Colonialism

Colonialism is the policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its

authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of
developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country.[1]
The European colonial period was the era from the 15th century to the mid-
20th century when several European powers had established colonies in
the Americas, Africa, and Asia. At first, the countries followed a policy
of mercantilism, designed to strengthen the home economy at the expense
of rivals, so the colonies were usually allowed to trade only with the mother
country. By the mid-19th century, however, the powerful British
Empire gave up mercantilism and trade restrictions and introduced the
principle of free trade, with few restrictions or tariffs.
Types of colonialism
Historians often distinguish between two overlapping forms of colonialism:

 Settler colonialism involves large-scale immigration, often motivated by

religious, political, or economic reasons.
 Exploitation colonialism involves fewer colonists and focuses on access
to resources for export, typically to the metropole. This category
includes trading posts as well as larger colonies where colonists would
constitute much of the political and economic administration, but would
rely on indigenous resources for labor and material. Prior to the end of
the slave trade and widespread abolition, when indigenous labour was
unavailable, slaves were often imported to the Americas, first by the
Portuguese Empire, and later by the Spanish, Dutch, French and British.
Surrogate colonialism involves a settlement project supported by a colonial
power, in which most of the settlers do not come from same ethnic group
as the ruling power.
Internal colonialism is a notion of uneven structural power between areas of
a state. The source of exploitation comes from within the state.
Socio-cultural evolution
As colonialism often played out in pre-populated areas, sociocultural
evolution included the formation of various ethnically hybrid populations.
Colonialism gave rise to culturally and ethnically mixed populations such as
the mestizos of the Americas, as well as racially divided populations such
as those found in French Algeria or in Southern Rhodesia. In fact,
everywhere where colonial powers established a consistent and continued
presence, hybrid communities existed.
Notable examples in Asia include the Anglo-Burmese, Anglo-
Indian, Burgher, Eurasian Singaporean, Filipino
mestizo, Kristang and Macanese peoples. In the Dutch East
Indies(later Indonesia) the vast majority of "Dutch" settlers were in fact
Eurasians known as Indo-Europeans, formally belonging to the European
legal class in the colony (see also Indos in pre-colonial history and Indos in
colonial history).

Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between
representatives of states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the
conduct of international relations[2] through the intercession of professional
diplomats with regard to a full range of topical issues.
International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to
endorsement by national politicians. David Stevenson reports that by 1900
the term "diplomats" also covered diplomatic services, consular services
and foreign ministry officials.[3]

Types
There are a variety of diplomatic categories and diplomatic strategies
employed by organizations and governments to achieve their aims, each
with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Preventive diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Preventive diplomacy
Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between
parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to
limit the spread of the latter when they occur. Since the end of the Cold
War the international community through international institutions has been
focusing on preventive diplomacy.
Public diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Public diplomacy
Public diplomacy is exercising influence through communication with the
general public in another nation, rather than attempting to influence the
nation's government directly. This communication may take the form
of propaganda, or more benign forms such as citizen diplomacy, individual
interactions between average citizens of two or more nations.
Technological advances and the advent of digital diplomacy now allow
instant communication with foreign publics, and methods such
as Facebook diplomacy and Twitter diplomacyare increasingly used by
world leaders and diplomats.[16]
Soft power[edit]
Main article: Soft power
Soft power, sometimes called hearts and minds diplomacy, as defined
by Joseph Nye, is the cultivation of relationships, respect, or even
admiration from others in order to gain influence, as opposed to more
coercive approaches. Often and incorrectly confused with the practice of
official diplomacy, soft power refers to non-state, culturally attractive factors
that may predispose people to sympathize with a foreign culture based on
affinity for its products, such as the American entertainment industry,
schools and music.
Economic diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Economic diplomacy
Economic diplomacy is the use of foreign aid or other types of economic
policy as a means to achieve a diplomatic agenda.
Counterinsurgency diplomacy[edit]
Counterinsurgency diplomacy or Expeditionary Diplomacy, developed by
diplomats deployed to civil-military stabilization efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, employs diplomats at tactical and operational levels, outside
traditional embassy environments and often alongside military or
peacekeeping forces. Counterinsurgency diplomacy may provide political
environment advice to local commanders, interact with local leaders, and
facilitate the governance efforts, functions and reach of a host
government.[17]
Gunboat diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Gunboat diplomacy
Gunboat diplomacy is the use of conspicuous displays of military strength
as a means of intimidation in order to influence others.
It must also be stated that since gunboat diplomacy lies near the edge
between peace and war, victory or defeat in an incident may foster a shift
into political and psychological dimensions: a standoff between a weaker
and a stronger state may be perceived as a defeat for the stronger one.
This was the case in the Pueblo Incident in which the Americans lost face
with regard to North Korea.
Appeasement[edit]
Main article: Appeasement
Appeasement is a policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to
avoid confrontation; because of its failure to prevent World War 2,
appeasement is not considered a legitimate tool of modern diplomacy.
Nuclear diplomacy[edit]
The ministers of foreign affairs of the United States, the United Kingdom,
Russia, Germany, France, China, the European Union and
Iran negotiating in Lausanne for a Comprehensive agreement on the
Iranian nuclear programme (30 March 2015).
Nuclear diplomacy is the area of diplomacy related to preventing nuclear
proliferation and nuclear war. One of the most well-known (and most
controversial) philosophies of nuclear diplomacy is mutually assured
destruction (MAD).

Tools of Diplomacy
I would divide tools of diplomacy into 5 broad categories:
(i) Political - This is the most important tool. The core of the political tool is
interaction of the Embassy with the host government to maintain bilateral
relations between the two countries and interaction between political
leadership of the two countries. This is analogous to maintenance of good
ties between, say, the bridegroom’s family and the bride’s family. Amount
of material transaction is not the key component for this tool. One good
way of using this tool is to have Heads of State/Government level visits.
Meetings, negotiations, telephonic calls and written communications are
other ways to use this tool.
(ii) Security - I would put cooperation in areas such as intelligence, defence,
counter-terrorism, nuclear issues, space and high-tech under this category.
If two countries use the security tool of diplomacy in their relationship, it
shows that they have a high level of confidence in each other.
(iii) Commercial - This includes trade, investment and economic relations
between countries. One large Asian country has been able to use this tool of
diplomacy effectively in developing countries to enhance its footprint in
these countries.
(iv) Cultural - I would put art (including performing arts), literature,
education and public diplomacy under this category.
(v) Consular - Starting from visas right up to extradition.
Relationship between countries is determined by the extent to which the
above tools of diplomacy are involved. These tools can then be leveraged to
further bilateral relationship, coordinate positions at international forums
and influence the other country.
National power
National power is defined as the sum of all resources available to a nation
in the pursuit of national objectives

Elements of national power

National power stems from various elements, also
called instruments or attributes; these may be put into two groups based on
their applicability and origin - "natural" and "social".[3]

 Natural:
 Geography
 Resources
 Population
 Social:
 Economic
 Political
 Military
 Psychological
 Informational
 Geography[edit]

 Important facets of geography such as location

(geography), climate, topography, and size play major roles in the
ability of a nation to gain national power. Location has an important
 bearing on foreign policy of a nation. The relation between foreign
policy and geographic location gave rise to the discipline
of geopolitics.
 2. Natural Resources:
 No nation can hope to be a powerful nation if its territory is not
adequately graced by natural resources. Natural resources are indeed
“gifts of nature of established utility.” The industrial and military
capabilities of a nation as well as its economic well-being are
dependent upon the existence of natural resources.

