Wednesday 28 August 2013
Tuesday 27 August 2013
Sunday 25 August 2013
War: Changes and Types
TYBA/PIV/Module III: Types of Conflict and Changing Nature of Conflict:
I Inter-state wars – changing nature and its causes
Introduction
War can be
seen as a form of social behavior and hence a permanent feature of human
society. However war also reflects changes in society and politics. The rise of
Modern State saw the beginning of industrial warfare that involved huge number
of deaths of both soldiers and civilians. The cold war was a continuance of
modern warfare but its severity was affected by Nuclear Weapons. Major changes
have occurred in form of war since the end of cold war. Its intensity and
number of deaths have declined sharply, along with rise in intra-state wars.
PCW warfare is technology driven and based on sophisticated weaponry and
information. Changes in international system have also led to rise in Non-state
based wars. Though war has become extinct in developed parts of the world, it
still persists in most of the developing regions that have been unable to deal
with the pressures of globalization related changes. Thus it remains a brutal
form of politics and innate part of human behavior.
Definition:
Traditional
definitions of war have distinguished it from other general forms of armed
violence like individual/group conflicts. However, the difficulty in limiting
it to inter-state conflicts is that it excludes conflicts within states that
occur in present day world. Such a definition also excludes non-state actors
involved in violent conflicts and may be fought on different scales. Quincy
Wright defines war ‘as a conflict among political group, especially sovereign
states, carried on by armed forces of considerable magnitude, for a reasonable
period of time’. This is a reasonable definition of present day war as it
emphasizes the changed nature of contemporary war.
War is a
universal form of human behavior. Today, however, it is strikingly absent in
some parts of world. In general, it has seen a sharp decline since end of cold
war. However, its presence is seen along with novel features in many regions of
the world.
Origins of
Modern State can be seen as an important outcome of war. Violence during the
renaissance period was countered by standing armies of powerful and centralized
states. The modern form of warfare can
be traced back to the Thirty Years War. The end of this war marked the
beginning of new phase in international relations. It resulted in
industrialized warfare fought on a massive scale that involved unprecedented
number of deaths. The modern forces like nationalism, bureaucratic states made
of large populations and scientific and industrial revolutions resulted in modern
form of war. Such a ‘modern war’ continued till the end of cold war.
Contemporary
changes in war can
be attributed to globalization and changes in the international system since
1989. Globalization led political and social changes have resulted in changed the
understanding about the nature of external threats to a state. Such threats as
terrorism, insurgencies, and internal crises in other countries present a
significant threat to the state and international system. In other words, the
earlier 20th century inter-state rivalry has now become just one of
the reasons for war.
End of cold
war brought major changes in the international system. Resultant US
hegemony and globalization forces have been challenged by strong cultural and
political resistance. At the same time, internal changes within states
by way of either democratization or disintegration have resulted in civil wars
and insurgencies. However, some believe that the fundamental nature of war
remains constant and hence changing war merely reflects the broader changes in
the international system. In other words, forms of war change as per threat
perceptions.
Changing
war is also a result of huge technological and communications growth. As
a result, cyber warfare, electronic warfare and global media led information-war
are the new ‘battlefields’ of the PCW era. Increasing use of both cyberspace
and global media by Non-State actors to further their cause also define
contemporary war.
At the same
time the traditional features of war are also changing. The PCW era has seen rapid
spread of conventional military technology and of weapons of mass destruction.
This is seen as a direct result of disarmament between the super powers at the
end of cold war.
Huge
technological progress has also led to revolutionary changes in military
affairs, mainly in the developed states like USA. This was evident in Gulf
War 1990 and also during Afghanistan, 2001 and Iraq War, 2003. The use of
technology to achieve success against a weak enemy meant assured unopposed
victory to US. These wars were of short duration, involved use of advanced
technology and led to reduced casualties. All this was possible due to the
effective use of information technology revolution by US forces. However such
technology based warfare was challenged by use of traditional guerilla-war
tactics by weak opponents in conflict zones.
II Nature and types of intra-state conflicts – causes and features
New wars based on intra-state conflicts are another
central feature of post cold war era. Disintegration of states that
could not withstand the pressures of globalisation has seen increased number of
internal conflicts. Different groups claim control of the state and hence take
to violence in the form of civil wars.
In such cases, a large number of unemployed youths are recruited in to
private army. The availability illegal funds and a thriving global arms
industry ensure purchase of latest weapons for use in these conflicts.
