of Versailles. Hr» made a strong plea for world peace and
international organisation Ail the above writers and thinker* visualised a future system free from power politics,
immorality and violence. On account of their optimism the idealists regard the power struggle as nothing but the
passing phase of history. The theory proceeds wi>h the assumption that die interests ot various groups or nations are
likely to be adjusted in the Urger interest of mankind as a whole
The difficulty with this approach i& that such a system could emerge only by following moral principles in mutual
relations in place of power, which is not possible in practicfc Secondly, to bring about such an order the totalitarian
forces must be crushed by all means through ihe use of democratic methods and the last necessity is the establishment
cf lix? world government. The main criticism against this theory is that 41 runs short of factual position-. The nations
do nol bchave as they are expected. As a result the realism in international relations appears to be more near the truth.
A rigid adherence to idealism is likely to lead iofVustration. Looking attheglaring defects of the idealist theory a
middle course has been adopted by a school of thought celled Eclecticism. Eclecticism does not regard either the realist
approach or (he idealist approach as completely satisfactory. They offer a synthesis of the pessimism of .realists and the
optimism of idealists.
According to Prof. Quincy Wright the terms ’realism’ and’’idealism’ are ambiguous. They can at the most be used to
distinguish between short run and long run policies. Realism would aim at the fulfilment of the short ruhâtional policy
aimed at the fulfilment of the immediate necessities and idealism on the. olhet hand represents the long run policy and
would aim at the objectives’to be realised in the future. Thus realism cannot ignore the immediate needs for a rosy
future and idealism cannot leave out the prospective future only to solve the bleak present. In fact iteither oi these two
appt caches is wholly correct and both possess respective merits arid demerits. Forabalans»understandingof
international relations it is desirable thai realism and idealism must be intermingled. Inlhe conduct of international
relations also the statesmen shbuld neither show total aversion to the norms and1 values nor complete disregard to
reality. Carr has rightly suggested that the combination of realism and idealism is ihe best solution. He says ”Where
utopiani&m has become a hollow and intolerable
THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL POUTIOS 59
sham, which serves merely as a disguise fot the interests of the privileged, the ”\ realist performs an indispensable
service in unmasking.it. But pure realism can offer nothing but a naked struggle for power which makes any kind of
international society impossible. Having demolished the current Utopia with the weapons of realism, we sJill .need to
build a new Utopia of our own, which will one day fall to Ihe same weapons.”
Th« Classictsis-BekiviouraKsts Corrfrovmy
In the 1960s controversy started between science and traditionalism. Uplill the World War il the debate persisted
between the two groups belonging to classical schools, viz., idealists and realists. The debate between the scientific
school and the classical school centred around the method is? study of j iniernational relations,. j
TrteclassicistsregardedthcapplicrationofscienuftcoibehavioUralmethod i of study of international relations as unwanted.

The controversy started with . ”!
publication*^ ihe ankle by Hedtey Bull in 1966.’ Earlier several scholars, e.g., j
E.H, Carr, Alfred Zimmern, George Schwarzenberger, Hans j, Morgenthau, : 1
Mariin Wright and Reymond Aron had produced studies ir» international j
relations based on the classical approach. But si was Bui! vyfto btouf ht to the j
forefront the question of relative merits and demerits of ihe classical a,id the ’ scientific approach under two main
heads, meihod and subject matter.
In Defence of Classkal Approach . •
v Bull asserted that the scientific approach was net appropriate forth.? study • of international relations for a variety
of reasons. He putthesereasons in the form of propos it ions to be exa mi ned by other scholars to c tarify the real nature
of the ’’..’ ”controversy between the scientific and the classical apptojch.
The first proposition made by Bull is that the nature of the subject-matter of international relations, issuch that it cannot
bt- examined merely with the Help of the modern scientific tools. The questions with which international relations is
concerned are eventually moral questions.
> Secondly, the schoUrsof scientific approach have not attended to ihe basic questions and thus have not been able to
contribute much to the development Of the theory of international relations.
._ Thirdly, il is not possible to accept the claim of the scientific theorisu^hat.
their studies so far have onh/ been ifi the nature of a beginning and trial whcrt they attain-maturity they would yield a
general, comprehensive and dependable ’ science of the^subject.
Fourthly, ihGssrientific theorists have done a great <»s>ervice to the theory of international relations by introducing
the so-called method of models.
Fifthly, the scientific iheprists are so much devoted to the scientific methods that they have made a fetish of (hem.
’’•’”.’
1. -tntemaliona- Theory : The Ca*c for a Cbssical Approach* in World Potties, April
1%fe, pp. 3W-36> »i
: . INTERNATiONAL RELATiONS
Sixthly, he maintains that there is a great need for precision in the Eheory of Intemaiionaf Relations and it should cover
entire range of subject-matter under study and not precision in th* limited tiefd of facts and data on!y as the scientific
theorists view.
Lastly, these theorists have cut themselves Off from history and philosophy which alone provides the means of self-
criticism.
He therefore, concludes that »he thinking of the scientific theorists lacks not only the sens* of enquiry into the
conditions of recent history that have produced the present ccnditions of international life but also a critical attitude to
their own assumptions on the basis of which they have been-proceeding with their study of international relations.
In Defence of Scientific Theory
On the other hand the scientific theory has been defended by several
- scholars. But the most poweffue defence came from Morton Kaplan, in his article1 he made a counter attack on
traditionalists and argued how scientific method was more-helpfu! in the study of international relations.
He Hrst of at! takes up the contention of the traditionalists that the human
:> purpose can be understood only by methods other than those of science. This
contention is based upon the belief that the human purpose is concerned more
with motives than with verifications and the motives could be analysed only by
intuition arid introspection. Conceding that human purpose is concerned with
motives, Kaplan maintains that these motives are often confirmed by careful
observation and analysis of thehehaviour patterns of people. The traditionalists
maintain that scientific methods are inappropriate in political world in which
: surprises may and do occur.
Another attack made by traditionalists against scientific theorists is that they often mistake their models for reality. The
reply of the scientists is that this ’kind of risk is always involved in any kind of human activity. Further, it should not be
forgotten that the psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists also are likely to make this kind of mistakes.
Morton Kaplan ajsodenies the charges that the scientific school completely excludes philosophy in its analysis. Kaplan
claims that (here are several questions which are basically philosophical and with which the systems theory, which, is a
part of the scientific method, is closely concerned.
The scientific approach is based upon the simple proposition that international relations like any other social activity,
involves people and hence it can be analysed and explained only by analysing and explaining the behaviour of the
people as’is reflected in their activities in the field of international relations.
The traditionalists do not believe in either the desirability or the possiblity of such theoretical formulations. The
classical school contends that the general theory of human behaviour, which the behaviouraiists are trying to evolve is
inconceivable, although it concedes that a theory in the narrower field of
1. Morton Kaplan i.” The New Gi^ D^te: Traditionalism * Science tn International
•* Wation*- .-:: . . •”’. • ’ .;- . - ’ . .
international relations is not impossible. Thus the two schools are in a state of constant debate ovef the subject-maWer
and the method of study. The scientists concentrate on the collection of all the relevant facts and on the basis of these
facts reach (he conclusions as the facts speak. ’
The traditionalists say that the facts caitnot always speak for themselves and the scholar has to interpret them and give
them the rea! meanings, and for this purpose dependence on individual insight and wisdom is essential which implies
dependence on law, history and philosophy. Thus for the traditionalists the judgement is important but for
behaviouraiists it is not. Behaviouraiists stick to the view that real research is possible through the analysis of the
facSswithout interference from the personal likes and dislikes of the researcher.
Conclusion
At present most of the scholars are of the view that both the traditional and the scientific methods can be used for
fruitful sti:dy of international relations. David Singer realised this and made his observation: ”science is not a substitute
for insight and methodological rigour is not a substitute for wisdom-both imagination and rigour are necessary but
neilher is sufficient.”’ David Vita! too wrote that classical approach consists of two elements; the method and the
subject matter. As a method the classical approach insists on ”the need for borrowing from history, !aw and philosophy
and on depending upon judgement; and as the subject matter, it isconcemed with the general questions of the nature of
the study, the role of the use of force, and the significance of diplomacy, The subject matter of international relations is
in fact not the same as classicists believe.
After She Second World War a great deal of changes have taken place which have made it necessary for, looking at k
from a different angle. The scientific theorists are deeply involved in their techniques and purposes and it is hardiy
possible to make any generalisation about them. The scientific approach suffers from the serious flaw that it puts
exclusive re! iance on methods and tends to stress that the method itself will determine thenatureof the subject rnatter.
The scientific theorists seem to believe that the real crux of the subjectmatter-of international relations would be
revealed if they adopted the right method’s and techniques. Those who stand for a compromise between the two
divergent approaches, Michael Mass proposed ’the bridge building’ and Robert North applied for ’pluralistic posture’.
But the Idea is ihe same, both scientific and the classical methods are useful in the study* of international relations.
THE SYSTEMS THEORY
The systems theory is the result erf the behavioural revolution in social ; sciences. It developed out of die anxiety of the
new social scientists to evolve i a general .body of knowledge be integrating the various disciplines of social
* sciences. There has been no unanimity among scholars regarding the meaning . of a system. Hall and Fagen defined
the system as * a set of objects together with relationship between the objects and between th^ attributes.” Colin Cherry
;deflned it as ’a whole which is compounded of many parts in an ensemble of Attributes.’ The systems theory has been
applied in various disciplines and assigned a variety of meanings and definitions.
63
lfjT£RNATIOHAl. RELATIONS
**•»
The Systems or General Systems Theory
• The general system theory is based on ihe assuiTPlion lhauhere are certain features of relationship that are common to
systems tf a”.kinds. In other words ’a system connotes relationships between units or i£ va”0”8 components.’
in the recent years efforts have been made to jjudy international relations in the context of systems analysis. Those who
beltevt?iri l”’s approach are of the view that a scientific study of international retalioi15 can °e ma<*e on|y ’’ $*>
relevant material is treated in terms of system action-.Tne *My °*lhe actions of the parts of a political system can be
made in terms <* an analysis of the actions of participating units. Their assumption is that thereis a system’”
international relations. The nations (states^ being Us parts involved’1” ** process of interaction as each nation (a unit)
is in constant contact with W whole’ or the international env’ronrnent. it shows therefore, that each system b»*itles
being a system can be a sub-system in relation to a larger system. A nat’io’1’5 behaviour is ”a two way activity of
taking from and giving to the internatioM environment.”
!t may be noted that Internationa! system ci1”16 into existence with the emergence o« the modern European State
systems, fl K« earl ier period no douifc, state system existed but these systems were limited10 certain well defined
areas Kke. Greece, Italy, China and India and a universe1 sy^6”* was absent-
The scholars have assigned different meanii’8*to ths concept of systems and used it in different senses. FirsUy,the
system isdescribed as an arrangement of ihtemational actors in which interactions could be identified. Secondly, as
explanation it is referred to as a particular arrangemeilt in which the nature of the arrangement itself is considered the
most imf°ltant variable in explaining the oehaviour of slates. Thirdly, system is used in the xnx of application of special
types of approaches (methods) to the stu^Y of international politics.
James N. Rosenau represents the first usag<- According to him ”a system is considered to exist in an environment and
to*3® composed of parts which through interaction are in relation toeach other.”fne use °fthe lerm in this sense is made
to describe the pattern of action among ii’temationel actors, it does not
possess much of theoretical value, -
1 Mnta ,j^ (erm is usgtj to cor)Vsy that the world is divided into
.:-«*« which affects the nature
THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATSONAL POLITICS 63 commitment to certain

assumptions. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be complete awareness of all the pretnises, e.g., ideological
preferences which involve assumptions about lite influence of values on human behaviour.
The system theory or general systems theory was first expounded byMcCtelland in 1955. Later it was developed by
many other scholars but the theory was presented in a most systematic manner by Morton Kaplan who declared that
systems approach provides the only possible method which can
I’ ensure the development of scientific politics. Therefore, it shali be appropriate to discuss Morton Kaplan’s theory in
detail. Morton Kaplan’s Systems Theory Morton Kaplan is one of the best exponents of the systems approach. He is of
the opinion that there is some coherence, regularity and order in international relations, international relations or
politics implies two things: ~ ’International system’ and ’nation aats system’. According to him nation state system is
political system in the strict sense of the term while international system is not in fact a real political system. He
believes liî physical force is necessary <o keep the system intact and this force is present in the state system which is
absent in the case of international system. Nations or slates are the main actors in the international politics and the role
of ihe states crMtnges witrV the change of international system. Kaplan treats six modelsof major intentional systenv-
the balance of power system; the loose bipolar system, the tight bipolar system, the universal international system, the
hierarchical international system and the unit veto system. Let us -examine each one in detail. •
1. The Balance of Power System. This system prevailed in Europe in the

18th and 19th centuries. It implied a sort of equilibrium of political power favourable to a particular nation at a
particular time. Theoretically it meanseven distribution of power between various nations to prevent any particular
nation from imposing its will upon others. The operation of this system has six important rules: 0) Each Stale may
increase its power without war, i a., through negotiations; (2) the primary object of each slate is to pt-otect its Rational
interests even at the risk of war; (3) one shoulci not eliminate an essential national actor; (4) The national actor should
prevent others from forming a coalition and disturbing the international system; s’5) The national a^ctor should prevent
other, actors from subscribing to supernational principles; (6) Defeated JCtcr should be permitted re-eniry into the
system.
The system worked well for two centuries but since the beginning of the
20lh century these rules are no5 operating well.
2. The Loose Bipolar System. The balance of power may transform itself
into loose bipolar system, tn this system each bloc has a leading actor, Boih
supernational actors as weli as national actors participate in the loose bipolar
system. Supsmalional actors are divided imobloc actors like NATO and Warsaw
Blor sr«d nn ii** sailors like United Netions. Loosebipolar system is characterised
by two Woe actors (USA and USSR), non-member bloc 2Cto« (non-aligned
t ste«s) and universal actor (U.N ). All of them perform a unique and distinctive
H rote within-the system, but the rulevof the system are not uniform for all the
64
actors. The loose bipo’ar system has a considerable degree of inherent instability because the actors, or the non-
member actors, at the universal actor w rarely of decisive importance in the matter of poiky formulation,
3. The Tight Bipolar System. The loose bipolar system may be transformed either into a number of other systems
or eise into a tight bipolar system, in this system non-aligned states or non=-member nat ional actors would
eitherdisappear or shall have little importance. Even universal actor shall not be in a position to mediate
between the two bloc actors, as after the disappearance of the uncommitted national actors the universal actor
wiitaot have sufficiently wide frame of preference.
4. The Universal International System. This system could be equated to world Federation. It would be possible
when the United Nations or such other international agency becomes sufficiendy strong to check war and
maintain perpetual peace and the bipolar system would cease to exist This agency would perform judicial,
economic, political and administrative functions. However, the nation state would be left with sufficient
autonomy,
5. The Hierarchical International System. This is another Utopian model. It may come into existence when a
universal actor absorbs the whde world and only one nation is left as the universal actor. In this system the state
would become territorial sub-divisions,of the international systerr> rather remaining sovereign, independent,
political units. The system would be directive if found by world conquest and non-directive when power would
be distributed among units according to hierarchy under the domination of a single national actor. The non-
directive system would.be based on will while the directive system will be based on force.
6. 77)eL/n/YVeto5ysfem.Thees$enceofthi»$vstern would be that all states would-have equal potentialities to

destroy each other. Each state would possess the weapons for others’ destruction. The unit veto system would
remain stable only if all the actors are prepared to resist Ihreais and retaliate in case of an attack.
Conclusion, Though Kaplan’s theory has relevance to the present international system ye.t it has been subjected
to severe criticism.
In the first place it is pointed out that the first two systems in the scheme of I’iplan belong to realm of the actual.
The third system is losing its possibility as there is a growing trend in favour of stability and non-aligned nations
and dissensions in the bipolar system. Regarding the fourth, we find that a partial international system is
growing. The fifth system has no possibility of being . realised. The emergence of the sixth system is very much
doubtful in the wake of the non-proliferation treaty.
The six model scheme of international system has only limited merit. Any theory of behaviour of state must deal
with the dynamics of value formation. Kaplan does not discuss this dynamics of the forces which determine the
scale of nations behaviour. This is his serious omission. The study of international relations in terms of
international system it the study of the behaviour of states as u«*:*
THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAt. POLITICS 65
No doubt, Kaplan devotes attention to the concepts of national interests which he concedes cannot be separated
from national values. Bui how nation’s interest and national values are formed and how they affect the collective
behaviour of state has been ignored by him. He also overlooks the facts that the concept of national interest has
already undergone a change. In order to control the international system and transform ii in accordance with
the demands of peace one will have to know the .source through which the international system mostly changes.
THE DECISION MAKING APPROACH
Another important approach (or the study of international politics which has been developed during the past
few decades is the decision-making approach. This approach is associated with the names of Richard C. Synder,
H.W. Bruck and Barton Spain. These writers tried to provide a theoretical explanation of the behaviour of the
actors in international relations. On the basis ofdecision making analysis they tried to find out as to why and
how do the actors behave. It may be observed that ”Decision making is a process or a sequence of activities
involving stages of problem recognition, search or information, definition of alternatives consistent with the
ranked preferences identified in the first three stages that will maximise or satisfy the actors goals.”
The.object of the decision making approach is to devise a conceptional 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 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 dome*4icpoiitic£, public opinion persona ikies and
organisations. The external setting applies 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 suites and the nature of their society. /
There is difference of opinion among the theorists of this approach and different lines are followed by them. The
first line places emphasis on .environmental factor which mean how the environments influence the
decisionmaking. The environment has two aspects-one which the decision-makers can see and the ot&er which is
beyond their perception or estimate. This aspect was emphasised by Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout. They
assert that decisionmaking ”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 particubr future state of affairs
envisaged by the decisionmakers.’’ The second includes She personality factor. The line seeks to study this
behdviourof the decision r.’-ukers by studying their personality. The study of the personality of decision make;
can be helpful in explaining things at least so long as the tame decision makers continue to control the foreign
policy. This factor was emphasised by Alexander George and juiiettee George. They emphasised the
irnpoftantfofe played by President Wilson in the determination of international relation* dunfeg his Presidency.
Third line of approach is related to a study of
those actors who actually participate in the formulation of foreign policy. There ire at least five elements which
influence the foreign policy making: the public opinion, interests groups, the media of mass communication,
specific agents in the executive branch and specific committees of a legislature, lames Robinson says that ’the
organisation and internal process of the legislature determines the actual foreign policy.’
The above discussions indicate that the âsic idea of the decision making Approach is thai international politics
should be taken as the interaction of •^ reign policies and that for the understanding^* the interaction the only
useful approach can be to study it in the context of foreign policy decisions. ”
Defects. This approach suffers from several shortcomings. In the first place it is too empirical. It completely
ignores the norms, values or high principfes which exercise profound influence on internatfbnal politics, In fact
the ethical principles of foreign policy formulators inadvertently influence the formulation, >f the policy.
Secondly, the approach is based on the principle of indeterminism ii so far it fails to show how the various
factors like situation, environment, personality etc. influence the decision! Thirdly, the approach offers a
’statecantric’ model of international politics. It merely tries to prove that the decision makers tend to fit
incoming information into their existing theories and images. No wonder, this theory lacks the essential of a
theory. As Young has put it, this approach ”hasbeen used so imprecisely and indiscriminately by social scientists
ihat it is in danger of iosing any meaningful content” Fourthly, the theory mainly focusses on the motives and
actions of the decision makers and completely ignores the role of other factors which influence the pattern of
international politics. Finally, it ignores the objective nature of international developments. It does not supply
any criteria either 10 explain the patterns of power politics or ,. to prescribe the rules of international behaviour.
Importance. However, trie decision making framework is intended to show how and why a nation acts in
international politics. Since the direct method of acquiring knowledge is not available the choice of decision
making as a focus is wise. The place of greatest convergence after all is government organisation, therefore a
great deal of factual details can become available from the examination of the activities of such organisations
and their decisions. The knowledge acquired by various disciplines like economics, psychology, and sociology
can be fruitfully utilised in the study of international relations only by the decision making approach.
Conclusion. Thus it would be incorrect to say that the decision making approach is absolutely useless in the
study of international relations. It helps us in a comparative study of various foreign policies. However, a
general study of international relations cannot be fruitfully made with the exclusive help of the decision-making
approach even though it is very useful as a tool in the foreign policy analysis.
Foreign policy and its Determinants

”Foreign policy is the key element in the process by which a state translates its broadly conceived goals and interests
into concrete courses of action to attain- snese objectives and preserve interests.”
Padcifoed and Lincoln
In Modern times no. state can avoid involvement in die international sphere. This involvement must be
systematic and based on some well-defined principles. The principles and the purpose cr* a state is reflected in
the foreign policy. The importance of the foreign policy has been highlighted by scholars in various ways.
Accord ing to one scholar, a state without a foreign policy is like a ship without a radar which drifts aimlessly
without any direction by every storm and sweep of events. According to Prof. Taylor ’Foreign Policy of a sort
will go on so long as there are sovereign states.”
Meaning of Foreign Policy
There is no unanimity amongst scholars regarding the meaning of foreign policy and various definitions have
been offered. According to Padetford and Lincoln:.*A state’s foreign policy is the totality of its dealings with the
external environment Foreign policy is more than a collection of official documents, formal records of actions
and public statements. A foreign policy statement can be simple and succinct..or it may be complicated and
imprecise ...Poriqt is the overall result of the process by which a state translates its broadly conceived goals ami
interests into specific courses faction in order to achieve its objective and preserve its interest”
Prof. F.5. 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 borders and those working within them.”
Prof. Joseph Frankei says that ’foreign policy consists of decisions and actions which involve to some
appreciable extent relations between one state and others.”2 Huge Gibson defines foreign policy as ”a well-
rounded
1. Norman).PadeJfordzndGeorÂ.Lincoln, The Dynamics ot International Politics, p. 195.
2. )o««ph Frankei, The Attfe*ôr”fo»»«nfWfcy,p.l, .

68
• . ••*/ -. ••
comprehensive plan based on knowledge and experience for conducting the business of government with the rest
of the world. It is aimed at promoting and protecting the interests of the nations. ThiscaHsfor a dear
understanding of what those interests are a/t<i how far we can hope to go with the means at our disposal.
Anything less than this falls short of being a foreign policy.”
’ George Modelski says that 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.*1 According to
Rodee ’Foreign policy involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles which shape the
behaviour pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or further its interests.’
The Braoklngs Institution in its book Major Problems of United States Foreign Policy 1952-53, used the term
foreign policy to refer to the complex and dynamic political course that a nation follows in relation to other
’states. According to it the foreign policy of a nation is more than the sum total of its foreign policy (thought out
courses of action for achieving objectives), for ft also includes its commitment, the current forms of its interests
and objectives an^ the principles of right conduct that it professes.
A perusal of the above definitions of foreign policy shows that scholars have laid emphasis either on the plan of
action or policy as executed. However, they all agree that the foreign policy is concerned with the behaviour of a
state towards other states.
Objectives of Foreign Policy. The main objectives which the foreign policy of a country seeks to achieve are as
follows:
Firstly, it seeks to protect the territorial integrity of the country and protect the interests of its citizens, both
within and .outside the country. Generally for this purpose the states prefer to follow policy of status quo. If a
state pursues a policy which seeks to upset the status quo it is branded as revisionist and arouses the suspicion of
other members of the international community. It has to protect the interests of its citizens both inside and
outside the state, for the maintenance of its prestige,
Secondly,the objective of foreign policy is maintenance of links with other members of international community
and adoption of policy of conflict or cooperation towards them with a view to promote Its4own-interests. It is
well known that India has deliberately avoided exchange of diplomatic relations with Israel so that its relations
with the Arab, countries dp not get strained, primarily
• because of close trade relations with’the Arab countries.
Thirdly, the foreign policy of a country seeks to promote and further its
national interests of the country. The primary interest of each state is self-
~ preservation, security and well being of its citizens. Often the interests of various
” states come in clash >and the states have to protect their interests bearing in mind
this factor.
Fourthly, the foreign policy aims at promotion of economic interests of the
-<.Hu&Gibtct*,JheRoxltof<»ttyPoUcy.p.9.
2. Oorge Modehki. A Theoryo/Foreign Policy, pp.6-7.
FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS DETERMINANTS
69
country. As the status of a state in international arena is largely determined by

its economic status, the states try to pursue a foreign policy wh ich can contribute
to their economic prosperity and enable it in turn to play » more effective role
in international politics. Most of the treaties and agreements concluded by the
states with other members of international community are essentially designed
to protect and promote the economic interests of these stages. The importance
or this factor is evident from the fact that India opted to keep out of two power
blocs, which had come into existence when she gained independence, and
adopted policy of non-alignment chiefly because she was keen to concentrate
on her economic development further, she hoped to get every possible help and
assistance from both the superpowers to accelerate’the process of economic
etevelopmenLSifrttlarfyUSAandChiriawereobligefUc patch up their differences,
despise their kteot’ogicat differences, due to economic considerations.
; Fifthly, the foreign policy aims at enhancement of the influenced the stale
either by expanding its area of influence or reducing the other states to the
position of dependency. The policy of United States and Soviet Union in the post
World War !1 period have been largely motivated by these considerations.
DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY (FACTORS INFLUENCING
FOREIGN POLICY)
The foreign policy of a country is influenced by so rmny factors that it is not possible to enumerate all of them
here. Some of the important factors which influence the foreign policy of a country or constitute the inputs of the
foreign .policy are given rtereunder. Broadly speaking these factors fall.into two categories, viz., internal and
external.
INTERNAL FACTORS
1. Size. In the first place the size of a state’s territory as well as its population greatN influences its foreign
policy. Generally the leaders and people of couniriis with small territory and population do not expect their
country to carry great weight in international affairs. On the other hand the leaders and people of large
countries are ready to assume special responsibilities. However, sometime even small states which have rich
resources also leave a deep impact on world politics. For example, the oil-rich countries of Middle East, though
small in size, are piaying significant role in the international politics. Likewise if a country possesses large
territory which is barren and a population which is unskilled, it may not be able to play any effective role in
international politics. . 2. Geography. The geography of a country, including its fertility, climate location in
relation to other land masses, and water-ways etc. also Influence the country’s foreign policy. If is a major factor
in determining self-sufficiency of a country. Generally ’and-locked countries, nations in the topics and those
bordering a superpower are less setf-sufficient in comparison to the countries which have access to warm-water
ports or are located in tne temperate zones *»d far removed from superpowers. Tor example in the nineteenth
century USA ”InptuJ isolationist policy chiefly on account of its geographical location, plough the importance of
geographic factors is acknowledged almost at all ”*«x*s. it* importance has considerably declined due to
technological and
7Q INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
scientific developments. For example, due to improvement in the means of transport and communication the
world has greatly shrunk and the perception of large bodies of water as natural barriers to military attack
has’greatly diminished. But still geographical location of a country has a deep impact on the determination of its
foreign policy. India adopted policy of non-alignment because of geographical Ideation. The presence of two
major powers on its borders (USSR and China) deterred it from joining power blocs.
3. Culture and History. The cultural and historical traditions of a country ’, also deeply influence the foreign
policy. Generally people possessing a unified ’
commoncultureandhistoricalexperiencecanpursueaneffectiveforeign policy because of the support of all sections
of society who share the same values and memories. On the other hand, a country which is culturally and
historically ’,. fragmented cannot pursue an equally effective foreign policy. According to Prof. Rosenau ”the
influence of cultural factors is not I imted to the impact of societal unity upon the formulation and
implementation of foreign policy. Equally important are the processes through which’ the contents of shared
norms and practices of society, as distinguished from the degree of unity that supports them, shape the plans
that are made and the activities that are undertaken with respect to the external world.*1
4. Economic Development. The stage of economic development which a country has attained also has its impact
on its foreign policy. Generally the industrially advanced countries feel more deeply involved in relationswith
other » countries because they have to import different kinds of raw materials and commodities from olher
countries. They are also on the look out of latest knowledge and technical know-how. Therefore they maintain
intimate trade relationswith their trading partners. All this leads to intimate links between the groups and
people of one. country with their counterparts in the other country. Again, an industrial country is expected to
have a higher gross national product -_ (GNP) and can devote greater funds for external purpose, viz., economic
aid programme, military ventures and extensiveidiplomalic commitments. On the other hand, industrially
backward countries are not able to actively involve themselves in external affairs. The lack of scientists,
engineers and other special ists in the country prevents them from taking advantage of the technological break-
through abroad.
5. Technology. Advancement in technology, which effects the military and

«conomiccapabilitiesofastate,alsoexercisesprofoundinfluenceontheforeigrt policy. However, this factor influences
the foreign policy only in an indirect manner, viz., by influencing other sources of foreign policy.
6. National Capacity. The national capacity of a state also exercises profound influence on the foreign policy of a
state. National capacity of a state depends en its military preparedness, its technological advancement and
economic development. It is well known that United States which continued to pursue policy of isolation till tfie
beginning of the present century got deeply
FOREIGNJ>OUCY AND ITS DETEWyMNANTS * 71
involved in the international arena in the present century mainly due to tremendous increase in her national
capacity due to rapid economic development Similarly, the foreign policy of Britain underwent great
transformation in the post World War II period, mainty due to decline in her national capacity.
7. Social Structure. The social structure of a society also exercises profound influence on its foreign policy. A
society which is sharply divided on the basis of wealth, religion, regional imbalances, etc. cannot pursue effective
foreign policy on account of division and lack of co-operation among various groups. On the other hand a
homogeneous society possessing strong sense of national unity can pursue a more effective foreign policy. It is
well known that Britain stood as one person under the leadership of Churchill during the Second World War
and the people gladly suffered all kinds of hardships to preserve their unity because of social solidarity. No
doubt, it is not easy to trace the impact of social structure on the foreign policy plans and behaviour, because of
the involved subtleties, but no student of foreign policy, can ”afford to ignore the external consequences of the
internal social structure and of the slow changes it may be undergoing.”1
8. Public Mood. Puhlic mood is another important determinant of a country’s foreign policy. Though it is
generally held that the public mood usually follows rather than guides the foreign policy making process, it can
exercise lot of influence on the determination of a foreign policy of basic realignment in the prevailing great
power structure takes place and the state becomes more involved or more isolated from the world affairs, ft may
be noted that generally in an authoritarian system the public mood does not influence the foreign policy, but in a
democratic system based on political accountability considerable weight has to be accorded to the changing
public mood and sentiments.
9. Political Organisation. The political organisation found in a country also . greatly influences the foreign policy.
Generally under authoritarion systems quick foreign policy decisions are possible because the decision making
power rests.with an individual assisted by his clique. But as the leaders under this system’ are isolated from the
operational environments and the subordinate policy makers provide the information which is perceived by the
superiors, there is every possiblility of a discrepancy between the psychological and operational aspects of the
foreign policy. Further, under this system undesirable opposition can be suppressed through censorship and
promulgation of regulations. On the
• other hand in a country possessing a democratic structure the citizens can freely express their opinion on the
domestic as well as foreign policy which naturally -”” leaves its impact on the foreign policy of the country.
Under democratic system there is very little discrepancy between what the officials want to believe about *e
state of world politics and the actual position because the subordinate policy ”takers make available critical and
detached information. : Within the democratic system itself the difference in political structure has ”*
impact on foreign policy. For example, under a parliamentary system of
8°vemment based on co-operation between the Legislature and the Executive,
” ””’ ” »nnin ii.in ,in”i . MI i nil ..i. i.i^rî ’111 ..... i • ii iiu. it i i mi
1. Rocenau, op. or., p. 24 ’ ’ . ’

72
INTWNAT1ONAI. RELATIONS
FOREIGN POUCY AND ITS DCTERMiNANTS
73
the cordial retatiorWbetween the two wings have an impact on country’s foreign policy. On the other hand
under peesidential system based on the principle of separation of powers, the relation between the two wings are
likely to b* more strained, which affect the ambiguity or countinuity of foreign policy. Simiiary, different
foreign policy is likely to emerge under bi-party system and multi-party systems. Generally under bi-party
system the government is likely to have a clear-cut majority and conduct itself in & more decisive manner
regarding the conduct, of foreign relations. In contrast of this, under multi-party system conflicting view points
and interests may have to be reconciled. This may lead either to the avoidance or postponement of the decision.
10. Role of Press. The press also plays a vital role in the foreign policy formulation process. The press
contributes to this process by supplying factual information on the basis o.’ which the people take decision; by
publishing specialised articles on current international developments which enable the people to understand the
significance of developments in their country in relation to the past developments; and by analysing the policy of
the government in regard to foreign affairs. The press also plays an important role in publicising the foreign
policy of the country.
The rote of Ihepress, however, depends on the political system prevailing in the country, the rate of literacy as
well as the attitude of government.
11. Political Aecmtiriability.’fhenatufeQ/l political accountability prevailing in a system also greatly influences the
foreign policy of the country. Generally in an open political, system, the demands of citizen and groups get
articulated and transmitted to foreign policy fonwulators. The framers of foreign pciicy cannot ignore these
demands, lo fact quite often the policy formuiators anticipate these demands while formulating the foreign
policy. On the other hand under a closed system the public reaction* are neither available nor given Much
importance.
12. Leadership. The leadership also plays a vital role in the shaping of a country’s foteign policy. According to
Rosenau: ”A leader’s beliefs about the nature of international drena and the goals that ought to be pursued
therein, his or her peculiar inief lecutal strengths and weakness for analysing information and making decisions,
his or her past background and the extent of its relevance to the requirements of the role, his or her emotional
needs and most of other personality traits-these are but a few of the idiosyncratic factors^ that can influence the
planning and execution of foreign policy.” No doubt, the qualities of leadership have a deep impact on the
country’s foreign policy but their roie is greatly constrained by the governmental and social structure. Further
the role of leadership b not identical in all countries. In less developed countries their roie is greater as
compared to industrialised societies. In industrialised societies the individuals enjoy very limited discretion in
high governmental and nongovernmental positions.
1. Rotenau, op. tit., p. 28.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
In addition to the internal factors which influence a country’s foreign policy discussed above, a number of
external factore also exercise considerable influence on ihe foreign policy of * country, Sirour times the world
has become so interlinked that incidents in other countries have Sheir immediate impact on dthe? countries.
Thus a coup d’ ete.’in a neighbouring country; or nationalisation of oiicompanies in middle east or release o? 5
proposed arms control agreements
• are events which influence the actions of leaders in other countries.
t. Power-Structure* The great power structure prevailing in the world politics also greatly influences the policy
of a country, in this regard three
• possibiiideo can be envisaged. First, a number of powers rnayenjoy great power siaius and their relations may
be based on balance of power system. Secondly, them may be only two powers which dominate the work! scene
and the other states are compelled to side with one or the other. Thirdly, mom than two states attain great power
status and the two powers at the poi*s are iesss able to command strict allegiance of those irt the orbi? (the
system ii known as loosebipotar). The nature of power structure prevailing in the world has a subslantial impact
on the foreign policy of a country, Highlighting this gcisf Prof. Rosenau says: ’wherever a nation is located in the
prevaMJng hierarchy of world politics, rules governing the conduct of iJs foreign relation* Send So be
embedded in the arrangements whereby the great powers cope with their conflicts or otherwise interact Jo
frame and shape the major issue of an er* -Th-ese ruics nwy not be explicitly identified anil their operation as
inputs inay take many forms, bwl their relevance to the deliberations erf foreign poiicy officials is likely io be
pervasive.*’
2./.’<f<yr^f;on.?/Or(;an/5.if/o«.Th«corîEsnpQfjryiiitematFtx.aio.”ganiîori also greatly.influences the

foreign policy of a country. While formulating its foreign policy the country hasto take note of the
international law, treaties and contracts. No county can ignore these factors wfîout jeopardisfng its own
intert^.Afwrt/romitestRjctur«attr«gtol^ and sub-regional teveif als* greatly influence She foreign po!k,y
of” a country.
3. Reaction of Other States. While formulating Its foreign policy a country has to take note of the reaction of
other states to its various actions No country can afford to pursue interests which ace fundamentally against tte
interests of the .other states because any policy based on narrow national interests is fiksly tq evoke strong
reaction from the concerned state and produced disasterous consequences, kis well known that in 1939 Hitler
embarked upon invasion of Poland unmindful of the British reaction wiih dtsasterous .consequences. Similarly
Japan’s attack on Pearl harbour, unmindful of the strong American sentiments, produced disasterous effects for
her.
4. Alliances. Alliances concluded by various stales also greatly influence the foreign policy. The stales patties Co
alliance have to respond to the requests and demands of their allies artd refrain from formulating policies or
taking actions which are offensive to them. It is true that generally the alliance* give (rear amount of
independence with regard to the plans and actions, yet they
I. Rcienau, op. dt, p. 23.

imtKNAITONAL RHAnONS
operate implicitly and explkkh/as fcn^t eten^ m ^^ whkh foreign polky is formulated and
implemented.
5.WoHdl^îcOpm^.l^^^^^^M^^^^*^ influence on the foreign polky of a country. It i« m* that *e

”^J** opinion influences the foreign policy of a country ^^^ ^ ”£* a factor. Further, it is afate to
exercise influence on ft* foretgf£^yof * *** onry if it is supported by tr^dc^kpuWkopin,^ S.
G«jvernn«nTwas made to effect changes in its Vietnam policy largely *»» hostile world opinion. ^ t
Ll_
Thus it can be said that theforeign polky of a country i* detem*)«tf by p» domestic factors as well as
the international environment*.
.<?
The Role of Ideology

i.
”The middle of tke twentieth century maybe witnessing the epoch miking shift in the foundation of international
policies from the nationalistic balance of power to ideology, evidence
* of which we shall ignore at our peril”.
-W.G.CaHcton
One of the features which distinguishes the contemporary world policies from the classic pattern is the central
role of mass beliefs and popular ideas in the affairs of states. In the twentieth century Nazism and Fascism in
Germany and Italy respectively led to War in 1939. Communism from its base in Russia has become one of the
major forces of the present age. Democracy has opened new and exciting vistas of individual worth and free
societies to much of the human race. Anti-colonialism has transformed the political map of the world and
drastically changed the conditions of International politics. It can be very well said that the 20th century is an
ideological era.
Meaning
The ideology has been defined by Charles P. Schleicher as ”a system of abstract ideas held by an individual
which purports to explain reality, express value goals and contain programmes of action for the retention or
attainment of the kind of social order in which its proponents believe the goals can be
best realised.” It follows that a particular individual may and ordinarily does adrteretosewral ideologies-
nationalism, socialism, neutralism, and Gandhism, %tc. •
According to another definition of the ideology it ”is a cluster of ideas, about life, society or government which
originate in most cases as consciously advocated or dogmatically asserted social, political or religious slogans or
battle cries and which through continuous usage and preachment gradually became the characteristic beliefs or
dogmas of particular groups, party or nationality.” Padelford and Lincoln define ideology as ”a body of ideas
concerning ecoqpmic, social and political values and goals with positive action programmes for attaining those
goals.”
Martin Seliger has offered a detailed definition of ideology. He says: ”An ideology is a group of beliefs and
disbeliefs expressed in value sentences, appeal sentences and explanatory statements. These sentences refer to
moral and technical norms and are related to the descriptive and analytical statements of
76
THEROUOHDKXOCY
77
fact with which (hey arc arranged and together interpreted as a doctrine bearing the.imprint of centralily of morally
founded prescribes. A doctrine, which is to say dn ideology, presents a not entirely self-consistent, not fully verified
and verifiable, but not merely distorted body of views. These views rebte in the main to forms of human relationships
and socio-poiittcai organisation as they should and could be and refer from this perspective to the existing order and
Wee versa. Ideologies share with others some moraiiy and factually*based view* and thus attest ideological pluralism
without thereby losing their distinctiveness.” Snyder and Wilson fiefine ideology as ”a cluster of ideas about life,
society or government, which originate in most cases as consciously advotaSBti or . dogmatically asserted social,
political or religious slogans or baCfe cries ami which through continuous usage and peachmant gradually becoirss the
characteristic beliefs or dogmas of particular group, party or nationality.’
Thus scholars have defined and interpreted ideology in different -sense*. In the first instance it has been defined as a
self-contained and setf-justifying bdwf system based on a definite world view.’! claims to provide a basis fc-r
explaining the whole reality. in the second instance, ideology has been described ** a cloak for real foreign policy
objective. Used in this sense,: ideology is concerned with the achievement of power as its immediate goal of foreign
policy, while explaining the action in legal ethical cr- humanitarian terms. Karl Mannheim uses ideology in this sense..
Despite difference in interpretation, it is admitted at all hands that ideology constitutes the backbone of the foreign
policy of a state and strives for ineffective implementation. Prof. Holsti has rightly observed that ”ideologies not only
establish foreign policy goals, evaluate criteria and justifications, for actions but have important effects on perceptual
process as well.” He says that ideology affects the political goals and actions in five ways. First, it establishes the
intellectual framework through which policy makers observe reality. Secondly, jt prescribes for policy makers the long-
range goals of state’s extemaf behaviour to be promoted by them. Thirdly, it serves as a justification for choice of man
specific foreign policy decisions. Fourthly, it defines for policy-makers theTnain stages in historical development
within which specific foreign policy strategies can be enunciated. Finally, it posits a moral and ethical system that helps
prescribe the correct attitudes and evaluative criteria ferjudging one’s own actions and those of others.
Kinds 6f Ideologies. Countries have followed different ideologies at different periods of time, which have been
classified by Morgenthaujrt three different categories.
1. fdeohgies of Status Quo. If a state pursues policy designed to preserve the status quo it is regarded as the adherent of
status quo ideology. usually such states hold great faith in international law and peace arsd are cppo*ed to ail types of
imperialism. They also hold faith in system of coliecuve security and mutual Mfjf^n<-a us ensure thai the world peace
is not disturbed. The «*jtet adhering to this ideology seek to protect the interests of smaller TtatM so that stilus quo is
not disturbed. It is noteworthy that a state whkh has acquired significant portion of territory of other states through
force cannot b» regaled as adherent
of the ideology of status quo because all the time these states have io face resentment cf other siates.
2. Ideologies of Imperialism. As opposed to the ideologies of status quo there are ideologies of imperialism which seek
to overthrow die status quo and create an international system which redistributes the power in their favour. ThefQ
ideologies do not hoid faith in international law and seek to disturb the status quo to promote their own interests. Hitler
of Germany adhered Jo this ideology. He severely condemned Treaty of Versailles which sought to preserve the status
quo and advocated imperialist policies.
3. Ambsgijot&Jdeok)gie&. This refers to ideologies whose premises are not dear and ate used by vanous states for their
respective purposes. One of the best example* ol this ideology is offered by ’principle of national-self-determination’
advocated by President Wilson during the Firsi World War. White on the on* bflfld !h<s principle was used io
dismember the Austria-Hungarian empirsby the AMies, on ihe other hand Hitter used it to swallow Austria and a part
Czechoslovakia.
lnief«sl and Ideology
There is ordinarily a dose relationship between interest and ideology. Each seems to be influenced by other. The
interest may shape the ideology and be shaped by it The history is rampant with such examples where the national
interests wers served by shaping kbelogy according to the goals. The annexation of India by Great Britain as its colony
was described as educating, civilising and humanitarian mission, a sort of ’white man’s burden’ wht !e the real
objective was economic exploitation of the backward countries. The ideology was used to rationalise the action.
Annexation was an act of imperialism but to disguise it humanitarian ideology was advanced. Similarly, when UJS A
annexed Philippines for trade and military purpose, she explained her imperialistic action as a humanitarian mission.
Likewise ideology can also influence the national internets. American involvement in Europe wasesserUially directed
by her desire to ’contain communism’ and save democracies. Sch iekher has rightly observed that both interest and
ideology shape and are shaped by the other. They tend to converge although they areentsreSy cotnpatible. The relative
influenced/ each where they are not mutually reinforcing, seems to depend on the ft&nsity of attachment to the interest
and ideology *
Important ideologies -
There are so many ideologies that it is not possible to dea I with al I of them. We shall therefore concentrate only on
some of the important ideologies:
£&@ra//$/n. This is also known as ideology of freedom and World peace. It is not a new ideology and was quite
popular during the seventeenth century. !n fact it formed the basis of the western social, religious, economic and
political system. It regarded the individual as supreme and laid emphasis on development of his Lakfttsand capacities to
the maximum, it laid emphasis on free competition and paid greaf attention to the welfare of the individual. When
extended to the international sphere this ideology emphasisesthe principle* of peace, friendship, freedom, co-operation,
justices ate. it is opposed to intervention in the domestic affair* of other states and holds iaith in peaceful co-existence
of ai! states kraapectiv* of their position or ftatus. Vernon Van Dyke highlights the chief
4e#ttimof&i»yeoSoKythu$:”Faa^wMacrrf^ liberal is inclined to choose butter, perhaps to the peril of his nation. Faced
with
78
79
a choice between appeasement and resistance to a foreign threat at the risk of war, the liberal may be inclined towards
appeasement, for war threatens most of the values he holds dear. In recent decades, particularly, the liberal democracies
have been very reluctant to engage in military preparations and to participate in war.”
Prof. Schleicher has highlighted following salient characteristics of Liberalism.
(1) It is conducive to the practices which promote the welfare of men regardless of their social, economic, racial or
national status.
(2) Itstjekstopromoteindividualdignitynotonlyofitsownnationalsbut of all people in general.
(3) It does not permit sovereignty to stay in the way* of protection and , promotion of human rights and other
democratic values.
(4) It favours international institutions where men shall have right to take part in important decisions affecting them and
find peaceful solutions.
(5) It favours pacific settlement of disputes and peaceful changes in accordance with the will of the majority.
Though the above principles are emphasised by all those who believe in liberal ideology, they considerably differ in the
actual application of these principles. Further, they have conveniently used these principles to justify their acts of
omission and commission. Even the formation of various military alliances has been justified on the ground that this
aims at the preservation of democracy which is threatened by the Communists. In fact, the adherents of liberal ideology
attach equal importance to the economic interests and security, of their country and are not willing to sacrifice the same
for the sake of above principles.
2. Totalitarianism: This ideology is opposite of liberalism and attaches more importance to the slate rather than the
individual it draws a clear line of demarcation between die ruler -and the ruled and asserts the right of the elites to
government. It does not attach any importance to the freedom of speech and association as instruments of popular
welfare and holds that state alone can promote the welfare of people. The other important features emphasised by this
ideology are one-party government, constant expansion of state, omnipotence of state war as an instrument for
settlement of disputes etc. Some of the important <x totalitarian
idcologicshavebeenFa$cism,NationalSocialism,andCornnruinism. -4 The Fascist under Mussolini attached a mystical
quality to the state, they wanted the power to be left in the hands of an elite led by a single superman; regimentation of
social, economic, political and intellectual activities of people; territorial expansion and war as an instrument for
settlement of international disputes; subordination of individual to state, etc. Likewise Socialism under Hitler not only
emphasised the above principles but also put forth principle of racial superiority of the Nordic people.
Communism which is also a variety of totalitarian ideology differs from FasciMiuiul N.iiinn.il SIM ijli*m, in so far as
it stands for a free and dignified life oi UK- individual through elimination of system of exoioitation of man by man.
/f THE ROLE Of IDEOLOGY
irs-^^ss^SS^sr
KSSSSSKSSg-s-s-s:
VHS ovn**!»vi*» <w*«...vv r
in short both the ideologies underwent great transformation, i ne i.apuaim stales, due to fear of losing ground to
Communists, started dismantling their colonial empires. Internally they embarked upon socialist poJktes and
carried out far reaching social reforms. This trend of reforms in capitalist states induced the Commun ists to in
traduce reciprocal changes specially after 1953. Thus both Communism and Democracy ceased to be orthodox
doctrines and .were involved in competetive co-existence rather than peaceful existence.
In this regard the Communists had certain advantages over the capitalist system, specially in the newly
emerging state. The principle* of freedom and economic development emphasised by the Communists had
great appeal with the newly emerged states. The Communists also promoted anti-colonial feeling and
contributed to the liquidation of the colonies. On the other hand the Democratic ideology emphasised the
superiority of the evolutionary methods of change and development and asserted that the resolution of
existing social and economic problem through revolutionary methods was bound to produce disappointing
results. In support of their contention they argued that the historkalexperieixxconfirrminatrwrevDiutm
Revolution,
succeeded in establishing a stable and efficient government The experience of the Americans was different
from other countries which witnessed revolution because this revolution took place under quite different
conditions viz. the people en joyed relative prosperity rather than mas* poverty. The newly emerged
couMrito of Asia and Africa, however, showed preference for the Socialist ideology because- it
auuredthem quick results.
80
The practical experience of Soviet U nion and China, two leading Communist countries, also attracted the newly
independent countries towards Communist ideology. They were greatly impressed with the enormous progress made by
these tvvo countries. No wonder the underdeveloped states were attracted towards Communist ideology which held the
prospect of quick development which they ardously desired. •
In recent years the ideological tension has virtually come to an end with !he Communist states embarking upon more
open policies and adopting good features of the capitalist system.
impact of idedogy
There is difference of opinion among schoiars regarding the impact of ideology on inttrnadonai relations. On the one
hand Prof. Hill says that it is a simplifying mechanism that ”offers to individual ready-packaged ideas and therefore,
obviates ihe necessity for him to work out answers for himself. The easiest course i* to accept without question the
package handed to him to become a Communist if he lives in Russia where Communism is tre approved system, to
uphold ’.he ideas cf democracy if he has been raised in the Wastern world, to be a German mi i itansi if he has been
brought up in Germany or & French nationalist^ his background ha? been French. Whatever a person may be, he is
surrounded by isms to which he rather naturaliy succumbs: without much, if anything, in the way of roensai effort. To
be sure, some people are sufficiently assertive intellectually to worx out for thernsslvss something other than package
ideas but ’ha tank and file take the easier course.”1
On the other hand certain other scholars have contended (hat ideology does not play that effective role in international
politics. If certain powers are able to move men and destroy and create society, it is more on account of their power
rather than their ideoiogy. The ideologies merely give direction to the physical resources of the countries.
The truth lies between these two extreme views. Whiie it may be too much to ray that ideology plays a vita! role in
international politics, but it cannot be denied that it exercises considerable influence on international relations. For
example during the inter-war period Fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany considerably influenced the
foreign policies of these countries and influenced their relations with other countries. In ihe modern times ideology has
beconxj more important because large number of people have begun to play an effective role in the forrnulatSon of
foreign policy at decision making kjvei. No doubt, the gewecal public docs not exert a continuous, direct and positive
influence over •jecision-making, yet the public opinion limits the scope of alternatives available to the decision-makers.
The policy makers on their part try •to•mould the public opinion in support of their policies. They do this by not .
allowing the infcrraaJiori to reach the people and indoctrinating them with the ideas fayourafote to them. This is
particuiarry true of totalitarian states. Even in democratic states effort is made to control the thought. E.H. Carr has
highlighted this point thus: ’Prior to 1914 the conduct of international relations was the
--- ’ - •’ • -- • Lkmi -_._i_ - _ - -
t. Norman Hi«, Conttmponry WorUPoHOcs, pp. 429-30-
THE ROLE Of IDEOLOGY
81
concern of the person professionally engaged in it. In democratic countries, foreign policy was traditionally
regarded as outside the scope of party politics, representative organs did not feel themselves competent to
exercise any close control over mysterious operation of foreign offices.*
2. Ideology provides justification and rationale !o !he policy of a country by providing goals for political actions and
concealing all manifestations of a struggle for power.
3. Again, ideology plays both cooperative and oppositiona! role. While common ideology unites’Ihe states, the
opposite ideology divides them sharply. Again, the ideology of nationalism has divided the mankind into small groups
opposing each other. Nationalism impels a country to assert that Jts cause ,s absolutely just while thai of the opponent
is unjust. The states are not willing to concedeia remote possibi! ity that there can be a measure oi: justice and a
measure of injustice on both sides.
4. ideology provjdes a rigid framework for theforeign policy makers which results in ”faulty thinking characterised by
assumptions of doubtful validity, disregard for the meaning of words and definitions, misrepresentations of facts,
omissions of facts, general conclusions drawn from specific premises or conclusions based on only one premise,
predictions on the basis oi insufficient data, conclusions drawn per analogiam without due regard for differences
impairing the overall validity of the analogy, disregard for the time elements and disregard for the laws of thinking in
general.”
- 5. There exists a definite relationship between the ideologies and struggle for power, in the words of Prof.
Morgcnthau ”a! I politics-domestic or international is nothing but struggle for power and the true nature of the policy is
concealed by ideological justifications and rationalisations*. Therefore, instead of using the ideology in
explaining,objectives for the realisation of which political power is needed, the ideology merely provides a mark
behind which the ulterior motives are concealed.
The significance of ideology in international politics has been brought out by Prof. Palmer and Perkins thus: ’the
significance of ideologies in world politics today lies in the fact that in some instances they have become linked to
national power, just as power became the instrument of ambitious nationalism it has now become the too! of ideologies.
Without power of some kind ideology-even one which aspires to universaiism-is a passive harmless pattern of related
ideas. What makes Communism the dread of the world is not the gospel of Marx and Lenin, it rs Soviet (and Chinese)
power associated with and sustaining the Communist ideology. Without power Communism would be an important
psychosis” They further assert ”ideologies, in fact are futile source of international conflict, and they greatly complicate
the task of the peaceful solution of all conflicts.* Further ’Ideologies are essentially irrational, they have a considerable
emotional content, they can be used to obscure ihe real facts of a situation or the real motives of ambitious leaders; they
can be appealed to by extremists and then
1. Pakner and PeHeios, Internationa! Rtbtkov, pJJ4,
82’
can make reasonable approaches and compromises difficult or even impossible; they frustrate efforts to find
areas of agreement, they make it hard to deal with international problems without undue sacrifice of national
honour or prestige; they turn international conferences into propaganda forums instead of opportunities for the
accommodation of diplomacy.*
Decline of Ideology
Some scholars have taken the view that there has been decline of ideology in recent years. For example Prof.
Daniel Bell holds that the ideological fires in the western world have cooled down and ’ideology’ which was once
the road to action, has become a dead end. In fact most of the disputes which still peesist between different
countries such as dispute between India and Pakistan, the Arab states and Israel etc. are not ideological in
character, even though they may be projected in ideological terms. Likewise the dispute between Russia and
China could hardly be described as an ideological dispute. However; Prof. Palmer and Perkins do not agree with
this view. They argue that ”in many countries it may be true that political ideas and ideologies have lost their old
appeal, but in international politics this seems to be less true.” In the changed conditions at present the above
view of Palmer and Perkins does not seem to be valid. The growing co-operation between stales with ideological
differences is a clear proof that in recent times ideology has lost its relevance.
Most of the East European countries which earlier held faith in Communist ideology have moved towards
democracy and liberalisation, symbolising the end of the ideological conflict States like East and West
Germany, which were divided oh ideological basis, have since united which is a further proof that the
ideology no long plays that vital role. In view of the above, it can be safely said that ideology no long plays
that important role in international relations which it played a few years back.
Foreign Policy Choices

E States are involved in international relations in different proportions.
E While some are deeply involved in the world and regional affairs and make large commitments to
achieve or protect their interests, the others prefer to keep aloof from the rest of the world and concentrate
mainly on their internal problems. In making a choice with regard to foreign policy, the states are generally
influenced
! by a number of considerations such as the structure of the international system and the pattern of its
dominance; the nature of domestic social, and economic needs; the perception of the leaders regarding
external threat to their values and interests and the geographical location, topographical characteristics and
natural resources etc. which have been discussed in an earlier chapter. Accordingly a variety of foreign
policy strategies have been adopted by different states, witb a view to increase their power, gain security
and attain their set
. objectives. In this chapter we shall deal with the various choices open to the states with regard to foreign
policy.
IMPERIALISM
The term imperialism with reference to the foreign policy has been used by different scholars in different senses.
While in the past the scholars treated it as a specific historical phenomenon, it was used for a highly centralised
government enjoying dictatorial powers. After 1870 the term began to be used as equivalent of colonialism,
based on extension of political sovereignty*of the nation, on alien people and territories. In the present century it
was further extended to include economic penetration and domination of markets, sources of supply and
investment outlets. ThusMichael Barratt Brown defined imperialism as *a complex of economic, political and
military relations by whkrfi the less economically developed lands are subjected to the more economically
developed.-” It is a policy which aims at creating organising and maintaining an empire. Charles A. Beard also
describes imperialism as ”employment of the engine of government and diplomacy to acquire territories,
protectorates, and • or spheres of influence, occupied total ty by other races or people, and to promote
industrial, trade and investment opportunities.” Morgenthau defines imperialism as ”the expansion of a state’s
power beyond its borders”. Schuman defines it as ”the imposition by force and violence of alien rule upon
subject people*’. Charles Hodges has offered an elaborate definition- of imperialism. He says it is ”a projection
externally, directly or indirectly, oitfte alien political, economic or cultural power of one nation into *e internal
Hfe or another people.-, it involves the imposition of control-open or covert, direct’ -ar indirect on people by
84
another.” To Palmer and Perkins ”imperialism pertains to relationship in which one area and its people are
subordinate to another area and its government. Imperialism in essence always involves subordination; it is a
power-relationship without moral implications of any kind.”
in simple words we can say that imperialism is a policy pursued by a state by which it tried to extend its political or
economic ppwer,or both, over another: region, it also involves exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. Motives
Behind hmperiaJwt Policy.
Imperialist policy is pursued on account of severaj reasons. Firstly, a state may pursue an imperialist policy on account
of tiie material gains which may accrue to it in the form of precious objects, crops, natural resources etc. It is well
known that the European powers pursued imperialist policies during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to secure,
raw materials. As European countries lacked necessary raw materials to meet the requirements of their industries, they
moved to backward countries of Asia- and Africa where raw materials like rubber, petroleum, cotton, silk,- vegetable
oils, tin and other minerals were available in plenty, and carved out colonies there.
Secondly, the massive production due to industrial revolution obliged the \ industrialised countries of Europe viz.
England, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal etc. to took up for markets fortheir finished goods. This
provided a fillip to search for overseas markets and conquest of colonies.
Thirdly, the industrial countries were keen to invest the surplus capital, which became available as a result of
industrialisation. As this surplus capital could not be profitably invested in Europe they thought of carving out cofontes
where the surplus capital could be gainfully invested. This ted to race for colonies amongst various industrial powers of
Europe.
Fourthly, a state may pursue imperials!? policy to enhance its national prestige and power. Acquisition of vast
territories outside its boundaries not only gives a boost to the prestige of a state but also considerably adds to its power.
It is well known that the British always prided in the fact that they possessed one of the most extensive empires in the
world and boasted that ”the sun never sets on die British Empire.”
Fifthly, an imperialist policy may be pursued for the purpose of national defence.’ A state may acquire control over
border areas or convert them into buffer states to protect its interests against a powerful neighbour. Thus, Britain made
Afghan and Tibet as buffer states to protect its Indian Empire. Further.these territories can greatly contribute to the
defence of the country by providing necessary recruits for defence forces. It is weli known that Britain raised nearly
4,00,000 troops from India during the war which greatly contributed to her ultimate victory in the Second World War.
Sixthly, a state may embark on imperialist policies to provide an outlet for its surplus population. During the
19tft century a number of European powers
FOREIGN POLICY cnuiCES
85
like Italy, Germany etc. embarked on imperialist policies to settle their surplus population.
Seventhly, the religious, humanitarian and ideological considerations also motivate a state to pursue imperialist policy.
The Western nations justified their imperialist policies on the ground that they were ordained by God to civilise the
backward people and pass on the blessings of their religion to them. It is well known that the activities undertaken by
the Christian missionaries to popularise their religion and culture provided a fillip to the imperialist ventures.
Eighthly, the writing of thinkers like Machavelli, Hegel, Nietzsche, Gobineau etc. also provided an impetus to
imperialism by glorifying war. The states under the impact of these writings were convinced that the white races were
destined to rule over the black and brown races of Africa and Asia, and embarked upon the policy of imperialism.
Finally, the states may resort to imperial policy to divert the attention of the people from domestic problems and unrest.
Techniques*
> As regards the techniques of imperialism, the imperialist states have resorted to different techniques ranging from
complete military conquest to obtaining of concessions through treaties, fraud, economic penetration,etc. These
methods were adopted by the different European States to carve out extensive colonial empires and advance their
interests in distant regions. For example states like Britain, France, Germany, Russia and japan tried to promote their
interests by acquiring lease-holds in China. Similarly, in Turkey, Britain, France, Germany and Italy established their
sphere of influence. In Africa, however, these states followed the policy of annexation. To maintain their control the
imperialist powers also resorted to tariff regulation, financial supervision or military occupation.
In modern times states have made use of more subtle and sophisticated techniques of imperialism. It shall be desirable
to know about the various; techniques of imperialism in some details. ,
1. Aggression and Annexation. This technique was used by the imperialist powers like Britain, France and Spain in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They sent powerful armies which defeated the native people and annexed their
territories to the empire. This technique was used by Britain in India and Italy in Ethiopia.
2. Economic Concessions. The imperialist power secured certain concessions from the backward countries in the
field of trade and commerce and
; utilised these concessions to further exploit them. It is well known that the English came to India as traders, acquired
certain trade concessions and gradually established their control over major part of the country. Likewise • German
bankers and engineers secured certain concessions in the form of building of Berlin Baghdad Railway. Again both
France and Britain secured
86
FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES
87
concessions from Egypt in return for building of Suez Canal.
3. Leasehold. .Under this technique an imperialist power obtains a part of territory of a weaker nation, with right to
govern it and expliot its economic resources for a fixed period. Thus Britain obtained Hong Kong on lease from China
for 99 years.in 1898, while Germany acquired lease for the same duration over’part of Shantung Peninsula of China in
1898. USA also secured lease over Panama Canal.
4. Sphere of Influence. Under this technique an imperialist country acquires exclusive right to exploit and develop a
backward region economically to the exclusion of other countries, with no right to establish any form of control over it.
In 1907 Russia and England divided Persia into their sphere of influence. While South Persfa was placed under Great
Britain, Russia was assigned North Persia. Likewise in 1904 France and England reached an understanding whereby
Egypt was placed under Britain sphere of influence while Morocco was to be under French sphere of influence.
5. Protectorate. Under this technique though the territory remains under the control of a nominal suzerain, who is free
to conduct the internaladministration as he likes, but the foreign affairs are regulated by the imperialist state. Thus
France established protectorate over Morocco in 1912 and Britain established protectorate over Egypt in 1914.
6. Economic Control. This is yet another imperialist technique under which the imperialist power tries to control the
domestic and foreign policy of economically weaker nations through economic investment and economic assistance.
This does not involve any change in power relations through conquest of territory. Both Britain and France established
their control over large number of states through their policies. In present times USA exercises considerable control
over the states of Central America through regulation of their trade etc.
7. Mandate System. This technique of imperialism was evolved at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Under this
system the former German colonies and other weaker territories were entrusted to the League of Nations who in turn
v handed over these territories to various European powers for administration. These powers, known as Mandate
Powers, were expected to carry out reforms and create conditions for self-government-in these territories. They were
also required to submit an annual report to the League regarding the moral, material, social and political developoment
in these colonies.
8. Guttural and Ideological Imperialism. Finally, an imperialist power can exercise control over other states through
control of minds of men by imposing its own ideology. This is more effective than military or economic techniques.
Morgenthau describes it as more subtle and ’successful’ technique of imperialism. Irt the post world war II period
Soviet Union made effective use of this technique to control the countries of Eastern Europe.
Imperialism in Modern Times
In modern times the nature of imperialism has undergone changes. In place of the military imperialism, the economic
and cultural imperialism have gained ground. In the economic imperialism the imperialist countries instead of
conquering the territory try to establish their control over those who control the territory. Though the states subjected to
this type of imperialism retain sovereignty but their economic life is completely dominated by the imperialist country.
This method is an indirect but quite effective method of gaining and maintaining domination over other nations.
A more subtle form of imperialism is cultural imperialism. The imperialist powers try to control the minds of the
people with a view to change the power relations between two countries. The techniques applied by the Soviet Union in
the countries of Eastern Europe to extend its control is the best example of the operation of cultural imperialism.
Similarly the competition between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China to dominate the world
communist . movement and to acquire influence in the uncommitted nations, is another example of this type of
imperialism. It may, however,’be noted that cultural imperialism play a role only subsidiary to the military and
economic imperialism. It is noteworthy that in modern times the economic and cultural imperialism are playing more
effective role in the foreign policies of the imperialist powers, and the use of military imperialism has consistently
declined. This is due to the fact that military imperialism carries within itself the risk of escalation into self destructive
nuclear war. On the other hand the growing dependence of the former colonies on outside assistance has provided fresh
opportunities to the powers to expand their power through economic and cultural means. Both the superpowers as well
as China made liberal use of these types of imperialism to increase their influence and power in the Third World. As
Prof. Morgenthau has ; observed: ”The weakness of the new nations offers them (Soviet Union, United ’i States of
America and China) the opportunity and the acceptable risk of nuclear I war has transformed that opportunity into a
rational necessity.” Effects of Imperialist Policy.
The imperialist policy is invariably injurious for the native people. As it is based on the principle of superior-
subordinate relationship, it gives rise to feeling of inferiority among the native people. They are subjected to several
types of discrimination and treated as inferior creatures in their own territory. Further, the indigenous culture suffers a
great set back because the imperialist power tries to impose its own culture and philosophy on the people of dependent
countries. Quite often the imperialist powers also encourage practices like opium eating, smoking, gambling etc. to
obtain extra revenues unmindful of the ill-effects of these practices on common people. It is well knowr tfcat British
encouraged gambling and opium smoking in the Far East chiefly with a view to obtain extra revenues! Another evil
effect ot the imperialist policy is that it is fraught with the risk of war. The war may be resorted to either to establish an
empire or to thwart
89
the imperialist designs, but it always results in enormous-loss of life and property. Both the world wars were largely the
result of imperialist rivalries among the big powers. Above all, imperialist policy leads uneconomic exploitation of the
dependent people. The imperialist powers not only fully exploit the raw materials and markets of the dependent
countries but try to make maximum profits by resorting to systematic exploitation of its resources and markets. As a
result of this policy the wealth tends to flow to the imperialist country and the dependent countries grow poor. It is well
known that the poverty of India is largely the result of the exploitative policies followed by the British imperialists.
It would be however, wrong to assume that the imperialist policies are entirely harmful to the native people and do not
benefit them in any way. The imperialist policy proves beneficial to the native people in several ways. Firstly, it
exposes the native people to superior civilisation and culture of the imperialist power. It is well known that the
backward people of Asia and Africa greatly benefited by their exposure to the western culture and civilisation.
Secondly, imperialist policies have created sense of unity among people of Asia and Africa which they completely
lacked before the advent of imperialist powers. It is admitted at all hands that the British provided a sense of unity to
the Indian people by uniting several small states under their control and carving out an Empire.
Thirdly, the imperialist policies have contributed to development of backward areas of Asia and Africa and brought the
advantages of industrialisation to the people of these countries.
Imperialist policies have proved beneficial to the people of native countries on account of facilities of modern
education made available to the people, though on a very limited scale. The people of these territories were also given
training in the art of self government. All this contributed to their awakening and encouraged them to fight for their
independence. ID certain cases the former imperialist powers voluntarily granted independence to these people.
ALLIANCES AND ALLEGIANCES
These are new methods of foreign policy which have been adopted by imperialist powers in modern times. The
alliances are used as an instrument of foreign policy primarily with a view to maintain balance of power within the
multi-state system and promote national interest of the country. Generally the states resort to alliances as a matter of
expediency. If a state is strong enough to hold its own without any assistance, it will prefer to shun alliances. Similarly
if a state is reluctant to assume commitments resulting from an alliance it may avoid them. I ikewise if the advantages
likely to accrue from an alliance are likely to be less than the commitments involved, the state may avoid alliance. In
short, the allhnces are formed, by a country only in national interest.
Cleaning of Alliance. The concept of ’alliance’ is quite complex and hence not easy to define. No wonder scholars
have used the term alliance inter-
changeably with terms like coalition, pact and bloc. But alliance is different from other regional organisations (both
cooperative and functional) in so far as it lays emphasis on the military and security aspect while the other functional
organisations lay emphasis on economic aspects. In fact alliance lays emphasis on two aspects viz. formality .of
regionalship and military aspect of. relationship. Hence alliance can be described as a formal agreement between two or
more than two nations to collaborate among themselves on national security issues Statesmen and diplomats have
tended to describe alliance as ’provision of ’ mutual military assistance between two or more sovereign states. The
alliances are concluded to supplement the national armed forces. Generally the states concluding the alliance formally
promise to join each other in fighting a common enemy. Sometimes the alliance may not involve actual mili.tary
assistance and may merely mean grant of permission to deploy forces on its territory or right to move forces across the
territory. Again the alliances may be concluded for the promotion of co-operation in otherfields, but generally
themilitary considerations underlie this co-operation. In fact such alliances have no chance of being successfu.1 if the
military reasons disappear.
Before World War I, the alliances were generally of non-aggressive nature. The alliances usually contained a clause
which obliged the signatory states not to indulge in aggression, and if.a state party to alliance provoked a war, the other
ally was relieved of the obligation to help the former.
Development of Alliances. Alliances have an accepted technique of foreign policy since earliset times. We get plenty
of references in Ancient India, Ancient China, and Ancient Greece to show that alliances were concluded by different
states to promote their national interest. Only during the Roman rule when the Roman Empire spread over vast
territories and was dominated by a single power, the Alliances were not popular. In the medieval period also the
Alliances continued to be a feature of inter-state relations. The allied states often concluded alliances to check some
state which aimed at establishing its hegemony. This gave rise to counter alliances and coalitions. Towards the closing
years of the nineteenth century and theoeginning of the present century the world was divided into two groups of
alliances known as Triple Alliance and Triple Entente. It is said that the First World War was largely due to the
formation of these alliances which divided the world into two hostile camps.
In the inter-war period France vigorously pursued the policy of forming alliances. It concluded a number of alliances
with different countries with a view to secure itself against possible German threat. However, despite these alliances
France failed to keep Nazi Germany under check.
In the post World War II period the policy of formation of alliances was again revived. The lead in the formation of
alliances was provided by the United States of America (which had so far followed policy of isolationalism). USA
evolved a global system of alliances in which more than forty non-communist countries of Europe, Asia, and Latin
America were involved. On the other hand.
the Soviet Union also formed counter alliances with the Communist countries. Later on even Communist China
concluded alliances with a number of Commun ist countries. As a result in the post World War II period, the world
came to be divided into two opposing military blocs which nursed upon hostility towards each other, even though both
the blocs claimed that their alliances wenj purely defensive in nature. Some of the prominent alliances concluded after
Second World War included NATO, Warsaw Pact, SEATO, CENTO etc. ^
The modern alliances differ from the earlier alliances in several ways. Firstly, the modern alliances are political rather
than military in nature and the members of the alliance are keen to avoid war. Secondly, ideology plays an important
rote in the formation of the modem-day alliances. Thirdly, the Modern alliances have been formed during the peace
times, as against the classical alliances, which were formed only during times of war. Fourthly, the modern alliance
system is less flexible as compared to the earlier alliance system, in so far as there are lesser chances for the members
of an alliance to shift loyalty to
the opposite group.
The alliance is both an assest and a liability. It is an asset in so far as it has the prospect of military assistance in case of
need and acts as a deterrent against the enemy country. It adds to the prestige of the smaller countries by bringing it
closer to the powerful allies. On the other hand the Alliance is also a liability. It can be more of a drain on a country’s
strength. The states concluding an alliance have an obligation to come to the assistance of an ally, even though the
national interests of the state may demand abstension from involvement in the conflict.
Kinds of Alliances
According to Morgenthau the alliances can be of the following kinds:
1. Alliances Serving Identical or Complementary Interests. The alliances may be concluded by the states to serve their
identical interests. The AngloAmerican interest is an alliance of this kind. Its main objective is to preserve the balance
of power in Europe. On the other hand the alliance between USA and Pakistan is an example of alliance designed to
promote complementary interest This alliance was conducive to the American Policy of containment, while it increased
the political, military and economical potentialities of Pakistan in relation to India.
i.
2. Ideological Alliances. Some alliances are of an ideological nature which lay down certain general moral principles
and the signatories to these alliances plpdge to observe these principles and work for the realisation of the objectives of
the alliance. The treaty of Holy Alliance of 1815 and Atlantic Charter of 1941 were alliances of this category. The
Treaty of Arab League concluded in 1945 was also an ideological alliance in so far as it pledge the Arab States to show
solidarity against Israel. In our own times most of the alliances formed by the Anglo-American group were ideological
alliances which were formed to fight communist threat and subversions.
91
3. Mutual and One-Sided Alliances. Some alliances are mutual in the sense that the services rendered by a party to
alliance are commensurate with the benefits received by it. Generally alliances concluded by states with equal power
and serving identical interests are mutual alliances. On me other hand if the major benefits of an alliance accrue to only
one party while the other have to bear the main burden, the alliance is branded as one-sided,
4 General and Limited Alliances. The alliances which try to protect the total interets of the contracting parties both
during the war a’s well as peace are general alliances. Generally the wartime alliances are general alliances. On the
other hand the alliances concluded during the peace time are limited in so far as they are concerned only with a fraction
of the total interests of the signatory states.
5. Temoporary and Permanent Alliances. The alliances can be either temporary or permanent. A temporary alliance is
generally formed during the war-time with the objective of winning the war and securing through peace settlement the
interests for which the war was waged. On the other hand the alliances concluded during peace times for the promotion
of limited interests are of more durable nature.
6. Operative and Inoperative Alliances. Finally, there are alliances which are either operative and inoperative An
alliance is considered operative if it coordinates the general policies and concrete measures of the signatories. The
members of the alliance must also agree on the general objectives as well as policies and measures. On the other hand
certain alliances are concluded by states because they agree on general objectives. But these alliances remain
inoperative because the members do not agree on the concrete policies and measures. .•’ • Impact of the Alliances
An alliance is both an asset and a liability. It is an assest in so far as it holds the prospect of military assistance in case
of need and acts as a deterrent on the enemy country. It adds to the prestige of the smaller countries by bringing them
closer to the powerful allies. On the other hand the Alliance is also a liability. It can be more of a drain on acountry’s
strength. The states concluding analliance have an obligation to come to the assistance of an ally, even though the
national interests of the states may demand abstension from involvement in this conflict.
The alliances have a mixed impact on international peace and international relations. ^
In the first place they have been responsible for the power struggle among the natipns. Though the alliances may be the
symptoms rather than the cause of struggle among powers, they certainly contribute to the intensification of the conflict
by dividing the world Into two antagonistic blocs.
Secondly, the alliances play a positive role in the preservation of worlu

92
peace by contributing to the process of balance of power. They muster adequate counter power and
as a deterrent against aggression.
Thirdly, it has been argued that the affiances also help in the growth of confederation or some sort of
a federal unity among the sovereign states. For example, both in Germany and Switzerland, the
unification of the country was the result of the war time alliances. The sense of solidarity and affinity
created among the members of the alliance proved so strong that they forged themselves into new
nations. But generally the alliance concluded during war break up as soon as the common danger
disappears or even earlier if one of the ally to the
• alliance sees no other way of saying itself except by recapitulating to the enemy.
Finally, aH alliances give rise to strains among the allies because in the course of time conflicts develop
among them which undermine their solidarity. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which
was organised by the USA in the post World War II period was: faced with strains on account of
differences amongst the members regarding the possession of strategic nuclear forces, mainly because the
global interests of USA are difficult to harmonise with the purely, local OP regional interests and
perspectives of the partners. Allegiance
Allegiance is comparatively a new concept of foreign policy and quite different from alliance. The
policy has been adopted by certain countries of Third World. Under this policy the countries became
allies of one of the two superpowers in the hope of certain advantages. They felt that their ties with
the superpower would not only enhance their sense of national security but also help them to obtain
foreign aid needed for internal development and promise of arms to deal with enemias at home and
abroad. Generally the countries following policy of allegiance extend fulS support to the philosophy
and viewpoint of the big power and extend ful! allegiance to it unmindful of the fact whether they
have entered into an alliance with it or not. Not only this, they, also look to such power for guidance,
support and assistance. It may be noted that the big powers also encourage allegiance and provide
huge funds and other facilities to win over the small powers to their side. For the attainment of this
objective they try td win over the support of political parties, trade unions, pressure groups, business
and other outstanding leaders who can influence the national policy.4n case they find the allegiance
of the government lagging they try to bring about change in government and bring a group into
power which owes allegiance to them. It is true that the policy of allegiance leads to loss of a political
freedom still the states pursue this policy because of the material and political benefits they hope to
get-as an ally of a big power.
Generally, the power owing allegiance to the leading power follows the hints given by the leading
power because refusal to do so would lead to denial of certain benefits and cause inconvenience.
Quite often the weaker states give preference to the wishes of the senior partner without bothering
about its ••overeign rights.
93
In short it can be said that the policy of allegiance possesses following features:
First, the states involved in this arrangement are of an equal strength.
Secondly, though a formal equality exists among the states, actually the bigger power dominates. In
other words the degree of autonomy left to the weaker states is inconclusive for strong leadership and
in its own interest it may ’ he asked to submit to the stronger power.
Thirdly, allegiance to a Great Power automatically involves recognition of the fact by all concerned
that the small power has the ability to commit its ally and that the latter presumably cannot accept
the losses attendant upon its weaker partners’ defeat.
’ ’ ISOLATIONISM
The policy of isolation implies low level of involvement in the political, military, diplomatic and
commercial transactions with other states. It is based on the assumption that security and independence can
be best secured by cutting of most transactions with other states and by maintaining diplomatic and
commercial contacts with other states while handling al! perceived or potential threats by building
deterrents at the home front. Obviously, the policy of isolationism is possible only in a system with
reasonably diffused structure of power, militay, economic or ideological threats do not exist and the other
states are regularly shifting allegiances. Again this policy is generally adopted by states which are self-
sufficent in their economic and social needs and the activities of other states do not leave much impact on
the internal developments of the isolated state. The policy of isolationism does not mean that the state
following it does not maintain commercial or diplomatic relations with other states. The state can maintain
commercial or diplomatic relations to the extent that they do not lead to unpleasant military consequences
or military threats from abroad. Features of Isolationism. The policy of isolationism has following features,
(i) Firstly, the policy involves diplomatic and military non-involvement. Ever since President Jefferson’s
admonition in 1801 against ’entangling alliances’, US avoided unnecessary alliances and preferred to
follow policy of isolationism. It avoided entanglement in European struggle.
(ii) Secondly, the policy aims at preserving national sovereignty and independence in decision
making. President Munroe of US put forth Munroe doctrine primarily to ensure security and
independence of United States. He even refused to issue joint declaration with Britain in this regard,
fearing that this would reduce United States to secondary position.
(in) Thirdly, isolationism implies faith in principle of unilateralism. This
implies that the state pursuing policy of isolationism prefers to follow an
independent policy and keep away from alliances and supranational agreements.
M Fourthly, policy of isolationism followed by US implied non-participation
’n foreign wars. Highlighting this point President Munroe observed ”In the wars
94
of the European powers in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comfort
with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries
or make preparation for our defence’. America continued to follow this principle of non-involvement in
foreign wars right upto the second world war. This was done to ensure that the more powerful states do not
infringe upon country’s independent decisionmaking. Reasons for Adoption of Policy of isolation
The states may adopt policy of isolation due to geographical reasons or with a view to meet the actual or
potential threat by withdrawing behind the ,. frontiers and erecting defences to make the state impermeable
to military attack or cultural infiltration. High mountains, wide seas or deserts can afford protection to the
political units provided the other states do not possess the necessary means to bypass these. For example in
the nineteenth century Nepal could follow policy of isolation because of the presence of high mountain
barriers and not so easily accessible routes. Though Nepal was located quite close to the centre of British
military, economic and political influence in the Indian sub-continent, they could not make intrusion into
Nepal on account of its natural barriers. However, on account of the recent technological and military
advancements which has enabled China to build roads in the Himalayan valleys the natural barriers are no
more able to protect the isolation of Nepal, and the country has been thrown open to the external
influences.
A country may also deliberately adopt policy of isolation in the face of a perceived threat. Japan adopted
this policy after it came in contact with the Europeans. The Japanese emperor sealed off the Japanese
islands to prevent its conquest by Europeans or to prevent the infiltration of their culture into Japan, it
maintained only limited trade relations with some of the Europeans. However, Japan could not persist with
this policy after the middle of nineteenth century when the Western powers in the Pacific had increased
their naval power tremendously. As a result after some time Japan not only abandoned policy of isolation
but also entered into active commercial and military coalitions with Great Britain, the United States and
other European countries, and began to take active part in the conflicts in Far East
The United States adopted policy of isolation from the very beginning on account of different reasons.
Though America was a part of the European system in terms of commercial and cultural contacts, it was
not directly involved in the various ideological, national and dynastic issues which separated the various
Europoean powers. Therefore the American leaders tried to avoid entangling alliances with countries of
Europe. Justifying this policy Adams said: ”It is obvious that all powers of Europe will be continually
manouvring with us, to . work us into their real or imaginary balance of power... But I think*Jtought to be
our role not to meddle, and that of all the powers of Europe, not to desire M*> or perhaps even to permit us
to interfere if they can help if Likewise Geofft*
95
Washington also held that in view of America’s geographical location; the policy of isolationism, was best
suited to USA. He asserted that the young Republic would only waste its energies if it engaged, in struggle
abroad, which it could not control. It may be noted that the policy of isolationism pursued by America was
isolationist only in the military and the. political sense and she maintained commercial and intellectual
intercourse with other states.
The United States could pursue pdicy of isolationism on account of its peculiar geographical location and
number of other factors. The broad expanse of the Atlantic Ocean which separated United States from
Europe served as great barrier to communication and protected her against any potential naval invasion
from the continent/On the other hand the British navy offered protection against any incursions by other
European powers. Secondly, the high degree of selfsufficiency in land, raw materials and natural resources
also greatly contributed to the adoption of the isolationist policy by USA. The vast tracts of land available
with USA enabled her to attain self-sufficiency in agriculture and obtain manufactured goods from other
European countries through trade. Finally, most of the conflicts of the nineteenth century were confined to
the continent, the Mediterranean Sea and the Balkans and the Americans did not feel much concerned about
them. Even the rivalry among the various European powers, viz., Spain, France and England, with regard to
the New World were resolved by the end of the Nepoleonic wars. As norman A.Graebner has observed ”the
gradual intensification of American security with the Atlantic ocean, rather than with a British dominated
European balance of power created the foundations of twentieth century American isolationism, which
viewed less involvement in European affairs as the essence of sound policy.’ Thus the Americans adopted
policy of isolationism on account of geographical, politics as well as economic considerations in the hope
that this would ensure security of the country and enable them to concentrate on internal expansion and
development.
America’s policy of isolation underwent a marked change with the dawn of the twentieth century, even
though it was not able to completely shake off isolationist habits and thoughts. Though it adopted
expansionist policies in Latin America and Western Pacific without involving much military or financial
expenditure, it by and large avoided involvement in European affairs. USA abandoned this policy for a
while on account of serious threat from Germany to democracy and extended support and help to European
democracies, but reverted back to policy of isolationism soon after the war. The American Senate refused
to ratify the Treaty of Versailles which Committed USA to membership to League of Nations and involved
the country in undefined and unforeseenable contingencies. This return to isolationism was to the
Americans ”largely an expression of the nation’s democratic idealism. Its purpose was to protect the
uniqueness of American society against the corrupting influence of European politics.” .
•%*
jJ
96
United States by and large continued to follow policy of isolationism in the inter-war poriod. She decided to take part
in the Second World War only after the Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbour. In the post World War II period,
America’s isolationist policy underwent a great change and it began to play an active role in the international sphere.
Senator Robert A. Taft, one of the strong proponents of isolationist policy in the pre-World War II period said in 1950
*l don’t know what they mean by isolationism; nobody is an isolationist today.’Even President Eisenhover said in 1952
”I have long insisted-and do now insist, that isolationism is dead as a political issue.” In view of the growing threat
from Communism to the American society, the isolationist policy of USA assumed a new Character. As Norman A.
Craebner has observed ”Anchored to such assumptions of omnipotence, American isolationism in the twentieth century
became identified with a primary concern for the domestic economy, an overestimation of American power and a belief
in the nation’s moral superiority, all of which encouraged the tendency towards unilateralism in diplomacy.
Isolationism, though a logical consequence of geography and the national experience, was in fact the creation of several
generations of writers, editors and politicians. It triumphed as a political programme and achieved a predominant place
in American thought simply because no other course of national action would promise so much at such negligible cost.
World War II and the events that followed destroyed only the illusion of geographical insulation. The traditional belief
that the United States would achieve security at the expense of itself than nation with few physical advantages was not
destroyed.”
On the basis of the above survey of the policy of isolation adopted by different countries it can be said that the
countries may adopt this policy on account of different reasons. The states which adopt this policy are essentially not
indifferent to the developments taking place in the world around. They are quite watchful of the international
conditions and potential threarts. Generally, this policy is adopted by states which are relatively independent
economically and militarily and perceive that involvement would only jeopardise their social, economic and political
values. Critical Evaluation of Policy of Isolationism
Scholars are sharply divided over the merits and demerits of the isolationist policy. The supporters of the isolationist
policy have argued that on account of this policy USA was able to considerably reduce her military expenditure and
concentrate on her domestic problems. The rulers of USA instead of involving themselves in foreign relations with
European powers,.preferred to concentrate on problems of internal unity, political stability and social development
which proved quite beneficial for the country. Further, the various ethnic minorities which had settled down in America
between 1380 and 1920 also fully supported this policy.
On the other hand the opponents of America’s isolationist policy have argued that the policy of isolationism, though
quite justified during the initial vears of the existence of USA, was stretched too far and continued to be the basis
97
| .of America’s foreign policy even after it emerged as a major power. This naturally ; resulted in the neglect of
country’s national security. It is true that in the post world war II period US somewhat deviated from this policy and
got involved in ideological controversies, which culminated in US intervention in Vietnam. The set-backs and losses
suffered by USA in Vietnam made critics doubt the wisdom of American leadership in deviating from the traditional
isolationist policy. It is true that at present majority of the American people are not in favour of following „
isolationist policy, yet still there is a sizeable section ot people who are in favour i of following traditional isolationist
policy. f NATIONALISTIC UNIVERSALISM ^
\’ (Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Soveitica)
: The foreign policy of every country is primarily designed to promote
national interests but certain universal principles like promotion of world peace, maintenance of justice among all the
nations, advancement of liberty of the people, development of genera! human welfare are also given due weightage in
the formation of the foreign policy. The policy of Nationalistic Universalism is in complete contrast with the policy of
isolation. The policy of Nationalistic . Universalism implies that it tries to jmpose its own way of life and principles on
other states. This policy was initiated by President Wilson of USA during the first world war when he projected the
struggle being waged by the Allies against the Axis power as an attempt to make the world safe for democracy.
Likewise Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution of 1917 projected itself as the champion of principles <5f peace
and justice. But truly speaking the policy of nationalistic universalism emerged only after second world war when two
super-powers emerged and they tried to impose their way of life on the rest of the countries viz. USA projected itself as
the champion of democracy, while Soviet Union projected itself as the champion of soialism and communism. It may
be noted that the policy of nationalistic universalism is in direct-contrest with the policy of isolation, because here the
state is keen to play a leading role, in the
• intern.itionai arena with a view to impose its own principles. According to Schwarzenberger, the successful
realisation of this policy depends on three condiiions. First, the state aiming at universal domination must possess
overwhelming superiority, especially in the military field. Secondly, it must have an ideology which gives it the
necessary impetus and self-confidence to carry out its world mission. Finally, it must have its disposal the technical
means of organisation that are required not only to conquer a world empire, but also to hold it together.
It is noteworthy that the nationalism of late twentieth century greatly differs from the nationalism of the nineteenth and
early twentieth century. Whereas the nationalism of nineteenth and early twentieth century, regarded the nation as the
ultimate goal, the nationalistic universalism of the late twentieth century assumes the nation as the starting point for the
universal mission. Prof. Morgenthau has brought out the difference between the nationalism and universal nationalism
thus ” For the nationalism of the nineteenth century the nation is the ultimate goal of politics, the end point of political
development
98
99
beyond which there are other nationalisms with similar and equally justifiable goals. For the nationalistic
universalism of the late twentieth century the nation is but the starting point of a universal mission whose
ultimate goal reaches to the confines of the political world. White nationalism wants one nation in one state and
nothing else, the nationalistic universalism of our age cliams for one nation and one state the right to impose its
own valuation and standards of action upon all the other nations.”
In this chapter we shall examine how far the nationlistic principles were projected in universal terms by Britain,U.S.A.
and Soviet Union.
PAX BRITANNICA
The term Pax implies a period of international history characterised by general stability and lack of wars due to
predominance of a particular political authority. Viewed in this context, history has witnessed Pax Britannica (The
Peace of Britain), Pax Americana (The Peace of America) and Pax Sovietica (The Peace of Soviet Union). The period
between the Congress of Vienna and the First World War (1815-1915) is popularly known as period of Pax Britannica.
During this period Britain played a dominant role in European politics and preserved the balance of power system in
Europe. Only on two occasions the Supremacy of Britain was threatened during this period. Firs^ in 1854-56 during the
Crimean War when the Russians threatened to dominate the Constantinople. Second in
1870-71 during the Franco-Prussian War, which led to displacement of France by Germany as a leading power on the
Continent. This however did not disturb the balance of power in the European System.
According to Prof. Palmer and Perkins this dominant position of Britain was ”made possible by a favourable
combination of circumstances at home and abroad: England’s leadership in the Industrial Revolution, in international
finance, and in world trade; her navy, which gave her control of the seas and free access to her widespread possessions
and to the markets of the world; and the post-Napoleonic situation in Europe which gave Britain no formidable
challenger to her unique position until the rise of Germany.”
Towards the close of the nineteenth century and the ’beginning of the twentieth century with the rise of United States,
Japan and Germany, England’s dominant position in the political as well as industrial field began to show a decline.
Germany started competing for markets and underdeveloped areas of the world and even posed a challenge to naval
supremacy of Britain. Similarly lapan and USA began to compete with Britain in the economic shpere. All this greatly
undermined the position of Britain and posed a serious threat to the Pax Britannica. No wonder, Britain ceased to play
the role of a balancer and became memlx.r of one <>i” the rival alliances.
1. Palmer and PerKins, International RelJtionr.. p. 12<.
In the post World War I period, Britain lost her dominant position and could
no longer play an effective role on the world stage. A serious challenge was posed
; to the British authority by the rising nationalism in Near East, Middle East as well
i as India. The Russian Revolution of 1917, which left a deep impact on the people
of Asia, gave a further impetus to anti-British movements in different parts of the
1 British Empire and posed a serious threat to its very existence. However, Britain
succeeded in maintaining a semblance of its authority for some time, even
; though it had lost the dominant position of the earlier years.
; In the post World War II period the international balance ot powef*in F?r
t East was greatly disturbed. Britain, in view of her weakened position, could no*
, play its historical role in the area. As a result some sort of power vacuum was
; created in the region and soon the two rival giants-Soviet Union and USA,
: rushed in to fill this vacuum.
Thus we find that there was a sharp decline in the power and influence of Great Britain in the present century, specially
after the First World War. This was partly due to her internal difficulties and partly due to competition with other states
possessing larger populations and resources. The rising tide of nationalism in the former colonial possessions of Britain
also made a large contribution in this regard. Though the British power continued to gradually decline after the • First
World War, it cou Id be clearly perceived only after the Second World War. Thereafter even the British statesmen
ceased to boast of Pax Britannica and became conscious of the weak position of Britain, It is a different matter that
even now they tried to capitalise as much as possible on Britain’s past influence and prestige. However, they also made
necessary readjustments in their foreign policy as well as domestic policies.
Though the age of Pax Britannica is over Britain still occupies a prominent position among the world powers. She
isstill a significant sea power even thougti she has lost the command of the seas. Her exports in the post World War II
period have shown an increase, even though for this the people had to make heavy sacrifices. At the same lime we
cannot lose sight of the fact that now Britain has lost most of the income from overseas investment which were the
main source of her economic strength in the nineteenth century; her basic industries I ike coal, steel, textile etc. which
made Britain the workshop of the world have also considerably declined. Quite conscious of the weakened position of
Britain, Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced in January 1968 the decisions of his government to reduce
Britain’smilitary expenditure, and withdraw British forces from East of Suez by 1971. Justifying this change of policy
Wilson said that for the past several years ”we have been living beyond our means.” But few who listened could
honestly believe that what was happening was other than the tide of history. ”By making the final decision to relinquish
her role as world keeper of peace, Britain was only recognising the disappearance of empire and the power it once gave
this tiny island.”Similarly Roy Jenkins, the British Chancellor of Exchequer said in a TV address, ”We are recognising
that WL> are no longer a superpower.” Thereafter, Britain has been playing quite a different role.
100
PAX AMERICANA
The tem» Pax Americana it used to describe the dominant rote which United Steles of America came to play in
the post World War II period. This role was in complete constrasJ with isdationalist role which United Stales
had played since its establishment. Soon after the establishment of the Republic, President Washington asserted
that USA could play a great role in the foreign affairs by extending commercial relations with the European
countries and having as little political connection as possible with Europe. He advocated the policy of keeping
clear of the permanent alliances with other foreign powers. In 1823 President Monroe reiterated this policy and
said: ’In the wars of European powers in . matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor
does-it comfort with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are snvaded or seriously menaced that we
resent injuries or make preparations for bur defence.* USA continued .to adhere to this policy of non-
intervention with regard to Europe right up tol 945. This policy is popularly known as policy of isolationism
even though Diaries A. Beard prefers to describe it as ’continentalism’.
It may be noted that though America generally adhered to the policy of non intervention until the Second World
War, it did depart from this policy at least on two occasions viz., during.the First World War (1914-1918) and
the Second World War (1939-45) and intervened massively in the conflict between the coalitions of European
powers. This deviation however went a long way in post World War II period. In the words of Scotsman D”.W.
Brogan it created- the ’Illusion of American Omnipotence’. Amerka came to believe that the American power
was everywhere and always decisive and it was within the capacity of the United States to resolve any
international issue. However, white pursuing its foreign policy the United States tried to express faith in
principles of nationalistic universaiism. For example in 1963 ti»e U.S. Secretary of State (Dean Rusk) said
America’s goaJ is to achieve ”a free community of nations - independent but interdependent-united North and
South, East and West, in one great famity of man, outgrowing and transcending the great antagonism that rend
our age.*
In 1964 a State Department publication described America’s goals in world affairs as national security through
strength; progress through partnership; supporting the post-war revolution of freedom; promoting the concept
of international community under law and peace through perseverance. Though these objectives of foreign
policy have been modified in the light of she circumstances yet by and large USA has tried to adhere to tlwse
principles.
Even while professing faith in the above noted principles of foreign policy, USA in the post World War!! period,
tried to claim dominant position, in the world affairs. In Europe it felt concerned over the Russian attempts to
bring the whole of Eastern Europe under its grip, unmindful of the commitment to establish democratic
government there. This resulted in the pronouncement oi the Truman Doctrine’ and USA helped Greece and
Turkey to check the Communist encroachments. America also launched a comprehensive European Recovery
Programme to check the growing menace of Communism in Europe. It also provided economic and technical
assistance to the Afro-Asian nations under the Four-Point Programme. Above all, it sponsored or concluded a
number of
FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES 101
military alliances to meet the Communist threat in various regions. These included the Organisation of the
American States (OAS) in the Western Hemisphere; North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); the South
East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO), the Central Treaty, Organisation (CENTO) and ANZUS. U.S.A. also
showed determination to resist the encroachments by the Communist through actual use of military force, viz.,
Korea, Berlin, Vietnam, etc. In Europe also United States tried to increase its influence by providing emergency
aid to a number of countries in the months following the end of hostilities of Second World War; undertaking
European reconstruction through the European Recovery Programme (Marshall Plan); organising NATO
(North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) etc. In the course of time some of the West European countries began to
challenge the dominant position of USA in the region. The emergence of the European Economic Community, a
new trading and industrial complex dedicated to maximum economic unity among the members also posed a
challenge to the hegemony of United States in Europe. Though still America continues to play an important role
in Europe it has certainly lost the dominant position which it .enjoyed there earlier.
With regard to Latin America, United States did net pursue isolationist policies, instead it tried to act as hemispheric
policeman. During the thirties the countries of the hemisphere felt dissatisfied with the Washington policies. The
growing power of the Axis powers also greatly contributed to this dissatisfaction: Asa result President Roosevelt tried
to create harmonious and truly co-operative inter-American relations. In the post World War II period, United States
tried to develop.very close relations with countries of Latin America because they could provide good markets for the
American goods. America tried to bring these countries under its control. In 1974 it concluded the’inter-American
Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance by which the member states agreed to treat an attack against any American state as an
attack against them. America also made available enormous economic assistance to these countries. As the years rolled
by and the Communist threat to the region increased, USA began to interfere in the affairs of the Latin American States
to check the growing influence of communists. Thus, USA intervened in Gautemala, Nicaragua etc. to protect the
democratic government. The most serious threat to American position in the hemisphere was posed by Fidel Castro of
Cuba, who not only refused to call popular election but also nationalised billion dollars worth of property owned by the
American firms in the country. The relations between Cuba and United States deteriorated so much that they virtually
reached a shooting point. However the situation was saved due to decision of Soviet Union to demolish .the Soviet
bases in Cuba. Thereafter, United States started paying more attention . to this region and sought to preserve and
extend its hegemony over Latin America through gun boat diplomacy, military occupation and rigged elect ions.
Further changes were affected under Reagan in American policy toward^ Latin America. It adopted the doctrine of
’low intensity warfare’ which subordinates military goals per se with the aim of gradually isolating the enemy
economically and Politically at minimal cost in U.S. casualties. The policy rested on the principle that sufficient
damage and disruption should be inflicted on the opponent to
102
103
compel him to negotiate.” The economic dimensions of this strategy call for, larjtbulidtctiveinjectipm of aid to
consdidateand extend client-stale support chaHejiging where necessary the economic power of entrenched ol
igarchiesby building new alliances, particularly within the military.
United States also took keen interest in other regions of the world and tried to play a dominant role in these
regions. In far East, during the Second World War USA tried to preserve the integrity of Qiina wiih a view to
checkmate the designs of japan. In post World War II period USA failed to check the emergence Of Communist
power in China. However, it tried to build up Taiwan as an independent state and managed to keep China out of
the United Nations for a longtime. Ultimately, USA improved relations with China in 1970, which paved way for
the grant of permanent seat in security council to people’s Republic of China. Another country intheFar East
where USAgot actively invoted was Korea. USA provided every possible military assistance to South Korea’and
ultimately succeeded in pushing the forces of North Korea. USA succeeded in checking the growth of
Communist influence.
In South East Asia also though USA did not have any direct interest, it sought tocheck the growth of Communist
influence. In the beginning, USA offered every possible assistance to France for the control of Indo-China.
Subsequently when France withdrew, the-United States assumed direct responsibility. United States also
encouraged formation of SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organisation) on the pattern of NATO, to check
Communist expansion. America also extended liberaf aid to Laos with a view tomake it an anti-Communist
bastion. Later on when the possibility of conflict with Soviet Union on Loas issue increased .America sought to
resolve the issue through amicable settlement and ultimately succeeded in getting Laos’ neutrality recognised at
the Geneva Conference of
1961. But the deepest involvement of USA in this region was in Vietnam, which cost United States heavily in
terms of men and money. After prolonged intervention USA was obliged to pull out its troops from Vietnam.
In the Middle East alsoÛSA evinced keen interest in the post World War II period. Uh ited States provided
large financial assistance to the countries of th is region toensure stability in this part of the country. It
sponsored the Baghdad Pact to check the Communist threat. During the Suez Crisis of 1956 United States
supported the Arab demand and asked for withdrawal of Anglo-French forces from Egypt United States made
consistent efforts to increase its influence in the region by trying to stall pro-west governments. Despite its
intimate relations with Israel, United States also maintained intimate relations with the countries of Middle East
The position of USA in Middle East underwent a change in 1973 as atesuh of Arab Israel War. The Arab
countries used oil as weapan to compel United States and other Western countries to adopt more constructive
attitude in the Arab-Israel conflict. But sodn after the American administration, through active diplomacy, stole
initiative and played a teading role in bringing about a negotiated settlement between Egypt and Israel which
culminated in Camp David ^raemewt
The downfall of the Snab in the beginning of 1979 and the’Soviet

K**v^toinAJfîstotcwMdt(toâltoy&,mh*n<^\teimparttnc» ef area in intemationa! politics and increased the
possibility of confrontation
between the big powers. This also gave a serious setback to Pax Americana in Middle East where Iran and Saudi
Arabia were two reliable pillars of this policy. With the Marxist revolution in Afghanistan and the Islamic
upheaval in Iran the Pax Americana suffered a setback, even though (hereafter also America continued to
maintain her predominant position in the area.
It is thus evident that the United States acquired a dominant position in the international sphere on account of
its military, political and economic position. In the military sphere it kept the lead for quite sometime till it was
caught and overtaken by the Soviet Union. In the political sphere U.S. projected itself as champion of democracy
and interfered in the affairs of other countries. Above all it was its economic position as world’s major source of
capital equipments, foodstuffs, and aid etc. which accorded it a pre-eminent position. However there was
considerable loss in the power and influence of United States during the next few years as is evident from its
failure, to prevent Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, forestall Iranian Revolution or resolve quickly the hostage
crisis or preserve U.S. sovereignty over Panama Canal. Even European allies of USA defied the ban on the sale
of U.S. originated pipeline technology to USSR.
The main factors which contributed to loss of hegemony by United States were loss of productive superiority,
passing of organisational advantage, high mass standard of living, underinvestment in research and
development and persistence of free trade policies. WeshalJ deal with these factors in some details.
In the first instance (here was considerable decline in the productive superiority of United States. Whereas in the
1950’s United States produced half the world’s steel by the end of 1970’s it produced only one-fifth. In the field
of automobile production also japan surpassed USA and posed a formidabte competition in electronic. In the
production of aircraft* western Europe made . great stride. •’
2. Secondly, the decline in productivity has led to organisation advantage passing to rising economic power-
japan and European countries, which are integrating state planning and banking agencies.
3. Thirdly desire for high standards has led to high level of emigration to regions of recent settlement Migration
of capital from north-east to Sun belt in USA and out of the country is proof of this.
4. Fourthly, the under investment in education, research and development and over investment in military sector
also undermined the .position of United States. In recent years the govern merit erf USA has low budget in all
sectors except military.
5. Finally, persistamewiin free trade ideology ata time when protectionism was spreading elsewhere also
undermined the position of United States. USA persisted with this policy because big banks and multinational
corporations; who play an increasing role in USA, area major free-trade lobby, k.is very much in their interest
to allow foreign products with low per unit labour costs in USA with minimal tariffs.
NEW HEGEMONY OF USA
The victory scored by America (along with her allies) flver Iraq in (he Gulf War of 1991, ha* been interpicted by
certain scholars as restoration^ American
1-04
105
hegemony over international system. They have contended that on the Gulf tnue U.S.A. went beyond the UN mandate
and the other great powers lit* Serf* Union and China could not exercise any restraint on her. Likewise. USA UMd UN
to impose sanctions against Libya in April 1992 which is indicative of th* fact that US is trying to establish global
hegemony. However, this contention has been challenged by others. They assert that the American power hes suffered
considerable decline during the past two decades and it would be erroneous to interpret the recent American victory in
the Gulf war as restoration of her hegemony. If at all there was Pax Americana, it was at the enfrof Second World War
when America reigned supreme, while European powers and Japan lay exhausted. As a result, America was able to lay
down rutes of the post-war international economic and trading systems. Its industrial and technological prowess,
overwhelming military power and nuclear monopoly further enabled America to dominate the world. But sir.ce 1970’s
the strains on the international economic system, the technological challenge from Westerr. Europe and japan and
military power of Soviet Union have posed a serious challenge to American hegemony. It is true that as a result of
detente between Soviet Union and Washington and disintegration of Soviet Union, the position of America has
considerably improved in the international arena, but it cannot be denied that she faces serious economic and
technological challenges from Europe and japan, in fact a! present no singlecountry enjoys economic, political and
military hegemony. While Germany andlapan are economic giants they are strategically quite weak. Likewise Russia
and China are strong military powers But their economies are very weak. It is US alone which can claim to be most
balanced power, but it is not in a position to unilaterally determine the structure of new world order. There are serious
internal and external.limitations on the power of USA. For taking any major decision in the international arena, it has to
secure widespread international support.
’ PAXSQVIFTICA
Pax Sovietica meant the policy of extending the Soviet influence and culture in other parts of the world. This
expansionist impulse has been ever present in Russia. Even during the Czarist rule Russia made a ’probe in all
directions and advanced in the direction where it encountered least resistance. Thus, it expanded its territory towards
Finland and the Baltic, towards Poland, towards the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea and Central Asia; towards Siberia
and Pacific. Russia also nourished ambitions’ to expand in certain other areas like the Balkans, the Turkish Straits,
Afghanistan, Tibet and China. However, these ambition* were thwarted by other powers.
Soviet Russia (which came into being as a result of Revolution of 1917) could not play any effective role in the
international sphere from 1917 to the Second World War, because of preoccupation with the internal affairs and the
existence of powerful countries like Britain, France, Germany,’ete. The main opponents of Russia were Britain in the
nineteenth.century; Imperial japan in early twentieth century and Axis Powers in 1930*$ and early forties.
In the post Second World War period Soviet Union tried to extend her influence in Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, East
Germany, Hungary, Rumania,
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Outer Mongolia, Manchuria, North Korea, etc. by promoting Communist governments in
these countries and itself assumed the leadership of the Communist bloc. Soviet Union tried to establish communist
government in Greece and Turkey but its designs were thwarted by United States.
Russia also concluded a number of treaties and agreements with countries of Eastern Europe and took a lead in the
establishment of a Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria,
Hungary, Rumania and Albania. In 1950 Russian concluded a Treaty ol Friendship Alliance and Mutual Assistance
with Communist Government of China. In 1955 Russia took a lead in the conclusion of the Warsaw Pact with Abania,
Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovokia. The signatory .states agreed to set up a joint
command for their forces and the Soviet Marshal I.”S. Koniev appointed Commander of the Unified Command. . Thus,
Soviet Union emerged as the undisputed leader of the Communist countries. However, during this period certain cracks
also appeared in the C&mmunist bioc. Tito led Yugoslaviaout of the Soviet satellite system. China also developed
differences with Soviet Union over economic aid and trade questions; ideological issues; and on border issues and
asserted its own. China emerged as a dominant power of Asia and began to. compete withSoviet Union for leadership
of the Communist Movement. The break of Albania with USSR gave a further setback to Soviet leadership.
Despite Shese setbacks Soviet Union continued to enjoy a. dominant position in Eastern Europe and even made efforts
to increase its influence in the Third World.
For this purpose it not only provided greater aid but also stepped up its cultural activities. At the UN also Soviet Union
consistently championed and actively supported the anti-colonial cause (if supported Indonesia’s struggle’ agamst the
Dutch; tgypt’s revolt against British hegemony; and Algeria’s revo’ution .against France) which improved its image
with the Afro-Asian countries and contributed to its increasing influejKe in the Third World However, here also Soviet
Union suffered certain setbacks and a number of countries of .Asia and Africa (viz., Ghana, Egpyt etc.) bluntly told the
Soviet leaders that the rejection of the Western capitalism should not be interpreted as acceptance of Soviet mastery
and ihey’tried to assert their diplomatic and military independence, in short we can say that despite the fact that Soviet
Union provided igncir nousaid to t|^s ThirdWodd counties, ithas not been able to retain. its dominance in tfiese
countries .and they have shown a tendency to assert ’ Shamseive-i ’
SovMt Union took keen interest in the Middle East and tried to increase its influence in the region, it indicated its
interest in the region by refusing to withdraw the Soviet troops fro.m Iras? after tf»a war. However, ultimately Soviet
Union was obliged to withdraw iu troop* in the face of growing international pressure. Thereafter Soviet Union tried to
Increase Its influence in 5he rejjicn by «?tertd«ng support So thg .’evolutionary movements of tHs coutit/ies in Middle
£*«». Thus, 5» supported the expulsion of British ir.^.i Iraq and Egypt and ouster os Fr«»*’K* e/$ lovant and North
Afric*. In addition Soviet Union £ao maJ*
106 ’ ’ ’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
available military and economic assistance to the countries of region. Soviet Union’s offer to underwrite the cost of the
proposed dam at Aswan (following the cancellation of promised American aid) and its offer to send’volunteers’to assist
Nasser during the British-French and Israeli attack, further contributed to the improvement of Soviet image in the
region. Soviet Union also succeeded in winning over Algeria by supporting revolt against the French. However, this
Soviet influence in the region could not last long because the countries of Middle East began to suspect Soviet Onion of
fostering troubles in (heir countries-. The failure of the Soviet Union to render active military assistance to the Arab
countries during the Arab Israel War of 1967 (which resulted in the victory of Israel) gave a serious setback to Soviet
influence in the region. In the course of time this influence continued to show a further decline. However towards the
close of the 1970’s Soviet Union was once again able to assert its dominant position following Marxist revolution in
Afghanistan in April 1978. On the other hand the Islamic upheaval in Iran during 1978-79, which gave a serious
setback to American influence in the region, also greatly contributed to the increase in the influence of Soviet Union.
It is evident from the above discussion that Soviet Union greatly increased its influence in the post World War II period
and established its dominance over Eastern Europe and certain.other regions despite tough opposition from the western
democracies. However, the Soviet dominance received a set back due to attempt by countries of Third World to act
independent of the two super powers.The policy of liberalisation adopted by countries of Eastern Europe and the
decision of the Soviet leaders to make a retreat from the international scene, gave a further setback to Soviet hegemony.
The winding off of the Warsaw Pact is a clear evidence of the loss of Soviet Dominance in Eastern Europe. In the
Middle East also the failure of Soviet Union to play an active role during the Gulf War of 1991, in contrast with the
dominant rote of USA, was interpreted as loss of Soviet influence. The disintegration of the Soviet Union towards the
close of
1991 virtually put an end to Pax Sovietica.
MIDDLE KINGDOM COMPLEX OF CHINA
Theconcepf of ’Middle Kingdom complex’ or ’intermediate zone’ occupies , an important place in China’s foreign
policy. This principle was evolved by Mao Tse Tung during the critical years of 1946-47 when the Chinese
Communists were engaged in a civil war against the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai Shek. It tnay be noted that after
the Allied victory over japan in August 1945, while the Chinese Communists entrenched themselves in north China and
Mapchuria, the Chiang Kai Shek forces occupied a dominant position in central and southern ’ Chinese hinterland.
There was every possibility of the outbreak of a crvjf war. At this juncture most of the countries of the world including
United States, and Soviet Union recognised Nationalist Government under,Chiang Kai Shek asthe legitimate
government of China. Though United States made a bid to mediate in the Chinese political imbroglio but they
contributed towards the improvement of the position of Chiang Kai Shek by agreeing to transport his troops to
Manchuria. Between November 1945 and January 1947 United States made fresh bid to mediate in the dispute and find
a mutually acceptable solution,
H FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES 107
M however these efforts failed, and the country was gripped in a civil war which JK’ culminated in the victory of the
Communist and fleeing of Chiang Kai Shek to K the island of Formosa (Taiwan).
K The attitude of the Soviet Union was also quite disappointing to the
B Communist leaders of China. No doubt, Soviet forces permitted substantial
mj quantities of captured Japanese arms to pass into the Communist hands in north
f” China, but the Soviet leader had no confidence in the political future of Mao’s
I cause. Further, unmindful of China’s economic welfare, they looted the
I industrial installations at Manchuria.
I The conduct of United States convinced Mao that while it professed to be
I neutral, in reality its policy was highly discriminatory in favour of Chiang Kai I Shek. Similarly, the Soviet
Union not only harmed the Communist interests by I looting the jndustrial intallations at Manchuria but also
advised them to avoid | a war, because it feared that the war would disturb the equilibrium between the I two
post-war power blocs. Therefore Mao pleaded for keeping the revolution I alive and said: The arms of the people,
every gun and every bullet must all be I’ kept, must not be handed over. He offered a new analysis of the
international I situation in which the Soviet Union was playing a relatively passive role and f
subsequentlytherewasnopossibilityofaconflictbetweenthetwosuperpowers.” . He asserted that under the situation,
the third bloc, including China and whole of the Capitalist world outside United States and its dependencies could play
a more positive and dynamic role. Thus, he threw the concept of Middle Kingdom complex.
The concept of ’intermediate zone’ or ’middle kingdom’ was further elaborated by Mao in his World’s Eye View from a
Yenan Cave. He said that the American talk of war with Soviet Union was a smoke-screen behind which it was trying
todominateall the countries which lay between the two great powers. He argued that America’s global network of bases
could be used against the Soviet Union but only after it had mastered the rest of the world. Actually, it was the policy
of the American imperialists to attack through peaceful means and oppress all capitalist colonial and semi colonial
countries. Mao said that the complex system of military bases and alliances such as SEATO, NATO and CENTO were
in reality directed at the very countries which they incorporated. He .argued that these countries, including China,
formed the real battle ground for the fight with imperialism. He, therefore, pleaded that all the democratic forces which
found themselves in contradiction with the United States should join hands to form a united front against it.
By the end of 1950’s Mao adopted dual strategy for the implementation of his Middle Kingdom concept. On the one
hand he tried to improve the economic and military strength of China so that it could play an effective role in the world
affairs and on the other hand he actively supported the struggles of the intermediate zone because he was convinced
that here atone the worldwide offensive of imperialism could be blunted. Accordingly, throughout the 1960’s China
projected an image among the Third World countries that it was revolutionary power which was committed to support
nationalist movement ’ elsewhere. ’
108
Further Modification in the Concept
After the Sino-Soviet conflict, Mao made further modifications, in the ’intermediate zone’ concept. The splits in the
capitalist camp also influenced his views in this regard. In 1964 Mao said: ”At present time there exist two intermediate
zones in the world. Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute the first intermediate zone. Europe, North America and
Oceania constitute the second.” It may be nflted that Mad did not include the Eastern European countries in their
opposition to the Soviet hegemony as forming part of the second intermediate zone.
Mao offered a further and more authoritative elucidation of the concept of intermediate zone in 1972 and said: ”(he two
superpowers-Soviet revisionism and U.S. imperialism-are trying to sandwitch other countries in.various parts of the
world. They not only plunder the small and medium-sized countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America but also practise
the ’jungle law’ policy towards their allies in Europe, Asia, North America and Oceania. The Soviet revisionists are
sparing no effort lo extend their sphere of influence to Western Europe. Thus, between these two overlords and the
socialist countries there exist two broad intermediate zones.. .The second intermediate zone includes the major
capitalist powers both in the West and the East except the two superpowers. These countries too are subjected to the
control, intervention and bullying of two overlords to varying degrees and the contradictions between these countries
and (he two superpowers are daily developing.”
Thus, we find ih.it in Mao’s concept intermediate zone countries were placed between two superpowers on the one
hand and the socialist countries on the other. The concept of second intermediate zone also differred from the concept
of first intermediate zone in so far as it also included the Eastern European countries.
Since 1968 at least the Chinese have regarded the Soviet Union, as a military threat and thereforeweicorned the
formation of the Common Market on the* ground that it constituted a new sttep by the West European countries in
joining forces against the hegemony of the super powers specially against the control and interference in Western
Europe. They also saw in this combination » possible check against Soviet Union.
10
Cold War : Origins, Evolutions and Implications
”Europe will soon become simply the enemy camp: the divisions between them will no longer be those of nations or
territories but rather those of colour and belief”.
-Napoleon to Cas Cases
he cold war has been defined by Florence Eliott and Michael Summerskill
ctiohary of Politics as ”a state of tension between countries in which each
opts policies designect to strengthen itself and weaken the other/line
hort of actual hot war*. The cold war has been a predominant factor in
ning the conduct of international affairs in post-Second World War
,t envisaged an era of neither peace nor war between Soviet Union and
an allies on the one hand and United States and a score of its allies on
IT hand. The term ’cold war’ was first used by Bernard Baruch, an
,n statesman who in a speech to South Carolina legislature on April 16,

:d: ”Let us not be deceived, we are today in the midst of a cold war”.’
.ippmann popularised the term in 1947 with his little book by the same
herein he’described the situation that had arisen between the Western
and the Soviet Union. The Western powers and the Soviet Union had
jelher to fight against’the Axis aggression during the Second World War
ever, their relations, though cordial, were suffering from an undercurrent
I distrust and jealousy. The Soviet Union had harboured the suspicions
glc-American moves on account of delay in opening the second front
ar to relieve German pressure on Soviet front, the secrecy maintained
atom bomb, and the denial of invitation to the Poiish provisional
int to San Francisco. Similarly, the West had entertained the feeling that
j annexed considerable territory.by waging war against japan at the last
Thus, the mutual distrust had Jed’to sharp rivalry as soon as the World
me to an end.
fe is no unanimity amongst scholars regarding the date of origin of cold

* scholars place it as far back as the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
Saruch, Public Years (New Yosk, Halt, Rinehart and WinsSon). 1960.
110
Desmond Domelly in his book Struggle for the World said: The cold war has its origins in the struggle for power in the
Central Asia between the rival imperialism of Britain and Russia in the Nineteenth century. There was that strange
period of history known as the.’Great Games” when names such as Samarkand and Bokhara were the traditional
doctrine of mutual suspicion-even before the Red Flag floated over the winter palace on that cataclysmic day in
1917”. Even Frederick L. Schuman in his book The Cold War: Restrospect and Prospect also opined that *At all
events, what we have seen the ’cold war’ did not begin in 1945, in the aftermath of World War II and of the Yalta and
of the Potsdam conferences. In a broader sense it began with the second Russian Revolution of 1917...within ten
months after Russia’s October Revolution, Soviet Union and the West were at war. And the war was not a cold war but
a h* ot war, marked by many casualties and vast destruction. Be it remembered, lest we forget what the Russians never
forget, that this war was begun by communists
sending armies against Soviet Russia The legacy of mutual fear and suspicion
and hatred which nourished the cold war of .the 1940s and 50s originated in the hot war between East and West in
1918-1921”.
The cold war in Soviet bloc was officially regarded as a unilateral attack by ”capitalism” and ”imperialilsm” of the
socialist countries, and where ”socialist warriors’ were regarded as anticommunist ”hawks”. Some official Soviet
versions of the cold war would attribute the origin, of cold war in Churchill’s Fulton speech of 5 March 1946, wherein
he said: ”If the Western democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter,
their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If, however, they
become devided or fail in ’ their duty and if these all important years are allowed to slip away, then indeed catastrophe
may overwhelm us all”.
There is no precise consensus among the scholars about either its essential
nature or the time and circumstances of its origin. Paul Seabury in his book The
Rise and Decline of the Cold War. holds that to ”date its origin is to suggest its
„ central meaning”. The majority of authors treat the emergence of cold war as a
post-Second World War phenomenon.
Evolution of Cold War
Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Russia had emerged as a power to be reckoned with in Europe. The
Western powers had initially refused to recognise the Bolshevik government in Russia. Prior to (he beginning of
Second World War, Soviet Russia had missed many opportunities where it could bring the Western powers together
under so-called security system and to a disarmament programme within and outside framework of the League of ’
Nations. There had been frequent denouncements by Russia of the policy of appeasement pursued by America, Britain
and France towards Germany. One can say that the cold w.ir was at embroyic stage during that period. With the advent
ol second World W.ir, Soviet Russia started cooperation with the Western countries but this did not help in mitigating
(he mutual distrust and suspicions.’ The dilfcring war aims of the two powers also greatly contributed to the growth of
cold war. While Soviet Union was keen to ensure her future security by
COLD WAR : ORIGINS, EVOLUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
111
partitioning Germany and by creating a buffer zone of friendly East European countries, the United Stales was keen to
restore the conditions necessary for prosperity and to ensuring that a destructive depression did not recur. Refusal bf
Soviet Union to open the Black sea straits and the Danube as international waters, due to her fear that it would pave the
way for US commercial penetration on Soviet Eastern Europe, also caused friction. Theformal declaration of cold war
was made by Winston Churchill of United Kingdom in his Westminster College (Fulton) speech on 5 March 1946. He
said ”A shadow has fallen upon the scene so lately lighted by the Allied Victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia
and its communist international organisation intend to do in the immediate future....From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste
in the Adriatic, an iron curtain hasdescended across the continent.” He emphasised the need of Anglo-American
alliance and emphasised that Soviet Union understands only language of force. He thus predicted me inevitability of
post-war struggle against Soviet Union.
The U.S. decision in 1947 to remilitarise Greece, following UK’s withdrawal, on the plea that if United States did not
fill the vacuum left by British departure, the Soviet Union would, also contribute to cold war. President Truman
asserted: ”! believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support the free people who are resisting attempted
subjugation by armed minorities and by ”outside pressure.... If we falter in our leadership we may endanger the peace
6f the world and we shallsurely endanger the welfare of this nation.” In view of this attitude of United States, Soviet
Union also became reluctant to withdraw from Eastern Europe. It felt that by continuing to occupy Eastern Europe, the
Soviet Union would at least negate any threat of nuclear aggression. The net impact of all the above developments was
an aggravation of cold war and estrangement of relations between Soviet Union and Western powers.
Basis of Cold War
In the main scholars have offered three Interpretations about the basis of cold war.
Firstly, some scholars see cold war as a product of mutual antagonism. They hold that the mistrust and the consequent
fears were the basis of this conflict. The mutual I’ear and suspicion produced hostile interaction between two parties
and both the parties were not willing to take any initiative to reduce tension. No doubt, the diplomacy of co-existence
and the rise of neutral nations in Asia and Africa contributed to the dampening of the cold war, but it was kept alive by
the fear of the capitalist world about the ultimate motives of Soviet expansion and the fc.ir of the communist countries
that the imperialists were determined to destroy the Marxland. Thus, the cold war was kept alive due to, illusions of
both the capitalists and the communists.
Secondly, some scholars have expressed the view that the cold war was rooted in ideological incompatibilities. For
example Janies F. Bynt-s, the U.S. Secretary-of State contended that ”there is too-much difference in the ideologies of
the USA and Russia to work out a long term programme of cooperation.” He held that the expansionist and crusading
Communist ideology was intent ir: •’-. converting the entire world. They were scared of Communism because il »vjs
essentially totalitarian and anti-democratic and therefore Dosed a real ••*-•
112
lit
freedom and liberty throughout the world. President Eisenhower also said: ”We face a hostile ideology global in
scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method.” To counter this threat the United
States embarked upon a crusadetoetiminate the salient set of ideas from the globe. This view looks upon the cold
war as a ”battle for allegiance of men’s minds” on the pattern of religious wan of past The conflict was quite
bitter because the ideological foes recognised no virtue in conciliation or co-operation with enemies.
Thirdly, some scholars see the roots of cold war in the mutual misunderstanding. According to them, both the
parties saw in their own action only virtue and in the action of the adversary only malice. This naturally gave
rise to distrust towards each other. According to Kegley and Wittkoff ”this interpretation of the origin of the
cold war is difficult to deny, given the perception that became accepted as dogma.”
The Soviet suspicion of America was based on tatter’s intervention in Russia in 1918-19; refusal toettabltsh diplomatic
relations tilll 933; and the wartime experience-viz., American refusal to inform the Soviet Union about Manhattan
project to develop atomic bomb; delay in sending the Soviets promised Lend-lease support; and the failure to open up
the second front which mad* Stalin suspect that the American policy was to tet the Russians and Germans destory each
other so that the United States could then pick up the pieces from among the rubble; and use of atomic bomb against
japan. In short, the Soviet distrust of American intentions was presumed to stem at least in part, from fears of American
encirclement buttressed by a historical record of demonstrated hostility.
likewise USA nourished hostility towards Soviet Union because of

irKxeaf^mdkau’cmsofgrowingSovtetb^ligerence.This feeling arosebeeause of Russian unwillingness to permit
democratic elections in countries liberated from the Nazis; their refusal to assist in post war reconstruction in region*
outside Soviet control; the maintenance of an unnecessarily large armed forces &i”te$war; •tripp4ng of supplies from
Soviet areas of occupation and often obstructive behaviour in the new international organisation; and above all their
antiAfmrican propaganda,
Phases of Cold War
The evolution gf 4w cold war pessed through various phases which a«e at
uwdsr: - ’•-
fins fhntf 194&-49: h an atmosphere cf mutual distrust and suspicion v Western faksc had nourished that
feding diat if strong pressus* codd b*» exerted on *» Soviet Union, th* Communist wgime would teem
cnimbte dfo*»n like » hous* of earth. The Western bloc was lafccurlng under this idm because Amerio. had
to atom bomb monopoly sr,d Ruasia lacked it It was g«*e»aMy Held thai Amwtea, which was mi!ftariry
superior to USSR could be in a command of th* world and irrfluenca the domestic affair* of ** Soviat
Ufsson. the Armric*’*
t. Ch>fe»W.fc^»ideMgm^WMhrf,Mfcrfcfr^^
. *« - . ’ . - ’,;
113
policy of condemning Russia could not be implemented because the other partners of the American bloc were not
militarily well equipped like USA and the memories of World War II were still fresh in their minds which dissuaded
them not to resort tp another war.
The United States resorted to direct military action during their phase through Trurnan Doctrine of March 1947 and
economic integration of West European powers as envisaged in Marshall Plan of June 1947. America pursued the
policy of intervention and defender of status quo during this period. Anticommunist feelings, which the USA
endeavoured to implant throughout the world, were the hallmark of this period. On the other hand Stalin also looked
upon the USA with suspicion and in his speech of February, 1946 referred to the ”inevitability of conflict with .the
capitalist powers.* He urged the Soviet people not to be deluded that the end of the war meant trfat the nation could
relax and emphasised that rather intensified efforts were needed thereafter.
During this phase the German problem also greatly contributed to tension between the two blocks. In 1948 the western
powers merged their occupation zones and formed Trizonia. A year later they proclaimed the Federal Republic of
Germany. Similarly Soviet Union established German Democratic Rupublic in her occupation zone. Tension further
increased following introduction of new currency in trizonia in 1948 and Soviet Union retaliated by imposing blockade
of Berlin which the western powers sought to nullify through gigantic airlift to Berlin. Yet another factor which
contributed to the tension between two Super Powers during this phase was refusal of USA to accord recognition of the
communist government of China and support to the Formosa government.
The Second Phase (1949-53): The second phase witnessed the continuation of America’s policy and military and
economic aid against Soviet Union. The United States concluded security treaty with Australia and New Zealand
(ANZUS) and Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951. The Korean War also occurred during this period. This war proved a
major confrontation between USA and Soviet Union. During the Moscow Conferences held in December 1945, the
Ministers of Russia, America and Britain had agreed to form a joint commission comprising the representatives of the
America’s military regime of South Korea and those of a pro-Soviet military regime of North Korea. Majority of
Koreahs were in favour of complete independence. The Russian proposal was to hold talks with those groups or parties
which would accept the mandate acceding to a decision of the Moscow conference. But America was opposed to this
proposal. The joint-commission of America and USSR formed in March 1946 could not succeed and the phase
continued. Lastly, the Korean issue was referred to U.N. But in June 1950 North Korea suddenly invaded SouthKorea.
However, this war was brought to a close by an armistice concluded in July 1953. America launched intensified
propaganda against Communism, spending millions of dollars on it. This period was marked by subversive activities by
the power blocs against each other. Soviet Union also exploded the atom bomb and entered a nuclear race With USA.
Yet the American and Russian troops remained stationed on both sides of Korea. Despite the signing of armistice, the
hostility continued. During this phase
114
both Soviet Union and USA played game of power politics with a vengeance and both tried to curtail the
influence of the adversary and stop its presumed effort to conquer the world. During this period there were
moments of co-operation, (viz., lifting of Berlin blockade), but these acts of co-operation were little more than
the kinds of communications between the adversaries necessary to continue the contest.
’ Third Phased ”53-57). During the third phase which lasted from 195.3 to
1957, the United States continued its policy of military and economic offensive
against the Soviet bloc. Two new US sponsored treaties emerged. One was
South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the Middle East Defence
Organisation (MEDO). The emergence of these two new treaties forged new
defence links with NATO. America also endeavoured to enhance its area of
influence in the Middle East by extending theTruman Doctrine to the region. The
United,States succeeded in-establishing number ofmilitary bases around Soviet
territory and entered into defence treaties with 43 countries. During the period,
USA got entangled in Vietnam war which turned out to be a climax of cold war.
The Soviet Union during this period did not lag behind. Russian concluded
WARSAW TREATY with East European powers to counteract NATO. It entered
into defence treaties with 12 states. Even the American bid of counter-revolution
in Hungary has foiled. This period was also marked by the permanency of the
Potsdam, partition of Germany. The division of Germany into two-German
Democratic Republic (GDR) in Soviet bloc and Federal Republic of Germany
(FRG) in American bloc occurred during this period. Both the USA and Soviet
Union exploded hydrogen bomb simultaneously during this period. During this
period both the powers talked as if war was imminent but in deeds both acted
with increasing caution and restraint. However, this phase was marked by the
healthy trend that a dialogue between the two powers was initiated. This marked
the beginning of a new phase characterised by the spirit of negotiations’. This
phase also witnessed the first step towards detente in the form of submmit
meeting at Geneva (1955) when the two rivals held mutual discussions on world .
problems.
Fourth Phase C/957-62;.-The Fourth phase that lasted from 1957-62 was marked by two extreme trends. On the one
hand the principles of co-existence were pronounced and on the other hand the world saw the most dangerous Cuban
Missile crisis which virtually brought the entire mankind on the brink of the third war. Beginning years of this period
witnessed the prevalence of the spirit of coexistence between USA and USSR. There had been mutual exchanges of
cultural and political delegates. Even the heads of governments of both the countries visited each other’s country. Both
the powers having agreed for Paris Summit was a clear indication that the cold war attitude had obliterated. But their
congenial spirit Was marred by the U-2 incident.
However, the damage incurred by the U-2 incident was repaired to some extent by the General Summit of 1960 and or>
Vietnam meeting between Khrushchev and President Kennedy in 1961. The Berlin crisis of 1961 following USSR
threat to unilaterally, terminate American access to Berlin and to make peace wkh East Germany also gave a setback to
efforts at improvement of
, ,vv.--> nr*u IMKLICATIONS 115
relations between thetwocountries.Thecrjsisaroseduetoerectionofmileslong Berlin Partition wall by Soviet Union to

check the fleeing refugees from East Berlin to West Berlin. Again the Cuban crisis brought both the superpowers at the
threshold of war. However, the mankind was saved from destruction of nuclear war following an agreement between
Khrushchev and Kennedy by which USSR agreed to withdraw the missile base in exchange for the American guarantee
for not invading Cuba.
Fifth Phase (1962-69): The fifth phase which commenced from 1962 was marked by a deep appreciation of the futility
of nuclear weapons. There was a worldwide concern demanding ban on nuclear weapons. The partial test ban treaty
was concluded in 1963. The Geneva Hot-line Agreement of 1963 brought ;% USA and USSR morecloser. The
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 was also made possible due to good offices of both the superpowers. However,
the problem of Germany and Vietnam was still a riddle for both blocs. Having felt ^ the need for peaceful coexistence
the only means to let the mankind survive, call K was given for disarmament. Premier Khurshchev had advocated the
policy of It:7 coexistence in 1959 and in pursuance of this policy he visited.Washington and If met President
Eisenhower. During his visit, Khrushchev addressed General K Assembly of the UN and proposed that all the states
should completely disarm W themselves within four years.
| The signing of partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1967 was regarded as a
land mark in easing the cold war. This Treaty envisaged provisions for limited ban on all nuclear tests in the
atmosphere including territorial water and High seas. In pursuance of the recommendations made by the General
Assembly, United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain adopted the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The provisions
of this treaty implied that the countries equipped with’ nuclear capabilities were not to transfer their nuclear weapons or
control over them to any non-nuclear power or to provide know-how in producing these weapons.
Sixth Phase-Detente (1969-78): The sixth phase commencing from 1969 was marked by detente. During this period the
co-operative interaction became more common place than hostile relations. In simple words the relations between USA
and USSR became quite normal and visits, cultural exchanges, trade agreements and co-operative technological
venture’s replaced threats, warn ings and confrontat ion. This change took place on account of a realisation of a
necessity to ovoid suicidal war and awareness that co-operation between the two was in their mtitujl interests. Probably
theescalJting cost of a continued arms race also contributed to the development of detente. The congenial climate for
detente was created in 1959 when Khruschev pleaded for peaceful-coexistence. The subsequent moves for demanding
ban on the spread of nuclear weapons,,of Nuclear ban treaties were the trend-setters for reducing the cold war. In 1962,
President Nixon of USA paid a visit to Moscow and signed two agreements. These agreements included the Treaty on
the limitation of AntiBallastic Missile system and the interim Agreement on certain measures with respect to the
limitation of strategic offensive arms. The first treaty imposed limilationson United Statesand the Soviet Union to two
sitesforballasticmissite defences, one to protect their national capital areas and the other to protect the
1!6 ’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
field of ICBMs,The second agreement encompassed both the land based ICBMs and submarine launched ballastic
missiles. Both these treaties went a long way in effecting improvement of relations between the two blocs.
In 1970, Soviet Un ion signed a treaty with West Germany and agreed not to use force against her. This greatly
contributed to the reduction of tension in Europe. This was followed by an agreement over Berlin between Soviet
Union,
• Britain, U.S.A. and France, which was indicative of the intentions of all powers to reduce tension.
In November 1972 East Germany and West Germany concluded a treaty whereby they not only acknowledged each
other’s existence but also agreed to cooperate in different spheres. The same year North Korea and South Korea also
concluded an agreement covering wide range of subjects.
In 1973, Brerhnev, the Chief of the Communist Party of the USSR, also visited Washington where Summit talks were
held. Both the world leaders discussed important matters concerning the peace in the world and agreed to work together
forenduring peace and toend the nuclear arms race.These summit talks resulted in signing of four important agreements
between America and Russia. These agreements envisaged the cooperation in the field of research in ’; agriculture,
transportation and expansion of cultural and scientific exchanges
Detweenther>vocountries.ltwasalsoagreedtonegotiatearm»tua!treatyaimiag . at the reduction of nuclear weapons and
cooperation in nuclear power research. : Both the powers agreed to avoid the confrontation of a nuclear war not only ;
between themselves butalso with thethird state. The leaders of the two countries asserted that lasting peace in Europe
was the main goal of this policy.
The progress in mutual relations between Moscow and Washington was ’not affected in the wake of change in
leadership in USA when President Nixon resigned following Watergate scandal. The new US President ford did not
envisage new changes in the foreign policy especially with USSR and rather continued efforts for reduction of nuclear
weapons. President Ford concluded an agreement with Brezhnev for limiting strategic offensive weapons for the next
ten years. The summit conference on security and cooperation in Europe held in Helesinki in July, 1975 was attended
by both the leaders. It marked the prevalence of an atmosphere of almost complete detente between the two
superpowers. The same year also witnessed the participation of superpowers in the joint Apollo-Soyuz space mission.
A new dimension was added to cold war in the wake of Sino-Soviet rift. A new tension built up between USSR and
China as well as China and U.S.A. However, after the period of detente set in there was considerable improvement in
relations between United States and China. In 1971 Henry Kissinger, the U.S. Secretary of State paid a secret visit to
China to explore the possibilities of rapprochment with China. This visit was followed by Shanghai Communique ’
which gave signals of the possible detente between U.S.A. and China. The cold war between China and USA virtually
came to an end with the exchange of ambassadors in January 1979, even though some irritants still persisted in their
relations.
117
The Detente between USA and USSR also did not automatically lead tc mitigation of all strains of cold war.
There were still many points of conflic between the (wo superpowers and they continued to pursue the policy of
containment of the opponent. For example, the United States continued to support armed build up in Iran to
retain her influence in the Middle East and to counteract the growing influence of Russia in the region.
Similarly, the American move to convert Diego Garcia into a military base was primarily designed to check the
Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean area. On the other hand Soviet Union subrnfttad proposals for Asian
Collective Security with a view to replace the American sphere of influence in South-East Asia as well as to
contain China. During the Bangladesh crisis of 1971 and the Egypt-Israel War of 1973 also the two super-
powers extended support to the opposite sides.
Seventh Ph*se-SALT II (1979-onwards): The treaty on the limitation of stragetk offensive arms signed in 1972
between US and USSR lapsed in October
1977. But both the sides endeavoured to observe its main provisions. The Ford administration made little efforts
for negotiations on new agreement. However, after prolonged series of negotiations, a treaty between the United
States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic offensive arms during the period up to 31 December
1985 was signed.in Vienna on T8 June 1979 by American President Carter and Leonid Brezhnev, the President
of the Soviet Union. This treaty is popularly known as SALT-II. This treaty envisaged the determination of both
the super powers in limiting the expansion of the nuclear weapons. It noted the will of both the countries in
’reaffirming their desires to take measures for the further limitations and for the further reduction of strategic
arms having in mind the goal of achieving general and complete disarmament The SALT-II treaty documents
weee sent to US Senate on 22 June 1979; because President Carter had announced on 1S January 1979 that the
agreement would take the form of a treaty rather than an executive agreement Under the US constitution Che
President is empowered by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds
of the senators present concur. Hence SALT II would become effective only if it is’rat if led by the US Senate. So
far no development has occurred on this side. The cold war was perhaps on its last leg had the SALT H been
ratified earlier. As the circumstances would have it, the prospects of mitigating cold war were marred by sudden
developments in Afghanistan where Russian armed intervention rather aggravated the situation. It fanned the
ambers of cold war.
from SALT II to Afghanistan Crisis: The process of normalisation of relations between USA and Soviet Union
had travelled a long way to reach the stage of SALT II. The conclusion of (heSALT II coincided with the sudden
political developments in Afghanistan. On 27 April 1976 Daud Khan’s Governmentwas overthrown by an
Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and Noor Mohammed Taraki emerged as the new President Soviet Union
which shares 900-1000 km longconvnon border with Afghanistan, recognised the Taraki regime on 30 April
1978. During May 1978 Kabul and Moscow signed various agreements of mutual interest In December 1978 a
treaty of friendship and cooperation was signed between Soviet Union and Afghanistan. Developments took
dramatic turn on 16 September 1979 when Hafoullah Amin replaced Taraki as head of (he Government, Even
the Amin regime was also overthrown in a sudden coup on 27 December 1979. He was replaced by Babrak
Karmal. The Karmal regime was backed by the Soviet troops who had landed in Kabul during December 1979
and January 1980. The initial estimates were that the Soviet troops in Afghanistan were numbering between
15,000 to 20,000 but later the number swelled to over one lakh.
The Russian intervention in Afghan crisis added a new dimension to the process of detente-and reactivated the
forces of cold war. (For details about Detente and Second Cold War see subsequent chapters). ImpMotbm of
Cold Urar
The Cold War had far-reaching implications in the international affairs. In the first instance it gave rise to a
fear psychosis which resulted in mad race for the manufacture of more sophisticated armaments. Both the
power blocs tried to acquire more and more sophisticated weapons. This set in motion a mad race for
armaments.
Secondly, cold war led to the formation of various alliances during the peace times. Both the blocs formed
alliances and counter alliances to counterbalance the growing power of the opponent Some-of the alliances
which were thus formed include NATO, SEATO, CENTO, Warsaw Pact etc. The existence of these alliances
added to world tension.
Thirdly, a large number of nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America after attainment of independence decided
to keep away from the military alliances Sponsored and supported by the two super powers. Instead they
preferred to follow policy of non-alignment. Thus, it can be said that the emergence of policy of non-alignment is
also the direct outcome of the cold war.
Fourthly, cold war greatly undermined the chances of attaining the goal of One world. On account of mutual
rivalry the two super powers were not willing to trust each other and often took opposite stands at the United
Nations. This often resulted in blocking entry of certain members to the United Nations. It is well known that
United States did not permit People’s Republic of China to take . its seat in the United Nations only because
China was a camp follower of Soviet Union.This prevented the United Nations from attaining universal
character and jeopardised the chances of evolving one world.
Fifthly, the mad race for armament which was the logical outcome of the prevailing cold war between two power
blocs resulted in diversion of enormous •mounts to acquisition of sophisticated weapons. This adversely affected
ihe development of the stales, and prevented improvement in the living standards of the people.
COLO WAR . ORIGINS, EVOLUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 119
Finally Cold war rendered the UN ineffective because both the Superpowers tried to oppose the notions proposed by
the opponent. Thus, Soviet Union exercised its veto to prevent action in Greece, Triests etc. because she distrusted the
western powers. Likewise United States mode use of its veto power on the question of Red China’s membership of
United Nations.
In view of the serious implications of cold war the leaders of Soviet Union^ and United Slates thought of affecting
improvement in their- relations and reducing international tension. This paved the way for detente. However the policy
of detente did not last long and towards the close of 1970s the two superpowers relapsed into Second Cold War.
120
11
Detente and its Impact

”Detente does not, in the slightest, abolish nor can it alter the laws of the class struggle. We make no secret of the fact
mat we seedetente as the way to create more favourable condition for the peaceful socialist and communist
construction. As for the ultra-leftist assertions that peaceful coexistence is freezing the socio-economic status quo, our
answer is this: every revolution is above all a natural result of the given society’s internal development.”
-Leonid Brezhnev
Duringthe post-war period, for most of the quarter century following 1945, the dominant feature of handling the
international affairs between East and the West has been cold war. From 1969 to 1979 it was ’detente’. President Nixon
described ’detente’ as a state of cordiality derived from his personal friendship with Leonid Brezhnev and other Soviet
leaders. However, this definition of ’detente’ was rejected by the Soviets because it was too reminiscent of the cult of
personality they had repudiated. The Soviet leaders on the other hand equated detente with peaceful cc-existence
between different political and social systems, of the need to prevent nuclear war and resolve disputes by peaceful
means; mutually advantageous co-operation, etc. President Carter defined ’detente’ as the easing of tension between
two nations and the evolution of new means by which the two nations could live together in peace. The other features
of detente emphasised by Carter were honouring of existing agreements; renunciation of the notion on the military
supremacy; and exercise of restraint in troubled areas. In simple words, the term ’detente’ means reduction of tension
between the superpowers. The tension in international relations had existed between USSR and USA of the one hand
and between USA and China on the other. The term ’detente’ in the context indicates the easing of tension between
USSR and USA and USA and China. Detente envisages a conscious and deliberate reduction of tension in the central
balance of power. Cold war assumes a conscious maintenance of tensions at a relatively high level. Detente has been a
widely misunderstood idea and that proved its major political weakness. Academic precision cannot be expected when
ambiguous terms are used. Same is true about ’detente’.
DETENTE AND ITS IMPACT
121
The Chinese official spokesmen do not employ the word ’detente’ for the change in their own relationship with the
United States. They reserve it for the Soviet-American relationship and attack it more fiercely as a ’Soviet trick under
whose cover the Russians are plotting world hegemony’- Since there is no other word that exactly communicates the
approximate meaning of reduction of tension, it is used to describe the change in relations between Washington and
Beijing after 1969, as well as relations between Washington and Moscow. In reality, even in the literal sense that is,
reduction in tension, the detente with China was a more notable achievement for the Americans than the detente with
the Soviet Union. The level of tension with China was far higher than with Soviet Union. Detente pursued exclusively
with the Soviet Union had a different meaning and functions from detente pursued.simultaneously and in parallel with
China.
Detente has also been defined as a diplomatic strategy which may help to undermine the essential point that does not in
any way imply an end to the contest for diplomatic influence, only a mode of making the contest less dangerous,
moving it back to the nuclear brink and giving it possibly a more creative orientation. Detente should not be
misconstrued for peace. Peace is an objective. Detente is a diplomatic mode or strategy by which that objective can be
realised. On the other hand detente should not be mistaken for appeasement either. Appeasement was a policy that
disregarded the balance of power in pursuit of the supposed requirements of justice to the German national interest
Detente is quite on the contrary, a policy or strategy that grew out of careful and subtle calculation of power balance. It
was based on the assumption that political interests are more important than ideology. This naturally led to decline in
the importance of ideology j» the relations between the two superpowers.
, The FsKton which prompted the two Superpowers to work for Detente. The main considerations which weighed with
the two superpowers to work on policy of detente were as follows:
(i) Both wanted to reduce the danger of nuclear war which posed a threat to their very existence. As Cecil V. Crabb has
observed both cold war power blocs ’have Increasingly based their policies upon a recognition that the nuclear balance
of terror is precarious and an awareness that both sides possess a common interest in survival.”
(ii) Both wanted to stabilise the arms competition on basis of parity. Soviet Union was particularly keen on this parity
because this could ensure Her equality with United States as a global power.
(m)Both were keen to establish normal relations between countries of Western and Eastern Europe to relieve tension in
the region.
In addition to these common factors which prompted the two superpowers to work for detente, certain individual
considerations aiso played a considerable role. As regards America, she was keen to end the Vietnam war in an
honourable way and thought that Soviet Union could greatly help in this. Further, it felt that co-operation wish Soviet
Union would help to evolve a more stable and moderate world order. Likewise, Soviet Union was keen to work on
detente
*w
e
122 INTERNATtONAl RELATIONS
because this could assure her access to western capital, technology etc. which were badly needed for the growth of
Soviet economy. She further hoped that detente would not only check a possible alignment between China and America
against her but also strengthen Soviet position against China.
Evolution of Detente up to 1969
Detente first emerged as an articulate Western aspiration (not yet as a
policy or strategy) at the coldest moments of the cold war years about the time
of Stalin’s death and with Dulles conducting the affairs of the West. Coral Bell
in his book Diplomacy of Detente considers Winston Churchill as the initial
t ,K^ ^,a Of Detente, -r^ churchillian initiative towards detente
• ..inct ,n ,hn summer of
witn KUMid o»ai VTL. r_ _
1955. Even prior to this Churchill during the course ot a »p^v _
1951, had remarked that his main purpose was to keep the giants off from colliding. And even yet earlier in 1948
Churchill had begun to suggest that diplomatic accommodation with the Russians was not impossible. Churchillian
move did not find support from America. From early 1954, Churchill again endeavoured to seek out some easier modus
vivendi with the Russians with a renewed passion. Again he got little response. Till 1969, no encouraging response was
available from American side to the British proposals for detente. The only response was from the Russian side but the
Soviet Government was still in a phase of trauma and readjustment from Stalin’s earlier years and his death. Policy
makers in Kremlin, from Lenin’s time onward, have certainly always been aware of the potential economic advantage
of maintaining better relationship with the West. Soviet economy envisages a competition between demand for
resources necessitated by defence requirements and the allocation of resources to consumption and investment. Detente
eases the problem on the one hand, by making the defence demands less important, and on the other, by providing new
opportunities for the importation of Western goods and technologies. Malenkov, who succeeded as Prime Minister after
Stalin’s death; started his drive towards . ’detente’ immediately. Despite the domestic political uncertainty, Russia
evinced interest in the pursuit of ’detente’-mainly manifested in the Austrian Treaty of
1955. Soviet Union had shown its willingness to pursue ’detente’ but the response of the Western Powers was not
encouraging. The US Secretary of State, Foster Dulles, was sceptical about the usefulness of strategy of ’detente4.
However, Khrushchev’s ’detente’ drive in 1959 was marked with the emergence of the triangular balance of power-
USSR-US-China. The middle East crises of 1958, involving Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, had precipitated sharp
differences over strategy between Soviet Union and China, the Quemoy-Matsu crises of September 1958 further
strained the relations. Russians had started exercising restraint in their dealings with China. The further developments
beginning with Khrushchev’s visit to USA, ’Camp David Accord’ and Russian denouncement of its agreement on
atomic aid to China, further embittered the Sino-Soviet relations. By the dawn of the year 1969 culminated the climax
of Sino-Soviet rift and progress in US detente towards China.
DETENTE AND ITS IMPACT 123
US-Soviet Detente
As mentioned above, the progress towards ’detente’ between Soviet Union and Unjted States had begun even during
the hey days of cold war. In early 1960s, the cold war had started declining. In 1959, Khrushchev had envisaged the
Soviet intention of promoting industrialisation by buying Western factories and the quantum of Russian foreign trade
with the West has grown ever since.
The earlier apprehensions harboured by the West that Communism was about to sweep the world, had started waning.
The Yugoslavia was able to maintain its independence. The Sino-Soviet rift had widened. The aversion of the Cuban
missile crisis of 1962 envisaged,increased sobriety. It had marked a shift in policy from confrontation to that of
accommodation.
Attitudes of hostilities had gradually declined. The sale of American wheai in 1963 to the Soviet Union was hallmark
and thereafter the trade with Communist World had fairly begun. Both the superpowers cooperated with each other and
in 1963 it was possible to ban atmosphere-polluting nuclear testing. By 1964, President Johnson was speaking of
improving relations with communist countries and the desire to ”build bridges across the gulf which separates us from
eastern Europe.* During 1965 and 1966 small, but significant efforts, were made towards detente which included the
inauguration of direct,air service between New York and Moscow and relaxation of control on exoorts to communist
countries.
A notable feature of this period was the emergence of the Third World nations. Following the inauguration of the
process of decolonisation in post Second World War period, scores of countries had become independent. The United
Nations, instead of being split between Soviet Bloc and pro-Western states, came to be dominated by the Third World
countries which were more interested in anti-colonialism and development than the Soviet-American rivalry. Majority
of the Third World nations were pursuing policy of nonalignment. This also contributed to the success of detente
because emergence of non-alignment was in one way discouragement to the superpower rivalry. The progress towards
detente suffered setback following escalation of the Vietnam war in 1965 and the outbreak of Six Days’ War of June
1967 in the Middle East which placed America and the Soviet Union in the opposite camps. However, in 1968 both the
Powers agreed on the Nuclear NorvPoliferation Treaty (NPT) expressing their common desire in nuclear monopoly
against the Third World and other non-nuclear powers. The two countries also exchanged consular realtions. Year after
year cultural exchanges were continued.
By then the United States had realised the wastefulness of its involvement in Vietnam war and the American troops had
started leaving Vietnam. Under the circumstances detente became a compelling necessity for USA because k was
making attempts to extricate itself from the deep morass in which it found itself caught up in South-East Asia. The
American public had started looking upon the Soviet Union favourably. The Gallup Poll found that only Sper cent of
Americans had a favourable view to Soviet Union in 1954 compared with 34 per cent in
1973. The Soviet Union had also identified itself with the realities of the world.
J
The Soviet Union had graduated towards a more realistic view of the world scene. The tightening of its grip over
Eastern Europe in 1968 and afterwards made Soviet Union more confident in easing tensions with the West. Russia
took a sharp turn towards detente in 1970 when an agreement was signed for renunciation of force and recognition of
the European status quo with West Germany. Soviet Union had improved relations with France and West Germany and
was courting tapan to secure Japanese cooperation in the development of eastern Siberia. There had been brief thaws in
Soviet-US relations in 1955,1959,
1963 and 1968. President Nixon’s visit to Peking in February 1972 made it both easier and imperative for Russians to
expend detente to the United States.
The same year President Nixon visited Moscow. A number of agreements were signed between President Nixon and
Soviet President Brezhnev. These included limiting anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) installations and the number of
missile launchers for five years. Among non-military agreements were several , for cooperation in medical and
scientific research. Agreement on a joint space venture reflected the permanent Soviet need for Technological import
from the West and the recognition that two biggest powers had a joint responsibility to <ie!p solve the global problems
of mankind. Pravda, the official organ of the Soviet Union, while commenting on Soviet-American accord, observed,
”In the Yistory of International relations it is difficult to find another example of such fruitful results achieved through
negotiations.” By 1973, the Soviet-American trade had come to $ 1.5 billion with American export surplus
commodities totalling $ 1 billion. In June 1973, President Brezhnev visited USA and political relations improved along
with economic cooperation. A year later President Nixon visited Moscow in June 1974.
, The momentum of ’detente’ kept its pace even, under President Ford. In December 1975 very useful agreements Vere
signed between Russia and the United States at Vladivostok. This produced a preliminary ceiling on the number of
major nuclear weapons. This became known as SALT-I. The trade between US and Russia, which had declined during
1974, resurged in 1975 with sales of industrial equipment and grains, kt May 1975 American and Soviet warships paid
courtesy calls to Leningrad and Boston respectively displaying an unprecedented gesture of amity. The SALT talks
continued during 1976 as well. The SALT-I was to expire in 1977 and hence both superpowers were having
negotiations on reduction of arms and work out details for SALT-II. With the installation of Mr. jimmy Carter as
President of the United States in 1977, the spirit of detente continued. On May 18,1977 an agreement was signed
between the two countries envisaging cooperation in exploration and use of outer space
for peaceful purposes.
The SALT-! agreement which was concluded in May 1972 and entered into force on October 3,1972, formally lapsed
on October 3,1977 at the end of initial five years. Both sides undertook to observe the provisions of SALT-I pending
the conclusion of a new agreement. Then negotiation went along devising new agreements. Following protracted
negotiation, a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic offensive arms during
the period to December 31, 1985 was signed on June 11, 1979 by President
Carter of USA and Leonid Brezhnev, President of the USSR. This became known
as SALT-II.
There was a considerable opposition to SALT-II in the US Senate and consequently it was not ratified. The sudden
political upheaval in Afghanistan and Russian armed intervention in Afghanistan gave a further jolt to the spirit of
detente which had been progressing steadily. President Carter on January
3,1980, announced that because of the intervention of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, Senate consideration of the treaty
was to be deferred. President Reagan who succeeded Carter, however, decided to observe SALT-li without ratification
and continued to dp so till he finally decided to by-pass the same in June 1986.
The Soviet-American relations touched their lowest point in 1983 as a result of certain events between 1979 and 1983,
viz.. Soviet military offence in Afghanistan; failure of United States to attend Olympic Games in Moscow in
1980 and Soviet boycott of Games in Los Angles in 1984; overthrow of constitutional regime in the Caribbean island
of Grenada by US troops which was severely condemned by Soviet Union; hooting down of the South Korean Boeing
747 airliner by the Soviet fighters, etc. Despite these developments the relations between the two superpowers were not
permitted to deteriorate and they continued to make efforts to improve relations. Special attention was paid by the two
powers to reach an agreement on arms controls. They held a number of meetings at Geneva and kept the negotiations
alive despite interruptions and some ill-feeling. These negotiations yielded positive results and the two reached an
understanding on intermediate range missiles in December 1987. This clearly indicated the desire of the two powers to
eliminate nuclear weapons as far as practicable. However it would be wrong to describe these developments as
continuation of the detente because by this time the two great powers had lost some of the sense of identity of purpose
which characterised their relations in
the sixties and seventies.
In the subsequent years the two Super Powers continued efforts to reduce tension. As a result the policy of
confrontation gave way to policy of cooperation. In fact even the ideological and social differences were considerably
reduced which paved the way for the withdrawal of Soviet occupation forces from Afghanistan in April 1988;
agreement regarding independence of Namibia in December 1988 and a cease-fire between (ran and Iraq etc. Thus the
nature of East-West relations underwent complete transformation in 1988-89.
The process of improvement of relations between the two super powers
continued during the next two years also. The summit meeting between
President Bush and President Gorbachev in June 90, pushed forward the process
of detente. The two leaders not only signed various agreements for closer
economic and cultural relations but also reached an agreement for the elimination
of stockpiles of chemical weapons with their destruction beginning in 1992. The
two super powers also reached an agreement on Germany which paved the way
for the reunification of East aod West Germany. The winding off of th« Warsaw
* Pact, which was symbolic of cold war between the two super powers, was
symbolic of detente between Soviet Union and USA.

126
127
Sino-American Detente
The beginning of the Sino-American Detente is traced from the year 1972 when President Nixon of USA paid a visit to
China. In fact a beginning in this direction had been made even earlier following American disengagement from
Vietnam. Some relaxation in trade and travel restrictions was made between the two countries. The two countries also
exchanged Ping Pong teams.
It may be observed that relation between China and United States had got strained following the establishment of
People’s Republic of China in May 1949 on account of American support to the nationalist leader Chiang-Kai-Shek.
Even after the communist victory the Americans continued to extend support of Chiang-Kai-Shek and were greatly
instrumental for the existence of the Formosa (Taiwan) government. America refused to grant recognition to the
Communist Government of China and continued to maintain intimate relations with Taiwan. The hostility between
China and America further increased during the Korean. War due to Chinese intervention and support to North Korea.
UnitedStates firmly opposed the entry of People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. Despite the split between
the Soviet Union and China and open clashes between the forces pf two countries on their borders, United State did not
evince much interest in China. The American involvement in Vietnam and the on-going Cultural Revolution in China
between 1966-69 also deterred America from taking any interest in China.
By the close of the 1960s, on account of growing Soviet military build up around China, the Chinese leaders realised
that in the interests of their national security they must make up with United States. They decided to give priority to
national security over ideological considerations and tried to improve relations with United States to counterbalance the
Soviet threat. On the other hand with the assumption of office by President JJeagan, USA also indicated its desire to
reduce its military presence in Asia and develop more flexible political and diplomatic relations with the countries of
the region. This further convinced the Chinese leaders that the real threat to Chinese security lay not from the United
States but from the Soviet Union. The Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in August 1968 and the advocacy of
Brezhnev doctrine whereby Soviet Union asserted its right to intervene on behalf of the socialists, further convinced the
Chinese leaders about the expansionist intentions of the Soviet Union.
The growing power of japan in the region was also looked by the Chinese leaders with consideration and awe. They
realised that more intimate relations with Japan could be possible only if an improvement in relations with USA took
place.
Thus, the Sino-American detente was the outcome of at least three converging trends, viz., the growing conflict
between China and Soviet Union, the growing pressure on USA to withdraw from Vietnam and reduce the American
military presence in Asia; and the re-emergence of )apan as a major economic power in the region. In Asia, (apan had
emerged as a big power by its extra*/ dinary economic growth while Chinese economy lagged because of f political
turmoil. With the post-cultural revolution China had realised its ’hollowness’ and started efforts to seek outside help.
The Nixon’s visit to Peking
DETENTE AND ITS IMPACT . M,
in February 1972 inaugurated an era of detente between China and United States. After the Nixon-Chou meeting,
Shanghai Communique was issued which was a great step in the direction of normalisation of Sino-US relations. The
two countries agreed to lay aside the Taiwan issue andlned to develop cultural and diplomatic contacts. As a result
ground was prepared for China’s induction into UN and other world forums. Thereafter appreciable progress was made
in SinoAmerican detenu?. On 1 lanuary 1979 the US Government lormally recognised People’s Republic of China and
on T March 1979 the two countries exchanged ’ ambassadors, and thus normal diplomatic relations between the two
countries came to be established.
Impact of Sino-US Detente
The Sino-US Detente had many fold impact. In the first place, it provided a fillip to normalisation of Sino-Japanese
relations. China indicated its desire to establish formal relations with Japan under successors of Sato. The new Japanese
Government under Tanaka also showed eagerness to improve relations with China. In T972 a Summit meeting between
leaders of two countries took place at Peking, as a result of which Japan agreed to cut off official ties with Taiwan
Government and establish diplomatic relations with Peking.
Secondly, it provided an impetus to US-Soviet Detente in Europe. It , appeared that the Soviet Union was more
concerned about the growing influence of China which had stepped up its political and economic activities in Asia.
This change in big power relations also had its repercussions on the relations of North Korea and South Korea and they
agreed to hold bilateral talks. Thirdly, Soviet reaction to the Sino-US Detente was mixed. On the one hand because of
its insistence on legitimacy of Soviet contacts with the USA, it could not challenge the propriety of Sino-US detente, on
the other hand it feared Sino-American ”collusion” against Soviet interest. It therefore, stepped up worldwide
diplomatic manoeuvres to counter the detente, increased support to India, made rapprochement with West Germany,
attempted closer relations .with Japan etc. Finally, it produced deep impact on the. power relationships in the region
and to a large extent prompted the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971.
Setback to Sino-US Detente
However, the phase of cordial relations between USA and China did not last long and soon differences appeared
between the two countries. The main factor which contributed to this increasing tension was that the Chinese leaders
felt greatly touchy about the challenge posed to the Chinese sovereignty over the Taiwan. While normalising relations
with China, USA had assured China that she would sever official ties with Taiwan and maintain only informal
economic and security relations. USA also promised not to upgrade Taiwan’smilitary technology so long as there was
no risk of China-Taiwan War. As a result of this understanding, Chinese withdrew most of their armed forces opposite
Taiwan. However, contrary to the assurance given by the American leaders, President Reagan on assumption of office
decided to upgrade the Taiwan air force. This naturally evoked strong reaction from China whic S asserted that arms
sales could no longer be tolerated as they violated Chinese sovereignty and constituted
128
interference in China’s internal affairs. The Chinese leaders alleged that the US Government by supplying arms to
Taiwan was strengthening their determination to avoid negotiations with China.
In January 1982 Reagan administration decided not to sell FX fighter aircrafts to Taiwan and merely agreed to continue
to co-produce F5 Es, China was not happy and protested against this decision. In April 1983, USA announced its
decision to sell spare parts worth $ 60 million to Taiwan. In addition it also announced its intention to sell services
worth $ 37 million. This invited further protests from China, even though it did not take any retaliatory action-as the
spare parts were promised before the Sino-US talks on arms issue began, and that no actual weapons were involved.
No doubt, China demanded cessation of the arms sales by USA to Taiwan but it adopted a realistic attitude and insisted
that a time limit be set for the phasing out of arms sales. However, the American Government did not oblige China and
went ahead with the supply of arms to Taiwan. It may be noted that despite this attitude of US government the Chinese
were not interested in breaking off the growing economic and cultural links with USA. In 1988 when China started
making efforts to improve relations with Soviet Union, it was felt in certain quarters that this would have adverse effect
on Sino-U.S. relations. However, President Bush during his visit to Beijing in February 1989 assured China that the
Sino-US ties would not be weakened by the new turn in Sino-
• Soviet relations. Despite this the relations between the two countries deteriorated following mass killing of peaceful
demonstrators-and suspension of all government to government sales and commercial export of weapons to China by
United States. President Bush also announced the suspension of visits between senior U.S. and Chinese military
officials and threatened to ask the international institutions to postpone new loans to China, As a result of these
developments relations between China and United States considerably deteriorated.
United States not only suspended all high level contacts but also prevailed upon the World Bank to suspend its
transactions with China. However, ’owards the close of 199Q relations between two countries showed an improvement
and Chinese officials visited United States for trade talks in mutual interest. China on its part endorsed the US
sponsored UN Security Council resolution sanctioning the use of force to make Saddam Hussein pull out his forces
from Kuwait.
in 1991 United States imposed sanctions against China after it learnt that China was exporting missile technology. It
suspended sales of high-speed computers, satellite parts and sensitive equipment to Chinese weapons firms. These
sanctions were subsequently lifted in February 1992 after China gave a pledge that it would abide by an international
accord restricting missile exports. This step was described by the Chinese leaders as a ’positive step1 towards the
improvement of relations between the two countries.
Fresh tension was generated in the relations between the two countries following US decision to sell F-16 fighter
aircraft to Taiwan. China described this action of US as 5 violation of the common guidelines agreed upon m the
meetings of the five powers on arms control issues, and announced that it wûld not attend
UN Security Council Permanent members meeting on arms control. Another
issue which caused some tension in the relations between USA and China was
announcement of punitive tariff by US, due to lack of progress on the part of
China in the ongoing discussions on barriers to the Chinese market for US goods.
China decided to counter it by announcing that she would not buy wheat from
US.
Detente-Foundation and Consequences
As is evident from the foregoing account the foundations of detente were laid under different circumstances irr each
case. The circumstances leading to detente between Soviet Union and the United States are different from the
circumstances prefacing Sino-American detente. The birth of detente with Soviet Union occurred during the heydays of
Cold War. The cold war situation was marked with indecisiveness, uncertainty and suspicion. The inauguration of
detente ushered an era of normalisation of relations-from tension to ease.
The inception of detente was marked by the expansion of trade, science and technical cooperation between USA and
Soviet Union. The change from a polfcy of confrontation to that of at least limited cooperation has been marked by
number of steps intended to reduce the likelihood of war-prominent among them are US-Soviet agreement not to use
force or the threat of force in inter-state relations, an understanding that neither superpower would seek unilateral
advantage over the other and adopt measures to limit armament, mostly in the case of strategic nuclear forces.
Through the negotiations leading to SALT-I of May 1972, Vladivostok Agreement of November 1974 and SALT-II,
ceilings have been placed on the American and Soviet Strategic nuclear delivery vehicles of inter-continental range and
on anti-Ballistic missiles. There is a need for imposing curbs on bombers and missiles, the nuclear capable attack
aircrafts, rockets etc. Imposition of controls on armaments is essential to maintain the spirit of detente.
The consequences of detente include the reduction in armaments, ensuring better security by reducing the likelihood of
war. The money and resources used in preparation of armaments can be diverted to developmental activities. Detente
helps in reduction of armaments. Before Detente both the superpowers were involved in mad anrts race. Detente paved
the way for agreements for limitation on use of forces. As Dr. Kissinger said: To conduct confrontation policies, where
the states are going to be determined by nuclear weapons, is the height of irresponsibility”. It is, advisable for the
superpowers to turn to measures which would affect the ability to employ military power, instead of merely the
incentives to do so. Herein contribution of arms control is significant It can, first of all preclude either side from
acquiring capabilities which might enabk or induce it to resort to the use of force. Secondly, it can inhibit deployment
which might facilitate the exercise of power already in being, as by envisaging on troop strength allowed in a given
area. Thirdly, it can in consequence of these and other measures alienate fears concerning actual or potential
imbalances in military capabilities thereby reducing incentives of arms buildups.
130
131
Detente can also contribute to security by reducing the likelihood of war and by increasing the political costs and
hardships of shifting from a policy of co-operation to one of confrontation.
In conclusion, it may be said that though as a result of US refusal to ratify the SALT-II, as.a protest against the Soviet
Intervention in Afghanistan, and the growing tension between the two superpowers in the Gulf-region, horn of Africa
as well as the Indian Ocean, the spirit of detente completely subsided, even though it did not become wholly defunct.
However, despite this setback the leadership of the two powers was quite conscious that confrontation and conflict with
each other was not in their national interest and some way should be found to avoid further escalation of cold war. The
leaders of two countries held several rounds of talks to come to some understanding on disarmament and ultimately
signed an agreement on intermediate range missiles in December 1987 which was duly ratified by the two countries
and documents exchanged at the Moscow Surr.rriit in 1988. The two countries also pledged to strive for a Treaty of
Strategic Arms Reduction (START) and agreed to give advance notice about the launching of inter-continental range
sea and ground missile tests and hold joint verification of the testing of nuclear weapons.
Further progress was made at the Washington Summit of 1990 between President Bush and President Gorbachev and
the two powers concluded a number of agreements on nuclear, chemical and conventional arms. They also agreed on
certain principles of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which was finally signed on 31 July 1991. Under
this treaty the two super powers agreed to effect reduttion in defined strategic offensive arms over a period of seven
years. They also agreed on complex certification procedure, including on site inspection, short notice inspections and
suspect site inspection.
Thus gradually the traditional tension between Soviet Union and United> States gave way to co-operation and the
ideological and social differences between the two tended to disappear. By this time, Soviet Union came to realise that
preservation of any kind of closed societies was not possible when the world economy was becoming a single organism
and no state, whatever its socialsystem or economic status, could develop outside it.
12
New Cold War And Its End
B The cold war between Soviet Union and United States of America, which
•characterised their relations in the fifties, and somewhat subsided in the sixties Hand the seventies again hot up
towards the close of the 1970s. The origin of the Kfiew Cold War is generally traced back to December 1979 when
Soviet Union Întervened in Afghanistan. However, some scholars have tried to trace it from HI 978. For example,
Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser of President Carter Hif U.S.A. in his book Power and Principle holds that it
was in 1978 that the things H|egan to go wrong in the U.S.-Soviet relationship. He says that it was in ”1978 Bpvhen at
the SCC meeting I advocated that we send in a carrier task force in
• reacti&n to the Soviet deployment of the Cubans in Ethiopia.” The idea did not Bfind favour with the then:President
of USA. It was only subsequently when the
• Soviets became more emboldened, that America reacted more sharply, particularly
• in the Cuban Soviet brigade fiasco. As a result the SALT was derailed. The final W nail in the process of detente was
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Thus f Brzezinski blames the Soviet Union for the new cold war.
On the other hand the Soviet view tends to blame the United States for the new cold war: It has been argued that with
the change in administration in USA and assumption of office by Hawkish Brzezinski as National Security Assistant,
the U.S. attitude towards Soviet Union underwent a change. Brzezinski-did not , share Kissinger’s view that the only
alternative-to detente was war and criticised Nixon as well as Kissinger for overselling detente. He asserted that detente
required responsible behaviour on the part of the Soviet Union. But its conduct in Angola, the Middle East and the
United Nations certainly indicated that it was not so. He emphasised the need of paying more attention to Sino-
American relationship and greater American interest in the Eastern Europe. He favoured a carefully calibrated policy of
simultaneous competition and co-operation which could promote reciprocal detente. This naturally evoked strong
Soviet reaction and the fragile detente was shattered. Thus, they blame Carter for initiating the new cold war by linking
the Soviet behaviour with the SALT process.
Henry Trofimenko has best summed up the responsibility of America for the new cold war in the Foreign Affairs of
Summer 1981 thus: ”The refusal of the Carter Administration to carry on a constructive America Soviet dialogue
(except in the sphere of strategic armaments j; the theoretical ranking of relationship with the U.S.S.R. as almost the
last among the American foreign policy priorities; the effort to remove the Soviet Union from peaceful settlement of
conflict situation even in regions that lie in the immediate vicinity of its borders (recall the fate of the Joint Soviet
American Statement on the Middle East issued on October 2,
1977); the intensified build up of the US naval presence near the U.S.S.R.’s southern borders; the dragging on of
the SALT-II ratification, which was accompanied by an active drive to modernise American strategic weapons
and NATO armaments, and finally the use of the ’China card’ in the attempt to bring pressure to bear on the
U.S.S.R.-all these actions could not but affect Soviet assessment of the strategic situation. That is why the
induction of a limited troop contingent into Afghanistan in December 1979 should be considered not only in the
context of Soviet aid to the revolutionary regime in that country at the tatter’s request, but also in a broader
geopolitical context, taking into account corresponding military moves by the United States and China.”
Development of New Cold War
For a fuller understanding of the new cold war it shall be desirable to have a detailed view of the developments since
1970 and stand taken by the two superpowers regarding the respective responsibility for the new cold war.
America followed a policy of detente towards Soviet Union because it desperately needed SALT to offset the loss of
face in Vietnam. Further, this could help in maintaining the status quo, which was in favour of USA, by acknowledging
the Soviet parity in nuclear strategic capability so that it did not offset the global , balance of power. In the mid-
seventies the Americans saw a number of thaws in the position of Soviet Union, viz., the Sino-Soviet conflict; moving
of Egypt under Sadat away from Soviet Union; the presence of King of Saudi Arabia and Shah of Iran as important
factors contributing to the influence of USA in the area; elimination of Allande of Chile; technological superiority of
US nuclear arsenals. All this went well with the national interests of USA and encouraged them to maintain status quo
in the international system.
However the developments in the second half of the seventies went against the American interests. In Africa the
Americans suffered a setback when the Cubans were invited to Angola following the CIA and South African
intervention with a view to protect them from the South African racist regime. In 1976-77 the Shah of Iran and Saudi
Arabia tried to wean away Sardar Daud of Afghanistan from Soviet Union, which led to Saur revolution and
subsequent Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. In Aden as a result of a coup Rubayya Ali was eliminated, and the
Soviet influence increased. Similarly, the switch over of Soviet support from Somalia to Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa,
helped the Soviet Union to increase its influence in Ethiopia. In view of all these developments the attitude of USA
towards Soviet Union underwent a change.
President Carter adopted more assertive policy to restore USA’s international position. On the one hand he tried to
project himself as the champion of huma/i rights campaign and wrote a personal letter to Andrei Sakharov, the leading
Soviet dissident, and received Vladmir Bukovsky, another Soviet dissident. No doubt the Carter administration also
criticised the leaders of South Africa, Latin American dictators and South Korea for denial of human rights, but by and
large this criticism was directed against Soviet Union. Secondly in mid 1977 Carter took decision to produce and
deploy air-launched cruise missiles which
NEW COLD WAR AND ITS END
133
contributed to the escalation of arms race. In 1978 USA’s attitude towards Soviet Union began to get tougher.
Brzezinski paid a .visit to China and made a bid to involve her in various joint actions. This was seen by the Russian as
an alliance aimed against them. The normalisation of USA’s diplomatic relations with China was seen by Moscow as a
calculated move directed against it. No doubt in 1979 Carter and Brezhnev signed SALT II treaty at Vietnam but Carter
began to have doubts about l( before he reached Washington. At this juncture USA discovered the presence of a Soviet
brigade in Cuba and demanded its withdrawal before SALT II was ratified. As Soviet Union did not comply with this
demand, the SALT II was withdrawn by USA. It also boycotted Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 and imposed a
grain embargo on Soviet Union.
In the meanwhile the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979. This imparted new urgency to the American Plan for Rapid
Deployment Force, which was already under consideration. America also made a bid to secure base facilities in Kenya,
Somalia and Oman to protect the American interests in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf Region. This naturally raised
suspicions in the minds of Russia that America was trying to establish its hegemony over Persian Gulf.
Towards the close of 1979, NATO took a decision to deploy Americanmade cruise missiles and the advanced medium
range Pershing II missile in West Europe from 1983. The NATO powers claimed that they took this decision to counter
the threat posed by the Soviet deployment of a powerful new medium range missile SS 20, targeted in Western Europe.
On its part Russia argued that it was obliged to depioy SS-20 missile to counter the employment of British submarine-
based Polaris missiles, French nuclear weapons, American F-111 K aircrafts based in Britain etc. It is indeed difficult
to say as to who is to blame for this East-West arms race, but it cannot be denied that as a result of these decisions the
tensions between the two Power Blocs greatly increased.
In the midst of these developments, the decision by Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in December 1979 further
aggravated the situation. Soviet Union probably intervened in Afghanistan hoping that the intervention would be short
and soon it would be able to withdraw. Hovvever, the things proved quite difficult. The Carter Administration-with the
help of the Chinese and through CIA arranged secret supply of Arms to Afghan rebels to pressurise Russia to negotiate.
But as the Russians were not willing to withdraw from Afghanistaiv»until the Americans assured that they would not
interfere in Afghanistan, Reagan administration also extended greater help to the rebels.
On the other hand in El Salvador (in Central America) where America intervened, the Soviets, Cubans, East Germans,
Nicaraguans, Vietnames, Czechs, Bulgarian, Ethiopians and several others were accused of involvement in the
clandestine supply of arms to insurgents and imparting them training in terrorist tactics, with a view 10 ultimately
impose a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. US Administration under Reagan tried to project the El Salvador k-sue as an
international confrontation between West and Soviet Union, and tried to rope in Europe and lapan on its side in this
struggle, though it did not completely succeed in this mission.
134
13* ” ’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Apart from the above events around which tension grew between the two superpowers certain other events also took
place wbjich aggravated the cold war between the two. These include non-participation of USA and Soviet Union in
the Olympic Games held at Moscow and Los Angles respectively in 1980 and
1984; Sheeting down of the South Korean Boeing 747 airliner by the Soviet fighters. In the field of disarmament also
the two countries failed to reach any agreement. In 1983 the Soviet delegation withdrew from the bilateral arms talks
with USA after the Cruise and Pershing 2 missiles were deployed in the three West European states-Federal Republicof
Germany, Italy and United Kingdomin December 1983. Difference between Nevând Old Cold Wars
The new cold war differed from the cold war of the 1950s in many respects. In the first place, unlike the cold war of
1950s in the .new cold war alliance partners were not actively involved; For example China, Japan and even Western
European countries were quite lukewarm in their support and the war persisted mainly between the two superpowers.
Secondly, in the earlier cold war nuclear armaments build up was not an issue and the main stress was on quantitative
build-up of conventional arms. This was largely due to the fact that United States of America was much ahead of
Soviet Union in nuclear armament and technology. By now Soviet Union had achieved a sort of approximate equation
in nuclear armaments with USA, and the new cold war naturally resulted in nuclear arms race between the two
superpowers. Both the superpowers also tried to achieve greater sophistication in conventional weaponry. Thirdly, the
new cold war was more threatening than the cold war of 1950s, As one write; has observed ”Not only has the size of
the nuclear arsenals held by the superpowers vastly increased, but nuclear war has begun to be seen as fightable and
winable. by strategists on both sides. The sheer quantity of nuclear devices, the complexity of their new technology and
the fallible sophistication of the early warning . methods of detection also increase the possibility of eventual use, by
accident or design.” Fourthly, the first cold war was the result of struggle for world leadership whereas the second cold
war was based on the question of parity or its erosion in me relation between two superpowers. Finally, unlike the first
cold war, which greatly centred around ideology, the second cold war centred round the arms race because the weapon
technologies had advanced so much that they can easily be converted into deployabie weapons. Impact of New Cold
War on World Politics
The new cold war left a deep impact on the international politics. Unlike the first coW war in which the European
colonial powers were actively involved and dealt with former colonies, in the new cold war USA tended to deal with
the former colonies directly. Generally the United States sided with the reactionary regimes in the developing world
with a view to maintain status quo. This has encouraged the Marxist leaders in these countries to lean more heavily on
the Soviet Union. In this respect the attitude of USA in the developing countries has contributed to the spread of
Marxism in the developing world.
Sf-condly, the new cold war gave a fresh impetus to the non-aligned movement and more and more countries joined it.
No doubt some of the countries of the Third World extended facilities to the two superpowers.
NEW COtD WAR AND ITS END 135
regarding stationing of military personnel to maintain and service the sophisticated weapons and equipments, but these
states showed greater inclination to maintain their autonomy. As a result more and more countries, joined the non- •
aligned movement with a view to have greater manoeuvrability in their foreign policy between the two superpowers.
Thirdly, the new cold war, which was characterised by high-technology arms race and increasing intervention and
pressure on the developing world, increased the chances of the two superpowers engaging in proxy wars in the
developing world rather than having a direct confrontation.
Fourthly, the new cold war also greatly contributed to the economic difficulties of the superpowers and adversely
affected the international economy. The high defence spending resulted in high interest rates which in its train has
brought in numerous economic difficulties. The U.S.A. tried to make up its decline in the economic, technological and
political power by increasing its military power.
In conclusion we can say that the new cold war left deep impact on all the ’ countries-developed as well as developing.
In the case of the developed countries this impact was chiefly economic in character, in the case of developing
countries it adversely affected the social and political development of the developing world. This in turn produced
political instability and enhanced chances of superpower intervention in their affairs.
Cooling of Second Cold War

In the midst of the second cold war, the leaders of the two superpowers continued to feel the need of coming to some
sort of understanding and met a number of times at Geneva, but could not arrive at any agreement. At the summit
meeting held at Geneva in November 1985 the leaders of Soviet Union and USA emphasised the desirability of regular
and intensified dialogue between the two powers. Thereafter a number of meetings were held at bilateral and
multilateral forums, but probably the most significant meeting took place at Reykjavik in October 1986. But
unfortunately no agreement could be arrived at this meeting on INF, strategic weapons, reduction or other issues
because Soviet Union insisted on an overall package, including an agreement on StH. Despite its failure the Reykjavik
meeting was a step forward in the right direction. It was followed by fresh talks at Geneva where proposals regarding
elimination of INF missiles in Europe and elimination within 10 years of all ballistic missiles, land based or submarine
based-were discussed. But once again no agreement could be arrived at. A welcome development took place in
December 1987 when at the Washington Summit the two powers reached an understanding on intermediate range of
missiles. Though this agreement was quite limited in scope it indicated the intention of the two superpowers to
eliminate nuclear weapons as far as possible. They also called for a halt to nuclear proliferation. Further progress in this
regard was made at the Moscow Summit of May-lune 1988, where the two countries not only exchanged documents on
ratification of Intermediate-range Nuclear (INF) Treaty but also pledged to strive for a Treaty for Strategic Arms
Reduction (START). They also agreed to give advance notice about the launching
136
of inter-continental range sea and ground missile tests and hold joint verification of the testing of nuclear weapons.
Despite repeated failures the two powers continued to make persistent efforts to improve relations.
An important step in this direction was taken by Soviet Union in December

1988 when it announced unilateral reduction of Soviet troops and armaments in Europe. Soviet Union also indicated its
intention to have more closer relations with the western world. This change took place probably because Soviet Union
has come to recognise that the preservation of any kind of closed societies is hardly possible and because the world
economy is becoming a single organism and no state, whatever its social system or economic status, can normal,
develop outside it. Ail this greatly led to the reduction of the tension between the two super powers.
In the subsequent months the two super .powers showed greater spirit of accommodation on various international issues
and tried to remove the irritants existing in their mutual relations. The various summit meetings between the leaders of
Soviet’Union and USA greatly contributed to the elimination of the cold war which had characterised their relations for
most of the time since the Second World War. The.culmination of these summit meetings was the Malta Summit held
on 2-3 December 1989 aboard ships near Malta. Though no formal announcement about the agenda and the decisions
arrived at the Summit was made, both the sides expressed satisfaction over the outcome. It is generally held that the
Summit greatly contributed to the removal of the barriers which arose because of cold war.
In May-June 1990 the Second Summit between U.S. President Bush and Soviet President Gorbachev was held at
Washington. Though the Summit was not a complete success it greatly contributed to the reduction of cold war. The
two leaders riot only concluded agreements for increasing economic and ’cultural cooperation but
alsopledgedtoconcludea pact fortrimming conventional military forces in Europe and to intensify the pace of
negotiations for reaching rapid agreement on all outstanding issues. They also announced their decision to destroy
chemical weapons and settle disputes over limits on cruise missiles. On the questions of Unification of Germany and
Gulf War also the two superpowers showed complete understanding. All these were clear pointers to the end of cold
war which had characterised their relations for several decades since Second World War.
End of Cold War
The cold war, which dominated international relations for over four decades after World War II and was characterised
by subtle military and political strategies of me Super Powers, a ruinous race for destructive armaments and
establishment of military bases on distant lands and across the seas, came to an end rather abruptly. This was
accompained by the lifting of the Iron Curtain, breach in the fortress of apartheid and demolition of the Berlin wall.
The process of end of cold war started in the second half of the 1980s when there was softening in the attitude of the
top leaders and they adopted conciliatory postures towards each other. The first concrete manifestation of this
137
change was the Malta Summit between President Bush of United Stales and Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union. In
this summit, held aboard ships off Malta on 2 December 1989, the two leaders made a serious bid to reduce tension and
check the growing threats of conflicts in various areas like Middle East. It has rightly been asserted that the Malta
Summit marked the beginning of a new phase in post world war II international polities’. It also laid the foundation1 of
political co-operation between United States and Soviet Union in shaping the post war order in Europe. . .
The Washington Summit (May 30-June 2, 1990) further contributed to the easing of cold war. At this summit President
Bush and President Gorbachev concluded a number of agreements on nuclear, chemical and conventional arms.
The.two sides agreed to destroy thousands of tons of chemical weapons and reduce their stockpiles. They agreed to
start destruction of these weapons in 1992 and finish it by 2002 A.D. They also agreed to cease further production of
these weapons with immediate effect Another important outcome of this summit was that the two leaders, agreed on set
of principles regarding the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) which was finally signed on 31 July,
1991. Under this treaty the two superpowers agreed to effect reduction to equai levels in defined strategic offensive
arms over a period of 7 years from the date the treaty came into force. The two powers also agreed to set up a joint
commission on certification and inspection. This was followed by announcement of ’unilateral disarmament’ by
President Bush. He even indicated his intention to take nuclear tactical weapons out of European soil and reduce
possibility of any accidental war. President Bush removed from alert status all missiles covered by START and ordered
removal of all nuclear artillery shells from overseas bases. He urged Soviet Union to match the nuclear arms cut. The
Soviet leadership responded favourably and on 5 October 1991 President Gorbachev announced extensive cuts in
tactical nuclear weapons, which not only matched the American reduction of tactical weapons, but also anriounced cut
of more missiles than it was required under START. Further Soviet Union also announced one year moratorium on
nuclear testing.
This process of unilateral cut of nuclear arms was repeated by President Bush in January-1992, and President Yeltsin of
Russia responded equally and announced a 10-point disarmament plan with the objective of liquidating all nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. He also announced’the decision to stop production of TU-16C
TU-95 heavy members and long-range air-based and sea-based cruise missiles. All this contributed to the easing of cold
war.
In the meanwhile the leaders of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact held a Conference
on Security and Cooperationin Europe (CSCE) in Paris in November 1990 with a view to eliminate the threat of
surprise attack and establish parity of conventional weapons in Europe. The • treaty provided for scrapping or
conversion of about 40,000 tanks and equal. number of armoured vehjp’les as well as more than 50,000 artillery
pieces’on both sides. It was also decided to reduce the number of fighting planes and helicopter guriships. In the wake
of the above developments the leaders of
,x
INTERNA
”VL
138 . ’NTERNAT1VL RELATES
Warsaw Pact countries decided to dissolve the Eastern Eur,, p.^, Alliance in July 1991. This put an end
to 36 years of East-Wesj^3” ^wfon
Factors Contributing to End of Cold War
A number of factors contributed to the end of the cold y . ,.. important factors were as under ”Var.
Some of the
1. In the first place the changed strategic perceptions a ’ powers-the United States and Soviet Union-greatly
contribui ê tV° SUV \ cold war. As the two superpowers attained parity in nuclea to l e e”h° realised
that nuclear weapons would be suicidal for both. Nor\r weaP°ns’ ®Y
be able to win the war, while both would be ruined beyond e ?’ m w ... , , redemption.
, 2. Secondly, the enormous expenses being incurred on
of military bases across the seas’; was greatly straining the ec/ ”^”nl^/H States and it was thought
desirable to curb this futile expend onomy ° . , , in view of the fact that the maintenance of military bases
provi,1^”.6’ Particu ar J. gasns.
3. T/i/rd/y, the two superpowers came to realise that the ^ . , ». and proxy wars (as-in Vietnam,
Angda and Afghanistan) hao|/^’°”? con , , purpose. On the other hand these wars had caused serious fin*1
serv??i”^” the two Super Powers. This economic strain, in turn had led - al burdens on the economy of the
two countries. This resulted in record to <TWI°JiT°!? t deficits in United States. Likewise the military
commitments \\ tra*. anf ~*$ away had upset the Soviet economy. All this obliged the |«i” lands situatea
tar. Powers to climb down from the earlier rigid postures ar\a°ers °f *”0 ^f** expenditure. . %d reduce
military
Formal End of Cold War
Though the process of easing of coid war started in • .,.
formally came to an end in mid-1990 when the NATd , ”Vd ? ’„ announced the end of the cold war
at their summit meeting]? , ? ? t°rrna y the communique issued at the end of this summit, it was*held
’”I,°rf ^_ Atlar.tic Community must reach out to the nations of the E^ assefted tnat e adversaries in the
Cold War and extend the hand of frien%aS^W. TH*London Declaration emphasised a number of points
which are indic^.’P ’ e ,on , nature of the Atlantic alliance. It asserted that nuclear arms scat’ve1ojt,the
cnan8ea
as a last resort. US nuclear arms in Europe should be redu<
\shouldbeusedonly Viced and a limit was
imposed on United Germany’s armed forces. It was asserte%^fr J^TrT w try to persuade united Germany to
become member of •*” l * *K ^ ?m leaders decided to invite Soviet President’Gorbachev to Bif NATO. Ihe
NAIU special meeting of NATO. The leaders pledged to carry ov,Bru**ls ’° ajdress.a the military forces of
NATO and envisaged a new role for out ra?’cal retorrns m reflect a transformed Europe minus the Cold
War. W nuclear weaP°nS tO
At the London Summit United States showed its willm ,
nuclear weapons in Europe and pledged to begin withdra-,1’”8”65*t0 *”* , ’ tipped artillery shells based
mainly in West Germany, as s/awal °’ \ ° f
pulled ourits troops from Central and Eastern Europe. It is1 soon as ^°v”? U”!?n
t is very clear from the

139
London Declaration that there was a marked change in the basic thrust of NATO from war-making to
peace-searching.
The NATO declaration was widely acclaimed by the world leaders. Even the Soviet leaders described it as
’realistic and constructive’. It met the long standing Soviet demand that the Western Alliance should give a
commitment that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. The commitment of NATO ’no early first
use’ of nuclear weapons greatly met this demand.
Impact on Future Course of International Relations
The end of cold war is bound to have far reaching in.pact on the future course of international relations.
1. In the first place it would lead to the emergence of a new kind of world which shall be free from military
alliances and adversaries. This would in turn curb the armament race because neither of the alliance would
be facing any military or political threat. In the changed context there would be no justification for building
stocks of .various types of weapons. .
2. Secondly, the enormous savings in military expenditure, would help in diverting these funds to
development activities in the lesser developed regions of the world and would greatly contribute to world
peace.
3. Thirdly, it would necessitate a new look on the role of Non-Aligned Movement. As A.P.
Venkateswaram, former Foreign Secretary of India observed: The new alignments in the international
system call for a reappraisal of the movement that once served a valuable purpose of reinforcing the
independence of the third world countries and enabled them to take decisions on merit.”
4. Fourthly, the reconciliation between USA and USSR would facilitate amicable settlement of long-
standing disputes in Vietnam, Cambodia and Korea. In fact United States has already accorded diplomatic
recognition to the ruling group in Vietnam, which.she had firmly ruled out for all these years. North Korea
and South Korea have alsogiven significant indications regarding their willingness to forge unity. In July
1990 North Korea announced its intention to open its tightly sealed border with South Korea to attract
visitors and to hold discussions regarding unification of bifurcated Korean peninsula.
5. Fifthly, end of cold war is also bound to have far reaching impact on the foreign policy of India, and she
would be obliged to make several adjustments in her foreign policy to meet the changed conditions. The
clear bid by Soviet Union to improve relations with the prosperous western countries had its impact on
Indo-Soviet relations, as India could not expect same economic and political support from Soviet Union,
which she has been getting in the past. In the economic sphere, Soviet Union’s close relations with
prosperous western countries are bound to operate against the interests of India. Likewise in the .political
sphere, India cannot hope to get the same amount of support on the
Kashmir issue from Soviet Union.

