TEST 2 MATERIAL - IRGP

Module II - Key Concepts Of International Relations

Monday, 9 August 2021

Power And Sources

In the second module, we’ll be focussing on issues which we call the key concepts of IR. To
begin with, we’ll deal with “power” and “national interest” and from here onwards, continuous
relevance will flow. The purpose earlier was to tell you about the modern state and how it kept
changing, when we talked about 500 years of history.
Now, when we talk about the second module, comprising interlinking concepts- power,
diplomacy, conflict, war etc. the key thing will be “management of power” and then again,
its interconnectivity that converts innate capacity of resources into capability- called power.
The second capacity is to “influence” with other international actors playing, is also a part of
power.

These two are parts of power:

1. Converting Resources Into Capacity And Capability
2. The Second Aspect Is, The Art Of “Influencing” Others.

Nature Of Power
As we saw in history, ask yourself, “is being powerful a constant thing in world? Or is it a
dynamic thing?” What did you understand? Power aims to convert resources into capacity, and
then to use it in influencing others.
Power keeps on shifting. It is always dynamic and changes with circumstances. For example,
in one time of history, Japan was very insignificant. Then, it refurbished itself into a greater
power. Same is with Germany, Italy etc. So, how, these entities called nations become
powerful? Added to that, now that we know about non-state actors who play a pivotal role in
international politics, how dynamically they exert power becomes our concern. Like
International Banks. We’ll have a layered discussion. International political economy entails
power of multinational corporations that existed and still exist. In 21st century, state alone is
not an international player- International finance agencies, MNCs, insurgent groups etc. that
constitute other players are also there.
But for our classroom discussion, we’ll be talking more about power of “state”. But don’t
confine thinking to only the state, think about other agencies as well.
“States are critical actors because they have power, which is the ability not only to influence
others but also to control outcomes to produce results that would not have occurred naturally.
States have power with respect to each other and with respect to actors within the state. All
theoretical perspectives acknowledge the importance of power, but each pays attention to
different types of power. Realists, liberals, and radicals all conceptualize power in materialist
 constructivist ideology- if perceptions change, relations will also
change. Constructivist ideas focus on how the discourse was formed

terms, realists and radicals primarily in natural and tangible sources, while liberals also pay
attention to intangible power sources. Constructivists emphasize the nonmaterialist sources
found in the power of ideas, one of the intangible sources. All agree that power is
multidimensional, dynamic, and situational.”3
More On Power In: Mingst KA and Arreguín–toft IM, Essentials of International
Relations (Sixth edition, W W Norton & Company 2016)- Page 174 of the PDF onw.

What Makes A State Powerful?

Tangible Sources- probably are geography, quality of people living there, military and
technological clout and even the resources it possesses- both human and natural.
Intangible Sources- good leadership, quality of knowledge, innovativeness of people- which
are not visible but manifested differently, are definitely sources of power.
The French Revolution was one tenet, but the innovation and strategy of Napoleon’s leadership
also led to its growth.
Now, the question is, how resources will be converted into capacities? Having only resources
is only sufficient for power? Or is it sometimes hazardous to have them for nation? Think.
Chile is full of nitrates without which modern explosives can’t exist. Chile is full of copper and
nitrates. Venezuela was full of oil and Congo is too full of resources. West Asia also has
immense quantum of resources. Are they power centres?

Resource Curse
Making use of resources, ways of protecting them, their diversification- all of them are
important, or else they become a curse. In IR, there’s a theory called “Resource Curse” where
due to absence of “process and capacity to diversify resource capabilities”, it can become a
curse.
Saudi Arabia has become Intl. Hub for business [and the whole UAE for that matter] due to
efficient conversion and diversification of resources. Otherwise, inability to manage them can
lead to downfall of the country. Northern Africa, for example, is rich in oil and cotton
production when we look at the basins of Nile, having huge potential in tropical Africa but
despite the presence of such resources, the inability to make efficient use of them proved a
“curse”. Nigeria used them in a good manner once ago, could show its strength in Africa but
with change of political power and decline of management, it lost its say. Ill-management of
resources therefore can lead to “resource curse” which can cause exploitative vagaries.
A combination of both tangible and intangible sources makes a country powerful.

Activity: Take the map of the world and try to rate each country continentally out of 10 in
terms of the power you think, they possess.

3
Mingst KA and Arreguín–toft IM, Essentials of International Relations (Sixth edition, W W Norton &
Company 2016)
How will you decode the “influential” aspect of power?
Also, idea of power can vary. Critically small nations can be powerful in certain aspects too.
For India, Bhutan is powerful because though it may be small, its existence is very critical for
us.

Management Of Power
How is this power managed globally? Through two methods of power management:
1. Balance Of Power
2. Collective Security
Let us look at recent additions to the idea of power.

Soft Power, Hard Power And Smart Power

Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. added a concept called “soft power” to the IR literature. Hard power
and Soft power are two new concepts developed by American strategic thinkers. Soft power is
not fundamentally visible, but has tremendous influence. For example, production of
knowledge and the institutes that produce them becomes soft power. Culture, for example,
Americans don’t only work through military but cultural channels. India’s cultural presence is
very huge in Asia for instance. So, soft power is not overtly visible, but has tremendous
influence, like knowledge, culture and creation of fashionable trends, from literature, films to
developing communication content and so on, all having tremendous impact.
India and Pakistan are at loggerheads politically, but at cultural level, they both have very
interactive relationships. The trade that happens between the two following 1990s, works on
relationships, cultural connections, this power becoming an invisible soft power.
Influencing the way of thinking of other(s) is called soft power. All the social media biggies,
represent soft power for that matter. Examples are Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp etc.
The conversion of technology through these media “influences” people.
Hard Power, on the other hand is linked with military strength, and sometimes economic forces.
So, both these theories of hard and soft power are very mainstream following 1980 researches.
Read about these components of power so that you can know about them.
When both hard power and soft power combine, they are often termed as, ‘Smart Power’.

