An Introduction

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization established 24

October 1945, to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the
ineffective League of Nations, the organization was created following the Second
World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member
states; there are now 193. The headquarters of the United Nations is situated
in Manhattan, New York City, and enjoys extraterritoriality. Further main offices are
situated in Geneva, Nairobi and Vienna. The organization is financed by assessed
and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining
international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and
economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid
in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.
During the Second World War, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated
talks on a successor agency to the League of Nations, and the United Nations
Charter was drafted at a conference in AprilJune 1945; this charter took effect 24
October 1945, and the UN began operation. The UN's mission to preserve world
peace was complicated in its early decades by the Cold War between the US and
Soviet Union and their respective allies. The organization participated in major
actions in Korea and the Congo, as well as approving the creation of the state of
Israel in 1947.
The organization's membership grew significantly following wide spread
decolonization in the 1960s, and by the 1970s its budget for economic and social
development programmes far outstripped its spending on peacekeeping. After the
end of the Cold War, the UN took on major military and peacekeeping missions
across the world with varying degrees of success. The earliest concrete plan for a
new world organization began under the aegis of the US State Department in
1939. The text of the "Declaration by United Nations" was drafted by President
Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Roosevelt aide
Harry Hopkins, while meeting at the White House, 29 December 1941. It
incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. Roosevelt first coined
the term United Nations to describe the Allied countries. The term was first officially
used 12 January 1942, when 26 governments signed the Declaration.

Roles and Functions

As the most representative inter-governmental organization of the world today, the
United Nations' role in world affairs is irreplaceable by any other international or
regional organizations. The United Nations has made enormous positive
contributions in maintaining international peace and security, promoting cooperation
among states and international development. Today, people of the world still face the
two major issues of peace and development. Only by international cooperation can
mankind meet the challenges of the global and regional issues. The United Nations
can play a pivotal and positive role in this regard. Strengthening the role of the
United Nations in the new century and promoting the establishment of a just and
reasonable international political and economic order goes along with the trend of
history and is in the interest of all nations.
In order to strengthen the role of the United Nations, efforts should be made to
uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The
authority of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security must
be preserved and role of the United Nations in development area should be
strengthened. To strengthen the role of the United Nations, it is essential to ensure
to all Member States of the United Nations the right to equal participation in
international affairs and the rights and interests of the developing countries should
be safeguarded.
According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes:
1. to maintain international peace and security;
2. to develop friendly relations among nations;
3. to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human
rights;
4. to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does,
however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate

policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States large and
small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems have a voice
and a vote in this process. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the
United Nations membership totals 193 countries included Malaysia.

Conclusion
The United Nations is the symbol and core of global governance but lacks the
attributes of a world government. It must continue to lead efforts for the creation and
maintenance of a rulesbased order that specifies both the proper conduct to be
followed by all state and no state international actors and mechanism and
procedures for reconciling differences among them. The United Nations will continue
to play a central role in the development of global governance through filling five
gaps in all issueareas: knowledge (empirical and theoretical), normative, policy,
institutional, and compliance (monitoring and enforcement). The United Nations
provides and manages the framework for bringing together the worlds leaders to
tackle the pressing problems of the day for the survival, development and welfare of
all peoples, everywhere. Yet multilateralism is under unprecedented challenge, from
arms control to climate change, international criminal justice and the use of military
force overseas. At such a time, it is especially important to reaffirm the UNs role as
the principal embodiment of the principle of multilateralism and the main forum for its
pursuit. For it remains our best and only hope for unityindiversity in which global
problems require multilateral solutions. It is the embodiment of the international
community and the custodian of an internationalized human conscience. It
represents the idea that unbridled nationalism and the raw interplay of power must
be mediated and moderated in an international framework of rules and norms. This
is what makes the United Nations the centre for harmonizing the everpresent
national interests and forging the elusive international interest.

