TOPIC II OF KEY ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Topic II. WOLRD WARS, CAUSES, AND COLD WAR (POST) IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
By Dr. Aime MUYOMBANO

II.1 World Wars and their Causes

II.1.1 First World War in International Affairs

On 4 August, Britain declared war after Germany invaded neutral Belgium (Britain declared war on Austria-Hungary on 12 August). The British government had previously promised to defend Belgium and felt that German troops directly across the Channel were too close for comfort. 

On 7 August, four divisions making up a British Expeditionary Force crossed to France to attempt to halt the German advance. With French forces, they were successful in achieving their objective at the Battle of Mons (August) and the Battle of the Marne (September). As each side tried to outflank the other, a 'race to the sea' developed and this meant that huge trench systems took shape from the Swiss border through all of northern France. With these trench systems and weapons such as the machine gun, defending was considerably easier than attacking, and so within months of beginning, the war was already showing signs of stagnating.

Although the war in Europe was the main focus - as with the first battle of Ypres (October) - the conflict soon truly became a 'world war': Japan was allied to the Entente forces and the Ottoman Empire soon joined the Central Powers. Conflict between the imperial forces of these competing power-blocs in Africa and South America aggravated the situation.

At sea, Britain used its superior fleet to impose a blockade on the German ports. Germany suffered shortages and, by the end of the war, food riots had occurred in a number of German towns. In response to the blockade, the German fleet embarked on a concentrated period of submarine warfare. On 7 May, the Lusitania, a luxury passenger liner travelling from the United States, was sunk off the south coast of Ireland.

 Almost 1,200 civilians were drowned, including over 100 Americans. The German fleet withdrew to port, fearful that a continued campaign might bring the neutral Americans (with their massive resources and manpower) into the war on the side of the Allies. World War one was truly the first 'total war' - not only was warfare conducted on land and sea but, on 31 May, London witnessed its first attack from the air as bombs were dropped from the great German Zeppelin airships. During the course of the war, over 2,000 civilians were killed or injured as a result of such raids.

1916, More than 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day of the battle. As warfare on all fronts looked like grinding to a halt, the British decided that the solution to the problem was to create a mass popular army. Previous appeals by the war minister, Lord Kitchener (Your country needs you') had raised over a million volunteers but, on 9 February, conscription began for men aged between 18 and 41. During the course of the war, over 4.5 million Britons served in arms (in addition to over three million troops from the British Empire).

The German solution to the stalemate was to undertake a huge offensive at Verdun (February). The German intention was a war of attrition which would 'bleed France white'. Indeed, between the two armies, during the next ten months, over a million casualties occurred. In an attempt to relieve the pressure on the front at Verdun, the British and French undertook a push at the Somme and, on the first day of the battle (1 July), 20,000 Britons were killed and a further 40,000 injured. Even further innovations, such as the use of tanks (15 July) proved of little effect.

At sea, both the British and German High Seas fleet continued to strive for mastery. The one nearly decisive sea battle took place in the North Sea at Jutland on 31 May 1916. Although German battle cruisers initially caused considerable damage to their British counterparts, the engagement of the British Grand Fleet under Admiral Jellicoe caught the Germans at a disadvantage and inflicted significant damage.

As the war raged on, changes continued to take place in Britain. In February, a scheme for National Savings was introduced to increase government access to funds and, on 21 May, a measure to ensure daylight saving (British summertime) was introduced to allow for greater production in the factories and munitions works of the industrial heartland. It was not all peace and quiet within the British Isles.

 On 24 April, an armed uprising took place in Dublin in an attempt to assert the need for Irish independence. An Irish Republic was proclaimed and the General Post Office was seized, but the rising was soon crushed by British forces and its leaders executed.

1917, Life expectancy could be as low as two months for pilots. The year 1917 saw great changes in the course of the war. In February, the German Army executed a strategic retreat to pre-prepared positions, known as the Hindenburg Line. Major German successes in the east contributed to two revolutions in Russia where Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate (February/March) and a Bolshevik regime under Lenin was established in October/November. 

The October Revolution took Russia out of the war (an armistice was declared in December 1917 and a Russo-German peace treaty was signed at Brest-Litovsk in March 1918). This meant that German forces could concentrate more fully on the Western Front. The impact of this development was less than might have been expected for, as a result of German attempts to entice Mexico to invade the United States, on 6 April the USA declared war on Germany. This meant not only the prospect of new ships, troops, supplies and weapons assisting on the Western Front but also opened up the prospect of financial and commercial assistance to the depleted Allied nations.

Outside Europe, Allied forces were increasingly in control. Despite major setbacks in the first two years of the war ,as the Turks attempted to gain control of the Suez Canal - by mid-1917 British forces were again in control of Baghdad and Jerusalem at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. (On 2 November, the Balfour Declaration was issued guaranteeing the establishment of a Jewish homeland.) Earlier in the year, Lawrence of Arabia had helped co-ordinate an Arab attack on Akaba and, by October 1918, the Ottoman Empire had agreed to an armistice.

Causes of the war can be traced back to the end of World War I. Germany, Italy, and Japan suffered deep economic problems. Inflation was rampant. However, by the late 1920s, economic order was being restored. This trend reversed when the United States entered the Great Depression. The citizens of what would be the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) supported nationalistic organizations which offered hope in the face of these problems. 

These organizations soon gave birth to tyranny, however. Totalitarian dictatorships arose in the Soviet Union, Japan, Italy, and Germany; these were led by Josef Stalin, Emperor Hirohito, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler, respectively. These leaders seized power by promising reform through unity. Under the dictatorships, however, terror reigned. Dictators used secret police, threats, imprisonment and even executions to eliminate their opposition.

II.1.2 Second World War in International Affairs

Some consider the start of World War II to be Japan's invasion of Manchuria, a region in eastern China. Japan continued to demonstrate aggression, effectively conquering eastern China by 1938. Italy, meanwhile, conquered Ethiopia in 1936. Germany, in 1938, united Austria with itself. There was essentially no stopping this aggression, since the League of Nations lacked the power to enforce its treaties. (The League had been formed after World War I as an international forum for disputes) In 1936, German and Italy allied. Japan joined in 1940, forming the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis.

During this time, Spain was in civil war. General Francisco Franco led the rebellious army Nationalists against Spain's government. Hitler and Mussolini supported the revolution. The Spanish Civil War divided the world into those who supported Nazism and Fascism, and those who were against it.

Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain held several meetings to restore peace. They agreed that if Hitler took Czechoslovakia, he would not try to acquire more territory. Hitler defiantly broke his promise by invading Poland 11 months later, on September 1, 1939. Germany's blitzkrieg (lightning war) quickly overcame the large, but poorly equipped Polish Army. The blitzkrieg relied on speed and surprise. It was carried out flawlessly. Britain and France pledged their support for the Allied cause, but stood by while Hitler swallowed Poland. Journalists dubbed this the Phony War.

German forces then conquered Denmark and Norway, seizing vital ports. Following these invasions, Chamberlain resigned. He was replaced by Winston Churchill on May 10, 1940. Germany, on the same day, created another blitzkrieg, immediately taking Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The French hoped to hold off the aggressive Germans by use of the Maginot Line, a strip of defense along the French-German border. It proved futile, however, as the Germans simply proceeded around it and into France. The blitzkrieg once again made its appearance, this time beginning on June 5. It proved effective once more. The French signed an armistice on June 22. France had fallen.

In a massive air war, the Luftwaffe, the German air force, began to mount assaults on British RAF (Royal Air Force) stations. By September 1940, Germany thought it had destroyed the RAF, so it proceeded to bomb London. This series of attacks on Britain's capital was known as the Blitz. Great Britain remained great, however, and survived Germany's most destructive efforts. Germany halted its air efforts in May 1941.

