i

BOOKHIVE'S

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

For

Civil Services (Main) Exam.

and

M.A.&B.A. (Hons.) Exam, of various Indian Universities

PRAKASH CHANDER

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

and

PREM ARORA

I.A.S. Study Circle, New Delhi)

COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P) LTD.

ii

No Part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers

BRANCH OFFICES

DELHI

(Regd. A Sales Office)

47/30, East Patel Nagar,

New Delhi-110008

Ph. : 5742276,5767516

Fax: 011-5769681, 5815565

JAIPUR

Mr. Vijay Sahai

27, 2nd Floor, Bhagwan Dass Market

Near Sai Baba Mandir

Chaura Rasta, Jaipur-302 004

Phone: 327403, 751054

MUMBAI

Mr. Anil Kochar

208, Kuber Complex, Link Road,

Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053

Phone : 6310623, 6369918, 6393583

CHANDIGARH

Mrs. Sarojini Sharma

S.C.O. -69

Sector-20C, Chandigarh

1st Edition

5th Edition 1986

10th Edition 1993

17th Edition 1997

18th Edition 1993

20th Edition 2000

© Reserved with the Publishers

ISBN- 81-7729-035-5 Price : Rs. 275.00

Published by :

COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P) LTD.,

Admn. Office and Works: 831, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon - 122016

Phone : 91-346280, 348820 Fax : 358322

Editorial Office : CB-349, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi-110028 Phone : 5698295

iii

Preface to the Twentieth Edition

In view of the fast changes taking place in the international arena, it is of vital importance that a book on International Relations must contain latest facts and trend analysis. In this revised edition of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, we have incorporated the latest facts and revised several chapters in the light of the current developments. We are sure that the revised edition of this book will be found very useful by the students, teachers and general readers. Our task of revision of book was rendered easy by the innumerable suggestions received from the esteemed readers. We have fully utilised these suggestions and request the readers to oblige us with their suggestions in future also.

We are grateful to our publishers for bringing out the revised edition of the book with remarkable speed without compromising on the quality of the production.

AUTHORS

iv v

Preface to the First Edition

In view of the revised curriculum for the Civil Services Examination a need was felt to bring out a book on INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS strictly in accordance with the syllabus of the Union Public Service Commission. This book has been written strictly according to the syllabus. An endeavour has been made to present the issue in their entirety starting with the genesis of the problem till the present state of affairs.

The book has been specially designed to cater to the needs of the candidates opting for International Relations. The authors do not claim any originality and their main effort has been to bring out relevant facts from a plethora of information to meet the requirements of the candidates appearing for the Civil Services Examination. The book will also be of interest to the general reader because it covers a wide range of subjects of current international importance.

Suggestions for further improvement of the book are welcome and shall be gratefully acknowledged and incorporated in the next edition.

AUTHORS

vi vii

ABOUT BOOKHIVE'S I.A.S. STUDY CIRCLE

BOOKHIVE has been publishing the most standard books for I.A.S. competitive examination for the last thirty eight years. Thousands of candidates have benefited from our publications.

It was on the persistent demand of the candidates that BOOKHIVE's I.A.S. Study Circle was brought into being in 1968. Reputed college teachers for different subjects were selected to constitute the faculty.

The meetings of the members of the faculty are periodically called. They review the books in the light of the latest trends. Candidates who are selected in I.A.S. are also invited to participate in these meetings. Their suggestions are given due weight. In the light of these discussions the books are revised and brought uptodate.

BOOKHIVE'S I.A.S. Study Circle also invites the aspiring candidates to write about their problems. The 'Circle' prepares detailed answers to these problems.

If you are a candidate for Civil Services, you can become a member of the BOOKHIVE'S I.A.S. Study Circle. Suggestions from the candidates for the improvement of our books will be gratefully acknowledged.

MANMOHAN NANDA

DIRECTOR,

COSMOS BOOKHIVE (P)

viii ix

CONTENTS

1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS—MEANING, NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 1-5

Meaning of International Relations; International Relations or International Politics; Scope of International Relations; Significance of Study

2. NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE SYSTEM 6-13

Meaning and Origin of Nation-State-System; Contemporary State System; Elements of Modern Nation-State; Setback to Nation-State System

3. ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER 14-27

Domestic and International Power; Meaning; Foundations of Power; Evaluation of National Power; Limitation of National Power

4. NATIONAL INTEREST 28-37

Development of the Concept of National Interest; The Kinds of National Interest; Methods for the Promotion of National Interests; National Interest and Foreign Policy; Constraints on National Interest

5. BALANCE OF POWER AND POWER VACUUM 38-52

Meaning; Implication of the Term; Characteristics; Historical Evolution of the Concept; Patterns of Balance of Power; Assumptions of Balance of Power; Techniques of Balance of Power; Utility of Balance of Power, Criticism, Conclusion; Relevance of Balance of Power in Modern Times; Power Vacuum

6. THEORIES OR APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS 53-69

Approaches; Classical or Traditional Approach; Scientific Approach; The Realist and the Idealist Approach; Criticism; The Classicists Behaviouralists Controversy; Defence of Classical Approach; Defence of Scientific Theory; Conclusion; The Systems Theory; The Systems or General Systems Theory; Morton Kaplan's System Theory; The Decision Making Approach

7. FOREIGN POLICY AND ITS DETERMINANTS 70-78

Meanings of Foreign Policy; Objectives of Foreign Policy (Factors Influencing Foreign Policy); Internal Factors; External Factors

8. THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY 79-87

Meaning of Interest and Ideologies; Important Ideologies; Impact of Ideology; Decline of Ideology

9. FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES 88-114

Imperialism; Motives Behind Imperialist Policy; Technique; Imperialism in Modern Times; Effects of Imperialist Policy; Alliances and Allegiances; Development of Alliances; Kinds of Alliances; Impact of the Alliances; Allegiances; Isolationism; Nationalistic Universalism; Pax Britannica; Pax Americana; New Hegemony of

x

USA; Pax Sovietica; Middle Kingdom Complex of China; Further Modifications in the Concept

10. COLD WAR-ORIGIN, EVOLUTION AND IMPLICATIONS 115-125

Origins; Evolution of Cold War; Basis of Cold War, Phases of Cold War, Implications of Cold War

11. DETENTE AND ITS IMPACT 126-137

Meaning; Factors which Prompted Detente; Evolution of Detente up to 1969; US-Soviet Detente; Sino-American Detente; Impact of Sino-US Detente; Setback to Sino-US Detente; Detente-Foundations and Consequences

12. NEW COLD WAR AND ITS END 138-148

Development of New Cold War; Difference between New and Old Cold Wars; Impact of New Cold War on World Politics; Cooling of Second Cold War; End of Cold War; Factor Contributing to End of Cold War; Formal End of Cold War; Impact on Future Course of International Relations

13. NON-ALIGNMENT 149-173

Meaning; Non-Alignment as Antithesis of Alignment; Factors Responsible for Adoption of Non-Alignment; Motives of Non-Alignment; Evaluation of the Concept; Merits; Non-Aligned Movement and its Role; Relevance and Role of Non-Alignment in International Relations; Non-Alignment at Present; Threats to Non-Aligned Movement; How to Strengthen Non-Alignment Movement; Role of the Non-Alignment in Present Conditions; Non-Alignment in the Wake of End of Cold War; Non-Alignment Movement and New International Economic order

14. DECOLONISATION AND EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY 174-187

Meaning of Colonialism; Varying Colonial Policies; Decolonisation; UN Charter and the Colonial People; Bandung Conference; Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People; Follow-up Action; Special Committee on Decolonisation; Expansion of International Community; Growth of Membership of UNO

15- NEO COLONIALISM AND RACIALISM 188-200

Why Neo-Colonialism? Methods of Neo-Colonialism; How far Neocolonialism is Better Than Colonialism; Racialism; Forms of Racial Discrimination; Role of Colonialism in Promotion of Racialism; Racialism and Democracy; Eradication of Racialism

16. ASIAN AFRICAN RESURGENCE 201-207

Emergence of Asia and Africa; Impact of Afro-Asian Resurgence on International Relations

17. THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER AND QUEST FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER 208-225

Western Systems; The North-South System; East-West System; Main Features of the Present Economic Order; Critical Evaluation

xi

of the Present System; New International Economic Order; Goals and Means; Fresh Resolution by UN General Assembly; Cancun Summit and New International Economic Order; Commonwealth Heads and NIEO; South-South Meet or New Delhi Consultations; Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at New Delhi, 1983; India and New International Economic Order

18. SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES 226-234

Introduction; Global Concern; The Role of UN; NIEO and National Resources; Assertion by Developing Countries; Revolving Fund for National Resource Exploration; UN's Role in Assessment and Utilization of Natural Resources

19. THE CRISIS IN ENERGY RESOURCES 235-242

The Seriousness of Crisis; Efforts to Resolve the Crisis; Step to deal with Energy Crisis; Energy Conservation; Alternative Sources of Energy; Coal; Natural Gas; Oil Shal; Fuel Wood; Electricity; Nuclear Energy, Biogas Plants, Solar Energy, Geothermal Energy, Wind Energy etc.

20. THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 243-253

Meaning of International Law; Origin and Sources; International Law a Weak Law; Role of International Law in International Relations

21. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION IN NINETEENTH CENTURY 254-264

Development of International Organisation; Treaty of Westphalia and International Organisation; Development of International Organisation in Nineteenth Century; Congress of Vienna (1815); The Concert of Europe; The Hague Conference; Public International Unions; The League of Nations; Classification of International Organisation

22. THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS SPECIALISED AGENCIES 265-349

Origin of UN; Objectives of the United Nations; The Purpose of Principles of the United Nations; Principal Organs of the United Nations; General Assembly; Functions and Powers; Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1"950 and changed Role of the Assembly; The Security Council; Functions and Powers; Relations between General Assembly and Security Council; Assessment of Security Council; The Economic and Social Council; Trusteeship Council of Trusteeship System; International Court of Justice; The Secretariat; The Secretary General; Specialised Agencies of United Nations; Classification of Specialised Agencies; The International Labour Organisation (ILO); The World Health Organisation (WHO); Function: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO); International Bank For Reconstruction and Development(IBRD); United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF); International Development Association (IDA); International Finance Corporation (IFC); Universal Postal Union, Internal Telecommunication Union (ITU); International Civil Aviation Organisation (WMO); International Maritime Organisation (IMO);

xii

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO); International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO); International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); World Trade Organisation (W.T.O.); General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); Accomplishment of the United Nations-Poiitical Economic and Social Evaluation of UNO.

23. REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 350-360

Organisation of American States (OAS); Organisation of African Union (OAU); The Arab League; Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Arab Common Market; The ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations); The European Union (EU); Impact and Importance of Regional Organisations

24. ARMS RACE, DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL 361-394

Arms Race after First World War; Arms Race after Second World War; Difference between Disarmament and Arms Control; Disarmament; Disarmament after First World War; Disarmament after World War II; Atomic Energy Commission; Commission on Conventional Armaments; Disarmament Commission; Atoms for Peace Plan (1953); Anglo French Plan (1954); Soviet Proposal of May 1995; The General Summit and Open Skies Plan; Six Point Plan of U.S.A. (1957); Nuclear Test Ban; Antarctic Treaty (1959); Ten Nations Disarmament Conference (I960); Eighteen Nations Disarmament Conference (1962); Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963): Seven Point Plan (1966); Outer Space Treaty of 1967; Treaty of Tlatelolco 1967; Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapons States (1968); Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968); Disarmament Decade; Sea Bed Treaty of 1971; Biological Weapons Convention (1972); Strategic Arms Limitation and SALT (1972): The SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty); US-Soviet Accord on Limitation of Arms (1973); Threshold Test Ban Treaty; US-Soyiet Arms Pact 1974; The Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty (1976); Final Act of the Conference of Security and Cooperation in Europe; Convention on Prohibition on Military or other Hostile use of Environmental Modification Techniques; Special Session of Disarmament; SALT II (1979); Agreement Concerning Activities of States on Moon and other Celestial Bodies; Soviet Proposals regarding Prohibition on Stationing of Weapons in Outer Space; Prohibition of Inhumane Weapons; New Small;Arms Ammunition (1981); Efforts by the UN'General Assembly; Reagan Plan of 18th November 1981; INF Talks of Geneva November 1981; Brezhnev Announcement of March 1982; START Negotiations; Second Special Session on Disarmament; New US Proposals on SALT; Efforts for Disarmament by General Assembly after 1982; Talks between NATO and Warsaw Pact Countries; Improvement of Hotline; Four Continent Peace Initiative; Initiative by India and Non-Aligned Countries; Geneva Talks 1985; Six Nation Summit at New Delhi, 1985; Reagan Gorbachev Summit; Reykjavik Meeting (1986); Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty (1987); New Six-Nation Disarmament Plan; Third

xiii

Special Session of UN General Assembly on Disarmament (June 1988); Geneva Talks on Strategic Arms Reduction (June 1989); Further Progress; US Proposes Cut in Chemical Weapons; Washington Summit; Treaty on Arms Cut; Treaty between NATO and Warsaw Pact Countries; OS-Russia offer to Cut Nuclear Arms; Five Power Accord to Prevent Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (May 1992); Pact on Nuclear Arms Cut (June 1992); Nuclear Arms Control Treaty (START-II); Convention on Chemical Weapons (February 1993); General Assembly Resolution on Nuclear Disarmament; US-Russian Talks on Arms Reduction; Implications of Arms Race and Suggestions for Future.

25. THE ARMS TRADE AND ITS IMPACT ON THIRD WORLD-ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 395-408

Factors Influencing Arms Transfer; Arms Trade in Recent Years; Exports of Arms to Third World Countries; Soviet Arms Exports; U.S. Arms Exports; West European Suppliers; Arms Exports by U.K.; Arms Exports by France; Leading Exports of Major Weapons to Third World Counties during the Period 1987-1991; Major Recipients of Arms during the Period 1987-1991; Exports from Third World Countries; Impact of Arms Trade on Third World; Arms Trade Control; U.N. Arms Register.

26. DIPLOMATIC THEORY AND PRACTICE 409-426

Usage of the Term; Definition of Diplomacy; Development of Diplomacy; Types of Diplomacy; Traditional Diplomacy; Features of Traditional Diplomacy; The New Diplomacy; Why Changes in Diplomacy in Present Century; Features of New Diplomacy; Old vs New Diplomacy; Which One of These Diplomacies is Better? Decline of Diplomacy; Critical Assessment of Diplomacy; Practice of Diplomacy; Career and Non-Career Diplomatic Agents; Aggregation or Agreement; Duties and Responsibilities of Diplomatic Missions; Qualities of Diplomat; Assumption of Charge; Presentation of Credentials; Immunities and Privileges; Right of Inviolability; Other Immunities and Privileges; Waiver of Diplomatic Immunities; Terminations of Missions; Dismissal and Recall; Breaking off of Diplomatic Relations

27. EXTERNAL INTERVENTION: IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC: CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AND COVERT INTERVENTION 427-438

Definition of Intervention; Intervention in Theory; Ideological Basis of Interventions; Political Basis of Intervention; Economic Basis of Intervention; Economic Intervention and the UN; Intervention in Practice; Cultural Imperialism; Covert Intervention

28. NUCLEAR ENERGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 439-465

Uses and Misuses of Nuclear Energy; Impact of Nuclear Weapons on International Relations; The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT); Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Approval of Non-Proliferation Treaty; Reactions to Treaty; Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNEs); India and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion.

xiv

29. PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF INDIAN OCEAN BEING MADE A ZONE OF PEACE 466-478

Geographical Setting; Importance of Indian Ocean; Control over Indian Ocean; US Interests; Soviet Interests; British Interests; Japanese Interests; Chinese Interests; Diego Garcia; Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace; Suggestions for Making Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace

30. THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN WEST ASIA 479-525

Factors Responsible for the West Asian Conflict; Conflict of 1948; Conflict of 1956; War of June, 1967; Efforts by Powers to Resolve the Crisis; War of October, 1973; Peace Treaty of 1979; Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel; Annexation of West Bank by Israel; Israeli Attack on Lebanon; Egypt Israel Agreement (1989); Israel and Palestinians; Role of Outside Powers in West-Asian Crisis; Attitude of Powers Towards West-Asia during the War of 1973 and After; Atlanta Conference (November, 1983); Iran-Iraq War; Attitude of the Arab Countries; Changes in Diplomatic Relations in the Middle East; Relations among Other Countries; Mediation Efforts; Security Council's Bid to Bring about Cease-fire; Islamic Conference Organisation's Efforts; Peace Efforts by Non-Aligned Movement; Mediation Efforts by Other States; Towards Settlement of the Problem; Gulf War; Impact of War and future Trends; Appraisal of West Asian Crisis.