An Introduction
American hegemony is the basic fact of global politics, recognized by all other
powers. American global power military, economic, technological, cultural, political
is one of the great realities of our age. Never before has one country been so
powerful or unrivalled. The United States emerged from the Cold War as the worlds
only superpower and grew faster than Europe and Japan in the decade that
followed. American bases and naval forces encircle the globe. Russia and China
remain only regional powers and have ceased to offer ideological challenges to the
West. For the first time in the modern age, the worlds most powerful state can
operate on the global stage without the fear of counterbalancing competitors. The
world has entered the age of American unipolarity. The United States is not just a
powerful state operating in a world of anarchy. It is a producer of world order. Over
the decades, and with more support than resistance from other states, it has
fashioned a distinctively open and loosely rule-based international order. This order
built with European and East Asian partners in the shadow of the Cold War and
organized around open markets, security alliances, multilateral cooperation, and
democratic community has provided the foundation and operating logic for modern
world politics. For better or worse, states in the post-war era have had to confront,
operate in, or work around this far-flung order.
Today, however, this American global order appears to be at a turning point.
Indeed, some observers argue it is in crisis or breaking apart. In recent years and
certainly since the September 2001 terrorist attacks the character and future of this
post-war order have been thrown into question. The Bush administrations war on
terrorism, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, expanded military budgets, and
controversial 2002 National Security Strategy have thrust American power into the
light of day and, in doing so, deeply unsettled much of the world. In the
background, the post-war rules and institutions, political bargains, communist
threats, shared visions, and communal bonds that shaped and sustained this United
States-led order appear to be eroding. For most of the post-war era, Americas
pursuit of its national interest and the construction of a progressive and mutually
agreeable global order went hand in hand. But today, America and the world seem
increasingly estranged. Anti-Americanism is a prominent feature of politics in many

regions of the world. The most fundamental questions about the nature of global
politics who commands and who benefits are now the subject of conversation
among long-time allies and adversaries alike.
The United States is situated at the centre of this complex liberal order but it
is an order built around the American provision of security and economic public
goods, mutually agreeable rules and institutions, and interactive political processes
that give states a voice in the running of the system. Strategic bargains, binding
security ties, open markets, and diffuse reciprocity also infuse the order and give it
liberal characteristics. This distinctive liberal political architecture is built on top of a
Western security community that removes war and threats of force from American
relations with the other democracies.3 Americas massive power advantages do give
the order a hierarchical cast, but its liberal hegemonic and security community
features make American empire a structural impossibility.

United States of America Political-Security and Economy

Importantly, this American system is tied together in a cooperative security order.
This was a very important departure from past security arrangements within the
Atlantic area. The idea was that Europe and the United States would be part of a
single security system. Such a system would ensure that the democratic great
powers would not go back to the dangerous game of strategic rivalry and balance of
power politics. In helped, of course, to have an emerging Cold War with the Soviet
Union to generate this cooperative security arrangement. But the goal of cooperative
security was implicit in the other elements of Western order. Without the Cold War, it
is not clear that a formal alliance would have emerged as it did. Probably it would not
have taken on such an intense and formal character. But a security relationship
between Europe and the United States that lessened the incentives for these states
to engage in balance of power politics was needed and probably would have been
engineered. A cooperative security order, embodied in a formal alliance institution,
ensured that the power of the United States would be rendered more predictable
(Risse-Kappen, 1995). Power would be caged in institutions, thereby making
American power more reliable and connected to Europe and to East Asia.

While it is clear that the international environmentespecially in the Middle

Easthas shifted in ways that constrain United States of America power today, I do
not believe it is proper to called 2006 the year that America lost its supremacy in
international affairs. In fact US supremacy was never as total, or as meaningful, as
either its admirers or its enemies claimed. What has diminished over the past few
years has not been United States of America power itself, but rather our perceptions
of that power and what it can do. The United States provides its European and Asian
partners with security protection and access to American markets, technology, and
supplies within an open world economy. In return, these countries agree to be
reliable partners who provide diplomatic, economic, and logistical support for the
United States.