6. Sixthly, the end of cold war is also bound to bring about far reaching changes in U.S.-Pakistan relations.
In the changed context the United States no longer needs China as a second front or Pakistan as a regional
surrogate to
140
counter Soviet expansion. This is bound to result in great reduction in economic and military assistance to Pakistan, and
indirectly contribute to better relations between India and USA.
7. Seventhly, it is bound to affect Russia’s policy towards the Third World. On account of the bad economic conditions
and disintegration of Sovtet Union, there is greater possibility of Moscow developing closer relations with the
prosperous western countries and she may not be able to make same economiccum-military gestures towards countries
of the Third World.
8. Eighfhly, end of cold war is bound to provide a new thrust to IndoPakistan relations. As the two countries shall not
be able to play US and Russia against each other to promote their interests on account of the understanding reached
between Russia and U.S.A,, they shall have to conduct their relations on realistic plane.
9. Ninthly, end of cold war has provided an impetus to the idea of new world order which shall be free from threat of
terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest of peace, an era in which the nations of the world
would be able to prosper and live in harmony.
10. Tenthly, with the end of cold war the security environments are likely to undergo changes. The conflicts henceforth,
are not likeiy to be of global dimension due to decoupling from the earlier super power linkage. The conflict? are likely
to have higher local and ethnic content, which may involve higher levels of violence and may be more difficult to
resolve. Thus Afghanistan and Cambodian problems still continue to elude a solution.
141
13
Non-Alignment
”In finding solutions to the grave problems of peace and war, non-aligned nations have an immense power for good-
ihe t power of the weak.” •
-Emmanuel Togbiytlt
Meaning
The term non-alignment denotes different meanings to different people. The western scholars like Hans j. Morgenthau,
George Liska and Lawrence W. Marlon and others have preferred the term ’neutralism’ to ’non-alignment’. George
Schwarzenberger refers to a number of terms like isolationism, noncommitment, neutrality, neutralisation, unilateralism
and non-involvement, which are often taken as synonymous with the non-alignment. But each term has different
meanings. Isolationism stands for policies of aloofness. Non-commitment refers to politics of detachment from other
powers in a multicorner relationship. Neutrality describes the political and legal status of a country at war with respect
to the belligerents. Neutralization means political status of a particular state which it cannot give up under any
circumstances (Switzerland is an example of a neutralized state). Unilateralism is identified with policies of calculated
risks such as the destruction of own thermonuclear weapons at one’s own instance. Non-involvement means keeping
away from the struggle between the different superpower ideologies. Schwarzenberger says that non-alignment and the
above mentioned six concepts do not mean the same thing, and they fundamentally differ.
’Non-alignment is a policy of keeping out of alliances in general and! military pacts in particular’. The term is very
close to neutralism, since the basic object of the two is ’non-involvement in cold war’ in particular, and in actual war in
general. Some scholars have used two terms interchangeably, but nonalignment has broader meanings. It means that a
nation following such a policy’ need not be neutral under all circumstance’s. It can-participate actively in world’ affairs
under exceptional circumstances. Non-alignment being an attribute of foreign policy is subject to change. That is why a
change of government in a non- aligned country often results in the change of (he attitude. The new government’ has to
make a specific declaration to the effect whether it would continue orr abandon non-alignment, as happened in case of
India during the period 1977-’
80 under the Janata Party. Non-alignment taken in this context is not equivalent*
142 . • •• INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
to neutralism or neutrality, which on the other hand is adopted as a result of international agreement. The
commitme’nt.to neutrality remains permanent and is not affected by a change in government unless international
agreement is
abrogated.
In short, it can be said that political neutrality means keeping away from a particular issue while non-alignment means
the same thing with a difference. Non-alignment also aims at keeping away not only from a particular conflict or issue
but from a continuing international situation-the cold war. Since military alliances constitute an important feature of
cold war, non-alignment naturally insists on keeping away from these alliances. Non-Alignment as Antithesis of
Alignment
Before analysing the factors which led to the development of nonalignment it is relevant to study the factor which led
to the traditional system of
alliances.
The system of alliances or alignments is, and was based on the traditional thinking with regard to relations between
sovereign states, ’that international politics is nothing but a struggle for power amongst a number of small and large
units each of which is aggressively inclined and each prepared to exercise superior power in the pursuit of an important
interest.’ On the assumption that the design of all governments is to be independent and at peace, alignment is in some
degree involuntary-each aligned state presumably considers that it has no option in the existing circumstances but to
belong to an alliance. In majority of cases the alignment is neither imposed nor is a consequence of imposition. On the
other hand it is a deliberate response by a nation to a set of circumstances which in the view of its leaders compel it to
seek the protection of another power. The basic factors which led to the conclusion of such alliances after 1945 was the
co!d war (where the small powers became aligned to other great power as though they were directly involved in a
common ideological struggle), the internal unrest (due to two conflicting groups supporting different ideologies when
the ruling group in Philippines and Malaya entered into alliances), fear of subversion (when internal unrest was inspired
or assisted by foreign agents for purpose of obtaining a strategic or political advantage).
J.W. Burton is of the view that the causes of alignment may be varied, they do not always relate to the struggle for
power being waged by the leading nations, nor do ideological conflicts associate with that struggle. ’Alignments arise
out of preconceived notions regarding the behaviour of nations out of subjective . expectations, out of longstanding
enmities ar,d traditional fpars out of internal unrest and out of policies which isolate nations, in many cases the major
power conflict is but a cloak under which other reasons for alignment are disguised. The non-alignment is based on the
widespread desire of national independence and non-involvement in the conflicts of others. The policies of non-
alignment are the policies every government would follow in an ideal world of sovereign state in which there were no
power conflicts or threats to independence that called for special defence arrangements or alliances. There are
widespread circumstances which influence the country or countries to
NON - ALIGNMENT
143
accept non-alignment as the basis of their foreign policy. Post-war nationalism and anti-colonialism and the pressing
problems of economic underdevelopment are the background circumstances in which non-alignment has flourished.
Factors Responsible for Adoption of Non-Alignment
The factors responsible for the adoption and development of non-alignment are given hereunder.
1. Nationalism. The most important feature of the freedom movements in, Asian and African countries was
nationalism. It was not the nationalism of the west, a mounting devotion to one’s own country or race but a movement
to obtain freedom after a long and persistent struggle and the people were conscious to preserve it at all costs. To
preserve the freedom the nations were determined to follow a course whereby they did not become tools in the hands of
big powers. Hence they preferred to follow the policy of non-alignment.
2. Anti-Colonialism. The anti-colonial feeling which persisted in the countries of Asia and Africa even after the
attainment of freedom also largely contributed to the growth of policy of non-alignment. These powers were afraid that
they may be again subjugated by the colonial powers and were, therefore, determined to keep off from these colonial
powers. This could be possible by avoiding membership of both the blocs and adopting an independent course of action
by keeping out of all sort of alliances. Their position was identical to the position of a child who ’dreads fire’.
„ 3. Underdevelopment and economic aid. Most of the countries of Asia and
Africa who gained independence were poor and underdeveloped. They were very keen to improve the standard of
living of their people and promote systematic development of their country. As they needed capita! and financial
assistance from the powers of both the blocs to achieve their objectives at a fast rate, they thought it proper to keep off
from political alignments and pursue a policy of non-alignment.
4. Racial and cultural aspects. For a long time the colonial powers had fed the Afro-Asian nations with the idea that
they were racially as well as culturally backward. The feeling proved to be boon in disguise and evoked mutual
sympathy among the people of the newly emerged states of Asia and Africa. Being victims of common economic
exploitation and political domination by the European nations thay felt a sense of affinity and decided to cooperate with
each other.
5. Need of peace for development. Finally, the newly independent states wanted peace in the world so that they could
concentrate on their development. Consequently, they decided to keep off from the military alliances and the two
power blocs.
Motives of Non-Alignment
. Every foreign policy has some definite motives, even though the basic motives of all foreign policies is to promote the
national interest. The chief motives of non-alignment are as follows:
(i) Urge for independence in formulation of policy. All the erstwhile

144
colonies after throwing off the bondage were keen to secure their hard won independence. As they were economically,
politically and militarily quite weak and could not compete favourably with the older and stronger nations, they felt it
desirable to keep outôf power blocs so that they may be able to pursue an independent foreign policy.
(ii) Desire to avoid involvement in general war. The non-aligned nations want to avoid entangling themselves in the
various political feuds so that they may be able to concentrate fully on the economic and material development of their
people. With this objective in mind they generally avoid alliance with the two power blocs so that they may not be
unwittingly dragged into the war. The non-aligned nations are quite aware that in case of a general war they will not be
able to escape its impact. Vet they are determined to avoid direct involvement in such wars as far as possible. . .
(in) Preservation of world peace: Another motive of the non-aligned power is-to preserve the world peace. Non-
aligned states feel that the course adopted by them is best designed to prevent war. They contend that throughout
history, alliances and arms race have eventually resulted in war. Non-aligned nations are able to mediate between the
power biocs, as they did in Korea, Indo-China and Congo. They may also supply impartial policemen and observers.
They can provide manpower for U.N,. Emergency Force. Therefore, the ’neutralists’ who constitute a larger group, can
play an important rote in avoiding war and preserving worid peace.
(iv) Economic Development: The non-aligned countries are underdeveloped. They must get with the work of social and
economic development. They cannct afford to divert their limited resources to armaments and defence at the cost of
neglect of the economic development ot the country. Though countries like India are often compelled to organise
defence in the face of hostile attitude of some of their neighbours, but by and iarge the non-aiigned states prefer to
concentrate on the policy of economic development to better the conditions of their people.
(v) Moral argument: Non-alignment is considered to be a moral doctrine while the system of alliances and counter-
alliances is the clear manifestation bjf ’power politics , The unaiigned nations regard themselves as morally superior
even if, or perhaps because, they are weaker and lack material wealth. The nonaligned states consider it their proud
duty to influence the international scene with moral force rather by taking recourse to power,
(vi) To help U.N, to function successfully: Another motive of the nonaligned nations is to ensure that U.N. functions
successfully in fulfilling its objectives especially of preservation of world peace and economic development. This is
possible only if this forum is freed from the game of power politics. The non-aligned states who constitute the third
forces, can play a useful role in international politics by judging each issue on its merits and finding a viable solution.
(vil) Economic and technical assistance. Non-aligned nations receive concerete advantages by remaining friendly with
all the big powers. They are able to secure economic and technical assistance from both blocs. They can also
NON-ALIGNMENT . MS
receive help from one bloc when threatened or actually attacked by the other power. Sometimes, this attitude is
considered immoral as it amounts to playing of one side against the other. But it is the classical tradition of politics
generally and international politics in particular, that the state must protect its interests by all sorts of methods.
Evaluation of the Concept
Scholars have expressed conflicting views regarding the significance of the concept. While some have greatly lauded it,
the others bitterly criticised if. The main points of criticism against non-alignment are as follows:
1. The doctrine is unclear. James Burton has said that ”there has been no full treatment of the concept, no analysis and
precise description, no exposition through which others might estimate the significance and future prospects of policies
of non-alignrnent.”
2. It lacks analytical precision. The term is in common use but no effort has been made by the propounders of the
concept to properly analyse it. This task was done by the western scholars. As a result there is no po’pular
understanding of the concept among the majority of the people.
3. Not a model of international behaviour. The exponents of nonalignment claim that the concept .is of great
significance in so far as model of international behaviour which all countries should follow in the interests of peaceful
relations. It serves as a solution for the grave problem of nuclear age. But the aligned.nations, small and large appear, to
have wrong the image of nonalignment for which they deduce that it is a ”shifting policy of unrealistic expediency of
blackmail and of irresponsibility likely not to be permanent and to be even a danger to the world peace” (J.W. Burton).
4. Represents a policy of national self-interest. Western scholars have

• alleged that non-alignment is nothing but a policy designed to fulfil the selfish
interest of the nations professing it. No doubt this is the characteristic of aft. foreign policies, but the general expression
that non-aligned countries-are no: self seekers, has not been-admitted by the western scholars. Therefore like all other
concepts-/a/ssez faire, balance of power, part)’ parliamentary government etc.-this concept too has developed out of
expediency and self interest.
5. The concept is confused with other terms. Quite often the concept of non-alignment is confused with terms like
neutralism. Even the advocates of non-alignment like U. Nu of Burma once said in a sp«?ech, ”This policy
(nonalignment) has been called neutralism in cold war. Perhaps that is the right name for it.” Therefore some advocates
and proponents of the doctrine themselves are not very clear as to the correctness of the term.
Merits
However, non-alignment is nojân unmerit’orious system. It has its predominant merits which have led mrfo of the
Afro-Asian countries to adopt it as the basis of their foreign policy. The chief merits are as follows:
1. Pre<;er\<,)tfon of the world peace. All politics including international politics are struggles for power. This gives
rise to alliances and counter alliances,
14* ” INTERNATIONAL REIXHONS
armaments race and militarism, etc. The non-aligned nations try to keep out of this power struggle which is ultimately
conducive to world peace.
2. Preservation of Independence. The nations which have adopted the policy of non-alignment were once under the
political subjection of the great powers. They had to wage a hard and long struggle to win their political independence.
As they do not want to lose their hard won independence they try to keep out of world power struggle lest their
independence may be
jeopardised again.
3. Economic aid and development. Non-aligned countries can win-the favour of both the blocs and receive economic
assistance for their development from both. For example India received the maximum aid from the Soviet Union as
well as the U.S.A. It has been estimated that India received up to 1962 $ 2726 m from U.S.S.R. and $ 963 m from
U.S.A. while Pakistan received only $ 1329 m in total. This clearly shows that India as a non-aligned country secured
more aid from both the sources in comparison to Pakistan which received aid from the western bloc countries alone.
4. Check on the big powers ambitions. The superpowers, U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. and now even China have embarked
upon ambitious policies of economic domination of the world. Non-aligned nations by keeping aloof have thwarted the
imperialistic ambitions of all the superpowers. Thus non-alignment rejects power politics in the field of international
relations. As Schwarzenberger states, ”it signifies a type of relation between states in which certain patterns of
behaviour,are predominant; hegemony, imperialism, alliances, balance of power and war.”
5. Recession in cold war. Ever since the emergence of non-aligned group the cold war between superpowers has
somewhat subsided. The decision of the Afro-Asian countries at Bandung Conference 1955, tc take independent course
and keep away from the involvement of any kind greatly helped in this process. With the decision of non-aligned
countries to keep off from all kinds of military pacts with either of the big powers, the continuation of cold war became
difficult,
if not impossible.
6. Support ofU-.N.. In U.N. the members of non-aligned nations because of their numerical strength have exercised
great influence on the decisions of the General Assembly/even though they c>annot do anything against*he use of veto
in the Security Council. Therefore, no majority decision can be taken without their support. As the non-aligned Nations
are peace-loving there can be no cases in general when the obligations of the United Nations may conflict with the
obligations of impartiality. The non-alignment has helped U.N. to carry on its peace-keeping function effectively.
7. Independence of judgement. The non-alignment en visages independence of judgement. The various events and
problems arc judged on merits rather than preconceived ideological notions and other affinities.
8. According to J.W. Burton there are four reasons for the importance of the non-alignment: (a) non-alignment is a
special feature of the current world wstem; (b) non-alignment reflects some of the features of a developing world
NON - ALIGNMENT
147
community; (c) non-alignment has inherent within it certain features which are developing amongst aligned states; (d)
”non-alignment offers an alternative game and set of rules which is likely to be important once nuclear deterrance is no
longer credible”.’
9. Non-alignment has minimised the armaments race. Non-alignment supports all activities that aim at the relaxation of
international tension and encourages all institutions which work for peaceful resolution of conflicts. Therefore, support
for disarmament and faith in the U.N. are as important to nonalignment as independence of foreign policy.
Concluding the discussion on relative merits and demerits we can say that despite some of the glaring defects and
imperfections of the non-alignment it has a strong positive aspect. It is offering a model for the world and is expected to
lead an ideal world society. Further its wide acceptance by nations of almost all continents, races and.cc iours and the
respect it has evoked from the leading Countries of the East as well as the West indicate how, dynamic and desirable
the concept is.”
NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT AND ITS ROLE

Origin of Non-aligned Movement
After examining the meaning, features and the merits of non-alignment, it shall be desirable to know about the Non-
aligned Movement The Non-aligned Movement is generally traced from the year 1955 when 29 Asian and African
nations met at Bandung (Indonesia) to devise the means of combating colonial ism. Jawaharlai Nehru, who was one of
the moving spirits of the Conference, said that the coming together of the leaders.6f Asian and African States was an
event of great importance in so far as it marked the birth of Asia and a new Africa.
Belgrade Conference (1961)
However, non-alignment an international group emerged at the Belgrade Conference of September 1961. In this
Conference 26 Afro-Asian Nations and one European nation took part. In addition three Latin American countries also
took part in the Conference as observers. The Conference adopted a 27 point Declaration. Some of the important
features of this declaration were that it made an appeal to the superpowers to preserve and protect international peace
and condemned all manifestations of colonialism and imperialism. It demanded freedom for all colonial people and
condemned the policy of racialisrn being practised in certain parts of the world. It praised the freedom struggles being
waged by Algeria, Tunisia, Angola, Congo etc. and called for withdrawal of foreign forces. It called for just terms of
trade for the developing countries and laid emphasis on the economic, social and cultural progress of these countries.
The Conference also made appeal for complete disarmament. These principles greatly appealed to the newly
independent countries of Asia and Africa and they joined the movement.
Cairo Conference
The next meeting of the non-aligned group was held at’Cairo in October
1. |.W. Burton, Irdernat’ionjl leUttoi^, p. 2f> I

146
INTERNATIONAL RELMTONS
1964. This Conference was attended by 47 countries and eleven observers from all over the world. This Conference
was significant because since the last nonaligned meet at Belgrade a number of important developments had taken
place. The world had passed through the Cuban missile crisis; there was a conflict between India and China in 1962
which gave a staggering blow to Panchsbeel; and Jawaharlal Nehru the pioneer of the non-aligned movement had
passed away. The Cairo Conference adopted a Declaration entitled ’Programme for Peace and International
Cooperation’. The declaration asserted that peace could be strengthened only if principles of universal freedom,
equality and justice were observed and imperialism, colonialism and neo-coloniaiism were abolished. It laid emphasis
on the principle of peaceful co-existence and insisted on the settlement of all international conflicts through peaceful
means. It also laid emphasis on general and complete disarmament, and appealed to the nations without nuclear arms to
refrain from making them. It pleaded for the extension of the test ban treaty to underground nuclear test. It also
demanded the liquidation of the foreign military bases. The principles emphasised by the Cairo Declaration were non-
interference in the internal affairs of other states, support to armed struggle of colonial people against colonial powers
who were suppressing their natural aspiration and full co-operation by the developed countries to the developing-
countries in the economic sphere.
Lusaka Conference (1970)
The third non-aligned summit was held at Lusaka (Zambia) in September

1970. The summit was attended by 54 countries. In addition 9 other countries sent their observers. This Conference
emphasised that ”the non-aligned countries can use their collective wisdom and influence to tip the balance of power in
favour, of peace and international co-operation” and insisted that the ”nonaligned countries must be in the vanguard of
movement to create the world of . tomorrow and to enrich the content of human life.” The Conference produced a
General Declaration and six major resolutions. The General Declaration NonAiignment and Economic Progress,
highlighted the relevance of non-alignment and called upon all countries in general and the superpowers in particular to
resolve their conflicts through pacific methods alone. It pleaded for the dissolution of military alliances with a view to
reduce tension. It also laid emphasis on the need of accelerating the process of decolonisation and economic co-
operation among all countries. It took a decision to break off economic and diplomatic relations with Portugal and
South Africa who had failed to comply with the UN Decisions with regard to decolonisation and ending of racial
discrimination. It also called upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied areas. Algiers Conference (1973)
The fourth non-aligned summit was held at Algiers in 1973. The Summit was attended by 76 members and observers
from nine countries, which constituted more than half ot the members states of international community and’
represented the majority of world population. The Algiers Conference adopted a very detailed set of political and
economic resolutions; and outlined an action
NCMV ALIGNMENT
149 . f
programme for economic co-operation. It laid emphasis on the need of t strengthening struggle for freedom and peace
throughout the world. It welcomed the growing world detente and wanted it 10 be further strengthened and extended to
the entire world. It condemned the policies of colonialism and apartheid being pursued by certain powers and called for
peaceful settlement of all disputes with a view to secure international peace. This Conference also called for complete
and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories. In the economic sphere it called for ending
economic exploitation and laid emphasis on the need of ordering international economic relations as to ensure that the
basic interests of developing countries were not affected adversely. It asserted that the primary responsibility for
ensuring rapid development of developing countries rests with themselves. It also supported the principle that every
state has the right to nationalise its natural resources and control its internal economic activities. It condemned the
activities of the multinational corporations which were playing havoc with the economyôf the poor countries and
undermining their sovereignty. Above all the Conference called upon the developing countries to ”take concerted,
action to promoting a greater interchange of ideas among themselves and plan for concerted action. The message of the
Algiers Conference was best summarised by Indira Gandhi in her speech of 6 September 1973. She said: ”We are
responsible not to our individual countries alone but to peace and prosperity of the whole world....Non-aligned
countries should speak for those whose number were large but whose voices were muted. Their claims to a just share of
world’s goods, right to a life of dignity was indisputable and could not
be resisted Indian tradition helps to look at the worid as one, and today
science and technology open immense possibilities to transform this dream into reality. How much more necessary it
becomes to ensure that various hues, of racialism and other forms of narrowmindedness do not come in the way of
man’s freedom. •
Colombo Conference (1976)
The fifth non-aligned conference was held at Colombo in August 1976 and was attended by 86 countries. The
conference was significant in a number of ways. Firstly, it was the first conference to be held in the continent of Asia,
the original home of non-alignment Secondly, the African and”~Latin American issues dominated this conference.
Thirdly it discussed the concept of collective self-reliance and emphasised the right of the developing countries to
secure their . legitimate economic rights in international transactions through use of collective bargaining power.
Fourthly, it demanded abolition of veto system in the Security Council through amendment of the UN Charter. Fifthly,
it gave a call for the establishment of a new and just international economic order.
The Conference also outlined an action programme entitled Economic Cooperation among Non-aligned and the
Developing Countries. It called for ”the creation of new and expanded trade-flows ampftg developing countries based
on the selection of specific products which hate immediate potential rbr trade among developing countries taking into
account the reciprocity of benefits, and of the measures and machinery needed for creating these new trade-flows,
including in particular, long term purchase and supply commitments as
appropriate and other contractual arrangements for direct trade among developing countries and operations by
State trading organisations where appropriate.”
It may be noted that though the non-aligned group wanted to achieve economic emancipation of the
developing countries, it did not favour confrontation with the rich nations. Instead it stressed the need of
meaningful cooperation with the developed countries.
Havana Conference ft979)
The Sixth Non-aiigned Conference was held at Havana (Cuba) in.September

1979..This Conference was attended by 94 countries which constituted twothirds of the world community
and represented more than half of the world population. At this conference for the first time the non-aligned
movement was confronted with divisions. Some of the radical members like Cuba, Vietnam etc. asserted
that in view of spirit of ’detente’ and co-operation prevailing between the two blocs, the movement could
not afford to maintain equidistance between two blocs and must ally itself with the socialist bloc which was
committed to principles of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism. On the other hand states like Singapore
and Zaire insisted Vhat the non-aligned should move closer to the western bloc because west along with its
abundant resources and technological superiority could helpthenon-alignedcountriestoatuineconomic
development and realise its aspirations. However, ultimately wise counsels prevailed and the majority of
the members of the movement endorsed the stand that the movement must retain its independent nature. - •
Another serious threat was posed to the unity of non-aligned movement by the demand of the Arab
members who wanted Egypt to be expelled from the group for betraying the cause of the Arabs and
agreeing to sign the Camp David Agreement with Israel. However, on this issue also a compromise was
found and the question of expulsion of Egypt was kept in abeyance and was to be taken up at a later date.
However, both Egypt and Israel were condemned for the unilateral Camp David Agreement.
The Declaration issued at the end of the Summit condemned the
-begemonistic politics of the superpowers and gave a call for dissolving military
bases, it emphasised the need of more vigorous steps, to bridge the gap between
. the rich and the poor nations and keeping the Indian Ocean as a /one of peace..
It also gave a call for strengthening the non-aligned movement
New Odhi Summit (1983)
The seventh non-aligned meet was held at New Delhi from 7-12 March
1983 in which 99 nations took part. Two of the members could not take part in the summit. While St. Lucia
did not turn up, the seat of Kampuchea was kept vacant as per decision of the Foreign Ministers of Non-
aligned nations to prevent the question of Kampuchean representation from casting a shadow over the
deliberations of the Conference. In addition 20 countries were invited as observers and 19 countries and
organisations were invited as guests.
At the end of the Summit a Message was adopted in which an impassioned appeal was made to the Great
Powers imploring them to desist from disastrous drift towards a nuclear conflict. An appeal was made to
them to give up their
NON - ALIGNMENT
151
!•-
protectionist and inwardlooking policies; to work for a new world economic order; to participate in the
proposed international conference on money and , finances for development and promote a spirit on
enlightened multilateralism free from tension and confrontations. The Summit also adopted political,
economic and other declarations in which the need of collective self-reliance among the non-aligned and
other developing countries through south-south cooperation was emphasised.
In the political declaration it called for immediate prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and a
comprehensive treaty banning test of nuclear weapons; nuclear disarmament under effective international
control; nuclear weapon free zones in different parts of the world, starting of a process of reducing military
presence by big powers in the Indian Ocean and return of Diego Garcia to Mauritius; unconditional
withdrawal of Israel from Palestine and other occupied territories; condemned USA for giving military and
polilitical support to Israel; demanded withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and Kampuchea;
called for support to the people of Palestine, Namibia and South Africa in their struggle; and urged the non-
aligned nations to sort out their differences by peaceful means.
The Economic Declaration insisted on new measures to bring about a new international economic order. It
pleaded for Official Development Assistance to the least developed countries as well as cancellation of
their debts; increase in IDA finance for developing countries; creation of another trust fund to provide
additional development finance to the developing countries; early establishment o/ a food ’security system
of the non-aligned and’other countries; it sought the creation of a special international programme of food
aid and financial assistance to help the food deficit in developing countries; it condemned the use of food as
an instrument of political pressure and urged the developed countries, internationalinstitutions and other
donors to substantially increase development assistance to food and agriculture sector in the develaping
countries. The declaration. also called for a thorough-going restructuring of the existing economic order
through a process of global negotiations. It pledged to impart fresh impetus to collective self-reliance on the
basis of principles of equality, justice, mutual benefit and full respect for independence and sovereignty. It
impressed on the rich nations that the economic revival of the North was not possible without economic
survival of the South and urged them to help in the * restructuring of the existing international economic
order. It urged the elimination of restrictive, conditional, selective and discriminatory measures with a
vifcw to promote world trade. The Summit also called upon the members and other developing countries to
strengthen bilateral and multilateral co-operation in the field.of sports. H favoured organisation of sports
events at national, regional and international levels for this purpose. • •,
The Declaration received general approval ail over the world. However USA expressed regret over the
political parts of the declaration which made an attack on the United States without in any way criticising
Soviet UnionHt expressed the hope that the non-aligned movement shall remain true to the principles of
Non-aligned Movement and apply these principles more faithfully
t52
1NTERNATKJNAL RHAT1ONS
NON - ALIGNMENT
153
in future. Despite this criticism it cannot be denied that the non-aligned meet at New Delhi was an event of great
significance. It displayed the unity, vigour, wisdom and remarkable sense of purpose among the non-aligned
nations. A notable achievement of the meet was that the tilt towards USSR in the movement, which had existed
since the Havana Summit, was corrected. The Summit for the first time called upon the two great powers to halt
the arms race through a formal message. Another notable achievement of the movement was that it succeeded in
maintaining unity despite differences on Kampuchea by taking a decision to keep the Kampuchean seat vacant.
Harare Summit (1986)
The Eighth Non-Aligned Summit wai held at Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe from I-7 September, 1986 and
was attended by leaders of 101 countries. Robert Mugabe, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe was elected as the
new Chairman of NAM. The Summit adopted a concrete plan to strengthen the African frontline states facing
destabilisation due to actions of racist Pretoria regime. !t also decided to establish a fund under the
chairmanship of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to take suitable projects in this behalf. The summit unanimously
adopted a package of measures to be applied against Pretoria regime pending the adoption of comprehensive
and mandatory sanctions by the UN Security Council. The Summit also urged the United Nations to take
necessary steps in this regard without further loss of time. The package measures to be taken by the members
against South Africa included prohibition of transfer of technology to South Africa, cessation of export, sale or
transport of oil, snapping of air Sinks, and termination of visa free entry privileges to South Africa. The Summit
also demanded the convening of a special session of the U N General Assembly to ensure independence of
Namibia. It set up a committee to place the case of Namibia in the United Nations.
Another notable decision of the summit was setting up a committee of Foreign Ministers of some of the non-aligned
countries. This committee was to visit the United States, Britain, West Germany and Japan and persuade the
government of these countries to impose sanctions against South Africa. The Summit made an appeal to the President
Reagan of United States and Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union, to impose a permanent moratorium on nuclear tests.
The Summit set up a standing Ministerial Committee to review and harmonise policies and programme of non-
aligned and other developing countries to-ensure economic cooperation among them in the light of the changing
world economic situation.
The Summit reiterated the recommendations made at the Delhi meet in

1983 with regard to Kampuchea, Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war. It pledged support to the Palestinian demand
for a homeland and expressed solidarity wfth / Cyprus. Summit condemned US aggression against Libya in
April .1986 and its bid to eliminate Col. Gaddafi, the Libyan leader and his family by bombarding his house.
Finally, the Summit reiterated its resolve to carry on struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism,
apartheid, racism, Zionism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or
Hegemony.
Belgrade Summit (1989) , ,
The NSnth Summit of” the non-aligned countries was held in Belgrade from
4-7 September 1989 in which leaders of 102 countries took part, The leaders urged the rich nations to impart an
economic content to the political detente and called for an early end to the external cSebt problem which was
proving a crippling burden on the poor countries. The non-aligned nations supported the four-nation Paris
initiative for international economic summit to ensure higher growth rate for all nations. They asserted that
world peace and security would depend increasinglyândNiirectly on developmental issues.
The Summit called for pursuit of complete disarmament, especially with regard to weapons of mass destruction to
secure the existence of the human race on the planet. It insisted on full respect for human rights and emphasised that
without human rights economic development would have no meaning, It reaffirmed the right of all people to seif-
determination and called upon the international community to join them in increasing, widening and tightening
sanctions against South Africa with a view to isolate the abhorrent regime and to eradicate the apartheid system. The
leaders urged the United Nations to create minimum conditions for holding free and fair election in Namibia and to
enable the SWAPO to campaign freely in all parts of that country.
in the political sphere the summit called for solution oi problems of Afghanistan, speedy democratisation of Latin
America, restoration of rights of the Palestinian people etc. It called for convening an international peace conference on
West Asia under the auspices of the UN with the participator, of the parties concerned, including PLO to work out a
settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict on the basis of total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories and
securing the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the reievant U.N. resolutions. The
summit urged the new NAM Chairman to undertake an initiative to settle the decade-old Afghan conflict
NAM Foreign Ministers Meet at Accra (Ghana) (1991)
In September 1991, the foreign ministers,of Non-Aligned countries met at Ghana and adopted a declaration ’A World
In transition : From Diminishing » Confrontation towards Increased Cooperation’, which asserted that the end of the
era of East-West Clash had opened up unprecedented vistas for world.peace and cooperation, and insisted that NAM’s
new focus must be on eradication of poverty, .hufiger, malnutrition and illiteracy and called upon the international
community to render necessary help in this regard. The meet approved the proposal for the expansion of the
membership of U.N. Security Council to make its functioning more democratic. The ministers felt that the external debt
of the developing countries was the greatest obstacle in the way of their economic and social development and appealed
to the creditors to alleviate the burden through debt relief measures such as cancellation, reduction of debts and debt
servicing, interest rates and the rescheduling refinancing of outstanding debts.
Jakarta Summit (1992)
The tenth Summit of non-aligned countries was hekf at Jakarta from T-6 September 1992 which was attended
by 108 members. Though there were
154
differences among members over the complex Yugoslavia tangle, there was a virtual consensus on situation on Bosnia-
Herzegovina. The members strongly condemned the obnoxious pdiey of ethnic cleansing followed by the local Serbs,
without blaming Serbia or Montenegro. The heads 6V State and Governments caited for speedy withdrawal of al!
external forces from territory and deployment of UN peace-keeping forces along the borders and other places in
BosniaHerzegovina. The Summit called for shaping a new International Order through irreplaceable’ role.of the United
Nations. It set up a high-level working group charged with the task of concretising proposals Tor restructuring arsd
democratisation of the U.N, system. The Summi* welcomed the trend towards democracy and committed the
movement to protectinghuman rights. However, it asserted thai.-no country should use its power to dictate its concept
of
: democracy and human rights to impose ccnditionalities on others. The Summit urged’the developing countries to
ensure a balanced and equitable conclusion of the Uruguay Round to ensure that interests of all the parties were
protected. ’t impressed the need o*’ South-South co-operation for development and insisted on reducing undue
dependence on the North. The leaders reiterated their desire
’to have a ’nuclear weapon-free world’ and urged accelerated efforts to eliminate ai! weapons of mass destruction. :
NAM Foreign Ministers Meet at Cairo (1994). In June 1994 the Foreign Ministers of NAM countries met in Cai?6
(Egypt) amidst call to reform the movement to .fit the post-cclci-wdr worjd. The important decisions taken by the
. foreign ministers included the decision not to involve themselves in disputes between two member countries arsd not
so.merge NAM with C-/7, as demanded by some members. The foreign ministers felt that NAM’s role was political,
while G-77 aimed at achieving parity between the developed and the developing countries in trade and other areas of
development. The meet also agreed mat a special session of the UN General Assembly be convened to bring about a
global consensus on complete disarmament.
Cartagena Summit (1995). The Eleventh summit of the 113 member nonaligned movement (NAM) was held in
Cartagena (Colombia) in October 1995. It called for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones as a necessary first
step towards obtaining the objective of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and urged the states to conclude
agreements with a view to creating such zones where they did not exist. The NAM called for the reform of the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund where the weighted voting system makes the voice of the developing countries
irrelevant and pledged to step up South-South cooperation as well as effort to achieve total .disarmament. The members
expressed strong concern over new protectionism indulged in by the developed countries. They also demanded writing
off of the debts of low-income developing countries.
A perusal of the development of non-aligned movement as outlined above, shows that the movement has steadily
grown in size as welâs contents. Whereas at the first conference of the non-aligned at Belgrade, the members merely
made general appeal to United States and Soviet Union to refrain from nuclear tests in the interest of world peace in
subsequent meetings it tried to extend the sphere of its interest At the Cairo meeting the principle of peaceful co-
existence was emphasised. At the Lusaka meeting the movement criticised military alliances ana.condemned the
practice of leasing out bases to the foreign powers. It also
_ emphasised the need of economic co-operation. The Algiers Summit laid
’ emphasis on elimination of tension and creation of climate of peace. The Colombo meet went a step further and laid
emphasis on economic emancipation
NON-ALIGNMENT
155
of the developing countries and creation of a new international economic order. The scope of the movement was further
widened in the Havana and New Delhi Summits and it laid emphasis on the need of South-South co-operation. It also
pleaded for greater co-operation in the field of sports. In the Harare Summit it decided to set up AFRICA fund to help
the border line states to frustrate the design of Pretoria regime. The Belgrade Summit of 1989 emphasised the need of
tackling the problem of external debts facing the Third World countries and took the stand that worid peace and
security greatly depended on development. It also urged the international community to set aside financial resources for
environmental cooperation. The Jakarta Summit of 1992 called for shaping a new International Order in which UN
would play more important role. It also set up a high level working group to consider proposals for restructuring and
democratisation of the UN system. It impressed on the developing countries to ensure balanced and equitable
conclusion of Uruguay Round of talks so that interests of all parties were protected. It called for acceleration of efforts
for elimination oiafl weapons ot mass destruction. The Cartagena Summit’of 1995 called for establishment of nuclear
weapon-free zones as a first step towards elimination of weapons of mass destruction. It called for reform of the World
Bank and IMF and pledged to step up South-South cooperation, it also put forth demand for writing off oi the debts of
low-income developing countries. Ih short the scope of the non-aligned movement has greatly grown over the years and
it has become a strong constructive moral force in the international politics, it has greatly contributed to international
understanding and promotion of world peace. It has enabled the non-aligned countries to integrate their fragile states
into a volatile international system dominated by the two major powers. It has promoted collective self-reliance among
the non-aligned countries and helped them to retain their sovereignty and authenticity in a predominantly bipolar •
international system.
ROLE Of NON-ALIGNED !N INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Critics have alleged that the Non-Aligned Movement has not been able to live upto the expectations of the founding
fathers. Various countries adopted policy of non-alignment with a view to protect and promote their nationalinterests.
Objectively speaking the movement has failed to preserve peace and some of its members have been involved in
disputes such as Afghanistan, Iran-. Iraq, Cambodia, Namibia, Western Sahara etc. The members of- non-aligned \
movement have not been able to play any effective role in resolving these disputes. Similarly the Non-aligned
Movement has failed to keep the arms race under check. In fact most of the non-aligned countries themselves are
spending huge amounts on defence preparations. Non-aligned Movement has also failed to resolve some of the ongoing
problems like Apartheid, Lebanon, Cyprus and Palestine. No doubt, policy of Apartheid has considerably weakened,
but this has become possible due to increasing economic pressure from the West European ” powers and America,
rather than pressure from Non-aligned Movement. In fact some of the black African states, wnich are members of
NAM, are active partners of South Africa. Another major shortcoming of the Non-aligned Movement emphasised by
the critics is that there is dichotomy between what the NAM leaders preach and what they actually practice. Often the
NAM leaders have taken stand on various issues in United Nations which is at variance with the consensus evolved at
the meetings of NAM.
1S6 ; INTERNATKDNAi REATIONS
The above criticism is, however, not wholly correct The non-aiighmenf has consistently grown in
popularity. This is evident from the fact that in comparison to 1961 when 25 states participated m the
Non-aligned conference at Jakarta, the number of non-aligned countries has increased to 113.
Despite minor differences arrxxig members of Non-aligned Movement, it has played important role
in favour of world peace, disarmament, development anddecolonisation. It is well known that the
non-aligned countries have played an active role at the United Nations and hav? refused to deviate
from their chosen path despite ail pressures. The main contributions of the non-aligned are as under:
1. The enormous growth in the number of the non-aligned countries greatly contributed to the easing of cold war and
encouraged the newly independent countries to keep away from power blocs. No wonder, this helped in resolving
several problems posed by the power politics.
2. It greatly transformed the nature of the United Nations and acted as a check on the arbitrary powers of the permanent
members of the Security Council
’ because by virtue or their overwhelming strength in the General Assembly the non-aligneo countries were able to
impose some moral check on the big powers.
3. Thirdly, though initially the two super powers were sceptical about the non-aligned countries, but in course of time
they thought it desirable to win their favour. This naturally enabled the non-aligned nations to play a more effective
role in international politics.
4,Non-aligned countries have promoted the ideology of co-existence or ’live and let live1 by keeping themselves away
from the two blocs into which the world had got divided in the post world war II period.
5. Non-alignrnent has discouraged the armament race and thereby contributed to the promotion of world peace. !t is
well known that the Moscow Test Ban Treaty of 1963 was made possible largely due to the efforts of the nan- .
aligned states.
-.,:-• 6. Non-alignment countries have played 3 major role in the process of
decolonisation and freedom of the slave countries. This was quite natural In view
•) of the fact that most of the non-aligned countries were themselves colonies of
the western powers and were subjected to economic, social and political
exploitation. No wonder they took Op the cause of their exploited brethren.
7. Non-aligned nations paid great attention to the problem of economic development and played a vital role in the
formation of the UNCTAD. They were also instrumental in the formation of the Croup of 77.
8. Non-aligned Movement also tried to resolve differences and conflicts among various member states
although its efforts did not meet with much success. However, it cannot be denied that the Non-
aligned Movement played
/ an important mediatory role in the Cuban crisis of 1962 and the Sine-Indian Conflict of 1962.
9. Non-aitgned countries have vehemently criticised policy of racial discrimination and pleaded for
equality among people of all races. They have raised voice against racial discrimination jn the UNO
and international forurns like Afro-Asian Conference. It was chiefly as a result of this consistent •
NON-ALIGNMENT 157
condemnation of racial discrimination by non-aligned countries that racialism has gradually

disappeared.
10. Finally non-aligned movement has contributed to the end of game of power politics by keeping
aloof from power blocks. In fact non-alignment
• represents a true blend of idealism and realism and had great relevance during | the period of
cold war.
v Non-Alignment Movement at Present
!;, The non-aligned movement has undergone considerable changes since its
| origin, ’t is faced with an international situation which is far more complex. ! Numerous power centres have
appeared which have deep inter-relationship : with various non-aligned and developing countries. There is a greater
political consciousness amongst the people of poorer countries and they have come to insist on removal of inequalities
and disequilibriums in the social and economic spheres. Further, major it/ of the resources have been monopolised by
the developed countries and the gap between the developed and developing countries is getting wider day by day.
Seventy percent of the people who live in the developing and underdeveloped countries get only 15 per cent of the
world production. Even the traditional colonialism which has virtually reached a point of extinction has been replaced
by a neo-cokwiialism and capitalist imperialism. Another notable change in tne non-aligned movement is that at
present it is led by a new generation of leaders. This point was highlighted by India’s Foreign Minister P.V. Narsimha
Rao at symposium organised at the jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He said: ”The first generation of leaders
who founded,and nurtured the non-aligned movement wer& influenced by their respective struggles for freedom in the
anti-colonial and anti-imperialist tradition. They were imbued with a value system and framework of idea derived from
their experience cf the colonial or imperialist rule in their respective countries. Today, however, the movement is led by
a new generation of leaders, who though steeped in their respective national and political traditions are tempered by the
real oolitics of international relations of the decades of the 1960’? and 1970V.
1«*
Above al!, the non-aligned movement has greatly expanded and at present over hundred sovereign states are, members
of this movement. These states professing dnd practicing differem ideologies, have by and large preserved the unity of
the movement by observing the basic principles of the movement steadfastly. .
Threats to Non-Aligned Movement .
Though the Non-Aligned Movement has enormously grown it is also confronted with serious problems. Firstly, some
of the members of non-aligned movement; though committed to solve their proWems through peaceful methods, are
involved in open conflicts which has tended to render’the movement weak. Secondly, some of the non-aligned
countries are spending enormous amounts on their defence which has contributed to their slow development due to
diversion of their limited resources to military preparations. If the non-aligned movement is to be effective and pose.a
serious challenge to tne ami-imper ialist
forces, the member states must avoid policy of confrontation and concentrate on
their development.
How to strengthen Non-Aligned Movement
8.K. Kaul in his book New Horizons or Non-A/ignmenf suggested following measures for the strengthening of the non-
aligned movement. First, the nonaligned nations and other states sympathetic to the non-aligned nations should try to
solve their mutual disputes by peaceful means only, avoid arms race should
• not have any direct or indirect military connection with any power bloc, and eliminate all kinds of strategic bases on
their soil. All this would reduce the burden of their defence budgets. Secondly, all the non-aligned nations should
declare thatan aggression against any one of them would be treated as aggression against all-and they should promise to
give every possible moral and material support, including military help, till aggression is defeated. Such a-declaration
would act as a deterrent to future aggression. Thirdly, the non-aligned nations should try to bring about a real and
effective disarmament among the big powers. This is vital to effect saving in expenditure on armament which can be
fruitfully . diverted for the development purposes and elimination of poverty. Fourthly, the non-aligned nations should
fight against the exploitative and restrictive practices of the advanced countries .and try to reduce their dependence on
aid from these countries. They should tiy to develop and cultivate mutually beneficial economic and trade relations
with the advanced countries as well as among themselves. Insistence should be laid on equitable exchange of
manufactured goods and payment of adequate prices for the primary products exported by the countries of the Third
World. Non-Alignment in the Wake of End of Cold War
The policy of non-alignment which was conceived in the context of the cold war and environment of competing power
blocs, has to be adjusted in the present context when vast changes have taken place in the form of mellowing of cold
war and disappearance of adversary relationship between the two super powers. In addition to this certain other factors
also warrant adjustments in the policy of non-alignment. These include the socio-political and economic
metamorphosis of Eastern Europe; the disintegration of the Soviet Union,
/ unification of Germany,- the socio-political forces generated in the Gulf etc.
Relevance of Non-Alignment
Some critics have alleged that in the present contest of international developments - the end of cold war, dismantling of
blocs, collapse of Soviet Union and erosion of its super power status-Non-alignment has lost all relevance and the non-
aligned developing countries should redefine their international position in the new world setting. This view
largelyrests on the assumption that non-alignment was mainly the product of the cold war; It is true that the cold war
did influence the shaping qj1 non-alignment as a foreign policy, but it is certainly wrong to assume that non-alignment
is a mere response to cold war. Cold war was by no means the cause of emergence of non-alignment. In fact non-
alignment as a foreign policy is committed to universal problems of \ peace and freedom and hence has relevance both
in the cold-war period as well
NON-ALIGNME>4T
!59
as non-cold War periods, it is true that non-alignment emerged at a time when cold war and bloc politics were
dominant feature of international politics, but its main objective was to protect and pceserve the newly attained
(independence of the member states ana promote their economic and political development Though the countries of the
third world at present do not face the challenges of bloc poHtics, they are confronted with several other challenges like
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cross border terrorism, natural disasters and environmental degradation.
Ail these factors pose a serious threat to peace and democracy. Hence at present non-alignment is confronted with the
problem of creation of a new world based on rational, democratic, equitable and non-exploitative inter-state relations.
Non-alignment snail continue to be relevant as long as there is exploitation, war, destruction, hunger, poverty and
disease on the earth. It remains relevant to the changing world scenario, irrespective of the fact whether there is coid
war or detente whether the world* is unipolar, bipolar or multipolar. It can help.in promoting greater economic and
political co-operation between the developing and developed countries on fair and equitable basis and ensure respect
for political independence of the developing third world countries. But probably the most important role which non-
alignment can play in the changing context is to protect the economic interests of the third world countries by actirtg in
support of GATT and against discriminatory trade compacts like Multiftbre Agreeffsent, and work for creation of more
favourable naw order.
in short, it can be said that the philosophy of the movement is as relevant as ever and Its underlying tenets remain
unchanged. As the aspirations NAM countries fortrueequaiity, genuine independence of and unfettered development
remain unfulfilled, the movement can play a dynamic role towards the attainment of these objectives. The other
important issues on the agenda of the NAM are democratisation of the United Nations and economic development. In
short, the movement still has a vita) roie to play.
Non-AJigned Movement and the New Internationa! Economic Order
Another question which deserves consideration is as to what role the nonaligned movement has played in evolving the
New International Economic Order. The basic principlesof non-alignment include ”struggle against imperialism,
colonialism, rreo-colonsalism, apartheid, racism, Zionism and al! forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination,
interference of hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.” This clearly shows that the movement is
opposed to all kinds of oppressioa, exploitation and injustice. In the economic sphere the non-aligned movement has
worked for the achievement of a New International Economic Order (NIEO). The movement for NIEO did not
originate with the UN resolution of 1 May 1974 but is intimately linked with the struggle for the fiquidation of
colonialism. In a way the struggle lor NfEO is intimately linked with the non-aligned movement’s wider struggle for
the elimination of colonialism-imperialism and iteocolpnialism in ail their manifestation. In this respect the non-aligned
movement and the struggle for the NIEO were contemporary and they have been intimately linked from the very
beginning.
160
INTtRNATKDNAL RELATIONS
NON-ALIGNMENT
161
16U
During the initial stages the non-aligned countries worked through the United Nations to get the principle of state
sovereignty over natural resources accepted. At the Bandung Conference of the Afro-Asian countries held in 1955 they
laid emphasis on the need of diversification of the export of the non-aligned countries. However, at this stage as the
non-aligned movement was chiefly occupied with political aspects of decolonisation and preservation of peace,
independence and national sovereignty etc. it did not lay much emphasis on the . economic issues. It was only in the
1960’sthatthe non-aligned movement started thinking in terms of the NIEO because by this time the process of
decolonisation had made further progress and it began to be emphasised that economic emancipation was an essential
ingredient of the political decolonisation. By this time they were also convinced that the economic system evolved at
Bretton Woods was not helpful in realising their econornic objectives. !n 1961 the non- aligned summit at Belgrade
called for efforts to remove ”economic imbalances inherited from colonialism and imperialism*. !t was emphasised that
the ever ’ wideninggapinthestandardsofthepepplelivinginadvancedcountriesandthe less developed countries could be
bridged only through accelerated economic, . industrial and agricultural development. The very next year at the Cairo
Conference the attempts to perpetuate ”past structure of international economic relations” was denounced and it was
asserted that this was obstructing the economic development of the developing countries. Concerted efforts were also
made at the United Nations, which culminated in the establishment of the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD). The UNCTAD and the Croup of 77 ultimately became the principal instruments for carrying
on struggle for an NIEO. .
The second non-aligned summit at its Cairo meet in October 1964 laid emphasis on economic development and
cooperation and urged ”all the countries to contribute to the rapid evolution of a new and just economic order under
which ali nations can livs without fear or want or despair and rise to their full stature in the family of nations (because)
the structure of world economy and the Existing international institutions of international trade and development have
failed either to reduce the disparity or to rectify serious and growing imbalances between developing countries”. The
Cairo declaration thus emphasised th« same principles which were emphasised by the UN in ib resolution of 1 May
1974 concerning New International Economic Order. However, in actual practice the third world countries became
increasingly dependent on the developed countries due to ”deteriorating terms of their trade and economic relations
with tne developed countries.” Therefore the non-. aligned countries emphasised the need of greater mobilisation,
particularly in the preparation for the Second UN Development Decade and future activities of the UNCTAD. . ’
After the Cairo Conference the non-aligned countries played a leading role in the evolution of the New tnternational
Economic Order and adopted a number of resolutions and declarations. The important steps taken in this regard include
the Algiers Charter (1967) and the Second UNCTAD Resolution and Declaration (New’Delhi, 1968).
It was only in 1970’s that the non-aligned movement made a determined hid to establish an NIEO. A blueprint for the
NIEO was prepared at the Lusaka meet and specific guidelines for policies and action programme for economic
progress were prepared.
The Lusaka Declaration held the structural weakness of the present world order responsible for the distressing
economic condition of developing countries and asserted that the ”rapid transformation of the world economic system
requires achieving implementation of concerted and co-ordinated policies and the measures so as lo huiid a partnership
between the developing and developed countries on the foundations of equal and mutual advantages and tor the
common goals of peace, progress and prosperity”. The impact of the Lusaka Declaration was evident in the debate on
international strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade.
The Algiers Conference made more forceful plea for fundamental changes in the existing inequitable international
economic relations and the need for a new international economic order. The Conference emphasised that selfreliance
and collective reliance were pre-requisites for the attainment of international economic development goals. Above all,
it asked the UN General Assembly ”to draw up a charter on economic rights and duties of states.”
The idea was developed further at the non-aligned meet held at Colombo (1976) and Havana (1979). The Colombo
Summit paid special attention to the Economic Action Programme. It expressed regret that the capitalist countries were
not responding to and implementing the decisions of the UN and suggested an Action Programme to achieve New
Internationa! Economic Order. One of the outstanding feature of this action programme was emphasis on a new
universal and equitable monetary order. The Havana Conference in its Declaration also asserted that ”the establishment
of the New Internationa! Economic Order is one of the most important and most urgent tasks facing the non-
aTrgrted’movernent and that democratisation of international economic relations constitute its political substance.”
The Seventh Non-aligned Conference (New Delhi, 1983) again emphasised the need of establishing a New
International Economic Order and emphasised that ”the prevailing, international system which runs counter to the basic
interests of the developing countries was profoundly unjust and incompatible with the accelerated development of the
non-aligned and other, developing countries and warned that failure to establish the NIEO based on equality and justice
would have serious adverse economic and political consequences for all.” The conference asserted that ”The Movement
of Non-Aligned countries has played and will continue to play an important role in the staiggle for the political and
economic independence of all the developing countries and their people, for the attainment of full and permanent
sovereignty and control over all types of natural resources and economic activities; and for the promotion of a
fundamental reslnu luring !>y the establishment of NIEO.
. It is thus evident from the above developments that the demand for NIEO was put forward by the non-aligned
countries on account of their growing
162
frustration and helplessness in dealing with the developed countries. By their efforts through UNCTAD, the UN1DO
and the Regional Economic Commissions of the United Nations, the non-aligned countries have defined in clear term
the New International Economic Order. At the same time they tried to impress on . the developing countries the need of
greater accommodation and cooperation with the developing countries, even though in this respect they failed to secure
the desired objectives.
In view of the widening gu!f between the developed and developing countries North-South dialogue was initiated with
a view to establish a Nev* International Economic Order. The non-aligned countries acted with remarkable unity at
UNCTAD I and passed a unanimous resolution emphasising the responsibility of the international community wilh
regard to stabilisation of commodity prices, volume and terms aid and preferences. Effort to protect the interests of the
developing countries continued at the subsequent UNCTAD meetings. At the UNCTAD IV meeting held at Nairobi in
1976 the non-aligned countries extended full support to the sharp rise in oil prices by OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum
Exporting Countries). The developing countries felt that they could emulate the example of OPEC in the use of
commodity power. However, soon they discovered that there were limits to the use of commodity power and the
success of OPEC coufd not be repeated in the case of other commodities.
, At the UNCTAD IV meeting at Nairobi the idea of Integrated Programme of Commodities based on establishment of
buffer stocks for a wide range of commodities including tea, coffee, cocoa^cotton, iron-ore etc. and a Common Fund
for ensuring stability of prices of these key commodities. Though initially the problem of finances for fund posed a
serious problem but ultimately the nonaiigned countries were successful in floating this fund. With a view to reduce the
burden of debt on the developing countries the UNCTAD IV demanded cancellation of debts for the least developed,
land-locked and island developing countries. A demand for rescheduling of debts over a 25 years period was also made.
However, most of the developed countries were opposed to cancellation of debts or a moratorium on debt service
payments. As a result no concrete success could be achieved in this direction. ”.
Yet another proposal for evolution of the NtEO was taken in 1979 when UNCTAD insisted on the establishment of a
Common Fund to Finance buffer stocks in a price stabilisation scheme. It urged the developed countries to reduce and
eliminate protectionism, specially with regard to imports from the developing countries. It also insisted on doubling of
the targets of official -development . assistance.
Thus, we can say that the non-aligned and developing countries have been consistently working for the evolution of a
New International Economic Order with a view to gain greater share in the world economy for the developing countries
of the Third World. The progress was jeopardised because of the unhelpful attitude of the affluent countries. However,
due to persistent efforts of the nonaligned countries the attitude of the affluent countries has somewhaf
NON-ALIGNMENT
163
softened and an atmosphere has been created in which we can expect that the developing countries may get sufficient
quantity of assistance from the developed countries. But it would certainly be too much to expect that the advanced
countries, who are facing the problem of energy, inflation and recession, would be willing to make any major
concessions of the developing countries. Fully conscious of this fact, the non-aligned countries at the Havana summit
held in September 1979 recommended promotion ot collective self-reliance among the non-aligned and other
developing countries. It urged co-ordinated action in the field of raw materials, trade; transport, Industrialisation, food
and agriculture, fisheries, insurance, health, tourism, sports, telecommunication, currency and finance and other areas.
It also called on richer non-aligned member countries to increase financial assistance to the poorer non-aligned
countries and make more foreign investments in other non- aligned countries. This clearly shows that the non-
developed countries ha ve now come to rea I ize that the major reSponsibi I ity for their development lies with
themselves and they must try to achieve development through mutual co-operation. .
164
14
Decolonization and Expansion of Internationa) Community
”The issue of colonialism has become more and more explosive since the end of World War II. The-war itself shook
centuries old colonial system to their foundations The Japanese surrender’in 1945 signalled the beginning, not the end
of the real vital stniggle-the struggle for freedom from foreign domination for over half the people of the world.”
. - -Coodspeed
Colonialism was one of the dominant features of international politics during the past three centuries. Its origin can be
traced back to the discovery of India by Vasco-da-Gama. The Portuguese and the Spanish were the first to establish
their dominations overseas. Soon they were joined by other European powers like the English, French, Dutch etc.
However, Britain because of her mastery over the seas and industrial head-start emerged as the most powerful colonial
power. The British steadily extended her sway over India, while France made encroachments in Algeria and Indo-
China. The other European powers like
• the Dutch and the Spaniards also set up some colonies. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century the imperialist
powers embarked on ruthless colonialisation and divided the whole world between themselves. They not only
consolidated their hold over the existing colonies but also carved out now colonies in Africa and Asia. Germany, Italy,
Japan and U.S.A. also joined the fray for colonies. Thus Colonialism reached its height in the closing years of the
nineteenth century and the first decade of the present century.
Before we examine the process of Decolonisation it shall be desirable to know about the meaning of colonialism and
policies followed by some of ihe colonial powers. •
Meaning of Colonialism
Various definitions of colonialism based on the value and emotions, have been offered. Accord ing to the western
concept Colonialism is the establishment and maintenance for an extended time, of rule over an alien people that is
separate and subordinate to the ruling power. It implies rule over people of different race inhabiting lands separated by
salt waters from the imperial centre. Mere particularly it signifies direct political control of European states or slate
settled by Europeans, over people of other race notably over Asians and Atricans. The main feature of colonialism
according to the western concept include
DECOLONIZATION AND EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
165
dominations of an alien minority asserting racial and cultural superiority over a materially inferior native majority,
contact between a machine oriented civilization with Christian orfgin, a powerful economy and rapid rhythm of life and
nonChristian civilisation, that lacks machine and is marked by the backward economy and a slow rhythm of life, and
the imposition of the first civilisation upon the second.
The leftist scholars, who consider colonialism as an evil; define it as ”the military or economic enslavement of any
dependent country and see it as accompanied_by bestial exploitation and extermination of the indigenous.
The African and Asian scholars also tend to agree with the leftist definition
of Colonialism. For example, President Sukarno of Indonesia defined colonialism
in the course of his opening address to the Bandung Conference of 1955 thus:
”I beg of you not to think of colonialism in the classic form which we know.
Colonialism has also its modern dress in the form of economic control,
intellectual control and actual physical control by a small but ajieh community
within the nation.” Another definition of colonialism which was accepted for a
long time was offered by j.A. Hobson in his book Imperialism : A study. He says
”Colonialism, in its best sense is a natural overflow of nationality; its test is the
power of colonialists to transplant the civilisation they represent to the new
natural and social environments in which they find themselves”. ?
Varying Colonial Policies. There has been a wide variation in the policy
pursued by various colonial powers towards their colonies. If is not possible to
deal with the policies of all the colonial powers here. However, we may deal
with the policies of some of the major colonial powers, viz., Britain, France,
Belgium and Portugal, to form an idea about the attitude of the colonial powers
towards the colonies.
British Policy. Great Britain adopted a very flexible policy towards her colonies. She did not treat the colonies merely
as integral part of the mother country but as countries-with their own distinctive ways of life and facilitated their
autonomous development. She provided increasing share to the people of the land in the governing councils, civil
services and judiciary to give them . training in self-government and to prepare them for ultimate independence.
Starting with India in 1947 and West Indies, the British transformed most of the colonies into independent states in-
keeping with their long-established policy. However she had to face some difficulties in colonies like Rhodesia, Kenya,
andBritish Guinea because of the presence of a large number of white settlers in these colonies.
French Policy. France followed quite a different colonial policy. Though she extended enormous aid to her colonies
and introduced a number of reforms after Second World War, she was not willing to grant independence to these
colonies. As a result of this policy the French colonies of Indo-China and Algeria had to wage violent struggle for their
independence In case of Guinea also the French leadership did not approve of its decision to opt out in T958 and
treated her as an outlaw. However, in subsequent yt’jrs the French leacte’.s effected certain changes in their attitude.
They granted freedom to a number of African
166 - INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
colonies and tried to cultivate intimate relations with them after grant of independence.
Belgian Policy
The colonial policy of Belgium was quite at variance with the’ policy pursued by Britain and France. She did not
associate the people of her colony (Congo) either with the local administration (as was done by the British) nor with the
imperial centre (as was done by the French). She took no steps to create an elite class which could take over the reins of
power once she decided to withdraw. As a result, when in 1959 in the wake of riots in Leopoldville Belgium hastily
severed her ties with Congo and left the country, the people were in lurch because they neither possessed trained
leaders and officials nor an army manned by the African officer.
Portuguese Policy
The Portuguese, the oldest colonial power, followed a colonial policy which was quite different from the one followed
by Britain, France and Belgium. She did not provide education to the people in her colonies and kept them away from
modernity. In 1961 in the wake of Angolan rising, the Portuguese government introduced a number of reforms and
provided the colonial people an equal status within the Portuguese domain. She deliberately encouraged the Portuguese
peasants and workers to emigrate to Portuguese Africa to solve the problem of poverty and to strengthen her hold on
the African territory. In fact, because of her own Backwardness she had hardly any capacity’to secure the
advancement.of millions of people overseas.
DECOLONISATION
It is commonly held that the idea of decolonisation is the product of the twentieth century and particularly of the post
Wot Id War il period. However, this is not correct. The feeling of anti-colonialism first manifested itself in the
eighteenth century when the thirteen American colonies revolted against the colonial rule of Britain and set themselves
as an independent country. Subsequently, the Latin American countries also waged anticolonial struggle and attained
independence. Philosophers like Bentham also strongly pleaded that Britain and France should rid themselves of their
dependencies. But it was only after the First World War that the problem of colonies received serious attention. The
peace-makers at Versailles, who were confronted with the problem of the territories of the defeated powers, thought it
proper to pay due attention to the well-being and development of these territories. Accordingly, they incorporated’
certain provisions in the Covenant of the League of Nations to deal with this problem. The Covenant laid down that
”the well-being and development” of the peopfe of these territories was ”a sacred trust of civilisation” and entrusted
these territories to various Allied and Associated powers as mandatories on behalf of the League. However, these
powers were not genuinely concerned with the wvlfare t f the people of these territories and treated these territories
merely as
a status >ymbol.
In the post-World War I period the spread of nationalism in the colonial
167
areas of Asia and elsewhere posed a serious challenge to the colonial rule. Though the process of decolonisation did not
start during this period but no further colonies were established. The only notable exceptions were the seizure of
Ethiopia by Italy and drive of japan on China and South-East Asia. It was only in the post World War ifperiod that the
process of Decolonisation was greatly speeded up. According to Rupert Emerson, ’After 1945 the flood-tide of
anticolonialism swept away the colonial system with a speed and thoroughness that matched colonialism’s advance at
the close of the 19th century. The possession of colonies, so long a matter of pride and prestige, now became a sin to be
expiated only, if at all, by the granting of immediate independence. The League of Nations indifference to the problem
was replaced by the profound involvement of the LJnited Nations in the process of decolonisation*.’
UN Charter and the Colonial People
In view of the rising tide of nationalism in the colonial areas the delegates to the San Francisco Conference made
elaborate provisions concerning the colonial people which constituted an advance over the League Covenant. They
incorporate a Declaration Regarding Ntm-Self-Governing Territories in the UN Charter which imposed an obligation
on the members regardihg the administration of territories whose people had not yet reached a full measure
of’selfCOvernment. The Declaration, contained in Article 73, is of great significance and deserves to be quoted in full.
It states:
”Members of the United Nations which have to assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose
people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the
inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept, as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost,
within thesystem of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the
inhabitants of these territories and to this end:
(a) to ensure with due respect for the culture of the people concerned, their DQlitical, economic, social and educational
advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
’ (b) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the
progressive development of their free political institutions according to the particular circumstances of each territory
and its peoples and their varying stages, of development;
(c) to further international peace and security;
(d) to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research and to co-operate with one another and,
when and where appropriate, with specialised international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the
social, economic and scientific purposes set forth in the Article; and
ie) to transmit regularly to the Secretary Genera! for information^rtrposes, subject to such limitations as security and
constitutional considerations may
}. International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Vol. 3 p. 3.

168
require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in
the territories for which they are respectively responsible. .
• Article 74 of the Charter asserted that the other members of the UN have interests in the colonial territories. If the
administering powers adopt arbitrary policies with regard to immigration, trade and commerce etc., the
nonadmtnistering countries can complain. In short, the UN Charter held oui hopes of self-government for the colonial
areas.
Commenting on the sipmficance of the Declaration Regarding Non SelfGovern ing Territories of UNjCharter, Ball and
Kiliough say ”it represents perhaps a great advance in international responsibility for the welfare of the dependent
people than does the trusteeship system. In the Declaration on Non-SelfGoverning Territories the...powers recognized
for the first time an international instrument that the welfare of the dependent peoples was the paramount consideration
in the administration of all dependent areas. The declaration in the Charter goes further and carries with it an obligation
also undertaken for the first time for all dependencies-to report to an international agency on the steps taken to
implement the basic principles.”1
. It is true that the provisions of the UN Charter-provided-a new impetus to the decolonization movement but it would
certainly be wrong to assert that all decolonization in the ppst World War II period has been solely due to the UN
efforts. David W. Wainhouse who has made a special study of the role ». of the United Nations- in ending
colonialism, says ”Whereas the Charter • enshrined the principle of self-government and the U-N. bodies have provided
the main arena of the colonial debate, the direct role of the Organisation itself in the process of decolonisation has been
a limited one.-ln some countries such as India, Burma and Syria the nationalistic movements had developed before it
was founded. In others, such as Indo-China, Morocco- and Algeria, decisions were deliberately kept outside of United
Nations by the states concerned, notably France.” The United Nations did play an important role, however, in the
ending of colonial rule in Indonesia and in certain African trust territories, and it was very much involved in the
disposition of the former mandated territory of Palestine. A special case in which the Organisation had a decisive role
was that of the Italian colonies of Libya, Eritrea and Somaliland, for which the General Assembly provided a solution
when the four Foreign Ministers of the Allied Powers were unable to settle the problem after several years of efforts.”
However, he asserts that the most important contribution of the U.N. has been ”the creation of a climate of opinion
which has given the decolonisation movement a considerable impetus. This it has done merely by being a world .
forum where claims, demands and protests inevitably have had a hearing and by prowling organised channels for the
making of resolutions and decisions bearing the stamp of the world organisation. Through the Trusteeship Council and
the subsidiary organs of the General Assembly, the United Nations has spurred the colonial power to improve the lot of
their dependent peoples. The
1. Ball antf Killangh. International Relations, p. 297.
DECOLONIZATION AND EXPANSION Of INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
169
widespread concern for their welfare it has lielped to arouse and has in turn served as a form of pressure on the imperial
powers to speed up .the process of decolonisation.’”
From the very beginning the United Nations started playing an important role in speeding up the process of
decolonisation. Though in the first few years the discussion on Non-Self- Governing Territories were mainly concerned
with establishing procedure for the transmission and examination of information, but the basic issue underlying this
whole discussion was the question of the competence of the General Assembly regarding the political and
constitutional progress in the non-self-governing territories. Soon the General Assembly was able to assert its right to
examine the information transmitted by the administering powers and to make recommendations on the conditions, in
the territories. It ako asserted its competence’to determine whether a territory should be classified as Non-self-
government or not. in 1946 the General Assembly listed 74 territories in respect of which the administering powers
were to transmit information. Subsequently it added some more territories, which were under the administration of
Spain and Portugal, to this list.
In 1947 the General Assembly set up a Committee of 1 & members-equal representation being given to the colonial
and non-colonial powers. This Committee was to assist the Assembly in dealing with the reports submitted by the
administering power. The Colonial powers objected to the setting up of the , •Committee on the plea that they were
merely expected to send report for the information of the General Assembly. They further contended that they were
•expected to send reports only with regard to the areas vhich had not yet become self-governing in the social, economic
and educational fields, and that the1 right to determine whether a territory was self-governing or not rested with them.
The noncolonial powers on the other hand asserted that the administering powers were expected to send reports until
the territory attained political self-government. , •’ As regards the question whether a territory was a sett-governing or
not the decision should rest with the General Assembly. In view of the rigid stand taken .--. by the colonial arid” non-
colonial powers on these issues lot of tension was generated. Ultimately, the non-colonial powers succeeded in pushing
through . the General Assembly a number of resolutions, in the face of protests from colonial powers, asserting that the
non-self-governing territories were a matter • of international concern.
Despite this tension the U.N. was able to secure independence for a number of colonies during the first fifteen years of
its life, It laid-down the conditions for the eventual independence of Libya, Eritrea and Somaliland and secured their
independence. On the surrender of mandate over Palestine by . Great Britain, United Nations took a decision regarding
the partition ot the territory and created the independent stole of Isra-.-l. It also pl.iyed an important role in securing
independence of lf»donesia from the D’jtch rule. It may be noted that the independence of the colonies was not solely
due to the polk y and effuriv
ft’. /)«!•«/ W.’WainhiHise. Kemmini.t of Empire : The UnitedNations, unit the *

- Cnlmtttilisni. n.4. . . ’”
f3*^~. ’ . \
170
of the UN, it was also largely due to the liberal policy adopted by some of the colonial powers. For example, Britain
granted independence to India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya etc., on her own. Similarly, France voluntarily
granted independence to most of her colonies except Algeria. U.S.A. also granted independence to Philippines on her
own.
Bandung Conference .
The countries*hich gained independence from thecolonial rule organised themselves and tried toexert pressure for
speedingup the process of decolonisation. At the Bandung Conference of 1955 they mounted a diplomatic offensive for
ending the colonialism. They declared that ”colonialism in all its manifestations is an evi! which should speedily be
brought to an end.” They argued that the subjection of people to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation
constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment
to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.” What is more significant is that they tried to cover all the colonial
territories regardless of the degree of enlightenment with which the people were ruled or of their readiness for
independence.
Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and people
A new era of decolonisation set :n with the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of independence to the colonial
countries and people. By 1960 a number of Afro-Asian countries had gained independence and were admitted as.
members to-the gnited Nations. Their #rength had increased so much that they came to acquire virtually a two-thirds
majority in the General Assembly. Fully aware of their strength these Afro-Asian countries sought to take more
effective, steps to speed up the process of decolonisation and ensure emancipation of the rest of the colonies. After
prolonged negotiations forty-three African and Asian delegates introduced a draft which was adopted after a long and
momentous debate by the General Assembly on 14 December 1960. This resolution was adopted by a vote of ninety to
zero with’nine abstentions. The members who abstained were all important colonial powers. This resolution was in the
shape^ of a Declaration, which has been described as charter of independence for the dependent people. The
Declaration stated-
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental
human right is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is.ao impediment to the promotion of world peace and
co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination: by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural’development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic’social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying
independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kjnds directed, against -dependent people shall cease in order to
enable them to exercise peacefully and
171
freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of other national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in trust and non-self-governingterritories or all other territories which have not yet
attained independence to transfer all powers to the people of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in
accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour,, in order to
enable them to enjoy complete independence to freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is
incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All states shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality non-interference in the internal
affairs of all states and respect for the sovereign rights of all people and their territorial integrity.
Follow-up Action .
Ever since the adoption of the Declaration on decolonisation the General Assembly has repeatedly called upon the
administering powers to implement the Declaration and to take all necessary steps to ejiable the dependent peoples of
the territories concerned to exercise without further delaytheir right to self^ deteimination and independence. It has
asserted that the continuation of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, including racism, apartheid, the
exploitation by foreign and other interests of economic and human resources and the waging of the colonial wars to
suppress the’ national liberation -movement of the colonial territories in Africa, is incompatible with the Charter, th»
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration un decolonisation and poses a serious threat to the
international peace and security. While recognising the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial people by all the
means at their disposal, it has urged the other states to render moral and material assistance to the people. It also
impressed on the specialised agencies and international institutions to withhold assistance from South Africa and
Southern Rhodesia till they renounce their policy of colonial domination and racial ’discrimination. Above all it
condemned the practice of using mercenaries in these territories and has prohibited the nationals from serving as
mercenaries. It has appealed to the” colonial powers to withdraw their military bases and installations from the colonial
territories and to refrain from establishing new ones. Above all the Assembly has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance
of ensuring the widest possible dissemination of information on colonialism on the efforts of the colonial people to
achieve liberation and on the assistance being provided by the international community to eliminate the retraining
vestiges ot colonialism.
Special Committee on Decolonisation
With a view to ensure the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
and people, the General
172
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
DECOLONIZATION AND EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 173
iv
Assembly set up a Special Committee on Decolonisation in 1961. While adopting the resolution for the creation of
Special Committee in November 1961 the General Assembly noted with regret that with few exceptions, the provisions
of the Declaration had not been carried out and in particular that armed action and repressive measures continued to be
taken against dependent peoples. The Assembly called on all the concerned states to take action without further delay
with a view to faithful application and implementation of the Declaration. It set up a Special Committee consisting of
17 members (it was enlarged to 24 at the end of 1962). These members were to be appointed by the President of the
Assembly and were expected to examine the application of the Declaration as \ well, as to make suggestions and
recommendations on the progress, andtxrent of its application. The Special Committee was also encrusted with the
function? of three other Committees before it.started working in 1962. Thereafter, it has remained the main United
Nations body concerned with the matter relating to
. the progress towards self-determination and independence, of peoples in the dependent Territories.
In 1962 the General Assembly requested the Special Committee to propose specific measures for expediting the
process of decolonisation. It also requested the Committee to appraise the Security Council of developments in the
Territories covered by the Declaration which posed a threat to international peace. In 1965 the General Assembly made
a request to the Special Committee to pay special attention to the small Territories and to recommend necessary steps to
enable the people of these Territories to exercise fully their rights to selfdetermination and independence. It asked the
Special Committee to recommend, wherever appropriate, deadline for independence in each Territory in accordance
with the wishes of the people. Thus the Special Committee continued to work actively, in co-operation with the General
Assembly and the Security Council to expedite the process of decolonisation.
In addition the Special Committee also sought to secure the co-operation of th.e’administering powers. It despatched a
number of visiting missions to some of the non-self-governing territories to obtain first information on the situation in
these territories as well as to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants regarding their future. Some of the territories which
were visited by these missions included Aden (1967), Niue (1972), Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Gilbert the Ellice
Islands (1974), Cape Verde, Montserrat and Spanish Sahara-now Western Sahara (1975); the British Virgin Islands and
Tokelan Islands (1976); and the Cayman • Islands and the United States Virgin Islands (1977). In 1972 a Special
Mission visited the liberated areas of the independent State of Guinea-Bissau. The Special Committee also held
meetings at the African capitals in 1966, 1967. 1969, and
1972, and in Portugal in 1975 in connection with the examination of the colonial territories in Southern Africa. The
Special Committee set up a sub-committee on petitions for looking into complaints of the people from the non-self-
governing territories and on the basis of these petitions made necessary recommendations
• to the General Assembly. The Committee in its recommendations to the
Assembly impressed that the ”colonial conflicts constitute a serious threat to the world peace” and ”all the peoples have
an inalienable right to complete freedom.”
t
Probably the most outstanding accomplishment of the Special Committee was that it succeeded in getting a special
resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1970 concerning the ”programme of Action for the Full Implementation
of the Declaration on tjie granting of independence to colonial countries and people.” By virtue of this resolution, the
General Assembly acknowledged the right of self-determination of the colonial people as well as the right to carry
struggle against colonial powers with all the means at their disposal. For effective implementation of the objectives laid
down in the Declaration it impressed on the members states to render every possible moral and materia.1 assistance to
the people in their struggle. It asked the Security Council to impose sanctions against South Africa and Portugal and to
widen the scope of sanctions against the illegal regime of Southern Rhodesia.
In subsequent years also the General Assembly adopted a number of resolutions on the recommendation of the Special
Committee in which it asserted that foreign economic, financial and other interests operating in Colonial territories
constitute a major obstacle to the political independence and to the enjoyment of the natural resources of those
territories by the indigenous inhabitants. It asserted that this constituted a violation of the obligations under the UN
Charter. It called upon the administering powers to abolish all discriminatory and unjust practices applied to the
inhabitants of the territories under the administration and in all other Territories under colonial and racial ”regimes
notably in Southern Africa.
II appealed to the Colonial Powers and-other concerned states to prevail upon those nationals who were operating
enterprises in the colonial territories to .)!).; IK Ion <uch activities which were detrimental to the interests of the
inhribit jnts of the territories. It further requested them to stop supply of funds and other forms of assistance to colonial
regimes which used such assistance tor the suppression of liberation movement.
Both the Special Committee and the General Assembly have felt concerned over the growing military activities of the
Powers in the colonial territories which greatly impeded the implementation of the Declaration. In 1975 the Special
Committee reported to the General Assembly that the colonial powers and minority racist regimes had continued to
defy Assembly resolutions calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all military bases and installations,
frum colonial territories. The Committee expressed the view that such activities were aimed at subjugating the’colonial
peoples and repressing their liberation movement. It considered that strategic military considerations were an important
factor in prolonging the colonial rule in many parts of the wortd, particularly in smaller territories. Accordingly, in
1976 and 1977 the General Assembly renewed its call to the Colonial Powers to withdraw-immediately and
unconditionally their bases and installations from colonial territories and to retrain from establishing new ones.
174 . ’ INTERNATtONAL RELATIONS
In 1978 the UN General Assembly adopted a declaration on Namibia . containing programme of action in support of
self-determination and national independence for Namibia. The Declaration stressed the commitment to end South
Africa’s illegal occupation and right of self-determination and independence for the Namibian people. It appealed to
the member states to render increased and sustained support and assistance to SWAPO and to resist from all kinds of
direct and indirect co-operation or collaboration with South Africa.
In April 1979 the Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation met in Yugoslavia and adopted a Final Document on the
Decolonisation oi Zimbabwe and Namibia, in which it called for extended sanctions against Southern Rhodesia and
mandatory sanctions against South Africa. It also condemned the ”Wanton and increasing, resort to violence and
intimidation against the African peoples under the domination and their cynical defiance of United Nations in its effort
to bring about the genuine and complete decolonisation of Southern Rhodesia and Namibia.” .
In subsequent years also the General Assembly continued to adopt resolution condemning colonialism and reiterate its
determination to eliminate colonialism.
The General Assembly at its Thirty-Ninth Session held in 1984-85 adopted a series of resolutions on decolonisation.
These resolutions were largely identical to resolutions approved during the earlier sessions, and reiterated Assembly’s
condemnation of activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of the
Declaration on Granting of Independence ofColonfal Countries and Peoples. It called for full implementation of the
1960 Declaration by the specialised agencies and international institutions of the U.N.System. It deplored ’military
activities and arrangements by colonial powers (i.e. South Africa) in territories under their administration which might
be impeding implementation of the 1960 Declaration.
Thp Assembly also- adopted a series oi’•. resolutions reaffirming ’the inalienable right to self-determination and
independence of the peoples of U.S. Pacific dependencies of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands in
Caribbean; an’d the British dependencies of Bermuda, British Virginia Islands, the s Cayman Islands, all in the
Caribbean. The Assembly also adopted a similar resolution in respect of the U.K. dependency of Anguilla,
consideration of which had been deferred at its Thirty-Eighth session. Through another resolution the U.N. Assembly
adopted an extensive programme of activities for 1985 to mark the 25th Anniversary of the adoption of the 1960
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People.
Some time back the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution forwarded by the Non-aligned Movement declaring
1990-2000 as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The resolution urged the UN Secretary
General to submit ,1 report ID ihf 44th <**v.i(>n of thf (”•«• nerril A^snmhly leading to the adoption o! an action pi.in
.limer) .it ushering in the 21 st rentury a world tree from colonialism. • ”•-.••••
The above discussion shows that the United Nations has made significant contribution’towards the process of
decolonisation by’creating a climate of’ opinion which provided a new impetus to the decolonisation movement. ”This
it has done merely by being a world forum where claims, demands and protests inevitably have had a hearing, and by
providing organised channels for the making of resolutions and decisions bearing the stamp of the world organisations.
Through the Trusteeship Council and the subsidiary organs of the General Assembly, the United Nations has spurred
the colonial powers to improve the lot of their dependent peoples. The widespread concern for their welfare has helped
to arouse and has in turn served as a form of pressure on the imperial powers to speed up the process of
decolonisation.”
According to jacobson the most important contribution of the United Nations has been that it has prevented the use of
the,v”olence in the settlement of colonial issues. He says ”On balance, the colonial revolution has probably been more
peaceful because of United Nations involvement. A case can also be made to the effect that the United Nations has
contributed to International stability through its activities at the time of the accession of dependent territories of self-
government or independence”.-
It is evident from the above discussions that the United Nations (including its various agencies and committees) has
played a commendable role in the piocess of decolonisation. As one writer has observed it has acted as a catalyst in the
process of decolonisation. It has provided impetus, cohesion and direction to the forces of anti-colonialism. Even Perez
de Cue’lar, the Secretary General of United Nations, greatly lauded the achievements cf the United Nations in the field
of decolonisation. He told the Special Committee of Decolonisation ”The achievements of the United Nations in the
historic process of decolonisation are among the organisation’s most extraordinary achievements.” However he warned
that ”our satisfaction with those achievements should not halt or diminish our efforts. Op the contrary we must focus
our efforts on what remains . to be dpne. There are many complex and difficult problems that must still be solved. It is
important to maintain the impetus achieved in the past two decades until we have achieved the final goal of complete
decolonisation”.
Expansion of Internationa! Community’
As a result of the process of decolonisation, a large number df territories which were formerly under the control of
various colonial powers have since gained independence and the îze of the international community has greatly
expanded. This is evident from the fact that whereas UNO in 1945 consisted of only 51 members, its membership has
arisen to over 180 in 1994 We can form an idea about the steady growth of the International community from the
following Table:
I. David W. Wiiinhmne. o\f. fit. /’. 4.
2 Hunilil K. Juctthxim The United Malianx inul Colonialism : A lenltilive

Ai>i>raisul.inlnii’rniitii>iuilOrquiH.\aln>nV<ilX\’INn. I. Winter. /V62./J.55.
Growth of Membership of UNO between 1945-1995
Years
Number of Members
1945
: 51
1946
’•’’-” 55 . ••’•••
1947
•’ • 57 . . ’’ ’ •
’ 1948
58
1949
- 59
1950
/’”’/. 60
1955
--• ”’•’ ’ ” 76
1956 . ”:
80
1957
,”- ”; -• ’• 82
1958 ”’:
••-./ -.-•• ;v’.v 83 -•;.•-

; I960 ’
; ••• -’”•; ’’ 100
1961
’ ••••••• 104 ••
1962
’ 110 , ,
1963
• 112
1964
’•:’•••• • -- 115
1965
*- • ’118
1966 ’
• ’ :. 122
1967 :.
123
•1968
126
1970 .
127
1971
’ 132
1973 ;
’ •- -, 132
1974 ., •
138 ,
1975
144
1976 •--.-•
. . 147 ;
1977 •’,•- ’.’.’•; •
149
1978 ;-
151 .
1979’ ;” -’
’. • ’ •••’ 152 , ’•• ’ . •’ •
i960
’ . • ’; 154. .^ . •
1981 •
.. ..’•• 157 :.’..’
1983 ’ ,’. :
158 ;
1984
159 .:
1985
-; ’ • ^ 159 ’
1986 ’V
•;-•’ :•-•. :... ’ ; 159 :’ -
1987 ;
.,,-•..• •. .,, 159 : -’ . • V. .
...•••’,. -9 ’•’ - .
1988 , .
. . 159 ’.•.-..;
1989
.-.-:-. --- ’•-;• 159- ... -..-. •-.-;.•/

1991 /.
- ’, ’-:•”-• :’ 166 •• •’ ”;. ”’
1992 ’ ’’.,...
,.’. •- -. ;••---• ,,.,,. 175 • , •.,-

1993
”••’..::• 183 .
1994
•. - 183 :
177
The emergence of a large number of new countries and their entry into the UNO has exercised profound influence on
the international relations which has been discussed in one of the subsequent Chapters.
’17S
NEO-CQLONIALISM AND RACIALISM
179
15
Neo-Colonialism and Racialism

”The essence of neocolonialism is that the state which is subject to it is, in theory independent and has a H the outward
trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from
outside.”
-Kwamc Nkrumah
A general impression prevails among the scholars that though the classical colonialism has faded out, it has made its
appearance in a new guise which is described by them as ’neo-colonialism’. In the post World War II period though a
number of colonies were able to attain independence and were even admitted as sovereign members to the world body,
yet they could -not attain economic independence. This state of condition is often given the name of neocolonialism.
According to Kwame Nkrumah, The essence of neo-colontalism is that the state which is subject to it is, in theory
independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its
political policy is directed from outside.”’
Similarly another scholar has described neb-colonialism as ”the survival of colonial system in spite of formal
recognition of political independence-in emerging countries which became victims of indirect and subtle form of
domination by political, economic, social, military and technological forces.” Under neo-colonialism, the former
colonies are dependent on colonial powers through capital investments, loans, aid, unequal exchange and finances
which aredirectlycontroHedbythe colonial powers. However, Prof. Schwarzenberger says that ”the term neo-
colonialism as applied to present-day relations of dependence between technologically advanced countries and ex-
colonies is a rmsnomer. It is a post-1945 version of imperialism and might well be described as neo-imperialism.” He
asserts that ”the term neo-colonialism would better be reserved for another type of colonialism rampant in a good many
of the new Afiican and Asian states: the direct control exercised over groups of different nationality to whom they deny
the benefits of the principle of national selfdetermination. Prof. Palmer and Perkins describe -’nee-colonialism’ as ”a
new and more insidious form of imperialism, widely prevalent and particularly pernicious and dangerous.”
Generally jn neo-colonialism the power over the dependent country is
- I.
Kwome Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism - ihe Last Stage of Imperialism p. 9.
exercised by the former imperial power which ruled over it But this is not absolute principle. Some other imperial
power can also establish its control over the neo-colonial territory. For example in Vietnam though France happened to
be the former imperial power, but neo-colonial control passed into the-hands of the United States. It is also possible
that the control may be exercised by a consortium of financial interests. For example, a number of international
financial concerns exercised control over Congo and it was not possible to identify them with any particular state.
Prof. Organski has noted three.types of colonialism-political economic dependencies and satellites. The first type of
colonialism is symbolic of the traditional colonialism in which direct control was established by a foreign country over
a territory and its inhabitant* were denied full political rights. The •other two forms of colonialism, viz., economic
dependencies and satellites are the examples of neo-colonialism.
It shall ”be desirable to know about these forms of neo-colonialism in some details before analysing the reasons for the
growth of neo-coJonialism.
Economic Dependencies
A country may be politically independent and sovereign, but economically dependent on some other nation which has
invested capital and established economic enterprises in the country. The foreign power exercises complete control
over the industry, mines, commercial houses, banking institutions etc. through its nationals. On account of their hold on
the economic life of the society they are able to have effective voice in the government also.
Satellites
A country which is formally independent but controlled by some foreign power both politically and economically is
regarded as a satellite of that country. It may be noted that the control exercised by a foreign country over a satellite
state is more extensive than the one exercised by a foreign country over economic dependencies. Most of the states of
Eastern Europe are satellites of Soviet Union and their political- and economic policies are completely dominated by
the Soviet Union,
Why neo-colonialism?
The main reasons which are responsible for development of neocolonialism in the post World War II period are as
follows:
First, in the post World War li period most of the Imperial Powers adopted the goal of welfare state and wanted
finances for the various welfare projects. They could have easily raised this money from the colonies, but in the
changed context it was not possible to maintain or revive the cold colonial-system because this would have provoked
colonial resentment and even resulted in wars. Therefore, these powers instituted the system of neo-colonialism. The
mosj common method which they adopted for this purpose was to break up ”the former, large united colonial territories
into a number of small non-viable states”, which were incapable of independent development and had per force
180 INTERNATIONAL DELATIONS ,
to rely upon former colonial powers for economic development, defence as well as internal security.
The developed countries provided manufactured goods to the neocolonial countries at pricesof their choice and in
return procure their primary products at comparatively cheap prices. In view of their weak financial position these
countries could not compel the developed countries to pay them fair price for their primary products. Once these
countries fell in the net of the colonial powers, it was not possible for them to get out of it,because the colonial powers
could easily manipulate revolts against the existing government and substitute it by a subservient government.
The cold war which started between the two superpowers in the postWorld War II period also made it difficult for the
former colonial territories to assert themselves and behave in an independent manner. These two superpowers came to
dominate and influence the international policies to such an extent that it was not possible for these small and newly
born countries to , act independently. However, a change took place in the attitude of the colonial powers because they
disclaimed all intentions of being a colonial power and described these territories under their control as their satellites.
Methods of Neo-Coloniaiism
Neo-colonialism appeared in different shapes, and adopted different methods. It shall be desirable to know about these
variants of neo-coldnialism in some details. One extreme form of neo-colonia!ism was that the troops of . the imperial
power garrisoned the territory of the neo-colonia! state and controlled its. government. The territories did nol enjoy any
political freedom. In most of such cases the social, economic and educational activities of the people, were
subordinated to the interests of the administering or ruling state.
The most common method of control adopted by the neo-colonial powers was through economic or monetary means.
As most of these territories were backward and did not possess sufficient finances, they were forced to seek financial as
well as technical assistance from more advanced states. They are obliged to seek investments from foreign powers. It
has been estimated that eight leading capitalist countries-UK, USA, Federal Republic of Germany Switzerland, Japan,-
France, Canada and Netherlands had made over 90% of th>’ total direct private investment in the newly independent
countries. As a result of this enormous investment they not only made huge prof its but also exploited their natural and
manpower resources. In fact most of the capital made available to the developing countries is used for import of
equipment, cost of services, foreign specialists, insurance, payment of interest etc., and only a srrtall fraction of 15 to
20 per cent of the capital remains in the country.
Another method for exploitation of the newly independent countries is through aid. While extending aid the donor
country imposed a number of conditions such as agreement for economic co-operation, right to muddle in internal
finances, lowering of trade barriers in favour of the donor country’s goods and right to determine how the funds are to
be used/to force the recipient
NEO-COLONIALISM ANtf RACIALISM
181
to set up counter funds to buy goods from the donor nation etc. Thus they were able to establish their control over these
territories and convert them into their economic dependencies. This arrangement was given the name of Economic
Imperialism in so far it provided controlling power to the donor country. Sometimes the neo-colonial powers extended
’multilateral aid’ to these territories through international agencies like the International Monetary Fund, the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation and International
Development Association etc. Even these agencies forced the borrowers to submit to various offensive conditions such
as supplying information about theff economies, submitting their policy and plans to review by the World Bank and
accepting agency supervision of their use of loans etc. In short, it can be said that the benefits of aid to the recipient
country have been only marginal and in the long run aid has promoted the interests of the donor by perpetuating the
dependence of the recipient countries on such aid.
It may be further noted that the foreign capital which is made available under neo-colonialism to the less developed
countries is not meant so much for the development of the less developed areas, as for the promotion of the interests of
the developed countries.
This is evident from the fact that over period of time the newly independent countries have incurred heavy foreign
debts which are estimated to have exceeded 1000,000 million dollars, in 1986. The debt problem arose due to
exceptionally high rates of interests which often obliged the newly liberated countries to seek fresh loans and credits to
reply their debts. It has been estimated that in 1981 over 92% of the loans taken by the newly liberated countries were
spent to pay off the debts. This trend has persisted in the • subsequent years too. On account, of this heavy debt burden
there has been decline in the economic growth of these countries. The debt problem deserves serious consideration.
Unless some feasible solution is found the debt of the newly independent countries would double by 1995 creating
serious social, economic and political problem.
The neo-colonral powers resorted to another method of exploitation through the multi-national corporations. The Multi-
national Corporations were formed by the investors of different countries in the shape of a Joint Stock Company with a
view to undertake enterprise in the developed as well as developing countries. In fact the real motive of the
Multinational Corporations is. profit making and global domination. In the recent years the Multinationals have become
so powerful that their combined total sale is more than the GNP of every country except USA and USSR. Usually their
profits exceed their investments. -Naturally these Multinationals exercise profound influence on the policy of the
government and do not hesitate to intervene militarily. These corporations also undermine the efforts of developing
countries to utilise indigenous technology and thus perpetuates their backwardness. The presence of these
Multinationals has resulted in an indirect domination of theeconomies, of the countries where they operated. Theywere
not only able to influence the economic structure of such territories but also exert
182
sufficient influence on the political and economic policies of these countries.
The advanced countries also try to perpetuate their exploitation of the newly independent countries by making them
dependent on the imperial powers for technology. While making available their technology to the backward and
dependent countries they try to control their economies and exploit them fully. In fact while providing technology the
advanced countries try to ensure that these countries remain dependent on.them for technology for as long as possible.
The neo-colonial powers also make effective use of the instrument of foreign trade for the exploitation of newly
independent states. Generally they sell their machines, equipments and technology at high rate and buy goods from
developing countries at the lowest price. This is evident from the fact that while the pricesof goods imported by the
newly independent countries have consistently risen, the prices of their traditional export goods have steadily declined.
Thisfactwas also acknowledged by the UN Genera I Secretary (Perez deCuellar) in his report of 1985. He observed that
the commodity prices were in real terms lower than had been since the 1930’s and were stiU declining resulting in
further aggravation of the international debt situation for the developing countries. Another notable feature of the
foreign trade policy of the neo-colonial powers is that they set limits to the import quotas and quantity for traditional
export goods from developing countries. Further they adopted discriminatory protectionist policies with regard to
exports from developing countries which operates«against the interests of developing countries.
The Colonial powers also try to strengthen their hold over free countries through military methods. They try to bring to
power a government whicri is favourably disposed towards them and try to pull down governments which are not
willing to tolerate their diktat. They also try to acquire and built military bases in the countries to maintain their hold
over the territory. Above all they also interfere in the internal matters of the states both through overt and covert
methods for the protection of their interests. How far Neo-Colonialism is better than Colonialism
It is generally held that neo-colonialism is better than the old colonialism in so far as the dominant power enjoys only
indirect control and has to treat the people of the exploited territories with respect and keep them satisfied. The colonial
powers are mainly concerned with safeguarding their own interests without doing any harm to the national interest of
the dependent territories. However, if we delve deep into the matter we will find that there are many inherent defects in
the neo-colonialism. According to Nkrumah ”Neocolonialism is the worst form of imperialism because it operates on
the twin principles of ”power without responsibility” and ”exploitation without redress”. Under the old type of
colorjialism the imperial power was accountable for its actions, at least to the people of its own country, who acted as a
check on its inhuman and despotic actions. This is not possible under neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism greatly retards
the social and economic development of the local people. Since the rulers of the neo-colonial states are dependent
NEO-COLONIALISM AND RACIALISM . 183
for their existence not on the people of their territory but on the new colonist masters, they neglect the interest of the
people. This attitude also springs from the fact that they realise that the spread of education and advancement of the
people in other spheres can make the people challenge the colonial pattern of commerce and industry, which the rulers
want to preserve.
The financial aid and co-operation in the social and cultural spheres offered by the Neo-Colonialist Powers also
operates against the interest of the recipient country. The financial aid is nothing but a revolving credit, paid by the neo-
coionial master, passing through the neo-colonial states and
• returning to the neo-colonial master in the form of increased profits. While granting aid the vested interests of the
neo-colonial master country generally object to all attempts at raising the pricesof the raw materials to be obtained from
the ’neo-colanist territories’. Thev also oppose the establishment of those manufacturing industries which can compete
directly or indirectly with their exports to the territory. In short, under neo-colonialism the foreign capital is used for
the exploitation rather than the development of the less developed areas. This inevitably increases the gap between
the rich and the poor countries of the world. Similarly, the friendly co-operation is offered in’ education, cultural
and social spheres with a view to ”subvert the desirable patterns of indigenous progress to the imperialist objectives
of the financial monopolists.
The rise of neo-colqnialism has given rise to rivalry between great Powers and posed a threat to the world peace. Even
though a neo-colonist state may be very small and weak, its independent status gives it the freedom to change the neo-
colonist master. As a result the major powers try to woo it and . the territory becomes the target of cold war, and a
serious threat to world peace. The above discussion makes it amply clear that neo-colonialism is worse than the old
colonialism, in so far it provides to the neo-colonial powers .all the benefits-which they enjoyed under the old system
without entrusting them with any responsibility. The African and Asian countries which have mainly fallen prey 10
this type of colonialism are ever eager to’ free themselves from the clutches ot’.neo-colonial powers. No doubt, the task
is quite arduous one but it ran certainly be accomplished if these countries develop a sense of unity and fxtend full
support to the anti-colonial struggle against the imperialist powers. It is also essential that they must keep off from
the two blocs and pursue a policy of non-alignment. Above all it is very important that they should develop
ideological clarity among the anti-imperialist, anti-colonist, proliberation masses of the Afro-Asian continents, because
ultimately it is the people alone who make, maintain or break a system.
RACIALISM
fht- concept of ’Mc.’alism’ which has earned notoriety with reference to • the policy of discriiTiinjtion being
pursued in vaiious parts of the world . (specially South Africa1 in numerous spheres-social, economic, political, civil
and cultural-i*, primarily based on the colour of the skin and the race. According to Konald Segal the word’race’has
commonly come to mean a
184 * INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
division of mankind by colour, just as ’racism’ has increasingly come to mean the hostility that one man feels for
another because of his colour alone. ’
According to Ruth Benedict ”Racism is the new Calvinism which asserts that one group has the stigma of superiority
and the other has those of ’ inferiority.” According to a booklet{ssued by theU.N. Commission on Civil Rights,
’racism’ implies ”any attitude, action or institutional structure which subordinates a person because of his or her
colour.” But probably the most comprehensive and acceptable definition of Racialism has been provided by the
General Assembly in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It
defines Racialism thus: ”Racial discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based
on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
recognition, enjoyment or exercises, on an equal footing, of human rights-and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” It further asserts that ”Special measures taken for the
purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such
protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment-or exercise of human
rights and fundamental ’ freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided however that such measures do
not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate * rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be
continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.”’
The concept of racialism is not a modern innovation and has been in vogue since earliest times. For example, Aristotle
in the fifth century B.C. asserted that the people living in northern Europe were unfit to exercise power because they
lacked intelligence,, while the Greeks being geographically’ well-suited were fitted to rule. In the medieval period also
scholars expressed faith in racial theory and justified the enslavement of the indigenous Indians of the new worlri,
chiefly on the ground that they belonged to a different rare. Evpn thp assertion of the White races during the colonial
rule that they were destined by God to civilize the heathens.of Africa was essentially based on race and’held the
Africans as inferior on the ground that they belonged to a different race. In the nineteenth century the French writer
Joseph Arthur, Count de Gobineau, advocated racial theories and tried to show the superiority of the white races over
other races. He said, ”The black peoples of the earth were passionate, lyrical and artistic in temperament; the yellow
man represented utility, order and mediocrity, while the white man was the expression of reason and honour”.” In other
countries of Europe also scholars tried to demonstrate the superiority of Teuton or Aryan races. Their views were
particularly popular jn Germjny and U.S.A. As d result the ”prejudices based upon race...at times became fixed as a
part of a culture, it was embodied in the folklore, developed in literature and built into institutions and frequently it
persisted even after the circumstances had changed.” Forms of Racial Discrimination
Racial discrimination can assume various forms. In the political sphere
NEOCOLONIALISM AND RACIALISM
185
racial discrimination involves the domination of one group over another on the basis of race, colour, descent or ethnic
basis. In the economic sphere racial discrimination is employed as a means for maintaining Cheap and constant labour
force at the expense of human rights and fundamental freedoms of working classes. In the social sphere racial
discrimination means that the nondominant group suffers discrimination in housing, public accommodation, health and
hospital services, social security and insurance etc. Racial discrimination in the cultural sphere is indeed a serious
matter and assumes the form of ’cultural genocide’ committed with a view to destroy a particular cultural or
raciaTgroup. Less stringent forms of discrimination in cultural sphere can be curtailment of the use of schools, libraries,
museums, places of worship, •ultural institutions etc. by a particular group.
Sociologists and anthropologists have attributed racial discrimination o a number of socio-cultural factors such as the
increased urbanisation and Vnechanisation; the upward mobility of certain groups; increased emphasis on competence
and training; the scarcity of jobs and competition for these scarce jobs; the steadily rising population and its effect on
employment and housing; inability to develop internal standards resulting in tendency to depend inordinately on others;
and changes in the role of the family with concomitant changes in standards and morality.
Role of Colonialism in Promotion of Racialism
Colonialism also played an important Vole in the development of racial
prejudices. ”Though initially colonialism started as a means of. providing
European nations with cheap sources of material and captive market for goods,
but later on the colonial powers, in order to maintain their oppressive rule over
the colonial people asserted the superiority of their cultures. They put forth the
theory of’civilizing mission’ based on’the principle of superiority of European
culture and sought to replace the local culture by the western culture in the
! interest of the native people on the plea that they Were backward and hence
I unable to take care of themselves. They described th^ natives as ’the white.
man’s burden”. The coienial powers assumed full responsibility for the
| economic and political life of the country, monopolising professiona!, large-
i sralp rornmerri.U *r\d administrative activities, exploiting the agricultural and
other sources of land and remaining socially aloof. In order to maintain or
increase- the*; gain”,, the Ccsqnists advocated the idea that the others were
inferior and hence less deserving of life’s benefits. Thus Colonialism greatly
contributed to race prejudices and racial discrimination.
Racialism and Democracy
The principle of racialism is against the universally proclaimed derr>ocrjiiicpr’f!cip!tt thjt ”ai! human beingi are born
free and equal indignity and rights.” Poiicy or racialism Inevitably lead.*-to political, economic, 5«x:iai and cultural
inequalitie’i jrnong hum.-n ’•seings. W’Hat ss reaily serious is that this differen-.Utson between men is made no.’ an
the basis or ;he qualities o< the individual-menta! or phyvca! or hss capacities or nerits, bus on the basis of shw race
colour, descent ano national or ethnic origin. As one scholar has
observed ’Racial discrimination is the very negation of the principle of equality, and therefore an affront to
human dignity. It is a negation also the social nature of man, vyho can reach his fullest development only
through interaction with his fellows. Eradication of Racialism
As racial ism is contradictory to the principles of humanism and democracy, efforts has been made both at the national
as well as the international level to do away with it. The UN Charter affirmed it ”faith in fundamental human rights, in
the dignity and worth of the human person” and demonstrated deep and abiding concern for the various problems
relating to the question of .race, racism and racial discrimination. On 19th November 1946 the General Assembly
adopted a resolution asserting that ”It is the highest interests of humanity to put an immediate end to religious and so-
called racial persecution and discrimination” and called on ”the governments and responsible authorities to conform
both to the letter and to the sprit of the Charter of the United Nations and to take the most prompt and energetic step to
that end.”
In view of the growing racial prejudices in various countries on 7th December 1962 the General Assembly adopted a
resolution requesting the Economic and Social Council to ask the Commission on human Rights to prepare (a) a draft
declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; and (by a draft international convention on the
elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. In 1963 the General Assembly adopted U.N. Declaration on
Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, which affirmed that discrimination between human beings on
grounds of colour, race, ethnic origin etc. is an offence of human dignity, denial of Charter principles and violation of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Declaration was given practical shape and resulted in the adoption of the International Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial ’ Discrimination by the General Assembly on • 21 December 1965. This Convention
laid down certain norms for the guidance of the states to eradicate racial discrimination. The Convention defined racial
discrimination as ”any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or
ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an
equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other help of
public life.” : •
As regards the measures for the eradication of racial discrimination, the Convention recommended to the states to
pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all forms and
promoting understanding among all races. For the attainment of these objectives, the states were expected to undertake:
(a) not to engage in any act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions;
(b) not to sponsor, defender support racial discrimination by any person or «rganisation;
187
(c) to take effective measures to review and to amend, rescind or nullify the laws and regulations which have
the’effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;
(d) to prohibit and bring to an end racial discrimination by any persons, groups or organisations; and
(e) toencourageintegrationist, multi-racialorganisationsand movements and other means of eliminating barriers

between races and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen division.
The states undertook to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of racial segregation and apartheid in territories
under their jurisdiction. They also agreed to condemn all propaganda and organisations based on ideas or theories of
superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin. Again, the states undertook to assure to every
one within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies through competent national tribunals and other state
institutions against any act of racial discrimination, violative of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Finally, the states undertook to take immediate and effective measures, particularly in the field of teaching, education,
culture and information with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups.
The Convention also suggested the establishment of a Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and an
ad hoc Conciliation Commission for the implementation of the programme outlined in the Convention. The Committee
was to considerthe reports of legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures adopted by the states parties to the
Convention and to make suggestions and general recommendations. The ad hocConciliation Commission was to
provide its goods offices to the States parties in disptues regarding application of the Convention with a view to find an
amicable solution on the basis of respect for the Convention.
Most of the states acceded to this Convention and have adopted variety of measures to prevent and eliminate racial
discrimination. Some of the states have even incorporated certain provisions.
Thereafter also a number of conventions were adopted which laid emphasis on the elimination of Racial
Discrimination. Some of the prominent ones include the Declaration and the International Convention on Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted at Tehran in May 1968; General Assembly Resolution of 1969 entitled
Programme for Observance in 1971 of {he International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination;
the General Assembly Rasolution of 2 November 1973 which designated the ten-year period from 10 December 1973
onwards as the decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and called upon all states to work
towards the goal.
In November 1973 the General Assembly adopted the international Convention on Suppression and Punishment of the
Crime of Apartheid. This Convention, which came into force on 18 July 1976, provided for international
responsibility for the crime of apartheid and asserted that individual members of organisations #nd institutions
and” representatives of states shall be held responsible for the same. The same year the General Assembly
decided to designate the 10-year period beginning from 10 December 1973 as the Decade for Action to Combat
Racism and Racial Discrimination and called upon all states to work towards the goal.
In 1974 the General Assembly recommended the exclusion of South Africa from all international organisations and
conferences held under UN auspices so long it continued its policies of apartheid. In June 1976, the Security Council
strongly condemned South Africa for shooting the demonstrators in Soweto. Both General Assembly and Security
Council called on South African government to grant unconditional release of all persons imprisoned for having
opposed apartheid. On 4 November 1976, the Security Council imposed j mandatory arms embargo against South
Africa and called upon states to refrain rom any cooperation with. South Africa. It also setup a com/nittee to examine •
implementation of mandatory arms embargo against South Africa.
in December 1977 the General Assembly adopted a declaration against ipartheid in sports and called on states to take
appropriate action to cease porting contracts with any country practising apartheid, and to exclude or .xpei any such
country from international and regional sports bodies.
In 1978, a world conference was held at Geneva which adopted a programme of action for elimination of
discrimination.
In 1983 the Second World Conference to Combat Racism and. Racral Oiscrimination was held at Geneva. It found that
in spite of efforts of the international community during the decade, racism, racial discrimination and apartheid
continue unabated and have shown no sign of diminishing. It suggested a programme of action. The programme was
approved by the General •\ssemblyen 22 November 1983. The programme laid emphasis on education, ’caching and
training, dissemination of information, and role of mass media .n combating racism and racial discrimination, action by
non-governmental organisations and international co-operation.
It may be noted that most of the resolutions adopted and decisions taken by various organs of UN condemned racial
discrimination in ail forms and ried to arouse world public opinion against racism and racial discrimination. They
impressed on the governments to rescind discriminatory laws which ;ierpetuated racial discrimination and promised
more support to the people struggling for the realisation of right of self-determination and elimination of ail forms of
racial discrimination.
However despite these efforts racial policies continued to be followed in South Africa and there were growing incidents
of repression. Even the UN Secretary Genera! iPerez de Cueliar) observed in his report to the General Assembly ”!
need hardly reiterate my strongly held views on the abhorrent system of apartheid and the massive human tragedy
which has resulted from it. ! hope that even at this very late hour, steps can be taken and contacts established which
may avert the worst.” .
NEO-COLONIALISM AND RACIALISM
189
. The international community as well as the individual states stepped up efforts to bring about changes in the attitudes,
habits, customs and practices. The non-government organisations in various states also played an important role in
creating public opinion for ending racial discrimination. It was primarily due to the efforts of these non-governmental
organisations that the people of western countries compelled their governments to adopt restrictive measures against
Pretorial government in 1985. In view of growing public pressure even Reagan administration in USA was forced to
order limited economic sanctions against South Africa.
Despite these pressures the Government of South Africa continued to exclude the blacks, who formed 73 per cent of the
population in South Africa, from elections and deny them even basic human rights. This greatly agitated the non-
aligned nations and they adopted a resolution urging the UN Assembly to adopt a resolution declaring 1990-2000 as
International Decade for the Eradication of colonialism. They requested the Secretary-General to submit a report to the
44th session oi the General Assembly leading to the adoption of an action plan aimed at ushering in the 21st century a
world free from colonialism.
In view of the mounting.pressure from the international community, the rulers of South Africa were forced to take
sertain steps for the liquidation of Apartheid. On the one hand they released several political prisoners-like Nelson
Mandela and Ahmad Kathrada, who had been under detention for long, and lifted ban on organisations like ANC, PAC,
SACP etc., and on the other hand they repealed several apartheid laws. Some of the important Apartheid laws repealed
by the South African Government in 1991 include the Group Areas Act which segregated residential areas; the Land
Act which reserved 87 per cent of the country for five million whites; and Population Registration Act which defined
four main raced groups of South Africa and determined where they could live, ^»et education, work, marry and even be
buried. Further, negotiations were started with the African leaders for transfer of power fjom the minority white regime
to majority rule, and the process of demooratisation was set in motion. However, the internal bickerings amongst the
various sections of Africans greatly hampered the proce’ss. Despite this, President de Klerk ordered a referendum in
March 1992 and the White South Africans voted for 3 ’liberal’ ’one person one vote’ constitution. As a result of non-
recial elections held in South africa in April
1994, Nelson Mandela of ANC was elected as the first black President of South Africa, which marked the end, of white
minority rule after 342 years. This formally put an end to apartheid. . ,
’9c
16
Asian-African Resurgence
”When the history of the twentieth century is written, it will not be World War I or World War II, the discovery of
nuclear energy, or putting men into orbit, or even an exploration ot the moon thai is to he considered as the great event
of the century. The outstanding event of this century will be that two-thirds of the world’s people awakened to the fact
that a . better life was possible for them. If we are able in this century to abolish, as far as is now technically
practicable, poverty, illiteracy and chronic ill-health from the face of the world, the twentieth century, in which we
have alt lived will go down as the great century of all time.”
• •-•,. • --Hoffman
Emergence of Asia and Africa
One of the most outstanding developments in the post World War II period has been the emergence of the Asian and
African people from the prison cells of the colonial rule and the obscurity imposed by foreign domination. The
significance of this development will become clear if we remember that the majority of the people of these continents
were under foreign domination before World War II. These two continents felt the stirrings of nationalism only in the
beginning of the twentieth century, specially after the Japanese victory over Russia in 1904-05. This victory was
interpreted as a symbol of the rise of east. But the nationalist struggle in these countries gained momentum chiefly after
World War I. In the inter-war period some of the Afro-Asian countries carried on struggle for independence but could
notachievemuchsuccess.lt was only after the Second World War that a number of Asian and African countries gained
Independence. The progress was particularly remarkable during the decade 1950 and 1960. Commenting on the
significance of the freedom of Asian and African countries. Prof. Barraclough says ’Never before in the whole of
human history had so revolutionary a reversal occurred with such rapidity. The change in the position of the peoples
of’Asia and Africa ar\d in their relations with Europe was the surest sign of the advent of a new era.”
Most of the countries of Asia and Africa at the time oftheir independence were suffering from chronic problems of
poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and disease. To a large extent these problems were mainly the result oftheir long
exploitation by the colonial powers who directed their policies with the sole
NEC-COLONIALISM AMD RACIALISM __ ’ 191
objective of making maximum profits out of trade with these colonies. They took away all the important, raw materials
and dumped manufactured goods, which greatly retarded the economic and social progress of tfiese colonies. Above
all, this greatly demoralised the people of these countries and resulted in loss of self-confidence and self-reliance. ’
Though the states of Asia and Africa differed from each other, yet they possessed some common features. For example,
all of them had a history of western domination of varying duration and degree of severity. All of them were
underdeveloped and characterized by low standards of living, widespread illiteracy, mass disease etc. Their economies
were completely dependent on the production of agricultural commodities and raw materials. Most of the inhabitants of
these countries even lacked the basic amenities of life. In short, they were ’ill-fed, ill-housed, illiterate and ill.”
The Afro-Asian countries did not possess any factories, roads, railways and means of communication. People had a
high rate of illiteracy and there were hardly any facilities for higher education and learning these areas. A semblance of
banking service did exist in some of the countries which were created by the colonial powers to promote their own
trade interests. ”A? ;hese countries did not have any industries, their economies were purely agricultural. These were
geared to meet the demands of the colonial power and produced the raw materials and staple goods which were
required by the imperialist power. In short, these countries were highly backward in the economic as well as social
field.
The political freedom in these countries paved the way for two other revolutions viz., mastery of science and
technology for economic growth and effort to bring about social transformation of their societies. The people of Asia
and Africa felt that their political freedom shall be incomplete without progress in the social and the economic sphere.
Therefore, most of these countries soon after their liberation, embarked upon the path of economic reconstruction to
effect speedy development of their economies^ fn this task they were assisted by UN and other powers like U.S.A. and
U.S.5.R. They were given liberal aid for development, plans so that they may be able to transform their economies
at a rapid speed. As the leaders of these countries were keen to raise the living standards of their people at the earliest,
they accepted a id from all the sources without being dogmatic. Majority of the countries like India, Burma, Ceylon,
Guinea, Mali, Congo, Tanzania, U.A.R. etc. prepared their economic plans along socialistic lines, while others
preferred to follow the capitalist methods. It may be noted that as these countries did not possess sufficient capital to
undertake productive economic projects they had to largely depend on foreign capital and assistance. As the private
capitalists were reluctant to invest in these countries due to uncertain conditions, the capital carne chiefly through aid
from the governments and international bodies. Impact of Afro-Asian Resurgence on International. Relations
The Afro-Asian countries, whose number has consistently grown since World War II, have exerted great influence on
the international relations which can be studied under the following heads: - . ,
1. Change in the Nature of International Relations. In the first instance the emergence of large number of Afro-Asian
countries on the arena of world politics has effected a great change in the character and nature of international politics.
Till the end of Second World War the study of international relations mainly centred around the activities of the.
European powers which decided all the questions of war and peace in the world. In other words the entire politics
centred round the western states. With the emergence of the new countries of Asia and Africa, the small countries have
come to exercise profound influence on the course of international relations. In short, international relations are no
more confined to European nations but have assumed much wider character.
2. It gave a setback to Imperialism and Racialism: The Afro-Asian resurgence gave a serious setback to imperialism
and racialism. As the countries of Asia and Africa had been victims of imperialism and racialism during the coloniaf
rule, after their independence they became strong critics of the same and were determined to eliminate the same from
earth’s surface. Their independence by itself provided an impetus to the nationalist movements in different parts of the
world. Further the AfrorAsian countries extended open and full support to the people under colonial domination and
thus expedited the process of decolonisation. In the elimination of racialism Afro-Asian countries played a significant
role. Through their consistent efforts inside the UN^ as we’ll as outside, they succeeded in demolishing the contention
of the imperialist powers that racialism was essentially a domestic problem. They fuily utilised the forum of the United
Nations, the General Assembly in particular, to impress on the international community that racialism was an
international problem which posed a serious threat to the international peace. It was mainly due to the efforts of the
Afro-Asian group in the United Nations that the racialism in South Africa and Rhodesia etc. was debated and the
powers practising racialism were censored, in short, the Afro-Asian countries have been the chief force behind the
struggle against imperialism and racialism.
3. Gave serious setback to Colonial System: The emergence of Afro-Asian countries has given a serious blow to the
colonial system. Over 100 states have attained inriVpendfnce <;in<v 1945 and majority of them are in A<-ia and
Africa. After meir independence these countries extended, full support to She nationalist movements elsewhere and
succeeded, to a large degree, in getting them free from the colonial yoke .Even at present these states are fully backing
the struggle of the people of Namibia against South Africa, in short, the AfroAsian countries have exerted great
influence on the imperialist powers to stag?
a retreat.
The Afro-Asian’countries have aiso taken .1 lead in organising struggle against neo-colonialisrn. !t is mainly due to the
efforts of Afro-Asian countne.-. that the renunciation of unequal treaties and agreements und^r whicn the imperialist
powers enjoyed various kinds of privileges, the dismantling of the imperialist bases and withdrawal of foreign troops
e?c. from the nen-cokmia! countries had been made possible. !» fact the Arro-Asian countries art*
193
determined to defend their sovereign rights against the former colonial powers in particular and the imperialist world in
general.
In the economic sphere also the Afro-Asian countries have made a determined bid to escape exploitation at’the hands
of the imperialist powers and insisted on establishing economic relations in terms of equality. Inmost of the former
colonial countries the foreign property has been nationalised and determined bid has been made to acquire full control
over the natural resources of the country. This has gone a long way in ending the neo-colonial exploitation.
4. Democratisation of International Relations: With the emergence of Afro-Asian countries a change has also taken
place in the manner of conduct of foreign policy, which in turn has effected the nature of international relations. Till the
close of the Second World War the major foreign policy issues were decided by a small elitist group of rulers. But after
the emergence of new states people began to play an important role in the formulation of foreign policy and
international relations have assumed a democratic character. No ruler, howsoever powerful he may be, can afford to go
against the wishes of the people and the well cherished ideals of peace, justice, freedom, international organisation
etc. This point is fully proved by the point that even President Reagan of United States who had openly asserted that he
would not impose economic sanctions against South African Government, was obliged to apply these sanctions due to
pressure of public opinion.
5. Helped in Strengthening World Peace: The Afro-Asian countries have rendered great service to the cause of world
peace by adopting the path of nonalignment and keeping off from the power blocs. As most of the Afro-Asian
countries were economically backward they wanted to devote their full energy to quicker development of their
countries. This naturally demanded that they should keep out of the mad race for armaments and the cold war
prevailing in the post World War II period. Further, as they needed financial assistance for their development, it was
not desirable on their part to align themselves with one side or the other. On the other hand they wanted to get the best
of assistance from both the groups. The emergence of a strong non-aligned group went a long way in reducing
tensions between the two superpowers and reducing the gravity of cold war. The best justification for keeping off from
power blocs was provided by Pandit Nehru of India thus: ”If we are camp followers of Russia or America or any
other country of Europe, it is, ’if I may say so, not very creditable to our dignity, our new independence, our new
freedom, our new spirit and new self-reliance.”
The Afro-Asian countries contributed to world peace and only by keeping out of the two power blocs but also by
avoiding war if possible and keeping out of all wars except those undertaken in self-defence; by opposing military pacts
because these led to insecurity; and through collective action and in right direction.
6. Prominent Role at the UN: The Afro-Asian countries, due to their numerical strength, have been able to play a
prominent, rather dominant role in the United Nations. No doubt, in the beginning the Afro-Asian countries
were not able to exert much influence on the decisions of the United Nations but with the passage of time
and growing cohesion of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces they emerged as a potent force and
were able to exert much influence on the political and economic issues. Both the Powers, aware of the
voting strength of the Afro-Asian countries, have been trying to woo them because they cannot dare to
easily brush aside their views. It may, however, be noted that the process of increasing participation of
these countries in the . international affairs has not been all smooth and the former colonial and imperialist
powers have tried to undermine the process through the ruling elites in these countries. But despite these
hurdles most of the Afro-Asian countries, because of their experience in the international sphere,,
developed new confidence and have been able to safeguard their national interests with effectiveness.
The growing role of the Afro-Asian countries at the United Nations and other international forums has met with severe
criticism at the hands of imperialist powers. The western countries have often complained that the developing
countries are dominating the United Nations by virtue of their sheer physical majority. According to Prof. Vernon
Mckay this has complicated the « international relations. He says ”It creates not only substantive problems but
organisation difficulties for all the foreign offices of the world. It brings forth a large .group of untrained and
inexperienced diplomats dealing , with unfamiliar tasks.” However, it is not possible to agree with this criticism
because the Afro-Asian countries have not complicated the international relations, rather they have straightened the
same. It is a different matter that the western powers have not beenabletoreconcilewiththeroleofdiminishing
importance. In the past some of the Afro-Asian diplomats might have behaved in an inexperienced manner and
even showed some sort of dependence on their senior partners, but now they have acquired sufficient experience
in the international sphere and do not any more suffer from lack of confidence and psychology of dependence. They
have been able to staff their diplomatic services with people who are capable of safeguarding their national interests.
7. Increased the Importance of United Nations: As most of the Afro-Asian countries were economically and militarily
no match for the big powers they tried to place greater reliance on the United Nations and.other international agencies
for the solution of various political, economic and social problems. They have consistently supported UN intervention
in the various political issues to ensure that the world peace was notdisturbed. In the socio-economic fields too they
have insisted on greater role for the United Nations and its agencies. It was mainly due to the insistence of the Afro-
Asian countries that United Nations set up Special Fund and launched various Technical Aid Programmes in the
various underdeveloped countries with a view to expedite the development of the economies of these countries. By
repeatedlv expressing their faith and loyalty in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
these states have succeeded in creating a very favourable climate in favour of the world body. In view of this even the
superpowers have not been able to bypass the UN and have extended full support to it. In short, it will ’
ASIAN - AFRICAN RESURGENCE
195
not be wrong to say that the United Nations has come to occupy a prominent position chiefly because of the
Afro-Asian countries.
8. Significant Role hi the Creation of New International Economic Order. Ever since their independence
the Afro-Asian countries have’been insisting on the regulation of economic relations among various nations
on terms of equality and have been demanding a say in the extermination of the international commercial
monetary and financial policies which effect their interests. But, the imperialist powers were not willing to
concede this demand and continued to take important decisions in these matters without consulting them.
However, with the increase in the strength of the non-aligned countries, they have come to exert significant
influence. In April-May, 1974 the UN General Assembly, at the initiative of the non-aligned countries,
adopted a Declaration regarding the establishment of a New International Economic Order and a
Programme of Action on the establishment of a New International Economic Order. It was insisted in the
declaration that the economic relations amongst the states should Debased on the principle of
interdependence rather than unequal exchange. It emphasised that the rich and developed countries were
obliged to increase and facilitate the flow of resources to the less developed countries. It was in their
own interest to encourage the promotion of growth and development of the poor countries in order to
expand their markets. Further progress in this direction was made at the UNCTAD IV meeting at Nairobi
in May, 1976 when a programme of global action was adopted to improve market structure in
international trade in commodities of interest to the developing countries. Though the goal of New
International Economic Order has not been fully achieved as yet, it certainly is an important step in the
direction of regulating the international economic relations on the basis of equal distribution of the global
resources.
The above discussion clearly establishes that the resurgence of Afro-Asian countries has left a deep impact
on international relations. Hoffman has beautifully summed up the significance of the resurgence of Asia-
African Countries thus: ”When the history of the twentieth century is written, it will not be World War I or
World War II, the discovery of nuclear energy, or putting men into orbit, or even an exploration of the
moon that is going to be considered as the great event of the century. The outstanding event of this century
will be that two-thirds of the world’s people awakened to the fact thai a better life was possible for them. If
we are able in this century to abolish, as far as is now technically practicable poverty, illiteracy and chronic
ill-health from the ’surface of the world of the twentieth century, in which we have all lived will go down
as the great century of all times.” ’ .
196
THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER
197
”•;..’ • •• : : 17
The Present International Economic Order and Quest for
New International Economic Order
”No international order can be considered lust, if co-peration with the aim to raise the’poorest of the world to a decent
standard of living is not one of its basic principles”. .
-Henry Kissinger
The Present International Economic Order was evolved during the Second
’World War and the years thereafter. This order was quite different from the
economic order found in the nineteenth or early twentieth century. These
changes became necessary on account of the revolutionary changes which had
taken place in the field of technology and communication. The emergence of
the multinational corporations and appearance of a number of independent
- states on the arena of international field also necessitated these changes.
According to Dr. Kissinger the present international economic order is based on four principles (i) open and expanding
trade; (ii) free movement of investment capital and technology; (in) readily available supplies of raw material; and (iv)
international cooperation.
The economic system which emerged in the post World War II period was based on confrontation between two
superpowers. In the East the Soviet Union imposed a Communist international economic system based on the principle
of socialist commonwealth. The’members of the socialist commonwealth were economically isolated from the West
and became dependent on the Soviet Union. In the West an economic system based on liberal principles of free trade
and free capital movements was created with USA occupying a dominant position in the system. The Third World
countries in the main continued to be part of the western economic system on account of old links with the imperial
powers. Thus the economic system which emerged in the post World War II period consisted of three sub-systems.
Spero has designated these three subsystems as (i) the Western system of Interdependence; (ii) the North-South System
of dependence; and (in) the East-West System of Independence. Spero admits that this separation of the three systems
is artificial since interaction* and problems overlap all systems in the-real world. But since the problems and processes
of the sub-systems differ, it shall be desirable to know about these
• sub-systems in some details.
1. Western System: The Western system includes developed market y economies of North America, Western Europe
and japan. The units of this ’’ system are highly developed capitalist countries and are involved in great
• mutual economic interaction. This increased interaction has been largely due tothe U.S. dollars, the
internationalisation ofbanking, monetary consequences
’lr of multinational corporations and creation of Eurocurrency and Eurobond markets. As a result of this increasing
interaction the events in one country have direct impact on other members of the system. Thus the monetary, trade and
i investment policy in one country has a direct impact on the monetary, trade and
• investment policies of other countries in the systems.
i Though the interdependence of the member states of the system has
contributed to their economic prosperity, it has also given rise to a number of critical political problems. In the first
instance, the growing interdependence
• of the members of one system has led to increased number of disturbances with ’i:. which the decision makers have
to cope. Quite often while formulating their ;. domestic economic policy, these leaders guided by the disturbances
arising out
of conditions obtaining in other countries of the system. This poses a serious ’ problem for the states who desire to
control their own economies and has contributed to the weakening of the national management of economies.
^2. The North-South System: The second sub-system of the present economic system is North-South system which is
concerned with relationship between the developed market.economies and the less developed economies of countries of
Africa, Asia and Latin America. Unlike the Western system which
! is composed of almost equal factors, this system is characterised by complete inequality and disparity. There are vast
differences in per capita gross national income of the various units. There is also great difference in the per capita
:, average gross national product. As a result the gap between the rich and the poor countries is further widening.
’’ A major feature of this system is growing dependence of the South on
North, which naturally enables the latterto influence the events in the Southern ’ countries. The Southern countries
are dependent on the North for a number of ’, things. Firstly, they are greatly dependent upon them for trade because
3 large percentage of their gross national products come from trade with the North. The dependence of the South on
North for trade is an account of their small interest market, concentration of exports to a single or a small number of
primary products; and vulnerability to the demand conditions of a single market. \
1 Secondly, the countries of South are dependent on North for investments due |. to lack of adequate resources. In
most of the countries of South the foreign investments have been made in important sectors of production, raw material
production, export industries and dynamic sectors of economy. j. Thirdly, the cougtries of South are also dependent
on the North for
; money. Often th£ currency of dependent countries of South are linked with the ; currencies of dominant Northern
country when enables the latter to influence i the internal as well as the external monetary policy of these countries.
The } advanced countries influence the domestic and foreign policy of the countries
of South by providing them assistance to overcome the balance of payments problems.. Even when such
assistance is provided through International Monetary Funds the donors are able to exercise considerable
influence in this regard. Fourthly, aid is also used as an instrument by the North to manage and manipulate
decisions from outside. Aid also contributes to dominance in the fields of trade and investments.
In addition to the above factors which clearly demonstrate the dominance of North over South, exclusion of the
countries of South from the major economic institutions of the North-the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) further demonstrates their inferior position , vis a vis countries of North. In the absence of any share in the
decision-making process, the underdeveloped countries of the South have expressed their dissatisfaction with the
system and demanded the creation of a New-International Economic Order. Another argument Advanced for doing
away the existing system is that it does not provide the countries of South a share in the resources and other benefits
and aims at perpetuating South’s
dependent status.
3. East-West System. The third sub-system is the East-West system. This sub-system is characterised by independence
in so far as there is very little interference amongst the partners and consequently very little impact on each other. The
cold war of the post World War II period also contributed to the isolation of these systems from each other. The
Western countries led by USA evolved their own political institutions like IMF, IBRD, GATT etc. in which the East
did not take part. On the other hand the East followed a policy of economic and political isolation within the socialist
common-wealth. However, in recent years these two institutions are not working in isolation and there has been a
growing economic interaction between the two. Main features of the Present Economic Order
After briefly examining the various sub-systems of the present economic system, it shall be desirable to have an idea
about its main features. The main features of the present economic order are as follows:
1. It is based on East-West Divisions and is characterised by confrontation of the rich and the poor.
2. It is protective of the interests of the north and is governed by economic interactions based on the principle of
non-discriminatory liberal trade. ’ >
j 3. It is nationalist and irrational.
4. It is based on market place economy. Actually the trade is so regulated that the developed countries gain access to
markets of developing countries on favourable terms.
5. U involves inflow of foreign private capital from the developed countries to the developing countries and
consequent increase in the activities of multinational corporations.
THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER 199
Critical Evaluation of the Present System
According to the Western scholars the present economic system has served its purpose and greatly contributed to the
growth of gross world product during the past three years. However, the critics of the present system while conceding
that it has contributed to the growth of gross world product contend that it has led to uneven distribution of the income
between states and within countries. According to one estimate, the poor groups in the poor nations which constitute
more than one-third of world’s population have an income of 100 dollars per capita, while the rich groups of the poor
countries, which constitute one quarter of humanity, have approximately 300 dollars per capita. On the other hand the
poor groups in the rich nations, which constitute another quarter of humanity, have an income of 850 dollars per capita,
while the rich groups of the rich nations of the world, which constitute only 16. per cent of world population, have an
average income of 3000 dollars per capita. In simple words, the system has led to uneven distribution of income
between states and within Countries. Further, the present system is bringing about destruction of our environment and
the unlimited exploitation indulged by it is bound to result in scarcity of resources.
Secondly, the present system is not essentially based on free enterprise and free markets, because it is guided and
manipulated in many respects. In actual practice in place of open and expanding trade, we see a tariff system with low
tariffs for raw materials and high tariff for industrial products. This has blocked the industrialisation of the poor
countries.
The flow of capital and the credit system is also dominated by United States, European countries and the oil producing
countries. There is no free flow of technology and the system of regulating the ownership of patents, which restricts the
use of those patents to rich countries.
Finally, the notion of readily available raw materials is also virtually nonexistent because we are confronted with the
threat of scarcity.
Thus wc(find that the present international economic system is not as free j as is often claimed. The present system is
largely guided and manipulated for the benefit of rich countries. The present system has operated to the benefit of
developed countries in many ways.
(i) Firstly, as the present system operates on the principle of free trade, this has tended to benefit the developed
nations. Often the developed , ••• nations charge very high prices for their finished and consumable
. goods, and pay very low prices for the raw material exported by the developing countries. This has resulted in high
imbalance in trade between the developed and developing countries. (/’() Secondly, as most of the developing countries
are dependent on the developed countries for capital and aid, they have increasingly come to look to them. Often the
developed countries are able to swallow back the aid provided to developing countries in the shape of trade deficits and
gap of balance of payments. Even the International Monetary Fund has tended to promote the interests of the rich
countries. •
200
(in) International institutions tike International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which have been created to
help the developing countries have also operated in the interest of western countries. Often the developing countries are
unable to repay the loans granted to them by the IBRD due to their low rate of growth. Sometimes they are not able to
repay even the interest which makes them even more dependent on the developed countries.
(iv) The trade of most of the developed countries is regulated under ’ . the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff
which has tended to be
prctectionist and seeks to protect the interests of the member nations’ unmindful of the interests of the Third World
countries, (v) The developed countries have created certain preferential trade blocks like EEC, COMECON etc.
which afford protection to the members at home and assure them large overseas markets without competition from the
Third World countries.
If we are genuinely interested in finding a solution to the problem of an equitable division of property, of scarcity of
natural resources and of depletion of the environment, the only solution lies in the New International Economic Order,
which has been discussed in subsequent pages.
NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER
There has been a yawning gap between the developed and developing countries. Of the estimated 4,000 million people
inhabiting the world 1,200 million live in countries where per capita GNP is less than $ 2,000 a year. At the other end,
a minority of around 600 million live in countries where per : capita GNP ranges between $ 2,000 to 5,600. Another
12,000 million live in countries where per capita GNP levels range between $ 200 to 2,000. The enormity of the gap is
further illustrated by the fact that in South Asia alone half of the population is below a stringently drawn poverty line.
The less Developed Countries (LDCs) have been making persistent demands for introducing fundamental reforms in
the economic, commercial and financial relationships between themselves and the developed countries.
The developing countries raised the question of establishing New * International Economic Order (NltO) and
demanded restructuring ot „, international economic relations on just, democratic principles on the basis of full
equality. They asserted their determination to dispose freely their own national resources, in view of the persistent
demand from the developing countries for restructuring of the economic system in 1973 the UN General Assembly
adopted Resolution No. 3171 which acknowledged the right of the states to nationalise foreign property and to
determine the forms and size of compensation. In 1974 the General Assembly reaffirmed the right of each state to
regulate and control the activities of the Transnational Corporations in its territory and adopted the Charter of
Economic Rights and Duties of the States. •
On 1 May 1974 the General Assembly in the face of opposition from United States and other western powers adopted
the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order by an overwhelming
: THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL FCONOMIC ORDER ’201
majority. The Declaration stipulated the principles on which the international economic relations ’should be based. The
main principles emphasised by the declaration were sovereign equality of states, their territorial integrity,
noninterference in the internal affairs, equal participation of all the states in the solution of the world economic
problems, the right to adopt an economic system of their own choice, inalienable and permanent sovereignty of each
state over their natural resources and all economic activities, including the ? right of states, peoples and territories
under foreign domination to reimbursement and full compensation for the exploitation, depletion and damage caused to
their natural and other resources etc. The Declaration laid down a soli^j international legal basis for establishment’of
truly equal international economic relations, meeting the interests of all states and people. The Assembly also
• adopted a Programme of Action which outlined specific steps for the implementation of the Declaration. In
1975 the General Assembly a.tits7th Special Session in the course of discussion on ’Development and International
Economic Cooperation’ reiterated the demand for the acceleration of the implementation of the decisions of the
General Assembly taken at the earlier session. Thus the General Assembly in the 6th and the 7th Special Session
accepted the need of restructuring of the international economic relations on ’[ democratic basis. However, it failed to
take any concrete measures for the implementation of these decisions due to’obstructions posed by USA and other I:
western powers. The year 1976 was marked by UNCTAD IV holding meeting :. in Nairobi (Kenya) in the month of
May and beginning of the deliberations v of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation also known as
North-South Conference meeting in Paris originally schaduled to end in December 1976 but reconvened for a final
session at the end of May 1977.
The call for New International Economic Order is based on the assumption that the prevalent international order
perpetuates and aggravates international inequalities and that new relationship of interdependence should replace the
older patterns of dependence and unequal exchange. It is argued by the advocates of New International Economic
Order that the rich developed countries are morally obliged to increase and facilitate the flow of . resources to less
developed countries and that it is in their self-interest to encourage the promotion of growth and development of the
poor countries in order to expand their markets.
The less developed countries hold the view that the Developed
- Countries must recognise the growing power of the commodity producers
as evident from the success of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) in raising oil prices, and accept that the locus of power has inclined in
their favour.
The spirit of the New International Economic Order is envisaged in ; the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of
States adopted by the UN 27th General Session on December 12, 1974, asserting its main objectives:
”The achievements of more rational and equitable international
: economic relations and the encouragement of structural changes in the world
-economy,’the creation-of conditions which permit the further expansion of
^
202
203
trad* and intensification of economic co-operation among all nations; the strengthening of the economic independence
of developing countries, the establishment and promotion of international economic relations taking into account the
agreed differences in development of the developing countries and their specific needs.’
The New International Economic Order embodies exhaustive and ambitious proposals. The main objective is no less
than the creation of a new structure of economic relationships, warranting fundamental changes in a-large number of
related fields-commodity trade, market access and preference, aid flows, the activities ot multinational corporations, the
international monetary system, the restructuring of international institutions, the transfer of technology etc.
Coals and Means -
New International Economic Order deals both with goals and means. The goals which are rather more evident from all
the UN Conference held on this issue, lay emphasis on the desire for a more just distribution of world economic
resources among the countries-rich as well as poor.
(/) In the wake of the oil crisis in 1973, the OPEC countries with a little below 300 million people have been able to
raise their incomes sharply. The rest of the poor countries with about five times people have rather been piaced in more
precarious position. The oil crisis helped only a handful of countrjes-some of whom were Jlready rich-whereas the vast
majority lost by it. The poor remain-poor. The ”25 poorest countries” are mentioned in world forums btJt.no practical
action has so far been initiated to help these nations. Besides the need of making NIEO’s benefits available to the
poorest states has not been given serious thought. The developed countries are putting up firm resistance against it.’
Another reason is that the less developed countries have already suffered so much at the hands of superpowers that
these states now stand inflexibly on the principle of sovereignty and do not allow any foreign country or the UN to
interfere in their internal affairs.
(//) Mini-Income Target. The New International Economic Order sets forth another goal to create a material minimal
standard of living, a mini-income for those who are facing harsh economic realities. Its purpose is to persuade the ncii
countries lo agree to various reforms in llie international economy. As owing to various reasons, the principle of
sovereignty will play a decisive role in relation to UN also in the near future, such a goal should practically imply that
the rich countries accepted such reforms within NIEO which would be instrumentalin creating a mini-income for the
poorest countries and that their aid for development would be channelled to poorest countries and in particular to those
countries which carry out a conscious policy of levelling and justice inside their own borders.
Even Her»ry Kissinger, then US Secretary of State, in a speech to the Seventh Extraordinary General Assembly of the
UN said, NIEO. advocated the principle of a minimum standard ot living. He opined that international cooperation
must be directed to the problems of creating a secure basic economic security for all and this ”challenge is above
ideologies and block
.politics. No international order can be considered just if co-o’peration with the aim to raise the poorest of the world to
a decent standard of living is riot one of the basic principles.’ The endeavour to create a ’mini income’ for all people
irrespective of which country they hail from, would become the leading guidelines, the foremost goal is the work to
create New Intematioal Economic Order.
(Hi) Parts and the Whole. There are three parts of entity embodying NIEO. The first is to the extent to which the
developing countries can force the rich countries to a more just distribution of world income than the one we have
today. For instance, the price policy of the OPEC cartel, which is one stroke was able to redistribute about a couple of
per cents of world income from the rich to the oil producing countries. Several raw material countries are dreaming
about how by acting in a similar manner, they could form the cartles also for other raw materials and force the
developed countries to pay many a times higher than that the importers pay now.
The second factor is that of morality that the rich should share their wealth with less developed countries.
The third and most important motive behind the NIEO is of a materially more concrete nature. It emphasises that it is in
the common interest of developing and industrial countries alike to elaborate a NIEO, for example, both sides can have
a common interest in a reduction of the fluctuation of prices of raw materials and therefore accept certain stabilisation
agreements, if the governments in rich countries could come to find that it would be in the interest of the large
consumer groups to import cheaper goods from the developing countries, although it could hit some home industries
and its workers whose problems would have to be solved in another way-through labour market policies.
These three parts-the threat, the morals, and the common interests, can be said to be the main parts in the entity called
NIEO. However, the entity is greater than and different from the parts comprising it.
The Means . - , , .
The means for realising the NIEO are basically instruments of economic policies which can be mutually devised by the
developed countries and less developed countries. The NIEO can be realised through international trade. The LDCs
want better financial possibilities to develop their economies. They want to have a greater inflow of one of the most
dynamic development factorsscience and technology-and at the same time these countries opt forexercising control
over its composition. The developing countries aspire for acquiring help as well as industrialisation and development in
agricultural sector. Besides, these countries want a greater formal as well as real power in the decisive institutions
which govern the international economic development, especially-the entire UN system. The prominent means through
which NIEO can be realised are explained below:
(a) Foreign Trade : The.major demands of the LDCs in respect of foreign trade are they want higher prices on their
export goods, some sort of guarantee
204
of a similar development for export and import prices and better possibilities for facilitating admission to the markets of
the rich countries.
The case of export cartel of the OPEC countries, with a four-fold doubling of the oil prices, has provided an impetus to
the developing countries. It has motivated the raw material exporting countries to search out the possibilities of creating
other carte’s for raw materials between the developing countries or if this does ’not work out, at least some sort of
international raw material agreements which should provide the developed countries good prices and stability in their
countries.
There are possibilities that effective cartels might perhaps be formed in the bauxite or copper production on the model
of oil cartels. But it is doubtful if cartel method would be successful. The case of oil export is different. Even prior to
the oil crisis, the oil export from the oil producing countries was about 50 per cent larger than the sum of the five next
most important export commodities of the less developed countries-copper, coffee, sugar, cotton and natural rubber.
Currently, the oil export from the developing countries is almost exceeding the sum of all other export from them.
Another factor disfavouring cartel system is that it redistributes the profits from trade in an unsystematic manner. This
system helps only rich countries whereas the countries like India and Bangladesh are losers. Moreover, developing
countries are not the only countries which export raw materials. The United States, the Soviet Union and a host of other
developed countries are more benefited from cartel system than the developing countries.
There are proposals to create raw material agreements between the rich and developing countries. The past, experience
reflects the unsuccessful mislayer of such attempts. Both rich and poor countries share a common interest in a certain
stability in price development and perhaps some practical results can be worked put in this direction. The expectations
that such stabilisation agreements at the same time should envisage a price poUcy which severely redistributes gains
from rich to poor countries, cannot be”particularly high. The endeavours to relate import and export price development
for the less developed countries with the help of indexing appear to be too complicated to yield quicker results.
Better recourse for the developing countries is open to their own markets in the developed countries for exporting their
products. The developed countries can provide protection to the interest of less developed countries. Mutually agreed
norms can be worked out^ with a view to distribute the burden justly. - . .
(b) Development Aid: It is widely argued that the rich countries should contribute one per cent of their tot.il production
to the developing countries. The poor countries should share the development expertise of the rich countries.
Development aid is a powerful means to realise the objectives of NIEO quicker and sooner.
Another way through which developed countries can help the LDCs is the writing-off of old debts or putting a
moratorium over it. The poor countries
205
which are mostly indebted too, should in this way get an extra assistance, which would be valuable. Thistype of
measure can easily be carried through politically in the rich countries than development and to the same tune.
(c) Science and Technology: The developing countries require and in their scientific and technological development,
technical assistance provides gains and savings which can further be invested in economic development.
However, scientific and technological know-how is precisely not under the direct control of the states but under the
control of multinational enterprises. These transnational corporations do not use science and technology in the
interest of developing countries but more in their monopolistic interests. A study conducted by the UNCTAD reveals
that of all patents in the world, about six per cent are owned by the less developed countries. Other about 84 per cent is
owned by the multinational corporations operating in the developing countries. And of these only 5 per cent is used
in production. The transnational enterprises are there to thwart the efforts of others from starting production of the
goods patented that is a protection against competition. In reality, the patents of the multinational corporations
effectively discourage all indigenous national efforts in the developing countries to develop their productivity with
the help of rnodern technology. ’
The Soviet Union and Japan have made considerable development by copying and imitating foreign’techniques, for
realising the objectives of NIEO, it is necessary that developing countries should scrap the present patent svstem and
work out norms authorising the developing countries with rights to produce any techn ique wh ich they are capable of
producing. It has to be ensured that such a system of rules is not exploited by the Multinational Corporations.
(d) Industry and Agriculture: Much has been said in the domain of industry and agriculture in the international
forums. No new special proposals have come forward in regard to NIEO. It is well known that developing countries
want to raise their degree of industrialisation. The process of industrialisation cannot be had in isolation. This
process entails the involvement of industrialised countries. It is not clear how far these industrialised countries are
willing to help and co-operate with the developing countries. The developing countries which share seven per cent
of industrial production, during the recent session of the General Assembly of the UN, wanted to establish a
principle that they (developing countries) should be entitled to ”a larger percentual share of world industrial
production”. This demand of developing countries was strongly opposed by the representatives of the European
Community and Japan. Developed countries were willing to, accept only that the developing countries are entitled
to a ’larger industrial production.”
Agriculture is another realm where developed countries are reluctant to ccxjperate with the developing countries. The
United States has the greatest export surplus which can be used for help in starvation or disaster. This can perhaps help
in feeding the million-, in the poorest countries. But inside the United States, there are lobbies which hold the view that
food assistance to deve^>ping countries helps in augmenting population ”uncontrollably,”
206 .
207
that America cannot alone finance the food deficit of the developing countries. A section in America is of view that the
Soviet Union can purchase the whole surplus and that food can be used as a weapon like oil. However, the developed
countries can afford to share their food surplus with the poor countries.
(e) Share in Decision-making: The New York Times, in a leading article in May 1975 about how to save UNO, wrote,
”The reason why the UN Genera I Assembly does not function now is that countries with 10 per cent of world
population and 5 per cent of its production can marshal as two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. Half of this
number can stop Soviet-American proposal and have done it.”’The developing countries have thus great power in the
UN General Assembly: But in General Assembly no real decisions are taken. It adopts only resolutions and principles
which cannot force others to act on it. However, the powerful bodies where decisions are taken and can be enforced are
the Security Council of the UN, the World Bank and Other important economic organisations. The developing
countries have little or no power in these important world bodies. These are dominated by the developed countries.
Fresh Resolution by U.N. General Assembly
In view of the growing demand from the less developed countries the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in
1979, which has been described as a watershed in the struggle of developing countries for the creation of New
International Economic Order. The resolution emphasised the need of global talks within the framework of the UN on
energy, raw materials, trade development, currency and financial questions. It was expected that the discussion on these
subjects should lead the world towards a new economic ’ order. But in view of opposition, of United States to hold
discussions for the creation of NIEO within the framework of the United Nations, it was decided to hold talks outside
the forum of the United Nations. This resulted in theCancun Summit Meeting in October 1.981. In fact the idea of
holding such a summit meeting was mooted by the Independent Commission on International Development Issues
headed by Willy Brandt, the Ex-Chancellor of Germany. The Commission had suggested that while detailed
negotiations between the two sides should take place in a UN framework, the ground for this should be laid by north-
south summit of manageable size.
In the meanwhile in 1980 the General Assembly noted at its meeting that very limited progress had been made towards
the implementation of the 1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. It, therefore, passed a resolution re-
affirming the Charter and emphasised the need of working towards a new international economic order. The-resolution
also called for an indepth review of the implementation of the Charter at the 36th session of the General Assembly in
1981.
Cancun summit and New International Economic order
At the Cancum Summit of 1981 the issue of establishment of NIEO again came for consideration. President Reagan
made it amply clear that USA and
other Western powers would take part in negotiations for co-operation for development only if the existing institutions
were supported and the developing countries participated and cooperated with these institutions. On the other hand the
representatives of the developing countries insisted that the ultimate authority over global negotiations must be placed
in the hands of the United Nations.
Commonwealth Heads and Nieo
In 1981 the Commonwealth Heads of Governments in their meeting at Melbourne recommended the constitution of a
group to review the issue of North-South Dialogue. The group was constituted on 2 February 1982 under the
Charimanship of B, Akporode Clark of Nigeria and contained representatives of Zimbabwe, U.K., Australia, Sri Lanka,
Singapore, Jamaica, Guyana and India. The group was asked to review the negotiating process between the developed
and developing countries; to examine the principal obstacles which had to-date limited success in these negotiations; to
identify to what extent these obstacles were the result of shortopmings in negotiating process and to suggest
improvements which would reduce the obstacles to the negotiating process or problems of institutional arrangement.
The group submitte’d its report entitled The North-South Dialogue: Making it Work on 27 August 1982 to Ramphal,
the Commonwealth Secretary General.
In early December, 1981 the representatives of the developing countries at the United Nations drafted a resolution for
the General Assembly proposing North-South negotiations on restructuring the international economy. However, the
United States Government objected to this resolution on the plea that it posed a threat to the Independence of
established economic institutions like World Bank and IMF. Consequently, the resolution was not taken up for debate.
In February, 1983 the Brandt Commission’published its second report entitled ”Common Crisis-North: Co-operation
for World Recovery”, in which the Commission proposed a series of financial measures to assist the resolution of the
current balance of payments debts and banking crises and to help promote recovery in developing and industriaf
countries.
South-South Meet or New Delhi Consultations
The origin of the South-South dialogue lies in the failure of the NorthSputh dialogue. As the North did not respond
favourably to the demands of the South for reduction in tariff ’ liberalisation, international commodity agreements to
stabilise prices, official aid at concessional rates, and reforms in the international monetary system, the countries ofthe
South were convinced that there was no common ground between North and South. The tough, stand of the United
States further confirmed this conviction. Therefore, with a view to make the international co-operation more
efficacious, they decided to concentrate on following nine points; (11 Agreement” on the immediate launching of
global negotiations; (2) Increasing food production in developing countries; (3) Reversing of the present disturbing
trend in the flow of assistance
¥
209
208
from the developed to the developing countries; (4) Strengthening ofmultilateral co-operation; (5) Devising
mechanisms to finance the development of energy resources in developing countries; (6) Speedy adoption and
implementation of schemes to lighten the financial burden of increased oil prices and to ensure supplies of aid to
developing countries; (7) Provision of financial support for balance of payments problems in the transitional stage of
oil importing developing countries; (8) Reversing protectionist trends; and (9) Development of solidarity and collect
self-reliance of developing countries to reduce their vulnerability to pressures from and events in affluent countries.
The deliberations, however, showed that the member states were sharply divided and failed to reach any consensus.
Differences particularly existed over three facets of the US position. So far the U.S.A., or for that matter, the countries
of North had insisted on three conditions, vi^:., (i) there should be a preliminary meet in any of these countries to
discuss North-South issues before the matter was taken up at the United Nations; (ii) the global negotiations should not
cover the composition, role and functions of the three institutions (the Bank, the IMF and GAIT); (in) any resolution
adopted by the United Nations on North-South will not be binding on the member countries. At the end of the South-
South Meet at New Delhi, a hope was expressed- that the exchange of view at New Delhi, would enable the group of
77* to discuss and negotiate effectively with the industrialised countries to come to an agreement on the procedure and
frame of global negotiations. It was further asserted that the Group of 77, while being firm in approach on matters of
principles and substance, should be flexible on the strategy and avoid getting bogged down in details and technicalities.
It was insisted that a concerted strategy should be adopted on these negotiations in the United Nations. ’ •
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at New Delhi, 1983
The problem of New International Economic Order received the attention of the heads of governments of
Commonwealth countries at its meeting in November, 1983 and it adopted a Statement an Economic Action, which
inter alia emphasised ”We recognize that there are some differences concerning the nature and scale of the reforms and
adaptations required in the international economic system ... We believe that the situation calls for a comprehensive
review of the international monetary, financial and relevant trade issues. An immediate process of preparatory
consultations is needed to identify areas of agreement, potential agreement and areas requiring further consideration.
All the countries affected must be directly involved in the discussions and decision-making. There is a widespread
belief among us that it will be necessary to discuss these issues at an international conference with universal
participation. The preparatory process could result in consensus on covering such a conference.” The meet asserted that
Commonwealth can play useful role in stimulating a more responsive dialogue and decide to establish a
Commonwealth Consultative Group for the purpose of promoting a consensus
Actually at present this group consists of I 20 States, although the original name of group of 77 is still used for il.
on the issue covered by the above statement.
Despite all these efforts North-South dialogue could not make much progress and the developed countries showed no
intention to give due representation to the developing countries on international trade and aid agencies. On the other
hand the multilateral institutions in which the industrial nations have the decisive say have begun to face new problems
especially in regard to resources matching the growing needs. At present the prospects for
% the evolution the New International Economic Order are quite bleak, even though some countries of South still
entertain the hope that with little patience
•>••- they would be able to convert the Western governments and bring about certain changes in the existing order and
make it more fair and equitable. The question of New International Economic Order was again raised in the United
Nations in, December 1983 when the developing countries tabled a resolution deploring the activities of certain
developed states, which they believed, took advantage of their predominant position in the international economy to
exert unwarranted pressure or coercion on the sovereign decisions of the developing countries. No wonder, the western
powers opposed tlje resolution.
Thus we find that while the rich capitalist countries are in theory willing to admit that steps are needed to expedite the
process of development in the poorer countries they are not willing to replace the existing international -. economic,
system. In the light of all this, it seems quite improbable at present thai the New International Economic Order would
be feasible in near future unless there is change of heat in the developed capitalist countries. In the existing climate of
economic recession there is very faint hope of such a change. India and New International Economic Order
Since the advent of independence the economic and social upliftment of the people have been the pre-occupation of the
Indian policy makers. To achieve these objectives, India required new technology, sophisticated
• equipment, new sources of supply, new markets and new financial arrangements to accelerate its development
process. In this direction India initiated forging new linfo and revamping the old ones by gradually changing its
economic relations. India encouraged both bilateral and multilateral relationships. India sought international economic
co-operation’on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. India being a developing country has been faced with the
problems being confronted by the other developing countries. Evidently, India has been evincing keen interest and has
participated actively in ushering the new international economic order..
India was associated with institutional framework of international order. . Though India’-, association was peripheral
and its representatives go! little opportunity in framing, the procedures and provisions in the UN documents, that
could help the Demerging nations to acquire a measure of economic freedom, yet India’s contribution during
1950-60 has been significant in
210 - INTERNATIONAt RELATIONS
envisaging changes in the international economic relations. Indian representatives were successful in getting General
Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) rules amended to permit Ihe developing countries to bypass import restrictions
aiming at improving.their export potential:
India has played a considerable role in the evaluation of NIEO. Addressing the Sixth Special Session of General
Âssembly the Indian Foreign Minister suggested:
(i) Comprehensive policy forthe revalorisation of prices of raw materials; (//) Provision of additional liquidity for
specially effected countries; (Hi) Equitable patterns of voting rights in IMF and other international •
financial institutions; (/v) Provision of external capital for the development of developing
countries; and
M Financial and technical assistance to the developing countries. Most of these suggestions were incorporated in the
declaration adopted onM«,y I, 1974. .
At the seventh special session of the General Assembly India’s then Foreign Minister Y.B. Chavan envisaged the
following suggestions for the establishment of NIEO:
(a) Only through voluntary transfer can developing countries acquire a sort of buffer between rising bills and falling
export earnings. It is a matter of great concern while official development assistance has barely exceeded $ 7 billion,
the world’s expenditure on the means of destruction has reached staggering
• proportions;
(b) Due to sharp rise in their imports, particularly fuel, fertilizers and manufactures, the import bills of the most
developing countries have increased to such an extent that even with a 100% increase in export earnings, there is no
assurance that balance will be corrected or even half way met;
(c) Fot the production of trade of developing countries,a more managed approach to the problem of trade in
manufactures which would deal not only with the removal ot trade barriers, both tariff and non-tarirt, but also with the
question of supply, of production, marketing and distribution;
id) The developing countries to have a greater say in the management of monetary system. The IMF should provide
greater liquidity to the developing countries to cope with the problem of external debt;
(e) The conduct of transnational corporations should ’ be subject to greater regulation because they have acted
irrationally also in many
211
instances detrimental to the sovereignty and the freedom of developing countries in the management of the resources
for development.
India strove for realising the ideals of .NIEO in the various sessions of UNCTAD. During the session of UNCTAD IV
held at Nairobi in May 1976, India played a vital role. A programme of global action was adopted to improve market
structure in international trade in commodities of interest to the developing countries. On June 11,1978 the then Prime
Minister ShriMorarji Desai said:
”The road to NIEO may be rough, tortorous and long, but it, must not be allowed to become a mirage. It was here that
countries like USA have crucial role to play by giving the lead in the. implementation ofvario’us decisions aimedat
eradicating the poverty and want from f/ie earth.”
In 1982, India took initiative to organise South-South meet in New Delhi . to secure increased economic and trade co-
operation among the developing countries and to coordinate the policies of developing countries with the approach of
the developed countries. Addressing the meet, attended by representatives of 44 developing countries,. Mrs. Indira
Gandhi the Prime Minister of India, expressed concern over the deterioration in the global economy since the Cancun
summit. She specially criticised the protectionism in the industrialised countries which virtually tantamoupted to
victimisation of the developing world. She urged the developing countries to close their ranks to withstand pressure
from the affluent nations.
In 1985, India organised a two-day ministerial level meeting of the developing countries to consider Global System of
Trade Preference (GSTP) to promote South-South co-operation. The meeting was inaugurated by Rajiv Gandhi, the
then Prime Minister of India. In his inaugural speech Rajiv Gandhi called upon the developing countries to work for
collective self-reliance through boosting their trade. Realising that there was very little hope for an earth north-, South
agreement over New International Economic Order (NIEO), it was felt desirable to promote South-South co-operation
among the developingcountries, as a step towards evolution of new economic order.
Thereafter also India continued to press the need of New Inte’rnational Economic Order at various internal forums and
projected itself as a staunch supporter of the New International Economic Order.
212
18
Sovereignty Over Natural Resources
”The right of people to self-determination shall also include permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and
resources.’ In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence on the grounds of any right that may
be claimed by other states.”
-Human Rights Commission
Introduction
Every nation is bestowed with natural resources available in land, sub-soil and water. Exploration and utitosation of
these resources have been engaging the attention’of the concerned countries and international commodities alike. The
emergence of newly independent nations especially after the Second World War, which inaugurated the process of
decolonisation, made these countries realise the value of the natural resources which were subject to foreign
exploitation during the colonial era.
The concept of permanent sovereignty over natural resources gained prominence during early 1950s when colonial rule
started receding. The newly independent nations realised the necessity of reappraising and altering uneven legal
arrangements in the shape of concession inherited from the colonial period. During the spell tof colonial rule, the
foreign powers especially the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) were exploiting the natural resources of the colonies.
Usually the status of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is discernible in laws and regulations governing the
ownership and use of’land, subsoil, and water resources. Principles with regard to the ownership of natural resources
vary from-country to country. Some countries follow the rule that ownership, of lands and waters falling within the
boundaries of the national territory is vested originally in the nation itself, and any private property has its basis in the
right of the nation to transmit title’to its resources to private persons. In other countries, all unalienated fand or land
which is regarded as vacant or unoccupied, is considered as public property.
Natural resources available in the subsoil are treated in some countries as the property of the owner of the surface land
under which they can be found. In other countries, the state assumes into itself the ownership of either all subsoil
resources or of certain kinds of resources. In countries where ownership of
SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES
213
subsoil resources is vested in the state, it may either allow their development by private individuals under licences, leases or
other concessions or retain foi itself the exclusive right to develop some or all such resources.
Global Concern
There has been a growing awareness among the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa to preserve their political
independence and free themselves from the economic exploitation by the former colonial powers. The countries of Latin
America have also joined the Afro-Asian countries to regain economic emancipation from the developed world, the natural
resources are-available in abundance m the Third World Countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The endeavours of
these Third World Countries to control their natural resources have found manifestation in the principle of permanent
sovereignty over natural resources. This principle has been enunciated and re-affirmed in a number of resolutions of the
United Nations General Assembly. It was finally incorporated in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of states adopted
by the UN General Assembly in December 1974. It was as early as 1951 ’the UN General Assembly vide its resolution 6,26 (vii)
of 21 December 1952, had recognised that ’the right of peoples to use and exploit their natural wealth and resources is
inherent in their sovereignty. A similar, right was envisaged by the draft Human Rights covenants proposed by the Human
Rights Commission in January 1955 vide Article 1(3):
”The right of people to self-determination shall also include permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth dnd •.
resources. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence on the grounds of any rights that may be
claimed by other states.”
The text of proposal mooted by the Human Rights Commission was further modified by the Third Committee ’.•’”/,,. of the
UN General Assembly with a view to fhcorporate ”right”, in the first Article of the UN covenants of Human Rights in the
following words : ”The people may, for their . •’V own ends, freely dispose of their- natural wealth and
resources.without prejudice to any obligation arising out of international economic co-operation based upon the ’
principle of mutual benefit and international law. In no case a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence,”
The Role of UN
By the late 1950s, the Third Vyorld Countries had fully realised the significance of exercising permanent sovereignty over
their natural wealth and resources and started adopting a well-concerted approach to safeguard their interests. They realised
that though they had gained political independence ihe imperialist powers were still exploiting them and treating their raw
materials and natural resources as appendages of the imperialist powers resulting in
214
backwardness of their economies. Therefore they decided to press for the recognition of their sovereignty over
their natural resources. On account of this feeling of the Third World countries on 21 December 1952 the UN
General Assembly passed a resolution asserting ”the right of peoples to use and exploit tfieir natural wealth
and’resources is inherent in their sovereignty.” The UN Covenant on Human Rights adopted in 1955 also
incorporated this right in
• Article 1 which provided ”The peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth. and
resources without prejudice to any obligation arising out of international economic co-operation based up to the
principle of mutual benefit and international la<v. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of
subsistence.”
The developing countries made full use of the UN mechanism in their struggle. In view of the growing pressure from
the developing countries on 12 December 1958 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution No. 1314 which
recommended the setting up of a commission to examine the status of permanent sovereignty of states over their natural
wealth and resources. In pursuance of the above1 resolution in December 1958 the UN General Assembly established a
Commission on Permanent Sovereignty over natural wealth and resources ’toconductafull survey ofthe permanent
sovereignty over natural wealth and resources as a basic constituent of the right of selfdetermination’. Two years later
in December 1960 the UN General Assembly further recommended that the ’sovereign right of every state to dispose of
its wealth and natural resources be respected1. In 1962 the General Assembly on the recommendations of the
Commission on Permanent Sovereignty adopted resolution 1803 (XVII) in the form of a Declaration on Permanent
Sovereignty Over Natural Resources. The Declaration dealt comprehensively with the inalienable and inherent right of
developing nations to exercise permanent >so’vereignty over their natural resources / and recorded the fundamental
principles of sovereignty of states over their natural resources. The Declaration was of immense significance because it
Was negotiated within the framework of the United Nations. It tried to reconcile the competing, and in some respects
conflicting, interests of capital-importing countries-the owners of natural resources, and capital-exporting developed
countries.
The principles outlined in the Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources were complemented and
clarified during subsequent discussions of this problem at the United Nations. One of the reports of the UN Secretary
General observed that the sovereignty includes the right of every state to dispose all of its natural resources and to
determine what economic structures would make its best use possible, and to determine the sphere and character of
direct foreign investments and their conditions.
The assertion of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources was of immense significance for the
developing countries because it provided a basis on which these countries could claim to change the inequitable and
uneven legal arrangements under which foreign investors enjoyed right to exploit natural resources available within the
territorial boundaries of developing countries. Such an alteration could be facilitated
through an exercise of (i) the right to nationalise i.e. to acquire the rights enjoyed by the foreign investors or (ii)
the right to envisage changes in particular terms of the arrangements including the right to repudiate an
arrangement already made with the foreign investors.
In 1973 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3171 (XXVII) which recorded the right of states to
nationalise foreign property and tp determine the forms and size of compensation. At the 29th session the
General Assembly reaffirmed the right of each state to regulate and control the activities of the Transnational
Corporations in its territory and ’adopted the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of the States.
NIEO AND NATURAL RESOURCES
In May 1974 the General Assembly, despite the resistance of delegates from United States and other western countries,
adopted by an overwhelming majority the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order
and the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. The Declaration recorded
the principles on which the international economic relations should be based and emphasised the principles of
sovereign equality of states, their territorial integrity, noninterference in the internal affairs; equal participation of
all states in the solution of world economic problems, the right to adopt an economic system of their choice, inalienable
and permanent sovereignty of each state ever their natural resources and all economic activities including the right of
states, peoples and territories under foreign domination to reimbursement and full compensation for the exploitation,
depletion and damage caused to their natural and other resources etc. The Programme of Action adopted by the UN
General Assembly outlined the specific steps to be taken for the implementation ofthe Declaration. Some countries,
while rendering support to the Declaration on NIEO, expressed reservations to certain provisions, especially with
regard to permanent sovereignty including the right to nationalisation. These countries put forth the view that the
Declaration could have included a statement on their duty to compensate in accordance with the prevailing norms and
practices of international law.
,However, there has been an increasing support to Third World countries’ inalienable and inherent right to exercise
permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. It has been adopted as one of the rights in the charter of Economic
Rights and Duties in State adopted by the General Assembly in 1979. This right was also affirmed by the Lima
Declaration on Industrial Development and Co-operation adopted by the United Nations Industrial Development
Organisation (UNIDO) in 1975. The Lima Declaration stated that effective control over natural resources and the
harmonising of policies for their exploitation, conservation, transformation and marketing comprised an essential
condition for the economic and social development of the Third World countries.
215
216
Assertion by Developing Countries
During i 970s, the developing countries pursued well-concerted strategies to effect control over their natural resources.
Ail these measures envisaged increased involvement of tile developing countries in the exploitation of their natural
resources. It also envisaged a new pattern of relationship between the host government and foreign companies. The
March 1977 report of the UN Secretary General states that traditional concession agreements were more and more
being replaced by full or partial ownership of exploitation enterprises . or an increased role in their overall management
by means of nationalisation, joint ventures or various forms pf service contracts. The existing concession agreements
between the host countries and foreign investors-both governmental or private, contain provisions not only for
traditional royalties and tax payments, but for envisaging social and economic infrastructures, providing employment
opportunities for natives and providing training facilities for national, technical and* managerial staff. Such
arrangement also helps the host countries to acquire necessary capital and technical know-how along with a larger
share of profits.
In some of the developing countries the national governments assume partial or full ownership through unilateral action
whereas in majority of cases, the transfers were mutually negotiated between the host governments and the companies.
Major instances in this regard have been the assumption of majority or total ownership of petroleum fields by oil
producing countries the nationalisation of copper mines by Zaire in 1966-67, nationalisation of iron mines by
Venezuela in 1974 and the nationalisation by Madagascar of its chroniite mines in 1975.
Besides, the developing countries producing principle commodities have formed associations like OPEC, OAPEC, to
safeguard their interests. The United Nations has contributed to the realisation of the sovereignty of states over natural
resources by making modifications in terms of compensation to be given in case of nationalisation. It has provided in
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States ”In case of nationalisation, expropriation on transfer of ownership of
foreign properties, appropriate compensation should be paid by the states adopting such measures, taking into -account
its relevant laws and regulations and all circumstances that the state cohsiders pertinent. In any case where the question
of compensation gives rise to a controversy it shall be settled under the domestic laws of the nationalising states and by
its tribunals, unless it is freely and mutually agreed by all states concerned that other peaceful means be sought o’n the
basis of the sovereign equality of states and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means.’ In simple words,
the charter bas affected a significant change in respect of mode of determination of compensation and the mode of
settlement of disputes relating to the question of compensation. These producer’s associations reflect
217
the determination of developing countries to attain better bargaining position in the world market.
Increased emphasis is being laid on the development and use of natural resources. The United Nations has played a
dominant role in this field. The world organisation operates as an executing agency for conducting surveys of mineral,
energy and other resources and for projects to develop technical and research institutes. In 1970, the Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOO ofthe United Nations established the Standing Committeeon Natural Resources. The
Committee since its inception has rendered advisory services to the governments of developing countries, reviewed
arrangements to coordinate UN activities in natural resources development etc. This action was taken in terms of UN
General Assembly Resolution of 1966 which re-affirmed ”the inalienable right of all countries to exercise permanent
sovereignty over their natural resources in the interest of their national development.” The resolution also provided that
the United Nations should undertake a maximum concerted effort to channel its activities so as to enable all countries
to exercise that right fully.
Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration
In 1973 the United Nations established United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration
(UNRFN’RE) with a view to help the developing countries locate mineral deposits and geo-themnal reservoirs that
were feasible to exploit; to assess the volume and market value of such resources; promote investment; and recycle a
share of the resulting income to fund further exploration. The Fund began its operation in 1975 when exploration
projects in Bolivia and Sudan were approved. This was followed by projects in other countries. By 1984,18 projects
had been approved. Most of the fund-supported explorations took place in Africa and Latin America and led to the
discovery of copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver and phosphate deposits. The fund is financed by voluntary contributions.
By 1985 governments of 16 countries had contributed a total of $ 33.8 million to the fund, Japan has been one of the
largest contributors to tne fund. The governments which receive assistance from the fund are expected to repay the
amount within 30 years if the Fund supported exploration leads to commercial production. No doubt the Fund has
rendered valuable service to various countries in identifying valuable resources through variety of field operations and
encouraged technical co-operation among the developing countries for the exploration of natural resources. But
ultimately it is only through development of national capabilities to Undertake and conduct operation that a nation can
effectively exercise sovereignty over natural resources. UN’s Role in Assessment and Utilisation of Natural Resources
The UN has also he!ped developing countries to assess and utilise their natural resources by Identifying valuable
sources through a variety of field operations. fhus it has helped Jamaica :n the investigation of metallic minerals.
218
K has also rendered valuable help to the United Republic of Tanzania and Burundi in their exploration
programmes and tried to encourage application of electronic data processing to mineral exploration and
development
The UN has also felt concerned with the development of water resources in the developing countries. In 1977 the
United Nations Water Conference was held at Argentina which was attended by 116 countries. The Conferences tried
to create world-wide awareness of the supply and demand of water resources and ddopt policies to development
underdevelopment, promote further development and improve management in order to achieve higher levels of
efficiency in the allocation, distribution and utilization of water. In pursuit of the above plan in 1980, it launched the
International drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade with a goal to provide clean water and adequate sanitation
for everyone by the year 1990. While the cost for these projects were-to be borne by the developing countries
themselves, one-fifth to one-third of the funds were to come from external sources.
The United Nations paid special attention to the exploitation of hydro electric potential of countries in Asia and Africa
so that they could effect savings on imports of oil bill, which was rising by an average of 5 per cent every year. In
addition it also paid attention to the study of biogas development, improved charcoal burning and geothermal, solar,
tidal and wind power.
The UN has also encouraged sea-mining and adopted Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 which inter alia laid
comprehensive rules for mineral resource development and scientific research. The objectives of the convention
include the equitable and efficient use of sea resources, protection and preservation of the marine environment and the
conservation of the living resources thereof. The Convention contains all the rules governing the ocean, their uses and
resources and covers all aspects of State’s rights and responsibilities in their use of the oceans.* including the
settlement of disputes. The Convention declared 200 miles coastal area as an Exclusive Economic Zone, in which the
coastal state shall have sovereign rights over all resources and economic activities and jurisdiction over such matters as
the conduct of marine scientific research and protection and preservation of the marine environment. It alsoJaid down
that sea-bed and sub-soil of the continental shelf shall also fall within the national jurisdiction. Above all the
Convention provided for the creation of an International Sea-Bed Authority which shall be responsible for allotting and
licensing possible sea-mining sites.
In 1978, the United Nations set up a Department of Technical Cooperation for Development (DTCD) to help the
developing countries to make proper use of their energy, water and mineral resources. In the field of energy the DTCD
implements projects in developing countries for the exploration; development and utilization of petroleum and gas,
coal, electric power and renewable sources of energy. It has launched several projects in the areasof energy planning,
policy and conservation. It also helps the governments to strengthen’ their energy-
SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES 219
related organizations through personnel training, technical co-operation projects, direct advisory services, the
publication of technical documents and international seminars.
The DTCD has also focussed attention on planning and management of water resources development, rural water
supply, the establishment and strengthening of national water resources institutions, ground-water exploration and
exploitation, and river basis development. The DTCD also acts as the principal agency for mineral resources
development and provides technical assistance on such matters as policy and legislation, exploration and evaluation,
mining, processing and marketing. It also provides specialised advisory services. In 1989 DTCD was executing some
80 projects in 50 countries.
~,.---’^*l*,,;:-’ ..;’, • :- ,. ,; ., ’.- ^g
’ ’ .. ’ I” f ’
The Crisis in Energy Resources

”Finding a solution to the energy problem ... requires, a frontal attack on a multitude of well-entrenched
forces, not the least of which is the standard of living to which much of the developed world has become
accustomed or to which others aspire. Mustering the political will to make the front attack may prove the
most formidable task. Yet the need is . • • clear.’ -...:..’• •’ . . • ’’- ’ ’ r ’
-Kegky aund Wittiiopf ’.
One of the major problems which has confronted the world economy
\ recent years is how to meet the growing needs of energy for economic
evelopment. For a long time man depended on coal as a-source of energy.
o a large extent the industrial revolution was arso the outcome of the use of
oal energy. Even thereafter coal continued to be a dominant source of energy.
lowever in 1960*5 coal lost its position to oil because of its lower cost and
. onvenient use. By 1970 oil provided more than half the total energy consumed
ytheworld. The production of crude oil rose from 1503 million tonnes in 1965
j 2850 million tonnes in 1973. Various countrie^. evolved technology and
ving styles on the expectation of uninterrupted*-Supplies of conventional
-nergy forms. However in 1973 as a result of Arab embargo and the consequent
•rice increases in oil brought about by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) cartel a serious problem wascreated for the developed as well
is developing countries. While the developed counties were faced with the
sroWem of maintenance of high standards which they had attained in the
wentiethi century, theoi! importing developing countries were confronted with
he problem of their survival. The position was further aggravated by the fast
depletion ot the fuei wood as a source of energy. Accordinglygreat attention was
;iven to the preparation of positive plans and programmes to solve the energy
risis.
In the developed countries the energy problem was aggravated because of
the prolific use of energy and unregulated relations between the oil consuming
and oil producing countries. The Western multinational oil corporations
promoted a wasteful energy consumption pattern tor the sake of higher profits.
They deliberately kept the prices of oil and gas at a low level in comparison
viththeif real value. After i 973 the oil producing countries established national
ontrol over energy resources and tried to bridge (he gap between the price and
alue of oil .This naturally led to sharp escalation in prices of energy resources.
THE CRISIS IN ENERGY RESOURCES 221
It is said that there has been five-fold increase in the prices of petroleum , intensified inflation and increased trade and
payment deficits and thus retarded the pace erf overall economic growth.
The developed countries in their turn shifted the burden of their economic problems on the developing countries and
took 4 number of economic measures which proved detrimental to the fragile economies of these countries. Sometimes
the developed countries even threatened to use force in the Persian Gulf area with a view to gain access and privileged
buyer position to the energy . resources of the developing countries.
On the other hand in the developing countries also demand for energy considerably increased. So far in. these countries
energy was used for transport, mining and manufacturing purposes. With the adoption of large-scale farming by the
developing countries the energy consumption greatly increased-both directly and indirectly. It has been asserted that the
rate of increase of petroleum consumption has been higher in developing nations during the past three decades.
The Seriousness of Crisis
The problem of energy resources is indeed a grave problem. This shall be fully borne out by the following facts:
1. In the first place it is said that the global demands for oil is increasing at such a fast pace that within 10 to 20 years
the demand would outstrip the supply. It is expected that the*production of oil will reach its peak in 1990’s and then
peter out. According to estimates the world’s known oil reserves of
648 billion barrels cannot last much beyond 2015 A.D. at the present rate of consumption. No doubt as a result of
further exploitation and improvement of techniques the oil reserves may last a little longer but it is certain that sooner
or later reserves of crude oil will dry up.
2. Secondly, the developing countries which constitute two-thirds of the world population are consuming only one
seventh of the total energy. As the process of development in these countries gets accelerated their energy
requirements would also increase. This would not only aggravate the energy problem but also increase the burden of
fuel import bilk The developing countries are already-paying a full import Bill worth $ 67 billion which is likely to
reach $ 100 billion/by 1990.
3. Thirdly, the exploitation of forests in the tropics is proceeding at such a fast rate that unless alternative sources of
energy are developed, over 40 per Cent of the timber resources in the developing countries would be reduced to ashes
during the next two decades.
Above aU shortage of energy is bound to retard the pace of economic growth in the developing countries and affect
adversely the rate of progress and human welfare in the developed countries.
Efforts to Resolve the Crisis
In view of the energy crises many developing and oil exporting countries came to feel that th«? issua should be
discussed not only in the Committee on Natural Resources but also in the General Assembly in the context of global
negotiations.
222
In 1981 the Conference on new and Renewable Sources of Energy was held at Nairobi and called for the development
and introduction of new and renewable energy sources in order to meet future energy requ irements particularly in
developing countries. It not only dealt with policy questions but also considered specific measures relating toenergy
assessment and planning. It also paid attention to research and development of new technologies and pleaded for
adoption of mature technologies. In 1982 the U.N. General Assembly set up an inter-governmental Committee on the
Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy. It stressed the need to help developing
countries to exploit their own energy resources more effectively. It was stressed that special attention should be
focussed on the great hydroelectric potential that remain untapped in Africa and Asia and to the study of biogas
development, improved charcoal burning and geothermal, solar, tidal and wind power.
The Department of Technical Co-operation for Development which was set up in 1978, has also done commendable
job in resolving the energy problem. It has provided technical assistance for national energy surveys and energy
planning; assessment of the potential of specific energy resources; establishment of national energy institutions; and
development of appropriate energy technologies for all sources. It has implemented numerous projects relating to
conventional energy supplies and also focussed attention on development of new and renewable sources of energy.
Such projects have been carried out in countries like China, Ethiopia* India, Kenya, Philippines, Romania, Thailand,
Yugoslavia etc. The Department also provided technical assistance for national energy surveys and energy planning;
assessment of potentialof specific energy resources, establishment of national energy institutions and development of
appropriate energy technologies from all sources. In 1983 the Department, under a programme jointly fonded by Japan,
Sweden and United Nations, conducted survey of the potential of small hydroelectric power stations in 48 developing
countries. It also offered technical assistance to developing countries to enable them to exploit their mineral resources
through survey and exploration programmes. It also launched several training schemes and tried to promote
technological transfers.
Steps to deal with Energy Crisis
No doubt alternative energy sources are available in the form of coal, nuclear energy and replaceable hydroelectric
power which should last for several centuries, but the current levels of technology for harnessing these alternate sources
of energy does not indicate possibilities of their filling the gap created by the exhaustion of oil and natural gas.
Therefore a twofold approach is called for to deal with this problem. On the one hand energy must be conserved by
foregoing some luxuries” of life, specially by the affluent countries. Secondly, more concerned research and
development effonv-**>ould be made to develop alternative energy sources. We ma’y deal with frmvw two aspects in
some details.
Energy Conservation
In view of the fast depleting sources of energy, special attention needs
THE CRISIS IN ENERGY RESOURCES
223
to be given to energy conservation, specially in the affluent countries. For example in USA more than 50 per cent of the
energy consumed is lost as waste heat to atmosphere. Considerable economy can be made in consumption of energy
without adversely affecting the current standards of living by measures like reducing the size of cars, imposing
construction standards for new housing with a view to reduce the expenses on heating and air-conditioning encouraging
use of fluorescent light tubes in place of ordinary bulbs etc. It may be noted that the prospects for energy conservation
are great in affluent countries. In developing countries there is less scope for conservation of energy because in these
countries the energy is mainly consumed for essential purposes. No dobut even in these countries the energy
consumption can be considerably reduced through fuel efficiency. As in the developing countries maximum energy is
consumed in the Industrial sector, economies in consumption of energy
• (both electricity and mineral fuels) can be achieved through planning of industrial development, technical
improvements in industrial processing and retrofitting.
Alternative Sources ofÊnergy
While making bid to conserve energy in every possible manner, effort should also be made to discover and develop
alternative sources of energy. Some of the important sources of energy which can be developed include gasification of
coal, Shale oil, nuclear fission energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, energy from biogas plants, wind and tide,
andenergy from unconventional sources like fusion of two hydrogen atoms to produce helium etc.
It may be noted that some of these sources of energy such as coal or oil are non-renewable sources and when consumed
continuously their stocks are likely to get exhausted very soon. Such sources of energy should be used with great
caution and economy. On the other hand there are some renewable sources of energy such as sun and wind, which can
be constantly replenished. Such sources of.energy can be used more liberally. Further jthe technical feasibility of
harnessing energy of various kinds and the relative impact of various energy alternatives on the environments are
constraints on’the use of energy of various kinds. Similarly while making a selection regarding the source of energy
factors like convenience and transporting costs have also to be taken into account.
Coal
Coal is without any doubt an important alternative source of energy because the world possesses immense reserves of
coal in comparison with any other fuel. World’s technically and economically recoverable reserves of coal are
estimated at 636 billion metric tonnes, which isequivalent to 3095 billion barrels of oil or about 5 times the proven
reserves of oil. Since 1974 coal exploration and pre-irtvestment work has been undertaken in almost all coal producing
developing countries and coal mines are being developed in sixteen of them. Another 28 developing countries are
known to have coal deposits but produce no coal at present. However the use of coal as energy is not only costly in
comparison with oil and natural gas but also poses hazards for human life’ as well as environments. Further the
transportation of coal over long distances
22-*
also poses a serious problem. In recent years ’considerable research has been conducted to overcome these
problems. The development of slurry pipelines is expected to solve the problem of coal transportation. Some of
the countries have developed the process of coal gasification which can also help in overcoming the problem of
energy crisis. Again scientists have developed a Magnetohydro Dynamic Device (MHd) to convert coal directly
into electricity, which is certainly much better than the method of generating electricity through thermal power
plants in which almost 70 per cent of energy is lost in Ihe air or in cooling towers. In comparison with the
thermal power plants the MHD system is 60 per cent more efficient. Thus coal constitutes an important source
of energy in those countries which have large reserves of coal. Its importance as a source of energy may decline
only after certain other new sources of energy are developed. „
Natural gas
Natural gas refers to hydrocarbons which are found in a gaseous state in underground reservoirs. It is a cleaner
and a more convenient source of energy than oil or coal. The world natural gas reserves have been estimated at
about 456 billion barrels of oil equivalent, which is 72 per cent of the proven oil reserves and 15 per cent of
proven coal reserves. According to reliable estimates the gas reserves are likely to last for at least next half
century. But unlike coal, the production of natural gas is unevenly distributed as compared with demand. More
than 75 per cent of the gas reserves are in North America, the Middle East and the centrally planned economies
including China. The . global development of the potential for rapid growth in consumption is dependent on
export trade. Further, shortage of transportation presents problems which have not yet been resolved. Oil Shale
Production of oil from shale antedates the conventional petroleum industry. Allshale are fine grained sedimentary rocks
containing solid organic matter which on heating disintegrate into oil arid gas but which db not contain any free oil. It
can be burnt directly as a low-grade fuel in specially designed boilers, Large shale deposits are available in Brazil,
China, Zaire etc. Some other countries like Burma, Jordan, Morocco, Thailand and Turkey also contain potentially
exploitable deposits of shale. The wcrld oil shale reserves have been estimated as equal 103264 billion barrels of oil.
However, the exploitation of shale poses a serious problem in so far as its production involves destruction of large areas
of land and involves high environmental costs. Therefore, lh«? use of shale-oil for production of energy has not found
favour and there do not appear to be any immediate prospects for its use as source of energy in the foreseeable future.
Fuel Wood
Fuel wood is one of the most important source of traditional ene»gy for residential uses, including cooking, its demand
has grown far faster than supply. As a result, the foresss of developing countries are being consumed at a rate of
1.3 per cent of the total forest area or 10-15 million haciares a year. As the fuel supplies are exhausted, an imai and
crop residues are a’so burned depriving the soil of the valuable nutrients and organic conditioning material. Similarly,
THE CRISIS IN ENERGY RESOURCES
225
the amount of dung being burned annually is believed to be equivalent to some

