World War I

(August 4, 1914 to November 11, 1918)

Main Contestants
Central Powers comprising Germany, AustraliaHungary,
Turkey and Bulgaria on the one hand, and Allied Power
comprising England, France, Belgium, Serbia, which were joined
by Russia and Italy in 1915 and 1917, respectively.

How the First World War Broke Out?

When Austria attacked Serbia, after one month of Prince

Ferdinand?s murder, it drew Russia towards Serbia. Germany
entered the fray to support Austria because it had vested
interests in Turkey and was committed to support Austria. One by
one, France, England and the other countries entered the war.

Results/Consequences of World War I

Central powers were defeated. About 50 lakh allied soldiers were
killed and 1 crore and 10 lakh wounded. Bulgaria, Turkey and
Austria surrendered. Germany signed the Armistice Treaty on
November 11, 1918 and World War I ended. In 1919 the Treaty
of Versailles was signed which curbed powers of the German
empire, further humiliating and weakening it.

World War II
(September 3, 1939 to August 14, 1945)

Causes: An unjust Treaty of Versailles, improper behavior of

France, rise policy of expansion, and imperialism of England and
France were some of the causes behind World War II.
 Main Contestants
Axis Powers ? also called the central powers which included
Germany, Italy and Japan.
Allied Powers ? Britain, France, Russia, US, Poland and Benelux
countries.

Results of World War II

Hitler, who was responsible for this war, initially very successful
but later met with strong resistance when he attacked Russia in
1941, and was forced to retreat to Berlin. On learning that
Germany had collapsed, he committed suicide on April 30, 1945
in Berlin. Germany was divided into two parts. East Germany
under Russia and West Germany under the control of England,
France and America (allies). Russia emerged as the single biggest
power in the world. It was at this time that the struggle for
freedom in colonies under European control in Asia (India),
Myanmar (Burma), Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Malaysia (Malaya). Egypt
etc. caught on. The British Empire thus rapidly lost its leadership
as more and more colonies won independence. The UNO was then
established in 1945. When Japan did not agree to the demands of
the allied powers to surrender, the first atom bomb was dropped
on Hiroshima on August 5, 1945 and the second on Nagasaki on
August9, 1945. Japan then surrendered unconditionally on August
14, 1945 and World War II ended.

The Great Game

(A Synopsis)

Lord Curzon said “Whoever controls Central Asia, controls the

world.” He then tried to control Afghanistan with his “On to the
Oxus” policy which ended in ignominious defeat leading to the
“Back to the Indus” retreat. The British never ventured into the
wild wild west and Peshawar never really flew the Union Jack. The
Mongols, and Alexander faced severe problems in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. That is why Afghanistan and Pakistan are often
called the graveyard of empires. Archives reflect a historical a
historical perspective encapsulated by Rudyard Kipling and
others. This was dubbed the Great Game by the British and
Russian in the 19th century.

The Anglo-Russian Great Game 1813-1907

Catherine th Great had bequeathed her progeny to control the
warm waters of the Arabian Sea. This was the reason the Tsars
tried to make their way down to “Kolachi jo goth” (Karachi). The
so-called classical “Great Game” was about Imperial Britain and
Tzarist Russia attempting to control Central Asia. Russia was
expanding into Central Asia at the time. Tsarist forays into
Central Asia led to British concerns that Moscow would threaten
te British Empire. The Union Jack attempted to bring the wild
tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan under British jurisdiction.
London Afghanistan twice in an attempt to place British puppets
in Kabul and other areas of the region. At the time there was no
“Afghanistan”. The country was a construct of the Tsars and the
British colonialists. They demarcated the borders and created a
non-mans land–a buffer region between the British and Russian
empires. Thus a non-entity called “Afghanistan” came into
existence. For the past century, the entire world has been trying
to make this entity a reality. All have failed. , the first famously
ending in the complete destruction of the invading British army.
The Great Game subsided a bit when ended when the the USSR
came into existence –Britain ceased to exist as a world power and
the Soviets were more interested in Europe than South Asia.