 A self-sufficiency in certain key resources can be a big source of power

of a nation. The USA has been in a position to be a super power in the
world mainly due to its near self-sufficiency in respect of several key
natural resources. No nation can be powerful without becoming a
developed industrialized nation and the chances of becoming an
industrialized nation are basically linked with the possession of
natural resources, particularly industrial raw materials and minerals.
Natural resources, in the form of minerals, fertile soil, flora and
fauna, through planned exploitation and use always make a nation
powerful.

 In analyzing the role of National Resources as a factor of

National Power Morgenthau discuss it in two parts:
 1. Raw Materials and
 2. Food.
 1. Raw Materials:
 Raw materials can be further sub-divided into three
categories:
 (i) Minerals— Coal, Petrol, Iron, Copper, Zinc, Tin, Manganese,
Uranium etc.,
 (ii) Natural Products— Rubber, Jute, Bamboo, Medicinal Plants,
Wood Pulp, Wood, Plants, Colours, Varnishes, Forest Products etc.,
and
 (iii) Animal Products—Milk, Eggs, Meat, Wool, Hides, Feathers, Silk
etc.
 2. Food:
 Food indeed is an important element of national power. Food
determines policies. The existence of large stocks of food grains and
surplus food production can be a source of vital strength of a nation.
A nation deficient in food production can rarely become a major
power.
 “Nations self-sufficient in food are better placed than nations which
import food.” —Morgenthau
 The food shortage in India was a highly limiting factor of the Indian
foreign policy during 1950s and 60s. Food shortage leads to power
shortage. Acute food problem is a big source of weakness for all the
developing countries. It is keeping them dependent upon developed
states who have surplus food productions. The Green Revolution of
1970s enabled India not only to sustain its economy but also to
preserve and develop its national power.
 3. Population:
 Another basic element which affects national power is population. “As
long as men are needed for production and fighting, other elements
being equal, the state with a large number of men and women to
perform such tasks shall be more capable of becoming a major
 power.” Manpower continues to be a key factor which determines the
industrial and military capacities of a nation and its status as a power
in international relations.
 In this age of science, machines have come to perform a large number
of functions which were previously being performed by men. Yet
machines have failed to completely replace men. Even today men
behind the machines continue to be more important than the
machines.
 Manpower alone can exploit the natural resources and utilize these
for the satisfaction of national needs. Geographical hindrances can be
overcome by men. Scientific and industrial development cannot be
accomplished without men.
 Men are needed to fight. Voltaire’s observation: “God is always on the
side of the biggest battalions” holds good even today. The
mechanization of warfare has not seriously limited the importance of
man as the soldier. Manpower alone can register a military victory.
 A. Economic Development:
 Economic power is a vitally important part of national power of a
nation because it is the means for military power and the basis for
welfare, prosperity and development of its people. A nation with
developed, healthy and growing economy alone can be a great power
in world politics. Effective economic organisation and planning are
essential qualities of a powerful nation. Poverty is always a source of
limitation of power. It is this factor which has been largely forcing
most of the developing countries of the Third World to live with neo-
colonialism.
War
War is a state of armed conflict between states or societies. It is generally
characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality,
using regular or irregular military forces. An absence of war is usually
called "peace". Warfare refers to the common activities and characteristics
of types of war, or of wars in general.[1] Total war is warfare that is not
restricted to purely legitimate military targets, and can result in
massive civilian or other non-combatant suffering and casualties.
While some scholars see war as a universal and ancestral aspect of human
nature,[2] others argue it is a result of specific socio-cultural or ecological
circumstances.[3]
The deadliest war in history, in terms of the cumulative number of deaths
since its start, is World War II, from 1939 to 1945, with 60–85 million
deaths, followed by the Mongol conquests[4] at up to 60 million. As
concerns a belligerent's losses in proportion to its prewar population, the
most destructive war in modern history may have been the Paraguayan
War (see Paraguayan War casualties). In 2013 war resulted in 31,000
deaths, down from 72,000 deaths in 1990.[5] In 2003, Richard
Smalley identified war as the sixth (of ten) biggest problem facing humanity
for the next fifty years.[6] War usually results in significant deterioration of
infrastructure and the ecosystem, a decrease in social spending, famine,
large-scale emigration from the war zone, and often the mistreatment
of prisoners of war or civilians.[7][8][9] For instance, of the nine million people
who were on the territory of the Byelorussian SSR in 1941, some 1.6
million were killed by the Germans in actions away from battlefields,
including about 700,000 prisoners of war, 500,000 Jews, and 320,000
people counted as partisans (the vast majority of whom were unarmed
civilians).[10]Another byproduct of some wars is the prevalence
of propaganda by some or all parties in the conflict,[11] and increased
revenues by weapons manufacturers.[12]
Types
War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and
other military technology and equipment by armed forces
employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military
strategy subject to military logistics. Studies of war by military theorists
throughout military history have sought to identify the philosophy of war,
and to reduce it to a military science. Modern military science considers
several factors before a national defence policy is created to allow a war to
commence: the environment in the area(s) of combat operations, the
posture national forces will adopt on the commencement of a war, and the
type of warfare troops will be engaged in.

 Asymmetric warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically

different levels of military capability or size.
 Biological warfare, or germ warfare, is the use of weaponized biological
toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi.
 Chemical warfare involves the use of weaponized chemicals in combat.
Poison gas as a chemical weapon was principally used during World
War I, and resulted in over a million estimated casualties, including
more than 100,000 civilians.[15]
 Civil war is a war between forces belonging to the same nation or
political entity.
 Conventional warfare is declared war between states in
which nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are not used or see
limited deployment.
 Cyberwarfare involves the actions by a nation-state or international
organization to attack and attempt to damage another nation's
information systems.
 Information warfare is the application of destructive force on a large
scale against information assets and systems, against
the computersand networks that support the four critical
 infrastructures (the power grid, communications, financial, and
transportation).[16]
 Nuclear warfare is warfare in which nuclear weapons are the primary,
or a major, method of achieving capitulation.
 Total war is warfare by any means possible, disregarding the laws of
war, placing no limits on legitimate military targets,
using weaponsand tactics resulting in significant civilian casualties, or
demanding a war effort requiring significant sacrifices by the friendly
civilian population.
 Unconventional warfare, the opposite of conventional warfare, is an
attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation,
or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.
 War of aggression is a war for conquest or gain rather than self-
defense; this can be the basis of war crimes under customary
international law.