2 million tons of nitrogen and phosphorous. Although, the fuel-wood crisis has already reached serious proportions
technically and economically sound means exist both for reforestation and for improving the efficiency with which
woodand other fuels are burnt. To ensure adequate fuef wood supplies planting would have to increase 15 fold. Further
the use of fuel-wood can he mademor* efficient through design and dissemination of improved stoves. Electricity
Electricity is another primary source of energy which is acquired through Hydro-power projects. The hydro-power
projects which were earlier considered uneconomical have become attractive on account of the large increases in the oil
prices. But as these projects need a long .lead time, the progress has been quite modest so far. Again, minihydro
projects can be useful for isolated areas •for village electrification schemes and small industry. But much progress is
not likely to be made in this regard on account of the scarcityof managerial and engineering talent. ’
Nuclear Energy ~
It is asserted that nuclear energy can provide a long-range answer to the problem of energy crises through the breeder
nuclear fission reactor which; possesses great potential for producing energy. Even at present nuclear power .accounts
for one per cent of worldwide energy use and six per cent of its electrical demands. According to some authorities by
2020 A.D. nuclear power would account for one-third of world’s energy needs. Thisestimate, however, rests on the
assumption that developments in this regard would continue to make favourable developments, which is quite doubtful.
In 1979 following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, which resulted in large
release of radioactive contamination, a number of countries like Sweden, Italy, Switzerland etc. announced
reassessment of their nuclear power plants. Secondly, the higher cost of production of nuclear energy has also greatly
undermuned the important role which nuclear energy can play. Thirdly, t,he issue of waste disposal also poses serious
problems. No safe procedure for handling nuclear waste-some of whicfT remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands
of years has yet been devised. Biogas Plants
Bio-gas can be another source of energy. Bio-gas can be produced by ’ efficient recycling of the livestocks, human and
plant waste to meet the cooking and lighting requirements of {he rural communities. In India which has huge quantities
of organic sludge, large quantity of bio-gas can beproduced to meet the energy requirements in the rural sector. In India
more than 25,000 . gobar gas plants have been installed in different parts of the country and their number is ever on fhf
increase Similarly China is also said to have SP( up A large numhfr ’of hinges plants ro mpnt the energy requirements
of its communes. In USA a corporation has been set upto extract methane gas from cow dung from cattle rant hi-, m
(JUahoma with a view to transmit gas to the neighbouring states pipeline^. Solar Energy
Sun is the mo-,t important source of energy and efforts are on to exploit
226
this energy for heating and air-conditioning of homes and commercial places. A breakthrough in this regard has already
been made. But the process is very complex and costly and much improvement is desired before it; can be effectively
used. Despite these limitations at present it cannot be denied that there are. great prospects for the use of solar energy in
future. It has been estimated that about 15 per cent of the United States energy supplies might come from the sun about
25 to 30 years from now. Similarly it is hoped that in India solar energy may be utilised for irrigation pumps.
Ceothermal Energy
Ceothermal energy is another important, though modest, source of energy. This source of energy has been used since
late nineteenth century in Italy, New Zealand, japan, Mexico, Iceland, the USSR and USA where steam or hot water
emerge up to the surface. Countries like New Zealand and Iceland which abound in hot springs can make extensive use
of this source of energy. A noteworthy feature of geothermaI energy is that it creates very limited hazards for the
environments. However, the chief limit in the expansion of geotherma I exploration and development is shortage of
personnel experienced in geotherma I work. Wind Energy , J
This source of energy has been used by man for a long time. Though it is only a modest source of energy, it can
nonetheless be utilised ona limited scale. The wind-power projects appear to be economically attractive for suitable
sites. However, there has been little recent experience with it and much more exploration of sites is needed to assess its
potential role.
Ocean Energy. This is yet another important renewable source of energy, which has great potential. Several countries
have set up plants for producing electricity from sea waves. India set up first power plant for producing electricity from
sea waves at Vizhinjam. The plant,can produce maximum of 150 MW and an average of 75 KW for 10 months in a
year.
According to Kegley and Wittkopf ”The brief perusal of short term alternatives to energy derived from oil is perhaps
more disheartening than encouraging. Among other things it demonstrates that the energy issue is in fact a complex
interplay of technical, economic, environmental and national, international political issues. Finding a solution to the
energy problem therefore; requires d frontal attack on d multitude of well-entrenched forte*, not the least of which is
the standard of living to which much of the developed world has become accustomed or to which others aspire.
Mustering the political will to make the front attack may prove the most formidable task. Yet the need is clear”.1
Denis Hayes is also not quite happy wijh the energy policy of the present governments. He says ”Most energy policy is
still framed as though it were addressing a problem that our grand children will inherit. But the energy crisis is our
crisis. Oil and natural gas are our principal means of bridging today and tomorrow and we are burning our bridges”.-’
1 I runt* W. M.-jlfy jnd tufcncr K. Witlknpt. Wtirla Killing Trends jnd fr,iiîorinjtii>n j> _”/6.
2 Ueni> H.iyi-.. Kjys ul Hope Tin- Trjif>itiuH tv d Puî Ptrfro/eom World ’’ f~~i.
20
The Role of International Law in International Relations
”International law is the only objective and impartial yardstick in international relations; a solid basis for any
international policy worth of that name; a sure touchstone for the settlement of international disputes, and an effective
reducing agent of mere statecraft, cleverness and opportunism. It sets up a standard to which the good and the just can
repair. International optimism, confidence and tranquility are in direct proportion to its strength and advancement*.
: -JGfeWMM
The present age is an age of internationalism in which the different states regularly come into contact with each other.
To regulate the relations of states, both during times to peace as well as war, certain rules and regulations have been
evolved over the past few centuries which are generally termed as international law. These rules regulate the” mutual
relations of the states according to certain accepted norms and prevent the use of unnecessary force for the settlement
of disputes. Most of the states observe these rules in their national interests. The states which occupy a comparatively
weak and defensive positions, particularly, attach great importance to these rules and invoke them more frequently.
According to Ball and Killough though ”these rules have fallen short-both in content and in possibility of enforcement-
of creating” the stable international order required by the nature of Modern life. Nevertheless, they comprise a basis for
further development which must be undertaken if the goals of peace and the promotion of human welfare ate ever to be
attained. Similarly Prof. Kleffens considers international law as ”the only objective and impartial yardstick in
international relations; a solid basis for any international policy worthy of that name.”
Before examining the role of international law in international relations, it shall be desirable to know about the
meaning, sources and nature of international law.
Meaning of International law
Numerous definitions of international law have been offered by th« scholars of the subject. According to Frenwick,
international law in broad tarns means a ”body of general principles and specific rules which are binding upon
the members of the international community in their mutual relations.” According to Lawrence international
law means ”the rules which determine the conduct of the general body of civilised states in their mutual
dealings”. Stowelr defines international law as ”certain rules generally observed by the mankind and enforced
primarily through the agency of the governments of independent communities into which humanity is divided’.
According to Sir Henry Maine international law is ”a complex system, composed of various ingradients. It
consists of general principles of right and justice, equally suited to the conduct of individuals in a state of natural
equality, and to the relations and conduct of nations; of collection of usages, customs, and opinions, the growth
of civilisation and commerce; and a code of positive law.”
According to Prof. Hall International Law means the ”rules of conduct which Modern civilised states regard as
binding to them in their relations with one another with a force comparable in nature and degree to that binding
the conscientious person to obey the law of his country, and which they also regard as being enforceable by
appropriate means in case of Infringement.”
Probably the most comprehensive definition of International Law has been given by Prof. Oppenheim, a great
authority on International Law. He says ”International Law is the name for the body of customary and
conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilised states in their intercourse .with each other.”
He further adds that it is ”a law for the intercourse of states with one another, not a law for individuals” ”a law
between and not above, the single states.” An equally comprehensive definition of International Law has been
offered by Starke. According to him International Law may.be defined as that body of law which is composed
for its greater part of the principles or rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe and
therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other anci which includes also (a) the rules of law
relating to the functioning of international institutions or organisations, their relations with each other and their
relations with States and individuals; and (b) certain rules of law relating to individuals and non-State entities so
far as the rights or duties of such individuals and /non-State entities are the concern of the international
community.”
An analysis of the above definitions of international law shows that almost all the scholars emphasise that
international law is a body of customary rules which the states consider is binding upon themselves. These rules
not only relate to the functioning of the international institutions but also concern the actions of state and
individuals in so far their rights and duties are affected.
Origin and Sources
Though some son of rules of mutual understanding have existed inhuman society since the earliest times, but a
beginning towards the evolution of international law was made during the Roman pe>iod when definite rules
and principles were laid down for the regulation of the relations of people. These rules continued to be observed
even after the decline of the Roman Empire and ultimately became the basis of the international law. However,
the rules of international law in the Modern sense emerged only with the rise of nation states
I Hi K<)U OF INUKNATIONAt LAW
224
like Britain, Portugal, France. Spain, etc. These states agreed in writing upon certain rules regarding conduct of war,
preservation of neutrality and demarcation of their colonial spheres. These rules included in various agreements and
treaties, constitute the first written rules of international law.
According to Prof. Potterthe. international law which is practised bythe states in modern times is largely the work of
private scholars. During the period between fourteenth and sixteenth centuries a number of scholars wrote books on
international law, which became the basis of the international law in subsequent years. In this regard Hugo Gortius
rendered most valuable service and produced the monumental work ”On the Law of War and Peace”. He emphasised
the independent nature of the international law and insisted that the states should observe the rules of international law.
In the nineteenth century efforts were made to prepare comprehensive codes of international law and scholars compiled
the various treaties etc. Certain institutes were set up which were entrusted with the responsibility of codification of
law. As a result of the efforts of these institutes great progress in the direction of codification of international law was
made during the nineteenth century. But it was in the closing year of the nineteenth century and first decade of the
present century that the famous Hague Conferences were held (1899 and 1907) whicr.-formulated certain new rules of
international law as well. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations paid attention to codification of
international law and appointed special committees for the purpose. While the League could not accomplish much in
this direction, the United Nations succeeded in providing the vast body of internationaJ law a concrete shape by
reducing them to writing. It not only codified the existing rules of international law but also helped in the development
of international law by drafting a number of new conventions.
At this stage it shall be desirable to have an idea about the sources of international law. As international law is
primarily based on the consent of the state-whether tacit or express,-it is mainly based on customs and treaties. Customs
are the rules evolved after a :long historical process • which are recognised by the members of the international
community and are now considered as obligatory by the states. Most of the rules with regard to the diplomats are based
on customary law. The treaties on the other hand are more certain source of international law. These are generally of
two types those pertaining to specific matters between the contracting states and those which lay down general rules for
large number of states. The former, which are binding only on the signatory states, are not that rich source of
international law as the latter which have played a vital role in the development of international law. Some of the
important multi-lateral treaties include Treaty of Westphalia (1648), Treaty of Paris (181 5), Treaty of Versailles
(1919), Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Covenant of
the League of Nations .(1920), the Kellog-Briand Pact (1928), the U.N. Charter (1945) etc. Even though legally these
multi-lateral treaties are binding only on the signatory states but in reality they have assumed universal character.
230 , INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The legal commentaries on international law are another valuable source of international law and have greatly
contributed- to the development and clarification of numerous vague aspects of international law. These commentaries,
though mere abstract speculations on law, are of immense value because they not only influence the decisions of the
courts but also the thinking of the people all over the world. Finally, the decisions of the courts-both national and
international-have greatly contributed to the development of international law. As Chief justice Marshall of U.S.A.
observed ”The decisions of the courts of every country, so far as they are founded uponalaw common toevery country
will be received, not as authority, but with respect.
The decisions of the courts of every country show the law of nations, in the given case, is understood in that country,
and will be considered in adopting the rule which is to prevail in this.”
International Law a Weak Law
There is controversy among scholars whether international law is a law or not. Austin and Holland, are not willing to
consider international law as law because it is not backed by the authority of the state. They emphasise that the rules of
international law are voluntarily obeyed by the states and can be described as law by courtesy only. On the other hand
scholars like Lawrence, Oppenheim, Starke hold that international law is law even though it has not been formulated by
any formal legislative authority. According to Lawrence, the rules of international law’though like other rules are
sometimes evaded and sometimes defied, do nevertheless receive general obedience. Theyarsno more reduced to a
nullity by-being sometimes broken, than are the laws of the land, because the habitual criminal disregards them with
impunity.” Similarly, Oppenheim asserts that international law is a law. He argues ”Violations of international law are
certainly frequent, especially during war. But the offenders always try to prove that their acts do not constitute a
violation and they have a right to act as they do according to the law of the nations, or at least that no rule of nations is
against their acts. The fact is, that states while breaking the law of nations, never deny its existence, but recognise its
existence through the endeavour to interpret the law of nations as justifying their conduct. And although the frequency
of the viilatiors of International law may strain its legal force to breaking point, the formal though cynical, affirmation
of its binding nature is not without significance.” However, Oppenheim admits that international law is comparatively a
weaker law because it is a law between and not above the states.
For a proper understanding of the position of international law vis-a-vis the state (municipal) law, it shall be desirable
to compare the two. At the outset it may be pointed out that the state law is highly developed, while the international
law is rather poorly developed and possesses a decentralised character. Usually, a-domestic legal system implies three
processes: legislation, adjudication and enforcement. Different institutions are connected with these three processes
viz., Legislature, Courts and Police. All these three processes are also present in
1 (ippenheim, International Law, Vot. I, p. 12.
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL’LAW
231
so far as the operation of the international law is concerned, although they fundamentally differ from the processes at
the state level.
. With regard to the legislation of international law, as there is no international body, these laws are made outside
forma! institutions. The most common process for the formulation of international law is the general treaty signed by a
number of states which indicates that they mutually accept certain rules with regard to a particular area. Sometimes,
these treaties are drafted by international institutions or ad hoc conferences, but they come into force after these are
ratified by the appropriate authorities in the state. International Law also emerges out of the customary policies
followed by a number of states. If a sufficient number of states follow a particular policy, it assumes the shape of a
customary international law. For example, for a long time the states hav^ been permitting innocent passage to the
commercial vessels in their coastal waters. This custom has crystalised into a practice and assumed the shape of
customary international law. The other important sources of international law include the opinion of publicists or
scholars and rules framed by international institutions like League of Nations and United Nations. It is thus evident that
the law making process oithe international law is highly decentralised. In the absence of a common law creating
authority the different states play an important role in the enactment of international law. As these states present
conflicting interpretation of law, conflicts and disagreements often arise over the nature of the law itself. In the absence
of a common institution ”the formulation of the laws itself often involves direct political bargaining.”
As regards the international adjudication, three type of judicial institutions *apply international law-the national courts,
the International Court of Justice and ad hoc international tribunals. Most of the international legal questions are
handled by the courts of the states who decide the cases in accordance with the international legal norms. The
International Court of Justice, which is one of the Six organs of the United Nations, also operates in a decentralised
manner. As the members of the International Court of justice are elected by the General Assembly on the
recommendation of the Security Council, bargaining and political interests often influence the decisions of the judges.
Again, the court enjoys only advisory jurisdiction. It tenders necessary advice to the UN on political and constitutional
questions as and when requested, and interprets the international treaties. But due to purely advisory nature of its
opinion, K is not able to play a significant role in the disputes among states. Again, the court’s jurisdiction depends on
the voluntary submission of the states. In other words, before the Courts can apply international law the two states must
agree to refer the case to the Court. This is in complete contrast to the legal system operating in the states where the
subjects of the legal system have to stand trial regardless of their willingness. Finally, there are ad hoc tribunals
sometimes also known as Commission or Arbitral Courts. These tribunals are set up by two or more states to deal with
a specific case. The judges of such courts are appointed by the mutual consent of the concerned states and they identify
the area of international law to be applied. In other words, such courts also operate with the prior consent of the
concerned states.
•232
It is thus evident that the international adjudiction, like international legislation, is greatly affected by the lack of a
central institution vested with necessary authority by the states. Politics more often than not determines the ability of
the courts to deal with the various disputes and the courts are often used by the States for political decisions.
As regards the enforcement of international law no permanent police force exists to punish or deter the law breakers.
Action is taken purely on political considerations. The only force which is placed at the disposal of the United Nations
is the one meant for peace-keeping operations. No doubt, the use of force can be authorised by the Security Council,
but the right of veto enjoyed by the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council prevents any effective use of
force against these Five Permanent Members or their allies. In fact both the General Assembly and the Security Council
are more: concerned with the maintenance of peace rather than enforcement of law. This implies that if a state violates
the international law which does not pose a threat to peace, probably no action would be taken against it. On the other
hand if a state does not violate international law and pose a threat to peace by its action, the Security Council and the
Genera! Assembly will take action against it. In short, the violation of international law is punished only when it poses
a threat to peace.
There is another fundamental difference in the enforcement procedure at the domestic and international level, in the
domestic sphere a person can resort to self-help only under unusual circumstances, viz., the police is not available to
protect him. On the other hand in the international sphere on account of absence of an international police force, the
states have to resort to self-help as a matter of course. The self-help can take the shape of diplomatic protest, .economic
sanctions, or even acts of war. However,.the general principal emphasised by the international law is that the action
should be stronger than the wrong committed by the State.
On the basis of the above discussion we can say that in comparison with the domestic legal system, the international
law, on account of its decentralisation, provides a relatively amorphous setting for official interactions among states.
Generally the states are not willing to trust any external institution in the areas affecting their national security.
However, in areas like navigation of the high seas or diplomatic exchanges, the states extend full respect to the
international laws.
It is quite evident from the above discussion that International Law is a weak law. Highlighting the organisational
weakness of international law Prof. Paton says ”International Law is very weak on the institutional side-there is no
legislature, and while a court exists it can act only with the consent of the parties and has no real power to enforce its
decisions. It is true that the international Law of peace is seldom broken, but once grave issues arise we see flagrant
disregard of accepted rules. The public opinion of the world may be a factor not lightly to be igno -ed, but it is harder to
deal with a nation that js law-breaker than to expel a primitive man from his community; hence while primitive and
International
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
231
Law both lack institutional machinery, the sanctions of the former are really more effective since they are brought to
bear on the individual and not on the nation.” It is true that International Law is less explicit than the state law and is
frequently violated by the states because it lacks the necessary enforcement power. However, this does not take away
from the International Law the right to be considered a law. In our times international law is becoming more exact with
larger number of rules, being reduced to writing and greater emphasis on codification. It would be wrong to deny to
International Law the right to be considered law simply on the ground that it lacks enforcement power. There are
certain sanctions behind international law as well, even though they differ from ”the sanctions behind the municipal or
state law. Moreover, compulsion or force alone is not the basis of law.
Prof. Oppenheim also says’that international law is a weak law because it is law between the sovereign states. To quote
him ”Asfcetween states which are dependent and legally equal, there can be of course no common law-making body
having power to bind them by its decrees, nor is there, any Common Tribunal except the Permanent Court of
International justice having authority to interpret and apply law, between parties at variance to compel, resort to the
tribunal and give effect to their judgements. For these reasons, International Law is hot only less imperative and less
explicit than State Law, but it also lacks the coercive force of State Law.’ *.••.’
Role of International Law in International Relations

It is an irony that the significance of the role played by International law in international Relations has been completely
ignored by the scholars. Generally the scholars do not attach any importance to the role of international law in
international relations,- ’and even if it is acknowledged they consider it as one of • the le’sser instruments of state
policy. Some scholars have so much undermined the role of international law in international relations that they go to
the extent of arguing that it is useless in so far it has failed to prevent wars, and plead that . it should be discarded.
However, this opinion hardly does’ any justice to the important role played by international law. It is true that
international law has not been able to prevent wars, but it is also true thai international law can strengthen the case of a
state which appeals to it. According to Kleffens International Law is ”a wrong shield, giving those who possess it,
better morale and a consideration undoubtedly of special importance to the armed forces. A shield is a weapon of
defence, not offence. No weapon can be more legitimate.” He further asserts that ”International Law is the only
objective and impartial yardstick in international relations: a solid basis for any international policy worthy of that
name, a sure touchstone for the settlement of international disputes; and an effective reducing agent of mere statecraft,
cleverness and Opportunism. It sets up a standard to which the good and the just <~ .. repair. International optimism,
confidence and tranquility are in direct propo’tion to its strength and advancement.”2
1. W.C. Paton, A Text Book of Jurisprudence, p. 63
2, Eleco N. van Kleffens, Th« Place of Law in International Relations’ in Mctellan, Olson and Sondermann (eds) Theory and
Practice of International Relations, pa
423-424.
234
rislTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The significance of the international law has been acknowledged by most of the countries. They grant constitutional or
statutory recognition to this body of laws. For example, in India the Constitution has clearly laid down in part IV of the
Constitution (Directive Principle of State Policy) that the government shall ’ give due respect to the principles of
international law. The Constitution of U.S.A. also emphasises the binding nature of the international law. It clearly
states that the treaties concluded by the government shall form a part of the supreme law of the land. The Courts in
U.S.A. have gone a step further and asserted that not only the treaties but the entire body of international law, including
the customary law-shall form part of the American law. Even in other countries where no constitutional or statutory
recognition has been accorded to international law, the binding nature of the law is not denied by the state. As the real
sanction behind law is not legal force but the will of the state, the international law is given due respect. Prof. Kleffens
has rightly observed ”the ultimate basis of the respect due io international law (and to all laws, for that matter) lies
outside the realm of law-it is of a moral and sociological order. We respect law and its enforcement because we feel in
our heart and conscience, it is right and useful that the law ba observed, and not because there is any fundamental rule
of law commanding as that we must accept it as right, whether, we agree to accept it or not.”1
Prof. Palmer and Perkins while admitting the defects and limitations of the international ’aif consider it absolutely
essential for a better international order. They say ”With a consciousness of the defects and limitations bf international
law-the inadequacies of the legislature, judicial and executive functions, the narrowness of the range and the too
frequent misunderstanding of its nature and of its proper role- the men and women who seek a world of peace and order
see that law as an index to their progress. Offering no formula by which the putting of words on paper can compel
skates to follow acourse of justice and friendship, international law does provide almost theônly means by which
states can register and secure the gains which they make towards a better international order.*2
After agreeing in principle about the important role which international law plays or can play in the sphere of
international relations, it shall be desirable to examine how international law is inevitable for the conduct of
international relations. In fact, the need of systematic relations at the international level, as in the case of other
societies, requires that there should be some rules of understanding which die members may observe in their complex
relations and avoid chaotic conditions. There is hardly any sphere of state activity which is not regulated by some or the
other rule of international law. Take for example the . question of the jurisdiction of the members of the international
community. To a large extent it is regulated by International Law. In the absence of a clear cut. border and jurisdiction
of the states, disputes are bound to arise, as it did happen between India and Chioa in 1962 in view of their
undemarcated boundaries. Similarly, the flight of an aircraft to or across a foreign country requires the consent of the
concerned countries. This problem has been resolved through the
1. Ibid., p. 426.
2. Palmet and Perkin*, International Relations, pp. 295-96. >•• • «v;
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL I AW
235
civil aviation treaties to which rnost of the states are signatories. In the absence bf these treaties the international
movement of aircraft would be impossible. The flight of the military aircraft is, however regulated under different set
of rules and
• generally the military planes of one country are not permitted to fly over the territory of another state for obvious
reasons.
The bilateral relations between different states are possible only due to existence of rules of international law. in the
’absence of ruies pertaining to diplomatic envoys and their immunities, the foreign ambassadors would not have
enjoyed exemption from the jurisdiction of the state to which they are accredited, rn the absence of these ruies it would
not have been possible to exchange envoys and establish regular dealings with other countries. The International Law
by bestowing special status on the diplomats has made more intimate bilateral relations possible.
The commercial relations between the members of the international community have grown largely because of
international law. The commercial relations between different countries are regulated under numerous bilaterial and
multilateral treaties which constitute an important part of international law. Likewise the military and financial
assistance rendered by the states to each other is made possible by the various treaties and agreements among the
concerned states.
Even the social and political changes which take piace in the intemationaJ society are largely due to international law.
For example the Human Rights have come to occupy a prominent position in the constitutional systems of all the
countries since World War II. This was made possible by the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
declaration challenged the long established convention of the states that what they do to their own nationals is their
own concern. The Declaration by exerting necessai-y moral pressure on the states to concede certain basic rights to its
citjzem, brought about a revolutionary change. Subsequently, these rights ”were accorded iegal status through
incorporation in the two treaties concluded in 1966.
International law has also greatly helped in the technological advancement of the states. For example, after World War
II when the question of utilising the resources of the continental shelf arose, there was every possibility of conficts
arising amongst various states due to absence of any exact law. This conflict was eliminated through the creation of
new law on the subject. Similarly, in the.late sixties UN sponsored a treaty containing legal rules regarding Outer
Space, and thus eliminated the possibility of friction among the powers. Likewise, the problems of hijacking of
aeroplanes, kidnapping of diplomats and exploitation of the sources of the deep sea, which could have posed a serious
challenge of international peace, were resolved through necessary laws.
International law indirectly influences the conduct of the international relations by providing the framework for the
international organisation and society. In also contributes towards social justice by encouraging the international
society to move in a particular direction, NUT doubt, in comparison to the domestic law, which is more readily obeyed
by the people, the international law
not receive willing obedience of the member states, yet it can be said with
21b
some amount of confidence that it does exercise some influence in this regard. This influence is greater when the law
itself is not under dispute. The states tend to respect international law because they do not like to be charged with its
breach.
The above discussion makes it amply clear that international law has played a significant role in international relations,
tt provides, a normative framework within which and with reference to which states take their decisions. Generally the
states try to achieve their goal in^ keeping with the provisions of the law or in a manner which is not contrary to the
law. Hence it can be said that international relations can be systematically conducted because of the existence of a body
of international law. Without international law the international system would not be able to survive or work smoothly.
According to Alan James ’the significance of international law is enduring and vital. It does not control the ebb and
flow of international politics, but it does provide an indispensable framework for the political process. Without it,
relations, if not minimal, could not be other than anarchical in the most drastic meaning of the word. Internationally, as
elsewhere, law is a concomitant of ordered relations,*’
1. Alan Jarneft’Law and Order in Iniematiooal Society* in AUn James (erf.) TheBfses of International Order, pp. 83-84.
21
Origin and Development of International Organisation

The urge for peace and self-preservation h,as inspired man to devise institutionsfor greater international cooperation
and avoidanceof confrontation. Though this process of evolving international organisations has existed for long it
received a special impetus as a result of the scientific and technological developments during the past few centuries.
However, in the pi esent century this international cooperation assumed new dimensions with the emergence of the
League of the Nations and the United Nations. It would not be wrong to say that the League represented the
culmination of the long process of the evolution of international organisation. However, it also radically differed from
the institutions created during the past few centuries.
Meaning of International Organisation. According to Potter the term international organisation refers to ”the aggregate
of procedures and organs for expressing the unification of nations.” He draws a distinction between apparent and
international organisations and says that any degree of international unity or community which would supersede
national interest, policy and action would satisfy this concept as, for examplea mere international custom or an
international agreement. He asserts that it is not essential that any strictly international organ should be involved in this
process. On the other hand the term is often used to refer to the agencies and procedures deliberately setup as
theexpression’of fundamental international organisation. , Jacob and Atherton hold that international organisations are
in reality ”associations of sovereign states.. They have governmental functions to perform, but they do not have the
powers normally assumed by the governments.”
Characteristics of International Organisations.Though the international organisations may differ in their structure and
functions, they possess certain common characteristics. The ma in characteristics of international organisations are as
under:
Firstly, the membership of the international organisations i> generally open only to -the sovereign states. The delegates
who participated in the
1
238
deliberations of these international organisations are nominated by the government and act according to their
directions. Thus they represent the views of the various governments in the deliberations of the organisation.
However sometimes certain technical experts are also appointed as delegates to the international organisation
and they express views in their individual capacity. Similarly some-times non-sovereign states are also admitted
as members of international organisation. For example Byelorussia and Ukraine, two Republics of the Soviet
Union were admitted as members of the United Nations, even though they lacked sovereign character. Another
notable point is that in case of countries which have two governments, de.facto and dejure, the government which
enjoys effective control over the state’s territory is usually provided representation in the international
organisation. But often this rule is violated due to political considerations. For example National Government
continued to represent China in the United Nations even though it had lost control over the mainland of China,
because of the political manpoeuvring of the United States and her allies. It was only in the 1970’s that People’s
Republic of China could get representation in the United Nations after improvement of its relations with the
United States. Thus we can say that usual iy the membership of international organisation is available on ly to
sovereign states, but certain exceptions can always be possible.
Secondly, all the member states are treated as equal members irrespective of their size, populatiQn, wealth or
power. The members are entitled to the same rights and privileges. Thus ai! the members of the United Nations
nave been granted equal status under the U.N. Charter. However, this principle of equality has been violated in
the composition of the Security Council where five major powers - USA, USSR, UK, France and the People’s
Republic of £hina, have been accorded special status and granted power of veto on matters of importance to be
decided by the Security Council. Similarly, all the members of the United Nations do not make equal financial
contribution towards the expenses- of the United Nations. The various members are expected to make
contribution in accordance with their capacity. Likewise in the International Monetary Fund and the
international Bank for Reconstruction and development the members have been given votes in proportion to
their shares. This obviously implies that rich and powerful counrftes iê ableto exert greater influencein the
UniterfNations. But it is also true that in most of the other international agencies the states are treated as equal
irrespective of their size, population or power.
Thirdly, the international organisations lack binding force. This implies that the international organisations
cannot compel the member states to abide by their decisions. They can merely make recommendations to the
member states, which may or may not be followed by them. The states follow these recommendations j£it suits
them. Further, the international agencies cannot interfere in the domestic jurisdiction of the member states.
Thus we can say
ORIGIN AND QEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION 239
that the international organisations lack authority to compel the member states to abide by their decisions.
However, this should notbe taken to mean that the international agencies cannot take any measures to
enforce their decisions.’ For example the Universal Postal Union can compel its members to abide by its
decision by prescribing exclusion from the union as a penalty for failure tocomply with theprescribed
regulations. Similarly the International Bank and the Internationa! Monetary Fund can impose sanctions
against the members who fail to carry out their decisions. Likewise even the Security Council has been
vested with the power to make binding decisions with regard to maintenance of peace and security.
. Finally, international organisation primarily seeks to promote intergovernmental collaboration. As

’sovereignty’ is still a dominant feature of the modern-state system, the international organisations try to
secure voluntary cooperation of the member states with a view to reconcile the view points of various states
and bring about necessary agreement among them. The U.N. Charter specifically lays down that the United
Nations shall be centre for harmonising the actions of the nations in the attainment of common ends’. It
even stipulates these ends which include the maintenance of international peace and security, development
of friendly relations among nations on the basis of equal rights and self-determination of the people, and
international cooperation for solving international problems of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian
character. .
Development of International Organisation. .Theorigin of the international organisation can be traced back
to the earl iest periods of recorded history. We get sufficient evidences in the histories of India, China,
Mesopotamia and Egypt regarding the existence of diplomatic practices, commercial relations, treaties of
alliances etc. These treaties of the past, according toMangone, are the first steps towards the formation of
international organisation.
» Creek Period. The greeks formed the first formal organisation known as Amphietyomc League in
theearly sixth century B.C. for the regulation of interstate relations, avoiding war and for promoting
international unity. In 477 the maritime states of Asia Minor Aegean island, the Cycles, Euboea and other
city states on the shores of Thrace and Propontes formed a confederation known as Deios. The members of
this confederation contributed ships and men for the maintenance of a common navy. A little later the
Creeks formed the Achaean League of the Hellenese which had seventy states, enjoying full autonomy, as
its members. It may be noted that these organisations of the Greeks were confined only to the Greeks states
and the outside states were •ex< iuded from it. . •
?7ie K’ ’im^nPeriofJ. The Romans contributed to the growth of international organisation’ m an indirect
manner. They evolved certain military. ,idmmistrative and legal techniques which provided the basis for the
growth
240
of international organisations in so far as they included meinbersof other race and nationalities also.
Alliance of Christian Powers. The lawlessness which was created after the decline of the Roman Empire
encouraged fresh efforts for the creation of new organisations for preservation of order. In 1305 Pierre
Dubories, a French lawyer, proposed an alliance of the Christian powers. He also suggested the
establishment of a Permanent Court of Arbitration for the settlement of differences among the members.
Thereafter a number of alliances and associations were formed but generally they lacked adequate
machinery for inter-state cooperation. Some of the important associations formed during the medieval
period were Hanseatic League, and Uncleus (a League formed by the Swiss cantons of Uri, Schwyz and
Ulterwalden).
The Grand Design. This wasthemostambitious project which constituted a milestone on the road to the
development of international organisation was the Grand Design, an organisation of fifteen Christian
Republics which was formed at the instance of Henry IV in 1603 toeliminate war and settle disputes
peacefully. This scheme, however, failed as it was too radical, and narrow. It was essentially a European
organisation because its members were European states and was by no means a universal organisation.
Treaty of Westphalia and International Organisation. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the next
important milestone in the development of international organisation. Though this treaty did not formally
create -any international organisation and made no bid to resolve the social and economic problems of the
states which arose.as a result of the havoc of warfare, yet it opened a new era in international relations by
uniting the various European states in diplomatic conference. As Mangone has observed ”The Congress of
Westphalia had little resemblancetotheintricate organisation of the twentieth century peace conference. No
officer presided, no committees” were formed, no votes were taken. But the cities of negotiation including
the route between Muster and Osnabruck, were neutralized from the war while both papal Nuncial Chigi
and Ambassador Contarine of Venice acted as mediators for plenipotentiaries in Munster. Of the greatest
importance to international organisation, however, were the gathering of hundreds of envoys in the
diplomatic conference which represented practically every political interest in Europe and the achievement
by negotiation rather than by the dictation of two great and multilateral treaties which legalised the new
order of European international relations.”
Peace of Utrecht. The next .important step in the direction of establishing international organisation was
taken by the Peace of Utrecht in 1713 which accorded international sanction to new dynasties and gave a
serious setback to the imperial aspirations. Thus the Protestant succession to British throne was accepted by
France, the Elector of Brandenburg took the title of Prussia
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION
241
|| >’
:l
and Victor Amadeus got Nice and was also proclaimed as the king of Sicily.
Apart from these measures certain scholars and philosophers also presented their plans for the creation of
international organisation during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Some of the important plans
presented included Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by William Penn in 1693;
Project to Bring Perpetual Peace in Europe by Saint Pierre in
1712; Plea for an Universal and Perpetual Peace by Bentham in 1793; and Perpetual Peace by Kant in
1795.
Development of International Organization in Nineteenth Century

Congress of Vienna (1815). the development of international organisations received a special impetus in the
nineteenth century due to profound changes in the political, economic and social conditions. In the wake of
the industrial revolution there was a tremendous increase in production which in turn resulted in heavy
growth in trade and penetration of European powers in different parts of the world. This resulted in the
creation of a complex worldwide economic network, which influenced the growth of international
institutions in four ways. Firstly, the increase in international transactions enhanced the risk of conflicts and
wars among the states. To avoid these wars. the states evolved instruments of international arbitration.
Secondly, they felt the need of certain common rules and regulations for the purposes of t patenting
inventions, classifying goods for customs duties ahd deciding exchange rates between currencies. To deal
with these aspects a number of public international unions were created in the nineteenth century. Thirdly,
realising that the sovereign rights of the states posed a serious obstruction in the way of efficient conduct of
international business it was decided to set up General Postal Union in 1875 (which was succeeded by
Universal Postal Union in 1878) for smooth transmission of postal items across frontiers. Fourthly the
inter-dependent nature of the economies of various countries to settle their rivalries in their mutual interest.
This led to the establishment of international commissions to regulate the trade of specific commodities like
sugar. In the social sphere this feeling of inter-dependence encouraged the states to cooperate with each
other in control of disease. These efforts culminated in the establishment of International Office of Public
Hygiene in
1907.
The nineteenth century witnessed more concrete steps in the direction of the creation of international
organisation. The first important step in this direction was the Congress of Vienna (1815). This Congress
not only made a political settlement but also treated a variety of social and economic problems. Above all it
evolved a procedure for its working.TheCongress also
• provided a threefold classification of diplomatic envoys and made the European states admit the principle
of basic equality of all the states. The Conference also for the first time evolved the procedure of having a
Presiding
242 . .
Officer and Committees for tbe conduct of its business. Proper invitations for participation in Congress of
Vienna ’unwittingly.., lay the foundations of a political and international system which for a century shaped
the course of European and to some extent of world affairs.”
Above all this Congress also evolved a mechanism for the enforcement of the terms of settlement arrived at
Vienna. It created a Quadruple Alliance consisting of Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia which was
subsequently converted into Quintuple Alliance with the inclusion of France. The Congress of Vienna
contributed to the evolution of international organisation in three ways. First it forced an alliance to enforce
peace after the war. Secondly, it started the practice of holding conferences of great powers at fixed
intervals to preserve peace. Thirdly, it emphasised the principle that the maintenance of peace depended on
collaboration of big powers.
The Concert of Europe. As noted above the Congress of Vienna marked the beginning of an age of
consultations.in international sphere. In 1815. Tsar Alexander concluded a Holy Alliance with Prussia and
Austria with a view to conduct the domestic as well as international relations in accordance with principles
of Christian morality. In 1818 the Czar put forward the ideal of League of Nations at the Aix-la-Chappdie
Congress. This League was expected to put down with firmness all threats to the stability of Europe,
including domestic revolutions. The Aix-la-Chappelle Congress. This League was expected to put down
with firmness all threats to the stability of Europe, including domestic revolutions. The Aix-la:Chappel!e
Congress also considered numerous other questions relating to international slave trade, the depredations of
the Barbary pirates, emancipation of jews, quarrels between Spain and Portug’al, and revolt of the Spanish
American colonies etc. Thus it demonstrated the utility of resolving the differences and problems through
international consultations. After Aix-la-Chappelle the powers of Europe heldconference at Troppa-Jin
1820, Laibachin 1821 and Verona in 1822. Though these conferences did not prove as successful as the
Congress of Aix-laChappelle, yet the practice of holding international conferences by the states of Europe
in times of peace to regulate their political views and interests was firmly established. The Concert played a
significant role in resolving various issues such as independence of Belgium (1830); independence of
Greece (1837); maintenance of status of Egypt as pan of Turkish Empire (1841), recognition of territorial
integrity of Ottoman Empire (1853); and regulation of navigation of Danube etc. The concert of Europe
continued to hold meetings atregular intervals till 1914and greatly contributed to the preservation cf peace
by preventing the outbreak of wars. By that time ”the practice of international Conferences in times of
peace among the states of Europe, to regulate their political views anfd interests, had been firmly
established.
tCJ. Mangone, A Short History of International Organisation, p. 42)
()RICIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONA! ORGANISATION
243
Commenting on the importance of the Concert of Europe Prof. Mangone has observed ”though the
conferences had neither the power nor the inclination to decide and settle all the questions, but the net
achievement of clarifying the issues and adjusting a number of them by friendly discussion among the
assembled Great Powers indicated the utility of international consultations.”
Cheever describes the formation of the Concert of Europe as a landmark in the history of international
organisation on three counts. Firstly, though the Concert was formed during the war, it continued, even
after hostilities had ceased, to enforce peace. Secondly, periodic conferences were instituted when the great
powers agreed to renew their meetings at fixed intervals. Thirdly, despite the suspicion of the smaller
powers.it was generally agreed thatthemaintenanceofpeacedepended on this sort of bigpower collaboration.
These notions were carried over into both the League and the U.N. (D.S. Cheever and H.F. Havilland,
Organising for Peace p. 35) But probably, the most important contribution of the Concert of-Europe was
that it produced the prototype of a major organ of modern international organization.
The Hague Conferences, the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 also played a major role in the creation
of the present international organization. The Hague Conference of 1899 worked out a Convention for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. It provided for the establishment of at>. ad hoc International
Commission pf Inquiry to which the parties could refer their disputes. It also made provision of Permanent
Court of Arbitration. The Hague Conference of 190? took still more significant steps in the direction of the
creation’of international- organisation. It for the first Jime convened a meeting of therepresentatives of all
the constituted states to discuss problems of common interest for the good of entire mankind. This
Conference/can be considered as the First General Assembly of the States.
The Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 had threefold significance. In the first place, these Conferences
treated the smajl states as independent and equal partners for the first time. Secondly, these conferences
emphasised the need of avoiding war and mitigating the evils and barbarities of war. Thirdly, these
conferences provided permanent agencies and devices for the settlement of disputes among the states.
Accordingto Palmer and Perkins, the importanceoftheHagueConferences of 1890 and 1907 lay in the fact
that they ”represented a transitional step from ad hoc conferences and specialized international
organizations towards the League of Nations, the first great experiment of an organization open to all states
and without a special purpose and character.” (Calmer and Perkins, International Relations., p. 320).
Public International Unions. The creation of a number of international administrative agencies and public
international unions in the later half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century was another
significant step
244
in thedirection of development of international organizations. These agencies and unions were primarily
created to meet the growing need of co-operation in economic and social spheres. Some of the notable
agencies and organizations created for this purpose include the European Commission for Danube (1856);
The International ”Bureau of Telegraphic Administration (1868); the Universal Postal Union (1875); the
Internationa) Copyright Union (1886); the International Office of Health (1903); International Institute of
Agriculture (1905) etc. Some of these international bodies and agencies are still working, while the
functions of others have been taken over by the different agencies of the United Nations.
The Public International Unions supplemented the administrative work of the national governments and
tried to provide certain services to the governments. No doubt they lacked the authority to frame laws and
impose taxes, yet they greatly stimulated experimental development of functional innovations of
international relations. They introduced several organisational concepts which left a deep impact on the
future international organisations. For example the Bureau of the international Telegraph Union established
in
1868 served as a model for secretariat of several international organisations in subsequent years. According
to Inis L.Claude jr, this development of permanent staff to give continuity to the organisation, to carry out
functions of research, correspondence and publication, and toprepare the business and make arrangement
for future conferences, was the crucial step in the transformation of international organisations from
sequences of disconnected conferences into genuine institutions. Above all the Public International Unions
promoted a feeling of cooperation among the sovereign states.
The League of Nations. The League of Nations, which was created after the First World War, was one of
thfe most comprehensive institution of international organization, it combined in itself the different
organizations. The League of Nations also differed from the previous institution in so far as the latter were
merely agencies of consultations, whereas the League marked the beginning of collaboration. According to
Mangone the main differences between international organization before and after the League of Nations
lies in the achievement of a permanent agency through which states can collaborate continuously on the
grave problems which affect the peace of the world. However, certain scholars do not see the League of
Nations in any way different from the previous international organization1;. For example Vandenbosch and
Hogan has observed ”....the League of Nations was not a new and marvellous invention so far as its
structure and methods were concerned, since ample precedents for these may be found in preceding
international institutions.” Simifariy other scholars have also noted several similarities between the
institutions of the League of Nations and earlier institutions.
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT Of INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION
245
For example to them the Council of the League was a replica of the Concert of Europe and the General
Assembly was merely a realization of the plans of the Hague Statesmen to create a General Conference of
Nations. Similarly the Secretariat was merely an extension of the idea of the International Bureau which
formed part of the earlier unions. Again the Permanent Court of International justice envisaged in the
covenant of th’e League was largely based on the ideas expressed at the Hague Conferences about the
International judicial Organ. However, it cannot be denied that ”the League did provide for the first time a
comprehensive system, with the union in one institution of a number of separate elements which had
previous’y existed in a piecemeal fashion.”Furthermore, it made a radical departure from the earlier
institutions in so far as it laid ”emphasis on fhe principle of collective security, in contrast to the traditional
nineteenth century principle of neutrality of third states towards belligerents engaged in an international
conflict.*
An impartial-observer will admit that it is wrong to undermine the importance of the League of Nations by
asserting that it was merely a continuation of the earlier institutions. Actually it deserves credit for having
created bodies like General Assembly and Permanent Court of International justice, which had so far
existed in thought only. It also goes to the credit of the League of Nations (hat it pulled together separate
lines of development into a coherent system. Above all, the significance of the League lies in the fact that it
made a bid to improve the procedures and assist the operation of the world political system. It also
introduced radical changes in the multi-state system. The Mandate System introduced by the League of
Nations helped the backward communities to escape annexation by big powers. Henceforth the big powers
were to treat these territories as the sacred trust of civilisation and could notannex them without the consent
of the League of Nations. For about two decades the League worked as an effective institution and could
boast of number of achievements in the political, economic and social fields. No doubt, ultimately
theLeague failed and Its structure showed many weaknesses, but this does not undermine its contribution to
the growth of internationa! organisation. The mere fact that the United Nations created after the Second
World Waf was largely based on the League of Nations bears a testimony to the importance of the League
as a body of international organization.
The development of international organization culminated in the formation of the United Nations
Organization in 1945 with a view to promote international co-operation and establish international peace
and security. Though the United Nations largely borrowed from the League, in matters of organization and
functions it certainly marked an improvement over the League of Nations. It is clear from the preceding
account that the internationa I organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations which
See Gerard J. Mangone, A Short History of Internationa! Organisation, pp. 1-20).
246
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION
emerged in the present century were largely based on the principles evolved during the nineteenth century viz
general system of international organisation, combination of great power council, universal conferences,
specialised functional units and permanent staff. According to Mangone without the experience cf the nineteenth
century, without the practices and procedures of Internationa! consultation for one hundred years, without the
example of the international agencies created in two or three generations, the world would never have built such
a rare device as the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Classification of International Organisation
In view of the presence of large variety of international organisations in the present day world, their
classification poses a serious problem. Different scholars have tried to classify these international agencies
and institutions on the basis of different principles.
1. Ofifr)ebaS(5o^Furict(ons.Onthebasisofthefunctiortsoftheinternational organisations
thescholarshaveclassifiedthemaspolitical, administrative and judicial. The political organisations are
primarily concerned with the preservation of international peace and security. The United Nations is one of
such organisation. The administrative organisations on the other hand have very limited aims and
objectives and work merely as administrative agencies. The Trusteeship Council is an example of the
Administrative International Organisation. The judicial institutions perform certain judicial functions and
try to resolve the differences among the members. The Permanent Court of International Justice and the
International Court of justice are the examples of this type of international organisation. Critics regard the
classification on the basis of functions as unscientific because it is indeed difficult to draw a distinction
between the various types of functions performed by an international organisation.
2. On the basis cf Field of Operation. Some scholars have classified the international organisations on the
basis of their field of operation as global and regional. A global organisation isamuch broader organisation
which has usually a universal membership and extensive jurisdiction. Such a global organisation can have
within its jurisdiction several regional organisations. The United Nations is the best example of the Global
Organisation. It has within it several regional bodies like the Regional Commissions of the Economic and
Social Council-the Economic Commission for Asia, the Far East, Europe, Latin America, Africa etc. The
regional organisations on the other hand cover a much narrower area. They are usually confined to some
particular region and undertake very limited functions. These organisations are usually formed by states
with similar objectives. The NATO, the Warsaw Treaty
247
Organisation ASEAN, and SAARC are outstanding examples of the regional organisations.
3. On the basis of Government or State Treaties. The third basis far the classification of international
organisations is whether the treaty which created them has been concluded by the stales or the
governments, if the organisation is created on the basis of a treaty concluded between the states it involves
all the organs of the government viz., the legislature, the executive (administration) as well as the govemn
jnt. The prominent examples of the international organisation created through inter-state treaties are the
Food and Agricultural Organisation, the World Health Organisation, etc. On the other hand if the
organisation is creited through a treaty concluded by the government*, only the administrative wing of the
government is involved. The Intenxttonal Monetary Fund is the best example of the
international’organisation created through intergovernment treaty. It may be noted that usually only
international organisations of non-permanent nature are created through intergovernmental treaties viz. the
United National Rehabilitation Administration. Sometimes the governments enter into treaties to create
international organisations to overcome the constitutional hurdles.
4. On the basis of Membership and Activity. Certain scholar* j)ke Nocman Hill have alsf classified the
international organisations on the basis of the.ir membership and activity. On the basis of membership Hill
classifies the international organisations as bilateral, regional or universal. The bilateral organisations are
usually-created by two states through agreement The best examples of this type of organisation are the
Joint Commission for U.S. and Canada, theWlgto-Egyptian Condominium for Sudan etc. The regional
organisations are created by the member states of a particular region. Th,e best examples of the regional
organisations are the O.A.S., ASEAN, SAARC, etc. The universal organisation’s have universal
membership. The League of the Nations and the United Nations are the best examples of the universal
international organisations.
On the basis of the activities of the organisations &ey are broadly classified as general and functional. The
general organisations pursue much broader objectives as compared to the functional organisations. The
United Nations, OAS., ASEAN, SAARC etc. are examples of general organisation. On the other hand the
International Telegraph Union, General Postal Union, ILO, FAO, UNESCO, WHO etc. are examples of the
functional organisations.
It is clear from the above discussion on that no single principle can be followed for the classification of
international organisations. No wonder scholars have tried to base the classification înternational
organisations on different principles viz. on the basis of their area of operation, the manner of their
creation, and the nature of the functions performed by them.
22
The United Nations and its Specialised Agencies

”There monstrous Wars hive led. to three sane attempts to institutionalise peace by international
organisation. The Consuming struggles of Napoleon drove the world powers to consultation, the raw
excesses of the First World War which I cost no less than ISObilliondollarsandtenbillionlives, further
impelled men and women to seek a system of collaboration against international violence; and out ofthe
man to the Second World War, more terrible than all the catacombs of the past, came the plans for the
United Nations”.
-Prof, Gerard I. Mangone
Instinct to fight, which is almost an animal instinct, is inherent in human nature since the creation of human
life. With the advancement of science later technology, the art of fighting underwent tremendous change
resulting in the invention of tools to fight. The fight was replaced by war. The history of our civilisation is
in fact the history of wars which man has fought against man. The fear of death, destruction and
annihilation which directly accrue from war, has-made human mind to search for means to avoid war. This
rational urge found its manifestation nfthe form ofthe League of Nations after the First World War. This
was the first organisation of its kind which had been incepted atthe World level. Unfortunately, the human
desire for peace was shortlived as then followed the Second World War. This war unleashed destruction
and annihilation. A sizeable number of people lost their lives. It was the failure of the League which led to
the outbreak of the World War ll-the most horrorful so far in human memory. A greater need for peace was
felt by human mind and this led to search for an effective international alternative to guarantee peace and
security. Protracted deliberations and mutual negotiations led to the inception of the United Nations
Organisation in 1945.
OlfiJMof UN
The foundations of the United Nations were laid on the ashes of the League of Nations. League’s failure to avert
the war and promote the cause of peace reiterated the conviction ofthe people all over the world to work out for
enduring peace. The name ’United Nations” was devised by President Franldin D. Roosevelt and was first used
in the declaration by * United Nations’ of 1 January 1942 during the war when representatives of 16 nation*
”’”dp--*
THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES
249
their governments to continue fighting together against the Axis powers. The advent of U N owes its roots
to the Moscow Declaration of 1 November, 1943 whereas Foreign Ministers of China, Russia, UK and the
United States took up a decision to establish an international organisation. The efforts were continued and
negotiations were being conducted. The representatives ofthe countries mentioned above again met at
Washington in September-October
1944 and are also known as Dumbarton Oaks talks. On October 7,1944 the proposed framework of the
UNO was tentatively published. These proposals were further discussed atthe Yalta Conference in February
1945 where Heads of United Kingdom, America and Russia-Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin-took part.
Finally, the draft was signed on June 26,1945. The UN Charter came into being on October 24,1945 when
it was ratified by a requisite number of states.
Objectives of the United Nations
The objectives ofthe United Nations are enshrined in the Preambletothe Charter. There are four major
objectives:
(i) To save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war;

(ii) To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the work and dignity of human person and equal
rights of men, women and nations large and small;
(in) To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and
other sources of international law can be maintained,
(iv) To promote social progress and better standard of life in large freedom.
These objectives envisaged a better and peaceful life to the people ofthe wor(d through practising tolerance
and living together in peace and harmony with one another. This spirit has facilitated the emergence of the
concept of peaceful coexistence among the states despite political, economic and ideological difference
prevailing between them. The Preamble envisages the principle of collective security to maintain
international peace and security.
The Preamble emphasises the use of international machinery to promote economic and social advancement
ofthe people throughout the world. This has led to a new international economic order whictfBttaches
importance to the development of less developed countries.
The Purposes and Principles of the United Nations
ThepurposesoftheUnitedNationsaresetforthin Article 1 oftheCharter. These include the following:
1. Maintenance of international peace and security.

250
2. Development of friendly relations among nations.
3. International co-operation in solving problems of economic, social, cultural and humanitarian nature;
promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
4. To act as a centre for harmonising the actions of nations to achieve he above ends.
It will be observed from the above list of purposes of United Nations, that naintenance of international
peace and security has been given first place, Because in its absence the other purposes of the United
Nations cannot be ealised. For the purpose of maintenance of international peace and security, he UN can
take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal >f threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other reaches of the peace, and to bring about any peaceful means, and
in onformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustments jr settlement of international
disputes of situations which might lead to a >reach of the peace.
The UN also seeks to develop friendly relations among nations based on aspect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of the peoples, nd can take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal
peace. Both he above purposes of the United Nations are essentially political in character >ecause they
have a direct bearing on the struggle for power among the lations.
The third purpose of the United Nations is to ensure international cooperation for solving international
problems of economic, social, cultural x humanitarian nature.
It promotes and encourages respect for human rights and assures undamentaf freedoms to all without
distinction of race, sex, language or eligion. •
Finally, the United Nations is expected to act as centre for the coordination )f various iptemational
economic, social, cultural activities. It is noteworthy •hat the United Nations alone does not coordinate all
these activities. A lumber of other organisations also play a vital role in this regard.
For the attainment of the above purposes the UN acts in accordance with certain principles which have
been outlined in Article 2 of the UN Charter. These principles include the following:
1. ..The organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its membes-
2. The members shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by jhem in accordance with the present
Charter.
251
3. All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and jus’ice are not endangered.
4. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations. v
5. Ail members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the
present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is
taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The organisation shall ensure that states which are not members of the United Nations act in accordance
with these.
7. The organisation shall not intervene in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
This provision shall not, however, prejudice the application of enforcement action with respect to threats to
the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
It shall be desirable to know how far the above principles have actually been adhered to. As regards the
principle of sovereign equality of states, though the UN Charter has accorded equal representation to the
States in the General Assembly and they enjoy equal votes, but this principle has been compromised by
according ’veto’ power to the big five members of the Security Counci I. With regard to the second
principle also the members of the UN have not fully lived upto their obligations set forth in the Charter and
their commitment has merely proved to be a pious wish. Wiih regard to the third principle though the
members have made use of instrument; like negotiation, enquiry, mediations, conciliation, arbitration and
judicial settlement’ for the settlement of their disputes, but they have also made use of regional agencies or
arrangements for the protection of their interests. The members have also followed the fourth principle of
refraining from the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of other states.
Members have also generally shewn readiness to assist the United Nations in any action it proposed to sake
in accordance with the Charter. UN has also tried to ensure that the non-members act in accordance with
the principles or UN Chatter and thus impa.t universal character to the organisation. Finally, the principle
that the UN shai! net intervene in matters which fall within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, has
seriously restricted the authority of the organisation. It is indeed difficult to determine when a particular
issue falling within the jurisdiction of the state may cease to be a matter of national copcer1. jlona and
assume <nterna’donal dimensions. ...-.•
252
Membership. At present United Nations has a membership of more than

180. These members broadly fall into two categories. First, the original members, who participated in the
San Francis’co Conference or had signed earlier Declaration by the United Nations on (anuary 1,1942 and
signed and ratified the Charter. In all there were 51 original members. Secondly, there are members which
were elected under the UN Charter by the Genera I Assembly on the recommendation of the Security
Council. It’may be noted that the membership of me United Nations isopentoallpeace-lovingcountries
which accept, and in the judgement of the organisation, are able and willing to carry out theobligations of
the Charter. Any prospective country desiring to become member has to submit an application, including a
declaration, that it accepts the obligations envisaged in the Charter. New members are admitted by
twothirds vote of the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. The membership
of a state becomes effective on the date the Assembly accepts the applications.
A member against which preventive or enforcement \action has been taken by the Security Council may be
suspended from the exercise of rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council. However, the exercise of these rights and privileges can be
restored by the Security Council. A member of the United Nations which persistently violates the principles
contained in the Charter may be expelled from the organisation by the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council. It may be observed that so far none of the members has been
suspended or dismissed.
With regard towithdrawal of membership theCharter is absolutely silent. This seems to suggest that the
members cannot withdraw from membership. However in 1965, India withdrew from the United Nations
and became the first state to withdraw from the United Nations. Byt subsequently it rejoined the United
Nations.
Principal Organs of the United Notions
The Charter provided for the establishment of six organs of the UN-The General Assembly, The Security
council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and
the Secretariat.
The official languages of the General Assembly, all its main committees and sob-committees, the Security
Council and Trusteeship Council are Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. These languages,
together with Arabic afe the working languages of the Security Council and its seven main committees. The
official languages of International court of Justice are English and French. .
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Composition. The General Assembly is the apex body of the United

THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES 253
Nations. It has been described as ’the town meeting of the world’ because all the members of the United
Nations are ipso facto members of the General Assembly. Each member has a single vote even though each
state can send five representatives to the Assembly. These representatives are the nominees of their
respective governments. The Charter does not impose any restriction on the member states with regard to
the appointment of the delegates to the General Assembly except that Article 8 enjoins upon the states not
to make any discrimination on the basis of sex. These representatives have to act in accordance with the
instructions of their respective governments and are directly responsible to their governments. Thus the
General Assembly is more of a diplomatic conference than a legislative body.
President. The General Assembly at its first session elects a President for a term of twelve months. As a
matter of convention, the President is taken from a minor country. It may be noted that though the President
is elected by the General Assembly, in reality the choice of the candidate for the post of President is made
through private consultations before the session of the Assembly and a candidate who is acceptable to the
majority of the members is elected as President. It is noteworthy that during the initial years close contests
took place for the office of Presidentship.
Vice-President;; and Chairmen of Standing Committees
In addition to the President the General Assembly at its first session also elects seventeen Vice-Presidents
and seven Chairmen for the seven Standing Committees. All these officials, along with the President
constitute the General Committee, which acts as the steering committee for each session. This committee
acts as advisory body to the President. However, its recommendations are not binding on the President. It
mainly advises the President with regard to agenda and priorities of debates, allocation of items to the
seven committees, coordination of work of the standing committees, fixing date for adjournment of
Assembly and assistance to the President in the discharge of his responsibilities.
While nominating the seventeen Vice-Presidents of General Assembly effort is made to provide
representation to all the areas. Usually seven members are taken from Asian and African states; one from
Eastern European States; three from Latin American states; two from Western European and other states;
and five seats are given to five permanent members of the Security Council. Likewise theChairmanship of
the Seven Committees is alsoallocated on the basis of these areas.
Sessions of Assembly. The regular session of the Ge’neral Assembly is held once a year. The session
commences on the third Tuesday in September and continues until mid-December. In addition special
sessions of the Assembly can be called at the request of the Security Council, a majority of member states
or one member state with the concurrence of the majority.
J54
Emergency special session of the Assembly can be called within 24 hours of a request by the Security
Council on vote of any nine of its members, or by a majority of the member states.
Voting. Decisions on all important questions are taken by two-third majority of the members present and
voting. Some of the important matters which fall in this category include recommendations on peace and
security; election of members of the Security Council; the Economic and Social Council and the
Trusteeship Council; admission, suspension and expulsion of member states; trusteeship questions and
budgetary matters. The other matters can be decided by simple majority.
Agenda. The General Assembly conducts its business on the basis of the agenda which is prepared by the
Secretary-General in the month of July. The Secretary General has not much discretion with regard to the
determination of the agenda because there are certain items which must find their place on the agenda.
Thus the agenda of the Assembly invariably includes Annual Report of the Secretary General, reports of
other organs of the United Nations, items proposed by members of the United Nations. Further, this agenda
is reviewed by the General Committee of the Assembly to avoid overlapping and/epetition.
Committees of Assembly. As the General Assembly is quite a large body where effective deliberations are
not possible, it works through Committees. The matters are allocated to the various committees on the
advise of the General Committee. The main committees of the General Assembly, in addition to the
General Committee are :
First CommitteeCDisarmament and related International Security matters)
Special Political Committee
Second Committee (Economic and Financial matters)
Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural matters)
Fourth Committee (Decolonisation matters)
Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary matters)
Sixth Committee (Legal matters)
It may be noted that certain questions are considered in the plenary meetings of the Assembly it self rather
than being referred to the committees of the Assembly. Even the matters which are considered by the
committees and submitted to the Assembly are voted on in the plenary meetings. Usuaify resolutions are
adopted in the plenary meetings by acclamation cr without vote; but votes can also betafren ^ »ol! call .
General Debate. The Annual Session of the General Assembly starts with a general debate. This general
debate, according to Nicholas is rare moment
for seizing the spotlight and putting a point of view that might otherwise be ignored. If one of the
advantages of the U.N. is that the world comes flooding in there, making of Turle Bay a kind of synthesis
of the seven seas, the Genera I Debate is, if not an indispensable, at least an established and convenient
channel for this. Of course member states present themselves exclusively in the guise in which they wish to
be known, but this too is an aspect of reality -pneoftenneglected in ambassadorialîspatches and
intelligence reports.*
It may be noted that the General Assembly does not have any effective rules for the conduct of the debate,
nor does the Chairman of the Assembly has much discretion with regard to recognition of the members.
He has to call upon the speakers in the order in which they signify their desireto speak. Although the
President can call upon a delegate to be relevant, but generally he refrains from making use of this power
due to fear of provoking resentment of the members. Instead the President has preferred the gentler
methods of urging, requesting and appealing to the delegates to secure their compliance. Again, the
President cannot impose any time-restriction on a speaker. This can be determined by the Assembly by
majority vote. Similarly it is the Assembly which determines how many times a member can speak.
Though the proceedings of the Assembly may give theirtipression that it works like a legislature, but
actually it lacks most of the legislative ingredients like parties, whips, government and opposition, front-
benchers and back-benchers etc. Further the principle of responsibility is also conspicuously absent in its
operation.
Functions and Powers
The General Assembly performs varied and extensive functions which can be conveniently studied under*
the following heads.
1. Deliberative Functions. The General Assembly can discuss any question or matter within the scope of
the UN Charter and relating to any organ of the United Nations. It can also invite the attention of the
Security Council to the situation which are likely to endanger international peace and security and
recommendation measures for the peaceful adjustment of situation which is likely to* disturb the friendly
relations amongst nations.
The General Assembly can also initiate studies and make recommendations ,for (a) promoting international
co-operation in political arena and encourage progress of international law and its codification; (b)
promoting international co-operation in the economic, social, cultural, educational and health fields and
assisting in realisation of human rights and fundamental freedom for ail without discrimination as to race,
sex, language or religion. The deliberative functions of the Assembly according to Prof. Vandenbosch and
Hogan, implies two things. First, it entails the power to ascertain the facts and information necessary for the
discussion. Secondly, its.
256
deliberations may go beyond mere discussion and may result in certain recommendations.
In other words the General Assembly can make recommendations and also conduct studies
for promoting international cooperation.
The recommendations of the General Assembly do not possess any legal sanction and are merely an
expression of opinion or advice of the Assembly, which is not binding on the member plates. Further,
though the General Assembly enjoys extensive power* with regard to discussion on world problems, it
cannot intervene in the matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction of the states. But in view of the
growing inter-dependence of internal and foreign affairs, it is not always easy to say what«eally falls under
the ’domestic jurisdiction’. For example, in 1948 India lodged a complaint with General Assembly
regarding maltreatment of Indian minority in South Africa, but the South African Government challenged
the right of the Assembly to consider the issue on the plea that the matter essentially relates to ’domestic
jurisdiction’. Despite this the General Assembly proceeded to adopt a resolution in December 1946 and
insisted that the treatment of the Indian minority should be in accordance with international obligations,
including the provisions of the Charter. It is a different matter that the South African Government refused
to implement the resolution on the ground that the matter did not fall within the competence of the General
Assembly.
The General Assembly has also performed certain legislative functions, even though the UN Charter did
not assign any legislative functions to the Assembly. In fact sometime the member states agree in advance
to acceprthe recommendations of the Assembly. This actually happened in the case, of the Italian colonies
when an agreement could not be reached by United States, ’ Great Britain, France and Soviet Union
regarding their disposal, and they -referred the issue to the General Assembly with an understanding that
the recommendations of the Assembly would be binding on the parties.
Supervisory Functions. ThesupervisoryfunctionsoftheGeneral Assembly include the power to exert control

and regulate the working of other organs and agencies of the United Nations. It receives and considers
annual and special reports from other organs of the United Nations. Thus the Security Council reports to
the General Assembly the measures decided upon or taken for the maintenance of international peace and
security. Likewise the Economic and Social Council has to obta.n the approval of the General Assembly
before convening International Conferences, while concluding agreements with Specialized Agencies or
while seeking advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Even the Trusteeship Council operates
under the supervision of the General Assembly. The General Assembly also enjoys the power to lay down
regulations for the appointment of the staff of the Secretariat. In short, it can be said the General Assembly
exercises overall
. control or supervision over the principal organs of the United Nations and its specialised agencies.
Financial Functions. The Genera! Assembly enjoys important financial
. powers. It apportions expenses and among the member states and approves
the budget of the United Nations. This its power of financial control, it is able
toreview theworkingofotherorgansoftheLimited Nations.Theresponsibility
for the financial and budgetary arrangements of the specialised agencies of
the organisation also rests with the General Assembly. Control over finances
gives the General Assembly the power to supervise and control the activities
’ of other organs and agencies of the organisation.
Electoral Functions. The electoral functions of the GenerarAssembly include the admission of new
members and selection of members of other organs. It admits new members to the UN on the
recommendations of the Security Council. It may be noted that no new member can be admitted without an
affirmative vote of the General Assembly. The General Assembly can also suspend a member on the basis
of recommendations of the Security Council on the ground of violating the principles of the UN charter
continuously. The General Assembly also elects members of several other organs. Thus it elects ten non-
permanent members of the Security Council; the judges of the International Court of Justice for a period of
nine years in concurrence with the Security Council. It also appoints the Secretary-General on the
recommendations of the Security Council.
. The Constituent Functions. The General Assembly enjoys important power with regard to amendment of
the Charter. Amendments to the UN Charter can be carried out by the General Assembly by two-third
majority of its members. However, these amendments have to be ratified by two-thirds of the members of
the United Nations, including all permanent members of the Security Council, in accordance with their
constitutional process. The General Assembly can convene a General Conference, in concurrence with the
Security Council, to review the original Charter. For the discharge of these duties the General Assembly
can establish various committees and subsidiary organs. Some of the committees which have been set up by
the’General Assembly in this regard include the Political and Security Committee, Economic and Financial
Committee, Social Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, Trusteeship Committee, Administrative and
Budgetary Committee, Legal Committee, the General Committee and the Credential Committee. For
tackling specific problems the General Assembly can also establish ad hoc committees.
Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 and Changed Role of the Assembly
A remarkable change took place in the powers and role of the General Assembly following adoption
of’Uniting for Peace Resolution’on 3 November
?
1953. This resolution was introduced by the United States apprehending thai the Soviet Union’s use of veto
is the Security Qouncil would certainly block any action similar to the one taken in Korea. The resolution
laid down that if the Security Council, becauseof lack of unanimity of thepermanent members, fails to
perform the primary responsibility for maintenance of peace and security, in any case when there appears to
be threat to the peace, breach of the peaceor act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the
matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to the members for ’collective
measures’, including, in the case of breach of peace or act of aggression, the use of armed forces when
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The resolution provided that if the General Assembly is not in session at the time, it may meet in
emergency special sessions within twenty-four hours of the request there of. Such emergency special
sessions shall be convened if requested by the Security Council, on the vote of any seven members, or by a
majority of the members of the United Nations. The resolution provided for the establishment of a fourteen-
nation Peace Observation Commission to observe and report on dangerous situations in any part of the
.members. ’It urged the member-states to maintain in their armed forces special elements which could be
made available for the United Nations service on call of the Security Council or the General Assembly.
It may be noted that the Uniting for Peace Resolution could be adopted only because the Soviet delegation
had absented from the Security Council, as a protest against its refusal to grant seat to Communist China.
However, subsequently even Soviet Union confirmed this practice during the Suez Crisis of 1956 when she
supported the Assembly’s action against the votes of Britain and France. Thus the Uniting for Peace
Resolution greatly strengthened the position of the General Assembly vis-a-vis the Security Council: By
virtue of this resolution the General Assembly became the ultimate custodian of collective security
measures. Henceforth the General Assembly could determine by two-thirds majority when and where a
threat to world peace exists and what joint measures should be taken to counter the threat. Thus the United
Nations ”reverted to the precedent of the League, where responsibility rested on both a smaller
representative organ and the entire body of the states in the organization, whichever was able to function
more effectively.” (Jacob and Atherton).
The” Uniting for Peace Resolution procedure was again used in 1958 during the Jordan and Lebanon crisis
and a UN Observation Croup was sent to defuse the crisis and deter foreign infiltration.
The position of the General Assembly suffered a set back in the wake of Congo crisis in the early 1960’s
when the Uniting foÊeace Resolution could not be effectively applied due to financial veto and deadlock
in the Assembly.
THE UNITED NAYlONS AND ITS SPECIALISED ’AGENCIES , 259
; • As a result, once again the smaller powors started looking towards Security Council for an effective role.
The enormous expansion of membership of the Assembly also rendered it ineffective on account of its
unwieldy size.
Further, henceforth Soviet Union started making less frequent useof veto in the Council which reduced the
need for an alternative agency. Above all, the Security Council members were keen to retain their special
influence in the Security Council and naturally encouraged the restoration of Council’s supremacy on
questions of Security. Despite this there were occasional Special Assemblies on the questions of Rhodesia
(1965), South-West Africa (1967) and North South issues (1974-75).
The change in the composition of membership of the United Nations had its impact on the working of the
General Assembly and it started devoting greater attention to the discussion of problems concerning
development. The other important problems which attracted the attention of the General Assembly include
political rights, racial discrimination, human rights etc. In recent years the General Assembly has also taken
up for discussion several new subjects which were never discussed by the Assembly in earlier years. This
include issues like outer space, the environment, satellite broadcasts, natural resource surxeys, population
control, application of science to development, sovereignty over natural resources etc.
Evaluation. The General Assembly occupies a pre-dominant position among the organs of the United
Nations. It not only exercises supervision over other organs like the Secretariat, the Trusteeship Council
and the Economic and Social Council, but also provides direct guidance. It is true that the Assembly does
not exercise any direct control over the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, but these
organisations have been assigned only specific powers. On the other hand the General Assembly has the
right to discuss and make decision on any matter mentioned in the UN Charter. In the political sphere the
predominance of the General Assembly is assured by its large membership and representation of various
member states on terms of equality. This has made theweak states pin theirhopes in this body because they
can influence its decisions on account of their number. Taking advantage of their majority in the UN the
developing countries have tried to use it to further their own interests and sought transfer of resources from
the developed to the developing world. Above all, the General Assembly has greatly influenced the process
of world politics by providing the norms within which the states operate for the attainment of their goals.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
The Security Council is often described as the enforcement wing or the United Natidns.lt is primarily
responsible for the maintenanceof international peace and security. For this purpose^ its services can be
requisitioned any
260
time. This naturally implies that the Security Council has to work continuously so that it can take quick
action in the event of threat to international peace or security.
Composition. The Security Council is a much smaller body than the General Assembly. Initially it
comprised of eleven members-five permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R., France
and Nationalist China) and six non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for a term of two
years. The strength of the non-permanent members was raised to ten in.1965. Thus at present the Security
Council comprises of IS members
- five permanent and ten non-permanent. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, USA and
United Kingdom. The non-permanent members of Security Council are not eligible for immediate re-
election. While electing the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the General’ Assembly takes
into account-the contributions of the members towards the maintenance of international peace and security.
It also ensures that different geographical regions get equitable representation in the Security Council.
Each member of the Security Council has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are taken by
affirmative vote of at least nine members, while decisions on substantive matters are taken by the votes of
nine members, which must also contain the concurring votes of all the permanent members. The Presidency
of the Security Council is held by each member of the Security in alphabetical order for a period of one
month.
Functions and Powers
The UN Charter has entrusted the responsibility of maintenance of international peace and security to the
Security Council. For this purpose all the members of the United Nations are committed to carry out the
decisions of the Security Council. It is noteworthy that while all other organs of the United Nations can
merely make recommendations to the governments of the member States, the Security Council alone has
been vested with the power to take decisions-which the member States are obliged to carry out. The main
functions of the Security Council can be conveniently studied under the following heads:
Deliberative Functions. In the first instance the Security Council has the power to discuss and investigate
any dispute or situation and make recommendation to the member States to settle their disputes by peaceful
means. Disputes or situations likely to endanger international peace and security may be brought to the
attention of the Security Council by any member of UN, by the General Assembly, or by the Secretary-
General. Even non-member States can bring the dispute before the Council provided they accept in advance
the obligations of peaceful settlement contained in the UN Charter. It may be noted that a State which is a
member of the United Nations,
but not of the Security Council, can also take part in the proceedings of the Security Council when it is
considering a matter which affects the interest of that country. Even a State which is not a member of the
UN can be invited to take part in the discussions of the Council if it is a party to the dispute being
considered by the Security Council. However, such States cannot take part in voting.
The Security Council ’can also take up general questions regarding maintenance of international peace and
security. It is responsible for framing plans for the establishment of a systan for the control of armaments.
The United Nations Atomic Energy Commission was set up by virtue of a resolution of the Genera!
Assembly, but it is responsible to and operates under the supervision of the Security Council.
Enforcement Functions. The Security Council has also been vested with important enforcement powers.
When the Security Council finds that a peaceful settlement among the disputant countries is not possible, it
can decide upon measures which it considers necessary for the maintenance of order and restoration of
international peace and security. On account of this power, the Security Council is often described as the
’enforcement arm’ of the United Nations. While taking up adequate measures, Security Council first tries to
resolve the dispute without involving the use of armed forces. For this purpose it can adopt measures like
complete or partial interruption of economic relations, severing of rail, sea, air, postal, radio and other
commup.ication links; and snapping of diplomatic relations. When these measures fail to
producethedesiredeffect,theSecurityCounci!cantakesuch •-âction by air, sea or land forces, as may be
necessary for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. Such actions may include
the blockades, demonstrations and other operations by air, sea or land fc*ees of members of the United
Nations. ”~
It may be noted that though the Security Council can urge the member^ nations to apply sanctions against
an aggressor, there is no guarantee that the States will answer the call. In this regard Article 43 of the UN
Charter enjoins upon all members of the United Nations to make available to the Security Council, on its
call and in accordance with the special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities,
including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining peace and security. However, such
agreement could not be concluded dueto differences among the super powers, and thus these provisions
have remained inoperative.
To assist the Security Council on all questions relating to its military requirements for the maintenance of
international peace and security, a Military Staff Committee has been established. This Committee
alsoassists the Security with regard to employment and command of forces at its disposal, the regulation of
armaments and possible disarmament. This Committee
262
comprises of the Chief of Staffs of the permanent members of Security Council or their representative.
It may be observed that though the Charter grants the States the right to have recourse to individual or
collectiveself-defence in the event of an armed attack against them, but they are not expected to exercise
this right until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security. Thus the main thrust of the enforcement duties of the Council is not to envisage specific terms of
settlement of individual disputes, but maintenance of international peace and security.
Electoral Functions. The Security Council enjoys extensive electoral powers which pertain to admission of
new members and the constitution of other organs of the United Nations. The new members to the world
body can be admitted by the General Assembly only on the recommendation of the Security Council. By
virtue of this power ihe Security Council refused to recommend admission of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Rumania etc. as members of the United Nations. The Security Council also takes part in the election of the
judges of the International Court of Justice. It also makes recommendations regarding the appointment of
the Security General. Again the recommendation of the Security Council is essential for the suspension of a
member of United Nations by the General Assembly.
Role of the Security Council. Though the UN Charter made the Security Council the most important organ
of the United Nations, it has not been able to play the role which was envisaged for it. Since its inception,
the Security Council has not only held fewer sessions but the scope of the political issues considered by it
has considerably narrowed down. Professons. Palmer and Perkins have rightly observed ”Although the
Security Council was envisioned as the central agency of the United Nations, it has not been able to play its
expected role The reason is clear, instead of great power unanimity on which the United Nations was
predicted, the post-war years have brought major rights and disagreement among the most powerful States
of the world. Under these circumstances, the Security Council, in which five permanent members possess
an individual veto, has been unable to function effectively. Since the Korean war and the return of the
Russian representative to the Security Council on August 1, 1950, the Council has faded into background
and its place ftas been taken in considerable measure by the unwieldy General Assembly, which was not
designed to play a major rolqyn the Security field.” (N.D. Palmer and H.C. Perkins, Internationa!
Relations, p. 358)
Jhre*> factors contributed to the reduction of the importance of Security Council ir, ’.he 1950’s. First,
adoption of Uniting for Peace Resolution by the Genera’ Assembly in 1950 which provided that if the
Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibifity for the maintenance of international
I THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES 263
I peace arid security, due to lack of unanimity of the permanent members, the
I matter shall be immediately considered by the General Assembly with a view
I to makeappropriate recommendations to the members for collective measures.
I This resolution made the General Assembly the ultimate custodian of
».- collective security and rendered Security Council less effective. I Secondly, the development of
powerful regional security alliances outside
I the United Nations like NATO, SEATO, Warsaw Treaty, etc. also greatly
I contributed to the reduction of importance of Security Council. The growth of
I; these alliances was not only indicative of lack of unity among permanent
I? members of the Security Council but also lack of confidence of the members in
I” the efficacy of the Security Council as an instrument of collective security.
I Thirdly, the admission of a large number of independent Afro-Asian
I countries as members of fhe United Nations has tilted the balance in favour I of the General Assembly.
The newly emerged Afro-Asian countries have used I the General Assembly to end colonialism, promote
human rights and I disarmament. In view of their large strength even the major powers have I attached
great importance to their views and made a bid to win their support. I In the 1960’s once again Security
Council started playing more effective
I role towards the maintenance of peace and security. During theCongo crisis I of 1960 most of the’
important decisions such as despatch of forces to assist I the Congolese government etc. were taken by the
Council. Again in October f . 1962 during the Cuban crisis the Security Council played a leading role. In I
1964 on the issue of Cyprus also the Security Council tookthe decision to send I peace-keeping force to
take over the responsibility from the British forces. In I’ the subsequent years alsotheSecuriryCounci!
continued to playeffective role I in the resolution or handling of various disputes such as question of South
I Africa and Rhodesia, war in Vietnam in January 1966, the Arab-Israel War of |-1967, the India-Pakistan
war of 1971 and conflict in Middle East in 1973. The I growing importance of the Security in the 1960’s is
further evident from the I fact that the number of non-permanent members was raised from 6 to 10 to I
provide greater representation to the newly independent countries of Asia and I Africa.
• In recent years there has been a growing feeling among members that the
Security Council must be made an effective body as was originally envisaged
by the U.N. Charter. For this purpose, it is proposed its powers should be
revised, the composition of the Security Council should be changed, the
system of ’veto’ should be replaced by equal voting rights for all the members
of the Security Council. It is also suggested that the Security Council can be
made more effective by making greater use of informal techniques like private
meetings of the Council, the appointment of Conciliators, and by making a
bid to reconcile the conflicting interests of the parties before the issue actually
comes up for consideration before the Security Council. -•

264
265
64 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS I
Relation* between Genera! Assembly and Security Council I
The UN Charter has entrusted the responsibility for the maintenance of I
international peace and security to the Security Council, even though it is I
required to submit annual reports to the General Assembly with regard to the I
measures taken by it for the purpose. However, the Genera! Assembly cannot I
pass any judgements on the actions taken by the Security Council. Hence in I
no way the Security Council is subject to over riding authority of the General f
Assembly. . I
ThereiationshipbetweentheSecurityCouncilandtheGeneral Assembly, I
as envisaged under the U.N. Charter, underwent a change following passage |
of theUnitingfot’Peace Resolution in 1950. After the passage of this resolution |
the General Assembly came to wiefd very extensive powers in the event of 1
Security Council failing1 to exercise its primary responsibility of maintenance I
of international peace and security due to lack of unanimity of permanent I
members in any case where there appeared to be a threat to peace, breach I
of the peace or act of aggression. This decline in the powers of the Security I
Council was halted in the sixties and it once again started playing important I
role in the settlement of international disputes. Thus it piayed an important I
role in the handling of crisis in Cuba, Congo, Cyprus, Santo Domingo and I
India Pakistan. Security Council also played a prominent role during the, I
Middle Eastern crisis. I
The size of the Security Council also gives it an advantage over the I
General Assembly which is an unwieldy body and meets only for three or four • I
months towards tbe close of the year, wh9e the Security Council is well B
organised and functions continuously. Therefore, as Prof. Nicholas has \\.

observed ”In a world where undeclared and lighting war appears henceforth j
to be the rule rather than the exception,-as agency which can respond at once, j
however, inadequate, is always likely to remain at least a forum of first resort, \
and on issues on which «he Super Powers have the last say, often of last resort j
too” . ’•
Assessment of Security Council

t-+»**~~***<--- -
At the time of the inauguration of the UN Charter high hopes were expressed about the capacity of the
Security Council to maintain international peace and security. But in actual practice its performance,
particularly during the last 30 years, has been far less impressive. No doubt the UN Charter had called upon
all membersof the UN to make available to the Security Council, armed forces assistance and facilities, but
this arrangement has proved quite unworkable and the members could not reach any agreement on the
composition of a U.N.-force. Even if such a force had been created, it would
not have been possible to make effective use of such force due to differences among permanent members.
It is true that the Security Council has not been abie to play an effective enforcement role, its central
position in the international arena cannot be denied. Whenever there is any conflict the member States turn
to the Security Council. Even if the Security Council is not able to immediately halt the flgfeting or resolve
the dispute, it certainly brings to bear the weight of outside opiniorrahd prevents further aggravation of the
situation. It helps in tiding over the crisis situations by encouraging the individual powers and groups of
nations to find a negotiated settlement. Quite often the Security Council succeeded in achieving consensus
on issues like Cyprus, Congo and Middle East where the interests of the Powers were not too divergent. !t
is true mat on othe issues where the interests of the Big Powers were difficult to reconcile, it could not
achieve much success viz. on the issues of Hungary and Vietnam.
The Security Council, whose position had been ’somewhat undermined following adoption of Uniting for
Peace Resolution in 1950, has started reasserting itself irt recent years. Its role on the question of Rhodesia
and iraqi annexation of Kuwait as well as the Middle East has been quite effective, it also piayed *n
important role in bringing an end to the policy of Apartheid in South Africa. The Security Council can play
even more effective role in future if the strength of tbe permanent members is Increased and seats are
provided to countries like japan, Germany, Brazil and India,
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
The framers of the UN Charter were fullycofisciou* erf the importance of social and economic conditions
for the preservation of world peace. Therefore they provided for tbe establishment of the Economic and
Social Council to coordinate the economic and social work of the United Nations and its specialised
agencies and institutions. The Economic and Social Council is one of she six principal organs of the United
Nations and opera ws under the authority of the General Assembly. Article S5 of the UN Chater enjoins on
the Unked Nations to create conditions of stability and we!* being, which are necessary for peaceful and
friendly relations among nations based on respect tor the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
the people by promoting (a) higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and
social progress and development” (b) solutions of international* economic, social, health and related
problems and in international cultural an<f educational cooperation; and <c) universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language
or religion.
Composition. The Economic and Social Council at present consists of 54 nembers. Each year the General
Assembly elacts 18 members for a period of
266
three years but the retiring members are eligible for immediate re-election. Originally the Council
comprised of 27 members. Its strength was raised to
27 in 1965 and 54 in 1973. No criteria have been laid down for the election of members by the General
Assembly. However, the General Assembly tries togive representation to variety of social, economic,
cultural and geographical interests. In addition the Council can invite any member of the UN to take pan in
its deliberations, on any matter of particular concern to that member, without right to vote.
The Council elects a President for one year from among its members. Usually the President is taken from a
country which is not a great power. All the decisions of the Council are taken by simple majority with each
member enjoying one vote.
The Council g«’»erally holds two month-long sessions every year. One session is held at New York and the
ottter is held at Geneva. During the remaining part of theyeartheCouncil carries on its work through its
subsidiary bodies - commissions and committees, which meet at regular intervals and report back to the
Council.
Functions of the Economic and Social Council. The Council performs variety of functions through studies
and reports, discussions and recommendations and coordination.
1. it can make .or initiate studies and reports with respect to international economic, soda!, cultural,
educational, health and related matters. Thus the Council has made studies regarding the problems of
refugees, the world shortage of housing, the reconstruction of devastated areas and the economic status of
the women. These studies and reports are very helpful in talking these problems.
2. Secondly, the Economic and Social Council makes recommendations to the General Assembly, the
membersof the United Nations and specialised agencies with regard to international economic, social,
cultural, educational, health and related matters. It can alsomake recommendations for the purpose of
promoting respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It may be noted
that the recommendations of the Council are not binding on the members.
3. Thirdly, the Economic and Social Council can prepare draft conventions fox submission to the General
Assembly with respect to matters falling within its competence. Such draft conventions have proved quite
useful device for the conclusion of international agreements. Some of the important conventions drafted by
the Economic and SocialCooncil relate to Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide and.
PKXOCO! relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
267
5.
4. Fourthly, the Economic and Social Council convenes international conferences Both on its own initiative
as veil as on instructions from the General Assembly. These conferences c4n be both inter-governmental
and non-governmental and usually pertain to matters not falling within the domestic jurisdiction of the
members. Some of the important conferences convened by the Economic §nd Social Council include the
World Population Conference (1954), the u.N. Scientific Conference on Conservation and Utilisation of
Resources etc. TheCouncil can also call conferences of regional character orfsubjects like health, trade,
transport, employment, refugees, Stateless persons etc.
5. Fifthly, the Council coordinates the work of the specialised agencies of the United Nations. These
specialised agencies are created through intergovernmental agreements arrd have wide international
responsibilities. Some of the specialised agencies, whose work is supervised by the Economic and Social
Council include the International Labour Organisation, (ILO) Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO),
International Civil Aviation Organisation O.C.A.O.), United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural
Organisation (UNESCO). International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Health Organisation (V/HO), Universal Postal Union (U.P.U.), International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), International Finance
Corporation (I.F.C.), Inter-Government Martime Consultative Organisation (IMCO), Internationa! Refugee
Organisation (I.R.O.) etc. it may be noted that all . these specialised agencies of the United Nations have
their own constitutions, spheres of action, budget and staff. They are distinct identities and are completely
autonomous. However, they have been Jxought into relationship with the UN through agreement negotiated
by the Economic and Social Council and approved by the Genera I Assembly. This enables theCouncil
tocoordinate thevwork of various agencies. This coordination « essential because the activities of these
agencies are not mutually exdusiveandinvolveaconsiderabledegreeofoverlappingand concern different
phases of the same problem. Thus the Economic and Social Council plays a key role in developing the
prerequisites of stable arid orderly world.
Subsidiary Bodies of the Council. The subsidiary bodies of the Economic and Social Council include five
regional commissions, six functional commissions, six standing committees, and oth^r standing expert
bodies.
Regional Commissions. The Council has fiive Regional Commissions. These are Economic Commission
for Africa with headquarter at Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
Pacific (with headquarterat Bangkok, Thailand), Economic Commission for Europe (Geneva-
263
Switzerland), Economic Commission for Lat in America and the Caribbean* *., (Santiago,
Chile), and the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia ’• (Baghdad, Iraq).
These Commissions were similar functions with regard to their respective areas. The main
objective of these Commissions is to initiate and participate in measures for facilitating
concerted action for economic and social development in order to raise the level of economic
activity and advance the levels of living and to maintain and strengthen economic relations
among their members and other countries. The Commissions can establish with the
approval of the Council such agencies as they may deem appropriate, for the discharge of
their responsibilities.
’ Functional Commissions. The Council has six Functional Commissions viz.

Statistic.Commission; the Population Commission; the Commission for Social
Development; the Commission on Human Rights; the Commission on the Status ofWomen;
and theCommission on Narcotic Drugs. TheCommission on Human Rights has a Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The Commission
on Narcotic Drugs has a SubCommission on I ’licit Drug Traffic and Related Matters in the
Near and Middle East The Statistical Commission promotes the development of national
statistics, the coordination of statistical work, and the deveJoprrsent or cwfrsl statistical
services; and advises die organs of the UN on general questions of statistical information.
The Population Commission studies and advises on the size and structure of populations,
the interplay of demographic factors and policies, designed to influence the iiie and
structure of population and changes therein. The Commission far Social Development
advises on social policies of a general character on vita! social problems and on related
xttpjired measures. The Commission on Hwnan Rights and its Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and protection of Minorities, submits proposals,
recommendations and reports regarding international Bill of Rights, she protection of
Minorities and prevention of discrimination. The Commission on the Status of Women
prepares recommendations and reports on promotion of women’s rights in political,
economic, civil, social and educational fields. TheCommission on Narcotic Drugs assists in
exercising powers of supervision over the application of international conventirjhs and
agreements dealing with narcotic drugs. It advises the Council on all matters pertaining to
the \ control of narcotic drugs and prepares such draft on intemationaLconventions as may
be necessary. «
Standing Committees. The Economic and Social Council has six standing committees. These
include the Committee for Programme and Coordination which advises and assists the
Council in the discharge of its coordination function and keeps under review the activities
of the United Nations and its related agencies and programmes. It reviews programmes and
procedures in particular sector on a system-wise basis as well as the interaction of different
269
sectors in order to ensure that programmes in a particular sector respond to the objectives set forth in the General
Assembly resolution. !t particularly reviews the programme planning, implementation of programmes, their evaluation
and effectiveness of coordination machinery. The Committee is expected to continuously review further steps required
to implement within the United Nations the recommendations of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts to examine the
finances of the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies concerning the development of an integrated system of
long-term planning programming and budgeting.
(II) TheCommitteeon Non-governmental Organisations and on negotiations with inter governmental agencies,
recommends the status of individual Non-governmental Organisations and is called whenever it is necessary to
negotiate an agreement with a newly created agency.
(llr) TheCommitteeon Housing, Buildingand Planning examines reports and makes recommendations to the
Governments and United Nations bodies. It promotes research in the field of housing related community facilities and
physical planning.
(iv) TheCommitteeon Natural Resource? lays down guidelines,, examines reports, analyses existing resolutions and
makes recommendations in are as related to the natural resources.
(v) The Committee on Science and Technology for Development promotes international cooperation. It encourages
formulation o* over all policy and evaluates and reviews policies and new developments in the field of science and
technology.
(vi) TheCommitteeon Review and Appraisal, which assists the Council and the General Assembly in me overall review
and appraisal of the UN ” Development Decades. The Committeealsoexamines the obstacles and reason’, for shostfails
identified in the various suctorial and regional reviews; and recommends on the basis of such reviews and its own
conclusions, measures toovercome the obstacle and shortfalls, including new or revised goals and policy measures
required.
Expert Bod’es. Finally the Economic and Social Council has a number of standing expert bodies on subjects like crime
prevention and control; development planning, international cooperation in tax matters and transport of dangerous
goods. TheCorrmittee on Crime Prevention and Control advises policies and international action in the area of crime
prevention. The Committee for Development Planning evaluates programmes in their progress, analyses major trends
and studies individual.questions in the area of economic planning, programmes and projections. The Advisory
Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development reviews programmes and suggests practical
measures for such application. It also
270
THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED ACENOES
271
advises on desired changes in the area of science and technology. The AdHoc Group of Experts on Tax
Treaties explores ways and means for facilitating the conclusion of tax treaties between the developed and
developing countries. The Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Programme in Public Administration
works in close collaboration with specialised agencies and non-governmental organisations and formulates
programmes in the field of public administration. It also examines the Secretary General’s proposals in
public administration for the Development Decades. The Committee on Experts on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods not only revises and updates the list of dangerous goods but also consider the existing
transportation practices and studies problems relating to packing and other related matters.
Relations with Non-Governmental Organisations. The UN Charter authorises the Economic and Social
Council to hold consultations with nongovernmental organisations concerned with matters falling within its
competence. The Council feels that these organisations with their special experience and technical
knowledge can render valuable service to the Council in its work. Over 600 non-governmental
organisations have been accorded consultative status by the Council.” These non-governmental
organisations broadly fall into three categories. Firstly, there are organisations which are concerned with
most of the Council’s activities and are closely linked with the economic and social activities of the area
which they represent. They can submit items for inclusion in the provisional agenda of the Council and can
also send observers to all the public meetings of the Council. Secondly, there are organisations which have
special competence in specific fields of activity of the Council. They cannot submit items for the
provisional agenda of the Council, even though they can participate as observers in the public meetings.
Thirdly, there are organisations which can make occasional contribution to the Council, its subsidiary
organs or other UN bodies.
Co-ordination of UN System. The Economic and Social Council plays a central promotional and
coordinating role with regard to the UN system, viz. United Nations, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UNDP, UNEP,
UNICEF and other UN organs. !t also plays an important role in developing the political will and taking the
political decisions necessary to launch and maintain broad international actions in which the co-operation
of various parts of the system is required. The coordinating function of the Economic and Social Council
also implies that it can obtain reports from the specialised agencies and arrange for the representatives for
the specialised agencies to participate in its deliberations, without right to vote.
Evaluation of its Working. Though the UN Charter has accorded the Economic and Social Council the
status of a principal organ of the United Nations, it functions under the authority of the General Assembly.
In fact its
activities resemble the activities of the committees of the Assembly so much that often a charge ov dupl
ication of duties is levelled against it. In recent years the Economic and Social Council has tended to
assume more extensive role and held discussions on issues like housing, human rights, narcotic drug
control, water resources, desertification, population problems, trade, industrial development, literacy,
refugees, science and technology etc. TheCouncil has also produced studies which have helped to
overcome the dearth of statistical and other kinds of data on economic and social conditions in the world.
On the basis of its deliberations and studies, it has formulated recommendations which have formed the
basis of various resolutions or dci larations adopted by the General Assembly. Thus the Council plays a
quasi -legislative role. It is true it cannot make law, but it has played an important role m helping the
members of the United Nations develop law.
Giving an assessment of tfce Economic and Social Council Arther Lewis has observed’ Since there is
absence of any power to legislate, on economic and social matters, the Economic and Social Counci! is
bound to be a forum of discussion from which recommendations ensure. Although the Economic and
Sociai Council attempted too much and has diversified its activities greatly, yet it has substantial
achievement to its credits e.g., the UNICEF, the UN Refugee Fund, the Technical Assistance Board, the
U.N. Relief and works Agency and the Special Fund for Economic Development all have performed
singularly useful task. It may well be that whatever the major political issues can be resolved and the
Security Council and the General Assembly assume a formal role, ECOSOC will come to the fore as the
most active and useful organ of the U.N.”
TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL AND TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM
The Trusteeship Council has been indicated as one of the principal organs of the United Nations in the UN
Charter. But actually it works as an auxiliary organ of the General Assembly in so far as it supervises the
administration of the non-strategic trust territories, and as an auxiliary organ of Security Council with
regard to strategic areas.
Composition. The Charter did not prescribe the size of the Council and merely provided that the
Trusteeship Counci! must reflect a balance between members that administer Trust Territories and
members that do not. To ensure this balance it was provided that the General Assembly may elect for three
years as many members as may be necessary to ensure that the total membership of the Trusteeship Council
is equally divided between those members of the United Nations which administer trust territories and
those which do not. As the number of Trust Territories and of administering countries has decreased, the
Council has become smaller. TheCouncil elects a President from amongst the representatives of the
members of the Council. In addition it also elects a Vice-President from amongst the representatives of
272
members of the Council. Each member of the Council has only one vote. It is noteworthy that even though
the permanent members of the Security Council are also the permanent members of the Trusteeship
Council, they do not enjoy any ’veto’ power. All the decisions of the Trusteeship Council ar taken by
majority vote of the members actually present and voting. Generally the Trusteeship Council meets once a
year but special sessions can be convened at any time on the request of the majority of the members. The
proceedings of the CounciS are conducted in accordance with the rules and procedure determined by the
Council itseif!
Functions and Powers, The functions and powers of the Trusteeship Council have been outlined in Article
87 of the Charter, fts functions include (i) Consideration of reports submitted by the administering
authority; (ii) acceptance of petitions and their examination in consultation with die administering
authority, (in) to arrange periddic visits to the respective trust territories at times agreed upon with the
administering authority; and (iv) to take other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship
agreements, it shall be desirable »o study these functions of the Trusteeship Council in details.
- Consideration of Reports from Administering Autnority
Underthe UN Charter each administering authority is expected to submit an annua! report for the territories
under its control. !n this repot it provides information regarding political, economic, social arid educational
advancement of the inhabitants of the territory under its control. The Counci I studies these reports with the
help of specialised agencies and makes necessary suggestions. On the basis of examination of these reports,
the Council drafts a report of its own which is incorporated m its annual report to the General Assembly in
the casa of non-strategic territories and areas; and to the Security Counci! id respect of strategic areas. This
report generally contains the recommendations of the Council as well as the individual views of members.
Receipt and Examination of P«t«tiom,The Trusteeship Council receives and examines the petitions from
individuals as we!! as orginisations iri the trust territories. On receipt of petitions, the same are sent to the
administering authority rbr comments before these are examined by the Council. These petitions can cover
a wide range of subjeas such as property claims, and titles, denial of civil and human rights, racial
discrimination, poor educational services and appeals for greater participation in local administration.
Visits to Trust Territories. The Trusteeship Council can also arrange periodic visits to the trust territories,
attimes agreed upon with the Administering Authority, toacquirefirst hand information about the
conditionsand problems of the trust territories Usually such missions are sent to each trust territory
273
every two years. Commenting on the importance of such missions Profs. Palmer and Perkins says ”Flying
the UN flag, members of the Commission meet openly with spokesmen of the native peoples as well as
with local officials, visit different sections of a territory and bring home to the people the fact that the UN is
concerned with their welfare and is working for their eventual freedom. The missions also give
representatives of the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat an opportunity to make first hand
investigations of the areas for which they are responsible.”
In addition to the above functions the Trusteeship Council can take any other action in conformity with the
terms of the Trusteeship Agreements. Trusteeship System.
After examining the organisation and functions of the Trusteeship Council, it shall be desirable to know aboul the
Trusteeship System envisaged under, the U.N. Charter. At the outset it may be pointed out that the Trusteeship Stystem
under the U N was a successor to the Mandate System provided under the League of Nations. However, it is wider in
scope than the Mandate System provided under the League of Nations. Under the Trusteeship System the United
Nations assumed broad responsibilities for the welfare of non-self-governing territories. Article 75 of the UN Charter
provided ”The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the
administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreement,”
The Charter stipulated that the following territories shall he placed under the trusteeship svstem:
(i) territories now held under mandate; (ii) territories which may be detached from enemy States as a result
of Second World War; and (in) territories voluntarily placed under the system by the States responsible for
their administration. It was specified that the trusteeship system cannot apply to territories which have
become members of the United Nations and whose relations are to be based on the principle of sovereign
equality.
Objectives of Trusteeship System. According to the Chater the following are objectives of the trusteeship system.
^
1. To further international peace and security.
2. Topromotethepolitical, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust
territories and their progressive development towards self-government of independence as may be
appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and the freely expressed wishes
of the people concerned, and as may be approved by the terms of each trusteeship agreement
3. To encourage respect for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion and to
enccwragerecognition of the interdependence of the
peoples of the world. .
4! To ensure equal treatment in social, economic and commercial matters for all members of the United
Nations and also equal treatment of the latter in the administration of justice without prejudice to the
attainment of the foregoing objectives.
Dalies of Administering States, The duties of the States administering the trust territories were outlined in
Article 73 of the UN Charter. It was emphasised that the interests of the inhabitants of the trust territories
are paramount and the administering State must promote the well-being of the inhabitants of these
territories. For this purpose they were expected (a) to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples
concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and their
protection against abuses; (b) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of
the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions according
to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples at varying stages of advancement’ ’c> to
further international peace and security; (d) to promote constructs measures of development, to encourage
research and to cooperate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialised international
bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic and scientific purposes set forth in
this article; and (e) to transmit regularly to the Secretary-Genera! for information purposes,subject to such
limitations as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a
technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the territories for which they are
respectively responsible. The information transmitted by the administering States is analysed by the UN
Secretary and is later on considered by the General Assembly. It may be noted that with the exception of
certain strategic areas, which are the direct concern of the Security Council, the functions of the United
Nations with regard to trust territories are performed by the General Assembly and more immediately by
the Trusteeship Council. The manner in which the Trusteeship Council exercise supervision over the trust
territories has already been dealt with above.
Operation of the Trusteeship System. Under the Trusteeship System by the end of 1950, TO Trusteeship
Agreements had been approved by the General Assembly and one by the Security Council. As a result of
these agreements approximately 20 million pecp-e Jiving in these territories came under the purview of
trusteeship. However, two of the former mandated territories of the days of League of Nations could not
become part of the Trusteeship system. Palestine was excluded on account of dispute between the Jewish
and Arab population, which led to the establishment of State of Israel in 1948. Similarly, Northwest Africa
could not become a trust territory
275
’ because no agreement could be reached regarding its incorporation.
It shall be desirable to know about the various trust territories and how they attained independence.
1. A part of Togoland was placed under British administration. The Trusteeship Agreement for this territory
was approved by the General Assembly in December 1946. A plebiscite was held there on 9 May, 1955 in
which the majority of people voted for union with neighbouring Gold Coast. After approval by the
Assembly the territory was united with Gold Coast to form the new independent State of Ghana in March,
1957.
2. Another part of Togoland was placed under French administration, The General Assembly approved the
Trusteeship Agreement in December
1946. Thegovemment, which came to power following general elections, in April 1958 favoured
independence. Following agreement between France and Togoland regarding independence, the Assembly
resolved that the Trusteeship Agreement be terminated with effect from 27, April
1960. Togo became member of UN in September 1960.
3. A part of Cameroon was placed under French Administration. The Trusteeship Agreement was approved
by the General Assembly in December 1946. In March 1959 the General Assembly voted to end the
Trusteeship Agreement and on 1 January, 1960 the territory became Republic of Cameroon. In September
1960 it was admitted to UN membership.
4. A part of Cameroons was placed under British administration. The Trusteeship Agreement was approved
by the Generally Assembly on 13 December, 1946. In the plebiscites held in Northerh Cameroons and
Southern Cameroons in February 1961 the Northern Cameroons by majority vote decided to join Nigeria
while the majority in the Southern Cameroons decided to join the Republic of Cameroon. Accordingly in
April 1961 the General Assembly decided to terminate the Trusteeship Agreement concerning the
Cameroons under British administration with respect to Northern Cameroons as well as Southern
Cameroons/
5. Somali land was placed under Italian administration. The Trusteeship Agreement was approved by the
General Assembly in December 1950. An elected Legislative Assembly drew up a Constitution for an
independent Somalia which was approved in May 1960. In July 19601 it became independent.
6. Tanganyika was placed under British administration. Trusteeship Agreement was approved by the
General Assembipin December 1946. In May 1960 Tangniyka attained internal self-government In 1961
the trusteeship Agreement was terminated and Tanganiyfca became an
276
independent State and was admitted as member of United Nations. Subsequently in April
1964 Tanganyika, along with Zanzibar, formed the United Republic of Tanzaniar.
7. Western Samoa was placed under administration of New Zealand. The Trusteeship Agreement for
Western Samoa was approved by the General Assembly in December 1946. In May 1961 in a UN
supervised plebiscite the territory decided to become independent. The trusteeship agreement ceased to be
in force on 1 January and Western Samoa became an independent State. It was admitted as member of
United Nations in December 1976.
8. Nauru was placed under the joint administration of Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom. The
Trusteeship Agreement was approved by the General Assembly in November 1947. A Legislative Council
was created in January 1965 and a Legislative Assembly was elected in January 1968. Nauru became an
independent State in January 1968 when the Trusteeship Agreement was terminated.
9. Ruanda-Urundi was placed under administration of Belgium. The Genera! Assembly approved the
Trusteeship Agreement for this territory in December 1946. The elections were held in Urundi in
September 1961 and a government formed. In July 1962 the Assembly terminated the Trusteeship
Agreement and Randa and Burundi emerged as two independent and sovereign States. In September 1962
the two were admitted as members of the United Nations.
10. New Guinea was placed under Australian administration. The General Assembly approved the
Trusteeship Agreement in December 1946. In
1971 the Assembly of Papua and Trust territory of New Guinea decided to form Union of two territories to
be named Paua New Guinea. In May
1973 an agreement was reached with Australia that self-government be granted in two stages. In December
1973 the Government of Australia transferred ali internal powers to the territory, although it continued to
have ultimate responsibility for the foreign affairs and defence of the territory. !n September 1975 Papua
f*ew Guinea became an independent sovereign State and the Trusteeship Agreement was terminated with
effect from that date. It was admitted as member of the UN in October
1975.
11. Trust territory of Pacific Islands was placed under trie administration of United States. TheTrusteeship
Agreement for this territory was approved by the Security Council in April 1947. This territory known as
Micronesia, comprised of more than 2100 islands and a tolls from three major archipelagos: Marianas, the
Carolines ariitehe Marshalls. In December
1990 the Security Council deiced to dissolve the trusteeship over the
277
strategic Northern Marianas, Marshall Islands and Micronesia. However, the federated States of Micronesia
and the Marshall Islands pressed for termination of agreement so that their governments could become
more independent and gain worldwide diplomatic recognition, it may be noted that the two semi-
independent nations haveestablished diplomatic ties with several South Pacific countries and China. As a
result only Palau is left under UN trusteeship and the Council expressed the hope that the people of Palau
will ”in due course complete the process of freedom exercising their right to self-determination.”
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CompoHtion. The Intemationai Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations. It works according to a Statute which forms an integral part of the UN Charter.
The Statute of the Intemationai Court of Justice is based on the statute of the Permanent
Court of Intemationai Justice which was prepared by (he League Council and unanimously
approved by the League Council in 1920. It is noteworthy that after the Second World War
several members pleaded for the continuance of the Permanent Court of International
Justice on account of good work done by this body. However majority of the members were
of the view that it would be better to start with a clean seat Thereto* tey decided to create a
new organisation. According to Eagieton the variations made in the Statute of the earlier
Permanent Court of Intemationai Justice were ”comparatively trivial and mostly for
adaptation to (he United Nations system.’
MembenMp. All the members of the United Nations are ipso facto member of the Intemationai Court of
Justice. A State which is not a member of the United Nations can also become a party to the statute of the
Intemationai Court of Justice upon the recommendations of the Security Council. The condfeMns for
membership in each case are determined by the General Assembly. The conditions which have been laid
down by the General Assembly for membership of the Council include (i) acceptance of the Statute and
other obligations with respect to the Court which other members of thejUtN. have accepted; and (ii)
undertaking to contribute to the expenses an amount assessed by the General Assembly after consultation
with the Government concerned.
The Court consists of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council, voting
independently. These judges are elected not on the basis of nationality, but on the basis of their
qualifications and high moral character. Care is also taken to ensure that all the principal legal systems of
«he world get represented in the world court. Further, ithas been provided that no two judges can be
nationals of the same State. All this has been designed to ensure that no one country or group dominates the
courts.
278
Election. As regards the method of election, the initiative-Is taken by the Secretary General of the United
Nations, who addresses a written request to the States which are partiesTD the present statute and tathe
members of the national groups asking them to nominate persons in a position to accept the duties of a
member of the Court These groups can nominate not more than four persons (not more than two from own
nationality), in consultation with highest court of justice, its legal faculties and schools of law etc. On the
basis of the names thus submitted the Secretary General of the United Nationals prepares a list of the
persons in alphabetical order. Thereafter the General Secretary and the Security Council proceed
independent.of each other, to elect fifteen of these candidates. The candidates receiving absolute majority
of vote ir> both the General Assembly and the Security Council are considered elected as judges.
Tenure. The judges of the International Court of Justice are elected for a term of nine years. However, they
are eligible for re-election. The term of the judges is so staggered that the tenure of only five judges expires
after every three years. The vacancies thus falling vacant are also filled through regular elections. A judge
elected to replace another member holds office for the remainder of his predecessor’s term. It is
noteworthy, that though the judges of the International Court of Justice are taken from various States and
the governments of these States take part in the nomination and election of these judges, but after their
election the judges do not act as representatives of their respective countries nor do they act upon the
instructions of their governments. They are treated as officials of the international judiciary and act
accordingly. In fact each member of the Court, before entering upon his office, has to take a solemn
declaration in the open court that he would exercise his powers impartially and conscientiously.
Seat of Court. The International Court of Justice has its permanent seat at Hague. However, it can meet
elsewhere also. The Court is permanently in session, except during the period of vacations. Generally the
cases are heard by the full court, but it can also form chambers composed of three or four judges, to deal
with specific categories of cases viz. labour cases and cases relating to transit and communicationsetc. The
quorum of the court is nine. This implies that atleast nine members must be present to hold the meeting of
the Court.
Officials of Court and Procedure. The Court elects its own President and VicerPresident for a term of three
years. Both these officials are eligible for reelection. In addition to this the Court appoints a Registrar and
such other officers as may deem necessary. The salary, allowances, etc. of these officials are determined by
the General Assembly and cannot be changed to their disadvantage during their term of office. The
members of the court are entitled to pension on retirement.
THE UNITED NATIONS AND’ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES
279
The statute is absolutely silent about the retirement age of the judges of International Court of Justice.
The Court takes all decisions by majority vote, of the judges present and voting. The President of the Court
does not exercise his vote, except in case of a time. It may be noted that no party enjoys ’veto’ with regard
to the decisions of the court The statute also contains provision regarding the removal of judges. A judge
can be removed from his office only by the unanimous vote of the other members of the court.
Functions and Powers. The International Court of Justice enjoystwotypes of powers viz. settlement of
disputes and rendering of advisory opinion.
Settlement of Disputes. The Court hears all cases involving sovereign States which have accepted the
Statute of the Court. The other States can also take their disputes to the Court on fulfilment of conditions
laid down by the Security Council. It may be noted that there is no provision for automatic reference of the
dispute to the court. The UN Charter merely imposes an obligation on the members to seek pacific
settlement of international disputes which implies that the parties can make use of other judicial procedures
also for the settlement of their disputes. However, the Charter enjoins on the members that they should as a
matter of general rule refer legal disputes to the International Court of Justice (Ait 36).
Though the Court does not enjoy any compulsory jurisdiction, ”the States, parties to the present statute,
may at any time declare that they recognise ascompulsory ipso /actoand without special agreement, in
relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes
concerning (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any
factwhich, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature of extent or
the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. In simple words the Statute permits
the States to concede compulsory jurisdiction to the court either conditionally or unconditionally. Such an
authority may be conceded for any length of period. It may be noted that usually the States conceding
compulsory jurisdiction to the Court impose the conditions of reciprocity, which means that they accept the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in a particular case on the condition that the other party to the dispute
would also accept it.
Law Applied. The Court decides the cases referred to it in accordance with international law, international
conventions, and the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations. In addition to this the Court
also makes use of judicial decisions and teachings of highly qualified publicists of various countries to
determine the rules of law. The Court is not bound by its earlier decisions and can take fresh look at the
new cases.
280
The Court does not enjoy any enforcement power. It has to mainly rery on two factors for
enforcement of its decisions. Firstly each member of the United Nations has an obligation to
comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which it is a under. This implies that
once a State has agreed to submit the case to (he Court, it would accept the decision of the
Court Secondly the Security Council can undertake enforcement action to give effect to the
judgements of the Court*. The UN Charter clearly stipulates that ”if any party to a case
fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgement rendered by the
Court, the other party may have recourse wihe Security Council, which may, if it deems
necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to grve’effect to the
judgement’
Advisory Opinion. The International Court of Justice also enjoys, power to give advisory
opinion to the General Assembly, the Security Council and other specialised agencies of the
United Nations, on legal questions. While seeking such an opinion, the agency has to submit
in writing the requctt containing an exact statement of the question upon which an opinion-
is required as well as all the documents likely to throw light upon the quettwn. This means
that the Court does not render advisory opinion on to own, Further, the advice of the Court
is not binding on the organ seeking ft. In fact the opinion given by the Court is more like an
advice rather than a decision.
Assessment of the Working of Court
Since the inauguration of the Court in 1946, over 50 cases or disputes were ret’erred to International Court of Justice.
Out of these fifteen cases were subsequently withdrawn or removed from the list for various reasons; while in the other
ten cases the Court found that it did not enjoy jurisdiction over them. The remaining cases which were handled by the
Court covered a wide range of topics and the Court after due deliberations gave its judgement in ail, but four.
Trtefiraasewas brought beforeteCcxirtin1948 on the tro^ of the Security Council and

related to dispute over the mining of Corfu Channel between Albania and Great Britain. In
this casetwo British destroyers while passing through the Corfu Channel struck mines in
Albanian waters which resulted in serious damage to property and loss of 44 Kves. The
British Government demand compensation from the Albanian government, while the
Alabaman government charted the British of violating Albanian sovereignty by proceeding
through the channel in spite of objections. Though initially Albania refused to submit the
case to the Court, but subsequently accepted the jurisdiction of the court Thereupon the
Court hear the arguments and examined witnesses and experts. Ultimately on 9 April, 1949
the Court pronounced that Albania was responsible under international law for to damage
and loss of human life, and asked Albania to pay necessary compensation
281
Another important case which was brought before the Court during the initial years pertaining to dispute
between Britain and Norway over fishing rights in certain areas of Norwegian coast. The Court held that
the method employed by Norway in delimiting its territorial waters was not contrary to international law. In
1969, the Court at the request of Denmark, Netherlands and Federal Republic of Germany determined the
principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of the areas of the North Sea
continental shelf appertaining to each of them..Likewise in 1974 the court held that Iceland was not entitled
unilaterally to exclude the fishing vessels of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany
from areas between fishery limits agreed upon in 1961 and 60-mile limit proclaimed by Iceland in 1972. In
1985 in a case referred to it by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Malta, the Court decided upon the principles
and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of areas of the Mediterranean continental shelf
pertaining to them.
In 1973 Australia and New Zealand each brought a case against France concerning deposit of radio-active
fallout from nuclear tests conducted by France in the atmosphere. The Court directed France to avoid such
tests and later delivered judgement that France had,undertaken to refrain from atmospheric nuclear testing
after 1974.
In the case concerning seizure of US Embassy in Tehran and detention of diplomatic and consular staff,
theCourt provisionally decided in December
1979 that the embassy should be immediately given back and thedetained staff released. Later on May 1980
it held that Iran had violated its obligation to the United States and must release the hostages, hand back the
embassy and make reparations. But before the Court could fix the amount of reparation, the two States
reached an agreement and withdrew the case.
In April 1984 Nicaragua instituted proceedings against United States in the Court and accused her of using
military forces against Nicaragua and intervening in her internal affairs. Though US denied the jurisdiction
of the Court, theCourt called on US to refrain from action against Nicaraguan ports. In June 1986 the Court
ruled that-the US actions against Nicaragua were in breach of its obligations under international law and it
was under an obligation to desist from those actions and to make reparations to Nicaragua.
The International Court of lustice has also played a vital role in settlement of disputes through its advisory
opinions. Thus on the issue of costs of peacekeeping forces, theCourt advised that peace-keeping costs
couJd be reckoned as normal expenses of the organisation. With regard to disputes concerning admissions
into the UN the Court confirmed that no admission could be made without the Security Council
recommendation. On the question of SouthWest Africa, the Court advised that the Mandate awarded by the
League to
»
282
South Africa over South-West Africa still existed and she must submit to the supervision of the mandate by
the UN as successor to League. It is a different matter that the South African Government did not submit to
it: In 1970 the Security Council sought advisory opinion on the issue of legal consequences of the presence
of South Africa in Namibia in defiance of the Security Council decision. The Court gave the opinion that
South Africa’s presence in the territory was illegal and that other States were under an obligation to take no
action which recognised South Africa’s legal authority there.
A perusal of some of the cases referred to above shows that the record of the International Court of Justice
has not been quite impressive. Only a limited category of cases are brought before the Court. Even the
number of cases which are being brought before the Court has considerably declined. Further, the lack of
enforcement power has also rendered the working of the court less effective. It is true that under Article 94
of theUNCharter, the Security Council can decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the
judgements of the Court, but it has never done so. This has naturally given rise to doubts about the
desirability of taking the disputes to the court. Instead States have preferred to take recourse to political
settlement of disputes. This, however, does not take away from the importance of the Court. It cannot be
dented that the Court through its judgements has contributed to the growth of international law and
contributed to the establishment of more lawfui world community in which mutual obligations are
recognised. It is a different matter that to the majority of the people of the third world it appears that the
Court is applying the code of the first world in the international arena. Their confidence in the judgments of
the Court would increase only if it gives due regard to the laws and conventions of the third world countries
and also convince those from the developing countries that the law applied provides for change as well as
stability and reflects the sense of justice. It must attach greater importance to the principle of ’equity’ in its
judgments.
In conclusion, it can be said with Prof Nicholas ”Despite the Court’s acknowledges merits it has been far
from fulfilling the high hopes entertained for it in some quarters at San Francisco and afterwards that its
record to date is actually less impressive than that of its predecessor. The volume of business has been
smaller and the cases that have been drought seem on the whole to have been less important than those
brought before the permanent Court.” (1) H.G. Nichola. The United Nations as a Political Institution.
In spite of these limitations, it cannot be denied that the Court has ’ contributed its mite to the golden
collection of international organizations seeking peace and justice/
THE SECRETARIAT
Composition, The Secretariat is one of the six principal organs of the

FHf UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES
283
United Nations. It comprises of the Secretary General and such other staff as the organisation may require.
It provides services to the other organs of the United Nations namely the General Assembly, the Security
Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council as well as their subsidiary bodies.
The Secretary General is appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendations of the Security
Council. The other .staff of the Secretariat is appointed by the Secretary General as per regulations laid
down by the General Assembly. Generally while recruiting staff of the Secretariat great weightage is given
to competence and integrity. However, due consideration is also given to wide geographical basis of
recruitment. It may be noted that the staff permanently assigned to the Economic and Social Council, the
Trusteeship Council and other organs of the United Nations also forms a part of the UN Secretariat.
The Secretariat is located at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York. It also has branch offices
at Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi. The Secretariat also includes the regional commission’s secretariats at
Addis Ababa, Baghdad, Bangkok, Geneva and Santiago.
Functions of Secretariat. The main functions of t!ie Secretariat include:
1. Production of reports and other documents containing information, analysis, historical background,
research findings, policy suggestions etc. to facilitate deliberations and decision-making by other organs
and their subsidiary bodies.
2. Provision of secretarial services to legislative organs and their subsidiary bodies.
3. Provision of meeting services to the legislativeorgansin accordance with the policies adopted by the
General Assembly.
4. Provision of editorial, translation and documents reproduction services for the issuance of UN
documents in different languages.
5. Conduct of studies and provision of information that answers to the priority needs of the governments of
member countries in meeting challenges in various fields.
6. Production of statistical publications, information bulletins and analytical wof k which the General
Assembly has decided.
7. Organisation of conferences, expert group meetings and seminars on topics of concern to the
international community.
8. Provision of technical assistance to developing countries.
9. Undertak-ng of service missions to countries, areas or locations as authorised by the General Assembly
or the Secretary Council.
284
10. To arrange for dissemination of information on United Nations activities, and decisions among the public.
11. Provisionofprogrammeplanning,financial,personnel,lega!,management and general services which are essential for

rational selection of work items and allocation of resources among them for effective, economic and efficient
performance of the services and functions of the Secretariat.
WhiledischargingtheabovenotedfunctionstheSecretariatgets involved in the policy formulation. The studies and reports

prepared by the Secretariat serve as a useful input for the government policy. The UN officials engaged in international
agencies greatly influence the decision-making process through direct participation. In this regard probably the greatest
influence is exercised by the staff of the World Bank, who not only frame the programme for discussion by the
Executive Directors and Governing Board, but also secure approval for what the Bank. President and his staff
recommend. The agenda for the programme of UNESCO is likewise formulated by the Secretariat.
The U.N. officials also greatly influence the organisation policy and world politics through quite diplomacy. These
officials play a vital role in promoting agreement among States through quiet discussions and reconciling their
differences. They help in the formulation and adoption of resolutions by the U.N. Even after these resolutions are
adopted the international officials try to seek compliance of these resolutions, by the member States. These officials
also act as mediators, conciliators and conscious-builders and try to resolve the controversies between States. It is well
known that in recent years the General Assembly and the Security Council have heavily banked on the Secretary
General and his staff for resolving some pf the outstanding disputes. The notable problems where their assistance was
sought include Iran-Iraq War, Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Namibia, the Falkland Islands, Lebanon, the Middle East,
Grenada, etc.
Professors Jacob and Atnerton havehighlighted theroleofthe international civil services thus ”with its growing
experience injfce techniques of international administration, its relative permanence and continuity and its sense of
direct responsibility for the various agencies operation, knits the organisations together and furnishes constant impetus
to accomplishments for their objectives.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL
As noted earlier, the Secretary General is the chief administrative officer of the Secretariat. He is appointed by the
General Assembly on the recommendations of the Security Council. Usually before recommending the name a
candidate for the office of the Secretary General, the Security Council holds private discussions to find out a candidate
acceptable to all the
285
permanent members. However, the name recommended by the Security Council for the office of the Secretary General
can be rejected by the General Assembly.
Term. The UN Charter is silent about the term of office of the Secretary General. In the San Francisco Conference it
was suggested that he should be appointed for a term of’three years. However, this term was considered too short. It
was argued that frequent re-elections would effect the independence of the Secretary General and force him to lay
office as soon as he gained experience. Therefore in January 1946 the General Assembly decided that the term of the
Secretary General should be such that men of eminence and high attainment could take up this position. It was decided
to appoint the first Secretary-General for a term of five years with eligibility for reappointment. The General Assembly
further expressed the view that it would be desirable that no member should offer a retiring Secretary General any
governmental position in which the confidential information he has obtained might become a source of embarrassment
to other members. Th is the Secretary General was given a term of five years which could be renev Jed or extended.
Trygve Lie, the first Secretary General was initially given appointment for fiveyears but subsequently his term was
extended by three years much against the wishes of USSR. After his death Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden became the
Secretary General in 1953 and served till h j death in a plane crash in
1961.U.Thant succeeded Hammarskjol, and re» feined in office till Jan. 1972 when he was replaced by Kurt Waldheim
of Austii. Kurt Waldheim remained in office till 31 December, 1981 andwas succeeded by JavierPerezdeCuellar of
Peru. In 1992 Boutros Ghali of Egypt became the sixth Secretary General.
Powers and Functions. • ~”
The U.N. Secretary General has been given more powers than enjoyed by his counterpart under the League of Nations.-
Furthermore, unlike Sir Eric Drummond, who did not assume responsibilities of direction and leadership during his
term of over thirteen years, the first Secretary General of the United Nations (Trygve Lie), made full use of the powers
vested in him by the UN Charter and provided a forceful leadership to the organisation. The functions and powers of
the Secretary General can be conveniently studied under the following heads.
Administrative and Service funrr/ons. The Secretary General is responsible tor the organisation and direction of the
activities of the organisation. The staff of all the U.N. organs, excluding the International Court of Justice, falls under
his purview. As such it is his responsibility to ensure that the various organs of the United Nations and their committees
and conference work properly. For this purpose he draws provisional agenda, notifies about the meetings to various
members, provides staff and facilities for the holding of meetings, examines the credentials of representatives and
submTts reports to the concerned organ. He also assists in the drafting of
r~
documents, resolutions and reports and provides legal and technical advice. He also takes necessary action
on the resolutions passed by the General Assembly viz. communicates these resolutions to the member
governments and ascertains the steps taken to implement these resolutions -or recommendations.
The responsibility for the registration of treaties and agreement enteredinto by the members of the United
Nations also rests with the Secretary General. Article 102 of the UN Charter provides that ”every treaty and
every international agreement entered into by any member of the United Nations shall, as soon as possible,
be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.” Further all multilateral treaties are also to be
deposited with the Secretary General, it is the responsibility of the Secretary General to publish and notify
all these treaties to the members of the United Nations.
The Secretary General tries to maintain necessary liaison with the specialised agencies of the United
Nations. For this purpose he holds meetings with the directors of theseorganizations and provides personnel
for liaison purposes. He is responsible for exchange of documents and information as well as other
functions.
2. Financial Functions. The Secretary General has been entrusted with important financial responsibilities.
Subject to the authority of the General Assembly he prepares the budget of the United Nations. He allocates
funds, controls expenditure, collects the contributions from members and acts as custodian of all the funds.
He tries to develop common fiscal controls and financial practices in consultation with specialised agencies
and undertakings.
3. Representational Functions. As the chief representative of the United Nations, the Secretary General,
represents the UN in negotiations with other agencies and government. He also occupies a central position
in the working of the various organs of the United Nations because the staff of these organisations and
agencies is not onty recruited but also controlled by the Secretary General. He also represents the U.N.
before the International Court of justice.
4. Political Functions. The Secretary General has also been assigned important political functions. Through
these political Junctions he exercises profound influence on the formulation of the policy. It may be
observed that this power of the Secretary General emanates from Article 99 of the UN Charter which
stipulates that ”the Secretary General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which
in his opinion may threaten ihe maintenance of international peace and security.” This article permsts trw
Secretary General 10 submit for the consideration of
287
the Security Council any dispute, situation or other matter which is not raised by a member of the Council.
This enables the Secretary General to convene a meeting of the Security Council even when no other
member of the Council demands such a mealing.
The Secretary General can also present information or state opinions on matters already under the
consideration of the Security Council. It is well known that the Secretary General submitted a
memorandum on the issue of Iran, when the question was already under consideration of the Security
Council. Likewise in 1950 the Secretary General submitted proposals for the consideration of the Great
Powers concerning representation of Red China in the United Nations.
Through his annual reports on the work of the organisation also the Secretary General is able to. exercise
considerable amount of political influence. These reports are an important source of information on the
accomplishments and problems of the United Nations/and usually form the basis for the opening debates of
the General Assembly. In addition the Secretary-General can also propose items for agenda of the General
Assembly, the Security Council and the Trusteeship Council. All this, enables him to exercise ”initiative
and influence by making proposals, effecting the establishment of priorities and advocating the viewpoints
which he considers appropriate.”
Changing Role. The office of the Secretary General has constantly, grown since the establishment of the
United Nations. Trygve Lie the first Secretary General played key role in the promotion of peace and took
several initiatives to establish peace and security. In 1950 he drew the attention of the nations to the breach
of peace at the 38th Parallel in Korea and convened meeting of the Security Council. Healso formulated a
ten pointplan for accomplishment of peace in twenty years. However his efforts did not yield the desired
results because he became unpopular-with the Soviet Union and was ultimately forced to tender resignation
in 1952.
Dag Hammarskjold, the second Secretary Genera! preferred to play a more cautious role and tried to act
strictly according to the principle of UN. Under the directions of the General Assembly he was called upon
to secure implementation of cease-fire and withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces from fhe Suze in
1956 to ensure peace. Thereafter he started playing more active rote in the maintenance of peace. In 1958
he strengthened the UN Observer Group in Lebanon and transferred the dispute to the General Assembly
because the Security Council was deadlocked. The General Assembly in if* mm requested the Secretary
General to make such practical arrangements which could help in upholding the purposes and principles of
Charter and thereby facilitate early withdrawal of foreign troops. In September
1959 once again it was Secretary General who drew the attention of the
288
Security Council to the problem of Laos where foreign troops had infringed the borders. He ensured UN
presence in Laos despite Soviet veto.
The position of the Secretary General which was somewhat undermined following adoption of Uniting for
Peace Resolution, ooce again improved in the sixties. During the Congo crisis of July 1960 Secretary
General Hammarskjold invoked the powers of the Secretary General under Article 99 of the Charter and
requested a meeting of the Security Council. He recommended creation of ONUC mainly.composed of
troops from African States. He also recommended withdrawal of Belgian troops from Congo because they
were a source of tension. The Security Council not only accepted the above recommendations of the
Secretary General but also authorised him to providesuch military assistance as he may deem necessary.
The growing role of the Secretary General was criticised by Soviet Union and Khrushchev proposed
TRIOKA in 1960 under which instead of one Secretary General, there were to be three Secretary Generals
representating East, West plan and non-aligned blocs. However, the plan was rejected by Hammarskjold on
the plea that it would substitute for an independent international Secretary General a triumvirate, each of
whom would owe loyalty to the bloc that elects him and would rob the UN of its most distinctive dynamic
and creative organ, and reducethe Secretariat to the level of a service agency for a Conference organisation
. In 1961, after Lumumba demanded continuance of Congo operation, Soviet Union again demanded
continuance of Congo operation and dismissal of Hammarskjold. Despite this the Secretary General was
given authority to reorganise the Congo national army and take all appropriate measures to prevent
occurrence of civil war in Congo, inclu&ng the use of force in the last report. Thus the Secretary General
was given power even to intervene in the internal affairs. Due to efforts of the Secretary General the
position in Congo considerably improved and an allCongo government was installed under Adoula. But
peace could not be established in Congo and soon Katanga announced withdrawal which led to fresh
trouble. Secretary General Hammarskjold made personal bid to resolve the issue and undertook a personal
visit to^shombe (President of Katanga) to find a solution. However, he was killed in a plane crash which
gave rise to doubts about the role of Secretary General in future.
The Secretary General U.Thant had to face serious problem inCongo due to outbreak of violence
Thereupon the Security Council authorised the Secretary General in November 1960 to remove the
mercenaries through use of force. He nor only established peace through use of UN forces but also
proposed a plan of national reconstruction. Thereafter though O.N.U.C. continued in Congo for some time
but ultimately these had to be withdrawn due to financial crisis. Under U. That the office of the Secretary
General gained in prestige because he tried to keep good relations with both the great
289
powers. Despite this he was criticised for his decision to remove UN peacekeeping forces from Sinai on the
demand of President Nasser of Egypt in 1967.
Kurt Waldheim the fourth Secretary General played an important role as mediator. He organised
andpresided over talks between the Turks and Greek communities in Cyprus and toured Middle East
extensively to bring about settlement. During his tenure a number a constructive activities were also
undertaken by the United Nations. These included provision of disaster relief, protection of international
environment, administeration of deep sea bed and running of a world university.
The fifth Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar was praised as well ’ as criticised for his role. He
played an important role in the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, conduct of free ejections in
Namibia, conduct ofelections in Nicaragua. During his tenurefive new peace-keeping operations were
organised, which included two in the Middle East viz. the military v observer team in Iran-Iraq border and
the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission after the UN operation for liberation of Kuwait in
1991. It may be noted that the Secretary General was able to play such an effective role chiefly due to
changed international climate in which both United States and Soviet Union were willing to co-operate for
the resolution of the longstanding disputes. However the position of the Secretary General was somewhat
undermined during the Gulf crisis of 1990-91, when after repeated failure of Iraq to comply with the UN
resolutions and withdraw troops from Kuwait, the UN passed a resolution calling on its me’1’1 ’ t use all
possible means to liberate Kuwait if Iraq did not withdraw. As.. -^ failed to heed this call, a UN
multinational force went into action for the liberation of Kuwait, and achieved the desired success.
However, during these operations the Secretary General found himself in embarrassing position because
US did not keep him fully informed about the course of war. He even faited to stop the operations when the
US led forces clearly over-stepped their mandate.
The present UN Secretary General Dr. Bourtrous Ghali of Egypt is also playing active role in resolving the
disoutes and promoting greater cooperation among the member States.
It is evident from the preceding account that the role of the Secretary General has undergone great
transformation since the establishment of the United Nations. This transformation was made possible by a
number of
factors.
1. In the first place the UN Charter has given much latitude to the Secretary General by authorising him to
bring any matter to the attention of the Security Council, which in his opinion poses a threat to world peace
and security. This h,as enabled the Secretary General to play more important political role than his
counterpart under the Covenant of the League.
290 INTERNATIONAL1 RELATIONS
2. Secondly, the Secretary Generals have tended to assume more power through liberal interpretation of the
powers assigned to them under the UN Charter. Thus Hammarskjold undertook a trip to Laos in 1959 in
exercise of his powers vested in his office”under Article 99 of the Charter. He asserted his right to carry out
appropriate investigations regarding developments in critical areas. Most of the developing ’Countries have
also supported the contention that the Secretary General should be permitted to forestall conflicts through
use of his executive actions. Thjs has naturally resulted in the expansion of his powers.
3. Thirdly, the failure of the Security Council, which was originally vested by the UN Charter with final
authority to maintain international peace and security, due to cold war between two major powers’, led to
adoption of Uniting for Peace Resolution in 1950, led to transfer of these powers to the General Assembly.
But the General Assembly due to its large size and lack of effective powers, preferred to request the
Secretary General to undertake these functions on its behalf. This naturally enhanced the powers and
prestiges of the Secretary General. Further, the various challenges posed to the UN-have also enabled the
Secretary-General to assume more administrative responsibilities. It has also been able to play more
effective role in mediation and considerable enhancement in the powers and prestiges of the Secretary
General.
4. Fourthly, the emergence of large number of independent States in Asia and Africa and their admission to
the United Nations, has also contributed to the importance of the Secretary General because most of these
States prefer the development and utilisation of the executive capacity of the organisation. This has enabled
the Secretary General to play the role of champion of the small States.
5. Fifthly, the personalities of various occupants of the office of Secretary General, have also exercised
profound influence on the new role of the Secretary. Genera I. The first Secretary General (Trygve Lie)
played a very positive role and did not hesitate tcrexpress his views openly even on controversial issues.
This at times made him unpopular with Soviet Union. The second Secretary General (Dag Hammarskjold)
acted with great diplomacy and fully exploited the powers vested in him. This won him the trust of both the
powers andhe was often entrusted with important diplomatic and executive duties. The third and the fourth
Secretary Generals also by and large succeeded in keeping clear of Big Power political and succeeded in
winning great respect.
6. Finally, the actual course of world events, which often resulted in deadlocks between the General
Assembly or the Security Council, also contributed to the importance of the Secretary General. In view of
these deadlocks he was able to take greater initiatives with regard to peace-
keeping and organisation of multinational cooperation. In the present
^ context when the international crisis demands immediate action to ward
I against threat of nuclear warfare, the Secretary General as an individual
I can take quick action. He can make use of Art. 99 of the Charter which
I permits him to take initiative for settlement of dispute without waiting for
I the General Assembly or the Security Council. It is true that the Secretary
I General does not enjoy any power to raise the finances and forces for
i promotion of peace, but he can certainly play an effective role in bringing
’t the parties to dispute to the negotiating table and identifying appropriate

t areas of action by the United Nations.
! It may be noted that the role which the Secretary General can play at any
given time and in a particular situation depends on his personality as well as the political support which he
is able to get from various groups in the United Nations.
In conclusion we can say with Goodrich ”there are definite advantages in having the Secretary General
perform major political functions in the peace and security field. He is an official continuously on the job,
presumably possessing qualifications of a political and personal nature which equip him for difficult
diplomatic and administrative tasks. He has in the Charter a legal basis for taking initiative and assuming
responsibilities. He has at his disposal a large and well qualified staff, representing a variety of experiences
and national points of view. He is, therefore, in the position, acting directly or through is chosen
representatives, to mobil izea variety of skills and experiences, and with the traditions of an impartial and
highly qualified international service to support him, to comrnandthe confidence and trust of governments.
*
SPECIALISED AGENCIES OF UNITED NATIONS The United Nations Organisation is not only
concerned with the. establishment of peace and security in the world but also expected to promote higher
standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development. It is
charged with the duty of providing solutions for the international economic, social, health and related
problems and promoting universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all without any distinction of race, sex, language and religion. In this task the United Nations is assisted
by a number of Specialised Agencies, which though not a part of the world body, play an important role in
this regard.
Classification of specialised Agencies
These specialised agencies can be broadly classified into four categories.

(LelandM. Goodrich, The Political Role of the Secretary General’in David A. Kay (Ed)., The United Nations Political System, p.
138)
292
1. First,therearesomeagencieslikelnternationalCivil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), World Metrological Organisation

(WMO), Inter-government Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO), Universal Postal Union (UPU) and
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), International Maritime Organisation (IMO) which are concerned with
technical matters.
2. Secondly, there are agencies like the International Labour Organisation (ILO), United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), World Health Organisation (WHO), International Fund for
Agricultural and Development (IFAD) which are concerned with social and humanitarian activities.
3. Thirdly, thereare agencies like International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (The World Bank),
International Development Association (IDA), International Finance Corporation (IFC), UNIDO, GATT, etc. which are
concerned with financial and economic development.
4. Finally, there are agencies like Food and AgricultureOrganisation(FAO), and International Trade Organisation which
are concerned purely with economic problems.
All specialised agencies fall in one of the above noted categories. Some of these agencies like Universal Postal Union
have larger membership than (he United Nations. Almost all these agencies work through a Central Bureau. In addition
they have general assemblies composed of representatives of the member states and a Secretariat. Let us now deal with
some of the prominent agencies to fully appreciate their role in the socio-economic field.
UNESCO
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation cjme into existence in November 1946, and was
recognised as a specialised .jge’ncy of the United Nations in December 1946. The organisation aims at promoting
world peace by constructing defences for peace in the minds of men. It wants to promote greater understanding of each
other’s ways and lives, and remove suspicion and distrust which are responsible for the war.
Organisation. The organisation of UNESCO consists of a General Conference, an Executive Board and ;’ •••_• êf
retariat. The General Conference which is the governing body of the Organisation, consists of representatives of th?
member states. Each member state can send up to five delegates but possess only one vote The General Conference
decides the main line of the Organisation. It elects the members of the Executive Board and with the consent of the
Board appoints the Director General of the Secretariat. The Conference convenes international conferences on
education, the sciences
and humanities, and dissemination of knowledge. It also considers reports submitted by the member states.
The Executive Board is composed of 51 members elected by the Genera I Conference from amongst delegates
appointed by the member states. While electing these member due consideration is given to their qualifications,
experience and administrative capacity to discharge their duties. In addition thegeographicalfactorsand diversity of
culture is also taken intoaccount. The members of the Executive Board are elected for three years. The Soard mutts at
least two times a year. The Executive Board is responsible for the exei ut ion of programmes adopted by the
Conference. The Board examines the reports of the Director General and submits the same of the General Conference.
The Secretariat is headed by the Director General, who is appointed by the General Conference on the
recommendations of the Executive Board for a period of six years. The other members of the Secretariat are appointed
by the Director General. The Director General also takes part in the meetings of the General Conference and the
Executive Board without right to participate in voting.
Functions of UNESCO. The UNESCO in the main performs three types of functions. In the first place if tries to
promote education among children as well as adults. It provides educational materials, books, fellowships and study
grants to the war devastated countries. It helps in the promotion of education by providing advice and expert assistance
on matters like teachers training, school construction, preparation of curricula and textbooks, etc. For the promotion of
education the Organisation has set up a Regional Research and Training Centre and an Imernationallnstitute of
Educational Planningat Paris. UNESCO, heips in bringing about improvement in the teaching-of basic sciences at
various leve.ls. It also encourages basic research in fields like mathematics, physics,geology, oceanography, etc.
UNESCOalsbencourages application of science and technology to development. It has helped the developing countries
by appointing advisory missions, arranging regional conferences and training scientists, technicians and technologists.
The UNESCO has also attached great importance to problems of human rights and socio-economic implications of
disarmament. It helps the member states in the preservation and protection of their cultural heritage and gives every
possible encouragement to artistic activities. It encourages translation of the important works of different countries to
make the literature available to different countries. It helps the countries with weak foreign exchange position to
procure books from other countries through its scheme of book coupons. UNESCO also helps promoting international
exchange-of persons and plays a vital role in disseminating knowledge about the Human Rights In short the UNESCO
tries to promote a spirit of intellectual co-operation
amongst the people of different countries of the world with a view to promote peace.
A serious crisis confronted UNESCO on account of withdrawal of U .S. A. (w.e.f. 31

December, 1984) and U.K. (w.e.f. 31 December, 1985). These countries withdrew from the
organisation on the plea that certain tendencies had developed which were not compatible
with the original aims of the organisation. Even Singapore withdrew from this world body
on account of her babv qconomy. The withdrawal of affluent members of UNESCO created
seniius financial problems for the organisation, even though other members asserted-that
they would be able to tide over the situation.
The Working of UNESCO has been critised on several grounds. It is alleged that it is run by
the government officials. The Executive Board of UNESCO which is considered to be
representative is too centralised. Further, there is lot of overlapping in the activities of
UNESCO and other specialised agencies. Again, UNESCO has tried to be too ambitious and
held too many conferences and seminars but generally no action is taken on the outcome of
these conferences and seminars. UNESCO was expected to play a significant role in
promotion of development but it has failed to do so because of lack of an effective policy in
this regard. As a result most of the knowledge and . information available with UNESCO in
the field of economic and social change has not been systematically exploited. The
usefulness of UNESCO has also been redeuced due to cleavage between the ’haves’ and the
’havenots1, and often the programmes of UNESCO do not get support from all the
member’States. In other words the UNESCO has not succeeded in bridging psychological
divisions between the rich and the poor nations. THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
ORGANISATION (ILO)
This organisation was created in April 1919 as a part of the League of Nations. In 1946 it
became the first specialised agency of the United Nations. The main task of the organisation
is to improve the living and working conditions of the workers throughout the world.
Organisation. The ILO has three organs, viz.. International Labour Conference, the
Governing Body and the International Labour Office. The International Labour
Conference is the General Conference of the member . states. Each member sends four
delegates to the General Conference. These delegates represent the government (2), workers
(1) and employers (1). The LabourConference lay down the minimum international
standards of working and living conditions. The Labour Conference approves the annual
budget of the organisation and elects the members of the Governing Body. It alsc examines
the reports from the member states regarding implementation c conventions, etc. adopted
by the Conference.
The Governing Body of ILO consists of 56 members -- 28 representing t!
Government, 14representingtheemployeesand 14 representing the workers. The Governing Body elects a

Chairman and a Vice-Chairman for one year from amongst its members. The Governing body appoints the
Director General and exercises general supervision over the working of the International Labour Office. It
drafts the budget proposals and determines the general policy of the organisation. The Governing Body can
constitute its own Committees to deal with particular problems.
The International Labour Office is a sort of Secretariat of the ILO. In addition it also acts as World
information Centre and Publishing House. The office is headed by the Director General appointed by the
Governing Body. In addition it enjoys the services of experts drawn from different member states. Tha
International Labour Office prepares documents and brings out periodical publications. It also undertakes
research and studies on problems relating to the Labour. The International Labour Organisation brings
together the government, labour and management and encourages them to accept international minimum
standards and draft labour conventions on subjects like human rights, freedom of association, wages, hour
of work, minimum age for employment, conditions of work for various classes of workers workmen’s
compensation, social insurance, vacation with pay, industrial safety, employment services and labour
inspection. •
Functions of the ILO. The ILO performs very extensive functions. Its functions include the following;
1. Ittriestoraisethestandards of the workers by setting international Labour standards through international

conventions. In 1962 the Labour Conference adopted a convention reducing the working hours to 48 hours
a week. ,
2. It prevents unemployment and conducts comprehensive studies of the

* factors which can help in achieving the objectiveof full employment. ILO
launched World Employment Programme in 1969 to provide jobs for the world’s rapidly expanding
population. In recognition of its services to the working people all over the world the tLO was awarded
Novel Peace Prize for a half century of service on behalf of working people.
J. It looks after the problem of social security of employees in industry, commerce and agriculture. It has
already adopted conventions which provide for compulsory insurance against sickness, old age and death
and payment of compensation for industrial accidents and occupational diseases.
4. The ILO tries to improve the working conditions of the merchant sailors. It has adopted over twenty-five
conventions for this purpose. These conventions relate to the working hours, special provisions for
overtime, holidays, medical examinations, conditions of service, etc.
296
5. The ILO encourages the employees as well as employers to form their own associations.
6. It protects the industrial as well as field workers by insisting on inspection, prevention of industrial
accidents etc. It has published a code of safety regulations for the industrial establishments.
7. It pays special attention to the problems of women and children. It has placed a ban on employment of
women at night as well as traffic in women. Similarly, the ILO also protects the children. It has prohibited
employment of children below 15 years in hazardous jobs. The other important measures taken by the ILO
for the protection of women and children include employment of women before and after child birth,
maternity benefits, provision of day nurseries, etc.
8. The ILO provides technical assistance to member states. It has instituted many technical assistance
projects in the field of vocational guidance
: and training, managerial supervisory training and productivity projects. In 1965 the ILO set up the
International Centre for Advanced Technical and Vocational Training in Turin (Italy), which provides
programme for directors of technical and vocational institutions, training officers managers, trade union
leaders, instructors and.technicians, primarily from the developing countries.
The International Labour Organisation has set over 300 international labour standards through adoption of
various International La hour Conferences. Though the final authority to accept these conventions rests
with the member states, but generally the states have tended to accept these conventions by ratifying them.
The ILO can ask the governments of member states to report how far these standards are being complied
with, and the difficulties faced by them in applying these.
The Technical, assistance programmes of the ILO could not be very effective during the earlier years on
account of lack of necessary financial resources. However, after large sums were made available by the
United Nations under the UN Development Programmes, the ILO was able to playmore effective role and
carried out more than 1 50 major projects jn different parts of the world.
The ILO acts as a publishing house and brings out large number of periodicals,’texts of labour law
regulations-, studies, technical work’s and manuals in different languages. It also entertains large number of
inquiries made from it every year.
The position of the ILO was greatly weakened on account of prevailing power politics in the international
arena. This is evident from the fact that in
1977 United States withdrew from the organisation on the ground that it was
acting with political bias. It particularly objected that the tripartite principle ; (which envisaged
association of governments, labour and employer) was I being threatened because the delegations
from Soviet Union and some other .
stateswerepraaicallyactingasrepresentativesofthegovemment.Itwasonly
in 1980, after the ILO gave an assurance that it would act more impartially, i. that United States
returned to the ILO.
In short the ILO through its activities seeks to create a sense of solidarity among the workers of the
world. Though the ILCXs recommendations are not mandatory and their acceptance of depends en
the sweet will of the states, still it has made valuable contributions and tried to ensure that the
benefits are
’ extefidedtogroupswhichhavebeenlesssuccessfulinobtainingimprovements through national channels.
Further it has sought to bring about improvements
> in the area where the states are reluctant to undertake improvements by themselves.
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO)
The World Health Organisation came into being on 7 April, 1948 when
26 United Nations member states ratified its Constitution. Its membership is open to all the members of the
UNO. The States which are not mernbers of UNO can become mernbers of WHO after their application is
approved by the World Health Assembly, Non-sovereign states and territories can become its associate
members, it aims at creating proper health conditions through international cooperation.
Organisation. The organisation of the WHO consists of the World Health Assembly, the Executive Board,
and the Secretariat. The World Health s,. Assembly is composed of representatives of all the member
states. The | Assembly holds annual meetings and is responsible for laying down general i policies. It
approves the budget of the organisation and adopts necessary | conventions for the promotion of its
objectives. The Assembly appoints the
* Director Genera!, who heads the Secretariat.
The Executive Board consists of 31 members. These members are
- selected by the WoHd Health Assembly from amongst persons most qualified by their technical
competence in the field of health. These members are elected for three vears. The Board carries out the
decisions of the Assembly. It takes necessary measures to deal tied epidemics and sudden calamities.
The Secretariat under the Director General works through technical experts and committees.
Objective of WHO. The main objective of the WHO is attainment by all people or the highest possible
level of health. This goal is to be achieved through the combined efforts of the governments and people,
and involves education concerning prevdi I ing’health problems; proper food supply and
298
2q8 . ’ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
nutrition; safe water and sanitation; maternal and child health, including family planning; immunisation
against major infectious diseases; prevention and control of local diseases; appropriate treatment of
common diseases and injuries; and provision of essential drugs. Functions: The WHO performs following
functions: Lit tries to prevent the spread of disease by providing assistance to the states to check the disease
at the source, to prevent it from spreading to other countries.
2. The WHO tries to cure the disease once it has spread, by imparting scientific knowledge about the
disease and suggesting ways to combat the same. Though the actual operations for curing the disease are
left to the national governments, the WHO provides necessary training to state personnel, sponsors
seminars and conference for the exchange of techniques and experience.
3. The WHO provides training to personnels of different states for the prevention of diseases. !t is well
known that it was chiefly due to the world wide campaign by the WHO against Malaria that the disease has
been checked.
4. The WHO held the members states to improve the health administration by imparting education
regarding health through seminars, conferences and training projects to deal with problems tike
environmental hygiene, eradication of disease, control of disease, etc. WHO launched a special programme,
in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) arid the World Bank, of research
and training in tropical diseases like malaria, leprosy, schstosomiasis. It also launched a special programme
to prevent and control AID through public information and education about the modes of its transmission.
Thus the functions of the WHO has tremendously increased since its establishment. This has further
aggravated the problem of paucity of funds. As the WHO has to operate within ^jje available resources, it
has to concentrate only on some specific programmes and projects. This has greatly hampered the efficient
discharge of responsibilities by WHO. However, it cannot be denied that the WHO has succeeded in
securing international co-operation for solving health problems when national actions proved ineffective.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
.The FAO was founded at a conference in Quebec on 16 October. 1945 with a view to find out means for
developing and maintaining an adequate food supply by encouraging use of modern tools and
methods,’conserving existing food supplies, searching.new sourrp* «”•
/ The FAO like other agencies also operates through three organs, viz., the Conference, the Council and the
Secretariat. The Conference consists of representatives member states with each such state enjoying only
one vote. TheConferencedecidesthepolicyoftheOrganisation. The Council consists of 49 members elected
by the Conference. It discharges all the functions of the Conference during the intervening period between
its sessions. The Secretariat, is headed by the Director General chosen by the Conference. The Secretariat
has five Technical Divisions. In addition it has certain regional offices as well. . ••
Functions. The main functions of the FAO include the following:
1. The collects, analyses, interprets and disseminates information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture.
It has set up an international Emergency Food Council which recommends allocation of scare foodstuffs
and other products among the importing countries.
2. It provides technical assistance to the member states to improve food It provided help to Iraq regarding
soil erosion. Similarly, it provided traininig to the Indian mechanics for the maintenance of agricultural
machinery and irrigation equipment. ’
3. It helps in combating various animal and plant diseases. It has done valuable work in this regard by
inventing new vaccines and medicines. It also help in controlling the locust.
4. It helps the countries in increasing production of food stuffs by developing and introducing new seeds
and methods of cultivations. It also helps in promoting fishery by suggesting new methods.
5. The FAO seeks to check diseases among children resulting from malnutrition.
6. Finally, the FAO disseminates necessary information regarding the food and other allied problems. In
1960 it launched the Freedom from Hunger Campaign to create a worldwide awareness regarding the
problem of hunger and malnutrition being faced by people in certain part of the world. Though the
Organisation has not succeeded in eliminating hunger from the world its action was certainly laudable. If
the different states cooperate the results can be quite rewarding.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)
The Internationa^ Monetary Fund was set up in December 1945. It aims at (i) promoting international monetary co-
operation through permanent institution
which provides the machinery for consultation and collaboration on international monetary problems, (ii) facilitate the
expansion and balanced growth of
IP
300
international trade and to promote high levels of employment and real income (in) to promote exchange stability and
maintain orderly exchange arrangements among members, (iv) to assist in the establishment of multilateral system of
payment in respect of current transactions between meml>ers and eliminate the foreign exchange restrictions which
hampers the growth of world trade, and (v) to provide Fund resources available to the members with a view to correct
maladjustment in the balance of payments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international system.
The Organisation of the IMF comprises of Board of Governors, the Executive Board and the Managing
Director. The Board of Governors is the highest authority and comprises of representatives of all the
member states. It meets once a year. The daily business of the Fund is conducted by the Executive Board
comprising of 22 Executive Directors. The Executive Board is headed by a Managing Director. The
Managing Director also acts as the chief of staff of more than 1700 international civil servants.
Functions. The participants at the Bretton Woods Conference, assigned three main functions to the Fund,
firstly, a code of conduct regarding exchange rate policies and impose restrictions on payments for current
account transactions. Secondly, provides the members financial resources to enable them to observe the
code of conduct while .correcting or avoiding payments imbalances. Thirdly, to provide a forum in which
members can consult one another and collaborate on international monetary matters.
The Fund provides necessary resources to the members to overcome problem of payments. Generally, the
Fund lends money to the members keeping in view two basic principles. Firstly, it expects the member
states borrowing from the Fund to return the amount in the currency in which the money was borrowed, as
soon as its payments problems are resolved so that the same may become available to other members of the
Fund. Secondly, it can ask the member states borrowing the money to indicate now they intend to solve
their payment problems and assure that the money would be repaid to the Fund within normal period of
repayment vsz. between three to five years. However, <n certain cases the Fund can extend the repayment
period upto 10 years. *
The IMF ensures that the states do net change the’ exchange rates more than 10 per cent from the initial
value without its permission. Actually in the IMF the states have been accorded weightage of voting in
accordance with their contributions ”o the fund which gives an advantage to countries like UK and USA.
As a result these changes can be effected only with the consent of these twocoumne*. ThelMFi<eepsa
watch on the domestic and international financial view to ensure genuine equilibrium in the balance of
payments.
International Bank for Recoitrtructioii and DcvdopmuH (IBID)
The IBRD came into existence in December 1945 and was accorded the status of a special agency of the
UN in November 1947. The main purpose^ of the IBRD is to assist inthe reconstruction of capital for
productive purposes,* by promoting private foreign investments by means of guarantees or participations in
loans and other investments made by private investors; to promote long-range balanced growth of
international trade and maintenance of equilibrium inbalance of payments by encouraging international
investment for development of productive sources of members; to arrange the loans made or guaranteed by
it in relation to international loans through other channels; and to conduct its operations with due regard to
the effect of international investments in business conditions in the territories of members.
It may be observed that IBRD while carrying out itr operations keeps several things in mind viz. it lends
only for productive purposes-such as agriculture and rural development, energy, education, health, family
planning and nutrition, roads and railways, telecommunications, urban ports and power facilities. It has to
keep in rnind the prospects for repayment. The land must be guaranteed by the government concerned to
ensure that loans are not available from other sources on reasonable terms. The Bank’sdecision to lend
must be based only on economic considerations, it cannot restrict the use of loans to purchases in any
particular member country or countries. It is noteworthy that since the Bank obtains loan fundsTrom
borrowing in private capital market, and not from the governments, it has to follow sound principles of
international finance and take steps to protect interests of creditors.
The organisation of IBRD consists of Board of Governors, the Executive Directors and President. The real
power rests with the Board of Governors which normally meets oncea year. The Board appoints a body of
22 Executive Directors. The Chairman (elected by the Board of Directors every year) ads as theex-
officioChairman of five Executive Directors. The appointment of five Executive Directors ismade by
thefive largest stockholders and the remaining
17 Executive Directors are elected by the Governors of remaining members The President is thechief
executive officer of thelBRD. He is selected by Board of Governors and is assisted by other staff.
Functions. The main function of the IBRD is to raise the level of
productivity For this purpose it provides necessary loans to various countries, for development purposes.
India received loan for reconstruction and development of state-owned railways from the IBRD. The Bank
charges a very moderate rate of i merest. After the money is made available to the country the bank ensures
that the money is being used as per terms of contracts. Thus thf Bank not only functions as a lenderand a
guarantor but also asan international
302
brain trust for the evaluation and guidance of reconstruction and development strategy.
For quite some time the IBRD avoided social project loans (for building hospitals and schools, and slum
clearance, etc.), general purpose loans, and loans to resolve problems of balance of payments. However, of
late it has adopted more liberal attitude and has provided loans to encourage economic growth in major
debtor countries of the third world. It also provides assistance to the states in their development planning by
helping them in the preparation of project proposals, providing training to senior development officials, etc.
Despite this change in attitjude the IBRD is not able to meet the vast capital demands of developing
countries due to its limited resources and capacity.
UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN EMERGENCY FUND (UNICEF)
The UNICEF was created in December 1946 through a resolution of the UN General Assembly with a view
to help those countries with money, goods and services, who are unable to meet the needs of their children
out of their own resources. UNICEF works through an Executive Board of 41 members designated by the
Economic and Social Council of the UN. It also has an Executive Director who is appointed by the General
Secretary of UNO in consultation with the members of the Executive Board. The necessary funds for the
UNICEF are raised through voluntary contributions of governments, persons and organisations. Roughly
three-quarter of its income comes from Government and the remainder from general public.
The UNICEF renders assistance in providing balanced food to children and provides assistance in
providing to them protective food like milk, meat, fish, fats, fish liver oil, etc. It also co-operates with other
organisations for the improvement of children’s health and provision of clothing. UNICEF also takes care
of the interests of women and provides facilities for pregnant mothers. It has also extended support to
various conventions for the suppression of traffic in women and children, crime prevention, etc. According
to Prof. Jacob and Atherton ”By its careful planning, scrupulous non-partisan administration, high
operating efficiency and economy, and above all, the ever-riding sense of international responsibility for a
humanitarian purposes that permeated the organisation, UNICEF vindicated the role of international
organisation as agent for relief of human need and misery.*
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (IDA)
The International Development Association was established in. 1960 as an affiliate of the IBRD, with a
view to provide funds to the poor countries on much easier terms than the IBRD. Though legally and
financially an independent body, it is administered by the same officers and staff as the IBRD. The
membership of IDA is open to all the members of the Bank.
THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES }Q3
The funds of the IDA come from three sources: transfers from the Bank’s net earnings; capital subscribed
in convertible currencies by the members of IDA; and contributions from the richer members of IDA. A
country to borrow from IDA has to meet four criterias viz. it must be very poor (the poverty ceiling was
$796 per capita gross national product in 1981); it must have sufficient to warrant long-term development
lending; it must have an unusually difficult balance of payments problem and little prospect of earning
enough foreignexchange to justify borrowing all it needs on conventional .terms; and it must have a
genuine commitment to development as reflected in its policies.
The objectives of IDA are to promote economic development, increase productivity and raise standards of
living by providing its members with finance to meet important development needs on terms which are
flexible and which bear less heavily on their balance of payments.
In contrast with the IBRD loans, nearly all IDA ’credits’ have been given for 50 years without interest.
Only a small charge is levied to cover the administrative costs. The repayment of principal does not start
still after 10 years grace period.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC)
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) was established as an affiliate of the World Bank to assist the
economic development of less developed member countries. The IFC promotes private sector economic
growth in these countries through mobilization of domestic and foreign capital. The membership of the
Corporation is open to all the government members of the IBRD.
The main objectives of the IFC are (i) to assist in financing private enterprise which could contribute to
development by making investments without guarantee of repayment by the member Government
concerned; (ii) to bring together investment opportunities, domestic and foreign capital, and experienced
management; and (in) to stimulate the flow of private capital, domestic and foreign, into productive
investment in member countries.
It is noteworthy that IFC has mainly invested in manufacturing, but it has also made valuable investments
in the field of mining and energy, tourism, utilities and projects relating to agriculture. The funds of IFC
mainly come from subscriptions by its member countries and from accumulated earnings.
The organisation of IFC comprises of Board of Governors, the Board of

DireaorsandtheChairman.TheBoardofGovernors, in which all the powers of IFC are vested, comprises of
Governors and alternates of World Bank who represent countries which are also members of IFC. The
Board of Directors comprises of ex-office Executive Directors of the World Bank who represent the
countries which are also members of IFC. The Board of Directors supervise
304
rhe general operations of IFC The President of the World Bank istheex-officio Chairman of the Board of
Directors of IFC.
A perusal of the activities of.lBRD and ils two affiliates-International Development Association and
International FinanceCorporation, shows that most of the developing states have benefited from their
activities. It is hoped » that in future also these agencies shall continue to contribute towards the<
development of these countries through their lending operations. However, it cannot be denied that the
working of these bodies has met with severe criticism at the hands of some critics.
It is alleged that these agencies are largely controlled by Western powers on account of system of weighted
voting, on the basis of contributions. As a ; result often these’bodies provide loans which are only slightly
earlier than the ’ loans provided by private banks. Despite this criticism the member of the World
Community; both developed and developing, look to these agencies as an important source of capital needs
for economic development. The member states are quite optimistic that the role of these bodies will
continue , to grow in future.
UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION
The Universal Postal Union was established under the Berne Treaty of
1874 with a view to overcome the difficulties which the states were facing with regard to international
mail. This Union formally came into being on
1 July, 1875 and was initially named as General Postal Union. At the second ’• International Post
Congress held in Paris in 1878, its name was changed to ’•’ Universal Postal Union. It was expected to
administer the services necessary for uniting the world in a single postal.territory for reciprocal exchange of
correspondence. Most of the states are members of the Universal Postal Union.
The Universal Postal Union has four principal organs - the Universal ” Postal Congress, the Executive
Council, the Consultative Council for Pasta! Studies, and International Bureau. The Universal Postal
Congress is the general body which meets once in five years to review the Acts of the .Universal Postal
Union inciuding^he subsidiary agreements. The Executive Council comprises of 40 members who elected
by the Congress on the basis of equitable geographical distribution. The Council maintains close contact
with postal administrations, exercises control over the International Bureau. ; ensures working relations
with the United Nations and other interr,atr.ina! organisations, and promotes technical assistance. It meets
annually and . ensures continuity of the work cf the Union between Congresses.
The Congress elects a Consultative Council for Postal Studies wiiic.h comprisesof JS members. The
ConsultativeCouncil meets annually at Berny. it organises studies of major technical, economic as.d
operational problems
THE UNITED NATIONS ANDJTS SPECIALISED AGENCIES
305
affecting postal administration in all the member countries and examines teaching and training problems in
the newly independent a/»d developing countries.
The International Bureau is the central office of the Universal Postal Union. It co-ordinates, publishes and
disseminates information about the international postal service. It gives opinions on disputes and acts as a
clearing-house for the settlement of debts between postal administrations. It considers requests for
amendments to the Acts of the Union, gives notice of changes adopted and takes part in the preparation.of
the work of the Congress. It also provides secretarial assistance to the Universal Postal Union bodies and
promotes technical co-operation of all types.
Themain functionsof theUPU (Universal Postal Union) include reciprocal exchange of letter-post items; to
secure improvement of the postal services/- to provide technical assistance to the member countries of the
Union; to promote international collaboration in postal matters; to fix rates, the maximum and minimum
weightand size limits and the conditions of acceptanceof letter post items; to prescribe the methods for
calculating and collecting transit charges for letter-post items passing through the territories of one or more
countries, etc. The Union undertake technical projects and seeks to promote co-operation among members
through planning, organisation, management, operations training and financial services. It helps the
developing countries
• to improve their postal services by sending experts providing vocational training, awarding fellowships
for individual or group courses and supplying equipment and training. The Universal Postal Union also
compiles useful information regarding the list of airports, air-mail lines, world map of surface
communication routes, a directory of post offices, etc. It also brings out monthly journal in a number of
languages to keep the members informed about the latest development. The Union has greatly contributed
to the creation and maintenance of conditions for free flow of messages among the people of the world and
thus contributed to thepromotion of world peace and
> fraternity of nations.
’ INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION (ITU)
The first effort to secure cooperation among the members in the field of communication was made in 1865
when the International Telegraph Union was founded. It was only in 1934 that the organisation was
renamed as International Telecommunication Union. In 1947 at the international conference held in United
States the ITU adjusted its organizational structure and entered into an agreement with the United Nations
whereby it was ; recognised as the specialised agency of telecommunication. Thereafter the activities of the
ITU are being regulated according to various conventions which have been adopted since then.
»06
The organisation of the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) comprises of the Plenipotentiary
Conference, Administrative Council, the General Secretariat, the International Frequency Registration
Board (IFRB), the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee; and the International
Consultative Committee. The Plenipotentiary Conference is the supreme organ of ITU. It meets normally
every five years and is responsible for laying down its basic policy. In addition it convenes administrative
conference to consider specific telecommunication matters, both at world and regional levels.
The Administrative Council is elected by the Plenipotentiary Conference and comprises of 43 members.
These members are elected keeping in view equitable geographical representation. The Administrative
Council meets annually and coordinates the work of five permanent organs at ITU headquarters viz. the
Secretariat, the International Frequency Registration Board, the International RadioConsultativeCommittee,
the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee, and the Telecommunications
Development Bureau.
The main objective of ITU is to maintain and extend international cooperation for the improvement and
rational use of telecommunications of all kinds, to promote the development of technical facilities and their
most efficient operation with a view to improving the efficiency of telecommunication services, increasing
their usefulness and making them generally available to public and to harmonize the actions of nations in
the attainment of these objectives. .
For the attainment of the above objectives the ITU undertakes following functions.
(i) It allocates the frequencies on the spectrum and registers radiofrequency assignments on such a way as
to avoid interference between radio stations of different countries.
(ii) It coordinates efforts toêliminate interference between radio stations and seeks to establish the lowest
possible charges for telecommunications services.
(in) It fosters the creation, development and improvement of telecommunications in newly independent or
developing countries,- principally through its participation in the United Nations programmes.
(iv) It promotes safety measures.
(v) It undertakes studies, issues recommendations and opinions, and collects and publishes information for
the benefit of its members and associate members. .
307
(vi) The International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB) keeps the Master International Frequency
Registry upto date, works on technical preparations for planning conferences and organizes numerous
seminars OTfrequencymanagementandtheuseoftheradiofrequencyspectrum.
(vii) The International Telecommunication Union carries out technical cooperation programme within the
framework of the United Nations Development Programme. This programme is directed towards the
technical training of local telecommunications personnel, planning regional telecommunication network,
making detailed pre-investment surveys for regional networks and helping member governments establish
new networks.
(viii) The ITU lays down regulations for reservation of distress frequencies for life-saving and rescue work.
It also determines station identification signals, frequencies for air and marine navigational, aid, and for
meteorological messages and other matters relating to efficient use of radio.
In short, it can be said that the International Telecommunication Union tries to maintain conditions
necessary for free flow of messages among different nations of the world. • ,
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANISATION (ICAO)
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) came intoexistence in April 1947 in terms of the
decision of International Civil Aviation Conference held at Chicago in 1944, and has its headquarter at
Montreal, Canada.
The mamobjeaives of ICAO are: (i) to ensure the safeand orderly growth of international civil aviation; (ii)
to encourage the design and operation of aircraft for peaceful purposes; (in) to support the development of
airways, airports and air navigation facilities for civil aviation; and (iv) to meet the needs of the
international publ ic for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport.
For the attainment of the above objectives the ICAO has adopted a number of international standards and
recommended practices which specify the design and performance of aircraft and much of their equipment.
These standards also deal with the performance of airline pilots, flight crews, air traffic controllers, and
ground and maintenance crews; the carriage of dangerous goods by commercial aircraft; security
requirements and procedures at international airports; and the interdiction of illicit drug transportation by
air.
ICAO is also responsible for the regulation of radio frequencies and security procedures. It works
tofacilitate the movement of aircraft, passengers,
!08
crews, baggage, cargo and mail across international boundaries by reducing procedural formalities
involving customs, immigration and public health authorities. It also helps the developing countries in
establishing or improving air transport systems and training of aviation personnel.
Organisation. The organisation of the ICAO comprises of an Assembly, a Couhcil, a Secretariat and a
number of commissions and committees. The Assembly is made up of all the member states of the ICAO,
with each enjoying only one vote. The Assembly meets once in three years and decides the policy of ICAO,
and votes on budget. It also deals with other questions which may be specifically referred to it by the
Council.
The Council of ICAO comprises of 3 3 members elected by the Assembly. It is expected to carry out the
directives of the Assembly. It elects its President and appoints the Secretary General. The Council also
administers the finances of the organization. The Council creates standards for international air navigation
and safety; collects, examines and publishes information on air navigation; and also acts as a tribunal for
the settlement of disputes which may arise among member states relating to international civil aviation.
The Council is assisted by an Air Navigation Commission and five committees viz, air transport, legal,
joint support of air navigation services, finance and unlawful interference.
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANISATION (WMO)
The World Meteorological Organisation is thesuccessor of International Meteorological Organisation

(IMO) and started its operations in 1951 even though decision for its creation was taken at the Twelfth
Conference of Directors of International Meteorological Organisation. This organization was established
with a view to co-ordinating, standardizing and improving world meteorological and related activities and
to encourage an efficient exchange of meteorological and related information between countries in the aid
of human activities.
The objectives of WMO include (i) to help in the establishment of networks of stations and centres to
provide meteorological and hydrological observations and services; (ii) to promote the establishment and
maintenance of systems for the rapid exchange of meteorological and related information; (in) to promote
standardization of meteorological and related observations and ensure the uniform publication of
observations and statistics; (iv) to further the application of meteorology to aviation, shipping, water
problems, agriculture and other activities; (v) to promote activities in. operational hydrology and to further
close co-operation between meteorological and hydrological services; and 1vi) to encourage research and
training in meteorology and related fields.
309
Activities. The Seventh World Meteorological Congms which met in May 1975 reorganised the activities of
WMO into different programmes, which deserve detailed discussion.
In the first place it has implemented the establishment of the ’World Weather Watch’, using surface-based
observations, meteorological satellites and a system of world and regional meteorological centres operated
by the national weather services of its members. In recent years, with atmospheric and oceanic data
obtained from space rapidly becoming the basis of extended range-weather forecasts for the entire globe,
WMO has given high priority to space-based observational systems and the use of satellite communications
to transmit meteorological information.
Secondly, the WMO along with Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO has sponsored an
international programme called the Integrated Global Ocean Station System, to produce and provide
oceanographic analysis and predictions.
Thirdly, WMO has carried out the Global Atmospheric Research Programme jointly with the International
Council of Scientific Unions, which increase the accuracy of meteorological forecasting and helped in
obtaining a better understanding of the physical basis of climate. ’
Fourthly, its programme of Meteorological Application and Environment has applied meteorological
knowledge to human activities such as agriculture, transport, building climatology, energy, atmospheric
and marine pollution and environmental problems in general. The organisation works in close cooperation
with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of UNO to increase food production in member countries.
Fifthly, under the Hydrology and Water Resources Development Programme, WMO has promoted world-
wide co-operation in evaluating water resources and assisted in developing such resources through the
establishment of co-ordinated networks and services.
Sixthly, the Technical Co-operation Programme of WMO has assisted the developing countries to improve
national meteorological and hydrological services through the provision of experts, fellowships and
equipment. It renders assistance to the countries to develop observational and telecommunications
networks, data processing facilities, trainingand research institutes and to apply observational data and
forecasts to other sectors of the national economy. . ’
•
Seventhry, the WMO has launched the World Climate Programme which seeks to improve knowledge of
natural variations in the climate and the effect of climatic changes due to natural causes or human activities.
f *tr 1
L jJ£^.J
310 INTERNAUONAI KfclATIONS
Orfanbation. WMO has quite an elaborate organisation. World
Meteorological Congress is the supreme body of WMO which contains
representatives of all member states. Usually the states are represented by the
heads of their meteorological services. The Congress meets once in four years
and determines the general policy. The responsibility for the supervision of
the programmes approved by the Congress rests with the Executive Council
comprising of 36 directors of national meteorological or hydrological services
serving in individual capacity. The Executive Council holds at least one
meeting every years. In addition to the above bodies, there are six regional
meteorological association which co-ordinate meteorological and related
activities within their respective regions. These six regional associations are
located in Africa, Asia, South America, North and Central America, Europe,
and the South-West Pacific In addition to these there exist eight technical
commissions composed of experts designated by members of WMO. These
commissions, are responsible for studying aeronautical, agricultural and
marine meteorology, atmospheric sciences, basic systems, hydrology,
instruments and methods of observation, and climatology.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION (IMO) International Maritime Organisation, earlier

known as Inter-Governmental Maritime ConsultatjveOrganisation, came into existence in March 1958 after
the United Nations Maritime Conference adopted in Geneva in 1948 was1 accepted by requisite number of
states (21). IMO has its headquarter at Ldndon.
Organisation. The Assembly is the chief policy-making body of IMO arid comprises of all the member
states and an associate member (Hongkong). The Assembly meets every 2 years and determines the work
programme, budget and financial regulations of IMO. It also adopts recommendations on regulations
concerning maritime safety, prevention of maritime pollution another matters.
During the recess of the Assembly the Council, elected for a term of two
years,actsasthegoverningbodyoftheOrganization. The Council comprises of 32 members who are elected by
the Assembly. In addition to the above organisation there are four principal committees - on maritime
safety; legal matters; marine environment protection and technical co-operation. These Committees submit
their reports and recommendations to the Assembly through the Council.
The IMO provides machineryforco-operabonandexchangeof information among governments on technical
matters affecting shipping engaged in international trade. It encourages the adoption of the highest
practicable, standards in matters concerning maritime safety, navigational efficiency, and the prevention
and control of marine pollution from ships.
¥
THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENQlES • 311
The IMO provides a useful forum to member ^Governments and interested organizations to exchange
information and mal,ke a bid to solve problems connected with technical, legal and other questions
concerning shipping and prevention of marine pollution by ships. Thcc IMO has drafted several
conventions and made recommendations whiijch the governments have adopted. Some of the conventions
adopted by th«e IMO in this regard include international convention for the safety of life at SQja, the
prevention of marine pollution by ships, the training and certification t of seafarers, the prevention of
collision at sea, several instruments dealing with liability and compensation, etc.
In addition to the above the IMO has adopted several hundred recommendations relating tomaritime
transport oOf dangerous goods, maritime signals, safety for fishermen and fishing vessels;, and the safety
of nuclear merchant ships. Though these recommendations are not binding on the members, they certainly
constitute the codes and provide guidance to the governments in framing national regulations.
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL, DEVELOPMENT (IFAD)
The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) came into force on 30 November, 1977, even
though theagrejement for the establishment of the Fund was taken in June 1976. IFAD has its (headquarter
at Rome (Italy).
Organisation. The Organization of IFAD -comprises of a Governing Council which consists of

representatives of all the member states. These members fall into three categories, viz, developecj
countries, key contributor developing countries, and other countries, mainly recipients. These three
categories of members, however, enjoy equal vexing rights.
The President is theChief Executive of the Fund. He is assisted by a VicePresident and three Assistant
Presidents. The President is responsible for the business of the Fund. He also acts as Chairman af the 18
member Executive Board.
Objectives. The main objective of the IFAD js to mobilize resources for improved food production and
better nutritfon arriong low-income groups in developing countries. At least 20 per cent of the people in
Africa, Asia and Latin America are victims of chronic hunger and malnutrition. The fund focuses its
attention on the needs of the poorest rural communities, specially small farmers, the landless, fishermen,
livestock herders, and poor rural women. It pays special attention to grass-roots development and
innovative approaches which build on local participation a.nd the preservation of the natural resource base.
For the attainment of the above objectives, the IFAS lends money on highly concessional or low interest
terms. It not only tries to raise agricultural
(12
production but a Iso tries to improve loca I prospects for employment, nutrition and income distribution. It
goes to the credit of IFAD that it has been able to mobilise the support from other external donors for its
projects. It has also mopped up finances from other financial and development institutions like theJWorld
Bank and IDA, etc.
UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (UNIDO)
The United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) was established by the UN General
Assembly in 1966 with a view to promote and accelerate the industrialisation of the developing countries,
and to coordinate UN activities in this field. It was given status of a specialised agency of the United
Nations in 1979 when the conference of plenipotentiaries met in Vienna and adopted a Constitution for
UNIDO. The document received ratification of requisite number of states on 21 June 1985 and an
agreement between United Nations and UNIDO wassigned on 17 November, 1985. On
1 January, 1986 UNIDO became a fully autonomous specialized agency.
UNIDO is the chief co-ordinating body for industrial development. It encourages and assists the developing
countries to promote and accelerate their industrialization. For this purpose it even co-ordinates, initiates
and follows up UN activities. It serves as a useful forum for promotion of contact between the
industrialized and developing countries. Itencourages investments and promote transfer of technology to
and between developing countries.
The usual method adopted by UNIDO to attain its objectives is to promote meetings between industrialized
and developing countries with a view to accelerate industrialization by encouraging the involvement of
Governments and industry. It formulates plans in the public, co-operative and private sectors to promote
industrral development. It also renders assistance in the formulation of regional industrial development
plans.
UNIDO also provides technical assistance in the industrial development by organising industrial training
pfc>grammes, providing advisory services, and rendering assistance to countries in obtaining fair and
equitable external financing. It acts as a clearing house for industrial information. It collects, analyses,
publishes and standardizes and improves industrial statistics.
Organisation. The General Conference is the principal organ of the UNIDO.

