11 - Most - Important - Questions - IR - 2.docx Filename UTF-8''11 Most Important Questions IR 2

International Relations Notes ; Public Service Academy ;A Place Of Excellence: 03333417774
By Muhammad Qasim Zia; Director PSA: We believe in Excellence and we lead you to be Excellent.
Page 1
PUBLIC SERVICE ACADEMY.

We lead you to achieve excellence in
CSS through:
 Provision of comprehensive material.
 Provision of tips to present your
knowledge precisely
 Weekly test to remove your mistakes.
 And you have to do one and only thing;
PERSISTANT HARD WORK.
If you will follow us we ensure you 100% success.

(By the Grace of Allah).
Page 2
Most important 11 questions for IR paper 2 css 2016

Note: the most important questions are based on teachers’ perception.
Students are required to prepare all questions but focus on these questions.
Answer should be given according to asked contents.
1-Fascism
Introduction
Fascism is a form of totalitarian rule where all loyalty lies with the state. Individual rights and freedoms are
considered a threat to the moral fiber of the fascist state.
A governmental system led by adictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and
criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing
an aggressive nationalism and often racism. The first fascist state by definition was established in Italy in
the early 20th century. Mussolini used propaganda, intimidation, kidnapping, and murder to expand his
power, and he declared himself dictator of Italy. Second fascist state was Germany under Hitler that became
the foremost cause of WW2.
Many political scientists agree that a third classic fascist state was established in Spain, but Franco never
sought to expand its territory.
Definitions
1-MW Dictionary
1-A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people
and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
2-Very harsh control or authority.
2-Oxford Dictionary
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Word Origin
Page 3
• The word Fascism comes from the Latin word ‘fascis,’ an ancient Roman symbol of strength, unity, and
governmental authority.
The term "Fascism" was first used in 1915 by members of Mussolini's movement, the Fasci of Revolutionary
Action.
Characteristics.
• Fascists are ultra-nationalistic, often extolling the ethnic and physical superiority of the party in power.
• A single, charismatic leader rises to power, embodying the ideals of the national culture.
• Fascist regimes demand absolute national unity. The advancement of the state becomes the driving force
in everyone’s lives.
• Fascist regimes are masters of manipulation, especially through mass media.
• Private economic goals are swept aside.
• Contempt for other forms of government, especially communism, is characteristic of fascist regimes.
• Fascist regimes usually work toward military expansion.
• Unlike Communists, who had Karl Marx, or the founding fathers of the United States who had John
Locke, Fascists had no central philosopher or concrete theory. Rather, several philosophers in the late 1800s
published views on government and human nature.
Socio-politico-economic conditions that encourage the growth of fascism
• a depressed economy • high unemployment • dissatisfied workers and unsympathetic factory owners •
diminished national pride • lack of confidence in the traditional political leadership • young radical groups
ready to offer an alternative.
Origin and causes of Fascism after WW1
ECONOMICALLY DEVASTATED EUROPE.
Ineffectiveness of League of Nations
The political atmosphere
Page 4
Conflicting Ideologies.
German Dream to regain her glory
Basic Tenets of Fascism( detail from notes)
1-Nationalism
2-Totalitarianism
3-Economy
4-Direct Action
5-Age and gender roles
6-Palingenesis and modernism
2-Compare the Failure of League of Nations with UN