31. CONFLICT AND COOPERATION IN SOUTH ASIA 526-590

Conflicts in South Asia; Afghanistan; India; Pakistan; Nepal; Bangladesh; Sri Lanka; Co-operation in South Asia; Efforts to End Conflicts and Promote Co-operation; South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC); Second SAARC Summit at Bangalore (1986); SAARC Foreign Ministers' Meet (1987); Third SAARC Summit (1987); Fourth SAARC Summit (1988); Fifth SAARC Summit (1990); Sixth SAARC Summit (1991); Seventh SAARC Summit (1993); Eighth SAARC Summit (1995); Slow Progress of Regional Co-operation; Achievement and Future Prospects; Challenges before the SAARC.

32. FOREIGN POLICIES OF MAJOR POWERS-USA, USSR (RUSSIA) AND CHINA 591-677

Meaning of Foreign Policy; Foreign Policy of U.S.A.; Policy after World War II; Developments of U.S. Foreign Policy; Policy Towards Far East; Policy Towards South-East Asia; Policy Towards South Asia; Policy Towards Middle-East; Policy Towards Europe; Policy Towards Latin America; United States and UNO; United States and Disarmament; Foreign Policy of Soviet Union; Development of Soviet Foreign Policy; Policy in Post-Stalin Period; Policy under Bulganin and Khruschev; Policy under Kosygin and Brezhnev; Policy after Kosygn and Brezhnev; Policy under CHERNENKO and Gurbachev; Policy Under Russia (BORIS YELTSIN); Policy Towards United States; Soviet Policy Towards West Europe; Relations with Communist Countries; Soviet Policy in Middle East; Soviet Policy in South Asia; Soviet Union and the Third World; Soviet Union and the United Nations; Soviet Union and Disarmament; Foreign Policy of China; Relations with

xv

Soviet Union; Relations with Russia; Relations with USA; Relations with Non-aligned Countries; Relations with Japan; Relations with Neighbouring Countries; Relations with West European Countries; Relation with India; Relations with Pakistan; Policy Towards Nuclear Weapons; Policy Towards Third World

33. THE THIRD WORLD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 678-682

Characteristics of the Third World; Role of the Third World in International System

34. THE NORTH-SOUTH DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED NATIONS AND OUTSIDE 684-698

Call for NIEO; Brandt Commission and its Reports; Cancun Summit Conference 1981; Second Brandt Commission Report; Why Slow Progress in North-South Dialogue

35. INDIA'S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS 699-788

Basic Principles of India's Foreign Policy; India's Foreign Policy after 1962; Foreign Policy under Indira Gandhi; Policy in Post Janata Period; Foreign Policy under Rajiv; Foreign Policy of National Front Government and Janata (S): Foreign Policy under Narasimha Rao; Criticism of Foreign Policy; India and the Super Powers; India and USA; Relation after 1962; Relations with Soviet Union; India and its Neighbours; India and Pakistan; India and Nepal; India and Bangladesh; India and Sri Lanka; India and China; Indian and Bhutan; India and Burma; India and South-East Asia; Relations with ASEAN: Indian and Africa; India's Economic Diplomacy; India and the Question of Nuclear Weapons; Efforts at Nuclear Disarmament; India goes Nuclear; Indian Nuclear Doctrine.

xvi 1

1 International Relations—Meaning, Nature and Importance

"The study of international relations is not a science with which we solve the problems of international life. At its best it is an objective and systematic approach to those problems."

—Palmer and Perkins

In modern times the world has greatly shrunk as a result of scientific and technological development. As a consequence events in one part of the world have an immediate impact on the rest of the world. Therefore the states maintain regular relations with other states and the study of international relations has assumed great importance. Though some sort of international relations have been in vogue since earliest times and some of the states like Egypt, China, Greece and India had evolved code for the conduct of these relations, these rules were essentially based on morality and were not scrupulously observed by the states. Further these relations generally covered states of the same region and therefore can more appropriately be described as 'regional relations'. It was only in the seventeenth century that the states established relations with other states beyond the region. This in a way marked the beginning of the international relations. The improvements in means of transport and communication and the industrial revolution further brought the states closer and greatly contributed to the development of international relations. It may be noted that at that time international relations were concerned only with the study of diplomatic history, law and philosophy. The study was mainly based on facts finding and no deductions of any universal principles were made which could be helpful in understanding of the present or future relations among states. As a result, no well conceived theory could be evolved which could help in understanding the significance of the current events.

Meaning of International Relations

The term 'International' was used for the first time by Jeremy Bentham in the later part of the eighteenth century with regard to the laws of nations. Consequently, the term international relations was used to define

2

the official relations between the sovereign states. However some scholars even included the economic, social and cultural relations amongst the states also within the purview of the subject. Thus there are broadly two views regarding the meaning of international relations. Those who take narrow view assert that international relations include only "the official relations conducted by the authorised leaders of the state". To them the relations between nations, other than the official relations, such as trade, financial intercourse, missionary activities, travel of students, cultural relations etc. do not fall in the domain of international relations. Prof. Dunn takes a narrow view of international relations and defines it as "the actual relations that take place across national boundaries or as the body of knowledge which we have of those relations at any given time." On the other hand some scholars have taken a broad view of international relations and included apart from the official relations between states, all intercourse among states and all movements of people, goods and ideas across the national frontiers, within its purview. The latter view has found wider favour with various authorities on the subject and they have accordingly offered definitions of international relations. According to Quincy Wright It is not only the nations which international relations seek to regulate. Varied types of groups—nations, states, governments, people, regions, alliances, confederations, international organisations, even industrial organisations, cultural organisations, religious organisations must be dealt with in the study of international relations if the treatment is to be made realistic". Similarly Hoffmann also says International relations is concerned with the factors and the activities which affect the external policies and the powers of the basic units into which the world is divided". He asserts that the outstanding feature of international relations is the decentralised nature of the milieu in which they take place. James Rosenau goes even further and argues that as the events in the arena of world politics are linked with internal national events and vice versa, and these relations even overlap each other at points, it is difficult to draw a boundary line between international and national relations. 'For example the decision of a country to devalue its currency may be purely a national action, but it has far-reaching international implications. Therefore Trygave Mathiesen says that even internal affairs of the state fall within the jurisdiction of international relations. In short, it can be said that international relations do not cover only the official relations conducted by the leaders or representatives of a state, they also cover the relations conducted by other important groups, to the extent they influence the interactions of the sovereign states. In other words the relations conducted by the sovereign states may be the most important subject-matter of international relations but other important groups also exercise influence on the actions of the sovereign states.