Conclusion
As the conclusion of this hegemony order make American power more stable,
engaged, and restrained. First, Americas political institutions open, transparent,
and organized around the rule of law have made it a relatively predictable and
cooperative hegemony. The pluralistic and regularized way in which American
foreign and security policy is made reduces surprises and allows other states to build
long-term, mutually beneficial relations. Second, this open and decentralized political
process works to reduce foreign worries about American power. It creates what
might be called voice opportunities: it offers opportunities for political access and,
with it, the means for foreign governments and groups to influence the way
Washingtons power is exercised. Finally, the post-war web of Western and global
institutions create a framework for order that helps to establish credible commitments
and restraints on American power.

An Introduction
Terrorism is an act of violence committed by that view themselves as victimized by
some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection
with government, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic
governments, typically they stages unexpected attack on civilian targets, including
embassies, airliners with the aim of sowing and confusion.
According to this view, state as a kind of system has more than one centres
of power and the demolition of these power centres is the main target of terrorism.
However the demolition state does not mean physical extermination. The aim of
terrorism is to weaken the authority of state and the superiority of law. This can be
defined as a creation of a graded affect. Since the social, economic, politic and
military powers of the state are interdependent from each other, any attack that will
harm to one of them will naturally affect the others. This is the main reason of the
creation of the graded affect by the terrorism. Since the crucial points of the state
produce more impression, they are the potential targets of the terrorist attacks.
The crucial points that are chosen by the terrorist organizations may not
always aim to physical destruction. There is no need to kill somebody to cause a
social chaos or economic crises. With the pressure that will be formed on one of the
national power components can cause a panic and depress the people and this may
be the target of the terrorist organization to achieve. Today terrorist groups in order
to create a psychological affect are using methods of fear. This is the main reason of
the terrorist attacks targeting the state and the people in the strategic level.
Consequently, with the terrorist actions, to lessen the determination of the
political power on fighting against the terrorism is aimed. Because the attacks to the
heart of the state will cause partial affect and create a psychological pressure on
the political leaders. On the other hand, the leaders of the terrorist organizations
know that they are not able to achieve their goals by way of terrorism; however this
is not important for them. For them terrorism is a tool to deprive the target state of
reaching their social, economic and political targets. Till recent days terrorist actions
have been always directed by the headquarters. It was impossible for the militants

do some actions without the approval of the leadership. The political initiative is
never given to the militants and collected in the hands of the leadership.

The Global impact on Peace and Security

Some of the reactions to terrorism play into the hands of the perpetrators and help
further their goals and objectives. For example: A fundamental goal of any opposition
movement is publicity, denying access to media, or censoring news can force
extremists to blast their way into the news. Before reacting to political violence, its
important to identify the dissidents goals and objectives. The following list identifies
a number of possible objectives, not all of which may apply to any specific group.
Terrorism has been described, correctly, as a tactic of the weak. Its adopted
by groups of dissenters who lack the resources to attack the state and its forces.
Clearly a rebel force that had the capacity to attack and defeat the governments
forces would do so to achieve their goals as quickly as possible. Such opportunities
rarely, if ever, exist in strong states. The alternative is to wage a war of attrition,
gradually wearing down the states and publics resolve. Terrorists seek to install a
climate of fear that erodes the public psyche, and to impose escalating economic
costs, draining the states financial resources and the collective will. Publicity has
traditionally been a major dissident objective, as Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corp. has
commented that, terrorist dont want a lot of people dead; they want a lot of people
watching. Jenkins has also described terrorism as a form of political theater. This
may be true of national liberation movements, but todays Islamist extremists now
want a lot of people dead.
Many of these objectives could be pursued without resorting to terrorism
against innocent civilians. However, States recognize that their forces and facilities
are the primary targets of political violence and they adopt security and force
protection measures that deny insurgents the ability to strike at these priority targets.
By hardening priority targets, states encourage insurgents to attack softer targets in
the civil sector. When the insurgents comply, the inevitable consequence is civilian
casualties, whether intentional, or accidental. Insurgents have now become terrorists