Some argue that these are ‘Identity Wars’ in the
sense that they are mainly fought for over issues of identity and culture. The
demand for national self-determination has been a major cause of wars
since 1990s. In other instances, religious fundamentalists are seen
defending cultural autonomy against the onslaught of globalisation forces and
western secularism.
Identity issues are also linked to increasing role of
women and under aged children in actual combat. Women, traditionally,
assigned non-combat roles are now increasingly seen in active combat roles in
the form of soldiers or suicide bombers. Child Soldiers in sizeable numbers
have been particularly found in recent conflicts in Africa e.g. in Sierra
Leone.
The Non-state dimension of new wars has also been
highlighted by some experts. Sub-state actors indulging in violence against the
states do not aim to impose political authority. Hence they do not require a
war like response from the state and hence are difficult to counter with a
traditional approach. The traditional approach based on Westphalian state
system involved armed conflict between soldiers of rival countries. However,
changes to state system has meant that the state’s monopoly of use of
violence is challenged from outside as well as inside by sub-state actors. This
was notably seen in conflicts in Congo, Sudan and Bosnia.
The use of paramilitary forces has been another
striking feature in intra-state wars. Paramilitary forces are semi-armed forces
raised and trained for dealing with such conflicts. These have been
increasingly used across the globe in recent conflicts.
Anti-terrorism campaigns, like the war on terror, are
also seen as the new form of warfare. This is simply because they are fought
for long durations and involve counter measures by groups involved.
The relationship between global security and economic
development has also led to involvement of Inter-governmental organisations
like UN and Private Security firms involved in internal conflicts in areas such
as Africa, Balkans and the Middle East. Poverty, stability and development and
peace are seen as issues related to international security. Hence developed
countries have justified wars of intervention as ‘humanitarian
interventions’.
The intra-state conflicts are seen as a result of ‘failed
states’. These are states weakened due to globalisation pressures and lost
control over national territory. Such conditions are worsened by global availability
of cheap resources to sub-state groups. Such groups benefit from parallel
economies funded by black marketing and criminal activities like drugs and
money-laundering. In addition, globalisation has also privatised protection.
Private groups can acquire weapons through global arms market. According to
some observers, such wars are fought for gaining personal wealth instead of
political power. Thus unlike traditional war, in such cases, war/violent
conflict has become the aim and not an instrument of politics.
Questions
1.
Discuss the changes in inter-state war since
the end of cold war.
2.
Describe the intra-state wars with reference to
post cold war era/globalization.
3.
Discuss Terrorism as form of conflict in the
PCW era/Write a short note on Terrorism.
Saturday 24 August 2013
Arms Control, Disarmament and Collective Security
Module 2
TYBA/PIV/Module 3.2
Approaches to Peace
I Arms Control
The term
refers to any international control or limitations on weapons to reduce
possibility of or limit destructiveness of war. It is a formal agreement to
regulate weapons, chiefly nuclear weapons acquisition between two countries.
Such treaties are mainly bilateral and are either of a limited term or for an
indefinite period. Arms control is a result of disarmament efforts. As complete
reduction of military capabilities is impossible in the present international
system, countries, especially nuclear powers resort to arms control measures to
reduce the possibility of war.
The massive
destruction caused during WWII and later in Cold War period, and resultant threat
of mutually assured destruction (MAD) led to arms control measures between US
and SU. International efforts for nuclear arms control were seen in the
establishment of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The autonomous
agency formed to promote peaceful use of nuclear technology and prevent its
military use.
However the
Cold War triggered an arms race between the super powers that made
international efforts for peace ineffective. It was after the Cuban missile crisis,
that the threat of nuclear war led to agreements for arms control. Thus, a
series of arms control measures followed namely, 1962 the US and SU agreed to
arms control measures namely Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) 1963, Outer Space
Treaty (1967); Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 1965; Strategic Arms
Limitations Treaty (SALT); Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (1987); Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) 1991; Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II
(START-II) 1992; Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996.
However,
arms control agreements during Cold War focused on i) mutual deterrence,
and ii) preventing others like China from acquiring nuclear weapons. In
other words, US-SU did not stop the arms race but managed it and structured it
as per their mutual interests.
Arms
Control has been unsuccessful outside nuclear weapons. However, difficulties
involved in developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) led to number of
states abandoning the need for acquiring nuclear arms. The unknown nature of
threats in post Cold War era presents a difficulty of complex choices for a
state’s military capability. Initiatives of arms control have been affected due
to changes in world order along with evolving military technologies. Thus, Counter
Proliferation measures focus on use of Ballistic Missile Defences and more proactive stance against
proliferation.