International Relations and International Politics

Scholars have tended to ignore the distinction between international

3

relations and international politics and treated them as identical. For example E.H.Carr and Quincy Wright treat the two as identical. However, certain other textbook writers have tried to draw a distinction between these two terms. They regard the term 'international relations' as wider in scope and include in its study the totality of relations of any people and group in the world society. They include within its purview all aspects of relations between countries and people, political or non-political, peaceful or war like, legal or cultural, economic or geographic, official or nonofficial. In short they use the term, as Harold and Margaret Sprout put it "to designate all human behaviour on one side of a national boundary affecting the human behaviour on the other side of the country". Since the term 'relations' has variety of meanings as contacts, connections and action and reaction, the scholars have tended to define international relations as an action on the part of a group—state or government—directed towards another group which reacts to it. On the other hand the term 'international polities' connotes the politics of international community in a rather narrow sense concerning mainly diplomacy and the relations among states and other political units. In short the term 'international relations has a much wider connotation than international politics in so far as it embraces all sorts of relations among people and groups in the world society and these relations operate both at the official as well as non-official levels. On the other hand international politics includes only those aspects of international relations in which conflict of purpose or interest is involved. Padelford and Lincoln have brought out the distinction between international relations and international politics thus:"In its broadest sense, the field of international relations comprises myriads of contacts among individuals, business organisations, cultural institutions, and political personalities of many different countries. When people speak of international relations, however, they are usually thinking of the relationship between states as such. This is to be expected in view of the fact that it is states which make the vital decisions affecting peace and war and that it is their governments which have the authority to regulate business, travel, commerce, use of resources, political ideas, territorial jurisdiction, nationality, communications, employment of armed forces and other aspects of international affairs. The relationship between states is described as 'international polities', that is, the interaction of state policies. This is the core of contemporary international relations. *

Scope of International Relations

The scope of international relations has greatly expanded in modern times. Initially international relations was concerned only with the study of diplomatic history. It concentrated on the study of contemporary foreign affairs with a view to draw certain lessons. Later on emphasis began

* N.J. Padelford and G.A. Lincolon, International Politics Foundations of International Relations, pp. 3-5.

4

to be laid on the study of international law and international relations began to be studied within the framework of international law. The field of the study of international relations was further widened with the establishment of the League of Nations after the First World War and the study of international organisations and institutions was also included within its purview.

The scope of international relations in the post World War II period got further widened due to significant changes which took place, viz., the emergence of USA and USSR as two superpowers; the entry of a large number of non-European states into the society of nations; the danger of thermo-nuclear war; increasing interdependence of states and rising expectations of the people in the underdeveloped world, etc. Greater emphasis began to be placed on scientific study of international relations, which led to development of new methodologies and introduction of new theories in the study of international relations. The scholars began to study the military policy of the country as well as the behaviour of political leaders. More emphasis began to be laid on area studies. In the post World War II period the state ceased to be the sole factor in the study of international relations and more importance began to be attached to the individual and other corporate sectors. Thus at present the scope of international relations is quite extensive and it embraces the study of diplomatic history, international politics, international organisation and administration, international law, area studies as well as psychological study of the motives of member states in their mutual relations. In recent years scholars have also tried to study the forces underlying the practices of the states and tried to build a comprehensive theory of international relationships. Scholars are making serious efforts to utilise the social science techniques and establish verifiable propositions.

Despite enormous expansion in the scope of international relations some writers still hold that as a subject of study it is "a poor relation of political science and history and is still far from being a well organised discipline. It lacks clear cut conceptional framework and a systematic body of applicable theory; it is heavily dependent upon other better organised disciplines". According to Alfred Zimmern, the distinguished professor of history who was offered the first chair of International Politics at the University of Wales in 1919, "from the academic point of view, International Relations is clearly not a subject in the ordinary sense of the word. It does not provide a single coherent body of teaching material. It is not a single subject but a bundle of subjects. Of what is this boundle composed? Of law, economics, political science, geography and so on—but not the whole range of these subjects".

Modern scholars are not willing to treat international relations as an independent discipline because discipline implies some sort of unity of subject-matter and unanimity regarding its scope as well as a good degree of objectivity. These requisites of discipline are lacking in. international relations. Scholars are still divided on the scope of the subject. It also does

5

not possess clear boundaries which separate it from political science because both are concerned with the study of sovereign states and their behaviour. It also lacks objectivity and more often than not assumes subjective character. No doubt, scholars are trying to search better and uniform foci, concepts and methods but still the subject is far from being an independent discipline.

According to Organski "As a science, international relations today is in its infancy,-it is still less a science than a mixture of philosophy and history and art. Its theories are few and shockingly untestable. Writings on the subject are largely descriptive. However, the descriptive-historical approach has resulted in the collection of an immense amount of data, and the daily papers provide us with more. New theorists are beginning to provide the kind of theoretical framework that is necessary for ordering and interpreting the facts. We arc on the verge of great discoveries (and).... within next few decades the basic foundations of a new discipline will be laid*.

Significance of Study

In the present day inter-dependent world the study of International Relations has great significance. It enables us to understand the basic motives underlying the policies of various countries in the international sphere and the reasons which contribute to their ultimate success or failure. The study also enables us to have an insight in to the problems facing the world and to face them boldly and confidently.

The study of international relations is also helpful in bringing home the point that narrow nationalism is the bane of humanity and poses a serious threat to world peace. It teaches us that so long the various nations try to view the problems subjectively and give precedence to national interest over all other considerations, conflicts are bound to arise. If world peace is genuinely desired an objective outlook is highly necessary.

Thirdly, the study of international relations demonstrates that the traditional concept of national sovereignty has become outmoded in modern times and needs modifications. No state in modern times can claim full authority to act as it likes and has to operate within several constraints inherent in the present international order. The acceptance of the principles of collective security and disarmament is a clear indication of this change.

Finally, the study of international relations has greatly contributed to the strengthening of feeling among the member states that they must try to conduct their relations along peaceful lines and avoid military pacts and alliances. In other words they have come to realise that they must avoid policy of confrontation and adopt policy of co-operation and co-existence. This change in attitude is likely to go a long way in promoting feeling of universal brotherhood and elimination of wars.

"A.F.K. Organski, World Politics, pp. 4-5.

6

2 Nature and Function of Sovereign Nation-State System

"Though the territorial state as a physical shell has been shattered by the force of modern nuclear physics, nothing has thus far shattered the loyalty of the people to their nation; and so long as this is true, the motives, conduct, policy and pattern of international relations will continue to be a function of the behaviour of sovereign states".

—Karl W. Deutsch

The nation-state is a dominant feature of the international relations and is one of the major actors on the international scene. The people all over the world are divided into number of groups which live in sovereign states. These states maintain relations with each other out of sheer necessity. It has been argued that if men were not organised into nations and willing to obey their government's commands no international relations would have been possible. Some scholars have contended that the nation-state system is fast disappearing and is becoming increasingly inadequate in the present context on account of the growing interdependence of the people and the imperatives of the nuclear and space age. John Herz says that the technological revolution of post-war era has rendered the traditional states obsolete because the state is no longer capable of safeguarding its citizens in the event of breakout of a war which involves nuclear, psychological and economic weapons. He holds that soon the present international system would be replaced by a system dominated by conflicting regional alliances. Similarly, Robert Strausz Hupe etc. say that "the passing of nation-state system constitutes the true revolution of our times." However, this view is not universally shared and has been refuted by a number of scholars. According to Max Lerner "it is not the nation-state that is dying, but its untrammelled sovereignty and the historic pattern of relations between nation states." Palmer and Perkins also assert that the state-system "may be in its sunset period, but there seems to have been little change in its basic design, which is the co-existence of a large number of states, including some pre-eminent military powers, all subject to the drive of their special interests and emotions, all subscribing to the

7

theory of sovereignty, and all impelled to develop national power as the instrument of their national policies." Likewise Karl W Deutsch also says that "Though the territorial state as physical shell has been shattered by the force of modern nuclear physics, nothing has thus far shattered the loyalty of the people to their nation; and so long as this is true the motives, conduct, policy and pattern of international relations will continue to be a function of the behaviour of sovereign states." Emphasising the importance of states in international relations Frankel says, their discontinuance might destroy the stability of the international system as a whole and accentuate the possibility of a war.

Meaning and Origin of Nation-State System

Before we examine the nature and working of the modern nation-state system, it shall be desirable to know about its meaning, origin and development. According to Palmer the nation-state system "is the pattern of political life in which people are separately organised into sovereign states that interact with one another in varying degrees and in varying ways." These states are involved in conflict as well as co-operation. For the protection of their respective interests these nation states resort to methods of peaceful persuasion, and when these fail they resort to coercive methods. As such, each state tries to build up its national power by organising its coercive resources.

Generally, the scholars trace the origin of state system from the year 1648 when the treaty of Westphalia, which brought the thirty year war to an end, was signed . No doubt even before that the states existed and entered into relations with each other, but they were not sovereign states as their authority was restrained by the Roman Church and the Roman Empire. The peace of Westphalia paved the way for the emergence of the nation-state system by recognising that the Empire no longer commanded the allegiance of its parts and that the Pope could not maintain his spiritual authority every where. In other words, the rulers of a number of countries such as England, France, Germany, Spain, etc., shook off the authority of the Pope in religious affairs and that of the Emperor of Rome in secular matters. Henceforth, the supreme authority came to be identified with the state. This means that each state had the right to utilise the strength of the people and its resources as it liked without any restraint from within or from outside. Though theoretically these states were equal they differed from each other in matters of real powers.

In the course of time the state system underwent further development and changes on account of the rise of representative government, industrial revolution, change in population, growth of international law, development of diplomacy, growing inter-dependence of the states in economic sphere, evolution of methods for peaceful settlement of disputes and the expansion of the state system to non-western World. But the one factor which left most deep impact on the state system was the emergence of nationalism, which created a strong sense of attachment

8

amongst the people towards the state. As a result an average citizen became more deeply involved in the political life of the country. In the light of this development it was no more possible for the statesmen to trade territories on the basis of ancient titles or strategic considerations. It was generally accepted that the only legitimate basis for the organisation of the state was the ethnic or linguistic affinity. As a result a number of multinational states like Russia, Austria-Hungary and Sweden-Norway faced nationalist insurrection and the movement for national independence gained momentum. This factor of mass involvement was also used by the governments for military and diplomatic bargaining and states often mobilised the popular support in support of their diplomacy or wars. This involvement of the common citizens also imposed restrictions on the freedom of actions of government. As a result even the most autocratic regimes had to take into account the public reaction while formulating their diplomacy.

The development of more sophisticated techniques of military warfare in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries which involved extensive civilian mobilisation also affected the character of the state-system. During this period the states fought with a view to annihilating the enemy and imposing its political and social institutions upon the defeated nation.

Thirdly, the risk of ideology and political doctrines has also transformed the character of the present state-system. In the earlier centuries the states were mainly motivated by territorial objectives. In the nineteenth century the conflicts were given ideological colour. Thus most of the wars in Europe in the nineteenth century were fought in support of the principle of royal legitimacy against the radical French doctrines. In the modern century also the various wars were fought in support of or against a particular ideology such as Nazism, Communism and Liberal Democracy.

Another notable change which took place in the nature of state system towards the close of the nineteenth century (even though its implications became clear only in the present century), was the extension of the Eurpoean state system to the rest of the world with the emergence of new political units in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In other words the state-system is now no more confined to Europe alone and extends to the whole of the world. The number of the states has also greatly multiplied and now there are more than 160 nation-states.

Contemporary State System

The contemporary nation-state system does not fundamentally differ from the state-system of the nineteenth century. As Prof. Holsti has observed "Despite the great variety of cultural contexts in which relations between states occur today, some important characteristics of the system represent merely an extension into new areas of the diplomatic, economic, ideological and military traditions of the Europeans. What sets off the

9

contemporary international system from its European predecessors is the rise in number of states, great capacity for destruction, vulnerability of states to destruction and subversion and predominant position of influence that has been achieved by three essentially non-European states, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the United States.

Elements of Modern Nation-State

The three main elements of the modern nation-state system, which also formed the basis of the states system in the earlier centuries also, are sovereignty, territorial integrity and legal equality of the states. Sovereignty implies that the governments are the supreme law making authorities in their respective territories. This principle was first established by the Treaty of Westphalia which provided that only sovereign states could enter into treaty relations with each other and a political unit which lacked sovereignty could not become a legal unit in the system. It could not conclude treaties with other states or become member of international organisation or claim any other rights available to the sovereign states under international law. At present times also a political unit lacking sovereignty has no legal standing among other states. Palmer and Perkins have rightly observed that sovereignty "gives the state unique and virtually unlimited authority in all domestic matters and in relation to other states." It implies that a sovereign state has a right to govern the territory under its control as it deems necessary and there is no external restriction on its authority, except the one which it might have accepted under some treaty. However, in the international context sovereignty would imply only right of self-government and promotion of nation's interests through independent foreign policy. It is noteworthy that for the promotion of their national interests the states have to make several compromises and adjustments with other nations which naturally restricts their absolute sovereignty. The concept of state sovereignty in international relations implies the equality of all nations, big or small, great powers or small powers. Hence, if we take a realistic view, we shall tend to agree with Clyde Eagleton that "Sovereignty cannot be an absolute term. It is just as foolish to say that sovereignty must be surrendered or eliminated as to say that it must be absolute and unrestrained." Despite all the limitations on sovereignty, it cannot be denied that "so long as the nation state system remains the basis of the prevailing pattern of international society, the substance of society will remain.

The second important feature of a nation-state system is territorial integrity which is a logical corollary of the first. A sovereign state does not like outside interference in its affairs and must therefore abstain from interference in the internal affairs of other states. The states may influence behaviour of each other through established diplomatic channels and must respect each other's territorial integrity.

Thirdly, all the nation states irrespective of their size, population, military capabilities, economic resources, etc. are equal members of the international

10

community. This principle of "equal rights of all the nations large and small" has been accepted by the UN Charter. It may be noted that this principle of equality of different independent states was recognised almost at the same time when the nation-states made their appearance. The various classical writers of the eighteenth century such as Pufendorf and Vattel also endorsed the principle of equality of states. For example Vattel argued that "all powers in the state of nature are equal, the persons of international law are in a state of nature, therefore, they are equal." In the nineteenth century the principle of equality was challenged by positivists who argued that to assert that a "state with the thousand inhabitants is equal to a state with ten million inhabitants.... is as false as to assert that a thousand is equal to a million or that the canton of Geneva is equal to the continent of Europe." This inequality amongst states became apparent at the Peace Conference of 1919 when the Great Powers showed a tendency to take decisions without the consent of the small powers. The peace treaty was negotiated by the Great powers with Germany and the small powers were merely asked to sign it. Under the UN Charter the principle of equality of nation-states was again accepted and the international organisation was based on the principle of sovereign equality of all peace-loving states. This formal assertion of equality of the sovereign states by the UN Charter did not deter the great powers from asserting their greatness and special status. They impressed on the small states that they could not make equal contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security and as such the big powers had special responsibility in the matter. Accordingly they secured permanent seats in the Security Council and acquired the right to veto important decisions of the Security Council. This virtually tantamounted to grant of right to a murderer to vote on his own guilt. As no nation could be expected to vote for action against itself in case of threat to peace, the organisation was rendered powerless to that extent. No doubt, the small states were bitterly opposed to this arrangement but they accepted it in the hope that they would amend the same in course of time. Repeated demands have been made by the small states to do away with this arrangement but without any success. In the light of this we can say that the right of 'sovereign equality of the states' contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter has virtually become a farce.

It is now admitted at all hands that all the states cannot be treated as equals because they do not possess equal size or resources. Mere assertion of legal equality cannot change the fact. As Samuel Grafton has observed "Even after you give the squirrel a certificate which says he is quite as big as any elephant, he is still going to be smaller, and all the squirrels will know it and all the elephants will know it. In simple words it means that even if all the states are legally treated as equal they are not equal on account of unequal distribution of powers among the states. The more powerful states have always dominated the international field and a distinction between great powers and small powers has been made on the

11

basis of their power since the rise of the nation-state system. Generally a state which had general interest and could protect those interests in all spheres was considered a great power. On the other hand a state which possessed only limited power to defend its limited interests was regarded as small power.

In the post World War II period a new category of states known as Superpowers made appearance. The two superpowers which emerged after 1945 were Soviet Union and United States. These superpowers were great powers and possessed great mobility of power through which they influenced the pattern of international relations. The margin of superiority of the superpowers over other states continued to increase over the years and the notion of balance of power, which characterised the relations amongst the states earlier, underwent a change and gave rise to the bipolar system. Under this system there was a great disparity of power between the superpowers and other nation-states. These superpowers were so much distrustful of each other that they were not willing to co-operate and tended to form blocs. As Aron has put it, many states feel that their security can be assured by integrating and concerting their behaviour with that of the leading member of the bloc. After some amount of integration has been reached between the various members of the bloc, it becomes extremely difficult for it to withdraw. This bi-polar system aggravated the struggle between the two power-blocs, each trying to secure a preponderant capability vis a vis its competitor.