The Anglo-Soviet Great Game 1917-1941

The downsizing of the Ottoman Empire and the ascendancy off
the USSR and Lenin’s and Stalin’s desire to extend the borders of
mother Russia into unchartered territory created new tensions.
Britain got embroiled in Afghanistan again. It fought a third
Afghan war to settle the border between Afghanistan and the
British Empire. The artifical state of Afghanistan, which had never
existed in history came into being. It was sequestered on one
side by the Durand Line and the other by the Amu Darya (fka
Oxus). The principality of Kabul became an entity, and it brought
other regions under its control. It failed miserably to create
federal structures in the Hindu Kush. The advent of World War II
too the rivalry to another level. Both Britain and Russia got
tangled up in various webs during the Cold war.

The USSR-USA Great Game 1979-1989

There are many reasons for the invasion of Kabul by the USSR. It
is said that Amin’s coup against King Zahir Shah was an attempt
to change the status quo, and to realign Kabul with Washington.
This was seen as a direct provocation by the progeny of Catherine
the Great. To prevent the American take over of the territory
between the Indus and the Oxus, the USSR sent troops in
Afghanistan in 1979. Babrak Kamal supposedly rode to Moscow
on a Russian tank. The Soviet troops arrived ostensibly on the
request of the legal government in Kabul. The world didn’t see it
that way. Pakistan was the first government to oppose the
Russian expansionism, because it saw it as a direct threat to
Islamabad. Delhi supported the Russian move. Moscow wanted to
end the widespread tribal revolts against Kabul. For two years the
Pakistanis were the only ones fighting the Russians. In 1981 the
US and its allies began providing financial and military support to
the Afghan freedom fighters–all routed through the ISI. Millions
of Muslim kids were recruited by the CIA to fight for the US and
destroy the USSR. One of those who came to fight for America
was Osama Bin Laden. After the USSR withdrew out of the Hindu
Kush, the US lost interest. As a parting thank you note, it
delivered the Pressler Amendment to Islamabad–ten years of
debilitating sanctions. Afghanistan descended into Civil War and
Pakistan got the present of the Drug and Kalashnikov culture. As
Imran Khan said, the American did their deed and left us to clean
the mess. , leaving the mujahideen to fight it out among
themselves. The Talibs were a US attempt to bring sanity to the
Khyber and beyond.

American-Taliban Great Game 2001-2011

Ostensibly it was the 9/11 attack in New York that led the US to
invade Afghanistan. Many claim that the Afghan invasion was
planned way before September 2001. The US leveraged the Tajik
led Northern Alliance to oust the Pakhtuns from power. The
Taliban regime fell and was replaced by the present Afghan
president, Hamid Karzai. As the Bush Administration got bogged
down in Iraq and reduced its military presence the Talibs began
to control most of Afghan territory. Bharat and America
attempted to destabilize Pakistan using fake movements like the
TTP which were constructs of RAW and the CIA. The US
withdrawal from Afghanistan will begin in July 2011. The
Abbotabad raid provided the US the victory needed which would
precipitate a speedy withdrawal without the baggage of “Cut and
Run” As Dr. Jamil has pointed out the “Great Game” has been
going on for millenia.

ANCIENT PROTO-HISTORY GREAT GAME:

If we take the history back to abt 5000 yrs ago when none had
heard about Jews, Greeks, Iran, Russia– Indus river was the
boundary between a rich South Asia/Punjab and impoverished
West. The Akkadian-Assyrian Arabs, and their Eastern enemy
mostly under control of the Elamite (Dravidian’s linguistic
cousins). The game was to control South Asian trade surpluses.
The Assyrian Arabs had predominant control up to the Indus–they
had one tribute paying Hindu king in Punjab-Indus valley–Jibra of
Malluhva. Later in history Pre -Greek era, Cyrus/Darius had
wrested control of Arab lands plus the area West of Indus. After
that we see Sessanid Iran on the rise after a short Greek
interlude.

Lesson from all these histories is transparent–locals (now

Pakistan + Afghanistan) are the owners. Pakistan controls both
sides of the Indus and being a regional power (5th largest army
+ Nuclear arms), has the responsibility for regional peace. The
US and China cannot do a thing without Pakistan. India wants to
only defend ” Hindu nationalism” and will be always shy of wars.
Pakistan thus directly controls even India’s future being a part of
great game.

One sees the critical importance of local players. and the lessons
of history (as reviewd by you) supports the future. As it is clear
from ancient most history. What has really changed ? India has
lost its ancient importance ” farming surpluses” feeder of the
west, due to industrial revolution since 1800. India is of no
military significance to west or east.

The Latest Great Game:

The new Great Game is not about the control of resources–it is
about the prevention of the rise of Muslim Asia.

THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM AND THE

INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

The modern state system refers to the situation that developed in

mid 17th century Europe that saw political units emerging with
governments that began to claim sovereign powers over the
territories they held sway. This is not to say that there were no
states prior to this period. After all, we did have the city-states of
ancient Greece, those of Northern Italy, the Germanic tribes that
coalesced to form the Heanseatic League etc. We also had what
Palmer and Perkins refer to as “sprawling dynastic empires” the
Roman, Russian,German, Austrio-Hungarian, and those that
developed in SubSaharan Africa-Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Bornu,
Buganda, etc. These political entities engaged in and maintained
relations with one another - entering into and delinking from
alliances, drawing up treaties, pacts and other mechanisms of co-
operation and or association. But until 1648, the world never
came to know a system of national or independent states resting
on … “the theory of sovereignty”.

THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM & THE PEACE OF

WESTPHALIA.
By the peace of Westphalia, we mean the peace treaty concluded
in the German city of Westphalia in 1648 that ended the thirty
years war in Europe (1618 – 1648). The emergence of the
modern state, system is traceable to this treaty. In the words of
Nwokike and Okoro, “the treaty of Westphalia of 1648 … saw the
emergence of modern nation-states with sovereign powers
exercised by recognized overnments.” With this development, the
two medieval institutions that rivaled and threatened the power
of the nation-state-universal church or the papacy and dynastic
empires began process of ecession from which they are yet to
recover. They were thenceforth denied any interference in the
ecclesiastical and temporal affairs of the developing nation states
.

There are certain basic features of the state system. According to

Palmer and Perkins, these are neither inseparable nor adjuncts to
it. Rather, they are corollaries to the state system. They include
the oncept of sovereignty, the doctrine of nationalism and the
principle of national power Sovereignty can be understood to be
“the legal theory that gives the state unique and virtually
unlimited authority in all omestic matters and in its relations with
other states”, while nationalism is taken to refer to that
psychological or spiritual quality which, unites the people of a
state and gives them the will to champion what they regard as
their national interests. National power on the other hand is the
might of a state, providing the capabilities for getting done what
the state wants accomplished Space constraints may not allow us
to go into the details of the above concepts as analytical tools in
international relations analysis, as they constitute sub themes in
the discipline. To however underscore their centrality in any
understanding of the state-system, we may proceed to highlight
their basic features.

Just like the doctrine of nationalism, the concept of sovereignty is

indissolubly associated with the state system. In the words of
Jean Bodin (1530-96), the father of the modern theory of
sovereignty, it is “the supreme power over citizens and subjects,
unstrained by law”. This conception of sovereignty tended to
associate it with the absolute monarchy of Jean Bodin’s days.
Writing some half` a century later, Hugo Grotius conceived of it
as “that power whose acts … may not be made void by the acts of
any other human will”. As is always the case with social science
concepts, these, definitions are by means exhaustive. Three
distinguished authorities –Oppenheim, Willoughby and Kelson
have said largely the same thing but in different words. For
oppenheim, “Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority
which is independent of any other earthly authority”. Willoughby
sees sovereignty as the “supreme will of the state”, while for
Kelsen, “in its original and only specific meaning, sovereignty
means supreme authority”.

From the above, it is evident that sovereignty connotes the

supreme authority or the ultimate coercive power which the state
possesses, and which other institutions do not. It is thus this
concept that confers on the state its legal recognition as a states.
Hence without sovereignty, no political entity can be called a
state. So irrespective of the size, location or power with which a
political entity may be endowed, once the doctrine of sovereignty
has been bestowed upon it, it is considered legally equal to every
other state in the international system. This is what is referred to
as the doctrine of “Sovereign equality” that obtains presently in
the global arena.

As a corollary to the state system, nationalism can be understood

only within the prism of the nation, nation-state, nationality,
national self-determination, patriotism, and chauvinism. In the
evolution and advancement of the state, the above concepts may
need either to be suppressed or advanced depending on the role
they seek to play in advancing state interests. As Hans
Morgenthau suggests, the nation needs a state, since one nation,
one state is the political postulates of nationalism, while the
nation-state is its ideal.

Power is a major component of the state-system. States are

always engaged in the pursuit of power either to argument the
ones they already possess or to acquire requisite potential to
persue set objectives within the international system. As
indicated by some commentators, it is the best guarantor to the
inviolability, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation-
state In its relationship with the state-system, power has been
defined in varying ways – “the power of man over the minds of
other men”, “the capacity to impose ones will on others by
reliance on effective sanctions in case of non compliance”, “the
production of intended effects”.

From these conceptions, it is obvious that national or state power

is inseparable, if not synonymous with state sovereignty.

THE STATE-SYSTEM SINCE WESTPHALIA

The state system that emerged from Westphalia, as alluded to
earlier began to increasing parade the basic features we have
indicated in the proceeding analysis. Notable changes that came
on the eve of Westphalia with regard to the state system
manifested in the arrival of England, France and Spain as national
states or nation-states, while others were on their way. The
Roman church thus failed in its long effort to assert and maintain
a universality in political and religious matters. The notion of an
independent secular state(10) began to gain currency following
its defense and justification by such theorists as Machiavelli,
Bodin, Grotius etc.

The Treaty of Westphalia equally formalized the nation-state

system by its recognition that empires no longer commanded the
allegiance of their parts, and that the Pope could no longer
maintain his authority every where, even in spiritual matters.
Henceforth, German Princes were at liberty to rule as they saw
fit, and in religions matters, they were free to choose Calvinism,
Lutheranism or Catholicism. Holland and Switzerland were
recognized as independent states. Prussia began an expansion
that eventually resulted to the establishment of the German
empire that survived unto the early 20th century. The state-
system that developed in Europe following the Peace of
Westphalia was initially concentrated in Europe for obvious
reasons. But with the demise of colonialism and imperialism it
has been extended to the erstwhile Afro-Asian colonial
dependences. Since World War II the European state System has
become a worldwide phenomenon. The state system got enlarged
substantially in numbers following the emergence of new states in
Africa and Asia. As a world wide phenomenon, the state system
has tended to constitute itself into a global arrangement to form
the international system.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

The basic units of the international society remains the nation-
states. Sovereign states in their interaction in the international
environment thus tends to constitute themselves into a system. It
is this state system when in dynamic interaction in the
international environment that we refer to as the international
system. While some commentators see it as the sum of
interactions among the constituent units (states), others conceive
of it as “the totality of all boundary – crossing interactions of
whatever kind among whatever units”. William D. Coplin defines
it more precisely as “a decentralized political system dominated
by competing relatively autonomous, territorially based political
organizations. ” What Coplin refers to as “political organizations”
in this definition are of course the nation-states. And so it is the
nation state that constitute the international system. The
question then arises, whether indeed they constitute a system. If
so, what is the nature of the system.

To answer the question, we need first of all to determine what is

meant by a system. A system has been defined as “an
autonomous unit capable of adaptive behaviour”. It has equally
been defined as “a set of complexes standing in interaction”. This
theorist goes on to state that each set of elements in the system
is living and dynamic and has an environment. This dynamism is
created by the interactions among the systems elements, and
that between the system itself and its environment. It is further
submitted that these interactions promote the system’s adaptive
behaviour hence a system is given to be an organized whole in
dynamic interaction.

It is in this light that the international system is conceived of an

organized whole in dynamic interaction. To understand the
international system as an organized whole, some theorists have
likened it to the biological system of the human body and other
organic matter. To this end, it is observed that just like the
different organs of the human body function in an autonomous
but interrelated and interconnected manner, to the end that any
disruption or adverse impact on one immediately sets up a spiral
on the rest of the system; so it is with the international system.
It is further contended that as the biological system has sub-
system such as the digestive sub-system, the respiratory sub-
system, etc, so is the internatioanl system divided into sub-
systems which is this case is referred to as regions. Thus we have
Africa, Europe, the Middle East etc as subsystems of the
international system.

Taking cognizance of these similarities, commentators are largely

agreed that the international system may qualify as a system,
though what they refer to as “important differences” still exist
between it and “a natural or biological system”. These so-called
important differences stem from the nature of the international
system in operation rather than in its characteristics as a system.
Thus, whereas the biological system is ‘natural’, the international
system is artificial , being largely cultural and conceptual creation
of international relations analysts. It is equally given that whereas
the international system is voluntaristic, as its members (states)
basically join of their own free will, the biological system accords
no such luxury to its units or sub-systems. Again the biological is
considered real since it can be felt physically, while there is
international system is abstract. Added to this is the assertion
that the sub-system of a biological system are more closely knit
than their counterpart in the international system. In the words of
one commentator, “biological and physical systems at least seem
to the observer or analyst to have an objective coherence … while
imperfect interdependence and relationship seem to be the most
important features of the international system”. This is buttressed
by the observation that sub-systems or units in the international
system can decide to isolate themselves from the rest of the
system without serious adverse consequences, whereas such is
clearly not the case with regard to the biological system. For
instance while the world had seen the adoption of various
isolationist policies by some members, units of the international
system – U.S.A from 1830’s to 1914; China for nearly four
decades Japan until the era of MC Arthur etc. including isolations
induced by sanctions regimes imposed on some countries by the
rest of the international community – Iraq, Libya, Serbia
Yugoslavia etc, these did not appear to have had any appreciable
impact on the rest of the international system, as say a break
down of the circulatory sub-system would have on a biological
system.

From the foregoing, it is submitted that much as the international

system has basic characteristics that establishes it as a system, it
is certainly not the same as what obtains in a biological system in
natural sciences.

STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

The international system is said to be characterized by anarchy.
This is with regard to the nature of the interaction between the
basic units of the system: nation-states. As the interaction is of a
political nature, it is always charcterised by power and the persuit
of interests by the states and other non-state actors in the
international environment. Since there is an absence of an
executive authority in the international environment as in the
domestic scene, states tend to determine and persue those
interest most times at the expense of other states’ interests often
relying on the doctrine of sovereign rights as discussed earlier.
This appears to be harbinger of chaos and conflict within the
international system.

Strictly speaking however, the absence of a central executive

authority in the international system does not make it
synonymous with anarchy or chaos. This would be particularly
true of the international system of the period from the end of
World War I. From this time onwards, some form of universal
organizations – the League of Nations and the United Nations
have evolve to try some form of regulatory activities in the
conduct of nation states in their interaction with other nation-
states in the system. These organizations have tried to ensure
that accepted norms of behaviour prevalent in the international
community is adhered to by all actors in the international
environment, particularly, the nation-states. Various forms of
sanctions regimes have been evolved to try to enforce compliance
to these accepted norms. These, in addition to other forms of
collective security arrangements as enunciated in chapter VII of
the UN charter have tended to induce some order within the
international system, even though they are still a poor alternative
to a Central Executive Authority.

Experience sufficiently bears the above assertion out. Even before

the evolution of the universal organizations made reference to
earlier, some form of mechanism adopted for the regulation of
state conduct, for instance the so-called Concert of Europe (1815)
could not achieve much before it collapsed barely a decade after
its evolution. In the contemporary international system, collective
security measures evolved to discourage or redress aggressive
predilections of states have tended to apply only against small
and medium powers – N. Korea (1950), Iraq (1990) etc.
Aggression by Great powers have tended to paralyze collective
security measures – Soviet –Hungary (1956), U. S. Granada
(1983), Libya (1987) Iraq (2003), Italian Abyssinia (1936) etc.

These instances tend to suggest that the absence of an effective

and independent central executive authority (world government)
tends to accentuate the anarchic nature of the international
system. We do know that norms of behaviour and conduct exist
within the international system, but these have never been given
a free rein to operate. State interest persued in terms of power
has continued to constitute a hindrance to this. Even in a
globalized “New World Order” interest articulation and persuit by
states have continued to be accorded more priority than collective
security mechanisms in maintaining order in the international
system.