National Interest
National interest involves by all probability, the question of an identity nations like to create
for themselves, the level of economy they want to put themselves in, and what security they
want to achieve. The proportions of these three constitute primarily, what we call national
interest- identity, economy and security.
In broad terms, the national interest refers to foreign policy goals, objectives or policy
preferences that benefit a society as a whole (the foreign policy equivalent of the ‘public
interest’). The concept is often vague and contested, however. It is most widely used by realist
theorists, for whom it is defined by the structural implications of international anarchy and so
is closely linked to national security, survival and the pursuit of power. For decision-making
theorists, the national interest refers to the strategies and goals pursued by those responsible
for the conduct of foreign policy, although this may mean that it degenerates into mere rhetoric.
Alternatively, it may refer to foreign policy goals that have been endorsed through the
democratic process.

National interest keeps changing. For example, US refused to join League Of Nations as they
thought it was against their national interests. While in 1940s they modified the definition of
national interest to consolidate the UNO. So, the idea of national interest keeps changing.
Also, the ideas of security – territorial security and human security (read about it) are also
involved in national interest. Here, the word identity is how a country wants to project itself as
in the world.
Definition of identity, economy and security will decide and design national interest.

Activity: How the decisions of defining national interest keep changing? Try to connect them
with levels of analysis.

For India, oil security might also be one factor in its national interest. Therefore, several of
such factors design the foreign policy of a nation.
Tuesday, 10 August 2021
Going further, keep in mind that the discussion on second module will revolve around these
two main ideas and what exactly will happen because of the interplay between the two.
The idea of national interest keeps changing, USA’s rejection of League of Nations and
acceptance of UNO is an example.

Tools For Furthering National Interest

Let’s talk about certain tools where national interest is put into operation. There are two topics:
1. Foreign Policy
2. Diplomacy
The motive force in community of nations is becoming powerful and using power. From this
motive force, defining national interest becomes important. Take 3 examples:
For Germany, national interest became important after WW1. It defined national interest in
such a way that allowing more and more people who can produce and contribute are in its
national interest while Europe, discarded even useful refugees as what they saw, burden on
their cities. Germany thought of accepting them as human capital in lieu of national interest.
Why exactly, people from Central Asia, including Syria are moving to West Europe and
no other prosperous countries of Arabian Peninsula? Think.
The clue for answer is, that, people’s perception of power and well-being was involved.
UK and a number of nations like Denmark (very open to accepting people) and France refused
refugees to traverse but Germany saw it as productive tenet of power.
Every country sees power in its own way- identity, economy and national interest. National
interest changes from issue to issue. India, defines national interest differently when it comes
to management but in oil supply, it deals differently, and perhaps, say, with Sri Lankan
refugees. Within a given point of time, oil security, food security, national security, etc. have
own areas of national interest that change with issue. Becoming powerful and using of power
therefore, is connected with national interests.
Now, let us look into foreign policy.

Foreign Policy
What is public policy? Use it to understand foreign policy- the policy of a country in relation
with other nations with changing times and realities. National Interest and foreign policy
are connected. A country’s way of behaving with neighbours and countries beyond, in
comprehending and tuning with world order, is what defines foreign policy. Foreign policy is
called out differently.
For example, what is India’s foreign policy with small neighbours and others who have been
historically belligerent? Think.
Foreign policy manifests a role in friendly and hostile behaviour. IOs also became really
important in international arena, including the WTO. Environmental stands, dealings with IOs,
etc. all become part and parcel of foreign policy.
International circumstances keep changing and at times, countries are not a party to them. For
example, US Crisis of 2008. It was not in connection with India, but suddenly US’s economic
supremacy was challenged and started to shake. It crashed into huge debt. The EU also ran into
troubles. Then India, had to rethink about redefining its economic relations with the world and
that is how we entered into the BRICS, that floated BRICS Bank as a financial relief to the
members of it. Now, these countries had to think of an alternative, which may not be as
powerful as IMF, but 2008 created thinking that India and BRCS should also think of an
international organisation where they have a greater monetary say, and economic stability.
The components of power also become components which determine foreign policy. For
example, Oil power for Arab Nations, Economic and Hard Power for US. How a nation does
define its national interest, also influences foreign policy.

How Is Foreign Policy Made? – Three Models Of Foreign Policy Decision

Making (Refer Pg 192 of Karen Mingst PDF)
We have seen levels of analysis. Connect thinking with them because making of foreign policy
is related with these layers/levels of reality, layers of influencing.
The link of understanding defines how foreign policy is defined. The rational approach to
make foreign policy becomes a choice. It is made on real time info. at times, with rational
calculus, leading to foreign policy. In theory, it looks okay. But, will defining national interests
always be objective or will subjective views will also creep in? Think. Subjectivity is always
there.
The bureaucracy and party with ideological moorings will definitely influence in defining
national interest to the extent that subjectivity goes into designing foreign policy. So, the
bureaucratic model is important in this regard. Whatever be the model, the point is clear-
foreign policy is a very dynamic concept, based upon situations and continuums of time. It is
a technical process where strategic, economic, cultural inputs are taken and basing on the
calculus of national interest, it is designed as the “foreign policy”.