In addition to the above two blocs, a large number of states preferred to keep out of these blocs because they regarded the cold war between the two superpowers as a selfish struggle and did not want to get involved in it. These non-aligned states tended to act in co-operation with each other and form a sort of bloc. Thus, in modern times the nation-states ceased to be important factors in international relations and the bloc factors started playing more significant role.

Setback to nation-state system. In the post world war II period the concept of Nation-State System suffered a set-back and its basic features underwent a change. The rise of several non-state actors and constraints due to spread of nuclear weapons and inter-dependence among the states, was responsible for weakening the nation-state system. In the changed context while the role of the states considerably declined the non-state-actors started playing more important role. The factors which contributed to the weakening of the traditional state-centric system need further elaboration.

(i) Firstly, the growing interdependence of the states due to communications revolution and increased mobility of the people all over the globe, compelled the states to have greater international interaction, and enhanced their dependence on each other. While the rich nations were dependent on the poor states for raw materials, the poor states were dependent on the rich and advanced nations for finished products which were badly needed by their growing population. In view of this growing inter-dependence the

12

states were often compelled to modify their national interests. This naturally gave set back to the concept of national sovereignty.

(ii) Secondly, the growing interdependence of the states obliged the states to reconcile their national interests and goals with national interests and goals of other nations. The nation-states were compelled to formulate their goals and national interests in such a way that it did not obstruct the achievement of universally recognised objectives of international relations.

(iii) Thirdly, the nation-states to achieve quicker development resorted to integration at the regional as well as international level. This is evident from the emergence of several regional organisations like EEC, ASEAN, SAARC etc. These organisations tried to promote greater co-operation among states in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, This in turn greatly contributed to the dilution of the nation-state system.

(iv) Fourthly, the rise of nuclear weapons has also greatly weakened the nation-state system. In the interest of their national security, the non-nuclear states have tended to look towards the nuclear states, which has certainly given set-back, to the concept of equality of the states.

(v) Fifthly, the growing role of public opinion, in recent years has also affected the character of the nation-state system. There have been several instances when the nation-states were forced to make the adjustments in their policy goals and methods due to pressure of public opinion. It is well known that US was forced to withdraw from Vietnam and USSR from Afghanistan only on account of strong public opinion within and outside their countries.

(vi) Sixthly, the concept of equality of nation-states, which was not a reality even in the classical age of the nation-state system, has been rendered further inoperate in the post world war II period. The international scene since world war II had mainly been dominated by two super-powers viz. US and USSR. In addition Britain, France and China also played more dominant role. In recent years Japan and Germany have emerged as two strong actors in the international arena, and exercise profound influence in the economic sphere. Further, the growing dependence of the developing states on the developed nations further renders the principle of sovereign equality of nation states in-operative.

(vii) Finally, the growing role played by Multinational Corporations, in the post world war II period has also greatly contributed to the weakening of the nation-state system. Though these Multinational Corporations are primarily concerned with economic activities and are not formally associated with the government, they actually play an important role in determining the economic policies and activities of the third world countries.

All the above factors have greatly under-mined the concept of nation-state system. In fact some of the critics go to the extent of suggesting that the nation-state system has become obsolete. For example Herbert Spire says "International politics today is not conducted between or among nations, nor in its most important phases even between states."

13

But this view is refuted by Palmer and Perkins who hold that "the nation-state system still forms political basis and the political framework of international life." Friedman has also expressed almost similar views and observed, The nation-state still means political and legal sovereignty, including the right to solve conflict with other nations by war; it claims the loyalties of its citizens to an extent ultimately incompatible with allegiance to humanity at large and it means a host of economic, social and cultural frontiers in a world which desperately needs understanding among the ordinary citizens of different nations, strangles the free flow and interchange of ideas as well as of persons and goods.*

In simple words, the nation-state is still a leading actor in international relations and the citizens of a state look to it for their defence, well being and as an agency for conflict resolution and crisis management in international relations.

*Friedman, Introduction to World Politics, p. 35.

14

3 Elements of National Power

"The concept of power politics is far more useful in describing a dynamic world in which power is a, means by which the demands for change and resistance to change are advanced."

— J.W. Burton

Introduction

When we speak of power we do not mean man's power over nature, or over means of production, or over himself, we actually mean man's control over the minds and actions of other men. When we speak of political power we refer to the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and people at large. Political power and physical force are two different things. When violence or physical force becomes the practical actuality it amounts to negation of power. Physical power can be an instrument of power but not power in any sense. Physical power is a physiological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exerts over the latter's mind."*

Whatever the ultimate aim of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. The statesmen usually describe their goals in terms of religious, philosophic, economic or social ideal and may try to realize them through non-political means. But whenever they try to achieve these goals by means of international politics, they do so by resorting to power. "The crusaders wanted, to free the holy places from domination by the infidels. Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy; the National Socialists wanted to open Eastern Europe to German colonisation, to dominate Europe and to conquer the world. Since they all chose power to achieve these ends they were actors on the scene of international politics."

Domestic and International Power. There are certain major differences in the role of power in domestic affairs and in international politics. In civil societies there exist a number of alternatives to violence. Relating that all the relations cannot be regulated by physical strength alone, a system of general rules of procedures has been adopted by each society to

Hons, J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p.27.

15

redress the wrongs in a non-violent way. Individuals no longer have the right to take the law into their own hands. In International Relations, due to lack of generally agreed upon rules and devices, the states have to protect their right and to rectify injuries through use of force.

Meaning

In a layman's language it is easy to describe one nation as more powerful than the other but is indeed difficult to specify as to what that power consists of. For example everyone knows that U.S.A. is more powerful than India. But what is that makes U.S.A. more powerful? Obviously it is sum total of power which a country possesses in comparison to the other.

The concept of power is quite complex and it is not easy to provide a commonly acceptable definition. It shall, therefore, be desirable to discuss some definitions of power to reach an acceptable conclusion. Prof. Morgenthau defines political power as "a psychological relation between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the influence which the former exerts over the latter's mind." He further states that the struggle for power is unusual in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience. 'Whatever the ultimate aim of international politics, power is always the immediate aim'. According to Schwarzenberger 'the power is the capacity to impose one's will on others by reliance on effective sanctions in case of non-compliance'. In the words of Charles P. Schleicher 'power is the ability to exercise such control to make others do what they otherwise would not do by rewarding or promising to reward them, or by depriving or threatening to deprive them of something they value'.

In the broad sense, power can be defined as the ability or capacity to control others and get them to do what one wants them to do and also to see that they do not do what one does not want them to do. Therefore it is the ability to control the behaviour of other states in accordance with one's own will. According to Organski, power is "the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one's own ends. Unless a nation can do this she may be large, she may be wealthy, she may even be great, but she is not powerful." Ebenstein says the "National power is more than the sum total of population, raw materials and quantitative factors. The alliance potential of a nation, its civic-devotion, the flexibility of its institutions, its technical know-how, its capacity to endure privation; these are but a few quantitative elements that determine the total strength of a nation." The power plays the same role in international politics as money plays in market economy. However, power occupies an important position not only as a means but also as end. "Power is both the capstone among the objectives which state pursues and the cornerstone among the methods which they employ" (Vaman Van Dyke). It is neither good nor evil in itself. "It is socially and morally neutral."

16

Foundations of Power

What are the factors which contribute to the foundations of power? It is often believed that wealth, resources, manpower and armies are the real foundations of power. But it is not the mere possession of these which makes a nation powerful. It is the possession of certain elements and their skilful uses which make a nation powerful. Let us examine those elements which serve as the basis or the foundation of political power.

(i) Geography. The importance of the geographical factor, upon which the power of a nation depends, has been recognised since ancient rimes. The geo-politicians, especially Mackinder and Spykman, have attached great importance to geography. Mackinder said "who rules Eastern Europe commands Heartland, who rules Heartland rules the world islands and who rules the world islands rules the world". Spykman likewise says about Rhineland "who controls Rhineland rules Eurasia; who controls Eurasia controls the destiny of the world." Most important among geographical factors are the size of country, its topography and location. The size of territory increases the power of a nation. A small state cannot become powerful. England was powerful as long as she had colonies. A large state can accommodate a large population and can also have large supply of natural resources on this account. In today's world U.S.A., Commonwealth of Independent States, China and India are bound to play effective role in the world politics on account of their vast size. No doubt, the large states like Canada with its frozen wastes, Brazil with its jungles and Australia with its deserts cannot become powerful as a large portion of their territory is not of much use. Vast areas may also add to a nation's power by providing military advantages. The size gives a nation room for manoeuvre. Instead of conquerors swallowing the territory it is rather the territory that swallows the conqueror. It is well known that Napoleon and Hitler failed when they tried to occupy Russia. Similarly, China was saved from total disintegration when Japan attacked it in 1937 on account of its vast size.

The large area of the country also helps it to establish vital industrial complexes far from the frontiers and organise their effective defence.

The influence of climate on national power is also important. Tropical regions and very cold regions are not suitable for the development of power. The temperate regions are considered the best for health and energy of the people which lead to nation's productivity. In fact all great civilisations of the world have developed in temperate zones. Similarly uncertain rainfall and periodic droughts also limit the power of a nation. It makes the country increasingly dependent on foreign market for food and obstructs the development of national power and adoption of an independent foreign policy.

Another geographical factor is the location. It determines the country's security and its spatial relationship with outside world. England and Japan being islands have been more secure. Similarly, U.S.A. being separated from Europe and Asia could remain in isolation for a long time. There is a close relation between location and foreign policy. The Middle

17

East and Continental Europe have been the potential zones of power rivalry because of their geographic strategic locations.

Topography or the configuration of land also plays an important role in determination of a nation's power. Topographic features determine the natural boundaries between the states and set limit to their natural expansion. Thus Himalayas have served as barrier between India and China and Chinese expansion into India. Likewise Pyrenees make a fortress out of Spain and the English Channel serves as a moat for England. The topography exercises great influence in other ways too. The high mountains give adequate rainfall and act as barriers in trade routes. Likewise large rivers can be helpful in providing cheap and efficient water transport, good ports and harbour etc. These rivers make the task of road building difficult and cause havoc during floods. In short, we can say that topography provides the geographical setting of the national state and becomes a vital determinant of the military and economic power of the state.

However, the geographic factor has lost much of its importance in recent times because of the advancement in science and technology. According to Pedelford and Lincoln, The astronomical impact of technology in areas such as communication, air mobility, ICBM systems, nuclear weaponry, intelligence gathering, space satellites has drastically collapsed the strategic obstacles to the projection of national power."

(ii) Natural Resources. The natural resources and the raw materials available in a country also greatly contribute to the national power. While the natural resources are the gifts of nature, the raw materials, are the result of human labour. The natural resources include minerals, flora, fauna, fertility of soil, waterfall, etc. The raw materials include food, rubber, cotton, etc. However, the natural resources do not by themselves create power. They have to be exploited with the help of capital, technical know-how and skilled labour. For example though Brazil had rich iron deposits they did not contribute to her national power till they were exploited with the technical assistance received from U.S.A. Again the power of a nation does not depend on the availability of one or two natural resources, but on the availability of a large number of them. In present times raw materials like oil, uranium and atomic energy have also greatly affected the national power of the country. Another important natural resources is the foodstuffs. The countries enjoying self-sufficiency in foodgrains are likely to be powerful. If a country is dependent on foreign markets for the supply of foodstuffs its independence of action is greatly reduced and its power automatically diminishes. It is well known that the Allies succeeded in bringing down Germany during World War I because she failed to procure foodgrains from other countries. In India also the Government could not pursue any vigorous foreign policy so long the country was dependent for her food supplies on other countries. But once India attained self-sufficiency in food supplies following the Green Revolution, it showed greater independence of action

The other raw materials which are considered vital for the national

18

power include coal, iron, copper, oil etc. Britain emerged as a great power during the nineteenth century chiefly because of her industrial development, which was rendered possible mainly due to presence of coal and iron ores in abundance. In our own times oil has come to be regarded as an important source of national power. The countries possessing rich oil deposits have come to occupy a position of great influence in the international sphere. The strength of U.S.A. and Russia is also greatly due to self-sufficiency in oil resources. Of late the natural gas and atomic energy have also come to be regarded as important sources of national power. It may be again reiterated that the mere presence of natural resources and raw materials is not enough. They contribute to the national power only when they are fruitfully exploited.

(iii) Technology. Technology implies the application of science and newer methods of production. In recent years technology has come to exercise profound influence on the power base of a state as well as the course of international relations. Technology at least in three spheres: industrial, communications and military, has greatly influenced the power of the state. The industrial technology adds to the power of the country by enabling it to increase its production and attaining economic surplus. The transport technology has resulted in improvement in methods of transportation of ideas, people and goods. It has exercised profound influence on the nature of diplomacy and thereby affected the nature of international relations. The diplomats are no longer expected to act on their own and receive full directions from the foreign office. The military technology has played even more important role in increasing the power of a state. It is well known that Britain was able to dominate over vast colonies spread all over the world chiefly due to her military advancement. Similarly, in the post World War II period USA and Soviet Union were able to acquire supreme positions due to their military and industrial technology. Similarly, Japan emerged as a powerful nation because of developments in industrial technology. In short, technological advancement in the various spheres is an important factor in determining the power of a state.

(iv) Population. The population is another important contributory factor to the national power. Generally large population is considered a source of strength, but sometimes it can also be a source of weakness for the state. If the state can utilise its human resources effectively and ensure them a decent standard of living and provide constructive outlets for their talents and energies the large number can be an asset. On the other hand if a state cannot provide necessities to its large population the same is a source of weakness. Generally large population is a source of strength in the developed countries while in the underdeveloped countries it is a source of weakness. Emphasising the importance of large population Mussolini once said 'Let us be frank with ourselves. What are 40 million Italians compared with 95 million Germans and 200 million Salvs? Given that there are sufficient resources available in the country the large population can help in increasing the agricultural as well as industrial production. It is helpful in

19

raising large armies and acquiring effective hold over conquered territories. According to Morgenthau "since size of population is one of the factors upon which national power rests and since the power of one nation is always relative to the power of others, the relative size of the population of countries competing for power and especially the relative rate of their growth desire careful attention." A country with less population than its competitor will view with alarm a declining rate of growth if the population of its competitor tends to increase more rapidly.

But the strength of the country does not depend on the number of people alone. The quality of the population is even more important. If the population of a country contains too much children and old people they are a liability in so far as they constitute a serious strain on the economic resources of the country. A country with large adult population is assured of a strong labour force and can exploit the available resources more profitably. Similarly, if population of a country is engaged in industrial activities the country shall be stronger than the one whose population is primarily engaged in agriculture. Above all the educational background of the people also greatly contributes to the national strength. If the people possess greater technical capacity, ability, they can exercise more effective control over the forces of nature and contribute to the growth of national power.

(v) National Character and Morale. Quantity alone does not contribute to the national strength. Quality of the population has great bearing on national power. National character and national morale "stand out both for their elusiveness from the point of view of national progress and for their permanent and often decisive influence upon the weight a nation is able to put into the scales of international politics." It was due to the national character of the small European nations that for long they could dominate the large Asian and African nations. National morale too contributes towards the national character. National morale is defined as the degree of determination with which a nation supports the foreign politics of its government in peace or in war. In the form of public opinion it provides an intangible factor without whose support no government democractic or autocratic, is able to pursue its policies with 'full effectiveness'. In the words of Palmer and Perkins 'Morale is a thing of the spirit made up of loyalty, courage, faith, impulse to the preservation of personality and dignity. According to Morgenthau "National morale is the degree of determination with which a nation supports the home and foreign policies of its government in times of peace or war. It permeates all activities of a nation, its agricultural and industrial production as well as its military establishment and diplomatic service." In simple words it refers to the sum total of the individual qualities of men in a nation in the form of their willingness to put the nation's welfare above their own regional welfare. It amounts to willingness to sacrifice. Studies have been made by the sociologists and anthopologists with regard to national character. On the basis of these studies we tend to think of "Germans in terms of thoroughness,

20

discipline and efficiency, of Americans and Canadians in terms of resourcefulness and inventiveness and of Russians in terms of relentless persistence and of English in terms of dogged commonsense." In Russia and Germany there is strong tradition of obedience to authority of government and fear of foreigners. Hence, Germans and Russians could easily switch over to war and tolerate dictatorial regimes of Hitler and Stalin.

But it would be too much to draw tangible conclusions on the basis of character traits of certain nations. National character and national morale are of elusive and instable character. The national character keeps on changing from time to time. The people are willing to subordinate their personal interests to the nation's welfare during war period only, even though this sacrifice is of equal significance during peace times as well. If a country is wrecked by internal divisions, jealousies and dissensions it will either not be able to demonstrate any morale or else if there is any morale it will not be effective.

(vi) Economic Development. The economic development is another determinant factor of the strength of a country. Mere possession of raw materials does not make a nation powerful. Much depends on the capacity of the state to exploit and utilise these resources. For example, U.S.A., Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), as well as India have coal and iron deposits, but lack of industrial capacity by India has been responsible for her comparative weak position. The country must have surplus production if it wants to become economically developed. Those nations whose industrial capacity is greater are considered economically developed and therefore powerful. The decline of France as power in comparison to Germany after 1870 was due to her industrial backwardness. Similarly, the Soviet Union became great power after she acquired top level industrial capacity and improved her capacity to wage nuclear war. Prof. Margenthau has emphasised the importance of economic development and the industrial capacity thus: The technology of modern warfare and communications has made the overall development of heavy industries an indispensable element of national power. The quality and productive capacity of the industrial plant, the know how of the working man, the skill of the engineer, the inventive genius of the scientist, the managerial organisation—all these are factors upon which the industrial capacity (economic development) of a nation and hence, its power depend."

(vii) Political Structure. The mere possession of abundance of material and human resources and formation of a good foreigh policy would prove useless if the potential structure or the government cannot play its role effectively. The government is required to choose the objectives and methods of its foreign policy in the light of the power available to support them with a maximum success, a sort of balance between resources and policy. The next task of government is to bring the different elements of national power into balance with each other and to "secure the approval of its people for its foreign policies and domestic ones designed to mobilise the elements of national power in support of them." Whatever type of political structure,

21

a country may have it should be conducive to function effectively in the formulation and execution of foreign policy.

The role of the government does not end with the formulation of the foreign policy. It must put that policy in effect. The policy cannot be effectively executed unless the people of the state cooperate in carrying it out, "whether as soldiers, as consumers or merely as tax payers." Consequently, one of the most important jobs of any government is to ensure people's participation. The government can arouse popular support through propaganda, through political panics and through bureaucracy.

Once foreign policy is formed and popular support secured, the job of translating into action begins. Here too the political institutions play a vital role. The foreign policy can be implemented through peaceful means like negotiations and persuasion. This task is performed by the diplomats. The diplomacy plays an important role in this regard and is considered as the key to power. Diplomacy one might say, "is the brain of national power, as national morale is its soul."

The government also plays an important role in the nation's economy. Without the proper political support a modern industrial system cannot exist. Further it is the government which controls and directs the military. The control of government over armed forces is very essential if the state has to play its role effectively as an international power.

(viii) Ideological Element. Ideas and ideology form the other elements of power. The ideas which a government holds or supports about the socio-economic pattern go a long way in determining the extent of popular sympathy and support for it at home and abroad. In the modern world the ideologies of socialism, communism, democracy, liberalism and nationalism have an international appeal. Communism for example had won staunch support in one part of the world while it had aroused antagonism and hostility in the other is now on the decline.

Ideology is defined by Pedelford and Lincoln "as a body of ideas concerning economic, social and political values and goals which pose action programme for attaining these goals." Ideology proceeds with certain assumptions about the nature of man and builds up a theory of human history, a moral code of conduct, a sense of mission and a programme for action. It is an action related system of ideas based on a definite view of the world. The ideology gives unity to nation and a sense of common interest to people. It also helps the government in finding support from the people. Ideologies also serve as good weapon to raise the morale of the people.

The ideology is closely linked with national power. Most of the ideologies are concerned with the achievement of power as the immediate goal of foreign policy by explaining and justifying it in ethical, legal and biological terms. They are also used as a cover to hide the real nature of the objectives of a foreign policy. The ideology can be an effective instrument in forging unity among various states professing faith in similar ideologies and thus contribute to the enhancement of their power. It is

22

well know that Germany, Italy and Japan forged an alliance against democratic countries during the inter-war period. However, ideology alone is not a binding factor because countries may conclude alliances even if they hold faith in different ideologies if the national interests so demand. For example during Second World War U.S.S.R. joined hands with U.S.A., France and Britain and fought against fascist powers even though they believed in different ideologies. In recent years also Soviet Union and United States have come closer despite differences in their ideologies. In fact the ideological barriers which divided these two super-powers since the close of the Second World War, have virtually disappeared.

(ix) Leadership. The quality and wisdom of leadership, both political and literary, is another important element of power. In every political system important and crucial decisions are taken by political leaders. They have to determine the proportions in which the allocation of resources should be made between military and civilian programmes. They decide the nature of relations with other states and declare war and conclude peace or treaties of friendship. Their decisions if successful create direct impact on the power of the states. 'A country is bound to be stronger and more powerful if its leaders have the strength of wisdom and intelligence'. The word intelligence needs further elaboration. It does not mean the mental ability of political leaders but the activity designed to produce knowledge, a knowledge which contributes to the wisdom of governmental decisions covering foreign affairs. The knowledge amounts to objective understanding of the relative strength and weakness, vis-a-vis the home state. This knowledge is a power and is most important, particularly in times of war. A government which lacks the knowledge would run the risk of heading towards a catastrophe. The leadership must be possessed of both the 'wisdom' and the 'knowledge'. The leader can also greatly contribute to the boosting of national morale during times of crises. History is replete with numerous examples to show that the leaders succeeded in rousing their people as one man to give a concerted fight and brought laurels to their country. During First World War President Wilson of U.S. A. won the support of American people by giving the projection that U.S.A. had joined the war to make the world safe for democracy. Like-wise, during Second World War Roosevelt won the support of his people by highlighting Japanese attact on Pearl Harbour. Emphasising the important role of leadership Palmer and Perkins say "without leadership people cannot even constitute a state; without it there can be no well-developed or integrated technology and without it morale is totally useless, if indeed it can exist at all."

(x) Military Preparedness. This factor has been recognised as element of power since the earliest times. Military preparedness is the most apparent and tangible factor capable of supporting the foreign policy and promoting national interest. The technological innovation, leadership and quantity and quality of armed forces are vital factors in the military preparedness of state.

*Palmer and Perkins, International Relations p. 88.

23

The technology of warfare have mostly determined the fate of nations for which the inferior side was unable to compensate in other ways. For example, during early phase of First World War, Germany gained superiority over British because of the use of submarines. In the same way today the nations which possess the nuclear weapons have an advantage over their competitors.

The quality of military leadership is another factor which has always exercised a decisive influence upon national power. The power of Russia in the 18th century was a reflection of the military genius of Frederick the Great. In the early 19th century Nepoleon displayed superior military leadership and emerged victorious everywhere. Quantity and quality of armed forces is the most important factor in this direction. A nation to be strong must possess a sufficient army composed of highly trained and heavily armed units. A small army may not prove to be effective. Similary, a very large army, ill-equipped and ill-trained also proves weak.

(xi) Diplomacy. Finally, the national power of a country is greatly determined by the quality of diplomacy persued by the state. According to Morgenthau it is the quality of a nation's diplomacy which gives 'direction and weight' to other elements of national power. A good diplomacy can bring the different eleme