Meanwhile, British forces in North Africa were fighting to repel the invading Italians. Britain managed to keep Italy out of Egypt and pushed them back to Libya. In the beginning of 1941, the Afrika Korps, led by General Erwin Rommel, was sent to help the Italian forces. Rommel's crafty methods eventually earned him the famed moniker, "The Desert Fox." Britain held on. In May of 1941, Britain had regained control of northern Africa.

In March and April of 1941, the Germans quickly captured Yugoslavia and Greece. When British soldiers retreated to the island of Crete, Germany orchestrated the first ever airborne invasion, dropping thousands of paratroopers who quickly took the island. These conquests were an error on Hitler's part, however. Hitler had been planning to invade the Soviet Union for some time. But, with the delays, he would now have to fight an extended, bitter winter war. Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, began on June 22, 1941. The Soviets soon suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties. 

The invasion went well for the Germans. This lasted briefly however. Instead of taking Moscow, Hitler opted for a dual-flank approach, sending some forces north to Leningrad, and some south towards the Black Sea. Meanwhile, the harsh weather began. October rains caught the Germans in mud. In early December, as German troops began to march into Moscow, winter began. Temperatures fell to -40º. The German advance stopped as abruptly as it began.

Germany's battleships struggled to cut off Allied sea supply routes. But British task forces managed to destroy the bulk of Germany's battleship fleet. The largest such attack was against the German Navy's pride and joy, the Bismarck. A fleet of British warships surrounded and sank the Bismarck in May of 1941.

However, the Germans still had a trick up their collective sleeve: the U-Boat. For two years, U-Boats sank every Allied supply ship they could find. But long-range torpedo bombers, warship escorts of supply ships, and the new Allied technology of sonar curbed the threat of the dreaded Unterseeboote. President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped to win the war by supplying Allied nations with the weapons they needed, rather than sending the United States into war. The Lend-Lease Act gave 38 nations about $50 billion in U.S. aid.

Japan, stuck in China, decided to cut off vital Chinese supply lines from Southeast Asia. Japan entered and controlled northern Indochina. The U.S. responded by cutting Japan's supply of American goods. Japan wanted to return to its expansion plans, so it turned on the one force that could stop it: the United States Navy. On December 7, 1941, a Japanese task force attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii. They sank four battleships, and destroyed nearly 20 aircraft. The next day, the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain declared war on Japan.

The Soviets, in December 1941, recovered and pushed the Germans back 100 miles outside of Moscow. In spring 1942, the Germans marched towards oil reserves in the Caucasus. Hitler ordered the capture of Stalingrad. A five-month battle ensued. The Soviets, in a counter-attack, captured and killed 300,000 German soldiers, stopping Germany's eastward march.

In 1941, Allied defeats stopped in Europe. In Eastern Europe the Soviets prevented the German advance. Soviets defeated the Germans in a battle at Stalingrad in 1943. The allies were soon on a roll. They won battles in Africa and forced Italy to surrender in 1943. In 1944, the Allies prepared for an invasion in northern France.

Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met together in 1943 in Teheran, Iran to discuss the strategy and plans behind the invasion. They talked to each other about a British and American large-scale attack, called Operation Overlord, on the beach of Normandy along the northern coast of France. 

This attack was to be known as the D-Day Invasion. It will have been the largest seaborne invasion in history. Hitler laughed and said his forces could resist any attack on the coast. The invasion would deploy Allied soldiers ashore on five beaches under the code names of Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. The Germans were not sure what beach the Allies were going to attack so they built a chain of fortifications along the coast called the Atlantic wall. Hitler left General Rommel in charge to strengthen their defenses. Rommel put up barbed wire; he mined the water, and concentrated his troops near the Calais, the narrowest part of the English Channel. 

On June 6th, 2,700 Allied ships carrying 176,00 soldiers led by General Dwight Eisenhower crossed the English Channel. Paratroops were dropped off behind enemy lines to capture bridges and railroad tracks. D-Day caught the Germans by surprise. Germans fought fiercely, but did not win the battle. The Allies built a temporary harbor, to receive supplies, and a pipeline across the British Channel for oil. Near the end of June, about a million troops had accumulated in France. 

The Allies advanced slowly in the beginning. The Americans fought and capture Cherbourg on June 27, and the British and Canadian forces fought and captured Caen on July 18. The Allied forces had finally reached open country.

On July 25, 1944 bombers blasted a hole in the German front near St-Lo. Lieutenant General George Patton plowed through the gap and exterminated the Germans from northwest France. Patton ordered his army toward Paris. On August 19, 1944, Parisians heard the news and rose up against the German troops occupying Paris. 

The German troops in Paris were ordered by Hitler to destroy Paris, but they delayed and the Allies reached Paris on August 25th to liberate France. Slowly, the Allied forces moved toward Germany. The German Generals knew they were beat and tried to tell Hitler, but he brought together his remaining forces for one last attack at the Ardennes Forest (Belgium & Luxembourg). He won this Battle of the Bulge, however, in two weeks; the Americans stopped the German advance near the Meuse River (Belgium).

Meanwhile, the Soviets had slowly pushed back the Germans after the Battle at Stalingrad. The Soviets were producing and importing war supplies from Britain and America, preparing for another offensive by the Germans at Kursk. The Allies began their final assault in 1945. Soviet forces were advancing from the East to Berlin, British and Canadian forces came from the North, and American and French forces neared central Germany. In all, the Allies had almost surrounded the Germans. 

Prior to closing on the Germans, those Allies passing through previously occupied areas were terrified at the sights at the concentration camps. Hitler committed suicide before the Allied forces took Berlin. On May 7, 1945, Colonel General Alfred Doenitz, Hitler's replacement, signed a declaration of unconditional surrender, ending the war in Europe.

II.1.3 Pacific war in International Affairs

The war with the Japanese was a personal vendetta for the U.S., after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Japan won several early victories including: taking over Hong Kong, Guam, and Wake Island, defeating the British in Singapore, the Battle of the Java Sea, and the conquest of the Philippines. MacArthur's troops were ordered to Australia after leaving the Philippines in March 1942. On April 9, about 75,000 exhausted troops on Bataan surrendered to the Japanese. Most of them were forced to march 65 miles to prison camps, but most of them died. This march was called the Bataan Death March. After the Philippines were captured, Japan moved toward India and Australia.

On August 6, 1945 due their refusal to give into the US's ultimatum, the B-29 American bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Three days later, America dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, after Japanese leaders failed to respond to the first bombing. On September 2, 1945, Japan finally gave in and signed a statement of surrender ending WW II.

II.1.4 United Nations in International Affairs

The United Nations is an international organization designed to make the enforcement of international law, security, economic development, social progress, and human rights easier for countries around the world. The United Nations includes 193 member countries and its main headquarters are located in New York City.

II.1.4.1 History and Principles of the United Nations

Prior to the United Nations (UN), the League of Nations was the international organization responsible for ensuring peace and cooperation between world nations. It was founded in 1919 "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." At its height, the League of Nations had 58 members and was considered successful. In the 1930s its success waned as the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) gained influence, eventually leading to the start of World War II in 1939.  

The International Telecommunication Union was founded in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, and the Universal Postal Union was established in 1874. Both are now United Nations specialized agencies.

The term "United Nations" was then coined in 1942 by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Declaration by United Nations. This declaration was made to officially state the cooperation of the Allies (Great Britain, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and other nations during World War II.

The principles of the UN as explained in the Charter are to save future generations from war, reaffirm human rights, and establish equal rights for all persons. In addition it also aims to promote justice, freedom, and social progress for the peoples of all of its member states.

II.1.4.2 Organization of the United Nations Today

In order to handle the complex task of getting its member states to cooperate most efficiently, the UN today is divided into five branches. The first is the UN General Assembly. This is the main decision-making and representative assembly in the UN and is responsible for upholding the principles of the UN through its policies and recommendations. It is composed of all member states, is headed by a president elected from the member states, and meets from September to December each year. 

The UN Security Council is another branch in the organization of the UN and is the most powerful of all the branches. It has power to authorize the deployment UN member states' militaries, can mandate a cease-fire during conflicts, and can enforce penalties on countries if they do not comply with given mandates. It is composed of five permanent members and ten rotating members. The next branch of the UN is the International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, Netherlands. This branch is responsible for the judicial matters of the UN. The Economic and Social Council is a branch that assists the General Assembly in promoting economic and social development as well as cooperation of member states. Finally, the Secretariat is the branch UN headed by the Secretary General. Its main responsibility is providing studies, information, and other data when needed by other UN branches for their meetings.

II.1.4.3 United Nations Membership

Today, almost every fully recognized independent states are member states in the UN. As outlined in the UN Charter, to become a member of the UN, a state must accept both peace and all obligations outlined in Charter and be willing to carry out any action to satisfy those obligations. The final decision on admission to the UN is carried out by the General Assembly after recommendation by the Security Council.

II.1.4.4 Functions of the United Nations Today

As it was in the past, the main function of the UN today is to maintain peace and security for all of its member states. Though the UN does not maintain its own military, it does have peacekeeping forces which are supplied by its member states. On approval of the UN Security Council, these peacekeepers are often sent to regions where armed conflict has recently ended to discourage combatants from resuming fighting. In 1988, the peacekeeping force won a Nobel Peace Prize for its actions.

In addition to maintaining peace, the UN aims to protect human rights and provide humanitarian assistance when needed. In 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a standard for its human rights operations. The UN currently provides technical assistance in elections, helps to improve judicial structures and draft constitutions, trains human rights officials, and provides food, drinking water, shelter, and other humanitarian services to peoples displaced by famine, war, and natural disaster.

Finally, the UN plays an integral part in social and economic development through its UN Development Program. This is the largest source of technical grant assistance in the world. In addition, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, the UN Population Fund, and the World Bank Group to name a few play an essential role in this aspect of the UN as well. The UN also annually publishes the Human Development Index to rank countries in terms of poverty, literacy, education, and life expectancy.

For the future, the UN has established what it calls its Millennium Development Goals that is supposed to end up in this year 2015. Most of its member states and various international organizations have all agreed to achieve these goals relating to reducing poverty, child mortality, fighting diseases and epidemics, and developing a global partnership in terms of international development by the same year (2015). 

Some member states have achieved a number of the agreement's goals while others have reached none. However, the UN has been successful over the years and only the future can tell how the true realization of these goals will play out. Three countries out of the 197 countries of the world are not members of the United Nations.

Kosovo

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on on February 17, 2008 but has not gained complete international recognition to allow it to become a member of the United Nations.

Taiwan

In 1971 the People's Republic of China (mainland China) replaced Taiwan (also known as the Republic of China) in the United Nations.

Vatican City

The independent papal state of 771 people (including the Pope) was created in 1929. They have not chosen to become part of the international organization.

II.1.5 The Cuban Missile Crisis in International Affairs

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. Luckily, thanks to the bravery of two men, President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, war was averted.

In 1962, the Soviet Union was desperately behind the United States in the arms race. Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. In late April 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range missiles in Cuba. A deployment in Cuba would double the Soviet strategic arsenal and provide a real deterrent to a potential U.S. attack against the Soviet Union. (Segal, Moreton, and Freeman & Baylis.2009),

For the United States, the crisis began on October 15, 1962 when reconnaissance photographs revealed Soviet missiles under construction in Cuba. Early the next day, President John Kennedy was informed of the missile installations. Kennedy immediately organized the Ex-comm, a group of his twelve most important advisors to handle the crisis.

Tensions finally began to ease on October 28 when Khrushchev announced that he would dismantle the installations and return the missiles to the Soviet Union, expressing his trust that the United States would not invade Cuba. Further negotiations were held to implement the October 28 agreement, including a United States demand that Soviet light bombers be removed from Cuba, and specifying the exact form and conditions of United States assurances not to invade Cuba.

II.1.6 Kashmir Crisis in International affairs

In the wake of the Second World War, the British relinquished colonial rule of the territory known as India and oversaw the creation of two separate independent states, India and Pakistan. India, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was to be a secular, federated state, offering political representation to the numerous religious and ethnic communities of India through local councils. The maharajahs of the princely states that were not specifically allocated to either Pakistan or India were given the choice of independence or accession to Pakistan or India. 

The First Indo-Pakistani War, which began in late 1947, was the beginning of the conflict as it persists today. The Hindu Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir did not immediately make a choice between independence and accession. By October of 1947, armed Pashtun tribesman moved across the borders into Kashmir. In need of aid, the Maharaja turned to India for military support. India agreed to provide troops on the condition that Kashmir would accede to India. The Maharaja of Kashmir turned over administrative powers to India in an accession document. It was agreed to by both India and Kashmir, however, that the accession would be temporary, and that at the close of hostilities, a referendum would decide the issue of accession. 

Pakistani military regulars joined the war in May 1948 to protect Pakistan's border. By January of 1949 hostilities came to a close under a UN fostered ceasefire. The ceasefire agreement of January 1, 1949 provided that the current territorial positions of military control were to form the status quo until the referendum was held. The Pakistan-controlled territory to the west of the ceasefire line consists of a small semi-autonomous region, referred to Azad Kashmir (meaning “free Kashmir”) and a larger area comprised of the former kingdoms of Hunza and Nagar, referred to as the northern areas. The ceasefire reaffirmed the notion that a referendum should ultimately determine the status of Kashmir and approved the existing ceasefire line until such referendum should occur. Five years passed without a referendum, and in 1954 the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified the accession to India.

II.1.7 Soudan Crisis in International Affairs

The term "Sudan" derives from the Arabic bilād as-sūdān "land of the Blacks", and is used more loosely of West and Central Africa in general, especially the Sahel region. The modern Republic of Sudan was formed in 1956 and inherited its boundaries from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, established 1899. For times predating 1899, usage of the term "Sudan" for the territory of the Republic of Sudan is somewhat anachronistic, and may also refer to the more diffuse concept of the Sudan region

The early history of what is now northern Sudan, along the Nile River, known as the Kingdom of Kush, is intertwined with the history of ancient Egypt, with which it was united politically over several periods. By virtue of its proximity to Egypt, the Sudan participated in the wider history of the Near East inasmuch as it was Christianized by the 6th century, and Islamized in the 7^th. As a result of Christianization, the Old Nubian language stands as the oldest recorded Nilo-Saharan language (earliest records dating to the 9th century). Since its independence in 1956, the history of Sudan has been plagued by internal conflict, viz. the 

First Sudanese Civil War (1955-1972), the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005), culminating in the secession of South Sudan in 2011, and the War in Darfur (2003-2010). After different intervention of countries finally the Soudan has divided by two countries Northern Soudan and South Soudan. The conflict in Sudan has many faces, the best known are a ‘North-South’ conflict, ‘that problem in Darfur’ or an ‘Arab-African’ conflict. The reality is that Sudan is deeply complex with many isolated but often overlapping conflicts that blur common perceptions.

II.1.8 DRC Crisis in International Affairs

In 1908, the Belgian parliament, despite initial reluctance, bowed to international pressure (especially that from Great Britain) and took over the Free State from the king. From then on, as a Belgian colony, it was called the Belgian Congo and was under the rule of the elected Belgian government. The governing of the Congo improved significantly and considerable economic and social progress was achieved. 

The white colonial rulers had, however, generally a condescending, patronizing attitude toward the indigenous peoples, which led to bitter resentment from both sides. During World War II, the Congolese army achieved several victories against the Italians in North Africa. In May 1960, a growing nationalist movement, the Mouvement National Congolais or MNC Party, led by Patrice Lumumba, won the parliamentary elections. 

The party appointed Lumumba as Prime Minister. The parliament elected as President Joseph Kasavubu, of the Alliance des Bakongo (ABAKO) party. Other parties that emerged included the Parti Solidaire Africain (or PSA) led by Antoine Gizenga, and the Parti National du Peuple (or PNP) led by Albert Delvaux and Laurent Mbariko. (Congo 1960, dossiers du CRISP, Belgium) The Belgian Congo achieved independence on 30 June 1960 under the name "République du Congo

On 5 September 1960, Kasavubu dismissed Lumumba from office. Lumumba declared Kasavubu's action unconstitutional and a crisis between the two leaders developed. (cf. Sécession au Katanga – J.Gerald-Libois -Brussels- CRISP) Lumumba had previously appointed Joseph Mobutu chief of staff of the new Congo army, Armée Nationale Congolaise (ANC). Taking advantage of the leadership crisis between Kasavubu and Lumumba, Mobutu garnered enough support within the army to create mutiny. With financial support from the United States and Belgium, Mobutu paid his soldiers privately. 

The aversion of Western powers to communism and leftist ideology influenced their decision to finance Mobutu's quest to maintain "order" in the new state by neutralizing Kasavubu and Lumumba in a coup by proxy. A constitutional referendum after Mobutu's coup of 1965 resulted in the country's official name being changed to the "Democratic Republic of the Congo." In 1971 it was changed again to "Republic of Zaïre."

By 1996, following the Rwandan Civil War and genocide and the ascension of a Tutsi-led government, Rwandan Hutu militia forces (Interahamwe) fled to eastern Zaire and began refugee camps as a basis for incursion against Rwanda. These forces allied with the Zairian armed forces (FAZ) to launch a campaign against Congolese ethnic Tutsis in eastern Zaire. A coalition of Rwandan and Ugandan armies then invaded Zaire to overthrow the government of Mobutu, and ultimately control the mineral resources of Zaire, launching the First Congo War.

 This new expanded coalition of two foreign armies allied with some longtime opposition figures, led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila, becoming the Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL). In 1997, Mobutu fled the country and Kabila marched into Kinshasa, naming himself president and reverting the name of the country to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

2008 the Second Congo War and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people. Later, Laurent Kabila asked foreign military forces to return back to their countries because he was concerned that the Rwandan officers running his army were plotting a coup in order to give the presidency to a Tutsi who would report directly to the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame. Rwandan troops retreated to Goma and launched a new Tutsi led rebel military movement called the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RCD) to fight against their former ally, President Kabila, while Uganda instigated the creation of new rebel movement called the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), led by the Congolese warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba. The two rebel movements started the Second Congo War by attacking the DRC army in 1998. Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia became involved militarily on the side of the government to defend a fellow SADC member.

Kabila was assassinated in 2001 and was succeeded by his son Joseph Kabila, who called for multilateral peace talks to end the war. UN peacekeepers, MONUC, now known as MONUSCO, arrived in April 2001. Talks led to the signing of a peace accord in which Kabila would share power with former rebels. A constitution was approved by voters, and on 30 July 2006 DRC held its first multi-party elections. 

An election result dispute between Kabila and Jean-Pierre Bemba turned into an all-out battle between their supporters in the streets of Kinshasa. MONUC took control of the city. A new election was held in October 2006, which Kabila won with 70% of the vote and on December 2006 the transitional government came to an end as Joseph Kabila was sworn in as President.

However, the Kivu conflict continued in the east. One of the former rebels integrated to the army, Laurent Nkunda, a member of a RCD branch, RCD-Goma, defected from the army along with troops loyal to him. They formed the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), which began an armed rebellion against the government and was believed to be again backed by Rwanda as a way to tackle the Hutu group, Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). 

In March 2009, after a deal between the DRC and Rwanda, Rwandan troops entered the DRC and arrested Nkunda and were allowed to pursue FDLR militants. The CNDP signed a peace treaty with the government, in which it agreed to become a political party and its soldiers integrated into the national army in exchange for the release of its imprisoned members. In 2012, the leader of the CNDP, Bosco Ntaganda, and troops loyal to him mutinied and formed the rebel military March 23 Movement, claiming a violation of the treaty by the government. In the resulting 2012 East DR Congo conflict, M23 captured the provincial capital, Goma, in November 2012 and withdrew in December following negotiations. Neighboring countries, particularly Rwanda, have been accused of using rebels groups as proxies to gain control of the resource rich country and of arming rebels, a claim made by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch. 

 According to research done by D. Montague and F. Kerrigan, it was mentioned that minerals are vital to maintaining U.S. military dominance, economic prosperity, and consumer satisfaction. Historically, the DRC (formerly Zaire) has been an important source of strategic minerals for the United States and other superpower countries. In the mid-1960s, the U.S. and Belgium government installed the dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko, which ensured U.S. access to those minerals for more than 30 years.

Today, the United States and others countries claims that it has no interest in the DRC other than a peaceful resolution to the current war. Yet U.S. businessmen and politicians are still going to extreme lengths to gain and preserve sole access to the DRC's mineral resources. And to protect these economic interests, the U.S. government continues to provide millions of dollars in arms and military training to known human-rights abusers and undemocratic regimes. 

Thus, the DRC's mineral wealth is both an impetus for war and an impediment to stopping it. United Nations report on the Democratic Republic of Congo has omitted reference to findings of the U.N.'s own investigators that high-ranking Rwandan officials are backing an army mutiny in Congo's volatile eastern region. Kigali denied the charges and said the new fighting was Kinshasa's responsibility to tackle and a problem within its own borders.

"Convenient" Solution;   

                                                                                            

Payton Knopf a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N. denied they were blocking publication of the report to the Security Council's Congo sanctions committee and said they were studying new information presented by the Group of Experts in preparation for further discussion on June 26. Rwanda vehemently denies that it is sending fighters and weapons across the border. President Paul Kagame rebuked Congo and said it should take responsibility; He expressed frustration over continued allegations that Rwanda is aiding rebel groups in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Working closely together with the DRC is the best way to solve these problems. Militarily the Rwandan force has joined operations Umoja Wetu (Our Unity), to work against the Forces Démocratiques de la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) in particular. As a group that is entrenched in different parts of the DRC, the FDLR is a problem to both countries. It was a very successful operation in the sense that it destabilized the FDLR but a lot more needs to be done so as to completely neutralize these negative forces in this region.

Up to day Rwanda and Uganda are accused at the International level backing M23 other side they are the one which motivated these countries to help the DRC solutions.

 II.2 Cold War

Cold War or Cold warfare is a state of political hostility existing between countries, characterized by threats, violent propaganda, subversive activities, existed between the soviet bloc countries and the US- led Western powers from 1945 to 1990.

Is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are “satellites” of the conflicting nations, i.e Nations allied to hem or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country.

II.2.1 Origins of the Cord War

After the World War I or Great War I, that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. It involved all the world’s great powers, which were assembled two opposing alliances: the allies (based on the triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and Russia) and the Central Powers (originally centered around the triple alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy; but, as Austria Hungary had taken the offensive against the agreement, Italy did not enter into the war) and after ended World War II, which was a global war that was underway by 1939 and ended in 1945, It involved a vast majority of the world’s nations including all of the great powers eventually forming two opposing military alliances:

 the allies and the axis. The world started the third world war called Cold War. The term was used before in the fourteenth century by Don Juan Manuel referred to the conflict between Christianity and Island as a “cold war” and he defined the distinguishing characteristics between a cold war and a hot war. War that is very fierce and very hot ends either with death or peace, whereas a cold war neither brings peace nor confers honor on those who wage it, he warned of a “peace that is no peace”.

It is widely regarded to lie most directly in the relations between the Soviet Union and its allies the United States. Britain and France in the years 1945-1947. Those events led to the cold war that endured for just less than half a century.

Events preceding the Second World War, and even the Russian Revolution of 1917, underlay pre-world war II tensions between the Soviet Union, western European Countries and the United States. A series of events during and after world War II exacerbated tensions, including the soviet- German pact during the first two years of the war leading to subsequent invasions, the perceived delay of an amphibious invasion of German occupied Europe, the western allies’ support of the Atlantic charter, disagreement in wartime conferences over the fate of Europe, the Soviets’ creation of Eastern Bloc of Soviet satellite states, western allies scrapping the Morgenthau plan to support the rebuilding of German industry, and the Marshall Plan.

II.2.2 Description the post-cold war in global scene

Generally speaking prior to exploring the post-cold war, global scene one has to understand the main features and trends that characterized the cold-war era.

The Cold-War was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars and economic competition between the Communist World-primarily the Soviet Union and its satellite states and allied  powers of the Western world, primarily the United States and its allies from ,1947 to 1991

       Although the chief military forces never engaged in major battles with each other, they expressed the conflict state, through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states, deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, conventional and nuclear arms races, appeal to neutral nations rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race. After the success of their temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, the USSR and the US saw each other as profound enemies of their basic ways of life. 

The Soviet Union created the Eastern Bloc with the eastern European countries it occupied, annexing some and maintaining others as satellite states, some of which were later consolidated as Warsaw Pact (1955-1991). The US financed the recovery of Western Europe and forged NATO, a military alliance using containment of communism as a main strategy (Truman Doctrine). 

The US funded the Marshall Plan to effectuate a more rapid post-War recovery of Europe, while the Soviet Union would not let most Eastern Bloc members participate. Elsewhere, while the Soviet Union would not let most Eastern Bloc members participate. 

Elsewhere, in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the USSR assisted and helped foster communist revolutions, opposed by several Western countries and their regional allies; some they attempted to roll back, with mixed results. Among the countries that the USSR supported in pro-communist revolt was Cuba, led by Fidel Castro. The proximity of communist Cuba to the United State proved to be a center point of the cold War; the USSR placed multiple nuclear missiles in Cuba Missile Crises of 1962, where full-scale nuclear war threatened. Some countries aligned with NATO and Warsaw Pact, and others formed the Nonaligned Movement.

The cold War featured periods of relative calm and international high tension the Berlin Blockade (1948- 19 49), the Korean War (1950-1953)  the Berlin crisis of (1962), the soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-1989). And the Able archer 83 NATO exercise in November 1983. Both sides sought détente to relieve political tensions and deter direct military attack, which would probably guarantee their mutual assured destruction with nuclear weapons.

In the 1980s, under the Reagan doctrine, the United State increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when the nation was already suffering economic stagnation. In the late 1980s, soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing reforms of perestroika (“reconciliation, reorganization”, 1987) and glasnost (“openness”, ca.1985) the cold war ended after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, leaving the Unite State as the dominant military power. Russia rejected communism and was no longer regarded as threat by the U.S. The cold War and its events have had a significant impact on the world today, and it is often referred to in popular culture, especially films novels about spies.

II.2.3 Global scene

Although May thought that the new order proclaimed by George Bush was the promise of 1945 fulfilled a world in which international peace and security with the active support of the world’s major powers. That world order is a chimera. Even as a liberal international ideal, it is infeasible at best and dangerous at worst. It requires a centralized rule-making authority, a hierarchy of institutions, and universal membership. Equally to the point, efforts to create such an order have failed.

Then United Nations cannot function effectively independent of major powers that comes it, nor will those nations cede their power and sovereignty to an international institution. Efforts to expand supranational authority, whether by the U.N secretary-general’s office, the European Commission, or the World Trade organization (WTO), have consistently produced a backlash among member states.  The leading alternative to liberal international is “the new medievalism,” a back-to-the future model of the 21^st century. Where liberal internationalists see a need for international rules and institutions to solve states’ problems, the new medievalists proclaim the nation-state. Less hyper biblically, in her article, “Power Shift,” in the January, February 1997 Foreign Affairs. Jessica T. Mathews describe a shift away from the state up down and sideways to supra-state, sub-state, and, above all. Non-state actors. These new players have multiple allegiances and global reach.

Mathews attributes this power shift to a change in the structure of organizations: from hierarchies to networks, from centralized compulsion to voluntary association. The engine f this transformation is the information technology revolution, a radically expanded communications capacity that empowers individual and groups while diminishing traditional authority. The result is not world government, but global governance. If government denotes cooperatives problem-solving by a changing and often uncertain cast.

The result is world order in which global governance networks link Microsoft, the Roman Catholic Church, and Amnesty International to the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Catalonia.

II.2.3 The end of cold war, conflict and global governance

The end of cold war conflict and global governance, who governs, Multilateralism and inter-governmentalism. Post-World War I international institutions and their successors after 1945 Offered parallel answers to one key question: who governs?  Post-1945, international governance drew on earlier models and reinforced them: governments were dominant over non-governmental actors, whether private corporations and financial institutions or non-governmental organizations.  

As described below in greater detail, this assertion of public authority at the global level implied demotion of an institutional alternative that had played an important role during the interwar decades:  public-private or purely private networks of governance.  Postwar glob postwar global institutions grappled with a second issue related to the primacy of national governments: balancing of the norm of sovereign equality of states against the realities of power and resource disparities. 

Nevertheless, each institution produced a formula for balancing the demands of a growing membership against the desire on the part of the largest powers for influence that would match their contribution of resources and their investment in the regime.  In the case of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, formal weighted voting combined with Super-majorities on key constitutional and policy issues provided a veto, first for the United States and then for the European Community.  

The GATT (and later the WTO) remained attached to consensus voting and a one country, one vote formula for formal governance.  These rules protected the most powerful against a coalition of the weak, but also provided equivalent protection to any member of the organization, a formula for deadlock.  At the United Nations, the Security Council veto served to differentiate the great (and ultimately nuclear) powers from other members. 

 In most global institutions, at least until the last decade of the century, informal mechanisms played an equally important role in bridging the gap between universal membership and the prerogatives of more powerful states.  Two were of particular importance.  Many member states were disengaged from the decision-making of these institutions.  Developing countries in particular accepted what John Williamson labels a type of “global apartheid” that assigned them to special regimes exempted from the liberalizing obligations and norms of other members.

The post-1945 system of global governance, however, like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other regional organizations in Asia, has more often adopted a convoy model, with low membership barriers and exemptions for membership categories.  Membership itself is expected to have socializing effects on members.  Even the European Union, however, has introduced multi-speed membership and opt-out provisions. Among the global multilaterals, adoption of the convoy model of membership obligations, paradoxically, complemented an internal club organization that concentrated power in the hands of a small group of members.  

Those dominant members could then govern without the engagement of the many peripheral members, far back in the convoy, who did not accept the full obligations of membership and provided few resources.

End of cold war produced a wave of optimism and idealism. As the communist bloc collapsed, the Soviet Union power was in retreat both domestically and abroad. A “One World” speaking with a “One Voice” appeared possible; “A New World Order” as envisaged by President Bush Sir. Global conflicts were no longer going to be based on ideological differences and a balance of terror but on a common recognition of international norms and standards of morality. Central to this emerging world order is the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, to resist aggression and expansionism, and to control and reduce military arsenals, and to ensure just treatment of domestic populations through respect of human rights.

Broad alliances were now possible against aggression. For example, Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 let to the construction of both Western and Islamic alliance that through the Gulf War of 1991 brought about the expulsion of Iraq forces. A second example is world response to former Yugoslavia. Its destruction in 1991 attracted the response of the Conference on Security and Cooperation of Europe (CSCE) now renamed Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE in 1994) as a mechanism for tackling international crises, leading to the hopes that it would replace Warsaw Pact and NATO.

However, these hopes were soon dashed as new forms of conflict and unrest rose to the surface; mainly conflicts of internal nature, terrorism, and genocide. The bipolar world gave way to a uni-polar world with the USA as the policeman of the world because of her military capability and political authority to intervene effectively. Examples include;

• Operation Desert Storm expelling Iraq from Kuwait
• USA in NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” to remove Serb forces from Kosovo, 1999.
• Arial bombing of Afghanistan destroying the Taliban regime in 2001
• Invasion of Iraq in Gulf 11 war removing Saddam Hussein from power and helping install a new government.

Some argue that USA, unlike earlier hegemons, is now playing a benevolent role, spreading democracy, eliminating dictators, and introducing market capitalism than with plunder and conquest. That what it has done in Latin America is evidence to this. That the USA hegemony promised international peace, political and economic development.

However, others argue differently. Noam Chomsky (born 1928) does not buy that view. He instead argues that it was simply a coincidence of interests; US interest in Gulf oil and the fear Arabs had of a “Greater Iraq” in the region, hence need for Western-Arab alliance. Thus rhetoric about International Law and national sovereignty merely camouflaged power politics and the pursuit of national interest (realism again). That the very idea of a new world order, might indeed be a piece of historical engineering aimed at safeguarding US interests and maintaining the US masterly of the global economy.

Another argument questions America’s ability to sustain her role as the world police force;

• Nuclear power preponderance does not always translate itself into effective military capacity eg, Vietnam and Somalia.
• Does the USA have the economic resources to sustain this role?
• With relative economic decline highlighted by economic resurgence of Japan, Germany, and Chine, this role may not be sustainable.

USA could be succumbing to “Imperial Over-reach”. This is the tendency for imperial expansion to be unsustainable as wider military responsibilities outstrip the growth of the domestic economy. In previous eras, this has been manifested in isolationism. 

Isolationism is the policy of withdrawal from international affairs and in particular, avoiding political or military commitments to other states. It is only the September 11 terrorist attack in New York and Washington that brought America back to the scene. Otherwise, Bush’s 2000 election was for leaving the world to sort itself out. Cold war and bipolarity generally kept the world at peace with exception of wars for independence in the former colonized world and proxy wars for spheres of influence such the Korean and Vietnam wars.

This is what Samuel P. Huntington refers to as “A Clash of Civilizations” divided along cultural fault lines (S. P. Huntington, Foreign Affairs Summer 1993).

“New World Disorder”; some scholars say that instead of a peaceful stable world, predicted by Bush, as a New World Order policed by the USA, we are likely to see a New World Disorder. That this is expected because uni-polarity creates resentment and world policing is unsustainable. 

A uni-polar structure is only a transition. Prediction is that the world could be tending towards multi-polarity with five proportionately equal powers interspersed by the “Rogue” states and international terrorism. These powers could be:

·         USA with her intellectual capital, advanced technology and being a safe power because of its insular location

·         China because of her recent rapid development, large population and military capability

·         Germany dominated Europe because of level of development, assertiveness, and independence from NATO.

·         Japan, being the second largest economy and her links with the Asian Tigers (of recent Chine has bypassed her)

·         Russia as she has nuclear capability, large population and territory as well as vast natural resources.

·         There are also significant regional powers such as Brazil and India or BRICS to mean Brazil, India, China and South Africa.

Globalization is defined as the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us. 

The central feature of globalization is that geographical distance is of declining relevance. “The world is becoming a smaller world” and territorial boundaries such as those between nation-states are becoming less significant. Humanitarian Intervention: This is the military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic interests (objectives).

The following arguments have been given to justify humanitarian intervention;

·         In the case of gross human rights abuse

·         When such abuse threatens the security of neighbouring states

·         When the absence of democracy weakens the principle of national self determination

·         When diplomatic means have been exhausted and the human cost of intervention is less than that of non-intervention.

Arguments against;

• Any violation of state sovereignty weakens the established rules of world order, international law.
• Military intervention invariably leaves matters worse, not any better or draws intervening powers into long term involvement (see Iraq, Afghanistan, DRC, Somalia , Darfur etc)
• Aggression has almost always been legitimized by humanitarian justification (examples include Mussolini and Hitler).
• How do you get out (withdrawal strategy)?

Louis Henkin, using the 1976 high jacking of the French air liner to Entebbe, Uganda, argues that if “humanitarian intervention” is to be accepted, it should be sharply limited to actions the purpose of which is unambiguous and limited, for example, to release hostages or execute other emergency evacuations. 

This has been termed the “Entebbe Factor”. He further argues that these should better be left to collective, not unilateral action for example by special U.N. organs such as the Security Council and “humanitarian evacuation forces” (akin to the U.N. peace keeping forces), created in advance for that purpose and immunised so far as possible from larger international political tensions (Louis Henkin, 1979, 145).

II.3 Dilemmas of world politics: international issues in a changing world

The dilemma of course those institutions that respect the sovereignty of states are always going to be constrained in their efficacy. How can they contribute to the solution of difficulty global problem? What are the sources of effective institutions that lack enforcement power?

The answers need to be looked for in what institutions can do within the existing context rather than in looking for utopian solutions. In this regard, change has been more profound than we often think. States have, throughout the post-second World War era in general and in the last two decade in particular, become.

While there is consensus that world politics has experienced more changes in the past, previous 50 yrs, the significance of these changes remains the subject of much dispute. They reflect the need for a wide perspective offering analyses of key contemporary issues such as war and technology, the environment, the future role of the USA, the implications of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the role of Islam, the future for conflict resolution, and terrorism.

What emerges is a recognition of the need for the international system to address itself to a range of pressing questions – some of them entirely new – with potentially profound implications for the states. Organizations and individuals of which it is comprised.

II.3.1 Economic Power replaces Military Might.

Nye argued that the cold war’s end, some pundits proclaimed that “geo-economics” had replaced geopolitics. Economics power would become the key to success in world politics, a change that many people thought usher in a world dominated by Japan and Germany.

Today, some interpret the rise in China’s of world output as signifying a fundamental shift in the balance of global power, but without considering military power. They argue that a dominant economic power soon becomes a dominant military power, forgetting that the United States was the world’s largest economy for 70 years before it becomes a military superpower. 

Political observers have long debates on, whether economic or military power is more fundamental. The Marxist tradition casts economics as the underlying structure of power, and political institutions as mere superstructure, an assumption shared by nineteenth-century liberals who believed that growing interdependence in trade finance would make war obsolete.

But, while Britain and Germany were each other are most significant trading partners the 1914 a conflagration that set back global economic integration for a half century. Military power, which some call the ultimate form of power in world politics, requires a thriving economy.

But whether economic or military resources produce more power in today’s world depends in the context.  A carrot is more useful than a stick if you wish to lead a mule to water, but a gun may be more useful if your aim is to deprive an opponent of his mule. Many crucial issues, such as financial stability or climate change, simply are not amenable to military force. Today, China ad US are highly interdependent economically, but many analysts misunderstand the implications of this power politics.

True, China could bring the US to its knees by threatening to sell its dollar holdings. But doing so would not only reduce the value of its reserves as the dollar weakened; it would also jeopardize US demand for Chinese imports, leading to job losses and instability in China. In other words, bringing the US to its knees might well mean that China would bring itself to its ankles. Judging whether economic interdependence produces power requires looking at the balance of asymmetries. 

In this case, it resembles a “balance of financial terror,” analogous to the Cold War military interdependence in which the US and the Soviet Union each potential to destroy the other in a nuclear exchange. In February 2010, a group of senior Chinese military officers, angered over US arms sales to Taiwan, called for China’s government to sell off US government bonds in relation. Their suggestion was not heeded.

Economic resources can produce soft-power behavior as well as hard military power. A successful economic model only finances the military resources needed for the exercise of hard power, but it can also attract others to emulate its example.

The European Union’s softer power at the end of Cold War, and that of Chine today, owes much to the success of EU and Chinese economic models. Economic resources are increasingly important in this century, but it would be a mistake to write off the role of military power.

As US President Barack Obama said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes”

There will be times when nations acting individually or in concert will find the use of force not only necessary but justified.

Even if the probability of the use of force among states, or threats of its use, is lower now than in earlier eras, the high impact of war leads rational actors to purchase expensive military insurance. If china hard power frightens its neighbors, they are likely to seek such insurance policies and the US is likely to be the major provider.

This leads to a larger point about the role of military force. Some analysts argue that military power is of such restricted utility that it is no longer the ultimate measuring rod. But the fact that military power is not always sufficient to decide particular situations does not mean that it has lost all utility, while there more situations and context in which in which military force is difficult to use, it remains a vital source of power.

Markets and economic power rest upon political frameworks, which in turn depend not only upon norms, institutions, and relationships, but also upon the management of coercive power.

A well-ordered modern state is one that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and that allows domestic markets to operate internationally, where order is more tenuous, residual concern about the coercive use of force, even if a low probability can have important effects including a stabilizing effect.

Indeed, metaphorically, military power provides a degree of security that is to order as oxygen is to breathing: little noticed until It becomes scarce, at which point its absence dominates all else. In that twenty-first century, military power will not have the same utility for states that it had in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but it will remain a crucial component of power in world politics.

II.3.2 Canada as middle power: the case of Peacekeeping.

If Canada can be considered a model middle power, then peacekeeping has been for Canada a classic middle-power activity. The Canadian peacekeeping record is impressive. As any average Canada can boast, Canadians have been a part of every peacekeeping operation established since the Second World War over 100.000 Canadians have taken part in over 32 operations across the globe-a handful of Canada observes and pilots were in Kashmir in the late140s. In 1956, one thousand Canadian soldiers were part of the first major UN emergency force (UNEF I) in the Sinai, An emergency force conceived by a Canadian, Lester Pearson.

 Through the 1960s and 1970s Canadians wore the blue helmets in other parts of the Middle East, in Africa and South East Asia. And there was Cyprus. From 1964, until the late, 1993, Canadian soldiers tried to keep Turks and Greeks apart on the tiny island in the Mediterranean. When, in 1988, United Nations peacekeepers won the Nobel Prize, Canadians felt it was for them. Canadians have generally (but not always) liked peacekeeping and often stubbornly claim that it, like a telephone, was their own invention, peacekeeping has reinforced the values Canadians hold dear. 

Canadians like to see themselves as friendly, commonsense folk, who would rather mediate than fight. In so large a country with so few people, with no common geography, language or religion, peacekeeping seems to be one the few symbols-along with hockey and Mounties-to which Canadians can look to define their identity around the world. But the world has changed in recent years and so seemingly has the nature peacekeeping. Since1988 the UN has created 15 new peacekeeping operations. Among the most notable is UNTAG in Namibia, where civilians have monitored elections and human rights violations in what the UN  has called ‘the largest decolonization exercise’ in its history. Mission in Cambodia, Kuwait following the Gulf War, Somalia and El Salvador have also begun. So to have the UN protection Forces in the former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR, as well as UNPROFOR II). The size and nature of these operations have raised the profile of peacekeeping. For Canadians, they have also illuminated distributing events.

II.4 Nuclear deterrence with specific reference to the post-cold war period.

II.4.1 Overview

The mechanism of balance of power used to be simple. Sovereign units built bigger, better-equipped and better-trained armies than the opponent, all backed by an economic environment which was able to provide supplies to the soldiers. A process which never reached an end; there can could be always more populous armies and more effective weapons.

Nuclear weapon brought a change. Strategic arms reached a point, when even a relatively small and poor country is able to dispose with enough destructive power to erase the whole human society. Twenty years after the collapse of bipolar world, nuclear proliferation remains a hot topic. With nine countries possessing nuclear weapons (with some uncertainty about North Korean and Israel nuclear programs) and some other interested in the possibility of developing them, there are no exactly defined camps of opponents. What is the influence of nuclear weapons on the anarchic system, where ‘the best way to survive is to be was especially powerful. (Mearsheimer, 2007, PP.74).

II.4.2 Nuclear weapons

Nuclear warfare is the most important milestone in the history of weapons. Hydrogen bombs, thousand times more effective than atomic fusion explosives, with practically limitless potential explosive force to be constructed, (Mandelbaum, 1981, pp.3) can be delivered by all kinds of ballistic or cruise missile and artillery. Highly advance missiles like Russian Topol-M, are able to penetrate any defense systems (Arms Control Association. 2000), making thus the first-strike unstoppable by any kind of defense.

 With several thousand nuclear warheads being on alert, major nuclear exchange can result in total destruction of both opponents’ within a few hours since the release of the first missile and also of world’s civilization through effects of radiation and changes in global climate (predicted effects of the so called “nuclear winter” or “nuclear summer”). There are more 

weapons of mass destruction developed in the 20^th century; however, nuclear weapons have an outstanding position, due to the effectiveness of their deployment and their (at least hypothetical) ability to disarm an enemy by the first-strike. Although chemical or biological WMD can have similar effects to nuclear weapons in some occasions, it is considered that they do not share the same military importance for international relations (Mandelbaum, 1981, P.256,).

II.3.3 Nuclear Deterrence

Concept of deterrence is ‘the dissuasion of  one adversary by another from undertaking hostile military action by convincing him that  such an action would be unsuccessful or too costly since it would incur military counteraction.’ (Buzan, 1987. Pp.174) and it should not be confused with defense. As Waltz writes: ‘deterrence is achieved not through the ability to defend, but through the ability to punish’ (Sagan & Waltz, 2003, pp.5)

Realists and liberals examining theories of nuclear deterrence perceive the situation created by the existence of nuclear weapons mostly optimistically (Lieber, press. 2006). Believing that nuclear weapons can increase the irrationality of starting a war beyond any limits makes some of the scholars to claim ‘’more is better (Sagan & Waltz, 2003). From there is only one step to theory about nuclear peace, which (unlike democratic peace) can include all countries, especially during the Cold War era it is broadly believed that nuclear deterrence was among the most important factors which kept USA and USSR away from open mutual war (Sagan & Waltz, 2003; Buzab, 1987; Segal, Moreton, Freeman & Baylis, 1983).

This optimistic approach can be counterweighted by more pessimistic idea, that ‘the [Hydrogen]-bomb reduces the likelihood of full-scale war, it increases the possibility of limited war pursued by widespread local aggression.’ (Hart, 1960, Krepon, 2003). This so called “stability instability paradox” was found responsible for fuelling number of proxy wars during the cold War. It is not in complete contradiction with “more is better” statement; we can say it changes this statement; we can say it can change this statement into “total proliferation is better”.

II.4 Post-Cold War deterrence

The Cold War era balance of power was about the balance of two opposing ideologies, which are enemies from definition and the rational calculations were quite easy. Since NATO’s Massive Retaliation strategy (following the ideas of Assured Destruction) had determination to prevent aggressor from ‘ability to shape the character of war’ (Segal, Moreton, Freeman & Baylis, 1983, pp.83) and considering Warsaw Pact’s conventional superiority, there was no place for local clashes.  

Any aggression would have been terminated. Cold War deterrence offered the only result of superpowers’ war calculations –MAD. Rational actor did not have different choice than to decide not to incite open aggression. What of these transferred to post-Cold War times; Accepting the realists’ description of world as an anarchic system, where self-help is the only way to secure own existence, nuclear proliferation and consequent deterrent acting may seem as inevitable. There is notion among some structural realists that modern nuclear deterrence acting will lead to similar consequences as during the Cold War – higher stability (Segan & Waltz, 2003). However, there are some serious challenges to this idea.

Firstly, MAD should be announced dead. The fall of Eastern Block not only lowered the direct military tension, but also brought other important implications, considering nuclear deterrence. Economic Corporation among

Involved nuclear power has been rising, making the mutual business connections essential for the parties involved (especially in the USA-Chinese case, but also considering vital function of the export of natural resources for Russia or booming mutual trade between India and Pakistan in the last decade). Add at least modest increase of democracy in Russia and China during the last two decade and the concept of MAD gets even further behind the borders of rationality.

 There is also another aspect, which makes deterrence via MAD obsolete: the gap in military capabilities of the USA and second bigger nuclear power (Russia) sharply rose. Some works (Lieber & Press, 2006) are suggesting, that USA got very close to the position, whether it will be to prevent or minimalize effects of Russian nuclear response on a surprising first strike, not to mention the rest of potential enemies, who possess minimal amount of long range ballistic missile (Lieber and Press.2006) China possessed stock of only 18 missiles able to reach the USA, compared to Russian’s 3500). Similarly, limited amounts of warheads and low protection against the first strike makes MAD hardly possible even for the neighboring countries, like China and India.

However, nuclear deterrence  itself is not dead, quite the opposite recent nuclear test performed by North Korea, activities of Iran believed to be aimed at construction of nuclear weapon, but also the effort of the USA to place some parts of the ballistic defense system in Central Europe show us that nuclear deterrence is still alive. In the bipolar world weaker actors who felt endangered by one of the superpower or by a local third party could chose a protector, who was happy to offer them cooperation, condescendingly overlooking their moral character. Regional balance of power was shifting with countries joining and changing alliances, global balance of power was maintained by MAD.

Middle East region is ideal location for a demonstration. Israel has been concerned about its safety and existence from the first days of her, foundation, which led to efforts to gain nuclear weapons. Arab neighbors like Egypt or Jordan have spent only tepid efforts to acquire nuclear capability and they do not consider it top level priority’ (Evron, 1991, pp.50). Neither Israel nor other countries represent threat for their existence.

On the other hand, Iran may consider threat from the Western countries legitimate and nuclearization is a natural way securitize status quo. As suggested by Freeman, is inevitable for deterrence to be carefully

Leveraged, While too little deterrence can be ineffective, too much deterrence can achieve opposite reaction than intended (Freeman, 2004). Introducing nuclear deterrence is a big qualitative jump in military deterrence capability of any country. While it is irrational make aggressive step when it is already implemented, it is fully rational to try to either deter opponents from gaining the weapon, or actively stop him by an aggressive action, as it could be observed in Iraq, where both Iran and Israel bombed the Osirak reactor back in 80’s as response to his flirting with nuclear weapon program.

So far, nuclear deterrence was described as a clear mechanism, assuming the generally optimistic nature, of it. Waltz, the bigger advocate of proliferation, presents five reasons, why nuclear deterrence can ensure higher stability and even “nuclear peace” among countries (Sagan & Waltz, 2003, pp.6-7)

·         The more a country gains war and the closer to the final victory, the higher possibility of nuclear retaliation as defender’s conventional forces lose the ability to inflict damage on the progressing enemy. ·         The costs of war are extremely high and more carefully taken into consideration ·         Nuclear weapon better defend than coquets territory ·         Will to use nuclear weapon is stronger on the side of the defender. ·         Nuclear strength of an adversary can be more easily counted before declaring war than the conventional one

However, also this mechanism can fail. The source of failure is the key position of actors’ rationality in the scheme. To act rationally, actors need information and causal relations between them. ‘Deterrence works best when the targets are able to act rationally, and when the deterrence and the deterred are working within sufficiently shared normative framework so that it is possible to inculcate a sense of appropriate behavior in defined situations.’ (Freeman, 2004, pp.5).

While it is hard to set normative for conventional deterrence, it is almost impossible to set them for nuclear deterrence. There were established unofficial ten commandments of nuclear deterrence (Krepon, 2003).

Obviously, these commandments are more stressing the lack of proper rules than serving any other purpose which is ‘dangerous military practice. How can exact rules be set for something, what is suicidal (MAD) or what has unforeseeable consequences (field use of nuclear weapon). MAD is so irrational, that it is impossible to set exact and rational rules. ’Once basic deterrence becomes mutual, it negates extended deterrence by definition.’

(Betts, 1987, pp.10). These rules can be set for an isolated tactical nuclear attack, but since the mechanism of chain reaction of tactic exchange turning into strategic one is hardly constructible, leaving tactic (or low scale strategic) use of nuclear weapons surrounded by extreme deal of uncertainty. 

Nuclear attack on homeland would most probably because nuclear retaliation, but what about nuclear attack on allies would it be worth starting a nuclear exchange? What will be the reaction on conventional attack on homeland? Deterrence can easily turn into unwanted aggression, or can fail once the opponent will be able to count the consequences more precisely.

This great deal of insecurity embedded in the concept of nuclear deterrence leads to continuous arm race. However, this arms race is not intended to stop the first strike, but to prevent the second strike capability of an enemy. This situation can fuel the aggression once my technical progress

Conclusion: Nuclear deterrence, the ability to turn an aggression into an irrational act by having potential to inflict unbearable costs to the aggressor, emerged as soon as at least two actors developed nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Despite serving more of Cold War era was symbolized by the outstanding mechanism of MAD. With the fall of Iron Curtain, nuclear deterrence achieved new qualitative range. 

While the irrational of nuclear exchange among leading powers went beyond the Cold War limits and nuclear deterrence as a way of world domination is becoming obsolete, in the regional conflicts it may play increasing role. With the loss of bipolarity and two possible protectors, military nuclear technology becomes the tool of ultimate survival in the last two decades; it is not only question of non-democratic countries but also of democratic countries like Japan South Korea or some countries in Latin America, which may consider their non-nuclear status.

Although USA and other western possessors of nuclear weapons may be deemed as protectors of their unarmed allies. Their rational base if their willingness to respond to nuclear threats to these allies may be questioned.

Unfortunately, nuclear proliferation and nuclear deterrence may hardly increase stability and peace, as it is sometimes suggested. Post-Cold War deterrence is being organized undertaken now in a more complicated and interconnected world, where setting exact action-reaction rules in terms of nuclear deterrence is more an ad-hoc craft than a well working mechanism. The instability is underlined by possible organizational malfunction and agency failures, especially considering recent rise of rootless threats, like terrorism, which cannot be responded by standard military strategies. 

Nuclear deterrence will remain part of our world, but it can hardly regain the strategic dominance it had in the period the ended twenty years ago. Both global and regional actors will have to incorporate the potential of nuclear retaliation into their strategies, their range of actions will narrower, but this will not stop the actions, which shift the balance of power.