for perpetrating violence against non-combatant targets. In fact, the targets may not
have been non-combatants, but such distinctions are rarely considered. Once
dissidents have crossed the threshold to terrorism the rules change the costs and
risks escalate and the challenge to maintain and build public support increases. For
dissidents terrorism is the tactic of last resort, when all else has failed. One can
argue that for weak regimes, lacking broad public support and legitimacy state
terrorism is also a tactic of the weak, but the tactic of first resort.
The international community has often demonstrated a willingness to tolerate
political violence against civilians perpetrated by states state terrorism. Repressive
states have been responsible for far greater terrorism than any so-called terrorist
organization, yet they are allowed to continue their participation in the worlds
political and economic community. Only in the most enduring and grievous cases
does the international community sanction, or exclude a repressive state. In addition,
countries and arms merchants sell arms, provide military training and economic
support to repressive, even terrorist regimes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that
state repression breeds international terrorism and that terrorists will target those
who lend support to their adversaries. Its little wonder that terrorism has emerged as
a major threat to world security and peace.
One aspect of political violence and terrorism thats rarely discussed in depth are the
economic impacts, both negative and positive. The direct costs incurred to defend
against and counter terrorism is enormous, worse still are the incalculable social and
human costs. But terrorism has its upside too, creating an economic boom for
defence-related industries and private contractors. Repairing and rebuilding cities
like Beirut, or Londons financial district and Lower Manhattan are a windfall for those
who profit from the efforts. Constructing forts and security installations, or erecting
Berlin-style peace walls and security fences through Belfast, or around Israels
Occupied Territories, shift limited state funds from more socially useful services, but
create business opportunity and profits. The unspoken issue is that these
expenditures create a new constituency that benefits from continued violence. The
beneficiaries can become influential, if conflicted, advocates of hard line policies that
suit their business objectives.

Conclusion
Its doubtful that terrorism is any sane persons first choice. Most disgruntled people
would start with a petition stating their grievances and setting forth their demands for
reform. If denied, they might organize to demonstrate, or protest and might engage
in civil disobedience all design to attract public attention and broaden their support.
If denied again, they might attempt legal action, if such avenues are open to them.
And if they fail, what then? And what if the denial involves being attacked and beaten
by authorities, or being arrested and imprisoned? The reactions of the state
government can directly influence the course of future events.
Oftentimes, counter-demonstrators who fear that the government will give in to
dissidents demands confront demonstrators. These clashes can lead to violence
and destroy hope for resolution of the problems.

An Introduction
Illegal immigrants are people who migrate across national borders without
complying with the legal requirements. Some people call those they suspect of illegal
immigration as illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants. People who arrive
legally but then overstay their visas may also have illegal status. The term illegal
immigrant is highly contested because some consider it a pejorative term, since
some consider violating the law a moral as well as legal issue. Because of these, the
illegal immigrants give serious effects to host country like Malaysia which makes our
government worried about the Malaysian community.
Migration across our national border by illegal immigrants strongly affects our
social security. This is because some of them are the most wanted terrorists in their
countries. They come to Malaysia to release themselves from the law impeachment.
By doing the own same action in our boundaries, they are associated with the cases
of robbery and rape. In fact, entire citizens live in fear and maybe afraid to go
outside. Those illegal immigrants are influenced by their culture such as fighting
among each other and lifestyle to survive in their country For sure this will bring a
bad image to Malaysia. For instance, the cases which involved an Indonesian shot
out and died in a police attack not a normal case more. On 10 March 2005, the
Royal Malaysian Police officers shoot four Indonesian workers when they became
wary while carrying out a security patrol in Sungai Buloh area at Selangor. The four
victims of the Indonesian workers were Dedi, Reni, Markus and Gaspar, (High beam
Research, 2005). Some of our army sends to Semporna, Sabah to fight with the
terrorist that use high technologies weapon.

The Impact of Illegal Migration

The migrations of the illegal immigrants also bring another big problem to our country
that is dangerous diseases. As we know illegal immigrants come from rural areas
and when they enter our boundaries they do not even go to the public or the private
health department for a medical check-up. Diseases such as HIV, AIDS and TB are
some of the disease brought by them. The health problem will enlarge because this
illegal immigrant brings lot of health problem from their country. For instance the HIV,
it refers to the smuggling of women for the purposes of forced prostitution and this
will lead to HIV virus in other hand it will increase the total of fatality. (The effects of
illegal immigrant in Malaysia, 2008).

Because of these diseases, entire citizens

become afraid to be affected by those and some of them have been a victim of the
diseases. Nowadays, more and more people are suffering from these diseases and
this contributes towards the cases of death.
Civil rights are class of right and freedom that protect the individual from
unwarranted government action. What this mean is that violation of civil rights is our
local labour right has been taken by the illegal immigrants. Most employers in our
country like to hire them rather than our own local workers. The cost to hire foreign
workers is cheaper than locals in terms of their salary. For instance, the construction
industry is dominated by Pilipino workers, maid services are normally related with
Indonesians and the plantation sector is usually run by the Indonesians and Pilipino.
Subsequently, our local workers are faced with the shortage of job opportunities. The
arrival of immigrants, especially those without licenses, as well as cause problems
with housing.

They will establish a residential area illegally. Some migrant groups are also
open forest areas as housing areas. These slum areas are not organized and lack
basic services

such as waste

disposal systems and

wastewater. Thus,

environmental pollution will occur. In addition, the development of a goldfish will

come as well as the emergence of squatters is stunted. Also affected the image of
our country as this reflects the weakness of the government administration and
distribution of economic imbalance. There is also a rich area of illegal settlements,
complete with electricity, and water. The right of the people we are somewhat
affected. The employers prefer to hire illegal immigrants in the plantation sector,
construction, and domestic helpers because their salaries were much lower. This
would affect the employment opportunities of our citizens even though not all the
people we are interested in this job. In addition, many of them engage in the
business, such as food stalls, selling jewellery, decorative lights, batik and more. In
fact, some of them have become filthy rich, married without paying large income tax.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Illegal immigration has caused much turmoil in Malaysia. When
the illegal immigrants enter into Malaysia they are bringing in harmful diseases that
have never been a problem in this area such as tuberculosis and leprosy. Even
though Malaysia's economy is doing well many of their people are looking for jobs
but are not able to find them since the illegal immigrants are occupying them. It has
taken a lot of government time and money which could be used in other areas such
as education or new development. Not only are the people of Malaysia affected, but
the immigrants themselves are too, because when they are deported they are often
sold into slavery or abused. illegal immigrants may affect our country negatively. We
can see it affect to our economy, social structure and health. Therefore, before the
problem becomes more serious, the authorities should take corrective action to
overcome this problem to save our country from any negative effects that are
brought by the illegal immigrants.

An Introduction
China is the worlds most important rising power. In two decades, China has moved
from the periphery to the centre of the international system. Every day and
everywhere, China figures prominently in global attention. Wherever one turns,
China is in the news gobbling up resources, soaking up investment, expanding its
overseas footprint, asserting itself in its Asian neighbourhood, being the sought-after
suitor in global governance diplomacy, sailing its navy into new waters, broadening
its global media exposure and cultural presence, and managing a mega-economy
that is the engine of global growth. Chinas global impact is increasingly felt on every
continent, in most international institutions, and on many global issues. By many
measures, China is now clearly the worlds second leading power, after the United
States, and its aggregate economy is due to surpass that of the United States
sometime around 2025.

For the past three decades, observers have watched how the world has
impacted China; now the tables are turning and it is necessary to understand how
China is impacting the world. Chinas emergence on the world stage is accelerating
dramatically in pace and scope and it is important to understand the different
manifestations of its going global. Chinas global expansion did not occur by
happenstance. It grew directly out of Communist Party and government policies
launched at the famous Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee in
December 1978 to engage in reform and opening Throughout the 1980s, China
invited the world in and began its hesitant baby steps on the world stage
particularly in overseas educational and science and technology exchanges. By the
early 1990s, there was a conscious government policy launched to encourage
Chinese commercial firms to go out and for Chinese localities and organizations to
more generally go global. The encouragement to Chinese companies did not really
begin to materialize fully until the mid-2000s, while a considerable international
initiatives were being launched by a wide variety of Chinese organizations, localities,
and individuals.