Basic goals of the League.
Causes of Failures
Failed to accomplish the basic goal of peace security and dispute resolution through dialogue and
intervention. ( see Notes)
Examples of Failure( put 2 to 3 Examples)
Vilna 1920 Lithuania asked the League to intervene in order to seize Vilna as its capital. The city was
largely populated by the Polish population. Poland ignored the claims of Lithuania, the League stayed calm.
Page 5
Russo-Polish War 1920-21 Poland was not content with its eastern borders and decided to seize White
Russia and Ukraine. The League was unable to prevent this warfare. In fact, Poland was backed by France
and Britain
Greece v. Turkey 1920-22 Greece invaded Turkey in order to overthrow the new government led by
Ataturk, which was determined to overturn the Treaty of Sevres. The Turkish army defeated Greece and
further warfare was avoided by Britain agreeing that a new treaty should be signed – Lausanne 1923. The
League had been unable to either prevent or halt this war, in large part because Britain supported Greece,
while France supported Turkey.
Memel 1923 The area was under League administration by the Treaty of Versailles. The League was unable
to prevent Lithuania seizing it in 1923. This was followed by little success when the league persuaded
Lithuania to accept the port becoming an “international zone”, with Lithuania retaining the surrounding
area.
Invasion of the Ruhr (in Slovak Porúrie) 1923 The League was unable to prevent France and Belgium from
invading the Ruhr after Germany failed to pay its second reparations installment. In fact, France did not
even consult the League before it took action.
The Corfu Incident 1923 The League failed to stop Italy from invading the Greek Island of Corfu even though
Greece asked for help. The Corfu Incident was seen as a serious failure for the League. It showed that
powerful nations could still bully a less powerful neighbor (Greece was a small, weak country with no
powerful friends on the Council). G. Scott in 1973 wrote: “The settlement made a nasty smell. The Greeks
were bitter, the Assembly felt it had been betrayed and that the League had been degraded. Mussolini
appeared to have triumphed in his assertion that where a nation was powerful enough it was justified in
using force to further its interests and the League had no right to interfere.”
Failures in 1930s:
The Manchuria Affair, 1931-1933: The power of Japan increased enormously during WWI. In WWI Japan
captured Germany´s Far Eastern possessions and worked their industries at full blast to produce ships and
munitions for the Allies. After the war, the Japanese fleet was the strongest in the Pacific. Of all the
countries 3 involved in the war, Japan seemed to have made the biggest profits. But Japan was badly hit
by the economic Depression. The Japanese searched for a way out of troubles. Their army came up with an
answer - to attack Manchuria. The attack started with so-called Mukden Incident, which was a staged event
Page 6
that was engineered by Japanese military personnel as a pretext for attack of Manchuria. Japanese Army
blew up the railway near Mukden but blamed Chinese dissidents for that. Japan “responded” with a full
invasion that led to the occupation of Manchuria, in which Japan established its puppet state of Manchukuo
in 1932. In 1933 the League condemned the Japanese invasion. Japan simply left the League in 1933 and
carried on with its conquests in China. Japan launched its second phase of intervention in China in 1937 and
was in war with China until 1945.
The Manchurian Affair 1931 – 1933 had 3 very important results: 1. The League showed it is incapable of
enforcing world peace, 2. the Affair encouraged the European dictators to try the same tactics in Africa and
Europe, 3. Japan continues in violent policy and launches full-scale attack in 1937.
Abyssinia, 1935: Benito Mussolini, the Fascist dictator of Italy, dreamed of building a new Roman Empire.
Mussolini wanted to fight a war. He believed this would help Italians forget their problems at home. It
would also win the coal, iron and oil Italy lacked. Mussolini wanted to add Abyssinia - now called Ethiopia -
to the Italian Empire. Abyssinia was sandwiched between the Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland. It
was an independent country ruled by the Emperor Haile Selassie. Country was a member of the League of
Nations.
In 1935 the Italians invaded. The Italian soldiers used tanks, poison gas, bombs and flame-throwers against
Abyssinian troops armed with spears and outdated rifles. Selassie appealed to the League of Nations for
help. Britain and France, two leading members of the League, could have stopped Italy by closing the Suez
Canal to Italian ships – cutting the Italian supply route to Abyssinia. Instead they agreed with the rest of
the League to impose certain economic sanctions on Italy. These measures had little effect, because they did
not include steel, oil and coal, which were vital to the Italian war effort. In May 1936 the Italian captured
the capital of Abyssinia, Addis Ababa. The Abyssinian crisis dealt a death blow to the League of Nations
which was now ignored as a peace-keeping body.
Haile Selassie´s speech to the League of Nations in 1936: “I, Haile Selassie, Emperor of Abyssinia, am here
today to claim that justice is due to my people and the assistance promised to it 8 months ago. I assert
that the problem is a much wider one than the removal sanctions. It is not merely a settlement of Italian
aggression. It is very existence of the League of Nations. It is the value of promises made to small states
that their independence be respected and ensured. God and history will remember your judgments.” The
Abyssinian crisis was a fatal blow to the League. The historian A J P Taylor explains: “The real death of
Page 7
the League was in 1935. One day it was a powerful body imposing sanctions the next day it was an empty
sham, everyone scuttling from it as quickly as possible.”
Rhineland, 1936: Rhineland was part of Germany, but the Treaty of Versailles had demilitarised the area -
no weapons or soldiers were allowed there. Hitler wanted full control of Rhineland. Hitler feared that much
stronger French army would force them out. Hitler took a risk by sending in troops with orders to
withdraw if they meet opposition from the French army. Hitler explained his worries: “The 48 hours after
the march into Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the
Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, our military resources would
have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.” The march into Rhineland was a clear breach
of the Locarno Treaties and the Treaty of Versailles. So why did France and Britain make no attempt to
stop it? France lacked a strong leader and had problems at home. The French would not act without British
support. Britain was not willing to stop Germany. These events had important effects on Europe.
The Spanish Civil War (July 1936 - April 1939): The War ended with the victory of the rebels, who called
themselves 'Nationalists'. The Republican Government was overthrown, thousands of Spanish Republicans were
exiled. With the establishment of a conservative dictatorship led by General Francisco Franco in the
aftermath of the Civil War, all right-wing parties were fused into the structure of the Franco regime. The
fascist regime of General Francisco Franco was in power until 1975. The Spanish Civil War has been dubbed
"the first media war." Foreign correspondents covering it included Ernest Hemingway or photographer Robert
Capa. Picture on the left: Robert Capa, 1936. Death of a Loyalist Militiaman, Spanish Civil War Painting
below: Guernica by Pablo Picasso, 1937
The Anschluss of Austria: was the occupation and annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938.
Although the Allies were committed to upholding the terms of the treaties of Versailles and St. Germain,
which specifically prohibited the union of Austria and Germany, their reaction was only verbal and moderate.
No fighting ever took place.
The Munich Pact (29.-30.9.1938): was an agreement permitting Nazi German annexation of Czechoslovakia's
Sudetenland signed in Munich, Germany. The Sudetenland were areas along Czech borders, mainly inhabited
by ethnic Germans. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of the Sudetenland in the face
of territorial demands made by Adolf Hitler. The agreement was signed by Nazi Germany, France, Britain,
and Italy. The Sudetenland was of immense strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, as most of its border
defenses were situated there, and many of its banks were located there as well. Because the state of
Page 8
Czechoslovakia was not invited to the conference, Czechs and Slovaks sometimes call the Munich Agreement
the Munich Dictate. The phrase Munich Betrayal is also used because the military alliance Czechoslovakia had
with France was not honoured.
Basic Goals of UN( see from notes)
Failed to accomplish basic goals to maintain peace and security..( explain maijor events since the Cold war)(
see notes)
UN Failures to Act or Maintain Security
The UN has had difficulty in carrying out several of its peacekeeping efforts which was the basic goal of its
craetion, evoking comparisons to the weakness of the ill-fated League of Nations. This was apparent in
2003 by controversy surrounding the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, conducted in the face of strong disapproval
by a majority of members; by Iraq's converse direct defiance of UN weapons and humanitarian resolutions;
and by Israel's decade-long defiance of resolutions calling for the dismantling of settlements in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip. These perceived failures stem from the UN's structure, which emphasizes the
sovereignty of nations, voluntary membership, and places force in the hands of the Security Council, not the
membership at large. Here are some examples of failures:
1-No active role to stop cold war
2-Genocide in Rwanda
Failure to act during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, when then Secretary-General Kofi Annan oversaw
peacekeeping forces there.
3-Second Congo War
Failure by the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (UNSC Resolution 1291) to effectively
intervene during the Second Congo War, which claimed the lives of nearly five million from 1998–2002
(with fighting reportedly continuing), and in carrying out and distributing humanitarian relief.
4-Killings in Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Page 9
Failure to intervene during the 1995 killings in Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina), despite the fact that
the UN designated it a safe haven for refugees and assigned six hundred Dutch peacekeepers to protect it.
5-Failure to successfully deliver food to starving citizens of Somalia; the food was usually seized by local
warlords instead of reaching those who needed it. A U.S./UN attempt to apprehend the warlords seizing
these shipments resulted in the 1993 battle of Mogadishu.
6-Genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan
Failure to prevent the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, which reached its peak in 2003.
7-Failure to stop USA from attacking Iraq
8-Failure to resolve Kashmir dispute and many other territorial disputes.The extent to which the United
Nations should act as a world government with more power to intervene in national disputes is under
continuing debate, and relates to the issues of whether the UN Charter can be reformed or even a successor
organization should be created.
9-Israel's decade-long defiance of resolutions calling for the dismantling of settlements in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.
10- Failure to create any international force to stop any aggression
11- Failure to create any international independent Economic Organization
3-The cold War is the basic event to destabilize the world

What is cold war
What is the cold war
Why the allies of the war became bitter enemies( National interest, realism)
Page 10
Balance of power destabilized
Unipolar world and the hegemony of the USA( no check on the hegemon)
Proliferation of weapons and nukes started during cold war( Star wars)
Unending War on terrorism started by the champion of cold war( The USA)
The Terrorism proves the theory of Clash of Civilizations?

Conclusion
4-Can Globalization Make the world more peaceful?

Literal Meanings
Globalization in its literal sense is the process of globalizing, transformation of some things or phenomena
into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single
society and function together. This process is a combination of economic technological, socio-cultural and
political forces (Croucher 2004).
Elaboration
The term of globalization has only become commonplace in the last three decades, and academic
commentators who employed the term as late as the 1970s accurately recognized the novelty of doing so
(Modelski 1972). Globalization is very often used to refer to economic globalization that is integration of
national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows,
migration, and the spread of technology (Bhagwati 2004). This issue regarding to its expanded dimensions
can create a very vast transformation in the human life. So, this issue has been considered intensively
important and has been repeated in the literature of social and political sciences (Krasner 2001, 2) and it
is attempted to be interpreted all of its impacts from all sides and corners.
Although all human beings live in separate and different societies, they aren't separated from other societies,
either. During the history of human being, societies have been dealing with each other in different ways and
Page 11
have formed all kind of relations. Hence, according to these relations and proportions the international
relations have been conformed. So, in the conditions which the issue of globalization is debated, there is a
question what kind of changes do the international relations have on behalf of the impacts of globalization?
In relation to the different dimensions of globalization, and the variety of subjects and issues of
international relations, the survey of globalization impacts on the international relations contains a very vast
and expanded discussion
Globalization has been presented in different and various definitions, such as globalization as an idea,
globalization as a pattern or project, globalization as a process of human being's history, globalization as a
probable future, globalization as a situation ,and finally, globalization as a trend (Nahavandian 2007).
Different Definitions( from notes)
1- How globalization is more peaceful?