Nuclear
Proliferation issues in the new millennium have been addressed by measures like
Proliferation Security Initiatives (PSI), 2003. It prohibits trafficking
in WMD, Delivery Systems and related materials.
II Disarmament
The term
refers to international agreement mainly for reduction and limitation and
possibly elimination of arms through international organizations like UNO.
The development of nuclear weapons and their rapid spread led to urgent need
for disarmament after WWII. Disarmament issues became complicated in the era of
super power rivalry. However the threat of complete annihilation of life led to
need for disarmament of nuclear arms. It led to the debates on arms limitations
and control both at UNO and between super powers. Distinguishing between arms
control and disarmament provides a clearer understanding of the two:
Points of
Distinction
|
Arms Control
|
Disarmament
|
Meaning
|
Agreements focus on
setting limitations on testing, deployment, or use of certain types of
weapons
|
Agreements prohibit
possession of weapons
|
Purpose
|
Aim to encourage
countries to manage their weapons in limited cooperation with each other
|
Aim at
complete/partial elimination of weapons
|
Effectivity
|
US-SU led arms
control measures in CW era led to successful limitations of arms/control of
arms race
|
Failed negotiations
as disagreement led to increased tensions between countries
|
Post Cold War era
|
Arms Control
successfully replaced Disarmament
|
Disarmament
abandoned as states face complex choices of national security and defence
|
Examples
|
Non-Proliferation Treaty,
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I &II
|
Geneva Protocol Bans
use of Chemical Weapons, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
|
III Collective Security
The term
refers to alliance of states against an aggressor state accused of
threatening international peace. Immanuel Kant proposed a federation of world
states for establishing lasting peace between great powers. The federation was
aimed at safeguarding collective interest of all and to protect
self-determination of small nations vulnerable to great-power games. The League
of Nations was such a federation of states established for world peace at
the end of WWI. However, failure to enlist great powers and unwillingness of
members to bear financial costs of collective action led to League’s demise.
The responsibility of establishing permanent peace after WWII was given to United
Nations Organisation (UNO). The UN was based on collective security and collective action to
promote world peace.
Also, Regional Inter-Governmental
Organisations like the Organisation for American States (OAS), Arab
League and Organisation of African Union (OAU), also promote
regional peace through collective security in addition to other causes.
The success
of collective security depends on: i)
the level of members’ commitment to the group in case of a powerful
aggressor state; and, ii) an agreed definition of what is an aggression.
IV UNO and Collective
Security
The UNO and
its Security Council remains central to the concept of collective security to
establish international peace and order. Hence, a closer look is necessary to
understand its functioning, shortcomings and issues of its reform. All of these
have an important bearing on the concept of Collective Security.
United
Nations, through the Security Council, plays a key role in maintaining
international peace, especially since end of CW. Its performance of this role
is shaped by global political context. In the CW era, UN peace role was rendered
ineffective due to super power rivalry. The cold war politics hampered the
effective functioning of Security Council, as the UN agency that authorizes
collective responses to threats of international peace. Further, the original
intent of establishing a Standing Army for the UN remains unimplemented since
1945 till date. However there have been advances to overcome such shortcomings
in peace and security matters.
The United
Nations Security Council is the UN agency responsible mainly for
international peace and security. Its decisions are binding on all
members. It has vast powers in this regard as it: i) defines the
nature of threat or aggression; and ii) determines the structure of response
to enforce decisions through directives to member countries of UN. Thus it is
clear that UNSC plays an important role in maintaining peace through collective
security. However its structure and cold war dynamics obstructed its peace
role. Hence it is important to understand the structure and functioning of SC.
The SC structure
is made of five permanent members, viz. US, Britain, France, Russia and
China. Ten non-permanent members are appointed for two years by
rotation amongst member countries. The meetings of SC in New York take place
irregularly, upon request of an aggrieved member country of the UN.
Any
collective security initiative requires a SC Resolution to be passed by a
majority vote of nine out of total fifteen members of the agency. However any
permanent member can override the resolution by using veto power that
leads to rejection of the resolution by SC. The veto power was used during cold
war by rival super powers in several instances rendering the SC ineffective to
deal with aggression in world politics. Another way to reject a resolution used
by permanent members is to abstain from voting for a resolution. Thus the
absence from voting by a permanent member has the same effect as veto. Abstention
is mostly used by countries to avoid involvement in issues that are perceived
as unrelated to national interest. In the PCW era there have been persistent
demands for SC reform by giving permanent membership to countries like
Japan and Germany( for their economic contribution to collective security) or
India(for its growing size and economy). But the present day world order
presents difficulties for such reform in the SC.