China As A New Global Power.

In 2008, China launched its global cultural blitz, attempting to improve its
international image and build its soft power. Militarily, during the same decade the
Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) stepped up its international foreign exchanges,
amounting to more than four hundred annual exchanges. Thus the origins of Chinas
going global date back several decades, even if the manifestations of it are more
recent.
Over a longer period of time, a distinguishing feature of Chinas modernization
mission has been the national pursuit of comprehensive power. The Chinese have
wisely learned one key lesson from studying the experiences of other previous
powers: genuine global powers possess multidimensional strength. Chinese
strategists have observed the failings of other powers that possessed strength in
only a single dimension or a few, and they have thus concluded that it is important to
build and cultivate power comprehensively across a variety of spheres: the economy,
science, technology, education, culture, values, military, governance, diplomacy, and
other sectors. The Chinese grasp that idea that power is comprehensive and
integrative, not atomistic. Nor is power today the same as in the nineteenth or
twentieth centurys, when industrial and military power prevailed; today it must reflect
a strong cultural and normative dimension (soft power) as well. Thus Chinas
contemporary effort to regain its status as a global power has consciously included
multiple dimensions.

China has a very long way to go before it becomes if it ever becomes a

true global power. And it will never rule the world. The evidence presented from
Bloomberg news reveals that China has an increasingly broad footprint across the
globe, but it is not particularly deep. Even its presence varies substantially by sector.
Chinas appeal as a model to others is weak to nonexistent, I argue. Moreover,
Chinas global posture is beset by multiple weaknesses not the least of which is
domestic and that the nations strengths are not as strong as they seem on face
value. The common denominator to most of Chinas global activities and foreign
policy is Chinas own economic development, which leads to a mercantilist trade and
investment posture. I also find that China possesses high soft power, and is a model
for other nations to emulate.

The fact that China is increasingly seen as leading the world, economically, is
borne out by Pew Globals research. Of 20 countries surveyed in both 2008 and
2013, the median percentage asserting China as the worlds leading economic
power increased from 20% to 34%. At the same time, the figure for the United
States has fallen from 47% to 41%.It is generally the most economically developed
countries that perceive China on top. As of 2013, a majority of publics in Australia
(61% compared to 40% in 2008), Germany (59% compared to 30% in 2008), Spain
(56% compared to 24% in 2008), Britain (53% compared to 29% in 2008), and
France (53% compared to 31% in 2008) see China as the worlds leading economic
power.
This trend is evident despite the fact that China, on current trajectories, is
unlikely to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world in terms of
GDP (measured per capita, the presumed overtake is even more distant) for a
decade

or

more,

and

significant

uncertainties

still

surround

its

future

development. This underlines how international sentiment can overshoot facts on

the ground, and probably reflects perceptions of citizens in developed economies
that China has become a much greater commercial rival since 2008.
Chinas grand strategy is premised on a gradual, peaceful transition to power
(harmonious society) during which it will grow stronger while keeping low
profile. The brighter spotlight on the country, since 2008, has thus been
unanticipated, and unplanned for. And, it is this which has fuelled Chinas soft power
deficit. Soft power, which rests upon the international attractiveness of a countrys
foreign policy, political values and culture, is recognized by Beijing as a key political
commodity, but one the country has had limited success in cultivating. As
international perceptions of Chinas power have changed, there are growing signs of
international concern and sometimes even outright hostility toward the country.
Chinas image would also benefit from enhanced public diplomacy to win more
foreign hearts and minds. At a symbolic level, example measures might include
utilizing the countrys growing capabilities in space travel for high-profile international
cooperation projects. Surveys underline that many around the world admire Chinas
strength in science and technology.

Conclusion
As a conclusion, the only sense in which China is a superpower is economic - that is,
its economy is already over half the size of the US economy and projected to
overtake it around 2018, notwithstanding its reduced growth rate of 7%. But this is
overwhelmingly a function of China's huge population. In terms of technology and
living standards it lags far behind the United States of America. Instead the
quintessential forms of Chinese power will be economic and cultural. Over time,
China's economic strength - given the size of its population - will be gigantic, far
greater than other

at its zenith. Already, even at its present low level of

development, China is the main trading partner of a multitude of countries around the
world. And with economic power will become commensurate political power and
influence. China will, if it wishes, be able to bend many other countries to its will.The
Chinese are enormously proud of their historical achievements. They believe that
theirs is the greatest civilisation there has ever been. They have a strong sense of
their own superiority rooted in history. They have long had a hierarchical view of the
world, with China at the top. And the rise of China is likely to accentuate these views.

An Introduction
An arms race, can define as a competition between two or more parties to have the
best armed forces. Each party competes to produce larger numbers of weapons,
greater armies, or superior military technology in a technological escalation.
International conflict specialist Theresa Clair Smith defines the term as "the
participation of two or more nation-states in apparently competitive or interactive
increases in quantity or quality of war material and/or persons under arms".
More generically, the term "arms race" is used to describe any competition where
there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other
competitors in rank or knowledge. An arms race may also imply futility as the
competitors spend a great deal of time and money, yet end up in the same situation
as if they had never started the arms race.
The new arms race is currently the focus of much political debate in
Germany. The United States missile defence plans have led politicians from the
Social Democrats, the Liberals, the Greens, and the Left to professin dramatic
termsthe dangers of this phenomenon. In principle, the armament decisions of one
country can have serious consequences for other countries, so it is reasonable to
discuss the issue. In the German debate, however, the term arms race has
degenerated into an empty, but popular phrase backed by a noticeable absence of
strategic analysis. If this debate continues, German politics is in danger of losing
sight of the real issues at stake.
In Europe today, the ability to deal with real security threats is impaired by a
nearly hysterical fear of arms races. However, a quick look back in Europes history
demonstrates the danger of this view. Naturally the situation today is different to that
of pre-World War II and Europe is not confronted with another Hitler. However, by
shunning an arms race, Germany could one day wake up to the realization that it has
been taken nuclear hostage by Iran in its embittered hate campaign against Israel
and the United States. The latest Russian efforts to use the threat of an arms race to
conjure fear in Germany illuminates another danger: fuelling paranoia of an arms
race between Russia and the United States could make Germany an unwilling
accomplice in Russias ambitions to regain its former hegemonies position in Eastern
Central Europe by obstructing transatlantic cooperation in missile defence. It could

also provide an opportunity for Moscow to drive another wedge into the already
shaky transatlantic alliance.

Arm Race : Rise to its Occurrence

This basic international relations question has received extensive attention. A large
quantitative empirical literature addresses the consequences of arms races by
focusing on whether they correlate with war, but remains divided on the answer. The
theoretical literature falls into opposing camps: arms races are driven by the security
dilemma, are explained by the rational spiral model, and decrease security, or arms
races are driven by revisionist adversaries, explained by the deterrence model, and
increase security.
An arms race is an interstate competition that motivates states to innovate,
design and deploy the most lethal war technology in order to gain the upper hand
against their rival states. However, arms races also create the looming danger of
mutual destruction as an unintended by-product of both states striving to gain the
upper hand in the battlefield. Primarily, in older economic and political theories, arms
races are viewed as an actionreaction process triggered, fuelled and shaped by
real or perceived external threat. One state, fearing a second state as a threat,
embarks on a military build-up. The rival state, observing the action of the first state,
reacts by augmenting its military power, which in turn motivates the first state to
increase its military power and thus the arms race starts.
In the latest works on arms races it is usually assumed that a sequence of
states, or leaders of these states, each chooses in turn one of two options, A (to
arm) or B (not to arm), with each state observing all of its predecessors choices.
They have common preferences among the two choices but do not know which is
better. Each state knows the costs and benefits of its own military build-up, but it is
unsure of the costs and benefits of its rivals in the arms race. It is well-documented in
the existing literature that military spending can pose a security dilemma, when a
state chooses to retaliate to the military build-up of another state because it is
unaware of the rivals true intentions. The reciprocated increases in arming