Itdeterminestheguidingprinciplesandapprovesthebudget. Italso adopts conventions and agreements. The
other important organ of UNIDO is 53 member Industrial Development Board which reviews. Conference
approved programmes and makes recommendations. In addition there is a
27 member Programme and Budget Committee, which as its name suggests, is (.oncerned with the
determination of programmes and formulation of Budget.
THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES j n
Cencfat Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a multilateral instrument which came into force on
1 lanuary, 1948 and laid down agreed rules for international trade. Thebasic aim of GATiiJis to liberalize
world trade with a view to promote economic growth and development and welfareof the people all over
the world These objectives are to be achieved through reduction of trade barriers and other measures distort
competition; to resolve the trade disputes through conciliation. The GATT not only lays down the code of
rules for international trade relations but also provides a forum to the countries where they can discuss and
overcome their trade problems and negotiate to enlarge world trading opportunities.
The basic principles on whirh GATT operates are; (i) the trade should be conducted on the basis of non-
discrimination; (ii) that where protection is given to domestic industry, it should be extended essentially
through the customs tariff and not through other commercial measures; (Hi) that tariffs should be reduced
through multilateral negotiations and be ’bound’ against subsequent increase; and(iv) that Contracting
Partier should consult together to overcome trade problems.
So far eight rounds of negotiations to free the international trade have been held. The first round was held
at Havana in 1947 in which 23 countries took part and founded GAT r. They exchanged tariff cuts for
45,000 products worth $ 10 Billion of trade on an. annual basis. The second round was held at Annecy
(France) in 1949. In this round another ten countries joined and the customs duties were reduced for
another 5000 items. The third round was held at Torquay (Britain) in 1951 which was attended by 38
members. These members adopted 8,700 tariff reductions. The fourth round was held at Geneva in 1956
in which 26 countries participated. They decided to further cut duties for goods worth $ 2.5 billion of trade.
The fifth round was again held at Geneva in 1960-62. At this round a new common external tariff of the
Eruropean Community was negotiated. It was decided to cut customs duties on further4,400 items. The
sixth round of talks, popularly known as Kennedy Round, were held at Geneva from 1964-67. More than
50 countries agreed to cut tariffs for industrial goods by upto 50 per cent. They also signed agreements on
grains and chemical products and formalised a co-de on antidumping duties. The seventh round was held in
Tokyo from 1973-79. The
99 participants cut customs duties by 20-30 per cent for goods with a traded value of $ 300 billion. The
members also negotiated improved trading framework codes covering subsidies, technical carriers to trade,
public procurement and customs valuation rates. The eight and final round was held in Uruguay from 1986
to 1993 in which originally 105 countries were involved. It covered complex new areas such as agriculture
and services, including banking, insurance and telecommunications. Alter protracted
514
negotiations a draft treaty, popularly known as Dunkel Draft was prepared. The main objectives of the
proposals were to open up the world market particularly the developing countries to agriculture,
manufactured goods and services; to reduce the existing tariffs by at least one-third; and to improve the
productivity in the industrial as well as the farming sector by making use of the on-going improvements in
technology and seeds. The Dunkel Proposals also required the member countries to open up their
economies to the services like banking and insurance from other countries to make this sector more
competitive and efficient.
The Punkel Proposals evoked strong reactions among the third world countries which expressed
apprehension that the proposals were drafted to serve the interests of the developed West, particularly the
United States. However, in view of the global recession the developing countries were compelled to re-
orient their trade policies and they could not think of pulling out of an organisation which represented about
90 per cent of the world trade. Therefore, most of the developing countries ratified the proposals after
suggesting some changes to suit their local conditions and requirements. Ultimately in April 1994 an
accord was approved and adopted in Marrakech (Morocco), which would come into effect in 1995-after
approval by legislatures of the member countries.
The accord is expected to pave way for greater market access for all the member countries by slashing the
import duties on thousands of manufactured goods by an average of about 37 per cent. This is expected to
revolutionise the world trade and may boost the global income by $ 200 billion to $ 300 billion a year for
over ten years after 1995. The pact has also raised hopes of higher employment, more investment and more
trade. The other important features of the world treaty are that for the first time rules will govern services
like banking, insurance, travel and movement of labour; for the first time agriculture has been folded into
GAJT and quotas converted into tariffs, which have been reduced by 36 per cent for industrialised country
and 24 per cent for poor nations. These cuts will be implemented over six years by rich countries and 10
years by others. Tradedistortingsupportfor farmers has been cut by 20 per cent, over six years, in rich
countries and 13.3 per cent for the developed world, while the poorest countries have been exempted from
the farm reforms. Import quotas on textiles and clothing will be phased out over
10 years. Rules on imports priced belovy their value in the domestic market have been clarified to check
dumping. The Treaty has also toughened protection for patents, copyrights’, trademarks, etc.
The accord is likely to immensely benefit the developing countries. According to IMF the Uruguay round
will put J 70 billion a year into the pockets of the developing countries if they rise to the challenges of the
world trade It would also lead to increased efficiency in the use of domestic
315
resources, economies of scale in production and technology transfer. Above all, higher growth in the world
economy and increased access to the markets of industrial countries will improve the external environment
for developing countries.
The organisation of CATT comprises of a Session ofContracting Parties which meets annually. It takes
decisions by consensus and not by vote. In between the Sessions, the Council of Representatives takes
action on both routine and urgent matters. The other important organs of CATT are the Committees on
Trade and Development, Balance-of-Payments Restrictions and Textiles, as well as the high.level
Consultative Croup of Eighteen.
In addition to the international agencies about which we have dealt at some length, there are numerous
other agencies about which it is not possible to deal within the limited space available at our disposal,
hence we have to per force skip them.
As regards the general role of these agencies they have generally contributed tothe understanding and
solving of the basic economic and social problems of the mankind. They have played an important role in
fostering international co-operation and improvingtheconditionsof the peopleall over the world. Someof the
benefits which weare inclined to take for granted such as international mail service, improved standards of
labour, facilities of international communication by telegraph, telephones, cable and radio, weather data
from all parts of the world; reasonable foreign exchange procedure; high safety standards for international
air travel; closer economic and cultural relations among the states; assistance in fighting of epidemics and
plague and general improved health standards, etc. are largely due to these international agencies. They
have certainly contributed to the development of more healthy and co-operative international relations.
Accomplishments of the United Nations
Ever since its inception, the United Nations has always been called upon to maintain international peace
and security. Whether it was the Balkans, Iran, Palestine, Kashmir, Berlin Blockade or Korea or the issue
of U.S.hostages in Iran, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, Israeli attach on Lebanon, or vacation of
occupation of Kuwait by Iraq, the UN has always heeded the call and has done its best to find solution to
these problems.
Maintenanceof international peaceand security isthemajorresponsibility of the UN. Generally, the UN

comes into the picture whenever the disputes assume serious dimensions and pose a real danger to the
world peace. Under the UN Charter, the countries are supposed to settle their disputes through peaceful
means, but at the moment when these efforts fail, the General Assembly and tfv> Security CounclTis called
upon to maintain peace. The United^Nadons does not act orrty when the peace and security is in danger
3lh
rather it ensures preventive measures to a void such eventuality. Wemay study the accomplishments of the
UN under three heads, v/z.,Maintenance of International peace and Security in the social field and
economic field.
1. Maintenanceof International Peaceand Security Since its inception of UN has done a commendable job
in the field of maintaining international peace and security. Under the U.N. Charter the responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and peaceful settlement of disputes rests with the Security Council
which has sought to achieve it through mediation, good-offices, stationing .of military observers and peace-
keeping forces.
Over theyears the General Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions insisting on the need of peaceful
settlement of disputes and co-operation in maintenance of international peace. In 1957 it passed a
Resolution on ”Peaceful and Neighbourly Relations among the States” which stressed the need of
developing friendly co-operation and peaceful relations among states irrespective of their divergence.
Thereafter also the General assembly adopted a number of resolutions and declarationson the
Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic affairs of the States and the Protection of their
Independence and Sovereign’ (1965); Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security (1-970);
declaration on Principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states
in accordance with Charter of the United Nations (1970); Definition of Aggression (1974); Declaration on
the Inadmissibility of Intervention andlnternationalDetente(1977); Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (1981); Declaration on the Prevention of
Nuclear Catastrophe (1981); Manila Declaration on Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (1982);
arid Declaration on the Rights of People to Peace (1984). It declared
1986 as International Year of Peace to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the United Nations.
The United nations has been instrumental in settling numerous, controversies which could have proved a
potential danger to world peace and security. In 1947 there arose a dispute between Holland and Indonesia
when the Dutch troops had resorted to military Action against the Indonesians. India and Austria on 1
August, 1947 brought this case to the notice of the Security Council and urged both the parties to cease
hostilities and settle the dispute through peaceful means. The Security Council supervised the peace
operations and ultimately Indonesia became free.
The Kashmir problem which triggered conflict between India and Pakistan also rame up before the Security
Council in January 1948 at the initiative of India. It complained the Pakistan was encouraging the
tribesmen to invade Kashmir. Pakistan denied the Indian charges and pleaded the Kashmir’s accession to
India was illegal. A United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan was constituted which envisaged
certain rules to observe
}17
the truce between India and Pakistan. The UN was able to observe the truce between India and Pakistan in
1965 and the Security Council urged both India and Pakistan to withdraw their troops and took effort to
effect the cease fire. The Pakistan declaration of January 1966 also ensured the peace and security. The
Kashmir problem again cropped up during the 1971 hostilities between India »nd Pakistan. The old cease
fire line with amended and new cease fire line emerged after the hostilities were over. Despite the best
endeavours of
• the United Nations, the Kashmir problem still remains unresolved.
Another controversial problem which-has perplexed UN is that of Palestine. The problem of Palestine was
first brought before the United Nations by UK in April, 1947 when it wanted the General Assembly to take
up the future set-up of Palestine. A Special Committee on Palestine was set up which submitted the report
in august 1947 suggesting (hat Palestine should be divided into an Arab State, a Jewish State and a special
area including Jerusalem under the international government. These recommendations were accepted by the
General Assembly and a Commission was constituted to implement these recommendations.
The jews supported the move nut Arabs rejected it. The Palestine commission reported the matter to the
Security Council and urged for the unanimous support to implement the recommendations. Accordingly,
the Security Council in April 1948 urged all the concerned parties to desist from violence and set up a
Truce Commission. However, the violence did not stop. The advice and effort of the United Nations fell
flat because of non-cooperation of the concerned parties. That is why the question of Palestine is till
hanging.
Of similar magnitude had been the Korean crisis. In June 1950, the forces of North Korea attacked South
Korea. An urgent meeting of the Security Council was convened at the request of the United States. The
Security Council in a resolution passed on 25 June 1950 termed North Korean attach as clear breach of
peace and called for immediate cessation of hostilities. Two days later. Security council urged the member
states to furnish assistance to the Republic of Korea to repel the North Korean attack. A unified command
under the UN flag was envisaged where the combatant unit from 16 member states were drawn up.
However, a ceasefire was observed in April 1952. Another effort to solve the Korean issue was made at
Geneva in 1954 but in vain.
The UN Commission for Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea, which replaced the UN Commission on
Korea in 1950, remained there till 1973 when it was dissolved by the General Assembly by consensus
decision. In
1947 the UN General Assembly urged North and South Korea to Continue dialogue to expedite peaceful
reunification. In 1975, after the United States informed the Council that it was prepared to terminate the
UN Command on
318
,/J W0JJ ».£•:
1 January 1976, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions. The first resolution asked all the parties directly
concerned to negotiate on arrangements to replace the Armistic agreement. The second resolution called for an end to
’foreign interference’ in Korea. However, so far no agreement has been reached by the concerned parties and the
United Nations Command on implementation of 1953 Armistic Agreement countries to carry out its functions.
In subsequent years also the United Nations got actively involved in various crisis which posed a threat to international
peace and security. These include Suez crisis, the Congo riddle, Cuban missile crisis, Arab-Israel conflict, Kampuchean
question, Russian intervention in Afghanistan, American-hostages in Iran, U.S. intervention in Grenada, U.S. attack on
Libya, Kuwait’s occupation by Iraq etc. Though the United Nations did not megt with much success in the resolution of
these disputes, it cannot be denied that it was greatly instrumental in reducing the tension. It provided a forum to the
disputant parties to put across their view point and thus arrive at a world consensus in tackling the issues. The
ineffectiveness of the United Nations in resolving some of these issues was either due to the use of veto by the big
powers or the non-cooperative attitude of (he members. The United Nations on its pa,rt tried to discharge the duties
assigned to it under the Charter with full determination and projected itself as the true custodian of world peace and
security. It made use of all possible methods to prevent or terminate conflicts. Thus it made use of peace-keeping
forces, observers, fact-finding missions, good-offices, mediators, special representatives etc. to resolve the disputes.
United Nations also, served as a useful forum for debate and negotiations and helped in the resolution of.various
disputes. In fact the UN is the chief forum for multilateral diplomacy, for collectivisation and legitimisation of
solutions to international problems of general common interests of the member states.
It is true that the effectiveness of the United Nations to preserve peace was greatly reduced due to mutual bickerings
between the two super powers for quite some-time. The refusal of several mei*ber states to pay their annual
subscription, fixed in accordance with their GDP and annual revenue, posed serious financial problems for the United
Nations and greatly handicapped its activities. The most notable defaulter in the this regard has been United States
which stopped contributions to the United Nations because it felt that a large number of third world countries in the
General Assembly were trying to jeopardise US interests. In 1986 the (J.S. Congress withheld contributions to UN
unless the UN voting procedures were changed to give weighted vote to the US. Soon other allies of US also stopped
their contributions to the UN and thus created a financial crisis for this world body, which rendered the organisation
less effective. However, with the improvement of relations between USA and USSR, the United Nations was able to
play more effective role and was able to resolve several regional conflicts and disputes. Some 01 the disputes which
were resolved by the United Nations in the changed conditions include Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq war. Namibia etc. In
view of these achievements the U N was given Nobel Peace Prize for 1988.
319
ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS AFTER END OF COLD WAR
After the end of the cold war, it wasexpected that the United Nations would be able to play more effective role in the
maintenance of international peace and security. In January 1992 a meeting of the heads of States and Government was
held to consider proposals for reviewing the world organisation. This meeting called upon the secretary General of the
United Nations to make an analysis and recommend ways for making the United Nations more efficient within the
framework and provisions of the Charter. The Secretary General submitted his Report ”An Agenda for Peace* in 1992
in which he made-recommendations tor revitalising the organisation within the existing provisions of the charter. The
Secretary General made several recommendations regarding preventive diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping,
post conflict peace-building etc. hut did not expect any spectacular changes in the working of the united .Nations due to
the existence of the sovereign-state system, in which the ultimate decision-making power rests with the sovereign
states.
In May 1994 the Security Council in a statement attempted to provide clear guidelines for UN peace-keeping
operations.
Despite this in actual practice in recent peace-keeping missions the United Nations has been-found greatly wanting on
account of the scarcity of funds. United States-, which was expected to play an important role in peace-keeping, has not
only cut down its contributions to the UN, but also shown reluctance to make available its troops unless the command
of these troops, is entrusted to US. In view of the above and similar other problems, on 6 January 1995 the UN
Secretary General called for the establishment of a rapid deployment force of about 4000-5000 men, which could
undertake peace-enforcement and peacekeeping operations at a short notice. He urged the Security Council to define
more precisely the scope and objectives of each peace-making and peacekeeping operation and insisted on the creation
of a Unified command of the participating troops. However, United States, France and UK opposed the idea of creation
of rapid deployment force and described it as impracticable.
CHALLENGES BEFORE UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations at present is confronted with serious challenges. Its area of peace-keeping has greatly widened,
because at present in additir-* to inter-state conflicts it has been getting involved in intra-slate disputes as well. It has
also fe|t concerned about reconstruction and rehabilitation of effective governments. On the other hand the warring
factions have shown git :;t disregard for peace and are not willing to abide by the UN ideals, which puses a serious
threat for the United Nations. .The failure of the United Nations in Somalia, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia have also
given rise to the doubts about the capacity of the United Nations to achieve its objective. The growing differences
.imong the member states of the l;N Hue to creation of regional groups ,ind growing competition for trade adv.int.ig!--
among them, also pose A serious threat lor the United Nations. Above all the third world countries have been
demanding rt-f onstriiOion of United N.itionv v\nH ,\ view ’o i-ni) the monopoly of the h^S
320
powers. Despite all these challenges it cannot be denied that the United Nations and the existing Charter provisions are
fully capable of achieving a vast amount of good for the world community without formally amending the Charter or
altering the existing structure. However,”this calls for political will, goodwill and understanding among member states,
particularly the permanent members of the Security Council. • ••”.’’”’
ECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
The United Nations h.is not confined its activities to the maintenance of international peace and security alone, but also
tried to promote conditions for better economic, social, and humaintarian development. It has encouraged international
co-operation in the economic and financial fields by seeking to reduce barriers through multilateral negotiations, under
the auspices of the CATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) . Though the UN could not achieve much success
in this regard due tb the attitude of the developed countries, still it made a bid to secure the interests and needs of the
developing countries by organising International Conferences.
The United Nations tried to speed up the development of the developing countries by launching Development decades
in succession. The first Development Decade was launched by the General Assembly to accelerate progress towards
self-sustaining growth of the economy of the individual nations and their social advancement. The Assembly set the
target of raising the annual rate of growth of 5 percent in the developing countries. However, the’desired targets could
not be achieved due to lack of proper planning and weak implementation of the UN recommendations. During the
second and third Development Decades covering the period of 1970’s and 1980’s efforts were stepped up to achieve
development, but much success could not be achieved because several developing countries failed to carry out
necessary economic, political and social reforms. They failed to transfer 1 percent of the GNP as envisaged under these
plans. In fact the actual assistance from the developed countries declined from 0.51 percent of GNP in the 1960’s
to6.40;percent during the secofld and the third development decades. The General Assembly sought to achieve rapid
development of developing countries, especially the least developed countries and launched Fourth Development
Decade in 1990’s. It called for wide ranging national and international measures to achieve rapid development of least
developed countries. It urged the developed nations to reach the targets fixed for official assistance (ODA), divert some
of the funds released following disarmament to the needy country, and to recycle part of the huge su- ’• ’ces to the
developing countries. It urged^the developing countries to liberalise trade regimes, create trade opportunities and
promote faster industrial’’ ’;~»rv°by implementing-global system of trade preferences. Attention was ais< --id to the
deteriorating debt situation of the developing countries and it was stressed that the responsibility for finding solution of
the debt problem rested both with the debtor and creditor countries, as well as the international financial institutions.
321
In 1974 the General Assembly adopted Declaration and Programme of Action on the Establishment of New
International Economic Order. The Declaration urged the member states to work together to devise an international
economic order that would correct inequalities, redress injustices and ultimately eliminate the gap between the
developed and developing countries. In December 1974 the General Assembly adopted Charter of Economic Rights
and duties of States which affirmed the right to states to sovereignty over their natural resources and to regulate foreign
investment and nationalise foreign property.
The General Assembly also tried to promote closer relations between the developed countries (also known as north
because these countries are concentrated in the northern hemisphere), and the developing countries (also known as the
South because these countries are mostly located in the southern hemisphere). As efforts to arrive at any agreement
between the two failed in December 1977 the General Assembly affirmed that all negotiations of a global nature
relating to establishment of the new international economic order should take place within the framework of the United
Nations system. In 1979 the General Assembly endorsed the holding of global negotiations in five areas viz.. raw
materials, energy, trade, development and money, and finance. It called for launching in 1980’s of a round of global
and sustained negotiations on international economic co-operation for development.
UN has also sought to stimulate and aid technical co-operation for development by helping member states to establish a
more effective framework for growth. It insisted on preparation of comprehensive plans to ensure balanced economic
and social development by making best use of the available financial, natural and human resources; modernising the
expanding transport and communication facilities; and improving national, administrative, budgetary and statistical
services. In this regard the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), world’s largest multilateral technical
grant assistance programmed, played a vital role. The UNDP has supported thousands of projects in various countries
wh ich cover the entire economic and social spectrum from agriculture, industry, power production, transport,
communication and trade to health, housing, education, training, community services and pubfic administration. Most
of the funds for the UNDP activities are provided by the member states through contribution. However, the developing
countries have to contribute 60 percent of the cost of the project through provision of local experts, facilities, supplies
and equipment.
The United Nations also provides finances for the economic and social development in the less develop. \ countries in
the form of development loans through International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD the
International Finance Corr^-’-ation (IFC), the International Development Association (IDA) etc. The Ir^- iiational Fund
for Agricultural Development also provides assistance on concessional terms to the poorest developing countries to
raise food production. In addition to the above several other global funds have also been created which aim at
promoting economic and social development. These funds include Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration,
the
322
323
industrial Development Fund, the Special Fund for Land-locked Developing Countries, the Capital Development Fund
and Finance System for Science and Technology for Development.
United Nations has tried to encourage and promote scientific research and technological activities in developing
countries. In 1963 the Economic and Social Council set up an Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and
Technology to Development,, which actually came into being in 1965. The Advisory Committee presented a world
Plan of Action on the Application of Science and Technology to Development in 1970.
This plan outlined priorities for research and for the application of existing knowledge and called for the enhancement
of the indigenous science and technology capability in developing countries. In 1971 Economic and Social
Councilestablishedthelnter-govemmentalCommitteeonScienceandTechnology for Development to recommend goals
and targets for achieving the policy measures relating to science and technology in the Strategy and to examine in detail
the world plan. In 1975 the General Assembly asked the UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development
Ogranisation) to establish an industrial technological information bank, which should allow developing countries
access to research findings of interest as well as to project experience Of other developing countries, which could be
helpful to the developing countries in selectingtechnologiesessentialfortheir industrial growth. In 1979 the Conference
on Science and Technology for Development was held at Vienna. This Conference adopted a Programme of Action
which laid emphasis on the strengthening of the scientific and technological capacities of developing countries;
restructuring of international scientific and technological relations; and enhancing of the role of the United’ Nations
System in this field. The Conference recommended the establishment of national scientific and technological
information systems and a global information network; and the use of scientific and technological information-for
national development.
The United Nations has tried to promote development through promotion of international trade. For this purpose it
helped in the formation of UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), which became a
permanent organ of the General Assembly in December 1964. UNCTAD holds sessions at regular intervals to promote
international trade, particularly that of the developing countries with a view to accelerate their economic development.
During its operation the UNCTAD has (i) emphasised the need for developing countries to expand their earnings
through export of goods and services and for the developed countries to open their markets to the third world; (ii)
insisted on stabilization and strengthening of international commodity markets on which most developing countries
remain dependent for export earnings, the enhancement of such earnings through greater participation in the
processing, marketing and distribution of commodities and the reduction of that dependence through economic
diversification; (in) called for the enhancement of third world export capacity by mobilizing domestic and external
resources, strengthening technological capabilities; developing merchant shipping and promoting
appropriate national trade and transport policies; (iv) emphasised the need of reducing third world debt burden; (v)
called for special support of world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries; (vi) favoured support for expanded trade
and economic cooperation.among developing countries, as a complement to their traditional economic links with
developed economies.
The United Nations has tried to promote technical cooperation in the fields of energy, water and mineral resources
through Department of Technical Cooperation for Development (DTCD). It helps the governments in the
implementation of projects for development utilization of petroleum and gas, coal, electric power, new and renewable
sources of energy. It also helps the government to strengthen their energy related organisations through training,
technical cooperation projects, direct advisory services, the publication of technical documents and international
seminars. In the field of water resources DTCD helps in the implementation of projects which cover planning and
management of water resources development, rural watef supply, establishment and strengthen ingbf national water
resources institutions, river basin development etc. With regard to mineral resources development the DTCD provides
technical assistance on matters relating to exploration and evaluation, mining, processing and marketing of minerals. It
also provides support for training, the strengthening of government institutions and introduction of new technologies.
United Nations has also paid attention to the protection of environments. !n June 1972 it held a Conference on the
Human Environment at Stockholm which proclaimed the rights of human beings to a healthy environment and their
responsibility to protect and improve that environment for the future generation. In 1972 the General Assembly created
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to monitor the environment and to encourage and coordinate sound
environmental practices. The UNEP coordinates the environmental activities of all the UN agencies and works with the
governments, the scientific and business communities and non-governmental organisations. In fact over the years the
activities of the UNEP have greatly expanded on account of its growing concern for environments. Its activities include
the programme of Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS), the International Register of Potentially Toxic
Chemicals (IRPTC) etc. CMS provides information in key areas of climate and atmosphere, the oceans, renewable
terrestrial resources, trans-boundary pollutiori and the health consequences of pollution. IRPTC provides vital
information for decisions regarding chemical safety. The UNEP through its regional seas programme has helped
countries,to come together to protect common seas. In
1987 UNEP helped in the negotiation of Montreal Protocol which seeks to reduce chemical damage to the atmospheric
ozone layer, which shields life on earth t’rom harmful ultra-violet radition. In 1989 it negotiated Basic Convention for
controls on [he international movement and disposal of hazardous wastes. UNEP in cooperation with other agencies of
UN and non-governmental organisations is working on the implementation of an Action Plan for the conservation and’
restoration of trop’cal forests whose protection is essential in limiting climate change and maintaining spices diversity.
The other important activities o! UNEP include desertification control, water conservation,
324 i, m *; < INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
environmental education, sustaining the productivity of the natural resources of developing countries etc.
The United Nations has also sought to tackle the problem of food shortage. The Food and Agriculture Organisations
(FAO), an agency of the UN has taken numerous steps with a view to increase the productivity of food. It has
impressed the need of building up world food reserves to ward against starvation in any part of the world. FT has
suggested remedies to overcome the problem of low productivity, diminishing returns, famines etc. in different parts of
the world. It also took measures for the conservation of the soil and prevention of soil erosion. It has also paid attention
to the development of fisheries as well as problems of animal and plant diseases. In 1947 the General Assembly
established a World Food.Council which periodically reviews major problems and policy issues affecting the world
food situation and recommends remedial action. This Council works in close cooperation with FAO, the World Food
Programme (WFP) the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and other organs of the UN system.
The Council not only suggests measures to improve national and global food policies directed to the elimination of
hunger and malnutrition but also takes steps to raise the political priority of food and hunger issues and to coordinate
assistance and promote co-operative actions to deal with food problems. In recent years the council has undertaken
comprehensive review of the world food and hunger situation and asserted that hunger is basically an economic
problem which has become more widespread because of the combined effects of the reduced economic activity in
many nations, falling national incomes, reduced purchasing power, unemployment and rising food prices.
The United Nations has also felt concerned over population question right from the beginning. In 1947 it set up a
Population Commission, as a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council. This Commission arranges
for studies and advises the Council on the size and structure of population and the policies which influence them; the
interplay of demography on economic and social factors; and the other demographic questions on which the UN and
related agencies might seek advice. The Commission monitors population trends and policies and reviews and
appraises progress towards achieving the goals of the World Population Plan of Action. Feeling concerned over the
rapidly growing population of the world the UN provides technical assistance in the field of population. The United
Nation Fund for Population Activities (UNEPA) set up in 1969, is the largest internationally funds source of assistance
to the population programmes in developing countries. A major portion of this fund is spent on family planning
projects. The UNFPA also assists the governments to develop popular goals and programmes and provides them
financial assistance to implement the same.
The UN has not neglected the interests of the working people and through its agency International Labour Organisation
(ILO) has sought to improve, the standards of the labour. It adopted a number of conventions concerning freedom of
association, collective bargaining, social security, employment service, etc. It has also helped in the conduct of
manpower surveys and analysis of labour
: conditions, which play a vital rote in the economic progress of tht country. ’Above ail, it has made large number of
experts to the less developed countries
• with a view to raise the productivity .and working standards.
It is clear from the preceding account of the economic activities of the | United Nations that it has done everything
possible to resolve the various : economic problems confronting the world community. However, it has notbeen able to
achieve all that it wished to achieve, parimarily due to internal bickerings I of the members and shortage of finances.
But it cannot be denied that its ; contributions towards the improvement of the lot of millions of people throughout ; the
world has been significant.
SOCIAL ACHIEVEMENTS
•:’
; The United Nations has also felt greatly concerned about the social
f problems which came to the fore on account of economic and technoJogica!
I changes, growing urbanisation and growing contacts among the countries. The
: ’ UN has taken great interest in the social development and launched several
i programmes to help the developing countries in strengthening their national and

’t- focal. capacity for social analysis, policy planning and design, and project
I implementation. The problem-of social development is taken caie of by the
I Department of Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat, ECOSOC and several other
I agencies. These bodies try to improve the living conditions, housing town and
I country planning, community development, family, youth and child welfare,
r rehabil itation of handicapped, population, migration as well as refugee questions.
[i.’ Some of the important achievements of the United Nations in this regard am as
j under.
• United Nations has attached great importance to the improvement of
; condition of women. The General Assembly declared 1975 as Women’s Year
and sought to secure participation of women on equal terms with men in
; economic, social, political and cultural fields at the national, regional and
• international levels. The same year an inter-government conference on women : was held in Mexico which adopted a
Declaration on the Equality of Women and
their Contribution to Development and Peace. The Conference adopted a World
Plan of Action which aimed at marked increase in the literacy and civic
education of women; extension of co-educational training in industry and
agriculture equal access to education; increased employment opportunities and
i reduction of unemployment and discrimination in the terms and conditions df
I women’s employment; equal eligibility to vote and seek elected office; greater
participation in policy-making positions; increased welfare services; parity of
civil, social and political rights; and recognition of the value of women’s work
in the home and in other unremunerated activities. In the light of the
recommendations of the Mexico Conference the General Assembly proclaimed
1976-1985 as UN Decade for Women. The Assembly established a Voluntary
Fund for the Decade and approved the creation of the International Research and
I TraininglnstilutefortheAdvancementofWomen. In 1985 the General Assembly
I convened a World Conference at Nairobi to Appraise the Achievements of the

United Nations Decade for Women. This Conference adopted Forward looking Strategies for the
Advancement of Women to the year 2000, a document which* set forth basic strategies to be employed and
measures to serve as guidelines within national priorities for implementing those strategies.
Realising that the youth can play an important role in development, the General Assembly adopted a
Declaration in 1965 on the Promotion among Youth of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and
Understanding between Peoples. The Declaration insisted that the Governments should give youth an
opportunity to take part in the preparation and execution of national development plans and international
co-operation programmes, UN through its members has tried to prepare the youth through education for
full participation in all aspects of life and development; health policies and programmes which would
ensure that young people are able to take advantage of opportunities open to them; the adoption of all
possible means to increase employment for youth; the opening of channels of communication between the
UN and youth organisations, and the promotion of human rights and their enjoyment by Youth. The
General Assembly declared 1985 as International Youth Year. During this year effort was made to create
awareness of the situation of youth, their problems and aspirations,, with a view to engaging young people
in the development process. A series of meetings and a World Conference for the International Year was
organised during the year which laid down guidelines for further planning and suitable follow-up in tiie
form of global strategy for youth work beyond the year. UN also tried to implement the various decisions
and recommendations of General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council regarding youth. It also
established the United Nations Youth Fund which supports projects of catalytic or replaceable nature
involving young people in the development of their
countries.
United Nations has paid increasing attention to the welfare of the elderly people. In 1982 a World
Assembly on j^»ing was convened in Vienna which adopted International Plan of Action of Aging. This
plan emphasised the need for policies and plans to help the elderly persons and to deal with the long-term
social and economic effects of aging populations. The main points highlighted by the Plan of Action
included the need to help the elderly persons lead independent lives in their own families and communities;
the need to give them a choice as to the kind of health care they receive the importance of preventive health
care; the need for support services to help families, particularly low income families to care for elderly
relatives; and provision of social security schemes; employment and adequate house. The Plan of Action
also insisted on meeting the needs of vulnerable groups like elderly refugees and migrant workers. The task
of reviewing the implementation of the Plan was entrusted to the Commission for Social Development.
This Commission makes periodical review of the progress and identifies priorities for action. In addition
the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council have also adopted several resolution urging
the governments and non-governmental organisations to give priority to the question of Aging. In 1988 an
International Institute on Aging was set up in Malta.
The UN has also sought to secure for the handicapped and disabled persons same rights which are available
to the normal people. In 1971 the UN General Assembly adopted Declaration on the Rights of the Mentally
Retarded, which insisted on the grant of same rights to the handicapped as were available to other
• human beings, including tha right to medical care, to economic security and to live with own family or
foster parents. In 1975 the General Assembly adopted Declaration on Rights of Disabled Persons which
proclaimed that disabled persons have the same civil and politicairights as other human beings. It set out
the right of disabled persons to treatment and service that would develop their capabilities to the maximum,
and hasten their social integration. The other rights insisted by the declaration included right to economic
and social security and employment etc.. The General Assembly declared 1981 as the International Year of
Disabled Persons and called for a plan of action for the year at national, ’;. regional and international
levels. The main theme of the International Year of ; Disabled Persons was promotion of full
participation and equality of disabled persons in the development of their societies and enjoyments of
conditions equal to those of other citizens. In 1982 the General Assembly a World Programme of Action
concerning Disabled Persons with a view to continuing long-term programmes at the national, regional and
international levels. It proclaimed the j period 1983-
92astheUnitedNationsDecadeofDisabledPersonstoencourage ! the member states to utilize this period to
carry out the programmes. In 1965 | United Nations Fund for Internationa I Year of Disabled Persons,
was set up. This ’• Fund tried to meet the requests of assistance from the developing countries for
disabled persons.
United Nations sought to check crime and promote observance of international standards and norms in
criminal justice. For this purpose it provides training to personnels of member states and renders them
necessary assistance. The General Assembly holds Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of
Offenders every five years in which expert criminologists, penologists, and senior police officers as well as
experts in criminal law, hitman rights and rehabilitation take part. These Congresses have dealt with
different problems of crime such as rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, measures for prevention of
juvenile delinquency, questions of prison labour, parole and after care; measures for crime prevention;
protection of all persons from being subjected to Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment; crime trends and crime prevention strategies; strengthening of international
cooperation in crime prevention and criminal justice in the context of Development and a New
International Economic Order. In addition to the above measures the UN International Crime and justice
Research institute has rendered valuable service to check crime by encouraging research and training
activities in the field of crime prevention and control.
The United Nations has also played a key role in controlling the production and distribution of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances. It was instruments 1 in the conclusion of several treaties which require
the government to exercise control over production, and distribution of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances; combat drug abuse and illicit traffic, maintain necessary administrative
328 INTERNATIONAL DELATIONS
machinery and report to international organs on their actions. Some of the important conventions signed in
this regard include the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances (1971), the Protocol Amending the Single Convention (1972). The main objective of all these
treaties and conventions has been to limit the supply and demand for narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances to medical and scientific needs. In 1988 the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances was adopted which deals with various aspects of illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The responsibility for the implementation of the provisions of
various treaties rests with the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. This commission makes recommendations to
the Economic and Social Council on the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. In 1971 the
Secretary General created the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control (UNFDAC) to develop drug
control programmes and to provide funds for their execution. The fund is financed entirely by voluntary
contributions. In
1984 the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Control of Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse and
called for intensification of efforts to control and eradicate complex drug problems. In 1987 the First
International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking was held in Vienna, which adopted a
document Comprehensive Multi-disciplinary Outline of Future Activities in Drug Abuse Control. This
document contained recommendations for practical action to prevent and reduce demand for narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, control supply, suppress illicit trafficking and promote policies for effective
treatment and rehabilitation.
The UN has felt greatly concerned about the welfare of the children. In
1946 the United Nations international Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) was created to meet
emergency needs of children in post-war Europe and China for food, drugs and clothing. In 1950 tfee
objective of this agency was extended to cover programme of long-range benefit to children of developing
countries. The UNICEF in the main cooperates with the developing countries in their effort to protect their
children and to enable them to develop their full potential. It insists with each child should be given an
opportunity to enjoy the basic rights and privileges embodied in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child
adopted by the General Assembly in 1959. In 1976 UNICEF adopted Basic Service Strategy under which
helps the governments to plan, develop and extend in both rural and urban environments low-cost
community based services in the interrelated fields of material and child health, applied nutrition, clean
water and sanitation, formal and non-formal education, responsible parenthood and supporting services for
women and girls. In recent Years UNICEF has been’ faying great emphasis on immunization, breast-
feeding, growth monitoring and simple oral rehydraiion methods, in 1986 the UN took a significant step to
protect the children by adopting Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protect:on and
Welfare of Children. The valuable services rendered by the U N’CEF for the cause of peace were
recognised and it was awarded Nobel Peace
in 1QftS.
’ --*• ’ i« tCKfj
329
in 1965.
UN has allayed vita, role in tackling the problem of refugees. In 1950
the General Assembly established the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) to protect the refugees and promote durable solution to their problems. The UNHCR extends
protection to refugees who do not get protection from former home country. It ensures that the refugees
receive asylum and are granted favourable legal status in the asylum country. UNHCR played important
role in the resettlement of refugees from Latin America and Indo-China by undertaking negotiations with
the governments tp encourage the admission of refugees or displaced persons into their teerritories. The
Commission also renders advice to the refugees to find appropriate solution to their problems. In view of
the valuable services rendered by the UNHCR, it was awarded Peace Prize in 1954 and 1981.
The UN has also devoted great attention to the promotion of universal respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms. The first step in this direction was the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which aimed at providing a common standard of rights to be achieved all over the world. It also
drafted two Internationa! Covenants on Human Rights, one relating to the economic, socia* and cultural
rights, and the other relating to the political rights. Some of the rights which were not incorporated in the
Universal Declaration of Rights, were included in these covenants. UNO also adopted a Convention on
Genocide in T948 which listed the following as genocide (i) killing of members of a group because of their
group affiliation (ii) causing harm to groups of members bodily or mentally; (in) deliberately inflating
physical destruction; (iv) imposing measures to prevent births within the groups; and (y) forcibly
transferring children from one group to another.
United Nations has sought to protect the interests of the minorities as well. It has constantly pleaded for
’self-determination in f ton-self-governing territories’ and condemned religious and social prosecution. It
strongly opposed racial discrimination in South Africa. In 1962 the General Assembly of the UN
established a special committee on apartheid, which kept continuous watch on the developments in South
Africa and recommended measures against South. African government. In 1962 the General Assembly
adopted UN Declaration on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which asserted that
discrimination between human beings on grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an offence to human
dignity and constitutes a violation of the rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In 1965 the General Assembly adopted International Convention on Elimination of All forms of Racial
Discrimination. It also set up a committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with responsibility
of reviewing reports submitted by states parties on measures taken by them to implement the Convention.
The next step in this direction, was taken in 1973 in the form of International Convention on Suppression
and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The Convention provided that responsibility for the crime of
apartheid shall apply to individuals, members of organisations, and institutions and representatives of a
state. Persons charged of crime of apartheid can be tried by any state party to the Convention. UN has
celebrated decades for Action to Combat Racism and Racial discrimination and called on all the states to
work for the promotion of human rights, especially
330 INTERNATIONAL REIATONS
by eradicating racism and racial discrimination. States were called upon to arrest expansion of *acist policies and to
work for elimination of racist regimes. !t was mainly due to the efforts of the United Nations and persistent pressure
that apartheid ultimately ended in South Africa.
In addition to the above noted socio-economic achievements, the United , Nations can boast of several other
achievements, in fact the list of its achievements is so exhaustive that it cannot be listed in the limited space available
with us. However, one can certainly agree with the observation of Palmer and Perkins that ”overshadowing »he
political and securrty.activities of the United Nations, in scope, achievement and perhaps in ultimate sif{nificance,are
its operations in the economic and social fields ”
EVALUATION OF THE WORKING OF UNITED NATIONS
During its operation of fifty years the United Nations has made considerable
achievements and also suffered several disappointments, it shall be desirable to
know about these achievements and disappointments. As regards the achievements
ot the United Nations, it has achieved considerable success in attaining some
of the objectives outlined in the UN Charter, viz, self-determination of peoples,
promotion of economic and social co-operation; respect for human rights .and
fundamental freedoms;!iberatton of coionia! people as well as the people placed
under the UN Trusteeship System. UN has furthered peace by promoting a
network of nuclear arm agreements most of which were’ directly associated with
UN initiative. The notable agreements include the International Atomic Energy
Agency (1956), the Limited Test San Treaty (1963), the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) 1970, and the njclear-free Antarctica etc. United Nations has also
promoted human rights, social progress and better standards of life. It contributed
, to the ending of apartheid by condemning racism being practised in South Africa.
It also exerted international pressure on Israel which greatly contributed to the
improvement in the condition of the Palestinians.
The failures or disappointments of the United. Nations mainly include its failure to maintain world peace and secure
peaceful settlement of disputes. Since the establishment of the UN the worW has witnessed over 100 mafor conflicts
which left over 20 mHlion people dead. UN has also failed to tackle some of the major current problems like drug
trafficking, international terrorism aftd environmental degradation. No doubt, the UN has tried to tackle these
problems, but it did not meet with much success. Another notable defect in the working of the United Nations has been
its dominance by the Permanent members, particularly US which contributes 25 percent of the budgetary allocations. It
was mainly due to this dominance of US, that it has been able to ., hold the world organisation to ransom by not paying
up its allocated contribution. •’•’ ’ This has consi<Jerably paralysed the organisation and it has to function on a handto-
mouth financial constraints. Even the performance of the International Court of Justice has been quite disappointing
because it lacks compulsory jurisdiction. The implementation ’of its judgements largely depends on the sweet will of
the parties, and there is no element of compulsion in the implementation of these decisions.
331
23
Regional Organisations and their Roie in international
Relations
Though some sort of regional organisations existed even before the first world war but regionalism was practised only
in a limited way in the InterAmerican, the Balkan and Baltic areas. During the inter-war period some regional
organisations like Little Entente comprising of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Rumania, came into being as a result
of bilateral and mutual assistance treaties among the three countries, but it acquired political organisation only after
1933. The Inter-American system which formally began in 18S9 also assumed proper shape as a regional organisation
only after world war it.
The regional organisation is a sort of formal association of sovereign states of a particular region with permanent
organisation. It is not essential that all the States of a particular region must be member of the organisation. For
example the Arab League, a regional organisation of the Middle Eastern States does not contain all the states of the
Middle East. SjmHarly, tfw Organisation of American States does not contain Canada other European dependencies of
the Western Hemisphere. Again North Atiantic Treaty Organisation contains Italy, Greece and Turkey as members,
even though they are not North Atiantic countries. The regional organisations are considered as superior to the gioba!
organisations because the members feer a greater sense of involvement. However, the regional organisations are in no
way antagonistic to the international organisations and can very well co-exist side by side with these organisations. !n
this Chapter we shall deal with the following five Regional Organisations and their role in international relations. . •
Organisation of American States (OAS)
This organisation is the oldest and one of the largest regional organisation. The origin of OAS can be traced back to
1889 when the first Pan-American Conference was held. Since then it has gradually grown and developed. It was given
the shape of a comprehensive regional arrangement in 1948. The Constitution of the Organisation of American States is
found In three basic documents-the OAS Charter which provides the general framework of the organisation; the Rio
Treaty (also known as Inter-Ameriean Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance) which provides for regional collective security;
and the Pact of Bagota (1948) which relates to the pacific settlement of disputes among the members. •
The OAS Charter came into force on 13 December 1951 and was
A.
reformed in 1%?. The membership of the organisation is open to a!) the American states, including Canada.
Any member can withdraw from the organisation by giving two years notice. It consists of following organs:
1. The Genera/ Assembly, which was known as Inter-American Conference before 1970 is the supreme organ of
the OAS. Ii consists
• of representatives of a!! the member states. It meets once in five years
at different places by rotation, it determines policy, structure and
functions of other organs. The Conference takes all the decisions by
• majority. As a matter of practice, however, the members try to arrive
at unanimous decisions
2. Foreign Ministers Meeting. This body meets on the request of the majority of the members and deals with pressing
security and related problems of common interest to the American states. This body acts as the enforcement agency of
the OAS and can order the member states to take collective measures or impose sanctions in particular
cases. .
3. Permanent Council, which contains delegates of all the member stares. The Council elects a Chairman and a Vice-
Chairman from amongst its members every year. The Council is responsible for the smooth working of the OAS’ and is
responsible for convening the
• conferences and meetings of the members. It prepares the agenda for these conferences in consultation with the
concerned Governments.
4. The Pan American Union, which works as the Secretariat of the O.A.S. It coordinates the social and economic
activities and promotes welfare of members.
5. The Specialised Organisation, which carries on co-operative programmes in the fields of healfli, child welfare,
education, Agriculture, etc.
6. The Specialised Conferences, which’ are called to encourage joint . . efforts to solve technical problems.
In addition to the above organisations OAS has certain specialised and subsidiary organisations. The specialised
organisation include Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Inter-American Children’s Institute,
InterAmerican Commission of Women, Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Inter-American Indian Institute,
Pan-American Health Organisations and Pan-American Institute of Geography and History. These agencies look after
their allotted specialised functions. The Specialised institutions of OAS include three Councils viz. Inter-American
Economic and Social Council, the InterAmerican Cultural Council and Inter-American Council of Jurists.
The members of the O.A.S. hold faith in settling their disputes through peaceful methods. Before referring their
disputes to the Security Council they submit these disputes to the regional organization. Generally these disputes
are resolved through conciliation or investigation. The members of O.A.S. are
REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR ROLE
333
pledged to assist each other in case of armed attack against any American State and collectively deal with the
aggression. An attack against any state is taken as an attack against ail American states.
The members are pledged to resolve amicably the political, juridical and economic problem arising among them, and to
cooperate in the economic, social and cultural development.
The Organisation of American States has played an effective role in checking the threat of Communism in the
hemisphere. The organisation played... an effective role in the Dominican Republic in 1 %5. It also checked the
guerrila warfare in several states. In the Organisation of American States, the United States has played a dominant role,
specially in the matters relating to security. Similarly, in the Held of economic development also USA has played a
dominant role and provfded necessary finances.
Organisation of African Union (O.A.U.)
The Organisation of African Union was formed by the independent African Ssates in May 1963 with a view to resolve
the economic and political problems confronting the African States. Originally 32 members joined their organisation
but their strength has been steadily increasing with the attainment of independence by several African countries. In fact
all the African states with the exception of South Africa are members of O.A.U, The main objectives of the
organisation were stated in Article I! of the Charter, which included (i) promotion of unity and solidarity of African
states; (ii) coordination and intensification of co-operation and efforts to achieve a better life for the people of Africa;
(in) defence of the sovereignty, integrity and independence of the African states; (iv) eradication of all forms of
colonialism from Africa; and (v) promotion of international cooperation while having due regard to the U,N. Charter
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
the organisation of OAU consists of an Assembly of Heads of States and Governments, the Council of Ministers, the
General Secretariat and the Commission of Mediation, Cgnciliation and Arbitration.
The Assembly of Heads of States and Governments is the supreme organ of OAU. It meets annually and discusses
matters of common concern to Africa with a view to coordinate and harmonise the general policy of the organisation.
Each member has one vote and all decisions are taken by two-third majority of the members. .
The Council of Ministers consists of Foreign Ministers or such other ministers as are designated by the Member states.
The Council meets at least twice a year. In addition, extraordinary sessions of the Council can be held on the request of
the two-thirds of the members. The Council is responsible to the Assembly of Heads of State and is responsible for
making all preparations for the Conferences of Assembly. It is also responsible for the implementation of the decisions
of the Assembly and coordinates the activities of the African States in .accordance with instructions of Assembly. Each
state has only one vote in the Council.
The General Secretariat is headed by the Administrative Secretary General,

I
334
who is appointed by the Assembly of the Heads of States and Governments, The Secretary Genera! and other member
of the Secretariat do not receive any instructions from their government and are expected to follow the directions of the
organisation.
The Commission of Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration was set up by the Assembly of the Heads of the State and
Government by a separate protocol. This body tries to resolve the disputes among the members through peaceful
means.
In addition to the above organs the Assembly is authorised to set up Specialised Commissions like Economic and
Social Commission; -Educational and Cultural Commission; Health, Sanitation and Nutrition Commission; Defence
Commission; and Scientific, Technical and Research Commission. These Commissions work according to the
regulations framed by ’the Council of Ministers.
The Budget of the Organisation is prepared by the Admin istrative Secretary General and approved by the Council of
Ministers. The funds are contributed by the member states in accordance with the scale of assessment of the United
Nations with the conditions that no single country can be required to contribute more than twenty per cent of the yearly
regular budget of the organisations.
Though the broad objectives of the OAU are generally accepted by the members, it has remained a loose association of
sovereign states. The organisation has made many joint pronouncements, but taken very little concerted action. The
internal political rivalries, ideological differences, conflicting ties with major powers and an overriding concern with
the presentation of personal power and sovereignty have further stood in the way of the effective working of the
organisation. The members have not been able to create a common force to fight African colonial regimes as envisaged
in the Charter. Similarly, they have not been able to achieve any success in the direction of launching co-operative
programmes for aid to members in the economic development due to paucity of funds. However, it cannot be denied
that the OAU has succeeded in creating a spirit of extensive co-operation among the African States. An African
Development Bank has been established and discussions for setting up a Common Market have been undertaken.
Above all, in the United Nations, the OAU functions as an effective caucusing group when issues of common interest
to the members come for discussion.
The Arab League
The Arab League was formed in March 1945 when Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen
signed the pact for its creation in Cairo. Subsequently other countries like Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Sudan and
Tunisia also joined it In 1980 the strength of the League rose to 21. The League was created to encourage close
collaboration between the member states and to safeguard the independence and sovereignty of the Arab states.
The objectives of the League have been outlined in Article 2 of the Charter which include the following. First, to
strengthen relations between the member states. Secondly, to coordinate the policies of the member states with a view
to
335
encourage co-operation among them and to safeguard their independence and sovereignty. Thirdly, to have general
concern with the affairs and interests of the Arab countries. Fourthly to promote close co-operation among the member
states, with due regard to their organisation and circumstances, on the matters relating to (a) economic and financial
affairs including commercial relations, customs, currency and questions of agriculture and industry; (b)
communication, including rail-roads, roads, aviation, navigation, telegraphs and posts; (c) cultural extra-affairs; (d)
nationality, passports, visas, execution of judgements and extradition of criminals; (e) social affairs; and (f) human
problems.
In addition to this the member states are expected .to respect the systems of governments existing in other member
states and are pSedged to abstain from any action calculated to change established system of government.
The Council or the Majlis is the principal organ of the League. It consists of all the members, who are represented
equally on it. The Council meets twice a year. Special sessions of the Council can be convened at the request of at least
two states. The Council supervises the execution of the multilateral agreements concluded by the members of the
League. It also enjoys important powers with regard to settlement of disputes among member states. The Council is
.assisted in its task by a Political Committee and other permanent Committees formed to secure co-operation among the
member states in the economic, social and cultural spheres.
The Secretary General of the League is the administrative officer. He Is appointed by the Majlis (Council).
The Arab League has piayed significant role in the resolution of disputes among the member states. It also played an
important rde irt the conclusion of agreement between England and Egypt in July 1954. it played commendable role, in
the Lebanon and Libya. However, the League couid not succeed in protecting the Arab interests against Israel although
it inflicted a defea? on Israel in 1973. It has also functioned effectively as a caucusing group at the United Nations.
Despite the growing compatibility among the members of the League, the rivalries among the Arab states and struggle
for leadership among the member . states stili persists,. x
In the social, economic and cultural sphere also the League has played an important role. It secured the conclusion of a
number of agreements regarding economic co-operation among the member states, on the basis of preferential trade. In
the cultural sphere it has tried to bring the states closer to each other. A Cultural Committee has been formed which
meets once a year and works for Promotion of closer cultural relations. A permanent Bureau and Cultural Department
for mutual co-operation has also been created.
However, despite these achievements, it has to be admitted that the Arab League has not been able to achieve its
professed goal of unifying the Arab world and this goal is still far from realisation. /
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPK)
This organisation was formed in Baghdad (Iraq; in 1960 with Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela as
founder members. Subsequently Algeria,
336
Ecuador, Gabon, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, United Arab Emirates also became its members. The membership of
tiiis organisation is open to any other country having substantial net exports of crude petroleum, which has
fundamentally similar interests to those of the member countries.
The main objectives of the OPEC are (i) to make efforts to restore price of crude oil to the level existing before
reductions of 1958-60; (ii) to effect stability in oil prices and avoid unnecessary fluctuations in prices; (in) to carry out
cpnsultations among companies of concerned countries before making modifications in prices of oil; (iv) to control
production with a view to ensure stability of prices; (v) to ensure regular supply of petroleum to consumers and
equitable remuneration to investors and regular revenues to oil producing states, (vi) hold regular consultations among
the member states to safeguard their common interest.
Arab Common Market. This Market was set up on 1 January 1965 in terms of an agreement signed by ira’n, Jordan,
Syria, and Egypt on” 13 August 1964. The membership of the Market is open to all the Arab League states. The
agreement for creation of Arab Common Market provided for the aboHtion of customs duties on agricultural products
and natural resources within five years by reducing tariff at an annual rate of 20 per cent. !t envisaged reduction of
custom duties on industrial products by 10% annually. It also provided for free movement of capital and labour
between the member states and provided for establishment of common external tariffs and framing of a common
foreign economic policy.
The ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations)
The ASEAN was created in 1967 through Bangkok Declaration by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand. The leaders of these countries felt the need of the organisation because the situation in Vietnam, as a result of
US imperialist action, political crisis in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos and Burma convinced them that their interest coulfl
be best served only if they united. The end of confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia and’the strong
antiChinese stance of the Military regime of Indonesia also facilitated the creation of this organisation. However,
Burma and Cambodia did not join the organisation on account of its anti-Chinese stance.
The main objectives’ of the ASEAN are (i) to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural
development in the region; (ii) to promote regional peace and stability; (in) to promote active collaboration and mutual
assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative
fields; (iv) to provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in educational, technical and
administrative sphere; (v) to promote South-East Asian Studies; and (vi) to collaborate for greater utilisation of their
agriculture and industries and expansion of trade etc.; (vii) to maintain close and beneficial co-operation with existing
international and regional organisation with similar aim and purposes.
The organisation of the ASEAN consists of Ministerial Conference, Standing Committee, the Secretariat and a number
of Permanent and Ad hoc committees. The Minister’s Conference is composed of the Foreign Ministers of the member
RfCIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR ROLE
337
states. The Conference holds periodical consultations with regard to military and other matters relating to the area.
Generally its meetings are held annually in each country by rotation. The Standing Committee meets when necessary
between Ministerial meetings for consultation. The meetings are held in the five countries by rotation. The Committee
consists of the Foreign Minister of the host country and Ambassadors of the other four countries. The ASEAN also has
a permanent Secretariat with its headquarter at Jakarta (Indonesia). The Secretariat was set up in 1976. In addition to
these organs the ASEAN has one permanent committee with headquarters in Singapore and ten special committees,
viz., Navigation, Trade and Tourism; Industrial Minerals and Energy; Food, Agriculture and Forestry; Transportation
and Communications; Finance and Banking; Science and Technology; Social Development; Culture and Information
and Budget, In addition there are eight ad hoc committees.
During the first few years of its existence the ASEAN made little progress towardsany substantial regional co-operation
beyond laying down the framework for the five member countries to work out their consensus through periodic ,
consultation. However, after 1975 ASEAN underwent a transformation and it really began to move. It not only
enlarged its administrative machinery but also made serious proposals in respect of economic co-operation and took
unified stand on extraregional affairs. As one writer has put it’”without doubt the machinery has been refined, the
framework strengthened, and the momentum created, for a more serious approach to regionalism.”
The significance of ASEAN in international affairs lies in the fact that it represents an effort to develop Asian solution
to the Asian problems in a cooperative arrangement consisting wholly of nations in the region. Although, it is mainly
concerned with the economic and social problems, it has also tried to reduce the foreign influence in the region and
assert that a!! foreign bases in the region are temporary. The Association has also undertaken projects with a view to
improve’tourism, shipping, fishing, trade, etc.
The European Economic Community
The European Economic Community was formed in 1958 by six countries of Europe, viz., France, Italy, West
Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg. However, subsequently England, JreJand, Denmark, Greece, Spain
and Portugal were also admitted as its members, and the strength of the Community rose to 12. The Community was
further expanded in January 1995 with the admission of Austria, Finland and Sweden. Thus at present the European
Union has 15 members and is regarded as world’s biggest and ’richest supranational bloc. The chief objectives of the
European Community include Ii) consolidation of the tariff schedules of the members into a single system applicable to
imports from Third World countries; (ii) progressive reduction and removal of a!) fiscal and physical restrictions on the
free movement of goods, capital and labour, between member countries; (in) harmonisation of economic policies of the
member states. With a view to eliminate competition the members concentrate on the production of commodities for
the entire community,and as such each member concentrates on the production of a limited number of items
338
\W
and produces them in bulk.
*^ The organisation of the EEC consists of European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament,
Economic and Social Committee and the Court of justice. The Commission consisting of members, who are appointed
with the unanimous consent of the member governments, for a period of four years, enjoys super-national powers in
many respects, ft performs executive functions, and takes important decisions regarding policy. It also ensures that the
decisions taken by the Council of Ministers are carried out and that the basic text and subsequent Community
legislation are correctly observed.
The Council of Ministers consists of one minister from each state. The Council meets at least once a month and takes
all major decisions. The Council works in complete co-operation with the Commission, and the members of the
Commission also take active part in the deliberations of the Council.
The Parliament or Assembly is a large body consisting of representatives ot all the member states. These members are
elected by the legislatures of the respective states from amongst themselves. Representation has been accorded to the
various member states m the Parliament on the basis of their population and economic potentials. These members are
not expected to work according to the instructions of their governments but to take independent decisions. The
Parliament exercises general supervision over the working of the Commission and the Council through debates and
annual reports. The Parliament can make formal recommendations to the Council on its own, although these
recommendations are not binding on the Council.
The Economic and Social Committee consists of representatives drawn from economic and social life of various
countries. These members are appointed by the Council for a term of four years by unanimous vote. Usually or>e-third
on these members represent the trade union, one-third represent the employers and the rest represent the general
interest. The recommendations of the Economic and Social Committee are treated with due deference by the
Commission, even though they lack binding character.
Then there is a Court of justice. Its members are appointed for a term of six years. The Court ensures the observance of
ru% of law in the countries of the community. The decisions of the Court are binding on all the parties, including •
the government and there cannot be any appeal against them.
The necessary finances to meet the expenses of the Community are contributed by the member states in agreed
proportions.
The European Economic Community has proved quite effective as a regional organisation. It has not only been able to
solve the problems of tariff adjustments among the members and ensure greater co-operation among them, but also
exercise influence over other regions of the world in the sphere of economic development. To a large extent the idea of
evolving regional organisations for greater economic co-operation in different regtons of the world drew inspiration
from the success of the European Economic Community.
” Single EC Market. Effort to achieve greater unification among members of EC were stepped up in December 1992
when the Edinburgh Summit evolved a
339
formula for the creation of a single market within the barriers and amending various rules and. laws across the countries
of the community. The creation of a new border-free single market within the Community has resulted in tearing down
the barriers to trade in goods and services among all EC countries. Even the travellers can move freely over the new
single market and the bankers are free to open new branches anywhere. The workers and professionals can also move
about freely from one country to another. It is hoped that this single market would ultimately lead to the emergence of
’unified Europe even though the task is not likely to be all smooth. Borderless European Union
A further step in the direction of greater European Unity was taken on 26 March 1995 when border controls between
seven European Union Nations viz. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Netherlands were
abolished. Three other members viz. Greece, Italy and Austria are expected to jotn them latter. Britain and Ireland,
however, did not agree to join the borderless European Union. Despite this, it cannot be denied that these developments
are significant and can eventually pave way for borderless Europe.
Impact and Importance of Regional Organisations
It has been argued in certain quarters that the formation of regional organisations has greatly undermined the position
of the United Nations and poses a serious threat to the existence of the international organisations. For example Carlos
Romulo of Philippines observed that the United Nations is dying because the states are more and more taking the great
political issues outside the framework of the organisation/Similarly Edgar S. Furniss also holds that ”The United
Nations has been placed in a position of inferiority, that now the links between the regional arrangements and the world
organisation exist at the practical pleasure of the former.” However, the above view is not universally accepted and
majority of the scholars hold it as erroneous. This erroneous view largely exists because of the assumption that the
regional organisations are also concerned with all the problems which are the concern of the United Nations and
operate at cross purposes with the world body. Actually the regional organisations serve as adjunct to the U.N. and are
subordinate and harmonious with the United Nations. They have proved immensely useful in many ways. In the first
place, it is proper and natural for the neighbours in any region to organise to meet their common problems. The
members of regional organisations are able to deal with their problems more effectively. Thus they relieve the United
Nations of some burden of handling the local problems and concentrate its attention on global problems
Secondly, the regional organisation are able to meet threat to peace more effectively by guaranteeing regional collective
security. The UN SecretaryGeneral Trygve Lie also admitted that the regional arrangements can he very useful element
in the preservjtion of world peace, provided they recognise the supremacy of the Charter.
340
* Thirdly, the regional organisation have played an important role in promoting social and economic co-
operation among the member states and encouraged them to rise above narrow nationalism. In this respect they
constitute an important step towards universalism. As Prof. Paimer and Perkins have observed ”If international
regionalism is properly developed and is closely integrated into a more universal framework... it can fill a real
gap in the existing pattern of international society.”
Finally, the regional organisations are also able to operate more freely without ideological obstructions. In
short, we can say that regional organisations have played significant role in the international sphere without
undermining the authority of the United Nations because by and large these organisations have accepted the
overall authority of the United Nations.
341
Arms Race, Disarmament and
Arms Control
”If World War lit comes, which we pray will never happen, i( wifi be war in which most people may die
from silent, insidious anti-human weapons that make no sound, give no wanning, destroy no forests or
ships or cities but can wipe out human beings by millions.”
-Gerald Wendt
Arms race is not a new phenomenon in international relations. It was as well a feature of human society in
medieval times. However, at that time arms race was not as consistent a feature as at present. It was
resorted to only at the time of acute tension among the nations. As and when the tension subsided the arms
race also came to a halt. Further, at that time the race for armaments was quantitative and states preferred to
acquire more and more armaments. But with the advancement of technology the arms became more
sophisticated. With this emphasis of arms race shifted from quantity to quality, viz., the states started
acquiring more and more sophisticated weapons. In fact, after the Second World War there was a mad race
between Soviet Union and United States of America to outwit each other in the acquisition and
development of more and more sophisticated weapons.
In Modern times the arms race can be traced back to the late sixties of the nineteenth century when
Bismark, the iron Chancellor of Germany, started the system’ of conscription and tried to make Germany a
world power. The spirit of intense rivalry and competition among the French and the English also
contributed largely to this race. This race assumed serious dimensions during the period between 1884 and
1914 because, as Prof. Philip Noel-Baker has put it ”armaments produce fear, and fear produces more
armaments, with disastrous result* for the national security of all people concerned.” Both France and
England were highly suspicious of each other and tried to strengthen their respective positions by acquiring
more and more arms. The situation was further aggravated in the first decade of the twentieth century when
Japan, in the wake of her victory over Russia in 1904-5, also jumped into the fray. During this period not
only arms were produced in large quantities but improvement was also effected in their quality. This
process continued till the outbreak of First World
342
War on 1914. During this period more sophisticated weapons, warships, submarines fighter planes, bombers, tanks,
poisonous gas and arms of various other varieties were discovered and perfected. It may be noted that although all the
powers claimed they were piling up the arms for their defence- and preservation of peace, this created a sense of fear,
suspicion and hatred among the nations and ultimately culminated in the First World War.
Arms Race after First World War: The large scale destruction of the First World War ecouraged some of the powers to
think in terms of putting stop to the arms race. In 1922 U.S.A. convened the Washington Naval Conference with a view
to limit the tonnage and gun power of the various naval powers. The Temporary Mixed Commission (1920-24), set up
by the Assembly of the League, tried to fix the strength of the land forces of the various countries in accordance with
their national needs. However, its efforts did not prove fruitful. Yet another serious effort to check the armament race
was made by the World Disarmament Conference but without any success. After the failure of these efforts arms race
received a new impetus, and a mad race for armaments started among the various powers. Sweden increased her
defence expenditure from 125 mijlion kronors in
1932 to 295 million kronors in 1939. Brazil and Argentina increased their budgets by two and a half time. Even the
countries of British Commonwealth took part in the armament race and spent huge amounts on increasing their power.
On the other hand Germany and her allies not only multiplied their arms and weaponry but also tried to make it more
and more sophisticated. This mad race for armaments ended in Second World War with more serious consequences
than that of the First World War.
Arms Race after Second World War: The enormous destruction caused by the Second World War could not act as a
deterrent and put an end to further race for armaments. On the other hand in the Post World War a more acute arms
race began between the two superpowers namely Soviet Union and U.S.A. This race was further sharpened by the
ideological differences between the two. The other powers were, however, pushed out of this race because they were
completely shattered as a result of destruction caused by the Second World War. In the post World War II period these
superpowers tried to increase their influence in the international sphere not only by increasing their armaments and
military strength but also by concluding military alliances. The armament race now became more qualitative due to
technological advancement. There was a complete .technological revolution in the art of war. New nuclear weapons
were invented and the existing ones greatly perfected. Some of the new weapons whjch were invented or perfected
included satellites, I.C.B.Ms, Titan, Polaris, Minutement and a variety of space and thermo-nuclear weapons.
As a result of arms race, in our times the dangers of nuclear war have greatly increased. There is a growing realisation
amongst the world statesmen to put a halt to this mad race and to evolve some mechanism so that the peace of the
world is not threatened. This was sought to be achieved through disarmament and arms control.
ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL 343
Difference between Disarmament and Anns Control
The terms ’disarmament* and ’arms control’ are often confused and taken as identical. In reality they differ from each
other, even though they deal with different aspects of the same problem. Disarmament does not necessarily imply
control of arms, as arms control does not necessarily mean a reduction in armament levels. Disarmament means a plan
or a system for the limitation, reduction or abolition of armed forces, including their arms and equipment and other
related items like military bases and budgets. On the other hand arms control means a co-operative or multilateral
approach to armament policy where armament policy includes amount and kinds of weapons, forces, development and
utilisation in periods of relaxation or tension. It aims at improving national security by the adjustment of armament
capabilities.
Disarmament
The history of disarmament can be traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty stipulated that all
existing fortifications be demolished and no new fortifications be created. However, the first systematic proposal for
the reduction of armaments was mooted by Czar of Russia in 1816 when he proposed to the British Government the
reduction of all types of armed forces. However/ these proposals were not seriously received and.failed to produce any
impact. In the years 1863 and 1869 France also submitted certain proposals for the reduction of armaments to the Great
Power but they also met the fate of the proposals submitted by the Russian Czar. Other powers like Britain (1870) and
Italy (1877) also initiated steps to put a stop to armament race but without any success. .
The most systematic effort to reduce the armament was made by Tsar of Russia in 1898 when he addressed a note to
the various powers of Europe to meet at Hague and work out a scheme for reduction of arms. These proposals received
warm response and resulted in the First Hague Peace Conference. This Conference was attended by 28 states. The
Conference appointed a Committee of military and naval experts to study the problem of arms control. However, the
Committee expressed the opinion that the time was not mature for an agreement on arms limitation. The next
Conference held in 1907 also initiated proposals for the reduction of arms and expenditure on military forces, but this
also did not find favour with the powers. Thus both the Hague Conferences failed to solve the problem of arms race.
Disarmament after First World War
The devastation caused by the First World War greatly stirred the conscience of mankind and the statesmen of the
world started giving serious thought to the need of abolition of arms and ammunition. President Wilson in one of his
Fourteen Points insisted that armament should be reduced to ’the lowest point consistent witfi domestic safety.” The
Treaty of Versailles, which established peace after World War I specifically provided that ”the maintenance of peace
requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by
common action of international obligations.” The seriousness of the world statesmen to regulate arms is evident’
344
from the fact that they charged the League of Nations with the duty of securing an agreement on the general
disarmament. To facilitate the task of the League it was provided in the Covenant that the membership of the
League shall be available only to those countries who were willing to accept arms regulation proposed by the
League. A Permanent Advisory Committee was set up to formulate a programme for reduction of arms. But as
this Committee was mainly composed of military representatives, it failed to make much progress in the
direction of disarmament.
Temporary Mixed Commission: in 1920 the Assembly of the League urged the Council Jo appoint a new Commission.
Accordingly, in 1921 the Council created the Temporary Mixed Commission, containing majority of the civilians as its
members. The Commission during its life of four years made efforts to secure disarmament through fixation of land
forces of the various countries, according to their national needs, and limited the naval armaments of the great naval
powers. For the attainment of the same objective it also proposed ”international aid to the victims of aggression”, and
compulsory arbitration. However, all these proposals of the Temporary Mixed Commission were turned down by the
states and it failed to accomplish anything. , ’
Preparatory Commission and Geneva Conference: In 1925 the League set up the Preparatory Commission and
entrusted it with the responsibility of preparing a provisional draft treaty concerning various questions of disarmament.
The Commission after a hard work of six years completed the draft of a treaty which was considered by the Geneva
Conference in 1932. Sixty-one states, including five non-members of the League, discussed the ”Draft Convention on
’Reduction and Limitation of Armaments” submitted by the Preparatory Commission. The discussions continued for
nearly two years. Despite serious differences the members, agreed to the need of arms limitation, international
supervision of arms business and publicity of arms budget. However, these efforts were greatly jeopardised by the
changed international situation. Japanese attack on Manchuria and reluctance of Germany to follow the restrictions
regarding disarmament imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, made disarmament impossible. In 1933 Germany formally
withdrew from the Disarmament Conference. With this the international efforts at disarmament came to an end.
Efforts outside the League: Outside the &ague also efforts to control the ’arms and secure disarmament were made: In
1921-22 at the Washington Conference the five major powers (Britain, U.SÂ,, France, Japan and Italy) agreed to fix
their respective naval strength. They made an effort to come to some understanding regarding cruisers, submarines,
destroyers and aircrafts but could not succeed. As the treaty remained unratified the understanding automatically
lapsed. In 1927 a Conference was held at Geneva which ended in failure because two major powers France and Italy
did not participate in it, and certain differences cropped up between British and U.S.A. In 1930 the representatives of
the five major powers (Britain, U.S.A., Japan, France and ttaly) met at London to effect naval disarmament. But this
Conference also ended in failure. In 1935-
36 anothe’ naval conference was convened at London which met the fate of its predecessors. In 1935 Britain reached an
agreement with Germany by which she conceded to Germany the right to increase her battleships by 35 per cent of the
ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL
345
British naval power and build ships of various types. This was done purely with a view to protect her interests
against possible German aggression.
The efforts at disarmament in the inter-war period both through the League of the Nations and outside failed to achieve
anything substantial. In fact almost all the states were interested in strengthening their respective positions tamer than
reducing the weapons. The failure of the League to deaf effectively with states like Japan, Italy and Germany who
Yesorted to arms in violation of their obligation under the Covenant made the states luke warm in their support to the
proposals of disarmament. They were convinced that they could not rely on the League for their security and had to
raise their own forces to meet any unforeseen eventuality. Some of the other factors which obstructed the progress of
disarmament were differences among the members of the Disarmament . Conference on various issues, the difficulty in
arriving at an accepted distinction between the aggressive and defensive weapons. Above all the failure was due to the
fact that the statesmen failed to focus attention on the economic, psychological and political conditions prevailing in
various cotiritries. In the presence of mutual distrust and suspicion, fear and hatred all around disarmament could not be
possible.
Disarmament After World War II

The enormous destruction caused,by the Second WorJd War roused the conscience of the world statesmen. Fearing that
another war may completely wipe out the human race they started making more frantic efforts to regulate the
armament*. The UN Charter also iaid great emphasis OY> the regulation of armaments. At least three of its articles
were devoted to this problem. Articte 11 (1) while directing the General Assembly to consider the general principles of
co-operation in the maintenance of i iternationa! peace and security, authorised it to make recommendations to the
member states regarding the genera) principles governing disarmament and regulation of armaments, Article 26.
likewise insisted that international peace and order should be [Demoted with ”least diversion for armaments of the
world human and economic resources”. It enirustfd the Security Council with the responsibility of formulating a plan
for the s$t3bii*.hrew>m of a system lor the regulation of armaments. Article 47(1) provided for the establishment of
Military Staff Committee, which among other things was to assist the Security Council on the regulation of armaments
and po: sible disarmament. However, U.N. Charier did not vest any specific authority en any of its organs to impose a
system of disarmament or regulation-of armaments among members.’ in view of this lacuna Prof. Elchc-lberger has
asserted (hat the obligations under the Covenant oi the League were more positive and posse*$ed greater binding force.
’. Atomic Energy Commission: Sooo after the adoption of the UN Charter the Atom Bomb was exploded on Hijoshim’a
and Nagasaki in Japan. The untold suffefsng caused by the aombarcirrunt of these Iwo ’owns of Japan ted to a
•widespread demand for devising ;i system of conirot to prevent the use of-.anemic < energy tor sestfuctrve purposes,
and use for Kumar •&>• -,an snd peaceful purposes. Accordingly, on 26 January 1.946 the General Assembly decided
to set up an Atomic Energy Commission consisting of all the permanent members of’Security
346
347
Council and Canada. The Commission was expected to enquire into all aspects of the problem and make
recommendations with specific proposals for (a) extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific
information for peaceful ends; (b) control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for
peaceful purposes; (c) the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major
weapons adoptable to mass destruction; and (d) effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to
protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions.* The Commission
• was subordinate to the Security Council and was expected to submit its reports and recommendations to it. It
is noteworthy that in the establishment of this Commission both the superpowers offered their co-operation.
At the very first meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission on 14 June 1946 differences cropped up
between the two major powers. Mr. Baruch of U.SA presented a plan in which he insisted on managerial
control or ownership of all atomic energy activities potentially dahgerous to-world security; power to
control, inspect and license all other atomic activities; forstering beneficial use of atomic energy; and
research and development of responsibilities of an affirmative nature. He also offered to destroy all atom
bombs of U.S.A. and to stop their further manufacture after an adequate system of international control
’had been established. In short, Baruch Plan insisted on tight international control of all aspects of the Use
of atomic energy and a certain punishment for violations. According td CqHart, The Baruch Plan was
uniquely significant because ”it came from the only country which had atomic weapons at that time, it
aimed at submitting the production, development and application of nuclear energy to a very extensive
system of international administration.” >
As at that time Soviet Union had not tested nuclear weapons she was reluctant to support any agreement
that would preclude, Soviet development of nuclear capacity. Therefore, at the second meeting of (he
Commission on 19June
1946 she submitted two proposals. In her first proposal Soviet Union suggested the prohibition of the
production and employment of weapons based on the use of atomic energy for the purpose of mass
destruction, prohibition of production and storing of weapons based on use q£ atomic energy and
destruction of all atomic weapons within three months of the convention. She suggested that the violation
of this should be treated as an international crime. In the second proposal SovietUnion suggested the
establishment of two committees concerned with exchange of scientific information and making of
recommendations for the prevention of the use of atomic energy respectively.
A comparison of the proposals submitted by Soviet Union and U.S.A. shows that while U.S.A. insisted on
effective international control and inspection before the abolition of atomic weapons, Soviet Union insisted
oh first outlawing the atomic weapons and their destruction. She argued that subsequently an appropriate
inspection system could be evolved. The main plea, taken by the Soviet Union against international
inspection was that it violated the sovereign rights of the states. In view of this divergent stand of the two
superpowers the
I. Y. Collart, Disarmament, p. 17. v
Atomic Energy Commission could not accomplish anything.
2. Commission on Conventional Armaments: In pursuance of the Genera I Assembly resolution of December

1946, the Security Council set up a Commission on Conventional Armaments in February 1947. The
Commission was expected to prepare and submit to the Council within three months proposals for ”the general
regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces,* and to suggest practical and effective safeguards. It
may be noted that this Commission was specifically debarred from discussing issues concerning atomic weapons
and their control. The Commission held its first meeting on 24 March, 1947 and finally adopted a resolution on
12 August, 1948. In this resolution the Commission recommended (a) a system for the regulation and reduction
of armaments of all states, initially only those having substantial military resources; (b) measures for reduction
and regulation of armaments to encourage further regulation and reduction; (c) the establishment of an
adequate system of international control of atomic energy and conclusion of peace settlement with Japan and
Germany; (d) regulation and reduction of armament to make possible the least diversion for armaments of the
woVId human and economic resources and maintenance of armaments and armed forces which are
indispensable for the maintenance of international peace and security; and (e) adequate method of safeguards
and provision for effective enforcement action in case of violation.
When the resolution came up for discussion before the Assembly, the Soviet Union strongly opposed it.
She came forward with a new proposal requiring all the permanent members of the Security Council to
reduce their land, naval and air forces by one-third during one year and establishment of a control body
within the framework of the Security Council to supervise the reduction of armaments and prohibition of
atomic weapons. However, the Russian proposal was rejected by the Western nations. In view of the
differences the Assembly adopted a resolution urging the Commission for Conventional Armaments to
continue its work and formulate proposals for the receipt, checking and publication by international organ
of control of full information to be supplied by member states with regard to their conventional armaments.
However, the Soviet Union refused to co-operate with the Commissio... Ultimately, Soviet Union withdrew
from both the Commissions (Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission for Conventional
Armaments) in 1950 on the question of the representation of Red China on it.
Disarmament Commission: The failure of these two Commissions did not deter the world leaders and they
continued their efforts to regulate the armaments. On the suggestion of the American President Truman that
the two Disarmament Commissions should be merged, the General Assembly set up a Committee of
Twelve members (11 members of Security Council and Canada) to report the ways and means whereby the
work of the two Commissions could be combined. The Committee recommended the merger of the two
Commissions. Its recommendations were accepted by the General Assembly and a Disarmament
Commission was created on 11 January 1952. It was to consist of all the members of’the Security Council
plus Canada. In 1957 the General Assembly increased the strength of the Disarmament Commission to 14.
In 1958 all the members of
348
the U.N. were included as its members. The Commission was,requested to prepare a draft treaty for the
regulation of conventional as well as atomic armaments. The Commission took up a number of issues concerning
arms and their reduction but failed to make much headway because of the divergence of views amongst the
superpowers. To resolve these differences in 1953 the General Assembly set up a Great Power Sub-Committee.
This Committee considerably succeeded in narrowing down the area of disagreement, although the two powers
continued to hold opposite views on the question of controls.
Atoms (or Peace Plan (1953): In 1953 President Eisenhower of USA came out with a new plan for peaceful use of
atoms. He suggested the establishment of an international pool of fissionable materials to be used for peaceful
purposes. This plan popularly known as Atoms for Peace Plan appealed to all those powers who possessed atomic
energy material to contribute the same to the Atomic Energy Commission under the United Nations. The Commission
was to ensure that these materials were used for peaceful purposes and for the promotion of international peace and
security. This plan was also turned down by Soviet Union who insisted on prior agreement on prohibition of atomic
weapons.
Anglo-ftfnch Plan (1954) : In June 1954 Britain and France took an initiative and submitted a memorandum outlining a
comprehensive plan for disarmament The memorandum outlined three phases of disarmament During the first phase a
control organ was to be set up and the military expenditure and manpower of the member states was to be frozen at
specific levels. During the second phase, after the establishment of control organ, first haif of the agreed reduction of
armed forces, conventional weapons and military expenditure was to be carried out. Further manufacture of nuclear
weapons was also to be stopped at this stage. The th ird and the final stage envisaged the second haif of the agreed
reduction and total prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. Though initially Soviet Union rejected the proposal
but subsequently in September 1954 she communicated her wiHigness to the General Assembly to accept the
AngloFrench Memorandum as a basis for the step by step approach to the nuciear problem. Thus it looked that »he plan
would be able to make much headway. However, in March-April, 1955 Soviet Union reverted to its earlier position. ,
Soviet Proposal of May 7953 : l« May 1955 Soviet Union suddenly submitted new proposal which was quite identical
\o the Anglo-French Memorandum in so far as It accepted the same force levels. However, this proposal was quite
distasteful to U.S.A. because it insisted on dismantling of all United States overseas bases and a ban on nuclear tests.
Though the proposal fell down, it certainly contributed to the spirit of detente and paved the way for the Geneva
Summit of 1955.
The Geneva Summit and Open Skies Plan: )n July 1955 the chiefs of state from France, U. <, USA and USSR met at
Geneva to discuss among others the problem of disatrnament. At this meeting U.5/.A. proposed the ’open skies’ plan.
Under the pian both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. we?e to exchange military information which could be verified’by mutua!
aerial reconaissance. Soviet Union was •prepared to accept the proposal regarding exchange of military blue prints,
supervision of military bases and prohibition of atomic armaments, provided her
ARMS RACE. DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL
349
proposals regarding reduction of armaments (which she had earlier submitted) were accepted. However, Russia
did not feel convinced as to how inspection of the concealed nuclear weapons shall be possible. She also insisted
that ad actions in this regard should be subject to Security Council’s decisions and hence veto of the permanent
Members of the Security Council. As these conditions were not acceptable to U.S.A. the plan fell.
Six Point Plan of USA (1957) : Jn 1957 the U.S. representative Henry . Cabbot Lodge proposed another plan before the
General Assembly indicating America’s willingness to take steps towards arms reduction subject to adequate -
inspection. The basic objective of the plan was to check the trend towards large stockpiles of nuclear weapons and
reduce the further nuclear threat; provision against surprise attack lessening of the economic burden due to armaments
and utilisation of the money thus saved for the improvement of the living standards, reduction of political tension
among nations and to help in settlement of political issues; and devotion of research and development activities
concerning propulsion of objects through outer space for peaceful purposes. The plan envisaged the establishment of
inspection posts at strategic points in the eastern half of United States and western border regions of Russia. After a
favourable initial response Soviet Union turned down the plan. r
However, in November 1957 the” General Assembly endorsed these proposals and insisted on (a) immediate
suspension of testing of nuclear weapons with prompt installation of effective international control; (b) cession of
production of fissionable materials for purpose of weapons and its future utilisation for peaceful purposes; (c) reduction
of stock of nuclear weapons through a programme of transfer of stocks of fissionable material for peaceful purposes;
(d) reduction of armed forces and armaments with adequate safeguards; (e) progressive establishment of open
inspection to guard against the possibility of surprise attack; and (f) establishment of an inspection system to ensure
that the sending of objects through outer space was exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes.
The same year the Generai Assembly aiso adopted two other resolutions emphasising the need of an accord on
disarmament and enlargement of the Disarmament Commission by addition of fourteen members. Soviet Union,
however, insisted ihdtai! the UN member*should be included in the Disarmjmeht Commissions As her proposal was
not accepted she announced her withdrawal from the Disarmament Commission and its sub-Committees.
Nuclear Test-Ban : Encouraged by the announcement of Soviet Union in March 1958 regarding a unilateral ban on
tests of atom and hydrogen bombs, three nuclear powers U.S.A., U.S.S.R. arid Britain held a Conference at Geneva
from October 1958 to April 1961. After long deliberations t}*? three powers agreed to suspend forthwith all tests in the
earth’s atmosphere, in outer space, in ocean and underground. This was to be ensurad through <i worldwide detective
system to be operated by a ssngle neutral’, administrator and an international staff. However, Soviet Union, in violation
o/ dm agreement went ahead * >th the explosion of Megatoo Bomb. This provoke^ U.S.A. to declare that she would
aiso go ahead with similar explosion. As A result the progress made in »he, direction of securing nuclear test ban at tht
Geneva Conference was
350
ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND AKM$ CONTROL
351
1 /
watered down.
Antarctic Treaty J1959f: In 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was signed which provided for demilitarisation of Antarctica.
This treaty for the first time put in practice the concept of nuclear-weapon-free zone, in so far as it prohibited in the
Antarctic region all military manoeuvres, weapon tests, building of installations or disposal of radioactive wastes
produced by military activity.
Ten Nations Disarmament Conference (1960): In 1960 ten
nations five from each block (U.S.A., U.K., Canada, France and Italy from Western bloc and Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia, Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria from the Communist bloc) met at Geneva and made another serious bid to
secure disarmament. As a result of prolonged deliberations the differences between the rival camps were considerably
narrowed down. The Soviet Union went to the extent of announcing that she was willing to prohibit atomic weapons
and even offered to destroy the atomic and hydrogen bomb, if the western powers reciprocated. She proposed a four-
year plan of complete disarmament spread over three phases. During the first phase the forces of the powers were to be
reduced. During the second stage the forces of all states were to be dissolved and military bases demolished. At the
final stage all the nuclear weapons were to be destroyed. The Western nations did not respond favourably to the Soviet
Plan and came forward with their own plan on 15 March 1960 suggesting publication of data before the release of atom
bomb or missile; formation of central organisation for collection of data relating to army, navy and air force of all the
countries; system of verification of information supplied by different states; assessment of military budgets of different
countries; installation of the system for controlling outer space; advance notification of launching of long range
missiles; prohibition of certain specified missile materials and use of the material for non-military purposes; institution
of proper system of supervision to prevent production of armaments security; and provision of adequate measure to
ward against surprise attacks. This Plan was not acceptable to the Soviet Union and her allies. As a result a stalemate
was reached a’ld finally the Soviet Union and her allies walked out of the Conference. .With this th^ Conference came
to an abrupt end.
Eighteen Nations Disarmament Conference (1962) : In 1962 another conference was held at Geneva which is popularly
known as Eighteen Nations Disarmament Conference. Actually in this conference only seventeen nations took part:
Almost all the important powers, with the exception of France, were present m this Conference. At this Conference also
separate plans were submitted by U.S.A. and Soviet Union. In its plan U.S.A. proposed a cut of thirty per cent in the
nuclear delivery vehicles and major conventional armaments, within three years. K also proposed a ban on the
production of the nuclear weapons. On the other hand Soviet Union insisted on general and complete disarmament
within four years under strict international control. According to the Soviet Plan this was to be accomplished in three
stages beginning with the destruction of all means of delivery of nuclear weapons and elimination of all foreign bases,
This Conference was significant because the Neutral Nations also came forward with their own plan. They suggested
the establishment of an International Commission of Scientists to process the data received from the
observation posts and to report on all nuclear explosions. The Eighteen Nations Conference also could not accomplish
anything and faltered over the issue of verification.
Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963): In June 1963 President Kennedy emphasised the need for a nuclear test ban treaty. The
proposal received favourable response from Soviet Union and culminated in the Test Ban Treaty of 1963. This treaty
concluded at Moscow on 5 August 1963, ”prohibited the states from carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion or
any other nuclear explosion at any place under their jurisdiction or control, viz., (a) in the atmosphere beyond its limits,
including outer space or under water including territorial waters or high seas; (b) in any other environment if such
explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or
control such explosion is conducted.” Though initially the treaty was concluded by the three Nuclear Powers U.S.A.,
U.S.S.R. and U.K. it was made open to all the states.
It may be observed that the treaty made no provision for control through
• posts, spot inspection or international bodies. It merely prohibited those tests which could be detected and made no
effort to reduce the nuclear stockpiles. In fact, both China and France (the other nuclear powers) refused to sign the
treaty because it did not insist on the destruction of nuclear stockpiles of U.S.A. and U.S.S.R The decision’of China
and France to keep out greatly jeopardised the attempt at disarmament.
In 1964 China went ahead with her first atom pomo explosion which greatly stirred the General Assembly and it
decided to convene a Conference of the five nuclear powers. In November 1965 it adopted ^resolution urging all the
nations to suspend all tests of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. It even sought to extend the ban to the undergound
tests which were permitted under the Moscow Treaty of 1963. However, U.S.A. and U.K. refused to comply with the
General Assembly resolution unless a guarantee was provided against similar explosions by other states.
Seven Point Plan (1966): Seven Point Plan was presented by President Johnson of U.S.A. at the Geneva Conference in
February 1966. This Plan called for a treaty to halt the spread of nuclear weapqns to non-nuclear countries and
demanded international safeguards over peaceful nuclear activities. It suggested the strengthening of the international
security organisation and the establishment of a system of inspection. It gave a call for freezing all ”offensive and
defensive” strategic bombers and missiles designed to carry nuclearweapons. However, the plan was not favourably
received by other powers and was abandoned. The progress of disarmament suffered a further setback following
nuclear tests by France.
Outer Space Treaty of 1967: This treaty laid down the principles governing peaceful activities of the states in outer
space and prohibited nuclear weapons and their landing on the moon and other celestial bodies for military bases. The
treaty was formally signed on 27 January, 1967 and came into force on 10 October, 1967. Under the treaty the
signatory states agreed not to place in orbit around the earth any objectives carrying nuclear weapons or other kinds of
352
3S3
weapons of mass destruction. It also forbade the use of military, personnel for scientific research for peaceful
purposes. It was agreed that ail stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other
celestial bodies shall be open to the representatives of other States parties to the Treaty on the basis of
reciprocity. The treaty was thrown open to other states for signatures, who could-accede to it.
Treaty of Tlatelolco 1967: In 1967 the Tlatelolco Treaty was concluded by Mexico and El Salavador at Mexico,
which prohibited the testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means, as weil as receipt,
storage, installation, development and any form of possession of nuclear weapons in Latin America. Under the
Additional Protocol II, the nuclear weapon states undertook to respect the statute of military denuclearisation of
Latin America and not to contribute to acts involving a violation of the Treaty, nor to use or threaten to use
nuclear weapons, against the parties to the treaty. However, the treaty permitted the explosions of nuclear
devices for peaceful purposes.
Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapon States (1968): In August-September

1968 a Conference of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States was held at Geneva at’ the initiative of the General
Assembly. The Conference was attended by 96 states including the four nuclear powers~U.S.A./U.’$.S,R.,
France and U.K. The Conference in all adopted fourteen resolutions and declarations concerning four subjects,
viz., security of the non-nuclear-weapon states, establishment of nuclear weapons free zones, effective measures
for prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. With regard to the
security of the non-nuclear-weapons states, the Conference reaffirmed the principle of non-use or threat of use
of force between states. It asserted that every state had right to equality, sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-
intervention in internal affairs, collective defence, etc.
With regard to the establishment of the nuclear-weapon free zones, the Conference recommended that the non-nuclear
weapon states should examine the possibility and desirability of establishing military denuclearisation of their
respective zones.
On the question of effective means ^r the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, che cessation of the
nuclear arms race and ncttear disarmament, (tie Conference recommended to the Genera! Assembly to urge the
Eighteen Nations Disarmament Committee to undertake iiegotwticns for prevention of further oew!opmer;t and
improvemfcnt of nuclear weapoos, reduction and subsequent elimination of a!l stock piles of nuclear vrapons;
conclusion of comprehensive test-bsn-treasy, etc.
Qn the issue of peaceful uses of ersprgy the Conference favoured the ides of examining.-possibility o* eâbfohing an
internationally financed Special Nuclear Fund, which could give grant? and loans at Sow rates to finance suu;n nuciear
project in the non-nuclear states. These recommendations of the Conference were accepted by the Gaowaf Assembly
and it feoyefwd’ the concerned international bodies like IAEA, i(#RD and UNDP to take action for the
implementation of these recommendations.
Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) : The Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was simultaneously signed at
London, Moscow and Washington in July 1968 and actually came into force on 5 March 1970. The Treaty, Based on
the draft submitted by the Seventeen Nation Disarmament Committee, prohibited the transfer by nuclear weapon states
to any recipient whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control oyjer them. The
signatory states were not to encourage or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acqu ire
nuclear weapons or other explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices. The non-nuclear states
acceding to the treaty were also not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices. However, the treaty granted the right to the member states to develop research, production and use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. The signatory states were to conduct negotiations in good faith
regarding effective measures to put an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and.to make efforts to achieve
general and complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. -
The treaty was significant in so far it imposed an obligation on the nuclear

* and non-nuclear states to abstain from expanding nuclear weapons. However, it left1 the issue of inspection and
control unresolved.
Disarmament Decade : Despite important agreements for limitation and regulation of armaments, global expenditure
on arms and armies continued to mount and the limited human and material resources, which could be well utilised for
development, continued to be frittered away. To check this trend in
1969 the General Assembly decided to observe 1970’s as the Disarmament Decade, it urged the governments to
intensify efforts to stop nuclear arms race arid eliminate weapons of mass obstruction. In 1976 the Assembly felt
unhappy over the meagre achievements of the Decade and decided to hold a special session on disarmament in 1978.
Sea-Bed Treaty of 1971: In February 1971 the treaty on the prohibition of the emplacement of nuclear weapons and
other weapons of mass destruction on the seabed and the ocean floor and in the subsoil thereof, was concluded by U.K.,
U.S.A. and Soviet Union. The treaty actually came into force on 18 May 1972. the treaty provided that the signatory
states would not emplant or.emplace on (he seabed and the ocean floor and in the sub-soil thereof beyond the outer
limit of a sea-bed zone (12 miles) any nuclear weapons or any other type of weapons of mass destruction as well as
structures, launching installations or any other facilities specifically designed for storing, testing or using such
weapons. The member states were not to assist, encourage or participate in any actions in any other way. To ensure that
the term of the treaty were being complied with by all ’ the signatory states, .the members were given the right to verify
through observation the activities of other states, provided such an act did not interfere with such activities. The
member state£also agreed to continue negotiations concerning further measures to prevent an arms race on the seabed,
the ocean
354
floor and the sub-soil.
Biological Weapons Convention (1972) : An effort to check the use of bacteriological and chemical weapons was
made in 1972 by signing the ”Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction*. The Convention signed on 10
April.1972 at London, Moscow and Washington, actually came into force on 26 March 1975. The convention
impressed’the need of achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmamentincluding the
prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction. It held that the prohibition of
development, production and stockpiling of chemical and bacteriological weapons and their elimination will
facilitate the achievement of the objective of complete disarmament under strict and effective international
control. The signatory states agreed not to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain microbial
or other biological agents or toxin weapons equipment of means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins
for hostile purposes or in armed conflict They were to either destroy or divert to peaceful purpose within nine
months of the enforcement of Convention, all agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery. They
were also not to encourage or assist any stats OP organisation of states to manufacture or otherwise acquire any
of the above agents etc. If a signatory to the Convention found the other signatory state violating the provisions
of the Conventions it could lodge a complaint with the Security Council. Thereafter, the other members were
obliged to co-operate with the Security Council in carrying out investigations. The states also agreed to continue
negotiations to reach an early agreement on effective measures for the prohibition of their development,
production and stockpiling.
Strategic Arms Limitation and SALT (1972): Simultaneous attention was also paid to the limitation of the strategic arms
with a view to achieve disarmament The two super powers LI .S.A. and USSR held prolonged negotiations at Geneva
and finally agreed to meet at Helsinki. This was indeed a significant step in the direction of disarmament because the
two powers agreed in principle to restrain and put a stop to the fierce competition for the acquisition of sophisticated
weapons. Though the talks did not prove fruitful, they indicated the willingness of the two super powers toVeduce
armament and other hazards without jeopardising their security and prestige. The negotiations continued for nearly four
years before the conclusion of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty of 1972. It is said that the two countries held as
many as 127 plenary meetings before the conclusion of the above treaty.
The SALT (Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty): was formally signed on 26 May 1972 with a view to curb the race in
nuclear arms between the two super powers. In fact, the agreement broadly consisted of two separate treaties, viz.,
Treaty on the Limitations of Anti-Ballistic Missile System and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with
respect to the Limitation of the Strategic Offensive Arms. While the former was concluded for an unlimited period, the
latter was of five-year duration.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Treaty permitted the two super powers
ARMS RACE, OISMRMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL - 355
to have only two sites for ballistic missile defences, one for the protection of their national capital area and the other for
the protection of the field of ICBMs. The treaty also laid down details regarding the dimensions of the ABM system the
two countries were to have. Each system was to have not more than six ABM launchers and II00 ABM interceptor
missiles at launching sites. The national capital area was; not to have more than 133 ABM radar complexes, each with a
diameter not exceeding 3 kilometres. The complex around the Missile launching region* was not to have more than 18
ABM radars and two large phased ABM radars. The two powers also agreed not to develop, test or deploy ABM (
launchers which could launch more than one interceptor missile at a time. The treaty also prohibited the testing and
development of automatic, semi-automatic or other similar systems for rapid reloading of ABM launchers. The two
powers were permitted t«o modernise their ABM systems through replacement, but this was to be done strictly’within
the quantitative ceiling provided under the treaty. The interim Agreement with regard to the Limitation of the Strategic
Offensive Arms «was a very complex agreement. It covered both land based ICBMs and submarine launched ballistic
missiles. The strength of ICBMs for Soviet Union and U.S.A. was fixed at 1618 and 1054, respectively, viz., on the
basis of their actual strengths on 1 July. 1971. The two powers undertook not to convert their lartdbased launches into
light ICBMs. The two powers were
npmnlfteH trt nnri*«*-*L« «-J 1--..?--- •
per mi ueci 10 undertake modernisation and replace their strategic Offensive Arms, but they had to scrupulously follow
the numerical limits prescribed by the treaty. An agreement regarding the procedure of agreement was also reached
between the two powers.
• US-Soviet Accord on Limitation of Arms 0973) : A further accord for checking the armament race was reached
between U.S.A. and Soviet Union in
1973 when they concluded a formal agreement regarding permanent limitation of nuclear weapons by the end of 11974.
They emphasised that an effort by either of (he two powers to obtain a nuclear advantage would be inconsistent with
the peaceful relations’ between the two countries. They agreed to ’adequate verification’ measures. The significance of
this accord lies in the fact that it made an effort to control nuclear fission as well as research on the fundamental
properties of physical matter. .
The Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT) 1974 : This Treaty was .signed by United States and USSR on 3 July 1974 and
proposed a ban on carrying out of underground nuclear weapon tests having a yield of more than 150 kllotons. The two
parties also pledged to limit the number of their underground weapon tests to a minimum. However, the treaty could
not come into force due to nonratification by the U.S. Senate.
US-Soviet Arms Pact 1974: Further progress in the direction of disarmament was made in July 1974 when U.S.A. and
Soviet Union signed a 10 year pact, stipulating not only the limitation of the offensive nuclear weapons but also the
stoppage.of all underground tests of more than 150 kilotons. New limitsôfmissile defence systems were agreed by the
countries. But probably the most significant feature of this agreement was that a formal understanding was reached by
the two countries to permit each observer to ensure that the terms of the agreement
356
INTERNAtlONAl RELATIONS
357
were being complied with. The same year in November the two countries concluded another agreement
regarding limiting of nuclear arsenals. It was decided that the nuclear arsenals of the two countries shall be
equal to overall number of delivery vehicles. The new treaty also incorporated the relevant provisions of the
existing interim agreement which was due to expire in 1977.
The Peaceful Nuclear Expolsiorr Treaty (PNET) 1976 : This treaty-was signed by United States and Soviet Union on
28 May 1976, but could not come into force due to non ratification by the U.S. Senate. Despite this both the parties
pledged to observe the main provisions of the treaty. Till end of December the PNET had not formally come into force.
FioalActofthe Conference of Security and Co-operation in Europe: In JulyAugust, 1975 U.S.A., U.K., Soviet Union
and a number of other European states held a conference at Helsinki with a^vJew to find out the means for
strengthening peace and security of the world. After due deliberations they signed the final act of conference of security
and co-operation in Europe on 1 ”August 1975. Under this act the signatory states agreed to resist from use of force in
their mutual as well as international relations. With a view to promote mutual understanding they agreed to exchange
observers by invitation, at military manoeuvres. However,-for such a purpose a twenty-ohe day notice was to be served.
With a view to build mutual confidence among the states, the signatory states agreed to notify their major military
movements. In order to strengthen European security, the signatory states agreed to avoid military confrontation and
promote disarmament. However, complete disarmament under strict and effective international control was to be
accomplished through stages.
Con vention on Prohibition of Military orbther Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques: In May 1977 a
Convention was signed at Geneva with a view to strengthen world peace and bring about complete disarmament
through prohibition of military or other hostile uses of the environmental modification techniques. The signatory states
agreed not to engage in military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. They were not to assist,
encourage or induce any State, group of States or internatiorra I organisation to engage in activities contrary to the
provisions of the treaty. However, the Convention did not impose any restrictions on the use of environmental
modification techniques for peaceful purposes. They were to contribute individually or in cooperation with other states
to the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilisation of the environments with due consideration for the needs of
the developing areas of the world.
Special Session on Disarmament: The first special session on disarmament was held from” 23 May to 1 July 1978
which was the largest representative meeting of nations. At this session a consensus was reached on the need for
comprehensive disarmament. The Assembly adopted a final Document which stressed the central role and primary
responsibility of the United Nations in the field of disarmament and outlined specific measures to strengthen the
machinery available, in the UN system to deal with disarmarrjent. The final document impressed on the states the need
to continue general anocomplete disarmament under effective control. It called for immediate action to eliminate
danger of
nuclear war and take measures to halt and reverse the arms race. The declaration asserted that genuine and lasting peace
can only be created through effective implementation of the security system provided by the charter of United Nations
and the speedy and substantial reduction of amis and armed forces... leading ultimately to general and complete
disarmament under effective international control. The declaration emphasised the urgency of revitalising existing
disarmament machinery and of establishing appropriate forums for disarmament negotiations’ and deliberations under a
more representative character.
In 1979 the general assembly declared the 1980’s the Second Disarmament Decade to achieve general and complete
disarmament under effective international control.
SALTII (1979): SALT I signed by USA and USSR lapsed in October 1977. Both the powers continued to observe its
provisions and continued efforts for a new agreement. After prolonged negotiations they signed at Vienna on 1 June
1979 the SALT II treaty to limit the strategic offensive weapons for period up to
31 December 1985. While concluding this treaty both the powers reaffirmed their desire to take further measures for
further limitation and reduction of strategic arms with A view to achieve general and complete disarmament. As this
agreement was in the nature of a treaty, it was sent to the US Senate for ratification, as required under the constitution,
but before the Senate could ratify the same the cordial atmosphere was disturbed by the Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan which jeopardised the ratification of SALT II. However, U.SA continued to adhere to the limits proposed
by SALT II, for some time. Ultimately on 27 May 1986 President Reagan of USA announced that United States would
no longer be bound by the limjfs set by SALT II, This evoked strong reaction in USA and the House of Representatives
passed a resolution on 19 June 1986 calling upon President Reagan to stick to the limits set by the Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty Number 2. The arms services committee of the Senate also made an amendment to defence
department bill and called upon the President to honour SALT II limits.
Agreement concerning Activities of States on Moon and other Celestial Bodies In 1979 an agreement governing the
activities of states on the Moon and other Celestial bodies was worked out. The agreement amplified the relevant
provisions of the Outer Space Treaty by prohibiting any threat or use of force or any other hostile acts or threat of
hostile acts on the Moon as well as the use of the Moon in order to commit any such act or engage in any such threat in
relation to earth, the moon-spacecraft, the personnel of spacecraft or manmade space objects.
During the year 1980 only limited contact took place between USA and Soviet Union on the question of arms control.
The U.S. Government motivated by the events in Afghanistan proceeded to review and to expand its armament
programme. Despite this Soviet Union repeatedly expressed its willingness to negotiate. On 18 February 1980, Soviet
Foreign Minister Andrai Gromyko indicated the readiness of Soviet Union to carry on disarmament talks with the
West, particularly on the reduction of nuclear arms in Europe if NATO’s decision of December 1979 regarding
modernisation (which involved employment of
358
359
Pershing Us and Cruise missiles) was cancelled or not implemented. In midAugust 1980 President Brezhnev wrote to
western leaders expressing his willingness to engage in talks on intermediate range nuclear missiles. President Carter of
USA responded favourably and agreed to hold unconditional talks on this subject. As a result Preparatory US-Soviet
talks on strategic arms limitation were held in Geneva from 16 October to 17 November 1980 which resulted in greater
understanding of each other’s position and they agreed to resume negotiations in 1981.
After His election, President Reagan indicated on 2 February, 1981 his readiness to discuss a legitimate reduction of
nuclear weapons. However, he insisted that the USA should have a miHtary presence in the Middle East to discourage
any reckless moves by the Soviet Union. On the other hand President Brezhnev also called for an active US-Soviet
dialogue at all levels and proposed a moratorium on the development in Europe of new medium range nuclear •
missiles by. NATO countries and the Soviet Union. .
Soviet Proposals regarding Prohibit/oft of Stationing of Weapons in Outer Space > In 1981, Soviet Union proposed a
treaty of unlimited duration to prohibit the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space, including stationing of
’reusable’ manned space vehicle. The parties to the treaty were to undertake not to destroy, damage or disturb the
normal functioning or change the flight trajectory of space objects of other states, if such objects were placed in the
orbit in strict accordance with the above mentioned provisions. However, the Soviet proposal did not specify whether
the development and testing of anti-satellite systems would be prohibited and whether the states would be obliged to
dismantle those systems which they have already developed and tested.
In December 1981 the U.N. General Assembly taking into account the proposals of Jthe Soviet Union, required the
Committee on disarmament to embark on negotiations with a view to achieving agreement on the text of an appropriate
treaty to prevent the spread of arms race to other space. Through another resolution, it requested the Committee on
Disarmament to consider as a matter of priority, the question of negotiating an effective and variable agreement to
prohibit anti-satellite systems. However, much progress could not be maHf Hue to the difficulties in rearhflhg further
arms control agreement’; relating to outer space because most of the satellites are used for military purpose Further, the
competition going on between the two super powers is bound to generate pressure for pre-emptive action and thus
decrease rather than ncrease the sense of security of the powers in question, bringing no advantage to either side.
Prohibition of Inhumane Weapons: New Small Arms Ammunition (1981): On 10 April, 1981 the Convention on
Prohibition or Restrictions on Use of . certain Conventional Weapons was opened for signature at the United Nations.
This convention was in the nature of an umbrella covering a number of protocols covering landmines and body-traps,
incendiary weapons and fragments not detectable by X-ray.
Efforts by the UN General Assembly : During the Year 1981 the UN
General Assembly also initiated a number of measures to check nuclear weapons, chemical weapons as well as to
promote the disarmament. The Assembly expressed concern over continued nuclear weapons tests and urged UK, USA
and USSR to resume their trilateral negotiations (which were interrupted in 1980) on a comprehensive test ban treaty
and to bring them to an early conclusion. It also suggested the conclusion of an international convention on the non-use
of nuclear weapons in general and declared that the use of such weapons would be a violation of the UN Charter and a
crime against humanity. It also called upon the nuclear weapons states to submit their views, proposals and practical
suggestions for ensuring the prevention of nuclear war. Similarly, the General Assembly while calling for continuation
of negotiations on convention prohibiting chemical weapons called on all the states to refrain from any action which
could impede such negotiations and to specifically refrain from the production and development of binary and other
new types of chemical weapons. It also requested that chemical weapons should not be stationed in those states where
there are no such weapons at present.
With a view to promote disarmament, the General Assembly recommended that a world disarmament campaign should
be launched and a conference be held at the United Nations to finance the campaign. It expressed the view that a
worldwide collection of signatures in support of measures to prevent the nuclear war and arms race be started, which
would help in creating favourable climate for achieving progress in the field 1>f disarmament.
However, despite its active interest to effect arms control the General Assembly could not attain much success due to
an atmosphere oi increased international tension. The sharp polemics between the USA and the USSR, characterised by
mutual cold-war accusation of aggressiveness and bad faith negatived the effects of the international arms control
endeavours.
Reagan Plan of 18 November 1981 : On 18 November 1981 President Reagan of United States proposed a four point
agenda suggesting (1) that the United States was prepared to cancel its deployment of Preshing II and ground launched
cruise missiles if the Soviet Union would dismantle its SS-20, SL-4 and SS-5 medium and intermediate range ballistic
missiles; (2) that USA would seek to negotiate substantial reduction in nuclear arms which would result in equal and
verifiable levels and that to symbolise this the negotiations would be called START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks);
(3) that action should be taken to achieve equality at lower levels of conventional forces in Europe; and (4) that USA
urged the USSR4O join with it and many other nations to establish a western proposed conference on disarmament in
Europe. The United States leadership expressed the hope that the acceptance of these proposals by the Soviet would
benefit the people of East and West and the Third World and promote peace and security all over the world.
However, these proposals were outrightly rejected by the Soviet Union. The Soviet President Breznev said that if the
United States were prepared to agree to complete reduction of all kinds of nuclear weapons in the East and West,
Soviet Union would be in favour.
INF Talks at Geneva November (1981): On 30 November, 1981 talks

360
361
between USA and Soviet Union on intermediate-range nuclear’ force (INF) commenced at Geneva. The deliberations
were held in camera. But much progress could not be made. On 3 February 1982 Brezhnev proposed that both the sides
should reduce their medium range nuclear weapons by two-thirds by
1990, but the proposal was rejected by President Reagan. On 9 February 1982 Soviet Union proposed a modified plan
but this was also turned down by USA the next day.
USA reacted sharply and stated that it would not tolerate any stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba. On 31 March 1982
President Reagan said ”I want an agreement on strategic nuclear weapons that reduces the risk of war, lowers the level
of armament and enhances global security. We can accept no less.”
Brezhnev Announcement of March 1982: On 16 March 1982, the Soviet President Brezhnev announced that Soviet
Union had ”decided to introduce unilaterally a moratorium on the deployment of medium range nuclear weapons in the
European part of the Soviet Union” involving ”the freezing in terms both of the quantity and quality” of the weapons
already in place as well as the suspension of the planned replacement of the existing SS-4 and SS-5 missiles by the new
SS-20 models. He asserted the moratorium would remain in force either until the USA and the Soviet Union reached
agreement on a planned reduction of nuclear weapons or on the other hand until practical preparation began for the
deployment of Pershing II and ground launched cruise missile in Europe. He warned that if NATO allies went ahead
with their plans to fenew their nuclear strike capacity, the Soviet Union would have no choice but to take retaliatory
steps.
STAgT Negotiations: On 9 May 1982, US President suggested that formal START negotiations be held between the
two countries at Geneva in June 1982, He proposed two stages. During the first stage the number of the ballistic
missUe war-heads was to be reduced by at least one-third below current levels. During the second stage they were to
achieve equal ceilings on ballistic missiles. The plan also insisted on effective verification procedures. But the plan was
dismissed by Soviet -Union ”as a hopeless attempt to ensure US superiority. However, the plan said nothing abou^the
programme to deploy MX missiles, strategic 8-1 bombers and Trident nuclear missile submarines.
On 18 May 1982 President Brezhnev made an offer of freeze on the nuclear missiles and proposed freeze on the
modernisation and deployment of strategic weapons. He said that to begin the START talks on right note, three things
should be done. (1) The talks should pursue the aim of limiting arms and reducing strategic arms rather than being a
cover for the continued arms race and the breakdown of the existing parity. (2) Both sides should pay due regard to
each other’s legitimate security interests and acknowledged the principle of equality and equal security. (3) The
positive achievements of earlier and equal talks should not be overlooked. The proposals of Brezhnev were
immediately rejected by USA.
The START talks opened in Geneva on 29 June 1982 in which the delegations of USA and USSR took part. Though
the talks were secret, the two delegations made certain statements regarding their respective positions, which
virtually reflected the views that had already been expressed. At,these talks USSR offered to make substantial cuts in
the long-range missile and bomber forces in return for US agreement to forgo the deployment of new medium-range
missiles in Europe and to accept stringent restrictions on all further cruise missile deployments. The Soviet Union tried
to like INF and START talks. On the other hand USA was very keen to restore the credibilitiy of its nuclear umbrella in
the eyes of its friends and opponents and wanted to eliminate the enormous advantage which the Soviets had gained in
land-based missiles and prevent all ’ risks of black mail.
Second Special Session on Disarmament: The Second Special Session on Disarmament of the General Assembly was
held in 1982 in which more than 140 states took part. Over 3000 representatives from 450 non-governmental
organisations in 47 countries around the world also attended the session. After prolonged deliberations the General
Assembly categorically and unanimously reaffirmed the validity of the Final Document of the First Special Session on
Disarmament and urged the member states to consider as soon as possible proposals designed to secure the avoidance
of war, particularly nuclear war. The Assembly also stressed the need for strengthening the central role of the United
Nations in the field of disarmament and enhancing the effectiveness of the Committee on Disarmament (now known as
conference on Disarmament) as the * single multilateral negotiating body.
New US Proposals on SALT: In 1983 USA proposed ’builddown’whereby each side while modernising its forces
would effect 5 per’cent reduction of its forces each year until 1992. According to this plan each new unit of ICBM fire
power developed was to be matched by reduction of two old units of ICBM fire power and each new unit of submarine
launched fire power was to be matched by dismantling the two old units. The proposals also envisaged the
establishment of a commission to work out the details of a build down.
The Soviet Union responded to US proposals and called for reduction of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles from about
2400 to 1800 or 1850, while demanding that the US must not deploy any new intermediate range missiles in Europe
whatsoever. Soviet Union also indicated its willingness to accept an overall ceiling on nuclear explosions, but did not
put forward a specific number. Soviet Union also demanded that the British and the French forces be counted in INF
process. However, the British and French were determined to maintain independent deterrents which were not subject
to US USSR negotiations.
On account of persistent tension between USA and Soviet Union no further progress could be made between the East
and West on arms control and eventual disarmament. The Soviet Union refused to resume Geneva Disarmament talks-
both negotiations on intermediate range nuclear force (INF) which were suspended in November 1983 and strategic
arms reduction talks (START) which were suspended in December, 1983-on the ground that she could not resume
these talks unless the policy of deployment of Pershing If and Cruise missiles in Western Europe was reversed.
Efforts for Disarmament by General Assembly After 1982: Since 1982 the General Assembly at regular intervals called
for implementation of the decisions
362
ARMS RACE. DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL
363
and recommendations of the first and second special sessions on disarmament. It has called for (1) cessation of test explosions
erf nuclear weapons including underground nuclear weapons test and called for conclusion of comprehensive nuclear test ban
treaty; (ii) negotiations for cessation of nuclear arms race and prevention of nuclear war, (in) freeze on nuclear weapons by all
nuclear weapon states; (iv) establishment of nuclear-weapon free zones in Middle East and South Asia and implementation of
Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace; v) conclusion of an international convention for strengthening security of
nonnuclear weapon states against use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; (vi)’ •neasures to prevent arms race in outer space;
(vii) conclusion of convention of jrohibition of the development, production, stockpiling, and use of all chemical, <tdiological
and nuclear neutron weapons; (viii) an agreement on the prohibition jf the development and manufacture of new types of
weapons of mass sestruction and new systems of such weapons; and (ix) reduction of military judgets and reallocation of
resources now being used for military purposes to ’conomic and social development in developing countries.
However, these recommendations of the General Assembly, though unanimously adopted have not been faithfully
implemented and much progress I ,as not been made in the direction of disarmament.
Talks between NATO and Warsaw Pact Countries : Talks between jelegations from NATO and Warsaw Pact countries
on Mutual and Balanced :orce Reductions in Central Europe were resumed on 16 March 1984 {which had «en
suspended in December 1983). On 19 April 1984 NATO members ubmitted a plan which envisaged first of all a
reduction in combat and support roops in Central Europe by 13,000 for USA and 30,000 for the USSR, and hereafter an
eventual reduction of the two sides to 700,000 ground troops and !00,000 air force members for each side within four
or five years. This plan was ejected by the Warsaw Pact delegation on the ground that the proposal was neither
constructive nor realistic.” Despite these differences the talks continued ill 19 July 1984.
Improvement of Hotline . In Julf, 1984 USA and-Soviet Union agreed to *dd a facsimile transmission capability to the
Direct Communication Link (DCL) x>pularly known as ’hotline’. The hotline was first established in August 1963 vith
a view to lessening of the danger of an outbreak of hostilities by accident >r miscalculations. The new improvement
enabled the two sides to send graphic material via the DCL
Four Continent Peace Initiative: On 22 May 1984 a plan on behalf of six political leaders from the four continents of
Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, viz., President Raul Alfonsin of Argentina; Prime Minister Andreas
Papandreou of Greece; Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India; President Miguel Dela Madrid of Mexico; Prime
Minister Olof Palme of Sweden and President .ulius Nyerere of Tanzania; was presented to the UN Missions of the five
nuclearweapon powers (China, France, USSR, UK and USA). The plan asserted ”The »calaiing arms race, the ris* i,s
international tensions and the lack uf constructive jialogue among nuclear-weapons states has increased the risk of
nuclear war. The people we represent are no less threatened by nuclear war than the citizens
of the nuclear-weapon states. It is primarily the responsibility of the nuclearweapon states to prevent a nuclear catastrophe,
but this problem is too important to be left to those states alone.” It stated that ”agreements which merely regulate an arms
build-up are clearly insufficient* and the leaders called on the five nuclear weapon powers ”as a necessary first step to halt all
testing, production and deployment of nuctear weapons and their delivery system to be immediately followed by substantial
reductions in nuclear forces”.
Though USA appreciated the initiative and sincerity of the leaders in taking an initiative, it asserted ”we do not think
that global freeze by the nuclear powers would strengthen stability or reduce the risk of war.”
Initiative by India and Non-aligned Countries: In August, 1984 India and

20 other non-aligned and neutral countries suggested setting up of aft ad hoc committee of the UN Disarmament
Conference to negotiate measures for preventing a nuclear war. However, USA and other Western countries did not
respond favourably.
ty
Geneva Talks (1985): A welcome development took place in January 1985 when the foreign ministers of USSR and
USA (Andrei Gromyko and George Shultz) met at Geneva on 7th and 8th January. Negotiations at Geneva could not
make much progress because USSR sought to link controls of offensive missiles with the termination of Reagan’s
Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), popularly known as Star Wars programmes, while USA wanted to enhance the
prospects of SDI by limiting the offensive missile which SDI would oppose. USA refused to link the two and argued
that a ban on research programme (SDI is currently a research agenda) cannot be verified. Though the two countries
could not reach any accord, the resumption of talks was significant development. The two sides agreed that the space
weapon system and the intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe be brought into the negotiation that originally
covered strategic nuclear missiles. The delegations of Soviet Union and USA agreed to split into three groups to
negotiate on the areas of strategic, intermediate range and space weapons with a view to ”work out effective
agreements aimed at preventing an arors race in space and terminating it on earth.” The rear significance of the Geneva
talks was that it succeeded in breaking the ice. USSR had pledged not to hold any talks unless Cruise and Pershing i!
missiles were dismantled, but it relented on this point and agreed for talks at Geneva. Likewise USA ate showed spirit
of accommodation and agreed to broaden the scope of new negotiations by including w;thin their purview the
threatened arms race in space as well as existing stockpiles. The two states pledged >o work for effective agreements
aimed at preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on earth.
Six Nations Summit at New Delhi (1985): On 28 lanuary 1985 a six nation summit was hrld at New Delhi which was
attended by President Raul Alfonsin of Argentina, Prim» Minister Andreas Papandreou of Greece, Prime Minister Olof
Palmo of Sweden President Miguel Dela Madrid of Maxico, President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Prime Minister
Rajiv G<inrihi of India. The Summit appealed to iht nucie-jr weapon powers to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race It
urged them to immediately halt the testing of all kinds of nuclear weapons and to conclude a treaty on a nuclear
weapon test ban at an early date. It called
364
<;
’*-.’
i
365
for prohibition of the development, testing, production, deployment and use of all space weapons. It warned that
an arms race in the space would be enormously costly and have grave destabilising effect. The other points
emphasised by the Summit were the need of strengthening of the UN system and diversion of expenditure from
arms to development. TJje six leaders also agreed to visit nuclear powers and other capitals to impres^bn
various powers the urgent need to put the arms race into reverse gear.
Reagan Gorbachev Summit: Disarmament suffered a serious setback in

1984-85 and two superpowers embarked on a massive programme of rearmament. This trend was reversed towards the
close of 1985 when President Ronald Reagan of U.S.A. and Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union met at Geneva from
19-21 November. Though the contents of the discussion were not made public, it was quite apparent that Soviet
hostility to President Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative (popularly known as Star Wars) project proved to be the
main stumbling block and no agreement could be arrived at. However, at the end of the talks the two leaders issued a
joint statement in which they emphasised the desirability of intensified dialogue between the two powers through
regular meetings at the highest level. They also agreed to accelerate the pace of negotiations so that early progress
could be made in areas where there was a common ground-such as 50 per cent cut in the overall level of armaments and
the possibility of an interim INF agreement.
Afterthe Geneva Summit the process of arriving at settlement on disarmament continued both at multi-lateral and bi-
lateral forums. In January 1986 Gorbachev proposed a time-table for a fifteen year ’step by step’ process for ridding
theearth of nuclear weapons. He presented this programme at the formal talks between USA and Soviet Union on 16
January 1986, but it was not accepted by USA.
Reykjavik Meeting (1986): The most significant effort in the direction of disarmament was made in October 1986 when
a meeting was held at Reykjavik between President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Though the meeting did not lead
to any taflgible agreement, it settled many of the bilateral arms-control issues which had eluded negotiations for years.
There was agreement on INF and framework for 50 per cent reduction in strategic offensive weapons. But no formal
agreement could be concluded on account of differences over Strategic Defence Initiative programme (SDI). Soviet
Union wanted America to cut back research and testing on the SDI programme to just the laboratory, which was not
acceptable to USA.
Despite their differences fresh high level talks were held between USA and USSR at Vienna on 5-6 November 1986 in
which Shutlz and Shevardnadze took part on behalf of the two countries. However, the talks were jeopardised due to
U.S. Soviet acrimony over diplomatic expulsions and counter expulsions.
In February 1987 Soviet leader Gorbachev took yet another initiative and called for the elimination of INF missiles in
Europe, with a limit for each side of
100 warheads elsewhere. He also agreed to proceed without first resolving differences over SDI.
Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty (1987): This treaty, the first to abolish an entire category of nuclear
weapons, was signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at the Washington Summit in December,
1987 and ratified by the Senate and Presidium of the two countries on the eve of the Moscow Summit in May-June,
1988. The treaty provides that during the next three years land-based missiles having a range of 500 kms to 5000 kms
and the launchers on which these missiles are to be mounted, will be eliminated. It also provides for the elimination of
the short-range missiles within next 18 months. In accordance with this treaty USA would destroy 859 missiles based
in Western Europe, while the Soviet Union would eliminate 1752 missiles based in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union.
The treaty also specifies the manner in which these missiles shall be destroyed. The two parties undertook to inform
each other of the type of missiles and the place where these were being destroyed. It also makes provisions for detailed
on-site inspection to ensure that neither side was violating the terms of the treaty.
New Six Nation Disarmament Plan : Encouraged by the treaty between Soviet Union and the USA for the elimination
of Intermediate Range Nuclear Missiles, the leaders of six nations (India, Argentina, Greece, Mexico, Sweden and
Tanzania) from five continents prepared a plan for disarmament to be placed before the special session of the U.N.
General Assembly on Disarmament. This plan envisaged an important role for the United Nations in the verification of
disarmament agreement. It is notewrothy that earlier in 1986 the six nations had offered to assist the two superpowers
in verification of ban on nuclear tests. They proposed establishment of temporary monitoring stations at the test sites
and inspection of large chemical explosions.
Third Special Session of UN General Assembly on Disarmament (June

1988): The Third Special Session of UN General Assembly on Disarmament was held in June 1988, but it could not
achieve any positive results on account of adamant attitude of the USA on the issue of shedding armaments and making
commitments regarding nuclear weapons. However, the special session looked into the progress in the implementation
of the first two special UN sessions on disarmament held in 1978 and 1982. It is noteworthy that while the first special
session on disarmament had indicated that the final objective should be general and complete disarmament under
effective international control, the immediate goal was elimination of the danger of nuclear war and the halting of arms
race. The second session reaffirmed its faith in the above objectives and urged the member states to consider proposals
for avoidance of war, particularly nuclear
war.
Geneva Talks on Strategic Arms Reduction (June 1989): After a gap of seven months U.S. - Soviet negotiations on
reduction of long - range nuclear forces were held at Geneva. However, soon it became evident that sharp differences
exist between the two. While Soviet Union insisted on linking of •START accord and the development of space
weapons USA was opposed to it. Similarly while Soviet Union insisted on inclusion of submarine launched cruise
missiles (SLCMs) in the agreement, the USA did not approve of it. Differences also existed between the two on
question of mobile land based missiles,.
366
367
certification procedure, counting rules for war-heads carried by strategic bombers etc. In view of these
differences both the sides made it clear that full agreement on strategic arms reduction treaty was not in sight.
Further Progress : Undeterred by the failure of the Geneva talks the two superpowers continued to make efforts
to reach some agreement. In September
1989 the foreign ministers of USA and Soviet Union signed half a dozen agreements and announced their decision to
hold a Super-Power Summit in
1990 (early summer or spring). Soviet Union made a key concession and announced that Soviet Union would move
ahead towards a long-range weapons agreement despite its objections to the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI)
space-based anti-missile programme. The two countries also reached an agreement on chemical weapons, exchange of
data on chemical weapons by the end of year, visits by inspectors of other side to the stockpiles and plants by jurie
1990. The other accords provided for verification of missile plants and exchange of information even before a treaty to
slash long-range nuclear weapons was completed etc.
US Proposes cut in Chemical Weapons : On 25 September, 1989 in the course of his address to the General Assembly President
Bush of USA proposed a treaty suggesting elimination of all chemical weapons from the surface of the earth within 10 years
from the date on which it is signed and indicated US readiness to destroy 98 per cent of its chemical stockpiles in 8 years
provided the Soviet Union joined it in doing so. The proposal of President Bush was accepted by Soviet Union. Soviet Union
offered to comply with the proposals even before the conclusion of the multilateral treaty if the United States agreed. This was
a welcome development and indicates the desire of the two super powers to get rid of their stockpiles of chemical weapons for
the sake or world peace. *
In short as a result of the dialogue between the two super powers since 1985 considerable progress was made and they
reached substantive agreements in the areas of arms control. They ratified the 1987 INF Treaty (a focai point of
controversy ”between the two for nearly a decade); took preliminary ”steps in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
(START). towards an agreement to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals by 50%. All these developments greatly
contributed to the easing of tension between the two super powers.
Washington Summit : At the Washington Summit meeting between President Gorbachev and President Bush held in
May-June 1990 funher progress in the direction of disarmament was made. The two countries concluded agreements on
nuciea>, chemical and conventional arms. The most significant arms control agreement related to the chemical
weapons. The two sides agreed to destroy thousands oftonns of these mass destructive weapons and reduce their
stockpiles to 3,000 tonnes each. It was decided that the destruction would begin in 1992 3nd would lasi up?o 2002.
They <s!so agreed to immediately srop further production of these weapons. This agreement greatly improved the
prospects r<>< a global ban on the production, possession and use of chemical weapons being negotiated by the 40-
naiion conference on Disarmament at Geneva.
At the Summit that two leaders also agreed on certain principles which were to govern the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START), to be ready for signature by the end of the year. Another arms control agreement related to the verification
protocols for the implementation of earlier treaties of mid 1970’s restricting the size of underground nuclear explosions. In
addition to the above agreements the two Presidents reiterated their commitment to complete the negotiations on the
conventional force reductions in Europe (CFE Treaty) before the end of the year.
Treaty on A rms Cut.’The next important step in the direction of disarmament was taken in September 1990 when a
treaty was signed by President Bush, President Gorbachev and other European leaders at Paris which seeks to cut
conventional forces in Europe. Under this treaty these leaders agreed to destroy tens of thousands of tanks, artillery and
armoured combat vehicles in Europe. Each alliance was allowed a maximum of 20,000 tanks, 30,000 armoured
personnel carriers, 20,000 artillery pieces, 6,800 aircraft and 2000 helicopters in four zones.
Treaty Between NATO and Warsaw Pact Countries : On 19 November,

1990 the heads of state and governments of NATO and Warsaw Pact countries signed a treaty which drastically
reduced their conventional arsenals for the first time since World War II. This treaty, described as the most
comprehensive and far-reaching arms reduction accord ever negotiated, paved the way for new cooperation in Europe
and marked the formal end of cold war.
- The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START): On 31 July, 1991 the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US
President George Bush signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty under which the two superpowers agreed to effect
reduction to equal levels in defined strategic offensive arms over a period of seven years from the date the treaty came
into force. Whereas Soviet Union agreed to 35 per cent cut on its strategic wameads, the United States agreed to
25 per cent cut. The Treaty provided for complex verification procedure, including on site inspections, short notice
inspections and suspect site inspection. The two powers agreed to set up a joint commission on verification and
inspection. The treaty was to be valid for 15 years unless superseded earlier, by a subsequent agreement. Thereafter the
treaty could be extended for successive five-year periods if both the sides agreed.
U.S. Announces Unilateral Disarmament : On 27 September 1991; President Bush of United States announced
’unilateral disarmament’ to make the world a better place than ever before in the nuclear age. He asserted that this
would take nuclear tactical weapons out-of European soil and immediately reduce the possibility of any accidental war.
He grounded all U.S. strategic bombers and took them off the alert status. He also removed from alert status at!
missiles covered by the Strategic Arms Reducation Treaty (START). He ordered removal of all nuclear artillery shells
from overseas bases. President Bush urged Soviet Union to match the Nuclear arms cut.
President Mikhail Gorbachev responded favourably to the 8ush proposals and on 5 October 1991 announced extensive
cuts in tactical nuclear weapons. He announced that Soviet Union intended to eliminate nuclear artillery and
nuclear warheads from tactical rockets; remove nuclear weapons from ships and submarines; take heavy bombers off
battle alert and withdraw their nuclear weaponry; take 503 inter-continental ballistic missiles off battle alert; stop
development of new short-range intercontinental missiles and impose one year moratorium on nuclear testing. He also
offered to reduce the Soviet armed forces by 700,000 as against 500,000 offered byUnited States. In response to
America’s Star Wars research Gorbachev suggested that botrrthe nations should mutually develop an anti-missile
protection system. In short, it can be said that Soviet Union not only matched the American reduction of tactical
weapons, but also announced cut of a thousand more missiles than it was required to do under the START. Above all,
Soviet Union also announced one-year moratorium on nuclear testing.
It may be observed that the favourable response of the two powers to put an end to disarmament race was due both to
the changed international scenario characterised by end of cold war developments in Eastern Europe and in Soviet
Union, as well as domestic compulsion.
US-Russia Offer to Cut Nuclear Arms (January 1992) : A welcome development in the direction of disarmament took
place in January 1992 when President Bush of USA announced bilateral reduction of nuclear arms and offered to cut
nuclear arms even further if President Yeltsin reciprocated. Immediately the Russian President announced a 10-point
disarmament plan with a view to liquidating all nuclear, biological and chemical mass destruction ^weapons. He also
announced decision to cut the number of strategic nuclear missiles to the level set by the START treaty. Even proposed
setting up of an international nuclear arms control agency, which should in the long run control the whole cycle of
nuclear process from mining to the burial of the quclear wajje. He announced Russian decision to stop production of
TU-160 and TU-95 heavy bombers as well as long-range air-based and sea-based cruise missiles.
Five Power Accord to Prevent Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (May 1992): In May 1992 the five members of
UN Security Council - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China, reached an agreement to prevent the spread
of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. According to the guidelines
agreed to by these powers, the states will not assist, directly or indirectly in the development, acquisition, manufacture,
testing, stockpiling or development of weapons of mass destruction; promptly notify the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) of the export to a non-nuclear weapons state of any nuclear materials, equipments or facilities and
place them under IAEA safeguards; exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive nuclear facilities, technology and
weapons-usable material; strictly abide by the convention on bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons; and not to
assist in the manufacture of biological weapons. The guidelines called upon states which had not signed the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty as yet, to sign the same. It expressed concern over the sales of ballistic missiles over 1000 to
1500 km range still being made by North Korea. The states also committed to support the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR).
Pact on Nuclear Arms Cut (June ] 992): At the Washington summit held
369
between President Bush and President Yeltsin in June 1992, an accord to reduce the number of nuclear warheads of the
two countries from 21,000 to 7,000 by year 2003 was reached. The two countries also agreed to explore seriously the
prospects of joint sponsorship of global missile defence and space cooperation.
Nuclear Arms Control Treaty ($TART - II): The most significant step in the direction of nuclear arms control was taken
on 3 January 1993 when President Bush of US and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, signed the Nuclear Arms Control
Treaty which seeks to bring about two-thirds rejection in world’s most terrifying weapons. Under the treaty US nuclear
weapons stockpile has been limited to the position of 1960’s while that of Russia has been reduced to the level of mid-
1970’s size. In terms of this treaty US will wind up 1728 strategic warheads at sea and the Russians with 1600 to 1650.
The land-based missiles with multiple wa’r-heads will be however dismantled by 2003 or as early as 2000 A.D. if US
helps Russia get rid of its SS-18s and SS-19s.
The treaty limited the nuclear warheads with which heavy bombers of the two sides can be equipped. This limit varies
from 750 to 1250 units of nuclear warheads of any type. The two countries, however, reserve the right to reorient upto
100 heavy bombers for the fulfilment of non-nuclear tasks. It may be noted that the treaty is subject to ratification by
the US Senate and the Russian Parliament.
Convention on Chemical Weapons (February 199JA’On 15 February 1993 representatives of 1 20 countries signed
Chemical Weapons Convention at Paris which places a ban on the use, production and stockpiling of chemical
weapons. Under this convention the signatory states will be required to destroy stockpiles of chemical years of
ratification of treaty. The convention also contains provisions regarding international inspections of suspected
violations. The Convention does not prescribe any procedure for the destruction of the chemical weapons except that it
stipulates that chemical weapons should not be destroyed by sea dumping, land burial or open-pit burning. This implies
that the procedure for the destruction of chemical weapons has to be environment friendly and should render such
weapons usable.
Implications of Arms Race and Suggestions for Future. The implications of arms race have been beautifully brought out
by UN Report thus: ”The Arms race represents a waste of resources, a diversion of the economy away from
humanitarian purpose, a hindrance to national development efforts and threat to democratic process. But its most
important feature is that in effect it undermines national, regional, and international security. It involves the constant
risk of war engaging the largest Powers, including nuclear war and it is accompanied by an endless series of wars at
lower levels. It raises an even greater barrier against the development or jn atmosphere in which the role of the force in
international relations may he downgraded. In addition, it impedes relations between countries affecting the volume
and direction of exchanges, diminishing the role of co-operation am(,r>£ States and obstructing efforts towards
establishing 3 new international economic order on a more equitable basis.”
In the international sphere the arms race has threefold consequences. In the military sphere it increases the possibility
of war, rather even the possibility of a nuclear conflagration. In the economic sphere it has far reaching effects. Lot of
money is spent not only on arms race and military preparations, but vast resources are also diverted away from
production and growth, which contributes to inflation and economic crisis. Arms race contributes to the maintaining
and widening of the gap between and within developed and developing countries and impedes co-operation between
states. As regards its impact on the international political conditions, it changes the atmosphere with high military
preparedness and even minor conflicts tend to assume serious dimensions. Generally the.’ security considerations come
to occupy a prominent position in the policy formulation. Most of the states try to create spheres of influence in which
even local conflicts become linked to regional or even global confrontations.
The Committee of experts appointed by the Secretary General under directive of General Assembly in 1976 to look into
the social and economic consequences of arms race while emphasising the need of disarmament observed that ”the
most important goals of international community are disarmament and development, which the members of the UN are
committed to pursue vigorously. In fact both these goals are intimately linked. Development at an acceptable rate
would be hard, if not impossible, to reach with a continuation of the arms race. Research and development is one area
wherethe misdirection of efforts is glaring. In this, as other respects, vast resources,t>adly needed for development are
being consumed as countries make even greater sacrifices for military purposes. The Committee argued that ”Progress
towawls disarmament would-release internal material, financial and human resources, both in developed and in
developing countries and would permit their redeployment to purposes of development. The relaxation of the climate of
fear, hostility and confrontation which progress towards disarmament would remove some of the barriers now
hampering international exchanges in general and the free circulation of raw materials and advanced technology in
particular, and would greatly facilitate the free choice by each country of its particular path towards development. As a
result of disarmament the industrially developed countries would saven a lot on their military expenditure which could
easily be passed on to the developing nations In the shape of aid. This aid shall go a long way in improving the living
standard of the people in these countries.
The Committee made certain suggestions to achieve the objective of complete disarmament. It proposed that a
comprehensive disarmament scheme should be prepared in which partial measures would no doubt find a place.
However, in this context it would be imperative that negotiations on general and complete disarmament should receive
greater and more urgent attention than they have received in the past. With a view to impart new momentum to
disarmament effort*, it insisted on the need of involving all countries on the basis of equality; simultaneous curtailment
of the qualitative arms race and reduction
ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL 371
of military budgets. It emphasised that nuclear disarmament must be given highest priority partly because of the
intolerable threat posed by the nuclear weapons and partly because of the possibility of their proliferation of new states
which would enhance the threat and make disarmament more difficult in future. Finally, the committee also emphasised
the need of expert advice. It recommended ”There is always a need for expert advice and assistance on a more
continuous basis to follow developments closely to advise the General Assembly, the Secretary General and member
states or, questions of disarmament and to assist in the elaboration, specification and adjustment of targets and
programmes.” Improvement of the machinery of the United Nations in this direction appears to be necessary if the
world organisation is to fulfil its task in the field of disarmament.
THE ARMS TRADE AND IT S IMPACT ON THIRD WORLD ROLE
372
25
The Arms Trade and Its Impact on
Third World Role in International Relations

Transfer of large scale arms to developing countries has been a leading feature of post World War II developments.
During the initial years these arms were mainly transferred from United States and Britain. In fact, United States
resorted to transfer of arms as an integral part of its global anti-Communist crusade. The advocacy of Truman Doctrine
in 1949 and supply bf huge quantity of arms to Greece and Turkey bears testimony to this fact. Though during the early
years USA’s main supply of arms was confined to European countries but gradually the developing countries were also
given huge quantities of arrns and in 1960’s the transfer of US arms to developing world surpassed the annual transfers
to European and other allies. This increase in supply of arms to^Third World took place due to formation of SEATO
and CENTO and were clearly supplied with the objective of containing Communist powers like Soviet Union
and China.
Britain, the second major exporter of arms to the developing countries, resorted-to arms transfer primarily due to
political and strategic considerations. However, later on even economic considerations also began to influence their
decision. The major recipients of British arms during the first decade after Second World War were the former colonies
with which Britain had close military and political affinities. The major recipients of British arms were India and
Pakistan. Soviet Union did not pay any attention to supply of arms to other countries during the decade after the Second
World War and mainly concentrated on establishing friendly regimes on the periphery of the Soviet Union. Whatever
arms were supplied by Soviet Union, were supplied to East European countries, the Peoples Republic of China, North
Korea and North Vietnam. However, in mid-fifties, with the rise of non-aligned nations, Soviet Union began to supply
arms to these countries as well to woo them to its side. The important countries to whom Soviet Union supplied arms
included Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Iraq in West Asia; India and other countries in South Asia. It is noteworthy that
Soviet Union transferred arms to these countries primarily due to political and strategic considerations. On the other
hand the developing countries approached Soviet Union for supplies of arms because the western powers were not
willing to meet their requirements.
373
Factors Influencing Anns Transfer. In the main two broad factors have influenced the various countries to transfer
arms to developing countries. Firstly, they tried to transfer arms with a view to increase their influence in the recipient
country and keep it out of influence of the adversary. Through this increasing influence they wanted to influence the
decisions of the recipient government or establish alliance relationship with them; or gain basis for communication
facilities etc. In short, they resorted to transfer of arms to promote their political and strategic interests. Secondly, the
internal economic considerations also obliged certain countries to supply arms to other countries. Tftey saw in the
increased exports of arms a convenient way of reducing the cost of research and development and a convenient way to
correct their adverse balance of payment etc. It is noteworthy that arms transfers from all countries other than the
superpowers have been primarily motivated by economic compulsions, though at times countries like Britain and China
have also used arms transfer as a political instrument.
Arms Trade. There has been a consistent rise in the arms trade in the post . world war years, which is evident ”from the
increase in the military budgets of almost all the countries. This is evident from the total global expenditure which grew
from 100 billion dollars in 1960 to 500 billion in 1980. In 1987 this further rose to 930 billion dollars. The military
expenditure of the third world countries during this period showed four-fold increase at constant prices. Even though
most of the third world countries opted to keep out of power struggle.
The Third World countries which opted to keep out of power politics in the post World War II period with a view to
attain rapid economic development, could not remain immune from arms race and resorted to large scale purchases of
arms from developed and Third World countries to protect their hard won independence and preserve their integrity. As
noted above the military expenditure of the Third World countries increased four fold at constant prices from 1960 to
1987. However in the subsequent years the military expenditure of the Third World countries did not show any increase
on account of debt and famine. In fact, it showed some decline. The end of Iran-Iraq war also resulted in reduction of
defence related spending in this part of the globe. The other major factors which checked the growing militarisation in
the world were the spirit of entente prevailing among the super powers and consequent interest in arms control and
conflict resolution. There was decline in the overall share of the Third World countries in the arms purchase. In 1984
they accounted for 67.6 per cent of the global total which fell to 66 per cent by 1986 and 61.4 per cent in 1988 (SIPR1
YEARBOOK, 1989, p. 195).
In the subsequent years also this downward trend in the aggregate value of arms trade continued. During the year 1991
there was a decline of 25% over the value of exports during the 1990. The main factors which were responsible for this
decline of arms trade were (i) There was serious thinking about arms trade control in the wake of major armed conflict
in Kuwait and Iraq, (ii) The dissolution of the Soviet Union was an important factor which led to the decline of arms
trade in 1991. (in) The severing of arms transfer relationship between Soviet Union and its allies and clients also
contributed to this decline. This is
evident from the fact that whereas USSR accounted for roughly 40% of the global trade in major conventional weapons
for moss of 198Q’s, in 1991 the Soviet exports represented less than 20% of the total. Further towards the end of 1991
the Soviet Union” ceased to exist, (iv) The introduction of multilateral regulation on arms exports by the major arms
exporting countries, including the five permanent members of UN Security Council, also contributed to this decline. (v)
Finally, the pressure from the international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank, has also contributed to the
general decline in the purchase of arms hy the third world countries. Both the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank have been pressing the third world countries to divert funds from defence to development. •
In the post-cold war period the monetary value of arms purchases has come down, even though the extent of this
reduction has followed differing trends in relation to different suppliers and recipients. In global terms during the
period
1990-93, the total arms transfer agreements fell by nearly a third, while arms deliveries reduced by half as compared to
period of 1986-89.
In this chapter we shall deal with the export of arms to the Third World countries. Exports of Arms to Third World
Countries
At the outset it may be pointed out that the exports of arms to Third World has been dominated by the big powers. This
is fully borne out by the fact that during the period 1982-86, Soviet Union anH United States supplied 34 per cent and
26 per cent of the total weapons to Third World. It is noteworthy trpt the share of supplies of arms by these two
superpowers was considerably lower than their supplies during the preceding five years period (1977-81), when they
accounted for almost 69 per cent of the total arms exports to Third World. The four West European countries (UK,
France, Federal Republic of Germany and Italy) on the other hand increased their exports to Third World countries by 5
per cent during the same period. During the year 1988 also Soviet Union and US continued to dominate the trade in the
major conventional weapons accounting for roughly 38 and 28 per cent respectively of the global total.
In the post-cold war period US has clearly emerged as the dominant arms supplier with d share of over 50 percent of
the global arms sales. On the other hand Russia, which was considered as the largest supplier of amis during most of
the 1980’s has been pushed down to the fourth position, because both UK and France have improved their position as
armed suppliers and emerged as second and third largest suppliers respectively. •
Soviet Arms Exports. Soviet Union was one of the leading arms exporter to the Third World. Soviet Union attained
this position on account of low prices, tdvourjble credit terms and barter arrangements with certain ujunim-s The Soviet
exports of arms to Third World countries which were to the June of $ 2 billion before 1970 showed considerable
increase in the subsequent years. Th^se rose to S 4 bill ion between 1970 and 1980. In fact. Soviet Union used arms
exports as a convenient tool for expanding its influence in the Third World. Thus Soviet Union supplied arms to Cuba,
and Vietnam with a view to acquire base
375
facilities for Soviet navy. Likewise it supplied arms to governments of Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua etc. to face internal
and external opponents effectively. It would not be wrong to say that Soviet Union used arms aid as a major instrument
for maintaining and expanding its influence in the Third World countries. Later Soviet Union stepped up supply of
arms to Third World countries with a view to obtain hard currency to balance its financial and trade deficits with the
West. Soviet supplies to Algeria, Iraq, Libya and Syria were motivated by this consideration.
The Soviet arms exports showed a downward trend after 1980 both for the
• total exports as wel! as exports to the Third World. This was due to a number of
; factors. Firstly, there was economic crises in most of the recipient countries.
Secondly, Soviet Union was not able to provide liberal military assistance
through subsidised arms supplies on account of serious economic problems
confronting it Thirdly, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan gave it a militaristic

image throughout the Third World and the countries of this part of the world were
reluctant to become increasingly dependent on Soviet Union. Fourthly, the Third
World countries were looking for more sophisticated weapons than what the
[•; Soviet Union had traditionally been prepared to offer. Fifthly, the restrictive
| Soviet policy with respect to transfer of military technology and the supply of
1 support equipment spares and infrastructure contributed to this decline. Finally,
it began taking a more pessimistic view of the opportunity to promote socialism
in the Third World, and came to hold that arms production for exports diverts
resources from domestic economic and technological reconstruction.
Some of the important recipients of the Soviet weapons during the period
1984-88 were Syria, India, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Angola, North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria etc. A notable
feature of Soviet supply has been that in addition to arms it supplies equipments with training in how to use it and the
supplementary equipment needed to support it rather than to sell equipment of a specific designation. The Soviet Union
tended to meet the needs of its clients over a broad range of military equipment, including armoured vehicles, missiles,
aircraft and to a lesser extent naval vessels.
During the past few years the Soviet arms exports have suffered a decline on account of several reasons. Firstly, from
January 1991 ownards all Soviet foreign trade, including that in arms, was contracted in hard currency. Secondly,
deliveries of major conventional weapons to former Warsaw Treaty Organisation member states and important
customers in developing world-Ethiopia, Iraq and Syria-fell dramatically after 1989. Thirdly, in .1991 Soviet Union
decided to eliminate arm supplies to three more important clients viz. Afghanistan, Angola, North Korea. Arms
supplies to Afghanistan, Angola, were stopped following an agreement with USA in 1991, while in ca,se of North
Korea the supply was stopped at the request of the Sourth Korea, with which Soviet Union had established diplomatic
relations at the end of 1990 and with which a $ 3 billion economic cooperation package had been agreed, fourthly,
India, another important customer, faced with growing balance of payment deficit curtailed purchases from Soviet
Union. Further, the economic and political chaos in Soviet Union forced India to import spare parts from Yugoslavia
and former Soviet allies
376
in Europe. Finally, the economic and political conditions prevailing in the area following disintegration of Soviet Union
also gave set back to arms exports. As a result USSR/Russia, which had been the largest supplier of arms in the world
during 1986-89 suffered a major setback during the period 1990-93, and its share of arms transfer agreements globally
dropped from 37 percent to 15 percent. U.S. Arms Exports. United States has been another leading exporter of arms to
the Third World. In the initial years United States was the major supplier. of arms, but was relegated to the second
position by Soviet Union following adoption of policy of restraint on arms sales by President Carter of USA in 1979.
However during the period 1981 -85, it again emerged as one of the largest arm exporter of the world, even though the
distinction of being the largest exporter ? of arms to the Third World continued to be claimed by Soviet Union. This is
evident from the fact that in the year 1988 while Soviet Union had a share of 38 per cent of total supplies tb Third
World in 1988 the U.S. share was only 28 per cent. The major recipients of US exports of major weapons in the Third
World during the period 1984-88 were Egypt, Saudi Arabia, larael, Taiwan, Pakistan, South Korea, Jordan, Thailand,
Kuwait, and Venezuela. It is noteworthy that U.S. arms exports to the Third World have been mainly concentrated in
Middle East • and Far East.
The two notable features of U.S. policy of arms transfer were (i) its willingness to supply sophisticated and surveillance
and battle management aircrafts to countries like Israel, Egypt, Singapore, Saudi Arabia; and^(ii) willingness to provide
greater military aid to countries having strategic or political importance to USA. The huge military, aid extended to
Pakistan bears a testimony to this fact. In return for this aid USA tried to obtain base*rights in several countries like
Morocco, Kenya, Oman, Philippines etc.
During the year 1991, United States emerged as the largest single exporter of major conventional weapons. This
became possible due to decline in the Soviet arms exports and the delivery of US weapons to the Middle East. It may
be noted that the major customers of US weapons were not in the developing world but among its allies in Europe and
Asia. The developing or third world countries accounted for around 40% of the tola I US overseas deliveries in 1991.
The major US export items since mid-1970’s have been F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts and associated weapons system.
During the year 1991 alnne orders for more than 300 F-16 fighter aircraft were placed by Egypt, Greece, Thailand,
Turkey, Portugal and South Korea. Another notable item sold by USA to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in 1991 has
been Patriot System. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Thailand are also acquiring ground and air-bound radars from United
States to improve their air defence network. In 1991 Egypt entered into contracts worth $ 1461 million to upgrade 12
batteries of Hawk Surface to air missiles. Saudi Arabia signed three contracts worth $70 million, $ 3 50 million and
$919 million with US companies for, among others, the installation of a secure communication network linking air
defence Headquarters and to upgrade software and computer on board Saudi E-3 aircraft.
In the post-cold war period United States emerged as the largest arms supplier in the world. In contrast to late 1980’s
when US was the second largest supplier of arms, during the period 1990-93, it emerged as the largest supplier
THE ARMS TRADE AND IT S IMPACT ON THIRD WORLD ROLE 377
of arms and its share of arms supplied shot up from 16 percent in 1986-89 to over
55 percent in 1990-93. It-is noteworthy that US increased its share of arms transfer agreements despite the
global market having strunk. Arms Exports by U.K.
U.K. is one of the leading arms exporters to the Third World countries. It was the second largest weapon
exporter after World War II, but it was surpassed by USSR in 1955, France in 1975 and China in 1984. This
decline in Britain’s position was due to four reasons. Firstly, the decline in the position of Britain in the world
politics, including decolonisation. Secondly, shrinkage of Britain’s industrial base due to cuts in the growth of
military expenditure. Thirdly, concentration on production for British forces. Fourthly, due to restrictions on
arms transfer to countries like Chile-a traditional British customer. However, despite decline in the position of
Britain as arms exporter, its arms exports have consistently risen. Thus its exports rose from £ 235 million in
1970-”71 to £ 901 million in 1979 and reached £ 1200 million in 1980-81. The exports showed a further increase
in 1981 and 1982. However, the same dropped in 1983. In 1985 ,. UK’s sales of arms reached an all-time record
due tb sale of Tornado aircraft to
• Saudi Arabia and Oman. During 1985 Britain sold weapons worth $ 6 billion ;. compared to $ 1.5 billion in
1983 and a little over $ 1 billion in 1984. The British ”Defence Ministry paid special attention, to the promotion
of British arms trade. i Despite the over-all decline in the export of arms to the third world
i countries, in 1991 Britain’s exports of major conventional weapons amounted f to $ 999 million. Britain not
only supplied Saudi Arabia the Alarm (air launched air-radiation missile) system, but also signed a series of
contracts with India and Saudi Arabia for electronic counter measures and tactical communications systems. As
usual the Hawk series of jet trainer aircrafts emerged as a major export item. The major buyers of British arms
during all these years have been Uganda, South Africa, Israel, certain countries of Latin America, Middle East,
and North Africa. The main buyers of British arms during 1991 were South Korea, Malaysia, Brunei, and
Indonesia.
In the post-cold war period the share of UK arms supplies in the world further declined. As against the third position
occupied by UK as arms supplier during the period 1986-89, it was pushed to fourth position during the period
1990-93.
Arms Exports by France
France is the third largest exporter of arms to the Third World countries and ranks only next to Soviet Union and
U.S.A. It has steadily increased its arms exports over the years. Its exports in relation to defence procurement increased
from 14.8 per cent in 1970 to 38.1 per cent in 1980 and to 42.5 per cent in 1982. Of late France has been relying more
and more on arms exports to sustain employment and output as well as to reduce budget deficit. France also needs
boosting of export to pay for large imports. Even the Socialist Government off France did not take any measures to
reduce arms exports. On the contrary it tried to expand the same. As a result by the period 1982-86 France’s share of
arms exports to Third World increased from 71 to 86 per cent.
78
379
The value of French arms exports have shown consistent rise since 1981. i comparison to its arms exports of 33.8
billion francs in 1981, it rose to 41.6 illion francs in 1982. In 1984 French export of arms to the Third World
countries cached an all time high figure of 15 billion US dollars. This increase was due o the fact that Third
World countries opted to secure arms from France with a <iew to reduce their dependence on the two major
powers. However, in 1985 he supply of French arms once again declined. In 1986 France did not win any najor
order and its supplies again declined.
During the year 1991, France remained a major arm exporter, despite a, Iramatic decline in the value of her
arms sales. During the year t991 France telivered major convention weapons to the tune of $ 804 million, a fall
of 25% Compared to the value recorded in 1987. This decline was largely due to lack f success of current
generation French aircraft in the export market relative to ie earlier generation. The principal clients of France
are countries of Middle ast, Saudi Arabia, Iraq/ Egypt and Gulf states. South America and countries of \dian
subcontinent.
In the post cold war period France improved its position as supplier of arms nd emerged as the third largest
supplier of arms during.the period 1990-93, as gainst the .fourth position occupied by her during the period
1986-89.
China emerged as the fourth largest exporter of major weapons to Third Vorld countries during the period
1984-88. This was rendered possible due to !hina’s capability to supply weapons at low prices and her
policy vvith^lespect o attersales support, spare parts and so on. China exported most of its arms to rises
areas like Iran and Iraq. The two other major importers of Chinese weapons /ere Egypt and Pakistan.
China’s position as supplier of arms in the world suffered a decline during ne period 1986-89 and she was
pushed to the sixth position. Though she .ontinued to occupy this position during the period 1990-93 as well, but
her hare of world market in terms of agreement fell from % 10,600 million in 1986-
9 to $ 3,500 million in 1990-93.
Germany was another major supplier of arms in the 1980 s. However, in he post cold world war it
considerably improved its position and emerged as ite fifth largest supplier of arms in the world during the
period 1990-1991.
We can have an idea about the exports of major weapons to the Third Vorld countries from the following table
relating to the period 1989-1993. leading Exporters of Major Weapons to Third World
Countries during the Period 1989-93 <m US $ million at constant 1990 prices)
3. Germany FR 953 1627 2410 ’ 1868 1833 8692
4; France 2788 2164 825 1041 945 7763
5. U.K. 2541 1442 694 910 969 5556
6. China 1009 1351 1882 1074 427 5742
7. CndmkwaVia* 724 669 74 270 482 ; 2219
8. Netherlands 489 293 475 393 299 1945
9. Italy 208 218 299 359 369 1454
10. Israel 341 203 212 144 232 1133
11. Switzerland 137 192 369 335 72 1105
12. Sweden 375 219 107 122 83 905

13. Spain 566 . 87 61 68 43 825
14. Germany OR 510 245 0 0 0 755
15. Korea North 0 0 138 86 420 644 ’. 16. Others 1079 896 1037 1082 742 4836
Total 37616 30332 23891 22806 21975 136620
* For the years 1989-92, the data refers to former Czechoslovakia, for 1993 the data refers to the Czech
Republic only. Source : SIPRI YEAR BOOK 1995, p.484.
A notable feature of the exports to the Third World Countries is that whiie Middle East stiH accounts for
almost 50 per cent of all Third World imports, South Asian imports rose dramatically while arms imports to
Far East remained largely unchanged, in other region of the Third World the trend was one of decline. The
respective share of the various Third World countries in arms imports is snown in the fol’owing table
which enumerates Jbe Third World majof weapon importing countries.
Major Recipients of Arms During the Period 1989-1993 (Rgurw in US $ million at constant ! 990 prices)
N*M* of Ih* Country 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1989-93
t. India 4368 1488 1325 1151 2146 10478
2 fdpan 2637 1734 1496 1334 1006 8216
1. Saudi Arabia . 1974 2607 1007 1131 1324 •:. 8039
4. Turkey -H83 88S 88? . 2245 1525 7729
5. ’ Owe* 1470 1(74 890 2W» 4J4 6257 j| 6. »ff,hanrtUn 2622 2”! 4. 1215 0 0* 6251
• 7, Germany, fR 1190 1361 1283 566 583 4983
Name of Country 19S9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1989-93
, USA 11J66 10821 12122 11784 ’.0526 56624 |
2. USSR/Russia 1*529 9907 3189 3265 4532 35422 •

380
3
4
8.
Egypt
214
1168
775
976
1481
4614
9.
Pakistan
753
1038
1080
210
491
3571
10.
China
70
237
246
2073
802
3427
11.
Israel
209
28
1359
1062
474
3132
12.
Korea (South)
1113
546
304
395
513
2870
13.
Thailand
504
419
794
790
268
2775
14.
Taiwan
247
503
• 828
400
754
2732
15.
Iran
371
853
260
230
867
2582
Total
37616
30332
23891
22806
21975
136620
Source : SIPRI YEAR BOOK 1995, p. 485.
Exports from Third World Countries
Apart from the western powers the countries of the Third World have also emerged as suppliers of arms to the Third
World countries/and have managed to capture a substantial chunk of the arms trade, specially in low technology
weapon systems. This increase in arms exports has largely been due to low cost of these systems due to Idwer cost of
production in these countries as opposed to advanced western countries. The prominent Third World exporters of
weapons are China, Egypt, Brazil, North Korea, South Korea etc. Israel is another important supplier of weapons to
Third World countries. Apart from selling major weapons it also supplies small arms; ammunition and modernisation
and upgrading services. During the period 1984-88 China emerged as a leading Third World country exporting arms to
the Third World countries. The important clients of China include Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.XThina
also sent experts to Egypt to supervise the setting up of production lines for Soviet model spare parts, chiefly for
armoured vehicles. North Korea is another traditional client of China. Since 1986 Thailand has also been purchasing
Chinese weapons. China has been laying great emphasis on increasing arms sales in the hope that it would bolster her
international image and status.
India which follows a restrictive arms sale policy has generally avoided arms exports. Impact of Arms Trade on Third
World
The Third World, which is politically and economically a heterogenous group of countries, is the largest consumer of
arms. Almost 80 per cent of the arms ai .’exported to these countries. It has been argued that the ever rising exports of
weapons to the Third World countries instead of bringing peace and security have greatly contributed to the escalation
of disputes amongst the countries of the Third World. It has been asserted that, the number of the disputes in which the
countries of the Third World have been involved in the post World War II
THE ARMS TRADE AND IT S IMPACT ON THIP.D WORLD ROLE
381
period is much larger than the disputes amongst the developed countries, This has greatly contributed to instability in
the Third World Countries.
Secondly, the diversion of enormous amount by the Third World countries ’ to the purchase of armament has caused a
serious drain on the precious foreign exchange, national resources and human skills of these countries and these
countries have completely neglected their development. The heavy financial burden on their limited resources has also
greatly strained their internal and external economy. .
Thirdly, as the countries of the Third World cannot afford to provide necessary funds for the purchase of arms from
their available resources, they have to rely on foreign aid. This makes them dependent on the donor countries and
greatly jeopardises their political independence. This has also given rise to inter-state rivalries amongst the Third World
countries because they want to please their donors by blindly supporting them and criticising their opponents.
Fourthly, the large scale transfer of arms to the Third World countries has given rise to regional arms race which can
ultimately assume global dimensions and hamper the process of disarmament so vital for the future of human ;r\.
Fifthly, the growing arms imports by the Third World countries have greatly contributed to the problem of indebtedness
of the developing countries.
Sixthly, the transfer of arms to Third World countries has increased the chances of conflict and reduced the possibilities
of peaceful settlement of disputes.
As a result of the above factors the role of the Third World countries in the international affairs has been greatly
undermined. No doubt, now there is a growing awareness among Third World countries to curb the excerpting arms
race and divert their limited resources towards developmental activities, but they have not shown the requisite
determination to attain these objectives. It is imperative that the Third World countries must realise the serious
consequences of this growing transfer of arms and act with determination without any further delay.
Arm Trade Control. In view of the far reaching consequences of the arms transfer {o the Third World countries, the
General Assembjy in its Third Special Session on Disarmament held in 1988 paid special attention to this problem. At
least 30 member states made reference in the course of discussion to the need for some form of action on arms transfer
control. Even the two super powers viz., USA and USSR extended support to the idea of arms transfer control. In the
subsequent years more countries expressed support for the idea of reducing arms trade*. The five permanent members
of the Security Council showed their keenness to promote control of arm trade by all appropriate means. In July 1991
they held a meeting to tackle this problem. However, the five heads of governments agreed to continue work on the
question of arms export regulation. In October 1991 another meeting of the permanent members of Security Council
was held which produced Guidelines for Conventional Arms Transfers, containing
382
more specific undertakings, even though the interpretation of these general undertakings was left to the discretion of the
individual exporters. The five members of Security Council also agreed to hold further consultations to see whether
means of advance notification of arms agreements could be worked out. In addition to the above effort, several other
steps were also taken to control the transfer of arms. In 1988, Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to accept mutual
restrictions on certain kinds of arms imports and the United States and USSR undertook to respect all the commitments
made by Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, after the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan, the Soviet Union
continued to supply large quantities of arms and military assistance to the government in Kabul. Even USA continued
to provide financial support to the Afghan Mujahideens and played an important role in coordinating arms supplied to
the anti-government forces. In July 1991 the EC countries decided to impose arms embargo w.e.f. 11 July 1991 against
Yugoslavia following intensification of civil war. Even US suspended licences for direct commercial exports of items
on the US munitions list and forbade government to government sales. Similarly in August 1991, Poland introduced an
embargo on supply of arms and military equipments to Yugoslavia, including spare parts, repairs and the transfer of
military technologies. On 25 September 1992, me UN Security Council adopted a resolution which introduced
mandatory embargo on ’all deliveries of weapons and military equipments to Yugoslavia until the Security Council
decided otherwise. Thus several steps have been taken to restrict the export of arms by various agencies and countries.
*
U.N. Arms Register. After the Gulf War, the five permanent members of the Security Council, who were also the main
exporters of arms, agreed to work together on controlling the trade in arms. !n December 1991 the UN General
Assembly passed a resolution which called upon she member states to provide data on imports and exports of major
conventional arms. It urged the UN Genera! Secretary to bring out an annual register of such weapon systems, with. a
view to prevent the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of arms, including conventional arms, in order to promote
stability and strengthen regional or international peace and security.
The UN Arms register essentially comprises individual countries data on the imports and exports of seven major
categories of conventional weapons: battle tanks with & high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun of at least 75mm
calibre; armoured combat vehicles with a missile launcher or weapon of atle^st
12.5mm caiibre; large calibre artillery system with a calibre of iOOmrn and above; combat armed with weapons;
warships vvith a standard displacement of
750 metric tonnes <y above or those armed with missilesAorpedoes; and nnissiles and mKsile launchers capable of
delivering a warhead to a range of at least 25 km (excluding remotely-piloted vehicle ar*3 «jrf«>ce-?o-aif missiles-.
iruermsoi the detisionoi the General A*êmbiyiht Reciter of C«K!¥<sit!i>rMl Arms was so be maintained with effect
fri.-m 1 January ) 9^2 and ail the members were to provide to ’he Secretary General cu the UN »n Annual Report on
the
THE ARMS TSfcADE AND IT S IMPACT ON THIRD WORLD ROLE
383
imports and • exports of arms. On the basis of the two reports received from the importing amd exporting
countries, each transfer could be automatically confirmed. T”he data to be collected on the basis of these
reports was to be made public. It is ^noteworthy that the register was to be voluntary and the governments
which voted t for its establishment were not obliged to submit reports. Nonetheless the register was
expected to increase transparency of arms trade and was expected to ii ndirectly help in restricting the arms
trade. It for the first time placed the informatijon regarding arms trade in public domain.
The fir^t UN Register of Conventional Arms was released in October 1993 and the second was published
in September 1994. The perusal of the register highlights se»vera! shortcomings. Firstly it contained
incomplete data entries as the informatijon was to be voluntarily provided by the member states. Further, it
did not certain any information with regard to small arms. Despite these limitations, i»t cannot be denied
that the UN Register constitutes an important source of information on the import and export of major
weapon system. Further, it brought ab«out transparency on the critical aspect of defence preparedness of
the memberrs. it is hoped that these shortcomings would be overcome in subsequent yvears and
maintenance of UN register would provide a fillip to the reduction of sophisticated weapon systems.
384
26
Diplomatic Theory and Practice

”When a diplomat says yes he means perhaps, when he says perhaps he means no; and when he says no he is no
diplomat.”
Diplomacy occupies an important position in international relations not only because valuable information about the
international relations of the past comes from diplomatic despatches, the letter of Ambassadors, the memories of
diplomats and foreign ministers, but also because it provides us with an insight into the various events which have
shaped international relations. The views of the diplomats are taken as authentic and their interpretation of history
greatly moulds the outlook of those who study and analyse relations.
Usage of the Term. The term diplomacy has been used to denote a veriety of meanings. According to Harold Nicolson
in current language the word ’diplomacy’ is carelessly taken to denote several quite different things. At one* moment it
is employed as a synonym for ’foreign policy’ as when we say, ’British diplomacy in the Near East has been lacking in
vigour.’ Another moment it signifies negotiations as when we say ’the problem is one which might be well solved by
diplomacy.’ More specifically the problem denotes the process and machinery by which such negotiation is carried out.
A fourth meaning is that of a branch of the foreign service as one says ”my nephew is working for diplomacy.” And a
fifth interpretation which this word is made to carry is that of an abstract quality of gift, which in its best sense, implies
the skill in the conduct of international negotiations; and in its worse sense, implies that more guileful aspects of fact.
Definition. Diplomacy may be defined ”as the process of presentation and negotiation by which states customarily deal
with one another in terms of peace.” In the Oxford Dictionary it is defined as ”the management of international
relations by negotiation” or, ”the method by which these negotiations are adjusted and managed.” Sir Earnest Satow in
his book Guide to Diplomatic Practice has defined diplomacy as ”the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct
of official relations between the government of independent states.” According to Quincy Wright ”Diplomacy in the
popular sense means the employment or tact, shrewdness and skill in any negotiation or transaction. In the more special
sense, used in international relations it is the art’of negotiation, in order to achieve the maximum oi group objectives
with a minimum of costs within a system of politics in which war is a possibility.”
i <m<
DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE
385
Development of Diplomacy
The origin of the organised diplomacy can be traced to the times of the city states o/ ancient Greece, although prior to
that too a rudimentary type of diplomacy existed. Harold Nicholson in his book The Evolution of Diplomacy writes.
There comes a stage when the anthropoid apes inhabiting are group of one realised that it might be profitable to reach
some understanding with the neighbouring group regarding the limits of their respective hunting territories. It must
soon have been found that no negotiation could reach a satisfactory conclusion if the emissaries of either party were
murdered on arrival. Thus the first principle to become firmly established was that of diplomatic immunity.” By the
fifth century B.C., special missions between the Great City States had become so frequent that something approaching
our own system was achieved. The Romans did little to develop the art of diplomacy although they made important
contributions in the field of international law. In the Eastern Roman Empire, which was established after Constantine
moved his capital to Constantinipla, the diplomatic methods were employed with great zeal. The representatives of the
Eastern Empire became skilled diplomats and trained observers and thus extended the practice of diplomacy to include
accurate observation and reporting as well as representation.
During the middle ages, from the sixth century A.D. to late eighteenth century, diplomacy simply meant the study and
the preservation of archives rather than the act of international negotiation. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the
Papal and other chanceries, under the direction and authority -of successive masters of the rolls, that the usages of
diplomacy as a science based upon precedent and experience first came to be established” (Nicholson).
Modern diplomacy as an organised profession arose in Italy in the late middle ages. The first known permanent mission
was established at Genoa in ”
1455 by the Duke of Milan. During the next century Italian City States established permanent embassies in London,
Paris and at the Court of Holy Roman Empire. But for about three hundred years it was still the diplomacy of the Court.
It was neither adequate nor standardised, fts object was to promote the interests of the foreigners abroad by the various
means.
By the seventeenth century permanent missions were the rule rather than the exception and diplomacy became an
established profession and a generally accepted method of mutual relations. After the Peace of Westphalia (1648, when
the nation-state system was established), such machinery was considered essential. Diplomats from all countries
represented in the Court of Louis XIV. The diplomacy of the Court entered its golden age in the eighteenth century.
By the late eighteenth century the Industrial, American and French revolutions ushered in a new era of diplomacy. The
voice of the people for the first time began to be heard. The growing democratic control made the duties of the
diplomat complicated. It called for a new kind of diplomat. But the diplomatic profession was carried on by aristocrats
only, as the remuneration paid to them was low and only those persons who had other source of income accepted such
assignments.
386
387
As diplomacy became less formal and restricted its rules became more standardised and more acceptable. The Congress
of Vienna made important contribution in this direction. The Congress laid down certain rules of procedure which are
still commonly observed. The diplomatic heirarchy thus established consisted of four ranks-Ambassadors; papal
representatives; envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary; ministers resident and charge d’affairs.
Till the end of eighteenth century the diplomacy was branded as old or traditional diplomacy. The nineteenth century
diplomacy better known as Modern Diplomacy demanded new methods as well as personnels because of change in the
nature of diplomacy. The methods were defined in.many international agreements and became a generally observed
code. Harold Nicholson has called attention to three developments of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries which
greatly affected the theory and practice of diplomacy. They are (i) the growing sense of the community of nations (2)
the increasing appreciation of the importance of public opinion and (3) the rapid increase in communications.
The present day diplomacy is also known as new diplomacy. This, diplomacy is the result of many new developments.
The status of ambassador has been reduced to that of a glorified clerk. The present day diplomats do not enjoy any
freedom or personal discretion. The diplomacy by conference is becoming more and more popular.
The factors responsible for such a change are (1) the change in the nature* of transport and communications system
because of technological advancement which has squeezed the world; (2) the development of alliance system such as
NATO which functions like a coalition cabinet consisting of several member nations; (3) the increasing importance of
public opinion in foreign matters (4) the application of the principle of littoral democracy to the conduct of foreign
relations and (5) finaily, the major role of superpowers in the field of world diplomacy.
TYPES OF DIPLOMACY
Diplomacy can be divided into two categories. Traditional Diplomacy and • New Diplomacy, each with certain distinct
features. Let us examine these two types of .diplomacies in >ome detail;..
A. Traditional Diplomacy
While tracing the history of diplomacy we have noticed that the diplomacy in the real sense emerged with the
formation of the national state system after the peace of Westphalia in 1648. TiH the end of nineteenth century the old
or the traditional diplomacy continued. With the new developments in the technological, social, economic and political
field new trends, which began from the Congress of Vienna, became firmly established and the old diplomacy was
virtually relegated to the background, even though it did not lose its significance in the present day world.
There were three methods on which the traditional diplomatic practice was based-the Italian, French and German
although it is the French method of diplomacy which is usually known as the traditiona-l method. The theory anrt
practice originated by Reachelieu, analysed by Callieres and adopted by all European states during the period from
seventeenth to nineteenth centuries is popularh/ known as traditional diplomacy. Viewed in the modern context the old
diplomacy had certain merits and demerits and possessed certain distinctive features.
Features of Traditional Diplomacy : The,, main features of traditional diplomacy were as foHows:
1. Traditional diplomacy was confined to Europe as other continents like Asia, Africa and Latin America were regarded
the areasof colonisation. Even USA remained isolated up to 1897. The five big powers of .Europe-England, France,
Prussia, Austria and Spain, were the main actors on the world political scene and diplomacy operated among these
European powers only. Hence this diplomacy was virtually European diplomacy.
2. The old or traditional diplomacy operated on the assumption that great powers have special responsibility for the
maintenance of the world peace. •
3 The small powers did not play any significant role. They just behaved
• as satellites of the big powers. These states being weak could not play any significant diplomatic role.
4. As the diplomacy necessitated whole time diplomats, the « establishments of a professional diplomatic service in
many European countries started. The diplomats possessed similar standard of education and experience and believed
that they were all working in one and the same direction-preservation of peace. Therefore, these diplomats developed a
sort of corporate identity, independent of their national identity.
:• 5. The traditional diplomacy was secret. It was conducted by the diplomats posted in the other state. The diplomats
were the sole channel of communication between the home government and the state to which they were accredited.
They carried on the negotiations in a most secret manner. The general public was not informed about the decision
taken. The secret negotiations had its advantages. Whatever passed between the diplomats was not of a palatable
nature. There were moments of harshness, threats and counter threats. Sometimes, they rewarded themselves at the cost
of other nations. If all that was made public that would have aroused the emotions of the people and hampered the
diplomatic work.
B. The New Diplomacy
In the early twentieth century the traditional diplomacy was replaced by a new type of diplomacy which is popularly
known as new or open diplomacy. This new diplomacy differed 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
388
diplomacy. No doubt, the new diplomacy was quite different from the diplomacy of the previous centuries, but it
would certainly be wrong to assume that these changes were in the nature of sharp contrasts between darkness
and light, and that there were 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.
Why Changes in Diplomacy in Present Century ?
Another question which deserves our attention is as to why changes in diplomacy became necessary in the present
century. This was due to the fact that the diplomacy is greatly influenced by the political system under which it
operates. The traditional diplomacy prevailed at a time when the dominant political systems were monarchical and
aristocratic. 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 close of
the nineteenth century the political system in most of the European countries underwent a change. Absolute monarchy
was replaced by constitutional monarchy arid democracy. The people came to acquire greater power and naturally felt
concerned with the foreign policy of their countries. As a result the diplomacy also ceased to be dynastic and assumed
democratic character. The democratic diplomacy, in the words of Nicholson meanfthe 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, viz., growing sense of community of nations; an increasing appreciation of the importance of public opinion; and
rapid increase in communication. Let us examine these factors in details: •
In the first place, as a result of the Napoleonic war, the idea of community of nations emerged and the states instead of
thinking in terms of national rights came to attach greater importance to international interests. Secondly, the growing
importance of the public opinion was realised and it was felt that ’opinions Arp stronger than am-iips’. Therpforp, it
was fplt dpsirablp to takp thp public into confidence on all vital diplomatic issue’s. 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. Thirdly, the developments of the modern means of communication I ike aeroplanes, telegraphs,
telephones, .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, diplomats were virtually reduced to the
status of clerks at the end of the telephone, while the real initiative passed into the hands of the foreign office.
The new diplomacy greatly differed from the traditional diplomacy in methods it not in purpose. In the word-of
Nicholson while the old diplomacy was ”oligarchic, maleficent and obscure”, the new diplomacy is ’democratic,
beneficent and limpid’.
B: DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE 389
JB Features of New Diplomacy : For a fuller understanding of differences
K between the old and the new diplomacy it is desirable to have an idea about the Hi basic features of
new diplomacy. ..
•?• 1. Greater Openness. In the first place, in contrast to the traditional
• diplomacy which was characterised by secret treaties, secret articles in treaties
• and secret agents, the new diplomacy is open in character. The principle of open I diplomacy was greatly emphasised
by the American President Wilson in his
• address to the Congress on 8 January 1891 while advocating the fourteen points
• as basis for the peace settlement. He asserted that there should be ”open H covenants of peace openly arrived at after
which there shall be no private H international understandings of any kind.” This implied that Wilson wanted
• publicity to be given to the international agreements to be concluded as well as
• process of diplomacy which resulted in the negotiation and conclusion of these