2- The changing in structure of international system and the distribution of power in different
centers.
3- Elimination of limited borders and globalization of boundaries( elimination of border disputes,
armies and weapons)
4- Strengthening of the global rules and laws( strengthening the international law and peace world
wide)
5- The change of essence of international system. (The essence of international system in the
past was mostly military, security and political)
6- Conclusion
5-How can UNO play better role for world peace, what reforms u suggest in UN to
accomplish the goal.
Reform of the United Nations:Since the late 1990s there have been many calls for reform of
the United Nations (UN). However, there is little clarity or consensus about what reform might mean in
practice. Both those who want the UN to play a greater role in world affairs and those who want its role
confined to humanitarian work or otherwise reduced use the term "UN reform" to refer to their ideas. The
range of opinion extends from those who want to eliminate the UN entirely, to those who want to make it
into a full-fledged world government.
Page 12
Formal Initiative to reform UN:On 1 June 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Atul Khare of
India to spearhead efforts to implement a reform agenda aimed at streamlining and improving the efficiency
of the world body. Khare will lead the Change Management Team (CMT) at the UN, working with both
departments and offices within the Secretariat and with other bodies in the UN system and the 193
member states. The CMT is tasked with guiding the implementation of a reform agenda at the UN that
starts with the devising of a wide-ranging plan to streamline activities, increase accountability and ensure
the organization is more effective and efficient in delivering its many mandates.
Proposed Reforms
Security Council reform:.
1-Draft Resolution for expansion of council:
The draft resolution calls for next year's UN agenda to discuss the "Question of equitable representation on
and increase in the membership of the Security Council." Once the draft is agreed on, it will be put to vote
at the General Assembly, where a two-thirds vote is needed to clear it.
2-2005 Annan plan:

3-Uniting for Consensus
4-G4 Proposal
2-UN Secretariat Transparency Reform
Mark Malloch Brown, the former secretary general of the United Nations Development Program attributes
the inefficiency of the UN administration to the "disconnect between the merit and reward" and further
advocates "reconnecting merit to make the UN again an international meritocracy" to overcome the problem.
He believes that the UN must stop promoting on the basis of political correctness that encourages
promoting staffs proportionately from certain regions of the world, but instead make more use of Asia,
Africa and other so-called less developed regions that now offer a large pool of talented, skilled, and highly
motivated professionals. He argues that these individuals who are highly qualified will readily move up
through the UN system without need of the "cultural relativism which is used to promote incompetents." A
somewhat related point is often made by UN member states from the developing world, who complain that
some of the most desirable senior posts within the Secretariat are filled under a "tradition" of regional
Page 13
representation that favors the United States and other affluent nations. The point has been made forcefully
by Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan, who was recently head of the G-77. "The major countries, the
major powers hold very high positions in the Secretariat and support their national interests and refuse to
allow the Secretary General to cut departments," he claims. And when they do ask for budget cuts, they
do it "where it does not affect their national interests." He labels this "a double standard which is applied
or is thought to be applied in the Secretariat, and we as overseers of the G-77 do not accept this double
standard."
3-Democracy Reform
4-Financing reform
5-Human rights reform
6-Creation of United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
7-Creation of United Nations Environment Organization
8-Removal of spent provisions in UN Charter
6-Role of OIC for the unity of the muslim Umma and the world peace?
What is OIC?
The second largest organization of the world
Goals of OIC.
Collective voice of the muslim umma
Platform to resolve all outstanding issues
Platform to unite the ummah through production of harmony among different sects or school of
thoughts
Platform to defend the Muslim rights
Platform to introduce separate economic system based on sharria( help to unite umma)
Can help to resolve the issue of terrorism( world peace)
Can help to avert clash of civilization( world peace)
Conclusion
Page 14
7-How ECO can play better role for the economic sustainability of Pakistan?
Economic Cooperation Organization

The Economic Cooperation Organisation or ‫اقتصادی تعاون تنظیم‬, is a Eurasian political and economic
intergovernmental organization which was founded in 1985 in Tehran by the leaders
of Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. It provides a platform to discuss ways to improve development and promote
trade and investment opportunities. The ECO is an ad hoc organization under the United Nations Charter
(Chap. VIII). The common objective is to establish asingle market for goods and services, much like
the European Union. ECO's secretariat and cultural department are located in Tehran, its economic bureau is
in Turkey and its scientific bureau is situated in Pakistan.
History
The Economic Cooperation Organization was the successor organisation of what was the Regional Cooperation
for Development (RCD), founded in 1964, which ended activities in 1979. In 1985 Iran, Pakistan and
Turkey joined to form the ECO. By the fall of 1992, the ECO expanded to include seven new
members; Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The date
of the expansion to its present strength, 28 November, is referred to as "ECO Day". The status and power
of the ECO is growing. However, the organization faces many challenges. Most importantly, the member
states are lacking appropriate infrastructure and institutions which the Organization is primarily seeking to
develop, to make full use of the available resources in the region and provide sustainable development for
the member nations. The Economic Cooperation Organisation Trade Agreement (ECOTA) was signed on 17
July 2003 in Islamabad. ECO Trade Promotion Organization (TPO) is a new organization for trade
promotion among member states located in Iran (2009). Under the agreement reached between ECO
members, the common trade market should be established by 2015. ( goal not accomplished)
Objectives & Principles of Cooperation
 Sustainable economic development of Member States;

 Progressive removal of trade barriers and promotion of intra- regional trade; Greater role of ECO region
in the growth of world trade; Gradual integration of the economies of the Member States with the
world economy;
 Development of transport & communications infrastructure linking the Member States with each other
and with the outside world;
 Economic liberalization and privatization;
 Mobilization and utilization of ECO region's material resources;
 Effective utilization of the agricultural and industrial potentials of ECO region.
Page 15
 Regional cooperation for drug abuse control, ecological and environmental protection and strengthening of
historical and cultural ties among the peoples of the ECO region; and
 Mutually beneficial cooperation with regional and international organizations.
 Sovereign equality of the Member States and mutual advantage;
 Linking of national economic, development plans with ECO's immediate and long-term objectives to the
extent possible;
 Joint efforts to gain freer access to markets outside the ECO region for the raw materials and finished
products of the Member States;
 Effective utilization of ECO institutions, agreements and cooperative arrangements with other regional
and international organizations including multilateral financial institutions;
 Common endeavors to develop a harmonized approach for participation in regional and global
arrangements;
 Realization of economic cooperation strategy; and Exchanges in educational, scientific, technical and
cultural fields
Expand the points from Objectives related to economy which could be helpful to boost
economy.
8-Stability in south Asia is dependent upon peace in Afghanistan and

between India and Pakistan
Peace Process or Security strategy in South Asia
The state of play in South Asia has an obvious bearing on the international environment, including security
in adjacent regions. The reverse also holds true. The pursuit of a lopsided approach in South Asia by the
world’s primary power, the United States, could undermine security and compound regional tension. For
instance, the suggestion made by some to build up India as a counterweight to China could prove to be
destabilizing and counterproductive for the region, and indeed for US interests globally. Instead of pursuing
an outdated balance of power approach, American interests would be better served by a partnership with
South Asia as a whole.
Deployment of ballistic missile defence (BMD) and peace of South Asia
Page 16
A new challenge is posed by decisions being made in Washington about the development and deployment of
ballistic missile defence (BMD) and theatre missile defence (TMD) systems. A ricochet effect on South Asia
will become apparent if such systems spark a renewed nuclear and missile race between the major
powers. It would also justify and perhaps encourage India’s ambition to acquire a large nuclear and missile
arsenal in accordance with its nuclear doctrine. This, in turn, would evoke a response by Pakistan. Such
developments at the international level could, therefore, further complicate and exacerbate the security
environment in South Asia, while undermining any effort to contain the nuclear arms race and build a
regional restraint regime.
Important Factors Affecting South Asia security
Another dynamic affecting South Asian security is determined by the interaction of the regional states with
external powers or adjacent regions. In this regard, three factors are important:
 Afghanistan. Stabilizing Afghanistan should be seen to be in the long-term economic and strategic
interest of both Pakistan and India, as it provides the best route for access to Central Asia’s energy,
along with other resources and markets for exports.
 Persian Gulf/Middle East region. Regional stability in South Asia and the success of modernist and
moderate forces in Pakistan is of vital importance for the adjacent Gulf/Middle East region, which is
once again facing a period of turbulence and violence.
 Sino-Indian relations. China and India are seeking to normalize relations, but any setback in this
process could greatly destabilize the security environment in South Asia and indirectly accelerate the
nuclear and conventional arms race between India and Pakistan.
 Pak- india relations
Suggestions to stabilize south Asia
1- Peaceful democratic transition in Afghanistan( helped by int. community)

2- Due share of the major countries in Afghanistan( Pak, India, China)
3- Restrain the active involvement of India in Afghanistan beyond due share.
4- Resolution of outstanding issues between India and Pakistan
5- Check on Indian involvement to destabilize Pakistan’s integrity.
6- Economic interdependency of Pakistan and India on one an other
7- Control on arm race between India and Pakistan
8- The USA should play positive role to maintain the balance of power
Page 17
Conclusion
8-Challenges of Non-Proliferation
Challenges and solutions for nonproliferation
Introduction
As globalization progresses, the political order is undergoing increasing stress. Both international organizations
and non-state actors are eroding the traditional concept of national sovereignty, challenging states' monopoly
of power in the political, military, territorial, and legal realms. Indeed, international agreements like the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are among the factors that have constricted nations' sovereignty.
With 189 signatories, the NPT is the most influential treaty that concerns nuclear issues. But the world
has changed in the 42 years since the treaty came into force. If the treaty is to survive, it must be
implemented more comprehensively and verification procedures must become less discriminatory. All this
requires greater global cooperation.
During the last two decades, there have been successes but also disappointments in fighting against nuclear
proliferation. On the positive side, we witnessed the dismantlement of nuclear weapons programs in South
Africa, Iraq, and Libya. The NPT was indefinitely extended and continues to be the global framework against
the spread of nuclear proliferation. On the downside, the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT and its
subsequent nuclear tests charted a dangerous and negative course. The international community has also not
been able to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment and suspected military nature of its nuclear program. We see
Iran marching slowly but steadily towards amassing nuclear weapons’ capability. Syria stands in flagrant
violation in its safeguards undertakings. The IAEA has not been able to receive clarifications requested from
Myanmar on its nuclear activities. FMCT negotiations in Geneva are stuck. However, on the positive side,
the establishment a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East warrants a cautious
optimism.
Nuclear Renaissance( detail see from notes)
The idea of multinational enrichment centres is an important step, but one that needs to overcome certain
hurdles.
A Changing Nuclear Proliferation Landscape
Information analysis should clearly not replace inspections;
Page 18
Reinforcement
Terrible prospect.
Rogues and outliers.
Lay down your arms.
Revitalizing the IAEA
Conclusion
9-Missile defense systems

Introduction
U.S. ballistic missile defense systems are designed to protect the U.S. homeland, deployed military forces,
and allies from limited attacks. The Pentagon originally sought development of ballistic missile defense
(BMD) technology to counter the Soviet nuclear threat during the Cold War, but its focus in the twenty-
first century has shifted to defending against potential strikes from regional actors, particularly Iran and
North Korea. Proponents of BMD stress its role in the projection of U.S. power and its value as a
deterrent, while critics question its reliability and high costs. In recent years, some military analysts have
said that the planned expansion of U.S-NATO missile defense systems in the former Soviet bloc has
unnecessarily frayed relations with Moscow.
What is BMD
Missile defense is a system, weapon, or technology involved in the detection, tracking, interception, and
destruction of attacking missiles. Originally conceived as a defence against nuclear-armed intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs), its application has broadened to include shorter-ranged non-
nuclear tactical and theater missiles.
The United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, and France have all developed such air defense systems. In
the United States, missile defense was originally the responsibility of the U.S. Army. The U.S. Missile
Defense Agency has developed maritime systems and command and control that will eventually be transferred
to the Navy and Air Force for operation and sustainment
How does ballistic missile defense work?
Ballistic missiles can be launched from a variety of platforms, including silos, trucks, trains, submarines, and
warships. There are four general classifications based on the maximum distance the missile can travel: short
Page 19
range (less than 1,000 kilometers); medium range (1,000–3,000 kilometers); intermediate range (3,000–
5,500 kilometers); and intercontinental (more than 5,500 kilometers).
Stages of Flight
Ballistic missiles have three stages of flight: boost phase, which begins at launch and lasts until rocket
engines finish; midcourse phase, the longest stage, when the projectile is on its parabolic path to the target;
and terminal phase, when the detached warhead reenters the atmosphere, often traveling less than a minute
to impact. (Cruise missiles, by contrast, are jet-engine powered weapons that fly low and level to the
ground, often avoiding enemy radar, before striking their target.)
What is the history of U.S. missile defense?
Global Concerns on The USA Initiative of Technology
From the end of the last century to the beginning of this century, the United States has insisted on
developing a national missile defense system and seceded from the ABM Treaty. The international
community, including China and Russia, declared their opposition to Missile Defense Programs, and the UN
General Assembly adopted resolutions on anti-missile issues several times, to appeal to countries concerned
with stopping Missile Defense Programs.
In the 21st century, disputes on missile defense are still a critical factor influencing international security
and bilateral relations between relevant countries. In February 2010, the US issued the first Ballistic Missile
Defense Review, and stated that the deployment of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems in Europe would be
enlarged by stages, gradually upgraded to Theater Missile Defense Systems, and that the US would finally
develop the capabilities of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles (IBM; ICBM). In March 2012, the
US proposed that it would follow the development model in Europe and rely on both US-Japan-ROK and
US-Japan-Australia trilateral dialogue mechanisms, to set up Asia-Pacific anti-missile systems in stages. The
Anti-Ballistic Missile Programs in Europe, carried out by the US and NATO, have been severely criticized by
Russia, and become a big barrier to the relationship among the US, NATO and Russia. Introducing Anti-
Ballistic Missile Systems into Northeast Asia will hurt mutual trust among countries and regional security. In
the same vein, China will not agree on it.
Impact on Global Strategic Relations

Both in history and at present, missile defense issues have had a profound and far-reaching influence on
relations among great powers, global strategic balance and stability, international peace and security, and the
process of arms control and disarmament.
First, developing Missile Defense Programs, which break global strategic balance and stability, will worsen the
global security situation. From the Star Wars System to National Missile Defense Programs (NMD) and
Theater Missile Defense Programs, and from Missile Defense Programs to East-European Missile Defense
Page 20
Programs and European Missile Defense Programs, the US has been using missile defense systems as one of
its effective measures to break the global strategic balance. It declares that the purpose of establishing
missile defense systems currently in Europe, Asia and the Middle East is to deal with the threats from Iran
and North Korea. But, in terms of technologies, there are only limited countries with the capability of
intercontinental ballistic missiles, including the five UNSC permanent members. Some of the countries
involved exaggerate the so-called regional missile threats purposely and develop anti-ballistic missile systems
beyond the necessity of their homeland defense. Its essence is to seek unilateral military and security
superiorities. Once the development of Anti-Ballistic Missile Programs breaks the stability of relations among
great powers and global strategic balance, international relations will inevitably be unsafe and uncertain.
Consequently, the mutual trust among great powers will be severely destroyed, and it will influence their
coordination and cooperation on international affairs.
Second, developing and deploying Missile Defense Systems, which severely destroy the regional balance of
power, will inevitably damage regional security and stability. Developing and deploying Missile Defense
Systems in Europe and Asia-Pacific regions, which does harm to other countries’ security interests, will lead
to the establishment and strengthening of self-enclosed military and political blocs, aggravate the imbalance
among the countries in the region, provoke antagonism and worsen the regional security situation. NATO
countries and Russia have been keeping cooperation in theatre missile defense, and four missile defense
exercises were held from 2004 to 2008. But, the cooperation was affected by the deployment of missile
defense systems in Europe by NATO from 2010. Recently, North Korea failed in launching a satellite,
further proving that the threat from North Korea’s missiles is exaggerated and its capability is over-
evaluated. Hence it is not convincing to develop Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems in the Asia-Pacific region on
such pretexts.
The Asia-Pacific Anti-Ballistic Missile Programs is an important part of US new Asia-Pacific strategy, but it
brings negative influences on Asia-Pacific peace, security and stability, and increases complex factors in solving
relevant regional issues. First, it worsens the security environment in the Asia-Pacific region. The facts in
recent years have proven that the strategy of “coercing with power and containing with threats” is not
effective. The Asia-Pacific Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems will raise the overall offensive and defensive level of
US-Japan and other military alliances in an all-round manner, more complex political and security factors will
arise, and the unstable situation in the areas concerned will become worse. Second, it increases the risks of
regional military conflicts. The US keeps on expanding the scale of its Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems with the
excuse of North Korea and Iran issues, resulting in the loss of a sense of security for some countries, and in
their strong indignation and counter-actions, thus stimulating them to further develop their capabilities of
missile striking and nuclear weapons. Third, it also does harm to China in its task of defending national
unity.
Page 21
Since 2008, a peaceful development of cross-Strait relations has come into being, but there is still
tendency for “Taiwan independence.” Therefore, the development of Asia-Pacific Anti-Ballistic Missile
Systems, especially the selling of anti-ballistic missile systems to Taiwan, sends wrong signals to the “Taiwan
independence” forces, and will seriously damage the peaceful reunification across the Strait.
Third, developing Missile Defense Programs, which break global strategic balance and stability, will obstruct
the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and may even trigger a new round of arms races.
The global strategic balance and stability is the prerequisite to and precondition of international arms control
and disarmament. Once the balance is broken, the process of arms control and disarmament will be
stagnated or even reversed. With the further advancement of Missile Defense Programs, the new START
between the US and Russia is facing serious challenges. Besides, the strategic unbalance will breed the danger
of an arms race onto a higher level, and the continuous advancement of missile defense systems may lead
the arms race to outer space. Some countries state that developing missile defense systems is directed
against proliferation. But we believe that it actually adds complex factors to dealing with non-proliferation
issues through political and diplomatic measures.
The current global security threats are becoming increasingly integrated, complex and volatile, international
strategic competition is intensifying, and traditional and non-traditional security threats are interwoven.
Facing the complex and volatile security challenges, no single country can be safe to deal with the problems
alone. The history of missile defense issues has proved that neither confrontation nor arms race could solve
the problems, and the way out would eventually be through dialogue and cooperation. While one’s national
security interests are concerned, others’ security concerns should be respected, and the principles of keeping
global strategic stability and maintaining security of all the countries should be followed. We should strike at
the roots of the problems as well as their harmful effects, tackle the problems in a comprehensive way,
prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, try to root out the causes, and solve proliferation
problems peacefully through dialogue and negotiations. China insists on the idea of overall security,
cooperative security and common security, and maintains its commitment to the new security concepts of
mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination.
10-The Weaponization of Space

Space has been designated for peaceful uses since US President Dwight D Eisenhower stated that principle in
1958. To be sure, States have accepted that "peaceful purposes" included military, commercial, and scientific
uses. But there is now movement within the US military establishment to expand the military uses of space
to include war-fighting capabilities, to go beyond "peaceful uses" and abandon the norm against placing
weapons in space. Will the future see weapons in space?
THE WEAPONIZATION OF SPACE
Page 22
A broad international consensus supports the creation of a legal ban against placing weapons in outer space.
Still, little progress has been made towards achieving this ban, while space has become increasingly militarized
and the US is taking steps to make space weapons a reality.
The Vision for 2020 document published by US Space Command in 1997 was the first post-Cold War
indication of US intentions for space weaponization. Since then, the Bush administration has accelerated
work on a proposed "layered" missile defence system; withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
(arguing that it would hinder testing); and announced plans to deploy the first phases of the system as
early as 2004. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had led the way in promoting military developments
in space. As chair of the 2000 Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management
and Organization, he warned of a "space Pearl Harbor" if the US did not move to defend its space assets.
DEFINING THE ISSUE

Space has been "militarized" since the earliest communications and surveillance satellites were launched into
orbit, but there is no indication it has been "weaponized." Today, militaries worldwide rely heavily on
satellites for command and control, communications, reconnaissance and monitoring, early warning, treaty
verification, and navigation of vehicles and weapons with the Global Positioning System (GPS). Research and
development is frequently funded by military money. States accept that "peaceful purposes' include military
use -- even that which is not particularly peaceful -- and space is considered a sanctuary only in that no
weapons are deployed there.
Space "weaponization" refers to the placement in orbit of devices that have a destructive capacity.
Therefore, while satellites may be used for aggressive measures, such as GPS navigation for fighter jets or
precision guided missile delivery, satellites themselves have no destructive capacity and their support of
military operations is not considered weaponization.
A space weapon would use either directed energy (in the form of a laser, radio frequency or other exotic
technology) or directed mass (kinetic force of impact or a conventional explosive) to destroy its target.
That target could be space-based (as in a ballistic missile at mid-phase) or ground-, sea-, or air-based. The
Canadian government assumes that a weapon is space-based if it "orbits the earth at least once, or has or
will acquire a stable station at some point beyond earth orbit." Any legal mechanism to prohibit weapons in
space must consider the possible development of unanticipated technologies.
REGULATING OUTER SPACE THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS

Early on, the UN General Assembly recognized the threat from uncontrolled military expansion into space
and in 1962 adopted the "Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space." This resolution became the basis of negotiations for a multilateral
mechanism regulating the use of space, the Outer Space Treaty (OST), which entered into force in October
1967. It established the principle that outer space is a global commons, not open to national appropriation,
Page 23
and codified the phrase, "peaceful use of outer space," thus banning the placement of weapons of mass
destruction in orbit and the establishment of military bases in space. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963
banned nuclear weapons testing in outer space, and subsequent treaties and declarations have sought to
regulate exploration and military activity in space.
In 1981 a UN General Assembly resolution, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), tasked
the Conference on Disarmament (CD) with negotiating a treaty to ban all space weapons. The CD made
some progress on a draft treaty until disagreement between China and the US in 1995 prevented consensus
on the creation of the Ad Hoc committee to continue negotiations. China insisted that it would only
support final negotiations on a Fissile Material Control Treaty (FMCT) if PAROS was considered at the
same time. The US has consistently opposed PAROS, arguing that there is no space race. China's insistence
on linking the items, and US opposition to PAROS, blocked approval of a work program and the CD has
remained effectively paralyzed since 1995.
Despite the stalemate in the CD, the UN General Assembly continues to support the PAROS mandate. At
the 2002 session the vote was 156 in favor of PAROS, zero against, with Israel and the US abstaining. For
20 consecutive years the General Assembly has supported efforts to ban weapons from space.
MOVING FORWARD
The continued struggle in the CD to break the impasse and begin discussions on PAROS has led NGOs and
some States to examine alternative processes. I will examine some of these options for creating a space
weapons ban.
1. Multilateral Negotiations
Several proposals have been made to jump-start negotiations on a space weapons ban at the Conference on
Disarmament. In 1998 Canada submitted a Working Paper Concerning CD Action on Outer Space, proposing
that the CD establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space to commence negotiation of a convention. This
early proposal suggested that the CD appoint a Special Coordinator to explore establishing an Ad Hoc
Committee with a negotiating mandate." In February 1999 Canada reiterated this call.
China submitted a working paper in 2000, which, unlike Canada's, specified what should be included in a legal
instrument preventing the weaponization of outer space. In June 2002, Russia and China presented a joint
Working Paper. Effectively a draft Treaty, it builds on the earlier Chinese proposal.
The majority of States remain committed to pursuing a space weapons ban through the CD, the official
forum for multilateral arms control and disarmament treaty negotiations. Denmark, speaking on behalf of
the EU, confirmed this after voting on the PAROS resolution at the First Committee of the UN General
Assembly in October 2002:
Page 24
"We want to reiterate that the Conference on Disarmament is the only international multilateral
negotiating forum for disarmament. Therefore, it is within the CD that any decision should be taken
regarding work on the prevention of an arms race in outer space."
Efforts to break the CD deadlock include proposals in 2000 and 2003 by ambassadors calling for Ad Hoc
committees on PAROS to elaborate a regime to prevent an arms race in outer space.
2. Step-by-Step Approach
Arguing that an all-or-nothing approach is likely to alienate the US from the outset, some have proposed an
incremental approach toward banning space weapons.
John Rhinelander suggested three steps. First would come a multilateral agreement against interfering with
"peaceful" assets orbiting in space. The second step would be to interpret the Outer Space Treaty as
banning orbiting killer weapons, however armed, and perhaps to address space debris. Third would be a
"comprehensive" step that would forbid attack vehicles in space and establish technical means of verifying a
ban.
3. Interim Measures
Another gradual approach calls for interim measures to address major threats to peaceful space activity.
Space debris already poses a serious threat to satellites and space travel, and testing of any space weapon
would increase this threat vastly. The US is a leader in debris tracking and mitigation, and this could be an
important area for international cooperation.
Confidence-building measures would be part of a space weapons treaty. For example, launch notifications
would increase transparency with regard to space activity.
The application of "Space Traffic Control" to establish standard practices is another intermediary measure,
similar to agreements for activity at sea, These could be created as executive agreements between national
authorities, which do not require lengthy treaty negotiations.
4. Compromise
James Clay Moltz has proposed a compromise to break the deadlock by allowing limited missile defence. It
would permit attacks on missiles traveling through space, as well as the testing of ground-, sea- and air-
based interceptors in low orbit around the earth. However, in exchange for this concession, it would ban the
use, testing, or deployment of weapons or interceptors above 500 miles; the stationing of weapons in orbit;
testing or use of lasers from orbital objects; and the testing or use of other weapons against satellites or
space-based objects.
This strategy, intended to protect communications satellites in geo-stationary orbit and mediate use of low-
earth orbit, might satisfy moderates in the debate. Internationally, Moltz thinks his proposal might offer
China a way to limit some of the most threatening elements of missile defence, and Russia might also be
Page 25
receptive. But for those who oppose missile defence and seek a complete ban on weapons in space, this
proposal is unacceptable.
5. Legal Options
There is extensive international law governing activity in outer space and constraining space weapons
development. Jonathan Dean argues that to use weapons against any early warning, imaging, or intelligence
satellite would violate the concept of non-interference with national technical means of verification, described
in the SALT and START treaties. This provides a basis for General Assembly resolutions calling for non-
interference with communications, weather and GPS satellites. Also, the General Assembly could call for an
Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice to assess specific actions the US might take in
pursuing space-based missile defence, for example.
6. An "Ottawa Process"
Even if discussions commence on PAROS within the Conference on Disarmament, consensus-based negotiations
will undoubtedly hinder agreement on a comprehensive space weapons ban in the near term. Many people,
especially from the NGO sector, have called for independent negotiations outside the CD, or an "Ottawa
Process," in the pattern of the Landmine Treaty negotiations.
7. The Space Preservation Treaty

The Space Preservation Act of 2002, tabled in the US Congress by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, calls on the US
to prohibit the basing of weapons in space and the use of weapons to destroy objects in space that are in
orbit. The act calls on the US to negotiate an international Space Preservation Treaty through the United
Nations. Rebecca Johnson has argued that although this is a useful advocacy tool, it is unlikely to result in
real legislation.
Conclusion
There is currently international political will, including a strong commitment from Canada, to prevent the
weaponization of space. Continued discussions on space arms control must be encouraged in the Conference
on Disarmament, the UN General Assembly, and other international organizations.
For nearly 50 years a norm has been upheld ensuring that space is a global commons to be used for peaceful
purposes and not for battle. These lines have become increasingly blurred. The development of ballistic
missile defence threatens to violate this norm. It is necessary to consciously make the link between missile
defence and the introduction of weapons into space.
Dependency on satellites is growing, and we must be concerned with the broad security of outer space
assets. Measures such as debris mitigation, and "rules of the road" are important for maintaining access to
outer space for peaceful purposes. This is a unique opportunity to prevent a problem, before its
consequences have to be addressed.
Page 26
11-Great Powers Games – Euro Atlantic vs Asia Pacif
Introduction
The emergence of Asia Pacific region as a new strategic centre in international political landscape is now a
reality. The region occupies a huge area starting from the Indian subcontinent to the west coast of America.
It spans two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian, busy pathways of maritime activity and strategy. The
region is home to about half of the world population. It has a number of important centres, of world
economy whose goods, tools and services are competing with the West in many ways. Asia Pacific thus
provides both a competitive edge and an economic challenge to the West.
Three of the most important straits — Malacca Strait, Sunda Strait and the Strait of Lombok — are
situated in the region. The Malacca Strait is the world‟s busiest shipping lane equivalent to Suez or
Panama. Almost all the shipping passes through these three straits which further signifies the strategic
importance of this region for regional and international actors. Three regional littoral states Indonesia,
Malaysia and Singapore are adjacent to these choke points and thus have the potential to exercise control
over a significant percentage of the world‟s maritime trade.
Apart from dependence on the Sea Lines of Communications (SLOC), the proximity with China has raised
the region‟s stature in US policy calculus. Therefore, US‟s prime aim is to counter the emerging
predominance of an Asian power — China whose rapid progress has the potential to challenge US supremacy
in the world. The US along with her allies, particularly Japan, South Korea and Australia, wants to
„encircle‟ China. US‟s recent growing politico-military as well as economic ties with the ASEAN states are
also marked to weakening China‟s growing ingress in Southeast Asia. The US-India strategic alliance is also a
step in this direction, wherein both the countries view China as a potential challenger, for US at global level
and India at regional level.
The 19th century was the century of Europe and the 20th century was that of America. With the advent
of the 21st century several analysts have suggested it was now the turn of Asia to lead the world in
international politics. It is viewed that the extraordinary chemistry of demography, the significant function
of the state and the recent economic progress will take Asia frontward. It is assumed the next theatre
would be Asia Pacific, where the future would be played out, where the world would see the involvement of
Page 27
major powers like United States of America, China, Russia, Australia, the European Union and India in a
state of competition when their interests collide.
However, the 9/11 incident turned the course of the world and the US and its allies waged the so-called
„War on Terror‟ (WoT) that continues even after 14 years fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in
the meanwhile, relegating the Asia Pacific region to the background. Due to this preoccupation of the US
with the „War on Terror‟, China got the opportunity to increase her influence in neighbouring East Asia,
improve her economy and strengthen her military muscle. Her stand on South China Sea became more
assertive. Reportedly, in 2010, China‟s total military related expenditures were more than $ 160 billion.
Meanwhile, China gradually focused on her naval power, with investment in new hi-tech weaponry. In 2012,
China‟s military expenditures exceeded $100 billion with an 11.2 per cent rise on 2011.
Now, with the end of war in Iraq the US has reached at a pivot point to re-engage the Asia Pacific region.
Furthermore, keeping in view the wavering economy of the United States, Asia‟s progressive growth and
vigour has now become crucial to American interests especially in economic and strategic fields. Therefore,
lately, President Obama has started to give priority to this region and declared that “the US is a Pacific
power and we are here to stay”. Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State rightly said that “the future
of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq and the United States will be right at the centre
of the action”. Leon Panetta, then US Secretary for Defence also amplified the "Pivoting to Asia" doctrine
by announcing an American plan to move 60 per cent of her naval assets to the Pacific area by 2020. This
could be interpreted as increasing strategic mistrust in the region that could take Asia back to the Cold War
period hostility and a fresh arms competition. Actually, this distrust and conspiracy theories associated to it
have generated their own discourse and caught the public attention, souring the overall political environment
of the region.
Power Shift from Eurasia to Asia-Pacific
Emerging Trends
At present, three important emerging trends in the geo-politics of Asia-pacific deserve our special attention
i.e. America's re-engagement with Asia-Pacific region, a seeming “containment” of China and propping up of
India as a potential “counter-weight” to China. The ensuing paragraphs examine these trends.
The US’ “Re-engagement” with Asia-Pacific Region
Page 28
Seeming “Containment” of China
India as Potential “Counterweight” to China
Pakistan’s Interests in Asia-Pacific Region
Vision East Asia Policy
Pakistan‟s Look East Policy has officially been termed as “Vision East Asia” and is aimed at discovering new
areas of collaboration and follow the model of East Asian economies in development. Mr. Shaukat Aziz, then
Prime Minister of Pakistan, defined the “East Asia Vision‟‟ in these words: “Our vision is aimed at political
and economic growth, having enhanced cooperation with the regional partners and this vision is not developed
in haste, rather we did a lot of research and brain storming”. In sum and substance, Pakistan‟s Vision East
Asia policy is designed to establish comprehensive, productive and structural partnership with East Asian
states in the field of trade, business, investment, transfer of technology and economic cooperation both at
multilateral and bilateral level.
Pakistan-ASEAN Relationship
ASEAN, a geo-political and economic association of 10 countries — Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam — has now developed as one of the most
significant regional associations in the world. In 2011, its collective nominal GDP had grown to US$ 1.8
trillion. Keeping in view the increasing significance of ASEAN, Pakistan has tried her best to improve her
relations with this regional association. On April 7, 2011, at a seminar on “ASEANPakistan Future Relations:
Opportunities and Challenges” organized by the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI) in
collaboration with the Indonesian Embassy, Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar, then Minister of State for Foreign
Affairs, explained the significance of East Asia. She said that for Pakistan, the ASEAN region was vital in
the past and had acquired even greater significance and would always be strategic to Pakistan‟s economic and
political interests in the future. She further remarked that the gravity shift of global economic power from
the Euro-Atlantic to the Asia Pacific was obvious. Therefore, the emerging security and economic
architecture in the region was of utmost significance to Pakistan‟s foreign policy goals.
In 1997, Pakistan became a Sectoral Dialogue Partner (SDP) of ASEAN in eight areas. These areas include
Trade, Investment, Industry, Environment, Human Resource Development, Science and Technology, Drugs and
Narcotics, and Tourism. In 2004, Pakistan became a member of ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Pakistan
Page 29
also signed Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) and ASEAN-Pakistan Joint Declaration on Cooperation
in Combating Terrorism in 2005. Presently, Pakistan is struggling to achieve Full Dialogue Partner (FDP)
status of ASEAN. In trade, both ASEAN and Pakistan undertook a Joint Feasibility Study for an
ASEANPakistan FTA to boost and increase the overall ASEAN-Pakistan economic commitment. Pakistan‟s
trade with ASEAN region has increased from US$ 4.3 billion in 2009 to $5 billion in 2011. In May 2011,
the 5 th ASEANPakistan Joint Sectoral Cooperation Committee (APJSCC) meeting was held in Jakarta
where matters of economic interest were discussed.
Towards her contribution to the region, Pakistan has offered 10 fullyfunded scholarships in various disciplines
including medicine, engineering, IT and banking which need to be fully utilized by the ASEAN. Recently four
fully funded English courses for nominees from the ASEAN member countries have been offered. Pakistan has
created a Pak-ASEAN Fund worth US$ 100,000, which has been further consolidated through another
contribution of US$ 1 million. Pakistan also provided technical assistance that includes training facilities in
various fields and credit facilities of US$ 10 million each to Cambodia and Laos. On March 8, 2011,
PakistanASEAN Photo Exhibition was held in ASEAN Secretariat. More than 400 diplomats, students,
journalists, cultural elites and representatives of local think tanks attended the event.
Despite this cooperation, it is unfortunate that Pakistan is the only SDP and ARF member which is not
part of FDP of ASEAN — considered so vital to reap the economic benefits from the Organization. The
main hurdle in this status has been the opposition of certain ASEAN member states, especially Singapore.
Other members have gradually been brought around but the former is still adamant, probably under Indian
influence. Apart from economic reasons, Singapore has blocked Pakistan‟s entry by arguing it would use
ASEAN platform to discuss India-related issues.
Implications for the Region and Policy Options for Pakistan
For Pakistan and other regional countries the strategic shift from Eurasia to Asia Pacific is very important
in the wake of withdrawal of US-led forces from Afghanistan. Geo-strategically, Pakistan is important for
trade and commerce between South and Central Asia, East and West Asia. By working towards peace in
Afghanistan, Pakistan can contribute significantly to establishing a new security model in the region. Russia,
China, Iran and Pakistan constitute a relevant first regional power base in this respect. The second is the
trio of Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. The third power base led by the United States could be India, China,
Japan, Korea and Australia to maintain the power balance in the Asia Pacific region. In this complex geo-
Page 30
political game, United States‟ role would be significant as a super power as this would further strengthen
her through collaboration with a rising Asia
Pakistan can give practical shape to her proposal of providing “connectivity” to ASEAN with western part of
China and Central Asian Republics by both land and sea through Gwadar Port. Pakistan‟s decision to hand
over Gwadar Port to China after Singapore Port Authority (SPA) quit in August 2012 is a step in right
direction. Reportedly, China will spend $ 10 billion to develop the port and manage its operations. It is
worth mentioning that after its development by China at a cost of $288 million, Gwadar port was handed
over to the SPA in February 2007 for its management, operations, maintenance and development. This was
done to benefit from SPA expertise in port operations as it was operating 22 ports in 11 countries.
However, the desired progress was not achieved due to mutual disagreements and consequently SPA had to
wind up this project. It is a fact that the Gwadar issue has made the worst impact on our bilateral
relations with Singapore which may take time to mend. However, it is expected that the decision to go
back to China to develop the Gwadar port and manage its operations was right and would prove in
Pakistan‟s national interest.
collaboration and challenge. The important question is how the region would address the competition
between China and the United States. As Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore‟s Prime Minister, puts it, “Asia is
just one region for the US. China is here all the time”.57 It is a different matter who, whether China or
the United States, would provide security and stability to the region. Terrorism and separatist movements
are a source of instability in the region. The region is not without its political and economic weaknesses.
Moreover ASEAN‟s institution is a weak implementer of policy. Presently, its convening capability is its
greatest strength. As a result, United States is using a multilateral approach to resolve problems and
implementing policies.
remain a bone of contention among China and the other claimants — Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, the
Philippines, and Vietnam on the one hand and between the US and China on the other. Lately Vietnam and
the Philippines have asserted their claims. ASEAN states are divided over the role of extra regional powers
in the South China Sea. Some regional countries are leaning on the US to get more deeply involved but
China is rightfully averse to any outside interference and wants to resolve the issue bilaterally. ASEAN at
this point may not be in a position to address the issue collectively as not all ASEAN members are involved
or claimants in the issue. It may be noted that during the ASEAN Foreign Ministers‟ meeting in Cambodia
in July 2012, no consensus was reached on South China Sea issue and the ASEAN Summit had to abandon
Page 31
its routine communiqué for the first time in 45 years. The Summit issued a six-point statement without
referring to specific incidents. However, it was agreed to draft and implement a regional code of conduct,
respect international law and exercise self-restraint. The Chinese have insisted on bilateral discussions to
resolve the issue, while, behind the scenes, the US has been insisting on a joint ASEAN position to confront
China. But China has been successful in dividing ASEAN countries on the issue of South China Sea during
ASEAN meetings. It is worth mentioning that China is a key financier of the much criticized host,
Cambodia, and it is believed that Beijing had twisted Cambodia‟s arm to prevent any reference to the South
China Sea in the communiqué. Both the Philippines and Vietnam criticized Cambodia. ASEAN‟s failure to
reach a conclusion over South China Sea issue has exposed the conflicting interests of the member countries.
In order to preserve the unity of ASEAN, the leaders of the member states will have to confine their
disagreements within the house otherwise outside actors will be tempted to exploit their division.
China has developed so much economically and is contributing so much in the development of ASEAN
countries that US worries about its ebbing influence in a region where more than military power, economic
assistance and development aid carry more weight, look justified. China‟s aid to the region is untied and
soft. As a result, the Asia Pacific region is now experiencing tremendous new developments. The US wants
to keep this in check. The stakes are high, as the militarization of the Asia-Pacific region, is gathering
momentum. The drums of war can be heard in the distance. The shift of offensive and forward basing by
the US of strategic nuclear and conventional military assets has already begun. The US strategy is not
related to maritime claims but part of a bigger game plan, also referred to as the „Containment of China‟.
Indian may like to play some kind of proactive role against China‟s rise by following in the footsteps of the
US. It conducted a joint naval exercise with Japan and in the hope of being helped into a global power
status India has struck a close strategic partnership with the US which is in operation between the Western
powers including Great Britain, France, Australia and Japan to checkmate China‟s rise. It is assessed that
the current rivalry, which is real, is not going to create any crisis any time soon. Verbal skirmishes will
continue among the claimants of South China Sea islands, with supportive statements from the US, off and
on. The busiest Malacca Strait which is more important for Pakistan‟s trade with Korea, Japan and other
countries of the region will not turn into a zone of conflict. No country can afford it. Any destabilization
will hurt strategic interests of all the countries including China, Japan, Russia, India and the US etc. The
low level competition and supply of US military technology and surveillance equipment will no doubt continue
to flow into the region, especially to countries like Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam. This would
Page 32
require that Pakistan remained balanced and circumspect in its dealings with ASEAN, China and the United
States.
Recommendations
Keeping the above mentioned situation in view some recommendations are suggested: I. It should be explored
what impediments bar Pakistan from attaining Full Dialogue Partner status with ASEAN. The reasons behind
Singapore‟s opposition must be identified and properly addressed. There is a need to examine the overall
mode of engagement with ASEAN, take stock of the projects initiated/proposed for Cambodia, Laos and
Vietnam and expedite steps in the eight areas of cooperation agreed in various APJSC meetings. II. The
Indian „Look East Policy‟ and its military/nuclear nexus with US is a source of concern for China and
Pakistan. So China and Pakistan should work together to neutralise Indian influence in the region. Pakistan
may need a broader maritime strategy to secure its interests in the Malacca Straits. Pakistan may need to
enhance its maritime fleet and naval assets in the Arabian Sea and work closely with Gulf and West Asian
neighbours to evolve a „strategic consensus‟ on emerging threats to the tranquility of the Arabian Sea by
the naval power rivalry in the Indian Ocean. III. Time is now most appropriate to seek concrete timeline and
investment commitments to build Gwadar, Ormara and Pasni Ports with the help of China, to provide it an
access to the Arabian Sea and also serve as a „transit corridor‟ for oil and gas pipeline and trade through
the Karakoram Highway. Furthermore, the railway link between Havelian and Khunjerab Pass should be
pursued with greater vigour. IV. Pakistan must increase diplomatic/government to government interaction
with all the states in Asia Pacific region in general and with Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and
Singapore in particular. Furthermore, people to people contacts and interaction between intellectuals,
experts, scholars and think tanks should be promoted so that problems confronting Pakistan could be better
understood by ASEAN members specially.
Conclusion
In sum, Asia Pacific region is emerging as a new focal point both economically and strategically. Major powers
of the world have been struggling to excel in the region and get maximum benefits. The manifold strategic,
diplomatic, security, and other initiatives by the US in the region display the most important shift in the
international and regional dynamics of modern times. It is early to say whether we are seeing the beginning
of Cold War II in Asia Pacific, albeit with different protagonists. Only time will tell how far India will be
able to play its expected role as a “balancer” vis-à-vis China. However, these emerging trends would have
deep implications for the regional order. Presently, what is clear is that the geopolitical landscape is getting
Page 33
more complex and complicated with both challenges and opportunities. Therefore, Pakistan will have to
closely watch these developments and make necessary adjustments in both her foreign policy outlook as well
as outreach to Asia Pacific region.
Page 34

11 - Most - Important - Questions - IR - 2.docx Filename UTF-8''11 Most Important Questions IR 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 - Most - Important - Questions - IR - 2.docx Filename UTF-8''11 Most Important Questions IR 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 - Most - Important - Questions - IR - 2.docx Filename UTF-8''11 Most Important Questions IR 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Relations Notes ; Public Service Academy ;A Place Of Excellence: 03333417774

PUBLIC SERVICE ACADEMY.

If you will follow us we ensure you 100% success.

Most important 11 questions for IR paper 2 css 2016

2-Very harsh control or authority.

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

• Fascist regimes are masters of manipulation, especially through mass media.

• Private economic goals are swept aside.

• Fascist regimes usually work toward military expansion.

Socio-politico-economic conditions that encourage the growth of fascism

Origin and causes of Fascism after WW1

ECONOMICALLY DEVASTATED EUROPE.

Ineffectiveness of League of Nations

The political atmosphere

German Dream to regain her glory

Basic Tenets of Fascism( detail from notes)

5-Age and gender roles

6-Palingenesis and modernism

2-Compare the Failure of League of Nations with UN

Examples of Failure( put 2 to 3 Examples)

Basic Goals of UN( see from notes)

UN Failures to Act or Maintain Security

1-No active role to stop cold war

3-Second Congo War

4-Killings in Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

6-Genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan

7-Failure to stop USA from attacking Iraq

10- Failure to create any international force to stop any aggression

11- Failure to create any international independent Economic Organization

3-The cold War is the basic event to destabilize the world

What is the cold war

Balance of power destabilized

The Terrorism proves the theory of Clash of Civilizations?

4-Can Globalization Make the world more peaceful?

Different Definitions( from notes)

1- How globalization is more peaceful?

1-Draft Resolution for expansion of council:

2-2005 Annan plan:

2-UN Secretariat Transparency Reform

Economic Cooperation Organization

Objectives & Principles of Cooperation

 Sustainable economic development of Member States;

8-Stability in south Asia is dependent upon peace in Afghanistan and

Peace Process or Security strategy in South Asia

Deployment of ballistic missile defence (BMD) and peace of South Asia

Important Factors Affecting South Asia security

Suggestions to stabilize south Asia

1- Peaceful democratic transition in Afghanistan( helped by int. community)

Challenges and solutions for nonproliferation

Nuclear Renaissance( detail see from notes)

A Changing Nuclear Proliferation Landscape

Information analysis should clearly not replace inspections;

Rogues and outliers.

Lay down your arms.

Revitalizing the IAEA

9-Missile defense systems

How does ballistic missile defense work?

What is the history of U.S. missile defense?

Global Concerns on The USA Initiative of Technology