potentially engender a spiral of hostilities, increasing the chances for the outbreak of
armed conflict.
In other words, the costs and benefits of arming often depend on the social,
moral, political and psychological considerations of the leaders of states, which are
often idiosyncratic and country- or leader-specific. In this scenario, leaders have an
incentive to learn from social interactions about their rivals true preferences, actions
and intentions. There is an extensive literature in economics on the relevance of
social interactions and social learning for economic behaviour in a wide range of
contexts. As an example, we now know that social interactions in neighbourhoods
can shape, influence and propel individual choices in important contexts ranging
from education to crime. The literature has firmly established that social interactions
can have a wide range of effects on the properties of the economic equilibrium:
social interactions can lead either to conformity of behaviour or to polarized actions.
They can also cause multiplicity of equilibrium in cases in which equilibrium would
otherwise be simple and unique, which in turn can create indeterminacy and make
consequent outcomes inexplicable to modern economics.
The latest vintage of game-theoretic models of arms race has provided a
complete formalization of the critical role of information revelation, transmission and
pre-play communications to offer new insights into the dynamics of arms race. In a
similar vein, the latest cohorts of international relations models highlight the role of
social learning, information problems and information acquisition to explain the onset
of arms race. From these valuable new works we now learn that there is nothing
automatic, instantaneous and sacrosanct about arms race as there is positive
probability that the dtente equilibrium will prevail to stem costly and self-destructive
arms race from occurring. Arms races will not go astray as the desire to arm will be
bound by the leash of this dtente equilibrium. In other words, apparently there is no
economic justification for arms races to race to the bottom.
In 2011, according to the Grimmett Report of 2012, the three major markets for
conventional weapons in the developing world were Saudi Arabia (21 per cent), India
(13 per cent) and the UAE (6 per cent) while many other states have continually
upgraded their military capability. Both China and Pakistan are major absorbers of
conventional weapons, yet the data from China and Pakistan on arms spending and

their bilateral trade in arms are too unreliable to make a reasonable analysis. In the
absence of meaningful regulation the global arms market, akin to anarchy, suffers
from widespread corruption, bribery and kickbacks in the midst of which the top three
armament firms usually share immense market spoils, for example, a whopping sale
of arms worth almost $98 billion, roughly 10 per cent profits for the largest three firms
and possible profits of $50 billion for the entire supply chain in 2012, from producing
machines for aggravating human miseries.

Conclusion
The last half-century has seen a radical change in the general attitude toward war.
Most people take it for granted today that peaceful solution of international conflict is
intrinsically desirable and even aggressors pay at least lip service to this principle.
The idea of some form of arms control as one of the requisites for maintaining peace
has also been gaining ground. While the desirability of arm race seems to be
accepted in principle and as an abstract aim, like goodness, there is little unanimity
on the possibility or even the desirability of achieving it now or soon. It is not enough
to tell the world to disarm or face the consequences. It is necessary first of all to
inquire whether arm race is really necessary. By the end of the cold war, from
various research works published in the 1990s, we now know how armament firms
have regularly spread false rumours about the military and naval programs of various
states, engaged in scaremongering, played one country off against another,
influenced public opinion on armament through control of media and formed powerful
arms cartels to promote a global arms race. In other words, while money talks, big
money talks so much louder that it forces many states to home in on an arms race
even when they are fully convinced that there is absolutely no need to do so. It is
often argued that the arms race has deepened the cycle of violence, oiled terrorism
and increased human rights violation mostly in developing states.

References
Ramesh Thakur, The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collectively Security to the
Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 2006)
Edward Newman, Ramesh Thakur and John Tirman, eds., Multilateralism Under Challenge? Power,
International Order, and Structural Change (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2006)
Ramesh Thakur, with Walther Lichem, Julia MartonLefvre, and Detlof von Winterfeldt, Needed: A
UN Science Adviser, UNAUK (2009), www.una.org.uk/reform/pdfs/Article ScienceAdviser.pdf.
Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur, Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010)
Jorge Heine and Ramesh Thakur, eds., The Dark Side of Globalization (Tokyo: United Nations
University Press, 2011).