• agreements.Incourseoftirnethisprinciplecametobeuniversally accepted. The
• Covenant of the League of Nations insisted on open agreements. This was carried
• further by the UN Charter which provided in Article 102 that ”every treaty and H international agreement entered into
by any member of the United Nations after
• the present Charter comes into force shall, as soon as possible, be registered with
• the Secretariat and published by it.” it further provided that no party to a treaty
• or agreement which had not been registered could be invoked before any organ
• of the United Nations. By these provisions the United Nations sought to check Hi the conclusion of the secret treaties.
Generally the states have adhered to these ^1 limitations. However there have been instances when the states have
concluded
• H| secret treaties in the interest of national security and secret agreements have not ^B been completely eliminated.
But by and large the states have avoided secret Uk treaties.
H| It is indeed doubtful if the process of open diplomacy is feasible in actual
HI practice. Asdiplomacyrequiresreciprocaibargainingandcompromises, itJsnot HI always feasible for the

diplomats to spell out their stand in advance. Once the H¥ diplomats spell out their conditions, it is not always
possible to make any Hjf compromises which is bound to jeopardise the chances of success in arriving at ^m an
agreement. If the diplomat strictly adheres to these professions his hands are MW very much tied. Criticising open
diplomacy Nicholson says that negotiations Hj| require ”concessions and counter concessions”, and once the news of
proposed HI! concessions is divulged the public may feel so much indignation that it may force HW the diplomats to
abandon negotiation^.
• - 2. Multilateral Diplomacy. Another outstanding feature of the modern
f** diplomacy is that greater importance has been attached to multilateral diplomacy. It may be noted that
multilateralism has not displaced bilateralism, which also :•’. continues to be practiced under the new diplomacy. This
new change became neces.sary because in the present times the problems have assumed international character and
tend to leave d worldwide Impact. It i> therefore imperative that these problems should be tackled through the co-
operation of all the states. As
V
there is no international legislative body where these states may send their representatives, naturally they have to hold
multilateral diplomatic conferences. These conferences are held to conclude treaties and agreements of general nature
as well as to hold formal consultations. w
No doubt, multilateral diplomacy was known in the past centuries too and there are numerous instances of international
conferences in which a number of states participated, but by and large multilateral diplomacy gained currency in the
present century only. Some of the important international conferences which were held in the previous centuries
include the Congress of Westphalia (1648), the Congress of Utrecht (1713), and the Congress of Vienna (1815). In the
nineteenth century also a number of peace time conferences were held by various powers such as the meetings ot the
Quadruple Alliance (Britain, France, Prussia and Austria) between 1815-1822, the Panama Conference of American
States (1826); the St. Petersburg Conference (1868), the Conference of Berlin (1884-85) and the Hague Conference
(1899 and 1907). But it was only after the First World War that conference diplomacy or multilateral diplomacy grew
more popular. It has been held that since then about six to ten thousand sessions or international conferences are held
every year. ” Some of these conferences are attended by a comparatively small number of persons, mostly experts in
their fields. There are other international meetings which are attended by hundreds’ of persons, including many foreign
ministers or diplomats,of the highest rank. Most of these Conferences are held under the aegis of the United Nations
and its agencies.” * *
. The multilateral diplomacy generally tends to by-pass the foreign office and the normal diplomatic channels. If at all
these channels are utilised they are -. assigned a subordinate role. On the other hand in the conduct of multilateral
diplomacy the United Nations plays more effective role. A special division has been created within the Secretariat of
the United Nations for the conduct of various conferences. This Division makes ”material arrangements for meetings of
the General Assembly, the Councils, the Commissions, the Committees and social conferences held under the auspices
of the United Nations.”
The Conference diplomacy has been severely criticised. Harold Nicholson describes ita?
”perhapsthemostunfortunate’diplomaticmethodeverconceived.” This method of diplomacy suffers from a number of
defects. In the first place, as this diplomacy is conducted under a blaze of publicity, the members tend to take rigid
positions, which greatly hampers the successful negotiations. Secondly, conference diplomacy is not helpful in solving
fundamental problems because no man to man negotiations are possible under it. Thirdly the conference diplomacy
suffers from imprecision because the political statesmen are not competent to handle diplomatic negotiations. This
imprecision is the very negation of the fundamental principles of diplomacy. However, despite these shortcomings the
multilateral diplomacy is gaining in popularity day by day. It also possesses certain advantages like elasticity of
procedure, informality, mutual acquaintance, personal friendship, etc. It enables those who are
* Palmer and Perkiti-,, Intcrnjtiunjl Keljtiom, p. 1 I 7.
i DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE 391
responsible for framing policy to conduct negotiations. As Lord Maurice Hankey observes ’My personal experience is
that the most important elements of success in diplomacy by conferenceare elasticity of procedure, small numbers,
informality, mutual acquaintance and if possible personal friendship among the principals, a proper perspective
between secrecy in deliberation and publicity in result, reliable secretaries and interpreters.
3. Personal or Summit Diplomacy, The term ’summit diplomacy’ was for the first time coined by Sir .Winston
Churchil! in 1953 when he proposed a conference of the heads of governments of Western countries and Soviet Union.
It implies direct participation of the foreign ministers. Prime Ministers and union heads of states in diplomatic
negotiations. Though the term was coined by Churchill in 1953 the summit or personal diplomacy has been known for
many centuries. According to Professor Plischke in his book Summit Diplomacy points out that in 1280 BC Rameses II
of Egypt and King Khetasarof Hittites negotiated a treaty. In the modern times the Congress ofVienna held in 1815 was
another example of Summit Diplomacy. This Congress was attended by a galaxy of kings, princes and ministers. In the
present century the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 is another notable example of Summit Diplomacy. !n this
conference a large number of heads of State and Prime Ministers took part Ever since then the Summit Diplomacy’is
on the inc’sase. During the World War II period the leaders of the big three countrie« (USA-Roosevelt, Britain-
Churchill and Soviet Union-Stalin) held frequent meetings, the most important of them being the Yalta Conference of
1945. The other important meetings of this kind during the World War II period were Atlantic Conference between
Churchill and Roosevelt; the .Cairo Conference (1941) in which Churchill, Roosevelt and Chiang Kai Shek
participated; the Tehran Conference t1943) in which Churchill, Roosevelt, Chiang Kai Shek and Stalin took part; and
the Postsdam Conference (1945) in which Churchill, Stalin and Truman participated.
In the Pos|World War II period the Summit diplomacy grew in popularity and the number of summit meetings
considerably increased. One of the most important Summit Conference of the Post World War II period was the
Geneva Conference of July 1955 in which Britain (Eden), USA (Eisenhower), France (Faure) and Russia (Bulganin and
Khruschev) took part and discussed the problems regarding German reunification, Europe’s security, arms limitations,
contacts between the East and the West. Though the leaders could not arrive at any settlement, the meeting was
monumental in so far it paved the way for polite and frank exchange of views between the hostile parties. Another
Summit meeting was arranged in May 1960 at Paris in which the foreign ministers of t United States, Great Britain
and France were to meet Lot of preliminary
1 preparations were made for meeting. However, before the Conference could ; meet the U-2 incident took place and
the summit meeting could not be held. In I the subsequent years also leaders of major powers have met to arrive at $•
settlement of their disputes. .’.
The main features of the personal or summit diplomacy are as follows. First, generally in this type of diplomacy the
heads of the states try to establish direct contact with their counterparts in other countries. Churchill and Roosevelt
392
developed this practice. They often contacted each other on phones and carried on direct correspondence. Similarly,
Roosevelt held direct talks with Hitler and Mussolini before the outbreak of Second World War. Secondly, quite often
the heads of the states engaged their persona! agents to establish contact with the leaders of the other countries. For
example President Wilson relied on Colonel House and President Roosevelt on Hopkins for the conduct of this type of
diplomacy. In recent years President Nixon greatly relied on Henry Kissinger for similar duties. -
The supporters of the summit diplomacy have lauded this type of diplomacy by arguing that the top-level men are not
limited by instructions from above (as are ordinary diplomats) and hence it iseasytocome to some sort of understanding.
However, this view does not find universal support. On the other hand the critics of summit diplomacy have described
it as an undesirable type of diplomacy. They argue that the real function of the top leaders is to formulate rather than
negotiate. The negotiation part should be left to the professional diplomats. Inpersonal diplomacy the delicate personal
considerations are also bound to effect the outcome. Further, in negotiations through diplomats, the people are not
aroused even if the negotiations fail. On the other hand if the negotiations being carried on by a head of the state or
government fail, the people get completely disillusioned. In fact the summit diplomacy is conducted before the eyes of
the world and the public reacts emotionally in making demands. In such anatmosphere not much is likely to be
achieved because there is not much scope for persuasion, bargaining, and negotiations. Finally, the top level politicaj
leaders like the Presidents and Prime Ministers are poorly equipped by training or temperament to take care of the
interests of their country on the bargaining table. This job can be better looked after by the professional diplomats.
In conclusion we can say that even the admirers of Summit Diplomacy are quite aware of the limitations of this method
and hence favoured extensive preparation at the lower level of diplomats before holding meetings at the summit level.
The meeting at the summit level should be heW only if the earlier negotiations indicate that there is a possibility of arv
agreement. Once the necessary ground has been created the summit diplomacy can be resorted to and can evoke
considerable public interest.
Old, ys New Diplomacy
Scholars have often tended, to draw a distinction between the old or traditional diplomacy and new or open diplomacy.
It is argued that whereas the old diplomacy was characterised 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 dwell deep we will
find that there is only difference in the methods of -the two diplomacy, but so far as their purpose is concerned it is the
same, viz., the promotion of the national interest. Highlighting this’point Nicholson says whereas the new diplomacy
aims at satisfying the immediate wishes of the people (electorate) the old diplomacy was concerned with the ultimate
interests of the nation. He says while the old diplomacy was oligarchic, maleficent and obscure, the new diplomacy is
democratic, beneficent and limpid. He warns it would be wrong to assume that the difference between the
(3)
DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE 393
old and the new diplomacy is like the sharp contrasts between the darkness and •’ light. Nonetheless, the old and the
new diplomacy differ in the following respects.
(1) The old diplomacy was essentially European in character, concerned with European politics alone. Africa and Asia
were either isolated or dominated by European nations, and did not ’figure in the then diplomacy. In other words the
old diplomacy was confined to great
5 powers only. On the other hand the modern diplomacy is concerned
with both big and small powers; even though small powers do not play
I. any significant role. All the independent nations are the members of
the United Nations.
12) Under old diplomacy only great powers were responsible for the maintenance of the world peace. While today the
peace is the equal concern of big as well as small powers;
(3) Traditional diplomacy was the monopoly of the aristocratic class and the professional diplomats had similar social
status, education and understood each other better. As a result, the old diplomacy was friendly, humane and polite art,
carried on with much fairness and a great deal of mutual tolerance. The new diplomacy on the other hand is underthe
control of civil servants drawn from al! sections of society, who possess a democratic rather than aristocratic outlook.
(4) Traditional diplomacy was secret. All negotiations were carried on secretly. ’Ambassador was an honest man sent
abroad to lie for his country.’ New diplomacy i’s conducted in the open through various conferences, where decisions
are taken openly.
” (5) In old diplomacy the diplomats enjoyed a lot of discretion. The home government or the foreign ministers had to
accept the views of diplomats. New diplomacy has virtually reduced the diplomats to the status of dignified clerks, who
are expected to faithfully carry out the instructions from the foreign office.
Which one of the these Diplomacies is Better ? Another question which poses itself at this stage is as to which out of
these two diplomacies is better. It is indeed very difficult to answer this question, because both the diplomacies have
their own’ respective merits and demerits. These have been brought out by Harold Nicholson thus: ”The old diplomatist
negotiating as, an expert with fellow experts was able to approach his problems in a scientific spirit with due
deliberation, and without regard to immediate popular support. Such a system was obviously open to abuse and danger.
Yet democratic diplomacy is exposed to its own peculiar maladies which, in that they are less apparent, are even more
insidious. In its ,desire to conciliate popular feeling it is apt to subordinatNi principle to expediency to substitute the
indefinite for the precise, prefer in place of the central problem (which is often momentarily insoluble) subsidiary
issues upon which immediate agreement, and therefore, immediate popular approval can be attained.”
(4)
(5)
394
In view of the serious drawbacks of the new or open diplomacy it has been severely criticised. It has been argued that
”diplomacy like business requires deals or compromises and the agreements often would be attainable if diplomats are
obliged to defer to public opinion at every turn.” According to Lester Pearson, ”If a nation’s delegates to an
international conference are given rigid instructions, publicised to the world in advance, this can also be a serious
handicap. Few things are harder to abandon that the bold black headline that at the beginning of the conference had
announced your policy to the world.... The purpose of negotiations is the reconciliation of interests, the exploring of a
situation in an effort to find some common ground, some possibility of compromise, the seeking of agreement through
mutual adjustments. Such adjustments are not made easier, and rr.ay weil be made impossible, when the negotiators
fear that any concession or compromise wil! within the hour be printed, pictured or broadcast back home as a
capitulation.*
In view of the respective shortcomings of the two diplomacies, it can be suggested that the best points of the two may
be combined. While the negotiations may be conducted by the professional diplomats in secrecy, the agreements should
be made public. This would ensure public control over diplomacy without in any way jeopardising the process of
negotiations which is’highly technical and cannot be left to political leaders. Alternatively, the ground work be done by
the professional diplomats before the political leaders hold meetings to facilitate agreements. In such a case the summit
diplomacy would evoke ceremonial interest without in any way hampering the smooth process of diplomatic
negotiations. •
Decline of Diplomacy ’,
The diplomacy has been losing its vitality since the end of the Second World War! It no longer performs that
spectacular role which it used to perform. The reasons which account for the decline of diplomacy are (i) Development
of communications; (ii) Emergence of Power Politics; (in) Diplomacy by Parliamentary procedures (open diplomacy);
(iv) Emergence of superpowers on the world scene; (v) Contemporary world politics of Nationalistic universalism etc. •
..
T. Of velrtpfnent nf Cnmmiinirafinm. The first and the most important factor that has changed the role of diplomacy is
the development of modern system of transport and communications. In the early modern period the diplomats took
important decisions by themselves as they could not easily contact the home office for immediate instructions. Under
the present conditions the home government can be contacted immediately and its reaction or instructions received
without delay. This development has brought about a great deal of change in the field of international negotiations. On
the whole it can be said that with development of the new means of transport and communications the diplomacy has
changed in theory as well as in practice.
2. Emergence of Power Politics. The traditional diplomacy has been discarded not only due to the development of
communications but also due to the changed notions of power politics. There is intimate relationship between the
power politics and the functions of diplomacy, The diplomacy emerged with
395
the rise of the nation-state system. That order demanded that intercourse should be carried out by permanent
agents. The new situation means struggle for power and the diplomats are considered as the catalytic agents of
this struggle. Therefore, to reduce the power struggle on the world scene the diplomat’s role has to be curtailed
in the conduct of negotiations and it has to be substituted with open diplomacy.
3. Advent of Open Diplomacy. Another phenomena which has affected the status of diplomacy is growth of open
diplomacy. Secret negotiations were the chief characteristics of the old diplomacy. It has since been replaced by open
diplomacy. The advocates of open diplomacy argue that in democratic world people have the right to know about the
international commitments and decisions made on their behalf by their representatives. The increased participation of
public has further contributed towards the decline of the traditional diplomacy. The international problems are
discussed, debated and voted upon by the delegates of the different governments. Although the use of this method
started with Hague Peace Conference of 1899, but its use was more apparent than real. The negotiations were held
behind the scenes and the policy and the decisions evolved were discussed in open. This method is clearly a mixture of
secret and open diplomacy. •
4. Emergence of the Superpowers on the World Scene. After the World War II USSR and USA emerged as
superpower’s on the world scene, and the Eurdpean powers lost their importance. The two superpowers soon got
involved in a cold war. This resulted in a great setback to diplomacy. The diplomats were not given any discretion in
negotiations and were expected to simply work as errant boys. Thus the open diplomacy fell victim to bipolarity. The
diplomatic service of Russian totalitarian system was full of defects as diplomats had no discretion at all and that of
U.S.A. had the weaknesses as the heads of the state came forward for the conduct of negotiations. Commenting, on this
development Prof. Morgenthau says ”the weakness of the. American diplomacy is compounded by the vices of the
Russian diplomatic system, and their coincidence goes a long way in explaining the virtual disappearance of normal
diplomatic relations between them”. »
5. The Nature of Contemporary World Politics. After 1955 the cold war became cool and the era of cold peace ushered.
With this a new era of international relations began. The new situation demanded the restoration of diplomacy to its
former position. The’ other factor which contributed to this development were-growing importance of the lesser
powers; dispersions of nuclear powers; the spirit of revolt in Asia and Africa. The world had a choice between
diplomacy and war. . .
Critical Assessment of Diplomacy
The diplomacy is considered an instrument of national foreign policy. The primary object of the community of nations
is to preserve peace. A study of history reveals that whenever’there was danger of war the diplomats and statesmen
attempted to innovate means capable for preventing wars, and keeping the world intact. They tried to find out amicable
means and avoid wars
396
INTERNATIONAL RELATION.5
397
by all possible efforts. Thus it is beyond doubt that diplomacy proved a major instrument for the preservation of
world peace.
PRACTICE OF DIPLOMACY
After examining the theoretical aspects of diplomacy let us now pass on to the practical aspects of diplomacy. As the
diplomatic agents play an important role in the conduct of diplomacy it shall be desirable to have an idea about the
diplomatic agents.
Career and Non-Career Diplomatic Agents
Diplomatic Missions are established by the states on reciprocal basis through agreements concluded for this propose.
Generally a Diplomatic Mission has two types of agents-career diplomats and non-career diplomats. The career
diplomats.are those members of foreign service who are recruited for this purpose and are given sufficient training to
discharge the representational functions in the foreign state. The members of foreign service are offered various
positions in the mission depending on their seniority, suitability and expertise, The non-career diplomats are those
persons who are chosen by the head of the States from persons having eminent record of public life. Generally non-
career diplomatic agents are appointed as heads of mission. In most of the Third World countries there is tendency to
appoint eminent publ ic men as heads of diplomatic missions. It may be noted that whatever may be the political
system of a country, the right to appoint the diplomatic agents rests with the head of the state.
Agreation or Agreement: After the selection of the diplomatic envoys, the foreign office has to obtain the agreation or
agreement from the receiving state, before a letter of credence accrediting a person to that state is given to him. It may
be noted that the receiving State has the right to decline to accept a particular person as Head of a Mission chosen by
the sending state. Therefore as a matter of practice before writing to the receiving state the acceptability of the envoy
designate is informally confirmed, if the receiving state accepts the nomination of the envoy designate he is considered
persoana-grata. On the other hand if the receiving state does not approve of the name of the envoy designate on
account of his past inclinations or activities, he is considered persona non-grata. It is not essential for the receiving
state to assign any reasons for not accepting a particular person. The receiving state also reserves the right to declare an
envoy as persona non-grafo and ask for his recall even after he has assumed charge.
Duties and Responsibilities of Diplomatic Missions
The diplomatic agent is considered as the mouth-piece of his Government and the chief channel of communication
between the sending State and the ’eceiving state. His duties include exchange of notes, on matters of mutual interest,
political and strategic negotiations, protection of the interests of the citizens of his country etc. He also tries to promote
friendly relations and develop cultural, economic and scientific relations with the receiving State. His other functions
include registration of birth, death or marriage, issue of passports or visas and exercise of consular functions.
Qualities of Diplomat. The proper discharge of onerous duties demands that the diplomat should possess a
balanced mind, amiable disposition, extraordinary ability to withstand stresses and strains and possession of
tact and skill for dealing with wide range of problems. He must also possess qualities of charm and intellectual
incissiveness. He should possess patience and perserverance and should not get irritated under any
circumstances.
As the diplomat is expected to draft large number of despatches he should have the ability to prepare despatches, notes
and communications for the sending as well as receiving States. He should be precise in his despatches to the
Government about the negotiations and understandings reached with the foreign office or Head of the receiving state in
the course of his discussions. Even when the receiving state turns hostile he should exercise considerable restraint and
tact in dealing with it. Harold Nicolson has highlighted the following qualities of an ideal diplomat, viz., truth,
accuracy, calm, patience, good temper, modesty, loyalty. In addition he must also possess normal qualities of
intelligence, knowledge, discernment, prudence, hospitality, charm, industry, courage and tact.
Assumption of Charge. After the name of the diplomat is accepted by the receiving state, a letter pf appointment is
given to the envoy designated under the seal of the head of the State. The appointment letter contains details regarding
the rank, status and power of the envoy. He is also provided, with necessary codes, archives, treaties and other details
which are necessary for the discharge of the responsibilities of his office. The foreign office of the sending state
intimates to the receiving state the names of the staff attached to the mission and also the date and time of the departure
and arrival of the head of the mission; so that the receiving state may make necessary arrangements for receiving the .
envoy designate in accordance with the procedure. While determining the size of the Mission the sending state takes
into account the amount of.work required to be handled by the mission and the financial implications of the
maintenance of the mission.
Presentation of Credentials
On arrival in the receiving country the diplomatic envoys present their credentials to the head of the state. The
procedure for the presentation of crdentials is not uniform in all the states and differs in various states on the basis of
practices, local usages and other formalities in vogue in the state. On the occasion of presentation of credentails no
formal speeches are made and only pleasantries are exchanged. Discussion on controversial issue is invariably avoided.
After presenting his credentials the envoy pays courtesy call on the doyen of diplomatic corps (if he has not done it
before presening his credentials). He also informs the heads of other missions in the capital about his having taken over
charge of the mission. After the presentation of the credentials the formal working of the mission starts.
Immunities and Privileges
The diplomatic representatives are entitled to certain immunities and privileges which are considered essential to
enable them to djcharge their
.» r
398
functions effectively. In the main the diplomatic envoys enjoy the following immunities, from which certain other
immunities also flow.
Right of inviolability. In the first place the diplomatic envoys enjoy right of inviolability and extra-territonality. The
premises of the mission are inviolable and the agents of the receiving country cannot enter them without the consent of
the head of the mission. The receiving state has a duty to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or
damage. The premises of mission, and its meansof transport are immune from search, requisition, attachment or
execution.
The person of the diplomatic agent is a-lso inviolable. He cannot be arrested or detained and the receiving state has to
treat him with due respect. It has also to take necessary steps.to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.
The private residence of the diplomatic agent is also assured inviolability and protection.
The diplomatic agent also enjoys immunity .from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. He is not- obliged to
give evidence as a witness. No measures as execution can be taken in respect of a dipiomatic agent which infringe the
inviolability of his person or of his residence. It may be noted that the diplomatic agents are not immune from the
jurisdiction of the sending state.
The diplomatic envoys enjoy immunity not only in regard to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the
receiving state, but also enjoy certain immunities with regard to taxation. These include immunity from taxation in
respect of the mission and its premises regarding payment of rates and taxes under the municipal law; immunity in
respect of taxes on his salary^ and allowances and other miscellaneous payments to him; immunity in respect of
customs duty on goods imported for the purpose of the mission and personal use of the diplomatic agent and other
diplomatic officials. However, the diplomatic agents can be required to pay indirect taxes of a kind which are normally
incorporated in the price of goods or services; dues and taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of
the receiving state; estate, succession or inheritance duties levied by the receiving State and capital taxes oln
investments made in commercial undertakings in the receiving state; charges levied for specific services rendered etc.
Other Immunities and Privileges. In addition to the above immunities and privileges, the diplomatic agents also enjoy
certain other privileges. These include customs exemptions, exemptions from military obligation etc. They are entitled
to use the flag and emblem of the sending State on the premises of the mission and also on-the residence of the Head of
the Mission and on his vehicle of transport. He can move freely throughout the territory of the receiving state, although
he is expected to conform to the traffic rules and regulations of the receiving state. It may be noted that the immunities
and privileges outlined above are available not only to the diplomatic agents but also to their families.
Waiver of Diplomatic Immunities : The immunities available to the diplomatic agents in civil, criminal and
administrative spheres can be waived
DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE 399
by the sending state. However, such a waiver must be express and not implied. The receiving state can also request the
sending State to waive immunity. Such a request would depend on the nature and extent and seriousness of violation of
its laws. ’
Termination of Mission. A diplomatic Mission can also be terminated under certain conditions. However, a regular
procedure has to be followed for such a termination. The marin grounds on which a diplomatic mission may be
terminated are (a) expiry of the period for which a diplomatic agent was appointed; (b) completion of the object of the
mission; (c) recall of the diplomatic agent by the sending State; (d) death or change of sovereign of the receiving state;
(e) death or change of the head of the sending state; (f) the diplomatic agent being declared a person* non-grata by the
receiving state; !g) declaration af war between the two states; (b) abdication or resignation of the head of either the
sending State or the receiving State; (i) merger or extinction of either of the State; and d) change in the rank of the
diplomatic agent.
Dismissal and Recall. It is a sovereign right of every state to withdraw its diplomatic agent at its discretion. If the
sending state finds that the diplomatic agent has become unacceptable or unpopular and his continued presence would
be detrimental for maintaining relations between the two States, it may withdraw him. While withdrawing the
dipfomatic agent the head of the sending state has to give him a letter of recall. After such a letter is handed over to the
dipiomatic agent he requests the head of the receiving State to grant him a farewei! audience to enable him to present
the letter of recall. On the receipt of letter of recall, the head of the Receiving State grants a ’recredentiaf, in which he
expresses his satisfaction on the conduct of the diplomatic agent and his formal regret for his departure. These
formalities are not observed when the diplomatic^ agent is recalled as a consequence of war, hostility or breaking of
diplomatic relations between the two states.
In case of death of a diplomatic agent the mission comes to an end. However, in such cases it is customary for the
receiving state to grant such facilities and dipiomatic immunities to the members of the families and other members of
the missions till they leave for their home state. In the event of the death of the diplomatic agent the next senior officer
takes over the charge of the mission till suitable arrangements are made by the sending state.
The receiving state can terminate a diplomatic agent by declaring him a persona non-grata. The state may or may not
specify the reasons for this declaration. Similarly, 3 receiving state can dismiss a diplomatic agent without declaring
him persona non-grata. The main difference between recall and dismissal is that in the former case the receiving state
has to wait for a reasonable time for .the sending state to recall its agent, while in the latter case no such notice is given.
In both these cases the sending State is^xpected to make immediate arrangements for the termination of the diplomatic
agent and withdrawal of the diplomatic agent from the receiving state.
400
Breaking-off of Diplomatic Relations. With the outbreak of war the diplomatic relations between two States are
automatically broken, unless these states choose otherwise. With the breaking-off of diplomatic relations, the interest of
the sending state in the receiving state are taken care of by a third neutral or friendly state. Even when the diplomatic
relations are broken off abruptly the states have an obligation to ensure diplomatic immunities io the ’ head of the
mission and other officials stationed in their respective states. On such occasions the archives left by the outgoing
mission are sealed and kept in the safe custody of the third state. It may be observed that severance of diplomatic
relations is quite different from simple termination of a mission in so far as it involves an action by both the parties. A
severance of diplomatic relations is a very serious step, states resorting to this step have to exercise considerable
restraint before severing diplomatic relations or terminating the mission of a diplomatic agent. This point was
highlighted in a Seminar held at Singapore in
1970 thus: ”The course of closing mission should be resorted to very sparingly... The very time when a country should
not break off diplomatic relations is when sharp differences of view arise or there is danger of actual conflict. That is
the time when the diplomat is most needed, since misunderstanding of the opposing viewpoint can be fatal in near war
or actual war (including civil war) conditions. There is always a certain visceral satisfaction to be gained from the
gesture of breaklng-off relations, but the satisfaction is often short-sighted and short lived.*
401
’ 27
I External Intervention : Ideological
Political and Economic : Cultural
!• Imperialism and Covert Intervention
•’
”Intervention is a dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another stale for the purpose of maintaining or
altering the active condition of things.”
-Oppenheim
Definition of Intervention
There is no unanimity amongst scholars regarding the meanmgand content of intervention. Broadly speaking two views
have been expressed in this regard. According to one view intervention takes place only when there is a dictatorial
interference by one state in the affairs or the other. This view is held by Lawrence, Oppenheim etc. According to
Lawrence ”the essence of intervention is force, or the threat of force, in case the dictates of the intervening power are
disregarded... There can be no intervention without en the one hand; the presence of force, naked or veiled, and on the
other hand, the absence of con tent on the part of the rnmrwunK.” Prof Opppnheim akn defines intervention ^< ”a
dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the purpose of maintaining or altering the active
condition of things.” Thus he also asserts that interference has to be dictatorial in order to constitute intervention and a
non-dictatorial interference does not constitute intervention.
On the other hand in view of scholars like Thomas, Max Beloff etc. intervention includes any act of interference by one
state in the affairs of another. According to Thomas and Thomas ”Intervention occurs when a state or group of states
interferes, in order to impose its will, in the internal or external affairs • of another state, sovereign and independent
with which peaceful relations exist and without its consent, for the purpose of maintaining or altering the condition ,of
things.” According to Max Beloff intervention is an attempt by one state to affect the internal structure and external
hehjviour of other states through various degrees ot coercion.
According to Caroline Thomas ”Since a fundjrnenul attribute ;jt sovcreiyn status is lh.it ,1 government is theoreticaljy
omnipotent within the territorial boundaries of its respective sldte, then any externally imposed attempt to limit v
that right and power which is not desired or welcomed by the incumbent government amounts to intervention, Any
coercive attempt to usurp the decision making capability of a theoretically sovereign state which does not originate
within that state can be regarded as nothing less than intervention.” (Caroline Thomas, New SMfes, Sovereignty and
Intervention, pp. 20-21).
R.J. Vincent, in his book ”Non-intervention and International Orders’, defines intervention ”as that activity undertaken
by a state, a group within a state, a group of states or an international organisation which interferes coercively in the
domestic affairs of another state.” It is discrete event eniailing beginning as well as an end aims at the authority
structure of the target state. Intervention is
not necessarily lawful or unlawful; but it does break a conventional pattern of
international relations.
The incidence of intervention varies with the nature of the international
system. The system that envisages states within it endowed with different power
structure might witness more frequent intervention than a system of equal states.
There is a greater possibility of encouragement to intervention in a revolutionary
international system in which revisionist movements challenge the status quo
than a system comprising conservative power structure.
(A) Intervention in Theory
For the purpose of present study the theoretical aspect of inten^ntion in international relation can be studied under four
broad heads: (i) Ideological, (ii) Political, (in) Economic & (iv) Humanitarian.
(i) Ideological Basis of Intervention
In international relations, ideology has formed the basis of intervention. Every country has, the right to practise its own
ideology. After the golshevik Revolution, Soviet Russia asserted her position as champion of the World Revolution.
Thereafter the Second Comintern Congress assumed the role as the Charter of the internatrona! revolution with jhe
laying down of the ideological • principles which were to govern communist policy. :
• After the World War II, Soviet Union intervened in Poland and Hungary and under Warsaw Pact assumed the role of
the leader of the Communist Bloc. Soviet Union intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 on ideological grounds.
The United States also-launched moves to ’contain’ communism. The period of cold war accelerated this process. The
American involvement in Vietnam was mostly on ideological grounds. The super-power rivalry was also based on
ideological differences.
(ii) Political Basis of Intervention
Most of the interventions are politically motivated. The superpower rivalry prompted each super power to intervene in
other’s sphere of influence and thus enhance its own influence. The German crisis, Korean crisic-, Vietnam, IndoChina
peninsula, Chile and Angola art? certain problems where intervention by either world Power was politically motivated.
A detailed study of political intervention has been made under the heading’lntervention in Practice’ in later pan 01 this
chapter. . -
EXTERNAL INTERVENTION : IDEOLOGICAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC 403
(in) Economic Basis of Intervention
Every state is entitled to pursue its own economic policy in its dealings with other states, for the choice of a foreign
economic policy which a government deems will benefit its national economy. The external economic policy assumes
international dimension and if such a policy is used a> a weapon by which a state seeks to impose its will upon another
so’ as to maintain or alter the conditions of things in another state, to coerce that state, to take or fail to take action, then
such ah interference can be described as intervention. The general right of a state to embark upon any economic policy
it may choose, is limited by the rule that a policy cannot be expressed for the sole purpose of causing injury to another
state unless used as a sanction for the purpose of upholding the law.
Economic intervention is distinguishable from intervention for economic reasons. Nations have frequently intervened
by force, threat of force or other means to get economic benefits, privileges and concessions for their nationals but this
differs materially from the manipulation of a state’s economic policy in an interventionary manner against another
state.
The economic intervention manifests itself in three forms:
(i) Trade Relations;
(ii) Public Financial Relations;
(iii)Private Financial Relations.
(i) Trade Relations. The economic intervention occurs in three prominent
. ways through trade relations, the manipulation of tariffs, imposition of ,an
embargo, and rmposition of a boycott. Tariffs are generally imposed as a means
to get revenue or because special local interests clamour for protection against
foreign competition or other purposes connected with national interest. Such
. tariffs are usually legitimate expression of national policy and although they have
a damaging effect upon the economics of other countries, these are not reacted
as intervention. But when a tariff is solely established with a view to damage the
economy of another nation or as a means to coercing another nation, the tariff
becomes an intervention.
Embargo can be in the form of restrictions imposed on exports or a restriction on imports. It is not the nature of
embargo that determines whether or not it is an intervention but rather the purpose for which the embargo was imposed.
An embargo becomes intervention only when it is used mainly for the purpose of forcing another state to fall in line
with a course of action or inaction warranted by the nation placing an embargo.
The clearest type of intervention through trade relation is the imposition of a boycott, by which the state through its
nationals interrupts commercial and financial relations with another state. When a government persuades or compels its
citizens to enforce a boycott, then it becomes intervention. And if the boycott is a voluntary one carried on by the
nationals, it does not constitute intervention.
in) Public Financial Relations. Economic intervention through public financial rel.Hii’p ’.an be < arried out by various
mejnv A nation m(iy refuse to grant piihlir lo,n ’<> another state; it may freeze the public assets of .mother state;
it may manipulate the control ’of exchange; or it may devalue or inflate its currency in relation to the currency of the
other state. None of it constitutes as intervention if it is engaged in for strictly national purposes such as increasing
governmental revenues or maintaining a government’s solvency But if the activity is undertaken as a measure of
economic compulsion or pressure in order to dictate policy of another nation-there is an invasion of the protected
sphere of interests of that state and it is a clear case of intervention.
(in) Private Financial Relations. Economic intervention through private financial relations occurs when a state
prohibits all private banking and leading institutions from granting credits to another n.ition or its citizens; \vhen it
prohibits the sale of stocks or bonds of that nation or its corporate citizens within its jurisdiction and when it suspends
all existing clearing or payment agreements between its citizens, and citizens or government of another country. .
Economic Intervention and the UN
There are two aspects of economic intervention under the UN Charter. The first is that of a sanction to enforce the
decisions of the organisation; and the second is that of assistance to state cooperating in resisting aggression. Article
41 of the UN Charter says:
”The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed forces are employed to give effect to
its decisions and may call upon the members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include ’ .*
complete partial interruption of economic relations aj^d of ’ . rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio or other means of
communication and severance of diplomatic relations.” Once the Security Council determines that all members should
cease their economic and financial relations with the aggressor state, these financial and economic sanctions become
successful only if these are tightly and almost universally applied. It becomes mandatory for the signatory members to
comply
- with the decisions of the Security Council.
Humanitarian Intervention. Intervention may also be made to safeguard against the violation of human rights in A
state. The intervention of the European community in the Yugoslavian crisis to protect the Muslims falls in this
category! Likewise US intervention in Iraq, allegedly to protect the Kurds, has also been r)«»<;rrthpd a<; humanitarian
intervention
(B) Intervention in Practice
Intervention as a practice has been widely adhered to in international relations since World War II. To decide whether
the practice of intervention in international relations is permissible, the issue has triggered a controversial
• debate. It is widely acclaimed that intervention is,, however, contrary to the norms of international relations as its
practice amounts to violation of state’s sovereignty, it may be justified under certain circumstances. Many authorities
on International Relations and International Law including Oppenheim. hold that a state may have the right of
intervention in some cases.
According to Oppenheim, ”A state which holds a protectorate has a right to intervene in all the external affairs of the
protected state ” ThisdutMiot amount to intervention. A state having another state as a proteruirate has the right to
regulate the external affairs ot the protectorate. In such a case, the regulation of
EXTERNAL INTERVENTION : IDEOLOGICAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
4C
external affairs cannot be called an intervention. Moreover, the institution c protectorate is the result of mutual agreement
between the two states. Undt these circumstances, any act performed by one state with the consent of a not he state deems not
be considered as an intervention.
Oppenheim further opines that a state has a right to intervene in (h< external affairs of another state if ”an external affairs of
a state is at the same timt by right an affair of another state”.
Such intervention as a matter of right does not exist and should not exist If the interests of a state are harmed by another
state which has taken actiom unilaterally, the better course for the aggrieved party is to protest and ask for adjudication
rather than resort to the use of force or threat thereof. Similar situation arose when Nicaragua and the United States
concluded the Bryan Chamorrow Treaty in 1914, which envisaged, besides cession of Great and Little Corn Islands in
the Carribean Sea, an exclusive option to the United States to built another inter-oceanic canal through the Nicaraguan
territory. The neighbouring states of Costa Rica, El Salvador and Honduras protested against this treaty on the plea that
it violated the rights of those states under an earlier treaty. The states of Costa Rica and El Salvador brought an action
against Nicaragua in the Central American Court of Justice where their stand was vindicated. Had the aggrieved party
been a big power, it would ”have resorted to intervention which was inadvisable. Similarly when India disallowed
passage of Pakistan aircraft through Indian airspace, Pakistan could not have the right to intervene. When India
registered her protest against the lifting of embargo on sale of arms to Pakistan by the United States in 1974, it was not
intervention but only an expression of concern to the United States.
In the course of present discussion, Deconcim’s Amendment needs special reference. Deconcim’s Amendment is
attached to the Panama Canal Treaty ratification by the United States Senate on March 16, 1978. The Amendment
suggested by a senator, envisaged that ”the United States of America and the Republic of Panama shall each
independently have the right to take such steps as it deems necessary, including the use of military force in Panama, to
reopen the Canal or restore the operations of the canal, as the case may be.” Deconcim’s Amendment was clarified by
Senate Vote on April 18,1978 which envisaged that any U.b. action ”to assure that the Panama canal shall remain open,
neutral, secure and accessible-snail not have as its purpose nor be interpreted as a right of intervention in the internal
affairs of the Republic of Panama or interfere with its political independence and sovereign integrity.” Oppenheim
justifies the intervention if the state does not comply with the restriction imposed upon its exercise of internal or
external sovereignty. The American action in Panama in
1904 under Treaty of Habana (1903), is justified under this clause. Article 7 of the U.S. Panamidn Treaty provided that
”the same right and authority are granted to the United Slates for the maintenance of public order in the cities of
Panama and C.ilon. ,ind the territories and harbours adjacent thereto, in case the Republic of Panama should not be able
to maintain such order.” The Franco-British and Russian intervention in Greece during 1917 with a view to re-
establishing constitutional government in terms of the Treaty of London, 1863, was also deemed justified under that
pretext.
In fact there is no scope for such intervention under the domain of international relations. The U.K., France and Israel
attacked Egypt in 1956 when the latter nationalised the Suez Canal. This intervention was justified by U.K. and France
on the plea that they had to protect their vital interests and Egypt had by nationalising the Canal violated the
Constantinople Convention which envisaged the Canal an international water way. However, the United Nations
rejected these pleas and condemned such adventures.
Oppenhefm further asserts that some states assume the right to intervene if they assured guarantee by treaty or
otherwise a particular form of government or particular dynasty to rule in a given state. Every state enjoys the right to
decide for itself the form of government within its jurisdiction. No other state is entitled to intervene in the internal
affairs of the state which has opted for a particular type of government despite the fact that the same is not palatable to
the former state. The Russian intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia falls under this category.
The people of a state have the right to select a government of their choice. Any outside intervention is objected to. This
is also the negation of right to selfdetermination.
.In a situation where some states have guaranteed sovereignty and territorial integrity of other state and that has been
violated by one of the guaranteeing states or any other state either through direct use of force or by inciting internal
forces. This type of problem cropped up when Archbishop Makarios, President*>f the Republic of Cyprus, was ousted
by the National Guards commanded by Creek officers in July 1974. According to the 1960 Tripartite Agreementthe
Governments of U.K., Turkey and Greece had guaranteed the independence, territorial integrity and security of the
island. The Zurich agreement also forbade the annexation of the island by any other country. The motive behind this
coup d’ etat was to bring into power a pro-Greek Government which would result in eventual annexation of the island
under the pretext of restoring a constitutional government and ensure safety of the Turkish minority there. Such an
action on the part of Turkey was unwarranted. Had Turkey and the United King’dom taken action jointly in accordance
with Zurich Agreement with a view to ensure independence and constitutionargoverhment and maintain territorial
integrity, the action could have been justifiable in the wake of intervention by Greeks through its officers.
Intervention by a state isalleged when another state violates any universally acknowledged rule of customs either in
time of peace or war. If such a right of intervention is accorded legitimacy, it can trigger floodgate of intervention in
the affairs of another state on one pretext or the other. The better recourse for the aggrieved state is to claim reparation
from the offending state. No further right exists beyond that stage. This point has been brought to notice well by the
International Court of justice in the Corfu Channel case. In that case, Britain had claimed it> right of intervention on
the pretext of preNerving itb right of innocent pd-sHge. The 1C) observed: ”The Court can only regard the alleged right
of
EXTERNAL INTERVENTION : IDEOLOGICAl POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC 407
intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force such as has in the past given rise to most serious abuses and as
such cannot, whatever be the present defects in international organisation, find place in international law.”
There have been certain occasions when certain states have intervened in the internal affairs of another state on the
pretext of protecting their nationals. America has intervened many times in Latin American countries on the pretext of
protecting ”the life, property and honour’ of American nationals. Britain has also exercised this right quite a number of
times. As a matter of fact no such right exists or could be assumed in the realm of international relations. It was under
these circumstances the Calvo Clause was envisaged to curb the intervening attitude of big states on the pretext of
protecting business interests of its nationals. The underlying principle of the Calvo doctrine is that a foreign national
who makes investment abroad has to seek redressal of his grievances under the municipal law of the host country. His
state would not intervene.
A diplomat is entrusted with the task of protecting interests of the nationals of his state in the host country. But
diplomatic protection is different from intervention. The Calvo doctrine is no bar to diplomatic negotiation. India had
concluded agreements with Burma and Sri Lanka with regard to treatment of Indian nationals and protection of their
interests and properties in these countries. But to assume that India could intervene into the internal affairs of these
countries to safeguard the interests of her nationals is wrong. Moreover, no state has a right to render advice to any
other sovereign state as to how it should treat its nationals who are in minority. However, any bonafide advice given by
a friendly state in good faith should not be taken for as an intervention.
Fol lowing the Energy crisis in 1973, the Western powers were contemplating intervention in 1974-75 if there was
another hike in oil prices. Henry Kissinger, the U.S. Secretary of State had threatened American intervention by taking
over Arab oil fields if there was oil embargo or further hike in oil prices. This threat was equally misconceived, Kyery
state is entitled to exploit its natural resources and fix prices for its commodities. A foreign state is not authorised to
dictate prices of a given commodity in another state except through international competition or unless there is mutual
agreement to supply commodity at a given price for a stipulated period.
There has developed recently a school of thought which talks of right of intervention to safeguard against the violation
of human rights in a state. The International Commission of jurists is of the view that there could be ”humanitarian
intervention under certain conditions. Others opine that humanitarian intervention should be resorted to when there is
imminent or existing gross violation of human rights and recourse to all non-intervention remedies having been
exhausted. This school of thought does not support the interference with the authority structure of the state concerned,
though the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds is laudable, its possibilities of being misused under one
pretext or the other are enormous. A state can intervene into the affairs of the other state on the pretext of violation of
human rights. This can lead to violation of territorial integrity than the preservation of human rights.
Some .states- proclaim the right o£ intervention in the interest of self-

408 , INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
preservation, self-defence and national security. Israel warned Syria in 1975 and
1978 not to meddle in Lebnanese internal affairs or Israel would also intervene as a counter move. For, then President
of the United States said in 1975 that the possibility of intervention in the affairs of any foreign state could not be ruled
out if interests of national security demanded so. President Brezhnev of U.S.S.R. in his Brezhnev doctrine claimed that
the Soviet Union had the right to intervene in socialist countries if any of their leaders went astray and tried to take out
a given socialist country from the ambit of Soviet influence.
All such claims and doctrines are against the spirit and good-will of international relations. These are prompted by big
power rivalry, each trying to establish or maintain its own hegemony or sphere of influence. The Charter of Economic
Rights and Duties of States adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 12, 1964 denounced practices of
establishing hegemony zones or spheres of influence. .
However, intervention becomes permissible under the Charter of the United Nations when the Security Council
initiates any action under Chapter VII of the Charter after having been satisfied that the breach, would pose a threat to
international peace. The General Assembly can take similar action under the ”Uniting for peace” Resolution of 1950
when the Security Council fails to take any action because of veto.
H becomes evident from the above discussion that intervqption is the violation of accepted norms of international
relations as it is repugnant to territorial supremacy and sovereignty of a state. Strong nations have been intervening into
internal affairs of the other states in the past. The superpowers have also been intervening in Afro-Asian and Latin
American countries in the recent past. Intervention does not exist as a matter of right.
Intervention is the violation of the Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter which prohibits use of force or threat thereof against
the territorial integrity and political independence of another state. Encouraged by the spirit of this principle of
nonintervention General Assembly has adopted the same in its Declaration in 1965. It asserts that, ”No stale has the
right to intervene directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of other state.” This
was again reiterated hy An other Declaration on the Principle of International Law concerning Frieqdly Relations and
Co-operation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.vide its Resolution 2625 (XXV)
during the Silver luhilee celebrations of the United Nations in 1970. The Declaration said:
”The principles concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the ilomrstir jurisdiction of any stateln
accordance with the Charter.
No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,, tor any reason whatever, in the internal or
external affairs of any other state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or .mempted
threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of
international law.’
No state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or other types of measures to coerce another state- in
order to obtain from it the subordination
EXTERNAL INTERVENTION : IDEOLOGICAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC 409
of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from.it advantage of any kind. Also no state shall organise assign,
foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversion, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the
regime of another state, or interference in civil strife in another state. The use of force to deprive peoples of their’
national identity constitute a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. Every state
has an inalienable right to choose its political economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form
by another state.
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as affecting the relevant provisions of the Charter relating to the
maintenance of international peace and security.”
The doctrine of non-intervention has been reaffirmed by the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States as
adopted by the General Assembly on December 12, 1974. Article 1 of the Charter asserted: -”Every state, has the
sovereign and inalienable right to choose its economic and cultural system in accordance with the will of the people
without outside interference, coercion|« or threat in any form whatsoever.” • ;,
CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
Cultural imperialism is one of the most subtle forms of imperialism which seeks to control the minds of the people with
a viewto change the power relations between two nations. It is resorted to with a view to bring the opponent under
control without resort to military force or economic pressure. The imperialist power tries to impress on the other
powerthat its culture and political philosophy is superior and thereby tries to impress on it to accept the same.
According to Morgenthau the cultural imperialism plays only a subsidiary role to other methods of imperialism. ”It
softens up the enemy, it prepares the ground for military conquest or economic penetration. Its typical
modern.manifestation is the fifth column...”
The Cultural imperialism has manifested itself in various forms. In the presecond World War period it existed in the
form of National Socialists fifth column in Europe. For example in France on the eve of Second World War the
proNational Socialist ideas had already won Germany a number of supporters, which made Germany’s task of military
conquest easy. In Uct, it would not be an exaggeration to say that France had already been conquered by means of
cultural imperialism before the military conquest finished the task. On the othei hand the British leadership became
conscious of the dangers of cultural imperialism and interned all the known National Socialists and their sympathisers
from the country. Another notable instrument of cultural imperialism has been the Communist International which
received directions from Moscow and exercised control over the Communist parties of various countries to ensure that
the governments of their countries followed policies which accorded with the policy of Soviet Union. This naturally
provided Soviet Union great amount of control over the activities in other countries. In countries where the Communist
Parties succeeded in forming governments, the Soviet Union virtually controlled these.governments. ’ .
410
The competition between Soviet Union and China to bring the uncommitted nations under their control is yet
another manifestation of cultural imperialism. Both these countries tried to bring the uncommitted nations
under their control by claiming to be the true heir of Marx and Lenin and branding the other as a supporter of
anti-communist forces. Under the Communist system since the government is endowed with totalitarian powers,
it is able toexefcise considerable influence on the thoughts and actions of its citizens as well as foreign
sympathisers, in the past religion has also been used as an instrument of cultural imperialism. It is well known
that in the nineteenth century Russia emerged as a preponderant power in the Balkans by posing as the leader
of the Orthodox Church.
Secular ideas can also be used as instruments of cultural imperialism as was done by France.in the post-
revolutionary period. It made a deliberate use of the outstanding features of the French civilisation to promote
its interests in foreign countries. According to Morgenthau: The wave of public sympathy throughout the world
which came to the aid of France in both world wars, was the fruit of cultural imperialism, which in turn
strengthened the French military imperialism of the later, victorious year of both World Wars.*
Morgenthau asserts that ’Cultural imperialism in the form of diffusion of a national culture is incomparably less
mechanical and disciplinary, but not necessarily less effective, than the totalitarian kind. While the later makes
use primarily of the affinities of political philosophy, the former impresses the intellectually influential groups of
a foreign country with attractive qualities of a civilisation until these groups tend to find the political objectives
and methods of that civilization equally attractive.”1
In recent years the importance of cultural imperialism has greatlylncreased because it is no more possible for
the imperialist powers to resort to military imperialism due to the risks of nuclear war. Instead these powers
preferred to use economic and cultural methods of imperialism. The emergence of a large number of
independent states as a result of the disintegration of the colonial empires^ also encouraged the imperialist
powers to make use of economic and cultural imperialism to increase their influence. The competition amongst
Soviet Union, China, and United States to bring more and more uncommitted countries under their influence is
a manifestation of the growing importance of cultural imperialism. In fact the conditions after the Second World
War have been quite congenial for the cultural imperialism. The weakness of the new nations offered the
imperialist powers an opportunity to make use of cultural imperialism and ”the unacceptable risk of nuclear
War has transformed that opportunity into a rational.”
COVERT INTERVENTION
Though under the U.N. Charter the states are not permitted to intervene in the internal affairs of other states,
the state do make covert or hidden intervention in the affairs of other state. This type of intervention is practised
both by the big as well as the small powers, but usually the big states which are highly
1. Hans | Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations pp. 63-64.
’EXTERNAL INTERVENTION : IDEOLOGICAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC 411
organised and have big stakes make use of it. The common techniques to intervene in the affairs of other states are a<
follows:
1. Firstly, the states make use of military and economic assistance programmes to influence the internal political,
economic and social developments in the recipient country. Quite often they compel the recipient country to implement
important political reforms by threatening to withold the assistance and thereby would its internal developments. In this
method the foreign and personnels of the donor country promote revolutionary or counter-revolutionary activities.
2. Secondly, the powers try to provide funds, training as well as weapons to the opponents of the-government so that
they may capture power and accord more favourable treatment to the supporting state. It may be observed that the
possibilities of such intervention are greater in a society characterised by ethnic, religious, economic or ideological
conflicts.
3. Thirdly, the states can intervene through people who do not accept the legitimacy of the order prevailing In their
country and hold loyalty towards foreign states. In other words, the presence of trans-national ideologies in a country
also encourages foreign intervention in the domestic affairs of the state.
4. Fourthly, due to risks involved in nuclear war and fear of condemnation in the United Nations, the states try to
intervene with a view to establish client regimes and satellite states. In other words the covert intervention enables the
state to achieve the desired objectives at the minimum cost and risk.
5. Fifthly, the states try to promote activities against the social and pol it ica4 order if they are convinced that it is to
their advantage. They create extradiplomatic agencies who are primarily concerned with dispensing of propaganda,
organising of agitations, training of foreign revolutionaries as well as directions of subversion. Some of the important
organisations of this type have been Cominform, Central Intelligence Agency, K.C.B., etc.
The other methods of intervention are propaganda, espionage, discriminatory trade policies jor support or denial of
support to governments or their opposition in domestic crises where such foreign support might prove to be decisive.
According to some scholars even military or political support given to a regime trying tu maintain itself against a
possible or dctua! rebellion constitutes intervention. Sometimes intervention is also made by actors other than states.
For example the International Monetary Fund (IMF) often intervenes in the developing countries and often imposes
policies on states whose government do not approve them. Thus it forced Jamaica to implement policies which were
against the socialist orientations of democratically elected government. This, element of compulsion exerted by the
IMF can ve^y well be described as intervention. This indicates that the more powerful states can intervene in the
developed countries not only directly but also indirectly through international institutions which (hey control.
Thus, it can he said that although the old rules regarding non-interference in the internal spheres are still formally
acknowledged by the powers and find place in the international charters and treaties, the powers ’do make covert
intervention in various forms to promote their national interests.
112
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
413
V.
28
Nuclear Energy and International Relations
”The current nuclear regime has had the effect of moderating politics among nations of mass destruction apart
from the often immoderate and bloody relations among states outside
it.”
v - ’ -Michael Mandetbaun
USES AND MISUSES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
Ever since the first atom bomb was exploded by the United States in August
945 a controversy has existed in the minds of people regarding the |rospects f nuclear energy. Though the first bomb
was exploded during the war and aused unprecedented destruction, its use was justified by the American ’resident on
the ground that it was exploded to save the lives of the American oldiers by forcing a rapid conclusion of war with
Japan. We are not concerned (ere with the motives and the considerations which guided the American eadership to
make use of atom bomb, but it certainly demonstrated to the world he great potential of the atom and greater attention
began to be paid to the xjssibility of using the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and check the growth of nuclear
weapons. (A detailed discussion regarding measures proposed or peaceful uses of nuclear energy is contained in one of
the subsequent hdpters.)
At the outset it may be pointed out that nuclear energy is a mixed blessing. Vhi!e on the one hand it has greatly
endangered the life of the people by encouraging the powers to invent more and more sophisticated weapons by
diverting the resources needed for social and economic development for destructive purposes. On the other hand it has
also contributed to the general amelioration of the living standards of the people by its application to treatment of
diseases and supplementing the power need for industries, electricity etc. We ,vill now discuss the uses and misuses of
nuclear energy in some details.
Uses of Nuclear Energy
It is now universally admitted that nuclear energy, cf properly bridled, can bring immense benefits to humanity. It can
be used for raising the standard of !ife everywhere sr»” -ally in improving the lot of the people of Asia and Africa.
j It can help the desert areas of the world to blossom and backward areas to develop into thriving industrial
centres. The main uses of the nuclear energy can be in the following directions:
Firstly, nuclear energy provides a great hope to the world to supplement
the fast exhausting sources of energy. At present the world is largely dependent
for the supply of energy on coal, oil, wood, etc. which are available only in
limited quantities and shall not last for more than two hundred years. Nuclear
energy has opened up the avenues for the supply of cheap electricity in
abundance. A large number of countries including U.S.A., Russia, Britain, India,

j etc., are already procuring energy from the atomic power stations. The cost of
production of electricity from atomic power stations is much lower than the
j electricity produced through traditional methods, viz., coal and water. The
| - potentialities of the nuclear energy to meet the demands of the people for power
| can be gauged from the fact that one pound of uranium can yield as much energy
as 1500 tonnes of coal, or a piece of uranium equivalent to the size of a sugar
cube can provide heat and light to inhabitants of a small town for many weeks
I or supply energy to drive the train round the world! In other words the atomic
| fuel has an edge over other fuelln so far as a much smaller quantities of nuclear
j fuel can produce a large amount of power. This naturally reduces the transportation
j costs considerably. It is often argued that the power obtained from nuclear
| energy is costlier than power obtained from other sources. Even- if this argument
| is conceded the importance of nuclear energy cannot be undermined in so far
! as it opens up the possibilities of abundant supply of power. As the standard of
j living in any country depends upon the per head consumption of power, the
j nuclear energy alone holds the prospects of raising the standards of large number
} of people to more higher standards.
Secondly, nuclear energy can greatly help in the treatment of diseases. It is well known that radio isotopes have yielded
significant results. Cobalt 60 and Caesium 137 which are obtained from the ’atomic furnaces’ as ash are greatly helpful
in fighting cancer. Tumours that cannot be removed by ordinary surgical methods easily have been operated by remote
control or destroyed by gamma radiation. Similarly the diseases of thyroid gland can be diagnosed through selective
absorption of radioactive iodine by thyroid gland. For the treatment of special kinds of cancer also the nuclear energy
can be helpful. In fact, nuclear energy has proved helpful in treatment of so many diseases that it« not possible to
recount them here. It shall suffice to remember that nuclear energy has contributed to the curing of diseases and greatly
contributed to the advancement of the medical science.
ThiMly. nuclear energy has also greatly’contributed to progress in the industrial sphere by improving control in the
production through application of atomic radiation and radioactive materials. Nuclear energy can also be used for
automobile propulsion and prove useful fof driving trains, motor vehicles and even aeroplanes. It has been reported that
Soviet Union is already flying a nuclear powered aircraft. Similarly atomic energy can be helpful in ship-propulsion
and
414
atomic powered ships have already been manufactured. It can also help in running railway engines.
Above all, nuclear energy can meet the fast growing demands of the industries all over the world for
power.
Fourthly, in the field of agriculture also the nuclear energy is proving immensely beneficial. Perishable foodstuffs are
exposed to radiation and they remain fresh even beyond their normal shelf-life. This can greatly help in overcoming the
problems of constant supply of fresh food and improving the nutrition of the people. Radiation can help in increasing
the production of crops by protecting it against adverse climatic conditions and controlling pests. The problem of
inadequate storage, transport, etc. can also be overcome through the application of radiation. In short, nuclear energy
has proved immensely useful projecting the limited agricultural resources and greatly contributed to their fuller
utilisation as well as further expansion.
In addition to the above uses of nuclear energy, it is helpful in promoting the welfare of the people in so many other
ways. Thus, it can be used for blasting purpose, for changing the course of the rivers, creation of artificial lakes, etc. In
fact the whole character pf the earth can be changed by large scale use of nuclear energy. As the climate of the country
is to a considerable extent governed by the physical features of. the countryside, this could also be influenced by the
explosions.
The nuclear energy has also proved quite helpful in exploration oloil and natural gas; for more effective explosions
which are not possible with the conventional materials; for extracting the metal from the low yielding fields; increasing
water retention capacity of the dry lands; etc. Misuses of Nuclear Energy
While it cannot be denied that nuclear energy has proved immensely beneficial in numerous fields, it has also posed a
serious threat to the very existence of humanity. When not applied to welfare nuclear energy can produce most
powerful terror weapons of mass destruction. The various nuclear powers are already engaged in improving upon the
existing weapons and devices to secure an edge over the adversary. This mad race for production of larger and more
destructive weapons can greatly contribute to the miseries of the people by spreading death and destruction,
transforming the thriving industrial centres into deserts and obliterating all forms of life on this planet.
The gravity of the situation can be gauged from the fact that a{ present nuclear weapons technology has developed to
such an advanced stage that the destructive potentiality of the Modern weapons has increased by more than 1000 times
as compared to the destruction caused by the bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is still worse that a frantic
competition is going on between the two Superpowers, each trying to further improve the nuclear weapons and
technology to ensure that its adversary does not overtake it. Thus, their rivalry has got set into an ever expanding spiral
and threatens to engulf the entire world into the nuclear terror. . . .
This mad race between the Superpowers for improvement of the nuclear power and technology has resulted in
diversion of huge amounts for this purpose
415
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND .NTE HITERNATIONAL RELATJONS ^
^^S^JSK^JS^ P-!- <”** «* ^ve aonointed bv the Secretary CA ”these ”*«”«*. A committee of
experts
^t^^^^ ”-””fr”
disarmament could releVse i,*”* **”.ft observed: ”Progress towards bothindevelooedanddevelonJ
material, financial and human resources
toZSSdw^^
SSSS^Kî^±f0n °f *« C’imat? * fear’ h°Sli*’nd remove some of,the barriers rtfe* disarmament would bring about,
would
and the free circulation of rawj ”** ^”f6””* Rational exchanges in general
and would greatly facilitate ^^^.J^”^ technol°®in Particular’ towards development. As ,7*!’fr<* <*”« by each country-
of its particular path countries would save a lot on/7””r * *«am*m the industrially developed P-d CKUothede^c^^^
way in improving the living s$ -.,„ . . < ,u • . . ” *>
1, .8 standards of the people in these countries.”
dBlnSSS^îS^ ’hat Whi’e The ””Ph^-nt of nuclear energy for
t^^^c^c^^^ T^T**^ *ing real^d

L. i_ •» • • ’’tribute significant y to the we -beine of humanifv
Stn^^^
fast deteTiorating energy wpîv^W8, °, T S^Y ’m VieW °f the
five years (1975-80). IHs tES^SftT. T*1* ’M ”* ^ ’” completely prohibited and the^±J, i,? tnat ?udear Capons
should be
withthesoleobjectiveofits^”ntdlVert^fWardSreSearchinnuclearenergy ’ use tor peaceful purposes.
Impact of ^^ weapons on MfmatlonatRe[atiom
The period since 1945^ „,!,„„ ,u *•„» i
PopularlykTOwnas’nucleara^/T?”ê^.^tomJ)?n5 was exploded, is soirees of physical power by^Th’^^ witnessed the

d.scovery of the new
bytr* production of asetoftervSn^ ±”1 ^TR a”d is characteri^ the adversaries. ”T-’fying weapons of mass destruction
for use against
According to Michael NL ,„ j ,. ,, .
features. Firstly, there exists C^ST’ H*efnUC^r *** *” «”? distinct central governing or supranati £^. ?%*£?* ”^f’«
,and ^ JS R° these states or toenforce the rut, hOnty tO 8iJlde and re8ulate the affairs of
reserve the right to use force ^°^f°^ *»•*«**** being sovereign even though fhey may formally ’*”” * ’ntereStS-The
P”n<;’Pal nuc|ear states nuclear wLpons. In other ^^^’”^ra.nts^re also free to use their nuclear forceTs considered le^
’” ’** nuctear *& ** use of weaP°”s a”^
Secondly, there exists a s^^rf f .,., . ,
powers-U.S.A and y.s.s.R. ^/^’’’^^^^P^cipal nuclear powers may differ in kind and’ J ^ the”uc|earârsenals of these
two inuclear arsenals of each even^3’1â re of fwhat.equal potential. The (destroying the society of the o ?ftw.
absorbmg a ful scale attack are capable of Ideterrent and prevented the tw-êr Th’S ”P3^ of ann.hilation has acted as a
lother. superpowers from coming into clash with each
416
Thirdly, though Soviet Union and U.S.A. are the most significant nuclear powers, they are not the exclusive owners of
the nuclear weapons. Certain other nations like France, Britain and China also possess nuclear weapons even though
their stockpiles may be relatively small. In addition certain nations like India have also set off nuclear explosion and
joined the ranks of the nuclear powers. In other words a sort of hierarchy among the nucle< / powers of the world
exists. Even though U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. enjoy undisputedly a prominent position in this hierarchy.
However, certain scholars like Y. Harkabi have objected to the use of term ’nuclear era’ or ’nuclear age’ for this period
on the ground that nuclear technology has made its debut only in a portion of the world and from the military
standpoint nuclear weapons are possessed only by some major powers.1
Impact of the Nuclear Age on International Relations: It is generally held that the nuclear age has not resulted in any
radical changes in the International relations except that it has resulted in the enlargement of the quantity of the power.
No doubt, the international relations in the present age are by and large being conducted along the old lines, but it
would certainly be wrong to assert that they have not felt the impact of the nuclear, age. Nuclear age has positively
influenced the concepts and actual operation of international relations in a number of ways. . m
1. Impact on the Traditional Basis of State Power: In the first instance, the nuclear capabilities have diffused and
diluted the importance of the traditional basis of state power. The traditional factor like population, territory, industrial
capacity etc. are no morexonsidered as the chief components of national power. In contrast to the pre-nuclear era when
these traditional factors greatly contributed towards the power of a state, at present the nuclear energy has come to be
considered as a chief factor of national power and the traditional factors have •been rendered less important. At present
a small nation armed with nuclear weapons is in a position to dominate and inflict enormous damage on a large itate.
2. Impacf on Concept Q{ National State and State Sovereignty’: In the second place it is asserted that the concepts of
national state and state sovereignty have hepn greatly affected by thf> nurlear age. According to Prof. Her/ the nuclear
weapons together with other factors have made the nation-state and its sovereignty obsolete and under the pressure of
developments it is destined to disappear from the world scene.2 It is argued that the principal justification for the
existence of a national state is its ability to afford security to its citizens. In the nuclear age the security of the citizens
depends more’on the adversaries of the state. The present day state has lost the capacity to protect its citizens and
consequently there is no justification for its existence. The alliances concluded by the states, for the protection of their
interest further erode state’s sovereignty. But it is not possible to agree with the above contention. In fact during the
nuclear age the concept of nation-state has gained prominence due to the emergence of
1. See Y Harkabi. Nut kw War Jnd Nut/t-d,-Pojfi’. p. 217. f
1. Sec John H. Her*, /nfcrrwi/onj/ Po/if*rs in the Atomic Age.
417
a large number of new states. Nationalism is still the driving force and the nuclear weapons have in no way helped to
its decline.
. , 3. Breakdown of Traditional Theory of Balance of Power : In the prenuclear age, there were a number of
independent centres of power and it was always possible to prevent one power from upsetting the balance of power by
making necessary adjustments and shifting weight from one side to the other. In the nuclear age, with the emergence of
two superpowers and the other states enjoying much inferior position, it is no more possible to operate the theory of
balance of power in the traditional fashion. The absence of a strong power, which can play the role of a traditional
balancer, further renders the theory inoperative. In view of this change it was generally expected that this would lead to
insecurity and pose a serious threat to world peace. But the actual experience has shown that both the Superpowers
realised, in course of time, that neither of them could expect to destory the ether without being destroyed itself.
Therefore, they tried to desist from, disturbing the equilibrium and a sort of bipolar stability was accomplished.
4. It has given setback to Alliance System: The nuclear weapons have also given a serious setback to the system of
alliances, which was prominent feature of international relations in the pre-nuclear age. In the pre-nuclear age the states
frequently concluded alliances: to protect their interests and offered protection to smaller states. These alliances have
become irrelevant in the present context because the states are generally reluctant to come to the assistance of a
threatened state due to grave risk of nuclear war. Even if the states which are members of various alliances are keen to
persist with the alliances; they have to create unified and centralised commands to take quick action in the event of
threat from the opponents. This naturally erodes the sovereignty of the states and causes stress on the political systems
of the countries which are partners in the alliance. This in turn raises doubts in their mind about the efficacy of these
alliances and there is every likelihood that the members of alliance may like to pull out of alliances. Actually, France
pulled out of NATO not only because it stood in the way of-pursual of independent national policy but also because it
eroded her sovereignty. This is further borne by the fact that a number of alliances^ like CENTO, SEATO have gone
out of existence while the other, alliances have grown weak. Hence it can be sately said that nuclear weapons have
given a serious setback to the alliance system.
5. Preservation of Status Quo : The nuclear age has encouraged the tendency of status quo. In the past the revision of
the borders of state through use of force was a common feature and was frequently resorted to settle the border
disputes. In the present age the states are more inclined to accept the existing frontiers and let the disputes or boundary
problems lie in dormant because of the lack of ability to act more energetically and get the changes affected. This is
fully borne out by the developments since 1945. At the end of World War II fantastic territorial anomalies were left and
it was expected that these would be sorted out within few weeks or momhs. However, these problems persisted for
quite some time. Germany remained divided upto 1990, while Korea is still divided. It has rightly been observed:
”Since the great confrontation began every attempt to
418
upset the essential status quo between the two camps by an abrupt use of force or the threat of force has failed. The
attempts from each side to overcome the division of Korea by force failed. The repeated attempts to get the West out of
Berlin failed. The attempt to mount Russian power in Cuba failed. The attempt to seize the Suez canal failed.”
According to Abba Eban, author of The New Diplomacy,” change in whatever guise, has been viewed as destabilising
and a threat to the intricate web of balances that the superpowers have constructed. This complex network of mutual
restraint serves not only to moderate superpower conflict but also to preserve their own predominant position in the
world systsm.” He further asserts that whenever the superpowers have employed violence in the-present times it has
been mainly to preserve, defend or .consolidate the status quo, not to transform it drastically.
6. Less Importance of Force in Settlement of Disputes: Force and violence have been a feature of all the societies and
all the efforts of the philosophers and leaders to eliminate it proved futile. They only succeeded in laying down certain
rules to make the war more humane. Some of the prominent steps, taken in this regard include the Hague Conventions
of 1899 and 1907, the Covenant of League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the United Nations Charter
etc. Witrrthe dawn of the nuclear age and discovery of more destructive weapons the efforts for negating the war have
been stepped up. It is being said that either mankind should end war or else the war shall put an end to the mankind:
Even if a war breaks out between two small nations, the big powers try to limit or localise the same so that they are
themselves not drawn into the vortex of hostilities. In view of the fact that hostilities breaking out in some remote
corner of the globe can engulf the entire world, they make effort to ensure that the same is not able to pose a.threat to
the international security.
No doubt, as a result of the pressure exerted by the great powers, the chances of war among small states have been
greatly reduced, but the success of such endeavours cannot be fully guaranteed. The world has, as yet, not stabilised
and there is a continuing danger of serious international crises cropping up. Further in the absence of international
guarantee for world peace the states have to rely on their own resources or conclude military alliances with like-minded
powers for the protection of their interests.
7. Has Forced Powers to act with Restraint: The Nuclear age has encouraged the major nuclear powers to conduct
themselves with restraint because they know it very well that the powers of the opposite camp would not permit them
to act as they like. In the past the major powers could easily intim idate minor powers and coerce them to give
necessary concessions through ’gun boat diplomacy’. At present even big powers cannot act with highhandedness
towards the small powers because they are fully aware that their adversaries would be ready to support them. As a
result, some of the small powers have acted brazenly luw.mK (he big powers without inviting any retaliatory action.
For «-\.implf. USA had to tolerate a hostile Cuba chiefly l)fcause she was being
I S.mik-r^ B.L. Jnd Ourbin. Alam . Cunlcni^xjrjry Intfmjtiitiij: Ptilitii s. p. 238.

-’vit
it
m
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 419.
backed by the Soviet Union. Hence, it would not be an exaggeration to say that in the nuclear age the smal I states have
become supreme arbiters of their destiny and are often able to behave wilfully.
The Superpowers, quite mindful of the serious consequences of nuclear
conflict, have acted with’ sobriety and caution and tried to ensure that the
differences among the states do not develop into political conflict. No doubt, at
times the differences between the two Superpowers have tended to assume a
serious dimension, as in case of Berlin and Cuba, but ultimately they resolved
i these differences, without resorting to war. If appears that the two superpowers
have reached a tacit understanding regarding their respective spheres of
!•• influence and abstain from interfering in the developments of these areas. Thus,
U.S.A. left Soviet Union virtually free to deal with the Hungarian Uprising of
! 1956 and Czecholovakia in 1968. Similarly, the US troops intervened in
I Dominican Republic in 1965 without much murmer from the Soviet Union.
8. Deterrent Effect of Nuclear Weapons: The advent of nuclear weapons i has also served as deterrent to war because
the chief objective of the military \ establishments is not victory but prevention of war. Rea lising that the nuclear
war i is bound to lead to such massive and complete destruction that they will not dare ; to initiate an attack. In
this respect Prof. Morgenthau has observed: ”l.think a i revolution has occurred, perhaps the first true revolution in
foreign policy since the beginning of history, through the introduction of nuclear weapons into the arsenal of warfare.
In the past a statesman could ask himself whether he could ; achieve what he sought for his nation by peaceful
diplomatic means or whether he had to resort to war...The statesman in the prenuclear age was in the position of a
gambler who is willing to risk a certain fraction of his material and human resources. If he wins, his risk is justified by
victory: if he loses, he has not lost ’ everything. His losses, in other words, are bearable. This notional relationship
between violence as a means of foreign policy and the ends of foreign policy has been destroyed by the possibility of
all-out nuclear war.” In any crises confronting ’•:, the nuclear powers, they can think of war only at .the cost of their
self-peril. Highlighting this point Abba Eban has observed: ”Change brought about by
• nuclear weapons has been the transformation of national defence from a concrete military objective into an
essentially psychological concept. A soldier’s traditional function has been the application of force on the battlefield.
The ultimate test of weaponry lay in its use. Today, the key word is deterrence. The only ’rational’ application of
nuclear force is the threat of nuclear devastation to prevent a potential aggressor from striking first. Deterrence is a
psychological concept. It aims to affect an opponent’s perception and intentions.”’ According to Herman Kahn: ”A
thermonuclear balance of terror is equivalent to the signing of a non-aggression treaty which states that neither the
Soviets nor the Americans will initiate all-out attack, no matter how provoking the other side may become.”’ .
9. Strengthened Desire for World Peace: Again, it has been asserted thjt the dawn of nuclear age has helped in the
promotion of world peace. Although there have been a number of nuclear explosions since 1945 but there has been no
nuclear war. The only time when the nuclear weapons were actually used in
420
war was in the war that began in the pre-nuclear age, viz., Second World War. In contrast to the first half of the
nineteenth century when the world witnessed two serious wars there has not been any war of serious non-nuclear nature
in several parts of world like Europe, U.S.A. and japan. This is probably due to the fact that the statesmen have come to
realise that if a nuclear war broke out it would lead to. complete destruction and have thought it desirable to avoid the
use of nuclear weapons. No doubt there have been serious political disputes since 1945, but the nuclear powers have
desisted from making a use of the nuclear weapons knowing fully well the serious consequences of such a use. For
example, U.S.A. despite her deep involvement in the Vietnamese war neither used nor seriously contemplated using
nuclear weapons. The two superpowers have sought to avoid nuclear war by avoiding provocative actions and making
necessary compromises in their policies on issues like Middle-East, the Africa, South-Asia etc. According to Michael
Mandelbaun: ”the current nuclear regime has had the effect of moderating politics among nations of mass destruction
apart from the often immoderate and bloody relations among states outside it.”1
It has been contended by certain scholars that it would be wrong to attribute the relative political stability of the post
World War to the emergence of the nuclear age. They argue that it would have been there even if the atom had not been
split, They assert that once Europe was divided between the United States and the Soviet Union, each heavily armed
they had no other option, except to co-exist peacefully. Most of the European states were tired of consistent fighting
and the pile of non-nuclear weapons at the disposal of these two powers held out the prospect of a still more destructive
war. They were determined to avoid another war. It is very difficult to agree or disagree with the above contention
because it is a fact that nuclear weapons have existed for all these years and have greatly added to the destructive power
of the war. This would have further acted as a deterrent to war.
Prof. Harkabi designates this type of world peace as ’peace in the shadow of terror.” It is a negative peace, peace
imposed by technology. It is the peace of preparedness for a war, a hostile peace, an armed peace, a peace over which
violence hovers like a heavy cloud. According to him this type of peace has three characteristics: . * •
T. It is rooted in the mutual interests of the nation. This is a peace as the ’ command of survival.
2. It prevents war without solving the conflict or without eradicating the sources of tension.
3. It is a peace of mutual tolerance based on an approach of’live and let live’. It is not brethren dwelling in harmony but
enemies living together despite themselves and for lack of an alternative.”4
1. Abba Eban. The New Diplomacy, p.299.
2. Herman Kahn, On Thermo Nuclear War. p.28
3. Michael Mandelbaun, ”International Stability and Nuclear Order : The First Nuclear Regime, ” in David 0. Gompert etc. lEdsl
Nuclear Weapons and World Politics, p. 19.
4. Y. Harkabi. Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace, p. 251.
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 421
, This sort of peace has given rise to tension, protracted arms race and mutual intimidation. As under this type of peace
there is always fear of adversary’s designs and growth of power, it is not conducive to the solution or settlement of the
disputes.
It has been argued by certain scholars that this ’peace in the shadow of terror’ can pave the way for genuine peace, Trie
very realisation that there is no gain in resorting to violent conflict, not only leads to temporary truce but also
strengthens the roots of peace. Once the powers have established peace due to extraneous considerations, they may end
up with peace for its own sake. As is often said. ”Technology leads to non-war and non-war leads to peace.”
10. Encouraged Closer Contacts between Adversaries : Though the importance of contact between the statesmen and
leaders for the conduct of international relation was realised even before the dawn of the nuclear age, its significance
has increased all the more in the present age. Such contact is not only important amongst allies butalso amongst
antagonist powers. The significance of this was realised in the wake of the Cuban crisis of October 1962 when there
was every possibility of a shooting nuclear war between Soviet Union and U.S.A. over the installations of Soviet
missiles in Cuba. However, luckily the crisis was averted. Thereafter, the leaders of the two superpowers. President
Kennedy and Prime Minister Khrushchev, felt that as the diplomatic channels took several hours to transmit messages,
while the missiles carrying thermo-nuclear war heads could span the distance in a few minutes, there was an urgent
need to establish rapid communication links. It was realised that in other crisis of the same type both the nations would
be destroyed unless the words travelled faster than the missiles. This resulted in the setting up of the hot line for rapid
communication between the leaders of the two superpowers. This channel was actually made use of by the leaders of
the two countries during the Arab-Israeli War of June 1%7.
11. Encouraged Serious Efforts at Disarmament and World Peace: In the wake of nuclear age the problems of
disarmament and world peace have received more serious consideration. No doubt, in the pre-nuclear age too efforts to
restrict and regulate armaments were made but much progress could not be made in this direction. In-the present
context the powers are fully aware of the serious implications of the further expansion of nuclear weaponry and have,
therefore, been making sincere and consistent efforts not only to Check their further growth but also to ensure that the
existing one are either destroyed or hot used. It is well known that it is only in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis in
1962 that the superpowers began to take concrete action to lessen the likelihood of nuclear catastrophe. They tried to
avoid confrontation and started negotiations for arms control. A hot-line was established between New York and
Moscow for direct communication during the crisis. In 1963 these powers agreed on a limited ban on testing of nuclear
weapons. In 1967 they voted for prohibition against nuclear weapons in outer space. In 1968 they agreed on non-
proliferation treaty to work together to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This process continued in later years as
well and resulted in ABM treaty and Salt I Agreement of 1972 and Salt II Treaty of 1976 (the latter treaty, however,
was not ratified by
(•ps’J1**- ” îtK;
*j3f
the USA).Thus, in the nuclear age the national interests of the states have receded behind common
interests of survival.
The serious implications of the nuclear war have also encouraged the intellectuals and leaders to find
out means for reducing world tension and establishing world peace. Various national and
international organisations have • devoted themselves to research in the methods for the promotion
of world peace. Even though certain scholars have expressed doubts about the unity of such studies
in bringing about world peace, it cannot be denied that they have proved useful in creating an
atmosphere of world peace.
12. It has undermined Importance of War as an Instrument for Settlement of Disputes: In the nuclear age*
war as a political instrument has lost its relevance. This is clear from the fact that since 1945 on several
occasions the threat of a nuclear war has seemed imminent but it has been avoided due to the dangerous
consequences involved in such an action. Some of the cases in which threat of use of nuclear weapons was
held out but actually the nuclear weapons were not used include Korean War (1950-53), The Quemoy
Crises. (1958), Berlin Crisis (1960), Cuban Missile Crisis (1962),” Middle East Crisis (1973), etc.
13. Diplomatic Utility of Nuclear Weapons: The nuclear weapons have increased the diplomatic
manoeuvrability in international politics. As Schelling has observed the nuclear weapons are instrumental
in influencing tbe behaviour of others. He says that the power to hurt is a bargaining tool and to exploit it is
diplomacy. To quote him ”war appears to be not so much a contest of strength as one of endurance, nerve,
obstinacy and pain, not so much a contest of military strength as a bargaining process. It is well known that
USA has made use of its nuclear force for political and diplomatic purposes on several occasions, viz., for
maintenance of 38th Parallel in Korea, or to check Soviet expansion in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and
Afghanistan, after Soviet Union had made
intervention in these areas.
14. Enhanced Importance of United Nations: The emergence of nuclear weapons has also enhanced the
importance of the United Rations. It is true that the United Nations was never designed to act’as a
sovereign state and the sovereign states often tend to bypass its authority, but the potential dangers of
nuclear war have made states look to the United Nations as an effective check on thermonuclear conflicts.
The past experience shows that United Nations despite its weakness, has played an important role in
dealing with crises which could have engulfed the world in nuclear war, viz., the Cuban crisis. All this has
contributed to the importance of the United Nations and states have started looking upon it as a potent
factor for preservation of world peace and has considerably influenced the policies of member states.
On the basis of the above discussion it can be asserted that the nuclear age ha$V«ft a deep impact on the
shaping, and functioning’of the international relations, even though the traditional basis have not been
abandoned.
423
THE PARTIAL TEST BAN TREATY (PTBT) NUCLEAR
NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY (NPT) AND
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (PNE)
Partial Test Ban Treaty
Ever since the use of atomic bomb in 1945, the nations of the world have been making efforts to control the
nuclear arms’ race. The years from 1945-63 proved fruitless as all the efforts made in this direction were
frustrated. The first success in this regard was achieved in August 1963 when U.K., U.S.A. and USSR
signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) also known as the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the
Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water. The treaty was. made open to all other states. In the
preamble to the treaty, the signatory states proclaimed their aim as ”the speediest achievement of an
agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control in accordance with the
objectives of the United Nations which would put an end to the armament race and eliminate the incentive
to the production and testing of all kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons.” These states
alsoexpressedtheirdetermination to achievediscontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all
time and to put an end to the contamination of man’s environment by radioactive substances.
Terms of the Treaty. The main provisions of the treaty.were as follows: The parties to the treaty
undertook to prohibit, to prevent and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosions or any other
nuclear explosions at any place under its jurisdiction or control, viz., in the atmosphere, beyond its limits,
including outer space or under water, including territorial waters or high seas ; or in any other’environment
if such explosion caused radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under
whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted. Each of the party also undertook to refrain from
causing, encouraging or in any way participating in, the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test
explosion.or any other nuclear explosion anywhere. Thus, the treaty did not ban the underground
explosions unless they caused radioactive debris to be present outside the territory of the state where the
explosion was conducted. However, the treaty made it explicit that this provision was in no way prejudical
to the conclusion of a treaty resulting in the permanent banning of all nuclear test explosion. The treaty was
to be open to all the States for signature ’ and was subject to ratification by signatory States. The treaty was
to come into force after its ratification by all the original parties and the deposit of their instruments of
ratification.
The treaty was to be of unlimited duration and also contained a withdrawal clause whereby States could
withdraw from the treaty if it felt that the extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty,
jeopardized the supreme interests of the country. It was to give a three months notice of withdrawal to all
other Parties to the Treaty.
The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) actually came into force on 10 October
1963.
424
The treaty was received with great enthusiasm by the states and a large number of them immediately signed the treaty
in the hope mat this would pave the way for further agreement on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and may
ultimately lead to disarmament. In the subsequent years also more states signed the treaty and by 1 January 1987, the
number of signatory slates had risen to 116. Nehru described the PTBTasan important landmark in the history of
international co-operation and understanding and expressed the hope that it would lead to wider agreements in other
collateral tension-reducing measures and to speedy conclusion of a treaty on general and complete disarmament.
Obviously Nehru failed to realise that the treaty was designed to ensure permanent dominant position of the existing
nuclear powers. The treaty was also defective in so far as did not make any provision for control through posts, spot
inspection or international bodies. It made no bid to reduce the nuclear stockpiles and merely prohibited those tests
which could be detected. Both France and China, the other nuclear powers, refused to sign the treaty because it did not
insist on the destruction of existing nuclear stockpiles of USA and USSR. China described the treaty as an attempt on
the part of the Governments o’f U.K., USA, and USSR to consolidate their nuclear monopoly and bind the hands of all
peace-loving countries to the nuclear threat. It condemned the treaty because it legalised the continued manufacture,
stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by the three nuclear powers. China also condemned the treaty because it did not
cover the underground nuclear test and left the way open for the proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as expansion
of nuclear armaments.
France opposed the treaty because it did not in any way contribute to the process of nuclear disarmament. On the other
hand, it kept the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapon powers intact and also permitted them to refine their weapoot.
President de Gualle of France categorically declared that until the nuclear powers foreswear nuclear war and destroy
their nuclear weapons, France would not sign the Treaty.
China not only refused to sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty but also exploded the first bomb in 1964. Even USA and
USSR continued to conduct tests. It has been estimated that between August 1963 and December 1986 while USSR
conducted 412 tests, the United States of America conducted 484 tests. All these tests were conducted underground.
Likewise the other nuclear powers have also persisted with nuclear explosions. Thus, UK made 17 nuclear explosions
(underground) during this period. France made 91 underground and 41 atmospheric explosions; while China made 7
underground and 22 atmospheric nuclear explosions. India made only one atmospheric nuclear explosion. Out of the
above explosions 23 nuclear test explosions were conducted during the year
1986 itself-the lowest number of nuclear tests since 1960. While USSR and China did not conduct any test during the
year USA, France and UK conducted
14, 8 and 1 tests respectively. Thus, there has been considerable increase in the number of nuclear explosions since the
signing of the PTBT. Compared to 547 nuclear explosions between 16 |uly 1945 and 5 August 1963, the number of
explosions between 6 August 1963 and 31 December 1986 increased to 1075.’
1. SPIRI, year Book 1987, p.55.
It is evident from above that the main intention of the two superpowers has been to control the spread of nuclear
weapons as well as nuclear technology rather than to effect nuclear disarmament. This is further borne by the fact that
despite repeated resolutions of the UN General Assembly calling for a comprehensive test ban, the nuclear states have
continued underground tests. The non-nuclear countries have argued that unless the nuclear powers stop their vertical
proliferations, it willnot be possible to preventthe horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In 1985 and 1986 the UN General Assembly recommended the parties of PTBT to convert PTBT through an
amendment into a comprehessive treaty, but judging by the attitude of the powers on stoppage of nuclear weapon tests,
the move is not likely to succeed.
I NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY .
K The term’non-proliferation weapons’came into general use around 1965. I Initially it was used to cover the concept
of dissemination (spread of nuclear i weapons by the nuclear powers) and acquisition (manufacture or otherwise I
obtaining of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear powers). However, in course of f time it also came to include further
development, accumulation and development of nuclear weapons by the nuclear powers.
As noted above, the Partial Test Bah Treaty of 1963 was designed by the superpowers to retain their monopoly in
nliclear technology and to ensure their dominant position and they were certainly not interested in comprehensive test
ban treaty and nuclear disarmament. However, countries like Ireland, india and Sweden continued to press for non-
dissemination and non-acquisition of nuclear weapons. In the midst of these demands China exploded an atom bomb in
October 1964, which obliged’lndia to change its position and it began to lay more emphasis on the question of security.
It began insisting that the question of nuclear disarmament by nuclear powers should also include an undertaking by
non-nuciear powers not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons. As a part of this integrated approach, India
suggested at the U .N. Disarmament Commission in June, 1965 that:
1. The nuclear powers should give an undertaking not to transfer nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to
others;
2. They should undertake not to use nuclear weapons against countries which do not possess them;
3. They should give undertaking through the United Nations to safeguard the security of the countries which may be
threatened by Powers having a nuclear weapons capability or about to have a nuclear weapons capability.
4. The non-nuclear Powers should undertake not to acquire <x manufacture weapon.
5. Tangible progress towards disarmament, including a comprehensive test ban treaty, a complete freeze on prcxiuction
of nuclear weapons and means of delivery, as well as substantial reduction in tht» existing stocks.
426
India stressed that it was unrealistic to ask the countries to foreswear forever a programme of nuclear weapons
production when the existing nuclear
- powers continued to hold on to their awesome arsenals.
In June 1965, the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations adopted a resolution and called upon the Eighteen
Nations Disarmament Conference (ENDC) to meet and accord special priority to the consideration of the question of a
treaty or convention to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Accordingly on 17th August 1965, USA submitted
a draft treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. A month later, on 24th September 1965 the Soviet Union
submitted a draft for non-proliferation treaty to the General Assembly. Both these proposals did not find approval with
each other. Ultimately due to efforts, of Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and U.S. Secretary of State Dean
Rusk, a compromise formula was arrived at and the two countries agreed to co-sponsor a Soviet draft resolution which
appealed to all states to refrain from any action which might hampertheconclusion of the agreement and to take all
necessary steps for the earliest possible conclusion of the nonproliferation treaty. Both these states conceded the
importance of non-proliferation treaty for the security of all states-non-nuclear as well as nuclear. They also insisted
that the non-proliferation treaty should not be linked to additional disarmament measures. . ’
On 24th August 1967 the Soviet Union and United States submitted to the ENDC identical but separate drafts of
non proliferation treaty. However, these proposals were not acceptable to the non-nuclear powers and they
suggested a number of amendments and comments. These states not only objected to the scope and nature of the
proposals but also demanded certain amendments and additions to ensure their security; to secure equal and
universal opportunities for peaceful uses of atomic energy; to link halt of vertical proliferation of nuclear
weapons with reduction and elimination of the present stockpiles and means of delivery and insertion of equal
obligations of nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapons states.
In the light of the amendment and criticism the Soviet Union and USA submitted revised drafts of treaty to the
ENDC. In these drafts they made provision for safeguards, revised the provisions regarding peaceful uses of
nuclear energy; asserted the obligation of the nuclear-weapon states to make potential benefits from peaceful
nuclear explosions available to non-nuclear weapon states; agreed to the negotiation of further measures of
disarmament; and provided for nuclear free-zones. Though the revised draft was an improvement on the
previous text and was welcomed by a number of members of ENDC, some other members did not feel satisfied.
They made fresh suggestions for the improvement of draft. Ultimately on 11th March 1968 the United States
and . >oviet Union introduced a joint draft treaty which incorporated some of the suggestions. Approval of Noo-
Prdiferation Treaty
The joint draft treaty proposed by the United States and Soviet Union on
11 th March 1968 was submitted to the General Assembly for its consideration. After detailed debate on the merits and
shortcomings of the proposed treaty, the
NUCLEAR ENERGY AND INTERNATIONAk RELATIONS 427
treaty was ultimately adopted by the General Assembly on 12th June 1968 by
95 to 4 votes, with 21 abstentions. In the final voting some of the members of : the ENDC (such as Ethiopia,
Nigeria and Sweden) though quite critical of certain provisions of the treaty, voted for it in the hope that this
would pave the way for further measures in the direction of improving the operation of the treaty and achieving
further measures of disarmament.
The treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was simultaneously signed at London, Moscow and Washington
on 1st July 1968 and actually came into force on 5th March 1970. In all 136 states had signed this treaty by 1 January
1987. In all the treaty contained eleven articles and an elaborate preamble. The main provisions of the Treaty are as
follows:
1. The nuclear-weapon states party to the treaty undertook not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nucle’ar
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices, directly or indirectly.
They’also undertook not to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
2. The non-nuclear weapon states, members of the treaty, undertook not to receive the transfer from any transferor
whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weaponsor explosive devices
directly or indirectly. They also undertook not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear
devices and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices. t 3. The non-nuclear weapon states undertook to accept safeguards, to be
;,’ negotiated and concluded with the international Atomic Energy
•’ Agency, for the exclusive purpose of verification of fulfilment of its
obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to prevent diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear
weapons or othec nuclear explosive devices. The states undertooknot to provide source material or equipment to any
non-nuclear weapon state for peaceful ptirpoNeb, unless the said special fissionable material was subjected to
safeguards. However, the safeguards were to be implemented in such a manner as to avoid hampering the economic or
technological development of the Parties or international co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities,
including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for use or production of nuclear material for
peaceful purposes.
4. The treaty was not to affect the inalienable right of the parties to the treaty to develop, research, production and use
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without distrimination. The states signing the treaty undertook to facilitate and
to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for
the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
>28 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
5. The signatories to the treaty undertook to ensure that potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear
explosions will be made available to non-nuclear weapon states who were parties to the treaty without discrimination.
6. The parties to the treaty undertook to pursue negotiation in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of
the nuclear arms race at an early date and to work for a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control.
7. The treaty was not to affect the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total
absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.
8. The parties to the treaty were given the right to propose amendments to the treaty. All such proposed amendments
were to be submitted to the Depositary Governments which were to circulate the same to all parties. If one third or
more of the Parties to the treaty so desired, the Depositary Governments were to convene a conference, to which at) the
parties to the treaty were to be invited for the consideration of these amendments. It was further provided that five years
after the treaty came into force, a conference of the Parties to the Treaty shall be held in Geneva (Switzerland) to
review the operation of this treaty, with a view to assure that the purpose of the treaty as outlined in the Preamble and
Provisions was being realised.
9. The treaty was to be open to all the States for signature. The states were . also given the option to accede to it
after the treaty came into force.
The treaty was to be subject to ratification by signatory States. It was to come into force only after its ratification by the
Despositary Governments and forty other States.
10. The states signing the treaty were given the right to withdraw if they felt that certain extraordinary events had taken
place which jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. However, the state wishing to withdraw was to give a
notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council, at least three
months in advance. While giving such a notice a statement of the extraordinary events which jeopardized its supreme
interests, was to be appended. It was further provided that twenty-five years after the treaty came into force, a
conference of the Parties would be convened to decide whether the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely or
should be extended -for an additional fixed pertod or periods. The decision in this regard would be taken by a majority
of the Parties to the Treaty.
Reactions to Treaty
The Non-Podiferation Treaty (NPT) produced a mixed reaction. While some considered it as a great landmark which
could prove to be turning point n human history, the others looked in the treaty an attempt on the part of the
United States and Soviet Union to establish their nuclear hegemony over the entire world. For example. President
Johnson of U.S.A. described the treaty as ’the most important international agreement in the field of disarmament since
the Nuclear Age began.” He described it as the first step towards the ending of the peril of nuclear war. Similarly
Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko said that the treaty constituted ’one of the most important steps ever undertaken to
restrain the nuclear arms race in the name of the lasting interests of peace.
On the other hand the Chinese Government strongly denounced the NPT.
It described the treaty as ”a big plot and a big fraud of the U.S. imperialists and
Soviet revisionists.” They alleged that through this treaty the United States and
the Soviet Union wished to deprive the non-nuclear nations under U.S. Soviet
nuclear threat, of their right to develop nuclear weapon. It bound the non-nuclear
threat, of their right to develop nuclear weapons. It bound the non-nuclear states
hand and foot and deprived them of their right to develop nuclear nations
’ weapons for self-defence and even restricted their freedom to use the atomic
energy for peaceful purposes.
Similarly India also highlighted numerous loopholes in the treaty. It found the treaty discriminatory in so far it avoided
equal and mutual obligations of nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. The treaty while denying nuclear
weapons to the non-nuclear weapon states, did not prohibit the nuclear weapon states to proliferate their nuclear
weapons. The other shortcomings of the treaty which were highlighted by India included absence of equal rights to all
the countries to tame the atom to solve their socio-economic problems and failure to guarantee security to all the states.
The Indian attitude towards the treaty was best summed up by K. Subrahmanyam thus: ”The Indian objection was
mainly against the unequal nature of the treaty and the misuse of international public opinion to observe a policy of
vertical proliferation by a few powers and obfuscation of the dangers of nuclear first use. In India’s view this was not a
nonproliferation treaty but a measured design to disarm the unarmed.” The nuclear powers were interested in freezing
the status quo in regard to the current international powers distribution than in nuclear disarmament. No wonder, on
account of its opposition to the Non-Porliferation Treaty, India refused to accede ”to it on the ground that the NPT in its
present form was designed mainly as a political instrument ot the two superpowers todevide nations into the nuclear
haves and the nuclear havenots. It asserted that a non-proliferation agreement which ignores the present proliferation
and preoccupies itself with the future proliferation is naturally unrealistic and ineffective, it confers all the benefits on
the nuclear weapon powers and the burdens on the non-nuclear nations. India not only refused to join the NPT but also
conducted a nuclear explosion. It declined to sdbrnit its nuclear activities to comprehensive international safeguards
and consiitenilv rejected the proposals for the setting up of a nuclear weapon free zone in South Asia.
It may be noted that India is not the only country which has refused !o ratify the NPT. A number of other countries
also.refused to do so. These include Pakistan, Israel, Egypt ’which signed the treaty but announced that it would ratify
the same only if Israel did), South Africa, Spain, Argentina, Brazil etc. Even the
430
then two nuclear powers China and France refused to sign the treaty. The main ground on which most of these states
refused to sign the treaty was that it was discriminatory in nature and sought to perpetuate a discriminatory nuclear
world order for the benefit of the nuclear states. Further they demanded that the advantages of the peaceful uses of
nuclear technology should not be denied to, the developing nations. India went to the extent of proposing at the UN that
since the existing Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was discriminatory and places the developing countries at a
disadvantage a new Treaty should replace the same. The new treaty should propose genuine’non-proliferation and
completely arrest the production or acquisition of the nuclear weapons by all states. While declining to support the
review of NPT, the Indian delegate said ”The time has come for an examination of the implications of the continuation
of a treaty with an un-equal character.”
A fresh look at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) was taken at the Fourth Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
Conference held in Geneva in August-September,
1990. The Conference was attended by the three original sponsors of the Treaty , (USA, USSR and UK) and the two
non-signatory nuclear powers (China and France). However, it failed to achieve much. A significant development in
this respect took place in August 1.991 when China, which had been one of the foremost critics of NPT, announced its
intention to sign the NPT without conditions. China took this decision in view of the changed situation in the post Gulf
war period and willingness shown by France and South Africa to fall in line with USA, UK and USSR on the issue of
NPT. On 29 December 1991 the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) approved
country’s decision to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). China ultimately signed NPT in 1992 after
staying out of it for 22 years.
In view of decision of France, South Africa and China to sign the treaty, the pressure on India also grew. The US
exerted pressure on India to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferatiori Treaty by offering generous economic aid and political
benefits. USA proposed a five-nation summit to discuss non-proliferation in South Asia. India, however, told the US
administration that it will neither sign the NPT nor participate in the proposed five-nation conference intended to
declare South Asia a nuclear weapons-free zone. India opposed NPT on the ground that it was discriminatory and
refused to participate in the live-nation meeting on the ground that it would become ’an exercise in acrimony’, in so far
as it does not take into account the presence on India’s border of China, a nuclear weapons power.
A slight change in India’s stand on NPT was evident when on 9 March 1993 it was reported that India is willing to
consider any new non-proliferation proposal that takes care of the security concerns of all”the countries and is
nondiscriminatory
NPT EXTENDED INDEFINITELY
In May 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference was held at New York which
decided to extend the treaty indefinitely. It may be noted that USA and her Western allies’were in favour of unlimited
extension of the treaty, while the non-nuclear weapon states opposed
its indefinite extension. The decision of the Conference to extend it indefinitely was a diplomatic victory for United
States. The permanent extension of the NPT means that only five countries-the United States, The United Kingdom,
Russia, China and France-can now legally possess nuclear weapons capability. In short, the NPT in its present form has
put the ’nuclear haves’ in a privileged position by permitting them to keep nuclear weapons, while the other states shall
not be permitted to acquire them. To placate the non-weapon states, a list of Disarmament goals was attached to the
extension decision.One of the objectives outlined in the goals is completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty
by next year. India opposed the permanent extension of the treaty on two pleas. First, it does not adequately reflect
India’s plea for equitable, global nuclear disarmament and divides the world into nuclear haves and haveners.
Secondly, the signing of the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state is not warranted due to consideration of security of
India because the country is flanked by a declared nuclear power (China) and a furtive country (Pakistan).
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (PNES)
The idea of using nuclear explosion for constructive purposes originated almost at the same time when the first test for
nuclear weapons was made. In
1949, following an atom bomb explosion by Soviet Union, the Soviet Foreign Minister (Andrei Vishinsky) indicated
the intention of his country to use the nuclear explosions for moving mountains and excavating canals and roads.
However his idea was not taken seriously by the world. The idea of peact ful uses of nuclear explosions received a
further impetus in 1953 when President Eisenhower of USA in ”the course of his address to the United Nations
proposed ’Atoms for Peace’plan. Between the years 1955 and 1971 four Conferences were held at Geneva in 1955,
1958, 1964 and 1971 on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. In these conferences the main theme of discussion was
potential of nuclear power and its possible uses for peaceful purposes. In the meanwhile the two nuclear powers
continued to experiment for the exploitation of nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes. The Soviet representative
(Andrei Vishinsky) claimed in the United Nations on 10th November 1949 that Soviet Union’was using atomic energy
for razing mountains, irrigating deserts, cutting through jungles and the Tundras.
The idea of peaceful nuclear explosions received a new direction following the launching of Plowshare Programme (a
programme for civil uses of nuclear explosives) by United States of 1957 and the conduct of first underground nuclear
test in September 1957. However, the Plowshare Programme was not well received by the people.
At the international level the idea of peaceful nuclear explosions was for the first time brought up at the Second
Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in 1958. At the Conference the American scientists outlined a number
of potential peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The idea was further developed at the next two Conferences held in
1964 and 1971. At the Third Conference on Peaceful Uses ot Atomic Energy in 19M the two American scientists G.W.
lohnson and G.H. Higgins presented a paper ”Engineering Applications of Nuclear Explosive Project Plowshare” in
which they asserted that depending
432
upon the nature, location and magnitude of the specific undertakings, the use of nuclear explosives can result in major
savings in cost and may, in some cases, result in the recovery’of petroleum products-or mineral resources which would
not otherwise be economically recoverable. They emphasised the need of continuous efforts for the development of
technology, the demonstration of its capabilities and the recognition of its applicability to the solution of major
problems of human welfare.
In the meanwhile efforts were made to control the nuclear weapons bul peaceful underground nuclear explosions
continued. The Partial Test Ban Treaty
1963 made no mention of peaceful nuclear explosions but sanctioned underground nuclear tests provided that the
explosions did not cause the dissemination of radioactive debris outside the territory of the state where the explosion
was conducted. • .
The first treaty which specifically permitted the explosion of the nuclear devices for peaceful purposes was Tlateloco
Treaty of 1967 between Mexico and El Salvador. The next year the Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapon States held in
August-Septermber, 1968 adopted a resolution asserting that important benefits might be derived from the peaceful
uses of nuclear explosives. It stressed the need to obtain a comprehensive test ban treaty and to create a separate
international regime for the conduct of all peaceful nuclear explosions. Above all the Conference suggested that the
possibilities of establishing an internationally financed Special Nuclear Fund should be examined so that finances at
low rates could be provided to non-nuclear states for such njclear projects. These recommendations of the Conference
were accepted by the General Assembly which requested the concerned international bodies I.A.E.A., I.B.R.D. and
U.N.D.P. to take action for the implementation of these recommendations.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 also accepted the inalienable right of all the parties to the Treaty to develop,
research production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. The Parties to the treaty
also undertook to facilitate and have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and
scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Above all the Parties to the Treaty
which were in a position to do so, agreed to cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or
international organisations to the further development or” the application of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
especially in the territories of non-nuclear weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of
the developing area of the world.
In Article V of the NPT the nuclear states gave -an assurance to the nonnuclear states that potential benefits from
peaceful nuclear explosions will be made a vail able to them on a non-discriminatory basis at as low a cost as possible
Thus, the treaty assured the non-nuclear states the benefits of the peaceful explosions, as soon as they became practical.
In 196*3 the Genera! Assembly requested the Secretary-Genera! to prepare a report on the establishment of an
internat.onal service tor conducting nuclear explosions for peacet’ul purposes (within the framework o(the IAEA).
Accordingly a group of experts prepared a report for the Secretary-General. Expressing views
on peaceful nuclear explosions, the report said; ”while this new branch of technology holds much promise for the
future, especially for very large scale civil engineering works as weJI as for developing underground mineral resources
or providing storage space for them, it is still at an early stage of development. Many uncertainties must be resolved
before it can be put to industrial use on a wide scale. The Group considers that, in the international field, the first need
is to obtain and systematically disseminate more information about the potential of this new technology as well as its
technical limitations and costs. The Group recommended that the development of this technology should be kept under
constant review by the IAEA in co-operation with those United Nations agencies which may be interested in their
economic application and theireffects upon the environment. In hi< second report the Secretary.-General presented the
views of different members of the UN on the issue of establishing an international service for the conduct of peaceful
nuclear explosions and informed that the IAEA was willing to assume the functions of such an international service.
The year 1969 witnessed the beginning of bilateral technical discussions between United States and Soviet Union with
regard to peaceful nuclear explosions. The IAEA also convened a series of internal panels to compile and evaluate
information on the existing status of technology of peaceful nuclear explosions. In 1969 the IAEA announced that it
possessed technical competence and statutory authority to fill the role outlined for the international body provided in
Article V of NPT.
In America also a number of studies were conducted about the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. These studies suggested
over 20 different applications of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which broadly fall into two categories, viz.,
underground engineering experiments and surface excavation experiments. The functions falling in the first category
included fracturing of oil and gas-bearing rocks with a view to stimulate oil and gas recovery; blasting out of cavities to
store gas or oil nuclear wastes from spent fuel; the leaching of copper and other minerals from ore-bearing rocks; the
crushing and fracturing of ore, the removal of overburden and uncovering of mineral rock for strip mining; and putting
out . run-away oil and gas-well fires by sealing them off with an underground explosion. The functions relating to
excavation experiments Include the excavation of canals, harbours, mountains, passes and highways, the diversion ot
rivers and the building of dams and water reservoirs. However, in actual practice the United States was not able to
accomplish these goals through underground explosions. As a result the Americans began to doubt the practical utility
of these peaceful explosions and came to hold that the ordinary high explosives were more fruitful. ^- ’
On the other hand in Soviet Union more interest was evinced in peaceful nuclear explosions. Russia sficceeded in
building a dam, to create a lake and in putting out a fire through underground explosions. However, in Soviet Union it
is now being felt that probably these jobs could have been done better through high explosives. A beautiful sum up of
the achievements of the peaceful use of nuclear explosions was provided by the noted Soviet Scientist, Vassily
Emely^nov in his book Nuclear Proliferation Problems (1974). He arrives at the conclusion
that ”Despite successful experiments by the USA and USSR on the use of nuclear explosions for gas recovery
stimulation, underground gas reservoir constructions and excavation works, the main problem hindering wide use of
peaceful nuclear explosions is the danger of radioactive contamination of the environment with fission products and
this has not yet been resolved.
Therefore it seems that the peaceful use of nuclear explosions, today can be considered advisable only in exceptional
cases, when an urgent problem crops up which cannot be solved by alternative means. Nuclear explosions may be used
mainly for experimental production purposes under close scientific
observation.
Only when nuclear explosives are developed to be truly clean and avoid triggering fission devices which produce
radioactive fission products can be put to wide use. As it has already been said this problem is not yet solved and it is
not even known when the solution can be found.
Another point which deserves attention is that the nuclear powers have not taken any initiative for the creation of the
international regime for the conduct of the peaceful nuclear explosions as envisaged in Article V of the NPT. It has
been argued that it is still premature to set up such an international regime because the practical value of the peaceful
nuclear explosions has as yet not been • established. But it can be argued that if such an international regime were
created there would be very little incentive for the non*-nuclear states to attempt to develop their own peaceful nuclear
explosions. Any how, the Soviet Union and USA have hardly done any thing to establish such an international regime
for peaceful nuclear explosions. Instead in July 1974 they permitted each other under the Threshold Test Ban Treaty to
continue unrestricted underground test until March 31, 1976. Thereafter also they are permitted to conduct tests of
150,000 tons each. Further, under the Threshold Test Ban Treaty there is no restriction on peaceful nuclear explosions
of any size. In view of these provisions the two superpowers had no moral right to condemn India for the peaceful
nuclear explosion of May 1974.
In 1975 when a Review Conference was held to review the Non Proliferation Treaty, it reaffirmed the provisions of the
NPT. However, with regard to the provisions relating to peaceful uses of nuclear explosions the Conference suggested
that the benefits of peaceful nuclear explosions should also be made available to the non-parties to the NPT. In this
regard, it asserted, the IAEA could play a central role. In 1976 USA and USSR signed the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion
Treaty (PNET) but the same was not ratified.
In 1980 the General Assembly decided to convene the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy., Substantial difference immediately emerged between the >
developed and the developing states as to the purpose of the Conference. These differences were to a large extent
overcome by the Preparatory Committee during 1984 and the Assembly decided to hold the Conference in 1984 and the
Assembly decided to hold the Conference in 1986. However, this conference was actually held in Geneva in 1987.
435
India and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion
India has consistently favoured the idea of use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, because it was a vast source of
power and could help in the development of the developing countries, jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of the
India said in the Lok Sabha in 1954. The use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes is far more important for a country
like India, that is to say, in a country whose power resources are limited, than for a country like France, an industrially
advanced country It is important for a power-starved or powerhungry country like India or most of other countries in
Asia and Africa.” He asserted the determination of the Government of India to make use of the nucleenergy only for
peaceful purposes while inaugurating India’s first Nuck Reactor Apsara at Trombay in January 1957.
Hesaid:”whateverthecircumstances, we shall never use the atomic energy for evil purposes.”
While consistently asserting that India was not interested in the bomb, Nehru insisted that the country should be self-
reliant in the matter of developing nuclear energy in the country because dependence on others was bound to effect the
capacity of the country to take independent decision in this regard.
At the various international forums also India advocated prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and exploitation of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Indiafayoured grant of necessary powers to the International Atomic
Development Authority ((ADA) to ensure peaceful uses of the nuclear energy. However, India firmly opposed the idea
of giving that authority any power which restricted the national sovereignty of a nation. Again, while addressing the
Eighth General Conference of International Atomic Energy on 17 September 1964, Dr. Bhabha said that there was
reason why the benefits of using atomic explosions in civil engineering works should be denied to mankind so long as
such explosions were subject to international supervision. One of the main reasons why India did not accede to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was that it impeded the peaceful research in so far it did not permit the non-nuclear
countries to have peaceful explosions. Accordingly India continued to persist with policy of peaceful nuclear
explosions. After a great deal of spade work, India ultimately exploded an underground nuclear test device on 18 May
1974 at Pokhran, primarily with a view to find ways of using underground explosions for constructive purposes.
The explosion was in keeping with the declared policy of India and represented the resolve of the country to develop its
indigenous resources of energy for the benefits of people through its own efforts. The clean character of the explosion
was even more significant because it provided a breakthrough in using peaceful nuclear explosions for various purposes
without fear of radioactive contamination. However, India’s peaceful nuclear explosion was received with a mixed
reaction. While the developing nations by and large expressed joy over this achievement of India, the countries which
had made advanc^-jri nuclear science did not seem quite pleased with it. In certain quarters it was alleged that the
conduct of the nuclear explosion by India contravened her commitment as a signatory to the Partial Test Ban Treaty,
which prohibited nuclear tests. It may be noted that the Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibited the nuclear tests only in
436
atmosphere including outer space or under water, including territorial waters or
hSasandcertain^
in fa? toth U S A. and Soviet Union also continued to conduct underground
ôSloTa^
p^SSed o conclude tte Threshold Test Ban Treaty under which they argeed
nonocarryoutanyundergroundnudearwea^
150 kilotonnes at any place under,their jurisd.ct.on or control w.e.f. 31 March
1976 Judged in this context also .ndia’s underground n,clear test explos.on was
justified because it had a yield of only 15 kilotonnes.
In conclusion we can say that India’s peaceful nuclear explosion was «n -onforrnS with the nuclear policy of India
which has shaped itself over the year and in no way contravened her international obligations.
437
29
Problems and Prospects of
Indian Ocean being made
a Zone of Peace
This Indian Ocean, which was once considered as a ’neglected ocean’ has of late become the hub of political and
military activities and become an arena of acute tension due to the presence of conventional and nuclear naval vessels
of the major powers in the area. This poses a serious threat to the world peace and naturally the powers of the world in
general and India in particular have expressed concern over these developments, and demanded the making of Indian
ocean as a Zone of Peace. Before we examine this problem, it shall be desirable to have an idea about the Indian Ocean
and its importance.
Geographical Setting
The Indian Ocean which has an area of 28,35,000 sq. miles is the smallest of the three major oceans of the world (the
other two being Pacific and Atlantic). It is surrounded by the continents of Africa, Asia and Australia. The Persian Gulf
and the Red Sea are the gulfs of the Indian Ocean. On the eastern side the Indian Ocean is separated by the Australian
continent. In the north, the Indian Ocean is surrounded by the Asian landmass, the Indian sub-continent. Its
northernmost portion is divided between what is known as the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. Although the Indian
Ocean stretches for more than 20,000 kilometres between southern tips of Africa and Australia, it comprises only about
20 per cent of the total ocean area. •
The Ocean is bound by India, Pakistan and Iran to north; the Arabian Peninsula and Africa to the west, Australia, the
Sundra island of Indonesia and Malaya Peninsula to the east and Antarctica to the south. In fact the problem of defining
the oceanic limits of the Indian Ocean is riddJed with complications and still remains unsettled. Its clearest border lies
with the Atlantic Ocean-running from Cape Aguehas at the southern tip of Africa, to the south along the 20” meridian
upto the shores of Antarctica. It borders with Pacific Ocean to the East and South East. In the South-East its border runs
from South East Cape in the Island of Tasmania up to Antarctica.
The Indian Ocean has 36 states around its littoral belt with a population of over ten billion. In addition there are eleven
hinterland countries (e.g., Nepal, Afghanistan etc.) which though landlocked are keenly interested in the Indian Ocean,
specially in the coastal states through which they have access to the
Ocean. As these states are vitally interested in the development in the Indian Ocean, these may also be regarded as-
states of the Indian Ocean. Majority of these states gained their independence after World War II and are non-aligned.
Thus, the Indian Ocean can very well be described as the Ocean of the nonaligned and developing countries. As the
countries surrounding the Indian Ocean have great diversity of race, politics, strength and opportunities, it has not
been accepted as a ’unit’.
Importance of Indian Ocean, The Indian Ocean has great economic, political and strategic importance, it contains
several important minerals, raw materials and natural resources. It contains 80.7 per cent of world extraction of gold;
56.6 per cent of tin; 28.5 per cent manganese; 25.2 per cent nickel; 18.5 per cent bauxite; 12.5 per cent zinc and 77.3
per cent of natural rubber. It also contains large oilbearing regions and plenty of marine food. The industrial nations of
the world, including the big powers, are interested in exploiting raw materials and oil of this region/They also find it
profitable to fish in the Indian Ocean. The region also contains sea lanes which connect the Atlantic and the Pacific
Ocean and constitutes the only marine link between Far Eastern regions of Soviet Union and its European part
throughout the year.
The Indian Ocean is also an important area of navigation and marine trade. Almosfone-fourth of the entire cargo in the
world marine trade and two-third of the oil are loaded and unloaded in the parts of Indian Ocean, As such any power
which controls the Indian Ocean would have great say in the regulation
of the trade.
Strategically also the Indian Ocean occupies an important position in the, global nuclear warfare. The superpower are
therefore, placing great reliance on fleet missile submarines (FBMSs) carrying submarines launched ballistic missiles
(SLBMs) for their second strike capability. The United States has special interest in this area because it is located to the
South of Soviet Union’s soft bailey and can be used for deployment of submarines by USA.
Sardar K.M. Panikkar highlighted the importance of Indian Ocean for the industrial development and security of India
in 1945 thus:
”While to other countries, the Indian ocean is only one of the important oceanic areas, to India it is the vital sea. Her
life lines are concentrated in that area. Her future is dependent on the freedom of that vast water surface. No industrial
development; no commercial growth, no stable political structure is possible for her unless the Indian Ocean is free and
her own shores (are) fully protected. The Indian Ocean musjt, therefore, remain truly Indian”.1
Control over Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean was a source of commercial and cultural communication since the
earliest times. From about fourth century
• B.C. to 5th century A.D. the Indian shipping predominated this region. For the next six or seven centuries, A
Sumartan (Indonesia) based empire dominated the Eastern waters. With the emergence of Islam the Arabs and the
Persians appeared on the scene and dominated the Ocean. With the.decline of Abbasid Caliphate the Chinese increased
their influence from Somalia to Arabian P-eninsula and
1. K.M. Panikkar, India and the Indian Ocean, p.84.
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS Of INDIAN OCEAN -439
from about T 200 to 1433 A.O. the Ocean virtually became a Chinese lake. The Chinese lost control over the
region on account of internal conflicts.
Towards the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century the control over the Indian Ocean passed
into the hands of Europeans. The lead in this regard was taken by the Portuguese who established their control at
various points of entry viz., Alfonso d’Albuqurque captured Malacca., Socotra, Ormnz and Goa. Subsequently ihe
Portuguese conquered Ceylon. Mombasa and Timor. This assured them hegemony in the region throughout the
sixteenth century. After the emergence of Britain as a leading navaj power in theearly eighteenth century she acquired a
number of bases and established her control over several strategic islands on the littoral. Earlier m 1622 the British had
already established their supremacy in the Persian Gulf by defeating tfie Portuguese. Gradually the British began to
exparjd their control and by tKe end of nineteenth century they brought the whole of the region under the*: control.
Britain continued to enjoy this predominant position till the Second World War, , when her economy was greatly
crippled and her national strength greatly sapped. Britain was obliged to wage withdrawal from the Indian sub-
continent, South East Asia, continued till early 1970’s. As a result of this withdrawal by Britain a sort of power vacuum
was created in the Indian Ocean region and a
• number of powers like China, japan, Russia, USA showed keen interest in this region.
U.S. Interests. USA developed interest in this region following the handing over of the security of Iran to it by Britain
in 1947. USA sought to check the influence of communism in this region and smarted looking for bases and facilities in
this region. In 1963 USA signed an agreement with Australia and secured from Australia a station in North West Cape
to direct submerged submarines in the Indian Ocean. This station was commissioned in 1967 and was linked with the
US installation in the Indian and Pacific Ocean. In the meanwhile in November
1963 USA formed a separate’Indian Ocean Command and sent its fleet in the Indian Ocean on 5 April 1964 to check
China and secure the area for the use of its Polaris A-3 submarines. In December 1966 USA obtained from Britain-
BIOT for 50 years. It also secured a share in military and naval base facilities in numerous other islands like Can Island
(the Maldives), Masirah Island (Oman), Maha (Seychelles). USA also set up a numberof communication centres in
other areas. The American interest in the Indian Ocean grew after the British announced their policy to withdraw from
the East of Suez and they tried to strengthen their hold over this region to stall Russian domination. For this purpose
they not only established bases there but also assisted local powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia with arms and supplies.
The Indian Ocean policy of USA was in the main dictated by economic and strategic considerations. In fact, the United
States has for aJI practical purposes taken over the responsibility of protecting the strategic interests of America,
Britain and Japan in the Indian Ocean. According to Admiral E. Zumwalt, a former Chief of US Naval Staff, the
American interests in the region were directly connected with the interests of the USA in Europe and Asia. The
American strategists consider the Indian Ocean as
”the area with potential to produce major shifts in the global power balance over
j
the next decade (during the 1970’s). They assert that America must have the ability to influence events in that area to
deploy their military power as an essential element of such influence.” In nut shell the policy of USA in the Indian
Ocean seemed to be to expand and reconstruct the existing bases and.create new bases over the” whole of the Ocean
area.
The US influence in the region considerably declined after the upheavals in Iran in 1978-79, which resulted in the
overthrow of Iranian monarchy. As a result of successful Soviet coup d’etat against Daud in Afghanistan, the position
of USA was further weakened. It therefore decided to expand the Diego Garcia base, create a separate fifth fleet and
perfect the RDF’ strategy. This change was reflected in the Carter Doctrine of January 1980. President Carter not only
refused to hold talks on demilitarisation of Indian Ocean but also decided to upgrade Diego Garcia as a lift-off base for
emergency intervention in West Asia. The U.S. intervention in the area grew deeper with growing hostility of Fran’s
leaders and it decided to beef up naval and military presence to counter Iranian threats in the Persian Gulf. In fact US
built one of the largest peace-time US combat forces in the region. The growing military involvement of US in the
region was viewed by military analysts with great concern and they expressed fear that this could lead to serious
consequences in the Persian Gulf.
5ov/ef Interests. The Soviet Union on the other hand did not take any interest in the Indian Ocean till 1955 when they
for the first time resorted to giving of military economic and technical aid to the Afro-Asian countries to counter the
Western strategy in the Indian Ocean. It came closer to Afghanistan, Burma, India, Egypt, Indonesia and Syria. In 1958
it helped a coup d’etat in Iraq. It also established intimate relations with Syria, Yemen and Somalia. But by and large
the naval strategy of Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean was shorebased. After the development of Polaris A-3 missiles
by USA in the Indian Ocean, the Soviet Union also decided to deploy its navy forward and it decided to operate ocean
fleets which could be maintained without depending upon base facilities abroad. In 1968 Admiral Gorchkov,
Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy declared. ”The flag of the Soviet Navy now proudly flies over the oceans of
the world. Sooner or later, the United States will have to understand that it no longer ”has the mastery of the seas.”
Thereafter Soviet Union started wooing South Yemen and Somalia tor shorebased taci lilies and succeeded in securing
the same by 1972. The United States tried to counter the Soviet presence by expanding Diego Garcia base and staging a
successful counter-coup against Soviet Union in Somaliland, which obliged Soviet Union to move into Ethiopia.
A number of considerations prompted Soviet Union to take keen interest in the Indian Ocean. In the first instance it
sent its fleet to counter the presence of the Western military which posed a threat to Soviet trade. Secondly, as the
Indian Ocean is the only all-year sea route between the western and eastern flanks of Russia, it thought it essential to
keep this route open so that it could be safely used. Thirdly, control over Indian Ocean was also warranted on account
of Soviet,Union’s trade with the countries of the Ocean region-. Fourthly, the Soviet leaders considered the Indian
Ocean as an emergency sea recovery area, for its space ships. Finally, the Soviet have been obliged to maintain antU
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF INDIAN OCEAN 441
’ submarine forces in the ocean to counter the threat posed by the positioning of US ballistic missile submarines and
carrier task forces which can attack the rich southern parts of Soviet Union. During the past two decades Soviet Union
has built a powerful naval fleet and her fifth operational squadron patrols the Ocean on a regular basis. It also built up
several outposts and bases to protect and promote Soviet interests. Some of the important outposts and bases acquired
by Soviet Union in the region include Hodaida and Socotra from South Yemen, Basra in Iraq, Mogadishu in Somalia,
Port Sudon, Cam Ranh Bay and Danang fronf Vietnam. These bases in the Indian ocean possess necessary
infrastructure and stockpiles of arms, ammunition and food and impart greater mobility to troops to carry out military
operations at any point in the region.
British Interests. The British had traditional interests in the Indian Ocean and virtually treated it as, a ’British Lake’.
With the liquidation of its colonial , empire also Britain did not lose interest in this region and the Royal Navy •(though
I considerably reduced in size) continued to be present there. Britain maintained I this position till 1969 when she made
East of Suez Declaration regarding formal f military withdrawal from the Indian Ocean area. However, even thereafter |
Britain retained sufficient economic, political and strategic interest in the area I and continued to collaborate with
countries like USA, South Africa, Australia and-
I New Zealand with a view to protect her interests in the region. Britain justified her presence in the Indian Ocean on
the grounds of military and strategic reasons ,- as well as protection of her large scale investments in various countries
of the Indian Ocean such as India, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, South Africa, Australia etc. The
increased Russian naval movements and built up in the region was also considered as a serious threat of the security of
the British trade routes.
French Interests. France, which took keen interest in the Indian Ocean as a colonial power, has shown a comparative
lack of interest in this region after its withdrawal from Indo-China in 1954. After the withdrawal of the British from the
Ocean, France again increased its involvement in the Western Indian Ocean area and has now the second largest
external naval presence in the Indian Ocean. France was obliged to do so to secure the sea lanes around the cape which
are of vital importance for oil supplies to France from the gulf. Of late France is attaching great importance to the
Indian Ocean and has considerably stepped,,.v up its military presence in the ocean. According to an estimate France
operates ” five nuclear, powered submarines capable of launching SLBM, in the region. She
I also possesses capability of rapid development of force, even though it is very limited as compared to USA and
USSR. , Japanese Interests. Japan, which did not show any interest in the Indian
P Ocean before World War II despite being a great naval power, has also shown keen interest in the Indian Ocean in
the post World War II period. This has been due to two factors. Her growing trade and dependence on other countries
for raw materials, japan depends on the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for almost onethird of her overseas trade and oil
supplies from the Persian Gulf. She also gets the vital raw materials for the lapanese industries from the littoral states of
the Indian Ocean. Yet another reason for Japan’s keen interest in Indian Ocean is
442 . . INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
search for fish which constitutes the main part of the Japanese food. Above alt, the growing naval activity of the Soviet
Union in this region has also caused concern amongst the Japanese because it poses a threat to the security of their
country. Japan has been towing the line of USA and has thus contributed to the escalation of superpower rivalry in the
Indian Ocean.
Chinese Interests. China, which dominated the Indian Ocean from 1200 to middle of the .fifteenth century, took no
interest in Indian Ocean till after the Second World War. The main consideration which prompted the Chinese leaders
to take interest in Indian Ocean was to preserve and expand China’s influence in the friendly countries washed by the
Indian Ocean. The Chinese also see the Soviet Presence in the Indian Ocean as a threat to their security. China has been
trying to increase its influence in the Indian Ocean by encouraging revolutionary and insurgent movements in various
parts and by extending military and economic aid to countries located on the Indian Ocean, The main policy of China
in the Indian Ocean has been to ”unjte all who can be united” dgainst the super-powers. The Chinese navy itself is
operating waters up to Vietnam , Of late the Chinese leaders have been trying to increase the presence jf the Chinese
navy in the Indian Ocean through expansion and modernisation af its navy. It has been argued that once this expansion
and modernisation process is completed, the Chinese fleet shall be able to exercise limited influence n the Pacific and
the Indian Ocean.
Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is an island situated almost in.the middle of ’he Indian Ocean between 4° and 8° latitude
and 71° and 73° longitude. It is located at a distance of about 2000 km. from the Indian coast and stands halfway
between India and Mauritius, it has a maximum length of 25 km. and a maximum . width of 14 km. having a total area
of only 29 sq. kms. The water depth and anchorage facilities available in this island make it an ideal naval base. This
island was discovered by the Portuguese in 1532 and has changed hands with various European powers. It was under
the control of the Dutch in the seventeenth century and the French in the eighteenth century before it was captured by
the British. However, the British did not attach much importance to this Island till the outbreak of the Second World
War, when they used it as a refuelling base for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force as well as for their allies. The island
caught the American strategic eye in 1964 on account of the Polaris developments and they considered it ideal for
development of the Polaris against both Moscow and Peking. USA started negotiations with UK for using islands for
defence purposes. On 30 December 1966 an executive agreement was signed between the two countries whereby the
island was made available to USA. In
1972-73 USA in collaboration with Britain constructed a limited communication centre on Diego Garcia for using it as
communication base only, at the cost of
19 million dollars Later on the island was further developed and made fit to serve as a full-fledged air and naval base.
In 1975 President Ford openly declared that the construction of the base was essential tome national security of USA
and paid still great attention to it after the crisis in Iran and Afghanistan in 1979. Huge unds were spent on the island
for military construction to support the Rapid Development Forces. It has been reported that USA has even positioned
nuclear
’^PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF INDIAN OCEAN
443
weapons on Diego Garcia which pose a serious threat to the peace of this region. In the meanwhile Mauritius after its
independence, in 1976 demanded the return of the island of Diego Garcia from Britain and the British Government
informed Mauritius in 1960 that the island would be returned to it if not required by the USA or UK after the expiry of
the 90^year lease. It may be noted that this demand of Mauritius was fully supported by a large number of littoral states
of Indian Ocean as well as Soviet Union. With the formation of left wing government in Mauritius the demand for the
return of Diego Garcia to Mauritis^s was further stepped up and the presence of US military in the region was
described as a threat to peace dnd security of this region* While Britain acknowledges the sovereignty of Mauritius
over this island it has made it clear that it would return the isbnd to Mauritius only when the Western nations did no
longer need it for their defence.
At present there seems to be no settlement in sight with regard to Oiego Garcia and the military presence of USA on
this island poses a serious.threat to the security of the countries of this region. It has been argued that a large percentage
of the Indian Ocean security problems would be automatically solved if the island is returned to Mauritius. Therefore,
the worid opinion must exert necessary pressure on USA and Britain in this regard.
’ Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace -
The growing involvement and military presence of the two superpowers in the Indian Ocean region which posed a
serious threat So the world peace was greatly resented by the states of the Indian Ocean and they have protested over
the maintenance and establishment of military bases or stationing of the foreign troops, and militarisation of the US and
Soviet fleets carrying nuclear capability in the Indian Ocean. The non-aligned countries in their Conference at Cairo
held from 5-10 October 1964 condemned the big power’s build up in the Indian Ocean. The Third Conference of the
Non-A!igned Countries held at Lusaka from
9-20 September 1970 went a step further and demanded conversion of Indian Ocean into a Zone of Peace. Following
establishment of the base of Diego Garcia byUSA,in 1971 Mrs. Bandaranaike, the then PrimeMinister of Sri Lanka put
forth Plan for peace zone at the Commonwealth’s Heads of Government meeting held at Singapore. In September
1971, the Foreign ministers of 54 non-aligned nations agreed to take steps at the next General Assembly session to get
the Indian Ocean declared as the Zone of Peace,
On 16 December 1971 the UN. General Assembly dedared the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace for all times and called
upon the great powers to halt further expansion of their military presence in the Indian Ocean and to eliminate from the
Indian Ocean all bases, military installations, logistic supply of facilities, nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction etc. The resolution also caileri upon the littoral and hinterland states of the Indian Ocean, as well as rhe
permanent members of the Security Council and other maior maritime ’users of the Indian Ocean, to enter into
negotiations for the implementation of the declaration. It may be noted that both the Soviet bloc and the Western
powers voted against th’is resolution. They continued to oppose the idea of Indian Ocean as a peace zone till 1976,
when they, for the first time voted in its favour. Thus
the demand for making Indian Ocean as a peace zone was broadly endorsed by the international community.
However, despite this both USA and Soviet Union were involved in a competition to increase the build up of
their naval forces in the area. . -
On 15 December 1972 the U.N. General Assembly set up a 15 nation ad hoc committee for the
implementation of the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. Later on this Committee was
expanded and apart from the permanent members of the Security Council certain major maritime powers
were also included in it to secure their co-operation in the implementation of U.N. General Assembly’s
resolution of December 1971. By June 1982, the strength of this Committee reached 82. In 1977 United
States and Soviet Union started talks for limiting military activities in the region but could not arrive at any
settlement. Ultimately the talks were suspended in February 1978.
In 1979 meeting of the littoral (coastal) and hinterland states, (viz., states situated directly behind the
coastal states) of the Indian Ocean was held as a preparatory process where seven principles were accepted
for the implementation of 1971 Declaration. These seven principles related to the limits of the ocean as a
zone of peace; elimination of military presence of the Great powers in the ocean; elimination of military
bases and other installations of Great powers; denuclearisation of the ocean; non-use of force and peaceful
settlement of disputes; regional and other cooperation; and free and uninterrupted use of the ocean by
vessels of all nations. It may be observed that there is no unanimity among the states of Indian Ocean area
regarding the implications of the Indian Ocean as Zone of Peace. While Pakistan and Sri Lanka maintain
that it implied that the countries of the region would not themselves become nuclear powers, India held that
the concept implied elimination of foreign military bases in the context of great power rivalries. Again
some states, viz., those of ASEAN are in favour of American presence in the region because this guarantees
their security against Soviet threat, while others like India favour elimination of military presence of both
the superpowers from the area.
In the midst of these differences a meeting of littoral and hinterland states of the Indian Ocean was held
from 2-13 )uly 1979 and they adopted a final document. This document called upon the littoral and
hinterland*states to agree not to acquire or introduce nuclear weapons or to allow their introduction by an
external power. The declaration called for a system of universal, collective security without military
alliances and called for demilitarisation in the context of great power rivalry. This final draft was
subsequently adopted by the General Assembly in its 39th session. In 1979 the U.N. General Assembly
decided to convene a Conference to be held at Colombo in 1981 to consider the ways for the
implementation of the declaration regarding the Indian Ocean. However on accountot differences amongst
member of the Ad Hoc Committee the Conference could not be held.The General Assembly expressed
regret over the failure of the state to hold conference and asked the committee to ”make every effort to
accomplish the necessary preparatory work including consideration of convening not later than the first haif
of 1984. At the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee held on 25 May 1982 the Western countries presented a
paper entitled ”Proposal for
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF INDIAN OCEAN
445
a set of principles on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace*, which emphasised that the strengthening of
security and peace in the region depends upon the creation of climate of confidence and trust at the global
and regional level. It called upon the states to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in accordance Lwith
relevant provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to lend isupport to efforts towards
appropriately formulated nuclear weapons free zone En the region by bringing about withdrawal of foreign
occupying forces from the Fstates of the region. These proposals did not find favour with the littoral and
nonaligned states and consequently no agreement could be reached for convening a conference in
Colombo.
In February 1983 the Ad Hoc Committee held a meeting at the United Nations to finalise preparations for
the Conference on the Indian-Ocean to be held in Sri Lanka in 1984. The meeting also failed to make any
progress because the U.S. delegate insisted that this country would go to Sri Lanka Conference only if the
Committee was willing to fashion a new zone of peace which was acceptable to all. The Western countries
also insisted on the revision of the text of the declaration taking into account events like Soviet intervention
in Afghanistan. In 1983, countries like Australia, Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, Norway, U.S.A. and U.K. put forth a set of principles regarding the Indian Ocean as a Zone of
Peace. These principles broadly fell into three categories-political, security and economic. The political
principles included respect for national sovereignty, peaceful settlement of disputes, ensuring equal rights
and self-determination, non-use offeree, respect |pf right to be free from military occupation resulting from
use of force, co•jperation in solution of refugee problems and respect for human rights. I The security
principles included respect of the right of individual and ^collective self-defence, right of freedom of
navigation and overflight, recognition of need for undiminished security for all states’, adequate
verification under arms control of disarmament agreements, prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons,
creation of appropriate nuclear-free zones in the area, withdrawal of foreign occupation forces from states
of region and refraining from any manifestation of use of force.
The economic principles included encouragement of expansion of mutual trade; recognition of benefits of
co-operation in trade, industry, science and technology, transport, health, environment and other related
activities; promotion of application of new technologies to industrial, scientific and environmental activities
in the region an d encouragement of protection of right of migrant labours in both receiving states and
states of origin. It has been argued that the United States and other W«estem powers are using Afghanistan
crisis an excuse to delay the holding of the Conference in Colombo because they are not willing to accept
the Indian Oceam as a Zone of Peace.
In the subsequent yeears also efforts were made to hold Conference on
Indian Ocean as a Zone ofif Peace but these efforts failed to yield any results on
accouttt of Superpower differences. The Western powers in the main insisted on
| Soviet pull out from Afghanistan before any meaningful conference could be
I held. In July 1986 the UN f\d Hoc Committee on Indian Ocean confirmed 1988
446
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF INDIAN OCEAN
447
as the date for convening the Colombo Conference on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. However, the conference
had to be postponed from 1988 to 1990 and again to 1991 due to dialatory and obstructionist tactics employed by USA
and its allies. The hostile attitude of the Western Powers became clear in April
1990 when three of them Britain, France and USA pulled out of the U. N. Ad-hoc Committee on Indian Ocean, on the
plea that the Panel’stontinuing preparations for the 1991 conference’violated the principles of consensus. Actually,
United States, which has a large military presence in the Indian Ocean, has been strongly opposed to the establishment
of a peace zone. Several other Western powers like Canada, West Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and Norway also
decided, against participation in Committee work.
In addition to the above efforts U.S.A. and Soviet Union also held several round of bilateral talks with a view to limit
and freeze the military presence in the Indian Ocean with a view to establish a peace zone. Four rounds of such talks
were held from June 1977 to February 1978 but United States unilaterally suspended these talks on the plea of Soviet
support to Ethiopia in its war against Somalia and the presence of the Cuban forces in the Horn of Africa. Thereafter
Soviet Union emphasised the need of resumption of talks on a number of occasions but without any response from
U.S.A. It may be noted that there were fundamental differences in the approach of these two superpowers with regard
to the establishment of peace zone in Indian Ocean. Soviet Union favoured of elimination of all foreign bases in the
Indian Ocean and placing a ban on the creation of new bases and reducing the military presence. It has indicated its
readiness to solve the problem on the basis of ’an equal bargain’. On the other hand U.S.A. favour gradual approach. It
wanted to make a start by freezing the military presence and making reduction by stages. This was not acceptable to
Soviet Union. As a result U.S.A. continued with military build-up. The Soviet Union also followed suit which further
complicated the things. Fully conscious of the grave consequences of this tendency the Non-aligned countries in the
Seventh Summit held at New Delhi in March 1983 called upon both the powers to resume bilateral discussions for
limiting their presence in the Indian Ocean. However, the appeal did not evoke any favourable response.
Thus, we find that despite growing international pressure for the implementation ot the U.N. Declaration regarding
Indian Ocean as a Zone ot Peace, much progress could not be made due to rivalry between the two superpowers. Foe
this lack of success some of the littoral states of the Indian Ocean are also io blame because th«y provided air naval
bases to these powers. in utter disregard of their commitment of the peace zone. As a result there was great increase in
the military presence in the Indian Ocean which greatly contributed to the deterioration in the climate of peace and
security of this region, in fact, the militarisation of the ocean reached such a stage that it Virtually looked impossible to
demilitarize it because the two superpowers hardly seemed to be in a mood iq withdraw from the ocean. This ever-
increasing rnifitary and naval presence of superpowers in th« Indian Ocean posada threat to international security and
indicated of their continued efforts to sstablish spheres of influence in that region. This was ’contrary to the letter and
spirit of the- declaration
regarding the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. No doubt, the ad-hoc committee of the UN General Assembly carried
on deliberation on this issue and every year the” General Assembly passed a resolution that a Conference should be
convened at the earliest to consider the ways for the implementation of the declaration regarding the Indian ocean such
a conference did not materialise. As a result there was hardly any hope of liquidating the military presence of the two
superpowers. The United States, unmindful of the UN resolutions and repeated calls of the Third World despatched
more American warships to the Indian Ocean. InAugust 1987USsentbattleshipgroupledbyUSMissouritothisregion. This
battleship group was among the most powerful and heavily armoured vessels in the U.S. fleet and its despatch led to
’one of the largest peace-time buildings of U.S. combat forces in the region and the Gulf since the Vietnam War*\
Reagan administration also decided to base more troops and naval divers on the island of Diego Garcia. The growing
military build up was viewed by military experts with great concern and they expressed the fear that this can lead to
serious consequences.
However, after the disintegration of Soviet Union and with the end of the cold war, the concept of Indian Ocean as
peace zone became totally redundant and there is no need for the presence of US ships in the Indian Ocean to maintain
strategic balance with Russian ships. The other countries of the region also cannot individually or jointly pose any
threat to the US interests in the region. There is hardly any likelihood of the states of the Indian Ocean region allowing ,
foreign troops or bases on their soil which could be detrimental to the US interests in the region. Despite this US is
trying to maintain sufficient military strength to. deter any natron or group of nations from challenging her supremacy,
in 1991 USA signed an agreement with Kuwait to strengthen military co-operation between the two countries. In
accordance with this agreement US troops and ’ aircrafts will be deployed in Kuwait and shall be able to make use of
facilities at the Kuwait air base of Ali al-Salim. Kuwait has agreed under the agreement not to transfer weapons
procured from US to any other party or use them for offensive purposes.
The US is trying to build a stable security structure in South-West Asia to protect her interests in that part of the world
and there is every possibility of US deploying any number of ships and cmise missiles in the north-western part of the
Indian Ocean, although there is no likelihood of any counter move by Russia or Commonwealth of the Sovereign States
of Russia. Likewise US has clearly indicated its intention to maintain her presence in the south-east and eastern parts of
the Indian Ocean. US is also determined to maintain its presence in South East Asia which is evident from the fact that
following refusal by the Philippines government to renew a US lease, US shifted 7th Fleet from Subtc Bay in
Philippines to Singapore in 1993. It is thus evident that despite the end of the Cold War and better understanding
between the US and Russia, the former is not going to loosen her grips over the security of the Indian Ocean region.
Despite this there are still changes to make^me indian Ocean a zone of peace if the US agrees to adjust her policy
towards the Indian Ocean without sacrificing her strategic interests in the^region. This can be achieved if the countries
of the Indian Ocean
region resolve their problems peacefully and abandon their programme of nuclear proliferation. After the above
has been achieved US can be persuaded not to deploy any nuclear weapons in any part of the Indian Ocean
region and close*her Diego Garcia base. This could ultimately result in the region being declared a nuclear
weapon free zone and the Indian Ocean could be made a zone of peace by the beginning of the 21st century. This
task is, no doubt, difficult, but not an impossible. Its success to a large extent depends upon the US attitude
towards the issue of the Indian ocean region.
SUGGESTIONS FOR MAKING INDIAN OCEAN A ZONE OF PEACE The following measures can
contribute to the making of Indian Ocean as
a zone of peace.
1. The big powers should be persuaded to withdraw their bases and military installations in stages so that by a
stipulated future date Indian Ocean may become a zone of peace. The end of cold war between the two superpowers
has resulted in abandonment of policy of confrontation and may be quite possible for them to accept the UN Resolution
of December 1971 regarding Indian Ocean as a Zone of
„ - ”* Peace.
2. The Big powers should be permitted to have access to the resources and oil in the Indian Ocean region. . •
3. The Big powers should be permitted transport and communication facilities in accordance with the Law of the Sea.
However, they should not be permitted to carry nuclear weapons.
The littoral and hinterland countries of the Indian Ocean can also contribute to the making of Indian Ocean as a zone of
peace by taking following steps. . .
(i) Avoiding interference in the internal affairs of other countries; •’*- (ii) They should try to resolve their differences
through discussions and negotiations and should not seek military or other help from third countries; (in)- Greater
economic cooperation should be promoted among the
countries.of the region through the formation of an Apex Body; (iv) The countries of the region should not become
members of military
organisations or groups; , • (v) The countries of the region should not lease out their territory for
military base to other powers.
(vi) The countries of the region should undertake not to manufacture, or .,-. procure nuclear weapons. However, they
can use nuclear power for , • economic development of the region.
449
30
The Conflict Situation in West Asia
”....the Arab-Israel War was a battle by proxy between the Super-Powers in which Russia and the United States tested
many r>( their weapons that would be used in a European conflict.”
-Richard Cox
West Asia is the expression used for the Asian countries south of Soviet Union and West of Pakistan. It contains
principally all the Arab countries from Syria to Egypt as well as Israel. Sometimes the term middle East is also used for
this area. This area has been transformed into a dangerous cockpit of international politics since World War II because
the people of almost all the ideologies are making efforts to win over the people of this area to their side. This keen
interest in the region has been due to its unique geographical position. The strategic importance of the region lies in the
fact that it is land-bridge which links three continents-Asia, Africa and Europe, arid thus gives to the occupant not only
great land advantage but also a favourable position to defy the sea-power. It is also the centre of international
communication because some of the shortest sea and air routes between Europe and Africa and Asia lie through the
region. The two most important water-ways of the world, viz., the Straits connecting the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean and Suez connecting the Red Sea with the Mediterranean are also located here. In short, the region is the
”global centre of gravity”. (Spe/ser)
But probably the’most important factor which has contributed to’the world importance of this region is the presence of
large deposits of oil reserves, practically 60 per cent of the world’s oil deposits. In view of oil as a source of energy
almost all the leading powers U.S.A., U.K., U.S.S.R. arid France have been taking keen interest in the region. Above
all the poverty and illiteracy of the people of the region makes it prone to Communist expansion. This naturally
encouraged America and other western powers to pour in huge amounts as aid to secure the region against Communist
expansion.
Apart from the oil another factor which has made this region crucial is the persistent hostility between the Arabs, and
the lews. It is a matter of common knowledge that problem of Palestine continued to elude a solution during the inter-
war period. During the war the Jews extended full support to the Allies in the-hope that at the end of war they would be
given their promised homeland. At the end of war Britain announced her intentions to withdraw from Palestine
and referred the matter to the U.N. General Assembly for decision. The General Assembly appointed a Committee
which recommended the partition of Palestine. It suggested to formation of Jewish state and an Arab State with
Jerusalem under international control. The three areas were to be linked by a common economic Union. These
recommendations were endorsed by the Assembly in November
1947. However, neither the lews nor the Arabs were in favour u! partition. Soon a civil war broke out which resulted in
the death of a-number of British soldiers. In view of the growing public pressure in England, Britain terminated her
mandate over Palestine on 1 5 May 1948.
At this stage it shall be desirable to have an idea about the factors which prompted the West Asian conflict. •
Factors Responsible for the West-Asian Conflict
The factors which led to West-Asian conflict broadly fall into two categories viz., internal and external. In the internal
sphere the core-factor was the conflict between the Zionists and the Arabs regarding the possession of the same
territory. To the Zionists it was the question of Israel while to the Arabs it was the question of Palestine. In view of the
conflicting-and irreconcilable claims the clash between the two was inevitable. Some scholars have tried to project
• this clash as a clash between the theocratic politics and indigenous nations. The lews representing the concept of
racial and religious unity and the Arabs representing the secular and nationalistic concept. It may be noted that all the
Arabs do not belong to a single religion, even though majority of them are followers of Islam. There is a sizeable
number of Christians as well as Jews among them. The term Arab, therefore, carries a cultural, political and to some
extent a regional connotation in which religion does not play any part. The Arabs made it clear their quarrel was against
Zionism which rested on religious and racial bigotry and not the Jews because the lews have always lived happily in.the
Arab lands. Even now there are a sizeable number of Jews in many of the Arab countries and they enjoy full religious
freedom.
Closely allied with this problem was the problem of Palestinian refugees who were forced by the Israelis to leave their
land and seek shelter in the Arab territory. It was a vital question in the struggle whelher almost the total population of
a country could be deprived of its home because some people staked their claim on it. The question of Arab leadership
has also contributed to conflict situation in. West Asia. The Hashemite states of Iraq and Jordan have been competing
with the non-Hashemite states of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syia for leadership of the Arab world. The nature of
relations with the western countries have also contributed to cleavage between the Arab states. The Hashemite states
like Iraq joined the military alliances sponsored by the western powers while the non-Hashemite states like Egypt.
Syria and Yemen preferred to keep out of these military alliances. They preferred to be non aligned and tried to bring
about rapid and generally socialistic transformation of their societies. The presence of large ethnic, tribal and sectarian
minorit1” ’yvhich in most cases are economically deprived and politically underprivile^, u) has also given rise to
tension because they have frequently sought greater share in wealth and
THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WEST ASIA 451
power, often autonomy. This has resulted in internally revolts and civil wars viz. Kurdish-Arab civil war in Iraq;
guerrilla war in Dhofar supported by radical regime in South Yemen against the rule of Muscat and Oman etc.
The ideological differences have also contributed to conflicting relations among the Arab states. Syria withdrew from
the Arab League primarily due to ideological differences with Egypt. Some scholars however contend that the
differences between ’Syria and Egypt were not so much due to ideological difference but because both these states
aspired for Arab leadership.
A> regards the external factors, in view of the power vacuum created in the region in the post World War II period both
the superpowers (U.S.A. and U.S.S.R.) were keen to increase their influence in the area. The situation became serious
because the two powers supported the rival parties and thus the WestAsian crisis virtually became a battle by proxy
between the two superpowers. As Richard Cox has put it, ”the Arab-Israel war was a battle by proxy between the
superpowers in which Russian and the United States tested many of their weapons that would be used in a European
conflict”. Jt is noteworthy that though both the superpowers wanted to acquire influence in the region they were also
keen to avoid a direct confrontation which could pose a threat to the world peace.
Conflict of 1948. Soon after the British announcement regarding termination of mandate over Palestine the lews
proclaimed the formation of the state of Israel.
- The new state kept its boundaries confined to the areas which were recognised by the U.N. Committee as Jewish
areas. Soon U.S.A., U.K. and Russia extended recognition to the new state. They were followed by other countries of
the region
. like Turkey, Iran, etc. However, the Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordon and Iraq) could not reconcile with
the creation of art independent Jewish state and declared a war against it. In view of the situation ’the matter came up
for consideration before the Security Council which called upon all parties to cease hostilities and arranged a four-week
truce. At the expiry of this period of truce the Security Council appealed to the parties to further prolong the same.
Though Israel agreed to do so the Arabs turned down the appeal. As a result, fresh hotilities broke out. These hostilities
continued till the Security Council called upon both the parties to order cease fire and come to some sort of’agreement.
Dr. Ralph Bunche was appointed as the U.S. Mediator to put an end to the hostilities: As a result of his tactful handling
an armistic agreement was signed by Israel and the Arabs (Egypt, Lebanon and Trans Jordan). Under the agreement the
central eastern parts of Palestine and Gaza were left in the Arab occupation while the re.st of the territory was handed
over to Israel. In 1949 Israel wa» admitted as a member of United Nations. However, the Arabs were not able to
reconcile with the changed situation and desp.te armistic. frontier incidents continued unabated.
Conflict of 1956. In 1956, following Egypt’s nationalisation of the Suez (.anal company. Israel, supported by U.K. arid
France, made military intervention Against Egypt. Immediately, the General Assembly held an emer«*-n< y s|*-f ’•’’
session and called for a cease fire and withdrawal of all foreign forces from Egyptian territory. It authorised the
establishment of the United Nations
452 . INTERNAT10NJ! RELATIONS
Emergence Force, the first U.N. peace-keeping force. The UNEF sjpervjsed the troops withdrawal and was deployed on
Egyptian territory to aq as a buffer between Egyptians and Israeli forces and succeeded in bringing atout peace in’ the
area.
War of June 1967. Another open confrontation between lsrje| ancj Arabs took place in June 1967. Though the immed
iate cause of the confl iqwas a border dispute between Syria and Israel, the real cause of the dispute can h( traced back
to the time of Israel’s birth. As already noted the Arabs had nevet^n able to reconcile to the creation of an independent
state of Israel andten!;jon nad persisted between the two over all these years. As a result of the sp«racjjc clashes
between the Arabs and Israel for ail these years over one milliq Arabs were rendered refugee and their rehabilitation
posed a serious problemto the Arabs. The dispute over Jordan water between the two parties further-i^cj.^^ tê tension.
On the other hand Israel complained of the growing terrctjst attacks by the Arabs. But above all it was the growing
friendship of Israel witli the Western countries which irritated the Arabs the most. They interpreted the ^tensive help •
and patronage received by Israel as a deep rooted conspiracy ag^nS{ jne Arab world.
The dispute erupted into a war in June 1967 when in the wê of dispute between Syria and Israel, President Nasser of
Egypt asked the UN. Military Command to withdraw the Peace-keeping force from the country^ border with Israel.
The U.N. Secretary-General ordered the withdrawal <jf tne united Nations Emergence Force stationed along the Israeli
frontier sinc^ 1955 These positions were soon taken over by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), a part of the
armed forces of U.A.R. On 23 May 1967 U.A.R. at,nounced the closure of the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to
the ships of |srael All the approaches to the Gulf of Aqaba were mined. As these actions êre |j|<e|y to adversely affect
Israel’s foreign trade, and violated the law of sea, |srae| decided to take direct action in the matter. She struck the air
fields of four <\rab countries and completely crippled their Air power. She won quick victory ag^-Inst tne Arabs and
within seven days the entire area-east of Suez Canal c.a^g under her possession. She occupied Jerusalem and reached
as far as Jordan river ultimately, at the call of the Security Council the two parties agreed to a cease-fjre on -\ rj June
1967. The cease-fire did not prove effective and both the parties charged their opponents of violating the same.
However, Israel, refused to surr^ncjer (ne gains of the June 1967 war unless a basis for a permanent peace through
direct talks between Israel and Arabs, could be found.
In this war the.two power blocs supported the opposite partjeS; although they did not openly come out to their help.
Soviet Union and oth,er Communist countries provided the-planes, tanks and other military equipmen (5 to tne Arabs
while the United States, U.K. and France provided military equip^g^ to |srael. The Western powers supported Israel in
the Security Council ^f vetoing the Soviet resolution of 13 June 1967 which condemned the ”aggre%Sjve activities” of
Israel. They only agreed to sGpport a resolution which called on |srae| to ”ensure the safety, welfare and security of the
inhabitants of t ne area where military hostilities have taken place,” and to facilitate return of th^ Arab civilians
THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WEST ASIA
453
in the areas occupied by the Israelis. After her designs were frustrated Soviet Union invoked the Uniting for Peace Resolution
of 1950 and demanded an emergency session of the General Assembly. At the General Assembly once again there was a trial of
strength between the two Powers. It may be noted that this was in complete contrast to the attitude of the two powers during
the crisis of 1956 when they co-operated to resolve the crisis. The session of the General Assembly ended in frustration for the
Arabs and a diplomatic reverse for the Soviet Union. Once again the issue was brought to the Security Council but here also
the differences between the two parties (supported by opposite powers) rendered an effective solution of the dispute
impossible. It may be noted that the Western Powers felt greatly offended with Arab countries because of their decision to
impose a ban on the export of oils to western countries. The Arah countries persisted with this decision even after the cessation
of hostilities in view of the sympathy expressed by these powers with Israel. On the other hand even though the Soviet
assistance to the Arabs did not prove effective, it enhanced her popularity with the Arabs.
Efforts by Powers to Resolve the Crisis
In view of the possible grave consequences of the trouble in the West Asia the major powers of the world come
forward with numerous plans to establish peace. In 1969 Soviet Union suggested a peace plan which was virtually.a
scheme for bilateral peace arrangements between Israel and Egypt. It proposed withdrawal of Israeli troops from
positions occupied on 5 June 1967, formal recognition of the state of Israel by the Arabs with secure frontiers, right of
free navigation through the Suez canal and straits of Tiran for Israel. This plan did not find favour with Syria.
In January 1968 France proposed a Four Power Conference to bring about peace in West Asia. This proposal received
favouable response. During the period from April 1969 to September 1971 the Four Powers held a number of
Conferences to find out a solution for peace, but without much success. One of the main stumbling block in the way of
progress was the interpretation of Resolution No. 242.
In 1970 U.S.A. proposed a plan with a view to promote the prospects of peace in the West Asia. According to this plan
both the sides were to be encouraged to adhere to the U.N. cease-fires resolutions; both the parties were required to
reappraise positions which had become road-blocks to peace in the region; the U.N. Peace Representative was to be
helped to launch a process of negotiation among the parties; open talks were to be held between Soviet Union and other
major arm suppliers with a view to reach an agreement regarding arms limitation. This Plan was accepted by Israel as
weJI as U.A.R. and the shooting war come to an end. However, permanent peace could not be established in the area.
War of October 1973. In the face of failure to find a negotiated settlement of the problem the Arabs decided to make
another bid to recover their areas from Israel through armed action. Realising that their defeat in 1967 was mainly due
to the lack of concerted action on the part of the Arabs, Anwar Sadat, the
President of Egypt, tried to patch up differences with the Arab nations. He modernised the army by equroping them
with latest weapons from Soviet Union. While he was making all these preparations, he also made efforts to secure the
Arab territories from Israel through negotiations. However, the Israeli leaders were not willing to part with the Arab
territories in view of their long-term
security importance.
Ultimately, on 6 October 1973, when the lews were busy celebrating their festival of Yom Kippur, the Arabs launched a
surprise attack on Israel and penetrated A number of miles into the Sinai desert. Simultaneously, the Syrians launched
an offensive war in the Golan Hieghts and overran the Israeli outpost. Though the war started on these two fronts
thtftOther Arab countries-the Morocco, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq etc. also deployed their troops. Thus, for
the first time the Israelis had to encounter the force of the entire Arab
community.
Israel retaliated and taking advantage of one of the weak points of the Egyptian troops, pushed her tank force to
the*other side of Suez canal and cut off the Egyptian Third Army’s communication line with its base. The Israelis
threatened to move towards Cairo. On the Syrian front also the Israelis forces managed to occupy the strategically
important Golan Heights. Thus, Israel succeeded in making good the loss due to the initiative taken by the Arabs.
In view of the grave situation the Security Council at its meeting on 22 October 1973 passed a resolution asking both
the parties to cease all firing within
12 hours of the adoption of the resolution. It also called on them to implement the Security Council Resolution of 1967.
However, neither of the two parties gave effect to the resolution. As a result, the Security Council had to pass another
resolution the next day to impose cease-fire. It created an emergency force with ’ American and Soviet participation to
carry out the resolution. Ultimately, the two parties agreed for a cease-fire although frequent violations of the same
continued for some time. To ensure that the peace of the area was, not disturbed, Dr. Kurt Waldheim the then U.N.
Secretary-General suggested a plan for the stationing of emergency force in West Asia, which was accepted by the
Security Council. The forces were contributed by Australia, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Ghana, Indonesia, Nepal,
Panama, Peru, Poland and Canada.
A formal agreement between the two parties was reached on 11 Novermber ” ”’ i-”-««r»cr>f nr Hpnrv Kissineer,
the U.S. Secretary
455
of State. As a result of this agreement uum i_B?K. u. 0
observe the cease-fire called by the U.N. Security Council. They agreed to initiate discussions for return to 22 October
positions within the framework of an agreement on disengagement and separation of forces under the auspices of
United Nations. It was to be ensured that the town of Suez received its daily supplies of food, water, medicine etc. and
the wounded civilians were vacated. There was to be no impediment to the movement of non-military supplies to the
Cav. Bank The Israeli checkpoints, on the Suez-Cairo point* were tu be replaced l>y the U.N. checkpoints. However,
(lie Israeli officers were to be permitted to participate with the U.N. in the supervision of these checkpoints to ensure
that the cargo on the bank of .the Canal was of a non-military nature. As soon as the
U.N. checkpoints were established both the countries were to exchange the prisoners of wars including the wounded.
In September J 975 Egypt and Israel reached an interim agreement on Sanai which was valid for three years. Under this
agreement Israel agreed to withdraw from the Abu Qudies oilfields on the condition that U.S.A. would compensate
here for the loss of the oil, Israel was to withdraw from the eastern end of the Giddi and Mitla passes and the same were
to be placed under the control of the U.N. forces. To keep a watch on the movement of the Egyptian troops an Alert
System was to be set up which was to he manned and operated by the American technicians. The two parties also
agreed not to link the agreement with the new partial Israeli withdrawal from the Golan H”;<>hts.
Peace Treaty of 1979. After the above settlement U .S.A. continued to make persistent efforts to evolve an agreement
between the two countries to establish permanent peace. Her efforts yielded results ip early 1979 when Egypt and Israel
signed the historic treaty at the lawns of White House. The treaty was formally signed on 26 March 1979 by Israeli
Prime Minister Mr. Menachem Begin, the Egyptian President Mr. Anwar Sadat a moving ceremony presided over by
President Carter of U.S.A. It may be noted that the framework for this peace treaty was agreed at the Camp David in
September 1978. The treaty concluded at Washington was subsequently approved by the Cabinets and Parliaments of
the two countries.
As a result of this treaty Israel agreed to dismantle Jewish settlements and return to E^ypt the vast Sinai desert seized in
the war of 1967. On its part Egypt agreed to formally njcognise her Jewish neighbours. Israel also agreed to return
within seven months the oilfields of Sinai to Egypt. Israel was to evacuate the coastal town of El Arish within two
months and pledged to give more freedom to the Palestinians living on the West Bank and in Gaza. The treaty did not
contain any provisions regarding the return of West Banks and the Golan Heights. It was hoped that once the Israelis
were convinced of the peaceful intentions of Egypt they would eventually agreed to gave up these territories also.
However tho Peace Treaty did not find approval with other Arab countries’ because it failed to make any reference to
the future of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights and also failed to give any assurance regarding Israel’s withdrawal
from other Arab territories. With the exception of Morocco and Oman the other Arab countries outrightly rejected the
treaty. To show their resentment against Egypt the Arab countries held a special meeting of the Foreign and Economic
Ministers of ArabCountries at Baghdad. At this meeting they decided to suspend Egypt from the 22 member Arab
League and remove its headquarters from Cairo to Tunis. They also agreed upon a number of economic and political
sanctions. However, there were differences among the leaders of various countries. While the hardliners insisted on
total diplomatic and economic sanction, the moderates favoured moderate sanctions against Egypt. A large number of
Arabian countries cut off their diplomatic relations with Egypt. Some of these countries including Libya, South Yemen,
Algeria, Iraq, and Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan also withdrew their
ambassadors from
Egypt-
•
Despite this opposition Sadat went ahead with implementation of the peace settlement. However, the Palestinian
problem proved to be a hard nut to crack, in view of the irreconcilable stands of Egypt and Israel. The Israeli leadership
was convinced that true autonomy for the Palestinians on the West Bank and on the Gaza strip would be forerunner to
the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which was bound to be radical and hence inimical to the interests
of Israel. This would mean an end to Israel’s present absolute control over the city of Jerusalem. On the other hand
Sadat steadfastly continued to insist on the solution of the Palestinian problem in the interest of permanent peace in the
Middle-East. In short, while Israel was willing to concede to the Palestinians nothing more than some harmless
municipal powers. Egypt was not willing to accept anything less than a meaningful self-government by the Palestinian
residents on the Western bank. In view of these sharp differences on the Palestinian question the efforts to find out a
solution of the Middle-East Problem were bound to fall flat and naturally President Sadat suspended negotiations with
Israel.
At this juncture the European Common Market leaders took an initiative in the United Nations to seek modifications in
the U.N. resolution No. 242 (which while recognising the right of Israel to exist within secure borders called for its
withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories. It treated the Palestinians merely as refugees) and insisted on right of
self-determination for the Palestinians, and emphasised the need of associating the Palestine Liberation Organisation
(PLO) with West Asian peace negotiations. The EEC leaders also condemned Israeli settlement on the Western Bank as
a serious obstacle to the peace process and contrary to the international law.
Yet another bid to resolve the West Asian crisis was made in August 1981 when Saudi Arabia’s Crown prince Fahd
proposed an eight-point plan. These ., eight points were:
(i) An Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 War,
including Arab sector of Jerusalem.
(ii) Removal of all Jewish settlements which Israel has set up in territories occupied in the 1967 War, viz., west bank of
Jordan river, the Gaza Strip and Heights, (in) Guaranteeing freedom of worship for all religions-Christianity, Islam
and Judaism in the Holy Land including Jerusalem, (iv) Recognition of the rights of two million displaced Palestinians
to repatriation and compensation for those who do not wish to return. (v) Placing the Palestinian populated West bank
under U.N. trusteeship
for a transition period of only a few months, (vi) Establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as
its capital.
(vii) Recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace, (viii) The guarantee of implementation of the
above principles by U.N. or some of its members.
457
He also called on the United States (Reagan administration) to end its ’unlimited support” for Israel and to
acknowledge the Palestinian issue as the common denominator irr West Asia. However, this plan was rejected outright
by Israel. It held the project as ”dangerous to Israel.*
The peace efforts in West Asia received a temporary setback in October

1981 when president Sadat was assassinated during a military parade in Cairo by an army officer and three other
persons who were members of the Islamic Fundamentalist Movement. But President Mubarak, who succeeded Sadat as
President pledged to continue the policies of Sadat including peace process with Israel. -
As a result of persistent efforfrby U-S.A. Israel ultimately returned Sinai to Egypt in terms of the Camp David >
Agreement. An international peace-keeping force was employed to prevent escalation of tension. It may be noted that
this force was not a United Nations force and was under the control of U.S.A. with contingents drawn from Britain,
France, ttlay, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Colombia, and Equador. The peace-keeping force was placed
under the command of a Norwegian general.
Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel. A new tension to the middle-east was added following annexation of Golan
Heights by Israel in December 1981. Though there were some demonstrations against this action of Israel by its Drueze
inhabitants, Syria could not oppose the annexation with force. It merely proceeded to sign a treaty of Friendship with
U.S.S.R. with the hope that the Soviet Union may come to its rescue.
Annexation of West Bank by Israel. Another crisis in the middle East was caused by an attempt on the part of Israel to
annex the West Bank. It removed pro-PLO Mayors, closed universities, planned and established more Jewish
settlements, and replaced military with civilian administration to show that the territory was coming under normal
Israeli rule. Israel’s Prime Minister, Begin also announced his intention to annex the territory after the lapse of five-
year period of autonomy as-specified in the peace treaty. This automatically hampered the progress of negotiations for
Palestinian autonomy.
Israeli attack on Lebanon. As the date of return of Sinai approached, tension on the Israeli-Lebanon border started
increasing due to military build up and repeated threats of invasion by Israel. Israel argued that PLO intrusions from
Syria were as much a violation of the Lebanese cease-fire intrusions from Lebanon, and threatened to invade in
response to one such intrusion. The things got aggravated following assassination of an official of Israeli embassy in
Paris and the killing of a number of Israeli soldiers through the planting of land mine in southern Lebanon. Israel
retaliated by bombing PLO targets in the vicinity of Beirut. However, the PLO refused to take any action on the plea
that this would provide Israel a pretext to invade Lebanon. Even Syriya did not want a war with Israel due to fear of a
defeat.
However in June 1982, the Israeli troops with the help of American supplied weapons made a rubble of West Beirut
and brought about a complete defeat of PLO. No doubt, the 8000 guerrillas of the PLO offered a dogged
458
resistance, but the Arab states refused to offer any assistance to PLO. As a result, the PLO was virtually reduced to
shambles. The only help which the Arab states rendered to the PLO was that they agreed to offer hospitality to the
humbled PLO men evacuated from Lebanon. The evacuation was effected with the assistance of U.S. Marines and the
troops from France and Italy.
The Israeli action met with severe condemnation at the hands of the West European governments. Even Reagan
Administration showed its.disapproval of the Israeli action by suspending the supply of cluster bombs to Israek
However, it did not take any further action to prevent Begin government from waging such a ruthless war against the
PLO guerrillas. In fact, some critics have alleged that without the political and strategic backing of Reagan
administration, Israel could not have won this victory.
The almost universal international condemnation of the Beirut atrocities led to adoption by the U.N. Security Council
on 19 September 1982 of a unanimous resolution expressing outrage at the criminal massacre of Palestinians in Beirut.
The resolution authorised the U.N. Secretary General to investigate the possibility of U.N. troops being deployed to
assist the Lebanese Government in ensuring full protection for the civilian population. The very next day the Lebanese
Cabinet requested the deployment of the U.S., French, Italian peacekeeping force in Beirut for the maintenance of
order. These powers responded favourably and sent their troops. In February 1983 even the British soldiers joined the
peace-keeping force in Beirut.
Towards the close of 1982 United States made a bid to arrange direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel and
after some in.itiai difficulties succeeded in bringing the two parties to the negotiating table in January, 1983. After
prolonged negotiation the two governments reached an agreement in May
1933. Under this agreement the two parties agreed to end the state of war and establish a security region in Southern
Lebanon to prevent the reinfilteration of Palestinian fighter into the area. They also agreed to settle their disputes by
peaceful means and not to permit their territories to be used as base for hostile or terrorist activity against each-other.
They were also to abstain from all hostile propoganda against the other. A joint Liaison Committee of the two
countries, which also contained U.S. participants was set up to ensure the implementation of the agreement. Though
this agreement was approved by the Israeli Cabinet, it did not get the approval of the Syrian Government which openly
declared that Syria would do all in its power to prevent the agreement’s implementation. Hxdan and Egypt openly
supported trie Agreement white South Yemen, the PLO and Libya publicly denounced it. tran also opposed the
agreement. The other Arab states did not offer any comments and”were by and large sympathetic to it. In September
1983 after the withdrawal of Israel the security condition in Lebanon greatly deteriorated and a sort of civil war broke
out between the Druse and Phalangist militia. In the Moslem West Beirut also there was resurgence of militia activity.
In the ’northern part of Tripoli clashes took place between proand anti-Syrian factions. Even the Israeli Defence Forces
and troops serving with the multinational peace-keeping force in Beirut area were also attacked. This invited French
and U.S. intervention. Later in the month a cease-fire was agreed
459
and attempts were made to arrive at a permanent negotiated solution to the factional strife in Lebanon. Though initially
some progress was made but the prospects of solution diminished after the bomb attacks on the headquarters of. U.S.
and French peace-keeping contingents as well as the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre.
As a consequence on 16 November 1983 Israel mounted a bombing raid on Nabi Chit, a stronghold of Islamic Amal in
retaliation. Next day the French also carried out rocket and bombing attacks on the hilltop strong hold of Ras elAin,
which was under the Iranian revolutionary guards and members of Islamic Arnal. On 4 December 1983 U.S.A. also
struck on the Syrian positions in Central Lebanon in retaliation against the incidents in which the Syrian anti-aircraft
units had opened fire on U.S. reconnaissance flights. Despite this the Multinational Peace-keeping Force continued to
stay in Lebanon in ihe hope that in its absence efforts to find a peaceful solution in Lebanon would collapse.
In view of the growing hostility towards the Multinational Peace-keeping forces, on 7 February 1984 U.S.A. announced
that its contingent of some 1500 marines would be removed to the Sixth fleet off shore in a phased redeployment over
the next few weeks. On 8 February 1984 Italy announced that it intended to make a gradual withdrawal of the
remainder of its contingent (it had withdrawn some in January 1984) to the Multinational Peace Force. On 12 February
the French President announced that he was prepared to withdraw the French contingents from Beirut. On 8 February
1884 Britain decided ro redeploy the 115 strong British contingent to the MNF in Beirut. It may be noted that all these
powers believed that multinational peace-keeping force was helpful in extending the authority of the legitimate
government by encouraging the process of reconciliation and facilitation the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the
country. They were in favour of its retention in Lebanon as it could piay a constructive role.
The prospects for peace in Lebanon brightened towards the end to June . 1984 when the National Unity Government
approved A security agreement. The agreement, a package deal, was designed to restore peace between the warring
militias in Beirut. Prime Minister Rashid Karami expressed the hope that as a result of the package Beirut would
become a ”unified capital of a United Lebanon, the country of brotherhood we have always wanted.” But the hope was
belied because the Christians, who have traditionally controlled the army, were not willing to give up their military
clout, while the Muslims demanded replacement of the army Commander General Ibrahim Tonnous because of his
involvement in the fight against the Muslim militias in Febniary 1984. In mid
1985 a further tension developed in Lebanon when the fundamentalists hijacked a TVVA plane carrying 39 Americans
and held them as hostages. The crisis was averted because after 17 days the hostages were released.
However, thereafter aiso tension continued to persist among the feuding Christians and other factions, fsrad could rsut
impose its wii! on the country. On the other hand Syria considerably tightened its grip on Lebanon’s internal setup and
Tied io curtail the powers which the Christians had enjoyed for so long. In February 1986 as a result of Syrian
intervention in Beirut mos( of the fighting
in the city ended, even though factional clashes between the Christian and Moslem militias across the Green Line
Dividing the east and west Beirut between Amal militia men and Palestinian guerrillas, continued till Sept. 1987 when
an agreement was reached between PLO and Amal. As per this agreement PLO agreed to withdraw from positions
seized from Amal in hills in the east of town, while Amals agreed to lift pressure from the refugee camps. But this
settlement did not prove effective and fierce clashes took place between the two in October
1987. A serious bid to end the civil war and restore government authority in the country was made by the Lebanese
President in 1991 which culminated in signing of a treaty in Damascus on 17 May 1991 between Syria and Lebanon.
The treaty called for greater cooperation on security, economic, commercial, cultural and foreign policy issues. It also
provided for the creation of joint security committees. Israel strongly protested against this treaty and accused Syria of
swallowing up Lebanon while the world’s attention was deflected by the Gulf crisis. It even warned Syria to desist
from crossing the ’red lines’ in Lebanon. Despite this criticism of treaty by Israel, it cannot be denied that the treaty
provided an impetus to Syria and Lebanon to jointly demand Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon under
terms of UN Security Council
resolution 425.
Egypt-Israel Agreement (1989). Another important development in the , Middle East was the signing of an agreement
between Egypt and’ Israel on 26 February 1989, whereby Israel agreed to return to Egypt by 15 March 1989 an area of
Red Sea beach resort of Taba situated on the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The two countries in all signed four
agreements. The first reaffirmed Egyptian sovereignty over the area. The second provided for compensation to Israel
for the construction of a large hotel. The third provided for the supply by Israel of water and electricity. The fourth
granted the Israeli passport holders the right of access to the resort.
Israel and Palestinians. Tension has also persisted between Israel and Palestinian ever since May 1967 when Israel
occupied West Bank of Jordan and the Gaza*trip. Even though the UN passed a resolution which called on Israel to
stop violation of.human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territory and to t offer them protection under the Fourth
Geneva Convention, Israel continued to |) commit atrocities on the Palestinians residing there. This action of Israel
was condemned in the United Nations and it adopted a number of resolutions urging Israel to stop ruthless oppression.
The UN even called for concerted international action to thwart Israeli designs. However most of these resolutions
could not be adopted due to US veto. On the other hand, Israel has repeatedly asserted that it would never give up the
occupied West Bank and the Gaza strip. It has firmly ruled out freedom for the Palestinians living under Israel’s
military rule and asserted that autonomy is the only solution. In September 1987 the Palestinians staged a number of
demonstrations in West Bank and Gaza strip to commemorate the 1982 massacres of Palestinians in the Sahara and
Chatiali refugee camps in Lebanon which resulted in violent clashes with police, which resulted in several deaths.
Further protests and demonstrations were organised by the Palestinians in October and December 1987 which were
strongly suppressed by Israeli army,
461
which even used live ammunition to deal with demonstrators. This revoked strong resentment and on 11 December
1987 UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling on all member countries to support the principle of an
international peace conference. Through another resolution it also called on all members to stop all dealings with Israel.
In February 1988 United States announced a new plan for the resolution of the Palestinian issue. It called for a six
month period of negotiations, starting on 1 May 1988 between Israel and joint Jordanian, Pelestinian delegate to
determine the details of an autonomy arrangement for the West Bank and Gaza to last for 3 years during which a
permanent negotiated settlement would be reached. The Plan was rejected by PLO as it did not provide for the creation
of a Palestinian state or recognise the right of tte PLO to engage in the peace process.-ln Israel the plan evoked mixed
reaction. While a section led by Peres welcomed the plan. Prime Minister Shamir only said that Israel was not willing
to negotiate about the autonomy issue. Thus, the US plan failed. In subsequent months tension between PLO and Israel
again mounted following killing of 3 high ranking PLO officers of Arafat’s Fatah guerrilla organisation in a bomb
explosion in Cyprus. The PLO alleged that these officers had been assassinated by the Israeli secret service, which was
denied by Israel. In the midstpf all these developments in February 1988 UN proposed a resolution which called on
Israel to abandon practices which violated the human rights of the residents of occupied territories, but the same was
vetoed by USA. India insisted on convening of an international conference on West Asia under the aegis of United
Nations with participation of all concerned parties, including the PLO and the decisions of the Conference should be
implemented. However, this was not acceptable to Israel. Thus, the problem continued to persist and greatly
contributed to conflict situation in West Asia.
In April 1989 Prime Minister Shamir of Israel proposed a four point plan for peace in the Middle East. According to the
proposed plan the elections should be held in West Bank and Gaza strip in oider to facilitate the formation of nonPLO
delegation to participate in negotiations on an interim settlement when a self-governing administration might be
established. The interim period would serve as an essential test of the cooperation and co-existence and would be
followed by negotiations on the final settlement in which Israel would be prepared to discuss any option presented. He
further proposed that Israel, Egypt and USA (the Camp David signatories) should reconfirm their commitment to the
1979 Camp David Agreement and that the USA should lead an international effort to solve the humanitarian problem
of the Arab refugees in the West Bank and Gaza strip, ensuring that action be taken to ease the human distress. It also
demanded that United States and Egypt should ca-ll on Arab countries to desist from hostility towards Israel and to
replace belligerency and boycott with negotiation and cooperation. The PLO, Arab leaders and leading Palestinian
leaders did not react favourably to the Samir’s flection pUn, hot gradually PLO came to accept election as a part of
comprehensive settlement.
In the course of annual Palestine debate held at Geneva (due to refusal of US to let Palestinian leader visit UN
headquarters in New York) in December
1988 Arafat, the PLO Chairman proposed a plan for just and lasting peace in West Asia. He accepted the right of Israel
to exist and proposed a three-pronged Palestinian peace initiative (i) Convening by the UN of a ’preparatory committee
of the international conference for peace in the Middle East*, (ii) Placing of all occupied Palestinian land under
temporary UN supervision and deployment of international forces to protect the Palestinian people and supervise
withdrawal of Israeli forces, (in) the commitment of PLO to pursue a comprehensive settlement within the framework
of the international peace conference on the basis of UN resolutions 242 and 338. The plan was favourably received by
USA which lifted 13 year old ban on direct contact with PLO and saw in the plan an important step towards realisation
of lasting peace in West Asia particularly so because it accepted the right of Israel to exist, renounced terrorism of all
forms by PLO and accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338 as basis for peace negotiations in Middle East. On 6 March
1989 Arafat offered to demilitarise the West Bank and Gaza strip. He even indicated his readiness to accept UN or
other multinational force in Israel-occupied territories if they are allowed to become an independent state. However,
these proposals were not viewed with favour by Israel which was not willing to concede status of independent state of
Palestine. As a result’clashes continued between PLO guerillas and the Israeli soldiers .in the occupied territories. In
the midst of these clashes the PLO unanimously appointed Yasser Arafat as President of self-declared State of Palestine
in April
1989. The Arab League at its summit meeting held in Casablanca (Morocco) in May expressed support for the
diplomatic initiative of Arafat.
Fresh tension was generated in the region following announcement of Israeli plans to settle Soviet Jews in the occupied
territories of Gaza and Western Jordan in flagrant violation of international law. Further the massacre of innocent
worshippers at the Al Haram Ai Shareef in Jerusalem by the Israelis evoked strong resentment. This action was
unanimously condemned by the UN Security Council as well as the UN Secretary General in his report. The UN
Secretary General recommended that-urgent steps should he taken to provide for the safety of the Palestinian civilians
in the occupied .territories. However, Israel did not care to implement the various resolutions of the United Nations
on’this issue. This was largely due to the attitude of indifference adopted by the major western powers.
In the wake of the Gulf War which witnessed bonds of friendship between USA and the moderate Arab states, it
appeared that United States may be able to work out a comprehensive settlement with regard to Palestine, In fact during
the Gulf War itself President Bush and President Gorbachev announced in Moscovyo«i31 July, ’991 the*r intention to
thiow their combined weighs behind a comprehensive settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict. Ultimately on H8 October
1991 the two leaders decided to convene a conference at Madrid (Spam! to launch a Middle East Peace initiative and
issued invitations to the concerned parties. The Madrid talks held towards the end of October 199! failed because Israel
refused to hi;dge from its stand. Israel not nnlv refused to vacate the seized territory but also refused to enter into
negoti.itions with the PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Despite this (he talks were of great significance because tor the first
time
463
in the history of 43 years old Arab-Israel conflict, Israel and Syria sat face to face. They were also significant
because for the first time peace talks were held without
• a mediator.
After three weeks of disagreement the two parties agreed to resume talks at Washington. The talks at Washington also
failed to produce any concrete results. This was followed by the convening of West Asian Peace Conference at
Moscow in January 1992, which was boycotted by Palestinians, Syria as well as Lebanon. However, the Conference set
up a number of working groups for multilateral talks on issues like disarmament, water sharing, environment, economic
development and refugees.
With the victory of Labour Party in Palestine in June 1992 the new leader (Yitzhak Rabin) announced that his party
would push for peace with the Arabs. He promised the Palestinians in the occupied lands autonomy within nine months
and vowed to halt the settlements. However, he made it clear that no concession would be made on Jerusalem or to
permit statehood to the Palestinians. Israel indicated further intention to make concessions in October
1992 when it indicated the possibility of withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau that Israel seized
from Syria in 1967 and annexed in 1981.
The West Asian Peace Talks suffered a further set back In December 1992 when Israel deported more than 400
Palestinians on the ground of inciting . Muslim fundamenralist violence in Israeli-occupied lands. As Lebanon refused
to take these men, they started living in tent camps in no man’s land fn South Lebanon. The Palestinians insisted on
these deportees being allowed to go back and stalled the West Asian Peace Talks on this,ground. Even the UN Security
Council passed a resolution demanding deportees be allowed back and threateneJ to impose sanctions against Israel.
Ultimately on 2 February 1993, bowing to the international pressure, Israel agreed to take back some 100 of expelled
Palestinians . and reduced the period of banishment for others. Israel also agreed to provide humanitarian aid to the
expelled Palestinians. This offer of Israel was, however, rejected by the Palestinians who insisted that all the refugees
should return at one go. The peace talks suffered a further set back following attack by Israeli helicopters on Lebanon
in April 1993.
The things showed some improvement following approval of a plan for grant of limited autonomy to Palestinians by
the Israeli Parliament. Negotiations were stepped up and on 13 September 1993 the Foreign Minister of Israel (Shimon
Peres) and PLO executive committee member (Mahmoud Abbas) signed a peace agreement in the presence of US
President (Sill Clinton). In terms of this agreement Palestinians were to be given limited self-rule in Gaza and West
Bank for five years. However before the start of the third year both the sides were to start negotiation for a permanent
peace accord. The Israeli forces were to withdraw from Palestinian area* of Gaza. |tf ic ho and Population centres uf
West bank within four months of the signing of the agreement. A new Municipal
464 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS •
Council was to be elected within four months which was to be incharge of education, economic development,
environmental protection, social welfare etc. The Palestinians were allowed to form a police force on their own. The
relationship between the police and Israeli army was to be determined later on. In the meanwhile Israel was to continue
to provide protection to the Jewish settlers in the occupied areas. It was agreed that the two panics would hold
discussions for return of Palestinians refugees who had fled the West Bank and Gaza during the 1987 war as well as
future of Jerusalem which was claimed by both Israel and the Palestinians as their permanent capital.
The implementation of the agreement was however, delayed due to differences on key security issues between the two
parties. Ultimately on 10 February 1994 Israeli and PLO reached an agreement in Cairo (Egypt) which cleared the way
for Palestinian self-rule. The peace-process suffered a further, set back on 28 February 1994 when PLO suspended self-
rule negotiations with Israel in protest against the massacre of more than 52 Palestinians in a mosque in Hebron, in
occupied West Bank, by a Jew extremist. Israel tried to placate the Arabs by arresting Jewish extremist leader and
expelling all the radical settlers from Hebron. It also decided to ffee some 800 to 1-000 Palestinian prisoners.
Ultimately on 4 May 1994 the Israeli Prime Minister (Yitzhak Rabin) and PLO Chairman (Yasser Arafat) signed a
historic agreement at Cairo to launch the Palestinian self-rule in Gaza Strip and West Bank town of Jericho. Thus the
Palestinians acquired control over their own affairs after a gap of 27 years.
Some sort of tension was generated between Israel and Palestinians in the wake of joint declaration by King of Jordan
and Israeli Prime Minister at Washington on 25 July 1994. The Palestinians alleged that the agreement between Jordan
and Israel gave high priority to Jordan’s role as guardian of Muslim shrines in Jerusalem and was in violation of the
PLO Israel peace agreement. However, the Israeli Prime Minister once again confirmed his country’s commitment to
negotiate Jerusalem’s future its PLO in accordance with the Israeli Palestinian Declaration of Principles.
In February 1995 peace talks were held in Paris between Israel and PLO, but the talks failed to overcome obstacles
blocking the expansion of Palestinian autonomy. PLO accused Israel of violating the September 1993 agreement by
imposing collective punishment, confiscating land and restricting the passage of Palestinian on to the Israeli territory.
In February 1995 the’leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Palestine met at Cairo to further the stalled West Asian Peace
process, but did not meet with any success with regard to lifting of Israel’s closure of the occupied West Bank and self-
ruled Gaza strip or on Jewish settlement. (Israel had closed entry to Gaza and West Bank following suicide bombings
by the militant organisation Islamic lihar). However, the leaders called for ending political violence, perseverance with
PLO-lsraeli agreements and more international funding for thf Palestinian authority.
On 27 AuguM 1991 Kr.irl .md PLO signed an agreement whereby eight civilian powers \\*•’-.: tramtem^J-t*. iht
Palestinians as a part of the accord for
*5
extension of self-rule in West Bank. These eight civilian powers incltxi resopnsibility for agriculture, insurance,
labour, municipal affairs, postal servic petrol and gas, statistics and trade and industry on West Bank. **•
In September 1995 yet another major step in the direction of peace in t Middle East was taken when Israel and PLO
signed an accord to exter* Palestinian self rule throughout the West Bank. In terms of this accord ^ Palestinians were
permitted to run their daily affairs after 28 years of Isr^6 occupation. However, Israel would retain control over the
security of 100,CF|j who would remain in their 127 West Bank settlements at least until the end/^ negotiations on the
permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza strip. 1°^ overall administration of. Hebron would be in the hands of the
Palestinj^6 authority, even though Israel would play limited role for the protection of settl^’n The accord stipulates that
the jews would keep their present rights of wors^- in the Tomb of Patriarchs. The accord provides for a Palestinian
Cour^P consisting of 82 elected members. The council would enjoy legislative ai’1’ executive powers but no power in
the shpere of foreign relations. Palestini^ would deploy 12,000 armed police in 25 West Bank stations for security, but
Vs . overall responsibility for external security of Israeli settlements would rest wp Israel. ”
Role of Outside Powers in West Asian Crisis
Since the close of World War II the stakes and interests of superpowers West Asia have been progressively enlarging.
In 1948 Britain alone v,n interested in the region and was involved .in the conflict In 1956 both Britain a^ ’,. France
got interested in the regions and took direct action against Egypt followii , nationalisation of the Suez Canal. Even
Soviet; Union felt concerned with th^5 •: developments and exerted influence to seek the withdrawal of Anglofren? s
forces. In 1967 War both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. were virtually directly involved*1 I the conflict and acted as guarantors
of Israel’s action against the Arabs. In t| ? 1973 conflict once again the two superpowers were deeply involved af
• extendedsupporttothetw6opposingparties,withoutcomingtothefore.AfulC |i appreciation of this view demands a
detailed narrative of the role played by tf I various powers at the various stages of the West-Asian crisis. *
| From the very beginning of the crisis in 1948 the various powers start
t- taking keen, interest in t!ie West affairs, and adopted policies and postures’
keeping with their national interests. In the year 1947 when Israel proclaim^
its independence the two superpowers (U.S.A. and U.S.S.R.) supported t|J
General Assembly resolution recommending partition of Palestine into a Jewii
state and an Arab state. Soviet Union supported the resolution because she st
it is the only way to get the British out of the region and increase her o^
\. influence. Similarly, U.S.A. supported the move because she considered this^
; be only possible solution under the circumstances. After the creation of the st*|
I c?f Israel when hostilities broke out between Israel and Arab countries (Egy),
It Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan) Soviet Union used her influence through t|
ji U.N. to bring the hostilities to end. Likewise U.S.A. also supported the pea^
X
efforts and offered to make available necessary funds to the United Nations Relief for Palestine
Refugees to assist in the settlement of the Palestinian refugees in the Arab countries. However, the
Arabs felt greatly offended with the United States -because of her support to Israel which resulted in
loss of life and property of the PafesttntanraMveil as her failure to get back their properties after the
cession
of hostilities.
As the unsettled conditions in the region would have assisted the possible growth of Communist
influence in the region, three Western powers-U.S.A., France and Great Britain, made a declaration
with a view to preserve the precarious balance of power in the area. They tried to promote peace
along the armistice line to facilitate a final settlement of the problem. With a view to check the
Communist influence U.SA, proposed the creation of Middle East Defence Organisation but the same
was not received favourably by the Arabs. The Soviet Union bitterly criticised this move and
described it as a serious attempt by the western powers to encircle her. However, U.S.A. continued
efforts in this direction which culminated in the signing of the Baghdad Pact consisting of Turkey,
Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Great Britain. Though U.S A did not formally become member of the pact
she provided economic and arms aid to tine members. The conclusion of this pact was not received
favourably by the Arabs and generated much tension in their relations with U.S.A. and other western
powers.
The growing antagonism of the Arabs towards U.S A was fully exploited by Soviet Union and she
offered in 1955 to buy the Egyptian cotton, which had been pushed out of the West European market
due to dumping of cotton at very cheap rates by the United States. Soviet Union also offered to
provide military equipments to increase their bargaining powers. The strengthening of the Arabs led
to counter demand from Israel for U.S. armaments. Though the U.S. Government was reluctant’to
do so, it was compelled to supply arms to Israel ’ in view of the growing public pressure at home.
However, even after, this U .S. A. and Britain continued efforts to wean Egypt away from Soviet
Union and offered to assist and finance the huge Aswan Dam on the river-Nile. For some time it
appeared that cordial relations shall be possible between the Arabs and the Western Powers. But
following Egypt’s recognition to Red China, U.S.A. withdrew the offer of assistance regarding
construction of Aswan Dam and the relations once again turned cool. Soviet Union took advantage of
the situation and offered to assist in the completion of Aswan Dam.
In 1956 Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal. As this decision adversely effected the free flow of traffic
through the Suez Canal and resulted in heavy financial losses to countries like Britain, France and
Israel, they mounted a joint attack against Egypt on the plea of protecting the Suez Canal. Soviet
Union reacted rather sharply. She not only offered to send volunteers to fight along with the Arabs
but also threatened to use missiles. As U.SA did not want to permit Soviet Union to get very close to
the Arabs, she decided to exert pressure on London, Paris and Tel Aviv, and supported a U.N.
resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of forces from Egypt. She also
supported the resolution for the despatch of U.N. Emergency Forces to police the border
THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WtST ASIA
467
between Egypt and Israel. With a view to check the growing influence of the Soviet Union in West
Asia, Eisenhower Doctrine was propounded which promised military and economic aid to the
countries or groups of countries which were threatened by the armed aggression of international
Communism. In view of hardened attitude of United States, the Soviet Union sent a note to U.SA.,
Britain and France inviting them to cooperate with her and guaranteed: (a) peaceful settlement of
disputes in the region; (b) non-interference in the internal affairs; (c) abolition of military
alignments; (d) withdrawal of foreign, forces from the region; (e) ban on supply of arms to countries
of the area; and (0 economic assistance without strings. As U.SA. was determined to keep the
countries of West Asia free from Soviet influence she refused to accept this proposal.
U.S.A., howeveo simultaneously continued efforts to win over Egypt and offered to resume food and
technical assistance, which had been suspended during the Suez crisis. It also did not favourably
respond to the Israeli demands for missiles and rockets beacause this would have upset U.S. plans of
improving relations with the Arabs. However, with the assumption of power by Kennedy, the
Government of U.SA. felt that the parity between Israel and Arabs had been greatiy upset by
constant military supplies to the Arabs from Soviet Union. Accordingly, it decided to sell to Israel a
number of short-round ground to air Hawk missiles in order to enable her to counter the UAR air
threat However, Kennedy also continued the policy oT liberal aid to UAR. Thus, he tried to maintain
cordial relations with both the sides. It may be noted that all along .Soviet Union continued to have
intimate and cordial relations with the Arabs.
In the wake of 1967 War, Soviet Union once again came out with open support to the Arab cause. She not only
despatched her naval vessels through the Dardanelles but also gave a warning that an attempt of aggression against
Near East would be met with strong opposition. Simultaneously, Soviet .Union also continued efforts to ensure that the
crisis did not escalate into a war and lead to an open confrontation with U.SA. On the other hand U.SA. did not openly
take sides-with the parties to dispute. However, she was also interested to ensure th?t there was no escalation of war.
Accordingly she urged Israel to exercise restraint and to settle the issue through diplomatic channels. When U.S.A.
learnt that Israel was determined to take military action unless ttie Gulf was opened to her ships, she pressed the
Security Council to adopt a resolution appealing to the parties to exercise restraint and seek a reasonable, peaceful and
just solution of the problem. However, this resolution could not be adopted due to Soviet veto. Therefore, U.SA.
continued efforts outside the U.N. to prevent a war. It may be noted that all along the Arabs suspected U.SA of siding
with Israel, even the Soviet Union was not willing to cooperate with U.SA during the initial stages. But as the war
progressed and the Arabs suffered a setback. Soviet Union agreed to cooperate with U.SA. In the U.N. the two powers
cooperated in getting a ceasefire resolution adopted. But as the resolution did not call for simultaneous evaluation of all
occupied territory by Israel, the Arabs felt that Soviet Union had let them down and the Soviet credibility with the
Arabs suffered a setback.
As regards the attitude of other powers, most of the Asian countries

expressed their sympathy and support for the Arabs and openly condemned Israel for the war. However, none
of these countries extended any financial or military assistance to the Arabs. Probably the most vocal
condemnation of the Israeli aggression came from China. She not only praised the Arabs for heroic resistance
but also assured them of Chinese support. The Chinese leaders condemned Soviet Union for not openly
supporting the Arabs. The European powers like Britain and France were more cautious in their stand. They
perferred
to play cool.
Before we examine the role of the various powers in the West Asian crisis in the subsequent years, ir&hall be
desirable to examine the proposition as to why U.S.A. sided with Israel even though there were valid reasons
which demanded that she should have more intimate relations with the Arabs, such as huge profits yielded by
her investment in oil in Arab countries, the strategic importance of the area due to its crucial geographical
position and larger population of the Arabs. While it cannot be denied that U.S.A. showed slight preference to
Israel for various reasons, but it would certainly be wrong to assume that she was inherently anti-Arab.
The main reasons which prompted U.S.A. to show preference to Israel over the Arabs were : (i) its utility as an
American base outweighed the political importance of the area las whole. Because of its strategic locations Israel
controlled the key to the domination of the whole area; (ii) Israel could be conveniently used as a threat against
the rising forces of Arab nationalism; (in) a strong Israel, through constant military threat to the Arabs, could
keep the Arabs’ economically backward and compel them to seek aid from U.S.A.; (iv) the powerful cotton
growers lobby in U.S.A., who regarded the Egyptian cotton as a serious threat to their monopolistic interests,
influenced the government to be pro-Israeli: (v) existence of a strong Zionist lobby in U.S.A. which exercised
tremendous influences through media of mass communication, and projected Israel as torch bearer of
democracy and Freedom in Asia, etc. Attitude of Powers towards West Asia during the War of 1973 ana After
• In the war of October, 1973 the various powers, including the two Superpowers displayed greater caution in
their attitude. The non-Communist Asia was virtually unanimous in its support to the Arabs.
Soon after the outbreak of the war Soviet Union condemned Israel as an aggressor. She announced: ”As a result
of the absence of a political settlement military actions have again broken out in the Middle East....For several
years now, Israel enjoying the support and patronage of imperialist circles has by its reckless aggressive action
constantly formed tension in the middle East....The responsMlity for the present development of events in the
Middle East and their consequences rests wholly and completely with Israel and those outside reactionary
circles who constantly encourage Israel in its aggressive aspirations.* Russia demanded liberation of the Arab
territories occupied by Israel. There were obvious reasons for Soviet support of the Arabs. She could not see the
Arab armies, which she had equipped, smashed for the fourth time. She also felt that the Arab cause of
regaining the occupied territories was quite popular with most
THE CONFLICT, SITUATION IN WEST ASIA 469
of countries of the world. However, Soviet Union was determined to guard against the possibility of damaging
the detente. She did not want a confrontation with U.S.A. wh”’ch could endanger world peace.
Similarly, U.S.A. was determined to see that the fight did not assume serious dimensions; so as to threat detente as well
as world peace. Henry Kissinger said in a speech that ”detente could not survive irresponsibility in any area, including
the Middle East.* Realising that the open American support to Israel would endanger American interests in Saudi
Arabia and other parts of West-Asia, she played coo! and tried to moderate the conflict. But as the war launch a big
offensive against Israel with many handred of tanks progressed and America discovered that Egyptians were about to
her attitude somewhat stiffened and she decided to send Phantom fighter bomber to Israel, and ”started an air bridge
matching the Soviet supplies”. United States appealed to the Soviet leaders to fake a concerted action to prevent the
war from escalating, but the response was not encouraging. It was only after the United States showed deep
involvement in the war by stepping against the Arabs, that the Soviet attitude somewhat softened and she agreed to
cooperate in bringing the war to an end, and create a helpful atmosphere for negotiations. In short both the
Superpowers wanted to avoid direct involvement in the war and bring the fighting to an early end.
As regards the attitude of France during the 1973 war, ever since 1967 she had been feeling that it was in her interest to
be on the side of the Arabs not only because her economic interest so demanded but also because she wanted that the
Soviet influence in Arab worW should not grow. Soon after the outbreak of war France approved of the Arab action of
starting the war. M. Jobert said, ”Can you calf in unexpected aggression for someone to try to repossess his own land?”
However, general public of France did not want the government to take open sides with any of the two parties to the
conflict and favoured and balanced approach. No wonder, the s’tatement of Jobert met with condemnation at the hands
of the French people.
Great Britain, even though refused to supply spare parts to Israel, was less vocal in extending open support to the
Arabs. Likewise, Germany also tried to keep out of the struggle. The German Foreign Minister strongly rebuked the
American Ambassador following shipment of war material from U.S. bases in West Germany to Israel. Even though
this action of Germany met with condemnation at the hands of America as well as German public. Brandt took this
decision on account of German dependence on Arab oil. In short, it can be said that the attitude of most of the European
Powers on the West-Asian crisis of 1973 was largely influenced by their dependence on the Arab oil.
The years after the War of 1973 saw a change in the attitude of the Arabs and gave a new turn to the role of the powers
in this region. As a result of war ”a new Arab balance emerged with greater recognition of Palestinians, a reduced role
(or the Soviet Union in the Mio^dle East and a corresponding increase in the U.S. role and on accent on non-
alignment.” According to Walter Laqueur ”At the end of war America found itself in the unaccustomed position of
wooed by the leading Arab countries, who had realised that effective pressure could be brought
to bear on Israel only by Washington. During the war and its aftermath tht<» were no frantic attacks against America as
is 1967; on the contrary the general tenor of Sadat’s speeches was friendly and leading. Egyptian diplomats began to
appear in Washington almost the moment the war’ended.”’
It was in view of newly acquired position that America could play a leading role in bringing about a compromise
between the parties and make them sign the Peace Treaty of 1979, which was expected to be great step in the direction
of resolution of the West Asian crisis.
In the subsequent years the American influence in the West Asia continued to grow though often the Arab states
alleged that U.S. administration was more favourably disposed towards Israel. On the other hand Soviet influence in the
region consistently declined after 1972 when President Sadat of Egypt expelled thousands of Russians from Egypt and
renounced all debts to Soviet Union. The Soviet position was rendered further weak following th’e dispersal of the
PLOs from Lebanon after Israel’s victory in 1982. The Soviet Union failed to provide any active help to the PLO. Even
Syria which was bound by a treaty of friendship with Soviet Union was obliged to work out with U S.A. (Along with
Saudi Arabia and Egypt), the modalities of the PLO evacuation from West Beirut. In other words it can be said that the
Soviet influence in the Middle East was considerably reduced and she ceased to play any effective role.
In the wake of war between Israel and Lebanon in 1982; which resulted in complete victory of the former/the Arab
States were convinced that USA alone Could play an effective role in bringing about peace in the region. In fact even
United States showed keen interest in the region and made proposals further to the Camp David Accord. Under the
Reagan Plan United States suggested that Israel should not have any control over the area and the Palestinian state
should be established. It favours full-fledged local autonomy in the area in association with Jordan. The other important
points of this plan were withdrawal of Israel and recognition of Israel by the Arabs. However, the American plan did
not find favour with majority of the Arabs.
Atlanta Conference (November, 1983). In November, 1983 former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and President Gerald
Ford, convened a four-day conference at Atlanta (U.S.A). This conference was significant in so far as for the first time
countries hostile to each other sat across tile table to exchange ideas and to make offers and counter offers on highly
controversial issues. Syria was represented by an official delegation headed by its minister of state for Foreign Affairs.
Israel, though officially boycotted the conference, sent a team of influential policy advisors who represented the view
of the government. Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar, Jordan’s Prince Talal, Egyptian President’s political advisor Usman
A! Baz, Lebanon’s policy maker Wadi Halded, etc. took part in it. In addition, a large number of world’s well-known
West Asian scholars, diplomats and negotiators also took part in it. Even though there was no official delegation from
Reagan administration, some of the best known U.S. policy
I. Walter laquer, Confrontation, p.229.
H THE CONFLICT StTVMTION IN WEST ASIA 471
H makers like Philip Habib, Cyrus Vance, Brzeinski, etc. took part in the H Conference. Soviet Union was represented
by its political Counsellor in H Washington Embassy.
H Though there were sharp differences amongst the delegates they agreed on
H certain points which could form basis for a new peace initiative. For example,
H Israel accepted for the first time that there could be no solution of the West Asian
H problem without a solution of the Palestinian problem. Similarly, the Arab
If representative accepted that it was no more possible to end the state of Israel and
• recognition of Israel was a settled fact. Another notable outcome of the
H conference was that Syria by agreeing to send an official delegation of Atlanta
R Conference indicated its readiness to bring about peace if its legitimate security
m interests were met.
H Despite various points of convergence, it was evident at the conference

R that there were still many unsurmounatable hurdles. In the first place, it became i clear that Syria, Soviet Union
and Palestinians did not want U.S.A. alone to I resolve the issue.and favoured a Geneva-type international
conference with I broader participation to ensure a permanent peace; U.S.A. was, however, not I willing to bring
the Soviet Union into the peace process on the plea that it would I sabotage the peace process by exploiting the
differences among the negotiating | parties. The West Germany on the other hand insisted that Soviet Union should I
be made a party to any settlement and not allowed to sabotage it from outside. I Despite active role of United States
the peace process in Middle East did not bear I any fruits on account of the irreconcilable nature of interests of main
parties to the dispute, viz., Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and PLO.
Thus, we find that West-Asia has been a hot bed of intrigues among the
j. various powers from the very beginning. Initially Britain and France dominated
the scene, but in the wake of Suez crisis they withdrew and the two superpowers
• came to the fore. After 1972 the influence of Soviet Union in the region steadily
• declined. On the other hand, the U.S. influence steadily increased and it played
!’•• a leading role as peace-maker. However, the US influence in the middle-east „
I sufferedasetbackduetoitsvetoofaUNSecur/tyCouncilresolutionwhichasked
I Israel to withdraw from South Lebanon. As a result of this pro-Israel attitude of
|, United State a number of Arab states like Jordan, Kuwait, which had hitherto
! been considered as pro-American, turned towards Moscow. Even Iraq moved
I closer to Soviet Union on account of lafge supplies of weapons by Soviet Union.
I As a result once again Soviet influence in the region considerably increased. But
{ United States tried to maintain and.improve relations with the Arab countries and
agreed to supply AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia fearing that non-supply of
AWACS would adversely affect America’s relations with Saudi Arabia and other
moderate states of West Asia. As America had deep interest in the region, it
continued to take keen interest even though it avoided direct intervention due
to possibility of direct confrontation with the Soviet Union, In subsequent
months on account of improvement of relations between United States and
Soviet Union the policy of confrontation gave way to cooperation in the Middle
fast, even though both the powers were interested in maintaining their influence
in this region United States scored an edge over Soviet Union m this region on
account of the dominant role played during the Gulf War. The disintegration of
472
the Soviet Union in December 1991 virtually left this area for United States which is now playing a key role in the
region.
The United States not only played active role in bringing about an agreement between Israel and PLO in September
1993 whereby the Palestinian were assured limited self-rule in Gaza and West Bank, but also played effective role in
the issue of joint declaration by Jordan and Israel at Washington in July
1994 whereby the two countries agreed to put an end to the 46 year old state of belligerency. Again in September 1995
President Clinton of USA played an important role in the conclusion of the accord for extension of Palestinian selfrule
throughout the West Bank. In fact the pact between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chief Yasser Afarat
was signed in Washington in the presence of US President:
Iran-Iraq War
A serious threat to the peace of West Asia was posed by the outbreak of hostilities between Iran and Iraq in September
1980. The trouble started when Iraq unilaterally abrogated the mutual ’reconciliation’ treaty signed by the two
countries on 13 June 1975 at Baghdad. This treaty recognised the disputed border between Iran and Iraq along the
Thalweg line (i.e., the median line of the waterways’ deepest channel) rather than along the eastern border which
existed earlier. Ever since this treaty the Iraqi leaders felt dissatisfied with the terms of the treaty. The dissatisfaction
resulted in tense relations between the two countries. The things further deteriorated following disturbance in Iran in
the wake of Islamic revolution and the departure of the Shah in February 1979. The growing unrest in the south-
western Iranian province of Khuzestan also encouraged Iraq to demand abrogation of the treaty of 1975.
On 31 October 1979 Adbel Hussein Moslem Hassan the Iraqi ambassador made a declaration in which he made three
demands on Iran, viz., (I) the abrogation of the ’reconciliation’ treaty of 1975 and restoration to Iraq of its former
rights; (ii) evacuation by Iran of Abu Musa and Thumbs Islands in the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf,
occupied by Iran in 1971; and (in) grant of autonomy to the Baluchis, Kurds and Arabs in Iran. The Iran Government
considered these demands an unwarranted interference in Iran’s internal affairs and, therefore, turned down these
demands. As a result, the relations between the two countries started deteriorating. Charge of intrusion by the Iraqi
force into Iranian territory were made and denied by the two parties. On 8 March 1980, the Iran Government asked
Iraq’s ambassador to leave the country. Iraq retaliated by asking Iran’s ambassador ih, Baghdad to leave the next day.
After some time the Iraqi guerrillas and regular army units are said to have attacked Iran. On the other hand the Iraqian
Foreign Minister accused the Iranian Government of pursuing an aggressive and axpansionis? policy and appealed to
Dr. Kurt Waldheim, the U.N. Secretery-General, to ask Iran to withdraw its troops from the three Gulf islands. Iran also
alleged that the Iraqis had caused two explosions in Iranian oil storage depot and refinery by rocket attack and actions
of Iraqi mercenaries.
Cn 7 April 1980 Iran put its army on alert along the frontier. On 8 April
1980” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s spiritual leader described President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as ”an enemy-
of Islam and Moslems” and appealed to the Iranian armed forces to overthrow him. Further violent incidents took place
| THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WEST ASIA •=• 473
ton Iran-Iraq border and seven thousand of Shia Muslims expelled from Iraq crossed over to Iran. On 16 April 1980 the
Supreme Command of the Iranian if armed forces announced the formation of a ”Revolutionary Islamic Army for the
1 Liberation of Iraq” and appealed to the people of Iraq to rise against the Baath |1 regime of Iraq, which was
conducting itself, as the lackeys of U.S. imperialism. I’ The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein demanded general
recognition of the Arab I character of the Iranian provinces of Khazestan and asserted that further |i escalation of the
conflict would and exclude war.
I During rhe next few weeks there were a number of border incidents
I between the two countries in which casualties were suffered by both the sides. The fighting grew heavy in July,
1980 when Iraqi aircrafts were alleged to have \ attacked towns in north-western Iran. The Iraqi army also attacked
oil installations i about 30 mi’es from Qasr-e-Shirin, the principal border crossing point betw«?en Iraq and Iran. On
27 August 1980; Iran for the first time used ground to ground missfe, to repei the Iraqi aggressors. On 10 September,
Iraq admifted for the first time that it was involved in a direct conflict with Iran. The Iraqi President said that Iraq did
not want war, but would defend itself against attempts to wrest ! from its territory which belonged to it.
On 17 September 1980, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq formally •’ announced the abrogation of the
’reconciliation’ treaty of 1975 unilaterally, and I asserted Ir.aq’s full sovereignty over the Shatt-al-Arab waterways.
On 21 •’ i September, Iraq launched a full-fledged offensive war against Iran and captured E large Iranian areas
along the border The Iraqi troops also captured the port of !’ Khortarnshabr and completely surrounded Abadan. The
two sides also made air ;’. strikes into each other’s’territory. While (ran claimed to have destroyed military j
objectives in the heart of iraq, causing irrepairable damage to the enemy at the airports of Baghdad, Basra, Mosul,
Habbaniyah, Kut, Nasiriya, etc. Iraqi ;> authorities claimed to have organised successful raids on the Iranian airfields
at ::<: Ahwaz,”HarradanvTabriz, Dezfu!,’etc. Both the parties made extravagant V ciaims regarding their success
against -the opponent.
Ultimately on 24 September 1980 Irjq offered to end the war on three conditions; (i) Iranian recognition of Iraqi
.sovereignty ”in the border area; (ii) Iranian respect for and recognition of Iraq’s sovereignty and legitimate rights’ in
the Shatt-al-Arab waterways; and (in) the return oftne three islands in the Gulf. The Iraqi forces gave Iran six hours
ultimatum to surrender. However, the Iranian Government completely ignored the ultimatum. As a result during the
next few days clashes continued between the forces of the two. The two countries also continued their air raids. During
tne warfare, the Iran leaders repeatedly ’ appealed to the people of Iraq to rise against their rulers. Finally on 5 October
1980 the fraqi Revolutionary Council withdrew its conditional cease-fire offer of 24 September 1980 and declared that
it would continue the just and honourable baftle whatever its duration and sacrifices required. The clashes continued in
the subsequent months but no major changes in the territories held by the two sides !ook place. • •
Attitude of the Arab countries
Soon arer the outbreak of open warfare, most of the Arab countries
<174
INlERNATlONAL RELATIONS
^-j
4
expressed their support for Iraq. King Hussein of Jordan announced his intention to give active military assistance to
Iraq. However, the United Kingdom and United States warned Jordan not to take any steps which would widen the
conflict. Israel also said that it could not remain passive against Jordanian involvement in the Gulf-War. Unmindful of
these protests, Jordan ordered the mobilisation of all transport vehicles to carry food and other supplies to Iraqi . army.
The other Arab countries which expressed support for Iraq included Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Mauritania, the Yemen
Arab Republic. However, Algerian authorities maintained strict neutrality even though the Algerian public sympathised
with Iran. Egypt, which had no diplomatic relations with either of ’ the countries since 1979 (these relations were
snapped on the issue of Peace Treaty with Israel), appealed to the people of the two countries to settle their problem
peacefully and ”not to shed precious Arab and Islamic blood.* President Sadai of Egypt, while asserting that Iraq was
wrong to carry out its invasion of Iran, agreed to sell ammunition to Iraq ”in gratitude for past Iraqi arms deliveries to
Egypt.” On the other hand Iran received support only from Libya and Syria. Col. Gaddafi, the Libyan leader said: ”It
was the Islamic duty of Saudi Arabia and Guif states to align themselves with the Moslems of Iran.” Though President
Assad of Syria did not make any public statement of support to Iran, he did send certain weapons to iran. . •
Changes in diplomatic relations in the Middle East
The Iran-Iraq war also exercise deep impact on the mutual relations of the various Arab States. In the first place, Iraq
cut-off diplomatic relations with Libya as well as Syria following delivery of arms by these two countries to Iran.
Secondly, it contributed to the snapping of diplomatic relations between Libya and Saudi Arabia. Col Ghadafi accused
Saudi Arabia of ”disparaging Islam and showing discord among the Moslem people” and cut-off diplomatic relations
with it. Thirdly, Iran withdrew diplomatic envoys from Jordan as well as Morocco due to open support extended by
these countries to Iraq. Likewise Jordan also recalled its ambassador from Iran, Relation Among Other Countries
The western countries felt greatly concerned ove-t the-outbreak of Iran-Iraq war on two counts. Fir^t, they were
Convinced thai it was-bound to adversely affect the supply of oil from both these countries. Secondly, there was danger
of escalation of war and the possibility of other Middle East countries getting involved in it. By and large the other
powers tried to observe neutrality. Let us examine the attitude of the individual powers in this regard.
U.S.A. observed an attitude of strict neutrality and called on the Soviet Union to keep out of the confl ict. U.S.A.’s
attitude towards war was best summed up by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State thus: ”The main objectives of the
U.S.A. were to restore peace, to prevent the conflict from spreading and to keep it from endangering the flow of oil; the
United States, therefore, was neutral and would not intervene on efther side; it expected the Soviet Union to act with
restraint; and the United States would not remain indifferent but would defend its ”vital interests in the Persian Gulf
region”; would prevent interference with free transit
in the Strait Hormuz and the Gulf, and would respond to ”request for assistance •’. from non-belligerent friends in the
area” who felt ”threatened by the conflict. i Finally, he said, seeking an early end to the war, the U.S.A. would support
the
efforts of international institutions to bring about peaceful settlement.” ; However, in October, 1980 President Carter of
U.S.A. showed a definite
pro-Iran attitude and described Iraq is as intruders and their action as ’aggression’. This evoked strong resentment from
Iraq. This pro-iranian stand of U.S.A. was I probably due to the fact that the dispute over American hostages in Iran
was still \. pending.
! France and Britain were also keen to ensure the freedom to navigation in
the Guif and, therefore, against escalation of war. The French Government considered the conflict purely bilateral in
nature and sought its political | settlement. !n fact this view was shared by all the nine member states of the [
European Economic Community. The Governments of the nine member states p. of the community issued a
declaration in which they emphasised the bilateral
• character of the conflict and asserted the need of avoiding anything which could give the conflict a wider
dimension. They expressed the hope that the reticence observed by other states, notably the great powers would be
maintained. They also appealed to the Secretary-General of the Islamic Conference Organisationto try to obtain cease-
fire and affirmed their readiness to support any international initiative which might lead to political settlement of the
dispute.
The Soviet Union also adopted a neutral attitude and declared that no onehad the right to interfere in the relations
between Iran and Iraq. It even cut short its supply of arms to Iraq, despite the existence of a treaty of friendship and
cooperation with Iraq. President Brezhnev appealed to Iran and Iraq to negotiate a settlement Soviet Union also
strongly denounced the U.S. decision to send AWACS aircrafts to Arabia.
Mediation Efforts
Efforts to mediate in the conflict were made by the United Nations, the Islamic Conference Organisation (ICO) and the
non-aligned movement. In addition the Governments of Cuba and Algeria as well as the Palestine Liberation
Organisation (PLO) also offered mediation. However, all these efforts proved futile.
United Nations Efforts. On 28 September 1980 the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling on Iran and Iraq to
refrain from further use of forces. It called on the two parties to settle the dispute by peaceful means and in conformity
with the principles of justice and international law. It also called on other states to exercise utmost restraint and to
refrain from any act which may lead to a further escalation and widening of the conflict. Iraq showed its readiness to
observe cease-fire from 5 to 8 October 1980, provided Iran also agreed to the cease-fire. However, Iran refused to
accept the cease-fire.
In November 1980 the Security Council after a long and inconclusive debate made a bid to draft a resolution which
could draw Iran and Iraq into negotiating process. However, it could not arrive at any decision. Ultimately, the
476
Security Council asked Dr. Weldheim, the U.N. Secretary-General on 50 November 1980 to send a special envoy to the
Middle East to seek an end to the war. Ort 11 November, WaSdheim appointed Olof Palme, the former Prime Minister
of Sweden as special envoy to Middle East. Palme paid a number of visits to both Teheran and Baghdad. As a result of
deliberations with the leaders of the two countries he was convinced that in view of the diametrically opposite views
held by the two parties there was no hope for an early end to the war. He even expressed the fear that the war may
spread to other parts of the gulf region and involve the great powers. In January’, ! 981 Palme paid further visits tc
Baghdad and Teheran and.reported that some sort of agreement could be possible on three principles, viz., the
inadmissibiiity of acquiring territory by force, non-interference in internal affairs; and freedom of navigation in the
whole Gulf area.
In June, 198 i Iraq proposed a cease-fire to Iran for ;he month of Ramzan through Palme, but the same was turned
down by Iran. As certain merchant vessels of different nationalities were stranded in Shatt-al-Arab, in October,
1980, Dr. Waldheim appealed to Iran as we!! as iraq to accept a limited ceasefire ’o enable these merchant vessels to
leave the area under United Nations rlag. However, the ptoposal was turned down by Iraq. President Saddam Hussein
of Iraq wrote to the U,N. Secretary General that the proposal to evacuate she ships under the United Nations flag was
”not acceptable since these vessels must fly the Iraqi flag as long as they are in the Shaff-al-Arab.” However, on 27
December, the Iraqi authorities allowed 930 foreign seamen from these ships in the Shattal-Arab to travel home, even
though the ships remained blocked.
After a.brief period of military stalemate when hostilities between Iran and kaq increased on 25 May 1982 the
Secretary-General sent identical messages to she Presidents of !fan and Iraq offering his good offices to renew the
search for peaceful and honourable settlement, in response to this message Iraq announced that it would withdraw its
forces from a!i occupied Iranian territories to the international borders within ten days. However, Iran charged that
Iraqi forces were stili in occupation of parts of Iranian territory and affirmed its resolve to continue hostilities. •
SecurifyCoanciS’s Sid to Bring About Cease-Fire
On 12 July, 1982 the Security Council adopted a fresh resolution calling for a cease-fire and withdrawal of forces to
internationally recognised boundaries by Iran and iraq. M also decided to send a team of UN observers !o supervise the
cease-fire. It aiso urged the continuation of the mediation efforts by the Secreiary, Genera! to find a comprehensive,
just and honourable settlement acceptable to both the sides. The Council urged othei stalesrfo abstain from an actions
which couid contribute to the continuation of the conflict.
On 13 July, 1982 Iraq indicated its readiness to co-operate in the implementation of the resolution. However, the
following day Iran asserted that Security’Council’s actions on the conflicts bet ween Iran and iraq were inconsistent
with the Charter because <t had failed to codemn the aggressor. Iran demanded restoration of conditions- which had
prevailed before the aggression began: Iran showed its readiness to co-operate with the Council if it decided to take its
responsibilities seriously. As a result the hostilities between Iran and Iraq
| THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WEST ASIA 477
| continued in which both sides suffered heavy casualties.
| On 4 October the Security Council passed another resolution and again
[ called for immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of forces to internationally
| recognised frontiers. !t also decided that UN observers should be sent to
r • supervise cease-fire and troop withdrawal. Though iraq indicated its intention
I to co-operate with the Security Council, Iran heid that the Council resolutions
§ were not binding on her. On 22 October, 1982 the General Assembly also
>*’ insisted on immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of forces to internationally
« recognised boundaries as a first step to settling the dispute peacefully.

i’ In the midst of these efforts of the UN to bring about cease-fire, Iraq made
i use of chemica! weapons in violation of rules of International law. This provoked strong resentment from kan and it
reported the matter to the United Nations. The
i • UN set up a Committee of Specialists to look into the matter. 1 he Committee after
I investigation confirmed that chemical weapons had been used by Iraq.
j’ Accordingly the Secretary General reported to the Security Counci! that he was
f;, ’deeply convinced that the humanitarian concerns can only be fully satisfied by
’ putting an end-to rhe tragic conflict that continues to deplete precious human
; resources or Iran arid iraq.” The Security Council called on trie states concerned
•;’• to honour scrupulously the Geneva Protocol of 19/5 which prohibited the use
1” of such weapons and condemned ah’ violations of international humanitarian
I !*vv.
; In the beginning of 1984 hostilities between Iran and Iraq escalated both
f on land and at sea and the two made attacks on civilian areas. In subsequent
i months they, began attack on merchant ships in the-Gulf in violation of
!, international iaw. On 1 fune 198-1 the Security Council adopted a resolution in -
! which ’t called upon <in states to respect the right of free navigation and condemned the recent attacks on rc””-
Tnei’cia! ships en route toand from theports
’ of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. , .
;:; With a view to mitigate the effects of was: the Secretary General sent
| identical messages to iran and Iraq on 29 June, 19H4 and called upon them tc
j,> make solemn commitment net ’c use cheriica! w°apOiiS of any kind for any
t reason. The Secretary-General-also feif concerned aboui the iH’roatment of the
’•-. prisoners of war\ ^nd despatched a mission to l’,iq and Iran to inquire info
allegations of rriatreatment of prisoners of war and civilian; detainees, the
mission railed for improved treatment of prisoners of war in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions.
As the hostilities betwwn (ran, Iraq again escalated, the President of Security Council expressed his serious concern
over these developments. In March, 1985 he. presentee! fresh proposals for reducing the level-of condfct and endmg
hostilities. He even e^prf. serf his readiness so go to Baghdad and Teheranif the two governments were prepared to
discuss all aspects of fhe.conflicts. The .Secretary-General acuvjlly paid vi>it to the capitals of these two countries .
.betweerf 7 9 Aprii. in the course of these taiks both the governments reaffirmed their desire tor peace anrf.their
”confidence in’the Secretary-General. The Stcreiary-Generai Mt quite satisfied with the response of the two parties
and reiterated his commitment to continue efforts to bringing the conflict to an end.
In early February 1986 the Iranian forces launched a major offensive inthe region of Iraqi port of Faw and captured the
Peninsula. All attempts by Iraq to recapture the area were failed by the Iranian occupying forces. Though Faw had a
limited strategic value, its occupation by Iran gave her two distinct advantages. In the first place it gave her
psychological satisfaction of a victory over Iraq and greatly undermined the prestige of Iraqi regime. Secondly, it put
Iran in a better position to block Iraq’s access to the Gulf. The Iranian offensive posed a serious threat to the security of
several Arab countries and they called for urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the war.
AccordinglytheSecurityCouncilrneton ISFebruary, 1986 and thoroughly considered the issue. On 24 February the
Council adopted an unanimous resolution expressing its deep concern over the prolongation of conflict which had
resulted in heavy losses of human lives and considerable material damage and endangered international peace and
security. The resolution emphasised the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of the territory by force and
deplored the initial acts which had given rise to the conflict. The resolution called upon Iran and Iraq to observe an
immediate cessation of all hostilities and urged that a comprehensive exchange of prisoners of war be completed within
a short period in co-operation with the International Committee of Red Cross. It further requested both the parties to
submit immediately ali aspects of the conflict to mediation including withdrawal of forces to the international
boundary, with a view to putting a permanent end to all hostilities. It asked other states to exercise utmost restraint and
retrain from any act which might lead to a further escalation and widening of the conflict.
Despite these effqris of the United Naf ions the hostilities between the two countries continued during the subsequent
months though at a low key. However, in March 1987 the Iranian regular troops organised a successful assault on Iraqi
positions in the Cerdmand Hills, some 30 kms inside the Iraqi territory. On the other hand the Iraqi air force also
mounted frequent raids on Iran’s oil export facilities. Iraq claimed that as a result of these raids atleast half of Iran’s
fleet of coastal shuttle oil tankers had been crippled. Further damage was caused in air raids organised during late 1986
and early 1987. On its parts Iran resorted to missile attacks on Iraqi cities.
There was further escalation of wars in the subsequent months. Though occasionally there was a lull in the active fight,
the relations by and large continued to be very hostile with both the parties determined to carry on the war to the finish.
In short, all the efforts of the United Nations to end the war proved futile.
Islamic Conference Organisation’s Efforts. The Foreign Minister and Islamic Conference Organisation (ICO) also
decided to send a committee of good offices to both Iraq and Iran. President Zia-u!-Huq of Pakistan along with Habib
Chatti, the Secretary of the ICO. and Yasser Ararat, the PLO leader, held talks with the leaders of the two countries. In
the course of these talks while Iraq showed readiness to cease hostilities and begin negotiations on the condition that
Iran should recognise Iraq’s sovereignty over the area claimed in the Shattal-Arab and the Persian Gulf, and refrain
from interfering in the internal affairs
479
of Iraq. However, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran held that the damage caused by Iraq was irreparable and the war was an
invasion of an Islamic country by a nonIslamic Iraqi Basathist.
In January, 1981 the Islamic Conference Organisation at its third conference decided to enlarge the good offices
committee and to set up if necessary, an Islamic force to implement a cease-fire. The enlarged committee consisted of
President Zia-ur-Rehman of Bangladesh, President Sir Dawda Jawara of the » Gambia, President Sekou Toure of
Guinea and President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, Adml. Bulent Ulusu. Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Araft, Tengka Datuk
Ahmed Rithauddeen of Malaysia and Moustapha Niasse of Senegal, and Mr. Chatti. The enlarged Committee paid a
visit to Teheran. Iran indicated its willingness to accept arbitration of an International Commission as a means of
settling the war provided Iraq withdrew its forces from Iran.
On 5 March, 1981 the Islamic Conference Organisation’s Committee suggested the observance of truce from 5 March
to 12 March during which Iraq was to withdraw its troops; both the parties should agree to freedom of navigation in the
Shatt-al-Arab, while the long term future of the waterway was to be left to be determined by a special committee under
the auspices of the good offices committee; and the two parties should agree to non-interference in each other’s affairs.
The Plan of the ICO Committee was rejected by Iran. President Bani Sadr of Iran said that non solution outside the
Algiers agreement of 1975 could be accepted by Iran. He also insisted that cease-fire and the withdrawal of Iraq’s
invasion must be simultaneous. Thereafter, the ICO’s good offices committee met President Saddam Hussein in March,
1981. In view of his unfavourable response, the Committee suspended peace-keeping shuttles at the Summit level. In
May, 1981 a fresh bid to secure peace between Iran and Iraq was made by President Zia-ur-Rehman of Bangladesh and
Prof Mohammad Shamsul Huq. They paid visits to Iraq and Iran for this purpose; But Iran rejected the latest proposals
of the ICO In June, 1981, when the Foreign Minister of ICO met at Baghdad they issued yet another appeal’to both Iran
and Iraq to end the bloodshed and endeavour to reach a just, peaceful and honourable solution of their conflict. In July
1984 the Mediation Committee of the Islamic Conference Organisation called upon both the sides to end attacks on
Gulf Shipping and requested the President of Islamic Conference Organisation (Sir Dwada Jawara,
- President of Gambia) to pay visit to Baghdad and Tehran to seek common ground between two countries. However,
the efforts of the Islamic Conference Organisation did not yield any results.
In the subsequent years also the Islamic Organisation continued to ma”ke efforts to bring Iran-Iraq war to an end but
did not meet with much success. In its meeting at Kuwait on 26-29 January, 1987 the Islamic Conference Organisation
made a serious bid to end war. It suggested that an international power should determine which country bore
responsibility for the war (thus conceding one of the demands oi Iran that Iraq should be declared aggressor). However,
Iran firmly
spurned down its proposals to stop hostilities forthwith.