The SC
considers a step by step approach to respond to threats to international
peace:
Firstly, it
explores the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of UN
Charter. It the suggests settlement principles; attempts ceasefire; sends
peacekeeping mission;
Secondly,
it enforces decisions under Chapter VII of the Charter by
imposing sanctions, arms embargo etc. In rare cases it authorizes collective
military actions for e.g. during the Gulf War in 1990 against Iraq.
Another instrument
of collective security is the peace-keeping operations in conflict zones
under UN. Based on UN Charter VI, the UN mediates or negotiates settlement
between warring groups and announces Ceasefire. The UN Peace Keeping Force is
kept under the direct command of UN. It implements the ceasefire with the
consent of the host state and ensures withdrawal of rival forces from the
conflict zone. The UN forces use weapons only in self-defence. The peace keeping force excludes
armed forces of major powers. Such a collective method was used in Egypt, 1956,
monitoring Cyprus Green Line and in Golan Heights.
In the PCW
era, the use of peace-enforcement or multi-dimensional peacekeeping by
UN involves use of force for humanitarian causes. During the CW period internal
conditions inside states were not questioned due to utmost importance to state
sovereignty. However since end of cold war, attention has been given to
internal conditions like civil war, poverty, hunger , occuring within states, that threaten international peace and
security.
Further,
September 11 attacks on New York and Iraq campaign 2003 have led to the recent
addition of Non-state based threats on priority of UN Security agenda.
The concern was highlighted in the UN Secretary General’s report titled ‘In
Larger Freedom’ and led to establishment of UN Peace Building Commission
in 2005.
Recently,
the concept of collective security has broadened to include common/mutual
security based on the idea that ‘security of all states is interdependent’.
Questions
1.
Write short notes on Arms
Control/Disarmament/Collective Security.
2.
Define the concepts of Arms Control and
Disarmament and discuss points of distinction between the two.
3.
Define Collective Security and discuss the role
UNSC in maintaining international peace.
Friday 2 August 2013
World Order: The Cold War
World Order: The Cold War
Semester V-
Paper IV-Module 2: World Order
I Chronology
A. First Cold War
1.
1945- End of WW II- Failure of Yalta and
Potsdam Conferences.
2.
1945-Rise of USA in the West and USSR in the
East as ‘World Powers’.
3.
1947- Truman Doctrine and ‘Containment of
Communism’ announced by US against Soviet expansion eastwards.
4.
June 1947- ‘Marshall Plan’ declared by US.
5.
1948- Berlin Crisis.
6.
1949-NATO formed by US.
7.
1949-May Stalin ends Soviet’s East Berlin Blockade.
8.
1949- Chinese
Revolution under Mao Zedong.
9.
1950-June-Korean war-Communists North Korea
attacks South Korea.
10.
1955-Warsaw Pact by USSR.
11.
1953-Death of Stalin-Modernisation of Soviet Society and Reformist
policies for Eastern Europe under Nikita Khrushchev.
12.
1956-Soviet hegemony threatened in Hungary.
13.
1956-Suez Crisis
14.
1961- Berlin Wall closed the last undefined
border between East and West Europe.
15.
1962 –Cuban missile crisis.
16.
1963-Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) between US
and USSR to reduce nuclear risks.
17.
1968-Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
between Nuclear States.
18.
1969- Détente between US and USSR.
19.
1969- Rapprochement between US and China.
20.
1973-Arab-Israeli War.
B. the ‘Second’ Cold War -Third
World as a stage for super power conflicts
21.
1979-Iranian Revolution.
22.
1979-Afghanistan war.
23.
1980 US President Ronald Reagan embarks on
campaigns to restore wounded US pride.
24.
1983 Soviet shoots down South Korean airplane-nuclear
war fear between East-West.
25.
1985- USSR Presidents ‘glasnost’ and
‘perestroika’ unleashed forces that lead to decline and disintegration of
Soviet empire.
26.
1986
27.
1987 (Washington): Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty between Gorbachev and Reagan.
28.
1989 Collapse of Soviet Empire.
29.
1990 Collapse of Berlin Wall and German
Unification.
30.
Disintegration of USSR
31.
1991-2001 Post Cold War Era-US as only super
power.
‘Cold War’ a term coined by Walter Lippmann to
describe a period of constant confrontation and tensions between two nuclear
powers without an actual direct war between 1945-1989.
‘Balance of
Power’ prevailed during cold war. The period was marked by high tensions but Balance
of Power prevented war between the two super powers. The prevalence of peace
due to presence of two equal, nuclear powers, made war a distinct possibility.
The recognition of mutual zones of dominance helped maintain equilibrium of
power. In other words, super power rivalry provided stability to international system.
‘Mutually
Assured Destruction’ (MAD) meant that an all-out war between the two nuclear
states would result in total destruction of life on earth. Hence it was seen as
a constant danger during the entire period. It resulted in arms race and
nuclear proliferation. It thus contributed to the maintenance of balance of
threat in the international system.
‘Non-alignment’
was a policy devised by the third world countries to remain outside the zone of
dominance of both the US and USSR. It allowed them not only to keep away from
cold war politics but also criticize the super powers to indulge in politics of
domination and conflicts. The policy allowed stability in third world.
European
Integration under the ‘European Community’ was aimed to unite Europe under a
common economic and security system. Designed to counter US dominance over Western
Europe, it proved of limited significance. This was due to Western Europe’s
dependence on Washington for its defence against USSR. Nonetheless it proved effective
in countering the balance of power in West Europe during Cold War.
II Features-Reasons -Core
Issues involved in Cold War:
1.
At the end of WWII, the two super powers
mutually divided Europe amongst themselves for dominance, except Germany and
Austria. It was the domination over third world that became a major cause of
confrontation and armed conflict between the US and USSR.
2.
Capitalism vs. Communism/constitutional
democracy vs. social democracy: Danger of war based on super power perceptions
of world order-suspicious and condemned each others ideology and political systems.
However a direct war between the two did not occur mainly due to nuclear
threat.
3.
In addition to ideology, confrontation also
based on situations of each super power. The fact that each firmly believed its
own ideology and socio-economic and political model as the best or ideal also
led to rivalry. Another reason for persistent confrontation was that even
though the US was more powerful than the USSR, allies preferred the dominance
of a democratic US, and not of an autocratic USSR.
4.
In a democratic system like the US, the threat
of an external enemy played an important role in domestic politics and influenced
its foreign policy throughout cold war.
5.
Both sides engaged in to an Arms Race that
meant Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) or total destruction. In addition,
arms race also spread to countries that were allies or friends of super powers.
A favourable arms
market also provided a profitable export trade for the weapons industry.
6.
Both successfully used Nuclear power status to
threaten other countries. But did not enter into war with each other. Britain,
France, China, Israel acquired nuclear weapons during cold war.
III Reasons for the end of
Cold War
1.
Both powers recognized that the nuclear arms
race was a threat to all and meant end of the world. Hence sincerely accepted
the need to end it. Subsequent talks at Reykjavik (1986) and Washington (1987) led
to arms limit and arms control between the super powers.
2.
The internal defects in the Soviet Economy
along with inability to repay the rising debt on loans taken from the western
capitalists led to collapse of socialism.
IV Conclusion-Impact on World
Order
It led to the undermining of all other conflicts which later resurfaced
during the post cold war. However Cold War had led to the creation of Balance
of Power in the international system. Thus the power struggle got stabilized
due to the super power rivalry. Entire period during 1945-89 was full of conflicts
and threat of war. But actual war did not take place because of threat of total
destructive war between super powers. Hence cold war enmity maintained
stability in international politics.
A negative impact of cold war was the arms race on a massive scale that
led to profiting arms industry. However, a major impact of cold war was seen in
world politics. The countries of the world were divided in to two rival camps,
mainly Europe, that faced domination of both US and USSR.Another impact of cold
war was the rise of the market state and decline of welfare state capitalism.
The most serious effect is, and still continues to be, the nuclear
threat along with that of chemical and biological weapons. The related threat
of nuclear terrorism and of nuclear accidents like the Chernobyl 1986 and
Fukushima 2011 present a real danger of total annihilation.
While IR scholars disagree on the exact causes of the end of cold war,
most argue that the cold war has left behind a nuclear threat. There is further
disagreement among experts on the World Order in the post Cold War. While some
argue that post Cold War is a Unipolar system. Others believe the same to be
more a Multi-polar and sometimes Non-polar. To understand the above, we turn to
understand the post Cold War period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)