Reasons for War

Wars have been a part of human history for thousands of years, becoming
increasingly destructive with industrialization and the subsequent advances
in technology.
Typically a war is fought by a country, or group of countries, against an
opposing country with the aim of achieving an objective through the use of
force.
Wars can also be fought within a country, however, in the form of a civil
war, or in a revolutionary war.
Of course, the causes of a war beginning are often numerous and several
reasons for war can be intertwined in a complicated way, rather than there
being just one single, clear cause.
Many theories have been put forward over the years for why wars happen
and some of the greatest minds have offered their ideas.
The 8 main reasons for war are listed below.

1 Economic Gain
One country wishes to take control of another’s wealth. There are very
often economic reasons underlying most conflicts, even if the stated aim of
the war is publicly presented as something more noble.
In pre-industrial times, the gains sought might be precious materials such
as gold and silver, or livestock such as cattle and horses.
In more modern times, the resources sought are more likely to take the
form of things like oil, minerals, or materials used in manufacturing.
Some scientists believe that as the world’s population increases and basic
resources become scarce, there will increasingly be wars fought over
fundamental essentials such as water and food supplies.

2 Territorial Gain
A country might decide that it needs more land, either for living space, or
for agricultural use, or for other purposes. Territory can also be used as
“buffer zones” between two hostile enemies.
Related to buffer zones are proxy wars - these are conflicts effectively
fought between opposing powers in a third country, not directly, but by
supporting the side which best suits the supporters' interests, through
logistical, military, or financially aid.
Proxy wars were particularly common during the Cold War.

3 Religion
Religious conflicts often have very deep roots. They can lie dormant for
decades, only to re-emerge in a flash at a later date.
Religious wars can often be tied in with other reasons for conflict, such as
nationalism, or seeking revenge for a perceived historical slight from the
past.
As well as different religions fighting each other, different sects within a
religion (for example, Protestant and Catholic, or Sunni and Shia) can fight
each other.

4 Nationalism
Nationalism in this context essentially means attempting to prove that your
country is superior to another by violently subjugation – this often takes the
form of an invasion.
Related to nationalism is imperialism. Imperialism is built on the idea that
conquering other countries is glorious and brings honor and esteem to the
conqueror.
Also linked to nationalism, can be racism, as happened with Hitler’s
Germany, who went to war with Russia partly because the Russians (and
East Europeans generally) were seen as Slavs, who the Nazis believed to
be an inferior race.

5 Revenge
Seeking to punish, redress a grievance, or simply just strike back for a
perceived previous slight can often be a factor in wars.
Unfortunately, this can lead to an endless chain of retaliatory wars being
set in motion, however, which becomes very difficult to stop.
Historically, this has been a factor in many European wars.

6 Civil War
These generally take place when there is sharp internal disagreement
within a country over who rules, or how the country should be run, and the
situation spills over into violent conflict between two or more opposing
groups.
Civil Wars can also be sparked by separatist groups wanting to form their
own, independent country, or, as in the United States, states wanting to
secede from a larger union.

7 Revolutionary War
These occur when a large section of the population of a country revolts
against the individual or group that rules the country, because they are
dissatisfied with their leadership.
Revolutions can begin for a variety of reasons, often economic hardship
amongst certain sections of the population, or perceived injustices
committed by the ruling group can play a strong part, but other factors can
contribute, such as unpopular wars with other countries.
Revolutionary wars can easily descend into civil wars.

8 Defensive/Preemptive War
In the modern world, where military aggression is more widely questioned,
countries will often argue that they are fighting in a purely defensive
capacity against an aggressor, or potential aggressor, and that therefore
their war is “just”.
These defensive wars can be especially controversial when they are
launched preemptively, the argument essentially being that: “we are
attacking them, before they attack us.”

Nuclear warfare (sometimes atomic warfare or thermonuclear warfare)

is a military conflict or political strategy in which nuclear weaponry is used
to inflict damage on the enemy. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass
destruction; in contrast to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare can
produce destruction in a much shorter time-frame and can have a long-
lasting radiological warfaredimension. A major nuclear exchange would
have long-term effects, primarily from the fallout released, and could also
lead to a "nuclear winter" that could last for decades, centuries, or even
millennia after the initial attack.[1][2] Some claimed that the result would be
that almost every human on Earth could starve to death.[3][4][5] Other
analysts however dismiss the nuclear winter hypothesis, and calculate that
even with nuclear weapon stockpiles at Cold War highs, although there
would be billions of casualties, billions more rural people would
nevertheless survive.[6][7][8][9]
So far, two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both
by the United States near the end of World War II. On August 6, 1945,
a uranium gun-type device (code name "Little Boy") was detonated over
the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on August 9,
a plutonium implosion-type device (code name "Fat Man") was detonated
over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. These two bombings resulted in the
deaths of approximately 120,000 people.
After World War II, nuclear weapons were also developed by the Soviet
Union (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and the People's
Republic of China (1964), which contributed to the state of conflict and
extreme tension that became known as the Cold War. In 1974, India, and in
1998, Pakistan, two countries that were openly hostile toward each other,
developed nuclear weapons. Israel (1960s) and North Korea (2006) are
also thought to have developed stocks of nuclear weapons, though it is not
known how many. The Israeli government has never admitted or denied to
having nuclear weapons, although it is known to have constructed the
reactor and reprocessing plant necessary for building nuclear
weapons.[10] South Africa also manufactured several complete nuclear
weapons in the 1980s, but subsequently became the first country to
voluntarily destroy their domestically made weapons stocks and abandon
further production (1990s).[11] Nuclear weapons have been detonated on
over 2,000 occasions for testing purposes and demonstrations.[12][13]
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the resultant end of the
Cold War, the threat of a major nuclear war between the two nuclear
superpowers was generally thought to have declined. Since then, concern
over nuclear weapons has shifted to the prevention of localized nuclear
conflicts resulting from nuclear proliferation, and the threat of nuclear
terrorism.

Types of nuclear warfare

The possibility of using nuclear weapons in war is usually divided into two
subgroups, each with different effects and potentially fought with different
types of nuclear armaments.
The first, a limited nuclear war [14] (sometimes attack or exchange), refers to
a small-scale use of nuclear weapons by two (or more) belligerents. A
"limited nuclear war" could include targeting military facilities—either as an
attempt to pre-emptively cripple the enemy's ability to attack as a defensive
measure, or as a prelude to an invasion by conventional forces, as an
offensive measure. This term could apply to any small-scale use of nuclear
weapons that may involve military or civilian targets (or both).[dubious –
discuss][according to whom?]

The second, a full-scale nuclear war, could consist of large numbers of

nuclear weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including
military, economic, and civilian targets. Such an attack would almost
certainly destroy the entire economic, social, and military infrastructure of
the target nation, and would probably have a devastating effect on Earth's
biosphere.[3][15]
Some Cold War strategists such as Henry Kissinger[16] argued that a limited
nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers
(such as the United States and the Soviet Union). Some predict, however,
that a limited war could potentially "escalate" into a full-scale nuclear war.
Others[who?] have called limited nuclear war "global nuclear holocaust in
slow motion", arguing that—once such a war took place—others would be
sure to follow over a period of decades, effectively rendering the planet
uninhabitable in the same way that a "full-scale nuclear war" between
superpowers would, only taking a much longer (and arguably more
agonizing) path to the same result.
Even the most optimistic predictions[by whom?] of the effects of a major
nuclear exchange foresee the death of many millions of victims within a
very short period of time. More pessimistic predictions argue that a full-
scale nuclear war could potentially bring about the extinction of the human
race, or at least its near extinction, with only a relatively small number of
survivors (mainly in remote areas) and a reduced quality of life and life
expectancyfor centuries afterward. However, such predictions,
assuming total war with nuclear arsenals at Cold War highs, have not been
without criticism.[7]Such a horrific catastrophe as global nuclear warfare
would almost certainly cause permanent damage to most complex life on
the planet, its ecosystems, and the global climate. If predictions about the
production of a nuclear winter are accurate, it would also change the
balance of global power, with countries such as Australia, New Zealand,
India, China, Argentina and Brazil predicted to become world superpowers
if the Cold War ever led to a large-scale nuclear attack.[8]
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical
Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale regional nuclear
war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and
disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear
conflict scenario in which two opposing nations in the subtropics each used
50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (c. 15 kiloton each) on major
population centers, the researchers predicted fatalities ranging from 2.6
million to 16.7 million per country. The authors of the study estimated that
as much as five million tons of soot could be released, producing a cooling
of several degrees over large areas of North America
and Eurasia (including most of the grain-growing regions). The cooling
would last for years and could be "catastrophic", according to the
researchers.[17]
Either a limited or full-scale nuclear exchange could occur during
an accidental nuclear war, in which the use of nuclear weapons is triggered
unintentionally. Postulated triggers for this scenario have included
malfunctioning early warning devices and/or targeting computers,
deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, consequences of
an accidental straying of warplanes into enemy airspace, reactions to
unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to
military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and
others. A number of these scenarios actually occurred during the Cold War,
though none resulted in the use of nuclear weapons.[18] Many such
scenarios have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1962
novel Fail-Safe (released as a film in 1964), the film WarGames, released
in 1983 and the film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Love the Bomb, also released in 1964.
Collective Security

Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement, political,

regional, or global, in which each state in the system accepts that the
security of one is the concern of all, and therefore commits to a collective
response to threats to, and breaches to peace. Collective security is more
ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective defense in that it
seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally,
and to address a wide range of possible threats. While collective security is
an idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved
problematic. Several prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of
working. It is the theory or practice of states pledging to defend one another
in order to deter aggression or to punish transgressor if international order
has been breached.

Collective defense
Collective defense is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an
organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a
member state if it is attacked by another state outside the
organization. NATO is the best known collective defense organization; its
famous Article 5 calls on (but does not fully commit) member states to
assist another member under attack. This article was invoked after
the September 11 attacks on the United States, after which other NATO
members provided assistance to the US War on Terror in Afghanistan.
Collective defense has its roots in multiparty alliances and entails benefits
as well as risks. On the one hand, by combining and pooling resources, it
can reduce any single state's cost of providing fully for its security. Smaller
members of NATO, for example, have leeway to invest a greater proportion
of their budget on non-military priorities, such as education or health, since
they can count on other members to come to their defense, if needed.
On the other hand, collective defense also involves risky commitments.
Member states can become embroiled in costly wars benefiting neither the
direct victim nor the aggressor. In World War I, countries in the collective
defense arrangement known as the Triple Entente (France, Britain, Russia)
were pulled into war quickly when Russia started full mobilization
against Austria-Hungary, whose ally Germany subsequently declared war
on Russia.

War
War is a state of armed conflict between states or societies. It is generally
characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality,
using regular or irregular military forces. An absence of war is usually
called "peace". Warfare refers to the common activities and characteristics
of types of war, or of wars in general.[1] Total war is warfare that is not
restricted to purely legitimate military targets, and can result in
massive civilian or other non-combatant suffering and casualties.
While some scholars see war as a universal and ancestral aspect of human
nature,[2] others argue it is a result of specific socio-cultural or ecological
circumstances.[3]
The deadliest war in history, in terms of the cumulative number of deaths
since its start, is World War II, from 1939 to 1945, with 60–85 million
deaths, followed by the Mongol conquests[4] at up to 60 million. As
concerns a belligerent's losses in proportion to its prewar population, the
most destructive war in modern history may have been the Paraguayan
War (see Paraguayan War casualties). In 2013 war resulted in 31,000
deaths, down from 72,000 deaths in 1990.[5] In 2003, Richard
Smalley identified war as the sixth (of ten) biggest problem facing humanity
for the next fifty years.[6] War usually results in significant deterioration of
infrastructure and the ecosystem, a decrease in social spending, famine,
large-scale emigration from the war zone, and often the mistreatment
of prisoners of war or civilians.[7][8][9] For instance, of the nine million people
who were on the territory of the Byelorussian SSR in 1941, some 1.6
million were killed by the Germans in actions away from battlefields,
including about 700,000 prisoners of war, 500,000 Jews, and 320,000
people counted as partisans (the vast majority of whom were unarmed
civilians).[10]Another byproduct of some wars is the prevalence
of propaganda by some or all parties in the conflict,[11] and increased
revenues by weapons manufacturers.

Détente

Détente (French pronunciation: [detɑ̃t], meaning "relaxation")[1] is the

easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation. The term
originates in the time of the Triple Entente and Entente cordiale in
reference to an easing of tensions between England and France who,
subsequent to being commingled polities under Norman rule, were warring
rivals for the better part of a millennium but pursuant to a policy of détente
became enduring allies.
In the context of the Cold War, the lessening of tensions between the East
and West, along with domestic reform in the Soviet Union, worked together
to achieve the end of communism in Eastern Europe and eventually the
Soviet Union altogether
United Nations Security Council
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal
organs of the United Nations,[1] charged with the maintenance
of international peace and security[2] as well as accepting new members to
the United Nations[3] and approving any changes to its United Nations
Charter.[4] Its powers include the establishment
of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions,
and the authorization of military action through Security Council resolutions;
it is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to
member states. The Security Council held its first session on 17 January
1946.
Like the UN as a whole, the Security Council was created following World
War II to address the failings of a previous international organization,
the League of Nations, in maintaining world peace. In its early decades, the
body was largely paralyzed by the Cold Wardivision between the US and
USSR and their respective allies, though it authorized interventions in
the Korean War and the Congo Crisis and peacekeeping missions in
the Suez Crisis, Cyprus, and West New Guinea. With the collapse of the
Soviet Union, UN peacekeeping efforts increased dramatically in scale, and
the Security Council authorized major military and peacekeeping missions
in Kuwait, Namibia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Security Council consists of fifteen members.[5] The great powers that
were the victors of World War II—the Soviet Union (now represented by
the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, France, Republic of
China (now represented by the People's Republic of China), and the United
States—serve as the body's five permanent members. These permanent
members can veto any substantive Security Council resolution, including
those on the admission of new member states or candidates for Secretary-
General. The Security Council also has 10 non-permanent members,
elected on a regional basis to serve two-year terms. The
body's presidency rotates monthly among its members.
Security Council resolutions are typically enforced by UN peacekeepers,
military forces voluntarily provided by member states and funded
independently of the main UN budget. As of 2016, 103,510 peacekeepers
and 16,471 civilians were deployed on sixteen peacekeeping operations
and one special political mission.[6]
Role
he UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN
Charter, which authorizes the Security Council to investigate any situation
threatening international peace; recommend procedures for peaceful
resolution of a dispute; call upon other member nations to completely or
partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio
communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and enforce its decisions
militarily, or by any means necessary. The Security Council also
recommends the new Secretary-General to the General Assembly and
recommends new states for admission as member states of the United
Nations.[46][47] The Security Council has traditionally interpreted its mandate
as covering only military security, though US Ambassador Richard
Holbrookecontroversially persuaded the body to pass a resolution
on HIV/AIDS in Africa in 2000.[48]
Under Chapter VI of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the
Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might
lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may
"recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it
determines that the situation might endanger international peace and
security.[49] These recommendations are generally considered to not be
binding, as they lack an enforcement mechanism.[50] A minority of scholars,
such as Stephen Zunes, have argued that resolutions made under Chapter
VI are "still directives by the Security Council and differ only in that they do
not have the same stringent enforcement options, such as the use of
military force".[51]
Under Chapter VII, the Council has broader power to decide what
measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace,
breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression".[27] In such situations, the
Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including
the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and
security".[27] This was the legal basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950
during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in
1991 and Libya in 2011.[52][53]Decisions taken under Chapter VII, such
as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members; the Security Council
is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions.[54][55]
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes that the
Security Council has authority to refer cases to the Court in which the Court
could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction.[56] The Council exercised this
power for the first time in March 2005, when it referred to the Court "the
situation prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002"; since Sudan is not a party
to the Rome Statute, the Court could not otherwise have exercised
jurisdiction.[57][58] The Security Council made its second such referral in
February 2011 when it asked the ICC to investigate the Libyan
government's violent response to the Libyan Civil War.[59]
Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the
provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity".[60] The Security Council reaffirmed this responsibility to
protect in Resolution 1706 on 31 August of that year.[61]These resolutions
commit the Security Council to take action to protect civilians in an armed
conflict, including taking action against genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself,
without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory,
sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over
some polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian
model of state foundation.

Different approaches
The concepts of sovereignty have been discussed throughout history, and
are still actively debated.[2][3] Its definition, concept, and application has
changed throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The
current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of
territory, population, authority and recognition.[4] According to Stephen D.
Krasner, the term could also be understood in four different ways:

 domestic sovereignty – actual control over a state exercised by an

authority organized within this state,[5]
 interdependence sovereignty – actual control of movement across
state's borders, assuming the borders exist,[5]
 international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign
states,[5]
 Westphalian sovereignty – lack of other authority over state other than
the domestic authority (examples of such other authorities could be a
non-domestic church, a non-domestic political organization, or any other
external agent).[5]
Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily the
case – they are not affected by one another, and there are historical
examples of states that were non-sovereign in one aspect while at the
same time being sovereign in another of these aspects.[5] According
to Immanuel Wallerstein, another fundamental feature of sovereignty is that
it is a claim that must be recognised by others if it is to have any meaning:
"Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy [...that]
requires reciprocal recognition. Sovereignty is a hypothetical trade, in which
two potentially conflicting sides, respecting de facto realities of power,
exchange such recognitions as their least costly strategy
The balance of power theory in international relations suggests
that national security is enhanced when military capability is distributed so
that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others.[1] If one state
becomes much stronger than others, the theory predicts that it will take
advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors, thereby providing
an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition.
Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would
appear unattractive and would be averted if there
was equilibrium of power between the rival coalitions.[1]
When confronted by a significant external threat, states that wish to form
alliances may "balance" or "bandwagon". Balancing is defined as allying
with others against the prevailing threat, while states that have
bandwagoned have aligned with the threat.[2] States may also employ other
alliance tactics, such as buck-passing and chain-ganging. There is a
longstanding debate among realists with regard to how the polarity of
a system impacts on which tactic states use,[3] however, it is generally
agreed that bipolar systems as each great power has no choice but to
directly confront the other.[4] Along with debates between realists about the
prevalence of balancing in alliance patterns, other schools of international
relations, such as constructivists, are also critical of the balance of power
theory, disputing core realist assumptions regarding the international
system and the behavior of states.
Importance of balance of power

N
o one, or country, no matter how novel or inventive they are, has any right, or can
be trusted, with absolute power over everyone else. It is absolutely essential for
political leaders, all across the world, to ensure that the balance of power exists, in
all spheres of power and the body politic, both domestically as well as
internationally, because there is no way that any one individual or government can
ensure the equal protection of the people, in all of their myriad conflicts and
challenges, from the very large, to the very small.
Therefore it is important that care should be taken that each and every individual
voice has enough of a power structure to keep in check their polar opposites.
Violence is of course never a good option, whether through warfare or terrorism,
but political balance of power always normally results in a standoff of non-
violence.
It is only when one side of a conflict is so powerful, so wealthy, and so militarily
superior, that violence and injustice becomes an inevitability.
According to Kegley and Wittkopf in World Politics – Trends and Transformation,
the balance of power theory in international relations suggests that national
security is enhanced when military capability is distributed so that no one state is
strong enough to dominate all others.
If one state becomes much stronger than others, the theory predicts that it will take
advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors, thereby providing an
incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition.
Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would appear
unattractive and would be averted if there was equilibrium of power between the
rival coalitions.
The principle involved in preserving the balance of power as a conscious goal of
both domestic and foreign policy, as David Hume pointed out in his Essay on the
Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was used by Greeks such as Thucydides
both as political theories and practical statesmanship.
During the Renaissance, with regard to Italian city-states in the 15th century,
Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, and Lorenzo de’ Medici, ruler of Florence, were
the first rulers actively to pursue such a policy, within the Italic League.
Many would argue that their political and financial descendants are still in power,
so there is little chance of them giving up on this strategy of global governance at
this moment of time.
It was not until the beginning of the 17th century when international law became
structured under Hugo Grotius and others, that the theory of the “balance of
power” was formulated as a fundamental principle of modern diplomacy.
It was held to be the interest, the right, and the duty of every power to interfere,
even by force of arms, when any of the conditions of this settlement were infringed
upon, or assailed by, any other member of the community.
The principle formed the basis of the coalitions against Louis XIV and Napoleon,
and the reason for most of the wars of Europe experienced between the Peace of
Westphalia (1648) and the Congress of Vienna (1814), and World War I.
The fact remains that if a nation-state’s culture, economy, way of life, national
character, and inherent value systems are attractive, then other nation-states will
ether strive to seek out an alliance, diplomacy, friendship, or comity with it by
organic methods, rather than by actively seeking out conflict, and that no violence
or force is necessary to subjugate, convert, or conquer others, which the now
thoroughly exposed Neo-Cons often try to do.
It is argued that the ultimate goal of diplomacy is to stay, or direct, the elemental
forces of nationalism let loose by revolution, for which the ostensible object is the
preservation of peace.
No one state should ever be strong enough to devour the rest, and the greatest
responsibility of the Great Powers is to maintain the small states, which can not
adequately protect themselves.
However, former US Secretary of Defense and arch Neo-Con Dick Cheney stated:
“It is not in our interest or those of the other democracies to return to earlier
periods in which multiple military powers balanced one against another in what
passed for security structures, while regional, or even global peace hung in the
balance.”

Cold War
The Cold War was a state of geopolitical tension after World War
II between powers in the Eastern Bloc (the Soviet Union and its satellite
states) and powers in the Western Bloc (the United States, its NATO allies
and others). Historians do not fully agree on the dates, but a common
timeframe is the period between 1947, the year the Truman Doctrine,
a U.S. foreign policy pledging to aid nations threatened by Soviet
expansionism, was announced, and either 1989, when communism fell in
Eastern Europe, or 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. The term "cold"
is used because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two
sides, but they each supported major regional wars known as proxy wars.
The Cold War split the temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany,
leaving the Soviet Union and the United States as two superpowers with
profound economic and political differences. The USSR was a Marxist–
Leninist state led by its Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which in turn
was dominated by a leader with different titles over time, and a small
committee called the Politburo. The Party controlled the press, the military,
the economy and many organizations. It also controlled the other states in
the Eastern Bloc, and funded Communist parties around the world,
sometimes in competition with Communist China, particularly following
the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s. In opposition stood the capitalist West,
led by the United States, a federal republic with a two-party presidential
system. The First World nations of the Western Bloc were generally
democratic with a free press and independent organizations, but were
economically and politically entwined with a network of banana
republics and other authoritarian regimes throughout the Third World, most
of which were the Western Bloc's former colonies.[1][2] Some major Cold
War frontlines such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Congo were still
Western colonies in 1947.
A small neutral bloc arose with the Non-Aligned Movement; it sought good
relations with both sides. The two superpowers never engaged directly in
full-scale armed combat, but they were heavily armed in preparation for a
possible all-out nuclear world war. Each side had a nuclear strategy that
discouraged an attack by the other side, on the basis that such an attack
would lead to the total destruction of the attacker—the doctrine of mutually
assured destruction (MAD). Aside from the development of the two sides'
nuclear arsenals, and their deployment of conventional military forces, the
struggle for dominance was expressed via proxy wars around the
globe, psychological warfare, massive propaganda campaigns
and espionage, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions
such as the Space Race.
The first phase of the Cold War began in the first two years after the end of
the Second World War in 1945. The USSR consolidated its control over the
states of the Eastern Bloc, while the United States began a strategy of
global containment to challenge Soviet power, extending military and
financial aid to the countries of Western Europe (for example, supporting
the anti-communist side in the Greek Civil War) and creating the NATO
alliance. The Berlin Blockade (1948–49) was the first major crisis of the
Cold War. With the victory of the communist side in the Chinese Civil
War and the outbreak of the Korean War (1950–53), the conflict expanded.
The USSR and USA competed for influence in Latin America and
the decolonizing states of Africa and Asia. Meanwhile, the Hungarian
Revolution of 1956was stopped by the Soviets. The expansion and
escalation sparked more crises, such as the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin
Crisis of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Following the Cuban
Missile Crisis, a new phase began that saw the Sino-Soviet splitcomplicate
relations within the communist sphere, while US allies, particularly France,
demonstrated greater independence of action. The USSR crushed the
1968 Prague Spring liberalization program in Czechoslovakia, and
the Vietnam War (1955–75) ended with the defeat of the US-
backed Republic of Vietnam, prompting further adjustments.
By the 1970s, both sides had become interested in making allowances in
order to create a more stable and predictable international system,
ushering in a period of détente that saw Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks and the US opening relations with the People's Republic of China as
a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union. Détente collapsed at the end
of the decade with the beginning of the Soviet–Afghan War in 1979.
The early 1980s were another period of elevated tension, with the Soviet
downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), and the "Able Archer"
NATO military exercises (1983). The United States increased diplomatic,
military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when the
communist state was already suffering from economic stagnation. In the
mid-1980s, the new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the
liberalizing reforms of perestroika ("reorganization", 1987)
and glasnost("openness", c. 1985) and ended Soviet involvement in
Afghanistan. Pressures for national independence grew stronger in Eastern
Europe, especially Poland. Gorbachev meanwhile refused to use Soviet
troops to bolster the faltering Warsaw Pact regimes as had occurred in the
past. The result in 1989 was a wave of revolutions that peacefully (with the
exception of the Romanian Revolution) overthrew all of the communist
regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. The Communist Party of the Soviet
Union itself lost control and was banned following an abortive coup
attempt in August 1991. This in turn led to the formal dissolution of the
USSR in December 1991 and the collapse of communist regimes in other
countries such as Mongolia, Cambodia and South Yemen. The United
States remained as the world's only superpower.
Nationalism
Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by
promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of
gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the
group's homeland. The political ideology therefore holds that a nation
should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked
to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards
developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared
characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a
belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve
the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's
achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism. In some
cases, nationalism referred to the belief that a nation should be able to
control the government and all means of production.[3]
From a political or sociological outlook, there are three main paradigms for
understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. The first, known
as primordialism or perennialism, sees nationalism as a natural
phenomenon. It holds that, although the concept of nationhood may be
recent, nations have always existed. The second paradigm
is ethnosymbolism, which is a complex perspective seeking to explain
nationalism by contextualizing it throughout history as a dynamic,
evolutionary phenomenon and by further examining the strength of
nationalism as a result of the nation's subjective ties to national symbols
imbued with historical meaning. The third and most dominant paradigm
is modernism, which sees nationalism as a recent phenomenon that needs
the structural conditions of modern society to exist.[4]
There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which
leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief
that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious,
or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily
comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by
minorities.[5] The adoption of national identity in terms of historical
development has commonly been the result of a response by influential
groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between
their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its
members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to
resolve.[6] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting
identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing
elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[6] This
development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of
resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities,
especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling
them.[6] Nationalism means devotion for the nation. It is a sentiment that
binds the people together. National symbols and flags, national
anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national
identity are highly important in nationalism
Elements and Factors of Nationalism in International Relations
Human Nature
The first root of nationalism is human nature. It means a man possesses
certain biological needs like food, shelter and defense etc. To gain these
needs, human beings depend upon one another. For this purpose, they
cooperate, assist and even compete. Every human being needs mutual
association with his fellow beings in groups for his self-preservation and to
achieve common interest and objectives among human beings. A group of
men are naturally attached to a territorial clan where they inhabit. Due to
natural needs they develop love of group or country or patriotism. So
human nature is clear root of nationalism.

Geography
Geographical proximity is a fundamental root of nationalism. Geographical
unity contributes to the development of nationalism to a great extant. It
greatly influences nationalism through their effect on transportation and
communication of goods. people, armies and ideologies. Geographical
unity provides a common climate, shapes their values, ideas and attitude.
But geographical unity is not the sole factor in development of nations. For
example, united India geographically a unit could not develop a nation as
Pakistan came into being on the slogan that there are two nations in India.
Similarly, East and West Pakistan developed as a nation though they were
not geographically united. Similarly, Indonesia is comprised of several
Islands.

Religion
Religion or creed of life is also a basic root of nationalism. It is a spiritual
association among the people having the same creed, religion that
naturally compel them to have unification, love and devotion to one
another. In this connection we have the examples of Pakistan and India.
That came into being on the basis of respective creed, dogma and religion.
Common Language
A common language is very important cause of proximity and nationalistic
feelings. Padelford and Lincline say that, "Language and literature are
important stimulants to nationalism, although nations do develop without
having common language."
R.Munir Says, "Through language people communicate with one another
and pass ideas, values, objectives and traditions from one generation to
the next." East Pakistan became Bangladesh on the condition of Bangali
language. Most of liberation and separatist movements are in full swing in
almost all the states on the basis of language issue. A common language is
a leading factor of unification because it facilitates the determination as well
as cultivation of ideas and feelings and promotes the development of
national literature, traditions and customs. But it is not correct that without
common language a nation does not develop. Examples of India and
Pakistan are sufficient in this regard.
Common Economic Interests
Another most important factor of nationalism is common economic interest.
Today is the era of economic and thinking in economic terms has become
an important phenomenon of present time. The common economic interest
unites the different groups together. In many ways economic factor plays a
great role in the development of nationalism.

Common Culture and Traditions

John S. Mill rotates common historical traditions of prime importance; while
Hayes considers common culture and traditions second to language. Every
nation has its common heroes who become the symbols of the past and
unifying force for present.
Democracy
With the growth of democracy individual loyalty was transferred from them
to the collective nation. Thus the growth of popular sovereignty served to
promote nationalism.
Social Disintegration and Individual Insecurity
According to Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau, the 19th and 20th centuries saw the
emancipation of the individual from the ties of tradition, especially in the
form of religion, of the increased rationalization of life and work and of
cyclical economic crises.
Racial Unity
Race is another important factor that has contributed towards the
development of nationalism. Alfred Zimmern, Burgess and Leacock have
laid greater emphasis on racial unity as the root of nationalism. It implies
that the group of people inhabiting in a definite territory must have a
common origin. The racial myths fortify the claim of nationhood. However, it
may be noted that racial unity is important and not essential. There are
several states in that various races inhabit i.e. India and Pakistan. Ramsay
Munir in this connection says, "There is no nation in the world that is not of
mixed races and there has never been a race that has succeeded in
including all its members with in a single national unity."

Conflict and War

War and aggression also play a considerable part in shaping nationalism
Padelford and Lincolen says that, "War and the threat of invasion have
nearly everywhere been factors in fashioning national sentiments and in
framing new nation.
Realism (international relations)
Realism is a school of thought in international relations theory, theoretically
formalising the Realpolitik statesmanship of early modern Europe. Although
a highly diverse body of thought, it can be thought of as unified by the belief
that world politics ultimately is always and necessarily a field of conflict
among actors pursuing power. Crudely, realists are of three kinds in what
they take the source of ineliminable conflict to be. Classical realists believe
that it follows from human nature, neorealists focus upon the structure of
the anarchic state system, and neoclassical realists believe that it is a
result of a combination of the two and certain domestic variables. Realists
also disagree about what kind of action states ought to take to navigate
world politics, dividing between (although most realists fall outside the two
groups) defensive realism and offensive realism. Realists have also
claimed that a realist tradition of thought is evident within the history of
political thought all the way back to antiquity,
including Thucydides, Thomas Hobbes, Kautilya and Niccolò Machiavelli.
Jonathan Haslam from the University of Cambridge characterizes realism
as "a spectrum of ideas."[1] Regardless of which definition is used, the
theories of realism revolve around four central propositions:[2]

 That states are the central actors in international politics rather than
individuals or international organizations,
 That the international political system is anarchic as there is
no supranational authority that can enforce rules over the states,
 That the actors in the international political system are rational as their
actions maximize their own self-interest, and
 That all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-
preservation.
Realism is often associated with Realpolitik as both are based on the
management of the pursuit, possession, and application of power.
Realpolitik, however, is an older prescriptive guideline limited to policy-
making (like foreign policy), while realism is a particular paradigm, or wider
theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining
and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain. The
theories of Realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism.
Non-Aligned Movement
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a group of states that are not
formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. As of 2012, the
movement has 120 members.[1]
The purpose of the organization has been enumerated as to ensure "the
national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-
aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-
colonialism, racism , and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation,
domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and
bloc politics," by Fidel Castro in the Havana Declaration of 1979.[3] The
countries of the Non-Aligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the
United Nations' members and contain 55% of the world population.
Membership is particularly concentrated in countries considered to be
developing or part of the Third World, though the Non-Aligned Movement
also has a number of developed nations such as Chileand Saudi Arabia,
the latter of which is a member of the G20 (India is a G20 member as
well).[4]
Although many of the Non-Aligned Movement's members were actually
quite closely aligned with one or another of the superpowers, the
movement still maintained cohesion throughout the Cold War, even despite
several conflicts between members which also threatened the movement.
In the years since the Cold War's end, it has focused on developing
multilateral ties and connections as well as unity among the developing
nations of the world, especially those within the Global South
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between
representatives of states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the
conduct of international relations[2] through the intercession of professional
diplomats with regard to a full range of topical issues.
International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to
endorsement by national politicians. David Stevenson reports that by 1900
the term "diplomats" also covered diplomatic services, consular services
and foreign ministry officials

Types
There are a variety of diplomatic categories and diplomatic strategies
employed by organizations and governments to achieve their aims, each
with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Preventive diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Preventive diplomacy
Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between
parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to
limit the spread of the latter when they occur. Since the end of the Cold
War the international community through international institutions has been
focusing on preventive diplomacy.
Public diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Public diplomacy
Public diplomacy is exercising influence through communication with the
general public in another nation, rather than attempting to influence the
nation's government directly. This communication may take the form
of propaganda, or more benign forms such as citizen diplomacy, individual
interactions between average citizens of two or more nations.
Technological advances and the advent of digital diplomacy now allow
instant communication with foreign publics, and methods such
as Facebook diplomacy and Twitter diplomacyare increasingly used by
world leaders and diplomats.[16]
Soft power[edit]
Main article: Soft power
Soft power, sometimes called hearts and minds diplomacy, as defined
by Joseph Nye, is the cultivation of relationships, respect, or even
admiration from others in order to gain influence, as opposed to more
coercive approaches. Often and incorrectly confused with the practice of
official diplomacy, soft power refers to non-state, culturally attractive factors
that may predispose people to sympathize with a foreign culture based on
affinity for its products, such as the American entertainment industry,
schools and music.
Economic diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Economic diplomacy
Economic diplomacy is the use of foreign aid or other types of economic
policy as a means to achieve a diplomatic agenda.
Counterinsurgency diplomacy[edit]
Counterinsurgency diplomacy or Expeditionary Diplomacy, developed by
diplomats deployed to civil-military stabilization efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, employs diplomats at tactical and operational levels, outside
traditional embassy environments and often alongside military or
peacekeeping forces. Counterinsurgency diplomacy may provide political
environment advice to local commanders, interact with local leaders, and
facilitate the governance efforts, functions and reach of a host
government.[17]
Gunboat diplomacy[edit]
Main article: Gunboat diplomacy
Gunboat diplomacy is the use of conspicuous displays of military strength
as a means of intimidation in order to influence others.
It must also be stated that since gunboat diplomacy lies near the edge
between peace and war, victory or defeat in an incident may foster a shift
into political and psychological dimensions: a standoff between a weaker
and a stronger state may be perceived as a defeat for the stronger one.
This was the case in the Pueblo Incident in which the Americans lost face
with regard to North Korea.
Appeasement[edit]
Main article: Appeasement
Appeasement is a policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to
avoid confrontation; because of its failure to prevent World War 2,
appeasement is not considered a legitimate tool of modern diplomacy.
Nuclear diplomacy[edit]
Nuclear diplomacy is the area of diplomacy related to preventing nuclear
proliferation and nuclear war. One of the most well-known (and most
controversial) philosophies of nuclear diplomacy is mutually assured
destruction (MAD).
Colonialism
Colonialism is the policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its
authority over other people or territories, generally with the aim of
developing or exploiting them to the benefit of the colonizing country.[1]
The European colonial period was the era from the 15th century to the mid-
20th century when several European powers had established colonies in
the Americas, Africa, and Asia. At first, the countries followed a policy
of mercantilism, designed to strengthen the home economy at the expense
of rivals, so the colonies were usually allowed to trade only with the mother
country. By the mid-19th century, however, the powerful British
Empire gave up mercantilism and trade restrictions and introduced the
principle of free trade, with few restrictions or tariffs.
Types of colonialism
Historians often distinguish between two overlapping forms of colonialism:

 Settler colonialism involves large-scale immigration, often motivated by

religious, political, or economic reasons.
 Exploitation colonialism involves fewer colonists and focuses on access
to resources for export, typically to the metropole. This category
includes trading posts as well as larger colonies where colonists would
constitute much of the political and economic administration, but would
rely on indigenous resources for labour and material. Prior to the end of
the slave trade and widespread abolition, when indigenous labour was
unavailable, slaves were often imported to the Americas, first by the
Portuguese Empire, and later by the Spanish, Dutch, French and British.
Surrogate colonialism involves a settlement project supported by a colonial
power, in which most of the settlers do not come from same ethnic group
as the ruling power.
Internal colonialism is a notion of uneven structural power between areas of
a state. The source of exploitation comes from within the state.
Regionalism (international relations)
In international relations, regionalism is the expression of a common
sense of identity and purpose combined with the creation and
implementation of institutions that express a particular identity and shape
collective action within a geographical region. Regionalism is one of the
three constituents of the international commercial system (along
with multilateralism and unilateralism).[1]
The first coherent regional initiatives began in the 1950s and 1960s, but
they accomplished little, except in Western Europe with the establishment
of the European Community. Some analysts call these initiatives "old
regionalism".[1] In the late 1980s, a new bout of regional integration (also
called "new regionalism") began and continues still . A new wave of political
initiatives prompting regional integration took place worldwide during the
last two decades. Regional and bilateral trade deals have also
mushroomed after the failure of the Doha round .[2]
The European Union can be classified as a result of regionalism. The idea
that lies behind this increased regional identity is that as a region becomes
more economically integrated, it will necessarily become politically
integrated as well. The European example is especially valid in this light, as
the European Union as a political body grew out of more than 40 years
of economic integration within Europe. The precursor to the EU,
the European Economic Community (EEC) was entirely an economic
entity.
Regional organization
Regional organizations (ROs) are, in a sense, international
organizations (IOs), as they incorporate international membership and
encompass geopolitical entities that operationally transcend a single nation
state. However, their membership is characterized by boundaries and
demarcations characteristic to a defined and unique geography, such as
continents, or geopolitics, such as economic blocs. They have been
established to foster cooperation and political and economic integration or
dialogue among states or entities within a restrictive geographical or
geopolitical boundary. They both reflect common patterns of development
and history that have been fostered since the end of World War II as well
as the fragmentation inherent in globalization. Most ROs tend to work
alongside well-established multilateral organizations such as the United
Nations.[1] While in many instances a regional organization is simply
referred to as an international organization, in many others it makes sense
to use the term regional organization to stress the more limited scope of a
particular membership.
Examples of ROs include the African Union (AU), European Union (EU),
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Arab League (AL), Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation(SAARC), and Union of South American Nations (USAN).

Terrorism
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate
violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious
or ideological aim.[1] It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence
against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants.[2] The terms
"terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the
late 18th century[3] but gained mainstream popularity during the U.S.
Presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) after the 1983 Beirut barracks
bombings[4] and again after the attacks on New York City and Washington,
D.C. in September 2001[5][4][6] and on Bali in October 2002.[4]
There is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism".[7][8] Being
a charged term, with the connotation of something "morally wrong", it is
often used, both by governments and non-state groups, to abuse or
denounce opposing groups.[9][10][4][11][8] Broad categories of political
organisations have been claimed to have been involved in terrorism to
further their objectives, including right-wing and left-wing political
organisations, nationalist groups, religious
groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[12] Terrorism-
related legislation has been adopted in various states, regarding "terrorism"
as a crime.[13][14] There is no universal agreement as to whether or not
"terrorism", in some definition, should be regarded as a war crime.[15][16]
According to the Global Terrorism Database by the University of Maryland,
College Park, more than 61,000 incidents of non-state terrorism, resulting
in at least 140,000 deaths, have been recorded from 2000 to 2014.
Types
Depending on the country, the political system, and the time in history, the
types of terrorism are varying. n early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant
Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory
Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five
volumes that the committee wrote was titled Disorders and Terrorism,
produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the
direction of H. H. A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.
The Task Force defines terrorism as "a tactic or technique by means of
which a violent act or the threat thereof is used for the prime purpose of
creating overwhelming fear for coercive purposes". It classified disorders
and terrorism into six categories:[101]

 Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace,

security, and normal functioning of the community.
 Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to
generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political
purposes.
 Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political
purposes but which exhibits "conscious design to create and maintain a
 high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or
collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective".

 Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes

of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but
which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main
purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim
as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the
modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar
consequences and reaction.[102][103][104] For example, the
fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are
similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite
different.
 Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is
characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism
refers to "acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or
political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to
capture control of the state".
 Official or state terrorism – "referring to nations whose rule is based
upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such
proportions". It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined
broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political
objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.
Other sources have defined the typology of terrorism in different ways, for
example, broadly classifying it into domestic terrorism and international
terrorism, or using categories such as vigilante terrorism or insurgent
terrorism.[105] One way the typology of terrorism may be defined:[106][107]

 Political terrorism
 Sub-state terrorism
 Social revolutionary terrorism
 Nationalist-separatist terrorism
 Religious extremist terrorism
 Religious fundamentalist Terrorism
 New religions terrorism
 Right-wing terrorism
 Left-wing terrorism
 State-sponsored terrorism
 Regime or state terrorism
 Criminal terrorism
 Pathological terrorism