How Foreign Policy Changes Over Time?

Take the case of China from 1948 to contemporary times for example, and that of Germany,
which was for quite long, especially the West Germany wasn’t a close friend of France and
England, changed its relations with them after WW2. Take case of India too, we’ll discuss
later.
Why nations and states fail? Take example of Venezuela, Libya, Yugoslavia as vanished states.
Also, Sudan and Nigeria. Why basically these nations are failing? What are the internal and
external factors are making them powerless? Think.
One foreign policy choice is of US. US in 2000s invaded Afghanistan along with NATO. What
prompted it is a foreign policy choice, they called it a war on terrorism and what calculations
were drawn in defining that foreign policy is to be asked. Then, you can also think of Germany,
which was never a European ally became part of EU? And why is it so powerful now in this
close nexus? How does it define national interest?
In case of China, why China is putting so much money into Africa and Latin America? How
does it become friendly with West Europe following 1970s? Think.

Friday, 13 August 2021

We were talking about the idea of power. When we talk about power, there are various
components in it, resource-capability transformation and usage. In tangents, we also discussed
why nations collapse and rise.
Foreign policy choices- what are they, broadly? Either through a real lens, or a liberal lens, if
we have constructionist approach too, how the power is managed becomes a question.
The three components of national interest were identified as interest, economy and security.
Now, foreign policy choices- neutrality, alliance building and non-alignment will be discussed.

Non-Alignment vis-à-vis Neutrality

What is non-alignment? World order changes. It can be bipolar, multipolar or combined with
regional power groups. These power equations generally change but in times of bipolarity, the
politics of cold war began, and non-alignment came into being- that countries are free not to
join any bloc. It gives independence to self-control on foreign policy.
Non-alignment departs from neutrality. The country espousing non-alignment is not aloof and
hugely disconnected. It can deal with pole A and pole B and get advantages from both whereas
neutrality is not participating or not desiring to join either pole’s dealings at all. In international
law of war, neutrality has a place. In the law of war, neutral territories who declare they will
be neutral in a certain war, their liabilities are waived off to certain extent.
Non-alignment worked well from 1950 onwards itself. There is critique of it but try to
understand the importance of this choice during strong tendencies of bipolar order.

Alliances
Here, in this module, we’ll be also talking about regional groups. So, let’s look at alliances
Alliances are mostly military in nature, right from antiquity. Kautilya talked about qualities of
king and said, maintaining relationships with neighbours (mandal- strategic cluster relation
formation) is a prime test of his capabilities. The country becoming imperial power has to lead
with at least 11 of them and another 1 that is neutral. That is what Mandala speaks of- 12
countries to deal with. Till 1949, many alliances dating back from 1800s, much of these
alliances traditionally have been military-based in nature. The top priority has been military
based.

Kautilya in Arthashastra has detailed the notion of Raja Mandala or Circle of States
and Shadguna or six-fold diplomatic policy, which can amazingly encompass every aspect of
modern foreign policy.
The Rajamandala Theory
It consists of four principal types of states viz. Vijigishu (desirous for or would be world
conqueror), Ari (enemy, whose territory if contiguous to Vijigishu), Madhyama (Middle king
with territory adjoining those of Vijigishu and Ari and stronger than both)
and Udasina (kingdom lying outside or neutral and more powerful than that of Vijigishu, Ari,
and Madhyama). Each of them has an ally and ally’s ally thus making 12 kings and 60 types
of combinations called material constituents (for example, enemy’s enemy, mitra’s enemy,
enemy’s mitra, mitra’s mitra and so on). This together combines into the total 72 elements of
Raja Mandala.
This scheme is based on assumption that two neighbouring states which share their borders
are hostile to each other; and the enemy of hostile neighbour is a natural ally. The Vijigishu is
located at the centre of this circle.
Shadguna Sidhanta {Six-Fold Diplomatic Policy}
This doctrine is a six-fold foreign policy for attainment of one’s national interests and goals
based on realpolitik. Kautilya had suggested this recipe for a Vijigishu to realise his dream to
become world conqueror. The six principles are Sandhi, Vigraha, Asana, Yana,
Sansraya and Dvaidhibhava.

But after 1940s, the building of alliances with financial and trade interests also came in big
way. EU is a very big one such regional power. Can war be a foreign policy choice? Think.
Technically, war can also be a foreign policy decision. We will later talk about conflict too.
So, neutrality, non-alignment and alliances are all foreign policy choices.
Now, what are the influencing factors of foreign policy choices apart from resources?
Apart from resources, connecting foreign policy should not lose track of levels of analysis. If
we relate them, there will be pressure groups, business interests and the light which
probably may influence foreign policy choices.
Number of countries have a very strong connection with banking and commerce because
producing arms and weaponry require intensive capital and technology- sometimes called
military industrial complex. This feature also captivates foreign policy interests.
For eg: Saudi Arabia is the topmost purchaser of arms. Many companies producing arms may
also be influenced by the decisions of countries. Militaries are even privatised in parts of
Europe, owned by millionaires. Example is Dassault from which Rafale Fighter Planes were
purchased. Presence of these also influence activities related to foreign policy.

Whether Public Opinion Influences Foreign Policy?

Policy making within a country (domestic policy), like education, health, culture etc. is
different from foreign policy. Domestic policy is strongly influenced by public opinion but
foreign policy is affected by it? Think.
In democratic nations, public opinion is definitely considered to some extent in determining
foreign policy. Example: in 1971-72 China moved away from its ideology and started
befriending western capitals. And with the coming up of Truman in power, it propagandised
the glory of USA. So, public opinion has some influence on foreign policy making. That’s why
states spend huge amounts on campaigns of these ideas, which influence foreign policies.
British public opinion was vehemently against the sending of troops in Iraq and there was a
serious pressure on the rulers to pull back British armies from the gang in 2004. So, public
opinion really has some control over foreign policy. Until now, we have discussed these things:
• Management Of Power
• Diplomacy
• Balance Of Power

Collective Security
The collective security model advocates for creation of IOs. If A is an aggressor, and B-Z are
exerting pressure on A, not to support A, it can reduce aggression. This is called collective
security. This is definitely a contested position in UN itself.
While Balance Of Power is more strategic, doesn’t count in its efficacy, the collective security.
Alliances and counter alliances are part of realist balance of power. When USA entered
Afghanistan, number of friends also went for the invasion, in the name of controlling terror.
The partners of NATO were involved in this and became part and parcel of the war that US
chose to manoeuvre. This is called collective defense and is different from collective security.

Diplomacy- read more about it then we’ll discuss in class.

Diplomacy is the art of realising foreign policy. So, diplomats used various combinations of
hard and soft power to achieve ends. In their power basket, all fruits are used in etching
diplomacy. Cultural resources, technological resources, friendly advances are all parts of
diplomacy.
Broadly, it is told, where the officials take part in diplomacy, they are called official paths of
diplomacy. “People’s diplomacy” is also there. The official channels of diplomacy b/w India-
Pakistan remain frozen at times but people run trade to enhance relation, this is called people’s
diplomacy.
1961 Vienna Convention On Diplomatic Relations was a landmark codified moment for
diplomats. Diplomatic structure has ambassadors, embassy staff and ministers.

The Curious Case Of Julian Assange

Julian Paul Assange is an Australian editor, publisher and activist who founded WikiLeaks
in 2006. WikiLeaks came to international attention in 2010 when it published a series of leaks
provided by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. These leaks included the
Baghdad airstrike Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July
2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), and Cablegate (November 2010). After the 2010
leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.
In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over
allegations of sexual misconduct. Assange said the allegations were a pretext for his
extradition from Sweden to the United States over his role in the publication of secret
American documents. After losing his battle against extradition to Sweden, he breached bail
and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012. He was granted asylum
by Ecuador in August 2012 on the grounds of political persecution, with the presumption that
if he were extradited to Sweden, he would be eventually extradited to the US. Swedish
prosecutors dropped their investigation in 2019, saying their evidence had "weakened
considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question."

There are also other offices called “consular offices” dealing with commercial interests. 1963
Convention On Consular Relations deal with such offices.
There are various kinds of diplomacies dealing with both hard and soft power
• Finance and Economic Interests
• Cultural Relations
• Cooperation
• Strategy

All these are parts of diplomacy. Reading widely and developing capabilities of keeping mind
cool are requisites for becoming diplomat, if you’re aspiring for it.
 Conflict
Monday, 16th August 2021

As a continuation of diplomacy, we, today, will go through the unavoidable concept of IR-
‘Conflict’. Sometimes, these conflicts amount to wars and here, we will be using the term
‘World War’ under the banner of conflict.
You may raise a question why we are studying about conflict? We are consistent because we
started this module with power and also ways of exercising it. Management of power, collective
security and all of it. We also touched upon national interest and tried to define it. In the
process, we now understand defining these interests include scope of ‘conflict’. It is important
then to understand that there is probability of conflict among nations and how nations settle
them- an issue to ponder over.
Here, there are certain ways and reasons why conflict happens in international scenario- clash
of resources, clash of ideological standpoints, clash of deep seated cultural animosities etc.
Samuel P. Huntington tried to explain why conflicts also have cultural roots and why they get
escalated out of these underpinnings. When he wrote “Clash of Civilisations”, he argued in
that direction.
Is there any role of diplomacy in dealing with reducing conflict? The one question we keep
asking. Can we reduce the possibility of conflict using diplomatic channels? Think. So, conflict
and conflict resolution are a part of IR.

Conflict Cycles And Their Resolution

Conflicts have their life cycles. Some of them lead to use of force, others end up after having
tide and some manage to avoid war, leading to negotiations. Let us see some examples, of
conflicts which had tendencies to blow out into wars but were settled.
So, there was the famous case of Indus Water Dispute between India and Pakistan. Generally,
water disputes can escalate into war. But India Pakistan signed Indus Water Treaty in an
international negotiation method.
Clashing interests can be resolved therefore.
Danube Waterway Management is another example. Conflict has an amalgam of sources but
there are chances of peaceful settlement. This is known as “pacific settlement of disputes”.
There is no material in books about it, but sir has sent some books via mail to read on it. There
are sources of conflict. And there are ways to deal with them:

Peaceful Ways Of Conflict Settlement

I. Adjudicative (Legal) Way Of Conflict Settlement-

Judicial settlement where sometimes a case is referred to international courts like ICJ is
one way of resolution. A question may arise, that in absence of central authority, right from
Cold War till now, will such a settlement be effective? The answer is that such a settlement
is a mixed bag. Only state parties go to the ICJ but this is one of the peaceful ways to resolve
issues.
Arbitration is a legal but out-of-court process where settlements are resolved with
negotiation and compromise.

“In arbitration, disputes are resolved, with binding effect, by a person or persons acting in
a judicial manner in private, rather than by a national court of law that would have
jurisdiction but for the agreement of the parties to exclude it.”

The Permanent Court Of Arbitration, called PCA, having its genesis in the Hague
Conference is one such body exercising arbitration. Such courts have experts that analyse
merits of the division and the arbitral body awards claims in a negotiated manner.

This avoids imposing harsh legal force. Based on such merits, issues are negotiated. Indus
Water Treaty is an example. In case of unsuccessful settlement, we find another example-
China’s control over South China Sea, an issue with Vietnam, Philippines and other SE
Asian Nations. South China sea’s question revolves around control of maritime routes in
the region where the Indo-Pacific ocean channels meet. The principles established under
UNCLOS were considered by arbitral body to settle this dispute. China first accepted to go
for arbitration but when it was felt that it didn’t favour interests of China, it reverted on its
decision to accept the allocated award. Filipino and Chinese navies are at loggerheads now,
but Indus Water Treaty has worked well. Argentina- Chile settlement has also worked well.
(see Pg 186 Pevehouse PDF)

Power politics, thus, have a role to play in settlements carried out even this way.

So, territorial and natural resources, ideologies and cultural animosities have the tendency
to create conflict. Post 1950s, conflicts happening to destabilize territories particularly led
to the concept of civil war, to be discussed later. But keep in mind, conflict within a territory
has international bearings. Example is the Taliban Crisis that has recently erupted. It has
international ramifications on whole region, because a crisis of refugees and insecurity is
created in whole Central and South Asia. The civil war in Sri Lanka, for example, also
hampered Indo-Sri Lankan relations.

The Case Of Nigeria – Dynamics Of National Interest

The possibility of peaceful resolution of territorial disputes was highlighted in 2006 with the withdrawal of
Nigerian troops from the potentially oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula, which Nigeria ceded to Cameroon’s
sovereignty. The resolution of the dispute, dating from colonial times, followed more than a decade of
painstaking progress through the World Court, the personal mediation of the UN Secretary General when
Nigeria initially rejected the Court’s decision, and the promise of outside powers to monitor implementation
of the agreement. Why would Nigeria—a country with nine times Cameroon’s population, more than triple
its gross domestic product (GDP), and a much stronger military—voluntarily cede territory? Doing so
would seem to run counter to the predictions of realism in particular and the dominance principle in general.
Liberal theories would do better at explaining this outcome: Nigeria acted in its own self-interest because
turning the dispute over to the World Court and bringing in the UN to assist with implementation brought
the kind of stability needed for foreign investment to develop Nigeria’s own resources, primarily oil.
II. Political/Diplomatic Ways Of Settling Disputes:4

In legal ways of dispute resolution, international law is applied but political settlements
involve give and take scenarios. So, enquiry, mediation, conciliation and negotiation are
named as political ways of settling disputes. In here, bilateral settlements take place
successfully generally. Example is the Bangladesh-India border dispute settlement that
happened in a negotiated manner. Water sharing between India and Bangladesh was also
carried out in this way.

Negotiation happens between two parties.

“Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a

beneficial outcome. This beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved, or just
for one or some of them. It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for
an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests.” (Buettner, R,.
2006)

Mediation involves addition of third party which resolves issue. Mediation and
Conciliation are methods of political settlements where “other parties” intervene apart from
the two parties concerned, making them sit at negotiation tables.

In conciliation, mediating parties have no dictatorial or proactive role, but creation of a

conducive zone to make parties reconciliate is the aim. UN also employs this method. In
Mediation, mediator however is more influential and plays a powerful role. These methods,
however, have chances of both successes and failures. Israel-Palestine Conflict for
example is termed as the “most intractable” series of issues where US brokered an attempt
to negotiate but ultimately, it only led to formation of Palestinian entity but not a state for
them. It nor could reduce Israel’s overpowering of the region. This question brings deeper
understanding of issues in limelight. Mediation, especially the one done by UN in dispute
resolution of Koreas or Scandinavian Interventions as mediators have worked well at times.
The force of power and diplomacy work to that extent. Civil war of Syria for example,
had European nations trying to topple the established government of Assad in Syria, but
Russia and China came in a way that avoided so and Kofi Annan established conditions for
a settlement between warring parties and government of Assad, which helped to stall the
humanitarian crises.

4
Refer [Link] ([Link])
War And Strife
Theoretical Perspectives On War – Pg 326 Mingst PDF
17th August 2021

Liberals
• Collective Security
• Arms Control and Disarmament
Internationally, institutions like the UN and liberal internationalists believe that war is not the
normal behaviour of state but an aberration as they believe in universal brotherhood. So, for
them, the best way to resolve it is ‘collective security’. They speak that aggressors have to be
put down by rest of the nations and that’s how aggressive behaviour is controlled. Non-
aggressive nations, they say, can bring down the aggressor this way. Now, think – “Were there
any instances where the idea of collective security worked against the aggressor”? Think.
Realists
• Balance of Power
• Deterrence
Realists however say, that resolute military action, alliance and counter-alliance building can
save nations from a country usurping other or violating its security. So, they look at war as
something that has to be resolutely faced by countries using its soft and hard power. Now, if a
war is fundamentally based on resources, probably it may lead to use of force. Iraq, for instance,
in late 1990s occupied Kuwait saying that two highly oil producing territories in Kuwait belong
to Iraq. This led to a war in favour of Kuwait against Iraq, when NATO intervened. When
Egypt nationalised Suez Canal in 1950s which was earlier controlled by the British, it went for
war against it. America used diplomatic channels not to escalate it into war but it did go to that
level. The Falkland War that had the British fighting with Argentina for small territories in the
Atlantic is another example. So, when the resources and commercial lifelines are in question,
force becomes inevitable.
Economic Structuralists
How do economic structuralists look at war? They see war as an extension of exploitative
economic interests that spill over, leading to war. Even in bipolarity and multipolarity,
economic interests in favour of hegemony support war. In a way, if the economic structuralism
is neo-Marxism, they say that when pursuit of exploitation of economic interests traverses
territorial boundaries, war happens. This can also happen within a territory. The Boko Haram,
for example, in Nigeria is fighting over resources with government. Internal skirmishes
therefore are also motivated by resource quest. From 1980s onwards, oil exploration and
natural gas started very big. Oil is very old thing in Burma, it is equal to West Asia’s appeal as
of now, in antiquity. The company “Shell” was earlier called “Burma Shell”. From 1980s,
international explorations told that from Arakan to Rakhine Province, there are deep in sea,
natural oil reserves. The province after this discovery became strategically important. Now,
Arakanese were thought to be different ethnic people and this interest of reserves made them
think the other way round, with Buddhists claiming to “cleanse” Myanmar from these ethnic
people all of a sudden. Even countries are divided on basis of resources- North and South Sudan
for example. Strife over resources therefore can even create war within country, called ‘civil
war’.

Sources Of War
State is an old concept, and war is too. The war of Karbala and the war of Mahabharata are
examples of such behaviour. Now, we’ll see what are the sources of war:

Wars Over Resources – Pg 183 PDF Pevehouse

Traditionally, resources, including territory and natural resources of the state are one major
source of conflict and war. They are very important to turn a country’s capability into power.
So, conflict over the resources have been a traditional way of going for war. Rarely, conflict in
this manner is settled through dialogues.
Territorial Disputes deal with:
• Control over a territory – Siachen, Crimea etc.
• Border disputes – India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, India-China
• Disputed Islands- Spratly, Kuril, Falklands, Iran-UAE, Japan-China

Disputes Over Natural Resources Include:

• Territorial Waters – US-Libya (Gulf of Sidra), Canada-Spain and Russia (EEZ), Koreas
• Airspace – US-France, Anti Satellite Weapons
In days of Ganarajyas in Bharat Varsha, there was dispute between Sakhya, Lichhyas, and other
groups, wherein Buddha played a negotiating role in settlement.
Agriculture during one time grew by leaps and bounds, so water became an issue of conflict
as it became more precious than ever before. European presence right before WW1 till now,
western European powers in much of the West Asia and today in parts of North Africa, fought
concomitant wars for oil. Skirmishes between US and South America are also motivated by
natural resources like nitrates. Therefore, resources have been traditionally a bone of
contention.

Wars Over Ideologies

They have also been sources of conflict. We have seen the entire cold war period where
ideological adversaries, two of them, defining ways of governance and societies, crated
apprehension of use of war. The reality under the ideological skirmish, is fundamentally
resource based. Acquiring power and Using the power are the goals of every nation state which
make war a reality inevitable. Why are we interested in civil wars? Think.
Ideologies also lead to civil wars. The Vietnamese War was also vetted by ideological divides-
Bao Dai and Ho Chi Minh over communism and liberalism. The Korean War was also fraught
with such ideological holdings. Why Koreas did not unite but Germany did? Think.
Regionalism will provide an answer.
Wars Over Culture (?)
By 1989 and 1990s, the world started becoming mono-ideological in nature whereas the Soviet
Union after its demise, people saw world as a safer place devoid wars. If you read Andrew
Heywood, it will tell you about nature of war after 1990s. Chapter 8 of Karl Mingst will also
help in this regard. Chapter 4 of Pevehouse will also aid. When ideological blocs were ended,
it was told that wars will become lesser, to build a peacebuilding mechanism across world.
Then in 1990s, came the famous work of Samuel P. Huntington. He developed a concept of
‘Clash Of Civilisations’ to maintain, that world is divided into civilisational fault lines and
hence, there will be a stronger chance of conflicts over civilisations. Look at his civilisational
zones using map key and you’ll find what he foresaw a possibility development of wars against
religious and cultural fault lines.
There is politics in this division itself. The cultural diversity is showed in an intensified manner
in Asia, but the West is shown as a uniform identity.

Cultural fault lines for him were deeper than ideologies, to crate inevitable conflict and war of
civilisations. Attempt to apply international theoretical perspectives to his theory. His
civilisational divisions are dubious, at the other hand. For example, Canada has so many
hundreds of tribes, but this civilisational unification portrayal of the Americas seems a choice
made by Huntington itself. Keep ideological differences as a backburner, his theory also
portrays crevices.
Jihadism became an ideology over time. So, culture also has tendency to get converted into
ideology. We need not undermine cultural aspects definitely. For example, if you want to
understand about Yugoslavian Dismemberment, cultural forces did not play a role but still
‘other resources’ played a part of conflict in this crisis. Huntington is giving us a new tool to
understand conflict for which he is valid to this extent but then, by focussing on culture as the
only source of conflict, this thesis tries to give a monochromatic picture that ignores many
other causes and sources operating along and besides culture.
 Summary - Clash Of Civilisations
According to Huntington, “prior to the end of the Cold War, societies were divided by ideological differences, such as
the struggle between democracy and communism. Huntington's main thesis argues, "The most important distinctions
among peoples are [no longer] ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural" (21). New patterns of conflict will
occur along the boundaries of different cultures and patterns of cohesion will be found within the cultural boundaries.”
To begin with, Huntington divides the world into eight "major" civilizations: Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox,
Western, Latin, American, and African. Huntington adopts a view that the world is coming out of the western shadow
and describes three characteristics of the Western decline:
• The current Western decline is a very slow process and is not an immediate threat to World powers today.
• Decline of power does not occur in a straight line; it may reverse, speed up, or pause.
• The power of a state is controlled and influenced by the behavior and decisions of those holding power.
Also in this section, Huntington asserts the increased role and importance of religion in world politics. Religion is the
societal factor that has filled the vacuum created by a loss of political ideology. Major religions around the world
"experienced new surges in commitment, relevance and practice by erstwhile casual believers" (96). Huntington goes
on to say that replacing politics with religion was also the result of increased communication among societies and
cultures. People "need new sources of identity, new forms of stable community, and new sets of moral precepts to
provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose" (97). Religion is able to meet these needs.
During the Cold War, the bipolar world order enabled countries to identify themselves as either aligned or non-aligned.
In the post-Cold War world order, countries are no longer able to easily categorize themselves and have entered into
an identity crisis. To cope with this crisis, countries started "rallying to those [cultures] with similar ancestry, religion,
language, values, and institutions and distance themselves from those with different ones" (126). Regional organizations
have formed that reflect political and economic alliances. These include Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), the European Union (EU) and the North American Fair Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Huntington also describes
the idea of "torn countries," or countries that have yet to entirely claim or create an identity. These countries include
Russia, Turkey, Mexico, and Australia.

Huntington discusses the new structure of civilizations as centred around a small number of powerful core states.
"Culture commonality legitimates the leadership and order-imposing role of the core states for both member state and
core external powers and institutions" (156). Examples of core states are France and Germany for the EU. Their sphere
of influence ends where Western Christendom ends. In other words, civilizations are strictly bound to religious affiliation.
Economic development in Asia and China has resulted in an antagonistic relationship with America. As discussed in
previous sections, economic success in Asia and China has created an increased sense of cultural relevancy.
Huntington predicts that the combination of economic success of the East Asian countries and the heightened military
power of China could result in a major world conflict. This conflict would be intensified even more by alignments between
Islamic and Sinic civilizations.

To better understand the definition of the fault line between civilizations, Huntington provides a description of
characteristics and dynamics of fault line conflicts. They can be described by the following:

• Communal conflicts between states or groups from different civilizations

• Almost always between people of different religions
• Prolonged duration
• Violent in nature
• Identity wars (us vs. them), eventually breaks down to religious identity
• Encouraged and financed by Diaspora communities
• Violence rarely ends permanently
• Propensity for peace is increased with third party intervention

In the concluding sections of his book, Huntington discusses the challengers of the West, and whether or not external and
internal challenges will erode the West's power. External challenges include the emerging cultural identities in the non-
Western world. Internal challenges include the erosion of principle values, morals, and beliefs within Western culture. He also
contributes to the debate between multiculturalists and monoculturalists and states that, "A multicultural world is unavoidable
because global empire is impossible. The preservation of the United States and the West requires the renewal of Western
identity" (318). The ability for the West to remain a global political power, it needs to adapt to increasing power and influence
of different civilizations. Without adapting, the West is destined to decline in power and influence, or it will clash with other
powerful civilizations. According to Huntington, the West clashing with another civilization is "the greatest threat to world
peace, and an international order" (321).
Think upon these questions:
Can war be made civilised, given that we know it’s inevitable?
Are there any ethical practices which can be assured when wars are fought?
Is there a possibility of having practices that reduce or make war tolerable?

Friday, 20 August 2021

Can war be made civilised? This was the question we asked in last class. So broadly, we are
studying international conflict as a part of “power” and how nations like to keep themselves
powerful. All these play roles here. We talk about why conflicts occur and force is used.
Let us go into accepting reality and taking things in this way- conflicts and wars are part of
the world we live in. Theories and thinkers consider international reality in conflict. In 1989,
territorial and ideological interests were clashing, creating a war like situation in Congo,
Vietnam, Latin America and elsewhere. People thought after the cold war, conflicts will reduce
and end but it did not happen that way. They are still alive.

Why Reduce Possibility Of Conflict?

Why since the late 1800s (1880-1890s), more focus has come into reducing conflict and war?
Because the whole range of peace and conflict became a branch of I-law from 1900s onwards,
there was a premium on reducing war. Why? Think.
Historical Understanding
The organisation which is very popular called Red Cross incepted in the backdrop of the
Crimean War and people understood the lethal nature of wars. It also created blurring of lines
between combatants and non-combatants- their distinction started to disappear because the
more lethal weapons started coming in- explosives which came into warfare and other such
modern inputs also came into play. Usage of noxious gases in light of industrial development
also became part of chemical weaponry. Then, by 1930s and 1940s, using Biological Weapons
was also found to be a possibility.
Wars started to become “total wars”. Total wars for which victory is most important- which
will use everything for winning war. It includes all civilian associated resources, economy and
infrastructure as military equipment. Priority of winning becomes important over non-
combatant needs in such wars.
War on the seas had also taken place. It converted into vessel and war machines. Then came
the late 1900s developments- from balloon technology to aircrafts. So now, war which used to
be territorial and limited to armed forces on the land, also changed drastically. The nature of
‘war’ kept changing throughout. Airplanes began taking supplies in WW2.
Now, the three war machines on three levels exist- marine, air, land. The nature of war and
the probability of who will take upper hand, is also determined by geography of places, which
gives understanding of various locations that are strategic and how these locations have an
important role in defence and strategy called flash points and choke points in strategic studies.
For example, the Hormuz Strait (see picture below) is geographically very important.

Activity- Make a foray on an interesting area called Defence and Strategic Studies to get
deeper understanding on war, statecraft and political geography involved.

The Strait Of Hormuz

The Falkland Islands Are Also Strategically Important

Territorial gunpowder wars by 1800s changed into sea wars with war vessels and weapons.
The late wars of new era now entailed hot balloons and airplanes. So, war got changed over
time with ever changing technologies.
The escalated version of conflict is called war. Wars have an inevitable history. The war
machine has changed since historical periods.

When ideological skirmishes ended in 1990s, why did wars not end? Huntington has the theory
pointing at the role of ‘culture’.

Wars were instead, taking place more and more “within a country”. And such a situation is
called civil war. What are the differences between territorial wars between nations and civil
wars? Think. When a state is incapable of managing its multiplicities in an organised manner,
civil wars break out. Territorial states, external parties, international parties also play a serious
role in civil wars. The problem with civil war is, those supporting a well-oiled machinery may
not be pointed and have a draining effect on a country’s machinery. Afghanistan faced civil
wars, cold war and what not. Civil wars are always caused by either state’s inability to manage
internal multiplicities and governances or forces to control groups and other reasons.

Just War5
Can war ever be justified? Think.
The theories of just wars are all about bringing civility into war. There are two principles of
just war, traditionally called
1. The Jus Ad Bellum Convention

“The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a
last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a
reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.”

Civil wars many times defy the principles of Jus In Bello because of no governing authority.

2. “The Principles Of Jus In Bello”:

“The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles of discrimination
and proportionality.

The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst
the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate.
A third principle can be added to the traditional two, namely the principle of
responsibility, which demands an examination of where responsibility lies in war.”

5
You can refer [Link]
These principles deal with behaving in a certain manner in war- dealings with injured soldiers,
non-combatants, those captured etc.
After the war, how should a victor behave is also encompassed in theory of Just War.
Wars are fundamentally political in nature. They become more excruciating with development
of weapons, modes of operation and diversification. It becomes a serious issue to be pondered
about. Civil wars are being propped up by external forces, on the other hand, for example, in
Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.
The law of war dealing with principled behaviour. It is sometimes called “Humanitarian
Law”, earlier known as “Law of Armed Conflicts”. The idea of neutrality should not be
confused with neutral power. Neutrality in humanitarian law means how should a neutral power
be dealt with by the warring sides.

Monday, 23 August 2021

We have seen that Samuel P. Huntington talked about world as cultural zones, geography,
contiguous zones that create understanding of world- alliances, counter-alliances, pepping up
power. World is therefore like this for a millennia. The geographical way of looking at world
in its manifestations is important thus.
Regionalism In World Politics- Refer Chapter 23 of “The Globalization of World
Politics” by John Baylis, Patricia Owens, and Steve Smith (this book is in Vageeshan’s
Repository).

Find about Human Security.

The key players in the International Relations, coming after 20th century, a phenomena of
globalization also erupted, challenging sovereignty. Here today, we’ll talk about regionalism
in the world and how geographically and culturally is divided. Human essence is diverse and
so is the world with all its realms. Building military alliances for territorial/resource security is
a very old idea. After the WW2, usefulness of military alliances came in light. In Europe,
eastern nations barring Germany became closer to the Soviet Bloc for territorial security. So,
this kind of “Trans Regional Alliance Building” became a mechanism. Alliance building
happened across regions and across continents- Americas with Europe, Eurasian Powers and
Powers even traversing the Pacific. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Org.) came into formation
as a military alliance at this time. The cold war period also developed ‘counter-alliances’ like
the Warsaw Pact by Soviet Bloc. So, these alliances have been a reality since long.
After 1949-50s, regionalisation of world politics began. Serious decolonisation also took place
including much of Asia and Africa. So, in 1950s, world had newly decolonised nations which
led to clear division of the “Global North” and “Global South”, which consolidated in form of
NAM – a big group of countries coming together in UNGA. But NAM was a movement based
association and not an alliance technically. It had a huge “appeal” across regions.
Next is, movement based energy collection alliances – G77 is an example to be distinguished
from the above two, that resource based groups also came into place. What is a resource-based
group? It also cuts across regions. Like OPEC- that cut across South America, West Asia,
Middle East etc. therefore, they care also transregional.

The European Union

Along with the cold war, civilian economic commercial interest bringing became an important
tenet- where cultural and economic interests merged. Europe required reconstruction and
development and Marshall Plan came into picture. European Coal and Steel Agency came into
place, required for industrial processes. So, the economic factors required all this to happen in
this way.

The Treaty Of Maastricht also came later to establish European Union. Common market,
common customs, tax regimes and cooperation developed- to so much extent that number of
British people went and settled in parts of Spain thinking of it as more leisurely- a portrayal of
a successful model where common cultural and economic interests united peoples.

Association Of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

ASEAN also came into play in last 30 years. This is also a successful organisation. EU created
a charter and European Parliament as well making it successful, so sir considers EU as
successful. But ASEAN is also a fruitful story of cooperation in terms of economic parameters.
South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
SAARC has huge potential if it unites. Then there are NAFTA, OPEC, SAFTA, LAIA etc,
So, the purpose was to maintain why certain regional organisations become powerful. This
regionalism is not based on military security but economy, cooperation, common governance
etc. So, explore, why EU and ASEAN became successful but SAARC and NAFTA did not.
Think.

India is also interested in BIMSTEC with fellow South Asians for working together as a new
regional organisation: