Introduction to

International
Relations
by
Fahad Ubaid
Lecturer of Political Science
University of Science and Technology, Bannu
[email protected]
 Page |1

The Realm of International Relations:

At its heart, IR focuses on the interactions among sovereign states. These interactions
encompass political, economic, security, and cultural spheres. International organizations,
non-state actors like NGOs, and even individuals can also play a role in shaping international
relations.
The study of IR seeks to understand the motivations, strategies, and consequences of these
interactions. It delves into issues like war and peace, diplomacy and trade, human rights and
environmental concerns. By analysing these diverse interactions, IR aims to provide insights
for navigating the complexities of the globalized world.
Origin and Meaning of International Relation: The term “international” was coined by Jeremy
Bentham in the 1780s from the words “inter,” meaning between, and “national,” relating to
nations. It reflects the interactions and relationships that occur between sovereign states.
The subject “International Relations” as a distinct academic discipline is believed to have
originated in the early 20th century. It was first offered as an undergraduate major by
Aberystwyth University in the United Kingdom in 1919. This marked the formal establishment
of International Relations as a field of study, focusing on the political, diplomatic, and security
connections among states, as well as the study of modern political world history. The study of
IR in the West flourished due to several factors: a demand for safer and more effective means
of conducting relations between nations, a surge of research inspired by the belief in human
progress through systematic study, and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign
affairs.
The field itself, however, has roots that date back much further. The study of international
relations can be traced to the time of the Greek historian Thucydides and has been analysed
since antiquity. The modern discipline of International Relations emerged from a growing
demand for a systematic study of global affairs that could lead to a safer and more effective
means of conducting relations between nations.
Definitions of International Relations:
➢ Oxford Dictionaries Definition: International Relations is defined as "the way in which two
or more nations interact with and regard each other, especially in the context of political,
economic, or cultural relationships".
➢ Encyclopedia Britannica: According to Britannica, International Relations is "the study of
the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain
subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups)".
➢ Wikipedia: Wikipedia describes International Relations as the interactions among sovereign
states, as well as the broader relationships and institutions that oversee these
interactions. It includes activities such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy.
 Page |2

➢ San Francisco State University: At SFSU, International Relations is concerned with relations
across boundaries of nation-states and addresses international political economy, global
governance, intercultural relations, national and ethnic identities, foreign policy analysis,
development studies, environment, international security, diplomacy, terrorism, media,
social movements, and more.
➢ University of Wisconsin: The Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin
defines International Relations as an attempt to explain behaviour that occurs across the
boundaries of states, the broader relationships of which such behaviour is a part, and the
institutions that oversee those interactions
Nature and Scope of International Relations:
The world we live in is a tapestry woven from the interactions of numerous actors on a global
stage. Understanding these interactions, their causes, and their consequences is the core
objective of International Relations (IR). This vast field delves into the political, economic,
security, and social dimensions of our interconnected world.
International Relations is not merely about memorizing facts and figures; it's a dynamic field
that equips us with the tools to analyse complex situations, understand the motivations of
different actors, and anticipate the potential outcomes of international events. By exploring
the various facets of IR, we gain a deeper appreciation for the intricate web of relationships
that shape our world.
1. Political Relations Between States
• Power Dynamics: IR examines how power is distributed among states, analysing factors
like military might, economic influence, and diplomatic clout. It explores how powerful
states exert their influence and how weaker states navigate the international system.
• Diplomacy and Alliances: IR studies the art of diplomacy, the negotiations and
agreements between states to achieve common goals. It also analyses how states form
alliances and partnerships to advance their interests.
• International Security: Understanding the factors that lead to war and peace is a core
concern of IR. It examines issues like arms control, conflict resolution, and the role of
international organizations in maintaining global security.
2. The Global Economy and Trade
• International Trade and Finance: IR explores the rules and institutions that govern
international trade and investment. It analyses the impact of globalization on
economies, trade agreements, and the role of international economic organizations like
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• Development and Resource Scarcity: IR examines the challenges faced by developing
countries, the flow of foreign aid, and the impact of resource scarcity on international
 Page |3

relations. It explores how global economic inequalities can lead to instability and
conflict.
3. Non-State Actors and Global Issues
• International Organizations: Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) like the United
Nations (UN) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like Amnesty International
play a significant role in international affairs. IR studies their influence, effectiveness,
and the challenges they face.
• Transnational Challenges: Global problems like climate change, pandemics, and
terrorism transcend national borders. IR explores the need for international cooperation
in addressing these issues and the challenges of achieving collective action.
• The Rise of Social Movements: Social movements with global reach, such as
environmental or human rights movements, influence international politics. IR examines
their strategies, impact on foreign policy, and the dynamics of global advocacy.
4. Historical Context and International Law:
• The Evolution of the International System: IR studies how the international system has
evolved over time, from the emergence of nation-states to the multipolar world of
today. It examines the rise and fall of empires, the impact of colonialism, and the
changing nature of power.
• International Law and Institutions: IR explores the rules and principles that govern
international interactions, including treaties, agreements, and customary international
law. It analyses the role of international institutions like the International Court of
Justice in upholding these principles.
This list is not exhaustive, but it highlights the vast scope of IR. The complexities of the global
stage are constantly evolving, prompting scholars to adapt their focus and explore new
frontiers in international relations.
International Relations vs. International Politics:
The terms "International Relations" (IR) and "International Politics" are often used
interchangeably, but there exists a subtle distinction between them. Let's delve deeper into
both concepts to understand their unique scopes and how they fit together.
International Relations: A Broader Landscape: IR is a vast field that encompasses the entire
spectrum of interactions between actors on the global stage. It examines not only political
interactions but also economic, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions. Here's what IR
entails:
• Focus: Analyses the full range of interactions between states, international organizations
(IOs) like the UN, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, and
even individuals.
 Page |4

• Scope: Explores issues like war and peace, diplomacy and trade, human rights and
environmental concerns, development challenges, and the impact of globalization.
• Theoretical Frameworks: Draws from various disciplines like political science, economics,
history, sociology, and law to provide a holistic understanding of the international system.
International Politics: A Focused Arena: International Politics, a subset of IR, specifically
focuses on the political relations between states. It delves into the power dynamics, strategies,
and conflicts that shape interactions between sovereign nations. Here's a closer look:
• Focus: Analyses state-to-state interactions, power struggles, alliances, and diplomatic
strategies.
• Scope: Examines issues like war and peace, national security, foreign policy decision-
making, and the role of power in international affairs.
• Theoretical Frameworks: Often borrows from realist theory, which emphasizes national
interest and power politics in an anarchic international system. However, other theories
like liberalism and constructivism also play a role.

A Drastic Comparison: Highlighting the Differences:

While both IR and International Politics deal with the global arena, a distinct difference exists:
o Breadth vs. Depth: IR takes a broad, multidisciplinary approach, encompassing all aspects
of international interactions. International Politics focuses more narrowly on the political
dynamics between states.
o Actors vs. Focus: IR examines a wider range of actors, while International Politics primarily
focuses on states and their interactions.
o Theory vs. Practice: IR often utilizes various theories to explain international phenomena.
International Politics tends to emphasize the practical application of power and diplomacy
by states.
Conclusion: IR provides the overarching framework for understanding the complex web of
interactions in today's world. International Politics is a crucial component within this
framework, delving specifically into the political manoeuvring and power struggles that shape
the relationships between states. Both are essential for gaining a comprehensive picture of the
dynamic and ever-evolving global landscape.

Approaches to the study of International Relations

The world of international relations is a complex and dynamic tapestry, woven with threads of
power, cooperation, conflict, and interdependence. To understand this intricate picture,
scholars employ various approaches. These approaches act as distinct lenses through which
 Page |5

we can analyse international phenomena, each offering a unique perspective on the forces
that shape our globalized world.

What is an Approach in International Relations?

An approach in IR is a broad theoretical framework that guides our understanding of
international politics and interactions. It provides a set of assumptions, concepts, and
analytical tools to examine the behaviour of states, international institutions, and other actors
on the global stage. Think of them as different coloured filters – each offering a distinct view of
the same complex reality.
Realism:
Unveiling the Power Politics: A Deep Dive into Realism in International Relations:
International Relations (IR) grapples with the complex interactions between states on the
global stage. Realism, a foundational approach in IR, offers a stark yet insightful lens through
which to analyse this world of power dynamics and national interests.
A Historical Context: The Seeds of Realism: The roots of realism can be traced back to the
writings of ancient philosophers like Thucydides, who chronicled the Peloponnesian War (431-
404 BCE). Thucydides, often considered the first "realist" thinker, highlighted the role of power
and self-interest in interstate relations. His work, "History of the Peloponnesian War,"
documented the power struggle between Athens and Sparta, emphasizing the centrality of
power politics, the pursuit of self-preservation, and the limitations of morality in international
affairs.
However, it wasn't until the 20th century that realism emerged as a distinct theoretical
framework in IR. The horrors of World War I and the subsequent rise of totalitarian regimes
like Nazi Germany underscored the fragility of peace and the importance of understanding the
factors that lead to war. Realist thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr sought to explain
the descent into war and provide a framework for understanding the dynamics of power in the
international system.

Key Figures:
→ Thucydides: A Greek historian who documented the Peloponnesian War, highlighting the
role of power, self-interest, and the limitations of morality in interstate relations. His work
laid the foundation for realist thought.
→ Niccolò Machiavelli: A Florentine diplomat and political philosopher whose work, The
Prince (1513), offered advice to rulers on how to acquire and maintain power. Machiavelli's
emphasis on self-interest, statecraft, and the importance of military strength is considered
a cornerstone of classical realism.
 Page |6

→ Thomas Hobbes: An English philosopher who, in his work Leviathan (1651), argued that the
natural state of humanity is a "war of all against all." Hobbes believed that individuals enter
into a social contract to create a sovereign power to ensure security. His ideas on the state
of nature and the importance of order resonate with the realist view of the international
system as anarchic and self-help oriented.
→ Hans Morgenthau: A German-American political scientist who is considered one of the
founding fathers of classical realism. His seminal work, "Politics Among Nations" (1948),
outlined the core tenets of realism, emphasizing power, national interest, and the absence
of world government as key factors shaping international relations.
→ E.H. Carr: A British historian and international relations scholar who challenged the
idealistic view of international relations and argued for a more realist understanding of
power politics and national interest.

Core Tenets of Realism: Power Politics in an Anarchic System:

Realism rests upon several fundamental principles that define its understanding of
international relations:
1. Pessimistic Human Nature: Realism in International Relations posits a pessimistic view of
human nature, asserting that individuals and states are inherently egoistic, power-seeking,
competitive, and mistrustful. Realists like Thomas Hobbes believed that humans are driven
by a fundamental desire for security and self-preservation, leading to a constant struggle
for power and advantage. This inherent selfishness translates to the international arena,
where states prioritize their own interests and survival above all else. Realists argue that
cooperation between states is fragile and temporary, often driven by shared threats or
strategic calculations rather than genuine trust or altruism.
2. Anarchy and the Absence of World Government: Unlike a domestic society with a
sovereign government to enforce laws and maintain order, the international system lacks a
central authority. This inherent anarchy, a core concept in realism, creates an environment
of self-help, where states must rely on their own capabilities to ensure their security and
survival. In the absence of a world government to enforce rules or mediate disputes, states
are left to navigate a competitive and potentially hostile environment.
3. State as the Primary Actor: In the realist perspective, the state is the primary actor in
international relations. States are seen as rational actors driven by national interests, acting
in a calculated and self-serving manner to achieve their goals. Non-state actors, while
acknowledged, are considered secondary players whose influence is mediated through the
actions of states. Realists argue that international organizations, multinational
corporations, and other non-state actors can only exert significant influence on the global
stage insofar as they align with the interests of powerful states.
 Page |7

4. Power Politics and National Interest: Power becomes the central currency in international
relations. States strive to acquire and maintain power, whether military, economic, or
diplomatic, to advance their national interests. Power allows states to influence other
states, deter aggression, and secure their survival in a competitive international
environment. Realists define national interest as the set of goals a state seeks to achieve in
the international system, often encompassing security, economic prosperity, and
diplomatic influence. Foreign policy decisions are made based on a cost-benefit analysis,
with states pursuing policies that maximize their national interests and national security.
5. Security as the Core National Interest: Realists view the international system as a security
dilemma, where actions taken to enhance one state's security can be perceived as a threat
by others, leading to an arms race or heightened tensions. This creates a vicious cycle
where states feel compelled to constantly build up their military capabilities to counter
perceived threats, even if it fuels an overall increase in insecurity within the system.

Explanations Offered by Realism: War, Conflict, and Cooperation:

Realism offers valuable insights into various aspects of international relations:
• Understanding War and Conflict: Realism provides a framework for understanding the
causes of war and conflict. The absence of a central authority, the competition for power
and resources, and the clash of national interests all contribute to an environment where
conflict can arise. Realists like Kenneth Waltz, with his theory of structural realism, argue
that the anarchic structure of the international system inherently creates pressures
towards conflict, particularly when there is a power vacuum or a shift in the balance of
power. Realists also analyse the role of alliances and balance of power politics in
maintaining or disrupting international order. For instance, they might explain the
formation of NATO during the Cold War as a response to the perceived threat posed by the
Soviet Union.
• Explaining Cooperation and International Institutions: While realism emphasizes
competition, it doesn't negate the possibility of cooperation between states. States may
cooperate when it aligns with their national interests, such as forming alliances to deter a
common threat or engaging in trade agreements for economic gain. Realists view
international institutions, like the United Nations Security Council, as a product of power
dynamics and a tool for states to pursue their interests through collective action. For
example, realist analysis might suggest that the US supports the UN when it aligns with US
interests, but may challenge the UN's authority when it perceives the organization as acting
against US national interests.
• Analyzing Foreign Policy Decisions: By understanding the core tenets of realism, we can
better analyse the motivations behind foreign policy decisions. Realists emphasize the
consideration of power dynamics, national security concerns, and the potential
 Page |8

consequences of actions when evaluating the policy choices of states. For instance, a realist
analysis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 might focus on the perceived threat of Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program (even if the program was later found not
to exist) and the desire to secure Iraqi oil reserves, highlighting the realist emphasis on
security and national interest.

Applying Realism in the Real World: Examples:

Realism can be applied to analyse various events and developments in international relations:
1. The Cold War: The Cold War, analyzed through a realist lens, highlights the interplay of
power politics, national interest, and the balance of power. Both the US and the USSR
sought to expand their spheres of influence, build alliances to counter the other's power,
and maintain a strong military deterrent. The concept of bipolarity, with two dominant
superpowers, is a key concept in realist analysis of the Cold War.
2. The Unipolar Moment and the US as a Unilateral Power: Following the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole superpower. Realists might argue that this
"unipolar moment" led to a period of US dominance in international affairs, with the US
pursuing its national interests more unilaterally, such as in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
However, this dominance faced challenges as other countries, like China, began to rise in
power. This shift in the balance of power challenges the unipolar moment and suggests a
potential move towards a multipolar world.
3. The Rise of China and the Potential for a Multipolar World: China's economic and military
rise presents a potential shift in the balance of power, moving the world towards a
multipolar system with multiple centres of power. Realists might predict increased
competition and jostling for influence between the US and China, as both nations seek to
secure their national interests in a world with multiple power centres. This competition
could lead to increased tensions, arms races, and potential conflicts, highlighting the realist
concern with the security dilemma in a multipolar world.
4. The War on Terror and the Focus on Security: Following the 9/11 attacks, the US launched
the War on Terror, prioritizing national security concerns. This focus on security, with its
emphasis on counterterrorism strategies, aligns with the realist emphasis on maintaining
security as a core national interest. The War on Terror also highlights the role of non-state
actors, like terrorist groups, as potential security threats in the contemporary world.

Limitations of Realism in a Globalized World:

o The rise of globalization, with its increased interdependence between countries, creates
more opportunities for cooperation beyond traditional power politics. Economic
interdependence, for instance, can create incentives for states to cooperate on issues like
trade and climate change, even if they have differing political ideologies. Realism might
 Page |9

struggle to fully explain this type of cooperation, which is not solely driven by a narrow
pursuit of national interest or balancing power.
o The growing influence of non-state actors also challenges the state-centric focus of realism.
International organizations, multinational corporations, and NGOs play an increasingly
important role in shaping global issues like human rights, environmental protection, and
global health. Realism might downplay the agency and influence of these non-state actors.
o The importance of ideological considerations in international relations is another critique of
realism. States may be motivated by ideological beliefs, such as promoting democracy or
human rights, to cooperate or intervene in other countries. Realism might struggle to fully
account for the role of ideology in shaping foreign policy decisions.
o The rise of international law also presents a challenge to the purely power-driven view of
the international system. The development of international treaties, norms, and
institutions suggests a growing acceptance of rules and constraints on state behaviour,
even if enforcement mechanisms remain imperfect. Realism might underestimate the
potential for international law to promote cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution.

Conclusion: Realism's Enduring Relevance:

Realism remains a foundational and influential approach in International Relations. While
some argue its emphasis on power politics offers a cynical view of international affairs, it
provides a valuable framework for understanding the importance of power, security, and
national interest in shaping the actions of states. By studying realism, we gain a deeper
appreciation for the complexities of international relations and the challenges of establishing
peace and cooperation in a world of competing interests and power dynamics.
However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of realism and to consider alternative
perspectives, such as idealism or liberalism, that emphasize cooperation, international
institutions, and the potential for positive change in the international system. A nuanced
understanding of both power politics and the possibilities for cooperation is essential for
navigating the complex realities of the global stage.
Neo-Realism:
An In-Depth Exploration: Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, stands as a prominent
approach within International Relations (IR) that emerged in the mid-20th century. Building
upon the core principles of classical realism, neo-realism strives to establish a more systematic
and theoretical framework for understanding the international system. This approach,
spearheaded by scholars like Kenneth Waltz, emphasizes the crucial role played by the
international system's structure in shaping state behaviour, with a particular focus on the
distribution of power among states.
 P a g e | 10

A Fertile Ground: The Rise of Neo-Realism in the Aftermath of World War II:
The catastrophic events of World War II served as a catalyst for the emergence of neo-realism
as a distinct approach in IR theory. Dissatisfied with the broader explanations offered by
classical realism, scholars sought a more rigorous and systematic framework. Key figures like
Kenneth Waltz, drawing inspiration from structuralism in other disciplines, aimed to develop a
theory that explained state behaviour based on the inherent structure of the international
system itself, rather than attributing actions solely to the specific characteristics of individual
leaders or states.
A Pivotal Figure: Kenneth Waltz and the Foundations of Neo-Realism: Kenneth Waltz stands
as the central figure in neo-realism. His seminal work, "Theory of International Politics" (1979),
laid the groundwork for the approach. This foundational text emphasizes the distribution of
power as the key determinant of state behaviour. Waltz argued that the structure of the
international system, characterized by the anarchic environment and the presence of great
powers, shapes state interactions and strategic decision-making.
Defining Neo-Realism: Unveiling the Core Principles: Neo-realism, or structural realism, posits
that the behaviour of states within the international system is primarily determined by the
system's structure, rather than by individual state-level factors or the characteristics of specific
leaders. At the core of neo-realism lies the concept of an anarchic international system. This
system lacks an overarching authority to enforce rules or maintain order among states. States,
as the primary actors in this arena, exist in a state of perpetual competition for power and
security. Unlike classical realism, which focused on human nature and state preferences, neo-
realism emphasizes the distribution of power among states as the central determinant of
international outcomes.

The Bedrock of Neo-Realist Theory: Core Principles:

Neo-realism is characterized by several fundamental principles that underpin its approach to
studying IR:
1. Anarchy: An International System Without a Ruler: Neo-realism views the international
system as anarchic, meaning there is no centralized authority to govern interactions among
states. Unlike a domestic society with a sovereign government that enforces laws and
maintains order, the international system lacks such a figure. In the absence of a central
authority, states must rely on their own capabilities and strategies to ensure their security
and survival. This inherently self-help environment shapes state behaviour and foreign
policy decision-making.
2. Distribution of Power: The Unequal Landscape: The distribution of power among states is
a central determinant of international outcomes according to neo-realism. Neo-realism
distinguishes between different types of power, including military, economic, and
 P a g e | 11

technological capabilities. The way power is distributed within the system shapes how
states interact and pursue their interests. Balance of power dynamics, alliances, and the
potential for conflict or cooperation are all significantly influenced by the distribution of
power.
3. State Rationality: The Cold Calculus of Survival: Neo-realism assumes that states are
rational actors driven by a primary concern for maximizing their security and survival in an
uncertain and competitive international environment. States engage in strategic
calculations based on their assessment of the balance of power and the perceived
intentions of other states. This focus on rationality, however, does not imply that states are
always successful in their calculations or that they always act morally. Rather, neo-realism
suggests that states prioritize their own national interests and act in ways they believe will
enhance their security and position within the international system.
4. Relative Gains: A Focus on Advantage: Neo-realism emphasizes the importance of relative
gains in international relations. States are concerned not only with absolute gains in their
power and security but also with how their gains compare to those of other states. This
means that states may be willing to forgo absolute gains or even suffer some losses if it
means preventing another state from achieving a significant advantage. This focus on
relative gains can lead to zero-sum calculations and hinder cooperation among states, as
each state prioritizes maintaining or improving its position relative to others. For instance,
a neo-realist analysis of trade negotiations might suggest that states are not only interested
in securing good economic deals for themselves but also in ensuring they are not surpassed
economically by their competitors.
5. Structure Over Unit-Level Factors: The System Sets the Stage: Neo-realism prioritizes the
structural factors shaping international politics over the specific characteristics of individual
states or leaders. While states may have different political systems, ideologies, or domestic
cultures, neo-realism argues that their behaviour is ultimately constrained by the systemic
pressures of the international environment. The anarchic structure, the distribution of
power, and the absence of a central authority are seen as the primary forces shaping state
behaviour, regardless of the internal characteristics of any particular state.

Explanations Offered by Neo-Realism: Understanding International Politics

Through a Structural Lens:
Neo-realism provides a framework for explaining various phenomena in international politics
based on its structural foundations:
• The Balancing Act: Power Politics and the Balance of Power: Neo-realism argues that
states naturally seek to balance against rising powers to prevent the emergence of a
hegemonic state. A concentration of power in the hands of a single state threatens the
security of all other states within the system. This dynamic of balancing power helps
 P a g e | 12

maintain a degree of stability and prevents domination by any one state or coalition. For
instance, the emergence of a powerful China in recent decades has been met with efforts
by the United States to strengthen its alliances in the Asia-Pacific region, reflecting a neo-
realist understanding of balancing behaviour.
• A Paradoxical Situation: The Security Dilemma: The concept of the security dilemma
occupies a central position in neo-realism. It refers to a situation where a state's efforts to
enhance its security, such as through military build-up or alliance formation, can
inadvertently lead to increased insecurity for other states. This dilemma arises due to the
inherent lack of trust and pervasive uncertainty within the anarchic international system.
States, driven by a desire for self-preservation, engage in defensive measures that can be
misconstrued as threatening by others. The arms race between the US and the Soviet
Union during the Cold War exemplifies the security dilemma, where each superpower's
military build-up fuelled the anxieties of the other.
• The System's Grip: Structural Constraints on State Behaviour: Neo-realism argues that the
structure of the international system acts as a constraining force on state behaviour and
foreign policy choices. States must adapt their strategies and policies in response to the
distribution of power and the systemic pressures exerted by the international environment.
The anarchic nature of the system limits the potential for extensive cooperation and fosters
self-help behaviour among states, where each state prioritizes its own survival and security
in the absence of a central authority. For instance, the economic interdependence fostered
by globalization presents opportunities for cooperation between states. However, neo-
realists would argue that states ultimately prioritize their own national interests within this
economic interconnectedness, such as through protectionist trade policies or strategic
resource acquisition.

Examples of Neo-Realism in Action: Illustrating the Theory:

Neo-realism offers valuable insights into various phenomena and events in international
politics:
1. The Cold War Revisited: A Balance of Power Standoff: The Cold War rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet Union is often analyzed through a neo-realist lens. The
balance of power dynamics between the two superpowers and their efforts to contain each
other's influence exemplify neo-realist concepts such as balancing behaviour and the
security dilemma. The formation of alliances like NATO (by the US) and the Warsaw Pact
(by the USSR) can be understood as attempts by each side to counter the other's power
and bolster its own security in an environment of mutual distrust.
2. The European Project: Power Politics in Disguise? The formation and evolution of the
European Union (EU) can also be interpreted through a neo-realist lens. Neo-realists argue
that the EU's development has been influenced by the distribution of power among
 P a g e | 13

European states and their efforts to mitigate security threats and enhance their collective
power vis-à-vis external actors. The creation of a single market and a common currency can
be seen as strategies to strengthen economic interdependence and promote cooperation
among member states, ultimately enhancing their collective power on the global stage.
3. The Perils of the Arms Race: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Neo-realism helps explain the
occurrence of arms races among states seeking to enhance their military capabilities and
deter potential adversaries. These arms races reflect states' perceptions of the balance of
power and their efforts to maintain or improve their security in a competitive international
environment. The arms race between the US and the USSR during the Cold War is a prime
example, where each superpower's military build-up fuelled the anxieties of the other,
ultimately leading to a situation of heightened insecurity for both sides.
4. Alliances: Balancing Against Common Threats: Neo-realism sheds light on the formation
and dynamics of alliances among states. States may form alliances to balance against
threats posed by more powerful states or to enhance their own security by pooling
resources and capabilities with like-minded partners. For instance, the formation of NATO
(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) by the US and its European allies during the Cold War
can be understood as a response to the perceived threat posed by the Soviet Union.
Member states of NATO sought to deter Soviet aggression by presenting a united front and
demonstrating their collective military capabilities.
5. Unipolarity and Its Challenges: An Unstable Equilibrium? The unipolar moment following
the end of the Cold War, characterized by the dominance of the United States as the sole
superpower, has been analyzed through a neo-realist lens. Neo-realists argue that
unipolarity presents challenges to the stability of the international system, as the absence
of effective balancing mechanisms may lead to the emergence of hegemonic behaviour and
increased competition among states. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example, can be
seen by some neo-realists as an illustration of the potential pitfalls of unipolarity, where
the dominant power may be more inclined to act unilaterally without facing significant
resistance from other states.
However, the rise of China as a potential challenger to US dominance suggests a shift
towards a multipolar world, which neo-realism predicts could lead to increased
competition and a potential for conflict as states jockey for power and influence in a more
balanced system.

Neo-Realism in the Contemporary World: Enduring Relevance and Ongoing

Debates:
Neo-realism remains a powerful and influential approach in International Relations. It provides
a clear and concise framework for understanding the importance of power, security, and the
anarchic structure of the international system in shaping state behaviour. However, neo-
 P a g e | 14

realism is not without its critics. Some scholars argue that it overemphasizes power politics
and competition, neglecting the potential for cooperation among states. Others point out that
neo-realism's focus on the structure of the international system can downplay the role of
domestic factors, ideology, and historical legacies in shaping foreign policy decisions.
Despite these critiques, neo-realism continues to offer valuable insights into the complexities
of international politics. By understanding the core principles and explanatory power of neo-
realism, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the challenges and opportunities that states
face in the international arena.
In conclusion, neo-realism provides a valuable lens for analyzing international politics,
emphasizing the centrality of power, the distribution of capabilities, and the anarchic structure
of the international system. While it is not the only perspective on IR, it offers a powerful
framework for understanding the dynamics of state behaviour and the pursuit of national
interests in a competitive global environment.
Comparison of Realism and Neo-Realism:
Similarities:
➢ Both Realism and Neo-Realism prioritize state-centric analysis of international relations.
➢ Both emphasize the importance of power and security in international politics.
➢ Both acknowledge the competitive nature of states in the international system.
➢ Both theories seek to explain conflict, cooperation, and alliance formation in international
relations.
➢ Both theories inform strategic thinking and foreign policy decisions of states.

Comparison of Realism and Neo-Realism:

Below is the comparison between the two basic approaches to the study of International
Relations:

Aspect Realism Neo-Realism

Human Nature and state

Focus Structure of the international system
preferences

Individual and state-level Systemic pressures and distribution

Unit of Analysis
factors of power
 P a g e | 15

Aspect Realism Neo-Realism

Power politics, security, Anarchy, security dilemma, balance

Central Concepts
survival of power

Rational pursuit of security within

State Behaviour Pursuit of power and security
system

Individual and state Structural constraints and systemic

Explanation
motivations pressures

Relative gains and power Distribution of power and systemic

Emphasis
politics dynamics

Historical Classical realist thinkers (e.g., Emerged as distinct framework in

Foundation Thucydides) mid-20th century

Less systematic and

Theoretical Rigor More scientific and theoretical
theoretical

In summary, while Realism and Neo-Realism share commonalities in their emphasis on power
and security in international politics, they diverge in their approaches to explaining state
behaviour and the underlying dynamics of the international system. Realism focuses on
individual and state-level factors, while Neo-Realism shifts focus to the structural constraints
imposed by the international system.
Idealism (Liberalism):
Cultivating Cooperation: A Look at Idealism in International Relations: In the tapestry of
International Relations (IR) theories, idealism stands in stark contrast to the power-centric
realism and neo-realism approaches. Idealism emphasizes cooperation, international
institutions, and the promotion of shared values as pathways to a more peaceful and
prosperous world order.
 P a g e | 16

A Seed of Hope: The Origins of Idealism:

Idealism emerged in the 18th century with Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant. Kant,
in his work "Perpetual Peace" (1795), envisioned a world governed by reason, where republics
(democratic states) cooperating through a federation of states would prevent war. Early
idealists like Kant advocated for the creation of international institutions like a world
parliament to peacefully resolve disputes between nations.
The horrors of World War I further fuelled the search for alternatives to war. This led to the
establishment of the League of Nations in 1919, the first attempt at a global organization to
maintain peace. The League, championed by US President Woodrow Wilson, embodied the
idealistic vision of collective security, where member states would come to the defense of any
member attacked by another. While the League ultimately failed to prevent World War II, it
laid the groundwork for the creation of the United Nations after the war's conclusion.

Key Figures:
→ Immanuel Kant: A Prussian philosopher who argued for a world order based on reason,
morality, and international law. His concept of "perpetual peace" through a federation of
republics remains a cornerstone of idealistic thought.
→ Woodrow Wilson: The 28th President of the United States who played a pivotal role in the
creation of the League of Nations. Wilson's Fourteen Points peace plan, outlining principles
for ending World War I and establishing a new world order, reflected the ideals of
collective security and self-determination.

Core Tenets of Idealism: A World Transformed:

Idealism rests on a set of core principles that define its optimistic vision for international
relations:
1. The Power of Reason and Morality: Idealists believe that reason and morality can guide
states towards cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution. They advocate for diplomacy,
negotiation, and international law as tools for resolving disputes based on fairness and a
respect for human rights. Idealists believe that by appealing to shared values and the long-
term benefits of cooperation, states can overcome short-term national interests and work
towards a more peaceful world order.
2. Interdependence and Shared Values: Idealism stresses the growing interdependence
between nations in areas like trade, environment, and communication. Increased economic
and social interconnectedness creates a shared interest in global stability and prosperity.
Idealism also emphasizes the importance of shared values like human rights, democracy,
and justice as potential bridges to overcome national differences. The belief is that states
with similar political systems and a commitment to human rights are less likely to resort to
war.
 P a g e | 17

3. International Institutions as Instruments of Peace: Idealists view international institutions

like the United Nations (UN) and regional organizations like the European Union (EU) as
crucial instruments for promoting cooperation, fostering dialogue, and maintaining peace
and security. These institutions provide platforms for states to negotiate, establish
international norms, and collectively address global challenges. Idealists advocate for
strengthening these institutions and expanding their capacity to enforce international law
and mediate disputes effectively.
4. Democratic Peace Theory: A sub-theory of idealism argues that democracies are less likely
to wage war against each other. This is attributed to several factors: democracies tend to
be more transparent and accountable to their citizens, making them less likely to pursue
aggressive foreign policies. Additionally, democratic states often share similar values and
political systems, fostering peaceful relations and cooperation. Democratic peace theory,
however, is not without its critics who point to historical exceptions and the complexities of
defining and measuring "democracy."
5. Promoting Global Governance: Idealists support the development of a more robust system
of global governance, where international institutions can play a stronger role in addressing
global challenges and enforcing international law. This may involve reforming existing
institutions or creating new ones to effectively manage issues like climate change,
pandemics, and global security threats. The goal is to create a more rule-based
international order that transcends national self-interest and promotes the common good
of all nations.

Explanations Offered by Idealism: Fostering Cooperation and Peace:

Idealism sheds light on various aspects of international relations through its optimistic lens:
• Explaining Cooperation and International Law: Similarly, international environmental
treaties based on shared concerns about climate change or pollution encourage
cooperation in addressing these global challenges. The development of international law,
with institutions like the International Court of Justice, reflects the idealistic belief in the
rule of law as a means to peacefully resolve disputes between nations. Idealists see a world
order governed by international law as a path towards a more peaceful and just future.
• Understanding International Organizations: Idealism emphasizes the role of international
organizations like the UN and regional bodies in promoting dialogue, mediating disputes,
and maintaining peace and security. The UN, for instance, provides a platform for states to
discuss issues of global concern, negotiate treaties, and work towards collective solutions.
Regional organizations like the EU or the African Union can foster cooperation and conflict
resolution within their geographical areas. Idealists advocate for strengthening these
organizations by providing them with adequate resources, fostering greater cooperation
 P a g e | 18

among member states, and reforming their structures to make them more effective in
achieving their goals.
• The Influence of Public Opinion and Non-State Actors: Idealism acknowledges the growing
influence of public opinion, human rights groups, and NGOs in shaping international
relations. With the rise of globalization and communication technologies, public opinion
can exert pressure on governments to uphold human rights standards and pursue peaceful
foreign policies. Human rights groups and NGOs play a crucial role in monitoring human
rights abuses, advocating for reform, and mobilizing public pressure on states to comply
with international norms. Idealists see these actors as important forces for positive change
in the international system.
• Promoting Norms and Values: Idealism emphasizes the importance of promoting universal
norms and values like democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as a foundation for a
more peaceful and just world order. The belief is that states that share these values are
more likely to cooperate peacefully and uphold the rights of their citizens. International
institutions play a vital role in promoting these norms through declarations, conventions,
and human rights monitoring mechanisms. The spread of democracy around the world,
with its emphasis on peaceful transitions of power and citizen participation, aligns with the
idealistic vision of a more peaceful international system.

Idealism in Action: Examples from the Real World:

Idealism has played a role in various historical events and developments in international
relations:
1. The Formation of the League of Nations: Following World War I, the League of Nations was
established as an embodiment of the idealistic vision of a world organization to prevent
future wars. The League, despite its shortcomings and eventual failure to prevent World
War II, laid the groundwork for the UN and established the principle of collective security.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Adopted by the UN in 1948, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights represents an idealistic effort to establish a global standard
for human rights protection. While not a legally binding document, it has inspired
numerous human rights treaties and serves as a powerful moral compass for the
international community.
3. The Rise of International Law: The growth of international law, with institutions like the
International Court of Justice, reflects the idealistic belief in the rule of law as a means to
peacefully resolve disputes between nations. While enforcement mechanisms remain a
challenge, international law provides a framework for cooperation and peaceful conflict
resolution.
4. The Promotion of Democracy: The spread of democracy around the world, even with its
imperfections, resonates with the idealistic notion of democratic states being less likely to
 P a g e | 19

wage war against each other. Organizations like Freedom House promote democratic
values and transitions, aligning with the idealistic vision of a more peaceful world order.

Idealism Under Scrutiny: Criticisms and Challenges:

While offering an optimistic vision, idealism faces critiques and challenges in the
contemporary world:
1. The Power of Realism: Critics argue that idealism underestimates the enduring role of
power politics and national interest in international relations. The anarchic nature of the
international system, where there is no central authority to enforce rules, creates a
competitive environment where cooperation can be fragile. Realists point to historical
examples where states have pursued their national interests through military force or
economic coercion, even if it contradicts idealistic principles.
2. Effectiveness of International Institutions: The limitations of international organizations
like the UN, often hampered by veto power and competing national interests, cast doubt
on their ability to fully uphold the idealistic vision of maintaining peace and security. The
UN Security Council, for instance, can be paralyzed by vetoes from its permanent members,
hindering its ability to take decisive action in times of crisis. Idealists advocate for reforms
to strengthen these institutions, but critics argue that national interests will always trump
idealistic goals in the international arena.
3. The Limits of Shared Values: Cultural differences and competing ideologies can make it
difficult to achieve a consensus on shared values, hindering cooperation and effective
global governance. For example, promoting democracy and human rights in certain regions
can be met with resistance from countries with different political systems and cultural
values. This clash of values can complicate international cooperation and make it difficult to
establish universal norms.
4. Promoting Democracy Through Intervention: The use of military intervention to promote
democracy, sometimes justified on idealistic grounds, has led to unintended consequences
and raised questions about the legitimacy of such interventions. Critics argue that these
interventions can destabilize regions, create power vacuums, and fuel resentment towards
the intervening powers. The idealistic goal of promoting democracy can be overshadowed
by the realities of military intervention and the complex political dynamics within the target
countries.
5. Addressing Global Challenges: Complex global challenges like climate change and
pandemics require strong international cooperation, but national interests and a lack of
robust global governance structures can hinder effective responses. Idealists advocate for
stronger international institutions and collective action to address these challenges, but
achieving cooperation on a global scale can be a slow and arduous process. The urgency of
 P a g e | 20

these challenges can clash with the realities of national self-interest and the limitations of
international institutions.

Beyond Optimism and Realism: A Concluding Look:

Idealism, with its emphasis on cooperation, shared values, and international institutions,
offers a valuable counterpoint to the power-centric realism and neo-realism approaches.
While criticized for its optimism and underestimation of the persistence of power politics,
idealism compels us to strive for a more peaceful and just world order.
o Strengths of Idealism: Provides a framework for promoting cooperation, human rights, and
international law. Offers a hopeful vision for a more peaceful future through collective
action. Highlights the role of non-state actors and public opinion in shaping international
relations.
o Weaknesses of Idealism: Can be naive about the enduring role of power politics and
national interest. The effectiveness of international institutions is often limited by
competing national interests. Achieving consensus on shared values can be difficult due to
cultural differences and ideological clashes.
By understanding both the strengths and limitations of idealism, we can engage in a more
nuanced analysis of international relations, recognizing the potential for cooperation and the
challenges that must be overcome to build a better future for our interconnected world.
Idealism serves as a reminder of the importance of striving for a more peaceful and just world
order, even if the path towards achieving that goal is complex and fraught with challenges.
In conclusion, both realism and idealism offer valuable perspectives on international relations.
Realism provides a framework for understanding the competitive nature of the international
system and the importance of power politics. Idealism, on the other hand, emphasizes the
potential for cooperation, shared values, and international institutions to build a more
peaceful and just world order. By studying both approaches, we gain a richer and more
comprehensive understanding of the complex forces that shape our globalized world.

Comparison between Realism and Idealism:

Here’s the comparison of Realism and Idealism in international relations:

Aspect Realism Idealism

Definition A theory that emphasizes the A theory that emphasizes morality

competitive and conflictual side and ethical norms to analyse
 P a g e | 21

Aspect Realism Idealism

of international relations. international relations.

Power politics and national

Focus Moral values and international law.
interest.

Generally optimistic; humans are

View of Human Generally pessimistic; humans are
capable of being moral and
Nature self-centred and competitive.
altruistic.

States should make foreign policy

State States seek power to ensure
decisions based on ethical
Behaviour survival.
considerations.

Can be cooperative and

International Anarchic and conflict-prone due
harmonious if guided by moral
System to lack of overarching authority.
principles.

Achieved through balance of Achieved through peace and

Security
power and deterrence. international cooperation.

Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Kant, Wilson, and contemporary

Key Proponents
Morgenthau. liberal theorists.

Advocates for a pragmatic Encourages policies that promote

Policy
approach based on interests democracy, human rights, and
Implications
rather than ideals. peace.
 P a g e | 22

This table summarizes the core differences between Realism and Idealism, two foundational
approaches to international relations. Realism is grounded in a pragmatic view of international
politics as a struggle for power, while Idealism seeks to apply moral principles to international
politics, aiming for a more peaceful global order.
Behaviouralism:
Unveiling the Science of International Relations: International Relations (IR) grapples with
understanding the complex interactions and behaviours of states on the global stage.
Behaviouralism, a prominent approach that emerged in the mid-20th century, revolutionized
the study of IR by introducing scientific methodologies and a focus on observable state
behaviour. This shift challenged traditional, more philosophical and value-laden approaches by
emphasizing empirical research and rigorous analysis. This section delves into the history, core
tenets, explanations offered, and applications of behaviouralism in understanding
international politics.
A Scientific Revolution: The Rise of Behaviouralism: The aftermath of World War II witnessed
a growing dissatisfaction with the traditional approaches to IR theory. These approaches, often
characterized by grand historical narratives, normative pronouncements, and a focus on broad
philosophical principles, were seen as lacking in scientific rigor. Scholars like Kenneth Waltz
and Quincy Wright sought to establish IR as a more scientific discipline, adopting
methodologies from the social sciences, particularly psychology and political science. This new
approach, known as behaviouralism, aimed to study international politics through an objective
lens, focusing on observable state behaviour and the decision-making processes of
policymakers.
Defining Behaviouralism: A Focus on the Measurable: Behaviouralism in IR defines
international politics as a product of the choices and actions of individual states and the
decision-making processes of their leaders. It emphasizes the importance of studying these
behaviours in a systematic and scientific manner. Unlike traditional approaches that focused
on the inherent nature of states or the international system, behaviouralism sought to explain
state behaviour through empirical research and the analysis of observable factors.

Key figures:
→ Kenneth Waltz: While primarily associated with neo-realism, Waltz's early work on
decision-making processes and bureaucratic politics laid the groundwork for behavioural
approaches in IR.
→ Quincy Wright: A pioneer in applying scientific methods to the study of war, Wright's work
on power politics and international conflict resolution influenced the development of
behavioural research in IR.
 P a g e | 23

→ Harold Laswell: A political scientist who advocated for a more scientific approach to
politics, Laswell’s focus on decision-making processes and the psychological factors
influencing leaders' choices resonated with behaviouralism in IR.
→ Richard Snyder, Glenn Paige, and Harold Sprout: These scholars, often referred to as the
"Syracuse trio," published a seminal work, "Foreign Policy Decision-Making" (1962), which
outlined a framework for analyzing foreign policy decisions based on rational models and
bureaucratic politics.

Core Principles of Behaviouralism: The Scientific Toolkit:

Behaviouralism is characterized by several fundamental principles that guide its approach to
studying IR:
1. Objectivity: Behaviouralism emphasizes the importance of objectivity in research. It seeks
to avoid value judgments and ideological biases, focusing on empirical data and observable
facts.
2. Scientific Methodology: This approach employs scientific methodologies, including data
collection, hypothesis testing, and statistical analysis, to examine international phenomena.
Behaviouralist scholars utilize quantitative data, such as military capabilities or economic
indicators, alongside qualitative data, such as policy documents or interviews with
policymakers, to build a comprehensive understanding of international politics.
3. Focus on Process: Behaviouralism emphasizes the importance of studying the processes
through which states make decisions. This includes analyzing factors like bureaucratic
politics, information gathering, and internal debates within governments. Understanding
these processes allows for a more nuanced understanding of state behaviour beyond
simply looking at final policy outcomes.
4. Theory Building: Behaviouralism promotes the development of rigorous theories that can
explain and predict state behaviour. These theories are often based on assumptions about
human rationality, national interests, and the influence of domestic institutions. By testing
and refining these theories through empirical research, behaviouralists aim to create a
more scientific understanding of international politics.
5. Focus on Measurable Variables: Behavioural research concentrates on analyzing variables
that can be measured and quantified. This allows for more objective and replicable
research findings compared to traditional approaches that relied on subjective
interpretations of historical events or philosophical arguments.

Explanations Offered by Behaviouralism: Understanding State Actions Through

Observation:
Behaviouralism provides several key explanations for phenomena in international politics by
focusing on observable factors and decision-making processes:
 P a g e | 24

• Rational Choice Theory: Behaviouralism draws heavily on rational choice theory, which
posits that states, as rational actors, make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis and
the pursuit of their national interests. This theory emphasizes the importance of
considering factors like power, capabilities, and potential outcomes when analyzing state
behaviour. For instance, a behavioural analysis of a state's decision to engage in trade
negotiations might focus on the economic benefits it seeks to achieve and the potential
costs associated with various trade agreements.
• Bureaucratic Politics: Behaviouralism recognizes that foreign policy decisions often involve
complex bureaucratic processes within governments. Different bureaucratic actors, such as
the military, intelligence agencies, and the foreign ministry, may have competing interests
and priorities. Behaviouralism encourages the study of these internal dynamics and how
they influence the final foreign policy outcomes. For instance, a behavioural analysis of a
state's military intervention might examine the role of different bureaucratic actors, such
as the military pushing for intervention and the foreign ministry seeking diplomatic
solutions.
• Psychological Factors: While traditional approaches often ignored the role of individual
leaders, Behaviouralism acknowledges the potential influence of psychological factors on
decision-making. This includes analyzing leaders' personalities, risk preferences, ideological
beliefs, and perceptions of the international environment. For instance, a behavioural
analysis of a state's decision to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy might consider the
leader's personality traits, such as risk-taking behaviour or a strong focus on national
security.

Examples of Behaviouralism in Action: Shedding Light on International Politics

Behaviouralism has been applied to analyse a wide range of phenomena in international
politics:
1. Foreign Policy Decision-Making: Behavioural research has shed light on the internal
dynamics of governments and how bureaucratic politics, personalities of leaders, and
domestic pressures influence foreign policy choices. Studies have examined how factors
like interagency rivalries, risk preferences of leaders, and public opinion shape a state's
foreign policy decisions.
2. The Causes of War: Behaviouralist scholars have employed rational choice theory to
analyse the conditions under which states choose to go to war. These analyses focus on
factors like the security dilemma, the balance of power, and the potential costs and
benefits of war for different actors. For instance, a behavioural analysis of the outbreak of
World War I might examine the miscalculations made by leaders on both sides, the
incentives for alliances, and the escalation of tensions that ultimately led to war.
 P a g e | 25

3. International Cooperation: Behaviouralism has contributed to the study of international

cooperation by analyzing the conditions under which states find it mutually beneficial to
cooperate in areas like trade, environmental protection, and arms control. Game theory
and rational choice models are used to explore the incentives for cooperation and the
potential challenges, such as free-riding behaviour by individual states. For instance, a
behavioural analysis of a successful international trade agreement might explore how
states used game theory to calculate the potential benefits of cooperation compared to the
risks of unilateral actions.
4. The Role of International Institutions: Behaviouralism has studied the role of international
institutions like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization in shaping state
behaviour. Researchers have examined how these institutions create norms, provide
forums for negotiation, and offer enforcement mechanisms that can incentivize
cooperation among states. For instance, a behavioural analysis of the effectiveness of
international sanctions might explore how these sanctions influence the cost-benefit
calculations of targeted states and their willingness to comply with international norms.

Beyond Behaviouralism: Criticisms and Enduring Legacy:

Despite its significant contributions, behaviouralism has faced criticisms:
o Overemphasis on Rationality: Critics argue that a strict focus on rational choice theory can
oversimplify the complexities of international politics. They point out that factors like
emotions, misperceptions, and ideological beliefs can significantly influence state decisions,
challenging the assumption of perfect rationality.
o Neglect of Domestic Politics: Behaviouralist’s focus on state behaviour sometimes
overlooks the role of domestic political factors in shaping foreign policy. Domestic
institutions, public opinion, and the influence of powerful interest groups can all play a
significant role in influencing state actions.
o Difficulties in Measurement: The emphasis on measurable variables can be limiting in
certain contexts. While quantitative data is valuable, some important aspects of
international relations, such as the role of culture or historical legacies, can be challenging
to quantify.
In conclusion, behaviouralism, though facing critiques, remains an influential approach in IR.
Its emphasis on scientific methodology, empirical research, and the study of decision-making
processes has significantly enhanced our understanding of international politics.
Behaviouralist’s legacy lies in its contribution to building a more rigorous and scientific
foundation for the study of IR, while acknowledging the limitations of a strictly rationalist
approach to a complex and multifaceted field.
 P a g e | 26

Concept of Nationalism
Nationalism: A Powerful Force Shaping the World: Nationalism, a complex and multifaceted
concept, has profoundly shaped the course of human history. It embodies a deep sense of
loyalty and devotion to a nation, often accompanied by the belief in its inherent superiority
and the primacy of its interests. This ideology has fuelled liberation movements, fostered
cultural pride, and tragically, driven conflicts on a global scale. Understanding nationalism
requires delving into its historical emergence, exploring diverse definitions, examining its key
characteristics, and recognizing its continued relevance in the modern world.
Definitions of Nationalism by Prominent Authors:
Nationalism has been a subject of debate and interpretation by philosophers, historians, and
political thinkers throughout the centuries. Here are some notable definitions:
➢ Ernest Renan: A French philosopher, Renan viewed nationalism as a "plebiscite of God,"
where individuals choose to unite based on shared memories, sufferings, and hopes,
creating a "spiritual principle" that binds them together. ([Source: Ernest Renan, "What is a
Nation?" (1882)])
➢ Benedict Anderson: This scholar defined nations as "imagined communities," where
individuals share a sense of belonging to a larger group despite the lack of personal
acquaintance with most members. This imagined community is fostered by shared
language, symbols, and cultural experiences. ([Source: Benedict Anderson, "Imagined
Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism" (1983)])
➢ Eric Hobsbawm: A Marxist historian, Hobsbawm argued that nations and nationalism are
often "invented traditions," created by elites to legitimize their power and control. He
highlighted the role of intellectuals, artists, and educators in constructing a shared national
identity through language, education, and cultural symbols. ([Source: Eric Hobsbawm,
"Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality" (1992)])
These contrasting perspectives illustrate the multifaceted nature of nationalism. Renan
emphasizes the emotional and spiritual connection to a nation, Anderson focuses on the social
construction of national identity, and Hobsbawm highlights the role of power in shaping
nationalism.

Emergence of Nationalism:
Nationalism, as we understand it today, is indeed a relatively recent phenomenon in human
history. While sentiments of patriotism and group identity have existed for centuries, the
organized and systematic promotion of nationalist ideologies became prominent with the rise
of the nation-state in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Prior to this period, loyalties were
often tied to smaller political units such as city-states, religious communities, or empires.
 P a g e | 27

However, several key historical developments paved the way for the emergence of national
consciousness and the subsequent rise of nationalism.
1. Transition from feudalism to centralised monarchy: The decline of feudalism and the rise
of centralized monarchies in Europe played a crucial role in setting the stage for the growth
of nationalism. Feudal societies were characterized by fragmented political authority, with
power dispersed among numerous feudal lords and local authorities. As feudalism waned
and monarchies began to consolidate power, there emerged a more centralized form of
governance, laying the foundation for the concept of the nation-state.
2. The role of the treaty of Westphalia: The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, is often
cited as a pivotal moment in the development of nationalism. While the treaty itself did not
directly promote nationalist ideologies, its implications contributed to the growth of
national consciousness in Europe. The treaty marked the end of the Thirty Years' War, a
devastating conflict that had been fuelled by religious and territorial disputes. One of the
key principles of the Treaty of Westphalia was the recognition of the sovereignty of
individual states, regardless of their size or political structure. This recognition of state
sovereignty helped to solidify the idea of distinct territorial entities with defined borders,
laying the groundwork for the emergence of nation-states.
3. Influence of the Enlightenment: The Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that swept
through Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, also played a significant role in fostering
nationalist sentiments. Enlightenment thinkers championed ideals such as reason,
individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. The emphasis on reason and rationality
encouraged critical thinking about existing political structures and social hierarchies.
Intellectuals began to question the legitimacy of absolute monarchy and feudal privileges,
advocating instead for the rights of the individual and the collective will of the people.
These ideas provided fertile ground for the growth of nationalism, as they challenged the
traditional sources of political authority and legitimacy.
4. The American and French Revolution: The American and French Revolutions are often
cited as prime examples of how nationalism served as a unifying force in the struggle
against colonial rule and absolute monarchies. The American Revolution, which culminated
in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, sought to establish a new nation based on
principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. The revolutionaries rejected the
authority of the British monarchy and asserted the right of the American colonies to self-
governance. Similarly, the French Revolution, which began in 1789 with the storming of the
Bastille, aimed to overthrow the absolutist monarchy of Louis XVI and establish a republic
based on the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Both revolutions not only
resulted in the establishment of independent nation-states but also popularized the ideals
of nationalism and inspired nationalist movements across Europe and the world.
 P a g e | 28

In summary, while feelings of patriotism and group identity have existed for centuries,
nationalism as a distinct political ideology and movement emerged in the context of the rise of
the nation-state in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The decline of feudalism, the
centralization of political authority, the principles of sovereignty established by the Treaty of
Westphalia, and the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment all contributed to the growth of
nationalist sentiments. The American and French Revolutions further fuelled the development
of nationalism by establishing independent nation-states and popularizing the ideals of
popular sovereignty and individual liberty.

Characteristics of Nationalism:
Nationalism can be identified by several key characteristics:
1. Cultural Identity: Nationalism often revolves around shared cultural characteristics such as
language, religion, customs, and traditions. These elements serve as unifying factors for a
nation. For example, in India, linguistic nationalism played a crucial role in the struggle for
independence, with leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru emphasizing the
importance of linguistic diversity as a source of national strength.
2. Political Autonomy: Nationalists advocate for self-governance and independence from
external control or domination. This often leads to the formation of nation-states, where a
distinct national identity is enshrined in political institutions. The breakup of the Soviet
Union in 1991 and the subsequent emergence of independent states in Eastern Europe and
Central Asia exemplify the quest for political autonomy driven by nationalist aspirations.
3. Territorial Sovereignty: Nationalism asserts the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a
nation, promoting the idea of a distinct homeland for its people. This territorial dimension
of nationalism can lead to territorial disputes and conflicts, as seen in the case of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where competing nationalist claims over the land have fuelled
decades of violence and instability.
4. Emotional Attachment: Nationalism fosters a deep emotional attachment and loyalty to
one's nation, often accompanied by pride and patriotism. This emotional dimension of
nationalism can be harnessed by political leaders to mobilize support for various causes,
ranging from military conflicts to social reforms. For instance, during the Falklands War in
1982, Argentine nationalism was instrumentalized by the military junta to rally public
support for the invasion of the Falkland Islands, which Argentina claimed as its own
territory.
5. Collective Consciousness: Nationalism fosters a sense of collective consciousness and
solidarity among members of the nation, emphasizing common goals and interests. This
collective identity is often reinforced through symbols, rituals, and commemorations that
evoke shared historical experiences. For example, national holidays such as Independence
 P a g e | 29

Day or Victory Day serve as occasions for celebrating national unity and reaffirming loyalty
to the nation-state.
6. National Symbols: Flags, anthems, national heroes, and historical narratives become
powerful symbols that evoke national pride and unity.
It's important to remember that nationalism is not a monolithic ideology. It can manifest in
various forms, ranging from a benign sense of civic pride to a dangerous form of xenophobia.

Examples of Nationalism in the Practical World:

The legacy of nationalism continues to shape the world stage today. Here are some prominent
examples:
• The Rise of Populism: Nationalistic sentiments have fuelled the rise of populist movements
in many countries. These movements often exploit anxieties about globalization,
immigration, and economic decline, promising to prioritize the interests of the "true
nation" over global elites or foreigners.
• Secessionist Movements: The desire for national self-determination continues to motivate
secessionist movements, such as the ongoing efforts of groups like the Catalans in Spain or
the Kurds spread across several Middle Eastern countries, who aspire to establish
independent nation-states.
• Ethnic Nationalism and Conflict: In some cases, nationalism takes on an ethnic dimension,
where a particular ethnic group claims exclusive rights to a territory and marginalizes other
ethnicities within the nation. This has been a source of ongoing conflict in many parts of the
world, such as the Balkans, the Middle East, and Africa. The Rwandan genocide stands as a
horrific example of the destructive potential of extreme ethnic nationalism.
• Economic Nationalism: Nationalism can also manifest in the economic sphere. Economic
nationalists advocate for policies that prioritize the domestic economy, such as
protectionist tariffs or subsidies for domestic industries. While these policies can aim to
safeguard jobs and national interests, they can also lead to trade wars and hinder global
economic cooperation.

Nationalism and Global Challenges:

Despite the potential pitfalls of nationalism, it also holds some relevance in addressing
contemporary global challenges. Here's how:
o Promoting Social Cohesion: Nationalism can foster a sense of shared identity and social
cohesion, which can be crucial in addressing issues like poverty, inequality, and
environmental degradation. A strong sense of national purpose can motivate collective
action to tackle these challenges.
 P a g e | 30

o Preserving Cultural Diversity: Nationalism can serve as a bulwark against cultural

homogenization in an increasingly globalized world. It can encourage the preservation of
local languages, traditions, and customs, enriching the global cultural tapestry.
o Countering Global Anomie: The rapid pace of globalization can lead to a sense of
rootlessness and alienation. Nationalism can provide a sense of belonging and grounding,
offering individuals a connection to a larger community with shared values and history.
However, it's crucial to harness the positive aspects of nationalism while mitigating its
negative potential. This requires:
• Inclusive Nationalism: National identity should be broad-based and inclusive,
encompassing all citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, or background. A truly national
identity celebrates diversity while fostering a sense of shared destiny.
• Global Cooperation: Nationalism should not be seen as an antithesis to global cooperation.
Nations can work together to address transnational challenges like climate change,
pandemics, and economic instability. A spirit of international cooperation, alongside a
healthy sense of national identity, is vital in the 21st century.
Conclusion: Nationalism remains a potent force shaping the world today. It can be a source of
both unity and division, progress and conflict. Understanding its history, characteristics, and
multifaceted nature is crucial for navigating the complexities of the globalized world. By
promoting inclusive nationalism, fostering international cooperation, and focusing on shared
challenges, we can harness the positive potential of nationalism while mitigating its dangers.

Origin and Causes of the First World War

Origin of the War: The origins of the First World War lie in a complex interplay of long-
standing rivalries, militarism, imperialism, nationalism, and a series of escalating diplomatic
crises. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw Europe divided into two armed camps by a
system of complex alliances, with powers like Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy forming the
Triple Alliance, and Britain, France, and Russia aligning themselves in the Triple Entente.
Militarism was on the rise, evidenced by the arms race between Britain and Germany, while
imperialism fuelled competition for colonies and spheres of influence, leading to diplomatic
tensions. Nationalism, particularly in the Balkans, was a potent force, with ethnic tensions and
aspirations for independence contributing to unrest. The assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Bosnian Serb nationalist in Sarajevo in June 1914 served as
a trigger, sparking a series of diplomatic exchanges and ultimatums among the Great Powers.
Austria-Hungary's subsequent declaration of war on Serbia, supported by Germany, led to a
cascade of declarations of war, as the intricate system of alliances dragged the major powers
of Europe into a devastating conflict that would ultimately engulf the world.
 P a g e | 31

Long Term Causes of the First World War:

1. The Alliance System: Before 1914, Europe's major powers were divided into two armed
camps by a series of alliances. The Triple Alliance comprised Germany, Austria-Hungary,
and Italy (formed in 1882), while the Triple Entente consisted of Britain, Russia, and France
(established in 1907). These alliances, while defensive in nature, created a situation where
any conflict between one country from each alliance was likely to involve the other
countries as well. For instance, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in 1914
following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Russia, bound by its alliance with
Serbia, began to mobilize its forces, leading Germany to declare war on Russia, which, in
turn, triggered France's entry into the war due to its alliance with Russia.
2. Europe's Dominance: Europe remained the center of global decision-making in 1914, with
significant economic and military power concentrated in the continent. Germany emerged
as the leading power both militarily and economically, surpassing Britain in the production
of pig-iron and steel. France, Belgium, Italy, and Austria-Hungary lagged behind in industrial
production. The United States and Japan also emerged as significant players on the global
stage due to rapid industrialization and modernization. This economic dominance
contributed to competition and rivalries among European powers, as each sought to
expand its influence and control over territories.
3. Variability in Political Systems: The political systems of the major world powers varied
widely. While countries like the USA, Britain, and France embraced democratic forms of
government, others like Germany and Italy had elected lower houses of parliament but
concentrated power in the hands of the Chancellor or monarchy. Russia and Austria-
Hungary, on the other hand, were autocratic states with limited democratic institutions.
These political differences often led to misunderstandings and tensions among the powers,
as democratic governments had different priorities and decision-making processes
compared to autocratic regimes.
4. Militarism: In the years leading up to the war, military spending in all the Great Powers
increased significantly. With the exception of Britain, conscription was widespread, leading
to a large portion of the male population having served in the military. The arms race and
the build-up of weapons increased distrust and tensions among the powers. For example,
the Anglo-German naval arms race, marked by the construction of battleships and
dreadnoughts, heightened tensions between Britain and Germany. This competition for
naval supremacy in the North Sea fuelled fears of a potential conflict between the two
naval powers.
5. Causes of Friction: Several factors contributed to tensions among the Great Powers:
• Naval rivalry between Britain and Germany: The German Naval Laws of 1898 and 1900
aimed to challenge British naval superiority, leading to an arms race between the two
maritime powers.
 P a g e | 32

• French resentment over Alsace-Lorraine: France's desire to regain the territories lost to
Germany in the Franco-Prussian War fuelled nationalist sentiments and a thirst for
revenge, creating a volatile atmosphere in Franco-German relations.
• German accusations of encirclement: Germany perceived the Triple Entente as an
attempt to encircle and contain its power, leading to a sense of insecurity and suspicion
towards Britain, Russia, and France.
6. Nationalism: Intense nationalism was prevalent in most Great Powers. Germany sought
world power status, France desired revenge over Alsace and Lorraine, and Britain
emphasized imperialism and support for the Empire. This nationalism contributed to a lack
of resistance to war in these countries. For instance, in Germany, the concept of
"Weltpolitik" (world policy) promoted by Kaiser Wilhelm II aimed to assert German
dominance on the world stage, fuelling nationalist sentiments and militaristic ambitions.
7. War Plans: The nature of alliances led to the development of war plans that involved rapid
mobilization of troops. Germany's Schlieffen Plan aimed to quickly defeat France and then
turn its attention to Russia, while France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary had their own war
plans. These war plans reflected the assumption that war was inevitable and emphasized
the importance of pre-emptive strikes and offensive strategies. The rigid adherence to
these plans limited diplomatic flexibility and increased the likelihood of a swift escalation to
full-scale war.
8. The Schlieffen Plan; Germany's Schlieffen Plan relied on swift troop movements and
assumed that war with Russia would also mean war with France. It involved concentrating
German forces to capture Paris and then turning to face Russia. The violation of Belgian
neutrality was a key aspect of the plan, as it allowed German forces to bypass French
defences along the Franco-German border and execute a rapid flanking manoeuvre. The
implementation of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 led to the invasion of Belgium and sparked
international condemnation, particularly from Britain, which had guaranteed Belgian
neutrality under the Treaty of London (1839).
9. The Crisis before 1914: Between 1900 and 1914 there had been major crisis between the
great powers. Two were over Morocco (1905, 1911) and the other was over the Austrian
annexation of Bosnia (1908).
• First Moroccan Crisis: In 1905 Kaiser Wilhelm II visited the Moroccan port of Tangier and
denounced French influence in Morocco. The move was designed to test the strength of
the recent Anglo-French entente. The visit provoked an international crisis, which was
resolved in France’s favor at the Algeciras Conference (1906).
• Second Moroccan Crisis: This crisis erupted when the Germans sent the gunboat
“panther” to the Moroccan port of Agadir, to protect German citizens there. Germany
 P a g e | 33

claimed that the French had ignored the terms of Algeciras Conference. This provoked a
major war scare in Britain until the Germans agreed to leave Morocco.
• The Annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina: The two Turkish provinces had been
administered by Austria since the Congress of Berlin. Austria annexed Bosnia after
tricking Russia during negotiations between their respective foreign ministers. Russia
bowed to German pressure when they supported Austria and they agreed to the
annexation. However, she was determined not to be humiliated again. It led to a
strengthening of the different alliances: Firstly, Britain and France during the Moroccan
crisis secondly Austria and Germany during the Bosnian crisis.
10.The Balkans: The decline of the Ottoman Empire and the growth of Slavic nationalism in
the Balkans led to tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia. The Balkan Wars of 1912-
1913 further destabilized the region, with Serbia's territorial expansion alarming Austria-
Hungary. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb nationalist in
Sarajevo in 1914 provided Austria-Hungary with a pretext to issue an ultimatum to Serbia,
leading to a chain of events that culminated in the outbreak of war.
Short Term Causes of the First World War:
The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was not solely the result of immediate triggers
but was also influenced by a culmination of short-term causes that exacerbated existing
tensions among the Great Powers of Europe. These short-term causes, which emerged in the
years leading up to the conflict, added fuel to the fire ignited by long-standing rivalries,
militarism, imperialism, and nationalism. Understanding these short-term causes is essential to
grasp the complex dynamics that ultimately led to the eruption of the deadliest conflict the
world had ever seen.
1. Mutual Defense Alliances: The mutual defense agreements among European countries
created a complex web of alliances that would pull them into war. Countries like Russia,
Germany, France, and Britain were bound by these alliances, increasing the likelihood of
conflict. For instance, the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 was a defensive pact aimed at
countering the threat posed by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Similarly, the Anglo-Russian
Entente of 1907 sought to ease tensions between Britain and Russia and prevent any
potential conflict between them.
2. Imperialism: The competition for colonies and territories in Africa and Asia intensified
among European powers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This scramble for empire
fuelled rivalries and conflicts as countries sought to expand their spheres of influence and
control valuable resources. For example, the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and 1911 were
triggered by Germany's attempts to challenge French dominance in Morocco, leading to
diplomatic tensions and fears of war.
 P a g e | 34

3. Militarism: An arms race had begun among the Great Powers, with Germany leading in
military build-up. Great Britain and Germany both greatly increased their navies in this time
period. This increase in militarism helped push the countries involved into war. Militarism
was not only reflected in the expansion of armed forces but also in the glorification of
military strength and the belief in the efficacy of military solutions to political problems. For
instance, the German military leadership, influenced by the ideas of militarism and
nationalism, supported a policy of aggressive expansionism, as evidenced by the Schlieffen
Plan.
4. Nationalism: Nationalism, particularly in the Balkans, was a significant short-term cause of
the First World War. The desire for independence and self-determination among various
ethnic groups in the region fuelled tensions and conflicts. The assassination of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Bosnian Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, in
Sarajevo in June 1914, is a prime example of how nationalist sentiments contributed to the
outbreak of war. The assassination was seen as a symbol of Slavic resistance against
Austrian rule and triggered a chain of events that ultimately led to the declaration of war.
5. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand: The immediate cause of World War I that
made the aforementioned items come into play (Alliances, Imperialism, Militarism, and
Nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. In
June 1914, a Serbian-nationalist terrorist group called the Black Hand sent groups to
assassinate the Archduke. Their first attempt failed when a driver avoided a grenade
thrown at their car. However, later that day a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip
assassinated him and his wife while they were in Sarajevo, Bosnia which was part of
Austria-Hungary. The assassination led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. When
Russia began to mobilize due to its alliance with Serbia. Germany declared war on Russia.
Thus, began the expansion of the war to include all those involved in the mutual defense
alliances.

World War I – Summery of Events:

The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (June 28, 1914) was the main catalyst
for the start of the Great War (World War I). After the assassination, the following series of
events took place:
• July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia.
• August 1, Austria’s ally, Germany declares war on Russia, an ally of Serbia.
• August 3, Germany declares war on France, an ally of Russia and immediately begins an
invasion of neutral Belgium under Schlieffen plan.
• August 4, Great Britain, an ally of France, resented on Belgium invasion by Germany and
demanded a quick withdrawal of German forces when Germany failed to do so Britain
 P a g e | 35

declares war against Germany and thus a limited Balkan war transformed into Full Fledge
War in Europe.

Ottoman Empire:
November 1914, the Ottoman Empire was brought into the fray as well, after Germany tricked
Russia into thinking that Turkey had attacked it. As a result, much of 1915 was dominated by
Allied actions against the Ottomans in the Mediterranean. First, Britain and France launched a
failed attack on the Dardanelles. This campaign was followed by the Britain invasion of the
Gallipoli Peninsula. Britain also launched a separate campaign against the Turks in
Mesopotamia. Although the British had achieved some success in Mesopotamia, the Gallipoli
campaign and the attacks on the Dardanelles resulted in British defeats.

Trench Warfare:
The middle part of the war, 1916 and 1917 was dominated by continued trench warfare in the
east. Both sides had built a series of trenches that went from the North Sea and through
Belgium and France. Soldiers fought from dug-in positions, striking at each other with machine
guns, heavy artillery, and chemical weapons. The land between the two enemy trench lines
was called “No Man’s Land”. This land was sometimes covered with barbed wire and land
mines. The enemy trenches were generally around 50 to 250 yards apart. Though soldiers died
by the millions in brutal conditions, neither side had achieved any substantive success.

The United States Entrance and Russia Exist:

Despite the stalemate on both fronts in Europe, two important developments in the war
occurred in 1917. In early April, the United States angered on Germany due to many reasons
that compel the USA to declare war on Germany. Then, in November, the Bolshevik Revolution
prompted Russia to pull out of the war.
Reasons for US entry into the War:
1. German Atrocities in Belgium: The invasion of neutral Belgium and stories of German
atrocities in the country greatly shocked and outraged the Americans. Stories of unarmed
civilians being killed and small towns being destroyed circulated in press. They left a strong
anti-German sentiment among Americans.
2. Economic Interests: The American businessmen were very interested in the Allied victory
and many such as J. P. Morgan helped and funded British and French war efforts with
approximately $3 Billion in loans and bond purchases. If the Allies would be defeated by
the Central Powers, they probably wouldn’t be able to repay their debt to their US lenders.
Many businessmen therefore supported the US intervention in the war on the side of the
Allied Forces.
 P a g e | 36

3. Sinking of the Lusitanian: In May 1915, a German U-Boat sunk the British passenger ship
Lusitania off the coast of Ireland. Over 1000 passengers were killed, including 128
Americans. Although the ship may have been carrying military equipment along with the
civilians, the Americans were infuriated because the people on boat weren’t warned before
the sinking. In addition to straining diplomatic relations between the US and Germany, the
sinking of the Lusitania further increased anti-German sentiment in America.
4. Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: In response to Britain’s blockade, Germany turned to
unrestricted submarine warfare to stop goods from reaching Britain. After the sinking of
the Lusitania, they torpedoed another passenger ship which was very unlikely for USA.
5. Zimmermann Telegram: In 1917, German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman sent a
telegram to Mexico suggesting that if the US declares war on Germany, Mexico should
declare war on the US. In return, Mexico would get back the territory lost in the Mexican –
American War (Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona). Unfortunately for Germany, the telegram
was intercepted by the British and hurriedly given to the Americans. Although Mexico had
no real intention of declaring war on the US, the publication of the letter further mobilized
the American people against the Central Powers.

The End of the War and Armistice:

In August – September, an Allied offensive along the Meuse River and through the Argonne
Forest succeeded in driving an exhausted German army backward toward the German border.
Eventually, the governments of both Germany and Austria-Hungary began to lose control as
both countries experienced multiple mutinies from within their military structures. On
November 11, 1918, the Germans signed and armistice in which they agreed to surrender their
arms, give up much of their navy, and evacuate occupied territory.

International Relations between the Two World Wars

Rise of Fascism:
Fascism, a far-right, authoritarian political ideology, casts a long shadow over the 20th century.
Characterized by a dictatorial leader, unwavering devotion to the nation, and a ruthless
suppression of dissent, fascism promised a return to greatness for nations fractured by social
and economic turmoil.

The Seeds of Fascism: A World in Turmoil:

The rise of fascism cannot be understood in isolation from the historical context of the early
20th century. World War I, a horrific conflict that left Europe in ruins, created a fertile
breeding ground for extremist ideologies. Millions lay dead, empires crumbled, and economies
 P a g e | 37

were shattered. The existing political systems seemed incapable of addressing these
challenges, leading to a sense of disillusionment and a yearning for strong leadership.
• Disillusionment with Democracy: The unimaginable horrors of World War I cast doubt on
the ability of democracy to prevent future conflicts. The slow and often messy processes of
democratic decision-making seemed inadequate to address the pressing issues facing war-
torn nations. Fascist leaders exploited this disillusionment, portraying democracy as weak
and indecisive, and themselves as strong, decisive figures who could restore order and
national pride.
• Economic Hardship: The war's aftermath brought with it hyperinflation, widespread
unemployment, and a stark rise in social inequality. Returning soldiers struggled to find
jobs, and the middle class saw their savings evaporate. This economic turmoil provided
fertile ground for extremist movements promising a return to stability and prosperity.
Fascist parties often capitalized on this economic anxiety, blaming communists, Jews, or
other scapegoated groups for the economic woes.
• Fear of Communism: The rise of communism in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution
of 1917 instilled fear in the propertied classes. Many wealthy industrialists and landowners
saw communism as a direct threat to their wealth and privilege. Fascist leaders played on
these fears, portraying themselves as the bulwark against the perceived threat of a
communist revolution. They promised to maintain traditional social hierarchies and protect
private property.

The Emergence of Fascism in Italy:

Italy is considered the birthplace of fascism. Benito Mussolini, a former socialist who became
disillusioned with the movement's perceived weakness, founded the National Fascist Party in
1921. Mussolini, a skilled orator with a knack for manipulating crowds, capitalized on Italy's
post-war anxieties and frustrations, promising national renewal through a strong, centralized
state.
1. The Rise of the Blackshirts: Mussolini's Fascist Party employed violence and intimidation
tactics to silence opposition and consolidate power. Groups of paramilitary thugs known as
Blackshirts, clad in all black and armed with clubs and castor oil (used for brutal attacks),
attacked leftist organizations, politicians, and journalists. This reign of terror instilled fear in
the population and effectively cowed dissent.
2. Exploiting Social Tensions: Fascism appealed to a broad spectrum of Italians, including war
veterans disillusioned by the meager rewards of victory, unemployed workers desperate
for stability, and frustrated nationalists yearning for a return to Italy's past glory. Mussolini
promised to restore Italy's standing as a major power, provide economic security, and
 P a g e | 38

create a strong sense of national identity. He skilfully manipulated these anxieties and
desires to build a mass movement.
3. The March on Rome and the Consolidation of Power: In 1922, Mussolini led a symbolic
march on Rome with thousands of Blackshirts. This display of force aimed to pressure King
Victor Emmanuel III to appoint him Prime Minister. The King, fearing a civil war and lacking
loyalty from the regular army, reluctantly conceded. Once in power, Mussolini
systematically dismantled democratic institutions, outlawing opposition parties, restricting
civil liberties, and manipulating the legal system to eliminate any challenge to his authority.
Over the next few years, Italy transitioned from a flawed democracy to a totalitarian
dictatorship under Mussolini's absolute control.

Core Principles of Fascism:

Fascism is more than just a political ideology; it represents a complete worldview with a set of
core principles that guide its actions.
1. The Nation Above All: The nation is seen as an organic entity, a living organism more
important than any individual or group. The interests of the nation supersede all other
concerns. Individual rights and freedoms are seen as secondary to the collective good of
the nation as defined by the fascist regime. Education systems are geared towards national
indoctrination, instilling unquestioning loyalty to the state and a willingness to sacrifice for
its perceived glory.
2. The Leader as Saviour: The fascist leader is presented as a saviour figure, a larger-than-life
persona destined to restore the nation to greatness. He is seen as possessing exceptional
qualities, strength, and almost mythical powers that make him uniquely qualified to lead.
Propaganda relentlessly portrays the leader as infallible, divinely chosen, and embodying
the will of the people. Questioning his leadership or criticizing his decisions is seen as an act
of treason against the nation itself.
3. Strength Through Unity: Fascism preaches the importance of national unity and social
cohesion. It rejects pluralism and dissent, viewing them as threats to national strength.
Fascist regimes strive to create a homogenous society where everyone thinks, behaves, and
acts in accordance with the regime's ideology. Diversity of thought and expression are
ruthlessly suppressed, and any group deemed "different" is ostracized or even persecuted.
4. Violence as a Tool: Violence is seen as a legitimate tool to achieve political goals. Fascist
regimes often use violence and terror to intimidate and control the population. Opposition
is dealt with harshly, and violence against minority groups or scapegoated populations
becomes commonplace. War and military conquest are glorified as a means to expand the
nation's power and territory.
5. Traditional Values: Fascism promotes traditional values like family, obedience, and strict
social hierarchy. It seeks to maintain a rigid social order with clear divisions between the
 P a g e | 39

sexes and social classes. Women are expected to be submissive and focus on domestic
duties, while men are encouraged to be strong, disciplined, and willing to serve the state.
Fascist regimes often demonize progressive social movements and LGBTQ+ rights as threats
to the traditional social order.
6. Anti-Semitism and Racism: Many fascist ideologies are built on a foundation of racism and
anti-Semitism. Fascist regimes often scapegoat minority groups, blaming them for the
nation's problems, economic woes, or social unrest. This scapegoating can lead to
discrimination, violence, and even genocide. Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and other minority
groups are frequently targeted for persecution based on ethnicity, religion, or sexual
orientation.

The Dangers of Fascism:

Fascism's rise to power in the 20th century had devastating consequences. Here are some of
the key dangers associated with this ideology:
o Suppression of Individual Liberties: Fascist regimes severely restrict individual freedoms.
Freedom of speech, assembly, and religion are curtailed. People are expected to conform
and show complete loyalty to the state. Any form of dissent is ruthlessly crushed, and
citizens live in constant fear of surveillance and retribution. Independent media outlets are
shut down or brought under state control, and information is tightly controlled to serve the
regime's propaganda machine.
o Persecution of Minorities: Fascist ideology often targets minority groups, scapegoating
them for the nation's problems. This can lead to discrimination, violence, and even
genocide. Jews, Roma, homosexuals, political dissidents, and any group deemed "different"
or a threat to the regime's ideology face persecution. Propaganda portrays these groups as
inferior, dangerous, or a burden on the nation, dehumanizing them and justifying violence
against them.
o War and Militarism: Fascism glorifies war and violence. Fascist regimes often pursue
aggressive foreign policies, fuelled by ultranationalism and a desire for territorial
expansion. They view military strength as essential for national security and dominance on
the world stage. Military spending is prioritized, even at the expense of social programs and
economic development. A culture of militarism permeates society, with young men
pressured to join the military and glorify violence and sacrifice for the nation. This
aggressive foreign policy and militaristic mindset can lead to regional instability and global
conflict.
o Erosion of the Rule of Law: Laws are manipulated or disregarded to serve the interests of
the regime. The judiciary is weakened, and basic legal protections are eroded. Courts
become tools of the regime, used to silence dissenters and persecute political opponents.
 P a g e | 40

The concept of "justice" is redefined to serve the fascist ideology, and citizens have little
recourse if they fall out of favor with the state.

Fascism's Legacy: A Continuing Threat:

Fascism was defeated in World War II, but its legacy continues to be felt today. Populist
movements and political leaders who exploit national anxieties, scapegoat minorities, and
promote authoritarian tendencies raise concerns about a potential resurgence of fascist
ideology. It's crucial to recognize the warning signs and remain vigilant in defending
democratic institutions.
By understanding the history, core principles, and dangers of fascism, we can better identify
and resist the forces that seek to erode our freedoms and lead us down a path of
authoritarianism. We must remain committed to promoting tolerance, diversity, and the rule
of law – the very values that fascism seeks to destroy. A critical and informed citizenry is
essential to safeguarding democracy and preventing a return to the dark days of fascist rule.
Nazism and the Rise of Hitler:
Nazism, a specific and virulent strain of fascism, cast a long and devastating shadow over the
20th century. This ideology, spearheaded by the charismatic yet monstrous Adolf Hitler,
plunged Europe into war and resulted in the Holocaust, a systematic genocide that continues
to stain the conscience of humanity. Understanding the complex historical context that
allowed Nazism to flourish and the calculated steps Hitler took to rise to power is crucial to
preventing such horrors from repeating.
The Seeds of Nazism: A Nation Wounded and Desperate: Germany's defeat in World War I
shattered the nation's sense of self and left it in a state of profound upheaval. The Treaty of
Versailles, designed to punish Germany for its wartime aggression, inflicted a deep wound on
the national psyche.
1. A Humiliating Peace: The terms of the Treaty were punitive. Germany was forced to cede
vast territories, accept responsibility for the war's outbreak, and shoulder crippling
reparations payments. This economic burden fuelled inflation and eroded the savings of
ordinary Germans. The territorial losses were seen as a national humiliation, a betrayal of
the sacrifices made during the war. The Treaty became a convenient scapegoat for
Germany's woes, a potent symbol of national degradation.
2. The Fragile Weimar Republic: The newly established Weimar Republic struggled to cope
with the immense challenges facing the nation. The democratic system, unfamiliar to many
Germans, seemed ill-equipped to address the economic crisis and social unrest. Political
instability became the norm, with a constant churn of governments unable to enact
 P a g e | 41

meaningful reforms. This political weakness fuelled a sense of national drift and fuelled the
rise of extremist movements on both the left and the right.
3. Economic Despair and Resentment: The hyperinflation of the early 1920s wiped out the
savings of the middle class and plunged millions into poverty. Unemployment soared, and
social unrest simmered. This economic hardship bred resentment towards the government
and a yearning for a strong leader who could restore stability and national pride. The fertile
ground of economic despair was ripe for the planting of extremist ideologies.

Enter Adolf Hitler: A Charismatic Demagogue with a Sinister Agenda:

Adolf Hitler, a decorated veteran from World War I who harboured a deep resentment for
Germany's defeat, emerged as a powerful figure in this turbulent atmosphere. Here's a closer
look at how he rose to power:
• From Fringe Group to Political Force: In 1919, Hitler joined the German Workers' Party, a
small group with a mix of nationalist, socialist, and virulently anti-Semitic views. His
charisma, captivating oratory skills, and ruthless political instincts propelled him to the
leadership position within the party. He renamed it the National Socialist German Workers'
Party (Nazi Party) and laid out his ideology in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle). This
book, filled with racist and anti-Semitic screeds, became a blueprint for his future actions.
• Exploiting Public Anxieties with Lies and Scapegoating: Hitler's message resonated with
many Germans disillusioned with the Weimar Republic. He blamed Germany's woes on a
convenient series of scapegoats: The Treaty of Versailles, Jews, communists, and other
minorities. He promised to restore national pride, rebuild the military to its former glory,
and create a strong, unified Germany that would dominate Europe. His speeches, filled
with emotional appeals and outright lies, tapped into the deep well of resentment and
anger simmering within the German populace.
• The Beer Hall Putsch: A Failed Coup and a Propaganda Opportunity: In 1923, in a moment
of overconfidence and miscalculation, Hitler attempted a failed coup d'état known as the
Beer Hall Putsch. This attempt to seize power by force ended in his arrest and
imprisonment. However, Hitler shrewdly turned his trial into a platform to spread his
ideology. He used the courtroom as a stage, captivating audiences with his hate-filled
speeches and unwavering belief in his own destiny. While the putsch itself was a failure, it
served as a propaganda coup, introducing Hitler and his ideas to a wider audience.

The Consolidation of Power and the Descent into Tyranny:

Once appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, Hitler wasted no time in dismantling the
democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic and establishing himself as a dictator. Here's a
detailed breakdown of his tactics:
 P a g e | 42

1. The Reichstag Fire and the Enabling Act: A Manufactured Crisis and the Erosion of
Freedoms: A suspicious fire that ravaged the Reichstag parliament building in 1933 was
used as a pretext to crack down on political opponents. Hitler quickly blamed communists
for the fire, a blatant lie, and used this manufactured crisis to suspend civil liberties. The
Reichstag Fire Decree severely restricted freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
Capitalizing on the public fear and confusion, Hitler pushed through the Enabling Act, which
granted dictatorial powers, allowing him to bypass the Reichstag (parliament) and rule by
decree. This effectively ended any semblance of democracy in Germany. Hitler used this
unchecked power to consolidate his control.
2. The Elimination of Political Rivals: A Ruthless Purge: Opposition parties were banned, and
dissent was ruthlessly crushed. Leaders of rival political parties, trade unions, and anyone
deemed a threat to Hitler's regime were arrested, imprisoned, or even murdered. The
Night of Long Knives, a brutal purge within the Nazi Party itself, eliminated potential rivals
like Ernst Röhm and solidified Hitler's absolute control over the party. The Gestapo, the
Nazi secret police, became a force of terror, silencing any opposition through intimidation,
torture, and disappearances.
3. The Cult of Personality: A Führer Mystique: Propaganda became a central tool for the Nazi
regime. Hitler's image was plastered everywhere, from posters to postage stamps. He was
portrayed as a heroic leader, a saviour figure destined to restore Germany's greatness.
Massive rallies were staged, filled with carefully orchestrated displays of national pride and
unwavering loyalty to Hitler. A ruthless propaganda machine, led by Joseph Goebbels,
ensured near-total control of information. Independent media outlets were shut down or
brought under state control, and any criticism of Hitler or the Nazi regime was met with
swift and brutal punishment. This relentless propaganda campaign created a cult of
personality around Hitler, fostering a dangerous sense of blind obedience and national
unity built on hatred and fear.

The Nazi Agenda: A Blueprint for Hatred and Violence:

With absolute power in his hands, Hitler implemented the core tenets of Nazi ideology, a toxic
brew of racism, anti-Semitism, and expansionism:
1. Racial Supremacy: A Twisted Theory of Purity: Nazis believed in the superiority of the
Aryan race, a pseudo-scientific concept based on a distorted interpretation of Charles
Darwin's theory of evolution. They saw themselves as the pinnacle of human development,
destined to rule over "inferior" races. This warped ideology fuelled a relentless campaign of
persecution and violence against anyone deemed not "pure Aryan." Jews, Roma (Sinti and
Roma), Slavs, and other minorities were targeted for discrimination, forced labour, and
ultimately, extermination in the Holocaust, a systematic genocide that would stain the 20th
century.
 P a g e | 43

2. Anti-Semitism: A Scapegoat for National Woes: Jews were singled out for scapegoating and
violence from the very beginning of the Nazi movement. Hitler's propaganda machine
relentlessly portrayed them as responsible for Germany's problems – economic woes, the
loss of World War I, and the perceived decline of German culture. Nazi ideology demonized
Jews as a subhuman race, a threat to Aryan purity and national dominance. This virulent
anti-Semitism paved the way for the horrors of the Holocaust, the industrialized mass
murder of Jews across Europe.
3. Lebensraum (Living Space): A Dream Fuelled by Aggression: Nazis believed Germany
needed more Lebensraum (living space) for its superior race. This expansionist ideology
fuelled German aggression and ultimately led to World War II. Hitler set his sights on
eastward expansion, aiming to conquer vast swathes of territory in Eastern Europe to
provide Lebensraum for the German people. This aggressive foreign policy, coupled with
the persecution of minorities and the remilitarization of Germany, shattered the fragile
peace of Europe and plunged the world into another devastating global conflict.
The rise of Nazism and Hitler's dictatorship were not inevitable events. They were the product
of a complex interplay of historical factors, economic hardship, political instability, and the
manipulation of public anxieties by a charismatic yet monstrous leader. Understanding this
dark chapter in human history is crucial. By remembering the horrors of Nazism, we can work
to identify the warning signs of extremism, promote tolerance and understanding, and
safeguard democracy from the insidious forces of hatred and violence.

Origin and Causes of the Second World War

The Origin of World War Second and the Legacy of World War First:
Seeds of Resentment and a Fragile Peace: The embers of World War II glowed in the ashes of
World War I (1914-1918). The Treaty of Versailles, designed to punish Germany for its role in
the "Great War," left a deep sense of resentment and humiliation festering in the hearts of
many Germans.
• A Treaty Steeped in Humiliation: The Treaty imposed harsh terms on Germany, including
territorial losses like Alsace-Lorraine to France and West Prussia to Poland. The German
Rhineland, a strategically important border region with France, was demilitarized, stripping
Germany of its defensive capabilities. The Treaty also mandated crippling reparations
payments – enormous sums of money Germany was forced to pay to the Allied powers to
compensate for the war's damages. This economic burden stifled Germany's recovery and
fuelled a sense of national betrayal. The Treaty became a convenient scapegoat for
Germany's woes, a symbol of national degradation used by extremists to rally support.
• The Fragile Weimar Republic: The political instability of the Weimar Republic, the fragile
democracy established after the war's conclusion, further exacerbated these tensions. The
 P a g e | 44

economic hardships caused by the reparations, coupled with hyperinflation that eroded the
savings of ordinary Germans, created fertile ground for the rise of extremist movements on
both the left and the right. The resentment towards the Treaty and a yearning for a strong
leader who could restore national pride fuelled the rise of the Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler.
The Weimar Republic, lacking the widespread support of the populace and facing constant
political turmoil, struggled to address these challenges and maintain stability.
Causes of World War Second:
The Rise of Totalitarianism: A Threat to Peace and Democracy:
The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan posed a significant threat to
international peace and the very fabric of democracy. These regimes, characterized by
absolute control by a dictator, aggressive expansionist policies, and suppression of dissent,
sought to dominate the world order.
1. Nazi Germany: A Cult of Personality and Ruthless Expansion: Under Hitler's leadership, Nazi
Germany became a belligerent power fuelled by a toxic ideology. Hitler's ideology of racial
supremacy, Lebensraum (living space for the Aryan race), and extreme nationalism fuelled
German aggression. He defied the Treaty of Versailles by remilitarizing the Rhineland, a
blatant violation, and went on to annex Austria through a bloodless coup (Anschluss) in
1938. Using a combination of intimidation, propaganda, and military force, he carved up
Czechoslovakia through the Munich Agreement, a concession by Western powers that
emboldened Hitler's ambitions. These actions aimed to expand German territory and
create a vast Aryan empire in Eastern Europe. A ruthless propaganda machine cranked out
messages filled with hatred and lies, manipulating public opinion and fostering a cult of
personality around Hitler. Dissent was ruthlessly crushed by the Gestapo, the Nazi secret
police, and any opposition was swiftly eliminated.
2. Fascist Italy: A Glorification of Violence and Territorial Expansion: In Italy, Benito Mussolini
established a fascist dictatorship that glorified violence and territorial expansion.
Mussolini's ideology, rooted in ultranationalism and a desire to revive the glory of the
Roman Empire, fuelled Italian aggression. In 1935, Mussolini's Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia,
a blatant act of colonial conquest that violated the League of Nations covenant and
foreshadowed further aggression. Mussolini's alliance with Hitler, known as the Rome-
Berlin Axis, further destabilized the international order and emboldened the ambitions of
both dictators.
3. Imperialist Japan: A Militaristic Power with Designs on Asia: Across the Pacific, Japan
pursued an aggressive expansionist policy driven by a desire for raw materials and fuelled
by a sense of national superiority. Nationalistic fervour and a belief in Japanese racial
dominance permeated the military and government. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, a
resource-rich region in northern China, and established a puppet state. This act of
 P a g e | 45

aggression went largely unchecked by the international community, emboldening Japan's

military leaders. In 1937, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China, initiating a brutal
war that would drag on for most of World War II. The Japanese military's ambitions
threatened the balance of power in Asia and challenged Western colonial dominance in the
region.

The Failure of Appeasement: A Flawed Policy with Disastrous Consequences:

Many Western democracies, weary of another global war after the horrors of World War I,
adopted a policy of appeasement in the face of growing aggression from Germany and Italy.
Appeasement involved making concessions to these dictators in the hope of preserving peace.
However, this policy ultimately emboldened Hitler and Mussolini, leading them to believe they
could act with impunity.
• A Misguided Attempt to Avoid Conflict: Leaders like British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain believed appeasement would satiate Hitler's demands and prevent a wider
war. They hoped concessions, however distasteful, would buy time for Britain to rearm and
avoid a repeat of the devastating trench warfare of World War I. This policy reflected a
deep-seated desire for peace at almost any cost, a fear of another bloody conflict that had
left a deep scar on European society. However, appeasement proved disastrous. Hitler saw
concessions as signs of weakness and used them to escalate his demands and test the
resolve of the Western powers.
• The Munich Agreement: A Catalyst for Further Aggression: A prime example of
appeasement was the Munich Agreement of 1938. In this agreement, Britain, France, Italy
allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a predominantly German-speaking region
of Czechoslovakia. This concession was seen as a way to avoid war, but it also signalled
Western weakness and emboldened Hitler's expansionist ambitions. It became clear that
appeasement only emboldened Hitler, who saw it as a green light for further aggression.
The Munich Agreement stands as a stark reminder of the dangers of appeasement in the
face of totalitarian dictators.

Additional Contributing Factors: A Complex Web of Causes:

Beyond the major factors mentioned above, several other issues contributed to the outbreak
of World War II:
1. The Great Depression's Economic Scars: The Great Depression of the 1930s created
economic hardship and political instability around the world. This economic crisis
weakened democracies and strengthened the appeal of totalitarian regimes that promised
national renewal and economic recovery. The desperation caused by the Depression
created fertile ground for extremist ideologies that scapegoated minorities and promised a
return to national greatness.
 P a g e | 46

2. Colonial Rivalries: Long-Standing Tensions and Competition: Competition between

European powers for colonies and resources in Africa and Asia remained a source of
tension throughout the interwar period. These long-standing rivalries, fuelled by a desire
for empire and economic dominance, contributed to the atmosphere of suspicion and
distrust that ultimately led to war. Unresolved territorial disputes and a scramble for
resources in Asia and Africa added to the tinderbox of international tensions.
3. The Arms Race: A Spiralling Escalation and Fear of Weakness: An arms race between major
powers in the 1930s fuelled fears and anxieties. Germany's rapid remilitarization, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles, was seen as a clear threat to European peace. This
arms race created a sense of impending conflict and a dangerous escalation of tensions.
Each nation, fearing weakness and vulnerability, stockpiled weapons and prepared for war,
creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
4. The Ineffectiveness of Collective Security: A League of Nations in Name Only: The League
of Nations, the international organization established after World War I to maintain peace,
proved ineffective in preventing aggression. The League's lack of enforcement mechanisms
and its reliance on unanimous decision-making made it powerless to stop the rise of
totalitarian regimes and their expansionist policies. The League's inability to address crises
like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia demonstrated
its weaknesses and its ultimate failure to prevent another global conflict.

The Invasion of Poland and the Outbreak of War: A Breach of Trust and a Global
Conflict:
Despite the policy of appeasement, Hitler's aggression continued. In August 1939, he signed a
non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, a secret agreement that divided Eastern Europe
between the two totalitarian powers. This pact, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,
stunned the world and shattered any remaining trust in the Soviet Union's commitment to
collective security. Emboldened by this pact and the perceived weakness of the Western
powers, Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Great Britain and France, honouring
their commitment to defend Polish independence, declared war on Germany on September
3rd, marking the official beginning of World War II.

The Global Conflict: A Brutal War on Two Fronts:

World War II unfolded in two major theatres: Europe and the Pacific. The war involved a
complex web of alliances, with nations drawn into the conflict as a result of existing treaties or
direct aggression.
→ The War in Europe: Blitzkrieg, Barbarossa, and the Tide Turning: The war in Europe began
with Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. The blitzkrieg tactics employed
by the German army, a combination of coordinated airpower, armoured tank divisions, and
 P a g e | 47

mechanized infantry, led to rapid conquests of Poland, France, and other European
countries. This devastatingly effective tactic relied on surprise attacks, overwhelming force,
and swift movement to cripple enemy defences before they could mobilize a proper
response. However, the tide of the war began to turn in 1941 with two significant events.
First, Hitler's ill-conceived decision to launch Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the
Soviet Union, resulted in a brutal war of attrition on the Eastern Front. The vast distances,
harsh Russian winter, and fierce resistance of the Red Army inflicted heavy losses on the
German military and ultimately stretched German resources beyond their capacity. Second,
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into
the war on the side of the Allies. The combined industrial might of the United States,
Britain, and the Soviet Union eventually proved too much for Germany to overcome.
→ The War in the Pacific: Island Hopping and the Atomic Bomb: Japan's attack on Pearl
Harbor, a US naval base in Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into the
war. This attack was a gamble by Japan aimed at crippling the American Pacific Fleet and
preventing US intervention in its expansionist plans in Asia. However, it backfired
spectacularly, uniting the American public behind the war effort. The war in the Pacific
involved a brutal island-hopping campaign by the US against Japan. This strategy involved
capturing strategically located islands, bypassing heavily fortified Japanese positions, and
establishing airbases closer to mainland Japan. The battles were fierce and costly for both
sides, but the superior industrial capacity and technological advancements of the US slowly
eroded Japanese defences. The war culminated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in August 1945, a controversial decision that ultimately forced Japan's surrender.

The Holocaust: A Stain on Humanity:

One of the darkest chapters of World War II was the Holocaust, the systematic genocide of
European Jews by Nazi Germany. Driven by anti-Semitic ideology and a twisted belief in racial
purity, the Nazis murdered approximately six million Jews, alongside millions of others
deemed "undesirable," including Roma (Sinti and Roma), homosexuals, political dissidents,
and Soviet prisoners of war. The Holocaust involved a horrifying escalation of Nazi
persecution, from discriminatory legislation and social exclusion to mass deportation,
ghettoization, and finally, extermination camps specifically designed for industrial-scale
murder. The Holocaust serves as a chilling reminder of the depths of human depravity and the
dangers of unchecked hatred and extremism.

The End of the War and the Aftermath: A Devastated World and a New Order:
World War II ended in 1945 with the unconditional surrender of Germany in May and Japan in
August. The war left behind a devastated world, with millions of died, cities in ruins, and
economies shattered. The victors, the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, met at the
 P a g e | 48

Yalta and Potsdam conferences to decide the fate of post-war Europe and establish a new
world order.
• The Yalta Conference: Held in February 1945, the Yalta Conference brought together US
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet
Premier Joseph Stalin to discuss the final stages of the war and the post-war world. Key
agreements included plans for the defeat of Germany, the division of occupied Germany
into zones of control, and the establishment of the United Nations as a successor
organization to the failed League of Nations. However, tensions between the Western
powers and the Soviet Union regarding Eastern Europe were already evident at this
conference, foreshadowing the Cold War that would dominate the latter half of the 20th
century.
• The Potsdam Conference: The Potsdam Conference, held in July 1945 after the surrender
of Germany, brought together US President Harry S. Truman (who had succeeded
Roosevelt after his death), British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (later replaced by
Clement Attlee), and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. The main objectives of this conference
were to confirm the terms of German surrender, establish borders in Eastern Europe, and
discuss the post-war administration of Germany and Japan. Tensions between the West
and the Soviet Union continued to simmer, particularly regarding the future of Poland and
Soviet territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe.
The Legacy of World War II: A World Forever Changed:
World War II had a profound and lasting impact on the world:
1. A New World Order: The Rise of the United Nations: The war led to the creation of the
United Nations (UN), an international organization dedicated to maintaining peace and
promoting international cooperation. The UN aimed to address the shortcomings of the
League of Nations and provide a more robust framework for preventing future global
conflicts. The UN established a Security Council with five permanent members (US, UK,
France, China, and Russia) who possess veto power, and a General Assembly where all
member states have a voice. The organization also established various specialized agencies
to address global challenges like health, education, and refugee resettlement. However,
the Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union often hampered the
effectiveness of the UN Security Council, highlighting the ongoing challenges of maintaining
international peace and security.
2. The Cold War: A Bi-Polar World Divided by Ideology: However, the wartime alliance
between the United States and the Soviet Union fractured soon after the war's end, leading
to the Cold War, a period of ideological and geopolitical rivalry between the two
superpowers. This rivalry dominated international relations for nearly five decades, shaping
 P a g e | 49

global politics and proxy conflicts around the world. The US, a capitalist democracy,
championed freedom and self-determination while the Soviet Union, a communist state,
promoted a centrally planned economy and a one-party political system. This ideological
divide fuelled an arms race, the creation of military alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact),
and a constant state of tension and suspicion. The Cold War cast a long shadow over the
latter half of the 20th century, shaping international relations, technological advancements,
and proxy conflicts around the globe.
3. The Rise of Superpowers: A World Dominated by Two Powers: The United States and the
Soviet Union emerged from the war as superpowers, possessing immense military and
economic power. This bipolar world order shaped international relations for the latter half
of the 20th century. The US emerged as the dominant economic and military power,
promoting democracy and capitalism around the world. The Soviet Union, despite suffering
immense losses during the war, rebuilt its military and established itself as a formidable
rival to the US. This bipolarity influenced global politics, economics, and cultural exchange
throughout the Cold War period.
4. Decolonization: The End of Empires and the Rise of New Nations: World War II weakened
European colonial empires. The war exposed the vulnerability of European powers and
emboldened independence movements in Asia and Africa. The ideals of freedom and self-
determination championed by the Allies during the war inspired colonized peoples to fight
for their own independence. Following the war, a wave of decolonization swept across Asia
and Africa, leading to the creation of dozens of new nation-states. This process of
decolonization reshaped the global political landscape, creating new challenges and
opportunities in the post-colonial world. The newly independent nations often faced
internal struggles to establish stable governments, develop their economies, and forge
their place in the international order.
5. Technological Advancements: A Double-Edged Sword: The war spurred significant
technological advancements, with developments in fields such as radar, nuclear energy,
and aviation. Radar technology revolutionized warfare by allowing for early detection of
enemy aircraft and ships. The development of the atomic bomb, however, ushered in a
new era of fear and destruction. The US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August
1945 marked a turning point in warfare and raised profound ethical questions about the
use of such weapons of mass destruction. Advancements in medicine, with the
development of penicillin and other antibiotics, also saved countless lives during the war
and had a lasting impact on public health. The technological advancements of World War II
laid the foundation for further innovations in the decades to come, but also highlighted the
potential dangers of scientific progress.
 P a g e | 50

Conclusion: The Second World War was a turning point in human history. It was a conflict of
unprecedented scale and brutality, leaving behind a legacy of destruction and devastation.
However, it also served as a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked aggression,
intolerance, and the pursuit of war. By understanding the origins and causes of World War II,
we can work to prevent such tragedies from occurring again. We must strive to learn from the
mistakes of the past, promote international cooperation, and build a more peaceful and just
world.

Balance of Power
What is Balance of Power?
It Is Indeed very difficult to define Balance of Power. It has been defined it differently by
different scholars. Some writers define it in terms of equilibrium where as others in terms of
"preponderance" or "disequilibrium". Some define it as a principle of action while others
define it as a policy or system,
Some Popular Definitions of Balance of Power:
➢ "Balance of Power is such a 'just equilibrium' in power among the members of the family of
nations as will prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will
upon others." -Sidney B. Fay
➢ "Balance of Power is an equilibrium or a certain amount of stability in power relations that
under favourable conditions is produced by an alliance of states or by other devices."
George Schwarzenberger.
➢ "Balance of Power is such a system in which some nations regulate their power relations
without any Interference by any big power. As such it is a decentralized system in which
power and policies remain in the hands of constituting units." -Inis Claude.
➢ Balance of Power means "the maintenance of such a just equilibrium between the
members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming
sufficiently strong to impose its will upon the rest." -Lord Castlereagh.
➢ "Whenever the term Balance of Power is used without qualification, it refers to an actual
state of affairs in which power is distributed among nations with approximately equality."
Hans. J. Morgenthau
All these definitions clearly reflect that Balance of Power is defined differently by different
scholars. It is very difficult to give or select a uniformly acceptable definition. This difficultly
makes it essential for us to study the features of Balance of Power.

Nature of Balance of Power:

Palmer and Perkins describe several major features of Balance of Power (BOP):
 P a g e | 51

1. Some Sort of Equilibrium in Power Relations: The term Balance of Power suggests
'equilibrium which is subject to constant, ceaseless change. In short, though it stands for
equilibrium, it also involves some disequilibrium. That is why scholars define as a just
equilibrium or some sort of equilibrium in power relations.
2. Temporary and Unstable: In practice a balance of power always proves to be temporary
and unstable. A particular balance of power survives only for a short time.
3. To be Actively Achieved: The balance of power has to be achieved by the active
intervention of men. It is not a gift 6 of God States cannot afford to wait until it "happens".
They have to secure it through their efforts.
4. Favours Status quo: Balance of power favours status quo in power positions of major
powers. It seeks to maintain a balance in their power relations. However, in order to be
effective, a foreign policy of balance of power must be changing and dynamic.
5. The Test of BOP is War: A real balance of power seldom exists. The only test of a balance is
war and when war breaks out the balance comes to an end War is a situation which
balance of power seeks to prevent and when it breaks out, balance power comes to an end.
6. Not a Device of Peace: Balance of Power is not a primary device of peace because it admits
war as a means for maintaining balance.
7. Big Powers as Actors of BOP: In a balance of power system, the big states or powerful
states are the players. The small states or less powerful states are either spectators or the
victims of the game.
8. Multiplicity of States as an Essential Condition: Balance of Power system operates when
there are present a number of major powers, each A of which is determined to maintain a
particular balance or equilibrium in their power relations
9. National Interest is its Basis: Balance of Power is a policy that can be adopted by any state.
The real basis that leads this policy is national interest in a given environment

Major Postulates/demands of Balance of Power:

a. A nation following balance of power is prepared to change its alliances or treaties if the
circumstances may so demand.
b. When a nation finds that a particular preponderance of power is increasing menacingly,
gets prepared to go to war for maintaining the balance
c. Balance of Power postulates that no nation is to be totally eliminated in war. War is aimed
only at the weakening of power of the violator of the balance. After war a new balance of
power system is achieved. The basic principle of Balance of Power is that excessive power
anywhere in the system is a threat to the existence of others and that the most effective
antidote to power is power.
 P a g e | 52

From the above discussion of the features, assumptions, postulates and purposes of Balance
of Power, it becomes clear that Balance of power is a device of power management which is
used by several major powers for maintaining a balance in their power relations.
In this process they maintain a sort of equilibrium in their power relations and do not permit
any state to violate the Balance. In case any state tries to disturb or violate the balance of
power, the other states individually or collectively or is a group can take action, including war,
for weakening the power of the violator as well as for restoring the balance.
Methods of Balance of Power:
Balance of Power is not automatic; it has to be secured by the states following this policy. In
fact, there are several methods by which states try to secure and maintain balance of power.
"Balance of Power is a game which is played by actors with the help of several devices."

Major Methods of Balance of Power:

1. Compensation: It is also known as territorial compensation. It usually entails the
annexation or division of the territory of the state whose power is considered dangerous
for the balance. In the 17th and 18th centuries this device was regularly used for
maintaining a balance of power which used to get disturbed by the territorial acquisitions
of any nation. For examples the three partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795 were
based upon the principle of compensation Austria, Prussia and Russia agreed to divide
Polish territory in such a way that the distribution of power among them would be
approximately the same. In the latter part of the 19th century, and after each of the two
world wars of the 20th century, territorial compensation was used as a device for
weakening the powers of the states whose actions had led to a violation of the balance. it
was applied by the colonial powers for justifying their actions aimed at maintaining their
Imperial possessions.
2. Alliances and Counter Alliances: Alliance-making are regarded as a principal method of
balance of power. Alliance is a device by which a combination of nations creates a
favourable balance of power by entering into military or security pacts aimed at
augmenting their own strength vis-a-vis-the power of their opponents. However, an
alliance among a group of nations, almost always, leads to the establishment of a counter
alliance by the opponents. History is full of examples of such alliances, and counter
alliances. Whenever any nation threatened the balance of Europe, other states formed
alliances against it and were usually able to curb the power of the over- ambitious state.
After the Triple Alliance of 1882, a rival alliance-The Triple Entente, was slowly formed
through bilateral agreements over a period of 17 years (1891 - 1907)
In post-1945 period, alliances like NATO, SEATO, Warsaw Pact emerged as devices of
Balance of Power. The first two were established by the USA and the third one was
 P a g e | 53

organised by the erstwhile USSR for strengthening their respective power positions in the
era of cold war.
3. Intervention and Non-intervention: "Intervention is a dictatorial interference in the
internal affairs of another state/states with a view to change or maintain a particular
desired situation which is considered to be harmful or useful to the competing opponents,
Some times during a war between two states no attempt is made by other states to
intervene. This is done for making the two warring states weaker. As such intervention and
non-intervention are used as devices of Balance of Power. Mostly it is used by a major
power for regaining an old ally or for picking up a new ally or for imposing a desired
situation on other states. British intervention in Greece, the US intervention is Grenada,
Nicaragua, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and (Erstwhile) USSR's interventions in Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan can be quoted as examples of interventions
carried out by the big powers.
4. Divide and Rule: The policy of divide and rule has also been a method of balance of power.
It has been a time-honoured policy of weakening the opponents, it is resorted to be all such
nations who try to make or keep their competitors weak by keeping them divided or by
dividing them. The French policy towards Germany and the British policy towards the
European continent car be cited as the outstanding example. The rich and powerful states
now do not refrain from using divide and rule for controlling the policies of the new states
of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
5. Buffer States of Zones: Another method of balance of power is to set up a buffer state
between two rivals or opponents. Buffers, observes V.V. Dyke, "are areas which are weak,
which possess considerable strategic importance to two or more strong powers, Buffer is a
small state created or maintained as a separating state i.e. as a buffer state for keeping two
competing states physically separate, each stronger power then tries to bring the buffer
within its sphere of influence but regards it as important, if not vital, that no other strong
power be permitted to do so. The major function of a buffer is to keep the two powerful
nations apart and thus minimise the chances of clash and hence to help the maintenance of
balance."
6. Armaments and Disarmaments: All nations, particularly very powerful nations, place great
emphasis on armaments as the means for maintaining or securing a favourable position in
power relations in the world. It is also used as a means to keep away a possible aggressor
or enemy. However, armament race between two competitors or opponents can lead to a
highly dangerous situation which cans accidently cause a wary in this way armament race
can act as a danger to world peace and security. Consequently, now-a-days, Disarmaments
and Arms Control are regarded as better devices for maintaining and strengthening world
peace and security. A comprehensive disarmament plan/exercise involving nuclear
 P a g e | 54

disarmament can go a long way in strengthening the balance (peace) that exists in
international relations.
7. The Holder of the Balance or the Balancer: The system of balance of power may consist of
two scales plus a third element 'holder of the balance or the balancer. The balancer is a
nation or a group of nations, which remains aloof from the policies of the two rivals or
opponents and plays the role of, "the laughing third party." It poses temptations to both
parties to the balance, and each contending party tries to win over the support of the
laughing third party the balancer. Normally, the balancer remains away from both the
parties but if any party to the balance becomes unduly weak resulting into a threat to the
balance, the balancer joins it and helps the restoration of balance. After that the balancer
again becomes aloof. Traditionally Britain used to play the role of a balancer in Europe.
However, in the era cold war no state could perform the role of a balancer in international
relations.
The rise of unipolarity after 1991, involving the presence of only one super power has now
further reduced the chances for the emergence of a balancer in international relations.
These are the seven major methods or devices of Balance of Power. These have been
traditionally used by nations pursuing the policy of a balance of power

Critical Evaluation of Balance of Power:

Balance of Power has been strongly praised as well as severely criticized.
Some Scholars observe: "Balance of Power is nearly a fundamental law of politics as is possible
to find." -Martin Wright
"Balance of Power is a basic principle of international relations." -Palmer and Perkins
As against this several others like Richard Cobden criticize it as unreal, inadequate and
uncertain system. They hold that Balance of Power admits war in the have balance and makes
the nations power hungry. The supporters of Balance of Power advance a number of
arguments in favour and give example of the 1815-1914 period of history to prove the
effectiveness of balance of power as a device of power management.

Balance of Power: Arguments in Favour:

• A Source of Stability in International Relations: Balance of Power provides stability to
international relations. It is a device of effective power management and peace. During the
past 400 years it was successful, at most of the times, in preserving peace. "Balance of
Power has many a times prevented war. War breaks out only when any state assumes
excessive power." -Fredric Geniz.
 P a g e | 55

• It suits the real nature of International Relations: Balance of Power is in tune with the
dynamic nature of international relations. It helps continuous adjustments and
readjustments in relations without any grave risk of war among states.
• Ensures Multiplicity of States: Since Balance of Power postulates the presence of a number
of major international actors (7 or 3 even more), it ensures multiplicity of nations and their
active participation in preserving balance in International relations.
• Guarantees the Freedom of Small States: Balance of Power ensures the preservation of
small and weak states. Its rule that no nation is to be completely eliminated, favors the
continued existence of all states. Each state feels secure about its security in the balance of
power system.
• Balance of Power Discourages Wars: Balance of Power discourages war because each state
knows that any attempt to become unduly powerful shall invoke an action, even war, by all
other states and hence, it keeps its ambitions under control.
• A Source of Peace in International Relations: Finally, Balance of Power is always a source
of peace and order in international relations. It supports status quo in relations. Between
1815-1914 it successfully prevented war.

Balance of Power: Arguments Against:

o Balance of Power cannot ensure Peace: Balance of Power does not necessarily bring
peace. Even during its golden days, it smiled to prevent the domination of small states by
the big states. It was not successful in preserving the security of small states. In fact, in the
past, wars have been fought in the name of preservation of Balance of Power. The three
periods of stability-one starting from 1648, the second from 1815 and the third from Treaty
of Versailles (1918), were preceded by continuous warfare and by the wholesale
elimination of small states starting with the destruction of Poland, and followed by a large
number of isolated acts of a similar nature. The tragedy is that all these acts were
accomplished in the name of balance of power. Balance of Power cannot really secure
peace and freedom of the nations.
o States are not Static Units: Each state always tries to secure more and more national
power. It does not really belong to any balance of power system. Another point that must
be raised about the balance of power is that nations are not static units. They increase their
power through military aggressions, seizure of territory and alliances. They can change
their power from within by improving social organisation, by industrializing and by
mobilizing Internal resources. So, the traditional mechanism of the balance of power is not
the only cause responsible for an increase of power.
o Preponderance of One State, in the world can also secure Peace: A preponderance of
power in the hands of one state or group of states does not necessarily threaten world
peace or the independence of any nation. The unipolarism resulting from the collapse of
 P a g e | 56

one super power (USSR) and the continued presence of the other super power (USA) has
not in any way disturbed International peace and security or power balance. In
contemporary times the preponderance of one state is a reality and yet there is peace and
peaceful coexistence.
o Narrow Basis: The concept of Balance of Power is based upon a narrow view of
international relations. It regards power-relations as the whole of international relations. It
gives near total importance to preservation of self and national-interest as the motives of
all state actions. It fails to give proper weight age to other ends-social, economic, cultural
and moral, that provide strong motives to International relations.
o A Mechanical view of Peace: Balance of Power wrongly takes a mechanistic view of world
peace as a situation of balance or equilibrium in power relations. Peace does not depend
upon balance in power relations. It really depends upon international consciousness and
morality.
o Equality of a number of States is a Myth: Balance of Power presupposes the existence of a
number of equally powerful states. In practice no two states have or can have equal power.
It involves the conception of equilibrium which is in fact disequilibrium and is subject to
continuous change.
o Nations are not free to break Alliances: The theory of the balance of power can also be
criticized on the ground that it wrongly assumes that nations are free to make or break
alliances as and when they may desire for the main consideration of balance of power.
o Uncertainty of Balance of Power: Morgenthau criticizes Balance of Power for its
uncertainty. Balance of Power is uncertain because its operation depends upon an
evaluation of power of various nations. In practice it is not possible to have an absolutely
correct evaluation of power of a state.
o Balance of Power is Unreal: Since the evaluation of the national power of a nation is
always uncertain, no nation can afford dependence upon the balance of power. Each
nation always keeps a secret about its power. Since all nations keep safe margins, the
balance of power at a particular time is always unreal.
o Inadequacy of Balance of Power: Balance of Power in itself is an inadequate device of
international peace and security, it ever accepts war as a means for maintaining a balance.
Fear cannot be a real basis of International relations.
o Balance of Power has now lost its Relevance: Finally, the critics argue that now Balance of
Power it is not a relevant principle of International relations. The big changes in the
international system as well as in the balance of power system have made it almost an
obsolete system. On the basis of above arguments, the critics of Balance of Power advocate
its total rejection.
 P a g e | 57

Undoubtedly, in contemporary times the balance of power has lost its utility and much of its
importance due to changes in the international system. However, it cannot be denied that it
continues to be an important factor in the regional power relations among the states of a
region. It is used by nations for assessing the nature of power relations at the regional level.

Role and Relevance of Balance of Power in International Relations:

"As long as the nation-state system is the prevailing pattern of international society. balance of
power policies will be followed in practice, and in all probability, they will continue to operate,
even if effective supranational groupings on a regional or world level are formed" Palmer and
Perkins.
In contemporary times, Balance of Power has lost much of its utility due to several changes in
the international relations. The following changes in the international relations as well as the
traditional balance of power system have adversely affected the role and relevance of Balance
of Power as a device of power management in International politics.
1. End of the era of European Domination and the dawn of era of Global Politics: The
structure of international politics has undergone a radical change from the classical period.
From a narrow European dominated international system it has come to be a truly global
system in which Asian, African and Latin American states enjoy a new and added
importance. Today Europe is no longer the centre of world politics. European politics
constitutes only one small segment of international politics. These changes have
considerably reduced the operation ability of balance of power.
2. Changes in Psychological Environment: The characteristic moral and intellectual consensus
that characterised European nations during the classical period of Balance of Power (1815 -
1914) has ceased to exist. Each major power now seeks to protect its interests as universal
interests and hence tries to impose these upon others. The use of propaganda and ideology
as instruments of national policy has increased manifold. This development has further
checked the importance of balance of power.
3. Rise of Propaganda, Psychological and Political Warfare as instruments of National Policy:
Previously, diplomacy and war used to be the chief means of conducting foreign policies.
The decline of diplomacy, rise of new diplomacy and the new fear of war as a means, have
brought into operation two new devices Propaganda and Political warfare, as the
instruments of national policy. These have in tum reduced the popularity and role of
balance of power principle in international relations.
4. Emergence of Ideology as a Factor of International Relations: The new importance of
ideology and other less tangible but, nevertheless, important elements of national power
have further created unfavourable conditions for the operation of balance of power.
 P a g e | 58

5. Reduction in the Number of Major Powers: The most obvious structural change that has
seriously limited the role of balance of power has been the numerical reduction of the
players of power-politics game. For its operation, Balance of Power needs the presence of a
number of major power actors. The presence of two superpowers during 1945-91
discouraged the operation of balance of power and now there is present only one super
power in the world.
6. The Bipolarity of Cold War period and the new era of Unipolarity: The bipolarity (presence
of two super powers and their blocs) that emerged in the cold war period reduced the
flexibility of the international system. It reduced the chances of balance of power whose
working requires the existence of flexibility in power relations, alliances and treaties.
Presently unipolarity characterizes the international system.
7. The End of the Era of Colonialism and Imperialism: Another big change in the structure of
balance of power has been the disappearance of imperialism and colonialism: It has limited
the scope for the exercise of power by the European powers, who in the past always
worked as the key players of the principle Balance of Power.
8. Disappearance of the "Balancer": The rise of two super powers the disappearance of the
"holder of balance" or the "balancer" considerably reduced the chances of balance of
power politics during 1945-91. Traditionally, Britain used to play such a role in Europe. The
sharp and big decline in the power of Britain in the post-war period compelled it to
abandon its role of balancer between the two super powers. No other nation or even a
group of nations was successful in acting as a balancer between the USA and the
(erstwhile) USSR. The absence of a balancer further reduced the role of balance of power in
post-war international relations.
9. Change of Concept of War into Total War: The emergence of nuclear weapons and other
revolutionary developments in war technology has produced a big in change the nature of
war. The replacement of war by Total War has made war the most dreaded situation in
international relations. This has forced nation's 10 reject war as an Instrument of balance of
power which rests upon the assumption that nations can even go to war for preserving or
restoring the balance.
10.The Emergence of Global Actors: The rise of the United Nations and several other
international and regional actors in international relations has given a new looked to the
international relations of our times. The presence of the UN has made a big change in the
structure and functioning of the international system. With a provision for collective
security of international peace and security. the United Nations constitutes a better source
of peace. Due to all these changes in international relations, Balance of Power has come to
suffer a big decline. It has definitely lost much of its relevance.
 P a g e | 59

In contemporary times, Balance of Power has ceased to be a fully relevant and credible
principle of international relations. However, it still retains a presence in international
relations, more particularly, in the sphere of regional relations among states.

National Interest in International Relations

'National Interest' is a key concept in International Relations. All the nations are always
engaged in the process of fulfilling or securing the goals of their national interests. The foreign
policy of each nation is formulated on the basis of its national interest and it is always at work
for securing its goals. It is a universally accepted right of each state to secure its national
interests. A state always tries to justify its actions on the basis of its national interest. The
behaviour of a state is always conditioned and governed by its national Interests. Hence it is
essential for us to know the meaning and content of National Interest.
"The meaning of Rational interest is survival-the protection of physical, political and cultural
identity against encroachments by other nation-states"-Morgenthau.
Meaning of National Interest: National Interest is a vague and ambiguous term that carries a
meaning according to the context in which it is used. Statesmen and policy-makers have
always used it in ways suitable to them and to their objective of justifying the actions of their
states. Hitler justified expansionist policies in the name of "German national interests."
The US presidents have always justified their decisions to go in for the development of more
and more destructive weapons in the interest of “US national interest.” To build up a strong
nuclear base at Diego Garcia was justified by the USA in the name of meeting the challenge
posed by erstwhile USSR as well as for protecting the US interests in the Indian Ocean. During
1979-89, (erstwhile) USSR justified its intervention in Afghanistan in the name of "Soviet
national Interests". China justified its border disputes with India and the Soviet Union in the
name of attempts to secure the national interests of China. Now the p-5 countries talk of Non-
proliferation and arms control in terms of the national interests of all the nations.
All these and many more examples can be quoted to stress the ambiguity that surrounds the
concept of National interest. This ambiguity hinders the process of formulating a universally
accepted definition of National Interest. However, several scholars have tried to define
National Interest.

Definitions of National Interest:

➢ National Interest means: "The general, long term and continuing purpose which the state,
the nation, and the government all see themselves as serving." Charles Cerche and Abdul.
 P a g e | 60

➢ National Interest is: "What a nation feels to be necessary to its security and well-being
National interest reflects the general and continuing ends for which a nation act, Brookings
Institution.
➢ "National Interest is, that which states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other.
It means desires on the part of sovereign states." -Vernon Von Dyke.
➢ "The meaning of national interest is survival the protection of physical, political and cultural
identity against encroachments by other nation-states". -Morgenthau.
➢ National Interest means: "The values, desires and interests which states seek to protect or
achieve in relation to each other" "desires on the part of sovereign states". -V.V. Dyke.
National Interests can be defined as the claims, objectives, goals, demands and interests which
a nation always tries to preserve, protect, defend and secure in relations with other nations.

Components of National Interest:

In describing the national interests that nations seek to secure a two-fold classification is
generally made:
A. Necessary or Vital Components of National Interest: According to Morgenthau, the vital
components of the national interests that a foreign policy seeks to secure are survival or
identity. He sub-divides Identity into three parts: Physical Identity, Political Identity and
Cultural Identity. Physical Identity Includes Territorial Identify. Political Identity means
politico-economic system and Cultural Identity stands for historical values that are upheld
by a nation as part of its cultural heritage. These are called vital components, because
these are essential for the survival of the nation and can be easily Identified and examined.
A nation even decides to war for securing or protecting her vital Interests. A nation always
formulates its foreign policy decisions with a view to secure and strengthens its security.
The attempts to secure International peace and security, that nations are currently making,
are being made because today the security of each state stands inseparably linked with
International peace and security. Security is, thus, a vital component of national interest,
each nation always tries to secure its vital interests ever by means of war.
B. Non-vital or Variable Components of National Interest: The non-vital components are
those parts of national interest which are determined either by circumstances or by the
necessity of securing the vital components. These are determined by a host of factors the
decision-makers, public opinion, party politics, sectional or group interests and political and
moral folkways. "These variable interests are those desires of individual states which they
would, no doubt. like to see fulfilled but for which they will not go to war. Whereas the vital
interests may be taken as goals, the secondary interests may be termed as objectives of
foreign policy." These objectives have been listed by V.V. Dyke and his list includes:
Prosperity, Peace. Ideology, Justice, Prestige, Aggrandizement and Power. Though each
 P a g e | 61

state defines these objectives in a manner which suits its interests in changing
circumstances, yet these objectives can be described as common to almost all states. Thus,
national interest which a nation seeks to secure can be generally categorized into these
two parts.

Classification of National Interests:

In order to be more precise in examining the interest which a nation seeks to secure. Thomas
W. Robinson presents a six-fold classification of interests which nations try to secure
1. The Primary Interests: These are those interests in respect of which no nation can
compromise. It includes the preservation of physical, political and cultural identity against
possible encroachments by other states. A state has to defend these at all costs.
2. Secondary Interests: These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary
Interests are quite vital for the existence of the state. This includes the protection of the
citizens abroad and ensuring of diplomatic immunities for the diplomatic staff.
3. Permanent Interests: These refer to the relatively constant long-term interests of the state.
These are subject to very slow changes. The US interest to preserve its spheres of influence
and to maintain freedom of navigation in all the oceans is the examples of such interests.
4. Variable Interests: Change with time, personality, govt: Such interests are those interests
of a nation which are considered vital for national good in a given set of circumstances. In
this sense these can diverge from both primary and permanent interests. The variable
interests are largely determined by "the cross currents of personalities, public opinion,
sectional interests, partisan politics and political and moral folkways."
5. The General Interests: General interests of a nation refer to those positive conditions
which apply to a large number of nations or in several specified fields such as economic,
trade, diplomatic relations etc. To maintain international peace is a general interest of all
the nations. Similar is the case of disarmament and arms control.
6. Specific Interests: These are the logical outgrowths of the general interests and these are
defined in terms of, time and space. To secure the economic rights of the Third World
countries through the securing of a New International Economic Order is a specific interest
of India and other developing countries.

Methods for the Securing of National Interest:

To secure the goals and objectives of her national interest is the paramount right and duty of
every nation. Nations are always at work to secure their national interests and in doing so they
adopt a number of methods.
The following are the five popular methods or instruments which are usually employed by a
nation for securing her national interests in international, relations:
 P a g e | 62

1. Diplomacy as a Means of National Interests: Diplomacy is a universally accepted means for

securing national interests. It is through diplomacy that the foreign policy of a nation
travels to other nations. It seeks to secure the goals of national interests. Diplomats
establish contacts with the decision-makers and diplomats of other nations and conduct
negotiations for achieving the desired goals and objectives "of national Interests of their
nation. The art of diplomacy involves the presentation of the goals and objectives of
national interest in such a way as can persuade others to accept these as just and rightful
demands of the nation. Diplomats use persuasion and threats, rewards and threats of
dental of towards as means for exercising power and securing goals of national interest as
defined by foreign po of their nation.
Diplomatic negotiations constitute the most effective means of conflict-resolution and for
reconciling the divergent Interests of the state. Through mutual give and take,
accommodation and reconciliation, diplomacy tries to secure the desired goals and
objectives of national Interest. As an instrument of securing national interest, diplomacy is
a universally recognized and most frequently used means. Morgenthau regards diplomacy
as the most primary means. However, all the objectives and goals of national interest
cannot be secured through diplomacy
2. Propaganda: The second Important method for securing national interest is propaganda,
Propaganda is the art of salesmanship It is the art of convincing others about the justness
of the goals and objectives or ends which are desired to be secured. It consists of the
attempt to impress upon nations the necessity of securing the goals which a nation wishes
to achieve. "Propaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions and actions
of a given group for a specific public purpose." -Frankel. It is directly addressed to the
people of other states and its aim is always to secure the self-interests interests which are
governed exclusively by the national interests of the propagandist. The revolutionary
development of the means of communications (Internet)-in-the-recent times has increased
the scope of propaganda as a means for securing support for goals of national Interest.
3. Economic Means: The rich and developed nations use economic aid and loans as the
means for securing the interests in international relations. The existence of a very wide gap
between the rich and poor countries provides a big opportunity to the rich nations for
promoting their interest’s vis-a-vis the poor nations. The dependence of the poor and lowly
developed nations upon the rich and developed nations for the Import of industrial goods,
technological know-how, foreign aid, armaments and for selling raw materials, has been
responsible for strengthening the role of economic instruments of foreign policy. In this era
of Globalisation conduct of international economic relation has emerged as a key means of
national interests.
4. Alliances and Treaties: Alliances and Treaties are concluded by two or more states for
securing their common Interests. This device is mostly used for securing identical and
 P a g e | 63

complementary interests. However, even conflictual interests may lead to alliances and
treaties with like-minded states against the common rivals or opponents. Alliances and
treaties make it a legal obligation for the members of the alliances or signatories of the
treaties to work for the promotion of agreed common interests. The alliances/ may be
concluded for serving a particular specific Interest or for securing a number of common
interests. The nature of an alliance depends upon the nature of interest which is sought to
be secured.
Accordingly, the alliances are either military or economic in nature. The need for securing
the security of capitalist democratic states against the expanding 'communist menace' led
to the creation of military alliances like NATO, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS etc, Likewise, the
need to meet the threat to socialism led to the conclusion of Warsaw Pact among the
communist. countries. The need for the economic reconstruction of Europe after the
Second World War led to the establishment of European Common Market (Now European
Union) and several other economic agencies. The needs of Indian national interests in 1971
led to the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the
(erstwhile) Soviet Union. Alliances and Treaties are thus popular means for securing
national interests
5. Coercive Means: By Force bid not physical force. The role of power in international
relations is a recognized fact. It is an unwritten law of international intercourse that nations
can use force for securing their national interests. International Law also recognizes
coercive means short of war as the methods that can be used by states for fulfilling their
desired goals and objectives. Intervention, Non-intercourse, block Tense ‫یا‬embargoes,
boycotts, reprisals, retortion, retaliation, severance of relations and pacific biocides are the
popular coercive means which can be used by a nation to force others to accept a
particular course of behaviour, or to refrain from a course which is considered harmful by
the nation using coercive means. War and Aggression have been declared illegal means, yet
these continue to be used by the states in actual course of international relations. Today,
nations fully realize the importance of peaceful means of conflict-resolution like
negotiations, and diplomacy as the ideal methods for promoting their national Interests.
Yet at the same time these continue to use coercive means, whenever they find it
expedient and necessary: Military power is still regarded as a major part of national power
and is often used by a nation for securing its desired goals and objectives. The use of
military power against international terrorism now stands universally accepted as a natural
and just means for fighting the menace. Today world public opinion accepts the use of war
and other forcible means for the elimination of international terrorism.
All these means are used by all the nations for securing their national interests. Nations have
the right and duty to secure their national interests and they have the freedom to choose the
 P a g e | 64

requisite means for this purpose. They can use peaceful or coercive means as and when they
may desire or deem essential.
However, In the interest of International peace, security and prosperity, nations are expected
to refrain from using coercive means particular war and aggression. These are expected to
depend upon peaceful means for the settlement of disputes and for securing their interests.
While formulating the goals and objectives of national interest, all the nations must make
honest attempts to make these compatible with the international interests of Peace, Security
environmental protection, protection of human rights and Sustainable Development.
Peaceful coexistence, peaceful conflict-resolution and purposeful mutual cooperation for
development are the common and shared interests of all the nations. As such, along with the
promotion of their national Interests, the nations must try to protect and promote common
interests in the larger interest of the whole international community.
All this makes it essential for every nation to formulate its foreign policy and to conduct its
relations with other nations on the basis of its national interests, as interpreted and defined
harmony with the common interests of the humankind. The aim of foreign policy is to secure
the defined goals of national interest by the use of the national power.

Concept of Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the cornerstone of international relations, referring to the art of negotiation and
communication between countries. It involves a complex dance of dialogue, compromise, and
strategic manoeuvring aimed at achieving national interests without resorting to violence.
Through diplomatic channels, nations build alliances, address global challenges, and resolve
conflicts peacefully, shaping a more cooperative and stable international order.

Definitions
➢ "Diplomacy is the process of representation and negotiation by which states customarily
deal with one another, in times of peace." -Padelford and Lincoln
➢ "Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and lact to the conduct of official relations
between governments of independent states." -Sir Ernest Satow
➢ "Diplomacy is "the art of forwarding one's interests in relation to other countries." K.M.
Panikar
➢ "Diplomacy is the management of international relations by means of negotiations: the
method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys
the business or art of the diplomats." -Harold Nicholson
➢ "Diplomacy is the promotion of the national interest by peaceful means. "-Hans J.
Morgenthau
 P a g e | 65

On the basis of these definitions, it can be said that, Diplomacy is the mechanism for the
promotion of national interest of the nation that it represents. It is done by means of
negotiations and conduct of relations with other nations. Diplomacy is always guided and
conditioned by the foreign policy of the nation that it represents.

Nature of Diplomacy:
• Diplomacy is not immoral Diplomacy is neither the art of deceit nor mere lies or
propaganda, and nor even something immoral.
• Diplomacy is a means of International Relations: Diplomacy is a normal means of
conducting relations. It consists of techniques and procedures for conducting relations
among nations.
• Diplomacy is machinery for action: In itself diplomacy is recognized as official machinery
for the conduct of relations among nations.
• Diplomacy acts through Settled Procedures: Diplomacy functions through a network of
foreign offices, embassies, legations, consulates, and special missions all over the world. It
always works according to definite and settled procedures and protocol.
• Bilateral as well as Multilateral in Form: Diplomacy is commonly bilateral in character.
However, as a result of the growing importance of international conferences, international
organisations, regional negotiations, it has now also developed a plural character. It is
concerned with all issues and problems among nations.
• Diplomacy handles all types of Matters: Diplomacy may embrace a multitude of interests
from the simplest issues to vital issues to that of war and peace.
• Breakdown of Diplomacy always leads to Crisis: When diplomacy breaks down, the danger
of war, or at least of a major crisis develops.
• Diplomacy operates both in times of Peace as well as War: Some writers hold that
diplomacy operates only in times of peace and when war breaks out diplomacy comes to
an end. However, this is not a correct view. Diplomacy continues to operate even when war
breaks out. Of course, during war its nature undergoes a change; from peace diplomacy It
takes the form of war diplomacy.
• Diplomacy works in an environment characterised both by Conflict and Cooperation:
Diplomacy works in a situation involving both cooperation and conflict. A certain degree of
cooperation among nations is essential for the working of diplomacy because in its
absence. diplomatic relations cannot be maintained. Similarly, when there is no conflict
diplomacy becomes superfluous because there is no need for negotiations. Thus, existence
of cooperation as well as conflict is essential for the working of diplomacy.
• Diplomacy always works for securing national interests of the nation it represents: The
purpose of diplomacy is to secure the goals of national interest as defined and specified by
the foreign policy of the nation. Diplomacy always works for the nation it represents.
 P a g e | 66

• Diplomacy is backed by National Power: Diplomacy is backed by national power: A strong

diplomacy means a diplomacy backed by a strong national power. Diplomacy uses
persuasion and influence as the means for exercising power in international relations. It
cannot use force and violence. However, it can issue warnings, give ultimatums, promise
rewards and threaten punishment, but beyond this it cannot directly exercise force.
"Diplomacy is the promotion of national interest overline by peaceful means."
• Test of Success of Diplomacy: Success in Diplomacy is measured in terms of the amount of
success achieved towards the fulfilment of the goals of national interest in international
relations.
All these characteristics highlight the nature of Diplomacy. One can describe Diplomacy as an
instrument of national interest and a tool of foreign policy.

Objectives of Diplomacy:
Broadly speaking, Diplomacy seeks to secure two types of primary objectives for the nation it
represents. These are:
1. Political Objectives of Diplomacy: Diplomacy always works to secure the goals of national
interest as defined by the foreign policy. It always works for increasing the influence of the
state over other states. It uses persuasion, promises of rewards and other such means for
this purpose. Through rational negotiations, it seeks to justify the objectives of the foreign
policy of the nation. It seeks to promote friendship and cooperation with other nations.
2. Non-political Objectives of Diplomacy: The interdependence among nations is the most
important and valuable fact of international living. Each nation depends upon others for
economic and industrial links and trade. Diplomacy always seeks to promote the economic,
commercial and cultural links of the nation with other nations. Diplomacy depends upon
peaceful means, persuasive methods for promoting the interests of the nation and this is
indeed an important non-political objective of Diplomacy.

Means of Diplomacy:
For securing its objectives, Diplomacy depends upon three major means: persuasion,
compromise and threat of use of force. Diplomacy has to depend upon several tactics or
techniques. The chances of the success of diplomacy are directly related to the ability of using
appropriate means through appropriate tactics. In the main diplomacy uses six technique,
which have been defined by the Hostile? A selection of a method or means is done on the
basis of the time and circumstances of the situation. Any wrong decision in this respect can
lead to a failure.
Six Main Devices of Diplomacy:
 P a g e | 67

1) Persuasion: Through logical reasoning, Diplomacy seeks to convince others of the

justification of the goals which it is trying to uphold or promote.
2) Rewards: Diplomacy can offer rewards for securing acceptance of desired view of a
particular international dispute or issue or problem.
3) Promise of Reward and Concessions: Diplomacy can promise matching rewards and
concessions for securing a particular change or maintaining a particular view in the policies
of other nations.
4) Threat of use of Force: Diplomacy cannot use force or violence in promoting the national
interest. However, it can use threat of use of force-ultimatums, symbolic boycotts, protest
walkouts or even threat of war etc., for securing its objectives. - and Eimor-Stone aye
5) Non-violent Punishment: By depriving a promised reward or concession, Diplomacy can
inflict non-violent punishment on other nations.
6) Use of Pressure: By using pressure tactics Diplomacy can force other nations to accept the
desired view or policy or decision or goals that it represents. Besides these, Diplomacy also
uses propaganda, cultural links, exploitation of situations, creation of particular scenes and
situations, rigidity or flexibility in negotiations etc. Kautilya, in his Arthashastra, suggests
"Sam, Dam, Danda Bheda and Niti as the tactics of Diplomacy.

Functions and Role of Diplomacy:

In performing its tasks and securing its national objectives, Diplomacy has to undertake a
number of functions.
Major Functions of Diplomacy are given below:
1. Ceremonial/Symbolic Functions: The diplomats of a nation are the symbolic
representatives of the state and they represent their state and government in all official
ceremonies and functions as well as in non-official, social and cultural functions held in the
place of their postings.
2. Representation: A diplomat formally represents his country in a foreign state. He is the
normal agent communication between his home office and that of the state to which he is
accredited. His representation is legal and political. He can vote in the name of his
government. Of course, In doing so he is totally bound by the directions of his home office
and the foreign Policy of the nation.
3. Negotiation Negotiations: To conduct negotiations with other states is a substantive
function of diplomacy, Diplomats, observe Palmer and Perkins, are by definition
negotiators. They are the channels of communication which handle the transmission of
messages between the foreign ministries of the parent state and the host state Along with
the nature of the message, the manner and style of delivering the message greatly
influences the course of negotiations. It is mainly through negotiations that a diplomat
 P a g e | 68

seeks to secure agreements and compromises over various conflictual issues and problems
among states. The role of diplomacy in conducting negotiations has, however, declined in
our times because of the emergence of multilateral diplomacy, personal diplomacy political
diplomacy, summit diplomacy and the direct communication links among the world leaders
and top statesmen. The diplomats today do not play as great a role in International
negotiations as used to be previously played by them. Nevertheless, they continue to be
the legal and formal channels of negotiations in international relations.
4. Reporting: Reporting involves the observation of the political, economic, military and social
conditions of the host country and the accurate transmission of the findings of the
diplomat to his home country. The political reporting Involves a report about the
assessment of the roles of various political parties in the politics of the host country. It
seeks to assess the friendliness or hostility of the various political groupings towards the
home state, and the power potential of each party or organisation. Economic reporting
Involves sending of reports to the home office containing general Information about the
economic health and trade potential of the host country. Military reporting Involves an
assessment of the military might, intentions and capabilities, and the strategic importance
of the host country. The level of social and cultural conflicts among the people of the host
country and the level of social harmony and cohesion are assessed for determining the
level of stability of the host country. Thus, reporting is an important and valuable function
of diplomacy.
5. Protection of Interests: Diplomacy is always at work for protecting and promoting the
interests of the nation and its people living abroad. Protection of interests is the "bedrock
of the practice of diplomacy." It works to secure compatibility out of incompatibility
through accommodation, reconciliation and goodwill. A diplomat always attempts to
prevent or change practices which he feels are discriminatory to the interests of his
country. It is his responsibility to protect the persons, property and interests of such
citizens of his country as are living in the territory of the state to which he stands posted.
Through all these functions, diplomacy plays an important role in international relations
Change in the Character of Diplomacy:
From Old Diplomacy to New Diplomacy: In contemporary times the nature of Diplomacy has
undergone a big change. From its traditional dress (Old Diplomacy) it has come to acquire
several new features. This change has earned for it the name New Diplomacy.

Old Diplomacy:
Diplomacy in its traditional form is known as Old Diplomacy and its main features have been:
1. European Diplomacy: Old Diplomacy was primarily confined to Europe. Being an imperial
continent, which controlled and ruled the continents of Asia and Africa, Europe was the
 P a g e | 69

centre of all international activities. Old Diplomacy had its origin in Europe and continued,
till 1914, to handle the relations among the European states.
2. Aristocratic: In Old Diplomacy, the conduct of foreign relations was considered to be the
prerogatives of the kings or rulers and their trusted ambassadors. The diplomats used to be
selected by the monarchs and were responsible to their "lords". Diplomacy was conducted
by a class of professional diplomats and was characterised by an air of aristocracy, nobility
and class consciousness. It was both format and elitist in nature and approach.
3. Special Emphasis upon Virtues: The Old Diplomacy was aristocratic and hence regarded
several well defined and accepted principles as cardinal principles or virtues of diplomats.
Honesty, Integrity, truthfulness, politeness, fairness, strict conformity to protocol, secrecy
and total commitment to national Interests were considered to be the essential qualities of
diplomats. However, in actual operation, the Old Diplomacy was characterised by 'honest
lies," integrity in appearance. qualified truthfulness, outward politeness, self-satisfying
fairness and strict observance of protocol and secrecy.
4. Secrecy: Secrecy was considered to be the hallmark of Old Diplomacy. Complete secrecy in
respect of the negotiations as well as about the outcome of these negotiations was
considered to be a vitally important condition of old diplomacy, Diplomats communicated
only with their counterparts in other countries, Secret negotiations leading to secret
undertakings, agreements or treaties or alliances were considered to be the ideal ways of
conducting relations for the preservation of peace and problem solving.
5. Freedom of Action for the Ambassadors: Within the broad limits of agreed policy, the
diplomats handling diplomatic negotiations used to enjoy freedom of action, During the era
of Old Diplomacy, the ambassadors enjoyed considerable freedom in matters of
negotiations. Lack of speedy and continuous means of communications made it essential
for the state to give wide powers to its diplomats. The Inability to maintain continuous
speedy communications with the ambassadors made it essential for the ruler of the state
to give freedom of action and full power to his ambassadors. Ambassadors always used
their authority freely without much fear of the "home office,'
Old Diplomacy continued to remain in operation till the middle of the 20th century.
Thereafter, it had to change due to several big changes in the international system as well as
because of the development of fast and comprehensive means of transport and
communications. It now came to be a New Diplomacy.

New Diplomacy and Distinction with Old Diplomacy:

New Diplomacy has the following salient features which have been totally different from the
features of Old Diplomacy.
 P a g e | 70

1. New Diplomacy is Global, Old Diplomacy was mainly Europeans: The New Diplomacy is
truly global in nature and scope. The rise of Asia, Africa and Latin America and the
emergence of a large number of sovereign Independent states changed the character of
post-war international relations. From mostly European relations these came to be truly
intonational relations involving all the sovereign states. Consequently, diplomacy had to
abandon its European character and to become truly global in nature and approach.
2. New Diplomacy is mostly Multilateral, whereas Old Diplomacy was mostly Bilateral:
Multilateral negotiations in International conferences, institutionalized diplomacy at the
United Nations and the emergence of direct personal contacts among the statesmen and
leaders of Various states, have all combined to give a new look and content to New
Diplomacy. Old Diplomacy was mostly bilateral and limited; the New Diplomacy is mostly
multilateral and global.
3. New Diplomacy is less formal than Old Diplomacy: New Diplomacy is not as much formal
and rigid in respect of rules or procedures as was the case with the Old Diplomacy.
Presently, there exist quite informal and direct contacts among the leaders and diplomats
of various states.
4. New Diplomacy is mostly open and Old Diplomacy was mostly secret: In New Diplomacy
the negotiations are open and the results are, invariably always, made public soon after the
reaching of agreements or treaties or alliances or settlements. Diplomatic negotiations are
given full coverage over the Radio, Press, Television and other means of mass-media. Old
Diplomacy favoured secrecy as its governing principle.
5. Democratic Nature of New Diplomacy versus Aristocratic nature of Old Diplomacy: The
New Diplomacy is democratic, whereas Old Diplomacy was aristocratic in nature. In the era
of the latter, a special elitist class of diplomats, who were professionals to the core, used to
conduct diplomatic negotiations and relations. However, at present the increased influence
of public opinion, political parties, pressure groups, world public opinion, the rise of a more
democratic and less aristocratic class of civil servants, have all given a new dimension and
look to diplomacy, Modern ambassadors and counsellors are democratic in their outlook
towards diplomacy. A degree of informality has come to characterize their functioning in
international relations.
6. New Diplomacy depends more on Propaganda than Old Diplomacy: The use of
propaganda/publicity as an important instrument of political warfare in International
relations is accepted and used by New Diplomacy as a means for securing the goals of
national interest that it represents. Old Diplomacy was mostly secret and hence avoided -
propaganda. It concentrated upon legal and formal communications as the means for
conveying its wishes, desires and objectives.
7. Under New Diplomacy, the role of a Diplomat has suffered a Decline: In the era of New
Diplomacy, the role of diplomat has suffered a decline. Due to the development of speedy
 P a g e | 71

means of transport and communications, it has become possible for the political leaders of
the states to develop and maintain direct, continuous and active contacts with one
another. This development has reduced the role of an ambassador as a link between his
home state and the host state. In Old Diplomacy, diplomats were regarded as the most
important vital links among the states and were full representatives of their nations in
international relations. They enjoyed a lot of discretion and freedom of action. New
Diplomacy has reduced the role of diplomats to glorified representatives who really act as
highly dignified messengers and actors with the responsibility of faithfully carrying out the
instructions of the foreign office and political leadership of their states. The control of the
foreign office over the diplomats has considerably Increased in this real of New Diplomacy.
Thus, the features of New Diplomacy are almost entirely different from the features of Old
Diplomacy.
Secret Diplomacy and Open Diplomacy:
What is Secret Diplomacy? The term Secret Diplomacy is used to designate the diplomatic
practice of conducting secret negotiations and making secret pacts, decisions, alliances and
treaties. In Secret Diplomacy no attempt is made to take the people into confidence, and little
information about diplomatic activity is provided to the public. Secrecy is considered vital for
the success of diplomacy.
What Is Open Diplomacy? Open Diplomacy is the opposite of Secret Diplomacy. In the age of
democracy, it is argued that the people have the right and duty to know and to participate in
foreign policy decision- making. As such, it is considered essential that diplomacy must
consider popular wishes and public opinion. It is expected to inform the public about the
nature and progress of all diplomatic negotiations as well as about the final agreement or
disagreement resulting from such negotiations.
Diplomacy must be accountable and for this it is essential that people must know as to what
diplomacy is doing and what are its achievements and failures. People and their groups should
have the opportunity to influence the working of diplomacy.
Arguments in favour of Open Diplomacy or Arguments against Secret Diplomacy:
• It is the natural right of the people to know everything about the affairs of their
government.
• It is the right of the people to keep the government responsible for its acts.
• It is the duty of the people to keep Diplomacy under check and prevent it from leading the
nation into an environment of tensions, strains and war.
• Open Diplomacy is the best way of involving the people in the process of securing national
interests and making them politically conscious.
 P a g e | 72

• Secret Diplomacy leads to deceit, double dealings, and Irresponsibility on the part of
diplomats.
• There exists no justification for making secret treaties and alliances because every such
Instrument has a direct bearing upon the future of the people of the state.
Arguments against Open Diplomacy or Arguments in favour of Secret Diplomacy:
o Secrecy in the interest of nation is an absolutely necessary condition for the success of
diplomacy.
o Secret negotiations help the diplomats to be free and frank in expressing their views.
o Open Diplomacy can be misleading, in practice, because the need for securing public
sympathy for an essential state act can make the diplomats practise window- dressing and
false propaganda.
o General public has neither the ability nor the time to participate constructively in
diplomatic debate that may emerge as a result of public access to all information regarding
diplomatic negotiations.
Use of both Secret and Open Diplomacy: Thus, there are arguments both for and against
Open Diplomacy. Open Diplomacy is democratic and hence can be helpful in securing
international peace. However, it can lead to unwanted and harmful popular decisions and
reduce efficiency. Secret Diplomacy on the other hand can be more active and efficient.
However, it appears to be undemocratic in this age of democracy as it can lead to certain
unpopular and aristocratic or elitist negotiations and decisions.
The best way, therefore, can be the middle way- Open Diplomacy in respect of the facts of
treaties, alliances and agreements which a nation makes with other nations and some Secret
Diplomacy in respect of diplomatic negotiations. The ideal is to let the public know what is
considered good for the protection and promotion of national interest. Sharing of all details
and negotiations can have a harmful effect on relations with other nations and can hinder the
process of attainment of national goals.
The guiding principle in determining whether a particular diplomatic negotiation is to be kept
secret or made public, should be the considerations for national interest. If national interest
demands secrecy, it must be maintained otherwise it is always better to make things public.

Decline and Future of Diplomacy

Decline of Diplomacy: In this age of science, technology and IT revolution, Diplomacy has
suffered a substantial decline. Its role has suffered a big setback. It no longer performs that
spectacular role which it used to perform in the 19th Century.
Four Factors Responsible for the Decline of Diplomacy:
 P a g e | 73

1. Speedy means of Communication: Previously, in the absence of speedy means of

communications, the governments of the states used to be forced to depend upon their
diplomats stationed in foreign countries for conducting negotiations and maintaining
relations with one another. Presently, the technological revolution has made it possible for
the governments to maintain, direct and continuous contacts with their diplomats as well
as among themselves. The dependence of the government upon diplomats has sharply
decreased.
2. The Deprecation of Diplomacy: The feeling that diplomacy is a source of secret,
underhand, double-dealing and undesirable power politics has been the second factor
responsible for a decline of diplomacy. Many people, today believe that diplomacy is an
ineffective instrument of world peace. Some even go to the extent of describing it as a
dangerous device which endangers peace. Diplomacy emerged in the era of the rise of
nation-state and hence it is a means of power politics and nationalism, which needs
elimination in this age of internationalisın.
3. Advent of New Diplomacy: The emergence of New Diplomacy, more so Parliamentary
Diplomacy, Conference Diplomacy. and Personal Diplomacy, has led to a decline of
diplomacy. Love for open democracy and open negotiations has forced the transformation
of Old Diplomacy into New Diplomacy. These changes and the trend towards public
parliamentary procedure instead of traditional diplomatic negotiations have adversely
affected the role of diplomacy in international relations. The New Diplomacy offers a
middle way of combining secrecy with openness, formality with informality, deliberations
with leisure and business with increased personal contacts, and hence, it has made
traditional diplomacy unpopular.
4. The Nature of International System and Role of Diplomacy: The nature of international
relations of cold war period (1945-90) acted as a hindering factor for diplomacy. The
presence of cold war, two super powers, nuclear weapons, end of balance of power,
transformation of war into total war, birth of new states, alliances and counter alliances,
rise of the United Nations and other international agencies etc., all combined to produce a
big change in the nature of post-war international relations.
These changes adversely affected the role of diplomacy as a device of power management in
international relations. In the era of cold war "persuasion tantamount to trickery, compromise
meant treason and threat of force spelled war”, and all this discouraged the use of diplomacy
for conducting relations.
As such, due to several factors, a decline in the role of Diplomacy took place in the 20th
century. It had to become open and tolerate direct personal diplomacy among political leaders
and power holders of various states.
 P a g e | 74

Diplomacy had to undergo a change under the impact of several big changes in the
international environment and relations among nations. In the process Diplomacy suffered a
decline of role. Its popularity as a means of conflict-resolution registered a fall. This situation
prevails even today.
Fukayama’s work of the End of History and the Last Man:
Francis Fukuyama: Scholar and Thinker: Francis Fukuyama is a prolific American political
scientist, political economist, and international relations scholar. Born in Chicago in 1952, he
received his B.A. in Classics from Cornell University and his Ph.D. in Political Science from
Harvard University. His career path is interesting, with experience in both academia and
government. He held positions at the RAND Corporation, a global policy think tank, and served
on the President's Council on Bioethics during the George W. Bush administration. Currently,
Fukuyama is the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Fukuyama's intellectual journey reflects his
diverse background. Early in his career, he focused on Soviet politics and the Cold War. "The
End of History" established him as a prominent thinker on political philosophy and
international relations. His later works have delved into areas like democracy building, state
failure, and technological change. While "The End of History" sparked significant debate,
Fukuyama remains a respected scholar who continues to contribute valuable insights to
contemporary global issues.
He was politically active during the Reagan administration, when he worked for the State
Department, and also during the Clinton years, mainly through Washington think tanks, During
the earlier years, Fukuyama was interested in US foreign policy, later becoming increasingly
interested in broader, long-term political goals in the hope of providing solutions to problems
on a global scale.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall and the End of an Era:

Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man," exploded onto the
scene following the momentous fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This event marked the symbolic
collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, a decades-long ideological struggle
between democracy and communism. Fukuyama argues that this wasn't just the end of a
specific historical period, but the "end of history as such."
Drawing inspiration from philosophers like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx, who
viewed history as a progression of stages, Fukuyama proposes that liberal democracy has
emerged as the final form of human government.
 P a g e | 75

Evidence for the End of History:

Fukuyama's thesis rests on two pillars: empirical data and theoretical foundations. Empirically,
he points to the lack of serious ideological competitors to liberal democracy in the
contemporary world. Additionally, the number of democratic countries has seen a dramatic
rise since the Cold War's end. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, and Poland serve as
examples of successful transitions to democracy, while authoritarian regimes in China, Iran,
and North Korea struggle to deliver economic and social well-being for their citizens.
Theoretically, Fukuyama relies on the dialectical logic of Hegel and Marx. They proposed that
history advances through conflicts between ideas and forces, ultimately resolved through a
synthesis that leads to a higher stage of development. Fukuyama identifies liberal democracy
as the synthesis of the historical struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed. He argues
that it reconciles the desire for recognition with the desire for equality, satisfying the human
need for both freedom and a sense of community.
Drawing inspiration from philosophers like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx, who
saw history as evolving through conflict between opposing ideas (Hegelian dialectics of thesis,
antithesis and synthesis. Once the thesis has been formulated there will eventually be an
antithesis opposing it. The result is a conflict of beliefs that somehow must be resolved. The
resolution takes the form of a compromise between the thesis and antithesis. Thus, a
synthesis provides a temporary solution, until it too becomes the new thesis, or in the
historical sense, the new ideological state of society, which in turn is also opposed; and this
dialectical process until the development of the ultimate society.

The End of History Thesis: Liberal Democracy Wins?

Fukuyama's central argument revolves around the concept of history as an evolutionary
process. In this context, the "end of history" signifies that liberal democracy has become the
ultimate form of government for all nations. He presents evidence that since the French
Revolution, liberal democracy has consistently proven itself superior (ethically, politically, and
economically) to any alternatives. Fukayama noted that Western Liberal Democratic traditions
have maintained their place in politics over the last hundred years despite the successive rise
of alternative systems of government; liberal democratic government has outlasted
monarchism, fascism and communism. In fact, it can be said that liberal democracy has
survived to increasingly become the choice of political system for all nations.
According to Fukuyama, the future won't be devoid of events, but those events won't
fundamentally alter the trajectory towards a world dominated by democracies. Even if
totalitarian regimes resurface, he argues, democracy will ultimately prevail in the long run.
 P a g e | 76

What Makes a Liberal Democracy? Liberal democracy does not necessarily mean the exact
type of constitutional democracy found in the United States. It can manifest itself in a number
of ways, but its consistent features are freedom of speech, free and fair elections, the rule of
law, the protection of individual rights, and the separation of power. He argues that these
elements, beyond being inherently desirable, foster economic growth, social stability, and
international peace. Furthermore, he contends that liberal democracy can coexist with diverse
cultural and religious values, accommodating a pluralistic society within a framework that
respects human dignity and rationality.

America's Role in the End of History:

Fukuyama dedicates a section to the role of the United States as a leading power and
champion of the liberal democratic world order. He argues that America holds a unique
historical and ideological position. As the first nation to embrace the principles of liberal
democracy and embody universal human aspirations, America has a special responsibility and
opportunity to promote and defend democratic values worldwide, especially in the post-Cold
War era.
Fukuyama concludes that America has a vital interest and moral obligation to sustain and
advance the "end of history." He suggests that America wield its power wisely and prudently,
cooperating with other democracies and international organizations to confront the common
challenges and threats facing humanity in the 21st century. He argues, "The United States has
to play a leading role in upholding and defending the institutions of the post-historical world,
not just for its own sake, but for the sake of the world as a whole."

The Last Man Problem: A World Without Struggle?

Fukuyama acknowledges the challenges and limitations of his thesis. He identifies the "last
man" problem, derived from Friedrich Nietzsche's concept in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." The
last man represents a contemptible human being, devoid of aspiration or creativity, content
with mediocrity and comfort, lacking a sense of purpose or greatness. Fukuyama worries that
the "end of history" might create a society of last men, satisfied with material well-being and
security but lacking a higher purpose, leading to boredom and restlessness. He suggests that
the end of history might result in a decline of culture, art, religion, and philosophy, a loss of
the heroic and sublime in human existence. Furthermore, he warns of potential new forms of
nationalism, fundamentalism, and violence arising as people seek escape from the boredom
and nihilism of the last man condition. Fukuyama doesn't offer a definitive solution to the last
man problem, but he proposes some possibilities. He argues that the end of history doesn't
equate to the end of human creativity and innovation. Many areas of human endeavour can
still provide challenges and opportunities for growth and excellence. He also suggests that the
end of history doesn't preclude moral progress or spiritual development, with many ethical
 P a g e | 77

and religious questions continuing to inspire and motivate humanity. Additionally, he

advocates for a revival of civic virtue and community involvement, recognizing the importance
of "thumos," the spirited aspect of the soul that seeks recognition and honour.

Conclusion: A World Transformed:

Fukuyama concludes his book by reaffirming his belief in the enduring relevance of his thesis,
while acknowledging its limitations and uncertainties. He emphasizes that the end of history is
not a prophecy but a hypothesis, open to empirical verification and falsification. He recognizes
that the end of history isn't a utopia but a reality with its own set of problems and
contradictions. He writes, "The end of history will be a very sad time... Even though I recognize
its inevitability, I have the most ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in
Europe since 1945."
Fukuyama acknowledges a sense of nostalgia for the dynamism of the historical period leading
up to the end of the Cold War. He ponders the possibility that the very prospect of a "boring"
end of history might ironically spark renewed historical conflict. "The End of History and the
Last Man" remains a thought-provoking exploration of the potential consequences of a world
dominated by liberal democracy.
Huntington’s Theory of “The Clash of Civilizations”
In 1992, Samuel Huntington first presented the central argument of what would become "The
Clash of Civilizations" in a lecture. Huntington was the first scholar to argue that cultural
identity would be the most important factor in shaping global politics after the Cold War. The
next year, he developed this idea into an article in the magazine Foreign Affairs, entitled "The
Clash of Civilizations?" It was only in 1996, after further developing his thesis and defending it
from criticism, that Huntington expanded his Idea into a full book.

Historical Context and Evolution of Ideas:

When Huntington first conceived of the argument in the early 1990s, the Cold War had only
recently ended. With the end of this conflict-in which the United States and the Soviet Union
were pitted against one another on the basis of their capitalist and liberal democratic versus
Communist and Socialist Ideologies - political scientists confronted an entirely new balance of
power. Without these two superpowers dominating the patterns of conflict and cooperation
across the world, it was unclear what would happen to international relations. This context
shaped Huntington's ideas: his book responds to the uncertain and changing political climate
of the 1990s, and attempts to provide a new structure to explain how global politics will unfold
into the 21st century. With the development of his initial article into a full book, Huntington
incorporates more precise historical examples and predictions about the future direction of
global politics. It is important to keep in mind the historical context in which Huntington
wrote: it was a time dominated by resurgent ethnic conflicts and the recent end of the Cold
 P a g e | 78

War, and it was before the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The international political climate was
significantly different from the one we face today.

Response to Fukuyama and the "End of History":

Huntington's idea regarding the importance of civilizations was formed largely in response to
his former student, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama proposed his own
theory for how International relations would progress after the Cold War in West was facing
"the end of history." By this, he meant Western Liberal democracy had been proven to be the
most advanced system of government. With the defeat of the Soviet Union, the West had
proved that liberal democracy was better than communism. Indeed, with liberal democracy
now exported across the world through Imperialism, Fukuyama believed that it had
definitively triumphed and won the title of "most successful ideology." This represented an
"end" to history in the sense that progress toward newer and better ideologies would no
longer be necessary. Western liberal democracy would simply be universalized as the primary
and superior system of government across the entire world. Huntington fundamentally
disagrees with this theory, on the basis that no one civilization is empirically superior to
others. In many ways, his argument as a whole is formulated as a rejection of Fukuyama's
Idea.

Structure of Global Politics:

Huntington's text addresses the structure of global politics in the post-Cold War world. After
the Cold War came to an end and the world was no longer dominated by the two superpowers
of the United States and the Soviet Union, how were international affairs reorganized? How
can we characterize the balance of power in the world today? And where does Western
civilization fit into the mix? Huntington answers these questions by focusing on the recent rise
of seven or eight major civilizations i.e. Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-
Orthodox, Latin American, and African. His central argument is that culture and cultural
identity shape the patterns of conflict, coming together, and spitting apart of International
institutions in the post-Cold War world. With the end of the Cold War, countries stopped
defining themselves by the ideologies they aligned with. They could no longer turn to their
status as Communist or Capitalist nations in order to define themselves and then place in the
International order. Instead, countries began to, emphasize their cultural identity. This
emphasis on culture meant that no country was exempt from determining where it stood.
States no longer asked each other, "whose side are you on," but rather "who are you?" This
second question is impossible to avoid.

Exploring Civilizational Dynamics

The five sections of Huntington's text present different components of this central argument
regarding the importance of cultural identity.
 P a g e | 79

Modernization Doesn't Equal Westernisation: In the first part, Huntington argues that global
politics have become multipolar and multicivilizational. In other words, the world contains
multiple different major powers and civilizations that Interact on an international stage, He
also points out that the process of modernization does not necessarily lead to Westernization,
or the universalization of civilizations. When countries become modern through
industrialization, they do not automatically adopt Western values or merge into one shared
culture, The West must begin to recognize that it is fruitless to attempt to spread Western
civilization throughout the rest of the world.
The Rise of Non-Western Civilizations: In the second part, Huntington focuses on the shift
away from Western power and toward Asian and Islamic civilizations. A recent religious
resurgence has impacted the Islamic world. This has been motivated in part by the alienation
that has resulted from modernization; as people move away from their family structures and
into cities to work industrial jobs, they tend to lose their old senses of identity. In the absence
of strong family or community ties, religion presents a good alternative for, building a new
identity. Huntington argues that the rise of Islam makes Muslim civilization less stable overall;
it prompts leaders to make religious appeals and youths to mobilize violently around religious
causes. However, he points out that the demographic growth of Islamic societies makes them
stronger and more able to influence global politics, as well. They are more culturally confident
and have the strength needed to promote that culture. In East Asia, meanwhile, economic
growth has brought a similar confidence to countries like China. In general, non-Western
civilizations are refocusing on their own particular cultures while rejecting the West. Their
economic and demographic strength makes this possible, in a way it wasn't when the West
was more definitively dominant during the Cold War.
Civilizational Realignment: In the third section, Huntington argues that international politics
are reorganizing around the lines of different civilizations. The key players in world affairs are
now the primary states of each of the seven civilizations. Huntington outlines the general
structure of civilizations:
1. Core states, which are the strongest and most influential members; member states, which
are the clearly aligned with a given civilization;
2. Lone countries, which are culturally isolated;
3. Cleft countries, which include more than one influential cultural group; and
4. Torn countries, which started out in one civilization but have attempted to shift to a
different one.
Overall, similar cultures cooperate with one another when it comes to international politics. Of
course, this also means that cultures which differ from one another are likely to come into
 P a g e | 80

conflict. It is also more difficult than ever to shift a society from one culture to another,
because cultural identities have become more solidified as they have become more important.
Western Dominance and Conflict: In the fourth section, Huntington explains that the Western
desire to dominate the world is what leads to conflict with Islam and China. As China and Islam
have gained in strength and cultural confidence, they have been less willing to accept Western
dominance, However, the West has continued to try to exert its influence, anyway. Moving
forward, the West will have to become more accommodating on the key issues that bring it
into conflict with China and Islam: militarization, human rights, and the influx of refugees and
immigrants in the Western world Huntington predicts that the West will no longer be able to
influence these issues as clearly as it once could. Instead, it will have to focus on preserving its
own culture while respecting the boundaries of these other civilizations.
Preserving Western Identity: Huntington's last section argues that the West must accept its
own civilization as unique, instead of wanting to make it universal. Above all, it must protect
this unique culture from non-Western influence. If the United States continues to embrace
multiculturalism, for example, it will eventually lose its central identity as a Western nation; it
will no longer be identifiable as the United States, but rather will become something closer to
the United Nations. The preservation of Western culture is also important when it comes to
making sure that the world as a whole can maintain the multicivilizational nature of world
politics. The West must stop trying to universalize, and must instead allow other civilizations to
hold on to their unique cultures and values. Only by rejecting multiculturalism and embracing
multicivilizationalism can the world avoid devolving into conflicts between the major
civilizations.
Summary of "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order":
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is an expansion of the 1993 Foreign
Affairs article written by Samuel Huntington that hypothesized a new post-Cold War world
order. 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.

Part One: A World of Civilizations:

To begin his argument, Huntington refutes past paradigms that have been ineffective in
explaining or predicting the reality of the global political order. "We need a map," Huntington
says, "that both portrays reality and simplifies reality in a way that best serves our purposes"
(31). Huntington develops a new "Civilization paradigm" to create a new understanding of the
 P a g e | 81

post-Cold War order, and to fill the gaps of the already existing paradigms. To begin with,
Huntington divides the world into eight "major" civilizations:
1. Sinic: the common culture of China and Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. Includes
Vietnam and Korea.
2. Japanese: Japanese culture as distinctively different from the rest of Asia.
3. Hindu: identified as the core Indian civilization.
4. Islamic: Originating on the Arabian Peninsula, spread across North Africa, Iberian Peninsula
and Central Asia. Arab, Turkic, Persian and Malay are among the many distinct subdivisions
within Islam.
5. Orthodox: centred in Russia. Separate from Western Christendom.
6. Western: centred in Europe and North America.
7. Latin American: Central and South American countries with a past of a corporatist,
authoritarian culture. Majority of countries are of a Catholic majority.
8. Africa: while the continent lacks a sense of a pan-African identity, Huntington claims that
Africans are also increasingly developing a sense of African Identity.
Following the explanations of the separate civilizations in the new paradigm, Huntington
describes the relations among civilizations. Before 1500 A.D., civilizations were separated
geographically and the spread of ideas and technology took centuries. Huntington argues that
research and technology are the catalyst for civilization creation and development. By 1500
A.D., evolution in ocean navigation by Western cultures led to rapid expansion and eventual
domination of ideas, values, and religion.
Twentieth century relations among civilizations have moved beyond the unidirectional
influence of the west on the rest. Instead, "multidirectional interactions among all civilization"
has been maintained (53). In other words, cultural influence is interdependent; western
civilizations influence and are influenced by smaller, less powerful civilizations around the
world.
Huntington then refutes the idea of a Western cultural hegemony and the concept of an
established universal civilization. He states that "global communications are dominated by the
West" and is "a major source of the resentment and hostility of non-Western peoples against
the West" (59). The notion of a single, universal culture is not helpful creating an explanation
or a description of global political order. However, Huntington also argues that as
modernization increases cross-cultural communication, the similarities among cultures also
increase. The key to this chapter is Huntington's severance of modernization from
Westernization. While the world is becoming more modern, it is simultaneously becoming less
Western, an idea he expands upon in part two of the book.
 P a g e | 82

Part Two: The Shifting Balance of Civilizations:

Huntington starts this section by arguing that Western power and influence is fading. There
are contrasting views on the West's hold on power. One side argues that the West still has a
monopoly on technological research and development, military strength, and economic
consumption. The other side argues that the relative power and influence of Western
countries is declining. Huntington adopts the latter view and describes three characteristics of
the Western decline:
1. The current Western decline is a very slow process and is not an immediate threat to World
powers today.
2. Decline of power does not occur in a straight line; it may reverse, speed up, or pause.
3. The power of a state is controlled and influenced by the behaviour 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.
Economics, Demography and the Challenger Civilizations, discusses the relative rise in power
and influence of non-Western countries. Huntington specifically focuses on Japan, the Four
Tigers (Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore), and China as countries, which asserted
cultural relevance through economic successes. "Asian societies are decreasingly responsive to
United States demands and interests and [are] increasingly able to resist pressure from the
U.S. or other Western countries" (104). The ability of Asian countries to successfully modernize
and develop economically without adopting western values supports Huntington's assertion
that the world is becoming more modernized, but less Westernized.
Muslim societies, unlike Asian societies, have asserted cultural identity through the
reaffirmation and resurgence of religion. Huntington argues that the resurgence of Islam
"embodies the acceptance of modernity, rejection of Western culture, and the recommitment
to Islam as the guide to life in the modern world" (110). Religion is the primary factor that
distinguishes Muslim politics and society from other countries. Huntington also argues that the
failure of state economies, the large young population, and the authoritarian style of
governance have all contributed to the resurgence of Islam in society.
 P a g e | 83

Part III: The Emerging Order of Civilizations:

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. Huntington argues that the Islamic civilization, which he identified earlier
in the book, lacks a core state and is the factor that disallows these societies to successfully
develop and modernize. The remainder of this section goes into great detail to explain the
different divisions of core states throughout the world.

Part IV: Clashes of Civilizations:

Huntington predicts and describes the great clashes that will occur among civilizations. First,
he anticipates a coalition or cooperation between Islamic and Sinic cultures to work against a
common enemy, the West. Three issues that separate the West from the rest are identified by
Huntington as:
1. The West's ability to maintain military superiority through the non-proliferation of
emerging powers.
2. The promotion of Western political values such as human rights and democracy.
3. The Restriction of non-Western immigrants and refugees into Western societies.
Non-Western countries see all three aspects as the Western countries attempt to enforce and
maintain their status as the cultural hegemony.
In the chapter The Global Politics of Civilizations, Huntington predicts the conflict between
Islam and the West to be a "small, fault line war," and the conflict between the America and
China having the potential to be an "inter-civilizational war of core states" (207).
 P a g e | 84

Islam and the West: Huntington goes into a brief historical explanation of the conflictual
nature of Islam and Christianity and then lists five factors that have exacerbated conflict
between the two religions in the late twentieth century. These factors are:
• the Muslim population growth has generated large numbers of unemployed and
dissatisfied youth that become recruits to Islamic causes,
• the recent resurgence of Islam has given Muslims a reaffirmation of the relevance of Islam
compared to other religions,
• the West's attempt to universalize values and institutions, and maintain military superiority
has generated intense resentment within Muslim communities,
• without the common threat of communism, the West and Islam now perceive each other
as enemies, and
• increased communication and interaction between Islam and the West have exaggerated
the perceived differences between the two societies (211).

Asia, China, and America:

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. The end of chapter nine provides a detailed diagram (The Global
Politics of Civilizations: Emerging Alliances) which helps explain the complexity of the political
relationships in the post-Cold War era (245).
Huntington defines the Soviet-Afghan war and the First Gulf War as the emergence of
civilization wars. Huntington interprets the Afghan War as a civilization war because it was
seen as the first successful resistance to a foreign power, which boosted the self-confidence,
and power of many fighters in the Islamic world. The war also "left behind an uneasy coalition
of Islamic organizations intent on promoting Islam against all non-Muslim forces" (247). In
other words, the war created a generation of fighters that perceived the West to be a major
threat to their way of life.
The First Gulf War was a Muslim conflict in which the West intervened; the war was widely
opposed by non-Westerners and widely supported by Westerners. Huntington states that
"Islamic fundamentalist groups denounced [the war] as a war against 'Islam and its civilization'
by an alliance of 'Crusaders and Zionists' and proclaimed their backing of Iraq in the face of
'military and economic aggression against its people" (249). The war was interpreted as a war
of us vs. them; Islam v. Christianity.
 P a g e | 85

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

Part V: The Future of Civilizations:

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 mono-culturalists 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).