480
In short, all efforts of the Islamic Conference Organisation bring about a settlement between Iran and Iraq have proved futile.
Peace Efforts by Non-Align«d Movement. The non-aligned movement did not lag behind in its efforts to bring about settlement
between Iran and Iraq. The Coordination Bureau of the non-aligned countries decided to take the initiative and constituted a Mediation
Committee for the purpose. The committee consisted of the Foreign Minis4ers of Algeria, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Zambia
and a representative of the PLO. But as President Suddam Hussein objected to the participation of the Algerian Foreign Minister, he
was replaced by the Foreign Minister of Malaysia. But the Committee could not-make much progress. At the meeting of the Foreign
Ministers of the non-aligned countries held at New Delhi in February, 1981 :t w<js decided to ask the Foreign Ministers of Cuba,
India and Zambia and the head of the PLO’s political department to make all possible efforts to implement the principles and
programme of the movement. Thereafter the above ihree Foreign Ministers and the head of the PLO political department paid visits to
Teheran arid Baghdad to find out a solution. However, they tailed to bring about any change in the attitude of the two parties.
Subsequently also the non-aligned ministerial committee paid visits to the two capitals, but could not accomplish much. In Match
1985, Rajiv Gandhi, the Chairperson, of the Non-aligned Movement sent two envoys to meet the leaders of Iran and Iraq and discuss
the possible ways of ending the war. As a result of these meetings President Hussain of Iraq indicated his readiness to sign a just and
comprehensive agreement for peace in accordance with the principles of international law, mutual respect of sovereignty and non-
interference in each other’s artairs.<However, Ayattollah Khomeini of Iran was not willing to sign any agreement until the
international community declared Iraq as an aggressor and acknowledged Iran’s right to’punish the aggressor. In short, as in c-jse of
the United Nations and She Islamic Conference Organisation, the non-aligned movement also failed to achieve any success-in
resolving the Iran-Iraq conflict. Mediation Efforts by Other States. In addition to efforts made by various organisations, certain states
in their individual capacity also made a bid to resolve the issue between Iran and Iraq. On 2nd October, 1980, President Castro of
Cuba made proposals for bringing about peace and the Cuban Foreign Minister Sr. Malmierca Peoli paid a visit to Teheran,. However;
he tailed to achieve any success. In November, 1980, the political Bureau of the ruling Algerian Liberation Front, appealed for a
cease-fire and appealed to the force of the two states to return to the initial positions. The Bureau insisted on peaceful and just
settlement of ail differences between she two countries in accordance with international conventions, decisions and recommendations
of the non-aligned movement and the Islamic Conference Organisation.
in October, 1980 PLO suggested a four-stage plan to bring the fighting to an end. The Plan e’nyisaged; (i) a cease-fire; no a unilateral
Iraqi withdrawal to the iVontiers of 1975 agreement and ihe 1913 Constantinople Protocol; (iiiT Iranian agreement to negotiations in a
neutral country; and (iv) control of iraq’s withdrawal by Islamic and non-aligned countries. However, the plan did not evoke any
favourable response. Both Iran and Iraq stuck to their stated positions.
481
In 1984 following escalation of Iran-Iraq war and Iran’s threat to close the strategic Strait of Hoirmuz, the Defence Ministers
of six Gulf Co-operation Council (viz. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Kuwait) proposed a
plan to end the gulf war. However, the plan did not meet with any success.
Thus we find that despite the efforts by the United Nations, the Nonaligned Movement, Islamic Summit and other powers to end the
war, the came continued. A sort of impasse was created between the two countries. Iraq was more than prepared to make peace but
could not accept the terms offered by Iran. On the other hand Iran was not prepared to negotiate and wanted to dictate its own peace.
In fact as long as Iran adhered to its goal of toppling Saddam Hussein’s government and calling for his international condemnation as
a war criminal, there could be no real scope for mediation by third parties.
Towards Settlement of the Problem. However, towards the colse of 1987 certain favourable trends appeared wh ich raised hopes for
the ending of war. The long drawn war and the enormous loss of life and property undermined the political will of the two powers to
pursue the war any further. There was a growing war-eariness in the two countries. The steady decline of oil prices also greatly
affected the military procurements of these two countries. Further it adversely affected the domesitc prosperity of the two. Another
favourable development which greatly helped in ending the war was changed in the attitude of the international community. The
international community which had so far adopted rather lukewarm approach to the resolution of the conflict, began to feel deeply
concerned about the war and started making frantic efforts to resolve the same. In the midst of these developments in July 1987 the
UN Security Council passed resolution 598 which called for withdrawal of forces to internationally recognised borders and exchange
of prisoners of war. It also proposed establishment of a Commission to decide the responsibility for war. Iraq welcome the resolution
and indicated its readiness to accept the same if Iran did likewise. However, Iran took the stand that Iraq must be branded as aggressor
in the war before it accepts resolution. Despite this Secretary General continued to make efforts to bring about peace between the two
and paid visits to Baghdad and Tehran. On 15 October 1987 the UN proposed a revised peace plan and called for an effective end to
hostilities and the simultaneous setting up of an international inquiry to determine responsibility for the start of the war Iran did not
respond favourably to this plan also. Between December 1987 and April,
1988 United States and others gave several calls for sanctions against whichever one of the belligerents does not accept resolution
598. Despite this Iran neither accepted nor rejected the resolution and continued to maintain that Iraq must be he id responsible for the
start of war. Ultimately on 18 Juiy 1988 iran accepted •resolution 598 unconditionally. Iraq insisted on direct talks with !rar before a
ceasefire, but subsequently Iraq dropped this demand. Oh 7 August 1988 Iran accepted UN proposals for direct ta’ks wi:h Iraq after
the ceasefire goes into effect. Within next few days United Nations Irjn-liaq Military Observer Group •lUNIIMOC) conumjng
contingents of 24 natiuns (including India! moved in the border zono to supervise cease fire. Ultimately on 20 August, 1938 the
ceasefire came into force and the Iran-Iraq War formally ended
482
It is noteworthy that for the first time in the history of the UN the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group
had a naval component to patrol the strategic Shatt Al Arab waterway, ti»e main cause of tension between the two
countries. Hope was expressed that the truce would serve as a starting point for a just and honourable settlement of the
long-standing dispute between Iran and Iraq. However the negotiations which followed the cease-fire between the two
sides failed to make much progress towards the final peace agreement, even though both the sides continued to respect
the formal cease-fire declared by them on 20 August and subsequently monitored by UN troops. The talks got
deadlocked due to persisting differences over the status of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway and the validity of the Algiers
Agreement, Further Iran still insists that Iraq should be named the aggressor and asked to withdraw its troops from over
1000 kms of Iranian territory. Thus we find that suspicion, mistrust and uncertainties surround the peace projections of
both Iran and Iraq. However, the improvement in the relations of superpowers and their growing cooperation improved
the prospects of peace in the region.
The relations between Iraq and Iran showed sudden improvement in 1990 because Iraq, which was fating international
military and economic pressure over its invasion of Kuwait, decided to withdraw its forces from Iranian territory
captured during the eight-year conflict. The two countries a’so agreed to set up a joint committee to oversee
repatriation of al1 prisoners of War. In Mid-October,
1990 President Saddam Hussein announced the acceptance of Iran’s terms for settlement of dispute and thus formally
brought the eight-year old Iran-Iraq War to an end.
Gulf War
The West Asian region witnessed one of the worst crisis of recenf years in the form of Gulf War in January-February
1991, when Iraq was invaded by 28 countries led by United States. The things started heating up after Iraq forcibly
occupied Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and made it the ninth province of Iraq. The trouble started because Kuwait was
extracting oil in excess of the quota, which led to depression of oil prices and reduction in Iraq’s” earnings. Further,
Kuwait refused to give up two islands of Warba and Bobyan and territories occupied by it clrKe to Iraq’s unmarked
borders. Another factor which greatly contribute to tension between Iraq and Kuwait was Rumaila oil field. Iraq
accused Kuwait of stealing oil field, which resulted in loss to the funeof $ 2,400 million at the prices prevailing
between 1930-1S90. Efforts by various Arab countries to resolve differences between Iraq and Kuwait failed to
produce any results. Faced with difficult financial problems, due to long drawn war with Iran, President Saddam
Hussein of !raq took the extreme step of forcible occupation of Kuwait.
Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait evoked strong reactions trom ai! p.irts of the world..The UN Security Council passed
a number of resolution asking Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and restore sovereignty to Kuwait. It also called upon the
member-countries to impose economic and military sanctions against Iraq. United states even went beyond the scope of
the Security Council resolution and’ arranged a navai b’ockade in the hope that Iraq wou’d wilt under the force of such
sanctions and agree to pull out its forces from Kuwait. But as the sanctions were
483
•
imposed half-heartedly, they failed to achieve the desired results. In the face of persistent defiance of its resolutions, the
Security Council served Iraq with an ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait by 15 January 1991, failing which the U.N.
members states would be obliged to use necessary measures to ’secure the objective’! Saddam Hussein, on the other
hand, linked the issue of withdrawal of Iraqi forces rrom Kuwait with the establishment of a new state of Palestine with
Jerusalem as its capital. He also refused to accept the dates for talks dictated by United States. As a result war became
imminent. Certain countries made last minute bid to prevent hostilities, but their efforts did not yield the desired results.
On the expiry of the deadline forces of 28 nations, led by United States started air onslaughts on Iraq, Though the main
aim of the UN resolution was to secure liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and restore integrity, unity and
sovereignty of the tiny state, the main objective of the leading western powers became to topple Saddam Hussein and
break up Iraq so that it may not be able to pose any threat to western supremacy.
The public opinion in most of the countries, including certain parts of USA, turned hostile to USA for attacking Iraq.
Saddam Hussein bravely withstood the air-raids by the forces of 28 countries for quite sometime and even launched
attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia with Soviet-supplied Scud missiles. The war finally come to an end on 28
February 1991 when Iraq conveyed to acceptance of all the 12 resolutions passed by the Security Council.
The Gulf war was unique in many ways. In the first instance, a coalition of three nuclear powers was for the firs’ time
involved in this war in military action against a country, while the other two tacitly supported the war. England and
America acted in perfect unionism, while France supported the war on the presumption that it was being waged to
liberate an occupied country. Two other nuclear powers viz. China and Russia, tacitly supported th« war. In fact Soviet
Union put the entire blame for the tragic turn of the Gulf War on Iraq.
Secondly, in this war a large number of Arab and non-Arab Islamic countries extended support to United States against
Iraq, an Arab Muslim country. It is noteworthy that neither of the two Super Powers could secure the support of such a
large number of Asian countries in any of the wars waged by them earlier viz. America in Indochina and Soviet Union
in Afghanistan.
Thirdly, for the first time all the permanent members of the Security Council acted with unanimity and all the i 2
resolutions on the Persian Gulf crisis were adopted by the Council without any veto.
Fourthly, there was a warning period of five months before hostilities actually started. This is in complete contrast with
some of fhe earlier wars which were started rather abruptly.
Fifthly, the Persian Gulf war was not a UN war against Iraq. The Security Council merely gave permission ror use of
all availabie means to make Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Unlike the Korejn War of 1 930 when all the forces were
placed under the UN command with a UN flag, the Persian Gulf War was fought unde.r the leadership-of United States.
In fact President George Bush turned the
484
485
conflict into an almost persona! war against Saddam Huss«in. He even misinterpreted the Security Council
resolutions to exploit the wording to his maximum advantage.
Sixthly, the war was unique in the sense that it caused damage to the civilian population and civilian economy on
an unprecedented scale.
Seventhly, in this war environment was used as a war weapon. The massive slicks of oil let out by Iraq into the sea not
only posed serious problems for Saudi Arabia and other Allies, but also resulted in the death of thousands of birds, fish
varieties etc. Iraq deliberately dumped crude in the sea to hamper naval operations and fou! up desalination plants
supplying drinking water,
Eighthly, this war witnessed history’s most intense bombing campaign. A relatively small territory of Iraq was
plastered with a large number of more powerful laser-guided bombs. The bomb dropped during this war were far in
excess of the bombs dropped on the Nazi occupied Europe during the entire Second World War.
Ninthly, in this war the countries which bore the financial burden ot” the war did not play any effective role in the
planning, execution or the direction of the war. While major finances for the war were contributed by the Arab and
other countries, the planning, execution and direction 01 war was left with the United States. ’
Impact of War and Future Trends
The war had a deep impact on almost all the countries of the world, specially the countries of the Third World. On 4
April 1991 the five permanent members of Security Council adopted a resolution which requires Iraq to accept UN
control in violation of its rights as sovereign nation. Some of the restrictions imposed on Itaq relate to acquisition of
weapons, pursuit of a peaceful nuclear capability and change in Its borders with Kuwait. What is really painful that no
such restrictions haire been imposed on other countries in the region. This is a cause of great concern to all the Third
World countries beacause under the currently accepted internationaJ norms every country has the right to safeguard its
territory and .to acquire whatever weaponry it needs either through purchase or through other arrangements.
The Persian Gull War, though initially provided new lease of life to the United Nations, has rendered it virtually
poWeriess Soon after the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq, the UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions, which
were adopted with the support of all the permanent members, but it did not show any keenness to ensure their earnest
implementation. In fact President Bush of USA virtually pushed the Security Council to the background and assumed
the powers of a world policeman. Further, the US led multinational forces resorted to bombing of civilian areas in clear
violation of international law. All this gave the impression that the United Nations was merely a convenient tool in the
hand> of USA.
The Gulf War highlighted the need of effective regional organisation? to prevent external military intervention. In this
w,?r. America and her allies were able to make effective intervention because the existing regional organisation of
this area (Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Countries) failed to play any decisive rote in resolving
differences between Iraq and Kuwait. Had they acted effectively there would have been no need for external
military intervention. Instead the countries of this region preferred to support United States and her allies. This
greatly reduced their importance and they could hardly play any rote in the planning, execution or direction of
war. This participation in the war was confined only to financial contributions and oil supplies.
The limited role played by Soviet Union during the Persian Gulf War was a clear pointer that it was too deeply
involved in its domestic problems and was not willing to play the dominant rote which it once used to play.
Although Sov;et Union had been Iraq’s most helpful friend and major supplier of weapons, it preferred to keep
its hands off. It voted for the U.S. sponsored resolution in the Security Council that authorised ’all necessary
means’ to deal with the Gulf crisis. However, Soviet Union did not join the allied forces in the war against Iraq.
For the major part of the war Soviet leaders maintainedsilence. However towards the close of war Gorbochev
put forth a peace plan for ending the war. It has been argued that had Soviet Union played more active role and
taken a little stronger stand during the war, the United States would not have been able to dominate and dictate
the course of events.
The war greatly enhanced the influence of the Western countries in the oil rich region of West Asia. Now the
western countries can be sure of the unhindered supply of the oil because the refining activities are mainly
controlled by the western countries, even though the production is confined in the hands of the National Oil
Companies. The western countries shall also be able to greatly influence the prices of oil.
The Gulf War also demonstrated that the developed and powerful countries can cooperate with each other
whenever their interests coincide. In fact one of the major consideration for the intervention of the advanced
western countries in West Asia during the Gulf war was protection of their oil interests. Had Iraq continued to
keep control over Kuwait, it would have acquired control over 20 per cent of world’s oil reserves, which would
have certainly operated against the interests of advanced western countries.
In the post Gulf War period United States played a more dominant rote, in view of virtual disappearance of
Soviet Union as an important factor in the region. Naturally, the Arabs looked towards United States for all
economic and military aid. America also benefited because the Arabs are placing orders for sophisticated
weapons to replenish their stocks. The task of reconstruction of the war devastated countries like Kuwait and
Iraq also brought financial benefits to America and other western countries. It is true that US has substantially
reduced its reliance on Middle East Oil, but still it has keen interest in the Persian Gulf on account of its
strategic importance and as a last resort for supply of oil on account of its excess production capacity.
New Cnw in Penan Gulf. In October 1994 a new mini crisis arose in Persian Gulf involving Iraq and Kuwait on
the one hand and its western allies
on the other. In fact this crisis was a continuation of the larger Gulf crisis of
1990-91 in which the US led coalition forces defeated Iraq and liberated Kuwait. One of the terms of the settlement of
Gulf crisis of 1990-91 was imposition of embargo on oil sales by Iraq. The oil embargo, in terms of UN Secuirty
Council Resoulation, was to be lifted after Iraq was disarmed of itsmass destruction weapons and had no longer the
capacity to make them again, except with limited range. While the UN inspectors in Iraq were about to issue a
favourable report on Iraq’s cooperation and Iraq was close to obtaining permission to resume oil exports, President
Saddam Hussein committed the mistake of sending 80,000 troops near the Iraqi border,, which was immediately
exploited by US and it immediately sent a strong froce of Marines, warship and warplanes. USA along with UK
pleaded for the tightening of sanctions against Iraq and the UN committed itself to sanctions afresh. The crisis was
averted due to withdrawal of troops from Kuwaiti border by the Iraqi President. It may be noted that though US was
keen to take military actiqn against Iraq, Russia, France and China did not favour such an action.
In November 1994 Iraq accorded formal recognition to Kuwait as a sovereign state and dropped all territorial claims
which led to invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990. Iraq took this decision in the hope that the Security Council woufd lift
the sweeping sanctions imposed against her after its attack on Kuwait in August 1990. However, the Security Council
refused to lift the sanctions
against Iraq.
In view of the adverse effect of the economic sanctions and embargo on the health? nutrition, education and general
condition of the people of Iraq, certain countries pleaded for’lifting of economic sanctions and embargo on oil sales. In
view of all this the UN Security Council apporoved a plan which permitted Iraq to sell oil to buy food, medicine and
other supplies for its peoples . suffering due to UN sanctions. In terms of this plan Iraq was allowed to sell upto $ 2
billion worth of oil over 180 days under UN surveillance, but it was to set
• aside part of the profits to pay for the UN weapons inspection teams and as reparation to Kuwait and victims of the
Gulf War. As per the plan Iraq could earn $ 1 billion every three months through oil sale, which was to be first credited
to an account maintained by the UN Secretary General, who was to then directly distribute $ 130 million as relief to the
Iraqi Kurds, $ 3000 million as w-jr reparation to tho<« in the neighbouring countries and pay remaining $ 670 million
to the suppliers of food and medicine to the Iraqis. However, the Plan was rejected by President Saddam on 15 April
1995 on the ground that it infringes her sovereignty.
Libya and UN Sanctions
Another situation of crisis arose in West Asia in)anuary 1992 when the UN Security Council passed a resolution urging
Libya to surrender two suspects who are accused in the bombings of a Pan Am 103 over Scotland and French flight
over North America. As Col Gaddafi refused to budge from his earlier stand and declined to hand over the two
suspects-to either United States or Britain for trial. As a result the Western powers pressed the UN Security Council to
approve
487
mandate sanctions against Libya, which came into operation on 15 April 1992. As a result of these sanctions Tripoli’s
air links with the rest of the world were cut off. The sanctions also put an arms embargo and asked the states to ojt
down on Libyan diplomatic staff. However, the resolution did not impose any oil embargo, even though oil forms a
major part of Libya’s trade. This was probably done because three of the main importers of oil from Libya are
Germany, Italy and Spain, and they coo id not immediately change their suppliers. It may be observed that these
international sanctions against Libya mark yet another milestone in the UN effort to go beyond words and take strong
action to bring wayward states into fine. This could be possible because the Soviet Union, an old friend of Libya, had
disintegrated and its successor (Russia) in the Security Council did not feel it advisable to veto the resolution.
Appraisal of West Assian Crisis ’ ’
It is evident from the above developments in West Asia, that the countries of this region, though bound by common
culture a_nd language, lack unity and there is more of conflict than harmony among them. On account of their mutual
bickerings the A/ab states of the region have not been able to adopt a common attitude or policy towards Israel.
According to Abba Eban, the famous Israeli writer, there are three separate approaches to the Israeli question in the
Arab world. First approach, represented by Egypt, rests on permanent end of belligerency in a formal peace treaty
involving full diplomatic relations. Even Lebanon has agreed to end the state of war after the. 1982-83 war in exchange
for an Israeli commitment of withdrawal from jts territory. In short, this approach repressents the abandonment of
traditional Arab denial of Israel’s permanence and legitimacy as a state. The second approach represented by states I
ike Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, South Yemen, Kuwait, etc. implies the renouncement of the dream
of Israel’s disappearance without entering into formal agreements. Thirdly, there are Arab-rejectionists like PLO who
have as yet not reconciled with the existence of Israel. However, of late even in this group a section has begun to favour
adoption of more realistic approach and insisted on the acceptance of the permanence and stability of Israel.1
One of the main reason which prevented the Arabs from acting in unionism was that they were divided in their loyalty.
While some states were closely allied •with the Western powers, the others were closer to the Communists. Thus
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Sudan were close to United States and other Western
Powers of Europe, while countries like Libya, . Syria, Iraq and South Yemen were close to Soviet Union. As a result
when it came to voting in the United Nations on major international issues they could never display unity and often
voted against each other.
The diversity of political systems in the Arab states has prevented them from following identical principles. Thus,
Saudi Arabia and some of the Emirates have traditional monarchies which govern according to Muslim Law; Syria and
South Yemen have ’people’s democracies’ on the pattern of Eastern Europe; Iraq .
1. Abba Eban, The New Diplomacy-International Affairs in the Modern Age, p. 198
488 • , INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
and Libya’ have military dictatorships; Jordan has paternalistic monarchy. Lebanon has pluralistic parliamentary
democracy. These differences of political systems also engender hostility.
The problems of the Middle-East cannot be resolved with the help of outside powers and a sincere effort on the part of
countries of the region would have tob^made. For this purpose it is very essential that some sort of stability most come
in this region. Once this stability is achieved a patient effort could lead to solution of the problem.
CONFLICT AND COOftRATION IN SOUTH ASIA
489
,’•,,: : ,:;’ ..=.’ 31

Conflict and Cooperation in
South Asia
%.
The term South Asia is used for the countries tying South of Himalayas and Hindukush mountains and surrounded by
the Indian Ocean from three sides. The countries of this region include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal
and Bhutan. Some writers include even Afghanistan and Maldives in this region. Apart from Afghanistan, Nepal and
Bhutan the rest of the South Asian region has been subject to colonial rule. Thesecountries gained independence after
Second World War. India got independence in 1947; Pakistan came into existence as a result of partition of India in
1947; Sri Lanka got independence in 1948. Bangladesh emerged as an independent sovereign state after breaking away
from Pakistan in 1971. Though the countries differ from each other with regard to climate, race, religion and history
they constitute a single region, and possess some common features. Firstly, most of the countries are economically very
poor and majority of their people live below poverty line. Secondly, religion is a predominant factor in these states. In
fact some of the states like Pakistan and Bangladesh were created on religious basts. Thirdly, these countries are faced
with problems of unemployment, illiteracy, over population, etc. Fourthly, the countries are basically agricultural and
industrially backward. However, India is an exception and has made considerable industrial progress. Fifthly, most of
the countries, with the exception of India, are faced with the problem of political instability. And finally most of the
countries (except Pakistan) do not have any close military links with super powers.
CONFLICTS IN SOUTH ASIA
Despite the presence of a number of common features the countries of South Asia have not been able to evolve
cooperative relations and their relations are characterised by numerous conflicts. Of late, of course, the countries of
South Asia have realised the need of co-operation and made some progress in this direction. Before we make a survey
of the efforts at co-operation amongst the countries of the region, it shall be desirable to briefly review the conflicts
between them. We shall deal with these conflicts country-wise.
1. AFGHANISTAN
Afghanistan is a landlocked country located in the high mountains of Hindukush in the North East and having a deserf
along the western border. It is located between the Middle East, Central Asia and Indian Sub-continent. Its population
consists of Pathans who’constitute 55 per cent of the total population
and Tajiks who constitute 30 per cent of the total population. Afghanistan emerged as an independent country in 1747
when the Persians were overthrown and Ahmad Shah Durani founded the Afghan Empire. Both Russia and Britain
developed interest in the country and by the close of 19th century the British succeeded in establishing their influence
over the country. The Afghans successfully resisted the attempts of the English to bring Afghanistan under their control
and maintained their independence. However, the British on account of their superior position succeeded in forcing the
Afghans to accept the Durand Line as. the line of demarcation between the two countries in 1938. Though for some
time the British influence continued in Afghanistan but gradually the Afghans began to act independently.
In 1953 Muhammad Daud was designated as Prime Minister by King Zahir Shah. He remained in power till 1963.
During this period he accepted technical and financial assistance from both the super powers and the country made
great progress. However, in 1963 Daud was dismissed by the king. He remained out or” power till he staged a come
back through a military coup in 1973. He overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed himself as the President of
Afghanistan Republic. Daud was overthrown through a military coup in April 1978 and Nur Mohammad Taraki
succeeded him. The new regime developed intimate relations with’Soviet Union and concluded a treaty of
friendship’and cooperation with Soviet Union. A dramatic change took place in September, 1979 when HafizuUah
Amin replaced Nur Mohammad, but his regime lasted only for three months’ and Babrak Karma!, a former Vice-
President assumed power. Karmal regime was tuHy backed by the Soviet troops. The opponents to Karmal regime
carried on guerrilla warfare which has been going on since then. With the passage of time Soviet Union’s involvement
in Afghanistan increased. The Soviet Union took the stand that it would withdraw its troops from Afghanistan
- only when the foreign intervention in Afghanistan comes to a complete halt.
On 20 November, 1980 the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution which inter alia called for the withdrawal of
the foreign troops from-Afghanistan and reiterated that -the preservation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity,
political independence and non-aligned character of Afghanistan was essential for a peaceful solution-of the problem.
On 10 December, 1980 President Brezhnev proposed a peace and security plan for the Gulf Area. He suggested that
U.S.A., the Western powers, China, japan and other states which show interest in Afghanistan should agree-(i) not to
establish foreign military bases in the area of Persian Gulf and adjacent islands, and not to deploy nuclear or other
weapons of mass destruction there; (ii) not to use and not to threaten the use of force against the countries of the
Persian Gulf area and not to interfere in their internal affairs; (in) to respect the non-aligned status chosen by Persian
Gulf states and nc* to draw them into military groupings with the participation of nuclear powers; (iv) to respect the
sovereign rights of the states of the region to their natural resources and (vi) not to raise any obstacles or threats to
normal trade exchange and use of sea lanes linking the states of the region with other countries of the world. However,
the United States Government refused to accept these proposals so long the Soviet troops remained in
CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA
491
Afghanistan. .
On 27 January, 1981 the French President Giscard d’Estaing proposed a conference involving not only Iran, Pakistan
and India but also the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Afghanistan was not to participate in this
conference and it was to be limited to only those countries which were being accused of interfering, with a view to
ending such interference allowing Afghanistan to resume its non-aligned status. However, President Karmal of
Afghanistan did not react favourably to this proposal and defied any attempt to internationalise the Afghan question.
In June, 1981 ceitain changes took place in the government of Afghanistan. Babrak Karmal relinquished his position as
Premier and appointed one of his deputies Sultan Ali Keshtman as the head of the Government. After this change the
European Economic Community suggested on 30 June, 1981 that an international conference should be held to find out
a political solution of the Afghanistan problem. According to the proposal, the Conference was to be held at two stages,
each being an integral part of the conference itself. During the first stage, international arrangements designed to bring
about the cessasion of external intervention and-to prevent such intervention in future were to be worked out with a
view to create condition in which Afghanistan’s independence and non-aligned character could be assured. During this
stage the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Pakistan, Iran, India and Secretary General of the United
Nations and the Secretary General of the Islamic Conference or their representatives were to participate. At the second
stage, effort was to be made to reach an agreement on the implementation of the internal arrangement agreed during the
first stage and on other matters designed to assure Afghanistan’s future as an independent and non-aligned state, At this
stage in addition to the participants of the first stage, the representative of the Afghan people were also to participate.
The proposals did not receive favourable response from the Soviet Union which described the plan as ”unrealistic” and
”unacceptable.” It not only objected to non-presence of the Afghan representatives at the first stage, but also asserted
the Soviet troops could be withdrawn only when outside interference had ceased. .
Despite these setbacks, efforts continued for solution of the Afghanistan problem. Sr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, the
personal envoy of the U.N. Secretary General held a series of separate talks with the members of the Afghanistan and
Pakistan Governments and two governments agreed to hold trilateral talks. In these trilateral talks the United Nations
was to be the third party. This was a significant development. So far Afghanistan had insisted on bilateral talks and was
willing to give the United Nations only the observer status. However, Afghanistan government declared that while it
was ready to hold talks with Pakistan Government, the Soviet troops would leave Afganistan only when the subversive
activities of ”bandits and hired killers had ceased.* Soviet Union also indicated its willingness to withdraw its troops
from Afghanistan if Pakistan and Iran accepted the new Afghan proposal and agreed to end armed interference in
Afghan affairs.
492 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ;”
On 18 November, 11981, the U N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of
foreign troops from Afghanistan and reiterated that the preservation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity,
political independence and non-aligned character of the country was essential for a peaceful solution of the
problem. However, the Afghanistan representative registered a protest over theûbmission of such resolution
and described it as gross violation of the U.N. Charter. He asserted that resolution was not legal and hence
binding. He further asserted that the Soviet troops would be withdrawn only when armed aggression and
interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan were stopped.
The United Nations also made efforts to bring about a settlement of the problem. It arranged a meeting at Geneva to
work out a comprehensive settlement of the four inter-related issues viz., withdrawal of foreign troops; noninterference
and non-intervention; guarantees of non-intervention and noninterference and arrangement for the return of the
refugees. The Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan held a number of rounds of talks to find out a political
solution of the problem, but without any success. In the meanwhile fighting within Afghanistan continued which
resulted in the destruction of communications, hospitals, schools etc. Occasional street fights also took place in the
prominent cities like Kabul and Herat between the Mujahedeen, who claim themselves to be the true representative of
the Afghan people and the .;„ Government backed by the Soviet Union.
With the enhancement of guerilla activities, the Afghanistan Government resorted to policy of repression. Soviet Union
attacked the strategic areas of Mujahedeen in Panishir valley, located on the Pakistan side. However, this did ; not
completely dislodge the insurgents. In view of the growing atrocities on the ’ Mujahedeen in March 1984 the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights decided to investigate the alleged abuses of human rights in Afghanistan. This was
greatly ,’. resented by the Government of Afghanistan as well as Soviet Union.
In the meanwhile U.S.A. stepped up military assistance to the Mujahedeens, Certain other countries like China, Saudi
Arabia and Iran also provided assistance to the rebels. On the other hand Soviet Union also stepped up its military
activities and attacked the rebels with helicopter gunships and bombed their villages. These tactics of Soviet Union met
with considerable success. Simultaneously, Soviet Union tried to win over the support of the non-Pushtun
• tribals by promising development funds for the local councils.
Further efforts to find a negotiated solution of the Afghan problem were
made by Sr. Cordovez, the U.N. Special Envoy for Pakistan. However, the talks
’ were stalled due to Soviet refusal to specify a time-table for the withdrawal of
’ its troops and by Afghanistan’s insistence on guarantees of cession of foreign,
assistance to guerrilla organisation. The Afghan problem could not be solved
because Soviet Union insisted on certain conditions which the other parties were
either not willing or able to comply with. For ’example, the Soviet Lffcion
continued to press for recognition of Babrak Karmal regime and an assurance
from Pakistan and Iran that they will halt the movement of armed opponents of
Karmal regime across the border. But, Pakistan could not give any such assurance
493
due to the presence of over two million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, which rendered it difficult for the Pakistan
government to effectively close its own borders. Further, Pakistan’s recognition of Babrak Karmal regime would have
led to a break with the Islamic Conference, and with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were supporting the rebel
movement As a result stalemate continued on the Afghan problem. But as the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan had
proved quite an expensive affair both in terms of losses of men and money, Soviet Union showed willingness to find a
political settlement to the problem. Accordingly Moscow and its puppet regime (the People’s Democratic Party of
Afghanistan) proposed a plan for national reconciliation and called for a coalition government of national unity. In
December 1986 the PDPA leaders declared six-month unilateral cease-fire and proclaimed a general amnesty for the
opposition forces. It invited the opponents living abroad and the Mujahedeen leaders to enter into dialogue with the
PDPA in order to formulate a new constitution, elect a national assembly and participate in the government. The plan
was firmly turned down by the Mujahedeens and desdribed as a fraud. They vowed to carry on the fight for the
unconditional and total withdrawal of Soviet troops, and the right of the Afghans to determine their own future. Despite
this the PDPA leaders persisted with the plan, and announced a unilateral cease-fire with effect from the midr night of
14-15 January 1987. On 17 January seven groups comprising the Islamic Unity issued a joint statement firmly rejecting
the cease-fire and described the proposal for a government of national reconciliation as deceptive. They called for the
continuation of struggle till all Soviet forces had been withdrawn. They also indicated their readiness to hold direct
talks with the Soviet authorities for the removal of Soviet troops. But the Soviet Union was not willing to withdraw
from Afghanistan unless an agreement was reached which assured her position in Afghanistan. The stalemate
continued. However, UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy continued to make efforts to find a solution of the
Afghanistan problem.
Afghanistan Accord. The persistent efforts .of Diego Cordovez, special envoy of UN Secretary General yielded results
and on 14 April 1988 Pakistan and Afghanistan signed a historic pact at Geneva, while USA and USSR appended
signatures as guarantors. In terms ofthis agreement the two countries agreed to fespett each other’s sovereignly,
territorial integrity, national unity, security and non-alignment. They pledged to refrain from use of force or threat of
force and not to permit their respective territories to be used for training, equipment, financing and recruitment of
mercenaries and to deny transit facilities to such mercenaries. The two superpowers also undertook to refrain rrom all
types of interference in the affairs of Afghanistan and Pakistan and to work for promotion of good neighbourly
relations between the two countries. The accord also contained provision for return of refugees to Afghanistan and
Pakistan agreed to provide necessary assistance in the repatriation of refugees. Soviet Union pledgee) to commence
withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan from 1 5 May 1988. The accord was widely acclamied and hopes were
expressed that it would bnng peace in sorely-afflicted Afghanistan. But the Usk of the implementation of accord po->ed
several problems. It ran into difficulties because-
it was rejected by the Afghan rebels as well as Iran. Even Pakistan did not strictly abide by the terms of the Accord and
continued to assist the Mujahideens. Decision of the U.S. Government to continue supply of sophisticated weapons to
rebels (Mujahideens) further undermined the prospects of final settlement. Despite these setbacks it cannot be denied
that the accord greatly helped in defusing the explosive situation in Afghanistan. As a result of improvement of
USSoviet relations during next two years an understanding was also reached between the two on the issue of
Afghanistan. While Soviet Union agreed to stop further supplies of arms to Afghanistan Government, the United States
agreed to . stop supply of arms to Mujahideens. It was agreed that an interim government would be set up under
President Najibullah, containing representatives of guerrilla groups. Subsequently an independent government shall be
formed through elections to be supervised by an independent agency like United Nations 01 Islamic Conference.
Special Representative of the UN Secretary General also put forth a five point plan to resolve the Afghanistan crisis.
The plan emphasised the necessity of preserving the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and non-
aligned and Islamic character of Afghanistan. It recognised the right of the Afghan people to determine their own form
of government and to choose their economic, political and social system free from outside intervention, subversion,
coercion or constraint of any kind whatsoever. It insisted on the establishment of a broad-based government and the
necessity of an agreement to end arms supplies to all Afghan sides by all. The plan was given tacit support by West,
Pakistan and the former Soviet Union. In. March 1992, President Najibullah announced that he would step down to
pave the way for political settlement. As Pakistan and USA had made President Najibullah’s removal a precondition for
discussions on a political settlement, this paved way for further progress. In the midst of all these developments the
Mujahideen rebels seized power in Afghanistan and set upa Joint Interim Mujahideen Council under Prof. Sibghatullah
Mojadidi. The new leader declared Afghanistan as an Islamic Republic and called on the hardliner guerilla leader
(Gulbaddin Hekmatyar) to refrain from violence. The formal transfer of power took place in the presence of erstwhile
Watan Party leader and representatives of China, Pakistan, Iran, India, Turkey and United Nations. The new Afghan
government was accorJed recognition by several countries, including India.
In June 1992 President Mojadidi handed over the power to the Mujahideen Council headed by Prof. Barhanuddin
Rabbani. However, endless rivalries among the rebels and Mujahideen continued which proved ruinous for
Afghanistan. A break through came in March 1993 when eight Mujahideen leaders, who Carried on 14 year long jehad
(holy war) against Soviet occupation signed an accord. In terms of this agreement Prof. Burhanuddin Rabbani was to
remain President for 18 months, wSile Gulabuddin Hekmatyar of Hizb-e-lslami, was to act as Prime Minister. The
Prime Minister was* to form Cabinet in consultation with President and leaders of the Mujahideen parties within two
months. The electoral process was to be completed within a period of 18 months commencing from 29 December 1992.
CONFLJCT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 495
The Defence Minister, under the accord, was to be abolished and replaced by a multi-party Defence Council.
The various rival groups decided to work for permanent end to hostilities and agreed to release prisoners of
rival parties and re-open the roads and highways closed during the factional fighting.
Afghanistan has been involved in conflict with Pakistan from the very beginning. After the creation of Pakistan,
Afghanistan opposed Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations. It also encouraged the Pakhtoons to demand an
independent state on the borders of Pakistan. The relations between the two countries showed some improvement in
1956 when the leaders of two countries exchanged visits and concluded trade and telecommunication agreements. This
cordiality, however did not fast long and in 1961 the two countries were involved in clashes which culminated in the
snapping of diplomatic relations between the two. However, later on they restored diplomatic iclations at the instance
of Shah of Tehran and reached an accord regarding trade transit facilities. For sometime the relations between the two
were less hostile. In 1970 they concluded agreements for greater economic co-operation, and Pakistan provided
assistance to Afghanistan in the field of medicine, engineering, irrigation and fertilisers. Despite this visible co-
operation, tension persisted in their relations. The things took a turn forthe worse after the Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan. This not only created serious refugee problem for Pakistan but also posed a threat to its security by
bringing the Soviet Union on its doorsteps. Even the growing friendship between India and Afghanistan has a Iso
contributed to the straining of relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even after the signing of pact between
the two countries in April 1988 the relations remained strained because Pakistan not only played the role of conduit for
U.S. arms to the Mujahideens but also permitted the Afghan rebels to make use of its territory to launch attacks on the
Kabul government of Dr Najibullah.
It even opposed the five point peace formula proposed by the UN Secretary General’s special envoy to Afghanistan. It
was only after Najib announced his decision to allow the rebel groups to start political activities from Kabul and not to
involve himself in the talks, that Pakistan accepted the UN proposal for convening of an Afghan Assembly to decide on
the shape of the interim government. Pakistan even called upon the Mujahideen groups to join the peace process. It has
been asserted that this change in Pakistan took place only after US aid to Pakistan dried up and there was growing
social and economic burden on the country due to presence of over 3 million armed Afghan refugees in the country. ~
With the deposing of Najibullah as President of Afghanistan, the power shifh j to the Joint Interim Mujahideen Council
headed by SioghatullahMojhadidi in April, 92. However, Hekmatyar, whom Pakistan had groomed as Mujahideen
leader, could not muster much support. Despite this the relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan grew quite
intimate. |n May 1992 Mojhadidi-paid a visit to Pakistan. The growing intimacy between the two countries is further
evident from the fact that the Afghanistan Defence Minister requested the Pakistan army to restructure the ethnically
divided Afghan miliiia into a federal army the Interim Government of Afghanistan also sought assistance from
496
Pakistan in the restoration of civilian infrastructure in the country. In view of its intimate relations with Afghanistan,
Pakistan played an important role in the signing of the peace Pact between the rival Mujahideens on 7 March 1993. In
terms of this pact Burhanuddin Rabbani was permitted to remain President for
18 months, while Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Hizb-e-lslami leader, became Prime Minister. One of the outstanding
feature of this pact was an agreement among the various groups to put an end to all hostilities and release prisoners of
rival ;. parties etc. However, despite this peace could not be established in Afghanistan v and civil war broke out in
which the three principal militias led by Gulabuddin Hekmatyar, Rashid Dostam and Ahmed Shah Massed are
involved,
A new dimension was added to this struggle with the entry of the Taliban, , a Pakistan trained and equipped new
Islamist fundamentalist force of young students, who pledged to throw out the leadership of all warring factions and
establish a Shariah-based Islamic government. The Taliban met with considerable success and gained control over
seven provinces of Afghanistan. In the midst of these developments, the UN Special Envoy Mahmood Mestiri achieved
a major break through on 11 February 1995 when the warring Islamic factions agreed to form a multi-party governing
council to replace the government headed by President Bumanuddin Rabbani. It was announced that on 18 February
1995 Presidnf Rabbani would hand over the power to an interim council. However, the plan fell flat because Rabbani
announced that he would step down only if the powerful new militia, the Taliban, was included in the new Council.
Thus once again the hope of ending the bloody civil war in Afghanistan was foiled. However, the United Nations
continued to plead for limited cease-fire to bring peace in the war-ravaged Afghanistan. But this plea was rejected by
the Taiibans and they vowed tooust8urhanuddin Rabbani by attacking Kabul. Thus a struggle ensued between rival
Islamic factions for the capture of Kabul and there hardly exist any possibility of this struggle coming to an end.
Pakistan’s main concern in Afghanistan is to see that Afghanistan is united under a friendly dispensation . so that it can
benefit by the activation of transit trade with Cental Asian Republics.
2. INDIA
. Comprisirvg a natural sub-continent situated between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal and extending from the
Himalayas in the north to the Indian ; Ocean in the South, India is inhabited by various ethnic, linguistic and
socioreligious groups which together form a national population second in size only .’ to that of China.
India one of the oldest civilisations, attained independence on August 15,

1947 after a prolonged struggle against the colonial rule. On January 26, 1950, India adopted its own constitution
proclaiming India as a sovereign democratic republic. Pt. )awahar Lai Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India,
enunciated the adoption of basic principle of democracy, secularism, socialism and planned economic development at
home and the practice of non-violence and nonparticipation in military blocs as the fundamentals of foreign policy.
Premiership of 1 7 years witnessed the transfer of Pondicherry and other colonial territories by France in ’954, the
constitutional incorporation of )ammu and Kashmir into • the Indian Union in 1947 the annexation of Goa and other
Portuguese possession
CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 497
in 1961 and Sino-lndian border disputes leading to armed conflict in October

1962. .
Nehru was succeeded by Lai Bahadur Shastri under whose leadership India fought war with Pakistan (1965).
Shastri’died in January, 1966 and was succeeded by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership India faced
another war thrust by Pakistan in 1971 which resulted in the dismemberment of erstwhile East Pakistan and emergence
of Bangladesh. Another remarkable event during Mrs. Gandhi’s Premiership was the merger of the State of Sikkim into
the Union of India in May, 1975. Prior to it, Sikkim was an Indian protectorate in
• South Asia.
However, in June 1975 internal emergency was promulgated in India which lasted till March, 1977 when fresh
elections were conducted which resulted in the defeat of the ruling Congress Party and Janata Party, a conglomeration
of five parties-Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Congress (O), Bharatiya Lok Dal, Socialist Party and Congress for Democracy
was voted into power. However; owing to intra-party feuds, heterogeneous character of the constituent ’ parties with
divergent policy, Janata Party could not remain in power for long and Prime Minister Morarji Desai resigned in the
third week of July, 1979. Charan Singh was sworn in as next Prime Minister on 28 July, 1-979. Charan Singh failed to
meet the constitutional requirements to remain as Prime Minister. Consequently, Charan Singh resigned and fresh
elections were’held. In the new elections held in January, 1980, the Congress (I) led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi was voted
back to power. Mrs. Gandhi resumed in Premiership after a gap of almost three years. Thereafter she continued to head
the government till her assassination in Novermer 1984. Asa result of the eighth general elections held in 1984 Rajiv
Gandhi formed the government with an overwhelming majority. He remained in office till November 1989 when
Congress (I) suffered serious debacle in the Lok Sabha elections. Though Congress (I) emerged as the largest single
party, the National Front formed government under V.P. Singh with the support of BJP and Leftist parties. He promised
to continue policy of non-alignment and pledged to improve relations with the neighbouring countries. However, V.P.
Government fell following withdrawal of support by the BJP and a break-away group of Janata Party under the
leadership of Chandrashekhar formed government with the support of Congress. But this government also could not
survive for long and tendered resignation following uncooperative attitude of Congress (I). However, the Chandra
Shekhar Government continued to adhere to the traditional principles of India’s foreign policy. Congress Government
of Narsimha Rao which came in power after the mid-term elections of 1991 continued, to conduct its foreign policy on
the basis of the traditional principles.
India is the biggest country of the region and has borders with Afghanistan,
• Pakistan, Nepal, China, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Though India has tried to maintain cordial and friendly
relations with its neighbours, it has been involved in conflicts with some of these countries.
India and Pakistan
In the first instance, India’s relations with Pakistan have been greatly
strained, since the very beginning. The iTMin causes of thie strained re’alions
’between the two have been dispute over borders, distributions of river waters,
distribution of properties, Kashmir, etc. Though India was able to resolve the
other issues by mutual negotiations, the Kashmir Issue continues to be” a

permanent irritant. Pakistan’s decision to join the Military Alliances sponsored by the Western countries and thereby to
build its military strength also contributed to the straining of relations. Though Pakistan was provided these arms on the
plea of meeting the possible Communist threat.to the region, it actually made use of these arms against India in 1965
and 1971. Again, the attempt on the part of Pakistan to pose as the spokesman of.all Muslims on the Indian
subcontinent has also contributed to tension between the two countries because India treats it as an interference in its
internal affairs. The growing friendship between China and Pakistan, after the Sino-indian Conflict of 1962, and
surrender of a iarge slice of Indian territory under its occupation by Pakistan to China has also contributed to tension.
Likewise, India’s role during the revolt of East Pakistan, which culminated in the creation of the independent state of
Bangladesh also greatly strained the relations between the two countries. It may be noted that India was obliged to
intervene in East Bengal on account of the enormous influx of refugees from there which posed a serious threat to the
economy of India and the failure of Pakistan government to arrange withdrawal of these refugees. Another major factor
which has created conflicting relations between the two countries is the political instability in Pakistan. The Pakistan »
leaders have often tried to divert the attention of people of Pakistan from the domestic problems by raising the bogey of
threat from India.
In July, 1972, after the conclusion of the Shimla Agreement a new orientation was sought to be provided to the
relationship and the two countries > agreed to settle their differences through bilateral negotiations in peaceful manner.
They expressed faith in the principles of peaceful co-existence and non- ’ interference in the internal affairs of each
other: respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of each other. The two countries also agreed to co-operate in
economic, cultural and scientific fields. Thereafter the process of normalisation of relations between the two countries
set in and it was hoped that an era of cooperation would begin. However, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the
decision of the U.S. administration to supply sophisticated and military equipments to Pakistan created new tensions in
indo-Pakistan relations.
In March 1983, the two countries agreed to set up a joint Commission to increase co-operation in the field of trade,
industry, education, health, culture, tourism, information and scientific fields. The two countries reiterated their
determination to develop peaceful relations on the basis of mutual co-operation. However, the relations between India
and Pakistan were strained due to acquisition of Harpoone missiles by Pakistan. On the other hand the-support
extended by India to the movement for restoration of democracy in Pakistan greatly irritated Pakistan. The other factors
which contributed to the straining of Indo-Pak relations were supply of military training and equipment by Pakistan to
Sikh extremists and Pakistan’s failure to return the Sikh hijackers to India in contrast with the actions of the Dubai
government and unnecessary delay in initiating trial of the Sikh hijackers.
Despite the above irritants in the relationship of the two countries, the leaders of two countries expressed their firm
desire to improve their relations and live in co-operation. Rajiv Gandhi after assuming office as Prime Minister
expressed his determination to improve relations with Pakistan. He met General
Zia six times-twice in Oelhi, once io Moscow (on the occasion of Kirichenko’s funeral), once in New York (on the
occasion of 40th Anniversary Celebrations of U.N.O.), once again in Moscow (on the occasion of Oman Sultan’s 15th
anniversary celebration of accession to throne) and once in Dhaka (at the SAARC Summit). Each of these meetings
represented an advance in the process of normalisation. The,meeting held at New Delhi on 17 December, 1985 was
significant in so far as the two countries agreed not to attack each other’s nuclear facilities. In January, 1986 the two
countries reached an agreement to increase their trade; expand air services by increasing their frequencies and
deploying bigger aircrafts; stengthen Telex links on Amritsar-Lahore route; introduce direct dialing etc.
The relations between India and Pakistan, which showned some improvement during 1985 and beginning of 1986
suffered a setback towards the close of the year due to suspicions about each other’s motives. The trade talks
foundered, as-did the negotiations on the Siachen Glacier. The deteriorating relations were evident from the fact that
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi postponed his proposed visit to Pakistan indefinitely. The friction between the two further
increased with rise in the terrorist activities in Punjab and the accusations made by the Indian Government about
Pakistan’s hand. In subsequent months the unusually large military manoeuvres by both sides on their common border,
brought their relations to virtually a breaking point. However, the crisis was averted as a result of high level talks and
the two countries agreed to the partial withdrawal of troops massed on either side of the border. They also agreed to
exercise maximum restraint and to avoid all provocative actions along the border. .
With the emergence of Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister of Pakistan and restoration of democracy in Pakistan in 1988,
it was widely expected that the relations between the two countries would show an improvement. In fact , Benazir
Bhutio in one of her first Press Conference indicated that various issues between two countries would be resolved in
accordance with the Shimla Agreement of 1971. In accordance with me new spirit Rajiv Gandhi signed three
agreements or accords with Pakistan during his visit to Islamabad in December
1988. As a result of these accords the two countries agreed not to attack each other’s nuclear installations; they agreed
to exchange locational data on nuclear facilities including nuclear power and research reactors etc. They pledged to
supply to each other on 1 January every year information about the latitude and longitude of its nuclear installations.
The two countries also agreed to refrain from undertaking, encouraging or participating in, any action aimed at causing
the destruction or damage to any nuclear installation or facility of the other country. The second accord sought to
promote and develop relations in the realm of art, culture, archaeology, education, mass-media sports etc. The third
accord provided for avoidance of double taxation on income derived from international air transport. In view of the
cooperative stand of Pakistan India dsd not object to Pakistan’s re-entry into Commonwealth. In May 1989 India and
Pakistan reached an agreement on non-patrolling to contain terrorism, drug iraf’fickinft smuggling and illicit border
crossing. The border security forces ot the tw>
•
countries for the first time decided to undertake simultaenous coordinated patrolling at mutually decided hours to curb
unauthorised trans-border movement. In )uty 1989 further steps were taken to improve relation between India and
Pakistan during the course of Rajiv Gandhi’s official visit to Islamabad. They tried to resolve the problem of Siachen
Glacier and agreed on redeployment of forces in Siachen to reduce the chances of conflict and avoidance of use of
force. They also agreed to increase cooperation in the economic, medical and cultural fields and to relax travel facilities
for the two peoples in each other’s country. Pakistan agreed to give a boost to private sector trade with India by
expanding the list of items to be imported from 249 to 700. These agreements reflected a new mood to improve
bilateral ties.
In May 1990 India proposed a package of confidence building measures which was discussed by the Foreign
Secretaries of the two countries in July 1990. These included military and non-military measures like exchange of
information about military positions and army delegations; an agreement on non-violation of air space by military
aircrafts and ceasing of hostile propaganda aimed at inciting subversion and secession. In January 1991 the two
countries exchanged the Instruments of ratification of Treaty signed in December 1988 regarding nonattackon each
other’s nuclear installations. In April 1991 the Foreign Secretaries of two countries met at New Delhi and reached an
agreement on advance notification of military exercises and on preventing violations of air space.
In subsequent months the two countries also reached an agreement on chemical weapons and agreed to hasten the
process of exchanging data on the location of nuclear facilities. Along with these positive steps Pakistan also continued
efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue in violation of the Shimla . Accord and even called for a bandh in the
country on the Kashmir issue. This negative approach of Pakistan greatly hampered the process of normalisation of
relations between the two countries. However, Pakistan also continued efforts to settle some of the outstanding
differences through negotiations. The two countries reached a general consensus on the basic principles to resolve the
question of demarcation. of land boundary in Sir. Creek area as well as delimitation of the maritime boundary. In May
1992 the relations between two countries again got strained following brutal assault on Indian Embassy Councillor,
who was subsequently expelled from Pakistan. This resulted in cancellation of sixth round of Secretary-level talks.
India also retaliated by expelling two Pakistan diplomats on the plea that they were indulging in activities which were
prejudicial to the security of India. A crisis situation again arose in October 1992 when the Azad Kashmir Force
threatened to cross the border, but the situation was saved by timely action by Pakistan government which arrested
several prominent leaders involved in the organisation of the march. In November 1992, during the sixth round of Indo-
Pak talks on Siachen, the two countries reached an agreement in certain fields tcf end confrontation. They also reached
a general accord on demilitarisation of the Glacier area. The bitter criticism levelled by Pakistan Prime Minister before
the UN Human Rights Commission against Indian government’s handling of Ayodhya issue further strained relations
between two. India challenged the right of Pakistan to raise issue of Jammu and Kashmir under agenda item on self-
determination, and asserted that right to self-
I
governing determination applied only to states which were non-self-governing and was not applicable to integral parts
of a sovereign independent state. Thus Pakistan persisted with policy of confrontation and negotiation at the same time.
With the return of Benazir to power in Pakistan in October 1993, it was hoped that the relations between the two
countries would improve. However, these hopes were belied and during the next few months hostility between the two
countries continued to grow. This hostility culminated in the closure of the Indian Consulate in Karachi in December
1994. Pakistan turned down all offers of India to resume talks and insisted on third party mediation. Pakistan charged
India of violating human rights in Kashmir and raised the issue at the UN Human Rights Commission at Geneva.
However, this ended in a fiasco.
It is evident from the proceeding account that despite occasional efforts by the leaders of the two countrise to resolve
their differences, much success has not been achieved and the relations between the two countries continue to be
strained. The main irritants in the relations between the two countries are support extended by Pakistan to the terrorists
in Punjab and Kashmir; nuclear programme of Pakistan and the influx of latest generation sophisticated arms into
Pakistan, which has obliged India to divert its resources from developmental needs to acquisition of matching
equipment. The Kashmir issue and the Siachen Glacier are other permanent irritants in the relations between the two
countries. The other irritants include Pakistan’s growing linkages with fundamentalist elements, trans-border smuggling
of weapons and drugs, determination of maritime boundary, discriminatory trade barriers against India, and the
treatment meted out to the minorities in Pakistan.
India and China. India is also involved in conflict relations with China. Though initially India’s relations with China
were very cordial and the two countries developed friendly relations. In this atmosphere of cordiality, India did not take
China’s military action in Tibet seriously and recognised China’s sovereignty over this region. India, also signed
Panchsheel (Five-Principles) expressing faith in principles of mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty; non-aggression; non-intervention in each .other’s domestic affairs, mutual benefit and equality; and
peaceful co-existence. In the spirit of Panchsheel the two countries cp-operated and desisted from intervening in each
other’s affairs. But the cordial relationships were replaced by conflict relations following the Chinese attack on India in
1962 and occupation of vast tracts of Indian territories by China. China is still holding on to these territories and has not
shown any sign of returning the same to India. The relations between the two grew further tense following open support
to Pakistan in its conflict with India in 1965 and 1971. China provided Pakistan with huge quantities of arms
4nd ammunition for use against India. In short on account of China’s occupation of vast Indian territories and open
support to Pakistan against India, the relations between the two countries are quite strained.
The leaders of two countries showed their eagerness to improve relations on a number of occasions, but could not
succeed on account of their inability to arrive at any settlement on the border issue. Serious efforts to-improve relations
between India and China started in 1981 when Huang Hua, Foreign Minister of
China, paid visit to India and the two countries agreed to hold discussions on their longstanding bonier disputes. The
first round of talks was held at Beijing in December 1981 where the two countries agreed to continue their efforts to
resolve the question and also to improve relations and increase contacts in other field such as cultural relations and
trade. Second round of talks was held at New Delhi in May 1982, followed by the third round in Beijing in January
1983, fourth round in New Delhi in October, 1983 and fifth round in Beijing in September,
1984. In August 1984, India and China signed a trade agreement which included the provision to confer on each other
’most favoured-nation’ status and to increase bilateral trade. Despite these welcome developments the border , dispute
between the two countries has not been resolved on account of divergent stands of two countries. While India wants
separate discussions on each sector of the disputed border, China wants a package deal whereby both sides would make
concessions. In the eastern sector (in the region of the Union territory of Arunachal Pradesh) China would like to
recognise the MacMohan line in return for Aksai Chin Plateau in northern Ladakh and the areas which China had
occupied in the 1962 War. In short, China is in favour of settlement of border along the existing lines of control, while
India is not in favour of recognising the sfarus quo in the western sector. At the end of the fourth round of talks held at
New Delhi in October 1983 the officials of the two countries agreed to consider different ways of serving the dispute
and agreed that the relevance of historical evidence, custom and tradition should be taken into account in settling the
border dispute. At the fifth round of talks held at Beijing in September 1984 the two sides formulated principles upon
which the border dispute would be negotiated on a sector-by-sector basis. In November, 1985 India and China held the
sixth round of their talks on the vexed issue of their boundary, and concentrated only on matters relating to the eastern
sector. The two parties described these talks as ”useful and conducive to better understanding between the two
countries”. This improvement proved shortlived and in June-July, 1986 the Chinese intruded approximately seven kms
in the Indian territory in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, even though the charges were denied by Chinese leaders, (n
August, 1986 China accused India of sending her military personnels and aircrafts to create more disputed territory.
This charge was categorically rejected by India. In December 1986 following conferment of statehood on Arunachal ,
Pradesh, the Chinese accused India of violating Chinese territorial integrity and sovereignty and criticised the Indian
action. The Indian Government, however, described the Chinese protest over Arunachal Pradesh, as a clear interference
to her internal affairs. India and China have been holding talks at regular intervals to resolve the border dispute but
these talks have not yielded any fruitful results as yet The main stumbling block is that China is not willing to withdraw
from its present line of control in Ladakh, unless India makes certain concessions on the MacMohan line. Some change
in Chinese attitude was noted in the Eighth round of talks held in November 1987, even though it did not produce any
positive results. It, however, indicated that both the sides were committed to maintaining peace and tranquility along
the borders until a mutually acceptable settlement was arrived at.
In 1988 efforts were stepped up to find out a settlement of 26 year old border dispute and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi
paid a five-day official visit to Beijing. At the end of this visit the two countries announced in a joint communique that
they had agreed to develop their relations actively in several ’ fields and work hard to create a favourable climate and
conditions for a fair and reasonable settlement of the boundary questions. They also agreed to set up a joint working
group on boundary question as M&ll as a joint group on economic relations, trade, science and technology. These joint
working groups held further talks and agreed upon concrete steps to diversify and expand trade, cultural and technical
exchanges. They expressed firm determination for an early settlement of the complex border problem and reiterated the
resolve of the two countries to maintain peace and tranquility in all sectors of Sino-lndian border pending final
settlement.
During the next two years there was a distinct improvement in the relations between two countries. A series of high-
level exchanges took place which greatly contributed to the building of trust. As a result the hostility between the two
countries showed a decline while their trade increased. In December 1991 the Chinese Premier (Li Peng) paid a visit to
India after a gap of 31 years. The leaders of two countries pledged to seek edHiest possible solution to the boundary
question through friedly consolations. They agreed to maintain peace and tranquility in the area along the line o( actual
control pending final settlement of the boundary question. Three agreements were signed with a view to expand and
strengthen bilateral relations. These agreements provided for resumption of border trade on the basis of equality and
mutual benefit; opening of Consulates General at Bombay and Shanghai after a gap of 29 years; and to co-operate with
each other in space research, technology and its application. The two countries also agreed to redefine the role of the
Joint Working Group and to give it power to review and initiate proposals for solving the border issues. A hope was
expressed that this would narrow down the differences between the two countries on border.
A further bid to improve relations between the two countries was made in February 1992 when the Foreign Secretaries
of the two countries agreed to establish a hotline between the border personnel and institutionalise regular meetings
between the military personnel twice a year, as a part of series of confidence building measures. The two countries also
agreed in principle to provide prior intimation regarding military exercises. In May 1992 President R. Venkataram paid
a visit to China (first by an Indian President) on this occasion the leaders of two countries showed keenness to improve
relationsnot withstanding the non-resolution of vital question of boundary. It was also agreed that a political directive
be given to the Joint Working Group to speed up the search of the boundary question. The_ President of India in the
course of his speech reiterated that Tibet is an autonomous region of China and India did not support Dalai Lama’s
political activities In November 1992 during the fifth meeting of the Joint Working Group, the two countries agreed on
the need for an across the board reduction of forces on both sides of the border as well as the general measure aimed at
reducing military presence and expenditure. It was also agreed
504
that people to people contracts should be encouraged in the border areas through the opening of additional points of
border trade.
In September 1993 the two countries reached an accord for Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the line of
actual control and decided to set up an expert group comprising of experts from military and foreign ministries under
the aegies of the joint Workine Croup to complete the task of full delineation of the line of actual control. The two
countries also agreed to hold regular meetings between military commanders in the Eastern and Western Sectors in the
months of June and October every year. They agreed to inform each other about all significant military exercises in the
two sectors. Through another agreement they agreed to open border trade at Gunji in Uttar Pradesh and Himachal
Pradesh with Tibet to encourage economic and people to people exchanges. A hope was expressed that this would
contribute to relaxation of tension, and help the two countries to find a fair settlement of territorial problem, taking into
account the genuine claims and interests of both the sides.
After the September 1993 agreement both China and India made adjustments in their policies towards each other,
which resulted in improvement of relations between the two at a much faster pace than expected. Contrary to its earlier
stand, China took the view thaWne Kashmir question should be resolved between India and Pakistan according to the
spirit of the UN resolution and spirit of the relevant agreement.
In terms of the September 1993 agreement a 10 member Export Group on both sides, under the joint working Group
was set up to clearly delineate the line of actual control as early as possible. This Export Group comprising of
representatives from Foreign and Defence Ministries, armed forces and Survey of india and Chinese counterpart, met
three times, till March 1995 and finalised several agreements on ways to deal with accidental air intrusions, mutual
force reductions, notification of military, exercises etc. In February 1995 India’and China agreed to open two more
posts in the central and Sikkim sectors for local commander meetings.
A significant development in Sino-lndian relations took place on 20 August

1995 when the two countries agreed to pull back their troops in close proximity to the Sumdorong Chu valley in the
pastern sector. In term1; of this agreement India and China will wind down two posts each, located barely 50 to 100
yards from each other in Sumdorong Chu valley in the Wang Dung area in Arunachal Pradesh by the end of the year.
Despite these developments there are several causes of friction between the two countries. China is not quije happy
with India on account of the antiChinese activities being carried on by the Tibetans from the Indian soil. On the other
hand lidia is unhappy about China’s arms transfers, especially of destabilising type, such as missiles, to India’s
neighbourhood;’the enormous increase in the defence expenditue of China since 1989; the continuing modernisation of
its nuclear and missile force by China; and lack ot transparency regarding defence spending, arms sales and military
programmes which gives rise to destabilising international speculations etc.
[CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 505
India and Sri Lank* India’s relations with Sri Lanka were quite cordial to begin with and the two countries greatly
cooperated in the economic field. On most of the international problems also they share identical ytews^ But one factor
which has : proved a constant irritant in their relations is the problem of the people of Indian I origin in Sri Lanka.
This problem has existed since 1949 when Sri Lanka gained independence. Soon after independence Sri Lanka
disowned the people of Indian origin settled in the country which rendered a large number of them stateless. The
problem was resolved with Indian government permitting these citizens to come to India who wanted to come here on
their own. However, a
• sizeable number of the Indians settled in Sri Lanka decided to stay on in Sri Lanka. Thereafter, the two
governments have held protracted negotiations to find a : solution of this problem but without much success. A final
understanding on this issue was reached between the two countries on 15 January 1986. As per this understanding India
agreed to proceed with the process of conferring citizenship
• on 85,000 Tamils of Indian origin who applied for Indian citizenship prior to October 30,1981, while Sri Lankan
Government would grant citizenship to the remaining stateless Tamils of Indian origin. India shall complete the process
of conferring citizenship on pending applications within six to eight months of Sri Lanka enacting Laws to confer
citizenship on residual number of stateless Tamils
5 of Indian origin.
Towards the close of 1984 and beginning of 1985 relations between India and Sri Lanka were strained due to internal
ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka. The things assumed serious shape after the Government tried to settle armed I Sinhalese
in Tamil majority areas, which was resented by the Tamil and their I guerrilla organisation Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) resorted to | blowing up of banks, mining of army vehicles, cutting of rail and I telecommunication
lines and attacked army vehicles, etc. The army also retaliated and burnt down pany towns-and villages. Many innocent
Tamils were j killed and large number of Tamilians crossed over to India. The presence of large numoer of Tamilian
refugees in India greatly agitated the people of Tamil Nadu : and there was a loud demand for intervention by India.
However, the Indian I Government firmly ruled out such an action and pressed the Government of Sri I Lanka to find a
political solution to the problem. The Indian leadership firmly I ruled out intervention in Sri Lanka. It openly expressed
its opposition to the I partition of Sri Lanka and refused to extend support to the terrorists, even though Sir Lanka has
been accusing India of allowing Tamil terrorists to use bases in India to launch raids into Sri Lanka. All along India has
been pressing on Sri Lanka to find a political rather than military solution to the probelm of ethnic conflict. India even
went out of way to persuade Bhutan to host a meeting of the representatives of government and Tamil leaders to bring
about some sort of political settlement. However, Indian efforts did not prove fruitful and it lost its faith both with the
Sri Lankan government as well as the Tamil leadership.
Relations between India and Sri Lanka took a serious turn following rampage by Sri Lankan troops in the
Vadamarachchi area in May-June 1987 which resulted in the death of over 600 Tamilians and injury to hundreds of
them.
:>06
It was feared that this offensive of the security forces in Sri Lanka would lead to a fresh influx of Tamil refugees to
India. In the midst of these developments India took the unprecedented step of sending an Indian Air Force mission to
provide relief to the suffering people of Jaffna peninsula. India took this step following Lanka’s refusal to permit the
unarmed and unescorted fishing boats to carry relief supplies to Jaffna on 3 June, 1987. Subsequently, as a result of
further negotiations the Sri Lankan Government agreed to accept relief supplies from India.
Thereafterthe relations between the two countries showed an improvement and an accord was signed between President
J.R. Jayewardene and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on 29 July 1987. In terms of this accord they agreed that (i) Tamil
majority northern and eastern provinces would be merged to ensure distinct Tamil nationality without disturbing the
integrity of Sri Lanka; 00 A referendum would be held before 31 December 1988 to enable the people of eastern
provinces to decide whether they would like to maintain links with the northern province or constitute a separate
administrative unit with its own provincial governor and council; (in) to hold election to Provincial Councils of north
and east before 31 December 1987;(iv) emergency in eastern and northern ’provices snail be lifted by 15 August 1987;
(v) all hostilities in island would cease within 48 hours and all amis surrendered by militant groups; (vi)general
amnesty would be granted to political and other prisoners detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and other
emergency laws; (vii) President of Sri Lanka would have discretion to invite an Indian peace-keeping contingent to
guarantee and enforce ceasation of hostilities in Jaffna and India agreed to provide such military assistance; (viii) India
shall ensure that its territory is not used for activities prejudicial to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka; (ix) Sri Lanka
would not make available Trinocomalee or any other port of’ military use to other countries. The pact was regarded as
a significant step for ending conflict relations between the two countries, and paved the way for greater co-operation
between the two. In pursuance of this agreement India rendered every possible help to Sri Lanka in the containment.of
terrorism in the island country and even provided peacekeeping forces for this purpose.
The Indo-Sri Lankan relations took a new turn after election of Premadasa as President of Sri Lanka. Premadasa was
opposed to the Indo-Sri Lankan accord right from the beginning and insisted on the replacement of the accord by a
friendship treaty on the-lines of treaty between India and USSR. He called for withdrawal of Indian Peace Keeping
Force from Sri Lanka by 29 July, 1989. India, however, took the stand that Sri Lanka could not impose unilateral
deadlines and that as a guarantor of the 1987 agreement, India had to ensure that all its terms were fulfilled. But Sri
Lanka stuck to its stand and even did not take part in the meeting of Foreign Ministers of SAARC countries at
Islamabad in July 1989. Efforts were made to avoid confrontation between two countries and talks were arranged at
New Delhi. But the talks did not yield any results and ended without any agreement on 4 August 1989. After much
squibbling an agreement was reached over formula for the withdrawal of Indian troops from the troubled north-east of
the Island. In terms of this agreement India agreed to make all efforts
to accelerate the withdrawal Of its forces with the aim of completing the process by 31 December 1989. However,
subsequently the Indian representatives made it clear that the time table would depend on the implementation of the
guarantees for the safety of the Tamil community. The agreement of 18 September, 1989 provided for estabJishmenf of
a security coordination the group comprising Sri Lankan Minister of State for Defence, Chief Minister of the North-
eastern province and General Officer Commanding of the Indian Peace Keeping Force. The group was to be
responsible for ensuring the security of all communities in the north-east during the IPKF withdrawal. A Peace
Committee comprising representatives of various political and ethnic groups in north-east was set up which held its
first meeting on 14 October, 1989.
In the meanwhile Sri Lanka presented a draft treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation to the Indian Government.
This treaty was expected to supplement rather than replace the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka agreement. On 19 September 1989
the IPKF unilaterally suspended its military operations. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a major Tamil
insurgent group, also agreed to respect ceasefire but asserted that it would make use of its right of self-defence if
attacked. However, violence continued to persist between the Sinhate insurgent Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and
supporters of government. This obliged the Sri Lanka government to convene an all party conference. At this meeting
five major political parties called for establishmentof a provisional government based on Parliament principles instead
of the existing Presidential government. However, the meeting was adjourned by President Premadasa on the-plea of
holding informal consultation with the parties.
Though India continued with the phased programme of withdrawal of peace forces from Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan
leaders were not happy with the pace of withdrawal. The emergence of National Front Government in India in
November 1989 raised hopes of better relations between the two countries. The new government initiated measures to
improve relations with Sri Lanka. In January 1991 the two countries reached an understanding that the vexed ethnic
problem of Sri Lanka can be resolved only through political settlement. They ateo reached an understanding regarding
the return of some 200,000 Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. On its part India assured Sri Lanka that it would not be
a party to any political disintegration of the island republic; that the Indian territory would not be allowed to be used as
a base for terrorist activities against Sri Lanka and the Indian forces would not be sent to Sri Lanka. In short, India
adopted a policy of total non-interference with regard to Sri Lanka. It started treating the ethnic issue as an internal
affair of Sri Lanka, even though it often expressed concern over the presence of refugees in Tamil Nadu. This policy of
non-interference by India in the relations between the two countries. However, following the collapse of Colombo
Summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in November 1991 the relations between
the two countries got strained. Ranasinghe Premadasa, the President of Sri Lanka, put the entire blame for the collapse
of the Summit on India and proceeded to hold informal talks with the leaders of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Maldives
and openly displayed hi? hostility towards India.
508
However, after a short set back the relations between two countries . showed an improvement. In
September-October 1992 President Premadasa of Sri Lanka paid a visit to India and sought closer relations
with India. On this occasion India expressed support to the proposal for effective devolutior of power
within the framework of an early solution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Indian President impressed
the need to strengthen cooperation in the economic fiefd. The trade between the two countries considerably
increased during the next few years and the hostility, which characterised the relations between the two
countries, largely disappeared.
The visit of President Chandrika Kumaratunga to India also helped in reestablishing the friendly and
mutually beneficial ties between the two countries. During her visit to India she proposed a free-trade and
investment agreement to boost the economic co-operation between two countries. India also adopted more
realistic approach to the ethnic problem of Sri Lanka. Thus the leaders of the two countries have come to
realise that they must collaborate in fighting terrorism and improve their relations through regular contacts
and consultations,,-
India and Bangladesh
Certain points of conflict also exist in relations between India and Bangladesh. Though India played a
decisive role in the emergence of Independent Bangladesh was one of the first countries to accord it
diplomatic recognition, certain tensions have appeared in their relations. In the main India’s relations with
Bangladesh have been strained on account of three factors: clashes over borders; dispute over Farakka
barrage and dispute over Moore Island. The two countries have shown remarkable spirit of accommodation
in the’settlement of the borders. The Farakka barrage issue, however, generated much tension. Despite an
agreement concluded in 1975 regarding the Farakka barrage the Bangladesh- Government tried to
internationalise the dispute by raising it at the United Nations. However, ultimately it agreed to settle the
issue by mutual discussions and concluded an agreement in 1977. Under this agreement a Joint River
Commission was set up to find out a long-term solution of the dispute. Though the Commission has held a
number of meetings no mutually satisfactory solution has been possible so far. The issue of Farakka
Barrage and the sharing of water of Ganga still continues to strain the relations, even though it has not
assumed the shape of an open conflict. Another issue which actually brought the two countries on the verge
of conflict was the question of Moore Island in the Bay of Bangal. Both the countries claim sovereignty
over this island, in May 1981 following despatch of certain gun boats by Bangladesh which threatened the
Indian ship Sandhyak, which was engaged in a joint survey in the area, there was a possibility of an open
conflict tut the situations was saved and the leaders of the two countries agreed to settle the issue amicably.
Relations between India and Bangladesh showed an improvement in 1982 and the two agreed to set up a
Joint Economic Commission. India agreed to provide Bangladesh credit worth Rs. 600,000,000 for
launching of joint industrial projects in Bangladesh and facilitate purchase of Indian capital goods and
equipments. In August 1983 the Export-Import Bank of India agreed to
»
509
&
!toW^^^C°L^’^«« •”””^ «” ’«* ^^>- ^^p^S^^SS^ûpacommwee*«•”*to J season flow of

Gan«s How^vT^T^’P^P^’ôr Creasing ê dry J agreement till April 1S, whTSi C^”WeS
Could not afTive * ^ ”
Ganges ^^^&JZ^£*’^*~*’<» effort ^h^nJSn?.*!.1^ T”** «« strained when ,ndia in its construction of ta^«
g^^W^ * ’«*° ^’ «”*«* ** on the ground that ft tS£ he^T, § **** IT** *?”* ss;^^ ’-;ndto«^^^ •’ when
P^rS SS £,!£ ””T* $howed **«* - 1985 : devastating floodsSdasêdS ””^ ”** ’° B^***h <° «*«” -
illingnesftc^ke backaltt SlST ’’^^8^ also showed hill tracks. In May f 986 the two ^ «*<gees entering
Tripura from Chittagong’ for a further period of th~ ^° < 3greedto 6Xtend the e*istin8trad* P3*
1985 the rwSS^^JS^^000^’1989’ Earfei” No*”*” this agreement the Sj^*^S£°I *?!* °f Gaf*a Water’ ****
beginningfromthedryseasononClrh K ?d fcr 3 ^”^ °f *<** Vears of understanding sjned^n /Lf

^thebas’s!^’d down in the memorandum
continuestoinsisfonSi gupofôTdam5 ”J*?”*^ B^^ whi,e India is.not keen on ^^^S^^^”^
^P^SS^S^^^^J^ ***”«« * ^ ^ November 1990 in the wake ofA.^! 3” ’Slamic RePublic’ ln Oaober’
were organised on temples ?n D^r!?’0” ’” ’ndia violent mob attacks resulted in large numberofnonMncI
Ch!tta8ong and other places which <fespitetheasslrancS
the border into Tripura and M^Lm th”kttin«ux<rfChakmaS from across Chakmas into India The* problem
nT • ! ha$ been co^<^^ influx of Brhamputra and dehmSn^’t^harin8ofr!VerwatÔfCanga,Teestaand
countries are other Srs^r m -J ,• ^^^ ^””^ Detween the two ^.^^^teZS^*”*”” ^ ’^Bangladesh between the
two countries Abov? all ^^^ °firritation in ’he ^*’«*» charges and counter charges atouf rl^- C°UmfieS
have been trading
^’^-VVhileBangladSsSutK*^SartUafy f° febel$ across the Shanti Bahini ^\v£^^^^*h*^^^*i”Ste*tol
c^tural auton^y S the ChSoo^h^”1^’”8 ^^ KO^ and Bangladesh of providing saPc7uôTNvi ’T ’ft* M’3 has
chaf^ have contributed to tension’?S ^S±?Tri»>lira-AJI*«e!’’ta”B
”^ tol^ to remote8^5’ ^T Mm’Ster (8^m «^* ** »* *
•stabilising rc.rdTaTSions t^ a, 8S ** ”*** favou”ble «** <°<
8 - ?.al relanons. Several agreements were concluded. According

to one agreement on Tin Bigha corridor, India agreed to allow use of a strip of land for 6 hours a day for people in
Oahagram enclave to cross over to mainland Bangladesh to buy goods, reach hospitals and send children for higher
education. The two countries agreed to review long-term and comprehensive arrangements for sharing of waters of
Ganga, Teesta and other major rivers of the region. The two countries also expressed their determination to stop illegal
movements of people across the border and take effective measures for maintenance of peace along the border. The
agreement regarding leasing of Tin Bigha corridor was implemented in )une 1992. In November the two countries held
talks regarding sharing of river waters, but much progress could not be made. However a Joint Committee of Experts
was entrusted the task of evolving an equitable long term and comprehensive agreement for sharing the flows of the
Ganga, the Teesta and other major rivers in the best interests of the people of both countries. This process of
improvement of relations was greatly upset in December 1992 following demolition of disputed structure in Ayodhya
and its instant reaction in Bangladesh. One of the immediate impact of these developments was postponment of the
SAARC Summit scheduled to be held at Dacca on 12 December 1992: The Summit was again postponed in January
1993 due to disturbed law and order situation in Bangladesh. The Summit was, however, finally held in April 1993.
Thereafter the relations between India and Bangladesh continued to be
strained on account of their different perception on issues like sharing of Ganga
waters, illegal immigration, Chakma refugees, treatment of minorities,
demarcation of maritime boundaries and adoption of islam as state religion by
Bangladesh which had led to policy of intolerance towards minorities. In June
1995 the leaders of India and Bangladesh held talks to resolve the issue regarding
the sharing of Ganga waters, but these talks proved a failure. The one outcome
of these talks was that the two countries agreed to reactivate the Joint Rivers
Commission (which had not met for the past five years) to work out details
regarding the sharing of the waters of commor. rivers, including Ganga on a
permanent basis. The relations between the. two countries further improved
towards close of 1995 when the Bangladesh High Commissioner to India
indicated his country’s readiness to take back Chakma refugees settled in
Tripura.
India and Nepal
India s relations with Nepal have been very cordial. In July 1950 the two signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship
which infer alia provided for the coordination of the foreign policies of the two countries. The treaty stipulated ”neither
government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor. To deal with any such threat the
two governments shall consult with each other and devise effective counter measures.” It was in pursuance of these
provisions of the treaty that India blocked the establishment of diplomatic relations between Nepal and China during
the next few years. It was only after India’s agreement with China in 1954 whereby Tibet was recognised as an
’autonomous region of China’ Nepal established its formal relations with China, and the two agreed to conduct their
relations through their embassies in New
CONFLICT AND COOPCRATION IN SOUTH ASIA
511
Delhi. In the economic sphere also India continued to provide all possible assistance to Nepal in its development
India’s relations with Nepal suffered a setback following dismissal of Koirala Ministry in December 1960 and India’s
expression of concern over the political changes in Nepal. This greatly upset King Mahendra of Nepal and he tried to
improve relations with China to counterbalance the Indian influence. He concluded a boundary agreement with China.
Nepal also agreed to accept economic aid from China. As Nepal took ail these actions without consulting India, it was
described as flagrant violation of the terms of the treaty of 1950. However, Nepal described the Indian stand as
unwarranted intrusion into her domestic affairs. As a result the relations between the two countries began to deteriorate.
Following India’s reversal in the Sino-lndian conflict 1962, Nepal drew closer to China. India also felt the need of
improving relations with Nepal and offered economic assistance and other concessions to her. In view of growing
intimacy of Nepal with China, India offered a defence pact to Nepal with China, India offered a defence pact to Nepal
which was rejected by Nepal.
The relations with Nepal again took a turn for the worse when Nepal made a plea for ’zone of peace’ for economic
growth of Nepal. India looked at this demand as an abrogation of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship concluded by the
two in 1950, and naturally opposed it. Despite this the two tried to maintain intimate economic relations.
In March, 1983 the Indo-Nepalese Inter-governmental Committee agreed to extend the treaty between the two countries
on trade for a further period of five years/They also agreed on a number of steps to facilitate the movement of ’ cargo
from Nepal through India. !n 1984-85 India provided Nepal an aid of Rs
180,000,000 for 21 development projects. In January 1985 the two countries agreed to establish a joint inspection team
along 1000 km. open border in order to control unauthorised trade. India also agreed to provide facilities for the
movement of cargo from Nepal through India. However, in subsequent months fresh tension was generated in Indo-
Nepalese relations due to Nepal’s condemning of India’s action of air-dropping of relief supplies in Jaffna peninsula.
The question of displaced Nepalis from Meghalaya also contributed to this tension. • Another irritant in the relations
between two countries was Nepal’s decision to introduce work permit system for foreigners. Despite these irritants in
June 1987 India and Nepal signed an agreement for setting up of a Joint Commission to increase economic cooperation,
trade and transit, industry and water resources.
A fresh tension was generated in Indo-Nepalese relations towards the end of March 1989 on account of differences
between the two countries over the signing of new trade and transit treaties. While India insisted on a consolidated
treaty, Nepal insisted on two separate pacts. On account of these differences the earlier Indo-Nepal Transit Treaty of
1978 lapsed in March 1989 and traditional friendly relations between the two countries got strained due to acute
shortage of diesel, petrol, coal and other essential goods in Nepal. Nepal even tried to internationalise the issue and
resorted to heavy imports of petroleum, kerosene
512
and other essential supplies from China and Singapore with a view to pressurise India to resume its supplies at
favourable terms without giving anything in return. India however, took the stand that the whole gamut of relations
with Nepal must be reviewed before anything could be done on trade matters. It tlso refuted the charge of Nepal that it
had imposed a blockade on the Himalayan kingdom. On the other hand Nepal took this issue before the UN and
charged India of suddenly abrogating the treaty and causing the people of Nepal much economic hardship. As a result
the representatives of the two;.countries for the first time clashed in the United Nations. It is true that Nepal’s economic
difficulties have increased since the non-renewal of treaty but Nepal itself is to blame for the plight of the people as the
Nepalese authorities failed to respond favourably to India’s repeated suggestions for resuming of talks on the dispute
on equitable basis. In short lot of tension was generated in Indo-Nepalese relations. The new National Front
Government on assumption of power in November 1989 tried to improve relations with Nepal.
It put an end to the bitter relations between the two countries and restored status quo ante to 1 April 1987 in trade and
transit arrangements. India agreed to reopen land customs stations for movements of goods between the two countries
and reactivate the fifteen transit points which were in operation earlier. Th6 leaders of two countries made a
commitment to fully respect each other’s security concern and agreed to have prior consultations on matters which
could pose threat to the security of the other. They reiterated the determination of their governments to respect
sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs arid
peaceful settlement of all disputes. On its part Nepal also agreed to restore tariff preferences for Indian goods and
remove the Indian nationals from the ambit of the work permit system. India agreed to resume supplies of coke and
coal to Nepal under quota. However, the prices of coke and coal were to be negotiated between Minerals and Metals
Trading Corporation of India and the Nepal Coal Ltd. In short, under National Front Government the Indo-Nepalese
relations showed a.n improvement.
In October 1992 India and Nepal formalised a series of measures to expand bilateral co-operation and enhance
Nepalese exports to India on liberalised terms. It was agreed to abolish existing protorma clearance system and replace
it by a system of certificate of origin to be issued by the Nepalese government. In terms of this agreement the Nepalese
products were to have duty free and quota free access to Indian market if the Indian material content exceeded 50 per
cent. Further, Nepal could import goods from India by payment in free convertible currency, in addition to existing
system of payment in Indian rupees for import of such goods. With regard to utilisation of the water resources, the two
sides agreed on a time-frame for investigations and preparation of project reports of Karnali, Pancheswar, Sapta Koshi,
Buri Gandaki, Kamala and Bagmati projects. The two als<; agreed on installation of flood forecasting and warning
systems, the construction of flood protection embankments and on power exchange on a time frame.
Despite improvement in relations between the two countries there are still
several areas of disagreement. These include differences on trade facilities, sharing of water and power, smuggling and
movement of terrorists across the borders and the growing feeling among the Indians that Nepal is getting too involved
in the affairs of peoples of Nepalese origin settled in India and Bhutan. With the abolition of monarchy and
establishment of democratic system of government in Nepal it was hoped that the relations between the two countries
would improve. However, the relations between the two countries continued to deteriorate. In fact with the formation
of Government by the Communists in Nepal, it was feared that the relations between the two countries would further
deteriorate because the Communists during the election Kad attacked the various Indo-Nepal agreements and specially
the 1950 Treaty of peace and Friendship. It asserted that certain provisions of the treaty had become obsolete and
needed review. For example, the clause of the treaty which obliged the two countries to inform each other in case of a
war had becpme obsolete. However, despite these apprehensions the Communist Government of Nepal establish high-
level contacts with India with the intention to establish good bilateral relations. The Prime Minister of Nepal paid a
visit to India and held talks with Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. These talks helped in clearing many misgivings
between the two countries and opened new visitas for bilateral cooperation and better understanding. India agreed to
provide additional transit facilities for Nepalese goods at Kandla and Bombay, and customs clearance at another point.
The two countries also agreed to continue discussions at appropriate levels on the review of the 1950 Peace and
Friendship Treaty. The two governments agreed to undertake several new projects in 1995-96 which include
construction of 18 bridges on Kolhapur Mahakali sector of Nepal’s East West Highway RaxaulSirsiya broad gauge rail
link, joint survey of East West Electric Railway etc. .
3. PAKISTAN i
Pakistan came into existence following the division of the Indian sub* .> continent in August, 1947. It consisted of
West Pakistan and East Pakistan;-! Mohammed Ali Jinnah became the first Governor-Genera I of Pakistan, who died
• in 1948. In 1954 the Governor-Genera I Ghulam Muhammad declared a state of emergency and inducted a new
political Ministry. In August, 1955 IskandarMirza was installed as President, who declared martial law and dissolved
ail political parties on 7 October, 1958. Then Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan took over the Presidency from
Mirza on 27 October, 1958 and was confirmed in office by a national referendum in 1960. On 12 January, 1965 Ayub
Khan was elected as President for five years. In the wake of growing political and economic discontent followed by
extensive disturbances, Ayub Khan resigned on 25 March, 1969 and General Yahya Khan took over as Chief Martial
Law Administrator. The simmering discontent had come to the fore in East Pakistan. On 1 January, 1970 normal
political activity was allowed. The major issue being East Pakistani complaints of under-representation in the Central
Government and an inadequate share of central revenues remained unresolved.
In country’s first direct election, on the hnsis of universal suffrage, held in

1970-71 endeavours were made to assuage the longstanding political discontent prevalent in East Pakistan by allotting
it majority representation in the new
514
Assembly. Of the 300 seats for direct elections (162 from East Pakistan-and 138 from West Pakistan) Awami League
led by Sheikh Mujibrur Rahman won 160 seats, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Lead by Z.A. Bhutto 82, and others 58.
The Assembly which was due to meet on 3 March 1971 was postponed and on 26 March, 1971 Pakistan Government
banned Awami League.
The IndoPak War of December, 1971 resulted in the dismemberment of East Pakistan and emergacceljof Bangladesh.
In December, 1971 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto replaced Yahya as President and Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan.
In July, 1972 India and Pakistan concluded Shimla Agreement according to which both sides agreed to initiate
negotiations by means of which the two countries could resolve-their outstanding differences. In August, 1975 a new
Constitution was adopted in Pakistan and Z.A. Bhutto was designated as Prime Minister.
In March, 1977 General elections were held in Pakistan which returned Bhutto’s People party to power with
overwhelming majority. The opposition Pakistan National Alliance denounced the elections as fraudulent and instituted
a series of strike and demonsrations leading to the outbreak of violence throughout the country. However, following
coup in July, 1977 leading politicians, including Bhutto, were arrested and martial law was imposed. General
Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq became the Chief Martial Law Administrator and continued to rule Pakistan till August 1988
when he died in air crash. In December 1988 fresh elections to Pakistan Assembly were held which resulted in victory
of Pakistan Peoples Party and Benazir Bhutto assumed office as Prime Minister of Pakistan. This was a significant
development because the transfer of power was effected through peaceful means. However, this democratic experiment
proved short-lived because on 6 August 1990 President Ghulam Ishaq Khan of Pakistan dismissed Benazir Bhutto’s
government and appointed G.M.Jiatoi as Interim Prime Minister. The President of Pakistan took this action on the plea
of corruption and ineptitude of Bhutto government. Actually, this action was taken out of revenge. In October 1990
when elections to National Assembly of Pakistan were held, the Islami Jamheori Ittehad (1)1) and its electoral partners
emerged victorious and elected Nawab Sharif, a former Chief Minister of Punjab, as Prime Minister. This clearly
shows, that the people showed preference for the Mullah dominated IJI. The defeat of Bhutto was due to number of
factors viz. poor performance, large-scale corruption, softness in foreign policy with regard to India and USA, and
failure to control internal strife.
As noted above, Pakistan has not been able to develop cordial relations with two of its neighbours-India and
Afghanistan. Its relations with Afghanistan have been quite strained and the two countries have been consistently
involved in border clashes. In 1961 these relations grew so bad that the two countries cutlift their diplomatic relations.
Though these relations were reestablished al ft* inslance of Shah of Tehran and they began to co-operate in economic
field, bui :hfir relations continued to be strjined. The main factor which strained their rd itions was Afghan support to
the Pakhtoons for an independent Pakhtoonistan. whn.h was firmly turned down by Pakistan. After the Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan the tension between the two’countries grew sharper. The fact that
515
these two countries were being backed by the two traditional rival superpowers
rendered the conflict situation more dangerous. However, the pull out of Soviet
troops from Afghanistan in February 1989 raised the hope that tension between
Pakistan and Afghanistan would subside. But these hopes were belied Pakistan
continued to extend support to the Mujahideens with a view to pull down
Najibullah government. In fact Pakistan even sent its military personnel to take
part in the hostilities inside Afghanistan. The regular flow of U.S. military aid to
Pakistan even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, gave rise
to further misgivings about the true intention of Pakistan. The open advocacy of
Pakistan’s determination to pull down Najibullah regime in Afghanistan, has

further aggravated the tension. Thus we find that Pakistan’s relations with
Afghanistan at present are characterised by high degree of tension. Its main
concern is to instal a government in Kabul which is friendly to Pakistan so that
it can benefit by the activation of transit trade with Centra! Asian Republics.
Likewise Pakistan’s relations with India have been characterised by
hostility and open conflict. Apart from periodical border incidents the two
countries were involved in two open conflicts in 1965 and 1971. The element
of conflict was further aggravated due to open support of China to Pakistan. No
doubt as a result of the Shimla Agreement the two countries agreed to avoid
conflict and co-operate with each other in economic, cultural, and other fields,
but their relations could not be wholly cooperative. The induction of Modern and
sophisticated weapons by U.S.A. in the region has given a setback to the process
of improvement of relations between the two countries and introduced a new
element of conflict in the region.
India’s support to the movement for restoration of democracy in Pakistan and Pakistan’s support to the Sikh extremists
in the form of supply of weapons and provision of military training, also greatly contributed to tension in the relations
between the two countries. With the assumption of leadership by Rajiv Gandhi more determined effort began for
normalisation of relations with Pakistan. Rajiv Gandhi held a number of meetings with President Zia of Pakistan which
greatly accelerated the process of normalisation. In December T965 the two countries agreed not to attack each other’s
nuclear facilities. In January
1986, they agreed to increase trade, expand air services, strengthen Telex links on Amritsar-Lahore route, and introduce
direct dialing etc. Despite these developments the relations between the two countries continued to be far-from normal
on account of Pakistan’s support to the terrorists, acquisition of sophisticated weapons and continuous purchases from
U.S.A, and pursuit of an ambitious nuclear programme. With the assumption of power by Benazir Bhutto and the return
of democracy to Pakistan in December 1988, it was widely expected that the relations between the two countries would
show an improvement. The things started well and in December 1988 Indian Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) signed
three accords with Pakistan during his visit to Islamabad and the two countries agreed not to attack-each other’s nuclear
installations; develop doser relations in the field of art, culture, archaeology, education, mass media, sports etc. They
also reached an understanding over avoidance of double taxation. India also showed great accommodating spirit by
I
516
supporting Pakistan’s re-entry into the Commonwealth. In the subsequent months the two countries reached an
agreement to cooperate with each other fn tackling the problems of terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling and illicit
border crossing. They tried to find out an amicable settlement of Siachen Glacier but did not succeed. The two
countries also agreed to increase cooperation in economic, medical and cultural fields and relax travel facilities for the
two people in each other’s country.
In subsequent months the two countries reached an agreement on chemical weapons and agreed to hasten the .process
of exchanging data on the location of nuclear facilities. But simultaneously, Pakistan also continued to make efforts to
internationalise the Kashmir issue in violation of the Shimla Accord. It even gave a call for bandh in Pakistan on the
Kashmir issue. As a result the process-of normalisation of relations between the two countries suffered a set back.
As a result of growing tension between two countries certain clashes took place in the Poonch Sector, even though the
two countries managed to check the drift towards war. In May 1992 Pakistan expelled an Indian Embassy Councillor
which resulted in cancellation of scheduled Secretary-level talks, and invited retaliation from India who dismissed two
Pakistan diplomats. In October
1992 Pakistan defused the situation on the Kashmir border by arresting several prominent leaders who had organised a
march to cross the international border. In Nov. 1992 the two sides reached some sort of understanding on Siachen. But
despite all this Pakistan’s relations with India continued to be strained on account of Pakistan’s support to terrorists in
Punjab and Kashmir, raising question of selfdetermination for Kashmiris at the international forum, delimitation of
borders on Siachen, construction of the Wullar Barrage on-the Jhelum river in Indian held Kashmir, demarcation of
boundaries in Sircreek in the Rann of Kutch, the nuclear programme of Pakistan influx of latest generation of
sophisticated arms into Pakistan growing linkages with fundamentalist elements, transborder smuggling of weapons
and drugs, discriminatory trade barriers against India and treatment meted out to the minorities in Pakistan. ;
4. NEPAL .
The landlocked country between India and China. The Kingdom of Nepal! was founded in 1769 by Prithvi Narayan
Shah. Narayan’s descendants ruled the kingdom until the 1840’s when the Rana family established an autocratic,system
which lasted until 1950. In 1950 the power was restored to King Tribhawan Bir Bikram Shah Deo. He ruled in a quasi-
constitutional manner. This type of rule continued after him under King Mahendra. A democratic constitution
promoulgated in 1956 paved the way for elections which brought the Nepali Congress Party to power with B,P. Koirala
as Prime Minister. In December 196C the King dismissed the Government and the Constitution and banned the
political parties. King Birendera succeeded his father in January, 1972.
Having common borders with India and China, Nepat is maintaining good1 relations with both the countries. Nepal has
emphasised the need tor regional co-operation involving Bhutan, China, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Howevet
CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN -uUTH ASIA 517
Nepal’s relations with IndU got strained due to differences in the approach of the two countries regarding the nature of
the treaty arrangements for future. While India favoured a treaty on old pattern, Nepal insisted on certain changes in the
Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950. A numberof other factors also greatly contributed to the straining of
relations between the two countries. These included use of Indian territory by the Nepali terrorists for their activities ’
in Nepal; Problem of Nepali population in Assam and Darjeeling district of West | Bengal and the treatment meted
out to the Indian citizens in Nepal over the past few years specially the introduction of work permits for Indians. The
efforts made i by Nepal to improve its relations with China and flow of economic and military alt! from China to
Nepal was not viewed by India with favour. India that this HParly violated the spirit and letter of bilateral treaty
hpfwpen India and Nepal. In view of difference in the approach of the two governments the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship could not be renewed and lot of tension was generated in their ’mutual relations. Some improvement in
Indo-Napalese relations took place after the formation of the National Front Government The National Front
Government succeeded in putting an end to the bitter relations between the two countries and restored status quo ante
to 1 April 1987 in trade and transit arrangements. The leaders of two countries agreed to respect each other’s security
concern and to hold prior consultations on matters which could pose threat to the security of the other. They expressed
faith in principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-interference in each other’s
internal matters etc. Nepal agreed to restore tariff preference for Indian goods and to remove the Indian nationals from
the ambit of work permit system. With the emergence of multi-party democracy in Nepal, a fresh bid was made to
restore and strengthen the age-old friendship. In December 1991 the Prime Ministers of two countries including two
relating to trade and transit, which had caused much embitterment in their mutual realtions in the previous years. Nepal
also succeeded in extracting new facilities and concessions from India with regard to its exports to India. The two also
agreed to tap the potential of water resources for mutual benefit. Thus gradually Nepal was able to establish normal
relations with India once again.
In October 1992 Nepal reached an understanding with India for expansion of bilateral cooperation and enhancement of
Nepalese exports to India. The existing protorma clearance system was replaced by a system of certificate of origin and
Nepalese products were permitted to have duty free and quota free access to Indian market. Nepal was permitted to
import goods from India by payment in free convertible currency in addition to the existing system of payment in
Indian rupee for import of such goods. The two countries also agreed to prepare project reports for Karnali,
Pancheswar, Sapta Koshi, Buri Gandaki, Kjmjlj and Bagmati projects and to install flood forecasting and warning
systems. Thus Nepal’s relations with India onct1 again .developed along normal lines. With thf formation of
government by the Communists in Nepalin November,
1994, it was (”eared that the relation;, between the two countries would deteriorate as during the election the
Communits had attacked the various IndoNepal agreements, specially the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship.
However,
these apprehensions proved wrong and the Communist Government of Nepal established high-level contact with India
and made a bid to establish good bilateral relations. The Nepali Prime Minister paid a visit to India and succeeded in
securing additional transit facilities for Nepalese goods at Kandla and Bombay. The two countries also agreed to hold
discussions for the review of
1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty. It was also agreed to undertake several new projects. These included construction of
18 bridges on Kolhapur Mahakali sector of Nepal’s East West Highway, Raxaul-Sirsiya broad gauge rail link, joint
survey of East West Electric Railway etc. Despite this, several areas of disagreement still exist between Nepal and
India. These include.differences on trade facilities, sharing of water and power, smuggling and movement of terrorists
across the borders, the involvement of Nepal in the affairs of-peoples ,.. of Nepali origin settled in India and Bhutan
etc.
5 BANGLADESH
•• *
Bangladesh emerged as an independent sovereign republic in December,
1971 following the dismemberment of East Pakistan as a sequel to Indo-Pak war the same year. Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman became the first President of Bangladesh. In August/1975 a group of Pro-Pak army officers staged a coup and
gunned down Mujibur Rahman and his family members. Immediately K. Moshtaque Ahmed was swom-in as President.
Events took a swift turn and on 3 November, 1975 there occurred a rebellion led by Brig. Khaled Mushraf. Mushraf
was replaced by Col. Abu Zahet in another coup in November, 1975 and Abus Muhammad Sayens became the
President of Bangladesh. In April, 1977 Sayens resigned as President and Ziaul Rahman succeeded him. In April 1978
President Ziaul Rahman announced president^ election in the country and was re-elected for a term of five years. s
In May, 1981 President Ziaul Rahman was assassinated. This was followed by a period of political uncertainty. In
November, 1981 Acting President Abdul Sattar was elected President with 66 per cent votes. But within few days of
his victory a group of generals demanded expansion of military budget and insisted on permission for entry of military
men in civil administration. They also pressed for the removal of some ministers accused of corruption. All efforts by
President Sattar to appease the military leaders failed and ultimately he dismissed his Cabinet in February, 1982, In
March, 1982 General Ershad overthrew the elected President and proclaimed himself as martial law administrator.
Though India played a vital role in the independence of Bangladesh and their relations started on a cordial but not
certain conflicting situation appeared in the course of time and produced strains in their relations. The main issues
which strained relations between the two countries were clashes over borders, the dispute over sharing of Ganges
water, and sovereignty over the Moore Island. It shall be desirable to briefly review these issues.
In the first place the dispute over border has greatly strained Bangladesh’s relations with India. Though the two
countries reached an amicable settlement regarding lx>rdef and disputed territories in May, 1974 border incidents
519
continued in the Cargo Mills area. There was occasional unprovoked firing which created tension in their relations. In
1979 clashes took place between Bangladesh Rifles and the Indian’ Border Security Police. The trouble started because
the Bangladesh Rifles opened fire on the Indian farmers harvesting the tracts of land left by shift in the Muhuri river
which formed border between the two countries. The Indian border security force returned fire in retaliation which
resulted in loss of lives on both sides. The two countries also agreed to demarcate the boundaries. In recent months
trouble again broke out when Bangladesh opened ftre on Indians engaged in erecting barbedwire fencing on the Indian
side of the border with a view to check the flow of Bangladesh citizens on the Indian side. However, both the sides
acted with restraint and situation was prevented from taking an ugly turn.
Another dispute which has greatly contributed to conflict situation in the relations between India and Bangladesh is the
question of Farakka Barrage and sharing of water of Ganges. Though the two countries concluded an interim agreement
in April, 1975 regrading the sharing of the water, the leadership of Bangladesh has often indulged in misleading
campaign about the adverse effects of the agreement on Bangladesh with a view to divert the attention of the people
from the shortcomings and lapses in the domestic field. They tried to project that India was trying to ruin their economy
by diverting the Ganga water. The leadership of Bangladesh even tried to internationalise the issue by raising the same
at the United Nations. This naturally met with great resentment from India. However, ultimately the leaders of
Bangladesh agreed to withdraw the issue from the United Nations and resolve the same by bilateral negotiations. After
prolonged negotiations the two countries concluded a comprehensive long-term and short-term agreement on the
sharing of Ganga water in November, 1977. Under this agreement a Joint Rivers Commission was set up to find out a
longterm solution. However, Joint Rivers Commission could not arrive at any mutually agr«»d <*>ttlf>ment anri
recommended that the matter relating to sharing of the Ganga water should be taken up by the-two governments at ’the
highest political level’. In October 1982 they reached an interim accord on Ganga water. Under the accord it was
decided to terminate the 1977 Farakka Agreement. A period of 18 months was given to complete studies on the ways to
augment the flow of Ganga. It was decided that the Indo-Bangladesh Joint River Commission would complete the
feasibility study and decide upon the optimum solution which would be accepted by both the sides..On 24 December
1982 the two countries agreed to set up a joint committee of experts to carry out pre-feasibility study of schemes
proposed by either side for augmenting the dry season flow of Ganga and Farakka. On.7 January, 1983 they reached an
accord on making new arrangements for sharing of Ganga water for another two years. Though the Joint River
Commission has been holding meetings at regular intervals thereafter, it could not find a mutually acceptable solution.
In November 1985 Bangladesh and India reached an accord on sharing of Ganga waters. According to the accord the
Ganga water will be shared for a
520
521
periodof three years beginning from dry season of 1986 on the same basis as laid down in the memorandum of
understanding signed by the two in 1982. Despite this accord Bangladesh has been insisting on the building of reservoir
dams and pressing for inclusion of Kathmandu in this project. In January 1986 the two countries agreed to study
proposals of both the countries regarding sharing of Ganga water.
A significant development in this respect took ptece in 1990 when the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh (Armul Islam
Mahmud) indicated the intention to accept the de facto division of Ganga water as a permanent solution so that a
’political solution could be evolved in furtherance of the friendly ties between the two countries.
The relations between India and Bangladesh have also been strained over the possession of a new island in the Bay of
Bengal (called New Moore Island by India and South Talpatty Island by Bangladesh). This Island is located in the
estuary of the River Haribhanga and midstream of the main channel, which formed the border between India and
Bangladesh. While India maintained that the main channel of Haribhanga flowed to the east of the Island which was
5.2 kms from the Indian coast and 7.2 kms from the’nearest point in Bangladesh. Bangladesh authorities.maintained
that the main channel of Haribhanga flowed to the west of the island and the island was closer to Bangladesh. It may be
noted that the island which was formed after the cyclone and tidal waves in 1970, was first dicovered by India in 1971.
India named the Island as New Moore Island and notified its location to the British Admiralty. Bangladesh put forward
its claims to the island for the first time in 1978. In April, 1979 during the course of Morarji Desai’s visit (the then
Prime Minister of India) it was agreed that a joint survey would be undertaken to determine the location and ownership
of the Island. In August, 1980 the two countries agreed that after a further study of the additional information
exchanged between the two Governments, the discussion would take place with a view to settling it peacefully at an
ea.rly date.
In May, 1981 when Indian naval ship Sandhyak anchored on the island a’nd the Indian personnels landed there, the
Government of Bangladesh lodged a protest and alleged that the ship was in Bangladesh territorial waters. India
justified the presence of Sandhyak in the area by pointing out that the ship was doing no more than updating the data
which Bangladesh had sought, and collecting necessary statistics for a joint survey which the two governments had
agreed to undertake. Not satisfied with the Indian stand, Bangladesh sent certain
• gun boats which threatened Sandhyak. As as result India also sent a frigate to rescue its ship. This was followed by
exchange of notes between the two countries in which they accused each other of sending warships into the territorial
waters of each other and acting in a provocative manner. The anti-India feeling in Bangladesh was demonstrated by the
demonstrations outside the office of Indian High Commission in Dacca. The demonstrators also attacked the Indian
Airlines Office at Dacca and caused serious damage. In Calcutta also demonstrations were held outside the office of
Bangladesh Deputy High
Commissioner’s Office. In the midst of all these developments the Parliament of Bangladesh adopted a resolution on 28
May 1981 demanding immediate withdrawal of all Indian personnel from the island.
The controversy over the New Moore Island, and particularly the resort to gun-boat diplomacy by Bangladesh, further
aggravated the controversy and contributed to greater tension in the refation of the two countries. India made a bid to
reduce tension by extending an invitation to the Bangladesh Foreign Minister to visit New Delhi to remove the
misgivings. In September, 1981 the Foreign Ministers, of India and Bangladesh met in New Delhi and dicussed the
•• issue. However, they were not able to resolve the controversy over New Moore Island. In fact Bangladesh played up
this controversy .because the country was
’ passing through a period of instability and the leaders used this as plea to create anti-India feeling and divert the
attention of the people from the domestic issues. The controversy slowly cooled down, specially after the murder of
President Ziaur-Rehman.
It is thus evident that the relations between India and Bangladesh have at times been characterised by confrontation
although this confrontation did not assume serious dimensions at any stage. At the same time the two countries tried to
develop more intimate economic and cultural relations. They set up a Joint Commission to explore the possibilities of
greater cooperation. ”However, certain irritants have also appeared in their relations in the form of dispute over
borders, Farakka barage, Moore island and the issue of repatriation of Chakma refugees from camps in India. The
question of transfer of Tin Bigha corridor to Bangladesh has been another irritant in the Indo-Bangladesh relations.
Above all, the two countries have also frequently traded charges about providing sanctuary to rebels across the borders.
Bangladesh has accused India of harbouring and arming the tribal Shanti Bahani guerrillas who have been demanding
political, economic and cultural autonomy for Chittagong hill tracts region. India on its part has charged Bangladesh of
providing sanctuary to TNV guerilla of Tripura. In short, the presence of various irritants has generated lot of tensions
in bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh. However, a welcome thing about their • relations is that the leaders
of the two countries have repeatedly asserted their determination to improve their relations and resolve all differences
amicably. Bangaladesh made a bid to remove misunderstanding and create favourable climate for establishment of
cordial relations with India in May 1992 during the visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister’s visit to India. The two
countries concluded .agreement on Tin Bigha corridor and agreed to review long-term and . comprehensive
arrangements for sharing of waters of Ganga, Teesta and other major rivers of region. They agreed to take effective
steps to stop illegal movement of people across the border. However, this process of improvement of relations with
India was upset following demolition of Hindu temple* and harassment of Hindus in Bangladesh in the wake of
demolition of disputed structure in Ayodhya. This twice resulted in the postpVmement of the SAARC Summit in
December 1992 and lanuarv 1991. It was only in April thai SAARC . Summit could be held in Dacca. Thus
Bangladesh’s relations with Inilia continued to be t’ar from cordial and difference* persisted, on (-.sues like >h,ning
of Canga waters, illegal immigration, Chakma refugees, treatment of minorities, demarcation of maritime boundaries and
adoption of Islam as state religion by Bangladesh and consequent policy of intolerance towards minorities. In )une 1995 the
leaders of two’countries tried to resolve the issue of sharing of Ganga waters, but did not succeed. However, it was agreed to
reactivate the Joint Rivers Commission after about five years, to work out details regarding sharing of waters of common
rivers on permanent basis.
6. SRI LANKA
Sri Lanka havig circular location oil the coast of South East India, became an independent state on 3 February, 1948
after centuries of foreign domination. Until 1956, the country was governed by the United National Party. In 1956 Sri
Lanka Freedom Party was voted lo power, and stayed in office till 22 March, 1965 when the United National Party was
again able to gain hold over government. The 1970 elections proved the rout of the United National Party and Sri
Lankan r’reedom Party was saddled into power. The United National Party again made its history in July 1977
elections with J.R. Jayawardene as President.
Sri Lanka has maintained friendly relations with most of its neighbours. However, for the pass few years its relations
with India have been greatly strained on account of ethnic conflicts of Tamiiians and flight of large number of
Tamilian* to India, the Indian Government has desisted from aggravating the situation and laid emphasis on the need of
finding a political solution for the problem. India has also offered to co-operate in every possible manner in resolving
this problem.
In January 1986 the two countries reached an understanding on the question of grant of citizenship to Tamils of Indian
origin in Sri Lanka and thus amicably resoive<J an issue which has bden a source of constant friction to the relationship
of the two countries.
However, with the aggravation of the ethnic conflict, and the prospects of finding a political solution to the problem
receding to the background, new iension was generated in the relations between the two.countries. There was a growing
pressure on the Indian Government from the Indian Tamils to intervene in Sri Lanka to protect the Sri Lanka Tamiiians.
However, the Government has resisted irom involving ilsell in the issue and li.iviieen prosing on the Sri Lankan
government to find «>ut a political solution of the problem. In May-June 1986 following massacre of large number of
Tamiiians in Jaffna, the Indian Goveinment jir-dropped supplies for the suffering Tamiiians against the wishes of Sri
Lankan Government. This caused much tension and the relations between two threatened to take.a serious turn.
However, subsequently the Sri Lankan Government showed a spirit ot accommodation and permitted India to send
relief supplies to relieve the suffering of the Sri Lankan Tamiiians. -
In subsequent months the leaders of .two countries showed greater understanding of e.tch other and signed an accord on
29 My 1987. In terms of this agreement the Tamil majority northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka were so be
merged to make one single province, A referendum was to be held
before 31 December 1987 to enable people of eastern provinces to decide whether they would like to maintain links
with northern provinces or form separate administrative unit. The’ emergency in eastern and northern provinces was to
be lifted by 15 August, 1987 and all hostilities in the island were to be ended w|thin 48 hours of the signing of the
agreement. All the political and other prisoners detained in Sri Lanka were to be granted general arrnesty. India was to
provide Indian peace-keeping contingent on the request of Sri Lankan President to guarantee and enforce the cessation
of hostilities in Jaffna. Sri Lanka pledged not 10 make available Trincomalle or any other port for military use to other
countries. This accord paved the way for improvement of relations between the two countries. Thereafter, greater,
cooperation was witnessed between (he two countries..India not only provided 150 crore<; to Sri Lanka as financial
assistance but also sent peace-keeping forces on the request of Sri Lankan Government to disarm (he Tamil militants
and ensuring peacs in sorelytroubled northern areas. The growing cooperation between the two countries led to
establishment of friendly relations between the two and checked foreign influence in Sri Lanka
With the election of Premadasa as President of Sri Larska tension once aga In began to buiid up between India and Sri
Lanka. He called for the pull of the Indian Peace Keeping Forces from Sri Lanka by 29 July 1989. India objected to the
imposition of unilateral deadline and insisted on compliance with other terms of the agreement of 1987. After a
temporary tension the two countries reached an agreement on 4 August 1989 whereby India agreed to accelerate the
process of withdrawal of its forces from Sri Lanka. On 19 September the IPKF unilaterally suspended its military
operations. India also continued phased programme of „ withdrawal of peace forces from Sri Lanka, even though the
Sri Lankan leaders were not happy wifh the pade of withdrawal. All this caused great tension in Sri / Lanka’s relations
with India,
The tf nstoh somewhat eased after the National Front Government came to power in India and announced its decision
to develop close relations with neigWxHiring countries. The National Front Government made serious bid .to improve
relations with Sri Links and in January 1991 the two countries reach an agreement that the vexed ethnic problem of Sri
Lanka can be resolwd only through political settlement. They also reached an understanding regarding the return of
some 200,000 Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. Sndia assured Sri . Lanka>i leaders that it would not be party to any
political disintegration of the Island Republic and would not allow its territory as a base for terrorist activities. The
Policy of non-interference adopted by India during the subsequent months greatly contributed to improvement of
relations between the two countries. However, the relations between the two once again got strained following collapse
of the CoKmibo Summit of SAARC in November 1991. The Sri Lankan President (Premadasa) blamed India for this
collapse and held informal talks with leaders of Pakistan Bangladesh and Maldives where he openly expressed
hostilify towards India. However, thereafter relations between the two started showing improvement In October 1992
Sri Lanka’s President (Premadasa) paid A visit lo India lo develop closer relations. During this visit, India exp/wsed
524
support to the proposal for effective devolution of power within the framework of an early solution of the ethnic
conflict in Sri Lanka. Need for strengthening economic cooperation between the two countries was also emphasised. In
fact Sri Lanka’s relations with India have considerably improved and the hostility which once characterised their
relations has largely disappeared. The leaders of the two countries have indicated their intention to further improve
their relations through regular dialogue and consultations.
Sri Lanka has been keen to increase co-operation with other countries and therefore applied for membership of ASEAN
in 1981. After a long delay ultimately the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) rejected her application
for membership of ASEAN on 11 June, 1982. It may be further noted that the Standing Committee of ASEAN also
considered the question of admitting Papua New Guniea and Brunei. While it did not take any decision with regard
tothe former it decided toconsiderBrunei’sapplicalion in 1983 after independence of the Sultanate.
CO-OPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA
Co-operation is an antonym of conflict. In view of the constant conflicts between the countries of South Asia, scholars
have taken the view that the prospects of co-operation between countries of South Asia do not seem quite bright.
However, this view is too pessimistic because if countries like. France and Britain, which have been traditional rivals,
can engage in regional co-operation (in the shape of EEC) why countries of South Asian region cannot co-operate with
each other. In fact a number of factors impelled the countries of the region to cooperate with each other.
Firstly, the growing rivalry between U.S.A. and Soviet Union and Soviet Union and China encouraged the outside
powers to intervene in the affairs of South Asia. For example U.S.A. was able to interfere in Pakistan because of its
conflicts with India and Afghanistan. Similarly, Soviet Union and China were able to interfere in the region due to
conflicts between various countries. However, subsequently the countries of the region realized that they must
cooperate with each other to prevent interference by, outside powers.
Secondly, the countries of the region are economically very backward and realise that they can improve their bargaining
powers, v/vj-vi’.i the developed countries only if they attain self-reliance through mutual co-operation. This desire is
reflected in their support to the New International Economic Order.
Thirdly, the ecological considerations also demand greater co-operation among the countries. There are a number of
problems which no country of the region can solve single-handed and which can be solved only if the countries of the
region cooperate. For example, the problem of soil salinity in Bangladesh caused by tidal waters (lowing inland can be
solved only if India agrees to augment the waters of the Ganges river system. Similarly the problem of floods and soil
erosion in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is intimately connected with the problem of deforestation and harnessing of fast
flowing rivers in Nepal.
Finally, the presence of the naval forces of the European powers in the Indian Ocean also pose a serious threat to me
freedom of the region. The states
B; CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 525
B of the region must realise that the infighting between them is bound to be
• exploited by outside powers.
H Efforts to end Conflicts and Promote Co-operation
B After examining the factors, which encourage the states of South Asia to coll operate with each other, it shall be
desirable to briefly review the efforts made B so far to end the conflicts and promote co-operation amongst the
countries of the B region. A serious beginning in this direction was made with the conclusion of
• the’Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan in June 1972. Under the
• Shimla Agreement the two countries agreed to ”put an end to the conflict and
• confrontation which had hitherto marred their relations” and to ’work for the B promotion of a friendly and
harmonious relationship and the establishment of B durable peace in the sub-continent.” This was followed by a
Tripartite Agreement . B between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1973. Though even after the B conclusion of the
above agreements the relations between the three countries B could not be normalised, but these ageements certainly
provided a useful base Ip for normalisation of relations. Thereafter the countries of the region acted in
I unison on various issues.
I The Non-Government organisations also tried to promote regional.co-
I operation among the countries of South Asia. In 1970 the representatives from I Bangladesh, India, Iran, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka met the representatives I of United Nations, Asia and Pacific Development Institute to form a
Committee I on Studies on Co-operation for Development in South Asia (CSCD). The I Committee in collaboration
with the Marga Institute of Sri Lanka initiated a series I of studies based on the imperative of regional co-operation. I
But the most important step in the direction of encouraging co-operation
I among the countries of South Asia was taken by President Ziaur Rehman of
I Bangladesh. Between 1977-80 he paid visits to Nepal, India, Pakistan and Sri
I Lanka and held consultations with the leaders of these countries on the need for
I co-operation among the£puntries of the region. In the light of these consultation
I he addressed letters to Head of Governments of these countries impressing the
I need of establishing some institutional arrangement for regional co-operation
r and proposed a summit meeting. He circulated a working paper which provided
I the basis for further discussion regarding the proposed regional organisation. The
[ paper said: •
; ’Economic and technical co-operation on a regional basis was accepted
by all developing countries as a desirable and necessary strategy within the framework of ECDC and TCDC. In South
Asia, as in another region of the world, we have countries at different levels of development, some are relatively less
developed than others. Any proposal for economic co-operation must consequently be formulated with the greatest care
in order to ensure (hat the weak are not exploited and that the strong do not dominate. The areas selected should only
be those in which co-operation will mutually benefit all the countries irrespective of existing economic disparities so as
to make regional co operation meaningful, strengthen the spirit of mutual trust and understanding and bridge the
developmental gaps existing among the region.”
526
The working paper identified eleven areas of possible cooperation, viz., (1) Telecommunications; (2)
Meteorology; (3) Transport; (4) Shipping; (5) Toyrism; (6) Agricultural-Rural Sector; (7) Joint Ventures;
(8) Market Promotion in selected commodities; (9) Scientific and Technical Co-operation; (10) Education
and Technical Co-operation; and (11) Cultural Co-operation.
7. Meeting of Foreign Secretaries at Colombo (April,1981): In April, 1981 the Foreign Secretaries of seven
South Asian Countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) met at
Colombo to consider the proposals outlined in ihe working paper submitted by Bangladesh President. At
this meeting the Foreign Secretaries agreed on the need of regional co-operation but asserted that it should
not be substitute for bilateral or multilateral cooperation. It could compliment bilateral and multilateral co-
operation. The meeting agreed to explore possibilities of cooperation in five fields, viz. Agricultural; Rural-
development; communication; meteorology; and health and population activities. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,
Pakistan, India and Nepal respectively were to act as coordinators for the above five and to make concrete
recommendations for consideration bv the Foreign Secretaries at the next meeting to be held within six
months. The meeting also decided to set up a Committee of the whole consisting of the senior officials of
the seven countries to identify and report on other areas of possible co-operation. Sri Lanka was to act as
the Coordinator of this Committee. This Committee subsequently met at Colombo and identified 13 areas
of possible co-operation. These areas also included some of the areas which had been earlier recommended
in the working paper submitted by Bangladesh.
2. Kathmsndu Meeting (Npvmfeer 1911) : The second meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of the South
Asian countries was held in November, 1931 at Kathmandu. This meeting endorsed the recommendations
of the five study groups as well as the report of the Committee of the whole. It also decided to institute
studies in the following areas of co-operation: Transport, Postal Services and Scientific and Technological
Co-operation. Maldives, Bhutan and Pakistan respectively were to act as coordinators for these fields.
3. Islamabad Meeting (Pakistan, August. 1982): The Third Meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of the South
Asun Suttrt w*t hdd at Islamabad (Pakistan) in August 1982. The meeting considered the report of the
Study Groups in Transport Postal Services; Scientific and Technological Co-operation and endorsed the
•ecomrner>daUon$ contiirmJ in these reports. The meeting also agreed no consHtute new study groups CM
Sports, Arts arid Culture,
ft may be noted that as a-result of these deliberations a farrh/ broad based and comprehensive scheme of-
South Asian Regional Co-operation was.evofved and almost all the fields outlined in the wcxktng paper of
Bangladesh, with the exception of tourism and joint ventutes, were accepted, in fact some of she new
subjects like telecommunications, postal services and sports were also included.
A notebte, achievement of trw meeting of .fhe Foreign SecreUrkrs of ihe South Asian countries at
Ssiamabad was that it emphasised the ”importance and imperative necessity of holding a ministerial
meeting at an early date/ It decided
I CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 527
to recommend to their Foreign Ministers to convene a meeting at their level between May and September,
1983, to be preceded by a preparatory meeting of the Foreign Secretaries.
4. Dacca Meeting (March, r9&3J: The next meeting of the foreign ministers of South Asian countries was
held at Dacca in March, 1983. It endorsed the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee
of the Whole and recommended the adoption of the Integrated programme of Action by the Foreign
Ministers. It decided to set up a Standing Committee at regional level for coordinating and monitoring the
Integrated Programme of Action. The meeting asserted that necessary preparatory work for a ministerial
level meeting had been successfully completed and expressed the necessity of holding a Ministerial
Meeting at an early date. It suggested that Ihe meeting of Foreign Ministers be held at New Delhi.
However, it left the precise dates for the meeting to be settled ; through consultation. The meeting also
agreed that studies be initiated in due
• course to identify the areas of co-operation in addition to those already identified.
5. Foreign Ministers Meeting (New Delhi, August, 1983): In August 1983 the foreign ministers of
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and Pakistan met at New Delhi. Their meeting was preceded
by a meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of these countries at New Delhi in July, 1983. At the conclusion of
the meeting the foreign ministers signed a Declaration on South Asian Regional Co-operation. The foreign
ministers expressed their concern about the common probems and aspiration of the people of South Asia
and emphasised the need of accelerating-their economic and social development through regional
cooperation. They also expressed their conviction that increased co-operation, contacts and exchanges
among’the countries of the region would contribute to the promotion of friendship, amity and
understanding among their people. The declaration highlighted the following objectives of the South Asian
Regional Cooperation: (1) to promote welfare of the people of South Asia and improve quality of their life;
(2) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all
individuals the opportunity te live in dignity and to realise their full potential; (3) to promote and strengthen
collective self-reliance among the countries of South-Asia; (4) to contribute to mutual trust. Understanding
and appreciation of one another’s problems; (5) to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in
the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields; (6) to strengthen co-operation with other
developing countries; (7) to strengthen co-operation among themselves in international forums on matters
of common interest* and (8) to cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar aims
and purposes. The declaration asserted that co-operation in the above fields shall be based on the principle
of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, noninterference in internal affair* of
other states and mutual benefit, it reiterated that co-operation shall not substitute hut compliment the
bilateral and multilateral relations.
The Foreign Ministers also agreed on certain institutional arrangements for making the co-operation more
effective They envisaged the following institutional
528
INTERNATlONAi RELATIONS
arrangements:
/. rec/in/ca/Comrn/flees:TechnicalCommitteesconsistingofrepresentative of all member states for the implementation,

coordination and monitoring of the programmes in each area of co-operation. The committees were to determine the
potential and scope of regional cooperation in agreed areas; formulate programme of action and prepare necessary
plans; determine financial implications of the sectoral programme of action; formulate recommendations regarding the
apportionment of costs; implement and co-ordinate sectoral
. programmes of action; and monitor the progress of implementation. The Technical Committees were expected to
submit periodic reports to the Standing
’ Committee.
2. Standing Committee : The declaration envisaged a Standing Committee consisting of the Foreign Secretaries of the
members of states. The committee was expected to coordinate and monitor South-Asian regional co-operation with
regard to (a) approval of projects and programmes and modalities of their financing; (b) determine the intra-sectoral
priorities and overall co-ordination of programmes of action; (c) mobilisation of regional and external resources; and
(d) identification of new areas of cooperation based on appropriate studies. The Standing Committee was expected to
meet at least once a year but more frequent meeting could be hejd if the members deemed it necessary. The Standing
Committee was expected to provide necessary support services for the meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the
member countries. It was also expected to refer to the matters relating to decisions on policy guidelines with regard to
approval of projects, programmes and authorisation for financing the same.
3. Action Committees: The Declaration also envisaged Action Committees which were to set up for the implementation
of projects involving more than two countries. However, such Action Committees could be set up only with the prior
approval of the standing-Committee.
4. Finances: As regards the finances for the programmes of co-operation the same were to be raised through voluntary
contributions. The Technical Committees were to have power to make recommendations (or the apportionment of thf
costs for the implementation of the proposed programmes. However, whikr making recommendation* the Technical
Committees were expected to keep/the following points in mind : (1) the cost of travel and subsistence for participants
in seminars, workshops and training and other programmes shall be met by the respective governments and the cost of
organising seminars, workshops and training and other programmes may be met by the host country or apportioned
among the participants in proportion to the facilities availed of; (2) the cost of subsistence for the experts shall be met
by the receiving countries and cost of travel and/or salary of the experts may be paid for by the sending countries; or
shared among participant countries; (3) other costs, including the cost of preparation of studies shall be shared on a
mutually agreed basis; and (4) in the case of long-term projects the Technical Committee vvd> In eMimate the c<»t
involved <tntl mnke recommends!ioiix t<> the Sending Committee th<- modalities for meeting the cost. The cost of
the projects and programmes tor which sufficient financial resources could not be mobilised within the region
I CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 529
external assistance could be procured from regional or other appropriate sources with the approval of the Standing
Committee. New DeW Meeting of SAItC (1984) The SARC (South Asian Regional Co-operation) held its first
meeting at New Delhi on 27 February 1984. This rpeeting asserted that friendly political relations among the countries
of the region must go hand in hand with cooperation in economic, social and cultural fields. The meeting emphasised
the need of reducing the dependence on outside countries for essential requirements, and affirmed the collective resolve
of the government to pursue actively South Asian Regional Co-opetation and to launch an integrated programme of
action. Meeting at Male (1985)
Another notable development was the meeting of the Standing Committee
• of South Asian Regional Co-operation at Male in February 1985. This meeting recommended the establishment of a
ministerial Council of SARC countries to institutionalise their collective resolve to pursue mutual co-operation and
launch an integrated programme of action. The ministerial Council shifted emphasis from studies and workshops to
action-oriented projects. The proposal was cleared by the Foreign Ministers and put up for adoption before the first
session of the Heads of State and Government of SARC countries at their meeting at Dhaka in December 1985.
SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL
CO-OPERATION (SAARC)
In December 1985 the heads of states and governments of seven South Asian countries viz., Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka held a summit meeting at Dhaka. After due deliberations they unanimously
decided to-set up a Secretariat and issued a declaration for the creation of SAARC. The Declaration stated the objective
of association as promotion of welfare of people, improvement in the quality of the life of people, acceleration of
economic growth; promotion of collective self-reliance; promotion of mutual trust and understanding; promotion of
collaboration in economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields; strengthening of co-operation with other
developing countries and themselves besides co-operation With •regional and international organisations with similar
objectives. This cooperation amongst the members was to be based on respect for principles of sovereignty, equality,
territorial integrity, political independence, non-interference in internal affairs of other states and mutual benefit. It was
further asserted that co-operation among the member states shall not be a substitute for bilateral and multilateral co-
operation but shall complement them and it shall not be inconsistent with bilateral and multilareral obligations. Further,
decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of consensus and that bilateral and contentious
• issues shall he excluded from the deliberations.
The declaration stated that the heads of the state or government shall meet annually and a Council of Ministers
consisting of foreign ministers of the member states shall be constituted to formulate policies, to review the progress of
cooperation, to establish additional mechanism and to decide on matters of general
530
interest. This Council of Ministers shall be assisted by foreign secretaries, the Declaration also envisaged
the setting up of Technical Committee comprising of representatives of member states for implementing,
coordinating and mon Storing of programmes and Action Committee for implementation of projects
involving more than two member states. The Declaration stated that a Secretariat for the association shall
be established at the appropriate time. The expenses of the organisation shall be met out of voluntary
contributions of members.
The formation of SAARC was welcomed and a hope was expressed that it would contribute to the
economic development of the region as a whole regardless of the size and geographical location of
individual countries. Though SAARC is the youngest of the regional groupings, it is biggest in terms qf
number of people it represents (it represents over one billion people).
The formation of SAARC evoked mixed reaction. King of Bhutan described it as ”a manifestation of our
collective wisdom and political will to bring about meaningful regional co-operation in spite of the
differences on foreign policy and security perspectives.” On the other hand President Zia of Pakistan
expressed apprehensions about the dominant position of India which could deter the fulfilment of the
objectives and ideals of SAARC. Similar misgivings were entertained by other smaller countries. These
misgivings arose due to the size and population of India. Therefore it is desirable that India should try to
allay these feelings by demonstrating both by words and deeds that she will always be ready to enter into
constructive and mutually beneficial co-operation with such countries as may seek it.
Despite these misgivings it cannot be denied that the formation of SAARC was a significant step forward
because it could stimulate regional co-operation through collective approach and action. No doubt the
seven countries had different political system, ideologies and links, but they were also beset with identical
problems of growth and development which encouraged them to cooperate with each other and evolve a
common approach for development. Second SAARC Summit at Bangalore (1986)
The second Summit of SAARC was held at Bangalore in November 1986. The heads of state and
governments of seven south Asian countries who attended this summit, committed themselves ID devise
common politcies and approaches* for finding common solutions to the shared problems. At this summit
they institutionalised SAARC by establishing a permanent secretariat to coordinate the.implementation of
the SAARC programme. It also decided to set up technical committees on women’s participation in the
development activities and in the implementation of the measures to end drug abuses and drug trafficking.
The Summit agreed in principle to extend cooperation among members in five additional field viz.
launching of south Asian broadcasting programme covering fx>th radio and television; promotion of
tourism; provisions of facilities to students and academicians; and harnessing of idealism of youth. Above
all ihe Summit called upon the member states not to allow their territories to be used lor terrorist activities
against another state. The leaders agreed to cooperate in combating and eliminating terrorism from the
region.
• CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 531 I SAARC Foreign Minister* Meet (1987)
I Foreign ministers of seven SAARC countries met in Ne\v Delhi in 1987 and
• approved proposals for a common strategy to curb drug.trafficking. They BJ approved five new action
programmes including exchange of radio and TV
• Programmes; a common programme on organised tourism within the region
• with facilities for limited convertibility of national currencies for this purpose to W be launched in July
1988; fellowships and scholarships to be instituted in I; universities. They also approved schemes for a
documentation centre and a
1; youth volunteers programme for the region. Above/all they also approved i proposal for a regional
food securiryxsystem with preserve of 200,000 tonnes. I Third SAARC Summit (1987) ^
i The third SAARC Summit was held at Kathmandu in November 1987 and
I greatly contributed to the creation of an atmosphere conducive to the strengthening

1 of the process of consolidation of the gains of SAARC? It also provided a renewed I thrust and direction
to the future course of cooperation in South Asia. The leaders
• called for increasingly orienting SAARC to the people’s needs and aspirations so i; that the people of the
region are drawn into the mainstream of its activities and
• • contribute to peace, friendship and cooperation in the area. The leaders of I SAARC expressed concern
over structural disequilibrium in the world economy I and emphasised the urgent need for resumption of
North-South dialogue. They [ called for equitable participation of the developing countries in the
international
’ tracing and economic system. They urged the developed countries to liberalise
[ multilateral trading and to lower protectionist barriers. They reached an
; agreement on terrorism which was a significant step in the direction of
; prevention and elimination of terrorism from the region. Besides tackling
i political issues such as terrorism and drug trafficking,’ it has come to exercise a
perceptible influence on bilateral relations. It would not be wrong to say that high
level Indo-Pak dialogue at various levels and several rounds of talks between
’* Rajiv Gandhi and President Jayawardane of Sri Lanka could be possible only on
V account of SAAKC meetings.
Fourth SAARC Summit (1988)
| The fourth SAARC Summit was held at Islamabad from 29-31 December
• 1988. The leaders arrived at several positive decisions including elimination of i menace of drugs and
terrorism. They expressed concern at the high incidence
of drug production, trafficking and abuse and decided to declare 1989 as the . SAARC year’ Against Drug
Abuses in order to focus attention on drug related problems facing the region. They stressed the need of
measures at national level to fully implement the regional convention on suppression of terrorism. They
called for a perspective regional plan with specific targets of meeting basic needs to be met by the end of
the century in core sectors such as food, clothing, shelter, education, primary health care, population,
planning and environmental protection. The Summit welcomed the establishment of South Asian Food
Security Reserve,in August 1988 and described it as a major break-through in (he common endeavour of
the governments of member countries to assist each other in food emergency situation. They reiterated their
-determination to accord priority to the needl of children in national development plant and de
.diHsbs
declare 1990 as SAARC year of Girt Child. Finally the leaders agreed to have a SAARC passport (initially
available only to MPs and Supreme Court Judges of the member countries) to facilitate travel among the seven
countries. Gradually the journalists and other categories of persons would also be eligible to receive this
passport. .
The Islamabad Summit was a great landmark in a number of ways’. In the first instance it provided a new impetus to
SAARC by initiating a number qf action-oriented plans with far reaching consequences for the quality of trie pertple of
South Asia. Secondly, it encouraged the member states to reorient their foreign policies in order to inject positive
bilateralism. The signing of three important agreements between India and Pakistan during the Islamabad meeting is a
clear proof of it. Fifth SAARC Summit (1990)
The Fifth SAARC Summit was held at Male, the capital of Maldives, in November 1990. Though the Summit did not
mark any material progress towards regional cooperation, it signed a Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances to deal effectively with the menace of drug abuse and suppression of illicit traffic in the region. It decided
to enlarge visa-free travel beyond the present categories of members of Parliament and Supreme Court judges. It was
agreed that heads of national academic institutions, their spouses and dependent children should also be entitled to the
special SAARC travel document, it was decided to observe 1991 as SAARC Year of Shelter, 1992 as SAARC Year of ’
Environment and 1993 as SAARC year of Disabled of Persons. In’addition they decided to observe the Decade of
1990’s as SAARC Decade of Girl Child, to end the discriminatory ”treatment out to the female children in the region.
The leaders of SAARC countries agreed to initiate steps for launching Joint Ventures in cottage industries and
handicrafts to ’set the stage for promoting collective self reliance in the region’. It directed the ministers to prepare a
strategy for mobilising regional resources which would strengthen individual and collective self-reliance in the region.
In its Declaration the SAARC leaders called for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and restoration of latter’s
legitimate government. It noted that the Gulf crisis had badly hit the economy of the SAARC countries and called for
massive international assistance to overcome the difficulties.
The Summit noted inherent relationship between disarmament and development and stressed the need for early
conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. They agreed that second ministerial meeting on international issuer
should be held in 1991 to review the outcome of the Uruguay Round and. to coordinate their approach at international
conferences, including the UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992. Sixth SAARC Summit (1991)
The Sixth SAARC summit was «:heduled to take place in Colombo on 7
[JNFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 533
ovember, 1991. However, me summit had to be postponed because the heads Mate of the seven member countries
failed to reach a unanimous decision on e question whether the conference could be held in the absence of King of
lutan, who had expressed his inability to attend the summit on account of nsitive security situation in his country. While
India, Nepal and Bhutan voured postponement of the Summit, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka sisted on holding
the summit. Ultimately the summit was cancelled. It is iteworthy that it was for the first time that SAARC summit was
cancelled after e-summit deliberations had taken place. Desp’ite the cancellation of the mmit the Prime Ministers of
Pakistan and Bangladesh reached Colombo and id a mini-summit with the Presidents of Sri Lanka and Maldives. After
about nnnth and a half the seven leader^hf SAARrmetatCTolomhoon 21 December \ ’ /
191 for one day. If this meet they agreed to liberalise trade in the region and ve j call for greater cooperation
andNnteraction among member states to ’mhat terrorism in the region.. *
venth SAARC Summit (1993) The Seventh SAARC Summit was held at Dhaka in April 1993, after being postponed
twice in December 1992 and January 1993, on account of disturbed conditions in Bangladesh in the wake of demolition
of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya. The Summit adopted a Declaration which sought to pull down trade barriers in the region.
It also endorsed the South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA) for the liberalisation of trade among the seven
member-nations of the Association. The Summit leaders agreed that the time was now opportune to provide a dynamic
impetus to activities in the core of economic, social and cultural cooperation in the SAARC regions. The Summit
endorsed an Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) on eradication of poverty in South Asia, trade manufacture and
services, the environment, .population, shelter, children, youth, disabled persons, women’s development, science and
technology, terrorism, drug trafficking, security of small States, people to people contract, etc. The other notable
decisions taken by the Summit included formation of an Assoc iation of SAARC Speakers and Parliamentarians and
establishment of South Asian Development Fund (SADF).
Eighth SAARC Summit (1995). The Eighth SAARC Summit was held in New Delhi in May 1995. It accepted the
recommendation of the sub-continental foreign ministers meeting of April 1995 which had proposed the launching of
the South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA).which would take Â ARC closer to an economic role.
The members agreed to operationise SAPTA by 8 December 1995. The Summit also decided to establish a South Asian
free Trade Area (SAFTA) to promote intra-regional trade.The other important decision-, taken by the leaders of
SAARC countries included designation of 1993
. .Kthr ’SAARC year of poverty eradicMtion. The Delhi rlecl.ir.ition unequivocally i iMidrmiH’drill at is. methods
dndpnicticesolterrorism ,isc rniitn.il nnd stressed lli il (In-liixl’fsl prioiily I* Hiiorilfd ti> eMHitinenl of li-îxl.ilii.ii .it the UHlion.il
, l«”.(-l to implement the SAARC Regional Conventi»’ on Suppression or

534
INTERNATIONA. RELATIONS
Terrorism. The Declaration also urged the member states to implement the 1993 SAARC Convention on Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic substances. The member states committed themselves to the’global objective of shelter forall
by 2000 A.D. The Summit stressed the importance of international co-operation for building up national capabilities,
transfer of technology and promotion of multilateral projects and research efforts in minimising natural disasters.
Protection of the environment through concerted action was also emphasised. The Summit reiterated and’reaffirmed its
resolve to strengthen th« UN as the t entral instrument of peace, security, disarmament, development andax>peratii>n
in the world..With regard to nuclear disarmament, the Summit urged the conference on disarmament to negotiate an
international convention barring the t ise.or threat of use. of nuclear weapons under any r irrmstances. The declaration
also welcomed the World Trade Organisation and hoped that it would expand international trade.
SLOW PROGRESS Of REGIONAL CO-OPERATION
It is evident from the above discussion that over the years the countriesof South Asia have realised the need of co-
operation. But the progress in this regard has been quite slow. This slow progress has been attributed to the difference
in the approaches, attitudes and perceptions of the countries of the region. It is argued that this was quite natural in
view of the different socio-economic character and varying geo-political and strategic objectives of the countriesof the
region. For example, Bangladesh favoured co-operation in the economic sphere to start with, which could be
subsequently extended to the social and cultural spheres. Sri Lanka on the other hand pleaded for more comprehensive
co-operation and favoured extension of co-operation to the political fields as well. Pakistan attitude was more
restrained and it wanted regional co-operation to be limited only to four out of the eleven areas identified in the
Bangladesh Working Paper, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary said at the first .meeting. ”We have to move forward in a
measured manner, one step at a time.without forcing thtpace of progress.” However, Pakistan’s attitude towaids the
scope of regional <.»operation became more flexible in the subsequent meetings. India’s approaih was somewhat
identical to that of Bangladesh. It laid emphasis on expanding c’ >- operation in the cultural, infrastructural, scientific
and technological fields ami refrained from making any reference to political or security objectives.
On the question of the institutional framework for the South Asian Regional Co-operation also the members adopted
different attitudes. Bangladesh consistently emphasised the need of evolving some .institutional framework. Sn Lanka
emphasised the need of establishing an association for the purpose ut promoting and safeguarding the interests of the
participating member statts. Nep.il t<x> favoured an additional institutional framework for regional cooperation. On
the other hand both India and Pakistan favoured* institutional framework, which must evoke enthusiastic re>ponse for
an informal torum nr nitiMiliaiiun.
’’iv •</.«•<: f>: The bouth Asian regional co-operation has heen a lr\flv I--MK for the past le\v years, even though the
process m ihi> direction has l>een quiir
535
slow. This has largely been due to lack of stability and countinuity of the existing
political systems in the region. On the other hand the various international
forums like the UNCTAD, Non-aligned Movement, the Group of 77, etc. have
been extending every possible encouragement to the countries of the region to
. enhance their co-operation. Even powers like U.S.A. and China have encouraged
regional co-operation amongst the countries of this region because they find in
it a possible check to the growing influence of Soviet Union in this region. On
the other hand, Soviet Union has not been favourably inclined to the idea of
greater regional co-operation and has tried to project that U.S.A. and China are
using this as a’cloak to increase their hold over the region.
But the most positive factor in favour of regional co-operation in South Asia is the growing realisation among the
countries of the region that the co-operation ) should not be imposed from above, rather it should grow from within.
Highlighting his point P.N. Haksar says ”We must certainly explore and promote !• the concept of South Asian
Regional Co-operation. Such a co-operation must not be ’sponsored’ co-operation. It must notHbe-under the influence
of some undisclosed principles. It must arise out of and grow in response to a realisation on the part of each of the
governments that co-operation corresponds to vital
• interests of peace, security and development of the region as a whole. It must \ evoke enthus-the small South
Asian countries that as regional co-operation broadens and advances, their economies may get integrated with and
become dependent upon that of India’s with adverse consequences for their political economy and identity.””
It is perhaps oh this account that some of the countries tike Pakistan are reluctant to enlarge the scope of co-operation.
The inter-state conflicts and strategic disharmony in South Asia has also stood in’the way of regional co-operation.
There have been a number of issues of discord between India and other South Asian countries. This has made the
countries of the region look outside for support and assistance. The external powers have been quite prompt to exploit
the strategic schism in South Asia tu further their own interests. • •
Achievements and Future Prospects
Despite the slow progress of regional cooperation in South Asia (lie actual working of the SAARC since its
establishment has raised high hopes of peace in this region bedevilled by conflicts of all kinds. Though the SAARC as
such has riot played any active role in resolving the differences among its members, yet its periodical meetings provide
an opportunity for private consultation among the leaders of various members states. It is well known that the meetings
of Dhaka and Bangalore provided an opportunity to the leaders of India and Pakistan and India and Sri Lanka
respectively to iron out their differences and greatly contributed to the reduction of tension between these states.
SAARC has not been able to play as effective a role as its supporters would expect it to play on account of historical
bitterness and numerous current conflicts in this area, but it cannot
I. Muni and Muni. OP. rit. p. 58.
536
be denied that its establishment does provide an instrument that might, over time and in small steps, build new
confidence by solving non-controversial, nonpolitical problems. If that confidence can be built the chances for solving
the region’s political problems, other than by military means, will have considerably improved.”
It is true that at present South Asian regional cooperation is faTfrom the stage where EEC and ASEAN have reached,
yet it cannot be denied that a small beginning has been made in this direction and the formation of SAARC would
produce far reaching results in future. Even EEC-and ASEAN took several years to assume their present shape. The
countries.of South Asia are quite keen to improve the living standards of their people. The presence of conditions like
fertile soil, vast hydel energy, forest resources, unexploited wealth of the ocean, presence of raw materials essential for
development, etc are favourable factors which can greatly contribute to co-operation among the states of the region.
The deepening world economic crisis is also likely to give a boost to the spirit of cooperation and the countries of
South Asia have come to realise that it is in their mutual interest to pool their knowledge and experience and their past
differences should not be permitted to hamper their mutual co-operation for economic development.
T>» setting up of SAARC Secretariat at Kathmandu would also contribute to the strengthening of SAARC. Its services
can very well be utilised to identify
” the projects which must be undertaken on priority basis for the good of the member countries. It can also work out
plans for intra-industry specialisation, counter-trade product sharing, joint production ventures, joint marketing
compansies etc. In fact during the past few years several technical committees have been set up to explore possibilities
of further cooperation in the various fields viz. agriculture, science, technology, improvement of infrastructures for
exchange of information and for training of technical man-power. These committees have come out with several
concrete suggestions which are quite practicable and would work to the benefit of all the members of the SAARC.
Challenges Before the SAARC : Though SAARC has made considerable progress ”:nce its establishment, still it is
confronted with numerous challenges, which it jst overcome if it has to survive and progress.
Fir ’, the political climate prevailing in the region is not conducive to its successfi working. An atmosphere of mutual
hostility exists among various countries of the region viz. India and Pakistan. No doubt there are close social and
economic links between the countries of the region-but these links cannot thrive unless they resolve their
politicardifferences.
Secondly, the disparity in the regional resources of various member states hampers the growth of true cooperation
among the members. India, in comparison with other countries of the region is not only very large in size but also
possesses disproportionate natural resources. As a result the smaller states always suffer
. from the fear that membership of SAARC would enhance their dependence on • the region. ’
Thirdly, though all the countries of SAARC are under-developed, but” their
CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA * 537
stage of development differs. Countries like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are more advanced than Bangladesh, Nepal,
Bhutan and Maldives. As a result the less developed countries are always’apprehensive that in the present scheme of
cooperation they are bound to be-at a disadvantage. This handicap can be : overcome by ensuring an equitable sharing
of costs and benefits.
Fourthly, the lack of interdependence of the countries of the region in

• matters of trade also poses a serious challenge. The infra-regional’trade I constitutes only about 5 per cent of the
global trade of South Asian region. Further ; only development countries like-lndia in this region can supply large
quantities C or manufactured goods to other South’Asian countries, but India can hardly £.’. purchase any important
goods from the countries of South Asia.
S’S .-.
k Fifthly, the inadequacy of transport and communication facilities among
|| the various members of SAARC also constitutes an impediment in the way of I” smooth working of SAARC. ,
I-’ : Sixthly, the slow pace of cooperation among the members of SAARC has
I rendered the organisation ineffective^ For example the decision regarding direct
L »sic links between capitals of SAARC countries which was taken in 1985 has not
; ’been implemented so far. Likewise the progress jn the field of economic
j. cooperation has also been rather slow?
\ Sevenf/;/y,thebiJateralwranglesamongmembe^sstateshavealsoadversely
affected the working of SAARC. Though the SAARC charter bars discussion of contentious bilateral issues and insists
on unanimity of decisions, yet bi-lateral differences have hampered its smooth working, for example in 1989 Sri Lanka
refused to host the summit on account ofpresence of Indian Peacekeeping Forces in the country. Similarly in 1990
President Premadasa of Sri Lanka did not attend the summit at Male and sent his Prime Minister. This greatly
undermined the importance of the organisation.
Finally, the SAARC suffers from certain institutional and procedural shortcomings. In the first instance it operates
on the basis of ’unanimity f rule’,which implies that all its decisions require affirmative vote of all the heads ^ of
state/government meeting in a summit. It is desirable that this provision should be made flexible. If a head of the
state/government is unable to he personally present Jt a summit, he should be permitted to send his .iccrcditf.-d
representative and the decisions taken by him on behalf of the state should be binding only if they are ratified by the
state/government. Secondly, the SAARC charter places a ban on raising of bilateral issues at the association’s summit
and other related gatherings. In fact bilateral discussions must be encouraged because it would help in fostering mutual
good will and help in solving the interstate problems.
Achievements
Despitethe above shortcomings and limitations, it cannot be denied that
SAARChassought to promote co-operation in a wide variety or areas’. Apart from •
”promoting government level cooperation ihe iioii-jôverniTienMl orjj.tnivilion*
(NGOs) are also involved in a variety of activities to promote mutual understanding
by means of seminars, workshops short-term training courses, exchange or

information and data, preparation of the state of an reports, networking of institutions and meetings of
counterpart scientists. SAARChas promoted people to people contacts through Audio*Visual Exchange (SAVE).
It has set up several regional institutions such as SAARG Agricultural Information Centre (SAIC) at Daka to
promote co-operation in the field of agriculture. The establishment of other regional institutions like
Meteorological Research Centre and Institute of Rural Technology and Regional Software Centre are also being
seriously considered. In addition to the above several projects have either been approved or are under approval.
These project include cooperation for prevention and reduction of natural disasters, improvement of
environment, impact on the region of the green house effect) and establishment of Centre for Human Source*
Development etc. .
The other important achievements of SAARC include establishment of SAARC Food Security Reserve;
Agreement and ratification of Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, including the provision for
extradition; Agreement on SAARC Travel Document, enabling members of Parliament and ’ judges of Supreme
Court and their families to travel freely within the region vithout the requirement of visa; Agreement on a draft
on regional convertt^m jn prevention of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It may be noted jriat the
above activities and agreements are merely statements of intent and (here have not been any significant results.
However, this should not be a cause of despair keeping in view the complex nature of problems confronting the
region. No doubt SAARC is facing serious teething problems, but these need not •oe magnified. What is really
satisfying that despite these the SAARC as a ’^movement is moving forward.
Even at present there are major area of discord among the members of SAARC. Thus there is tension between
India and Pakistan over Kashmir, Siachen, ’Wular barrage and arms race (both nuclear and conventional). The
relations ”between India and Bangladesh are strained on the issue of illegal Bangladesh migration, safe havens
in Bangladesh for the north-east insurgent groups, rarakka issue, dispute over New* Moore Island and Teen
Bigha corridor, and other disputes over maritime and land boundaries. Relations between india and Nepal are
strained over trade and transit facilities, presence of Indian immigrants ’ in Nepal’s terrai region, and illegal
Nepali immigrants in India. The relations between India and Sri Lanka are strained on the Tamilian issue.
Likewise, Bhutan Snd Nepal are having strained relations over the Bhutan! issue. Unless these issues are
resolved to mutual satisfaction of the contending parties, the required political climate, so vital for the success of
SAARC, cannot be achieved;
539
32
Foreign Policies of Major PowersUSA, USSR (Russia) and
China
”The primary task of the policy-maker is to articulate the country’s external interests and order them in some scheme
of relative importance. The articulation and ordering of interests must be continuously changing through times, but a
rough-and-ready pattern in the case <>( most states might follow the following .line*. At tht> head must come
selfpreservation, the maintenance ot the physical integrity of the country and the unity of its people; to this all else will
tend to be subordinated,” . - ”,
-Morthtdge
This Chapter deals with theroreign policies ot’U.S.A., U.S.S.R. (Russia) and China since 1945. However, before
dealing with the foreign” policies of these countries, it snail be desirable to understand the meaning of foreign policy
and its significance in the conduct of international relations.
Meaning of Foreign Policy
According to Northedge 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.” Hartmann defines foreign policy as ”a systematic
statement of deliberately selected national interests.” Prof. HiU says: ”Foreign policy is the content or a substance of a
nation’s efforts to promote its interests vis-a-vis other nations”. A perusal of the jbove definitions of foreign policy
shows that it rnainiy aims at the promotion of national interests of the o sncerned countries. But as a country may ha ve
a number of interests, the leaders have to accord priority to various interests according to their importance. The ti ireign
policy of a c oilntry is not completely divorced from its domestic .policy. In t.ict the two are closely interlinked.
Therefore wni’e the domestic factors ’<i<ri(!y influence the formulation of a country’s foreign policy, the f«H>- hn
policy .’•( ,i ( njntry <in<! j’s r?la(i<>n;> with other countries also greatly Influence (he (loiTK-vtir ,„ Jjrifi The
domestic economic1- have .often to he geared keeping in view the overall position ot the country in tht internationa!
area.
540
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA
541
In the formulation of a country’s foreign policy both the objective and the subjective factors play an important role. The
objective factors which influence a country’s foreign policy include the environmental factors like historical influence,
geographical location, natural resources, industrial development, population, etc. The subjective factors on the other
hand refer to those specific developments or particular situations which influence the foreign policy of a country. A
country’s foreign policy shall be successful in achieving its objectives if ”it is based; as far as possible, on an accurate
assessment of the facts: if it is timely, in the longrun arid shortrun senses of the world; if it is self-consistent as the
nature of foreign policy allows it to be; if understood and backed by relevant social forces; at home, if supplemented by
appropriate resources, and if smiled and by fortune. But above all, a foreign policy is perhaps most likely to succeed. if
it is moving with the tide of affairs and weaving itself into the position of < ither states rather than pitting itself against
their resistance”.1 FOREIGN POLICY OF U.S.A.
The foreign policy of U.S.A. in the post World War II period has undergone complete transformation, and replaced the
traditional pattern of U.S. foreign policy by new assumptions and principles. Even the methods and the techniques for
the implementation of the foreign policy objective have undergone complete change. However, before making analysis
of America’s foreign policy since
1945, it shall be desirable to have an idea about the basic principles of American foreign policy before 1945. First,
America because of its peculiar geographical location remained completely cut off from the political conflicts and
pursued a policy of isolation.
Secondly, America did not aspire for any economic privileges, or other territorial benefits. Naturally, there was no clash
between the American interests and the interests of other powers. This accounts for complete absence of hostility
towards other states.
Thirdly, the ethical and democratic principles occupied an important position in America’s foreign policy. Not only its
domestic but even international actions were greatly influenced by values like dislike for exploitation and tyranny, brief
in individual liberty and equality, dedication to rule of law amon^ rations, peaceful settlement of international disputes,
etc.
9 With the dawn of the present century it was not feasible for United States to pursue policy of isolation and she was
involuntarily involved in the two world’ wars. It may be observed that America was forced to jump into the fray
because of the serious conditions created by the division of world into two hostile camps on the eve of the First World
War. Somewhat similar position prevailed un the eve of the Second World War which compelled U.S.A. to actively
participate in the war.
Policy After World War II
In the post World W’ar II period U.S.A. was compelled to modify its foreign policy in view of the far reaching changes
in military technology and the ch.in^cd
! Noftl>«i(>e led.i. Fureign fo//< it-s itl I’mvi-r*. p. Irt
.»
international political scene. The factors which compelled the American leaders to modify their policy included the
following.
. 1. In the post 1945 period the world came to be dominated by two Super Powers-U.S.A. and U.S.S.RV while other
powers like Britain, Germany, France, Japan, etc. were rendered greatly weak due to enormous destruction wrought by
the Second World War. Most of the lesser powers turned supporters of one of these two Superpowers. As a result, these
two Superpowers were involved in a number of conflicts either directly or indirectly. The relations of these ’two
powers were characterised by mutual fear and distrust. They developed a feeling that they shall not be able to live in a
world where the value and : ,. ,;., institutions of the other prevailed and that the other power would .;,,.,^,i;- ultimately
make a bid to crush it.
•V j.;2. The development of military technology resulted in remarkable . -I. •••• change in the role of the sea power, air
power, etc. In the new context ”-”-z*’:’-i- security considerations came to occupy a prominent role in the ?*’:••
foreign policy formulation. ”The two powers felt that considerable
--*’-•’ • degrêofmobilisationforwarmustbemaintainedinpeacetimesince
• ” it shall not be possible to mobilise the military machine overnight.
•••’;• This naturally involved a change\in the relationship between the
military establishment and domestic institutions. The military ; leadership came to occupy a mo/e prominent position in
the two
systems. /
3. The ideological differences between the two Super Powers, holding belief in rival social systems and political ideas,
also aggravated the , , . tension between the two and created mutual distrust in each other’s ideas. Each tried to
popularise its own political values and opposed and suppressed the ideology of the other. Ideological appeals were
skilfully utilised to mobilise the people.
In view of the changed context the objectives of American foreign policy also underwent a change. It became one of
the chief objectives of American foreign policy to check the direct as well as indirect thrusts of the Soviet military
power, to reduce if possible, the monopoly of Soviet power where it prevailed, and where necessary to fill the vacuum
left by former great powers who once exercised political or strategic control in area lying between the two
Superpowers. With a view to check the further spread of Communist ideas and institutions, it extended support to those
countries whose freedom was endangered. Such assistance which to be granted to countries outside the Soviet sphere.
With a view to strengthen the basis of democratic institutions and to check the possible growth of CommunisrTi,
U.S.A. offered aid in money, goods, technical skills to the underdeveloped countries and tried to raise the standard of
people in these countries so that they may not fall prey to the communist expansion. U.S.A. also tried to work for a
reasonable, stable, orderly, unified and peaceful community oi tree n.itions. For this purpose it not only took
appropriate unilateral actions hut also t<xik the help of regional alliances and the United Nations.
542
In short, in the post World War II period the foreign policy of U.S.A. was chiefly guided by two considerations,
viz., to hold the Soviet Union at a bay and to create those political, social, economic and psychological conditions
which could sustain peaceful and prosperous human relationships both at the domestic as well as international
levels. •
Developments of U.S. Foreign Policy
Relations with Soviet Union : As already noted, in the post World War II period, U.S.A. abandoned her traditional
policy of isolation and got more deeply involved in Europe, Asia, Africa and Middle East. It concluded a number of
multilateral security arrangements with more than forty countries. After initial efforts to come to some sort of
understanding with Soviet Union proved futile, U.S.A. decided to deal with the threat of Communism in an effective
manner. The first important step in this direction was taken in the shape of Truman Doctrine which was propounded by
President Truman of U.S.A. while seeking Congressional approval for money for aiding Greece and Turkey. He said
”We shall not realise the objective of a free and peaceful world unless we are willing to help free peoples maintain their
free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movement that seeks to impose on them totalitarian
regimes. , This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes, imposed on free. people, by direct or
indirect aggression, underrnine the foundation of international peace and hence the security of the United State... I
believe that it should be the policy of the United States to support free peoples that are resisting attempted subjugation
by armed minorities or by outside pressure.” It was chiefly through the assistance extended by U -S.A. to Greece and
Turkey that these two countries escaped falling into the clutch of the Communists.
With a view to check the Communist threat U.S.A. also provided extensive economic aid to the countries of Europe
under Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan like the Truman Doctrine also sought to check the communist infiltration and
expansion. U.S. Secretary of State Marshall in the course of his address to the Harvard University on 5 tune 1947 said
The U.S. should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world without
which there can be no political stability and no assured peace”. Though the plan was apparently meant for all (he
European countries it really sought to save Western Europe from communism U.S.A. setup an Economic Co-operation
Administration and distributed billions of dollars to the nations of Europe with a view to revitalise their economy. It
was due to American aid that Italy and France succeeded in meeting the Communist threat. U.S.A. also played an
active ôle in meeting the Communist threat Berlin blockade. It was chiefly because of the massive airlift carried out
by U.S.A. that Western powers succeeded in thwarting the Soviet plans. In the wake of Soviet atomic blast of 1949 and
the Korean War of fune,
1950 U.S.A. decided to increase the military strength of the non-Communist countries-ny providing ine military
assistance. U.S.A. signed collective security treaties with (Apart, Philippines, Au^ttalid and New Zealand in 1951; with
Mjuth •. Korea in 1953 andRepublic of China in i9S4. U.S.A. also played an active role
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS- USA, USSR AND CHINA 543
in evolving various military alliances like SEATO, CENTO and NATO to check communism in various parts of
the world.
With the change of leadership in Soviet Union in 1955 it was expected that the hostility between the two Superpowers
may subside. Though much progress could not be achieved in this direction forthwith and mad race for armaments
continued between the powers till 1958 when certain favourable development took place U.S.A. and Soviet Union
concluded a number of agreements for cooperation in the cultural, technical and educational fields. The leaders of the
two countries held meeting and showed greater understanding of each other. In view of these developments a Summit
meeting was arranged at Paris in May 1960, but the same was jeopardised due to U-2 incident. After a temporary
improvement, the relation between U.S.A. and Soviet Union, reached a crucial state during the Cuban crisis. The things
assumed such serious dimensions that there was even a possibility of shooting war between the two. However, due to
intervention of the US Secretary General the situation was saved and U.S.A. agreed to dismantle its missiles in Cuba.
U.S.A. also gave an assurance that it would not attack Cuba. In the subsequent yeiars the relations between U.S.A. and
Soviet Union continued to develop along friendly lines, and they Agreed to co-operate invarious spheres such as
exploration of outer space, problems of environment, medical science, public health, technology, etc. The trade
relations of the two countries also grew. The two superpowers also agreed to put an end to the armaments race. They
took-significant steps in this direction by concluding the SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Treajy) in 1972 and SALT
II in 1979. Though some of the irritants still persisted irvthe relations of the two countries, yet by and iarge a spirit of
detente prevailed. This spirit of detente suffered a setback in the wake of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979.
Thereafter America’s relations with Soviet Union grew tense and Reagan’s administration embarked on an ambitious
plan to modernise its weapons and army to meet any possible threat from Soviet Union.
/Thus a sort of new cold war started between the two where each super power was determined to minimise the
influence of the other. Soviet Union tried to undermine the influence of USA in the middle east by supplying arms to
Syria ’and extending support to Syria’s policy of disrupting western programmes in Lebanon. Soviet Union also tried to
weaken American hold on Western Europe by encouraging peace movements through nuclear threats etc. T,he relations
between Soviet Union and United States touched the lowest ebb following shooting down, of the Korean Airlines
civilian aircrafts and the Soviet reaction to the upcoming development of new U.S. missiles in Western Europe. The US
invasion of Grenada and possibility of confrontation in Middle East further rendered the situation se’ious. The other
important factors which contributed to straining of relations between USA and Soviet Union were imposition of
economic sanctions by .USA and her allies against Poland and Soviet Union; the Soviet support for military presence in
Kampuchea and the alleged human rights, violations by the Soviet Union. In view of these strained relations Soviet
Union did not take part in the XXVIII Olympiad held in Los Angeles (USA) in July-August. -
1984.
544
Amidst these developments the leaders of the two countries indicated their desire to improve relations with each other.
For example Reagan told the journalists at Willimsurgon 31 May, 1983 that the Western countries were ready to join
the Soviet Union in the betterment of life of our people. Likewise, Andropov at a meeting with Averell Harirhan, the
former U.S. Ambassador at Moscow on 6 June 1983 expressed deep concern about the deteriorating Soviet U.S.
relations and stressed that the Soviet Union wanted normal relations with U.S.A. - .
On 15 June 1984 President Reagan again declared his readiness to meet President Chernenko any time without any
preconditions. However, the offer was turned down by Soviet Union on the ground that the U.S.A. arid its allies were
following a course of confrontation. In June-July 1984 the two countries explored the possibilities of-commencing talks
on space weapons, but nothing came out due to mutual suspicion. The one good outcome of these exchanges was that
the two countries agreed to extend the 1974 agreement on economic co-operation for a further period of ten years.
Another welcome change in their relations took place when the foreign ministers of United States and Soviet Union
held a meeting at Geneva on 7-8 January 1985 to hojd talks on disarmament. The talks were significant fn so far as they
broke the stalemate between the two powers. It may be observed the U.S.S.R. had pledged out to hold any talks unless
Cruise and Pershing II missiles were dismantled. It relented on this point and agreed for talks at Geneva. Likewise
U.S.A. also showed spirit of accommodation and agreed to broaden the scope of new negotiations by including within
their purview the threatened arms race in space as well as existing stockpiles. Further talks on disarmament took place
in Geneva from 19-21 November 1985, but much headway could not be made on account of Soviet hostility to
President Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative Project (popularly known as Star Wars). However at the end of talks
the two leaders issued a joint statement emphasising the desirability of intensifying dialogue between the two so that
early progress could be made in areas where there was common ground. Thereafter the two powers continued to make
efforts to come to some understanding. A significant meeting in this regard took place m Reykjavik in Octber 1986
between President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, where they settled many of the bilateral arms control issues which
had eluded negotiations for years. Thereafter further efforts were made to come to some’sort of understanding between
the two to improve relations. The relations between USA and Soviet Union showed an improvement towards the close
of 1987. In December 1987 at the Washington Summit the two super-powers reached an understanding on intermediate
range missiles. Though this agreement was quite, limited in scope it indicated the intention of the two powers to
eliminate nuclear weapons as far as practicable. It.also called for a halt to nuclear proliferation. However, despite this
understanding sharp differences continued toexibt between the twu powers un issuer like Afghanistan, Weil-Asia, Iran,
the Star W,irs etc. Despite these differences the leaders of USA and USSR held fourth Summit at Moscow where they
exchanged documents on ratification <>t Intermediate range Nuclear (INF) Treaty and pledged to strive tor a Treaty ot
Strategic Arm>- Reduction ’STARTi. They also agreed to give advance notice
I FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 545
about the launching of inter-continental range sea and ground missile tests and hold joint verifkation of the testing; of
nuclear weapons at Nevada and Semipalatinsk. They also concluded a three-year cultural agreement for exchange of
writers, sportsmen and persons from various other fields. All this clearly confirmed the desire of the two countries to
improve their relations. During the next two years the relations between Soviet Union and USA underwent great
transformation. The policy of confrontation finally gave way to cooperation and the ideological and social differences
lost their divisive force. The Soviet Union also came to realise’that preservation of any kind of closed society was not
possible in the present context when the world economy was becoming a single organism and no state, whatever its
social system or economic status, could normally develop outside it. All this greatly contributed to reduction of tension
between the two super powers. This change was reflected in the withdrawal of Soviet occupation forces from
Afghanistan in April-1938, ceasefire between Angola and South Africa in August, 1988; agreement regarding
independence for Namibia, including return home of Cuban expeditionary forces; cease fire in the Iran-Iraq wan In the
field of arm.1: control also the two powers reached an agreement. They ratified the 1987 INF Treaty and took
preliminary steps in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) towards an agreement to reduce strategic nuclear
arsenels By 50 per cent. They alsoagreed to reduce conventional forces in Europe. Thus the two super powers indicated
their desire to work together in dealing with regional conflicts’and preferred to
(follow policy of cooperation rather than confrontation. The attitude of understanding adopted by the two countries was
further evident at the Washington Summit of June 1990 when President Bush and .President Gorbachev worked out
agreements on nuclear, chemical and conventional arms. They also reached agreement on set of principles to govern
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. At this Summit a trade agreement was also signed with a view to restore normal
trading relations between the two countries. The other agreements concluded at this summ it included agreement for
purchase of 10 million tonnes of grain by Soviet Union from. USA, co-operation in peaceful uses of atomic energy,
exchange of students etc. However, the relations between the two super-powers got strained in the wake of excessive
use offeree by Soviet Union against the rebellious Baltic States provide multi-faceted assistance to the Baltic
secessionists. This was not liked by the Soviet Union. However, in view . of fast deteriorating internal condition, the
Soviet leaders adopted a low posture and continued the process of improvement of relations with ’United States. In
July, 1991 the leaders of these two countries signed the historic Stratgetic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to reduce
their nuclear arsenals by ^bout 30 per cent Soon after the signing of START President Gorbachev said that the treaty
had strengthened the confidence of the world that the cold war between the East and the West will never start again.
United States showed great consideration for Soviet Union and avoided immediate recognition to the Baltic-Republics
.vhich had declared themselves as sovereign and independent. However, despite this the process of disintegration of
Soviet Union could not be checked. On 25 December; 1991 with the resignation of, Gorbachev as President of USSR
the
Soviet Union formally came to an end. On the ruins of Soviet Union emerged a Commonwealth of Independent
States comprising of all the former Republics of Soviet Union, except the three Baltic Republics and Georgia.
This formally closed the chapter of Soviet-American relations. Hereafter, United States was required to oeal
with the Commonwealth of Independent states in general and . Russia in particular.
Bush continued the process of improvement of relations with Russia and announced unilateral reduction of nuclear
arms and even offered to cut nuclear arms further if President Yeltsin of Russia reciprocated. Russian President also
responded favourably and announced a 10-point disarmament plan. He also proposed setting up of an international
nuclear arms control agency. In June
1992 at the Washington Summit between Bush and Yeltsin, the two countries committed themselves to the ideals of
world peace, democracy, primacy of rule of law, fundamental freedoms and human rights. US pledged 4.5 billion dollar
assistance to Russia for her economic reforms. But probably the most notable step in the direction of improvement of
relations with Russia was taken in January
1993 when President Bush and President Boris Yeltsin signed the Nuclear Arms Control Treaty (START II) to bring
about two-thirds reduction in world’s most terrifying weapons. In terms of this treaty US nuclear weapons stockpile
was restricted to what it was in 1960’s and the Russian nuclear weapons were reduced to the size of mid 1970’s. This
treaty marked the beginning of new relationship between US and Russia in the military-strategic sphere.
In the subsequent months also the process of improvement of relations with Russia continued. In April 1993 a summit
meeting between President Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin took place at Vancouver (Canada), where Clinton
offered an economic aid package of over one billion dollars to Russia and promised to extend unqualified support for
her economic and political reforms. Clinton asserted that US has a great deal to gain from a strong successful
democratic Russia. The growing relations between USA and Russia paved the way for the signing of an agreement
between the two countries in January 1994 whereby they agreed to stop aiming of long-range nuclear missiles at each
other. This was a significant agreement in the direction of ending cold war and ushing in a period of stability.
In September 1994 another Summit meeting took place between President Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin in
Washington where they agreed to speed up destruction of nuclear wanSeads, expand economic ties and end fresh arms
sales to Iran. The two leaders also pledged closer economic and security cooperation. They agreed to speed up the time-
table of the START II Agreement; reached in 1993, which called for reducing long-range nuclear warheads to between
3000 to 3500 by 2003 A;D. The two leaders agreed to dismantle the warheads as soon as the agreement was ratified,
instead of within 9 years permitted under the agreement. U.S.A. also agreed to finance projects relating to drilling of
Siberian oil wells and modernisation of teleophone network of Moscow.
But America’s relations with Russia got strained due to differences over
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 547
Iran, Chechnya and NATO. On account of Russian nuclear assistance to Iran, USA, put off signing of an agreement
with Russia on peaceful use of atomic energy. It even threatened to cut aid to Russia as a protest against Russian
contract with Iran regarding completion of reactor in the Gulf port of Bushenr, and construction of three other reactors
at the site. After some delay Russia ultimately agreed at the Summit meeting with President Clinton in May 1995 to
delay the sale of two neclear reactors and scrap plans to sell the gas centrifuge to Tehran. For the review of sale of other
nuclear materials to tran, a joint commission headed by American Vice-President and Russian Prime Minister \vas set
up. Russia also reiterated its commitment to go forward with plans to formally join NATO’s partnership for peace. This
considerably reduced tension between two countries and contributed to the smoothening of relations. Policy towards
Far East
U.S.A. took keen interest in the Far East in the post World War II years. But despite U.S.A.’s best support the Chiang
Kai Sheik government could not retain control over China and the Communist took control of the country. However,
U.S.A. continued to extend full support to the Chiang Kai-Sheik government which was set up at Formosa. It was
chiefly due to efforts of U.S.A that for long time Red China could not get a permanent seat in the Security Council. It
was only after a rapprochement betwjeen U.S.A. and People’s Republic of China that she could succeed in this mission.
America’s involvementjn the Far East grew deeper during the Korean war. After prolonged hostilities^ agreement was
reached under which Korea was divided into American and Soviet spheres of influence with thirty-eight parallel as the
dividing line. U.S.A. hoped that with the withdrawal of occupation forces Korea would emerge as a United Nation.
However, these hopes were belied and a Communist regime was installed in North Korea. After the withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Korea hostilities once again broke out in the state following attack by North Korea on South Korea U.S.A
not only assisted the democratic government of South Korea, but also encouraged the U.N. General Assembly to send
troops to put an end to aggression and help in the unification of the two parts of Korea. However, these plans were
foiled due to Chinese involvement in the war. After prolonged hostilities an armistic was signed in July, 1953 by the
two governments of Korea and the U.S. managed to pull out.
On the questions of capture of islands of Pescadores, Quemoy (Matsu) and Formosa by China, America was once again
deeply involved in the Far Eastern affairs. Realising that the acquisition of these islands would strengthen the
Communist forces in the region U .5. A. decided ’to back Formosa. The Americans were so much involved in the issue
that they even threatened to go to war on the issue of Formosa. However, Britain succeeded in persuading USA to
avoid such an adventure and the crisis was averted. America’s relations with the Communist Government of China
continued to be hostile till a rapprochement between the two powers was effected in the seventies.
In December 1978 the two countries concluded an agreement which Jed

to withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Taiwan and formal recognition of the Beijing Government as the legitimate
government of China. However, in 1979 differences sharpened between China and U .S.A. following approval by
President Carter of the Taiwan Relations Act which recognised the need for self-defence capability for Taiwan with
U.S. support. The relations continued to be tense till
1962 when President Reagan signed an accord with China asserting that U.S. would eventually and gradually reduce
and end all arms sales to Taiwan. It furthur asserted that the sale would not exceed the level of 1979 (viz. $ 600
million). In the subsequent years also efforts were continued to improve relations and the top leaders of two countries
exchanged a number of visits. But Beijing continued to have reservations about the U.S. attitude and repeatedly pressed
United States to end the arms sale to Taiwan at an early date. At the same time Beijing adopted critical attitude towards
United States on various issues viz. U.S. intervention in Grerteda, and U.S. attitude towards ’arms race’.
Despite the above irritants in the Sino-American relations, their relations in, the economic sphere considerably grew
and United States has emerged as the third largest trading partner of China, after Japan and Hongkong. The two
countries also signed several joint-venture agreements extending from soft drinks to hightech electronics. In April 1984
United States agreed to sell to China civilian nuclear power technologies. In November 1985 the U.S. Senate approved
the nuclear co-operation agreement concluded by China and U.S.A. in July 1985 and thus cleared the sale of nuclear
fuel and technology to China. In October 198S through another agreement concluded with China, United States agreed
to supply technology and equipment to China to modernise her capacity for the production of artillery munitions.
Despite these developments tl>e relations between the two countries remained strained due to issues of Taiwan and
U.S. restrictions on textile imports. There were also sharp differences between the two on the attitude of United States
towards PLO, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Western Europe, American policy in Central America etc.
The process of normalisation of relations between USA and Soviet Union gave rise to a feeling among certain quarters
that this would adversely affect America’s relations with China. But President George Bush during his visit to Beijing
in February 1989 assured the Chinese leaders that the Sino-U.S. ties would not be weakened by the new turn in Sino-
Soviet relations. However SinoAmerican relations again took a turn for the worse when President’Bush imposed
military sanctions against China following crackdown on democratic protesters. It even threatened to apply economic
sanctions unless the Chinese leaders ended repression of students seeking democracy. The Chinese leaders strongly
protested against the US utterances and actions and described it as an interference in their internal matters. No wonder
the relations between the two were strained on this account
However, the commercial interests of United States obliged President Bush to recommend extension of most favoured
nation trade status to China in May 1990. China was given lowest tariffs on 1 2 billion in direct exports to United
States. This was obviously done to prevent China from going elsewhere for its purchases of grain, fertilisers, aircrafts,
cotton and machinerv etc. In November
FOREIGN PCNX1ES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 549
1990 most of «he sanctions against China were removed. This was made possible by a series of
conciliatory moves by China. During the Gulf War, China (a permanent member of Security
Council) endorsed the US sponsored UN Security Council resolution sanctioning the use of force to
make Saddam Hussein pull out his forces from Kuwait
In June 1991, when US leamt that China was exporting missile technology, it proceeded with
imposition of sanctions. It suspended the sales of high speed computers, satellite parts and sensitive
equipment to Chinese weapon firms. However, these sanctions were lifted in February 1992 after
China pledged that it would abide by an international accord restricting missile exports. This paved
the way for the improvement of relations between the two countries.
America’s relations with China were again strained following its decision ’ to sell F-16 fighter
aircraft to Taiwan. China immediately retaliated by announcing that it would not attend the UN
Security Council Permanent members meeting ’ on arms control, because this sale was in total
violation of the common guidelines agreed upon in the meetings of five powers on arms control
issues, which outlined the principle that arms transfer should not be used to interfere I in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state. Again, US decided to impose punitive ;;• tariff because of lack
of progress on the part of China to remove barriers to the Chinese market for US goods. China
reacted by announcing its decision not to buy US wheat Thus relations between US and China got
strained on account of Chinese violation of human rights, export of missiles to Middle East, unfair
trade practices and lack of adequate protection to intellectual property rights. However, President
Clinton of USA decided to extend Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to China in May 1994 in view
of the fact that China is world’s fastest growing economy where American business corporations
have made large investments.
• In October 1994 United States signed an agreement with China whereby
| China agreed to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) I guidelines. In return
the US withdrew the sanctions imposed against China for selling M 11 ballistic missile technology to
Pakistan. However in February 1995 US again announced trade sanctions against China due to her
refusal to settle the intellectual property disputes an terms acceptable to US. This set of a trade war
between the two countries. China immediately retaliated and planned to raise
100 percent tariffs on US electronic game players and their software, cassette tapes, compact discs,
cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, cosmetics, rolls of films etc. But this trade war came to an end after
China agreed to stop piracy of American movies, music and other goods. •
America’s relations with China were again strained after It issued American visa to the Taiwanese
President (Lee Teng-hui) and China decided to recall its Ambassador to US, because it felt that by
granting visa to Taiwanese President US was deliberately encouraging two-China policy. The
situation somewhat eased following US statement of 28 June 1995 that it does not recognise Taiwan
as a stale and reiterated its firm commitment to one-China policy. Thereafter America’s relations
with China somewhat improved and China decided to send
550
its ambassador to Washington after two months absence. China also decided to send Gen Li Xilin to Honolulu in
August 1995 to attend US defence department ceremoney marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world
war. As regards the other power in the Far East, viz., Japan, U.S.A. was able to acquire full control over the
administration of the country after the war, even though the formal responsibility for administration was entrusted
to.the Allied Council consisting of representatives of U.S.A., Soviet Union, China and United Kingdom. It drew a
constitution for Japan on the pattern of the American Constitution and enacted number of laws to tackle the problem of
absentee landlordism, ownership of land by farmers, etc. U.S.A. also acquired certain military bases and airfields in the
country. It provided billions of dollars as laid to Japan to enable the country to resettle its economy. In fact for first few
years Japan was virtually a satellite of U.S. and did not maintain any consular or commercial relations with the
Communist countries viz., Soviet Union and China. However, slowly Japan freed itself from the U.S. influence and
established formal relations with countries of the Communist bloc too.
All these developments certainly undermined U.S. influence in Japan, but still her relations with japan continued to be
very cordial. But the efforts by Japan in fecent years to penetrate the U.S. market and compete with United States firms
in high technology on the one hand and adoption of protectionist policies which made it difficult for United States to
penetrate the Japanese markets, produced tension in the relations between two countries. During the year 1985 Prime
Minister Nakasone of Japan made a bid to placate US by indicating Japan’s willingness to increase co-operation with
U.S.A. in security matters, and opening certain specialised markets for American goods. Japan also agreed to make
major chances in its regulations which hampered the sale of U.S. telecommunication products. All these actions were
taken by Japan to reduce the growing trade gap between United States and Japan. Thus, we find that though there are
no political issues between United States and Japan, the economic issues have greatly contributed to the straining of
their relations. During the past few years persistent efforts have been made by the leaders of the two countries to
resolve these differences. In August 1987 {he two reached an agreement on the importation of U.S. supercomputers
and agreed that the relationship between the US and Japanese supercomputer manufacturers should be based on ’honest
competition’. Through another agreement concluded in August 1987 Japan agreed to allow greater access to Japanese
domestic market for foreign motor part suppliers. On the other hand in November 1987 USA also eased economic
sanctions which it had earlier imposed on Japanese electronic goods. They also reached an agreement over the access
for foreign construction companies to the 100,000 million Yen Kansai Airport Development Project at Osaka and
agreed to put out for international tender a greater share of the consulting contracts for the airport. Thus, gradually the
two countries tried to amicably resolve various outstanding economic issues.
Despite this certain irritants continued in the US-Japanese relations. These included an on-going dispute concerning the
FSX fighter project; dumping of
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS-- USA, USSR AND CHINA 551
semi-conductor chips in the US market at below cost prices; Japan’s failure to honour its commitment to allocate 20%
of its domestic semi-conductor market to the foreign suppliers by the year 1991; japan’s policy on rice imports and
Japan’s insufficient commitment in financial terms, to the defence of the Pacific region. Above all the continuing trade
surplus with USA was viewed by the Americans with great concern. In February 1989 the US Government Advisory
Committee on Trade and Policy and Negotiations recommended that the Bush administration should threaten to
implement within one year the provisions of the 1988 Trade Bill (which granted US Administration right to retaliate
against countries in case of abuse of free trade) unless Japan started rectifying its trade balances with USA, The
Japanese Prime Minister (Takeshita) made a bid to improve the worsening bilateral relations and paid a visit to USA in
February
1989. He expressed his commitment to maintain links with USA and announced decision to raise Japan’s foreign aid*
spending.
The rising Japanese trade surplus with United States (which totalled $
43,000 million in 1990-1991) also caused tension between two countries. This issue was discussed by the^panese
Prime Minister with President Bush during his visit to United States in June-July 1992, and the two countries agreed on
new commitments to reduce the trade imbalance in 2nd follow up report to structural Implementation Initiative (SID
talks.’It may be noted that the Sll negotiations, designed to remove structural barriers to full trade, had been concluded
in 1990 with the signing of a detailed trape pact.
m The role of japan during the Gulf War also disappointed the United States.
E As a result of repeated arrrHwisting Japan agreed to pay the bills after the war
• was over, but hardly made any man-power contributions. After the war Japan BJ contributed $ 13 billion and
dispatched a token minesweeping force to Gulf. K This attitude of general inaction on the part of Japan greatly
disappointed the l|American people. However, The United States is too much dependent on •Japanese funds and
technology that it tried to avoid alienation of japan. On •persistent demand of USA, japan agreed to take measures to
bring down the trade |rscirplus of Japan with USA. At a summit meeting between President Clinton and Prime Minister
Morihiro Hosokawa held in February 1994 japan offered an economic package which was found insufficient by the US
President and he proceeded to impose retaliatory tariffs against Japanese imports. However, on
29 March 1994 japan announced the lifting of 13 year old voluntary exports restrictions to USA w.e.f I April 1994. He
further announced that by end of June
1994 Japan will complete a list of regulatory measures which will make doing business in Japan easier for foreigners.
In July 1994 US launched sanction proceedings against Japan for allegedly obstructing imports of US
telecommunication and medical equipments. It served Japan with 60 days notice to end these restrictions or face higher
tariffs on selected Japanese exports to US. Negotiations were initiated to end the crisis but differences persisted
between the two over (i) how to measure improved market access; and (ii) US demands for changes in the Japanese
Government’s procurement procedures for telecommunications and medical equipment The
stalemate continued and the trade gap between US and Japan continued to grow. . Ultimately on 10 May
1995 President Clinton authorised action against Japan on account of her refusal to open its automobile
market in America. US also filed a complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) with a view to
keep pressure on Japan to reduce its huge trade gap. On the other hand Japan also took its case to WTO
against US threatened $ 5.9 billion sanctions on luxury cars and asserted that this could lead to fall of $ 5.3
billion by March 1996 and would also cut Japan’s car parts component from US. Thus US relations with
Japan continued to be strained Policy Towards South-East Asia
For trie first few years after World War II, USA followed a policy of neutrality towards the countries of
South East Asia. But after the emergence of the Red Government in China in 1950, America felt more
keenly interested in the region. In 1954, U.S. supported France in Indo-China with a view to contain
Communism. However, subsequently when the French showed reluctance to pursue the war, U.S.A.
assumed direct responsibility and the general direction of policy in Vietnam fell in the American hands.
With a view to check the Communist threat U.S.A. took a lead in the formation of SEATO (South East
Asia Treaty Organisation) a military alliance on the pattern of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)
consisting of Britain, New Zealand. This alliance was primarily concluded with a view to encircle China.
America tried to build up another anti-Communist bastion in Laos by extending enormous financial and
military aid to that country. Through these efforts America succeeded in keeping a pro-West Government
in the country till 1960-61 a civil war broke out in Laos in which Soviet Union also got involved. As
U.S.A. wanted to avoid an open clash with Soviet Union a negotiated settlement was arrived at the Geneva
Conference and neutrality of Laos was accepted.
But probably the deepest involvement of U .S.A. in the South-East Asia was in Vietnam. As already
pointed out that during the initial period of Vietnam war, U.S.A. simply supported the French but
subsequently it got more deeply and
• directly involved in the conflict. Some sort of solution was found at the Geneva Conference in 1954
which proposed the partition of country as a provisional arrangement. After two years a general election
under the supervision of an International Commission was to be held to decide about the re-unification of
the country. However, the Diem Government of South Vietnam with the support of U.S.A., refused to
abide by the condition of elections because it feared that the decision may go against it. U.S.A. offered full
support to Diem government because it wanted to use it as a bulwark against the Communist expansion.
But the Diem government could not maintain itself in office because of its growing unpopularity with the
people. Thereafter, U.S.A. got more and more deeply involved in the Vietnamese war. It was only under
pressure from public opinion at home that USA ultimately withdrew from Vietnam in terms of an
agreement concluded at Paris in January, 1973. Thereafter the U.S. influence in the region considerably
declined. As a result of the unification of two Vietnams and its passing under Soviet influence the
American position in the region was
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS ~ USA, USSR AND CHINA 553
considerably weakened. In fact some scholars have asserted that American ; foreign policy in South-East
Asia has been a great failure. Thereafter, America’s relations with Vietnam remained strained. In February
1994 President Clintcn I of US decided to lift the 30 year old trade embargo on Vietnam. Thereafter for
quite sometime America’s relations with Vietnam continued to be strained. In February 1994 President
Clinton decided to improve relations with Vietnam and lifted the 30 years old trade embargo on Vietnam.
However, he did not establish diplomatic relations with Vietnam. It was only on 11 July 1995 that US
formally recognised Vietnam and the two countries established formal diplomatic
• relations after 20 years. The two countries also signed an agreement regarding settlement of claims
pertaining to diplomatic and private property seized during the war. However, accounting for US prisoners
or” war and missing in action still remains a priority issue in the relationship of US with Vietnam. Policy
Towards South Asia
United States has taken keen interests in South Asia in the post World War
II period. It tried to rope in India in military alliances to counter the threat of
\: communism. However, in view of reluctance shown by India to join military
alliances, it started wooing Pakistan. It drew closer to Pakistan and projected
itself as the defender of Pakistan’s positioh on Kashmir, which naturally strained
its relations with India. It has been argued that had United States adopted a
neutral position on Kashmir, leaving the-issue to be sorted out by the parties
I directly concerned, Indo-American relations might have got off to an entirely
[• new start.. Despite these differences United States provided financial and
I ’economic assistance^ Irjdfa.
: -’ (n 1962 when China attacked India, United States promptly provided military aid to India to meet the
Communist threat. This naturally strained U.j. relations with Pakistan. From 1965-70 United States did not
take any interest in South Asia due to her involvement in Vietnamese War. In 1971 United States once
again intervened in South Asia onbehalf of Pakistan. She moved her nuclear aircraft carrier the Enterprise
close to the Indian shores in the Bay of Bengal and threatened to intervene on behalf of Pakistan if India
carried the war into West Pakistan. However, India was able to resist the IKS, threat on account of Soviet
support.
During the seventies United States did not play any significant role in South Asia and its relations with
Pakistan as well as India suffered a setback. However, with the collapse of the Shah of Iran and installation
of an anti U.S. Islamic fundamental regime in Tehraft, United State* fe’t greatly perturbed and began to
take keen interest in the region. The Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 also made United
States take keen interest in this region. Therefore, United States stepped up its military presence in the
ocean adjacent to the region, upgraded-its base in Diego Garcia, acquired new bases in Oman and Somalia.
It once again tried to rope in Pakistan within the ambit of its global strategy and supplied large quantities of
sophisticated U.S. arms to Pakistan. It also extended help to me Afghans to overthrow the Soviet backed M
irxist regime and built up pressure on $ovie< Union to pull out ita troops from Afghanistan, To counter j’rie
growing Soviat influence in the region. United States encouraged Pakistan to
»
improve relations with India and tried to promote regional cooperation in South Asia. United States also tried to
improve relations with India and sought India’s help in finding out a political settlement of the Afghanistan
problem. U.S.A. also showed willingness to contribute towards the modernisation drive of Rajiv Gandhi and
cleared the way for India’s purchase of hitherto banned hightechnology electronic equipment. In 1985-86 U.S.A.
extended unequivocal support to South Asian Regional Cooperation.
USA also tried to cultivate friendly relations with Bangladesh and extended necessary aid and assistance to it. In April
1987 the two countries signed a three years agreement under which US agreed to provide Bangladesh a credit of US $
182,000,000 for importing foodgrain and other agricultural products.
Thus, we find that United States did not pursue any fixed policy towards South Asia. Its policy was largely influenced
by its cold-war relations with Soviet Union. With the end of the cold war, it was expected that interest of United States
in this region would decline. But contrary to these expectations the US State Department on 1 October, 1991 opened
the Bureau of South Asian Affairs to deal with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries of the region. This
clearly indicated that United States wanted to attach due importance to this region of the world. There is a clear change
in the attitude of United States towards India. It no longer looks at India as a regional power with ’nuisance value’ and
friendly to its principal adversary. On the contrary, it views strategic cooperation with India as a necessary precondition
for regional stability. The pro-India stand of United States is evident’from its position on the Kashmir question and
support extended to India’s application for loans in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However,
this should not give the impression that United States has written off the strategic importance of Pakistan. Washington
still believes in maintaining friendly relations with Pakistan. In fact, Washington has been striving to bring about a
ceasation ot hostilities between India and Pakistan and acting 3s balancer of conflicting interests between India and
Pakistan. This is borne out by the US stand on issues like nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTR), terrorism, human rights. U.S. is able to play this role because of mutual suspicions amongst
China, India and Pakistan.
Policy Toward* Middle-East
U.9.A. took keen interest in the middle-east not only because the region was strategically important and possessed rich
oil reserves, but also because the people of this region were very poor and could easily fall a prey to the Communist
propaganda. U.S.A. not only extended every possible financial assistance to the countries of middle east but also
sponsored the Baghdad Pact roping in countries like Britain, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. U.S.A. also cultivated
very intimate relations with Israel and strenthened it by providing most sophisticated weapons. With a view to check
the growing influence of the Soviet Union in Egypt in 1956 U.S.A. supported the UN resolution asking the’Anglo-
French forces to withdraw from Egypt. With a view to guard the countries of Middle-East against Communist danger
USA advocated the Eisenhower Doctrine. Under this doctrine U.S.A. asserted that its military assistance also included
employment’of U.S. armed
forces to secure the territorial integrity and political independence of the nations requesting such aid against
over armed aggression from any nation controlled by international Communism. According to Richard this
doctrine was ’intended to assist the states in the general area of the Middle East to protect their national
independence and territorial integrity against International Communism.”
U.S.A. also intervened in other countries of Middle East either to replace Pro-Soviet Government or to keep the
pro-Western governments in power. U.S. intervention in Jordan in 1958 and Iraq can be cited as examples. U .5,
A. was very keen that the area of Middle-East should be free from tension so that Soviet Union may not be able
to exploit the same to its advantage. It was with this objective in mind that US leaders tried to bring about a
settlement between the Israelis and the Arabs. Though America’s relations with Egypt were strained for some
time but after 1971 these relations continued to grow along friendly lines and ultimately enabled U.S.A. to play a
leading role in arranging a negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict in 1979, which has been discussed in
detail in one of the earlier chapters. In fact since 1972 the Soviet influence in the region has been steadily
declining and U.S.A has been playing more effective role. In the wake of Israeli Lebanon war of 1982, U.S.A.’s
involvement in the region greatly increased. It felt greatly concerned about the development in the region on
account of rise of Soviet global power. The other-factors which prompted USA to take keen interest in the region
were the wave to recent instability; the Iranian Revolution, the regional tide of Islamic fundamentalism, the
Iran-Iraq war and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The U.S. involvement in the region reached its highest mark
with the introduction of U.S. troops into Lebanon.
U.S. influence in Middle East suffered a decline on account of success of, Syria and U.S. decision to withdraw its
contingents from the multinational force. : Following use of U.S. veto on a U.N. Security Couficil Resolution
demanding Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, the Arab countries got annoyed with U.S.A. Some of the
Arab states like Jordan and Kuwait which were hitherto pro*>! American, turned towards Soviet Union. As a
result, American influence in Middle East somewhat declined. However, America knew it fully well that it had
deep interests in the region And tried to’retain its controlpver this region through supply of arms and defence
equipments to the Gulf states, avoiding direct intervention to avoid open confrontation with the Soviet Union.
The declining influence of America in this region was further evident from the fact that it could not bring about
pea’ce” in this region through negotiations between Israel and the moderate Arab states. But a quick shift in US
policy towards Middle East todk place after the assumption of office by President Bush. He described the grafts
of US policy in West Asia as (a) an end to Israel’s occupation of the West fiarik and Gaza; and (b) fulfilment of
political rights for the 1.2 million Palestinian Arabs who live in these territories. While reiterating these
principles of US paritey in West Asia, President Bush reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel’s secuii%.. This
change in US policy was welcomed by PLO which felt that it wouidgtae a real push to peace efforts in the Middle
East.
US got deeply involved in Middle East following Kuwait’s occupationtojp • -traq in August 1990. Immediately United
States despatched its troops to Saw*
556
Arabia not only to defend the country against possible Iraqi invasion but also to protect vital US interests in the
region. President Bush demanded ’immediate, unconditional and complete withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from
Kuwait* and restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government.’ It is noteworthy that United States took this firm
stand in Middle East not only to protect the territorial integrity of a nation but also to protect American oil
interest in the region. The American economy, which was undergoing a period of recession, would have been
further strained if there had been further rise in oil prices. Though USA was determined to take action, it did
not want to go all alone. Therefore it took the issue to the Security Council which passed in all 12 resolutions for
resolving the dispute in the Persian Gulf. One of the resolutions of Security Council (No. 678) even authorised
the use of ’all necessary means,’ including military to ensure liberation of Kuwait unless the -Iraqi troops
unconditionally withdrew from Kuwait by midnight of 15 January 1991. As Iraq failed to comply with the
Security Council ultimatum, a coalition of forces of 28 nations under the leadership of United States, launched
massive air attacks against Iraq on 16 January 1991. After intense bombardments lasting for over 40 days Iraq
surrendered. The decisive role played by US during the Persian Gulf war greatly enhanced American influence
in the oil rich countries of the region.
This helped US to play an effective role in bringing the Palestinians and the Israelis on the negotiating table and
ultimately the leaders of two countries signed a peace agreement on 13 September 1993 in the presence of US
President (Bill Clinton), whereby the Palestinians were promised limited self rule in Gaza and West Bank for
five years. In October 1994 US again got actively involved in the fresh Persian crisis which arose as a result of
massing of troops near Kuwaiti border by Iraq. USA not only sent a strong force of Marines, warship and
warplfnes, but also pleaded for tightening of sanctions against Iraq. The crisis was averted because Iraq
withdrew troops and other powers like France, Russia and China did not favour military action. However, it
cannot be denied that US has been playing a dominant role in the Gulf region ever since her active involvement
in the Gulf crisis of 1990-91. Again in September 1995 President Clinton of USA played an important role in the
conclusion of the accord for extension of Palestinian self-rule throughout the West Bank. This accord was signed
at Washington in the presence of US President. United States also played
3 vital role in the signing of historic pact between Jordan and Israel in July 1994 whereby the two countries put
an end to the 46 years old state of belligerency between these two countries
Policy Towards Europe
With Europe, America tried to cultivate most intimate relations. It tried to help the European countries in
restoring their war devastated economies by extending them aid under Marshall Plan. America also sponsored
the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to meet the possible threat of communist expansion in Europe. For the
first few years after 1945 U.S.A. exercised so much influence on the policies of some of the European countries
that they become to be regarded as American satellites. However, gradually the European countries
freed themselves from the American-influence. The American support to the UN resolution asking France and
Britain to withdraw their forces from Egypt, greatly disillusioned these two powers, and provided an impetus
for the movement for European integration. The countries of Western Europe formed a number of
organisations, like European Coal and Steel Community (ECSO, European Economic Community, European
Free Trade Association, etc. and moved towards greater integration with the years. Even Britain, which had
been a close ally of U.S.A. became a member of the European Economic Community. The European movement
certainly weakened the American hold on the area. However, some scholars believe that the re-emergence of
Europe is a testimonial to the success of American policy in this region. According to Profs. Thompson and
Black: The re-emergence of Europe and its reassertion of freedom of action are traceable, paradoxically, to the
success of American policies in Europe. For nearly a decade the post-war grand alliance’ between Europe and
America rested on two foundation stones of mutually identical interests. Europe’s recovery and its military
security were underwritten and guaranteed by American power. Its recovery was due to the immense vitality
and vigour of the Europeans, stimulated by the most creative single act of Western statesmanship-the Marshall
Plan.”1 Despite th fact mat USA played a tremendous role in the recovery of Europe in the post V orld War II
period and formed the pivot around which various military alliance, were built up for the security of Europe
(and the regions against commLaist threat) the U.S. relations with Europe grew less intense during the
1970’s. In recent years these relations were further weakened due to differences in the approach of USA and
West European countries on number of issues. The following factors contributed towards these differences.
In the first place, the West European countries resented the high U.S. interest rates which posed a threat to
productive investment. Their appeals to U.S. administration for lowering of these rates did not evoke favourable
response.
Secondly, the erratic fluctuations in the rate of U.S. dollar, adversely effected the European currencies, and the
European nations tended to blame the U.S. Government for its failure to prevent these fluctuation’s.
Thirdly, there was difference of opinion between the two regarding the value of ’North-South’ global negotiations on a
new international economic order as recommended by the Cancum Summit Conference in October 1981..
Fourthly, the terms of export credit facilities granted by the industrialised countries of Europe and the related issue of
export of ’strategic items to Sovietblock countries, did not find favour with the U.S.A. The United States administration
has bitterly criticised the excessively favourable credit terms offered by the West European countries to finance trade
with East European countries. It also voiced concern about the existing procedure for monitoring exports of
strategically
1. Thompson and Joseph Black. The Foreign Policy of the United States of America. p. 719
558 INTERNATIONAL «IAT«ONS
sensitive items to the communist block countries.
On the other hand the imposition of economic sanctions against Soviet Union by the U.S. administration in the
wake of developments in Poland did not find favour with most of the countries of Europe. In view of this the
Foreign Ministers of the EEC in their meeting of 4 January 1982 demanded close and positive consultations with
the U.S. Government and other western states to find out what decision would best serve their common object.
Another important factor which greatly contributed to tension between U .S.A. and West European countries was the
question concerning the participation of several West European countries in the construction of Jafnial natural gas
pipeline. The West European countries supplied half of the pipe as well as most of the turbine equipment to propel the
gas, as well as technical advice for laying of pipe. In January 1982 the U.S. General Electric Corporation barred the
supply of turbine parts to West European countries, supplied half of the pipe as well as most of the turbine equipment
to propel the gas, as well as technical advice for laying of pipe. In January 1982 the. U.S. General Electric Corporation
barred the supply of turbine parts to West European coqntries, which they intended to use in connection with the
pipeline. This resulted in loss of export orders to these countries and they naturally blamed U.S. for the same.
The strong peace movement of Europe and America’s policy of arms build up also added to tension between the two. It
is well-known that spectacular peace marches were organised in almost all the West European countries except Italy
(which conveyed acceptance of U.S. Pershing II and cruise missiles). In view of the growing demand from European
on 18 November 1981 President Reagan accepted Willy Brandt’s ”Zero-Option* Proposal that both the sides remove
their nuclear weapons from Europe. On 30 November 1981, Reagan announced the start of talks on intermediate
nuclear forces (INF). The basic issue involved was that whereas the West European governments regarded the
economic stains as a serious threat to security, the U.S. administration attached top priority to defence.
Another factor which contributed to America’s strained relations with European countries was the basic differences in
their approach towards Soviet Union. While United States favoured increase of military strength and adoption of tough
diplomatic postures towards Soviet Union most of the European countries saw the Soviet threat as gradual, diplomatic
and subversive and insisted that America should not unnecessarily provoke the Russians. The Western Powers also
criticised U.S.A.’s policies in Middle East, Central America and Southern Africa.
America’s technological superiority over West European countries also caused tension in their relations. Most of the
countries of western Europe were reluctant to borrow the American high technology due to the fear that it would inc -
ease their dependence on the U.S.A. Therefore some of the western states like France and Germany quietly explored
modes of’collaboration on military strategy and military technology so that ultimately they could defend Western
Europe independent of United States.
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA. USSR AND CHINA 559
Reagan’s Star Wars Programme which he announced without consulting the European leaders, also generated tension
in relations of U.S.A. with Western European countries. Reagan insisted on complete adherence to the Star Wars
Programme (SDI-Strategic Defence Initiative) as a condition for providing technological benefits of programme to
European countries. The West European countries were reluctant to fully endorse U.S.A.’s Star Wars Programme
because it was not only likely to deepen conflict of strategic perspectives, but also adversely affect their basic national
interest. For example the British and the French felt that this would render their national nuclear deterrent systems
technologically obsolete and politically worthless. Likewise Germany felt that it would lead to new amis and further
step up new cold war. In short, the relations between U.S.A. and Europe in recent years have not been as cordial as they
were in the fifties and sixties. In view of its improved relations with Soviet Union, America’s policy towards Europe
also underwent a change. President Bush offered 20% cut in the combat troops in Europe as part of new NATO offer in
negotiations on conventional weapons with the Warsaw Pact. America felt that acceptance of this offer would
dramatically increase stability on the European continent. United States also ’stepped to its efforts to reunite the divided
city of Berlin and reunite Germany, the divis.on of which led to the cold war. This attitude of understanding shown by
United States towards Europe led to the demolition of Berlin Wall and reunifica ion of two German states. United
States also stepped up efforts to reach an under landing with USSR for reduction of arms in Europe and succeeded in
.conclude g a number of agreements with Soviet ’ Union for. destruction of chemical w aeons’and reduction of
conventional weapons. Under the Treaty of Paris si£ led in September 1990 the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries
agreed on maxir mm limits of tanks, armoured personnel Carriers, artillery pieces, aircrafts and ,l elicopters etc. All
these developments went a long way in improving US r lations with European countries. The dissolution of the Warsaw
Pact and the disappearance of the Russian threat in Europe, no more justifies the presence of large American military
presence in Europe. The emergence of the European Comunity (EC) as a strong market of 350 million and growing co-
operation amo ig the member countries of EC, has also undermined the influence and role of USA in Europe. In fact
United State’s economy now faces a serious challenge from the European Community. Policy Towards Latin America
America developed very intimate relations with the countries of Latin America in the post World War II period because
these countries provided a valuable market for its products, U.S.A. took lead in initiating the inter-American Treaty of
Reciprocal Assistance in 1947 with a view to unite the countries of the region. Under this treaty this signatory states
agreed to treat an attack against any one of the American states as an attack against all the states. They also agreed to
settle their differences through negotiations. America also extended assistance to these countries to expedite the process
of development in Latin America. During the first few year:, America did not see any Communist threat in the region.
But as the years rolled by and the Communist influence in the region
increased, America was forced to intervene in a number of Latin American countries to check the Communist
influence. Thus, in 1954 America intrigued to bring down the pro-Communist government in Cautemala and
installed a proAmerican government Similarly, America did not favour the policies of Fidel Castro in Cuba and
tried to exert necessary pressure on him to pursue proAmerican policy. On the refusal of Fidel Castro to do so,
America stopped all its sugar imports from Cuba. In the face of these developments Cuba proceeded to conclude
trade agreements with Soviet Union and other Communist countries. Thus, Cuba slipped out of American
influence. In other countries of Latin America like Brazil, Argentina, Peru, etc. also the democratic governments
suffered a setback and America could not do much. In view of these developments American leadership decided
to pay greater attention to Latin America and made available enormous funds to effect improvement in the
economy of these countries and raise the living standards of the people of the hemisphere. Most of this assistance
was channelised through multinational organisation like interAmerican Development Bank, the World Bank,
the United Nations Development Programmes, etc. In fact throughout America’s policy towards Latin America
has rested on two principles, viz., restoration of order and democracy in the region and to press the governments
of the hemisphere to join the family of free nations. U.S.A. also tried to resolve controversial issues with Latin
American countries through negotiations. In 1977 the Carter Commission took up the issue of Panama Canal
with Panama State and reached an agreement with that country whereby US agreed to withdraw her troops
gradually and finally transfer the control of Canal Zone to Panama.
In 1979 President Carter instituted a policy of extensive military assistance which aimed at averting indiscriminate
repression and creating a clear counterinsurgency forces there. This policy was also continued by Reagan. However, he
tried to internationalise the problems of 1 Salvador and Nicaragua by projecting that Soviet Union was engaged in
aggression in Central America. America’s policy was put to severe test when Argentine deployed its forces to occupy
the disputed Falkand islands, which involved her in a war with Britain. Reagan sided with Britain and thus gave the
impression that he had abandoned the traditional American policy towards Latin America.
American policy towards Latin America assumed aggressive postures in October 1983 when Reagan decided to take
military action against Grenada on the plea of protpaion of American lives and restoration of democracy. Though this
action wr>;, condemned by countries like Cuba, Guyana and Nicaragua, six of the eastern Caribbean states supported
the U.S. action, and voted against the U.N. resolution deploring U ,S. action in Greneda. Despite this support, it cannot
be denied that the American action aroused fear in the minds of Latin American countries as well as her European
Allies.
Another factor which caused much tension between America and Latin American countries was decision of Reagan
administration to increase prime interest by half per cent, which led to increase in the debt burden of the Latin
American countries and rendered sheir debt problem more acute. To meet the
561
threat the debtor’s cartel to carry on collective negotiations with American administration. The situation was
defused as a result of offer by the syndicate of American bankers to defer payment of loan instalments and
interest due to major Latin American countries.
In subsequent years also US tried to protect its interests in Latin America by making interventions in various countries.
US extended financial support to the opponents of President Daniel Ortega’s Marxist Sandinista government in
Nicaragua and managed its defeat in the elections held in February 1990. This restored American paramountcy in
Nicaragua. Similarly, when the autocratic ru ler of Panama (Manuel Antonio Noreiga) posed a threat to the US
interests, U N applied economic sanctions against Panama and encouraged coup attempt to oust Noriega from power.
In fact US launched military invasion of Panama to oust Noriega. This actron of US was severely criticised by nations
of the world. Thus US, despite all professions of non-intervention in Latin American countries, has tried to protect its
interests through all possible methods.
United States and UNO. United States has always had special relationship with United Nations. It was one of the main
arhictects of its predecessor the League of Nations, even though United States could not become its member. During
the initial years of UNO’s formation United States treated UN with great respect and virtually treated it as a part of its
own state department. However, • gradually United States/began to lose faith in the U.N. and began to talk of tyranny
of the majority. This displeasure grew with the passage of time. The American displeasure with has been on account of
three reasons-the declining American dominance in international affairs; a similar decline in the United Nations itself;
and resurgence of rugged individualism under President Reagan.
The setback to U.S. dominance at the U.N.O. made her turn away from U.N. as centre for diplomacy and concentrate
on direct bilateral diplomacy. On the other hand the increasing role which the countries of Third World started Haying
in the U.N. also obliged U.S.A. to withdraw from UNESCO. Justifying this action Reagan administration asserted ”it
no longer wished to go on paying the piper for a tune it did not like.” Earlier, United States withdrew from International
Labour Organisation in 1977 on the plea of increasing politicisation of this body and the tendency of the majority of the
member states to condemn other members (Israel). However, on 15 February 1980 United States rejoined I.L.O.
During subsequent years the attitude of United States towards U.N.O. grew very hostile This attitude of United States
was brought out by William Mayne thus:
”The Administration has withdrawn from UNESCO and declared it will no longer follow a policy of automatic
compliance with the decisions of the international Court of justice. It has threatened to withdraw from the Food and
Agricultural Organisation and International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Conference on Trade and
Development. It has repudiated the earlier undestanding among major donors that the seventh replenishment of” funds
for the World Bank’s International Development Association would be at a level at least equal
562
in real terms to that of the last replenishmens. By limiting the U.S. contribution to no more than $2.25 billion over three
years, the Administration forced a 40% cut in real terms in the banks funds for soft loans. The Administration has
refused to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty laboriously negotiated on a bipartisan basis over the course of four
administration. It has refused to continue contributions to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, and it cast the lone
vote against a World Health Organisation code of conduct regarding the manufacture and distribution of infant milk
formula...”1 Thus we find that during the Reagan administration the attitude of United States towards UNO was quite
hostile. However, towards the closing years of his reign this hostility somewhat died and he praised UN. On 26
September 1988 he called for a larger role for international institutions. This changed attitude of USA is further evident
from the fact that it made partial payments of arrears and promised to pay up its assessed contribution. Reagan
administration also indicated interest in a larger role for the International Court of Justice in certain specified areas of
international law. •
In the wake of Iraq’s attack on Kuwait in August 1990, United States played active role to mobilise United Nations to
get the aggression vocated. It was largely instrumental in getting a resolution (no.678) adopted which authorised use of
all necessary measures to make Iraq pull out its forces from illegally occupied territory. However, subsequently US
went beyond the limits of the Security Council resolution and threatened the use of force to starve the people of food
and looked upon the resolution as a mandate for mounting full-scale offensive against Iraq. USA also mounted naval
blockade and deployed ships to physically prevent import or export of commodities. In short, USA played leading role
during the Gulf War and after the cease fire. In fact USA treated UN as a subordinate body of USA. The disdain with
which USA looked upon UN is evident from the fact that President Bush told four Arab newspapers in March
1991 that US troops would have anyway gone to Iraq if the Security Council had not authorised use of force against
Iraq. Further, he did not accept the contention of France, a permanent member of Security Council, that the UN
mandate had terminated with the liberation of Kuwait and did not extend to internal affairs of Iraq. Instead United
States continued to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq and even pressurise Security Council to pass a resolution
directing Iraq to accord humane treatment to the harassed Kurds. The disrespect of US for UN was further evident from
the fact that it opposed the proposed conference on peace in West Asia, which was favoured’by most of the members of
UN. Instead US favoured sponsoringof peace conference by USA and Soviet Union alone. Thus US treated United
Nations as a subservient organisation and sought to make use o! it for the promotion of its own interests rather than that
of humanity in general. This is evident from the fact that in January 1993 US forces attacked military targets of Iraq for
defiance of UN Security Council which had directed Iraq to stop incursions into Kuwait and remove its anti-aircraft
missiles from the UN mandated ’No Fly Zone’ in southern Iraq. Russia and other Arah countries insisted that US
should have sought explicit approval from the Security Council
! Charles William Mayne* ”Lost opportunities ” in Foreign Affair* Vol. 6! No. !,

421-422.
E| FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 563
• before launching further attacks on Iraq.
• Despite this Uni4ed States has continued to push the UN to pursue a course
• of action as per its liking. This became evident when despite opposition of several K other powers like Russia,
France etc. which favoured lifting of sactions against •’. Iraq, US was able to got the sanctions against Iraq extended
through the United E Nations. In fact, United States, as the largest countributor to the United Nations •> has been
able to render the organisation ineffective by not paying up its allocated
• contribution, both budgetary and otherwise. Furthermore, United States has If taken part in. the peace-keeping
missions of the United Nations only when it B severs her interests or the command of the peace-keeping forces was
entrusted m to United States. In short, the United States has used the United Nations as a
• convenient forum to promote and protect its own interests.
I United States and Disarmament. The study of American foreign policy
I since 1945 shall be incomplete without examining the attitude and role of U.S.A. I towards the problem of
disarmament. Soon after the war U.S.A. showed keen I interest in disarmament. It not only demobilised its armed
forces but also offered I to place all its atomic weapons under international control. The proposals did I not receive
a favourable response from Soviet Union because it was opposed to I international inspection, which resulted in
violation of the sovereign rights of the I states. With a vi«w to achieve complete disarmament in 1950 U.S.A.
suggested
1 to the General Assembly the merger ^f the Atomic Energy Commission and the I. Conventional Armaments
Commission. In the subsequent year also U.S.A. i continued to make frantic efforts to effect disarmament and
submitted proposal I like Atoms for Peace Plan (1953) an/J the Seven Point Plan (1966). It also
1 participated in various conferences arrd concluded treatie^like Test Ban Treaty i of 1963, Non-Proliferation Treaty of
1968, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970). But probably the most important steps taken by the United States in the
direction of disarmameat were the conclusion of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the SALT Agreements of 1972
and 1979. A detailed study of the efforts at disarmament has been made in an earlier chapter. As a result of these efforts
U.S.A. succeeded in greatly reducing the tension between various countries and strengthened the cause of world peace.
However, in view of aggressive designs I of Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Persian Gulf and Horn of Africa, the
administration I of U.S.A. adopted a tough stand and devoted greater share of its budget to ! development more of
sophisticated weapons. But simultaneously it was also
• involved in negotiations with-Soviet Union for arms control. President Reagan held several meetings with the leaders
of Soviet Union to come to some understanding on arms control and disarmament. These meetings were held at Geneva
and Raykjavik. Though some progress was made in the right direction nothing concrete emerged out of these
negotiations. ’Thereafter also United States continued to make effort’s at disarmament. In December 1987 at the
Washington- Summit, it reached an understanding with Moscow on intermediate range missile*. It also called for a halt
to nuclear proliferation. The treaty on intermediate range missiles was ratified by the two countries and they exchanged
the documents af the fourth Summit held at Moscow. They also pledged to strive
for Treaty of Strategic Arms Reduction (START). After a gap of seven months USA and Soviet Union resumed talks in
1989 for Strategic Arms Reduction (START) with a view to cut by half their arsenals of nuclear arms, but the talks
revealed that differences exist between the two on some of the issues. Further progress in this regard was made at the
Washington Summit between President Bush and President Gorbachev held in June 1990. The two leders concluded
agreements on nuclear, chemical and conventional arms. They agreed to destroy thousands of tonnes of chemical
weapons and to stop their production. They also agreed on principles concerning the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START). The two leaders also reiterated their commitment to complete the negotiations on the convention*! force
reductions in Europe (GFE Treaty) before the end of the year. In September 1990 President Bush appended signatures
to the Treaty on Arms Cut, which sought to cut conventional forces in Europe. In July 1991, USA signed Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) wRh Soviet Union, whereby the two powers agreed to effect reduction in defined
strategic offensive arms.
In January 1992 President Bush announced unilateral reduction of nuclear arms. In May 1992 he signed an accord with
Russia, England, France and China to prevent spread of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. U.S. took another important step in the direction of disarmament in June 1992 when President
Bush signed an accord* with President Yeltsin of Russia to’reduce the number of nuclear warheads from 21,000 to
7000 by the year 2003 and to explore seriously the prospects of joint sponsorship of global missile defence and space
cooperation. In January 1993 President Bush signed the Nuclear Arms Control Treaty (START II) with Yeltsin which
seeks to bring about two-thirds reduction in world’s most terrifying weapons. This treaty set back the nuclear clock by
two decades or more by limiting the US nuclear weapons stockpile in about what it was in 1960’s and Russia’s to its
mid-1970’s size. Thus we find that in recent years United States has stepped up efforts to bring about disarmament.
A-survey of America’s foreign policy from 1945 shows that it has acted as the champion of democracy and played a
dominant role in checking the expansion of Communists. U.S.A. not only extended enormous financial help to the
countries in different regions of the world in their rehabilitation and development, but also strengthened them militarily
to meet the challenge of Communism. It sponsored a number of pacts, specially with the countries bordering on the
Communist countries. This policy of U.S.A. received condemnation at the hands of several scholars. They have argued
that U.S.A. made a clossal wastage of money in military preparation, which could have been fruitfully utilised for
improving the lot of the people in the underdeveloped countries. These activities of U.S.A, were in no way conducive
to world peace.
However, the above contention is not acceptable to other scholars. They argue that United States rendered a great
service to the cause of world peace by raising a military organisation which could keep the ambitions of Soviet Union
under check. In support of their contention they point out that during the interwar period. Japan and Italy could resort to
aggression with immunity in the
absence of any strong military power. America prevented Soviet Union from ’ twhaving the way Italy and lapan did
during the interwar period. The American policy has not been all hostility towards the Communist countries and it
made necessary modification in its attitude in the light of me subsequent developments. ; The Detente with Soviet
Union and rapprochement with China are a clear proof of the same. In the wake of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan
the detente suffered a setback anri there was revival of cold war between U.S.A. and Soviet Union. But once Soviet
Union made amends in its policy, USA also responded ; favourably and made valuable contribution to the elimination
of cold war. With ’ the disintegration of the Soviet Union United States emerged as the chief political and military
power whose authority was accepted by Russia and other European Republics of the erst while Soviet Union, because
they look towards United States and its allies for trade concessions and aid. In short, we can say that in contrast to the
traditional policy of isolation with’U.S.A. pursued till the dawn of the present centgry, the American foreign policy
since 1945 has been quite dynamic and pragmatic. It adjusted itself according to the requirements of the changed
international conditions.
FOREIGN POLICY OF SOVIET UNION/RUSSIA
The Foreign Policy of Soviet Union has been a subject of controversy among scholars. While some hold that the real
basis of Russian Foreign Policy since 1945 has been ’realpolitiki the others are.of the view that Soviet Foreign Policy
has a political purpose, v/z>, establishment of Communism all over the world. The holders of the first view say that
since 1945 Russia has been pursuing the time honoured policies of all spates-the pursuit of power and national interest.
The latter view points to the political purpose of Soviet Policy and asserts that Marxism-Leninism have formed trie-
basis of Russian policy and all its actions have been guided by this consideration alone. Thus, they find something new
• about the Soviet Foreign Policyyrt is indeed very difficult to find out the final motives behind Russian Policy and we
can agree with Geoffrey Stern’s observation that in the Soviet Foreign Policy ”the two are inextricably bound up.”
Development of Soviet Foreign Policy. After the Second World War, Soviet Union emerged as one of the strongest
powers and assumed the leadership of the Communist countries. She successfully extended her influence to Poland,
East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Outer Mongolia, North Korea, etc.
by establishing Communist governments in these countries. In fact the whole of Eastern Europe with the exception of
Finland and Greece came under Soviet influence. The Communist government in the various countries pursued policies
subservient to the Soviet Policy and soon came to be known as Soviet satellites.
The remarkable speed with which Soviet Union extended her influence
over Eastern Europe and East Germany greatly alarmed the Western countries
and they decided to take necessary measure to check the further spread of
Communist influence. They succeeded in saving Sweden, Austria and West
i Germany from the Communists and were able to establish their influence in a
In the lace of these developments Soviet Unjon also decided to revive the Communist International by forging together
all the anti-imperialist forces. In September 1947 it set up the Communist Information Bureau, also known as
COMINFORM, to coordinate the work of the Communist parties of various countries. This organisation was to take
necessary steps to popularise Communist ideology through periodicals, etc. Soviet Union also proceeded to conclude
treaties with countries like Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland, under which the signatories agreed to help each
other in case of an attack by Germany or states allied to her. Russia also concluded a Mutual Assistance treaty with
China by which the two agreed to help each other in case of an attack by lapan or states allied to Japan. Soviet Union
tried to consolidate her position in Eastern Europe through Molotov Plan (a counterpart of Marshall Plan) for economic
reconstruction and industrialisation of th6 region. With a view to promote greater economic co-operation among the
Communist countries in lanuary consisting of representatives of U.’S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland
and
Romania.
The close relations among the communist countries encouraged the Western powers to increase their economic and
military collaboration. In 1949 NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) consisting of U.S.A. Canada, Great Britain,
France, Belgium, Italy and Portugal was created. Though it was announced that the alliance was one of purely
defensive nature, but with the roping in of West Germany it became amply clear that it was directed against the Soviet
bloc. In other parts also a number of economic and military pacts were concluded. These included ANZUZ, Peace
Treaty with Japan (1951), SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organisation), MEDO (Middle East Defence Organisation),
etc. in short, U.S.A. concluded defence treaties with almost all the countries bordering on the Soviet territory and thus
tried to encircle her.
The Russians tried to counter the western moves by forming the Warsaw Pact for friendship, co-operation and mutual
assistance with Albania, Hungary, East Germany, Poland and Czecholovakia. Soviet Union also gave every possible
encouragement to the Communist forces in other parts of the world. Thus it assisted the Communists in Greece, Iran
and Italy, although its attempts were foiled by the Western powers. Russia’s attempts to increase its influence in the Far
East were also foiled by U.S.A. In Asia, the position of Soviet Union was somewhat strengthened with the
establishment of Communist regime in China. Soviet Union fully backed up the Communist Regime and concluded a
Treatyof Friendship, Alliance and Military Aid, under which the two countries agreed to assist each other in case of
aggression by japan or other power assisted by lapan. The two countries agreed to strengthen their economic and
cultural ties and to cooperate in the international sphere. Giving a sum up of the Soviet Foregin Policy for the first eight
years (1945-1933 Prof. Palmer and Perkins say that it was ”characterised by growing hostility to the West, by
increasing tendencies towards non-cooperation and isolation by consolidation of Soviet obit, and by general
intransigence. These tendencies wyre encouraged by Soviet re-interpretation of national interests, especially the means
to security and by the strong reaction of the leading stjtes of the non-Communist world to Russia mi >v»”.
567
and techniques. They were undoubtedly also influenced by the reemphasis on Marxist-Leninist doctrinarism and the
subordination of all cultural and intellectual activity to the interests of the Communist Party.’1
Policy in Post-Stalin Period. A change in Soviet Foreign policy took place after the death of Stalin in 1953. The new
leadership laid emphasis on greater friendship and peace. Explaining the new Policy of Soviet Union, Malenkov said:
”Our policy is to further peace and friendship with all peoples. Our policy is one of co-operation between the two
different systems, capitalism and socialism. Our chief concern is to prevent another war and to live in peace in all
countries. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government hold that the most correct, the most
necessary and just foreign policy is a policy of peace among all nations founded upon mutual confidence and
efficatious policy based upon facts and corraborated by facts.” The new leadership gave a proof of their intention to
pursue this policy by concluding an armistic in Korea and arriving at a settlement in Vietnam; which resulted in the
partition of the territory between the Communist (North) and non-Communists (South). It also concluded treaties with
Austria and Germany to bring the war to a formal conclusion. In the Far East Soviet Union transferred all her rights in
Manchuria to People’s Republic of China to reduce tension. Soviet Union released Porkkalalo Finland forty years
before the date of expiry of lease. In short, in the post Stalin period Russia followed a bold policy of moderation and
tried to relax tension in almost all the spheres. \
Policy under Bulganin and Khruschev. After Malenkov’s resignation in February 1955 B\lganin and Khruschev guided
the foreign policy of Russia. They also tried to folldw policy of peaceful co-existence and settle all outstanding
differences. In the Summit Conference at Geneva in 1955 an effort was made to arrive at some/understanding on the
outstanding issues like Germany, disarmamentêtc. However, much success could not be achieved. As a result both the
power blocs continued to increase their military strength and expand their spheres of influence. Soviet Union tried to
enhance its influence in the East by assisting countri.es like India, Egypt, etc. Russia helped India to set up steel plant at
Bhilai and offered to help Egypt in the construction of the Aswan Dam. It increased its trade with the countries of east
and tried to acquire greater influence by making available loans and grants on most favourable terms. Russia provided
arms to Egypt and encquraged Egypt to go ahead with the nationalisation of Suez Canal. Subsequently, when Britain,
France and Israel took military action against Egypt, Soviet Union extended support to Egypt and played a leading role
in getting a resolution passed through the Security Council asking these powers to withdraw. It is noteworthy that even
U.S.A. co-operated with Soviet Union on this issue.
The period also witnessed efforts by Soviet Union to improve relations with
U.S.A. In 1956 Russia proposed a treaty of friendship and co-operation, but the
.same was turned down by U.S.A. In 1957 the General Assembly adopted a
1. Palmer jnd Perkins. International Relations, p. 616
568
Declaration of Peaceful Co-existence of States at the instance of Soviet Union. In 1957 Soviet Union made several
proposals for reduction of international tension. It suggested conclusion of non-aggression pact between members of
NATO and WARSAW treaty countries. In 1958 Soviet Union took an important step in the direction of reducing
tension by announcing unilateral cessation of Atom and Hydrogen tests. However, these proposals of Soviet Union did
not receive ready response from the Western Powers, because they doubted the sincerity of Soviet Union. In 1959
Khruschev visited U.S.A. to promote friendly relations between the two countries. This was followed by a Summit
Conference at Paris in which four big powers (U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Britain and France) were to participate. But this
Conference was wrecked by the U-2 incident which gave a great setback to improvement of relations between the two
countries.
In 1962 Soviet Union’s relations with U.S.A. were greatly strained due to Cuban crisis and there was every possibility
that two giants may clash. However, due to efforts of the U.N. Secretary General (U Thant) the crisis was averted.
Russia agreed to dismantle its missile bases in Cuba under international supervision. This stand of Soviet Union was
hailed throughout the world as a significant contribution of Russia towards promotion of world peace.
Another important feature of Soviet Foreign Policy during this period was the mounting tension with China. The policy
of de-Stalinisation launched by Khruschev in Russia was greatly criticised by the Chinese leaders which produced a
great schism in Communist camp. In reality apart from the ideological difference there were certain other important
factors which contributed to tension between Soviet Union and China, viz., the desire of China to assert its
independence and assume leadership of the Communist countries in SouthEast Asia, adoption of new economic pol icy
by Ch ina against the advice of Soviet experts, the pro-Indian stands of the Russian leaders during the Sino-lndian
conflict of 1962, and criticism of pull out from Cuba as surrender, etc.
It has been opined by certain scholars that the Soviet Foreign Policy under Bulganin and Khrushchev did not
fundamentally differ from the policy pursued by Stalin and only the method of its conduct changed. For instance,
Fainshon says: ”The Khrushchev-Bulganin arsenal of intensive industralisation, diplomacy, trade, technical assistance,
cultural penetration and subversion is no less formidable than the cruder threats, pressure and bluster which Stalin
employed in the period of Berlin blockade and the Korean adventure.”
Policy under Kosygin and Brezhnev. With the overthrow of Khrushchev in October 1964 the era of collective
leadership set in Soviet Union which result in some modifications in the foreign policy pursued by Khrushchev. The
new leadership (Kosygin and Brezhnev) reasserted that it ’considers supports of international revolutionary forces as an
indivisible part of its activity because only Communism can solve the fundamental problems of social development,
deliver mankind from oppression and exploitation, from hunger and poverty, from militarism and wars and establish on
our planet democracy, peace, friendship among peoples and a life inkeeping with dignity of man”. However, the new
leaders also continued the policy of peaceful co-operation with the
B; FOREIGN POLICIES Of MAJOR POWERS -USA, USSR AND CHINA 569
B capitalist countries.
• The new leadership also tried to improve relations with the Communist B countries by undertaking personal visits to
China and North Vietnam. But as B these Chinese leaders could not reconcile with the Soviet policy of coexistence B
of states with different social systems, much progress could not be made in •t normalisation of relations with China.
The Cultural Revolution in China further B . stood in the way of improvement of relations between Soviet Union and
People’s
• Republic of China. Taking advantage of the liberal policy of Moscow some of H the Communist countries like
Rumania: Cuba, Czechoslovakia etc. asserted their HI independence.
B An effort was also made to improve relations with U.S.A. and other
• Western countries. A Consular Treaty was concluded with U.S.A. by which the B two countries granted immunity to
the consular staff. They also agreed on nonB proliferation of nuclear weapons which was subsequently adopted by the
B General Assembly. Despite efforts to reach understanding with U.S.A., there B continued to be certain irritants like
Vietnam, Germany and Israel problems B which strained the relations of two countries. The Soviet leaders, unmindful
of B these strains, continued efforts to improve relations with U.S.A. and concluded B a number of agreement for co-
operation in the commercial and cultural spheres. B N. Policy after Kosygin and Brezhnev. The foreign policy of
Soviet Union in B the post Kosygin-Brezhnev period was. not fundamentally different from the B policyXpursued
during the Kosygin-Brezhnev period and kept on fluctuating B according to the changing international conditions.
• The new Soviet leaders tried to improve relations with United States and
• succeeded in concluding agreements for cooperation in the fields of exploration B of oujer space, problems of
environment, medical science, public health, B technology etc. The trade relations between the two countries also
showed an B improvement. The leaders of two countries even shbwed their keenness to end B armament race and
concluded SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) in 1972 B and SALT II in 1979. The leaders of the two countries
paid courtesy visits to the
• capitals of each other and thus displayed unprecedented amity towards each B other.
B- This process of improvement of relations with USA suffered a set-back
w following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. During the next few years
m the relations between the two super powers continued’to deteriorate and a sort
I of new cold war set in. United States did not send its contingent to the Olympic
I Games in Moscow in 1980 and Soviet Union retaliated by abstaining from the
!„ Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 1984. Soviet Union tried to undermine I ’ influence of USA in Middle East by
supplying arms to Syria. It also encouraged
f peace movements in Europe with a view to weaken American hold on Western
I Europe. Soviet leaders also condemned US bid to overthrow constitutional
• regime in Grenada, a Caribbean island. The shooting down of the South Korean Boeing 747 airliner by Soviet Union
was likewise condemned by United States.
. The other factors which contributed to straining of relations between the two
; countries were imposition of economic sanctions by USA against Poland and

570
Soviet Union. In short the relations between the two super powers grew quite tense.
Policy under Chernenko and Gorbachev. Despite growing tension the Soviet Union under Chernenko as well as
Gorbachev continued to make efforts to improve relations with USA. President Reagan of USA also responded
favourably and in 1984 the two countries agreed to extend treaty of economic cooperation concluded in 1974 for a
further period of ten years. They also initiated talks on disarmament at Geneva in January 1985. After some initial
difficulties President Reagan of USA and Mikhail Gorbachev of Soviet Union arrived at some understanding on
bilateral arms control issues at Reykjavik meeting in October 1986. This was followed by a number of summit
meetings between the leader of two countries pavirig the way for the INF Treaty. Thus gradually the policy of
confrontation gave way to policy of cooperation. This :hange was reflected in Soviet decision to withdraw its
occuptation forces from Afghanistan. During the last years of the Soviet Union, the Soviet leaders. ocussed attention on
domestic affairs. As a result, most of the foreign issues they elt concerned themselves involved efforts to acquire much
needed focal aid from capitalist countries.
Policy Under Russia (Boris^veltsin). Russian Federation, which for all practical purposes succeeded the Soviet
Union, in January 1992, also tried to concentrate on domestic issues with a view to ensuring sufficient stability
internally and tried to create new economic and political norms. Under the circumstances its policies towards the
outside world were almost wholly dedicated towards ensuring aid and investment from technologically advanced
countries of the world.
After a general review of Soviet foreign policy since 1945, and Russian policy after the disintegration of Soviet Union,
it shall be desirable to make detailed study of Its foreign policy with regard to various regions and powers.
Policy Towards United States
Soviet policy towards United States in the years after Second World War was characterised by fear and hostility. This
fear and hostility was the logical outcome of the moves of United States to create alliances with countries bordering on
the Soviet territory, which was looked by the Soviet Union as a clever move to encircle her. Soviet Union tried to meet
the possible threat by . forming Warsaw Pact and consolidating her orbit. This policy of Soviet Union underwent great
change in the post Stalin period when the new leaders asserted that the two system -capitalism and socialism-could co-
exist. They asserted that their main aim was to prevent another war and live in peace. This change in Soviet policy was
reflected in her settlement with USA over Korea and Vietnam. Soviet Union also concluded treaties with Austria and
Germany to bring the Second World War formally to an end. In 1956 Soviet Union proposed a treaty of friendship and
co-operation to United States but the same was turned down by United States Soviet Union made further bids to reduce
tension with America and Western countries and suggested a non-aggression pact between the members of NAT.O and
WARSAW treaty countries \n 1959 Khruschev paid a
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA. USiR AND CHINA 571
visit to United States to promote friendly relations between two countries.
The process of improvement of relations with USA suffered a setback in

1962 due to Cuban crisis and*there was a possibility of open clash between the two. However, the situation was
defused due to intervention of UN General Secretary and spiritof accommodation shown by Soviet leaders. In the
subsequent years efforts were continued to improve relations with U.S.A. A Consular Treaty was concluded with USA
by which the two countries granted immunity to the consular staff. The two also reached an agreement on non-
proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, the relations continued to be strained due to -differences on problems of
Vietnam Germany and Israel. In 1972 and 1973 President Nixon and Secretary Brezhnev paid visits to Moscow and
Washington respectively which resulted in conclusion of number of agreements between the two countries for co-
operation in commercial and cultural spheres. The process of normalisation of relations between USSR and USA was
seriously hampered following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. United States embarked ’ upon plans to
modernise its weapons and army to meet any possible threat from Soviet Union. The other factors which contributed to
strained its allies against Poland and Soviet support of military presence in Kampuchea. As a result the two countries
decided to boycott the Olympic games held in Moscow and Los Ângeles.
\ In the midst of these developments the leaders of the two countries decided to improve their relations and held a
number of summit meetings, to come to some sort of understanding on disarmament. An important summit meeting
was held at Geneva in November 1985 between President Reagan and Gorbachev. Though tnis meeting failed to
produce any tangible results, it led to six bilateral agreements between the two superpowers. These agreements related
to cooperation on cultural and scientific exchanges; resumption of civil aviation ties, improvement in air safety in the
North Pacific region; the establishment of consulates in Kiew and New York, and-co-operation in magnetic fusion
research and environmental protection. The conclusion of these agreements reflected the desire of the two countries to
improve their relations.
In March 1986 once again the relations between Soviet Union and USA were strained following U.S. air strikes against
Libyan ships and Soviet condemnation of the U.S. action. Soviet Union also criticised U.S. for its interference in the
affairs of other countries particularly the supply of military aid to anti-governrnent rebels in Angola, Afghanistan,
Nicaragua etc. The detention of U.S. journalist Nicholas Danioff on suspicion of espionage in Moscow on 30 August,
1986 also contributed to deterioration of relations between the two countries. Despite these set backs the leaders of the
two countries held a summit meeting at Geneva to come to an agreement on disarmament. The two countries also
concluded various agreements to Co-operation in different fields. Thus on
22 August, 1986 the atomic energy officials of the two countries agreed to revive the formal exchanges on nuclear
energy including the quesJ’on of nuclear safety. In November 198f> the two agreed to coordinate projects and
exchange data on the unmanned exploration of Mars other planets and deep space. On 15 January
1987 U.S. administration announced the lining of an embargo on the export ot
572
oil and gas drilling equipment to Soviet Union (which had been imposed during the administration of President Carer).
All this clearly indicated that both the powers were keen to place their relations on normal footings.
During the subsequent years dialogue continued between Reagan and Gorbachev and the two powers reached
substantive agreement in the areas of arms control, regional policy and bilateral cooperation. They also ratified the
1987 INF Treaty, which had been focal point of controversy between the two for nearly a decade, and moved towards
an agreement for reduction of strategic nuclear arsenals by 50%. They also held talks for reduction of conventional
forces in Europe. In short the policy of confrontation gave way to cooperation between the two and the idelogical and
social differences which had divided the two powers tended to disappear.
At the Malta Summit held in December 1989 President Bush and President Gorbachev made a bid to reduce tension
and check growing threats of conflicts in various parts of the world. The process of understanding was carried forward
at the Washington Summit held in June 1990 when the two leaders worked out agreements on nuclear, chemical and
conventional arms. They also concluded agreements to restore normal trading relations. However the critical attitude of
United States towards Soviet Government’s handling of the secessionist Baltic Republics proved a major irritant in
relations between two super powers.
. Despite this, in view of the fast deteriorating internal conditions, the Soviet leaders adopted a low posture and
continued the process of improvement of relations with United States. In July 1991 USSR signed historic Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with US to reduce nuclear arsenals by about 30 per cent. Thereafter US showed
greater consideration for the Soviet Union and avoided immediate recognition to the Baltic Republics which had
declared themselves as independent. Despite this the process of disintegration in Soviet Union continued and with the
resignation of President Gorbachev in December
1991 the Soviet Union formally came to an end. The Russian Federation which succeeded the Soviet Union also tried
to develop closer relations with US. This is evident from the Communique issue at the end of the Camp David meet
between President Yeltsin and President Bush, which stated ”Russia and United States do not regard each other as
potential adversaries.” With the end of the cold warthe relations between USA and Russia have shown considerable
improvement. This was rendered possible because Russia needs substantial assistance from America and her allies for
her economic development. America is also very keen to see that democratic Russia does not further distintegrate. The
two countries agreed on a common agenda in the Camp David Declaration of February 1992 which includes a further
reduction in. their respective nuclear weaheads, prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, curbing the
spread of conventional weapons, settlement of regional conflicts and to counter terrorism and drug trafficking.
An important step in the direction of relations with USA was taken in 1993 when President Boris Yeltsin signed the
nuclear Arms Control Treaty (START-II) with President Bush. In terms of this treaty US nuclear weapons stockpile
was
| restricted to 1960 level, while the Russian nuclear weapons were reduced to the size of mid 1970’s. The process
of improvement of relations between twb contries continued in subsequent months. In April 1993 a summit meeting
was held between President Boris Yeltsin and President Clinton at Vancouver (Canada) where US offered an economic
aid package of over one billion dollars to Russia and promised to extend unqualified support for Russia’s economic and
political reforms. In view of improvement in relations between two countries in January 1994 the two countries agreed
to stop aiming of long-range nuclear missiles at each other. In September 1994 another summit meeting was held at
Washington between Yeltsin and Clinton, and it was agreed to speed up destruction of nuclear warheads, expand
economic ties and end fresh arms sales to Iran. The two leaders also agreed to speed up the timetable of the START II ;
Agreement, and agreed to dismantle the warheads as soon as the agrement was ; ratified. Despite these
developments Russia’s relations with USA got strained on
1 account of difference over Iran, Chechnya and NATO. However, the relations ’ between two countries
smoothened after Russia agreed at the summit of May f 1995 torJelay the sale of two nuclear reactors to Iran and
scrap plans to sell the •’ gas centrifuge to Tehran; and reiterated its commitment to go forward with plans to
formally join NATO’s partnership for peace. ’
Soviet Policy Towards West Europe
The basic principles of Soviet Foreign policy towards Europe in the post World War II period continued to be same
which had guided its foreign policy since 1917. These included (i) to restore and maintain territorial integrity of the
Russian Empire; (ii) to acquire control over Eastern Europe with a view to prevent its alliance with West; (in) to
neutralise and to acquire control over whole or part of Germany. For the attainment of these objectives Stalin tried to
push United States, U.K. and France out of West Berlin, even though he did not quite succeed in this. Khruschev, who
succeeded Stalin, also tried to pursue this policy. Simultaneously he also tried to woo Britain and cultivate Gaullfst
France with a view to increase Soviet influence in Western Europe.
Soviet Union also tried to increase its influence in West Europe through Communist parties of these countries and
achieved considerable amount of success in this regard. However,-in the wake of Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia •
in 1968 the West European Communist Parties became distrustful of Soviet leadership and began to act in an
autonomous manner. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan created further wedge between Soviet Union and West
European Communist parties.
Despite hostile attitude displayed by the West European countries towards Soviet Union on account of their close
alliance with United States Soviet Union continued to make efforts to improve relation with these countries because she
badly needed their technology. Soviet Union indicated its readiness to supply raw materials, specially petroleum and
natural gas, which were needed by the West European countries. Soviet leadership realised that relations with West
European couitries could not improve unless a wedge was created between United States nnd West European countries.
It therefore extended full support to
the peace movements in Europe to win over the public opinion. It may be observed that the Soviet Union did not start
or control the West European Peace Movements. It merely exploited these movements and extended them necessary
financial support. In this way Soviet Union tried to project the impression that United States posed a greater danger to
world peace than Soviet Union.
Despite political differences with West European countries. Soviet Union tried-to develop very intimate trade relations
with these countries. Soviet Union first of all concluded trade and commercial agreements with Italy in 1969 and
agreed to supply over 100,000 million cubic metres of Soviet natural gas during the next 20 years. Subsequently
through another agreement it promised to supply Italy additional 21,000 million cubic metres of Soviet natural gas
during 1978-
2000 A.D. The two countries concluded a number of other agreements for , economic, industrial and technical
cooperation. Likewise Soviet Union tried to increase co-operation with Britain during the Premiership of Wilson (1964-
70), even though these relations somewhat cooled down under the Conservatives. After the return of Labour to power,
Soviet Union once again tried to normalise relations with Britain. In 1975 the two concluded an agreement for co-
operation in economic and industrial sphere for a period of ten years. This agreement was replaced by an Anglo Soviet
Economic and Industrial Co-operation Programme for 1986-1990 in 1986. On 2 February 1987 Soviet Union
concluded a new longterm credit and trade.financing agreement with U.K., which provides for financial support for
U.K. exports and capital goods and equipment upto 1990. Hopes were expressed thatthe agreement would help revive
UK exports to Soviet Union which had been steadily declining during the past few years. In March April, 1987 Mrs.
Thatcher paid a visit to Moscow and signed several agreements. These agreements provided for (i) upgrading of the
hotline communication links between London and Moscow; (ii) increased cooperation in civilian space research; (in)
new sites for embassies of two countries in Moscow and London. The two countries also endorsed a memorandum on
cultural information and education exchanges.
Soviet Union tried to develop even more intimate relations with France because its leadership showed clear signs of
pursuing a foreign policy independent of United States and announced in 1966 its decision to withdraw from NATO
military orgaoisation. The leaders ot France and U.S.S.R. exchanged visits and’ concluded agreements for closer
relations. Between 1975-1979 the twocountnes concluded a num!>er of agreements unde* which Soviet Union made
large purchases from France which helped that country to tide over the conditions of recession prevailing in the
economy of the ”country.
Soviet Union’s relations with France further improved as a result of twoday summit talks held between President
Gorbachev and Mitterrand in My ! 989. They signed a declaration on the principles of developing and upgrading
economic, industrial, scientific and technical cooperation.
But proba-biv the most important change in Soviet Union’s policy towards West Europe was reflected in its plan of 6
March 1989 which proposed major east-west reduction 01 troops and armour in Europe, along with negotiations to
eliminate jll battlttitld nuclear weapons from the continent. The tall ot the
communist regirfes in most of the East European countries was welcomed by Soviet Union, which was a clear
indication that the Soviet leaders were following a policy of co-existence and ideological considerations had lost
relevance.
The basic principles on which the Soviet policy towards Europe rested were (i) encouragement of socio-economic
reforms in the countries of East Europe; (ii) non-interference in the affairs of each other; (in) Common European Home
and abandoment of confrontationist policy; (iv) conduct of relations with individual countries on non-bloc basis on the
basis of mutual interests. This change in the policy of Soviet Union is evident from the fact that it supported unification
of the two German states and even agreed to the United Germany continuing as a member of NATO. Further, it
contributed to the winding up of the Warsaw Pact by withdrawing Soviet troops from countries like Hungary,
Czechoslovakia etc. In short, the European policy of Soviet Union rested on the principle of distancing itself from the
ideology-based political, economic and military division of Europe and to pursue the aim of common European home.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia which emerged as the leader, tried to cultivate intimate relations
with countries of Europe and sought their hefpito overcome its economic difficulties. The countries of Europe also
showed an attitude of consideration towards the Commonwealth of Independent States. The most notable step in this
direction was the conclusion of treaty between British Prime Minister John Major and Russian President Boris Yeltsin
on 9 November 1992. This was the first treaty signed since 1766 with Britain which sought to promote cooperation
between two countries in all spheres. This treaty formally put an end to the policy of confrontation between the two
countries. In ajodition^the two countries also signed agreements covering economic affairs, setting up of a hot line
communication link, military cooperation, combating air piracy and transporting nuclear arms. In short, Russia tried to
get closer to other countries of Europe and secure their co-operation to overcome its internal problems. It is tnje that the
Russia representative at the UN Security Council publicly cautioned against the Western led US initiatives to bomb
Iraq and take reprisals against Serbian forces in Yugoslavia, but for most part Russia seeking economic assistance, both
bilaterally and through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, pursued a foreign policy which was
conciliatory towards the West.
Relations with Communist Countries
After World War II, Soviet Union emerged as the leader of the Communist countries not only in Eastern JEurope but in
other parts of the world too. It tried to unify the Communist forces by establishing the Council for Mutual Economic
Assistance (COMECON) with Poland; Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hangary and Romania as its members. Subsequently,
it brought the Communist countries together through the Warsaw Pact in 1955 to ensure their greater co-operation in
the military field. Soviet Union, as leader of the Communist countries came to the rescue of other Communist countries
whenever their existence was threatened. Thus, she look armed action in East Berlin in 1953 and Hungary- in
1956 countries through the instruments of economic and miliatry assistance. However, with the emergence of people’s
Republic of China as j le.iding Communist power is the late titties, a challenge to Soviet leadership of the
Communist world was posed. Some of the Communist countries like Albania moved closer to China while others, like
Yugoslavia and Poland, asserted their independence from the Soviet Union without joining the Chinese camp. The
growing intimacy between U.S.A. and China in the seventies also contributed to further straining of Soviet relations
with China. These relations continued to be quite hostile till the dawn of the eighties when President Brezhnev made a
bid to bring about some sort of rapprochement with China. As a result talks took place between the delegations of
China and Soviet Union in Beijing in October,
1982, in Moscow in March, 1983 and again in Beijing in October, 1983. Though these talks did not produce any
concrete results, they certainly led to an improvement in the relations’between the two countries. There was increased
trade and more exchanges in cultural, academic and sports fields. The improved relations between the two countries is
evident from the fact that on the death of Brezhnev on 10 November 1882 Chinese Foreign Minister represented his
country at his funeral. Yury Andropov, who succeeded Brezhnev as President of Soviet Union asserted that Soviet
Union wanted to improve relations with all socialist nations including our great neighbour the People’s Republic of
China. However, no improvement in the relations between two countries could take place on account of growing
military co-operation between China and U .S.A. and the Chinese provocations against Vietnam. Supply of larger
quantities of arms to guerrillas in Afghanistan by China also contributed to straining of relations. Despite these setbacks
the leaders of the two countries made efforts, to settle their long-pending border issues and to promote trade. A success
in this direction was achieved in December 1984 when the two countries concluded three agreements on economic,
technical and scientific co-operation. Despite this development, there are numerous obstacles in the way of developing
normal relations between two countries. The Chinese leaders asserted that their relations with Soviet Union could not
improve unless it stopped supporting Vietnam’s military presence in Kampuchea, reduced forces along Chinese border
and withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was, however, not inclined to concede these demands.
Further Soviet Union viewed with great concern the growing political and military contacts between China and USA.
Despite this China continued her policy of gradually improving trade and government relations with Soviet Union. In
1985 the two signed a trade agreement which provided for a total trade turn over of 14 billion U.S. dollars by 1990.
Soviet Union also agreed to refurbish some 155 industrial plants in China built during the heydays of Sino-Soviet
cooperation and abandoned by Soviet Union in 1980 following its pull out from China. The two countries also agreed
to hold regular rounds of talks for normalisation of relations. In )uly 1986 President Gorbachev offered a unilateral
concession on a river dispute between China and Soviet Union by accepting the Chinese claim that border ran down the
middle of the river channel. He even indicated his intention to withdraw substantial part of Soviet troops-from
Mongolia. This was followed by decision to withdraw Soviet army from Afghanistan. Thus ateast two major hudrdles
in the way of normalisation of relations between Soviet Union and China were
FOREIGN POLICliS OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 577
removed. In October 1988 the two countries agreed on premanent arrangements for adjusting boundary
disputes. The last thaw in Sino-Soviet relations was removed with the announcement regarding the withdrawal
of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea by 30 September 1989.
The process of improvement of relations with China culminated in the Beijing .Summit in May 1989 which ended
quarter century of discords and contributed to normalisation of Sino-Soviet relations. At this Summit China and Soviet
Union (a) agreed to gradually reduce and end all military aid to Kampuchean factions following withdrawal of
Vietnamese troops (b) agreed to develop relations on the basis of universal principles guiding state-to-state ties viz.
mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal
affairs; equality and mutual benefit and peaceful existence; (c) expressed their resolve to settle their disputes through
peaceful negotiations; (d) agreed to take measures to cut down the military forces in the areas along the Sino-Soviet
boundary to minimum level (e) agreed to settle f the Sino-Soviet boundary question on the basis of treaties
concerning the present
• boundary and generally recognised principles of international law; (f) agreed to i work for the development of
economic trade, scientific, technological, cultural and other relations on the basis of equality and mutual benefit to
deepen mutual understanding; (g) Soviet Union expressed support to the Chinese stand that Taiwan was an inalienabe
part of People’s Republic of China and expressed opposition to all attempts/to create two Chinas (h) asserted that
neither would seek hegemony in any other parts of the worJd and agreed to denounce the attempts by other countries to
impose their will on others, (i) favoured enhancement of the prestige of the United Nations and envisaged greater role
for it in the international affairs.
The Beijing summit thus marked the culmination of the process of SinoSoviet rapprochement which began as far back
as 1982 when Brezhnev made a series of gestures to improve relations between the two countries. The friendly attitude
of Soviet Union towards Chinese government was evident from the fact that in the wake of Tiananmen massacre,
whereas other major powers like USA and Britain condemned the Chinese government, the Soviet Union expressed
cautious support to the Chinese government. It not only described the unrest as an internal affair of China but also
condemned outside intervention. In short, Soviet Union’s relations with China which were h’ghly strained during the
past three decades considerably improved and the hostility which characterised the relations between the two countries
gradually disappeared.
The vonvergencp or their interests on several issues further contributed to more intimate Delations Russia and China
have totally denounced philosophy of class struggle and moved towards free economy. Further, their mutual interests
have also brought them closer. Russia at present needs huge quantities of consumer gooes, which it can hope to get
from China at comparatively cheap prices. On the uther hand, China wants to replenish its military equipments, acquire
at fence technology, components and expertise in order to develop its
578
579
own aims. Russia can greatly contribute in this direction. It is keen to dispose of aims surplus lying redundant
after the end of the Cold War, to meet the country’s current economic needs. This attitude of understanding has
resulted In reduction of tension on the northern border, which was one of the chief irritants in Soviet Union’s
relations with China. The foreign ministers of China and USSR also reached an agreement regarding border in
Eastern Sectorln 1991 which was ratified in March 1993. This led to final settlement of territorial dispute
between the two countries. This paved the way for greater co-operation between the two countries. In May 1994
the Russian Prime Minister paid a visit to China. During this visit seven accords were signed by the two
countries relating to system of administrating the border, avoidance of double taxation, economic and scientific
co-operation, marine transport and environment pollution control. In March 1995 Russia’s Foreign Minister
(Andrei Kozyrev) paid a visit to China. In the course of his discussions with the Chinese leaders he reiterated the
determination of Russia to work for the establishment of just, reasonable, equal and mutually beneficialworld
political and economical order. He also discussed with them important economic issues and the implindentation
of the 1991 Sino-Russian border accord. Thus during the last few years relations between Russia and China
have shown consistent improvement.
Soviet Policy in Middle East
Soviet Union has deep interest in Middle East. In fact even before the commencement of Second World
War Soviet Union showed keen interest in the region and concluded a treaty of friendship with Turkey.
After the war Soviet Union pleaded with Britain and United States to revise the status of the Turkish straits.
As this was of disadvantage to Turkey, she naturally resisted it and preferred to co-operate with the western
powers. Turkey joined CENTO (Baghdad Pact) to defeat the Soviet designs.
Soviet Union also showed keen interest in Iran and demanded oil concessions. But mis demand of Soviet
Union was firmly turned down by Iran. Thereupon Soviet Union stirred a revolution in the province of
Azerbaijan. Iran sent forces to suppress the revolt Ultimately Soviet Union agreed to withdrew its troops at
the intervention of Security Council and a joint Soviet Iranian Oil Comapany was formed. However, after
about a year Iran refused to retify the oil agreement After Iran joined the Baghdad Pact in 1955 the Soviet
influence further declined in the country. Thereupon Soviet Union tried to befriend Iraq and concluded a
treaty of friendship with that country. Thereafter Soviet Union maintained friendly relations with Iraq, and
its relations with Iran became somewhat strained.
Another issue of Middle-East in which Soviet Union was deeply involved was the question of creation of
Israel, In fact Soviet Union espoused the cause of Arabs during the Second World War. But after the
creation of Israel Soviet Union established friendly relations with that country. However, these relations
could not grow along friendly lines and showed a deterioration. The relation
between Soviet Union and Israel reached their lowest ebb in t967 when Soviet Union cut-off diplomatic
relations with Israel as a protest against the occupation of Arab lands during the six day war between Arab
and Israel, thereafter all offers for improvement of relations made by Israel were spurned by Soviet Union.
Soviet Union has consistently insisted on Israel’s withdrawal from the territory as a condition for
normalisation of relations between the two countries. On the other hand Soviet Union maintained best of
relations with the Arab countries and consistently support them against Israel. It provided assistance to
Egypt in me construction of Aswan Dam, after the western powers refused to give her the promised aid.
Soviet Union supported Egypt following combined attack by Israel, U.K. and France in the wake of
nationalisation of Suez Canal. In the Arab Israel War of 1967 also Soviet Union supported the Arabs, even
though the Arabs were not happy with the quantum of the support and assistance provided by Soviet Union.
Thereafter Soviet influence with the Arab suffered a decline. This provided a’n opportunity to United
States to woo Egypt successfully and resulted in cancellation of Egypt-Soviet Treaty of Friendship in
March 1976 unilaterally by Egypt However, Soviet Union retraced her position successfully in Iraq, Libya
and Syria. It also provided arms, ammunition and training to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. /
The successful role played by USA in arranging a negotiated settlement between the Arabs and Israel in the
wake of 1979 conflict gave a further setback to Soviet Union in Middle East However, certain states like
Jordan, Kuwaifetc, were unhappy with USA and moved closer to Soviet Union. This automatically
enhanced Soviet influence in the region. Soviet Union’s involvement in the Middle East grew deeper in the
1980s due to out-break of Iran-Iraq war. Soviet Union greatly contributed to the superiority of Iraq’s air
power, which was naturally disliked by Iran and greatly contributed to the freezing of relations between
Soviet Union and Iran. The presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was also a source of irritation to Iran.
But the growing tension between Iran and USA helped Soviet Union to improve relations with Iran. It
played a positive rote in • defreezing the situation after the Iran-Iraq peace talks ran into troubled waters in
August 1988 following insistence by Iran mat Iraq should withdraw all its troops from 1000 sq. km. of
Iranian territory and Iraq’s insistence that Shatt-alArab waterway should belong to Iraq. Soviet Union also
made a bid to improve relations with Iran by supporting the stand that Iraq should withdraw from the
Iranian territory. On 23 June 1989 Soviet President signed a pact with Ali Akbar Hoshemi Rafsanjani and
pledged to cooperate in ’strengthening the defence capacity of Iran’. The two leaders pledged -o strive for a
broad acquaintance with each other’s life, culture, convictions, customs and traditions. It may be observed
that this improvement of relations became possible due to the political and economic compulsions on both
the sides. The end of Iran-Iraq war and withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan also greatly
facilitated improvement of relations between the two countries. On the part of Iran the desire to overcome
its prolonged international isolation seems to have contributed to the desire for improvement of ties with
Soviet Union.
During the Gulf War of 1991 Soviet Union preferred to keep out of the
580
531
armed conflict due to internal problems and complexities. Instead of supporting Iraq, one of its friends in Middle East
and a major purchaser of Soviet arms. President Gorbachev supported all the resolutions of the UN Security Council on
Iraq. However, Soviet Union refused to join the allied forces in the war against Iraq. This attitude of Soviet Union
towards the Middle East should not be interpreted as loss of Soviet interest in this region. It would be too much to say
that Soviet Union gave up the long-term interests which it gained in the Middle East over the past several decades. In
fact the Soviet Policy towards Middle East was always rested on the principle that it had no permanent friends or
adversaries in the region and was always willing to make necessary adjustments to preserve its permanent interests.
The weakened/Iommonwealth of Independent States under the leadership of Russia is so much pre-occupied with the
internal problems that it is not able to evince much interest in the problems of middle East. Further, its increasing
dependence on United States and European countries also make it difficult for it to take a bold stand. Despite this
Russian leadership took a hard stand on the issue of Iraqi attack by US in January 1993. It demanded that USA and its
other allies should seek explicit approval from the UN Security Council before launching further attacks on Iraq’.
Again on the question of lifting of oil sanctions against Iraq, Russia insisted that Security Council must lift the oil
embargo since Iraq had complied with the weapons’ demands. This stand of Russia was against the US stand that Iraq
must comply with other conditions before sanctions were lifted. During the Gulf Crisis of 1994, which erupted as a
result of massing of Iraqi troops near the Kuwaiti border, when US despatched thousands of troops, Russia did not
support the action and opposed unilateral US military action against Iraq Russia also opposed the US proposal for the
establishment of an exclusion zone in southern zone as a preventive measure against any possible Iraqi attempt to
repeat the threatening movement of forces against Kuwait. Russia also differed with USA over the interpretation of the
UN Resolution under Chapter Seven and asserted that theresolutiondid not provicde the US with the authority to strike
against Iraq. However, on the issue of Israel-Palestinian differences,. Russia extended full cooperation to United States
in finding a solution of the same.
Soviet Policy in South Asia
On account of the proximity of South Asia to the Soviet territory, the Soviet Union has taken keen interest in the
region. It tried to develop very intimate relations with India, the largest country in the region. Though her relations with
India started on a note of caution in early fifties but within a span of less than two decades they grew very intimate.
These intimate relations manifested themselves in the form of Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the two in 1971.
It may be noted that friendly relations between Soviet Union and India greatly helped India, specially in its disputes
with Pakistan. On a number of occasions Soviet Union supported India on the Kashmir issue. She also helped India to
modernise her forces after the border war with China. Again it was Soviet military intervention in Bangladesh which
kept the United States at a bay during the IndoPak conflict of 1971. In her own interest Soviet Union laid great
emphasis on
settlement of regional conflicts in South Asia through bilateral negotiations and insisted on keeping the region free
from external interference. After the disintegration of Soviet Union, ft was expected that Russian interest in the region
would decline and for some time there was some cooling of relations between India and Russia. However, as a result of
exchange of visits by the leaders of two countries, fresh agreements were concluded by the two countries on subjects
ranging from defence, science and technology to environments. They also agreed on various measures to remove
bottlenecks in bilateral trade and further expand economic co-operation. In the defence field also the ties were further
strengthened and the war ships of Russia held joint naval exercises with Indra. Russia also provided $830 billion credit
to India for buying Russian arms. They also reached an agreement for the formation of a joint venture company in India
to service and provide spares for military aircraft of Russian origin. On the Kashmir issue also Russia did not favour
disturbing the status quo and insisted that the problem shoulo^be resolved through bilateral talks on the basis of Shimla
agreement. However, in the context of changed realities a new Indo-Russiari Treaty was signed in 1993 which did not
contain the security clause. This was a significant change in the special relationship which existed between the two
countries for almost two decades. Despite this, Yeltsin during his visit to India signed two agreements relating to
defence co-operation and rupee-rubble settlement The defence co-operation agreement was designed to assist India in
protecting its sovereignty, independence, integrity and unity. It guaranteed India continued ,supply of spare parts;
assurance of transfer of technology both for the manufacturing of spa/es as well as for modernization of equipments;
training, visits arid exchanges of personnel and sharing of experiences, between the two _, armed forces. The rupee-
rubble agreement provided for a 30 percent in India’s deKt service burden, Yelstin assured with regard to cryogenic
deal that the agreement would be honoured despite pressures from third countries. However, within six months of this
assurance Russia buckled to the US exhortations and refused to honour cryogenic deal. On the Kashmir issue also the
Russian leadership offered unequivocal support to India. Yeltsin said ”We stand for the integrity of India, we support
the settlement tn Kashmir according to the Indian version so as to maintainn integrity and unity of India. We support
it.” Again during the Hazratbal crisis of October-November 1993 Russia supported Indian action and condemned the
use of shrines for any purpose other than worship. A new political dimension was provided to Russia’s relations with
India in June 1994 when in the Joint Declaration issued after the visit of P.V. Narasimha Rao to Russia the leaders of
two countries denounced efforts to weaken the unity of pluralistic states through religious, extremism and vowed to
jointly fight terrorism. In July 1995 the Russian Deputy Prime Minister paid a visit to India and agreed to expedite
work on finalising the supplement to earlier agreements ^ between India and Russia. The leaders of two countries also
agreed to step up •* efforts for the finalisation of agreements in other areas like air services and
582
avoidance of double taxation. They also agreed to work on an agreement for the utilisation of debt repayment by India
to Russia for investments in joint ventures. Thus gradually Russia has drawn closer to India and the relations between
the two countries are quite intimate.
Soviet Union also tried to cultivate friendly relations with Pakistan and offered her economic assistance. Knowing fully
well Pakistan’s close links with United States. Soviet leaders generally under-played the anti-Soviet activities and
pronouncements of Pakistan government. It. made offers to successive Pakistan governments for more closer co-
operation but the Pakistan authorities did not respond to these offer due to domestic compulsion as well as pressure
from United States. Following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 and the induction of sophisticated weapons
by U.S.A. in Pakistan, Soviet interest in the region further increased and it tried to strengthen its relations with India to
counter the possible threats. Soviet attitude towards Pakistan somewhat softened following an accord between the two
Super Powers with regard to Afghanistan, whereby they agreed not. to supply arms to either party and tried to treat the
controversial issues as closed. The end of cold war also greatly facilitated improvement of relations with Pakistan.
Soviet Union also tried to maintain cordial relations with Bangladesh and provided enormous assistance to that country
for its reconstruction. However, these relations, got strained in late 1983 when Bangladesh closed two Soviet Cultural
Centres and expelled 14 Soviet diplomats. The relations between the two countries showed some improvement in. 1987
and in June 1987 Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister paid a visit to Bangladesh. In the course of this visit the two countries
concluded a three year cultural and scientific agreement. Thus Soviet Union made consistent efforts to maintain
influence in South. Asia. In this . respect it has banked heavily on india.
Soviet Policy in South East Asia
Soviet Union has been deeply involved in South-East Asia ever since the conclusion of the Second Wodd War. It
greatly benefited from the power vacuum which was created in the region due to defeat of Japan, and inability pf
Britain, China and other powers to play any effective role due to their weakened position. Russia was able to establish
very intimate relations with China and concluded a Treaty of Friendship. Alliance and Mutual Help with her in 1950.
As a result of this treaty Soviet Union provided financial assistance, technical know-how and otherv help to China in
her construction. These relations continued to grow during the subsequent years. However, following denunciation of
Stalin by the new Soviet leaders in 1956, a sort of rift appeared in the SinoSoviet relations. The rift grew so serious that
in 1960 Soviet Union decided to suspend all financial aid and withdrew her technicians from China. The rift reached its
oeak in 1962 when the Soviet leaders disapproved of Chinese action against k»c!ta. Thereafter tension continued to
grow between Soviet Union and China. The breach was further widened with Soviet Union sigrfing the Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty with USA and UK in 1963. As a result of Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-69) the tension further
increased. In 1969 open clashes took place between Soviet Union and China on the borders. In 1970’s with China
drawing closer to USA the gap between the two was further widened. In 1978
FOREIGN POUCIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 583

’ -f~
I Soviet support for entry of Vietnamese troops into neighbouring Kampuchea and .
triedespatchofSoviettroopsinAfghanistaninOecember1979furtheraggravated ”i the tension. Concentration of Soviet
troops on the eastern borders was yet I another cause of irritation between the two. In 1982 Soviet leaders made a
bid I to resolve disputes and normalise relations with China. In the subsequent years I also Soviet Union
continued to make efforts to improve relat’ jns with China. It . conceded validity of China’s border claims,
withdrew troops from Mongolia and | Afghanistan, reduced troops along Sino-Soviei borders and pressurised
Vietnam I to withdraw its troops from Kampuchea. In 1989 a summit meeting was held ’ between President
Gorbachev and Den Xio Ping of China and Soviet Union j agreed to renovate the plants which it had set up in China
in 1950vs. In 1991 USSR , and China signed a border agreement in the East Sector and exchanged the :.:
instruments of ratification in March 1993, whereby the outstanding territorial ’ dispute between the two states was
finally resolved. The leaders of two countries exchanged visits which resulted in considerable increase in bilateral trade
between the two countries. In May 1994 Russian Prime Minister paid a visit to China and signedWen accords with
China relating to system of administering border, avoidance of-double taxation, economic and scientific co-operation,
marine transport and environment pollution control. In short, the tension which once characterised- the Sino-Soviet
relations gradually died out and their relations developed along\normal lines.
In March 1995’the Russian Foreign Minister (Andrei Kozyrev) visited

i China. In the course of discussion with Chinese President and Prime Minister,
he held discussions on various economic issues as well as the implementation
i of 1991 Sino-Russian border accord. Thus we find that in recent years the two
countries have been-drawn closer due to mutual interests. While Russia badly
needs consumer goods which can be supplied by China at reasonably low prices,
China is in need of military equipments to strengthen her defence, which Russia
can easily supply. The improvement in relations between two countries was also
greatly facilitated due to reduction of tension on the northern borders.
Russia also took keen interest in Korea, which was divided into two parts-North and South which continued to be under
the influence of Soviet Union and United States respectively. In 1950 a war broke out between two f Koreas and
Soviet. Union continued to support North Korea, white U.SA. f supported Sourth Korea. The war was brought to an
end through a truce concluded in 1953. Subsequently, however, Chinese influence in North Korea increased while that
of Soviet Union declined. Of late the process of improvement of relations between North Korea and Soviet Union has
started: This is evident from the fact that the leaders of Soviet Union and North Korea exchanged visits during the year
1984 and 1986 respectively. As a result of these visits Soviet union agreed to sell advanced MIC 23 Soviet fighter air-
craft of North Korea. Despite intimate relations with North Korea, Soviet Union tried to improve relations with South
Korea, tt established formal relations with South Korea which was not liked by North Korea. However, it cannot be
denied that this change in attitude towards South Korea provided a fillip to the movement for unity of two Koreas. This
process of unity was further facilitated by the end of cold war between two Super powers.
584
After the disintegration of Soviet Union, President Yeltsin of Russia tried to improve relations with South Korea and
paid a visit to South Korea in November 1992. During this visit he indicated that Russian forces in Far East would be
reduced sharply and that military aid to North Korea would be suspended. As a gesture of friendship, Yeltsin returned
the ’black box’ flight data recorder of Korean Airliner KAL-007 shot down by Soviet Union in 1983. During the visit
several accords were signed, including the one covering military cooperation and one which established regular
bilateral contact.
Soviet Union also took keen interest in Indo-China and tried to counterbalance the American influence in the region, by
extending every possible assistance to North Vietnam. Later on Soviet Union played vital role ip bringing about peace
in Vietnam. Subsequently the two paris of Vietnam united and formed the unified state of Vietnam which was under
the influence of Soviet Union. In Cambodia also the Soviets gained ascendency over the Chinese. In Cambodia
(Kampuchea) which was earlier under the influence of China, the Heng Samarin government (under the influence of
Vietnam) captured the capita! and adjoining territories and the Pol Pot regime (under the influence of Chirja) had to
flee. Thus Soviet Union came to exercise indirect control over Kampuchea as well. This naturally caused resentment
amongst the Chinese and they continued to insist on the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea. In
1989, following bid by Soviet Union leaders to improve relations with China, the Soviet Union pressurised the
Vietnamese to withdraw their troops from Kampuchea. Subsequently Soviet Union played a leading role in evolving a
plan for the resolution of complex political problem of Cambodia. The plan envisaged a cease-fire between various
factions and assigned significant role to the United Nations in the conduct of free and fair elections as well as
administration of the country. The plan provided for establishment of a Supreme National Council, a body with
symbolic administrative responsibilities (because the entire administration would be run by UN), it also provided for
regrouping of forces and re-location of cantonment areas and their arms stores under the supervision of UN
Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). All the states participating in the Paris Conference were required to
respect independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia.
Soviet Union’s relations with japan, another power of South East Asia, however, could not develop along intim.ate
lines because the-responsibility for the administration of the country (though formally given to the Allied Council
consisting of representatives of U.S.A., U.S.S.R., China, and U.K.) virtually rested with the representatives of United
States. This enabled United States to draw a constitution for japan on the pattern of American constitution and acquire
military bases and airfields in that country. In fact .for first few years Japan was virtually a satellite of United States
and did not maintain any relations with Soviet Union. It was only gradually that Japan freed itself from the control of
United States and established relations with Soviet Union. During the period of detente between Soviet Union and
United States relations between Soviet Union and Japan showed improvement. But the question of disputed Northern
territories proved to be the main stumbling block in the way of improvement of relations between the two countries.
The relations between Soviet Union and Japan again
• took a turn for the worse following Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Japan’s Hi decision to join the western
boycott and embargo against Soviet Union. Japan’s n| close military ties with United States and deployment of U.S.
F.I 5s in Misawa •’.’ in northern Japan, further added to tension between the two countries. But in K- 1985 these
relations showed an improvement following lifting of economic
• sanctions against Soviet Union japan also agreed to participate in the joint •T projects to develop natural gas of
Sakhalin and invested U.S. $180 million in the K. project. The Japanese government indicated its intention to normalise
relations • K; with Soviet Union and extended an invitation to Mikhail Gorbachev towards the H’• close of 1987 to
visit Tokyo but the same^vas declined by the Soviet leader. In
f fact during the year 1987 the relations between two countries were damaged on account of restrictions imposed by
Japan on bilateral trade after the discovery
• of scandal involving illegal export of Western technology by Toshiba Machine : Co,. A series of spy-scandals
involving the two countries also strained the , relations. In November 1987 a Soviet delegation under Soviet Deputy
Foreign i Minister visited japan and held discussions on bilateral and international issues.. , In the course of
thesediscussions japan showed its unwillingness-to support Soviet demand for membership of General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade •’” (GATT), unless it carried snjt wholesale reform of Soviet domestic economic ! -system. The
Soviet delegation also felt unhappy over Japan’s determination to i strengthen its defensive alliance with USA. Thus,
all the efforts to effect I improvement in the bilateral^ relations between the two countries proved futile. i In fact the
question of northern territories .continued to be a major stumbling I block in the way of imp/6vement of relations
between the Jwo countries. P After the disintegration of Soviet Union, its successor Russia and
r Commonwealth of Independent States faced serious economic problem. Japan I indicated its willingness to help
Russia to overcome these economic difficulties
1 and adopt a market economy. However, japan provided only humanitarian aid I to Russia and refused to provide
major economic assistance till dispute over I northern islands (seized by Soviet troops towards the close of second
world war)
1 was resolved.
1 During the year 1992 discussions continued between two countries to
I resolve the long-standing territorial dispute but no progress couid be made. In I fact the relations between the two
took a turn for the worst in September 1992 | following cancellation of visit to Japan by President Yeltsin at a short
notice. This
1 was widely perceived to be an indication of his displeasure over Japanese pressure on territorial issue. In March
1995 the Foreign Ministers of Japan and Russia met at Tokyo and made a bid to resolve the long-sunding territorial
dispute over Russian occupu.-d Northern territories. However, no progress could be made, because while Japan insisted
on immediate withdrawal of the remaining troops stationed in the tour islands, Russia wa* not willing to do so. But
Russia agreed to support japan in her effort to secure permanent seat of the UN Security Council. Thus the stalemate
between Russia and japan over territorial dispute still persists.
It is evident from the preceeding account that contrary to the general expectations that the region of South-East Asia
would gradually pass under the influence of China, the Soviet Union succeeded in establishing its dominance
over the region. However, towards the closing years of its existence, the Soviet’ Union decided to reduce is military
forces in Far East. In fact on 1 May 1991. the Soviet Union indicated its intention to reduce forces on Kurile islands (in
dispute between japan and Soviet Union) by 30 per cent. It also announced complete withdrawal from Mongolia by end
of September 1992. In short, on account of domestic preoccupation the interest of Russia in this region has
considerably declined which has paved way for greater role for China in this region.
Soviet Union and the Third World
Soviet Union did not develop any systematic policy towards the third world countries during the regime of Stalin
because he castigated the national leaders of India (Nehru) and Indonesia (Sukarno) for there collaboration with the
western colonial power’s. A change .in Soviet attituude took place under Khruschev. He began to court the national
bourgeoisie in the third word countries with a view to weaken the western influence in these states. Thereafter, Soviet
Union adopted a very helpful attitude towards the countries of the third world and made consistent effort to win them
over to its side by offering them economic and military assistance. Soviet Union the most common feature of these
loans was that the period bourgeoisie ;n the third word countries with a view Jo weaken the western influence in these
states. Thereafter, Soviet Union adopted a very helpful attitude towards the countries of the third world and made
consistent efforts to win them over to its side by offering them economic and military assistance. Soviet Union offered
loans and aid to these countries on most favourable terms. The most common feature of these loans was that the period
of repayment stretched over a long period and the repayment was accepted in the shape of traditional exports of the
recipient countries even if Soviet Union did not need these goods. Further, often Soviet Union came to the rescue of
countries of third world when they were disappointed with the western powers. For example Soviet Union provided
assistance to Egypt in the completion of Aswan Dam after United States and other western powers declined to help her.
Likewise she rendered .assistance to countries like India, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria and Ghana etc. at the most crucial
stages.
Soviet Union always projected itself as an enemy of imperialism and extended support to peopei of various colonies in
their struggle against the imperialist powers. It strongly espoused their cause at the forums of United Nations and
pleaded for abolition of colonialism. It would not be wrong to say that it was chiefly due to support extended by Soviet
Union that the process of decolonisation was greatly expedited.
Militarily also Soviet Union extended every possible help to the third .world countries. In 1959 the American military
power in Cuba was undermined chiefly due to efforts of Soviet Union. In 1958 Soviet ”union supported Iraqi
revolution and thus neturalised the Baghdad Pact/CENTO Alliance System. It provided sustained military assistance to
North Vietnam which resulted in replacement of America with Soviet military power in Indo-China. In 1979 Soviet
union made first direct intervention in third world in Afghanistan and sent Sov.iet military
forces on a massive scale.
However, Soviet policy in the third world was not uniformly successful and a number of countries like Ghana,
Indonesia, Malta, Argentina, Egypt, and Somalia which were once close to Soviet Union moved away from her. In this
587
regard the western states which have close historical and cultural ties with the ruling elites in the third world countries
have been at an advantage and wielded considerable influence in the third world countries. The position of Soviet
Union in the third world was further undermined due to its inability to play an effective role during the Persian Gulf
War of 1991. Soviet Union not only failed to stand by its ally Iraq, but actually went along with United States in
supporting the various resolutions adopted by the Security Council.
The disintegrating of the Soviet Union has rendered its position very ineffective. The Commonwealth of Independent
States, which has succeeded Soviet Union, is so much pre-occupied with its domestic problems and is increasingly
becoming dependent on United States and other European powers, cannot be expected to play’as effective role in. the
third world as was played earlier by the Soviet Union.
Soviet Union and United Nations .
Soviet Union showed keen interest in the establishment of the United Nation and has by and large emerged as the
staunch supporter of the world body. However, this contention has been refuted by certain scholars. They have argued ’
that Soviet Union used U.N. form only to promote its national interests. This is fully borne out by the fact that it made
use of maximum number of vetoes in the Security Council to block decisions which tended to go against it. Whi le it
cannot be denied that Soviet Union has made more liberal use of veto powers than the other permanent members of the
Security Council, and refused to co-operate with the United Nations on issues like Congo and Korea. However, it is
also true that Soviet Union has by and large supported the decisions and actions of the United Nations. It has used UN
forum to resolve various international conflicts viz Arab-Israel conflicts of 1967, and was instrumental in getting a
resolution adopted by the General Assembly which called the British, French and Israeli forces to withdraw from the
Suez Canal. It is true that Soviet Union made more liberal use of its veto powers, but this became inevitable in view of
the fact that Soviet Union was in minority in the United Nations and did not want the United Nations to be used as a
tool for the furtherance of American and western interests. Further, Soviet Union has done commendable job in
advocating disarmament and decolonisation through the forums of United Nations. In short, we can say that despite
Soviet opposition to United nations on some issues it by and large expressed full faith and support to this world body.
The growing faith of Soviet Union in United Nations is evident from the fact that President Gorbachev suggested that
the five permanent members of the Security Council should accept the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice in mutually agreed areas of international law.
Afterthe disintegration of Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States (which replaced Soviet Union) was
not able to play any active role in the United Nations because it bogged down with its domestic problems. Further on
account of its growing dependence on Umted States and other European powers, it was not willing to take stands on
various issues which differed with the western powers. Nonetheless, occasionally it raised voice against national
interest. Thus it opposed US military action in the Persian Gulf in 1994 following concentration of forces near the
border of Kuwait by Iraq.
588
Soviet Union and Disarmament
Soviet Unfon has been a leading advocate of disarmament and arms ” control. It consistently advocated the prohibition
of the nuclear and other types ot weapons of mass destruction. Soviet Union took a lead in demanding a ban on atomic
weapons and the use of atomic energy before insisting on international control. It argued that international control
could be instituted after an unequivocal agreement banning atomic weapons was signed by the powers. It is true that
during the first few years much progress could not be made in the direction of arms control and disarmament due to
rigid stand taken by the two superpowers. In this respect Soviet Union deserves the blame’for the failure of these
attempts, but America is no less to be blamed for the.same. After the death of Staiine more sincere efforts were made
by the Soviet leaders to achieve disarmament and such progress was made through the conclusion of Test Ban Treaty
(1963), New Proliferation Treaty (1968), Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970), the Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty (1972), and host of other agreements. As a result of these treaties an agreement was reached regarding the
limitation of armaments of va’ious types and their restricted use. But probably the most significant success wai
achieved in the shape of SALT I (1972) and SALT II (1979) which limited the ’ use of stragetic arms by the two
superpowers. After the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan the disarmament efforts suffered a setback.
In view of the persistent tension between U.S.A. and Soviet Union no further progress could be made in the direction of
disarmament. Soviet Union ir refused to resume Disarmament talks at Geneva unless United States reversed its policy
of deployment of Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Western Europe. A welcome development in this direction took
place in January 1985 when the foreign ministers of Soviet Union and United States met at Geneva. These talks were
significant because the two countries-agreed to widen the scope of their talks by including space weapons and
intermediate range nuclear missiles to the field of strategic nuclear missiles. The talks were important in so far as
Soviet Union agreed tc/elent its stand that it would not hold any talk till Cruise and Pershing II missiles was
dismantled. Even U.S.A. showed sprit of accommodation and agreed to broaden the scope of negotiations. The two
powers reiterated their stnad to work out effective agreements to prevent arms race in space and terminate it on earth.
The next round of talks was continued in Geneva in March
1985 despite the death of Soviet President. But no concrete results emerged on account of US refusal to link controls on
offensive missiles with the termination of Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). In November 1985 Gorbachev held a
summit meeting with Reagan at Geneva and the two leaders issued a statement asserting that a nuclear war cannot be
won and must not be waged. In January
1986 Soviet Union unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear explosions for three months and invited United States
to join it. She offered io open all space research laboratories for inspection and suggested a steprby-step programme to
rid the earth of all neculear weapons before the end of century. But mur1! could not be accomplished on account of
reluctance of U.S.A._ to negotiate a comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or join the moratorium.
I FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 589
In 1986 and 1987 fresh Summit meetings took place at Geneva and Reyjavik between Soviet leaders and President
Reagan of United States. Though some progress was made at these meetings no concrete agreement or disarmament
could be reached. The main stumbling block was the adamant attitude of President Reagan on the Star Wars
Programme. Despite this Soviet Union continued to make frantic efforts to come to some sort of understanding with
United States on disarmament. In December 1987 at the Washington Summit Soviet Union reached an understanding
with United States on Intermediate Range misiles. At the Moscow Summit of 1988 the Treaty on Intermediate Range
missiles was ratified and duly exchanged. Soviet Union stepped up efforts to achieve disarmament during the next few
years and succeeded in working out certain agreements with USA. In June 1990 the two countries concluded
agreements on nuclear, chemical and conventional arms. The two countries agreed to destroy thousands of tonnes of
chemical weapons from 1992 onwards
1 and to stop further production of these weapons forthwith. They also reached an agreement with regard to the
verification protocols for the implementation of the I earlier treaties restricting the size of underpound nuclear
explosions. In September 1990 President Gorbachev signed with other European leaders a treaty for the reduction of
conventional weapons in Europe. In July 1991, Soviet Union signed START with United States, whereby the two
powers agreed to effect reduction in defined strategic offensive arms. It is evident from the : preceding account that
Soviet Union consistently supported disarmament.
The Russian Federation which succeeded Soviet Union, continued the >. policy of disarmament. In January 1992 when
President Bush announced f unilateral reduction of nuclear arms and offered to cut nuclear arms further, I President
yeltsin of Russia reciprocated favourably and announced a 10 point I disarmament plan with the objective of
liquidating all nuclear, biological and
* chemical mass destruction weapons. He asserted that Russia, as successor to I Soviet Union, would cut the number of
strategic nuclear missiles to the level set | by- START treaty. He. even proposed to set up an international nuclear arms
• ’ control agency which could in the long run control the whole cycle of nuclear
process from mining to the burial of nuclear waste. In May 1992 Russia signed ’ an accord with United States,
England, France and China, to prevent spread of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. Russia ’alro accepted the guidelines on convention transfer of arms to countries in West Asion
region. In June 1992 President Yeltsin signed an accord with President Bush to reduce the number of nuclear warheads
from 21,000 to
700 by the year 2003 and to explore seriously the prospects of joint sponsorship of global missile defence. A further
step in the direction of disarmament was taken by Russia in January 1993 when President Yeltsin signed Nuclear Arms
Control Treaty (START II) with president Bush, which seeks to bring about rwothirds reduction in World’s most
terrifying weapons. This treaty set back (he nuclear clork by two decades or more by limiting the US nuclear wfMpons
stockpile in about what it was in !960’sand Russia’s to its mid-1970S size. Thus President Yeltsin has persisted with
efforts to bring about disarmament.
590
INTERNATIONAL REUT1ONS
A survey of the Soviet Foreign Policy since 1945 shows that Soviet Union have beep quite pragmatic in their approach.
The Soviet leaders did not permit the ideology of Marxism-Leninism to fully colour their foreign policy decisions and
tried to shape the foreign policy of the country keeping in view the national interests. But ideology was also a
prominent factor in the Soviet foreign policy. In short, we can say that foreign policy of Soviet Union was based on
twin’ principles of real politik and ideology. However, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union the ideological base
of foreign policy of Russia disappeared and its foreign policy began to be dominated by the domestic and international
realities and came to be characterised by pragmatism. FOREIGN POLICY OF CHINA
Before the emergence of the People’s Republic of China the country did not have a systematic foreign policy partly
because for about a century China did not actively participate in the international relation and partly because there was
no strong central authority. Whatever foreign policy the country had was decided by the powerful locat warlords.
However these Chinese were always .conscious of the fact that they had been a great power and would once again play
a dominant role in the world politics in general and East Asia in particular. With the assumption of.power by the
Communists an effort was made to provide a systematic foreign policy to the country. No doubt, for the first few years
event the Communits were mainly concerned with their domestic problems and considered the foreign affairs’ as
subsidiary to the domestic affairs. As a result, naturally the conduct of the foreign policy was greatly influenced by the
domestic factors. According to Schwarz ”in the Communist China the conduct of foreign affairs has been influenced
more by domestic factors than in other major countries.”’
Soon after the emergence of People’iRepublic of China the leaders were confronted with the problems of deciding
whether they wanted to join one of the two blocs, in which the world had become divided at that time, or to remain
neutral. The Chinese leaders were certainly against neutrality or non-alignment which they described as’ a
’camouflage’. Hence they were left with the choice to choose between the Western and the Soviet blocs. The hostility
displayed by the Western powers towards the new regime convinced the Chinese leaders that the only alternative was
to join the Soviet bloc. Another consideration which weighed with them in joining the Soviet bloc was that China badly
needed material and military support for progress. The policy of China was outlined by Mao in his essay On the
People’s Democratic Dictatorship thus:*to unite in a common struggle with those nations of the world who treat us on
a basis of equality, and peoples of all countries. This is to ally with Soviet Union, to ally with the new democratic
countries of Europe and to ally with the proletariat and masses of the people in all countries.” He asserted that in order
to win victory and consolidate, victory China had to lean on Soviet Union.
A further elaborations of People’s Republic of China’s foreign policy was made at the session of the People’s Political
Consultative Conference held in
1. Schwarz, China-Three Facets of a Giant, p. 70,
September 1949 when it was declared that the principle of the foreign policy of Communist was the protection of the
independence, freedom, integrity of territory and sovereignty of the country, upholding of lasting international peace
and friendly co-operation between the people’ of alf countries and opposition to the imperialist policy of aggression
and war. But the most elaborate exposition of the Chinese Foreign Policy was made by Liu Thao-Chi in July 19&1. He
said; ’Since the founding of the Peoples’ Republic of China, the basic policy of our international relations has been to
develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and co-operation with the Soviet Union and other fraternal socialist
countries: to strive for peaceful coexistence wrth countries of different social systems on the basis of the Five Principles
and to oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war: to support the revolutionary struggles of all oppressed
peoples and nations against imperialism and colonialism. This is the general line of our foreign policy.*
A perusal of the various policy pronouncements of Chinese foreign policy shows dât it iaid emphasis on developing
closer relations with Soviet Union and other Socialist countries and strong opposition to the imperialist powers of the
West. However, subsequently its relations with Soviet Union cooled down and .China began, to assert its leadership in
Asia. After the Korean War, China drew closer to non-Communist countries of Asia and adopted policy of Panchsheel
based on mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs,
equality, and peaceful coexistence. !n view of its deteriorating relations with Soviet Union, China adopted a policy of
reconciliation with the west and developed intimate relations with the western countries. Thus China aligned itself first
with Moscow against Washington in
1950’s and then with Washington agaisnt Soviet Union Since 1972 in an attempt to counterbalance the threat to
Chinese interest. However, in the eighties China once again started improving its relations with Soviet Union and
entered into number of agreements for greater cooperation in the field of trade, culture and other matters. The Soviet
leaders on their part also tried to remove the various irritants in Sifio-Soviet relations. Thus we find that China tried to
promote and protect her interests by aligning with Washington and Moscow according to exigencies of time. This point
shall be fully borne out from following discussion. Relations with Soviet Union
From the very beginning China tried to cultivate friendly relations with Soviet Union. In 1950 PRC concluded with
Soviet Union Treaty of Friendship and Alliance and Mutual Aid, under which the two countries agreed to cooperate
and help each other in case of aggression. They also agreed to cooperate in the economic and cultural spheres. Soviet
Union agreed to hand over to China, in . course of time, the Chinese Eastern Railway and the base of Port Arthur.
Soviet Union provided financial credit of $ 300,00,000 and military advisers to modernise the Chinese army. The
Russians also agreed to transfer to China their shares in four Sino-Soviet mixed companies dealing with mining of
non»ferrous and rate metals in Sinkiang, oil procurement and refining, the building and repair of ships in Dairen and
organisation and operation of civil airport. During the first ten years Soviet Union provided to China over ten thousand
experts to help in
592
various fields. The Chinese leaders acknowledged the valuable service rendered by Soviet Union in the growth and
development of their country. The Chinese Premier Chou Enlai said in 1960 ’Our achievements are inseparably linked with
the enormous aid given by the people of the fraternal countries. The Chinese people will never forget their love and.
friendship.”
These intimate relations between China and Soviet Union could not last long and a schism developed towards the close
of the fifties. This conflict was mainly a clash for leadership of the Communist Movement, which was given the colour
of a doctrinal struggle over the correct interpretation of MarxismLeninism. The tension was further aggravated due to
boundary conflicts between the two countries. However, it cannot be denied that as a result of this schism the Chines*
emerged as the leader of the Communist movement in South-East Asia and Russian influence in the region suffered a
setback. However, Soviet Union continued to exercise considerable influence in Vietnam, as well as Cambodia.
Sino-Soviet differences further sharpened due to. the Soviet stand during Sino-lndian conflict of 1962; Soviet Union’s
signing of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with USA and UK in 1963; etc. The Cultural Revolution of 1966-69 in China also
greatly contributed to the widening of gulf and in 1969 open clashs took place between the guards on the Sino-Soviet
border. <n 1970’s China drew closer to United States and adopted hostile attitude towards Soviet Union. On the other
hand Soviet Union’s support for the entry of Vietnamese troops into neighbouring Kampuchea greatly irritated the
Chinese. As a result in December 1979 when Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan China bitterly criticised the
Soviet action. In the meanwhile China’s relations with USA also got strained on the question of supply of American
arms to Taiwan. As a result the Sino-Soviet leaders started thinking of improving their relations. In March 1982
Brezhnev expressed his willingness to normalise relations between the two countries and stopped ah propaganda
against Beijing. The same year China also announced the adoption of an independent foreign policy, which stood for
equidistant course between U.S. and USSR. This was followed by a number of high level ; meetings between the
leaders cf USSR and China at Beijing and Moscow alternately.These, meetings led to the conclusion of a number of
agreements for economic, technical and scientific cooperation in December 1984. The two countries also agreed to set
up a Joint Commission to oversee the developing economic trade, scientific and technological relations boiween the
two countries.
• As a result the tension between the two countries somewhat eased. Howevc” still sharp differences existed between
the two over the removal of Soviet forces from Chinese borders; withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan; and
stoppage of . Soviet support for Vietnam’s aggression aginst Cambodia, which hampered the development of closer
relations between the two.
Despite the above differences certain positive steps were taken by the two countries to improve relations. In January
1986 the two signed a trade pact which provided for the barter of Chinese metals, grain, meat, fruit textiles, consumer
items etc., in exchange for Soviet steel..fertilizers, automobiles, lumber and aricraft. On 21 March 1986 they signed a
protocol covering exchange of
K FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA )93
• engineers and technicians. In terms of this protocol Soviet Union agreedto B increase technological assistance to
China in respect of industrial plants )n<^ If projects built with Soviet and prior to deterioration of Sino-Soviet
relations in’06 H 1960’s. In May 1986 through another accord .the two agreed to incre’56 B’ cooperation in the
areas of science, culture, health and sports.
K In July 1986 Soviet Union made another bid to normalise relations w’th
• China and offered to withdraw 6000 troops from Afghanistan and indicatedits m intention to withdraw substantial
parts of Soviet troops from Mongolia. It a!50 K announced that Soviet Union was prepared at any time and at any
Jevel to disci** B with China the questions of additional measures for creating a good neighbou(’y m •
atmosphere. However, theChinesewerenotwillingtohoidanysummitmeetiPg •
1! with Soviet leaders unless it stopped ail aid to Vietnam in Kampuchea and son1*1
I real advance on Kampuchean question was made.
I In the subsequent months further improvements took place in Srno-Soviet
i relations. In September 1986 the two concluded feary for mutual contract ar^ I cooperation. As a result of this
agreement Soviet Union was permitted to open I its Consulate General in Shanghai after a gap of more than 20
years. The tw° ?• countries also agreed to resume border negotiations for the first time since June
1978. The delegations of two countries held meetings at Beijing and Moscow t° thrash out border issue. Though no
immediate agreement could be reachedthese talks certainly paved the way for better relations between the twP
countries’. Thereafter the relations between Soviet Union and China began tt> grow-along normal lines and there was
steady expansion of trade between th^ two countries. In August 1987 the two reached an agreement oh the eastern part
of their border and decided that the same should be delimited along the middle I of the main shipping channel in
navigable rivers of their main tributaries. They
also agreed to set up a working group of experts to carry out actual delimitation , ’ of the eastern part of the border.
In January 1988 General Secretary Gorbachev made an offer for a summit meeting between China and USSR, but the
same was •rejected by China. The Chinese leaders insisted on withdrawal of Soviet troops from Chinese borders;
withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and withdrawal of Soviet support for the Vietnamese presence in
Kampuchea as preconditions for any summit meeting. Despite this it cannot be denied that considerable progress was
made in the relations between the two countries in the economic as well as cultural spheres after 1982.
. After 1986 when the Sino-U.S. relations showed an improvement, China also adopted more constructive attitude
and tried to improve political ties with Soviet Union and other countries of socialist bloc. Jn July 1986 Soviet Union
unilaterally accepted the Chinese claini that border ran down the middte of river channels and even indicated its
intention to withdraw part of its troops stationed m Mongolia as well as its units from Afghanistan In accordance with
this declaration Soviet Union actually proceeded to withdraw troops from Afghanistan jnd Mongolia. In Ociober 1988
China and Soviet Union reached settlement on permanent arrangements tor adjusting boundary disputes. The last thaw
in Sino- . Soviet relation* was removed with the announcement regarding withdrawal of Vietnamt-^ troops from
Kampuchea by September 30, 1989.
594
The Improvement of relations paved the path for the summit meeting between the leaders of ^v\^ un^ antj china in May,
1989. At the end of this meeting the two courses agreed to establish party-to-party relations; take measures to cut
downtrw military forces in areas along the Chinese-Soviet boundary to minimum ?ve|. establishment good neighbourly
relations between two countries; not to se^ hegemony of any form in Asia-Pacific region or other parts of the world;
gradually reduce and end all military aid to Cambod-an factions after the withdrlwa| of Vietnamese; support an
international conference on Cambodia as soonas po$sjble and to continue efforts to thrash out their remaining
differences over Cambodia. Thus the Beijing Summit marked the culmination of the process of Sjno-Soviet
rapprochement which began in 1982.
In view of this raprochernent Soviet leaders showed greater understanding towards China in the v,a|<e ot- massacre of
democratic protesters at Tinanmen Square. Whereas the olher major powers condemned Chinese government, the
Soviet government expres5ec| cautjous support to Chinese government It described the unrest as an internal affair and
condemned outside intervention. This resulted in cordial fe|atjon between the two countries. After the disintegration of
Soviet Union, China’s relations with ”Russia showed further improvement on account of convergence of their interests
on several points. Russia was in the look out for huge quantities Of consumer goods which could be supplied by China
at comparatively cheaper rates Qn the other hand China wanted to replenish its military equipments and acquire
defence technology to develop its own arms, which Russia was willing to d0 because it had huge arms surplus which
was lying redundant after the enfl of the cold War. This attitude of understanding resulted in reduction of tension on
northern border, which was one of the chief irritant in the relations between the two countries.
The two also reached an agreement on territorial dispute between them on the Eastern Sector and excr,anged
instruments of ratification to this effect in 1993. Thereafter, the leaders of two countries exchanged visits and in May
1994 they signed seven accords (elating to system of administering border, avoidance of double taxation, econc^j,- and
.scientific co-operation, maritime transport and environment pollution Control. Further progress towards improvement
of relations with Russia took plac% following Russian Foreign Minister’s visit to China in March 1995 when he
reiterated 4he determination of Russia to work for the establishment of just, rfcasonabie, ^qua| anc| mutually beneficial
world political and economic order. He ^ j^y discussions with China on important economic issues as we!| as
implementation of. the 1991 Sino-Russian border accord. In Short, it ca^ be said that China’s relations with Russia
have shown consistent improvement during the past few years.
Relations with U.S.A.
The relations of R;ed China with U.S.A. got strained from the very beginning because the Americans openly supported
Chiang Kai-Shek against the Communists. Even after the Communists captured power America continue to extend
support to the Kuomintang government wnjch had been set up at the Island of Formosa. On the top of it the American
leaders continued to say in public that the
Communist regime in Peking was a temporary one and would soon be replaced by the Nationalist Forces from
theTaiwan. U.S.A. tried to build up a network of military bases around China, extending from Japan to Pakistan, to cut
her off from the rest of the world. America refused to exnted diplomatic recognition to the new regime and continued to
consistently oppose the proposal for a permanent ’ seat for People’s Republic of China. According to Coral Bell the
chief cause for
(American hostility towards China was her participation in the Korean War. He says that upto |une 1950 there were
good prospects that America would soon reconcile itself to the change of government and accord recognition to the
Communist regime, but the Chinese participation in Korea ended those possibilities. The Korean war deflected the
main force of U.S. hostility vis-a-vis the Communist world from the Soviet Union to the Communist China. This,
hostility -between the two countries persisted for over twenty years. An irWprovemerft in China’s relations with U.S.A.
started after the Cultural Revolution of 1966-69. Following the realisation of her hollowness China started looking for
outside help. At this juncture Pakistan, who had” intimate relations both with U.SJA. and China made an effort to bring
her two allies to some sort of understanding. In February 1972 Nixon paid a visit to Beijing which marked . the
beginning/to detente between China and the United States, and a number of trade and cultural agreements were
concluded. In the wake of improvement of relations^vith China, U.S.A. agreed to extend support to the Chinese
demand for a permanent seat in the Security Council. U.S.A. formally extended recognition to China on 1 January 1979
and on 1 March 1979’the countries formally exchanged ambassadors. In his statement of the Union Message to the
Congress on 2 January 1980 President Carter of U.S.A. not only justified the improvement of relations with Ch ina but
a !so indicated the possibi lities of greater co-operation . in future. He said:”Over the last year we have expanded our
new relationship with the People’s Republic of China to ensure that where our interests coindice, our separate actions
will be mutually reinforcing. To that end we have enhanced our consulative relationship. We have also sought an
enduring institutional framework in the economic, cultural, scientific and trade areas. In 1980, I look forward to
passage by Congress early in the year of the China trade agreement and of authorisation of OPIC operations in China;
we plan to conclude civil aviation, maritime and textile agreements and continue to expand our commercial and
scientific relations, particularly through Exim Bank credits to the PRC.”
It may be observed that the improvement in relations between the two countries was made possible largely by the
growing tension between Soviet Union and China and partly by the spirit of detente which gainea popularity during
those years. However, relations between China and U.S.A. began to deteriorate due to U.S.A. stand on Taiwan. While
improving relations with •
• China, U.S.A. had assured the Chinese leaders that it would severe official ties with Taiwan and maintain only
informal economic and security relations. U.S.A. also promised not to upgrade Taiwan’s military technology so long as
there was’ no risk of ChinA-Taiwan war. As a result of this understanding China withdrew most of its jrmed forces on
its border with Taiwan. However, on assumption of power President Reagan or U.S.A, proposed to up grade the
Taiwan air force. This
596 • INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
evoked strong reaction from China which argued that arms sales can no longer be tolerated as they violated Chinese
sovereignty over Taiwan and constituted interference in China’s internal affairs. The Chinese leaders alleged that the
U.S. Government by supplying arms to Taiwan was strengthening their
• determination to avoid negotiations with China. The other causes of irritations to China were grant of permission to
Taiwan to open another office in U.S.A. and the presence of U.S. Security Adviser, Clark, at the National Day
celebration of Taiwan. The grant-of political asylum to the Chinese star Hu Na also contributed to bitterness. The other
factors which proved irritants in relations between the two countries included China’s demand for expulsion of Taiwan
from the Asian Development Bank and U.S. insistence on dual membership.
But the realisation by the U.S. leadership that cooperative relations with China were vital to U.S. worldwide security
interests prompted them to make all possible efforts to improve relations with China. As a result in 1983 the two
countries concluded a five-year agreement by which China accepted the growth rate of textile exports of U .S.A. of 2-3
percent per year, which is somewhat higher than the rates allocated to other East Asian exporters. The two countries
strengthened their economic ties and a number of major U.S. oil companies signed off shore oil exploration contracts.
The eagerness of China to come closer to U.S.A. on account of Soviet Union’s policy of military encirclement of
China, also greatly contributed to the Chinese desire to improve relations with U.S.A. In 1983 U.S.A. announced its
decision to loosen its rules for export of technology to China. A further bid to improve relations was made by the two
countries when President Reagan of U.S.A. paid a fourteen days visit to China in April-May 1984 and concluded a
number of agreements for greater co-operation in the econom ic and scientific fields. In the military sphere also the co-
operation between the two grew. U.S.A. agreed in principle to sell TOW antitank and Hawk anti-aircrart missiles to
China. It also agreed to provide AVOINICS to upgrade China’s F-8 interceptor. Despite these developments, China
was unhappy with U.S.A. on account of its decision to supply arms to Taiwan and impose restrictions on import of
textiles which adversely affected China. Above all, he delay in ratification of nuclear co-operation agreement also
produced some irritation between two countries, till the agreement was finally cleared by the U.S. Senate in December
1985.
In the subsequent year the relations between the two countries continued to be cordial and their cooperation in political,
economic, cultural and military fields continjjed to grow. But certain minor irritants also appeared which caused
resentment among the Chinese. The open support extended by some American
• legislators to Dalai Lama’s Five Point Plan, which aimed at separating Tibet from China, was greatly resented by
China and described as an interference in her internal affairs. Afatn, certain references to ’two Chinas’ in their speeches
by American leaders was greatly resented by the Chinese leaders. Similarly, the policy of protectionism adopted by
United States .and action against dumping of Chinese products into American market was interpreted by the Chinese as
a deliberate hindrance in the way of development of smooth trade relations between the two countries. Groundless
accusations against Chinese on the
. FOREIGN POLICIES Of MAJOR POWERS-USA. USSR AND CHINA 597
question of situation in Persian Gulf also evoked strong Chinese resentment , Above all United Slates imposed
certain restrictions on the sale of new high technology to China with a view to check missile sates by China to
Iran in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution calling for an arms embargo against Iran. However,
subsequently on 8 March 1988 Regan administration announced the lifting of this ban and asserted that it was
satisfied that China was not selling Silkworm antiship missiles to Iran. This certainly contributed to easing of
relations between the two countries.
The imporvement of Sino-Soviet relations during the year 1988-89 gave rise to a feeling in certain quarters that
Sino-U.S. relations would suffer a setback. However, President George Bush of USA during his visit to Beijing in
February ! 988 assured the Chinese leaders that Sino-U.S. ties would not be weakened by the new turn in the
Sino-Soviet relations. But a few months later in the wake of Tainanmen massacre in China, President Bush
announced suspension of all government to government sales and commmercial exports of weapons to China. He
not only suspended visit between senior U.S. and Chinese military officials but also threatened to ask the
international institutions to postpone the new loans to China. This was strongly resented by the Chinese leaders.
They pointed out that efforts of USA to influence China’s internal affairs could have serious consequences. The
reluctance of the U.S. government to abandon aid to Taiwan was another irritant in the Sino-American
relations. However, China’s relations with USA showed some improvement in 1990 when the Chinese Foreign
Minister was invited to Washington and Chinese officials held trade talks with their American counterpart In
November 1990 most of the sanctions against China were withdrawn by USA. This improvement of relations
became possible becuase China endorsed the US sponsored UN Security Council resolution sanctioning the use
of force to make Iraq pud out its forces from Kuwait. In 1991 United States once again imposed sanctions
against China after it learnt that China was exporting missile technology. It even suspended sales of high-speed
computers, satellite parts and sensitive equipment to Chinese weapons firm. In February 1992, USA lifted these
sanctions after China pledged to abide by an international accord restricting missile exports.
In March 1992 China proceeded to ratify N.P.T. This paved the way for the improvement of relations between
the two countries. China’s relations with United States were again strained following US decision to sell F-16
fighter f aircraft to Taiwan. China immediately retaliated by announcing that ft would not attend the UN
Security Council Permanent Members meeting on arms control, because this amis transfer amounted to
interference in the internal affairs of China. Again, US, decision to impose punitive tariff on the plea that China
had hardly done anything to remove the barriers to the Chinese market for US goods, evoked strong reaction in
China and it decided not to buy US wheat The stalemate continued for sometime. However in May 1994
President Clinton decided to once again extend the status of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) to China in view of
China emerging as world’s fastest growing economy and large1 investments made by the American business
corporation there. Earlier in January
1994 US decided to lift ban on the sale of commercial satellites to Ch«na. This
598
INTERNATIONAL RATIONS
FOREIGN POUC.ES OF MAJOR POWERS-
ban had been imposed in August 1992 following China’s decision to sell M-t 1 missile technology to Pakistan. In
March 1995 US announced fresh trade sanctions against China due to her refusal to settle the intellectual property
disptue. China also threatened to retaliate by raising 100 percent tariffs on certain US goods, but the situation eased
after China agreed to stop piracy of American movies, music and other goods. Once again China’s relations with US
took a turn for the worse after US issued visa to the Taiwanese President (Lee Teng-hui), and China recalled its
Ambassador to US in June 1995. But the situation eased following US statement of 28 |une 1995 that it does not
recognise Taiwan as a state and holds faith in one-China policy. After this statement China sent its ambassador to
Washington and aiso decided to send Gen Li Xllin to Honolulu to attend the 50th anniversary of the end of second
world war organised by the US defence department. Relations with Non-aligned Countries
Though China in the beginning opposed the idea of non-alignment .and described it-as policy of ’leaning to one side,”
but subsequently it decided to exploit the different bases of non-alignment to strengthen its own position. The Chinese
leaders often projected themselves as enemies of colonialism and showed their solidarity with the underdeveloped
countries of Asia and Africa, even though they did not give up their hostility towards the non-aligned nations.
However, in the wake of the Korean war, in view of the constructife role played by the non-aligned countries during the
war, China’s attitude underwent a change and it decided to develop closer relations with the non-aligned countries.
China concluded treaties of mutual friendship and non-aggression with countries like Burma, Nepal, Afghanistan,
Guinea, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc. It also took part in the Bandung Conference held in Indonesia in April 1955 and
tried to project the image of being a moderate nation willing to discuss all issues with all parties and anxious to live in
peace abiding by the Five Principles (Panch Sheel).
During the next ft?w years China -developed intimate cultural and economic relations with the non-aligned countries.
A large number if cultural delegates from these countries were invited to China and a number of Chinese delegations
were sent to tJiese countries. China also offered to co-operate in the economic and technological fields with the
countries of Asia and Africa. However, China could not succeed in winning over the non-aligned states to its side, and
they continued to dread China. According to Robert A. Scalpino This was a natural product of an era when new nations
were emerging everywhere, with nationalist current fanning stomg, and when the confrontation of these nantions was in
some cases occurring for the first time. The rising power of a nation of 650 million peopole would naturally create
apprehensions among the other nations in its vicinity. But China did little to allay those fears in the years immediately
after Bandung” On the other hand certain incidents involving China took place which greatly tarnished the Bandung
image of china. These Included the occupation of Tibet, dispute over overseas Chinese question with Indonesia, border
dispute with India, and border dispute. with Burma, Nepal
etc.
•USA. USSR AND CHINA
599
Relations with japan
China and Japan have been traditional rivals. This rivalry continued under People’s Republic of China. China
concluded an alliance with me Soviet Union chiefly with a view to meet the possible threat from japan, China’s distrust
of japan was further strengthened by its being a stateilite of the United States of America and its open support for the
theory of’two Chinas-’. China wanted japan
• to be neutral and not to maintain any relations with Kuomintang Government. The Chinese leaders tried to foster a
feeling among the Japanese people that the U.S. imperialism was the chief cause of their sufferings and provoked them
to free themselves from U.S. influence. Slowly japan freed herself from the American influence and established trade
relations with China.The trade between the two countreis continued to show a steady increase till T 958 when > ,
China all of a sudden curtailed the same. Thereafter* China continued trade only | with the freind.’y Japanese firms.
A number of cultural delegations were { exchanged by China wJth japan, with a view to patronise those politicians
and j intellectuals who coulo condemn the policies of gove/nment and sake proPakmg postures. These activities of
China naturally caused much bitterness to the Japanese. \ . -
In early 1970’s the relations between the two countries started improving. The Japanese Prime Minister, Tanaka, paid a
visit to Peking and soon after diplomatic relations were established between the two in September, 197.2 japan also
de-recqgrtiied Taiwan. In view of the serious hostility which had persisted between the two countries for at! these
years, it was indeed startling. The chief factors which contributed to thivchange were Chinese anxiety over
confrontation with Soviet Union, withdrawal of American military forces from the continent, etc. But probably the
most important consideration which compelled China to improve relations with japan was the Soviet move to come
closer to Japan by offering to cooperate in the development of the oil and natural gas resources of Siberia, As this
would have carried the possibility to Soviet Union acquiring a hold in. this ar.a, China decided to improve relations
with japan. On the other hand japan was also eager to come closer to China because it provided a market of 800 million
Chinese customers. The Sino American rapprochement made it easy for japan to move swiftly for better and more
intimate relations with china. Thereafter the relations between the two steadily grew. Between 1977-79 fhey concluded
a number of agreements and the trade between China and japan considerably increased, japan also got more deeply
invo’ved in the programme of Chinese economic modernisation. In August 1978 Chind and (apart concluded a Treaty
of Peace and Friendship which contained an anti-hegemony clause and bound fhe two countries to present a united
front against USSR. Thus the anti-Soviet stand of two countries brought fiem closer. The relations between China and
Japan began to deteriorate .bllowrng adoption of free foreign policy by China which stood for equidistant relations with
USA and USSR. Further, the question of historical prorrayal of Japanese
military occupation of China, Korea and other Asian countries between .1910-
1945 also produced tension in the Sino-)apanese relations. The Japanese strongly protested against this and
demanded revision ot textbooks. Despite these irritants, in 1983 Prime Minister Nakasone of laoan established a
Sino-japanese Friendship Committee for the 21 st century and to follow four basic principles viz. growing
relations with China; peace and friendship; equalities and mutual benefits, long term stability and mutual trust.
In March 1934 japan announced a 470 billion yen speck! development loan for the period 1984-89 and promised
extra credits from Export-Import bank of japan for development of petroleum and coa! resources. However,
these good relations proved shortlived and in 1985 China faced large trade deficit with japan. The Chinese
leaders expressed great concern over the growing trade deficit of China and warned that such a situation
would not be tolerated.
In 1985 the Sino-Japanese relations were further disturbed on account of Nakasone’s official visit to the Yusiikuni
shrine (a Shinto War Memorial) to mark the 40th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. This led to ami
Japanese demonstrations by students in several cities of China between SeptemberOctober 1985. The situation was
somewhat defused by Nakasone’s decision to cancel his planned second visit to the shrine in October 1985. In October
1985 the Foreign Minister of Japan paid an official visit to China and gaye an assurance that alt suspicions of nascent
Japanese militarism were entirely unfounded. Japan considerably eased contrast on technology exports to China in the
wake of political and economic reforms and the policy of liberation adopted by China during past few years. Despite
improvement of these relations some tension was generated in their mutual relations by the Kokario case (concerning
China’s ownership of a student building in Kyoto, japan). The Chinese leadership held that this question did not
involve the issue of financial transactions rather it involved the issue of ’one
ChiniortwoChinas’.Chinachargedthatitwaswrcng : to say that Japanese Government couid do nothing about it. due to
constant pressure from USA in December 1986 japan increased its defence budget by
5.2 percent, which was bitterly criticised by China. On 2 January 1987 a Chinese Foreign Office spokesman called on
Japan to limit the growth of Japanese defence forces to defence needs so as not to make its neighbours feel uneasy. The
existing ties between Japan and Taiwan were another major point of friction in the Sino-japanese relations. Despite the
fact that japan had snapped diplomatic . relations with Taipei in 1972, japan’s investments in Taiwan continued to grow
and Taiwan emerged as a major trading partner of Japan. This was certainly hot to the liking of China and gave rise to
iot of friction and hampered the process of improvement of relations between the two despite this the leaders of two
countries continued efforts to normalise relations. With this end in view, the leaders of two countries exchanged visits.
During his visit to China Emperor Akhito of Japan expressed deep sorrow for the suffering Japan inflicted on China
during rh<? years of second world war, which went a long way in assuaging the anti-)< panese feeling in China.
During subsequent years Japan made considerable investments in Crjina. These investments were mainly made in low
technology areas and did not
• FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSR AND CHINA 601
B involve much technology transfer. Though still several issues exist which are a B cause of strained relations
between China and japan, but generally the leaders B of the two countries have preferred to keep them at low
key. For example during B the Japanese Emperor’s visit to China in 1992, China did not insist on an apology B
for ’war crimes’ of 1937-45’ and accepted the mild statements orthe Emperor B with good grace. However, stilt
there are several issues which are viewed with B concern by the Chinese leaders. These include growing
Japanese military B- expenditure, decision of Japan to defend the oceanic space 1000 nautical miles B from its
shores which is bound to clash with security interests of China; and B Japan’s readiness to participate in UN
peace-keeping operations etc. B Relations with neighbouring countries
B Soon after its birth the People’s Republic of China tried to develop very B close relations with the neighbouring
countries with a view to project itself as B the major power of the regiorr.
• Tibet’ . •’•’’.
B In October, 1950 China despatched an army to Tibet to assert her full
• sovereign rights over the territory which had been enjoying complete autonomy
• since 1911. Though India and other powers of the region protested against the
• Chinese aggression but in view of her adament attitude they ultimately accepted
• Tibet as a part) of the metropolitan territory. However, Dalai Lama, the spiritual
• leader of Tibet continued, to plead for independence for Tibet which naturally
• hampered improvement of relations. But recently Dalai Lama withdrew the ’ •Strasbourg proposals which envisaged
limited autonomy for Tibet, while Bemaining under the Chinese sovereignty. This resulted in softening of the
Bmitude of the Chinese leaders. On 5 April 1991 the Chinese Vice-Minister of Bsationalities said that Beijing was
willing to hold dialogue with Dalai Lama.
Though China continued dialogue with the Dalai Lama but nothing concrete emerged. In view of this Dalai Lama
sought the support of the world community, specially USA, for the people of China in their fight for democracy and
freedom.
Bhutan
China could not develop very intimate relations with Bhutan on account
ofasr3eciaitreatybetweenlndiaandBhutanwhichobligedtheleaderto conduct foreign relations through India. Naturally
Bhutan’s relations with China could not grow along friendly lines and they grew quite tense in the wake of Chinese
occupation of Tibet and Sino-lndian conflict of 1962. Boundary dispute between two countries persisted till the two
countries entered into negotiations to arrive at a settlement. These negotiations culminated in an agreement in May
1988 on tfw principles for settlement of boundary disputes. The two countries agreed to observe five principles of
peaceful co-existence; mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual’ benefit,
non-interference in the internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit! They agreed to treat each other on footings of
equality and hold friendly consultations in the spirit of mutual accommodation. They also agreed to maintain tranquility
on the, borders and refrain from unilateral action on use of force to change the status ^
quo of she Boundary as before March 1959. It is noteworthy that this was first
independent diplomatic move of Bhutan to resolve its border problem with
China.
Burma {Myanmar)’ and Nepal
”China tried to cultivate very friendly and intimate relations with small neighbours like Burma and Nepal chiefly
because she wanted to demonstrate to the world her reasonable approach. The People’s Republic of China signed the
Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Non-aggression with Burma and settle some of the border differences through
negotiation. These cordial relations did not last Song because the Chinese leaders started exploiting the problems of
ethnic minorities and used Wh ite Flag faction of the Communist Party of Burma to create problem for the Burmese
Government. However, the Chinese backed Communist Party of Burma failed to unite the ethnic rebel forces or
achieve much success against Ne Win’s Revolutionary Council. Thereafter, the Chinese {tied to . establish good
relations, with Burma by extending economic and technical aid. She even offered to construct hydroelectric plant in
Northern Shan state and a bridge in Southern Shan state. All this aid was given with a view ?o acquire a
- foothold in the. area. Throughout this period Chir>a continued to profess friendship with Burma and also continued
to support ths pro-Chinese Burme^ Communist Party insurgents. After the departure of General Ne Win, the Chinese
cut off a!! aid to the Burmese Communist Party to please the junta. However after Myanmar tried to forge closer
’economic ties with countries like Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia, China felt somewhat perturbed and sought ;o
develop closer relations with Myanmar. in 1994 the relations between two countries showed some improvement and
they signed an agreement whereby China agreed to supply arms worth $ 400 million to Myanmar. VJsitsby ?M Li Peng
and the Defence Ministers of China in 1994-95 to Myanmar indicates growing interest of China in improving relations
with Myanmar.
sin Nepal, China was eager to check the growing Indian influence. China.
therefore, tried to reach as amicable settlement with,Nepal, about certain
terriotries under dispute. It also extended economic assistance to Nepal for
reconstruction, and made available a large number of technical experts to carry
out various projects. It may be noted that China extended assistance to Nepal not
out of any humanitarian consideration but chiefly with a\iew to increase her
. influence in the country and to checkmate the possible Indian influence. The
Nepalese leaders are also fully conscious of this fact and are trying to dispel
misgivings of China about Nepal’s balance between China and India. In
September 1987 King Virendra of Nepal paid a visit to China along with his wife.
During this visit an agreement was signed for grant of 54 million Yuan by China
to finance the construction of an International Convention Centre in Kathmandu
as well as additional work on Chinese aided irrigation and water conservation
project of Pokhara >n West Nepal.’
In view of the deterioration of mdo-Nepalese relations in 1989 due to failure of the two countries to renew the trade and
transit treaties, it was feared that China would exploit the situation. However, the Chinese leaders acted with
FOREIGN POLICIES Of MAJOR POWERS - USA, USSK AND CH!NA
603
restraint and urged the two countries to resolve their problems through friendly negotiations. But china airlifted large
quantities of oil and other essential . quantities to Nepal which has certainly increased her influence in the country.
With the improvement of relations between India and Nepal, doubts were expressed in certain quarters, that China’s
relations with Nepal would suffer a set back. But the Nepalese leaders have indicated that this would not adversely
affect Nepal’s relations with China. In short, China’s relations with Nepal have grown along friendly lines over all
these years.
Indonesia .
China’s relations with Indonesia have a!so been far from cordial. Because of the presence of a large number of Chinese
in Indonesia (who often display extra territorial loyalties), the People’s Republic of China tried to acquire influence in
Indonesia through the PKf (Communist Party of Indonesia) fn the early sixties. Though China succeeded in her mission
for some time because of Sukarno’s dependence on the PKI for his continuance in office, but following the \ exposure
of the conspiracy to subvert the Indonesian regimerin 1%5 and the Counter coup, the PKI was totally anihilated. This
naturally strained relations between the two. Tht Chinese claims over certain islands in south Chlha Sea, vOihtch
formed part oi Indonesia, and its military acticsi to capture the Parcel Islands in ’i 974, also contributed to the straining
of relations between China and Indonesia. As a part of China’s general policy to improve relations with its .
/neighbours In 1989, an improvement of relations with Indonesia a!so took place and the two countries exchanged
ambassadors after a gap of 20 years.
Korea
!n 1950 China intervened in Korea because it coj’d not reconcile witrnhe presence of Western powers. Though this
intervention cost PRC heavily in men and money, it greatly boosted its international image. »t demonstrated PRC’s .
ability to withstand concerted Westan effort, and won for it the admiration of the countries of the Third World. PRC
rendered great financial, scientific and technical, assistance to North Korea. It concluded a, treaty’.pf friendship, Co- .
operation and Mutual Assistance with Korea. Under the treaty the two countries agreed to put up mutual defence in
case of an attack upon either of them, were to co-operate in the economic and technological field and to hold mutual
consultations on all important international questions.
China did not establish any official contact with the government of South Korea despite repeated attempts by the latter,
on account of pressure from North Korea. However, following hijaking of a Chinese civilian airliner to South Korea.
China established official contacts with South Korea. It sent a large delegation to Seoul to deal with the hijacking. An
agreement was concluded whereunder China agreed to grant more visas to South Korean participants in the U.N.
meetings held by China. China also indicated that it would not participate in the
1986 Asian Games ( it did actually take part in these games) and the 1988 Olympics to be held in Seoul. Even these
relatively minor Sino-Korean contracts caused difficulties in China’s relations with North Korea. However, China.^
persisted with efforts to improve relations with Korea. In 1992 China signed a/
6C4
trade agreement with South Korea the most favoured nation status. As a result the trade between South Korea
and China rose by 44 percent in 1991 and reached $ 5.5 billion mark. China also made a bid to secure joint
entry of North and Korea in the United Nations.
Vietnam
Soon after the Korean armistice of July 1953, China was involved in Vietnam, China extended help to Dien Bien Phu.
It was mainly with the help of the Chinese equipment and artillery that he succeeded in reducing the French camp. This
setback made the French think seriously of withdrawal from IndoCrjina. However, U.S.A. did not favour the French
withdrawal from the area and favoured continuation of war, In actual practice here after the policy of control in
Vietnam stepped out of French hands into the American hands. The war was brought to an end by the Geneva
Conference of April 1955, in which People’s Republic of China participated on equal terms with other major powers
hkeUrS.A., U.S.S.k. and Britain. As per agreement two states of Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and Saigon were set
up. The union between two states was to take place after two years. But this provision could not be giver* practical
shape because the two states of Vietmart were backed by U.S.A. and China respectively. As a result prolonged war
ensured, which was brought to a close only in January
1970. As a result of the new agreement the People of Vietnam were given right ef self-determination. The elections
were to be held under international supervision. After these elections the National Assembly announced the unification
of the two states of Vietnam under the nafne Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It may be noted that China played a key
role in the Vietnamese war. and extended enormous military and technical help to Nb”rth Vietnam in her struggle.
In 1978 China’s relation with Vietnam grew tense due to persecution of ethnic Chinese. China denounced Hanoi for its
failure to provide refuge to some hundred and fifty thousand Chinese from Vietnam. In July 1978 China unilaterally
terminated its economic assistance to Hanoi and recalled its technicians. Hanoi reacted by concluding a treaty of
friendship with U.S.S.R. in November 1978 and sent troops into Cambodia to sweep Pol Pot from.power. In retaliation
China launched a punitive war against Vietnam and followed a policy of confrontation towards Vietnam. China fed the
guerilla resistance to Heng Samrin government and supported tribal insurgents in northern Laos. On the borders the
Chinese and Vietnamese forces, faced each other and there were occasional skirmishes between the two.Though
outwardly China opposed Vietnam on the piea that it was a client of Soviet Union, actually its oppostion to Vietnam
was due to the fact that China could not reconcile with the idea of having a neighbour on its southern borders which
was not willing to bend before her.
However, the developments during the past few years which include end of cold war, disintegration of
Communism in East Europe, willingness of United States to improve relations with Vietnam, and signing of an
accord by the four Cambodian factions to bring about a political settlement of the Cambodian tangle, etc.
encouraged China to normalise relations with Vietnam. On the other hand Vietnam with a deteriorating
ecomomy and loss of Soviet military and
FOREIGN POLICIES Of MAJOR POWERS - USA. USSR AND CHINA 60S
JR economic aid, also showed keenness to improve relations with China, the H| exchange of visits by leaders of two
countries resulted in normalisation of B: relation in 1991. This process of normalisation continued during the year
1992, H even though tension persisted over unresolved territorial dispute, in September K 1992 China’s relations
with Vietnam got strained following accusation by mj Vietnam that China was carrying on illegal oil explorations in
disputed section K of the Gulf of Tonkin. Though several rounds of ta’ks were held to resolve the B; issue, but little
headway could be made. The visit of Chinese Prime Minister to •’ Vietnam in December, 1992 also failed to resolve
the distpute. Thus China’s B relations with Vietnam continued to be strained. K Relations with West European
Countries
B China tried to develop intimate relations with West European countries
B like Britain, Germany, etc. even though they happened to be camp followers of m U.SA. China’s relations with
these countries were primarily in the cultural and H economic fiefc!. After China’s schism with Soviet Union,
relations with these H countries considerably improved. These countries on their part were also keen H to improve
and extend their trade with China and provided liberal credit facilities •’ to China in their markets. As a result China’s
trade with the West European , I countries showed tremendous increase. But the<>ne major factor which strained I
China’s relations with Britain was the issue of Hong Kong. Towards the close of I 1984 Britain and China reached an
agreement on the transfer of Hong Kong to I Chinese sovereignty in 1997. In return, China guaranted that Hong Kong
would I be treated for 50 years after 1997 as an autonomous capitalist enclave. This I decision of China was solely
motivated by national interest. China derives B • immense benefits from Hong Kong’s ecoonomy, which supplies it
with one-third . I of its foreign exchange as well as managerial and technical know-how so vital I for the
modernisation of China. Further, China wanted to show to Taiwan that I Hong Kong settlement is a mutually
beneficial precedent for reunification. I Of latest China has stepped up efforts to develop more intimate relations
I with the West European countries. !n June 1986_Mf, Hua of China paid visit to I. U.K:, France, Italy and West
Germany to strengthen relations with these I countries. He discussed matters relating to bilateral trade and East West
relations
1 with them. As a result of these visits China agreed to permit the British Companies I to repatriate profit from China
and afford protection to their investment. U.K., I agreed to low-interest loan of $ 300,000,000 for promotion of specific
capital investment projects involving the purchase of U.K. good and services. In October . 1986 Queen Eli/abeth of
U.K. paid a visit to China and thus became the first British monarch to visit China, Likewise, China concluded an
agreement with . France which provided for the provision of French technology for construction of Chinese nuclear
power plant in Daya Bay. In the wake of adoption of policy of liberalisation and end of cold-war, China’s relations with
me West European. -. countries grew more intimate. There’was greater flow of western funds in China ; which
greatly contributed to her development and prosperity. In short there has been consistent improvement in China’s
relations with West European countries ; during the past few years.
606
Relations with India
As the time of the inauguration of the People’s Republic of China, the leader had expressed strong dislike for non-
alignment and, therefore, looked on Nehru (who was one of the chief architects of non-alingment) ’as’ a rebel against
the movement of national independence’ and* a loyal slave of imperialism.1*
However, India was keen to cultivate friendly relations with China and therefore quickly accorded recognition to the
new regime. In the United Nations also india consistently supported the PRCs claim to the seat in the security Council,
in 1950 China’s relations with India were embittered because of her armed action in Tibet India did not approve of this
action and suggested that efforts should be made to settle the matter through peaceful negotiations. The Chinese badiy
rebuked India and warned that no foreign interference in the matter sha!! be tolerated. Out as India was keen to
maintain friendly relations with China, she acquisced in the Chinese occupation of Tibet, even though it had been a
British protectorate since 19! 1 and this right automatically shifted to India after independence.
China’s relatior>s with India improved following its non-partisan attitude during the Korean war lad culmainated in the
signing of the PancH Sheet agreement These relations continued to be cordial till the end of 1959 when certain
incidents c4 Chijiese intrusions into Indian borders and opening of fire on the Indian trops occurred. Unmindful of the
real intentions of China the Indian leaders continued io make efforts to settle the issue through negotiations. However,
China did r>ot respond favourably. In l %2 the People’s Republic of China launched a fulifiedged attack on India. This
marked a break in the cordial relations between the iwo countries. During the next .fourteen years the diplomatic
relation* between the two countries remained breached. The Chinese continued their policy of islolating India in the
region by developing closer relations with other countries of.the region, particularly Pakistan.
Due to changes in the political leadership in the late seventies China indicated its Intention, to Improve relations with
India. In 1976 the two countries decided to exchange ambassadors. Thereafter, the process of normalisation of relations
continued; ever? though at a slow pace. The main obstacle in the way of complete normalisation of relations between
the two was border problem. Ultimately towards the close of 1984 the Chinese and Indian teams decided to set aside
the procedural aspects which had blocked further progress in the direction of normalisation of relations, and agreed to
discuss the substantive aspects of the dispute which clearly indicated that the two countries had come a long way in
their efforts to solve the problem between them. However, much progress could not be made in’improving relations on
account of Chinese reported assistance to Pakistan in developing nuclear weapon capability. In subsequent months
tension between India and China once again began to built up due to intrusion ot Chinese {mops and herdsmen into the
territory of Arunachaf Pradesh and the protests of China against conferment of statehood on the territory of Arunachal
Pradesh. India strongly protested against this and described it as an interference in her mternal.affairs. Even in the
midst of all these tensions the leaders of the two countries showed their kenness to resolve
outstanding disputes and establish amicable relations. They held regular meetings to find out a solution for the border
dispute but without much success. The main stumbling block in the way has been that China has been reluctant to
withdraw from its present line of control in Ladakh unless India made certain concessions in the Macmohan line. In
November 1987 the two countries held detailed talks and agreed to maintain tranquility along the borders till a mutually
acceptable settlement was worked out. A serious bid to resolve the 26 year old border dispute was made in December
1988 when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi paid a visit to Beijing. As a result of this meeting the two countries agreed to
develop their relations actively in various fields and to work hard to create a favourable climate for a fair and
reasonable settlement of boundary questions. They agreed to set up a Joint Working Croup on Boundary Question and
a Joint Croup on Economic Relations, Trade, Science and Technology. They reiterated their desire to develop good
neighbourly and friendly reltions on the basis of five principles of Panchsheel enunciated by them earlier. This change
was reflected in China’s stand on Kashmir. Contrary to the earlier stand China took the stand that Kashmir is a bilateral
problem left over by history, which has to be resolved through ’peaceful mutual consultations’. China also made a bid
to imrpove economic relations with India and the two agreed to set up a Joint Group on Economic Relations, Trade,
Science and Technology in 1988.-The Group explored the possibilities of greater co-operation between the *wo
countries and was instrumental in finalising several deals for joint ventnures. In December
1991, Li Peng, China’sPermier paid a visit to India after a gap of 31 years. During the visit the leaders of two countries
pledged to resolve the boundary question • through friendly consultations. They also concluded agreements for
resumption of border trade on the basis of equality and mutual benefit; opening of Consulates General at Bombay and
Shanghai after a gap of 29 years; and agreed to cooperate with each other in’ space research, technology and its
application. They also agreed to redifine the role of the Joint Working Group and give it power to review and initiate
proposals for solving the border issues.
!n Septembsr 1993 China reached an accord with India for the maintenance . of peace and tranquility along the line of
actual control and decided to set up an expert group to complete the £ask of full deliineation of the line of actual
control. They agreed to encourage economic and people to people exchanges in the hope that it would help in
relaxation of tension and finding a fair settlement of the territorial problem, taking into account the genuine claims and
interests of both sides.
China adopted more realistic approach on the Kashmi’ issue and said in January 1994 that it was against an
independent Kashmir. In mid-1994, China refused to support Pakistan at the Human Rights Commission on the alleged
human rights violations in Kashmir. This was in complete contrast with China’s pro-Pakistan postures and calls for
Kashmiri self-determination in the earlier years. In July 1995, India’s Home Minister paid a visit to Beijing and
reiterated India’s willingness to continue the process of improvement of relations with China. He emphasised the need
of pe«ce, harmony and tranquality’betwen the two countries so that the resources could be focussed towards rapid
socioeconomic development. In August 1995 the two countries agreed to pullback
608
their troops in close proximity to the Sumdorong Chu valley in the eastern sector. The two countries also agreed on more
confidence-building measures including disengagement of the troops by the end of year. Thus the two countries are trying to
normalise their relations despite long-standing disputes. Some of the irritants in Sino-lndian relations at present are China’s
unhappiness with India on account of anti-Chinese activities carried on by the Tibetans from Indian soil; and India’s
unhappiness with China’s arms transfers to Pakistan, enormous increase in her defence expenditure, continuing
modernisation of nuclear and missile forces etc. i
Relations with Pakistan
People’s Republic of China’s relations with Pakistan started pn low ebb because of tatter’s membership of the western
sponsored military alliances and occasional support to U.S.A. in the united Nations against PRC. Pakistan’s auttitude
on the issue ofKorean war and Kuomintang Government was also quite distasteful to the Chinese leaders. However, the
Pakistan leaders continued to assure the Chinese leaders thatthey had no enmity againstCommunist China and had
joined the various alliances with a view to guard against threat from India. At the Bandung Conference the Pakistan
delegate openly criticised the expansionist policies of Soviet Union and showed appreciation for the Chinese policies.
As a result, the Chinese leadership showed some inclination to improve relations with Pakistan. They conceded
Pakistan’s right to conclude military alliances with Western countries in self-defence. But probably the greatest
consideration which brought China closer to Pakistan was the tatter’s consistent hostility towards India. The open
condemnation of India by Pakistan as an aggressor during the Sino-lndian conflict of 1962, greatly helped in placating
China arid encouraged it to come closer to Pakistan. China showed great accommodation towards Pakistan in economic
and cultural sphere. China also declared that the question of Kashmir should be settled by the people of the state.
China’s relations with Pakistan continued to grow intimate during the next few years. It fully supported Pakistan during
the. two !ndo-Pak wars of 1965 and
1971, and even threatened to intervene in the dispute on its behalf. However, it was prevented from doing so by the
other powers who insisted that the matter sdhould be settled by the two countries. Thus, the two countries were drawn
close by these common enmity towards India. In view of its closer relations with China, Pakistan played an important
role in patching up the differences between China and U.S.A. which culimnated in establishment of diplomatic
relations between the two countries. In the U.N. also Pakistan supported China for permanent seat Pakistan has been
receiving regular supplies of arms from China and the co-operation between the two countries has been growing
steadily. China even extended help to Pakistan in developing nuclear weapon capability. In fact relations between
China and Pakistan have been very amicable for the last three decades and China provided enormous military and
economic assistance to Pakistan. The presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and the hostility ot the two countries
towards Soviet Union brought them still closer and China promised to supply strong power and long range missiles to
Pakistan: Another factor which .encouraged China to come closer to Pakistan in recent years was
FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS-USA, USSR AND CHINA
609
her desire to have more intimate relations with the Islamic countries in West Asia, artd the possibility of Pakistan serving as a
link in this regard. Thus we can say that China’s relations with Pakistan since 1960 have been steadily growing.
, In the wake of recent announcement of Chitia that Kashmir was bilateral problem left over by history, which could be
resolved through ’peaceful mutual consultations’, some scholars saw a cnange in the attitude of China towards Pakistan. In
fact China still continues to have intimate relations with Pakistan and its above noted pronouncement was merely a part of its
wider policy of improving relations with neighbouring countries. Even while making efforts to improve relations with India,
the Chinese leaders have assured Pakistan that her interests would be protected. China still continues to describe the status of
Kashmir as’disputed’, even though she has urged that the issue be resolved
”through bilateral negotiations. China has also reached an understanding with Pakistan with regard to co-operation in the
field of military procurement, technology transfer and co-production. In short, China still continues to accord top priority to
her relations with Pakistan.
Policy towards Nuclear Weapons
From the ve<y beginning PRC has been inching to acquire a dominant position in the world politics. With this
objective in mind it conducted a number of neclear tests and ultimately succeeded in joining the ranks of nuclear
powers. However, China opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly on the imperialist countries,
because its possession could pose a threat to world peace. On the other hand China was not averse to the idea of
Socialist countries possessing the nuctear weapons because, according to China, these countries shai! use these
weapons purely as a defence against the nuclear blackmail. China considered the possession of nuclear weapons by the
Socialist countries as vital for their victory over the capitalist countries. Another significant point about China’s attitude
towards nuclear wsappns is that it publicly declared not to use thorn first. Further, ihough China did not append
signatures to the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), on 21 March 1986 it announced that it did not intend to test nuclear
weapons in the atmosphere. Subsequently, however, China urged United States as well as USSR to take lead in
drastically reducing and destroying nuclear weapons so that positive conditions couttf be created for the convening of
an international conference on nuclear disarmament. On 16 December 1987 a Chinese spokesman said: ”On the
question of intermediate range missile China believes that these missiles deployed in Europe and in Asia should.be
destroyed simultaneously because the security of Europe and that of Asia was equally important.’ He said that China
would, as always, make its own contribution to genuine disarmament Despite the above professions, China has
continued to build nuclear and conventional weapons. Thus there is clearly an inconsistency in China’s policy in this
regard. This inconsistency is inexplicable partly as a leftover of the days of eariy ideological fervour against nuclear
armed capitlist west or revisionist Soviet Union; and partly because China, like other arms exporting countries,
promotes exports of lethal equipment to balance budget, • earn foreign exchange, to gain access to advanced defence
technology and enhance national pretige. •
A change in China’s nuclear policy took place in August 1991 when i;

610
announced its intention to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) without conditions. This change was
effected in view of the drastic changes which took place in the international arena in the post-Gulf war period, and
specially after France and South Africa (two other nuclear powers) showed their willingness to fall in line with three
nuclear powers USA, USSR and UK. China actually signed NPT in 1992 after staying out of it for 22 years. Though
US insists that China continues to support proliferation, China has not shown willingness to stop nuclear testing. Thus
there are serious contradictions in Chinese nuclear policy in the post cold war period. This is further evident from
China’s support for a nuclear weapon free zone in South Asia without any commijment on its own part to enter into any
reductions or control over its own nuclear arsenal.
It has continued to enlarge its nuclear weapon stockpile, including bomb and deadly missiles. It has refused to make
any firm commitment in the nonproliferation arena. In fact within a week of the indefinite extension of the NPT China
conducted an underground nuclear test in May 1995, China is also reported to have successfully tested a new inter-
continenta! ballistic missile (ICBM), which is mobile and uses solid ramer than liquid ft«i as a propellant. Thus China
has emerged as one of the world’s top three powers. In fact, China is the only nuclear weapon state which has not so far
announced a moratorium on testing. It has continued its tests without any moral or other compulsions.
Polky towards Tflwd World
China has tried to develop very intimate relations with the countries of the Third World on the basis of Shared common
experiences of colonialism and underdevelopment. In fact in me 1950*5 China tried to identify herself more with the
Third World countries than the socialist states of Eastern Europe. The Chinese revolution provided an impetus to the
nationalist struggles in several countries of Asia and Africa. The new Chinese government also continued to extend
every possible help and support to the countries of the Third World in their struggle against the imperialist powers.
China’s role became more vocal in the 1960’s when it encouraged the Third World countries to reject the overture^ of
the two super powers and tried to minimise the role of lite two super powers in the international relations. It is well
known that China extended every possible financial assistance to Viet Minn forces against France as well as United
States. China also strongly supported the demand for New international Economic Order and favoured regional
cooperation for the rapid development of the Third World countries. In short, China has always tried to project itself as
the champion of the cause of Third World countries. However, this image of China suffered a setback on account of its
role during the Gulf War. It not only supported the use of force against Iraq but also failed to condemn the high-handed
approach of United States during the war. Despite, this limitation it cannot be dented that the People’s Republic of
China has by and large projected itself as the Champion of the Third World countries. It has consistentlv opposed
mlliltary alliances and overseas bases, advocated non-interference in ihe internal affairs of the sovereign states; and
condemned intervention by the super powers in the affairs of other nations.
THE THIRD WORLD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
611
33
The Third World in International Relations
• ’ \” The international system which emerged in the post World War II period was\characterised by division of the
world into two camps possessing faith in opposite political and economic programme, ideologies and systems of
government One camp was led by United States and chiefly consisted of countr^s, located in Western Europa and
North America, which possessed democratic institutions and stood for promotion of individual human rights and
equality before law. They believed in this achieving through private enterprise. Thibet of countries came to be known
as Western Bloc. As most of the countries or this bloc were industrialised nations, it was also designated as world of
’developed countries’ or the First World. The opponents, however designated this bloc as ”imperialist” or capitalist7
camp.
The second camp was headed by the Soviet Union and chiefly consisted of countries of Eastern Europe which
possessed authoritarian governments. In these countries the collective proletariat and its party claimed to rule in the
interest of the masses. They believed in expediting economic and social developments through party and bureaucratic
central planning. By and large the countries of this bloc held faith in the idea of overthrowing bpurgeoise regimes. This
bloc was also designat^ as ’socialist/ or ’anti-capitaJisf camp.
In addition to these two blocs, a new group of states made their appearance in the fifties, which did not belong to either
of the above two blocs and began to be designated as ’the Third World’. Most of the countries of this group were
earlier colonies of different powers and after attainment of independence decided to keep on the power blocs which had
appeared in the post World War II period. These countries were in tfce main located in the southern hemisphere Asia,
Africa and America. Later on some of the countries belonging to the Soviet orbit such as Albania, Yugoslavia,
Romania and Cuba, also came to be included in the category of Third World countries. Similarly some of those non-
European nations which were never under colonial rule were also described as Third world countries. Thus we can say
that the countries were designated as ’Third World countries’ more on the basis of their economic situation rather than
their political alignment, geographical location, ideological orientation or govern mental structure. In short we can say
that economic underdevelopment fs a salient characteristic of al! the Third World Countries.
612
Characteristics of the Third WsrW
Before we examine the role of the Third World in international relations, it shall be desirable to have an idea about the
characteristic features of the Third World countries.
In the first place most of the countries of the Third World developed their own ideologies based on their peculiar socio-
economic conditions. Some of the prominent principles about which the Third Worldxountries frequently speak include
justice, equality, freedom, political and economic independence, modernisation, industrialisation, socialism, revolution,
etc. However, these concepts are applied in the manner in which they best serve the interest of these countries adopted
policy of non-atignment. These countries.
Secondly, most of the Third World countries avoided involvement in superpower rivalries and adopted policy of non-
alignment These countries adopted policy of non-aligned also with a view to affirm their newly acquired independence
and national identity. These countries organised themselves in
* the shape of non-aligned movement and demanded speeding up of the process of decolonisation, ending of racial
discrimination, and promotion of world peace.
Thirdly, most of the Third World- countries have avoided confrontation with their former rulers and tried to preserve
traditional links with them with a view to get aid and advice from these countries. Viewed in the strict sense most of the
countries rwve not been non-aligned. They adopted the policy of nonalignment only to the extent that they did not align
themselves with one or the other Super Power. This permitted them complete freedom of action in arriving at their
decisions arid extract maximum benefits from both power-blocs.
Fourthly, though the countries of the Third World Have belonged to the same group of’ ncrs-aiigoed rations, there have
been large number of local ar.d internal conflicts among (he countries of the Third Wbrid. Thus there have been
conflicts between India and China, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Yeman, Nigeria and Congo; border conflict oetween
various.countries of Africa and conflicts involving Zaire, Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania,
etc. There have also been ethnic and inter-state conflicts such as one between Iran and Iraq and Vietnam and
Combodia. Despite these internal conflicts in the ranks of the Third World countries, it cannot be denied that the
movement has greatly contributed to the growth of desire of economic equality and dignity among the countries,
Fifthly, most of the Third WoHd countries are faced with the problem of declining living standards arid curtailment of
development projects. This is largely due to faulty policies of international trade and foreign investments. During the
past many decades while the prices of the raw materials have continued to decrease, the prices of industrial goods have
been increasing. The high profits of bans and investments have greatly contributed to this process. It has been alleged
that even the Western aid programmes are merely instruments of exploitation and ’pillage of the Third World countries.
The widening gap
THE THIRD WORLD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 613
between the Third World and industrialised countries is no less due to the faulty world monetary system ensuing the
inflation. As a result the Third World countries have not been able to acquire their due share in the world trade. For
example, the share of the developing countries in the world exports during the period 1960-1976 was only 20 percent
while that of the industrialised nations was nearly 72 percent. However, despite the various setbacks faced by the Third
World countries, it cannot be denied that continual change for the better is taking place in these countries.
Role of the Third World in International System
Despite their weak economic position, and existence of contradictions within their ranks, the countries of the Third
World are playing an important role in the international system.
In the first place, the countries of the Third World have projected themselves as champions of the colonial people and
have consistently waged a struggle against imperialism and racialism. This was quite natural in view of the fact that
most of the Third World countries were earlier under colonial rule and were fully conversant with the evils of
imperialism and racialism. These countries have carried on consistent propaganda and agitation in the various forums
9? the United Nations as well as outside, for the elimination of these evits. Through their consistent efforts they have
been able ”to create an awareness among the people of the world that racialism was not a domestic problem, as
contended by the imperialist power, but an international problem which posed a serious threat to world peace. It was
chiefly due to the efforts of the Third World countries that the United Nations debated the issues of racialism and
condemned South Africa and Rhodesia for basing their policies on racialism.
Secondly, the Third World countries have opposed all kinds of imperialism. They have extended support to the
nationalist movements in various parts of the world and succeeded to a large extent in getting them freedom from the
coionial yoke. Even at present the Third World countries are fully supporting the people of Namibia in their struggle
against South Africa. They have also succeeded in getting the unequal treaties and agreements between the imperialist
powers and former colonies, nullified. They nave also played an important role in securing dismantling of the
imperialist bases and withdrawal of foreign troops. In short, they have done every possible thing to assert the sovereign
rights of the Third World countries. In the economic sphere also they have made a determined bid to .end exploitation
of the underdeveloped countries by the developed countries by insisting on conduct of economic relations on terms of
equality. Most of the third World countries have resorted to policy of nationalisation of foreign property in their
jurisdiction to end imperial exploitation. They have also raised demand for acknowledgment of full sovereign rights
over natural resources of the country. In this direction they have achieved considerable success. The U.N.General
Assembly fully supported the demand of the Third World countries to control their natural resources and finally
adopted a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States in December 1974. This has provided the basis to the Thrid
World countries to change the inequitable and uneven legal arrangements
&14
under Which toreign investors en)Oy rights to explai*1 natural resources available within the territorial boundaries
Thirdly, the Third World countries bave grwt^ contributed to the strengthening of world peace by keeping off from the
P°wer blocs- ThouSh the Third World countries adopted this policy with a vtew of achieve ûicker economic
development and to secure aid for their development from both the blocs, this certainly contributed to the reduction of
tension between the two power blocs. They have also contributed to the promotion of world peace by opposing military
pacts, avoiding participate in v/ars exceP» toose undertaken in self-defence, etc. At the United Nations the countrie5 ot
the Tnird World have tended to condemn all aggression and strength*?” tne forces ot P6306- The positive role played
by the Third World countries i*1 Promotin8 w°rld peace has been acknowledged in all quarters.
foufh/y,ThirdWorldcountrieshavegreatlycontnbutedtothestren8tnenin8 of the United Nations and increasing its

important They have sought solution of the various political, economic and social pfoblems «”^gh *e United Nations
and other international agencies. They have? supported U.N. intervention in various political issues in the interest of
world P6306- ln the economic and social sphere they have demanded institution of Sp/cial Fund and Technical Aid
Programmes by the U.N. They have also contributed towards the development of a favourable opinion about the world
body in the woHd bV expressing their faith and loyalty to the U.N.Charter and the UniVersal Declaration of Human
Rights. In view of this international opinion even tM ^Pf Powefs nave not been able to bypass the authority of the
United Nations,ln short’ we canjsaVtnat the
ThirdWorldcbuntrieshavegreatlycontributedtothêffectlvenessandimP°rtance of United Nations.
Finally, the Third World countries have great’V contributed to the demand for the creation of a New International
Economic C?rder- TneV have consistently insisted on the regulation of economic relations amon8 various natlons on
terms of equality and demanded an effective share in tne determination of the international commercial, monetary and
financia1 P°”cies. During the initial years the Super Powers did not pay much heed to this demand of the Third World
countries and continued to pursue policies in tPeir be*1 interest. But as the strength of the Third World countries
increased tf^ mounted Pressure on the . U.N.General Assembly and succeeded in getting > resolution adopted m May,
’1974 for the establishment of New Internal”3’ Econom.c Order. Th.s resolution asserted that the economic relations
am^n8the states should ^ based on interdependence rather than unequal exchange’ll emphasised the obligation of the
rich and developed countries to increa^ a”d tacilltate the tlow of resources to the less developed countries, and ar£ued
that’« was m their own interest to do so. At the Nairobi meeting of UNCTAD lv-in May.’ ] 97fe tne Third World
countries emphasised the need, of gloW1 actlon to ’^prove market structure in international trade in commodmes i”
mterest to the developing counrries. In view of the mounting pressure fromtne developing countnes tor the creation of
NIEO, in 1979 the General Ass^’V- adoP’ed a resolution emphasising the need of global talks within the tr.)m<-JWOrk
»» U-N- energv/-raw
THE
OHIRO WORLD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
61
”-C ^pSS^^SSand ,^cial ^°”$- * ^ -

exP>ic order Howeveri; £TS hT ”? ** W°f’d lww*- ”» «°fr the framework of the U N tj ££J? diSCUSSJOOS
abou* ** *
23- ^ hold ufe on this h»i ouuSe £ uTi? ^ ^ 8ut’
ôSi^sxSr^- srs F^zz^^

::^^^^-s^^^
passaf
616
34
The North-South Dialogue in the United Nations and
Outside
Before we undertake a study of the North-South Dialogue in the United Nations and outside, it is desirable to
understand the meaning of the terms ’North’ and ’South’, the terms ’North’ is generally used for world’s rich,
industrialised. non-Communist states, like United States Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and countries of
Western Europe. Most of these countries have a very high per capita income and are members of an international
organisation, vi?., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). On the other hand the term
’South’ connotes the developing countries of the Third World. With the exception of some countries, the average per
capita income of the people residing in these states is quite low. This distinction between the developed and under
developed countries made its appearance soon after the World War 11. However, the concept was given concrete shape
by President Truman of U.S.A. in the course of his address to the U.S. and underdeveloped countries came to be
universally recognised in course of time. However, the underdeveloped countries were also described as ’less
developed countries’, ’developing countries’, the ’Third World countries’, etc.
The difference between the developed and underdeveloped countries grew sharper with the rolling of years. While the
developed countries made further progress, the condition of the developed countries did not show any improvement
resulting in a further increase in the gap between the developed and underdeveloped countries. The developing
countries attributed this to the international economic order established after World War II and its instruments like the
General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the international Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development’World-Bank of IBRD).
It is true that the Bretton Woods structure created after the Second World War was quite flattering to the pwrer
countries because it treated them on the basis ol legal quality with the older, industrial states. But in reality this system
worked to the disadvantage of the poorer states because it treated them in an equal fashion even though they were not
equal in economic terms. By ignoring the specific needs of the-* countries the system perpetuated the existing
THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
617
inequalities and even exacerbated them. The IMF and the GATT hardly paid any attention to the needs of the
developing countries. Even the IBRD paid more attention to the reconstruction of the war-torn economies of developed
countries of Europe and took care of the needs of the poorer states of the world only afterwards.
Contrary to the expectation of the framers of Bretton Woods in 1950’s the poorer nations did not take off despite
injection of great aid and the trade of southern states continued to decline. The prices of raw materials continued to
decline in relation to the prices of manufactured goods. Hence the Southern states had to produce more primary
products to buy equipments for development or to buy processed and manufactured goods of any kind from the richer
industrialised states. As a result the economic condition of southern states further deteriorated.
By 1960’s the southern states came to hold the opinion that no improvement could take place in their position unless
the present system of international trade i was reformed/The developing countries raised debate at the various forums
of United Nations and formed a pressure group, popularly known as Group of 77, and exerted necessary pressure on the
various international bodies to bring about necessary structural changes in the international economic relatfons and
promote co-opecation between the developed and developing countries. The members of the/Group of 77, though quite
diverse in character, have been able to take an identical stand because they feel that the present international structure
of economic relations is very unfair and they can get the best out of it
only if they all act together.

#
The demand was formally echoed in the Belgrade Conference cf Non Aligned Countries in September, 1962 when the
participant members desired that ”all the gains of scientific and technological revolution be applied in all fields of
economic development to hasten the achievement of international justice.” Again at the Lusaka Conference of
September, 1970 the non-aligned countries formally declared ”economic development is an obligation of the whole
international community, that is the duty of all countries to contribute to the rapid evolution of a new and just economic
order which all nations can live without fear and rise to their full stature in the family of nations.”
In view of the growing demand from the underdeveloped countries for a better deal, in 1964 the international
community created the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD), an agency directly
subordinate to the General Assembly. The UNCTAD held its first meeting at Geneva in the spring of 1964 with a view
to continue and strengthen efforts for social and economic improvement. For this purpose, it laid emphasis on increased
trade, establishment of tariffs favourable to the Third World products agreement to check the falling raw material
prices. The developed countries gave an assurance to work in this direction.
However, these assurances were not given concrete shape and the countries of the Third World passed a resolution at
Algiers in 1967 in which they
18 IN TERNATJONAL RELATIONS
tacked the paucity of assistance from the industrialised countries and formulated emands regarding the Third World
countries’ customs tariff and other trade •ivileges with a view to improve their position in the world markets. They also
>fidemned the prevailing trade conditions and abuses of development and iked for their modification to secure
conditions of economic co-optfration ’hich were favourable to the developing countries. Once again the developed
ountries failed to provide sufficient funds to the developing countries, due to epending financial crisis. This led to a
feeling among the Third World countries, at they could not rely on the goodwill of their industrialised donors and they
doubled pressure on the developed countries. They also took to the policy of
•If-reliance.
In the third UNCTAD Conference in Santiago. 1972; the developing >untries expressed dissatisfaction with existing
bilateral and multilateral ’ sistance programmes and succeeded in persuading the developed countries to consider their
policies with a view to make the aid more effective. Actually, jthing concrete emerged as a result of Santiago
Conference. On the contrary is Conference demonstrated the selfishness of the industrialised countries as ell as the rich
developing countries (chiefly oil exporting) to pursue their own terests. According to Caroline Thomas the attitude of
the North underwent a rceptibie change in 1973 when the Arabs used the threat of oil power. This ;monstrated to the
other southern states the commodity power and gave them real bargaining lever international affairs. On the other hand
the advanced dustrialised states were shaken by the dramatic burst of oil power on to the ternational stage and their fear
that curtails action of other .primary products ight result in west being held to ransom again in the future, made them
more Tienable to considering Southern demands.’ All this convinced the developing entries of the need of reducing
their dependence on the industrialised xintries. This view was expressed both at the Non-aligned Algiers Summit of ?73
as well as Colombo Summit Conference of 1976. At the-Fourth UNCTAD onference held at Nairobi in 1976, the
developing countries pressed the need r the Thjrd World solidarity and concerted action for progress. It was also argued
sat this would help them secure effective aid. Thus over a period of years a sort ? confrontation developed between the
North and the South.
Fn the meanwhile the industrialised countries also realised the serious nplications of the widening gap between the
developed and the developing juntries and felt that these unbearable imbalances may prove explosive. They fit the need
of a plenary strategy to organise and implement organic growth of *e world as a whole on a balanced and diversified
basis.
CALL FOR NfW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER
In the midst of these development the U.N.General Assembly at its Sixth
Special Session in April-May, 1974 called for the establishment of the New
’nternatior.al Economic Order (NIEOS and approved a Programme of Action to-
ehieve it. The call ’or the creation of New International Economic Order was
1. C<Holine Thomas. New States Sovereignty and Intervention, p. 1 28.
THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS • 619
an acknoweldgement of the fact that the existing international economic order was defective in so far as it perpetuated
and aggravated international inequalities ’, and that new relationship of inter dependence should replace the older
pattern of dependence and unequal exchange. It was argued that the rich developed countries are morally obliged to
increase and facilitate the flow of resources to less developed countries and that it was in their self-interest to encourage
the promotion of growth and development of the poor countries in so far as they would provide them expanded
markets.
The Programme of Action endorsed by the United Nations for the achievement of the NIEO was quite wide and
covered diverse sectors like raw materials and primary commodities, food, trade, transportation, insurance, the
international monetary system, development financing, industrialisation, transfer of technology, activities of
transnational corporations, co-operation between the developirtc countries and above all the role of the U.N. system.
During^ the next few years the idea of NIEO gained great currency and support. No qoubt some of the industrially
developed countries did not receive the idea with Anuch enthusiasm, but ultimately wiser counsel prevailed on them
and they came to extend support to this idea. The monetary and financial crisis which confronted these countries also
greatly contributed to their changed thinking. Ultimately the industrially developed countries thought it better to try to
manage^ rather than to resist, change in their relations with the developing world.
The developing countries also held a series of Conferences to give concrete shape to the proposals for the
transformation of the NIEO from rhetoric to a reality. The first step in this direction was the Conference of Southern
countries at Dakar in February, 1975. The proposals adopted here were subsequently incorporated in the Lima
Declaration issued by the Second Genera! Conference of the U.N.Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) in
Peru in March,
1975.
In December 1975, Conference on international Economic Co-operation (CIEC) started at Paris in which 19 developing
countries, the OPEC countries (Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela) and the other
developed countries like United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Spain Sweden, Switzerland and countries of EC took
part. However, the Conference could not achieve any substantial results and was terminated in June, 1977. Though this
conference lasted for 18 months no agree’<ieot could be reached on arsy matter of importance. Tne only out -ome of
Conference according to optimists was that ’each side understood the other better’. The fifth Summit of, the Non-
Aligned countries at Havara in 1979 called for a new round of negotiations to encompass all the major issues o. the
North-Sou.h dialogue.
!ri view of the growing demand from the less dfv sloped countries ?i*e U.N.
Genera! Assembly jdqpted a resolution in 1979, which Has been described as
a watershed in the struggle of the developing cduntrie:> for an NIEO. The
. resolution emphasised the need of global talks. w*hin the framework of the
United ’Nations, on energy, raw materials trade development, currency and

financial questions. It also decided that the negotiations should be actionoriented, should ensure a coherent and
integrated approach to the issue under negotiation and should take place simultaneously with the U.N. System. It
insisted that the Committee of the whole of the U.N.General Assembly should act as the preparatory body for Global
Negotiations and prepare and submit recommendations on the procedure, time-frame and detailed agenda to the
Eleventh Special Session. It expressed the hope that the discussion on these subjects would lead the world towards a
new economic order. However, further progress in this regard was jeopardised on account of differences between
Washington, London and Bonn on procedure. Further, U.S.A. was opposed to the idea of holding discussion on the
NIEO within the framework of the United Nations on the ground that these meetings would turn into merely talking
shops. But at the same time United States did not want to give an impression to the developing countries that it was
opposed to such talks because this could adversely affect the expansion of U.S. multinationals in the Third World
countries. Therefore, U.S.A. favoured holding of discussions on this issue outside the framework of the United Nations.
This ultimately culminated in the Cancun Summit Meeting of October, 1981. Brandt Commission and its Report.
An Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the Chairmanship of Willy Brandt, the Ex-
Chancellor of Germany, was set up at the instance of the World Bank, to find a new approach to North-South dialogue
in which the element of confrontation (which had existed so far between the North and South) could be eliminated. The
Commission submitted its report in early 1980 in which it improved the proposals that had been aired over the last
decade or so. It focused political attention on the legitimate grievances of the developing countries. It impressed the
need of ’massive transfers’ of resources from the rich countries to the poor countries for their sustained development
and alleviation of world poverty. The Commission suggested that this transfer could be achieved in two ways. First, by
increasing substantially the amount of official aid provided on government to government basis or multilateral
development banks and substantial modifications and relaxation in the rules for the disbursement of funds by the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Secondly, the governments should intervene in the’ normal process of
international trade to ensure that the developing countries obtained a greater share of trade and received more payment
than they would do in unregulated competition. Abov* all, the Commission recommended that detailed negotiations
between the North and the South should take place in a U.N. framework, but the ground for this should be laid by a
north-south summit of manageable size, in accordance with .this recommendation of Brandt Commission, it was
decided to hold discussions on this issue outside the framework of the United Nations.
Cancun Summit Conference 1981
In accordance with the recommendation of Brandt Commission a Summit Conference was arranged at Cancun in
Mexico on 2 2-23 October, 1981 in which leaders of 14 developing and 8 developed industrialised countries took part.
THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
621
Even the Soviet Union was invited to take part in the Summit, however, it declined. At the Conference the major
discussion centred on the issue of structuring the proposal for global negotiations. Most of the developing nations
asserted that global negotiations involved the supremacy of the United Nations over its specialised agencies, e.g.,IMF.,
the World Bank, etc. The United States took the stand that the decisions taken by these agencies within their respective
areas were final. The United States took this stand because it felt that while in the United Nations General Assembly
the industrial countries were in minority in the key specialised agencies they were able to control the major decisions
due to the system of weighted voting. This stand of U.S.A. was also endorsed by Britain and West Germany. They also
contended that negotiations on restructuring the world economy should take place in the relevant international agencies
and opposed the grant of ultimate authority to the UN in matters of global negotiations.
Despite these differences the Conference agreed to ”launch global negotiations on a basis to be mutually agreed and in
circumstances offering the prospect of meaningful progress”. The Summit also agreed to ”promote an orderly dialogu^
about the. energy problem which all nations have to face together and non6 can solve alone.” It was also agreed to give
priority to increase the food production in developing countries. It asserted that trade was more important than aid and
hence open trading system should be maintained. The developing coi/ntries should pursue policies which would attract
private investments. /
In themeanwhile in 1981 the Commonwealth heads of governments meeting at Melbourne recommended the
constitution of a group to review the issue of North-South Dialogue. On 2 February, 1982 a group was constituted by
the commonwealth Secretariat under the Chairmanship of B.Akporode Clark (a senior Negerian diplomat) with
representatives of Zimbabwe, U.K., Australia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Jamaica, Guyana and India as members. The
group was asked to review the negotiating process between the developed and developing countries; to examine the
principal obstacles wjiich had to-date limited success in these negotiations; to identify to what extent these obstacles
were trie result of short-coming in the netgotiating process itself or kin the institution for negotiation; and to suggest
improvements which would overcome or reduce obstacle to the negotiating process or problems of institutional
arrangements. The North-South Dialogue; Making it Work, on 27 August, 1982 to the Commonwealth Secretary
General (Ramphal).
In its report the group suggested a number of institutional and procedural changes. Some of the prominent
recommendations of the group were (1) The governments should enhance the coordination of the implementation of
their national policies on North-South issues.(2) The group of 77 (now consisting of
1 24 developing countries) should establish its own Secretariat to play a role of providing support tor developing
countries. (3) Specialised agencies and other international organisations’should avoid conflict, duplication and
competition. (4i Global round of negotiations on international economic co-operation for development should be
launched as soon as possible. (5) More use should be
622
made of single issue conferences. (6) Negotiations should be conducted in small groups rather than plenary bodies,
where possible, (7) Greater use of expert panels should be made. (8) Care should be taken in the choice of negotiators
and spokesmen of groups as well as Chairman of negotiation Conferences. (9) The South should be urged to make full
use of its representation in the Bretton Woods institutions to put forward its policies dnd advance its interests.
In December, 1981 the-representatives of the developing countries presented a resolution to the General Assembly for
North-South negotiations on the restructuring of the international economy. However, United States expressed
opposition to the resolution on the plea that it posed a threat to the independence of established economic institutions
like World Bank and IMF. Therefore the developing countries did not press for the taking up of the resolution.
Second Brandt Commission Report
In February, 1983 the Brandt Commission published its second report entitled Common Crisis-North-South Co-
operation for World Recovery, in this report the Commission proposed a series of financial measures to assist the
resolution of the current balance of payments debt and banking crises and to help promote recovery in developing and
industrial countries. The prominent recommendations of the Commission were: (1) Substantial new special-drawing
right (SDR) allocation with particular attention to the need of developing countries. (2) An increase in programme
lending by changing the 10 percent limit on such lending as a proportion of total lending to 30 percent. (3) Aid to the
poorest countries should be doubled in real terms by 1985 through bilateral and multilateral channels and the target of
0.15 percent of gross national product for such aid should be set (4) informal coordination among the IMF, the World
Bank, other official leaders and commercial banks should be strengthened to ensure adequate provision of resources
through the support of all lenders. (5) Expansion of Bridge finance operations by the Bank for tnternational Settlement.
It also urged the developed countries to encourage their central banks to provide short-term deposits to it for that
purpose. (6) Measures should be taken” for promoting investment of private capital and greater private foreign
investments in the developing countries. (7) Above all, the Commission recommended increased co-operation among
the developing countries through strengthening of regional payment arrangements; expansion oifinancial facilities in
developing countries including establishment of a Third World Bank; support for enlarging refinancing and
guaranteeing developing countries export credit facilities, and increased direct investment in the Third World by the
developing countries
The Commission also emphasised the need to improving international financial system and suggested a number of steps
in this regard. It made proposals for emergency measures which ctnM he!p in improving the world trading
environments and food production ;n developing countries.
The-i«ue o* n-jrlh-^tuth rations also .ittrjcted (he attention vt ’he Comm<jnw«eal’h HtvuS ..if Cov’-rnrpent’, whicn
met at \ew.Delhi in ’933. Thtmeeting called tor a ”cnrnpreherr5,ve review of international monetary. !inanc:o; and
relevant trace issues’ and emphasised the need for the discussion ’it they-
THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS 623
issues at an international conference with universal participation. It asserted that the Commonwealth could play a
useful role in this regard and set up a Commonwealth consultative group for the purpose of promoting a consensus on
the issue.
In the year 1984 the North-South dialogue got freezed and multilateral institutions, in which the industrial nations had a
deci.sive say, were confronted with new problems, especially with regard to resources matching the growing needs.
South-South co-operation Through Global System of Trade Preference
(1985). The idea of securing increased trade co-operation and relations among the developing countries was first
mooted in 1982 and was given some shape at the UNCTAD meetings he’d in 1984 However, the idea was fully
elaborated at a meetingxof the ministers of more than 70 countries held at New.Delhi in July
1985. At this\ meeting deliberations were carried on to make South-South cooperation more meaningful and it was
decided to have a workable counterpart to the rich nations concept of Global Scheme of Preferences. For this purpose
the members agreed on a timebound schedule to secure definite progress . towards GSTP among the developing
countries.
Pyongyang Conference on South-South cooperation. In June 1987 the Foreign Ministers of Non-aligned countries
held a meeting on south-south cooperation at Pyonyang where they agreed on a new approach to make cooperation
among non-aligned and other developing countries more dynamic. They also agreed on certain measures to develop
and strengthen economic independence of these countries which would promote collective self-reliance and increase
the bargainingpower of the south in its negotiations with the North. The Conference called for a political dialogue
between the developed and the third world countries to resolve the problem of unpaid debts. It expressed concern at the
continuous decline in commodity prices and regretted that some developed countries had net shown the political will to
remove the trade imbalances at the last Uruguay meeting. The Conference agreed upon an action plan which called for
measures for economic co-operation at the national, regional and international levels to promote South-South
cooperation. The Conference expressed the hope that the plan of action would go a- long way towards increasing and
expanding cooperation among the developing countries in carrying forward the struggle for the New International
Economic Order.
Second Meeting of South-South Commission. The South-South Commission

• held its second meeting at Kuala Lumpur in March 1988. The Commission in its meeting focussed on issues of south-
south co-operation for self-reliance and South-North relations. The Commission was directed by the members to
analyse *nd comment on the evolving global environment, which in turn were being influenced by the recent political,
economic and technological changes in the North. Thereafter also the South-South Commission held meeting/but failed
to achieve any concrete ’esuiti, due to adamant attitude of the North.
Meeting of G-1 5. in lune 1 ’)90 Group of 1 5’C-I 5) held a summit meeting at Kuala Lumpur to entourage S<:urh-
South Cooperation. The summit resulted in several agreements -among the 1 r> developing countries for increasing
South-
624
South cooperation and taking an agreed stand at the Uruguay Round of trade talks under CATT. It called for increasing
North-South cooperation and immediate steps for securing Global System of Trade Preference (GSTP) among the third
world countries to develop closer economic cooperation among them. The meeting agreed on a number of projects to
cover several areas like finance, debt, trade, technology and environment. With regard to finance it was agreed that the
financial experts from their countries should meet and discuss the external debt problem with a view to formulating
common approaches. With regard to trade, they agreed to closely consult each other and coordinate efforts to achieve a
balanced and successful outcome of the Uruguay Round, which would take into account the needs of the developing
countries. In the area of technology the members emphasised the need of diffusion and utilisation of new technologies.
They agreed to initiate a significant programme of cooperation in science and technology to enhance the development
of the South. The other important decisions taken at the G-15 meeting included holding of summit meeting on annual
basis; the setting up of a Steering Committee for coordinating the work of the G-15 summit until next summit.
Despite sincere efforts to promote North-South cooperation the relations between North and South have continued to be
what they were in the 1970. North continues to control the international economic system as well as the economies and
policies of the third world countries.
Meeting of NAM Economic Committee (1992). The NAM Economic Committee held its meeting in 1992 under the
Chairmanship of Indonesian President Suharto. The meeting emphasised the need of democratisation of international
relations both in economic and political fields. The meeting dealt with the problem of international economic co-
operation as well as environment. It insisted that the conservation of environments should be linked with eradication of
poverty in the developing countries. It urged the producer and consumer countries to make every effort to revive
commodity agreements which have lapsed for all products except rubber, because such agreements are not only in the
interest of the producers but also of the consumers. The Committee underlined the need to forge a new global
commitment to strengthen international economic cooperation for development.
G-15 Summit at Dakar (1992). G-1 5 held a Summit meet at Dakar (Senegal) where they discussed the problem of
external debts being faced by the third world countries, as well as trade in commodities. They particularly expressed
concern over the problem arising due to fluctuation of prices, particularly historically low level of prices of primary
commodities. They also expressed concern over trade regimes in textile and clothing which has remained
discriminatory and restrictive. They impressed the need of liberalisation oftextiles trade and restoration of normal rules
of free,and non-discriminatory trade. The Summit sought lower debt servicing ratios through increase in the flow of
finance, including concessional finance for development. The members felt that in view of prolonged economic
recession in the North, the- South must look to itself to accelerate development and growth. Some of the areas
identified lor South-South cooperation by the summit include project on bilateral payment* arrangements, population
and family planning, selt-ropelling schemes, technical
; THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS 625
; personnel training development of non-metallic mineral raw materials, I environment mining, river and
watershed recovery projects etc. ’• Thus, we find that though the process of north-south dialogue has been
: going on for over two decades the” progress has not been quite satisfactory and
at present the North-South dialogue has virtually come to a dead-end, chiefly due
to non-cooperative attitude of the United States. Despite lack of any effective
progress, it cannot be denied that the process of dialogue has created greater
awareness about the development problems.
Why Slow Progress
At this stage it shall be pertinent to examine the question as to why much
progress had not been made in North-South Dialogue. A number of factors have
contributed to this:
1. Firstly, the attitude of the two parties has not been conducive to the progress of north-south negotiations. The
developed countries have tended to favour status quo and, therefore, adopted passive approach. Generally they ask the
south to propose subjects for negotiations and once the proposals are ;’ submitted they exaggerate the technical
defects of the proposals thereby delay their detailed consideration. They have also sought to weaken the unity and I
determination of south by highlighting the differences in the costs and benefits | to different group* of developing
countries. On the other hand, the developing ; countries too have tended to hold the international forces responsible
for their economic prdblems and play down domestic factors. There have been the absence of political will as the main
impediment to progress and emphasised the need of maintaining unity and solidarity in the face of diversity. This
conflict in attitude of north-south has generated mistrust about the motives and intentions of the other and hampered
genuine progress.
2. Secondly, the reluctance of the north to share power in the management of international economic institutions has
been another stumbling block. The developed countries have justified the existing arrangements on the grounds of
prudence and are reluctant to introduce far reaching changes. On the other hand the developing countries are keen to
share greater power. No doubt, certain changes have been introduced in the working process of the World Sank and
IMF but these changes have been too few and slow and were carried out on!y in the face of an impeding threat.
3. Thirdly, the existing institutional arrangements also stand in the way of progress in the north-south negotiations.
Both the parties have tried to confine the negotiations in those parts of the system which are congenial to their interests
and amendable, to their control, making the things more complicated.
4. Fourthly, South has favoured a universal, multilateral system of public negotiation which gives weightage to
members. It insists on comprehensive negotiations covering a packages of issues. Further, it has insisted that needs,
equality and red^tributive justk tr. rather than power should form thebasiMii .My -ettlemt-nt On the otht-r h.inrl,
mirth ha^ shown preference ’or hiUtf-r.il negotiation1; and considers multi-lateral diplomacy undesirable for
north-south dialogue on technical as well as political ^rcundy It has shown preference tor specific and issue-onenred
negotiations.
N-
5. Fifthly, north has preferred substantive negotiations on economic issues within the forums like IMF, World Bank and
CATT, where they exercise an overriding influence and control. On the other hand the South has preferred negotiations
within the United Nations General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies like UNCTAD, over which they have greater
influence.
6. Sixthly, the process of decision-making has also stood in the way of achieving any substantial results. Generally
decisions are taken by majority vote which leads to politicisation of issues rather than co-operation. Usually the
. dissenters implement the decision only if it is to their disadvantage to remain outside. It would, therefore, be desirable
that decisions should be taken by consensus, rather than by majority.
7. Seventhly, the group system on the basisof which north-south negotiations are conducted has also greatly affected the
negotiation process. Often differences exist within the groups which takes quite some time to reconcile before a firm
group position is taken. Once the group has taken a particular position, it is not easy to make compromises for arriving
at any solution. Further, it has been seen that while conducting negotiation, the representatives of south are generally
handicapped and are unable to respond convincingly to queries relating to analytical foundations, cost benefit
implications and time-frame of their policy
proposals.
8. Finally, the universal nature of negotiations in which all member states participate has also contributed to the show
pace of negotiations. Usually after long negotiating conferences decisions are taken only on one or two issues. In other
words the complex north-south negotiating process has greatly stood in the way of achieving an effective result. If
some fruitful results are desired wideranging and fundamental changes must be affected in the process of negotiations.
It should be made more informal and flexible.
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS
627
n-v
’ •/^•.”,..w. ... , . ,35
India’s Foreign Policy and Relations

”We have to develop close and direct contacts with the other nations and to co-operate with them in the furtherance of
world peace and freedom. We propose as far as possible, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned
against one another, which have led in the past to World War and whfch may again lead to distress on an even vaster
scale. We believe that peace and freedom are indivisible and the denial of freedorrhanywhere must endanger freedom
elsewhere and lead to conflict and war.”
- /
-Jawaharlal Nehru
Though India formally emerged as an independent country in August, 1947
the basic principles^ its foreign policy had been evolved during the period of
colonial rule itself. The most significant pronouncement regarding India’s
foreign policy in the pre-independence days was the Congress Resolution
| adopted at the Haripura Session in 1938 which asserted ”The people of India
I ’ desire to live in peace and friendship with their neighbours and with all other
I countries and for this purpose wish to rerhove all causes of conflict between
I’ them...In order, therefore, toestablish world peace on enduring basis, imperialism
I and explpitations of one people by another must end”.
| Another significant pronouncement about the Indian foreign policy was
I made by jawaharlal Nehru on 2 September, 1946 sometime after the assumption
f’ of reigns of the Provisional Government. He said:
”We hope to develop close and direct contacts with other nations and to
• co-operate with them in the furtherance o» world peace and freedom. We propose as far as possible, to keep away
from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another, which have led in the past to world wars and which may
again lead to distress on an even vaster scale. We believe that peace and freedom are indivisible and the denial of
freedom anywhere must danger freedom elsewhere and lead to conflict and war We are particularly interested in the
emancipation of colonial and dependent countries and peoples and the recognition in theory and practice of equal
opportunities for all races. We repudiate utterly the Naz doctrine of racialism wheresoever and in whatever form it may
be practised. W^ seek no domination over others and we claim no privileged position over other peoples. But we do
claim equal and honourable
treatment for our people wherever they may go, and we cannot accept any discrimination against them.
The world, in spite of its rivalries and hatred and inner conflicts moves inevitably towards closer cooperation and the
building up of a world commonwealth. It is for this One World that free India will work, a world in which there isthe
free cooperation of free peoples and no class or group exploits
another.
”In spite of our past history of conflicts we hope that an Independent India will have friendly and co-operative relations
with England and the countries of the British Commonwealth.
”We are of Asia and the peoples of Asia are nearer and closer to us than others. India is so situated that she is the pivot
of Western, Southern and SouthEast Asia. In the past her culture followed to all these countries and they came to her in
many ways. Those contacts are being renewed and the future is bound to see a close union between India and South-
East Asia on the one side and Afghanistan, Iran and Arab World on the other. To the furtherance of that close
association of free countries we must devote ourselves. India has followed with anxious interest the struggle of the
Indonesians for freedom and to them we send our good wishes...China, that mighty country with a mighty past, our
neighbour has been our friend through the age and that friendship will endure and grow. We earnestly hope that her
present troubles will end soon and a united and democratic China will emerge, playing a great part in the furtherance of
world peace and progress.
”We want to befriend every country so that our circle of friendship may grow and become wide and co-operation and
peace may thrive. What kind of friendship is that which envisages enmity with others? We should befriend all and
stretch out our hands to all. For this reason our comingtoo closer to the great country, the Soviet Union, is very
important, but this does not mean that we have drifted away from any other country. This is neither the position now
nor will it be at any time in future. We have always wanted and we still want co-operation among the countries of the
world to increase and world peace to be strengthened. The preservation of peace forms” the central aim of India’s
policy. It is in the pursuit of policy that we have chosen the path of non-alignment. This does not mean passivity of
mind or action, lack of faith or conviction. It does not mean submission to what we consider evil. It is a positive and
dynamic approach to. such problems as confront us. We believe that each country has not only the right to freedom, but
to decide its own policy and way of life... We believe, therefore, in non-aggression and non-interference by one country
in the affairs of another, and the growth of tolerance between them and the capacity for peaceful coexistence.”
Nehru’s above pronouncement was of great significance in so tar as it outlined the basic principles on which India’s
foreign policy was to rest in the year to come. The”principles of India’s foreign policy were further elaborated Jnd
extended by Nehru and found their outlet in the shape of various speeches and pronouncements. By piecing together
these pronouncements of Nehru we can
629
form a fairly good idea about the main features of Itxiia’s foreign policy. However, it may be noted that India’s
foreign policy has rvx been static and has undergone changes according to exigencies of time and requirements
of domestic as well as international situations.
Bask Principles of India’s Foreign PoHcy ’
The main principles of India’s foreign policy are a«s under.
1. Non-alignment: Non-Alignment is one of the mosjt significant principles of India’s foreign policy. When India
gained independence, the world was divided into two camps headed by two superpowers nanêly Soviet Union and
U.S.A. As India was keen to play an effective role in the internationai arena, it thought proper to keep away from these
blocks. Emphasising this point Pandit Nehru said, ”If by any chance we align ourselves definitely with one power
group we may perhaps from one point of view do some good but I have not the shadow of doubt that from a larger
point of view not only of India, buf of world peace it will do harm. Because then we lose that tremendous vantage
ground that we haveb/ using such influence as we possess and that influence is going to grow from year to year-in the
cause of world.” He further assorted, ”I feel that India can piayl big part, and may be an effective part, in helping the
avoidance of war. Therefore) it becomes all the more necessary that India should not be lined up with any groups of
power which for various reasons are i*t a sense full of fear of war and drepare for war.”
Itrfiay be observed that the policy of non-alignment was dictated by the consideration of national interest. Because of
its liberal traditions India could not, align itself with Soviet Union which believed in ideology of violence’ and «•
revolution. On the other hand her geographical location (withASoviet Union and . China dose to her borders)
demanded that she should^npt join the Western ! alliance. The traditional attitude of tolerance also imêlle^ India to
remain nonaligned. Above all the interests of the country demanded that India should pursue policy of non alignment
This point was emphasised by N^ru thus: ”By aligning yourselves with one power, you surrender your opinion, give
upjthe policy you would normally pursue, somebody else wants you to purs|£ anther policy, ido •not think that it would
be a right policy for us toâdopt If we did align,ourselves we would only fall between two stools. We will neither he
following the policy based on our ideals inherited from our past or the one indicated by our present nor will we be able
to adapt ourselves to the policy consequent on such alignment According to Prof. A.K. Damodran, the discovery of
nuclear weapons and the possibility of their use in warfare also greatly influenced Nehru’s views on non-alignment He
says ’added to the earlier longer preoccupations with decolonisation and social justice...this became one of the cardinal
factors influencing India’s adoption of a non-aligned posture.”
The term non-alignment is often mistaken for ’neutrality’, which does not convey the real nature of India’s foreign
policy. Nehru took strong exception to the use of ’neutral’ for jndia’s foreign policy and asserted The use of word
1. A. K. Damodran, * Jawaharfal Nehru and Non-Alignment” in India (JanuaryMafdi, 1983). .

630
’neutral’ to describe India’s foreign policy is wrong except in terms ot war. If you say there is war on today
we are neutral. If you say there is a cold war, we are certainly neutral...we do not propose to join that war.
It does not matter who is right and who is wrong. We will not join in this exhibition of mutual abuse,
because we do not serve anybody that way certainly not the cause of peace.* The adoption of non
alignment as policy has not in anyway hampered India’s friendly co-operation with other countries. It has
concluded number of agreements foe economic, cultural as well as political cooperation. Again, it has also
not prevented her from taking an unbiased view of the various political events and expressing her views. It
is well known that India strongly condemned the North Korean aggression against South Korea in 1950,
Anglo-French invasion of Suez in 1956, the Soviet intervention in Hungary and U.S. use of force in
Vietnam. In short, India tried to judge the various international issues on merit and took definite stand on
these issues.
This policy of non-alignment proved immensely beneficial to the country. India not only kept the option
open to develop* its relations with various countries, but was also able to secure all types of aid from
countries or blocs. No doubt, in the initial year the country had to face lot of difficulties because the two
Super Powers did not look at India’s non-alignment with favour and interpreted-it as extending support to
the rival power. However,-slowly this hostility towards non-alignment died and most of the countries of
Asia and Africa after their independence preferred to adopt this policy. This policy apart from serving the
national interest of India also went a long way in strengthening the cause of world peace.
2. Anti-Colonialism and Anti Imperialism: Another outstanding principle of India’s foreign policy has been
her strong opposition to colonialism, and imperialism. This policy was largely the outcome of her long
sufference as a colony under the British. Naturally, after independence India showed full syw.pathy for all
those people who were still under colonial rule. It took up the cause of such people at the United Nations
and played an important role in the promotion of decolonisation. Pandit Nehru emphasised the commitment
of India to support the people under imperial domination thus ”Asia till recently waylargely a prey to
imperial domination and colonialism; a great part of it is* free today, part of it still remains unfree and it is
an astonishing thing that any country still ventures to hold and to set forth this doctrine of colonialism
whether it is Under direct rule or wrtether it is indirectly maintained in some form or another. We, in Asia,
who have ourselves suffered all these evils of colonialism and imperial domination have committed
oursehreijnevitably to freedom of other colonial countries. ~”~
This anti-colonial anti-imperialist stand of India was not confinedttvinere pronouncements. On the other
hand India tried to practice it and extended ~ support to Indonesia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco etc.
Thus India extended full support to Indonesia when the Government of Netherlands tried to overpaver it
and played a vital role in Indonesia’s independence’. Ali Sastromidjags, the Pri r>e Minister of Indonesia
acknowledged India’s help and observed ”The assistance which India has given so fully and whole-
heartedly to/my people will
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS 631
be written in letters of shining gold in the pages of the history of free Indonesia.’ India also supported the
people of East Pakistan (now Bangla Desh) and helped them to free themselves from the yoke of military
regime of Pakistan. This stand of India naturally earned for India the wrath of the Colonial and Imperialist
powers. However, India remained undaunted and continued to support anticolonial struggles. Asserting
India’s determination to pursue this policy at all costs Nehru observed ”India will not give up her policy
which she had pursued all along...! want to say to the world on behalf of this country that we are not
frightened of the military might of this power or mat-India will never hesitate to do that she thinks it
necessary for the progress of humanity”. According to critics , India’s opposition to colonialism somewhat
cooled down after 1962. However, trjis criticism is not correct. India continued to oppose imperialism and
colonialism even thereafter. India’s support to the people of East Pakistan which ultimately led to the
creation of Bangla Desh can be cited as another ’example. Similarly India extended support for
decolonisation of Namibia and SoutrKAfrica and provided facilities to SWAPO and the ANC to set up
their missions in New Delhi.
3. Opposition to Racialism: India has always emphasised the principle of brotherhood of man and opposed
all types of discriminations based on race and culture, etc. It was the first country to highlightthe problem
of racial discrimination at the international level and severely condemned the policy of raciaLsegregation
being pursued by the government of South Africa. It sought international intervention to pressurise the
White Government of South Africa to abandon the policy of racial discrimination. In 1952, India along
with twelve other Afro-Asian states, raised the question of apartheid at the U.N. and asserted that its
practice not only constituted a flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights,
but also constituted a serious threat to the world peace. Nehru asserted ”We repudiate utterly the Nazi
doctrine of racialism wheresoever and in whatsoever form it may be practised. We seek no domination over
other and we claim no privileged position over other people. But we do claim equality and honourable
treatmentpf our people wherever they may go and we cannot accept any discrimination”. In subsequent
years India took up the cause of the Negroes in America and African population of Rhodesia. It has
consistently condemned racialist policies of South Africa and demanded sanctions against Pretoria to
compel it to release political prisoners and repeal apartheid laws. In short, it can be said that India has taken
consistent cudgles against racial discrimination wherever it was being practised.
4. Faith in Peaceful Coexistence and Cooperation: India was not merely satisfied to adopt policy of non-
alignment but also tried to promote the spirit of co-operation and peaceful coexistence among the states
professing different ideologies. India cultivated very intimate relations with China, Nepal, Yugoslavia,
Egypt etc. and played a leading role in the evolution of five principles (Panch Sheela) emphasising mutual
respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; non-aggression; non-intervention in each
other’s domestic affairs; mutual benefit and equality; and peaceful coexistence. It was in this spirit of
peaceful co-existence and co-operation that India laid great emphasis on the
settlement of disputes peacefully. The firm faith of India in these principles is evident from the fact that despite
the Chinese betrayal in 1962 India has persistently expressed its faith in these principles.
5. Special Sias for Asia: Even though India advocated co-operation among all the countries of the world, it shows a
social bias for the countries of Asia in its foreign policy. It developed very close relations with countries of Asia, and
tried to promote unity among them by organising a number of conferences. At these conferences Nehru emphasised
that Asia could play an effective role in promoting the world peace and piay a dominant role in the shaping of the
international relations. In the speech of 7 September, 1946 Nehru asserted ”We are of Asia and the people of Asia are
nearer and closer to us than others. India is so situated that she is the pivot of Western, Southern and South-Eastern
Asia. In the past her culture flowed to all these countries, and they came to her in many ways. Those contacts are being
renewed and the future is bound to see a closer union between India and South-East Asia on the one side and
Afgan’stan, (ran and Arab world on the other,” In one of his subsequent speeches also Nehru emphasised the important
role which Asia could play in the preservation and promotion of world peace. He said ”In this atomic age, Asia will
have to function effectively in the maintenance of peace. Indeed, there can be no peace unless Asia plays her part.
There is today conflict in many countries and all us in Asia are fully aware of our own troubles. Nonetheless, the whole
spirit and outlook of Asia are peaceful and the emergence of Asia in the world affairs will bear powerful influence on
world peace.”
Even though India showed a special bias, it tried to create no separate block of the Asian nations. No doubt, India took
a lead in organising some conferences of the Asian countries during the period 1947 and 1949 but their chief purpose
was to promote co-operation among the countries of Asia. Nehru categorically stated, ”We meet in no spirit of hostility
to any nation or group of nations but in ’ an endeavour to promote peace through the extension of freedom.”
6. Intimate Relations with Commonwealth : intimacy of relations with Commonwealth has beer another important
feature of India’s foreign policy. India sought the membership of Commonwealth even after adopting a Republican
constitution, because it thought that the membership of Commonwealth shall be beneficial in the economic and other
spheres. India played a leading role at the various Commonwealth meets. Nodoubt, occasionally certain irritants
appeared in relations with Britain there was a demand for withdrawal from the Commonwealth, but the Government
was always able to withstand the pressure for withdrawal and continued its membership.
7. Faith in the United Nations: India as a proponent of peace has shown great faith in the United Nations. It has not
only encouraged the settlement of disputes through methods but also extended full support to the United Nations
actions. It has been contributing military as well as other personnels for implementing the decisions of the United
Nations. It is wellknown that India played a commendable role during the Korean and Indo-China crisis. It provided
necessary personnels for the Observation Group in Lebanon which performed the stupendous task of checking the
infiltration of personnel and supply of arms,
’ -9 . • ’”
etc. across the Lebanese border. India also sent a large contingent to preserve peace in Congo. The valuable service
rendered by India to the United Nations to preserve the world peace were acknowledge by the U.N. Secretary General
Hammarskjold. He said in March, 1959 ”I would like to (acknowledge with gratitude) the co-operation of the Indian
people and the Indian Government first of all and still on a very large-scale in the Ga/a operations with a very quick
response, with a very noble response because the Indian units in Gaza were of a very very high quality. I can speak
from personal experience and I am not flattering you.” He also commended the valuable service rendered by India in
Lebanon and asserted that ”both these contributions are very valuable contributions to the whole-development of the
U.N. security and legal system on which it is possible to build the future.” India also contributed contingents to the
United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNilMOG) constituted to supervise cease-fire between Iran and
Iraq which commenced on 20 August 1988.
K Special Emphasis on Means: Another notable feature of Indian foreign policy is\hat it lays great emphasis on purity
of means. India has consistently held that the means for the attainment of national interest must be pious. India has
always nourished very high ideals and has never aspired to acquire territory of other countries. This is fully borne out
by the fact that India returned to Pakistan her territory which she had captured during the 1965 and 197) wars. India has
always laid emphasis on settlement of disputes through amicable negotiations and peaceful methods.
Thus we find that the Indian foreign policy is based on high ideals and attaches great importance to methods. India’s
Foreign Policy after 1%2 t ’ • •
The year 1962 marks a watershed in the development of India’s foreign policy. Though the basic principles outlined
above still continued to forrn the oasis of the Indian foreign policy in the post 1962 period, but it came to be
characterised by greater pragmatism and realism. The defeat at the hands of the Chinese in 1962 convinced the
leadership that purely moralistic foreign policy shall not be in the interest of the country and necessary modifications
should be made in the policy to make it more effective instrument of national interest. This change was discernible
during the Prime Ministership of Nehru itself when he openly declared that India was no more non-aligned so far as
China was concerned. Lai Bahadur Shastri, who succeeded Nehru as Prime Minister tried to cultivate friendly and
intimate relations with neighbours like, Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka as well as the two Super Powers. He succeeded in
procuring military and economic assistance from both the powers and greatly strengthened India’s position. What is
significant that even U.S.A. despite strong protests from Pakistan continued to provide liberal military aid to India. This
aid was suspended only on the outbreak of war between India and Pakistan in 1965. Profs. Palmer and Perkins have
asserted that the Chinese attack ”came as a traumatic shock to India and caused a searching repraisal of India’s foreign
policy and her whole approach to the problems of national security and external relations”. It is true that methods of
foreign policy after 1962 underwent a * change, but the basic principles of India’s foreign policy continued to be the
same. • -’ .”•’-. w
Another outstanding feature of the Indian foreign policy during the Shastri era was that the emphasis shifted to
collective decision-making’. The formulation of the foreign policy was no more the exclusive or prerogative of the
Prime Minister and a handful of his personal advisers and friends, instead he discussed the things with other members
of his government and other important party ’ leaders. The public involvement in the formulation of foreign policy also
• increased. However, the basic principles of foreign policy remained unaltered.
Foreign Policy under Indira Gandhi
After the sudden death of Shastri, Mrs. Indira Gandhi became the Prime
- Minister. Like her predecessors she took keen interest in the conduct of foreign policy. During the first few years she
took all major foreign policy decisions in consultation with other prominent members of government and party, in
short, the principle of ’collective decisions making continued. However, with the passage of time she asserted herself
and started formulating foreign policy with the assistance of some of her close and trusted colleagues and friends.
During her.period also the process of developing close relations with Super Powers continued. As a result she was able
to secure large financial and military assistance from U.S:A. She also cultivated intimate relations with Soviet
Unionwhich culminated in the conclusion of the Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship and cooperation in 1971. Though
under Indira Gandhi also the basic principles of foreign policy, as enunciated by Nehru were observed but the policy
certainly grew more pragmatic. This period also witnessed a great tilt toward Soviet Union and somewhat cooling of
relations with the United States. Foreign Poiicy under )ante Party .
With the formation of the Janata Government in 1977 it was expected that a drastic change in India’s foreign policy
would take place. It has hoped that there would be a certain amount of cooling off of relations with Soviet Union and
more intimate relations with U.S.A. This feeling was largely the outcome of the fact that while in opposition leaders of
the Janata Party (from the forums of their respective political parties) had severely’condemned India’s tilt towards
Soviet Union. Atal Behari Vajapayee, the then External Affairs Minister had particularly been a bitter critic of India’s
growing intimacy with Soviet Union, and considered it a violation of the principle of genuine non-alignment. But all
these speculations were set at rest when Atal Behari Vajpayee, announced that the views expressed by him and his
Cabinet colleagues while in the opposition will not influence their conduct of foreign policy. However, he made it clear
that the new government wanted to pursue a policy of genuine non-alignment. The Janata Government, therefore, tried
to develop very intimate relations with both the Super Powers, and bring about greater balance and sobriety.
The new Government continued friendly relations with the Soviet Union realising it fully well that India had
immensely benefited from the close connections with Soviet Union through supply of sophist icatedmilitary hardwares,
assistance .in diversification of country’s economy through establishment of basic industries and ”ever expanding trade
between the two countries. Any
deviation from this policy would have done much harm to the country. Therefore, the Janata Government tried to
develop very intimate and close relations with Soviet Union without showing in any way a tilt in its favour. The leaders
of the two countries, Desai and Gromyko, exchanged visit to keep up the existing intimate relations intact. A new
dimension to growing bilateral cooperation in the economic, scientific and technological field was added by setting up
an Indo-Soviet Joint Commission.
The Janata Government also tried to improve relations with U.S.A. which had been coofing-off since 1967. A new
chapter was opened in Indo-U.S. relations with the visit of President Carter. Most of the irritants and suspicions which
had marred the relations between the two countries were removed and a spirit of mutually beneficial co-operation was
revived. For the first time the traditional donor-recipient relationship between U.S.A. and India was replaced by an
equal partnership based on friendship and common will to co-operate both in bilateral matter and on international
issues. It is true that during the Janata period also there continued to be difference of opinion between the two countries
on same issues, but by and large there was a comparative lack of rancour in their mutual dealings and discussions. In
short, we can say with Pran Chopra mat the Janata Government ”tried to be more even handed in dealing with them
(USA and USSR), more free of unnecessary asperity towards the U.S.A. on theone hand and on the other hand more
free out of season warmth and praise forthe Soviet Union. It has not gone out of its way to heat up controversies with
the U.S.A. or to fine up in haste with the Soviet Union or too readily grasp every offer of aid by Moscow.”
Another outstanding feature of the Janata Foreign Policy was an attempt to develop more closer relations with the
neighbouring countries. Atal Bihari Vajpayee said in his address at a seminar held at the Indian School of International
Studies, ”The Janata Government from the first day of its existence set out deliberately to clear the cobwebs of
suspicion, remove misunderstanding, and banish the fear of interference. We have not only professed strict
noninterference in the internal affairs pf our neighbours but also practised it, .often in the face of great temptation to do
the contrary.... We have generally tried to them the mutuality of advantage in bilateralism and allowed the irresistible
logic of geography to assert itself... We have done away with the duality that had crept into the conduct of the country’s
foreign policy sometime ago. By promoting trust and cooperation we have only furthered our national interests.” The
Janata Government took a number of concrete steps to improve its relations withneighbouring countries like
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, etc. by coming to an understanding regarding some of the outstanding disputes. Thus it
reached an agreement with Pakistan on the question of Salal Dam in Kashmir. It concluded an agreement on Farakka
with Bangladesh which was an improvement over the interim agreement concluded by Mrs. Indira Gandhi with Sheikh
Mujibur . Rahman earlier. The concession given by the Janata Government to reach an understanding with
neighbours like Bangladesh and Nepal met with criticism at
1. The Round Table (issue 285, July 1<)7<)i, p.228-. v
*,«
636 . INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1
certain hands and ”the government was accused of bartering away India’s Ik
essential interests for the sake of more good neighbourltness.” Again, it has been B
contented that there was nothing new with policy of good neighbourliness, B
because even the earlier government tried good relations with the neighbours B
but couid not succeed due to the involvement of the Big powers. By this time the s fl involvement of the Big
powers had decreased and the Janata Government made •
full use of this opportunity to improve relations with the neighbours. In fact, this I
process started during the times of Mrs. Gandhi herself. Another consideration I
which compelled India to improve relations with neighbours was that India I
needed markets for its rapidly expanding agricultural surpluses, especially I
t’oodgrains. Pakistan and China, which were importing huge quantities of I
wheat-could be the most suitable markets. In this context good neighbourliness I
became a strong concern with the Janata Government. I
The Janata Government tried to improve its relations with China for two I reasons. First, uneasy relations with
China in the past had distorted the priorities I
of the country by imposing a heavy defence burden. Secondly, it was desirable I to cultivate friendly relations with
Beijing so that Pakistan may not revert to its I
old stance. On the other hand China was also eagef to improve relations with India because they were so much
engrossed in their domestic problems that they !
wanted peace on borders with India. An improvement in relations with China manifested itself in the resumption of
trade and exchange of trade delegations. The two countries also co-operated in the cultural and sports activities. As a
result of these exchanges the tension between the two countries was greatly relaxed. But in view of some of the
irritants, existing between the two countries the relations could not be fully normalised. The Janata Government,
however, expressed its desire- to settle the outstanding differences through bilateral
negotiations.
In addition to this, the Janata Party continued the policy of improving
relations with the countries of South-East Asia and West-Asia and extended full support to the anti-racial policies and
liberation movements in Africa. It also claimed.to play a rqore positive role in disarmament and insistejd that it should
hot be left to the Super Powers alone to provide a lead in this regard. It emphasised that non-aligned nations should be
more effectively involved in disarmament and made aware that it is they alone who suffer because of armaments as
they have to divert the much needed funds (which could be fruitfully utilised for development purposes) to military
preparations.
In short, Janata Party followed a foreign policy which was highly pragmatic and aimed at promotion of national
interests. However”, there was not much deviation from the basic principles on which the Indian foreign policy had
been based so far. According to Pran Chopra ”the shifts in India’s foreign policy under the Janata rule are neither new
nor great. They are continuing adjustment. Sometimes more marked than in the past, to India’s changing need in the
changing external and domestic context.” Even A.B. Vajpayee admitted in the course of his address to the Indian
School of International Studies, ”If there has been a change, it has been to impart honesty and sincerity to our national
purpose

«
consistently with our principles, a fresh thrust to the promotion of the cause of peace and disarmament, to strengthen
stability and cooperative spirit to fortify independence and freedom from exploitation.1”
I Policy in Pojt-JanaU Period
With the fall of the Janata Government and the formation of Congress (I) Government, India’s foreign policy again
reverted back to the pattern prevailing before the formation of Janata Government. However, the special tilt towards
Soviet Union, which was a characteristic of the foreign policy in the years preceding the Janata rule, disappeared and
the coolness of relations with U.S.A. I gave place to mote mature relations with that country.
I Foreign Policy under Rajiv
I Rajiv Gandhi continued the foreign policy of Nehru and Indira Gandhi and
I reaffirmed his faith in the United Nations, the non-aligned movement, opposition
E, to colonialism, old or new in his very first broadcast to the nation on 12
I November! 1984. He also indicated his determination to work for narrowing
H international economic disparities; develop closer relations with Immediate
I neighbours; pursue policy of non-interference, peaceful co-existence and non-
|* alignment; promised to pursue the concept of common regional development
I of Sourtr Asia; improvement and strengthening of relations with China, Soviet
1 Union and United States; to carry on relentless crusade against arms race; to
I promote dialogue between the North and South to build a just world economic
| order. He has faithfully pursued these objectives and not only improved relations
I with U.S.A. and other neighbouring countries but also made frantic efforts to
i promote internal peace, nuclear disarmament and greater economic co-operation
• between north and south.
I’. Foreign Policy under National Front and Janata(S) Governments
K The National Front Government which came into power in November
B 1989 reiterated its determination to continue policy of non-alignment. However,
• it expressed its desire to effect improvement in relations with .immediate B neighbours which had got strained during
the past few years. Soon after B assumption of power it initiated moves to hold talks with the leaders of Nepal, B • Sri
Lanka and Pakistan to remove some of the irritants present in the relations of B India with these countries. It expressed
its determination to develop more B intimate relations with the United States, without jeopardising good relations B
with Soviet Union. The Janata Dal (S) which came to power after the fall of V.P.
• Singh Government, also continued the policy of the earlier governments and did B - not make any change in the
traditional foreign policy of the country.
B Foreign Policy under Narasimha Rao
B Narasimha Rao assumed office at a time when the world had undergone
B. complete change due to breaking of ideological barriers, the end of cold war and
B- adjustments in power equations due to disintegration of Soviet Union. Serious
jf- economic difficulties and domestic turmoils also obliged India to make adjustments
638
in its foreign policy. It tried to forge closer relations with USA and responded favourably to US proposals for
military cooperation. It is hoped that the new relationship with US would provide India an opportunity to
establish an opening in critical US departments (Pentagon and State) which have been fairly hostile. India also
hopes to attract substantial US investments in the country. The new government also initiated moves to improve
relations with the countries of Europe and settle outstanding disputes with the neighbouring countries.
It is thus evident from the above survey that the foreign policy of India has all along been based on the principles
already discussed. However, it has been undergoing constant changes in keeping with the requirements of the situation
to suit the national interest.
Criticism of Foreign Policy
The principles and operation of India’s foreign policy have been subjected to much criticism. Some of the charges
which are generally levelled against it are as follows:
First, it has been pointed out that too much importance has been attached to idealism, some time even at the cost of
national interest. While it cannot be denied that idealism or moralism has been a predominant feature of India’s foreign
policy all these years, but it is certainly wrong to allege that it has led to the neglect of the national interest. On the
other hand it is mainly due to the impartial stand taken by India on the various international issues that India has gained
reputation as an upright country and has been able to play a dominant role in the international politics. The idealism has
not prevented the Indian leaders from imparting dynamism to the policy. \
Secondly, the policy of non-alignment pursued by India has been subjected to criticism. It is alleged that in a world
divided into two hostile camps it was not desirable for India to adopt non-alignment as its policy because this way she
was rendered supportless and could not get all out support and help which she would have received by joining either of
the two groups, which could have ensured quicker development of the country. As a result of this policy of
nonalignment she was looked upon with suspicion by both the powers during the first few years. The policy of non-
alignment was interpreted as a clever device to befool both the powers. However, in course of time this hostility died
out and India was able to procure financial as well as military assistance from both the camps. During the Indo-Chinese
conflict of 1962 she received support and assistance from both the superpowers. In the subsequent years also she never
felt aloof during the period of crisis and was able to get support of Russia during the Indo-Pak War of 1971. Therefore,
it can be said that the policy of non-alignment has in no way proved detrimental to the interest of the country and has
not only served the national” interest of India but also enhanced her prestige in the international arena.
Thirdly, India’s membership of the Commonwealth has also been a subject of much criticism. It is often alleged that
this has restricted the freedom of action and prevented the country from pursuing an independent foreign policy. This
criticism is also baseless. Commonwealth is a voluntary association and India chose to join it because it expected
certain economic benefits. It is free to leave
639
it any time it chooses and it does not in any way infringe on her soverign rights, lawaharlal Nehru also
emphasised this point and observed, ”We have chosen to stay in the Commonwealth because it confers on us
benefits which do not take away our sovereign status.” This point is further borne out by the fact that in
subsequent years whenever a demand for severing ties with Commonwealth arose, the Government refused to
do so and persisted with the membership of Commonwealth in the larger interests of the country.
Fourthly, it is alleged that India has completely neglected the vital principle of power in the conduct of internal
relations and laid more emphasis on peaceful settlement of international disputes. These methods can be-effective only
when they are backed by necessary power. As India does not wield sufficient power to exert necassary pressure on
other states, it has essentially to depend on the support of other powers for settlement of international disputes.
However, in the present context the concept of ’power polities’ has suffered a setback and it is being\generally realised
that the ’power* should not be used for resolving international issues. The fear of nuciear war has further rendered this
principle less operative’ because even the Super Powers are now insisting on negotiated settlement of disputes.
Finally, the foreign policy has failed to produce the desired results. India has not only failed to get the Kashmir issue
resoived but also protect the people of India from policy of discrimination being pursued by South Africa. Similarly,
Jne question of the people of Indian origin residing in Sri Lanka has not been resolved to the entire satisfaction of the
concerned people. All this is a clear indication that the Indian foreign policy has failed to protect and promote the
national interests of the country Despite these failures it cannot be denied that the Indian foreign policy has greatly
increased country’s prestige in the international sphere. India has not only been able to transform the problems of
racialism and colonialism into international problems, but has also strengthened the cause of international peace by
laying emphasis on peaceful settlement of disputes and by actively participating in resolving disputes like Korea,
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. India also sem troops to preserve peace in Congo and strip.
In conclusion, it may be said that though the foreign policy of India has been condemned on various grounds, it cannot
be denied that in the context of the conditions prevailing in the international arena this was the best policy. It has
combined the twin principles of idealism and pragmatism. Though the basic principles of India’s foreign policy have
continued to be same since the times of Nehru and the subsequent leaders did not deviate much from it, but the policy
underwent a new thrustin the changed context There was particularly a sharp deviation from the methods of foreign
policy after the Indo-Chinese conflict of
1962. The Janata Party, though professed to give a new dimension to foreign policy, also did not make any change in
the substance of country’s policy. It merely made some adjustments in the existing policy.
(A) INDIA AND THE SUPERPOWERS
The emergence of free India coincided with the emergence of United States and Soviet Union as two Super Powers.
Both these powers with faith in their respective ideologies and way of life looked with suspicion towards each other
640
and set up military blocs like NATO, CENTO, SEATO, ANZUS, Warsaw Pact, etc. to meet the possible threat from
the other. When India gained independence it had option to join either of the two power blocs. However, India decided
to keep away from both these blocs, justifying this stand Nehru said: ”If by any chance we align ourselves definitely
with one power group, we may perhaps from one point of view do some good but I have not the shadow of doubt that
from a larger point of view, not only of India but of world peace it will harm. Because then we lose that tremendous
vantage ground that we have of using such influence as we possess and that influence is going to grow from year to
year-in the cause of world peace.” Thus in the interest of the country as well as interest of world peace India kept aloof
from the power blocs and adopted policy of nonalignment.
The adoption of policy of non-alignment did not imply that India ceased to play a positive role in the international
sphere, it expressed positive opinions on the issues facing the world on the basis of merit. Thus India condemned North
Korean aggression against South Korea in 1950 and British and French invasion of Suez in 1956 as well as Soviet
intervention in Hungary (1956). Later on India also condemned USA for Use of force in Vietnam. ’Despite the
forthright stand taken by India on the various international issues its relationship with the two super powers-has been
the permanent pathological preoccupation of India’s foreign policy’..Though India has always wanted to have balanced
relationship with both the super powers it has not always succeded in this mission. In fact India’s relations with the two
super-powers have been influenced by the exigencies of international politics as well as domestic demands. For a fuller
understanding of India’s policy towards the two super powers it shall be desirable to make a detailed study of its
relations with the two Super Powers.
India and USA : Soon after independence, India developed very friendly relations with USA. The Indian leaders
acknowledged with gratitude the positive role played by the American President in exerting pressure on the British
Government to expedite the grant of independence to India. The democratic ideals of America also greatly fascinated
the Indian leaders, specially Nehru,-and they tried to develop intimate relations with USA. However, the decision of
India to follow policy of non-alignment did not find favour with the U.S. leaders and they considered it as an unfriendly
posture towards USA. The refusal of India to join the military alliances sponsored by. USA and different stands taken
by it on various international issues like grant of independence to Indonesia, and recognition of the Communist regime
of China was quite annoying to the American leaders. On the other hand, the American support to Pakistan on the
Kashmir issue in the Security Council and grant of military aid to Pakistan with a view to meet the Communist threats
were quite irritating to the Indian leaders. The repeated assurance of the American Government that the military aid
provided to Pakistan was essentially to meet Communist threat and would not be used against India, did not satisfy the
Indian leaders.
’ndia did not approve of the American policy of containing communist Soviet Union and China through system of
military alliance and sought to promote a climate of peaceful co-existence’and co-operation by recognising the
641
vital differences between their political and economic institutions and her own. India’s policy towards China specially
offended the Americans. Nehru’s mild stand on the Chinese invasion of Tibet, dissociation with American move to
brand China as an aggressor in Korea and opposition to the United States sponsored ’Uniting for Peace’ resolution of
November, 1950 greatly irritated United States. India’s attitude towards the Peace Pact between USA and lapan
concluded at San Franscisco in September, 1951 also caused some bitterness in Indo-American relations, India not only
refused to take part in the conference but also criticised the American move not to invite Soviet Union and China to tht
conference. No wonder, as a result of all this the relations between India and USA continued to be tense.
Despite these differences in the political sphere, the relations between the two countries in the economic, cultural and
educational spheres continued to grow, and USA provided valuable assistance to India under the Technical Cooperation
Agreement of 1951. USA also made available to India huge quantities of foodgrairjs to tide over the problem of food-
shortage facing the country. India also received enormous assistance from various private foundations like the Ford
Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegi.
Relations after 1962
India’s relations with USA became more intimate after the Sino-lndia Conflict of 1962. USA provided India with the
useful moral and material help during the conflict when she stood alone. At that juncture it looked that the two
countries may draw closer and make it a joint’ responsibility to check the Communist China. However, the withdrawal
of military forces by China from the Indian territory (beyond the disputed areas) and the pro-Indian stand of Soviet
Union, made it possible for India to return to its earlier non-aligned position. The rejection of Indian request by USA
for supply of variety of advanced military hardware also checked more intimate relations between India and USA.
The relations between India and USA deteriorated, following Indian
. condemnation of USA for use of gas in North Vietnam. US reacted against the
Indian action and postponed the visit of USA President to India in 1965.
Unmindful of this rebuff India continued to be critica! of America’s policy in
Vietnam.
The use of the America’s arms by Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan Wjr of 1965 further embittered the relations
between India and USA. India strongly protested to the American Government that Pakistan was using these arms
contrary to the assurances of the US Government that they would not he used against India and asked America to
prevent the use of American arms against India. However, the American leaders took no measures in this regard. This
was naturally interpreted by the Indian leaders as a pro-Pakistan stand. The ProPakistan attitude of USA was further
evident from the fact that USA withdrew six of its ships loaded with defence aid for India when they were barely
fifteen miles awdy from the Indian coast. But subsequently when China served India with an ultimdtum to remove
Indian military posts in tht- >o called Chinese territor\ within three djy>, the U.’S. Foreign Affairs Secretaiy announced
that USA would
provide military aid to India in case the Chinese attacked India. This stand of U.S. was highly appreciated in India.
In the subsequent years also India’s relations with USA continued to be far from friendly because of USA’s consistent
support to Pakistan on Kashmir issue and US decision to provide shelter to the Naga rebel leader Phizo in United States
in 1967. USA also considerably cut short her aid to India which adversely affected Indian plans. India refused to bow to
American pressure and raised the status of Indian Embassy in North Vietnam in January 1970 without caring for
American sentiments. It also closed down American cultural centres in Calcutta, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Patna etc.
In the war of 1971 (between India and Pakistan which resulted in the birth of Bangladesh) once again U.S.A. adopted a
partisan stand and supported Pakistan. First of all U.S.A. sought to protect the interests of Pakistan by trying to secure
cease-fire through the Security Council. But after this move was stalled on account of use of veto by Soviet Union,
U.S.A. moved her Seventh Fleet towards the Bay of Bengal on the plea of evacuating US citizens from East Pakistan.
The despatch of nuclear powered aircraft carrier Enterprise for the evacuation of American citizens was clearly a move
for military blackmail of India. Thereafter the relations between the two countries continued to operate at a very low
key.
During 1973-74 efforts were made to normalise relations between two ^ countries and Henry Kissinger U.S. Secretary
of States expressed the hope that India and U.S.A. with so many common values would jointly find a way for the peace
and welfare of mankind. With the exit of Nixon in 1973 and assumption of office by Ford, U.S.A. indicated its desire to
improve relations with India. U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paid a visit to India and held negotiations with
the Indian leaders. As ^ result of these negotiations a loint Commission was established to explore the possibilities of
fostering mutually advantageous co-’ operation between the two countries in economic, commercial, scientific and
technological, educational and cultural affairs.
In 1975 Indo-U.S. relations suffered a setback following decision by the U.S. Government to lift ten years old embargo
against sale of lethal arms to South Asia. This provoked strong reaction from India and it cancelled the srheduled visit
of its External Affairs Minister to U.S.A. The criticism of the declaration of emergency in India in June, 1975 by
U.S.A. was also disliked by India. ,
The relations between the two countries showed dn improvement after the formation of Janata Government in 1977 in
India and the assumption of power by limmy Carter in U.S.A. Once again the Indo-U.S, loint Commission and its sub-
commissions were active. In 1978 Carter paid a visit to India which was followed by return, visit by the Indian Pump
Minister (Morarji Desai) But before much progress could be made Mrs. Gandhi staged a rnmeback to power in India
The Congress (h Government refused to rally on the side of U.S.A. in its antiSiviH crusade over Atghanistan and
advocated withdrawal ot Soviet troops trom Ai;;h.ir.iM.m ,it .ippropnate time. The election ot Keagan as President of
U.S.A. ,ni(l hi-, tuu^h ^tftnd towards Soviet Union also hampered closer Indo-U.S. rcl.itinnv The decision of the U.S
Goyemmenl to provide arms aid and sell
k INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS , 643
• sophisticated weapons to Pakistan despite strong protests from India, also P contributed to the tension.
, In addition to the above a number of other factors also contributed to the
straining of relations between the two countries. These included denial of
„ • critically needed nuclear fuel.for the Tarapur Atomic Power Station on the plea
Ik jhat India had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and refused, to accept full
• scope safeguards (U.S.A. has not insisted on identical conditions with regard to
• China); growing military presence of U.S.A. in the Indian Ocean and the Indian B demand for dismantling of the U.S.
base in Diego Garcia and its return to
• Mauritius; India’s strong advocacy of New International Economic ”Order and B restructuring of the international
monetary institution; the presence of a feeling m in India that U.S.A. is trying to disrupt its unity and stability by
encouraging | agitations in Assam, Punjab etc. Despite the above irritations the leaders of the I two countries showed
keenness to improve relations. The regular exchange of I visits by high level officials of the two countrieswas clear
proof of their intentions I to improve relations. In 1985 Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi paid a visit to USA I and tried to
repair the badly strained relations with USA. The United States also I’ responded favourably and agreed to the transfer
of high technology (including
the sale of high-speed computers) and offered advanced military technology and weaponry. As/a follow up action of
the several agreements reached between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President Reagan on 5 November 1987 the
two countries signed an agreement on cooperation in high technology. Despite these : developments the relations
between ;the two countries continued to be far from friendly on account of induction of sophisticated arms into
Pakistan even after
I the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the emerging rapprochement between India and Pakistan. The
growing presence of United States in the Indian Ocean was also viewed with disfavour by India. Even on the issue of
Afghanistan there existed sharp differences between the two countries. While India fully supported Najibuliah
government and established diplomatic contacts with that government, USA was determined to replace that
government by a friendly ; government in Afghanistan. India also did noCapprove of the aid being provided* by USA
to the Mujahideens and regarded it as interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Thus despite numerous bids by
the leaders of the two countries relations of India with USA tuuid nol remain thai cordial. However, wilh the
assumption of power by the National Front Government, fresh efforts were I initiated to improve relations with USA.
The US Government also responded I quite favourably. A change in US attitude was evident from the fact that for the f
first time it warned Pakistan against extending support to the militants and ; terrorists operating in Kashmir from its soil
and impressed on her that such support was a violation of the UN Charter. It also for the first time revised its stand on
Kashmir and said ”The U.S. Government no longer urges a plebiscite on Kashmir as contained in the UN resolutions of
1948 and 1949, neither do we oppose or rule it out, should *ne parties agree in view of the Shimla Accord. India also
adopted quite co-operative attitude towards USA during the Gulf War of . 1990-91 and provided refuelling facilities to
American military transport aircrafts bound for the war zone in the Gulf, even at the cost of internal as well
645
644
as international criticism.
The end of the cold war and disintegration of the Soviet Union’further
obliged India to develop closer relations with United States in view of the
dominant role it was expected to play in the international arena. India agreed
to increase military cooperation with USA by according consent in principle to
the Kickleighter proposals. This was a significant development in view of the fact
that India agreed to enter into military aid, but would also try to bring about
stability through expanded cooperation in all fields. However, United States
continued to be unhappy with India because it refused to accept international
inspection regimes on the plea of country’s threat perceptions vis-a-vis Pakistan
and’China, and peaceful use of nuclear power.
United States continued to exert pressure on India to sign the Nuclear, Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite India’s
persistent resistance to sign the treaty on the plea of security threats from both Pakistan and China. At the same time
India continued efforts to develop closer defence and military relations with United States. The two countries reached
an agreement for holding joint naval exercises. The policies of economic liberalisation and market economies .
pursued by India also contributed to closer relations with USA. Despite this, relations between the two were strained
following identification of India under Special 301 which would adversely effect India’s exports because the duty
concessions on imports from India would be reduced or eliminated. In spite of this set-back, it cannot be denied that
India’s relations with US have shown great improvement, as is evident from (oint-lndo US naval exercises in the Indian
Ocean, decision of US to collaborate with India in the production of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), whereby the
General Electric FE404 engines were provided by the pass, increasing US investments following Indian economic
liberalisation and soft-pedalling on Kashmir.
With the disintegration of Soviet Union and end of bipolarity the irritants in the Indo-US relations disappeared and the
two countries were drawn closer to each other on account of common interests like promotion of democratic rule,
preservation of regional and world peace, opposition to Islamic fundamentalism, and furthering of mutual trade and
investment. On the other hand the geostrateeic significance of Pakistan greatly decreased and US no longer needs
Pakistan to funnel military supplies into Afghanistan. Even India was convinced of the need of cultivating good
relations with US due to absence of Soviet Union. US also decided to improve relations with India on account of its
military might, population, size and strategic location. In (une 1994 it decided not to take any action against India under
US trade law Special 301, and preferred to enter into negotiations with India on tightening up its provisions relating to
intellectual
• property rights. In December the: Companies of two countries signed accord for promotion of co-operation in the
energy sector. Agreements were also signed regarding textile imports and exports. In January 1995 the two countries
signed agreements for co-operation in the tield of defence with a view to promote international peace and security in
the post-cold war period. To promote commercial relations a body known as US-India Commercial Alliance was
created with a view to expand commercial and business relations. During the tirs few months of 1995 high level
officials of US and India exchanged visits and tried to find out ways for better relations between the two countries. But
this process suffered a serious set back following US decision to modify the Pressler amendment in September 1995
which paved the way for arms transfer worth $370 million military equipment to Pakistan and return of money tor sale
of 28 F-16 aircrafts from sale to a third country. In addition to the above there are sever.il other irritants present in
Indo-US relations. While US is a .sr,ifu5 quo power which seeks to preserve the present hierarchical international
system based on inequality of wealth, status and power. India on the other hand stands lor changing this system with a
view to improve the access of developing
• countries to global wealth, status -ind power. The two countries also hav*> ’ differences over Tarapur reactor, the
cryogenic engine sale nuclear-nonproliferation, the MTCR elements of new CATT accord, and permanent membership
for India in the UN Security Council.
Relations with Soviet Union
India vv is favourably disposed towards Soviet Union before independence. Pandit lawanarlal Nehru was a strong
supporter of the Russian revolution and greatly adrn/red the support extended by Soviet Union to the Indian freedom
movement Russia’s open opposition to imperialism also made India to look towrirdsxSoviet Union with sympathy.
This made the American Foreign Secretary sceptical and he charged the Soviet Communists of spreading their
influence in India through Interim Government, However, after the attainment of independence by India, the relations
between the two countries could not develop along cordial lines and certain tension appeared. India’s membership of
Commonwealth, opposition to the Communist Revolution in MjLiya, support to Greece and decision to adopt policy of
non-alignment was interpreted by the Soviet Union ,is pro-Western policy. However, after 1950 the relations between
the two countries liegan to improve. The recognition o! the Communist Government of Ci’inlj uy Inuid in !9jG and
void! <tilti-CuluOij! lUiud HI the United Nation* removed the misîving’prevailing among the Soviet leaders. Above
all India’s” opposition to the U.S. sponsored resolution describing China as an aggressor in Korea and its rail on the
United Nations forces noi to cross the 58th parallel was highly appreciated by the Soviet leaders.
Stalin commended Pandit Nehru’s efforts for (jeace. In lt)32 when Graham
Report was presented Inefore Security Council !on the Kashmir issue) Soviet
representative criticised the report and alleged th.il the Kashmir problem w.is not
bein<{ solved liecause of the interference of Anulo-.Amerk an hlor whkh was
supporting the imperialist policy nt Pakistan. Soviet Union also opposed the idea
f <il sending lon-i^n force- to K.islimii ,mrl thus adopted (tear tnemlK postures
| towards India. The relations between India and Soviet Union took .1 new turn
I. alter Ihn death ot Stalin in I’Ci 1 Bullion in ,tnd Khriis< hev who MIC tended Stalin
f Ilieii lir im|Hii\t- n-l.lliotls rtilli Inili.i. Ti’i~v sllm-u-d ^lr.lli-1 ,l|l|ilt-c i.illiill I”!
Inij’.i” i..,!.. * ,,! iiiiD-.ili^niDi-ni Tli.--ilfi i-i-iii ill P.ikisl.in lii juin ll-- ’.\n<l.nv
•Mil,men sponsored by L’.S.A. .ind Uvli.i * reins,11 inlw roped m the alliance- ,»*-.>
* drew thi-tv.o < outline’s (loser -iiivtel I moo’s ch,tilled attitude towards India
646
was reflected in use of veto on Kashmir on more than one occasion.
The two countries took identical stand on the Suez Crisis in 1956 and condemned the action of England, France and
Israel against Egypt. The same year also witnessed some misunderstanding between the two countries on the question
of Hungary. India’s demand that the people of Hungary should be allowed to determine their future according to their
own wishes and the foreign forces should be withdrawn was greatly resented by Russia and created ritt between the
two. This rift proved temporary and soon the relations showed aA improvement. This is evident from the Met that
Soviet Union agreed to provide assistance for the Third Five-Year Plan of India. It also provided Soviet oil at cheaper
rates to India. Soviet Union extended full support to India on Goa and vetoed a resolution on Kashmir. In 1960 the two
countries concluded, a Cultural and Technical Aid Agreement which provided for change of scientists, educationists,
artists, professors, etc.
In 1962 during the Sino-lndian conflict Soviet Union extended support to India and even offered to cooperate with
India in the manufacture of M.I.G. Fighter Planes in India. Again during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 Soviet Union
played an important role in bringing about a cease-fire. It was largely due to the efforts of”Soviet leaders that Tashkent
Agreement was concluded by India and Pakistan^ In the post Tashkent year, Soviet Union tried to develop closer
relations with Pakistan and even offered to sell arms to Pakistan which was quite irritating to Indian leaders. Despite
this when the Warsaw Pact powers invaded Czechoslovakia, India, refused to support the resolution condemning the
actions and abstained from voting. As a result (he relations continued to be friendly.
A new turn was provided to the Indo-Soviet relations in 1971 with the conclusion of Treaty of Peace, Friendship and
Co-operation. This Treaty was concluded at a time when Pakistan was displaying a belligerent attitude towards India
and there were imminent chances of a war Ixetween the two countries Under this treaty India and Soviet Union agreed
to respect each ”other’s foreign
policy uiid to wuik lul peace ill Asia as well a> world. The leaiieis ol I in/ Iviu
• countries were to hold regular contacts and discussion oTi internatu >n,il pn >l>lemand to cooperate with each other
in resolving international issues. They .ilv) promised to work for the elimination of colonialism and racialism. Above
,ill il«two countries agreed not to conclude military alliance against each other. The two countries were to hold
reciprocal consultations in case either of the partv was subjected to an attack. This provision of the treaty assured India
Soviet support in case of Sino-American intervention in conflict between India and Pakistan.
The conclusion of treaty of 1971 with Soviet Union marked a change in India’s foreign policy. It w.is the first politic .il
tre.ity o>n< luded bv Indi.i \\iih ,inv big power. In certain quarters an alienation was made that thivji-ealv w.is in
violation of the principle on non-alignment. However, the Indian le,i<ler> .isserleil th.il lln- iliil Hi il ,illi-t I llie iiiin-
.ilr^ned <lui,ult-i ul Iniii.i’s lun-i-^n I x j)u v
!n iht- K’< nil unit . scieiUitu ,in<l c uliui-il sphetes ,iUn the iv l,iii<>n» l»-!»M-vn
INDBA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS 6J
India and Soviet Union have consistently grown. Soviet Union assisted India i the setting up of the Steel and Iron
factory at Bhilai. In 1963 India and Sovic Union entered into an agreement under which Soviet Union provided
lechnicv aid tio India to explore and develop oil and gas. Soviet Union also helped Indi in installation of iron and steel
factory at Bokaro. The iron and Steel factories a Bhilai and Bokaro were further expanded with the help (if Soviet
Union in 1970’s The two countries also co-operated in setting up a number of other mdustria units. The two countries
also co-oper.ued in the scientific sphere. In 1<J~6 Indi, sent first artificial satellite Arya Bhatta from Soviet Union with
the help of Snvie: Rock-et. The tradexand commerce between India and Soviet Union huis ,ik< consi stently grown ahd
at present Soviet Union is India’s largest trading partner Thus, relations between India and Soviet Union grew closer
ovei the years. With the formation of Janata Government in India it was feared that the intimate relations between the
two countries would suffer a setback. However, these rears proved ill-founded andihe relations between India and
Soviet Union during the Janata rule continued/to be as cordial as before. With the return of Congress (I) (empower in
1980 the relations between the two countries were further cemented. Rajiv Gandhi who formed the government after
the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi continued the policy of her mother, while making efforts to improve relations with
United States. This is evident from the fact that he visited Moscow before paying visit to United States. The Indo-
Soviet relations got further cemented on account of supply of sophisticated weapons by United States to Pakistan and
Soviet assurance to supply MIG-29 fighter/intercepter aircraft to India (first country outside-Soviet Union to get these
aircrafts). Soviet Union also offered to supply India with 11-76 (Mainstay) military transport aircraft equipped with an
airborne warning and control system to counter the proposed-supply of US AWACS system to Pakistan. It is a different
matter that Indra did not accept the other because it would have jeopardised the development of the indigenous airborne
surveillance system. In the subsequent years the Indo-Soviet regions grew more intimate. There was enormous increase
in their trade and economic cooperation. The special relations between India and Soviet Union were affirmed by
President Mikhail Gorbachev during his visit to India in Novemlier
1988 when he committed a massive Rs. 6000 crore credit for development projects including power to India.
The formation of National Front Government under V.P. Singh gave rise to speculation in certain quarters that India’s
relations with Soviet Union would suffer a set back. However, the National Government stuck to the ir,irlition,il policy
of non-alignment and tried to maintain best of relations with Soviet Union. Its efforts to improve relations with United
States also did not adversely effect India’s relations with Soviet Union in view of the preva iling spirit of rappn if.
hement between the two super powers. The subsequent governments of Chandrash«-k,tr and Narasimha Rao also
maintained’intimate relations with Soviet Union In August 1991, the historic lnd()-Soviet Treaty for Peace, Friendship
.UK i <~<»<per.ii i< >n concluded in 1971, was extended for another tw< i decades. A viul cl.ui«.eot fhis treaty
stipulated that each country would abstain from assisting any third country
648
that engages in armed conflict with either signatory. The treaty also provided for military assistance in case of
an armed attack by a third party. This virtually brought India under the protective cvu,d*3« VSTVfahfVia oi
the Scv’*’ Union and K\«4 as a major level for India’s foreign policy. However, within i*^ months, of the
renewal of the Treaty for Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, the icv>et Union faced disintegration and the
treaty ceased to have any practical utility.
The Commonwealth of Independent Stales <C»S> which tame into being after tht>disintegration ot’USSR did not
accord privileged position to India whicf> it enjoyed under USSR. However, Russia promised to fulfil commitments
made to India in respect of the supply of military hardware spares of various types which gave great relief to India.
India’s relations with Russia further improved following President Yeltsin’s visit to India in January 1993 when the
two countries resolved the protracted rupee-rouble exchange rate issue and signed
4 new treaty of friendship and cooperation, which pledged cooperation in economic, political and other fields.
However, the new treaty did not include the strategic security clause underwhich the erstwhile Soviet Union and India
were committed to each other’s defence. The two countries also reached an agreement for continued supply of spares
for Indian defence equipments and promotion of bilateral trade. Russia not only offered full support to India on
Kashmir by asserting that it is an integral part of India, but also ruled out thirdparty intervention in bilateral matters by
agreeing to implement the agreement on space co-operation, including supply of cryogenic engines.
The two countries agreed to cooperate in the field of defence and agreed to hold consultations for setting up joint
ventures for the production of spares and defence equipment that were either being phased out or are likely to be
phased out in near future. Thus India’s relations with Russia came to regulated on the basis of mutual interests rather
than ideology. The relations between India and Russia were further’cemented in |une-)uly 1994 when Prime Minister
Narasimha Rao paid a visit to Russia. During thjs visit the leaders of two countries concluded agreements on various
subjects ranging from defence, science and technology, environments etc. The two countries also agreed to take
necessary-measures to remove the i.>ullienet_k:> in the bilateral trade and lo co-operate in upgrading MIG fighters. On
the economic front they agreed to create a joint bank in Russia and thus tried to overcome a major impediment to the
growth of economic cooperation. Russia agreed to provide credit of $830 million to India for buying arms. In
December 1994 the Russian Prime Minister during his visit to India signed eight agreements which gave the signal that
Russia was keen to place the Indo-Russi.in relations back on track. These agreements related to protection of
investments; long-term purchase by” Russia of certain commodities in India; merchant shipping, implementation oj the
long-term programme of military and let linic.il ci i-operation, cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for
ptMtefui uur(jo-.e>; bmatlenin” the scope of Indo-Russian joint Commission, multi-entry visas for diplomatic and
official passport holders and co-operation.
649
in the field of information. The two countries also agreed to establish a ’hot-line’ between New Delhi and Moscow for
regular political consultations. Thus it can be said that though there does not exist any special relationship between
India and Russia, still India occupies a special position in Moscow’s world view.
It is evident from the above discussion that India has triad to maintain best Of relations with both the Super Powers
even though at times its relations with USA cooled down. However India’s relations with Soviet Union have remained
consistently friendly. A new element was introduced in India’s relations with the super powers as a result of the
disintegration of the Socialist power block in Eastern Europe, establishment of cordial relations between USA and
Soviet Union and positive interaction between Soviet Union and China. Atf this obliged India to make adjustment in its
policy towards the two Super Powers. With the disintegration of the Sovietbnion, the United States emerged as the sole
Super Power. In the changed context India made adjustments in its policy and tried to develop closer relationsvwith
USA. However, at the same time India is trying to maintain cordial and intimate relations with Russia.
INDIA AND ITS NEIGHBOURS
India’s neighbours include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, China, Burma, Ceylon and Bangladesh. India has
many common historical, social, economic and political bonds with these countries. The foreign policy orientations and
the attitudes of all these countries towards India exercised profound influence on the framers of India’s foreign policy.
On its part India has tried to maintain cordial andclose relations with these countries evecsince independence. But India
has found formidable difficulties in dealing with these neighbouring countries and often they have adopted hostile
postures towards India, presumably at the instigation of certain foreign powers. Another factor which has greatly
hampered development of cordial relations with neighbour countries has been the size, strength and population of India
which has given rise to suspicions in the minds ot other countries. In short it can be said that India’s ertorts to develop
friendly relations with her neighbours have been greatly thwarted by internal and external pressures. Let us briefly
review India’s relations with these countries.
India and Pakistan
Geographically, historically, culturally as well as economically no other two countries of the world have so much in
common as India and Pakistan. In fact the two constituted a single economic and political entity for many centuries
before 1947 when Pakistan was born. Since 1947 the relations between the two countries have been persistently
strained. The main factors which have contributed to the strained relations between the two countries are disputes over
properties borders, distribution of river waters, the question of Kashmir, etc. With the exception or Kashmir, the two
countries have been able to resolve the various issues and arrive .it a workable agreement through negotiations.
The two countries jmicablv resolved the question of <h,irinu of river? _^ water. Initially India under the Standstill
Agreement ,igr<-t-ct to supply water to the canals in Pakistan from the head-works in Inili.i .I^HUM oavnwnl lill M.IH
h
0
!, 1948 to enable Pakistan to make alternative arrangements and construct link nals to join her irrigation works with the
tributaries allotted to her. For /onetime differences continued to persist between the two countries regarding i use of
rivers water. However, ultimately in 1960 the two countries signed i agreement chief!/ due to the good efforts of the
World Sank. Under this ;reement India not only agreed to supply water from the rivers Ravi, Beas and itlej on the
Indian side, but also agreed to assist Pakistan in the construction canals for link purposes. Thus the issue of canal water
was amicably settled.
1c)fi8 difference cropped up lietween India ,ind Pakistan on the construction Faraka barraage by India with a view to
regulate the flow of water from the inges, but the same was resolved through negotiations.
Another issue which strained llie relations ol the two euuntiies was kistan’s decision to join the Military Alliances.
India strongly reacted to the ilding of Pakistan’s military strength as a result of enormous supply of military jipments
and modernisation of her army, because this posed a serious threat India’s ’security. Reacting sharply to Pakistan’s
decision to join military iances Nehru said: ”Whatever the motive may be the mere fact that largescale irmament and
military expansion takes place in Pakistan, must necessitate far iching repercussion in India.” Though Pakistan joined
the military alliances in a view to meet the possible Communist threat to the region and were not ected against India,
yet the arms obtained by Pakistan as a member of this tance were actually used against India in the conflicts of 1965
and 1971.
The attempt on the part of Pakistan to pose as the spokesman of all the jslims on the Indian sub-continent has also
greatly contributed to the tension tween the two countries. Despite India’s adoption of secular policy there have en
occasional cases of communal conflicts. Pakistan has been trying to act as ^ champion of the Muslims of India and
propagating that India was essentially iindu state and the Muslims of India are being treated as second-class citizens,
kistan has tried to give even the usual problems between the two countries a •mmuria! colour.
The growing friendship between Pakistan and China after the Smo-lndian >nflict of 1962 and the decision of Pakistan
to surrender a large slice of Indian .ritorv under its occuptation’to China, has also contributed to the straining of iations
between the two countries.
The most important issue which has continued to strain the relations
tween the two countries throughout the years is the Kashmir question. Within
ortnight of its creation Pakistan attacked Kashmir and occupied a large portion
;he territory there Al trw request of the ruler of Kashmir, India sent her troops
> assist the ruler in meeting Pakistan aggression arter he signed a letter of
ccession in tavwur oi India. Instead of resolving the dispute through use of force,
ndi.t also submitted the (ast- before the boiled Nations. The United Nations
>rought abniil .1 < (-.i-fiirr buf substantial portion of the state nt larrsmu and
•shrnir rnntiniit’H In !»• unrW Pakistan’s iKTtip-i.’inn
The tjtieslion Hi K,t-hiTiir has |-*>t>n .1 constant soar in thr relationship nt
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AM’ RELATIONS
651
India and Pakistan. The question of Kashmir has been pending before the United Nations for all these years without any
prospects of its being settled in sight. The Kashmir issue also involved the two countries in two serious wars in 1965
and
1971 (in the latter war even the question of East Pakistan was involved). Prof. Michael Brecher has rightly observed,
”Kashmir symbolises the root of the conflict between India and Pakistan. Here lies the last field of battle over the
ideological cleavage which rent the sub-continent as under in 1975. Here is the final test of the validity of the two-
nation theory, the basis of Pakistan and its continuing /virson detre e(c>.”
India’s role during the revolt of East Pakistan, which culminated in the creation of the independent stateVrt Bangladesh
also greatly strained the relations between India and Pakistan. lndia\obligcd to intervene in East Bengal on account of
the enormous influx of refugees from there which posed a serious threat to the withdrawal of these refugees On the top
of it Pakistan mounted an attack on India in the Western sector. This Obliged India to despatch her forces to assist the
Mukti bahini which ultimateh/resulted in the creation of the independent state of- Bangladesh.
In the wake of the creation of Bangladesh India’s relations with Pakistan entered a new chapter. The leaders of the two
countries concluded an agreement at Shimla in July, 1972 which provided a new turn to their relations. Under the
arrangement the two countries agreed to settle their differences through bilateral negotiations in peaceful manner; they
expressed faith in the principles of peaceful co-existence and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other;
withdrew thy forces to their respective international borders; and to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of
each other. The two countries also agreed to cooperate m the economic, cultural and scientific field. Thereafter efforts
were made to normalise the relations between the two without much success. No doubt, the tension of the earlier years,
which existed in the relations of two countries somewhat died but still the relations were far from cordial.
A new eifiViwit ut tension was iiltimjuced ill tlie.relations between the two countries -is a resXitt of the decision of
Arab countries to provide Pakistan with $ HHK) million lor the purchase of sophisticated arms. Even U.S.A. promised
military assistance to the tune of more than 1500 million. This h«s greatly (iisiurl)tcl the balance ol power between
India and Pakistan and poses a serious threat to India’s security. The acquisition of 16 aircrafts from U.S.A. has also
contributed to tremendous increase in Pakistan’s striking ability. Though this i aust-d great concern in India, it still
continued efforts to improve relations with Pakistan. India proposed to Pakistan a treaty of friendship, which infer alii,
provided that both the countries would agree not to let foreign powers set up military bases in their territories.
However. Pakistan turned it down on the plea that this would amount to infringement ut the country’s sovereignty.
Actually, Pakistan regarded this treai> as an impediment to the furtherance of US-Pdk inili!.ir\ uixlefstjndinn. Further.
Pjkisl.in did no! approve of Jndian stand that nnri- i tr« «• «if friendship •.-. i^ «i«ni-d. .ill intractable disputes would be
sorted ouliiil.iter.illvrtndnot through in* intervention of any third party. InMaTch, l<iH i the twii < uunliiri rigivi’it In -
«-t u[> a loin! Commission to increase co-operation
in the field of trade, industry, education, health, culture, tourism, information and scientific fields, and reiterated their
determination to develop peaceful relations on the basis of mutual co-operation. However their relations got strained
because of acquisition of Harpoone missiles by Pakistan; India’s support to the movement for restoration of democracy
in Pakistan; Pakistan’s supply of military equipments and training to the Sikh extremists; and its failure to return the
Sikh hijackers to India, etc. Despite the presence of various irritants in the relations between India and Pakistan their
relations showed ,in improvement in
1985 on account of open and conciliatory approach of Rajiv G.indhi. In July 1985 tfie joint Commission headed by the
foreign ministers of two countries reached an agreement on various aspects of economic cooperation, including
agriculture, visas tourism, telephone communications pfr. In r)pcwnh*>r 198S thp two countries took up the issues of
trade and security and undertook not to attack each other’s nuclear installations. The two countries also agreed to hold
talks to resolve the dispute over Siachin Glacier through talks. However, this process of normalisation did not last long
and the trade talks between the two countries founded. They also failed to arrive at a negotiated settlement on Siachin
Glacier. Relations grew so tense that Rajiv Gandhi postponed his visit to Pakistan indefinitely. In the beginning of 1987
the relations reached breaking point with both the sides carryingon unusually large military manoeuvres on their
common border. However, the crisis was averted as a result of series of high-level talks and the two parties agreed to
partial withdrawal of troops from the border and avoid provocative action along the border.
Fresh tension was generated in the relations between the two countries in September 1987 when the Pakistani troops
launched battalion.-sized attacks on four mountain passes controlling access to the undemarcated region of the Siachin
Glacier, and the infliction of heavy casualties by Indian forces. Thus tension persisted between the two countries. Apart
from Siachin clashes the other factors which contributed to tension between the two countries were support extended
by Pakistan to the terroristsin Punjab: induction of sophisticated weapons in Pakistan by USA.
With the emergence of democracy in Pakistan and assumption of power by Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister of
Pakistan, it was expected that the relatii >ns between the two countries would show an improvement. The new Prime
Minister of Pakistan expressed her resolve to settle the various issues l>etween the two countries in accordance with the
Shimla Agreement of 1971. In 1 9S8 Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi paid a visit to Islamabad and signed three accords
which pledged the two countries not to attack each other’s nuclear installations; promote and develop relations in the
realm of art, culture, archaeology, education, mass media and sports; and avoid double taxation on income derived trom
international air transport to facilitate operations of airlines oi two countries. India also facilitated re-entry of Pakistan
in the Commonwealth ’Pakistan withdrew from Commonwealth in 1972 in the w.ike oi con-msus support by the
member states tor creation oi Bangladesh and India’s role in in. However, s<x>n it became evident that Indo-Pak
relations had not undergone .tnv real change in nature or content. Soon Hatist.m resumed supply of .irm- v>
terrorists and even turned down the Indian proposal for joint patrolling of common border. Pakistan’s stand on Siachin
was also quite irritational. The new Pakistan government also raised the Kashmir issue at the International forums in
violation of the spirit of Shimla Agreement. It also persisted with the policy of acquisition of sophisticated weapons
from U.S.A. despite repeated Indian protests. In addition to this the issue of nuclear bomb also generated lot of tension
in Indo-Pak relations and the two countries suspect each other of hiding realities. In short, the relations between the two
countries got strained despite professions of rapprochement made by Benazir Bhutto at the time of assumption of
office. A welcome development in Indo-Pak relations took place in May 1989 when the two countries agreed/to take a
series of new and concrete measures to contain terrorism,drug trafficking, smuggling and illicit border crossing. The
border security forces of the/two countries for the first time decided to undertake simultaneous coordinated patrolling at
mutually decided hours to curb unauthorised trans-border movement. In July 1989 the Indian Prime Minister paid an
official visit to Islamabad and concluded agreement for intensifying cooperation in economic, medical and cultural
fields and to relax travel facilities ~ for the two peoples in each other’s country. They also agreed to exchange
delegations of businessmen, cooperate in agriculture etc. Pakistan also agreed • to give a boost to private sector trade
with India by expanding the list of items to be imported from 249 to 700. Pakistan, however, expressed her inability to
accord most favoured nation status to India at this stage, even though she has been enjoying this status with regard to
India for the last ten years.
In May 1990 India proposed a package of confidence building measures like exchange of information about military
positions and army delegations; an agreement on non-violation of air space by military aircrafts; stopping of hostile
propaganda aimed at inciting subversion and secession; which were discussed by the foreign secretaries of two
countries in July 1990. In April 1991 the Foreign Secretaries of two countries at a meeting in New Delhi agreed on
advance notification of military exercise and prevention of violations of air space. They also agreed to discuss other
outstanding issues with a view to improve their relations. But no break through could be made. On the contrary due to
provocative postures adopted by Pakistan the relations between the’ two countries deteriorated. In September 1991,
Pakistani troops along with the Kashmiri militants attacked Kemi area of Poonch sector, but the attack was successfully
repulsed. In October 1991, Pakistan attacked an Indian outpost in Kargil but here also the Pakistani attack was
repulsed. Pakistan even tried to internationalise the Kashmir issue in violation of the Shimla accord and gave a call for
bandh in Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. All this gave j serious set back to the process of normalisation of relations with
Pakistan.
In October 1992 a crisis situation again arose when Az<i<! Kashmir lorce threatened to cross the border, but the
situation was saved l>y timely .u tion !>v PjkisUn government which arrested several prominent leaders mvoKi d in tin
ora.inKition of the march. In November 1992 during the sixth rour-f of hv to-Pat talks on Si.u hin the two countries
reached an agreement regarding d<-i nilil.K *.ition of tlit- C.l.uier area. But soon thereafter Pakistan bitterly i rili. .seel
Jian
government’s handling of the Ayodhya issue which strained their relations. Thus Pakistan persisted with policy of
confrontation and negotiations simultaneously. With the assumption of power by Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan in October
1993 it was expected that the relations between the two countries would improve. However, these hopes were belied
hotlity reached its height in December 1994 when the Indian Consulate in Karachi was closed. Pakistan also turned
down Indian offer for resumption of talks and insisted on third party mediation. Pakistan also raised the issue of Human
Rights in Kashmir at the UN Human Rights Commission at Geneva, even though this effort ended in a fiasco. Thus it
can be said that despite occasional efforts by the leaders of India and Pakistan the relations between the two countries
have continued to be quite strained due to Pakistan’s support to terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir, raising of question of
self-determination for Kashmiris at the international forum, differences over construction of Wullar Barrage on the
Jhelum river in the Indian held Kashmir, demarcation of boundaries in Sircreek in the Rann of Kutch, the nuclear
programme of Pakistan, influx of latest generation of sophisticated arms into Pakistan etc. The other factors which have
generated tension between India and Pakistan include Pakistan’s growing linkages with fundamentalists, trans-border
smuggling of weapons and drugs, determination of maritime boundary, discriminatory trade barriers against India and
treatment meted out to the minorities in Pakistan.
India and Nepal
Nepal is located in the north of Uttar Pradesh and the southern slopes of the Himalayas and can very well be treated as
a geographical extension of India. The two countries have maintained very intimate cultural, religious and economic
links. Almost 25 per cent of Nepal’s population migrated from India during the past century. The two countries
maintain very close economic links and the trade between the two countries has considerably increased over the years.
Nepal is dependent on India for transit rights to the outside world. !n view of strategic importance of Nepal, India
concluded a treaty with Nepal in 1950 which infer-a/M f>rovided for the coordination of foreign policies of the two
countries. The treaty stipulated ”neither government shall tolerate any threit to the security of the other by a foreign
aggressor. To deal with any such threat the two governments shall consult with each other and devise effective counter
measures.” It was in pursuance of these provisions of the treaty that India blocked the establishment of diplomatic
relations between Nepal and China for the next few years. India also trained Nepal’s armed forces and supplied them
with arms. In the economic sphere also India provided every possible assistance to Nepal in its development. It
rendered great help to Nepal in the construction of the Tribhuvan Raj Path, the only road link between India and
N*?pal. India also helped Nepal in execution of various hydroelectric projects. As members of the non-aligned
movement the two countries held identical views on various international issues and worked together to promote South-
Asian cooperation.
655
Despite these intimate links between the two countries the relations suffered a setback following dismissal of Koirala
Ministry in 1960 and India’s open condemnation of the act. Thereafter King Mahendra of Nepal tried to develop more
closer relations with China to counterbalance the Indian influence. He concluded border agreement with China and
accepted aid from China without consulting India, in violation of the treaty of 1950. Earlier Nepal’s construction of
road from Tibetan border to Kathmandu with she help of China was also viewed bv India with great concern.
Alter the Sino-lndian conflict o«19h2, Nepal drew closer to China. This obliged India to pay greater attention urNe’pal
and it offered economic assistance and other concession to Nepal. India even offered defence pact to Nepal but the
same was turned down by Nepal. Nepjlr s open opposition to the annexation of Sikkim to India also generated some
pension in the relations between two countries. Finally, Nepal’s plea for ’zone of peace’ for the economic growth of
that country also caused some tension in Indo-Nepalese relations because India looked at this demand as a violation of
the terms of treaty of peace and friendship between the two countries. Despite these irritants India has tried to maintain
close relations with Nepal on account of its strategic importance and has provided large sums for its development in the
shape of aid. India extended”the treaty of trade between the two countries for a further period of five years in 1983.
Under this treaty the two countries co-operate with each other in controlling unauthorised trade. India also agreed to
provide certain facilities for the movement of cargo from Nepal through India. India also committed itself to long-term
purchase of the whole or part of power generated from the proposed
3600 MW Karnali hydro-electric projects. Some sort of tension was created in India’s relations with Nepal due to
tatter’s condemnation of India’s action of airdropping.relief supplies to Tamils in Jaffana Peninsula in Sri Lanka.
However, subsequently Nepal welcomed the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of 29 July 1987 and recognised India’s security
role in Sri Lanka. The question of displaced Nepalis from Meghalaya also caused some tension. Nepal alleged that this
violated the ’Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 which among other things underlined the ”privileges in the matter
of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement and privileges of similar nature’
of citizens
• ol edcli country wiio are resilient in liie otiier. In April 14o” Nepal introduced work permit system to regulate and
control the migration ot Indians into Nepal. Under this system any foreigners (including an Indian) seeking
employment in Kathmandu was required to obtain work permit. While introducing this measure Nepal contended that
this measure had been introduced to ensure better security in Nepal during the SAARC Summit of October 1987 and
was purely temporary. However, this measure was not only permitted so continue even after the Summit but its
applicability v. js ,iKo extendi/d to districts other than Knthnundu. .vhich indicated that Nepal wants to make it ,)
permanent feature. This was a clear violation of the provision* of 19”»!l Tre itv l>etween the two countries. Despite
the irritation caused by introdut lion ol work permit in lune 1987 India signed an agreement with ”êpa! seitint- up .1
luint Commission to increase economic
cooperation in trade and transit, industry and water resources. On the other hand India’s refusal to endorse Nepal’s
Peace Zone proposal was not liked by Nepal. On the whole the relations between the two countries continued to be
cordial
and intimate.
India’s relations with Nepal got severely strained towards the close of March 1989 due to differences between the two
over the signing of new trade and transit treaties. While India insisted on a consolidated treaty, Nepal insisted on two
separate pacts. As a result of this controversy the earlier Indo-Nepal Transit Treaty of 147S lapsed and the traditional
friendly relations between the two countries got strained due to acute shortage of diesel, petrol, coal and other essential
goods in Nepal. Nepal even tried to internationalise the issue to pressurise India to resume supplies at favourable terms.
For the first time the representatives of two countries in the UN clashed. India’s repeated suggestions for resumption of
talks were turned down by Nepal. As a result tension persisted in the relations between the two countries.
After assumption of power by the National Front Government in India efforts were once again made to improve
relations with Nepal and restore status quo ante to April 1, 1987 in trade and transit arrangements. The leaders of two
countries agreed to provide for reopening of land customs stations for movement of goods between the two countries
and to reactivate the fiften transit points which were in operation earlier. They made a commitment to observe the
principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force, non-interference in each
other’s internal affairs and peaceful settlement of all disputes. Nepal agreed to restore tariff preference for Indian goods
and to remove the Indian nationals from the ambit of work permit system. This agreement contributed to the
normalisation of Indo-Nepalese relations. The adevent of multi-party democracy in Nepal further helped in improving
relations with that country. In December 1991 the Prime Ministers of two countries held a Summit meeting at New
Delhi and concluded five agreements. Two of these agreements related to trade and transit, the issues which had
generated lot of tension between tht two countries a couple of years back. In addition to this India also agreed to extend
certain new facilities to Nepal with regard to her exports to India. The leaders of the two countries also reached an
understanding on the taping ot potential ot water resources tor mutual benefit and agreed to work on a number of
multipurpose projects. In October 1992 India reached an understanding with Nepal regarding expansion-of bilateral
cooperation and agreed to enhance Nepalese exports to India by permitting Nepalese products duty free and quota free
access to Indian market. An agreement was also reached on the preparation ot project reports for Karnali, Pancheswar,
Sapta, Koshi, Buri Gandaki Kamala and Bagmati, as well as installation of flood forecasting and warning systems.
Thus once again India’s relations with Nepal developed along normal lines. In Noveml>er 1 944 with the formation of
the first Communist Government in Nep.il. doubts were expressed in.ffrt.iin (|u.irters th.it the relations between the
two countries would suiter ,i st-l-b.ifk on account of the knosvn stand oi the Communist P.trty ot Nt-pal on the 1950
Treaty oi P^.ice jncl Friendship. But these douhts proved ill-founded hec ause MX in the leaders oi two
• countries reached an agreement regarding certain new projects like construction of 18 bridges on the
Kolhapur Mahakali sector of Nepal’s East-West Highway, Raxaul Sirsiya broad gauge rail link, joint survey of
East-West Electric Railway etc. India also agreed to provide additional transit facilities for Nepalese goods at
Kandla and Bombay. Despite these improvements disagreement still persists between India and Nepal on several
issues such as trade facilities, sharing of water and power, smuggling and movement o^terrorists across the
border and involvement of Nepal in the affairs of peoples of Nepalese origin settled in India. India and
Bangladesh \
India’s relations with Bangladesh have been jquite intimate. In fact India played a leading role in the creation of
the’state of/Bangladesh. It rendered full support to the Mukti Bahini, the liberation army of Cast Bengal; in its fight
against the oppressive rule of the Pakistan rulers and contributed towards the emergence of independent Bangladesh.
India was also one of the first countries to accord recognition to the new state, and establish diplomatic and trade
relations with it. Soon after its establishment India provided Bangladesh enormous amounts for the economic
reconstruction of the country. The Bangladesh leadership acknowledged the Indian help with gratitude and indicated its
desire to work in close co-operation with .India. In 1972 India and Bangladesh signed a treaty of Friendship, Co-
operation and Peace for 25 years on the pattern of Indo-Soviet | Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation
concluded a year earlier. Both the I countries pledged to strengthen world peace and security and fight against
colonialism, racialism and imperialism. They also agreed to respect the \ independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of each other and to refrain ; from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. They were to refrain from
aggression against each other and not to allow the use of their territory for military purposes. In case either of the two
countries was attacked or threatened with attack the two were to immediately enter into mutual consultations and take
appropriate effective measures.
In the social, economic and cultural fields also the two countries tried to strengthen their bonds and concluded a
number of agreements. Similarly in the field of science and technology the two countries agreed to cooperate. The two
countries also amicably settled certain issues regarding border between the two countries. To prevent any possible
conflicts over borders the leaders of the two countries agreed to define their borders more accurately and to complete
demarcation of their land boundaries at certain places. This era of cordial relations between the two countries came to
an end with the overthrow of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman. Though the subsequent leaders indicated their desire to develop
friendly relations with India but certain differences marred these cordial relations.
The main issues which contributed to new tensions in relations between India and Bangladesh, include, clashes over
borders, dispute over Farakkd barrage, dispute over Moore Island, plight of minorities in Bangladesh and flow of
migrants across border. Certain border incidents continued to mar the relations between the two countries in Garo Hill
area. After prolonged negotiations
at official level the two countries agreed to the delineation of maritime boundary. The boundary between the two
countries was to be demarcated in a manner which was equitable to both the countries and safeguarded the interests of
both the countries. No doubt, thereafter also there were some border clashes between the two countries, but by and
large the two countries showed spirit of complete accommodation towards each other and their relations continued to
be peaceful
and cordial.
The dispute over Farakka barrage was a legacy from the Indo-Pakistan relations, which continued to be a source of
irritation between India and Bangladesh after the emergence of the latter as an independent nation. In 1975 the two
countries concluded as interim agreement, which was subsequently challenged by the Bangladesh leaders on the plea
that it was prejudicial to the interests of Bangladesh. It even tried to internationalise the dispute by raising the same at
the United Nations. However, India did not approve of it on the ground that this would complicate the situation and
insisted on settlement of the issue through mutual discussions and co-operation. Ultimately Bangladesh withdrew the
issue from the United Nations. Bilateral negotiations continued for some time which ultimately culminated in the
conclusion of an agreement in November,
1977. By virtue of this agreement a Joint River Commission was set up to find out the long term solution of the dispute.
The Joint River Commission held a number of meetings to find a solution of the problem but (ailed to arrive at any
mutually satisfactory solution. Ultimately in 1982 the two countries reached an interim accord on Ganga Water. Under
this accord the Farakka Agreement of
1977 was terminated and a period of eighteen months was given to complete studies on the ways to augment the flow
of Ganga. The Indo-Bangladesh Joint River Commission wasentrusted with the responsibility of carrying out feasibility
study and deciding upon the optimum solution which was to be accepted by both the parties. On 7 January 1983 an
accord was signed which made new arrangements for the sharing of Ganga water for two years. Thereafter also the
Joint River Commission has held a number of meetings but failed to find out a mutually acceptable solution. Finally in
November, 1985.the two countries reached an accord on sharing of Ganga Water. In terms of this accord Ganga water
will be shared for a period of three years beginning from the dry season of 1986 on the basis laid down in the
memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries in 1982. However, even after this accord Bangladesh has
been insisting on building up of reservoir dams and participation of Nepal in this task. Though initially India was
reluctant to include Nepal in the study project, it relented its stand subsequently. In January 1986 Bangladesh and India
agreed for the first time to study the proposals of both the countries (regarding the sharing of Ganga water) which is a
positive development and may ultimately result in amicable settlement of the problem, on a plan of action for the joint
study of dry season flow of Ganga and augmentation of water supply at Farakka and sharing nf waters of other
common rivers.
Another irritant in the relations between India and Bangladesh appeared in 1980 in nature of question of Moore Island
in the Bay of Bengal. Both the ci>untries have claimed sovereignty over this island^which was first formed after
the cyclone and tidal waves of 1970 and discovered by India in 1971. Bangladesh put forward its cfaims to the island in
1978. In 1979 the two countries agreed to conduct a joint survey to determine the location and ownership of the island.
In May 1981 the controversy between the two countries was aggravated on account of despatch of certain gun boats
which threatened the Indian ship Sdndhydk which wenl there to up date the statistics for joint survey. India also sent a
frigate to rescue its ships. This generated lot of tension. The tension was somewhat defused as a result of meeting of the
Foreign Ministers of the two countries even though they could not resolve the issue. At this meeting it was decided to
refer the issue to Secretary level talks to examine all available data on New Moore Island dispute. Hovvever, no
settlement could be arrived at. The island controversy still remains unresolved and has been causing tension in
IndoBangladesh relations.
The flow of migrants across Bangladesh boundary due to unstable conditions in Bangladesh has also/caused tension
between the two countries. Large influx of such migrants ac/oss the boundary has posed serious social, economic and
political problems for the people of Indian states bordering on Bangladesh (viz. West Bengal, Meghalaya, Assam,
Tripura and Mizoram). India sought tp check the problem of refugees by erecting barbed wire fence along the border,
which was greatly resented by Bangladesh. Therefore India decided to construct a road along the 2200 km Indo-
Bangladesh’border, 150 yards from the demarcation line, to check infiltration of unauthorised persons into country. The
presence of large number of Chakma refugees from Bangladesh also caused tension in their relations. However, the
situation somewhat eased following assurance by President Ershad of Bangladesh on 15 July 1986 that his government
would soon initiate steps for return of Chakmas who had crossed into India and curb continuing influx of tribals.
However, the Bangladesh government failed to live upto its assurance and the influx of Chakmas from across the
border into Tripura and Mizoram continued. The problem of sharing of river waters of Ganga. Teesla and Brahmaputra
and delimitation of maritime between the two countries also continued to cause tension in India’s relations with
Bangladesh. Further tension in Indo-Bangladesh relations was generated as a result of declaration of Bangladesh as an
Islamic Republic by President Ershad in June
1988. This raised serious doubts in the minds of minorities in Bangladesh about their future. Subsequently in the wake
of demolition of the Babri mosque at Ayodhya December 1992, violent attacks were made on temples in Dhaka,
Chittagong and other place;.. This led lu exodus of non-Muslims into India, and caused lot of tension in Indo-
Bangladesh relations. In this atmosphere of mutual distrust the bilateral talks on outstanding issues between the two
countries were shelved. In early 1993 when SAARC meeting took place at Dhaka hopes went high that the relations
between the two countries would show improvement. However, these hopes were belied and the relations between the
two conti lued to ht- Mr from satisfactory In 1944 thp situation somewhat eased following an agreement between the
two countries regarding repatriation of Thakma tribal refugees ramping in South Tripura tamps for the last eight years.
As a part of the
660 INTERNATIONAL RaATlONS
process of improvement of relations between two countries the leaders of two countries held a meeting to resolve the
issue of sharing of Ganga waters, but could not arrive at any settlement. However, as a result of this meeting the leaders
agreed to reactivate the Joint River Commission (After about five years) to work out details regarding sharing of waters
of common rivers on permanent basis. Thus we find that the relations between India and Bangladesh which started on a
cordial note started cooling down after the murder of President Ziaur-Rehman. No doubt in the economic and cultural
spheres the relations between the two countries have shown improvement over years and a Joint Commission of the
two countries has been set up to explore the possibilities of greater cooperation, but in the political sphere certain
irritants have appeared in their relations in the form of dispute over borders, Farakka barrage and Moore island. The
questions of repatriation of Chakma refugees from camps in India, and India’s efforts to raise barbed-wire on its side of
border to check the influx of Bangladesh nationals into India have also contributed to tension between the two.
Relations between the two countries have also been embittered because the two countries have been charging each
other of providing sanctuary to rebels across the borders. Bangladesh has accused India of harbouring and arming the
tribal Shanti Bahini guerrillas, who have been demanding political, economic and -cultural autonomy for Chittagong
hill tracts region. India has charged Bangladesh with providing sanctuary to TNV guerillas of Tripura. The question of
transfer of Tin Bigha corridor to Bangladesh also gave rise to tension between the two. The other issues which have
strained relations between India and Bangladesh include the issues of sharing of Ganga waters, illegal immigration of
Chakma refugees, treatment of minorities, demarcation of maritime boundaries. Despite these irritants the leaders of the
two countries have repeatedly asserted their desire to improve relations. In pursuance of this desire Bangladesh agreed
to repatriate first batch of Chakma refugees in February 1994. This was only a small beginning because the problem
involves the repatriation of about 57,000 people who left their hearths and homes in Bangladesh after their Shanti
Bahini guerilla outfit failed to achieve regional autonomy about a decade ago.
India and Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka is located off the coast of South East India. The country has very close cultural links with India. It is well
known that Ashoka sent his son Mahendra and his daughter Sangh Mitra for the propagation of Buddhist religion in
this island country, which still continued to be a predominant religion of the country. A large number of Indians are
settled in Sri Lanka. They are mainly employed in the tea and rubber plantations of the country.
In the political sphere India and Sri Lanka have maintained very cordial relations from the beginning. Two countries
have also maintained close cooperation in the economic field. Both are members of the non-aligned movement and
share identical views on most of the international problems. The only irritant in the relations between India and Sri
Lanka is the problem of the people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka. This problem has existed right from the time Sri
Lanka gained independence in 1949. Soon after attainment of Independence Sri Lanka disowned the people of Indian
origin settled in the country as a result of which
661
large number of them were rendered stateless. The Indian Government was also not willing to assume responsibility for
these people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka and insisted that the Government of Sri Lanka should permit these people to
become fullfledged citizens of the country. However, the Government permitted those Indian citizens to come to India
who wanted to come on their own free will. As a resuit many Indians settled in Sri Lanka acquired Indian citizenship
but quite a sizeable number of them continued to stay in Sri Lanka. The two Governments have been Carrying on
protracted negotiations for the settlement of this problem but without much success. In July-August, 1983 this problem
took a new turn when hundreds of Tamilians settled in Sri Lanka were killed by the Sinhalese extremists. The incidents
evoked so much of public resentment that the Prime Minister of India despatched its Minister for External Affairs (Shri
Narasimha Rao) for an on the spot study of the situation. The Government of Sri Lanka also took a number of measures
to curb the growing violence against the members of the minority community. There was a demand in certain quarters
for raising the issue of prosecution of the minorities irr the world forum but the Government of India acted with
restraint It also indicated its willingness to help in bringing the Government of Sri Lanka and the TULF leader A.
Amrithalingam to the negotiating table to find out an amicable .solution, in subsequent months India played an active
role in finding a solution to the problem of the Tamilians in Sri Lanka, ft also pressed on Sri Lanka Government to find
political solution. India’s relations with Sri Lanka got greatly strained towards the close of 1984 and beginning of 1985
due to internal ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka. The things assumed serious dimensions after the Government tried to settle
armed Sinhalese in Tamil majority areas, which was resented by the Tamilians and they blew up a number of banks,
mined army vehicles and cut off rail and telecommunication links. This was followed by burning of many towns and
villages by the army which resulted in death of a number of Tamilians. A large number of Tamilians left the country
and crossed over to India and thus created a serious refugee problem. This ted to strong demand for intervention by
India. However, the Indian Government ruled out any such action and insisted on a politicalsotution of the problem. It
even sent its Foreign Secretary to Sri Lanka in March, 1985 to defuse the situation. However, nothing concrete
emerged. Thereafter the situation became more grim due to intensification of repressive measures by the armed forces
against the Tamilians. There was a growing pressure on the Indian Government from Indian Tamils to intervene in Sri
Lanka. However, the government desisted from doing so and pressed the Sri Lankan Government to find out a political
solution of the problem. In May-June, 1987 following massacre of large number of Tamilians in Jaffna by the Security
Farces of Sri Lanka, India air-dropped supplies for the suffering Tamilians against the wishes of Sri Lankan
government. This generated fresh tension in their relations. However, subsequently the Sri Lankan Government snowed
a spirit of accommodation and permitted India to send relief supplies to relieve tf»e sufferings of the Sri Lankan
Tamilians. The things began to show improvement thereafter and culminated in the signing of an accord between Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President Jayewardene on 29 July 1987. In terms of this accord,
662
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY.AND RELATIONS
66
(i) the Tamil majority northern and eastern provinces were to be merged to make one single province to ensure distinct
Tamil nationality without disturbing integrity of Sri Lanka.
(ii) A referendum would be held on or before 31 December 1988 to enable the people of eastern province to decide
whether they would like to maintain links with the northern province or constitute a separate administrative unit with its
own provincial council and governor. The accord gave the President of Sri Lanka the discretion to *• postpone the
referendum. Under the accord all the persons who had been displaced due to ethnic violence or other reasons were
given the right to participate in the referendum.
(in) Elections to Provincial Councils shall be held before 31 December

1987 and the Indian observers shall be invited for election to the provincial councils of north and east.
’ (tv) Emergency in eastern and northern provinces shall be lifted by 15 August 1987.
(v) All hostilities in the island would come to an end within 48 hours of the signing of the agreements, and all arms
surrendered by the militant groups. Thereafter the army and other security personnel would be confined to barracks in
camps as on 25 May 1987. The process of surrendering of arms and the confining of security personnel to barracks
shall be completed within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities.
(vi) President of Sri Lanka would grant a general amenesty to political and other prisoners detained under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act and other emergency laws.
(vii) President of Sri Lanka was given the discretion to invite an Indian peace-keeping contingent to guarantee and
enforce the cessation of hostilities in Jaffna. India agreed to provide such military assistance for the implementation of
the accord as may be requested by Sri Lankan government.
(viii) The .accord also contains a special provision to deal with those militant groups -operating in Sri Lanka who do
not accept the framework of the settlement. It binds India to take necessary steps to ensure that Indian territory is not
used for activities prejudicial to the unity and integrity and security of Sri Lanka. The Indian coast guard ând navy
would co-operate with Sri Lankan navy in preventing Tamil militant activities from affecting Sri’Lanka.
(ix) Sri Lanka agreed not to make available Trincomalee or any other port for military use to other countries in a
manner prejudicial to India’s interest. It also agreed to reach an early agreement with India about the relevance and
employment of foreign military and intelligence personnel to ensure that such presence did not prejudice Indo-Sri
Lankan interests. On its part India agreed to deport all Sri Lankan citizens who were found to be engaging in terrorist
activities or
advocating secessionism. The accord was hailed as a great landmai in Indo-Sri Lankan relations and was expected to put an
’end to tr ethnic tension in Sri Lanka and lead to better relations between the tw countries.
The accord certainly helped to improve relations between the tw countries. Tension, which characterised relations
between the two countries gave place to co-operation and India actively intervened in Sri Lanka on the request of
government of that country. She assumed responsibility of disarming the Tamil militants and ensuring peace in the
sorely troubled northern areas specially Jaffna. India sent some 30,000 men of Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) for
fulfilment of obligations assumed under India-Sri Lanka accord of July
29,1987. It may be noted that India got involved In Sri Lanka on account of two reasons. Firstly, India was strongly
opposed to extra-tegional security links of Sri Lanka and the fear that outside powers may not get entrenched there.
Secondly, it felt concerned about the ethnic rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka and the onerous pressures from the state of
Tamil Nadu to protect Tami s even by intervention. India did a commendable job by ending Tamil militants menace
and providing food to the starving families. However, India paid/a heavy price for this involvement. It not only led to
heavy financial burden on India but also led to the killing of several members of Indian Peace Keeping Force. In
pursuance of the Indo-Sri Lankart agreement India rendered every possible assistance to Sri Lanka to contain terrorism
in the island country and even sent Indian Peace Keeping Forces for this purpose. The IPKF greatly assisted in bringing
peace to the war-torn island. However, the things took a turn for the worse following call ” by President Premadasa for
recall of IPKF from Sri Lanka by 29 July 1989. India, however, objected to the imposition of unilateral deadlines and
insisted that all the terms of the agreement must be fulfilled. As a protest Sri Lanka refused to take ’ part in the meeting
of Foreign Ministers of SAARC at Islamabad in July 1989. Talks were initiated to defuse the situation which r^suJted
in the conclusion of an agreement fo withdrawal of IPKF. It was agreed to set up a Peace Committee comprising
representatives of various political and ethnic groups in north-east. Though India continued with the phased programme
of withdrawal of peace keeping forces from Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan leaders were not happy with the pace of
withdrawal. India’s relations with Sri Lanka showed some improvement after the assumption of power by the National
Front Government. It expedited the process of withdrawal of (PKF forces from Sri Lanka. In January 1991 the two
countries reached an agreement that the final solution’to the vexed ethnic problem of Sri Lanka could be resolved only
through political settlement. The two countries also agreed to upgrade the existing joint trade committees. Sri Lanka on
its part agreed to accept 200,000 Sri Lankan refugees camping in Tamil Nadu. On its part India assured Sri Lanka that
she would not be party to any political disintegration of Sri Lanka and would not allow its territory to be used as base
for terrorist activities against the Island Republic. This stand of India greatly contributed to” easing of tension between
two countries. However, following SAARC Summit at Colombo in November J 991, the relations between the two
countries once again got strained because President Premadasa of Sri
664
665
Lanka put the entjre blame for the collapse of the summit on India. He even took advantage of Ilia’s absence and held
informal talks with leaders of Pakistan,, Bangladesh arm Maldives, where open hostility was displayed towards India.
However, jn subsequent months India’s relation with Sri Lanka showed! some improverhent. In January 1992 the two
countries reached an agreement ont repatriation of >amil refugees to Sri Lanka. By July 1992 more than 23,000 of the»
officially registered 120,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were flown home. ln> October 1992 ^resident Premadasa of
Sri Lanka paid a visit to India. During this visit, India expensed support for the proposal for effective devolution of
powerr within the framework of an early solution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The; two countries a ISQ
impressed the need of closer economic relations. All this was a clear indication of improvement of relations between
the two, and the hostility which once characterised their relations disappeared. The visit of President! Chandrika
Kun>aratunga of Sri Lanka to India in 1995, helped in re-establishingly friendly and mujtua||y beneficial ties between
the two countries. During her visitt to India she proposed a free trade and investment agreement to boost the economic
co-operation between the two countries.
India and Chirva
India and China have maintained close relations since ancient times. The foundation for these relations was laid by the
Buddhist preachers who went to China and spread this religion through the breadth and length of the country. Ai large
number of^hinese Buddhist scholars came to India in search of knowledge.. The prominent Chinese scholars who came
to India included Fahien, Huen-^ Tsang, l-Tsing, e(C. A large number of Chinese students also came to India tot study
at univer$jtjes |jke Nalanda.
In the modern times India expressed full sympathy for China when she was subjected to Japanese aggression. After
independence the two countries couldl not develop ve>ry intimate relations on account of pre-occupation with their
respective prob (ems, and their relations in the main remained formal. However,, with the emerg^nce of the People’s
Republic of China the relations between the: two countries started improving. India consistently supported the case of
China’s; entry into the United Nations. India showed keenness to develop friendly relations with Qhina despite its
military action in Tibet and avoided raising the issue at the international forum. In 1954 India concluded a treaty with
China with regard to Tibet a,ncj recognised Tibet as region of China. This treaty alsoexpressedl the determination of
the two countries to conduct their relations on the basis off Five Principles (Panchsheel), viz., mutual respect for each
other’s territoriall integrity and sovereignty; non-aggression; nonintervention in each other’s domestic affair^; mutual
benefit and equality; arid peaceful co-existence.
For sometime the relations between two countries continued to be very friendly and th e two co-operated at the
Bandung Conference of Afro-Asiani Nations. China >also supported India on the issue of Coa. In 1950 when
hostilities. broke out betvveen the Tibetans and the Chinese forces India desisted fromi intervening in t he matter. As a
result Tibet lost her autonomy. At this juncture. China also start^j making incursions into Indian territory and built a
road across,
Aksai Chin area. In 1959 the Chinese Prime Minister raised a doubt about the established boundaries between the two
countries and put forward a claim to
53,000 square milies of Indian territory. For next few years there were numerous incidents on the border.
The things took serious turn in 1962 when China launched a fullfledged attack on India in NEFA and Ladakh and took
possession of large chunks of Indian territory. Though subsequently China announced a unilateral cease-fire and
withdrew its force from certain territories, it continued to be in occupation of vast tracts of Indian territory. For all these
years India has been insisting on the return of these territories but without any .success. China not only took large
portion of Indian territory but also extended open support to Pakistan in its wars against India in 1965 as well as in
1971. China also supplied to Pakistan huge quantities of arms and ammunition for use against India.
Despite these provocations, India has favoured negotiated settlement of the border dispute with China and supported
China’s entry into the United Nations. However, relations between India and China suffered a setback following the
opening of the Khunjerab Pass in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. This
4,620 metre high pass at the terminus of the Chinese built Karakoram highway was opened for regular travel and trade.
It may be noted India has been repeatedly protesting to both China and Pakistan over this matter. India’s stand has been
that the boundary treaty and agreement between Pakistan and China regarding the illegally occupied territory of
Kashmir and the construction of Karakoram highway by the two countries is illegal. This development certainly gave a
serious setback to the process of normalisation of relations between India and China. Despite these setbacks, the leaders
of the two countries have \ repeatedly expressed their desire to improve relations with each other.
In August 1984 India and China signed a trade agreement which included the provision to confer on each other most
favoured nation status and to increase bi-lateral trade. However, despite these developments the border dispute between
the two countries remained unresolved on account of divergent stands of the two countries. While China wants
settlement of border along the existing line of control, it is not acceptable to India. However, towards the close of 1984
fresh efforts were begun to find a solution of the border problem. The teams of the two countries decided to set aside
the procedural aspects which had hampered the process of normalisation of relations and agreed to discuss substantive
aspects of the dispute, which indicated that both the countries were keen to solve the problem. However, no solution
could be arrived at. Chinese assistance to Pakistan in developing nuclear weapon gave rise to misgivings about the real
intentions of China. In subsequent months certain events took place which generated fresh tension in Sino-lndian
relations. These included intrusion of Chinese troops into the Indian territory; the Chinese protest over grant of
statehood to Arunachal Pradesh, which was described by India as interference in country’s internal affairs.
In spite of all this India has shown keenness to resolve outstanding disputes with China amicably. The Chinese leaders
also responded favourably. As a result
66
667
everal rounds of talks were held between the two to find out a solution of the
order dispute. But no solution could be found due.to reluctance of China to
/ithdraw from the present line of control in Ladakh unless India made certain
oncessions on the Macmohan line in the east. In 1987, as a result of mutual talks
ie two countries agreed to maintain tranquility along the borders till a mutually
cceptable settlement was worked out. In December 1988 Prime Minister Rajiv
Jandhi paid a visit to Beijing with a view to improve relations with China. As
result of the talks held-at Beijing the two countries agreed to set up a Joint
Vorking Croup on Boundary Question and a loint Croup on Economic
Delations, Trade, Science and Technology. The leaders of the’two countries also
feiterated their desire to conduct their relations on the basis of the five principles
irf Panchslwel advocated earlier. During the next two years there was a distinct
fiprovement in Sino-lndian relations. This change was reflected in China’s
and on Kashmir. In December 1988 China declared that Kashmir was a bilateral
oblem left over by history which had to be resolved through’peaceful mutual
msultations’. A series of high level exchanges between the two countries also
mtributed to the building of trust. In December 1991 the Chinese Premier paid
visit to India after a gap of 31 years and held fruitful talks with the Indian
•unter-part. The two leaders agreed to maintain peace and transquility in the
ea along the line of actual control pending final settlement of boundary
jestions. They also concluded agreements with a view to expand and
•engthen bilateral relations. They agreed to open Consulates General at
jmbay and Shanghai after a gap of 29 years. The two countries also agreed to
•operate in space research, technology and its application etc.
In February 1992 the two countries agreed to establish hotline between >rder personnel and institutionalise regular
meetings between the military ersonnels as a part of series of confidence building measures. In May 1992 resident R.
Venkataraman paid a visit toChina which indicated India’s intention > further improve relations with China. In
November 1992 the two countries jreed on the need for an across the border reduction of forces on both’sides f border
and general measures for reducing military presence and expenditure.
In September 1993 Prime Minister Narasimha Rao paid a visit to Beijing
hen he signed several agreements including Agreement on Maintenance of
eace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control (LAO. It was decided to
”tup an expert group under the aegies of the joint Working Group to complete
;e task of full delineation of the line of actual control. The two countries also
greed to hold regular meetings between the military commanders and to inform
ach other about all significant military exercises in the two sectors. They also
igreed to open border trade to encourage economic and people to people
exchanges. A hope was expressed that this would reduce tension between the
wo and help in finding a fair settlement or the territorial problem.
The process of improvement o! relations between Sndia ar,d China

3ntinued during the next few months. In June 1994 the rwo countries signed .-i <ide protocol for dren trade It is
noteworthy that the tnde between the r>-vo .entries which strod at 771 croresm 1991-92 ruse to IMBcrures in April
1994. .- )uly 1994 India and China signed an agreement lor co-operation in the oil
sector in respect of technology, equipment and sharing of lucrative contracts.
In October 1994 the Vice-President of India paid a visit to China which provided a new impetus to trade and economic
co-operation between the rwo countries. During this visit the two countries concluded several agreements, the
prominent among them being the one relating to simplification of visa procedure’ for diplomatic and official passport
holders and resumption of direct banking relations between the two countries! The leaders of two countries expressed
satisfaction over the.progress of border talks between the two countries and expressed ,1 hope that friendly solution
could he found through discussion. The leaders also expressed satisfaction over the growing trade between the two
countries and stressed the need of further increasing the same.
Despite the above development several causes of friction between India and China still exist. While China is not quite
happy with India on account of the anti-Chinese activities being carried on by the Tibetans from the Indian soil. China
has also not accepted the merger of Sikkim with Indian Union in 1975, even though the Indian authorities feel that this
problem is by now almost settled. India’s trade and commercial ties with Taiwan is also not viewed favourably by
China. Even though India recognises the Government of People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate government
of China. India is unhappy about China’s arms transfer, especially the missiles to Pakistan; the enormous increase in
China’s defence expenditure since 1989; the continuing mordemisatipn of its nuclear and missile force by China, arms
sales and military programmes etc.
India and Bhutan ’
Bhutan is located on the northern flank of narrow strip of Indiati territory and lies within India’s strategic defence
parameter/Soon after independence, India concluded a Treaty of Friendship with Bhutan in 1949 whereby the latter
agreed to be guided in its foreign relations by New Delhi. It may be noted that in view of its dependence on India for
trade and transit rights, Bhutan had hardly any other choice. Bhutan came closer to India after the suppression of
Tibetan Revolt by China in. 1959 and Sino-!ndian Conflict of 1962. Subsequently India accorded recognition to Bhutan
as an independent state and in T971 Bhutan became a member of the United Nations. !n 1978 Bhutan renamed its
mission in New Delhi as Roya! Bhutan Embassy, which was symbolic of qualitative change in indo-Bhutanese
relations. In 1979 Bhutan established diplomatic .relations with Bangladesh. This was followed by diplomatic relations
with a number of- other countries viz. Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, EEC, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland,
All this was indicative of the fact that gradually Bhutan was Irving to conduct its international relations independently
In 1985 Bhutan proceeded to append signatures to tht Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which India has been
strongly opposed Bhutan also tried to establish intimate contacts with China. The process of establishing contacts with
China started through i;s mission m New Oeih> and New York which culminated in direct tîks between Chi^j ar.cl
Bhutan in April V-J84 As A result ot these talks fhe two countries reached ar, agreement, regarding their border
dispute. !n 1938 Bhutan reached an understanding with China on the four principles which were to form
».
:~^-.
668
the basis of settlement of border between the two countries. This clearly showed that Bhutan did not involve India in its
matters any more.
In the economic sphere also India rendered enormous help to Bhutan. It provided enormous aid and made available
necessary technical knowledge and personnels for the development of Bhutan. In fact the first three five year plans of
Bhutan were entirely financed by India. But gradually Bhutan started receiving financial assistance from UN Agencies,
Japan, Australia, UK, Kuwait and Singapore as well and India’s share in the plans gradually declined. In recent years
Bhutan has been maltreating the Indian workers which has caused strains in the relations between two countries. On the
other hand Bhutan has also accused India of encouraging the people of Nepal’s origin from Nepal as well •as India to
cross into Bhutan and hamper the process of national- integration. However the Indian government has repeatedly
made it clear that it would not allow the Nepali-speaking people of India to agitate against a neighbouring country,
India on the other hand assured the King of Bhutan all possible assistance, including communication and logistic, to
bolster his kingdom’s law and’order machinery. India also indicated its intention to open armed outposts along the
Bhutanese border to stop illegal entry of foreigners into Bhutan. All this greatly contribute to allay the doubts in the
minds of the Bhutanese authorities. The Indo-Bhutanese ties received a boost as a result of four-day official visit by
King Jigme Singya Wangchuk to India in September 1991. On this occasion the two countries signed an agreement on
civil aviation to provide legal framework for operation of air services between the two coutnres. India also agreed to
provide assistance for the Seventh Five Plan of Bhutan beginning in
1992. The two countries also reached an agreement for further exploitation of hydel potential of Bhutan and India
agreed to work on two new giant hydel projects - Chukha Phase II and Chukha Phase in. Thus we find that India has
developed very intimate relations with Bhutan. In fact India forms a vital life line for Bhutanese economy and security
and Bhutanese leadership can hardly afford to let their relations with India cool down.
India and Myamnar (Burma)
India has maintained intimate relations with Burma (Myanmar) since earliest times. Burma fell under the influence of
Buddhism, which still continues to be a dominant element in Burma’s social life. The country was conquered by tSe
British and made a part of the Indian Empire. The conquest of Burma by the British started with the conquest of Arakan
and Tennasse Coast in 1826, followed by annexation of lower Burma in 1852 and upper Surma in 1856.
During the British rule over Burma the Indian merchants and moneylenders greatly exploited the country which gave
rise to anti-Indian feeling among the people. An’uprising was organised against the Indian and Chinese settlers which
culminated in the separation of Burma from India in 1935 and it became a separate entity within the British Empire.
During the Second World War Burma declared itself as independent with the assistance of the Japanese in 1943. After
the surrender of Japan, Burma again passed under Allied Forces. The Burmese people launched a struggle for
669
r
complete independence and firmly rejected the offer of’Dominion Status’ mi ’ to them by the British in 1945.
Ultimately the country achieved independence in January, 1948 after a colonial rule of 122 years.
Burma from the very beginning tried to maintain friendly relations with India as well as China. Like India, Burma tried
to keep off from Super Power blocs and pursued policy of non-alignment and cooperated with India on various issues.
However, the relations between the two could not develop along frierH’y lines and were greatly strained on account of
the maltreatment of Indians S-M led in Burma. The Burmese authorities dealt with the Indians settled in Burma
ruthlessly and nationalised Indian concerns and expelled Indian Businessmen and money lenders from Burma. It also
nationalised Indian Banks. There were also differences between the two regarding the delimitation of the maritime
boundary in the Bay of Bengal. However, as a result of negotiations an agreement was reached between the two
countries in December 1986. According to the agreement the maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal lies in the
vicinity of tM Andaman Sea through the Coco Channel. The agreement was duly ratifie two countries and on 13
September, 1987 they exchanged Instrunv of Ratification of the Indo-Burma Agreement. With the democratic
movement in Burma gaining popularity in 1989-90, it looked that the relations between India and Burma would show
an improvement. However, these hopes were dashed to the ground with the suppression of democratic movement and
re-establishment of military rule in Burma. Relations between India and Burma remained^quite cold during the next
few years. Ultimately in January 1992 the two countries decided to promote closer economic relations and concluded
two agreements for the economic development of areas along the international border to halp keep firm check on
insurgencies and drug trades. It was decided .that tide agreement would be valid for a period of two years from the date
it comes into force. The date on which the agreement was to become operational was t0 be determined by the two
governments by mutual consent. The militaiyjunta openly accused India of adding the funding Daw Aung>San Suu
Kyi’s movement for restoration of democracy. Asylum.granted by India to hundreds of prodemocracy activists further
embittered their relations. As a result Myanmar stepped up surveillance on the Indian mission and its staff. It even
turned down the request of Indian mission for STD and ISO facilities. But gradually the leaders in two countries felt it
desirable to improve their relations.
In January 1992 the two countries concluded two agreements for the economic development of the areas along the
international border to help keep firm check on insurgencies and drug trades. It was decided that the agreement would
be valid for a period of two years from the date it comes into force, -j he date on which this agreement was to become
operational was to be decided by the two governments by mutual consent. In 1994 a serious bid was made to open an
economic dialogue with Myanmar and the two countries signed an agreement which allowed open trade across the
Indo-Myanmar border through cutnm posts set up by both countries. While India set up such posts at Moreh (Marv;-
”S and Champali .’Mizoram), Myanmar set up these posts at Tamn and Hri. a is hoped that the closer economic
relations between the two countries would pave
way for dialogue on large issues of peace and security in the region.
(C) INDIA AND SOUTH-EAST ASIA
India’s relations with countries of South-East Asia viz., Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, ihe Philippines,
Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea) are to be v,s?wed in the context of her overall foreign policy and
her relations with the big powers. The importance of India’s relations with the countries of South East Asia lies in the
fact that her role in the South-East Asia largely influenced policies of the major powers towards her. Except for North’-
Vietnam, which allied itself with Soviet block and Thailand, Philippines and South Vietnam which joined the Anglo-
American bloc, most of the other countries of the region preferred to remain neutral. Another notable feature about the
countries of South-East Asia was that most of them adopted anti-imperialist postures because they were always seared
that the imperialist powers may not stage a comeback. The existence of close cultural bond between India and countries
of South-East Asia also contributed to closer relations between India and countries of the region.
India from the very beginning felt the need of developing intimate relations with the countries of South-East Asia and
to prevent the domination of the region by the communist or Western powers. India particularly looked at the armed
struggles in the region as a positive threat to her stability and emphasised the need of keeping the countries of South-
Fj$» Asia free from the influence 9f the Super Powers. Nehru particularly wanted India to play a prominent role in the
region and said in the course of his inaugural address to the Asian Relations Conference
in March 1947:
”It is fining that India should play her part in this new phase of Asian development. Apart from the fact that India
herself is emerging into freedom and independence, she is the natural centre and focal point of the many forces in Asia.
Geographyis a compelling facto-and geographically she is not situated as to be the meeting point of Western and
Northern and East and South-fast Asia.”
!n 1949 India took a lead in convening a Conference on Indonesia ^nd projected itself as the leader of the anti-colonial
struggle in Asia. However, indi* wanted to see the area free from Communist domination and, therefore, . expressed
reservations about the Liberation Movement irrindo-China under Ho Chi Minh. She un the other hand rendered indirect
help to France and Britain tu maintain their dominance over Indo-China and Malaya. India also helped the Burmese
Government in crushing the armed struggles of the Communists and Koreans and sided with the Anglo-American bloc
during the early phase of Korean war. Ail these actions of India were dea^y dominated by the consideration that she
wanted to see Scuth-F.ast Asi in region free of Communist domination. Despite hff-keen ioie’es! in the regie.ri, India’s
rpU:«>n>; with the countri^ nt South-Erf^t rtm.iinert -uimewtw forma’ during th»* mtitul yfars H<,wpvs-r gradually,
India assumed a leading rol« in Asia.
During tht- per»Ki from Bandung G>nf«-rtm<- il’nTi ami fv-i^r.uit
671
Conference (1961) differences cropped up between India and Indonesia. While India held that colonialism was dead
and the main task of the non-aligned countries was to bring about a rapprochement between the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A.,
the Indonesian leaders stood for bringing about unity among the newly independent countries against the old
established forces, and wanted to wipe out the last vestige of colonia ism. Further, Indonesia showed a clear tilt towards
China. As a result in 1962 when China attacked India, Indonesia did not show expected understanding of the Indian
position and preferred to remain neutral. It preferred not to go into the merits of the case and merely concentrated on
efforts to restore peaceful relations between India and China, the Indonesian posture of neutrality greatly
disappointed.India, which had earlier extended wholehearted support to Indonesia against the Dutch. On the other hand
the Indonesian leadership also viewed India’spro-Malaysian attitude as an unfriendly act.
India’s defeat at the hands of China in 1962 exposed her economic and military weakness, which greatly undermined
her prestige. With the exception of the countries of region who were camp-followers of the Western countries, most of
the other countries preferred to remain neutral. These countries did take initiative to arrange direct negotiations
between India and China, but could not succeed. Thus India’s strained relations with Indonesia and China prevented
her playing a significant role in the South-East Asia. ^
The setback received by India during the Sino-lndian war and her tilt towards the western countries created a feeling
among countries of South-Easb\ Asia that this may lead to greater interference by the western countries in the Asian
affairs. The pro-west countries of South-East Asia tried to utilise this opportunity to build a broad alliance against
China with Indian collaboration. The non-aligned countries were reluctant to develop close relations with India at the
cost of straining their relations with China, which emerged as a mighty Asian-Power. Soviet Union, however, showed
greater understanding of the Indian problem. In short, as a result of these developments a sort of stalemate was created
in India’s relations with countries of South-East Asia.
India’s relations with countries of South-East Asia entered a new phase after the Indo-Pakistarv War of 1965. During
the war Indonesia extended wholehearted support to Pakistan and described India as an aggressor. North Vietnam and
Combodia also criticised India, largely becuase of her failure to take a firm stand against the U.S. aggression. Malaysia,
however, maintained neutrality. However, the victory scored by India, over Pakistan restored her lost prestige in South-
East Asia. The Indonesian policy towards India underwent a change following coup of 1965. The new leadership
abandoned pro-Peking and proPakistani posture and showed eagerness to normalise relations with India. This was
naturally viewed with great relief by India which tried to cultivate more intimate political, economic and commercial
relations with Indonesia.
In the wake of the Cultural Revolution in China there was an increase in the activities of the Communists in the
countries of South-East Asia. This enoHjraged «he non-Communisi o.untirt”, to come close*. The ouster of Soe.kamu
in Indonesia <«nd t-rwi <>t miita ;<-iution Ixtween Indonesia and Malaysia
672 ’
paved the way for greater co-operation among the countries of th^ region. This also paved the way for improvement of
India’s relations with the^ countries. • However, her relations with North Vietnam, Cambodia and Burnâ continued to
be formal.
. The conflict between the U.S.S.R. and China: the partial withdrawal of the Amricans from Vietnam and normalisation
of relations between China and U.S.A., also had its impact on the policy of the countries of Southeast Asia. The
countries of” South-East Asia tried to gain the best advantage out of the world situation by keeping their bargains wifh
all the big powers alive, ””this provided a good opportunity to India to cultivate better relations with coun^rjes of
SouthEast Asia. No doubt the countries of South-East Asia attached mor-e importance to their relations with China and
Japan, but they could not completely ignore India on account of her close relations with the U.S.S.R.
Theconclusionoflndo-SovietTreatyin 1971 created further a^pprehensions in the minds of South-East Asian countries
that this would lead to i ncrease in the Soviet sphere of influence. Therefore, the countries of the regio^ preferred to
follow a policy of waiting and watching.
The politics of Indian Ocean also influenced India’s relations with the countries of South-East Asia. As most of the
countries of South-Ea%t Asia were in the Indian Ocean littoral, they felt the need of improving relations »vvith India
and demanded creation of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean regi-jon However, India could not fully subscribe to the
views of the South-East A:>Sjan countries specially Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines, which opposed employment
of both the super powers. Their stand, however, underwent a chang»»e as a result of the Soviet role in Afghanistan and
Kampuchea and they moved \n favour of a power balance rather than a withdrawal of the foreign powers frciom the
region.
It cannot be denied that India’s pro-Soviet.tilt in the foreign „ policy greatly hampered the development of friendly and
cooperative relat Jtjons with the countries of South-East Asia. However with the disintegration of the,e Soviet Union
towards the end of 1991, the pro-Soviet tilt of India automatically^ disappeared. This removed one of the chief hurdles
for India to improve relaxations with the countries of South-East Asia.
In January 1992 the Association of South East Asian Nations* s (ASEAN) at its summit held in Singapore accepted
India as a Sectoral Partner inî specific areas like trade, investment, science and technology and training, in tHjthe hope
that it would help the process of global economic integration..
In the economic field India has not been able to develop clo-Qojg jjes with the countries of South-East Asia. Th4s was
largely due to failure s of the Indian diplomacy to create an image that India was an industrialised coununtry. It was
also partly due to the reasons that India could develop only formal relations with these countries till early sixties. After
the Sino-lndian War the Indian le| leadership paid more attention to the strengthening of the economic ties with Soûth-
East Asian countries and the volume of trade between India and South-East A- Asian countries increased. However, on
account of the aggressive trade policies ”j,j0f japan in the
673
in terms of
region, this increase could not be consiststently maintained. Th<x_ h value India’s trade with South-East Asiann
countries considerablCj1*8 ’” **”?? in terms of the percentage of the total tradeae of the region itwasqu^y mcreas*r
In the economic field also the changed international scenario den*J|e ’^’8I” ?.’’ should try to develop closer
economic relations with countries of T^* ’ It is true that the high cost economy of r India will pose serioi^
VJastAsia’ effective collaboration, but the size of I Indian economy, the h^ problems for base, diversified defence
production, the i ra nge of services which|a*y lndusîal and the better educational facilities availal ble in the country
provi<^ n ’” ’*” er’
and the better educational raciimesavanai Die in me country provir^, - ’
. ... ^<!e considerable
complementarity.
Relations with ASEAN
The Association of South-East A.sian Nations (ASEAN^ ... Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sin; gapore and
Thailand, c ’^l5’51’??. in 1967. This association was formed witrfi a view (a) to accelerat^ . in ° Dem8 growth,
social progress and cultural development in the region; .. ô00””0 regional peace and stability; (c) to prorr-note
active collaborati^.^ a°dpfOmot^ assistance in matters of common interest in the economic, s^.^” mu a. scientific
and administrative field; (d) to ^provide as^ tance to e^ , A^”. U?: form of training and research facilities in tl he
educai -nal, profess Jv . V” ,l . and administrative spheres; (e) to promcote South-East Asian Sft^. ’ I*^,
collaborate for the greater utilisation off their agriculture and jnd’ * V°’ expansion of their trade, etc. Though thê
Association is appan^n . ^^ J~ economic co-operation it is basically a s»-ecurity-oriented organi^.^ .
concern is to fight Communism through joint action and to kee^ . .m
going by introducing economic reforms within the existing strij . ” ri5
Initially, India showed keenness t«o join the ASEAN, but . ,.,
Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines wer^ not in favour of India jci -nj J^J^ because of the possible risk of India
donminating the Association 8,
her vast size and resources. India’s close ties with the U.S.S.R. a{ôstQ.. . wa^. However, India tried to cultivate
intimate economic rei^^jons with {h various countries of the ASEAN on b (lateral basis. India ccw^ ^ . , Malaysia
and Singapore and undertook joint ventures in these ^.Q^^J^ Th self-seeking economic policies pursued fc>y U.S.A.
and Japan also ^Qp^j^,^ ,o more favourable attitude oWhe ASEAN c ountries towards India. ^^ ^^^f j,j of ASEAN has
also favoured^rnore closer economic links with Inc}^ sp^jaiiy !„ the field of technology and training. •
The Indian stand on Soviefpresenc «in Afghanistan and r«:<^.njtjon of the Vietnam backed Heng Samarin regime ir»
Kampuchea created soi>^ bikerines in relations with the ASEAN countries..Thi s drew the ASEAN cour>lrjes c|OSgr
to China. ’ • ,
Th« future relations of India with South-East Asian country wf)u|d f(J a large extent depend on the.solution of the
Kampuchean problems Accofdj to Asis Kumar Majumdar ”There are three alternatives. Firstly, ^ .iion^
, • . ’ i 11*” l-alflci Hr\J
Vietnam dealing with both the superpowers on equal terms may b^ accep(ed b
674
the ASEAN members as non-aggressive. This may in turn provide scope for India to have better relations with most of
the South-East Asian countries. Secondly, a Kampuchea, tree from occupation of Vietnam and reoccupied by the Pol
Pot Government may compel India to review her stand to the satisfaction of ASEAN. Thirdly, a broad understanding
between Vietnam and Thailand to fight the Pol Pot forces may also indirectly pave the way for better Indo-South-East
Asian relations.”
(0) INDIA AND AFRICA
Historical Background : India’s relations with Africa can be traced back to th’e times earlier than the Christian era. In
the beginning of first Century A.D. trade was thriving between India and Africa. But more intimate relations between
India and Africa developed only with the coming of the Western powers and the dawn of the merchant capitalists era,
when the colonial labour and a large number of Indian labourers were taken to South Africa, Mauritius and West Indies
to work on sugar plantations. Similarly, a large number of Indians were taken to Uganda for subordinate and technical
services. In fact most of the middle level services were provided by the Indians and they played a prominent role in the
economic life of East African countries. Generally the relations of Indians with the Africans were cordial but often
frictions also appeared in their relations.
The Indian national movement also exercised profound influence on the national movements of African countries. India
extended full support to the African people in their struggle against colonial domination, racial discrimination etc. In
this regard Mahatma Gandhi played a vital role and organised agitation against racist policies of South African
Government. Further, the African leaders drew inspiration from the Indian National Movement and claimed right of
political participation on terms of equality. After the attainment of independence by India the nationalist movements in
Africa gathered further mo/nentum and it would not be wrong to say that Indian independence blazed the liberation for
the countries of Africa.
Relations after Independence
After attainment of independence also India tried to maintain very cordial

rpUtinn with Atnr.in rnnntrif”. .»nrlpytenrWI till I support fn liberation mnvempnK
in various countries. No doubt in certain African countries some hostility between the people of Indian origin and
African people was generated on account of the disproportionately higher economic rewards reaped by the people of
Indian origin. But the Indian leadership specially Pandit Jawaharial Nehru, advised the people of Indian origin residing
in Africa to sink their differences, if any. with the African people and march hand in hand with them in their liberation
struggle as also in their developmental aspirations.
Alter the African countries pained independence, India and the African countries trxik identical stand on various
international issues. They expressed full taith in the policy of non-alignment and peaceiul coexistence. On the wider
. Asis Kjmar Md|umdj<. .Sot;!/, f.j^f AS/J/I livJun fort-it;! j Pulu y, pp. J3i-J J7.
675
economic issues like North-South Dialogue also they have worked in complete co-operation and have come to accept
the need of closer horizontal co-operation
• between the underdeveloped countries. >
Faith in Non-Alignment
Both India and African countries profess fai’h in-the policy of nonalignment. They adopted this policy because they
wanted to preserve their newly won freedom and independence. It may be noted that this policy was not merely in the
nature of reaction against cold war but represented the aspirations of the people of Africa. Like India, the African
countries gained freedom after long colonial exploitation and were naturally keen to attain economic independence and
wanted to make their own decisions in the domestic as well as foreign spheres. The African countries also preferred to
keep out of the military pacts because they saw in the presence of the army bases on their land a serious threat to their
independence. Being afraid of the re-entry of imperialist powers they adopted anti-colonial and anti-racialist policy.
Economic ’Self-Reliance
In the economic sphere also both India and African countries stood for selfreliance with a view to reduce their
dependence on the former colonial powers and to attain status of equality with them. Intimately linked with their desire
to attain self-sufficiency in the economic sphere was their desire to create a New International Economic Order to
secure their legitimate economic rights inx international dealings through use of their collective bargaining strength.
India and Liberation Struggles in Africa
India has consistently supported the Liberation Movements in’ various African countries and took up the cause of the
African countries in the United Nations, the Commonwealth Conferences and other international forums. First, India
tried to impress on the United States that the Trusteeship System should be worked in the interest of the dependent
people and there should not be any parcelling out of territories on the basis of strategic needs. India also insisted that
the Trusteeship powers must supply regular information to the United Nations Organisation regarding the measures
taken by them or proposed to be taken by them with a view to expedite the grant of independence or self-government to
the trust territories.
Racial Discrimination, and Colonialism
India was the first country to take up the question of apartheid and racial discrimination practised by the South African
regime. India raised the question or racial discrimination being made by South Africa at the United Nations anu
asserted that the discriminatory laws of the South African government against the people of Indian origin in South
Africa constituted a violation of the fundamental human right. It may be noted that this question of racial
discrimination was raised by India not only in the intere1’ ->f the Indians but also on account of its wider significance.
As Dr Rajendra F-Mxad told the Lok Sabha, it is more a question of the future ot Africans ’nan of the Indians in South
Africa.
m,
6/r, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
In 1954 India was the first country to withdraw its High Commissioner in Pretoria and instituted economic sanctions
aginst South Africa. India also cut off trade relations with South Africa, even though South Africa offered good market
fur Indian goods, as a protest against policy of racial discrimination being to!!- d by the South African Government.
n case of Rhodesia also India extended full support to the contention of the , ricans that it was a non-self governing
territory and opposed perpetuation or white domination. When the White regime of Ian Smith indicated its intention to
make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence India was the first country in the world’to break off diplomatic relations
with Rhodesia and was one ot the first countrj^s to impose a total embargo.
In Namibia also India fully identified itself with the new forces (SWAPO). It.regularly contributed to the Fund for
Namibia set up in 1970. India also offered to help in the post independent construction of the territory by agreeing to
provide training facilities to 150 persons from Namibia in 1975. India also contributed equipment, experts, professors
and lecturers to serve on the Institute set up for Namibians at Lusaka. India has also been pressing for economic
sanctions against South Africa for over a decade and extended full support for decolonisation of Namibia and South
Africa. India also provided SWAPO and the African National Conference (ANC) facilities to man their respective
missions in New Delhi. •
Above all, India played an important role” in raising voice for ending all kinds of colonialism. India moved,.i,
resolution in U.N, General Assembly in ! 960 which was adopted without any dissenting vote. The resolution stressed
the need to bring to speedy and unconditional end of colonialism in all its forms and manifestation, India also served as
Chairman of the Special Committee of Twenty which was set up to examine and recommend measures for accelerating
progress’ in the implementation of the Declaration regarding Grant of Independence to all colonial countries and
people. After 1960 India adopted a passive role in the United Nations, because a number of new African members
begajp to play more active role. Support to Liberation Movements Outside.United Nations
Ou’siue die United Nations also inu’ia extended lull support lu’lhe African liberation movements and various
organisations founded for the purpose. India Ka.iicularly showed great appreciation for the Organisation of African
Unity (O.A.U.) set up in 1963, which endeavoured to create conditions to find an African solution to the African
problem. As India did- not seek any privileged position in relation to the African countries it did not take part in the
liberation movement and tried to channelise its aid chiefly through the O.A.U.
Another significant contribution of India to the liberation movement in Africa was the drive initiated after the Lusaka
Non-Aligned Summit of 1970 to share the burden of ’front-line’ states because instability in these states could
adversely affect the liberation movements in tbese countries. India also offered one million rupees to the Lesotho
Special Fund and half a million rupees to the Botswana Special Fund. These funds were used by the concerned
countries for
procurement of Indian goods and technical services. Thus India offered consistent support to the liberation movements in
Africa through various measures. Economic Assistance to Africa
India did not merely extend support to the African countries in their struggle for freedom but also provided economic
assistance during the struggle and after independence, primarily With a view to ensure stability artd economic
prosperity in the Atric in continent, and to strengthen their hard won independence. India provided special assistance to
countries like Mauritius, Tanzania, Zambia, Nigeria. Libya and Algeria. It set up joint commissions of economic and
technical cooperation with these countries. These Commissions hold periodical meetings and try to promote
cooperation by identifying new areas of economic activity. It placed at their disposal services of hosts of experts and
technicians in the fields of medicine, engineering, education, architecture, agriculture, oil, shipping, etc. In addition a
large number of African students were provided education in various faculties of the Indian Universities. Training
facilities were also provided in military field to cadets of number of African countries.’ The Indian assistance to the
African countries was made available under four.different programmes viz. the Colombo Plan, the Special
Commonwealth African Assistance Plan (SCAP), the Indian Technical and Economic Coopt ation Programme
(ITEC) and unilateral schemes under which seats were reserved for the students of African countries in medical,
engineering and other technical institutions. Economic Collaboration
India has also been increasingly collaborating with the African countries which has been of mutual benefit to both.
India has secured some of world’s biggest contracts. India also got a contract to construct world’s most sophisticated
airport in an arid area. India has procured contracts for the construction of hospitals, houses .and irrigation dams in
Libya. Similarly in other African countries also India has secured contracts for construction of transmission lines and
electrification projects (Zambia), diesel. locomotive, wagons and coaches, sugar plant (Tanzania); buses (Zaire, Libya
and Uganda) and sugar plant (Kenya and Uganda). In addition India is providing services of top Consultancy
Companies in number of African countries. In fact it can be said that ”no lie veicifjtngeuui itiy, wiiiiesliii in lite process
ui its own developmental problems has offered so much to. its African brethren as India has done in a spirit which is
symbolic of India’s desire to meet the African urge for progress with the help of our own growing technical know-how
and which would be to the mutual advantage of both India and the countries in Africa.” Transfer of Technology
India has also contributed to the economic development of Africa through transfer of technology. India has fully
sympathised with the aspirations of the Airirans to attain self-reliance. The technological transfer can assume various
•>h,i|>ev vi^.. dirt-< I inreign investmfnl in tilt- extractive >ect<>^ like pelrol«-um, mining and rx|«.r! rigrii u’Uirt.
buying requisite technology -lr-.iw various sources and putting them together to organise industrial production and
distribution; through exchange of book.-, journals, trade journals, informal
K
678
personal contacts and relationships, training abroad of technicians, engaging, engineering design and plan
construction enterprises, importation of equipment, etc. India has transferred technology to the countries of
Africa in the following forms:
(a) Foreign Trade : Trade is one of the mechanism for the transfer of technology embodied in goods and services.
India’s trade with the African countries has not been large and continued to be stagnant during the period
1960-70. In fact in mid-seventies it showed a decline. Further this trade has been mainly confined to some countries of
Africa only viz., U.A.R. and Sudan in North Africa and Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia in tast Africa. In the subsequent
years trade between India and African countries showed an increase. India exports large quantities of engineering
goods, textiles, chemicals, f<x>d and host of other items. On the other hand it imports from Africa minerals like
copper, cobalt, tin and manganese, cotton, cashew, cocoa, phosphates, edible oils etc. Since most of the goods exported
by India to African countries are embodiment of India’s advanced technol6gy, this can be very well considered as
transfer of technology. It is noteworthy that the balance of trade between India and African countries is in favour of the
latter. Further, India has always been willing to provide lohgterm credit to these countries to meet their immediate
import requirements.
(b) Joint Industrial Ventures : Another form which the transfer of Indian technology to Africa has assumed is the joint
industrial venture. India has been associated with large number of joint industrial ventures and turn key projects in
Africa. At present India is involved in over 50 joint ventures with various African countries. Some of the countries with
which India has set up joint ventures include Kenya, Nigeria, Mauritius, Tanzania, Uganda etc. These ventures are for
production of such varied items as textiles, electric fans, sugar. tractor assembly, machine tools, bicycles etc. The
African countries have welcomed these joint ventures because this makes available to them capital. machinery and
other assets. Though initially those joint ventures around suspicion in the minds of the local people, but slowly the
people have develops! admiration for the Indian technology and expertise which is better suited to thr social and
economic conditions of African countries.
(c) Training of Personnel : India has not only provided the plants and factories in various African countries with its
own managerial and technical experts, but also provided extensive facilities for the training of the local people so that
they may be able to play an active role in the management and development of the various projects. Training facilities
have been provided to the personnels of these countries in India. In addition a number of Indian expert^ have been sent
to various African countries to train personnels and render help on specific problems. The necessary assistance to
various African countries ^ made available under Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation Programme (ITEO,
Colombo Planând Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan (SCAAP). A large number of Indian experts are
also employed in African countries in various fields such as mining, indu>try. agriculture, public health. education xind
administration.
”’’•’•&-:
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS ’ ’ 679
No doubt, at present the transfer of technology from India to Africa is on a very limited scale, but there is tremendous
scope for transfer of such technology. Some of the areas in which greater co-operation between India and Africa is
possible include the Agro-industries, specially in the area of cereal processing, milling, oilseeds, sugar and other food
processing industries, industries relating to rural housing, transport, water supply, etc. One scholar has rightly observed
that ”the technology developed and refined in India is of greater relevance to African countries, since India has just
passed the stage of development they have entered. It is much easier now to explore common grounds for cooperation
and to draw programmes for their implementation.” Cooperation through International Organisation
Apart from bi-lateral assistance to various African countries India has also tried to assist the African countries through
international organisations. Thus in
1979 India gave a grant of Rs. 50 lakhs to United Nations Trust Fund for African Development, and thus earned the
distinction of being the first non-African developing country to contribute to this fund. India also joined African
Development Bank and thus participated in the various projects funded by the African Bank.
Drought Assistance
India has also showed its solidarity with various African countries at the time of their distress and provided them every
possible assistance. Thus India has provided funds and foodstuffs at the times of drought. It also made available
expertise and technical assistance in the development cjf agriculture along modern lines and development of irrigation
facilities so that these problems can be tackled on long term basis. India has’also extended assistance to various African
countries in the development of non-conventional energ^ sources, rural electrification, solar energy and wind power.
Credit Facilities
’ Despite her tight financial positiqp India has made available to several African countries enormous amounts as credit
on most reasonable terms. It offered credit between 5. to 10 crores to countries like Tanzania, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Zambia, Uganda, Sudan etc. for purchase ot Indian manufactured goods such as textiles and engineering goods,
tractors, motor cycles, buses, trucks, bicycles etc.
Problems of Indians in Africa
The one issue which has (ended to strain India’s relations with some of the African countries is the problem of Indians
settled in Africa. This problem arose because the East African ’countries Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania expelled a large
number of Indian^ from the’r countries. These Indians went to East Africa during the British rule and played an-
important role in the economic development ot the*’ countries during the colonial period..They provided the mis.sing
link* or art i-an -lulls, -ulwirdinate services jncl trading l.ilenls which ihi~ vvhite -ettlers found uneconomical to supply
and lor v\lii< h the Africans were .1- yet nol fit. The ’ lead in the expulsion of fhe Asians was taken by President !di
Amin. Soon after” s
680
&80 ” INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Kenya and Tanzania also took certain measures which resulted in substantial exodus of the Asians from these countries.
In 197$ President Banda of Malawi expelled several hundred Goans and asked the Asians to wind up their business in
the countryside and concentrate only in three large towns of Lilognwe, Blangyre and Zomba by March, 1977. Thus the
Asians had to face rough weather in Africa. They were eliminated from Africa but British did not welcome them even
though they held valid British passports, i^n India was not quite enthusiastic to receive them.
However, this rough treatment meted out to Indians in some of (he African countries should not give the impression
that the Indians have been excluded ^ from African countries. In facVmore and more Indians are now going to the
African countries because of the better economic opportunities available there. For example in Nigeria and Ghana,- the
number of Indians has considerably increased. Even in the countries of East Africa the Government has been .recruiting
Indians to man the crucial manpower needs of the economy.
AFRICA FUND. (Action for Resistance to Invasion, Colonialism and Apartheid), This fund was instituted at the
initiative of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at the Harare Summit of Non-aligned Nations,-with a view to strengthen the
economic and financial r -inability of thef rontline states to fight the apartheid regime of Pretoria and to support
theJiberation movements in both Africa and Namibia in their unrelenting stf csle apFnst racist and colonist oppression.
The other objectives of the Fund Vemto assist Ut» frontline States to enforce sanctions against South Africa and to
cope with-any retaliatory economic action by the racist regime. The Fund was also expected to provide assistance to the
frontline states in development»f their’infrastructure, particularly transport and port facilities as alternatives to the
existing facilities passing through South Africa and reduce their dependence on the racist regime. India as Chairman of
the 9 member AFRICA Fund Committee took concrete initiative and formulated definite projects and measures to
attain the objectives of the Fund. Apart from contributing Rs. 500 million to the AFRICA Fund, India appealed to other
countries and agencies to contribute to the fund. As a result about 256 million US dollars were collected for th9»fund.
The AFRICA Fu’nd Committee under Chairmanship of India has taken concrete initiative and formulated definte
projects to attain the objectives ot the t.und. So tar it has identitied 72 projects. The launching of the AFRICA Fund was
indeed an event of great significance in the struggle against apartheid. It is expected to strengthen the economic
resilience of the Frontline states and assist the liberation movements in South
Africa and Zambia.
The above survey makes it amply clear that India has maintained very intimate relations with Africa since the day of
independence. She not only extended lull -.upport to the liberation movements in different Atrican countries and took
the cause of African countries at the United Nations and other international tofL/m. hul also extended every possible,
help to these countries to enable :hem to make quick economic progress. As a result she has earned the gratitude of the
Atrican countries and is held in high esteem by most of them.
INDIA’S FOREIGN POtlCY AND RELATIONS
681
(O INDIA’S ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY
Uneconomic diplomacy of any country is to a large extent influenced bv the economic factor. This has been so since
the fifteenth century But in the present century, specially during the inter-war period, the interdependent nature of the
world economy obliged the states to adopt a new type of diplomacy (economic diplomacy) and engage new type of
diplomats (diplomats expert in the field of agriculture, medicine, labour, etc.) This new type of diplomacy came to play
in the Lend-Lease Agreement between U.S.A. and Britain in 1941. in the post World Wdr II period, with the
establishment of the United Nations and other international agencies, the economic diplomacy assumed more
significant role in the international affairs. India’s economic diplomacy has been greatly . influenced by her broad
foreign policy goals and domestic objectives. One of the main objective of India’s economic diplomacy has been to
achieve economic development of the country without losing initiative to manage its own affairs without becoming
dependent on other countries. •
India has been quite critical of the economic institutional framework evolved by the western powers for channelising
the international economic intercourse because it accentuated inequalities between the developed and underdeveloped
countries. India argued that liberalised international trade and initiative of private capital could not be helpful in the
economic growth of the underdeveloped countries, because these countries were not so much.concerned with the full
utilisation of the existing productive capacities but with the building of the basis for economic development. India
emphasised the crucial role which international support could play in the economic development of the underdeveloped
countries. It insisted on the creation of agencies under the aegis of the U.N. to render development assistance to these
countries and making the existing international economic institutions more responsive to the needs of the,,
underdeveloped countries.
Right from the beginning India has made efforts to involve the United Nations in the task of the development of the
underdeveloped countries. India pleaded for the launching of technical assistance programmes by the U.N. with a view
to uplift the poor countries. India demanded creation of a U.N. Capital Developpent Fund and continued a persistent
campaign for this purpose. However, nothing concrete emerged. However, these efforts resulted in the provision of soft
credit facilities by World Bank, and the United Nations set up a special fund to finance pre-investment project. To a
large extent the convening of the UNCTAD at Geneva in 1964 was to the perseverance of tndia, India projected itself
as the chief spokesman of the Group of 77. India was also the-’ venue for the second UNCTAD.
Another noi.ible contribution of Indi.i hds been th.il it consistently, impressed at the various international forums that me economic
assistance made available to the underdeveloped countries should not he viewed as a gesture of i hrffity oil (he |j,)d <il tile ddV.iiu t-cl
( otinliiev On ihe ulhn li.nnl il w.is ,t duly imp<>-fil KIT tlvm hy ill.- t!.\. fh^ttrf Hiul ihr-y mu»l ivs|*-t I il. Al tht- -,ime tinir-
f£2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
India also impressed on the underdeveloped countries to forge political unity with a view to influence the policies of
the advanced countries. It is well known that India has been consistently try ing to preserve the joint front of the 77. In
other words, building political pressure against the advanced countries at the U.N. has been one of the basic principles
of India’s economic diplomacy.
Yet another stance of India’s economic diplomacy has been the efforts to impress on the advanced countries that the
underdeveloped countries offered ”, vast potential markets for the advanced countries and it was in their own interest
as well to help in the development (if these countries. If the world was permitted to get divided in two categories of
states, -me living in conflict and confidence and the other groaning under poverty and frustration, this would lead to
international violence and anarchy which was not in the interest of advanced countries. Emphasising this, point Mrs.
Gandhi told the second UNCTAD session in New Delhi ”The question before the advanced countries is not whether
they can afford help to the under-developed countries, but whether they can afford1
not to do so.”
Another notable feature of India’s economic diplomacy has been strong advocacy of the need of New International
Economic Order. India has played a significant role in this regard. At the Sixth Special Session of the U.N. General
Assembly India pleaded for (i) comprehensive policy for the revalorisation of prices of raw materials; (ii) provision of
additional liquidity for specially affected countries; (in) equitable patterns of voting rights in IMF and other
international ’ financial institutions; (iv) provision of external capital for the development of developing countries;
and Iv) technical and financial assistance to Redeveloping countries. India has consistently worked for the realisation of
the ideals of New . International Economic Order at the various sessions of the UNCTAD. At the U.N. also India has
emphasised the need of global talks within the framework of U.N. on energy, raw materials, trade development,
currency and financial matters, in the hope that this would ultimately lead to the creation of the New International
Economic Order. In recent years, on account of serious problem of debt confronting the developing countries, India has
pleaded .for collective reform of the international economic system to make it more equitable towards the
developmental needs of the South and the recovery.ot the North.
Simultaneously, india has also emphasised I’IHJ need <n greater 10operation amongst the underdeveloped countries,
and insisted on South-South Dialogue. India felt that since the north was not responding favourably to the demands of
the south for the reduction to tariff, international commodity
• agreements for stabilisation of prices, offic rat-aid at concession rates and reforms ’ in international monetary system,
the countries of south must cooperate on thebasis of some common programme. To make the international co-operation
more efficacious, India stands for (il immediate launching of gli >ba! negotiations; (ii^ increasing f«xxl production in
developing countries; liii) reversing of the present disturbing trends in the flow of assistance from the developed to the
developing countries; iiv) strengthening of multilateral < o-optration; iv) devising of mechanisms to finance the
development <>i energy resourt es in developing t ountries: (vi) sj>ee<ly adoption and implementation ol ••< liemes lo
lighten the
INDIA’S fORElCN POLICY AND RELATIONS 683
financial burden of increased oil prices and to ensure supplies of aid to developing countries; (vii) provision of financial
support for balance cf payments problems in the transitional stage of oil importing developing countries; (viii)
reversing protectionist trends and (ix> development of solidarity and collective self-reliance of developing countries
with a view to reduce their vulnerability to pressures from the events in affluent countries.
Finally, it has been a part of India’s economic diplomacy to favour greater co-operation among the countries of the
region. In pursuance of this policy, India played an active role in the formation of SAARC to promote greater co-
operaiion among the countries of South Asia. The members of SAARC (South Asian
• Association of Regional Cooperation), include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
The main objectives of this organisation are promotion of welfare of people, improvement in the quality of the life of
people, acceleration of economic growth, promotion of collective self-reliance, promotion of mutual trust and under-
standing, promotion of collaboration in economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields, etc. It may be noted
that this organisation-does not seek to supplant the existing bilateral and multilateral arrangements but to supplement
them. Another notable achievement of this organisation is that its members have agreed that bilateral and contentious
issues shall be excluded from all discussions relating to South Asiar Regional Cooperation.
(f) INDIA AND THE QUESTION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS India has been a consistent opponent of the Nuclear
weapons ever since her independence. In fact, even before India gained independence the Indian leaders expressed their
shock over the dropping of the bomb jt Hiroshima and Nagasaki which resulted in enormous loss of life and property.
After independence, India from every possible platform carried out a crusade against nu< lear weapons and tried to
wean the nations away from the path of nur U-.u afmaments. Mr. lawaharlal Nehru, the firstPrimeMinister of India and
Inchargeoi tin-Department of Atomic tnergy stated on more than one occasions .th.i’l.huii.i h,u) nothing to do with the
atom bomb and she would like to use the nut lem energy tor peaceful purposes only. For example while inaugurating
India’s Nuclear Reactor Apsara at Tromhav in lanuary 19S7 he sairi: ”No man ran nrotiliesy the future But I should
like to say on behalf of my Government and I think I ran say with some assurance on beh^lt on any future Government
of India that whatever might happen, whatever the cjrcumstances; we shall never use this atomic energy for evil
purposes. There is no condition attached to this assurance, because once a condition is attached, the value of such an
assurance does noi go very far.”
At the various international forums also India advocated the elimination and prohibition of the use of nuclear \\ea|x>ns
As early as 144H, India’s representative told the U.N. General AWmbly that India stands for the exploitation ot’the
nuclear energy only ror peaceful purposes. India was willinR to concede ni’ifss.ir> | lowers to the International Atomic
Development Authority to ensure pe.icetul us, s nt the nuclear energy. However, India rirmly opposed tht- idea of
giving to ih.il Authority ans power which restritted the nation,.l sovereignly ol a nation.
684
India stood for complete elimination of the nuciear weapons and asserted that the contention of U.S.A. and U.S.S.R.
that the atomic weapons would be used only to resist aggression was not valid. Thus Krishna Menon told the plenary
meeting of the General Assembly that to talk of use of atomic weapons for limited purposes was fantastic. He said:
”We shall never support in any circumstances, even if it happens to be pushed to a doctrine which says that the atomic
weapon may be used as an instrument of war.”
India aiso expressed concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons and highlighted the dangers of proliferation. It
extended support to the resolution sponsored by Ireland which demanded prevention of the dissemination, of nuclear
weapons and proposed restriction on the non-nuclear states regarding manufacture of nuclear weapons themselves or
acquiring ihem for other slates. However, India made it clear that the resolution should not be taken to mean that the
Assembly either sanctified .what had been done by the power by way of manufacture of nuclear weapons or retention
of nuclear weapons by <he existing nuclear weapons’ powers.
In 1961 India supported the resolution of Sweden which asked tfie Secretary General ”to make an inquiry into the
condition! under which the • countries not possessing nuclear weapons, might be-willing to give specific undertaking to
rsfram from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring them and to receive in future nuclear weapons in their territory on
behaff of any other country.” To eliminate the dangers at more countries manufacturing nuclear weapons India
suggested that (a) all those nations which were as yet not manufacturing these weapons should undertake not to do so;
(bi the weapons already in existence should lie confined to the territory of the nations which, manufactured them; and
(c) (he nations possessing nuclear weapons should bind themselves by a treaty banning nuclear tests and pending such a
treaty, they should refrain from .uch tests. In addition to this India also pleaded for the dismantlement or conversion to
peaceful use of all existing nuclear weapons.
Demand for Bomb Cains Strength
After the Sino-lndtan conflict, in view of the possibility of Chioa acquiring an atom bomb, there was a strong demand
from certain quarters, that India
TII’HIUIII undtriirtkc plixJuCiuji’i ui I’ILII !e<ii wtrci(juri> eisd (jcti’i uf Cuul’iti’y’S i««”i£iri’iYi
defence effort against China. This demand grew louder after the Chinese exploded a bomb in 1964. The.then Prime
Minister (Lai Bahadur Shastri) while sharing the concern of the people and Members of Parliament, reiterated the
decision of his Government not to produce the atom bomb for moral as well as practical considerations. He said thai
making of nuclear weapons would neither be in the interest of the country, nor would it benefit the mankind in any
way. On practical grounds .also, he ruled ou! the lx>mb l>ecause it was bound in adversely affect the national economy
of the country.
In the wake of Indo-Pakistan War of I4h5 and the menacing postures adopted bv China, a memorandum containing
signatures of annul ll)<)Members MI Parliament lielonging to all parties was presented lo the Prime Minisler (em,i or I
ing an immediate decision to develop nuclear.weapon1”. However the
| INDIA S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS 685
i?-1 . ’ ’ •
I leadership ruled out any change in the policy- and continued to express faith in
I the principle of utilising the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only.
| After the explosion of the third bomb by China in May, 1966 the demand
£ for production of bomb by India grew still louder. In the election manifestoes of
S, • 1967 a number of political parties included the manufacture of nuclear weapons
I and missiles as their programme. They insisted on the need of harnessing of the
| atom bomb both for peaceful development as well as for the manufacture of
t nuclear weapons.
s In August, 1967 the two superpowers proposed a non-proliferation treaty
at the Geneva Conference, India expressed its opposition to the treaty on the ground that the treaty would deprive.the
non nuclear countries of the benefits of the development of peaceful nuclear technology. Swaran Singh, the then ’
India’s Defence Minister told the U.N. GenerjJ Assembly on 6 October 1966: ”While the Government of India
continues to be in favour of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, it is equally strongly in favour of the proliferation of
nuclear technology for peaceful purposess, an essential means by which the developing countries can get benefit from
the best advances of science and technology in this field.” Similarly the Indian Representative told the Ei^hteen-Nation
Disarmament Committee that ”India is willing to agree to international regulation under a non-discriminatory and
universaf system of safeguards to ensure that no country manufactures or stockpiles nuclear weapons Twhile
undertaking research and development of peaceful nuclear explosives.’ Tfie opposition of India to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty was in the main on account of the fact that it neither assured quality to all nations, big or small,
nuclear weapons states or non-nuclear weapons states, nor conceded equal rights to all countries to tame the atom. On
the other hand it sought to keep the existing international power structure intact, completely disregarding the
aspirations of the developing countries. India and Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
Right from Independence, India has favoured harnessing of nuclear energy for country’s development needs. Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, from the very beginning realised the important and big role which
nuclear energy could play in the socio-economic development of the country and laid emphasis on development of
atomic technology for peaceful purposes. For this purpose he took steps to establish nuclear research centres,
experimental nuclear reactors, nuclear reactor aiW-nuclear power plants. In short he did practically every thing with a
view to harness the atom for peaceful purposes. This policy of peaceful use of nuclear energy was followed by Lai
Bahadur Shastri as well as Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In fact under Indira Gandhi, Indira carried out its first underground
nuclear experiment for peaceful purposes in the Pokhran range of Rajasthan desert on 18 May 1974. It may be noted
that the conduct of this test by India did not in any way conflict with the commitment of the country as a signatory to
the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. because this treaty prohibited nuclear tests only in atmosphere, including outer
space or under water including territorial waters or high seas. India ajso did noj make use of the plutonium made
available for the Tarapur and~Kan*Pratap âgar.
4
The explosion produced mixed reaction. While Pakistan fert terribly upset, the Western powers, specially U.S.A. were
not exactly happy. Canada also reacted sharply and suspended all nuclear aid til) the implications of the nuclear test
were discussed. The western critics argued that the border line between peaceful nuclear energy and military nuclear
explosion was very thin and India’s peaceful nuclear explosion really constituted a step towards nuclear proliferation
with strong military and non-peaceful potential. It was further argued that conduct of peaceful nuclear explosion was a
serious strain on India’s economy and resources, and would in no’way contribute to the socio-economic
reconstruction of the country. The Afro-Asian countries by and large took the things in their stride, a”nd looked upon
the experiment as a step in the search and development carried on by India in the field of atomic energy for advanced
purposes. Within the country the Pokhran implosion was by and large welcomed because it elevated India’s status in
the international community. Thelan Sangh leaders while endorsing the Government stand of developing nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes insisted that time had come when India’s defence arrangements must also be given a
nuclear dimension. LK. Advani, in his presidential address to Jan Sangh, said on 3 March 1975, ”The influence which
China has come to wield in global matters owns not small measure to its nuclear capability. Let us not dillydally on this
question any longer, and unmindful of the annoyance, and displeasure of Super Powers let us decide to give India’s
defence a nuclear dimension.” However, the government did not favour abandonment of its traditional policy and
continued to insist on use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only. . .
India’s policy regarding peaceful use of nuclear energy underwent a change under Morarji Desai’s government which
took the stand that India would not conduct another peaceful nuclear explosion. Once again with the assumption of
power by Indira Gandhi, the government reiterated that India was fully committed to pursue a peaceful nuclear policy
and would not hesitate to conduct peaceful nuclear explosions for the promotion of indigenous nuclear research and
technology. In view of the difficulties created by US in the supply of fuel for Tarapore plant, the government decided to
step up nuclear research in nuclear • fuel reprocessing technology, fast breeder reactor technology and other related
areas of research with a view to attain seit-reiiance in nuclear technology. However, India didjciot conduct another
peaceful nuclear explosion. In recent . yeais despite Pakistan’s threat to engulf the continent in nuclear warfare, India
has refused to deviate from the above policy and make nuclear weapons. It still holds faith in the policy of developing
nuclear technology for peaceful uses and favours more and more indtgenisation of nuclear technology.
The government has successfully resisted the pressure from various quarters to adopt the path ot nuclear weaponisanon,
even though it has asserted that it would react suitably and revise its star.d if Pakistan goes nuclear.
EFFORTS AT NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
India has taken keen interest in nuclear disarmament and has been actively working with leaders of Sweden, Greece, Mexico,
Argentina, and Tanzania to
INDIA’S FOREIGN POllCY AND RELATIONS
687
promote nuclear disanr»ament. The leaders of these six countries have been meeting at regular intervals and urging the
nuclear powers to work for nuclear disarmament. They held such meetings at New Delhi, Ixtapa (Mexico) and
Stockholm. The last meeting held at Stockholm on 21 January 1988, coming in the wake erf the INF treaty between
United States and Soviet Union, expressed satisfaction over the INF ’wary but asserted that it would reduce the nuclear
weapons by only four per cent and called for expeditious efforts to achieve greater nuclear disarmament. They also
insisted on suspension of all nuclear testings by all states.
In the Special Session of the UN on Disarmament in |une 1988 Prime
Minister Rajiv GandN, proposed a three-stage time-bound action plan to
eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2010. He proposed that in the first stage the
INF treaty should be followed by 50 per cent cut in Soviet and US strategic
arsenals. All production of nuclear weapons and weapon-grade fissionable

material should cease immediately. To set the stage for negotiations on a
comprehensive test ban treaty, moratorium on testing of nuclear weapons should
be immediately imposed. He also proposed banning other weapons of mass
destruction and suggested steps for precluding the development of new weapons
systems based on emerging technologies. He emphasised that negotiations must
commence in the first stage itself for a new treaty to replace the NPT which
expires in 1995. The new treaty should give legal effect to the binding
commitment of nuclear weapons states to eliminate all nuclear arms by the year
2010. The new treaty should also bind those nations which are capable of
crossing the nuclear vêapons threshold to undertake to restrain themselves,
India also emphasised the need of restricting the development of military
technology because th^ momentum of development of military technology was
dragging the arms race out of political control. It emphasised the need of devising
arrangements for controlling the continuous qualitative upgrading pf nuclear
and conventional weapons- The plan envisaged a single integrated multilateral
verification system to ensure that no new nuclear weapons are. produced
anywhere in the world. Abave all the plan emphasised the need of reducing
conventional armaments and forces because without it (here could be no
progress in- nuclear disarmament. It asserted that the key task before the
inierridlioiidi cuinniuiiHy >> I’J ensure security dl lower levels ui cuiiveniioiidi
defence. Reductions rnust begin in areas where the bulk of the world’s
conventional arms and forces ’are concentrated.
In January 1993 Undia along with more than 60 nations, including five permanent members of ’the Security Council,
signed the Paris Convention which prohibits the use of and elimination of chemical weapons within fifteen years. The
Convention also c<^r”J’ns strong provisions for international inspections of suspected violations. It *”> noteworthy
that India decided to sign the Convention on Chemical Weapons, because it is non-discriminatory and imposes same
obligations on the member states regarding possession jnd elimination of weapons in a time phased manner under a
stringent verification regime on the other hand, India has refused to sign the NPT because it does not eliminate
weapons discriminates i n favour of nuclear powers and does not provide tor an
688
effective verification. Explaining India’s stand on NPT, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao said in lune 1992 ”India could
not sign the NPT because its being a discriminatory treaty....India is against any weapons of mass destruction in the
world. But the tact remains that these weapons are today in the possession of some countries. There are some second
countries which do possess the capacity to produce weapons but have not chosen to do so.” ”Nuclear war would,
however, affect all the countries-the haves (nuclear haves) and have-nots (nuclear have-nots). The only solution to this
complicated^ situation was that the nuclear weapon states should agree to dismantle the weapons within a stipulated
period. The so called threshold states should give an undertaking that they wilt not cross the treshold and there could be
a ban on the testing of such weapons ’and the production of fissile material. And at the pnd of the stipulated”period it
must be ensured that there were no nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.”
In October 1992, India gave a call for an International Convention on NonUse of Nuclear Weapons and freeze on the
production of such weapons and fissile material for atomic arms. It pleaded that the problem of elimination of nuclear
weapons can be resolved in the same manner in which the Convention on Chemical weapons had sought to eliminate
the chemical weapons without any discrimination. •
K is evident from the preceding discussion that India has followed two fold nuclear policy. On the one hand it has tried
to develop nuclear technology and capability for peaceful purposes, at the same time keeping the option open for its use
for military purposes in the event of unforeseen eventuality. On the other hand India has consistently pleaded for
universal nuclear disarmament.

International Relation Book For CSS Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Relation Book For CSS Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOOKHTVE’S

Civil Services (Main) Exam

MJL ft B.A. (Hons.) Exam, of various Indian Universities

Principal, College of Vocational Studies, University of Delhi, New Delhi

Sixteenth Edition (Thoroughly Revised and Enlarged)

COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P) LTD.

© Reserved with the Publishers

Price : Rs. 225.00

Preface to the Sixteenth Edition

Preface to the First Edition

MANMOHAN NANDA <«

DIRECTOR, ~- COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P) LTD.

3. ELEMENTS OF NA nONALPOWF.R 13-26

6. THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY QF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 52-66

/ 7. FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS DETERMINANTS 67-74

Policy); Internal Factors; External Factors

/ 8. THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY 7S-*2

/ 9. FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES «-10§

l|fi NON-ALIGNMENT 141-163

14. DECOLONISATION AND EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 164-177 Meaning of

17. THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER AND

QUEST FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER 196-211

20. THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 227-236

21. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION

IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 237-247

Development of International Organisation; Treaty of Westphalia and International Organisation; Development of

Z3 REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR ROLE IN

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 331 340

Organisation of American States (OAS/rOrganisation of African Union (OAU); The

24. ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL 341 371

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 372 383

27. EXTERNALINTERVENrnON.IDEOliOGICAUPOLrnCAL AND ECONOMIC: CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

32. FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS- USA. USSR (RUSSIA)

AND CHINA . 539 610

34. THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS ’

AND OUTSIDE ’ 616 626

- Palmer and Perkins

Meaning of International Relations

International Relations and International Politics

Scope of International Relations

fNTWNATIONAL RELATIONS-MEANING, NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 5

NATURE AND FUNCTION OF SOVEREIGN . NATION- STATE SYSTEM ’ 7

Meaning and Origin of Nation-State System

Contemporary State System

Elements of Modern Nation-State

NATURE AND FUNCTION OF SOVEREIGN NATION- STATE SYSTEM 9

NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE SYSTEM

1. (Friedman, Introduction to World Politics, P. 35)

ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER

ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER” 17

i of growth if the population of its competitor

ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER

The government also plays an important role in the natio”’5 economy.

effectively as an international power.

1. Palmer and Perkinf, International Relations, p.88. v

Evaluation of National Power ..’.-.-

ELEMENTS Of NATIONAL POWER 23

limitations on National Power

Evaluation of National Power

: Thetaskofevaluationofpowerisquitedifficultbecausesomanytangible. factors are involved in the

(ELEMENTS Of NATIONAL POWER 23

limitations on National Power

ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER