International Relations
The term 'International' was used for the first time by Jeremy Benlham in the later part of the
eighteenth century with regard's to the laws of nations. Consequently, the term international relations
were used to define the official relations between the sovereign slates. However some scholars even
included the economic, social and cultural relations amongst the states also within the purview of the
subject. Thus there are broadly two views regarding the meaning of international relations. Those who
take narrow view assert that international relations include only "the official relations conducted by the
authorized leaders of the state". To them the relations between nations, other than the official
relations, such as trade, financial intercourse, missionary activities, travel of students, cultural relations
etc. do not fall in the domain of international relations. Prof. Dunn takes a narrow view of international
relations and defines it as "the actual relations that take place across national boundaries or as the body
of knowledge which we have of those relations at any given time."
On the other hand some scholars have taken a broad view of international relations and included apart
from the official relations between states; all intercourse among states and all movements of people,
goods and ideas across.
International relation is the scheme of study that covers the all matters and relations which are beyond
the any any sovereign state, weather it is related to religious national, political, social,strategic or any
other interest of countries is called international relation.
Cold War
The Cold War was a period of tension and hostility between the United States of America and
the Soviet Union from the mid-40s to the late 80s. It began with the end of the Second World
War. It was called the Cold War because there was no active war between the two nations, which
was probably due to the fear of nuclear escalation. There were many indirect conflicts like the
Vietnam and Korea wars. There was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 which was the closest the
world ever came to a nuclear war. An American U2 spy plane took photographs of Soviet
intermediate ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads. The Soviet Union sent a
total of 42 medium range missiles and 24 intermediate range missiles to Cuba. The US
threatened to invade Cuba over the issue. Ultimately the Soviets removed the missiles on
America’s promise of not invading Cuba.
Although the Soviet Union and China started off as allies in 1949 there emerged an estrangement
between them, which was cleverly exploited by the Americans. The US formed an alliance with
China in 1971 to contain the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980,
which led to the United States and its allies boycotting the 1980 Olympic games in Moscow. In
retaliation, the Soviet Union and its allies boycotted the 1984 Olympic games in Los Angeles,
USA. The US financed and armed the Afghan guerrillas to fight against the Soviet troops. The
Afghan War was a major factor in bankrupting the Soviet Union.
In the '80s President Ronald Reagan of the US dubbed the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and
predicted that it would be consigned to the ash heap of history. He announced a major weapons
buildup and the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) also dubbed "Star Wars". The Soviet Union
was too economically enfeebled to reply in kind. In 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader
of the Soviet Union. He adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the Americans and many arms
reduction pacts were signed. In 1989 there was a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and in
1990 the Soviets agreed to the reunification of Germany. Movements against communist
governments in Eastern Europe followed this. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 marking the
end of the Cold War.
Causes of the Cold War







The Soviet Union wanted to spread its ideology of communism worldwide, which
alarmed the Americans who followed democracy.
The acquisition of atomic weapons by America caused fear in the Soviets.
Both countries feared an attack from each other.
The Soviet Union’s action of taking control over Eastern Europe was a major factor for
US suspicions.
The US President had a personal dislike of the Soviet leader Josef Stalin.
America was annoyed by the Soviet Union’s actions in the part of Germany it had
occupied.
The Soviets feared that America would use Western Europe as a base to attack it.
Effects of the Cold War









Both the United States of America and the Soviet Union built up huge arsenals of atomic
weapons and ballistic missiles.
The military blocs NATO and The Warsaw Pact were formed
It led to destructive conflicts like the Vietnam War and the Korean War.
The Soviet Union collapsed due to economic weaknesses.
The Berlin Wall was demolished and the two German nations were unified.
The Warsaw Pact disintegrated.
The Baltic States and some former Soviet republics achieved independence.
America became the sole superpower of the world.
Communism collapsed worldwide.
The Cold War indeed took a heavy economic toll on the world. Let's hope that nations learn to
live in peace in the 21st century, as there are no winners in a nuclear war.
Warsaw Pact
The Warsaw Pact was the Soviet Union’s response to West Germany joining NATO and
came into being in May 1955. The Warsaw Pact, named after the meeting to create it
was held in Warsaw, was based throughout the Soviet Bloc and troops in it were used
in the ending of the 1968 Czech Revolt.
The Warsaw Pact, officially the ‘Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual
Assistance’, was obviously very much dominated by the Soviet Union. Soviet made
tanks, aircraft and guns were used throughout the Warsaw Pact and the military
command was dominated by decisions made in Moscow.
Like NATO, the Warsaw Pact had a political Consultative Committee with a civilian
Secretary-General. It also, like NATO, had a commander-in-chief who was the most
senior military figure in it. Each member of the Warsaw Pact had to pledge to defend
other members if they were attacked.
Whereas the military in NATO was primarily made up of professionals (except for the
years when member nations had conscription), the Warsaw Pact very much depended
on conscription, whereby young men and women had to serve in their respective
country’s military. This reliance on enforcement almost certainly undermined the
professional capability of the Warsaw Pact – though its overall military capability was
never challenged by NATO as neither side ever fought the other. In the west, the
Warsaw Pact was demonised as a massive military monster waiting its chance to attack
Western Europe. While this served a useful propaganda purpose, figures acquired by
the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) tend to undermine this as the
Warsaw Pact had fewer of everything when compared to NATO except fighter aircraft
and battle tanks.
IISS claimed that in 1983, the Warsaw Pact had:
1,986,000 ground forces
90 divisions
20,722 main battle tanks
2,080 anti-tank guided weapon launchers
182 submarines
385 anti-submarine submarines
314 capital ships (carriers, cruisers etc)
821 Other naval craft
4,338 fighter aircraft
6869 anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.
NATO, on the other hand, had in 1983:
1,986,000 ground forces
90 divisions
20,722 main battle tanks
2,080 anti-tank guided weapon launchers
182 submarines
385 anti-submarine submarines
314 capital ships (carriers, cruisers etc)
821 Other naval craft
4,338 fighter aircraft
6869 anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.
One of the fears NATO had was that the Warsaw Pact probably recognised that her
weaponry was more dated than NATO’s and that Moscow, if required to, would fall back
on the use of nuclear weapons. A 1984 report by the Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences estimated that if the Warsaw Pact had attacked NATO bases in West
Germany in a ‘limited’ nuclear attack, 10 million West Germans would have been killed
and another 10 million would have been injured with most medical facilities put out of
operation. These figures were based on an attack involving 200 kilotons of ground burst
bombs – considered a “relatively small attack”. Papers released by the Polish
government after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, showed that plans were in place for such
an attack if a swift land based attacked failed. By the late 1980’s 250 nuclear missiles
were based in Poland alone.
With the collapse of the Cold War at the end of the 1980’s the Warsaw Pact became
both unnecessary and unwanted. It ceased to exist on July 1 st 1991. Most former
member states of the Warsaw Pact have now joined NATO – the one state that has not
is the former Soviet Union.
Suez
Nasser having nationalised the Suez Canal waited to see what would happen. Nasser
confidently predicted that Britain would not use military force to reclaim the Suez Canal
and that diplomacy would not work. Therefore he concluded that his gamble over the
Suez Canal had worked.
On August 8th,1956 Anthony Eden went on television to explain his policy towards
Egypt. He told the British public that “Our quarrel is not with Egypt, still less with the
Arab world. It is with Colonel Nasser. He is not a man who can be trusted to keep an
agreement.” During the speech, Eden compared Nasser to the recent Fascist leaders of
Europe – a comparison that did not go down well in the Arabic world.
In August 1956, 20,000 reservists were called up in Britain. Men were sent to Malta and
Cyprus as the two obvious forward military bases. Britain drew up, in secret, plans to recapture the Suez Canal and to force through a change of regime in Egypt. Eden’s main
advisor at the Foreign Office on Egyptian issues was Adam Watson. He got the clear
impression that Eden believed that the Egyptian people would welcome a strong but
benevolent British government in Egypt – a throwback to the days of the British Empire
at its peak.
The United States of America made it clear that it was against any form of military
action and Dwight Eisenhower made this clear in communications with Eden. The
American Secretary of State at the time was John Foster Dulles. It was Dulles who had
frequent contact with Eden and his messages to the Prime Minister were ambivalent
and far from clear. If Eden believed that America was not against military action as a
result of his meetings with Dulles, this may well have encouraged him to not only think
about it but also to actively follow it up.
Eden got the full backing of France for action against Egypt, especially from the French
Foreign Minister Christian Pireau. Nasser had helped Algerian rebels against the ruling
French government in Algiers and this Pireau could not tolerate. Nasser backed up his
stance when he publicly stated “It is our duty to help our Arab brothers.”
A third nation covertly made its feeling plan on the topic of Egypt – Israel. Officials from
France and Israel met in secret to discuss what could be done against Egypt. Israel was
greatly concerned by Egypt’s military power that was becoming greater as a result of
Czech military imports. On July 27th, France had openly asked Israel if they were
considering attacking Egypt in what would be a pre-emptive strike – attack before being
attacked. Shimon Peres told the French that an Israeli attack could take place within two
weeks of the 27th but that modern weapons were needed. In response to this, France
secretly exported to Israel modern weaponry. Because of a trade embargo on military
equipment to the Middle East, the landing of this equipment took place at night – Moshe
Dayan was there to observe the landings near Haifa.
As a result of his concern for what was going on in the Middle East, Eisenhower ordered
U2 spy planes to fly over the Israel/Egypt area to give US Intelligence more of a clear
picture as to what military equipment both sides had. The results greatly angered
Eisenhower. The photos showed that Israel had been equipped with sixty French
Mystere fighter planes whereas the French government had told Eisenhower that they
had only handed over to Israel twelve Mystere’s. Eisenhower saw the planes as
changing the balance of power in the region and that such a move could provoke a
response.
On October 13th, Eden addressed the Conservative Party conference at Llandudno.
Eden clearly stated that he did not rule out the use of military force. However, he also
knew that he had to do something decisive as little had been seemingly done since the
nationalisation of the Suez Canal in July.
On October 14th, Eden met the French Deputy Chief of Staff at Chequers. It was at this
meeting that there was the first mention of a possible military input by the Israelis. The
French plan was to get Israel to attack Egypt across the Sinai Desert. As Israel moved
nearer to the Suez Canal, Britain and France would call on both forces to withdraw ten
miles both sides of the Suez Canal (Egypt to the west and Israel to the east) and both
nations would send in troops to ensure the safety of this vital international waterway. On
October 16th Eden told the French that the plan had his support. Secrecy was
paramount and America was not told.
The three nations involved met at a remote villa at Sevres near Paris. Ben Gurion,
Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan made the secret journey from Israel to the villa while
the British representative there was the Foreign Secretary, Selwyn Lloyd. The meeting
did not go well. Gurion wanted Britain to promise to intervene in the region 72 hours
earlier than Britain had planned to do so. Lloyd refused to give such an assurance and
Ben Guiron was all for leaving the meeting. He was stopped when Shimon Peres told
him that their plane had developed ‘mechanical problems’ and that they would have to
stay at the villa to ensure that their presence there remained secret. As a result, the talk
continued.
On October 23rd, Pineau flew to London to see Eden to sort out the problems. On the
following day, Eden sent Patrick Dean to Paris. Dean was the chairman of the Joint
Intelligence Committee and his task was to ensure that any Israeli attack actually
seemed as if it was going to threaten the Suez Canal. Therefore, in the eyes of the
world, Britain and France would be justified in sending in troops. Dean signed a
document that confirmed all the details. He brought a copy back to Eden who was
horrified that anything had been put in writing as this, Eden believed, jeopardised the
whole secrecy of the mission.
On October 28th, Israel launched a secret strike on Egypt – so secret that for years the
Egyptians had no idea as to what had happened. Israeli intelligence had found out via a
spy when and where an aeroplane carrying senior Egyptian military commanders would
be flying. It was shot down killing all on board. Many in Egypt believed it to have been a
tragic accident.
At the same time, twelve French fighter jets flew from Cyprus to Israel. Dayan was
concerned about the aerial strength of the Egyptian air force and the French fighters
were a guarantee against this. The fighter planes were given Israeli markings and the
French pilots given the appropriate documentation.
On October 29th, 395 Israeli paratroopers were dropped in the Sinai Desert – about
twenty miles from the Suez Canal. Eden had expected a larger force and the attack
even puzzled Nasser who was informed that the Israelis seemed to be going from one
sand hill to another with no obvious strategic cohesion to what they were doing.
On October 30th, Eden informed the House of Commons and the Queen of what had
happened in the Sinai. The Israeli and Egyptian ambassadors were summoned and told
to inform their respective governments that both forces should withdraw ten miles either
side of the Suez Canal to ensure that the canal was not damaged. Nasser rejected this
and it was this that gave Britain and France the excuse to start an attack.
The United Nations called on all sides not to use violence in the attempts to solve the
problem. Britain used its right of veto in the Security Council to reject this.
Britain started its attack when RAF bombers attacked the international airport in Cairo.
Eisenhower was furious and he made his anger known in public when he said “We
believe these actions to be taken in error.” However, his comments did not stop the
bombings. On November 1st, more British aerial bombings destroyed many Mig 15
fighters on the ground.
In Britain, Eden faced embarrassment from one of his own MP’s – William Yates. He
had found out about the secret plan to attack Egypt. However, Yates had no details
about it – if he had, Eden could have been in far more political trouble than he was as it
would have been obvious that Britain and France were trying to precipitate a situation in
which they could attack as opposed to avoiding one.
The attack on Egypt was scheduled for November 5th.
Vietnam War
The Vietnam War pitted America against communism and was a classic example of
Cold War conflict. The western allies had been victorious in Berlin, but communism had
taken root in China. Eastern Europe remained under Russian control and in Vietnam the
American feared threat of the spread communism seemed to be real.
Before World War Two, Vietnam had been part of the French Empire. During the war,
the country had been overrun by the Japanese. When the Japanese retreated, the
people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho
Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back south Vietnam to the
French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese. The
Chinese treated the north Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew. He
had been removed form power at the end of the war. The Chinese pulled out of north
Vietnam in 1946 and the party of Ho Chi Minh took over - the Viet Minh.
In October 1946, the French announced their intention of reclaiming the north which
meant that the Viet Minh would have to fight for it. The war started in November 1946,
when the French bombarded the port of Haiphong and killed 6,000 people. The French
tried to win over the people of the north by offering them 'independence'. However, the
people would not be allowed to do anything without French permission ! A new leader of
the country was appointed called Bao Dai. The Russians and Eastern Europe refused to
recognise his rule. They claimed that Ho Chi Minh was the real ruler of Vietnam.
The French had got themselves into a difficult military position. Despite huge American
help, the French could not cope with the Viet Minh's guerilla tactics. The Viet Minh were
by now receiving help from Communist China - Mao Tse Tung had taken power of
China in 1949. The fact that two sides had developed was classic Cold War history.
The country was meant to be ruled by Bao Dai who was supported by the west. Ho Chi
Minh was supported by the Russians, Chinese and Eastern Europe - all communist.
In November 1953, the French sent their crack paratroop regiment to Vietnam. It was
naturally assumed by the French that this unit would sort out the untrained Viet Minh
guerillas. They were sent to Dien Bien Phu in the north. In May 1954, the regiment
surrendered which came as a terrible blow to the French people. The French pulled out
of Vietnam in the same month.
In April 1954, the world's powers had met at Geneva to discuss Vietnam. In July 1954, it
was decided to divide the country in two at the 17th parallel. Bao Dai was to lead the
south and Ho Chi Minh the north. The meeting also decided that in 1956, there would
be an election in both the north and south to decide who would rule the whole country.
The election would be supervised by neutral countries. This election did not take place
and the split had become permanent by 1956.
North Vietnam had a population of 16 million. It was an agricultural nation. The Viet
Minh trained guerillas to go to the south to spread the word of communism. Their
weapons mostly came from communist China. To the surprise of the south Vietnamese,
those Viet Minh who went to the south helped them on their farms and did not abuse
them. They had become used to fearing soldiers. Instead, the Viet Minh were courteous
and helpful.
South Vietnam also had a population of 16 million. Its first proper leader was Ngo Dinh
Diem who was a fanatical catholic. As communism hated religion, Diem hated all that
communism stood for. This is why he got America's support - he had a poor record on
human rights but his rule was in the era of the "Domino Theory" and anybody who was
anti-communist in the Far East was likely to receive American backing - regardless of
their less than savoury background. Ngo ruled as a dictator along with his brother - Nhu.
Their government was corrupt and brutal but it was also backed by America.
After the non-election of 1956, the Viet Minh became more active militarily. Their
guerillas - now called the Viet Cong - attacked soft targets in the south. They used the
Ho Chi Minh trail which was a 1000 mile trail along the border with Laos with heavy
jungle coverage so that detection from the air was very difficult. The Viet Cong were
trained by their commander Giap who learned from the tactics used by the Chinese
communists in their fight against the Nationalist Chinese forces. He expected his troops
to fight and to help those in the south. He introduced a "hearts and minds" policy long
before the Americans got militarily involved in Vietnam.
America and Vietnam
During the 1950's, America had developed her Domino Theory. This was the creation of
John Foster Dulles, America's Secretary of State. He believed that if one country was
allowed to fall to communism, the country next to it would be the next to tumble just as
when one domino falls the rest go with it if they are connected. In view of the fear in
America of communism spreading throughout the world, the thought of Vietnam starting
this process of turning to communism and then it spreading was unacceptable.
America had already sent "special advisors" to South Vietnam since 1955. By 1961,
there were 1,500 special advisors in the country. These were men from America's
Special Forces who were there to train the South Vietnamese Army in how to fight the
Viet Cong. By 1963, there were 16,000 special advisors in South Vietnam.
Regardless of their presence and attempts by the west to demonise the Viet Cong, it is
probable that by 1962, over 75% of all south Vietnamese peasants supported the Viet
Cong as they were seen as liberators from the unacceptable government of Diem. To
"save" the peasants from the Viet Cong, Diem organised a system whereby whole
villages were moved into defended camps - known as fortified villages. This policy
backfired as the peasants did not want to be removed from their land and as such the
policy played into the hands of the Viet Cong who were promising the peasants more
land once communism have taken root in the south.
Diem's unpopularity was so great that in November 1963, the South Vietnamese Army
overthrew and killed him. The confusion at a political level in South Vietnam and the
abuse of peasants rights within the agricultural community were two reasons for the
spread of communism within the south. Such a development alarmed the American
president, Lyndon Johnson, who had asked his military chiefs to formulate plans should
a full-scale war break out. The one proviso the chiefs-of-staff had was that America had
to be seen as the victim rather than the aggressor.
In August 1964, the Tongking Incident occurred when two American destroyers were
attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats while they were in international waters. In
response to this, the American Senate gave Johnson the power to give armed support
to assist any country requesting help in defence of its freedom. In March 1965, the first
American ground troops landed in South Vietnam and by December 1965, there were
150,000 stationed in the country. The bombing of North Vietnam had already started in
February 1965.
American involvement in Vietnam:
This was at its peak from 1965 to 1969 when a maximum of 500,000 American troops
were in Vietnam. A number of the front line troops were conscripts and not professional
troops. They were young, usually from lower social groups and frequently from
America's minority groups. They were trained in conventional warfare whereas the Viet
Cong used guerilla tactics - hitting the enemy and then moving away; not wearing a
standard uniform; merging into village life with ease etc. It was difficult for these young
American troops to know who was the enemy and who they could trust amongst the
South Vietnamese population.
The Viet Cong had had years to perfect their tactics whereas the American soldiers in
Vietnam had only had their basic training. The Viet Cong used no tanks and frequently
moved by foot. US troops responded with the use of helicopter gun ships and they
tended to treat all civilians alike as potential enemy. Innocent civilians were killed by
both sides. The Viet Cong killed those villagers they believed were helping the
Americans while US troops killed those who they believed were helping the Viet Cong.
The most infamous case of the latter was the Pinksville Massacre - better known as the
My Lai massacre. The village of My Lai was considered friendly by US troops but 109
civilians were murdered here as the US troops investigating the village believed that
they were conspiring with the Viet Cong.
America had total control of the air. Planes could be used to back-up ground troops by
using napalm. Defoliation chemicals were also used to destroy the jungle cover given to
the Viet Cong along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Agent Orange killed large areas of jungle
disguising this trail but those using it, simply moved further inland or further into Laos
thus avoiding the defoliated areas. To hinder the supply of US troops, the Viet Cong
blew up bridges, roads and destroyed canals.
American front line troops were nicknamed 'grunts'. This is because every time they sat
down, the straps on the heavy packs they were carrying tightened into their chests thus
forcing out air in the lungs causing a sound like a grunt. The average age of a 'grunt'
was 19 and they knew that the land they operated in was littered with booby-traps. Each
step they took in the jungle or in the long grass that was common in South Vietnam
could result in serious injury. This had a devastating psychological effect on the
conscripts.
The Viet Cong used mines called "bouncing bettys" - these were on springs and when
tripped would spring up to about waist height and explode. They were not usually fatal
but the victim would need immediate medical aid and 3 to 4 men to look after him. The
noise of the explosion would also attract the attention of the Viet Cong. Punji traps were
also used by the Viet Cong - these were pits in the ground with spikes in them which
were covered in grass and leaves and left all but invisible to an advancing soldier. The
tips of the spikes were usually covered in poison or dirt. Punji traps were also found in
rivers and streams where troops had to make crossings.
Though the Viet Cong did not fight full scale battles, in January 1968, they changed
tactics with the Tet Offensive. This was a massive attack by the North Vietnamese Army
which took the Americans by surprise. All the major South Vietnamese cities were
attacked as were all major US military bases. However, the attack was never decisive
and eventually the Americans forced the North Vietnamese back though both sides had
suffered serious losses. 160,000 civilians were killed and 2 million were made
homeless.
By May 1968, the North Vietnamese were willing to start talks that would lead to a
peace settlement. Talks started in Paris and very slow progress was made over 5 years.
The major sticking points were that Ho Chi Minh wanted all foreigners out of Vietnam
and he wanted the country to be internationally accepted as a united country. America
was still hampered by her support of the domino theory but the war had become very
unpopular at home and the politicians were aware of the views of the voting population.
In 1969, the American president, Richard Nixon, agreed to reduce the number of
American troops in South Vietnam. He pursued a policy called "Vietnamisation"
whereby the South Vietnamese would be assisted in material matters by the Americans
but the fighting would be done by the South Vietnamese Army. In December 1970,
there were 350,000 American troops in South Vietnam. By September 1972, there were
just 40,000.
The South Vietnamese Army could not cope with the North Vietnamese forces. Once
the bulk of the American troops had pulled out, the North Vietnamese changed their
tactics by launching a full scale attack against the South which all but wilted under the
onslaught.
In January 1973, all sides agreed to a cease fire during which the remaining American
troops would have to be withdrawn and all POW's would have to be released. It was
agreed that Vietnam would be "eventually reunited".
America's involvement in Vietnam ended in 1973. The war had cost her one billion
dollars a day at its peak; she had dropped 7 million tons of bombs - more than the entire
total of all participants in World War Two. The cost of the war in 1968 alone was
$88,000 million while the combined spending on education, health and housing in that
year was $24,000 million.
The ceasefire lasted no time at all and the North attacked what was left of the South's
army. By April 1975, Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam had fallen. It was re-named
Ho Chi Minh City and a united Vietnam came into being.
Korean War
The Korean War lasted from 1950-1953. What happened in Korea pushed the
boundaries of the Cold War towards 'Warm War'. Though America and Russia did not
officially clash, client states did in that Communist China fought and was armed and
encouraged by Russia.
The peninsula was divided after World War Two into a Russian-backed north (The
People’s Democratic Republic) and the American-backed south (the Republic of Korea).
Each claimed the right to the other half in an effort to unify both. The division was the
result of the occupation of Korea by the communists after the end of the war with the
country eventually being divided at the 38th parallel.
In June 1950, the North Koreans launched a surprise attack against the south and the
capital Seoul fell in just three days.
The United Nations Security Council (which was being boycotted by Russia at this time)
asked for UN states to send troops to the region under a UN flag. The huge bulk of the
troops sent were American (15 nations sent troops) and command of them was given to
Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
By the end of August 1950 only Pusan in the south-east corner of South Korea had not
fallen to the North.
In September, MacArthur took the huge risk of launching an amphibious landing at
Inchon 200 miles behind enemy lines and from here he launched an attack against the
North Koreans at Pusan.
The North Koreans had no choice but to retreat as they faced being cut in two.
MacArthur chose to ignore his orders and advanced north towards the Chinese border
at the Yalu River. This provoked the Chinese to launch a massive attack against the UN
forces and South Korea. A Chinese army of 180,000 men supported by 100,000
reserves forced the UN troops to retreat and Seoul fell once again in January 1951 and
the Chinese forces were halted only 60 miles from the 38th Parallel. Between January
1951 and June 1951 a stalemate took place though the UN forces managed to stabilise
themselves near the 38th Parallel.
The war became one of static warfare as both sides entrenched their positions. Peace
talks started at Panmunjom and lasted for 2 years. Two occurrences helped to move
the peace talks - the death of Stalin in 1953 and the replacement of Truman with
Eisenhower as US president
An armistice was signed in 1953.
Casualties from the war were very high : USA - 142,000 killed
Other UN states - 17,000 killed
Between 3.5 and 4 million civilians were killed.
Once again a political belief had been fought for - the halting of communist expansion in
south-east Asia - but the superpowers had avoided any direct conflict -a classic
occurrence in the Cold War.
Gains
Losses
Casualties : dead and wounded : 1.3
million South Korean military;
Korea
None
520,000 North Korean military;
Over 3 million civilian casualties.
Much industry destroyed, agriculture
ruined, millions of refugees
UN
Gained respect by
taking prompt and
direct action. Used
combined force to stop
aggression. Achieved
joint action by
members.
17,000 casualties; conduct of war
almost entirely by USA and UN could
have been seen as a USA puppet.
Saved South Korea
from communism.
Containment policy
seen to work against
Asian communism
142,000 casualties. Defence
spending went up from 12 to 60
billion dollars and failed to liberate
North Korea.
Russia
Achieved closer
friendship with China.
Conflict between China
and USA was to
Russia’s advantage.
Forced into an expensive arms race
with America.
China
Gained the respect of
Asian communism.
Saved North Korea
from America. Kept a
crucial buffer state on
the eastern frontier.
Achieved closer
friendship with Russia
USA
900,000 casualties.
Cost of the war was immense for a
poor country. Failed to win South
Korea for communism. Increased
American protection for Taiwan
(Formosa). Isolated by America in
trade and politics.
Berlin Wall
The building of the Berlin Wall, and all the Berlin Wall symbolised, seemed to sum up
what the Cold War represented to many - basically, a clash between good and evil. The
Berlin Wall was to attract the attention of a young American president - J F Kennedy who was to visit the Wall and who was to find his place in History with the part he
played in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
After the Berlin Airlift, the unification of the three zones controlled by the western allies
occurred in 1949. This formed the German Federal Republic; better known as West
Germany. Stalin responded by making his eastern controlled section of Berlin the
German Democratic Republic (better known as East Germany). This also took place in
1949.
West Germany was always the more prosperous of the two newly created states. Stalin
had forbidden eastern Europe access to Marshall Aid whereas the new West Germany
did have access to it. The difference in lifestyles between the two peoples who lived in
the two new states was clear. East Germans suffered from poor housing, food
shortages, low wages and with 25% of her industrial output going to the Soviet Union,
East Germany could not see any obvious evidence that the situation would improve as
the 1960's approached.
Many East Germans simply left and went to West Germany to share in the growing
prosperity of that state. The East German government had tried to stop the flow west in
1952 by building a fortified border. But there remained one place where any East
German could go to and move to the west - Berlin, in the heart of East Germany itself.
By 1961, around 3 million people had done this. This was a major coup for the west as
these people were leaving the communist system that supposedly looked after its
workers and families and looking for a better life in the capitalist west. Among these 3
million people were highly qualified men who were of little value to the west but were
skilled workers that East Germany could not afford to lose. By 1961, the number of
refugees fleeing to the west represented about one-sixth of East Germany's population.
On August 12th 1961, a record 4,000 people made their way to West Berlin to start a
new life in the west. This pushed the communist authorities into doing something.
In the early hours of August 13th 1961, "shock workers" from East Germany and Russia
shut off the border between the Soviet and western sectors of Berlin using barbed wire.
The west was taken by surprise but their protests to the Russians were not listened to.
By August 16th, the barbed wire was being removed and replaced with a wall of
concrete blocks. Within days, West Berlin was surrounded by a wall four meters high
and 111 kilometers long. The Wall had 300 watch towers manned by selected border
guards (the ZOPO) and 50 bunkers. By the end of August, the Wall seemed all but
impossible to cross.
The East German authorities tried to explain away the Wall by claiming that the West
was using West Berlin as a centre for spying and that the Wall was for keeping out
spies. They called the Wall "the anti-fascist protection barrier".
People from East Germany still tried to cross into West Berlin. 190 people were shot
dead on the eastern side of the Wall. The west called the Berlin Wall the "Wall of
Shame" and it served to remind those who lived in Berlin that those in the Soviet
controlled east lived far inferior lives to those who lived in western Berlin.
Détente
Détente was a permanent relaxation in international affairs during the Cold War rather than just a
temporary relaxation (the so-called "thaw"). Detente is a term usually associated with the
relations between America, Russia and China.
The 1970’s witnessed detente. Why?
1) The horrors of Vietnam shocked people.
2) There was a growing fear of a nuclear holocaust especially with the growth in those countries
that had nuclear weapons. Also both USA and USSR had huge stockpiles of weapons.
Why did all 3 major powers want to pursue detente ?
China - she was fearful of her isolation in the world. She was also fearful of what USA had done
in Vietnam. China’s stockpile of nuclear weapons was a lot smaller than that of USA. China was
also worried by her worsening relations with USSR.
USA - she realised that there were better ways of containing communism than the ways that she
done in previous years. She was also aware of the massive cost of weapons production and
maintaining a huge armed force. A peaceful relationship with the USSR would be very beneficial
to USA especially after the cost of the Vietnam War.
USSR - USSR was spending a huge amount on weapons at the expense of basic household
goods. Living standards were poor and USSR was also aware that her relationship with China
was far from good while USA was trying to improve hers with China.
How did the world's major powers attempt to ease world tension?
USSR and USA:
1963 - hot-line established after Cuban Missile Crisis
1963 - both agreed to only use underground tests for nuclear explosions
1969 - Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) start
1972 - Richard Nixon, USA president, visited Moscow
1973 - Leonid Brezhnev, USSR leader, visited Washington
1974 - Nixon visited Moscow
1975 - Helsinki Agreement — USA, USSR, Canada + major European powers accept European
frontiers set up after World War Two. This recognised that Germany was divided and East
European countries agreed to allow their people human rights such as freedom of speech.
China and USA:
USA had backed the Chinese Nationalists in Taiwan since their fall in 1949 and had fought
Communist China on behalf of the U.N. in the Korean War. In 1971 a move was made to
improve relationships when China invited an American table tennis team to China. Hence the
term "ping—pong" diplomacy. USA’s response was to support China’s entry into the U.N.,
something she had always vetoed. In October 1971, China entered the U.N. Presidents Nixon and
Ford both visited China though USA kept a massive naval fleet off of Taiwan. In December
1978, America's President Carter withdrew recognition of Taiwan.
China and Russia:
Relations between these two nations had soured in the late 1950’s over ideological matters. Both
communist states accused the other of "revisionism", or moving away from pure communism.
Both clashed over their borders and China has always asked for the return of land taken by the
USSR in the C19. The territorial issue combined with the ideological issue has done little to ease
problems between the two and both tried to develop better relationships with America than the
other had.
Russian invasion of Afghanistan
Afghanistan hit the world's headlines in 1979. Afghanistan seemed to perfectly
summarise the Cold War. From the west's point of view, Berlin, Korea, Hungary and
Cuba had shown the way communism wanted to proceed. Afghanistan was a
continuation of this.
In Christmas 1979, Russian paratroopers landed in Kabal, the capital of Afghanistan.
The country was already in the grip of a civil war. The prime minister, Hazifullah Amin,
tried to sweep aside Muslim tradition within the nation and he wanted a more western
slant to Afghanistan. This outraged the majority of those in Afghanistan as a strong
tradition of Muslim belief was common in the country.
Thousands of Muslim leaders had been arrested and many more had fled the capital
and gone to the mountains to escape Amin's police. Amin also lead a communist based
government - a belief that rejects religion and this was another reason for such obvious
discontent with his government.
Thousands of Afghanistan Muslims joined the Mujahdeen - a guerilla force on a holy
mission for Allah. They wanted the overthrow of the Amin government. The Mujahdeen
declared a jihad - a holy war - on the supporters of Amin. This was also extended to the
Russians who were now in Afghanistan trying to maintain the power of the Amin
government. The Russians claimed that they had been invited in by the Amin
government and that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task
was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahdeen were no more than
terrorists.
On December 27th, 1979, Amin was shot by the Russians and he was replaced by
Babrak Kamal. His position as head of the Afghan government depended entirely on the
fact that he needed Russian military support to keep him in power. Many Afghan
soldiers had deserted to the Mujahdeen and the Kamal government needed 85,000
Russian soldiers to keep him in power.
The Mujahdeen proved to be a formidable opponent. They were equipped with old rifles
but had a knowledge of the mountains around Kabal and the weather conditions that
would be encountered there. The Russians resorted to using napalm, poison gas and
helicopter gun ships against the Mujahdeen - but they experienced exactly the same
military scenario the Americans had done in Vietnam.
By 1982, the Mujahdeen controlled 75% of Afghanistan despite fighting the might of the
world's second most powerful military power. Young conscript Russian soldiers were no
match against men fuelled by their religious belief. Though the Russian army had a
reputation, the war in Afghanistan showed the world just how poor it was outside of
military displays. Army boots lasted no more than 10 days before falling to bits in the
harsh environment of the Afghanistan mountains. Many Russian soldiers deserted to
the Mujahdeen. Russian tanks were of little use in the mountain passes.
The United Nations had condemned the invasion as early as January 1980 but a
Security Council motion calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces had been
vetoed......by Russia.
America put a ban on the export of grain to Russia, ended the SALT talks taking place
then and boycotted the Olympic Games due to be held in Moscow in 1980. Other than
that, America did nothing. Why ? They knew that Russia had got itself into their own
Vietnam and it also provided American Intelligence with an opportunity to acquire any
new Russian military hardware that could be used in Afghanistan. Mujhadeen fighters
were given access to American surface-to-air missiles - though not through direct sales
by America.
Mikhail Gorbachev took Russia out of the Afghanistan fiasco when he realised what
many Russian leaders had been too scared to admit in public - that Russia could not
win the war and the cost of maintaining such a vast force in Afghanistan was crippling
Russia's already weak economy.
By the end of the 1980's, the Mujahdeen was at war with itself in Afghanistan with hard
line Taliban fighters taking a stronger grip over the whole nation and imposing very strict
Muslim law on the Afghanistan population.
Realism in international relations theory
Realism in international relations theory is one of the dominant schools of thinking within the
international relations discipline. Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security
over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power
politics.
Common assumptions
Realist theories share the following key assumptions:








The international system was developed a long time ago.
The international system is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no actor above states
capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on
their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible.
States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There
is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival.
Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from
their military and economic capabilities.
The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless
commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict.
Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special attention
is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage.
International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations,
individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little
independent influence.
In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered
and competitive. This perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, views
human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless given the right
conditions under which they can coexist, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to
international relations. Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive
realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism); and that territorial expansion is only
constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security
dilemma where increasing one's security can bring along even greater instability as the
opponent(s) builds up its own arms in response. Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where
only relative gains can be made. There are no universal principles which all states can use to
guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it
and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.
History and branches
Historic antecedents
While Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II,
its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings:[1][2]













Sun Tzu (or Sunzi), an ancient Chinese military strategist who wrote the Art of War.
Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War
and is also cited as an intellectual forebearer of realpolitik.
Chanakya (or Kautilya) early Indian statesman, and writer on the Arthashastra.
Han Feizi, Chinese scholar who theorised Legalism (or Legism) and who served in the
court of the King of Qin - later unifier of China ending the Warring States Period. His
writings include The Two Handles (about punishments and rewards as tools of
governance). He theorised about a neutral, manipulative ruler who would act as Head of
State while secretly controlling the executive through his ministers - the ones to take real
responsibility for any policy.
Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine political philosopher, who wrote Il Principe (The
Prince) in which he held that the sole aim of a prince (politician) was to seek power,
regardless of religious or ethical considerations.
Cardinal Richelieu, French statesman who destroyed domestic factionalism and guided
France to a position of dominance in foreign affairs.
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who wrote Leviathan in which he stated the
State of Nature was prone to a "war of all against all".
Frederick the Great, Prussian monarch who transformed Prussia from a second-rate
power to a great European power through warfare and dubious diplomacy.
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, French diplomat who guided France and
Europe through a variety of political systems.
Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, Koblenz-born Austrian statesman opposed to
political revolution.
Carl von Clausewitz was a 18-19th century Prussian general and military theorist who
wrote On War (Vom Kriege).
Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian statesman coined the term balance of power. Balancing
power meant keeping the peace and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms
races.
20th century proponents of realism include Henry Kissinger, the National Security
Adviser and Secretary of State to President Richard Nixon, French General and President
Charles de Gaulle, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.
Classical realism
Main article: Classical realism in international relations theory
Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states and
individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as
the "drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human
nature".[3]
Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World
War II. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau.




George F. Kennan - Containment
Nicholas Spykman - Geostrategy, Containment
Herman Kahn - Nuclear strategy
E.H. Carr
Liberal realism or the English school or rationalism
Main article: English school of international relations theory
The English School's holds that the international system, while anarchical in structure, forms a
"society of states" where common norms and interests allow for more order and stability than
what might be expected in a strict realist view. Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's
1977 classic entitled The Anarchical Society is a key statement of this position.
Prominent liberal realists:


Hedley Bull - argued for both the existence of an international society of states and its
perseverance even in times of great systemic upheaval, meaning regional or so-called
"world wars".
Martin Wight
Neorealism or structural realism
Main article: Neorealism (international relations)
Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its focus is
predominantly on the international system. While states remain the principal actors, greater
attention is given to the forces above and below the states through levels of analysis or structureagency debate. The international system is seen as a structure acting on the state with individuals
below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.
While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School, neorealism
differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure state security, states
must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.
Prominent neorealists:





Robert Jervis - Defensive realism
Kenneth Waltz - Neorealism
Stephen Walt - Defensive realism
John Mearsheimer - Offensive realism
Robert Gilpin - Hegemonic theory
Neoclassical realism
Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical
authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes), and the neorealists (esp.
Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", then, has a double meaning: 1) It offers the
classics a renaissance; 2) It is a synthesis of the neorealist and the classical realist approaches.
Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote.[4]
The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the fact that
neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of
international politics'), but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of
foreign policy'). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth
Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's
foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is:
Distribution of power in the international system (independent variable) >>> Domestic
perception of the system and/or domestic incentives (intervening variable) >>> Foreign Policy
decision (dependent variable)
While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall
Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well.[5]
Neoclassical realism is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a
lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily
incorporate a content-rich analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the processtracing of case studies.
Prominent neoclassical realists:[4]





Randall Schweller
Thomas J. Christensen
William Wohlforth
Aaron Friedberg
Norrin Ripsman
Realism in statecraft
Modern realist statesmen



Henry Kissinger[6]
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Brent Scowcroft
The ideas behind George F. Kennan's work as a diplomat and diplomatic historian remain
relevant to the debate over American foreign policy, which since the 19th century has been
characterized by a shift from the Founding Fathers' realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian
school of international relations. In the realist tradition, security is based on the principle of a
balance of power and the reliance on morality as the sole determining factor in statecraft is
considered impractical. According to the Wilsonian approach, on the other hand, the spread of
democracy abroad as a foreign policy is key and morals are universally valid. During the
Presidency of Bill Clinton, American diplomacy reflected the Wilsonian school to such a degree
that those in favor of the realist approach likened Clinton's policies to social work. According to
Kennan, whose concept of American diplomacy was based on the realist approach, such
moralism without regard to the realities of power and the national interest is self-defeating and
will lead to the erosion of power, to America's detriment.[7]
Criticisms
Democratic peace
Democratic peace theory advocates also that Realism is not applicable to democratic states'
relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one
another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and
the studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of 'war' and 'democracy' must
be tweaked in order to achieve the desired result. This is along with Archaic rule of law.
Federalism
Main article: federalism
The term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is
divided between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally
split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can
act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two
authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary. Typically the
centre has powers regarding defence and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have
international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.
The basic idea behind federalism is that a unifying relationship between states should be
established under a common system of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved
through peaceful means rather than through coercion or war. Its most important aspect is in
recognizing that different types of institutions are needed to deal with different types of political
issues.
Post-realism
Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens
rather than closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.
Prominent Post-Realists:

Francis A. Beer



James Der Derian
Robert Hariman
Michael J. Shapiro
SIX PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL REALISM
1.Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws
that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to
understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our
preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure.
Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the
possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly,
these objective laws. It believes also, then, in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between
truth and opinion-between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and
illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, divorced from the facts as they
are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking.
Human nature, in which the laws of politics have their roots, has not changed since the classical
philosophies of China, India, and Greece endeavored to discover these laws. Hence, novelty is
not necessarily a virtue in political theory, nor is old age a defect. The fact that a theory of
politics, if there be such a theory, has never been heard of before tends to create a presumption
against, rather than in favor of, its soundness. Conversely, the fact that a theory of politics was
developed hundreds or even thousands of years ag~as was the theory of the balance of powerdoes not create a presumption that it must be outmoded and obsolete. A theory of politics must
be subjected to the dual test of reason and experience. To dismiss such a theory because it had its
flowering in centuries past is to present not a rational argument but a modernistic prejudice that
takes for granted the superiority of the present over the past. To dispose of the revival of such a
theory as a "fashion" or "fad" is tantamount to assuming that in matters political we can have
opinions but no truths.
For realism, theory consists in ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason. It
assumes that the character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of
the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts. Thus we can find
out what statesmen have actually done, and from the foreseeable consequences of their acts we
can surmise what their objectives might have been.
Yet examination of the facts is not enough. To give meaning to the factual raw material of
foreign policy, we must approach political reality with a kind of rational outline, a map that
suggests to us the possible meanings of foreign policy. In other words, we put ourselves in the
position of a statesman who must meet a certain problem of foreign policy under certain
circumstances, and we ask ourselves what the rational alternatives are from which a statesman
may choose who must meet this problem under these circumstances (presuming always that he
acts in a rational manner), and which of these rational alternatives this particular statesman,
acting under these circumstances, is likely to choose. It is the testing of this rational hypothesis
against the actual facts and their consequences that gives theoretical meaning to the facts of
international politics.
2. The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of
international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. This concept provides
the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood.
It sets politics as an autonomous sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres,
such as economics (understood in terms of interest defined as wealth), ethics, aesthetics, or
religion. Without such a concept a theory of politics, international or domestic, would be
altogether impossible, for without it we could not distinguish between political and nonpolitical
facts, nor could we bring at least a measure of systematic order to the political sphere.
We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence
of history bears that assumption out. That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it
were, the steps a statesman--past, present, or future--has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on his conversation with
other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined
as power, we think as he does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and
actions perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.
The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline upon the observer,
infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical
understanding of politics possible. On the side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in
action and creates that astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British,
or Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and large consistent
within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences, and intellectual and moral qualities
of successive statesmen. A realist theory of international politics, then, will guard against two
popular fallacies: the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.
To search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesmen is both futile and
deceptive. It is futile because motives are the most illusive of psychological data, distorted as
they are, frequently beyond recognition, by the interests and emotions of actor and observer
alike. Do we really know what our own motives are? And what do we know of the motives of
others?
Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge would help us little in
understanding foreign policies, and might well lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the
statesman's motives may give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign
policy might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his foreign policies.
History shows no exact and necessary correlation between the quality of motives and the quality
of foreign policy. This is true in both moral and political terms.
We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his foreign policies will be
either morally praiseworthy or politically successful. Judging his motives, we can say that he will
not intentionally pursue policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the
probability of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities of his actions,
we must know them, not his motives. How often have statesmen been motivated by the desire to
improve the world, and ended by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal,
and ended by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?
Neville Chamberlain's politics of appeasement were, as far as we can judge, inspired by good
motives; he was probably less motivated by considerations of personal power than were many
other British prime ministers, and he sought to preserve peace and to assure the happiness of all
concerned. Yet his policies helped to make the Second World War inevitable, and to bring untold
miseries to millions of men. Sir Winston Churchill's motives, on the other hand, were much less
universal in scope and much more narrowly directed toward personal and national power, yet the
foreign policies that sprang from these inferior motives were certainly superior in moral and
political quality to those pursued by his predecessor. Judged by his motives, Robespierre was one
of the most virtuous men who ever lived. Yet it was the utopian radicalism of that very virtue
that made him kill those less virtuous than himself, brought him to the scaffold, and destroyed
the revolution of which he was a leader.
Good motives give assurance against deliberately bad policies; they do not guarantee the moral
goodness and political success of the policies they inspire. What is important to know, if one
wants to understand foreign policy, is not primarily the motives of a statesman, but his
intellectual ability to comprehend the essentials of foreign policy, as well as his political ability
to translate what he has comprehended into successful political action. It follows that while
ethics in the abstract judges the moral qualities of motives, political theory must judge the
political qualities of intellect, will, and action.
A realist theory of international politics will also avoid the other popular fallacy of equating the
foreign policies of a statesman with his philosophic or political sympathies, and of deducing the
former from the latter. Statesmen, especially under contemporary conditions, may well make a
habit of presenting their foreign policies in terms of their philosophic and political sympathies in
order to gain popular support for them. Yet they will distinguish with Lincoln between their
"official duty," which is to think and act in terms of the national interest, and their "personal
wish," which is to see their own moral values and political principles realized throughout the
world. Political realism does not require, nor does it condone, indifference to political ideals and
moral principles, but it requires indeed a sharp distinction between the desirable and the
possible-between what is desirable everywhere and at all times and what is possible under the
concrete circumstances of time and place.
It stands to reason that not all foreign policies have always followed so rational, objective, and
unemotional a course. The contingent elements of personality, prejudice, and subjective
preference, and of all the weaknesses of intellect and will which flesh is heir to, are bound to
deflect foreign policies from their rational course. Especially where foreign policy is conducted
under the conditions of democratic control, the need to marshal popular emotions to the support
of foreign policy cannot fail to impair the rationality of foreign policy itself. Yet a theory of
foreign policy which aims at rationality must for the time being, as it were, abstract from these
irrational elements and seek to paint a picture of foreign policy which presents the rational
essence to be found in experience, without the contingent deviations from rationality which are
also found in experience.
Deviations from rationality which are not the result of the personal whim or the personal
psychopathology of the policy maker may appear contingent only from the vantage point of
rationality, but may themselves be elements in a coherent system of irrationality. The conduct of
the Indochina War by the United States suggests that possibility. It is a question worth looking
into whether modern psychology and psychiatry have provided us with the conceptual tools
which would enable us to construct, as it were, a counter-theory of irrational politics, a kind of
pathology of international politics.
The experience of the Indochina War suggests five factors such a theory might encompass: the
imposition upon the empirical world of a simplistic and a priori picture of the world derived
from folklore and ideological assumption, that is, the replacement of experience with
superstition; the refusal to correct this picture of the world in the light of experience; the
persistence in a foreign policy derived from the misperception of reality and the use of
intelligence for the purpose not of adapting policy to reality but of reinterpreting reality to fit
policy; the egotism of the policy makers widening the gap between perception and policy, on the
one hand, and reality, on the other; finally, the urge to close the gap at least subjectively by
action, any kind of action, that creates the illusion of mastery over a recalcitrant reality.
According to the Wall Street Journal of April 3, 1970, "the desire to 'do something' pervades top
levels of Government and may overpower other 'common sense' advice that insists the U.S.
ability to shape events is negligible. The yen for action could lead to bold policy as therapy."
The difference between international politics as it actually is and a rational theory derived from it
is like the difference between a photograph and a painted portrait. The photograph shows
everything that can be seen by the naked eye; the painted portrait does not show everything that
can be seen by the naked eye, but it shows, or at least seeks to show, one thing that the naked eye
cannot see: the human essence of the person portrayed.
Political realism contains not only a theoretical but also a normative element. It knows that
political reality is replete with contingencies and systemic irrationalities and points to the typical
influences they exert upon foreign policy. Yet it shares with all social theory the need, for the
sake of theoretical understanding, to stress the rational elements of political reality; for it is these
rational elements that make reality intelligible for theory. Political realism presents the
theoretical construct of a rational foreign policy which experience can never completely achieve.
At the same time political realism considers a rational foreign policy to be good foreign policy;
for only a rational foreign policy minimizes risks and maximizes benefits and, hence, complies
both with the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success. Political
realism wants the photographic picture of the political world to resemble as much as possible its
painted portrait. Aware of the inevitable gap between good—that is, rational—foreign policy and
foreign policy as it actually is, political realism maintains not only that theory must focus upon
the rational elements of political reality, but also that foreign policy ought to be rational in view
of its own moral and practical purposes.
Hence, it is no argument against the theory here presented that actual foreign policy does not or
cannot live up to it. That argument misunderstands the intention of this book, which is to present
not an indiscriminate description of political reality, but a rational theory of international politics.
Far from being invalidated by the fact that, for instance, a perfect balance of power policy will
scarcely be found in reality, it assumes that reality, being deficient in this respect, must be
understood and evaluated as an approximation to an ideal system of balance of power.
3. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category
which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once
and for all. The idea of interest is indeed of the essence of politics and is unaffected by the
circumstances of time and place. Thucydides' statement, born of the experiences of ancient
Greece, that "identity of interests is the surest of bonds whether between states or individuals"
was taken up in the nineteenth century by Lord Salisbury's remark that "the only bond of union
that endures" among nations is "the absence of all clashing interests." It was erected into a
general principle of government by George Washington:
A small knowledge of human nature will convince us, that, with far the greatest part of mankind,
interest is the governing principle; and that almost every man is more or less, under its influence.
Motives of public virtue may for a time, or in particular instances, actuate men to the observance
of a conduct purely disinterested; but they are not of themselves sufficient to produce
persevering conformity to the refined dictates and obligations of social duty. Few men are
capable of making a continual sacrifice of all views of private interest, or advantage, to the
common good. It is vain to exclaim against the depravity of human nature on this account; the
fact is so, the experience of every age and nation has proved it and we must in a great measure,
change the constitution of man, before we can make it otherwise. No institution, not built on the
presumptive truth of these maxims can succeed.
It was echoed and enlarged upon in our century by Max Weber's observation:
Interests (material and ideal), not ideas, dominate directly the actions of men. Yet the "images of
the world" created by these ideas have very often served as switches determining the tracks on
which the dynamism of interests kept actions moving.
Yet the kind of interest determining political action in a particular period of history depends
upon the political and cultural context within which foreign policy is formulated. The goals that
might be pursued by nations in their foreign policy can run the whole gamut of objectives any
nation has ever pursued or might possibly pursue.
The same observations apply to the concept of power. Its content and the manner of its use are
determined by the political and cultural environment. Power may comprise anything that
establishes and maintains the control of man over man. Thus power covers all social
relationships which serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties
by which one mind controls another. Power covers the domination of man by man, both when it
is disciplined by moral ends and controlled by constitutional safeguards, as in Western
democracies, and when it is that untamed and barbaric force which finds its laws in nothing but
its own strength and its sole justification in its aggrandizement.
Political realism does not assume that the contemporary conditions under which foreign policy
operates, with their extreme instability and the ever present threat of large-scale violence, cannot
be changed. The balance of power, for instance, is indeed a perennial element of all pluralistic
societies, as the authors of The Federalist papers well knew; yet it is capable of operating, as it
does in the United States, under the conditions of relative stability and peaceful conflict. If the
factors that have given rise to these conditions can be duplicated on the international scene,
similar conditions of stability and peace will then prevail there, as they have over long stretches
of history among certain nations.
What is true of the general character of international relations is also true of the nation state as
the ultimate point of reference of contemporary foreign policy. While the realist indeed believes
that interest is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged and directed, the
contemporary connection between interest and the nation state is a product of history, and is
therefore bound to disappear in the course of history. Nothing in the realist position militates
against the assumption that the present division of the political world into nation states will be
replaced by larger units of a quite different character, more in keeping with the technical
potentialities and the moral requirements of the contemporary world.
The realist parts company with other schools of thought before the all-important question of how
the contemporary world is to be transformed. The realist is persuaded that this transformation
can be achieved only through the workmanlike manipulation of the perennial forces that have
shaped the past as they will the future. The realist cannot be persuaded that we can bring about
that transformation by confronting a political reality that has its own laws with an abstract ideal
that refuses to take those laws into account.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the
ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political
action. And it is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the
moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were
morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.
Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in
their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete
circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: "Fiat justitia, pereat
mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish)," but the state has no right to say so in the
name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by
universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to
sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral
disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself
inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political morality without
prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action.
Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political
actions-to be the supreme virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity
with the moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences. Classical and
medieval philosophy knew this, and so did Lincoln when he said:
I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If
the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end
brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral
laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes
between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted-and few have been able to resist the
temptation for long-to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of
the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to
know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There
is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God,
inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one's side
and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.
The lighthearted equation between a particular nationalism and the counsels of Providence is
morally indefensible, for it is that very sin of pride against which the Greek tragedians and the
Biblical prophets have warned rulers and ruled. That equation is also politically pernicious, for it
is liable to engender the distortion in judgment which, in the blindness of crusading frenzy,
destroys nations and civilizations-in the name of moral principle, ideal, or God himself.
On the other hand, it is exactly the concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves us
from both that moral excess and that political folly. For if we look at all nations, our own
included, as political entities pursuing their respective interests defined in terms of power, we are
able to do justice to all of them. And we are able to do justice to all of them in a dual sense: We
are able to judge other nations as we judge our own and, having judged them in this fashion, we
are then capable of pursuing policies that respect the interests of other nations, while protecting
and promoting those of our own. Moderation in policy cannot fail to reflect the moderation of
moral judgment.
6. The difference, then, between political realism and other schools of thought is real, and it is
profound. However much the theory of political realism may have been misunderstood and
misinterpreted, there is no gainsaying its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude to matters
political.
Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the
economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as
power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the
conformity of action with legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral
principles. The economist asks: "How does this policy affect the wealth of society, or a segment
of it?" The lawyer asks: "Is this policy in accord with the rules of law?" The moralist asks: "Is
this policy in accord with moral principles?" And the political realist asks: "How does this policy
affect the power of the nation?" (Or of the federal government, of Congress, of the party, of
agriculture, as the case may be.)
The political realist is not unaware of the existence and relevance of standards of thought other
than political ones. As political realist, he cannot but subordinate these other standards to those
of politics. And he parts company with other schools when they impose standards of thought
appropriate to other spheres upon the political sphere. It is here that political realism takes issue
with the "legalistic-moralistic approach" to international politics. That this issue is not, as has
been contended, a mere figment of the imagination, but goes to the very core of the controversy,
can be shown from many historical examples. Three will suffice to make the point.3
In 1939 the Soviet Union attacked Finland. This action confronted France and Great Britain with
two issues, one legal, the other political. Did that action violate the Covenant of the League of
Nations and, if it did, what countermeasures should France and Great Britain take? The legal
question could easily be answered in the affirmative, for obviously the Soviet Union had done
what was prohibited by the Covenant. The answer to the political question depends, first, upon
the manner in which the Russian action affected the interests of France and Great Britain;
second, upon the existing distribution of power between France and Great Britain, on the one
hand, and the Soviet Union and other potentially hostile nations, especially Germany, on the
other; and, third, upon the influence that the countermeasures were likely to have upon the
interests of France and Great Britain and the future distribution of power. France and Great
Britain, as the leading members of the League of Nations, saw to it that the Soviet Union was
expelled from the League, and they were prevented from joining Finland in the war against the
Soviet Union only by Sweden's refusal to allow their troops to pass through Swedish territory on
their way to Finland. If this refusal by Sweden had not saved them, France and Great Britain
would shortly have found themselves at war with the Soviet Union and Germany at the same
time.
The policy of France and Great Britain was a classic example of legalism in that they allowed the
answer to the legal question, legitimate within its sphere, to determine their political actions.
Instead of asking both questions, that of law and that of power, they asked only the question of
law; and the answer they received could have no bearing on the issue that their very existence
might have depended upon.
The second example illustrates the "moralistic approach" to international politics. It concerns the
international status of the Communist government of China. The rise of that government
confronted the Western world with two issues, one moral, the other political. Were the nature
and policies of that government in accord with the moral principles of the Western world?
Should the Western world deal with such a government? The answer to the first question could
not fail to be in the negative. Yet it did not follow with necessity that the answer to the second
question should also be in the negative. The standard of thought applied to the first--the moral
question—was simply to test the nature and the policies of the Communist government of China
by the principles of Western morality. On the other hand, the second—the political question—
had to be subjected to the complicated test of the interests involved and the power available on
either side, and of the bearing of one or the other course of action upon these interests and power.
The application of this test could well have led to the conclusion that it would be wiser not to
deal with the Communist government of China. To arrive at this conclusion by neglecting this
test altogether and answering the political question in terms of the moral issue was indeed a
classic example of the "moralistic approach" to international politics.
The third case illustrates strikingly the contrast between realism and the legalistic-moralistic
approach to foreign policy. Great Britain, as one of the guarantors of the neutrality of Belgium,
went to war with Germany in August 1914 because Germany had violated the neutrality of
Belgium. The British action could be justified either in realistic or legalistic-moralistic terms.
That is to say, one could argue realistically that for centuries it had -been axiomatic for British
foreign policy to prevent the control of the Low Countries by a hostile power. It was then not so
much the violation of Belgium's neutrality per se as the hostile intentions of the violator which
provided the rationale for British intervention. If the violator had been another nation but
Germany, Great Britain might well have refrained from intervening. This is the position taken by
Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary during that period. Under Secretary for Foreign
Affairs Hardinge remarked to him in 1908: "If France violated Belgian neutrality in a war against
Germany, it is doubtful whether England or Russia would move a finger to maintain Belgian
neutrality, while if the neutrality of Belgium was violated by Germany, it is probable that the
converse would be the case." Whereupon Sir Edward Grey replied: "This is to the point." Yet
one could also take the legalistic and moralistic position that the violation of Belgium's neutrality
per se, because of its legal and moral defects and regardless of the interests at stake and of the
identity of the violator, justified British and, for that matter, American intervention. This was the
position which Theodore Roosevelt took in his letter to Sir Edward Grey of January 22, 1915:
To me the crux of the situation has been Belgium. If England or France had acted toward
Belgium as Germany has acted I should have opposed them, exactly as I now oppose Germany. I
have emphatically approved your action as a model for what should be done by those who
believe that treaties should be observed in good faith and that there is such a thing as
international morality. I take this position as an American who is no more an Englishman than he
is a German, who endeavors loyally to serve the interests of his own country, but who also
endeavors to do what he can for justice and decency as regards mankind at large, and who
therefore feels obliged to judge all other nations by their conduct on any given occasion.
This realist defense of the autonomy of the political sphere against its subversion by other modes
of thought does not imply disregard for the existence and importance of these other modes of
thought. It rather implies that each should be assigned its proper sphere and function. Political
realism is based upon a pluralistic conception of human nature. Real man is a composite of
"economic man," "political man," "moral man," "religious man," etc. A man who was nothing
but "political man" would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints. A
man who was nothing but "moral man" would be a fool, for he would be completely lacking in
prudence. A man who was nothing but "religious man" would be a saint, for he would be
completely lacking in worldly desires.
Recognizing that these different facets of human nature exist, political realism also recognizes
that in order to understand one of them one has to deal with it on its own terms. That is to say, if
I want to understand "religious man," I must for the time being abstract from the other aspects of
human nature and deal with its religious aspect as if it were the only one. Furthermore, I must
apply to the religious sphere the standards of thought appropriate to it, always remaining aware
of the existence of other standards and their actual influence upon the religious qualities of man.
What is true of this facet of human nature is true of all the others. No modern economist, for
instance, would conceive of his science and its relations to other sciences of man in any other
way. It is exactly through such a process of emancipation from other standards of thought, and
the development of one appropriate to its subject matter, that economics has developed as an
autonomous theory of the economic activities of man. To contribute to a similar development in
the field of politics is indeed the purpose of political realism.
It is in the nature of things that a theory of politics which is based upon such principles will not
meet with unanimous approval-nor does, for that matter, such a foreign policy. For theory and
policy alike run counter to two trends in our culture which are not able to reconcile themselves to
the assumptions and results of a rational, objective theory of politics. One of these trends
disparages the role of power in society on grounds that stem from the experience and philosophy
of the nineteenth century; we shall address ourselves to this tendency later in greater detail.4 The
other trend, opposed to the realist theory and practice of politics, stems from the very
relationship that exists, and must exist, between the human mind and the political sphere. For
reasons that we shall discuss later5 the human mind in its day-by-day operations cannot bear to
look the truth of politics straight in the face. It must disguise, distort, belittle, and embellish the
truth-the more so, the more the individual is actively involved in the processes of politics, and
particularly in those of international politics. For only by deceiving himself about the nature of
politics and the role he plays on the political scene is man able to live contentedly as a political
animal with himself and his fellow men.
Thus it is inevitable that a theory which tries to understand international politics as it actually is
and as it ought to be in view of its intrinsic nature, rather than as people would like to see it, must
overcome a psychological resistance that most other branches of learning need not face. A book
devoted to the theoretical understanding of international politics therefore requires a special
explanation and justification.
The United Nations Organization (UNO)
The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply the United Nations (UN) is an
international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law,
international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of
world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations,
to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple
subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
There are currently 192 member states, including nearly every sovereign state in the world. From
its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and
administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization has six
principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council
(for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (for
assisting in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the
Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International
Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which
is currently inactive). Other prominent UN System agencies include the World Health
Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF). The UN's most visible public figure is the Secretary-General, currently Ban Ki-moon
of South Korea, who attained the post in 2007. The organization is financed from assessed and
voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese
(Mandarin), English, French, Russian, and Spanish.[2]
After the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II (1939–1945) and realizing that
mankind cannot afford a Third World War the United Nations was established to replace the
flawed League of Nations in 1945 in order to maintain international peace and promote
cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. The earliest
concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State
Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term 'United Nations' as a term to
describe the Allied countries. The term was first officially used on 1 January 1942, when 26
governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort.[3] On 25 April
1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50
governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter
of the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon
ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the
Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a
majority of the other 46 signatories. The first meetings of the General Assembly, with 51 nations
represented, and the Security Council, took place in Westminster Central Hall in London in
January 1946.[4]
The organization was based at the Sperry Gyroscope Corporation's facility in Lake Success, New
York, from 1946–1952, before moving to the United Nations Headquarters building in
Manhattan upon its completion.
Since its creation, there has been controversy and criticism of the UN organization. In the United
States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, which began a "get US out of
the UN" campaign in 1959, charging that the UN's aim was to establish a "One World
Government." After the Second World War, the French Committee of National Liberation was
late to be recognized by the US as the government of France, and so the country was initially
excluded from the conferences that aimed at creating the new organization. Charles de Gaulle
criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin ("the thingie"), and was not convinced that a
global security alliance would help maintain world peace, preferring direct defense treaties
between countries.[5]
Organization
Main article: United Nations System
The United Nations' system is based on five principal organs (formerly six–the Trusteeship
Council suspended operations in 1994, upon the independence of Palau);[6] the General
Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Secretariat,
and the International Court of Justice.
Four of the five principal organs are located at the main United Nations headquarters located on
international territory in New York City. The International Court of Justice is located in The
Hague, while other major agencies are based in the UN offices at Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi.
Other UN institutions are located throughout the world.
The six official languages of the United Nations, used in intergovernmental meetings and
documents, are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish,[2] while the Secretariat
uses two working languages, English and French. Four of the official languages are the national
languages of the permanent members of the Security Council (the United Kingdom and the
United States share English as a de facto official language); Spanish and Arabic are the
languages of the two largest blocs of official languages outside of the permanent members
(Spanish being official in 20 countries, Arabic in 26). Five of the official languages were chosen
when the UN was founded; Arabic was added later in 1973. The United Nations Editorial
Manual states that the standard for English language documents is British usage and Oxford
spelling, the Chinese writing standard is Simplified Chinese. This replaced Traditional Chinese
in 1971 when the UN representation of China was changed from the Republic of China to
People's Republic of China.
General Assembly
The General Assembly is the main deliberative assembly of the United Nations. Composed of all
United Nations member states, the assembly meets in regular yearly sessions under a president
elected from among the member states. Over a two-week period at the start of each session, all
members have the opportunity to address the assembly. Traditionally, the Secretary-General
makes the first statement, followed by the president of the assembly. The first session was
convened on 10 January 1946 in the Westminster Central Hall in London and included
representatives of 51 nations.
When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those present
and voting is required. Examples of important questions include: recommendations on peace and
security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and,
budgetary matters. All other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has
one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, resolutions are not binding on the members.
The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except
matters of peace and security that are under Security Council consideration.
Conceivably, the one state, one vote power structure could enable states comprising just eight
percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote.[citation needed] However, as
no more than recommendations, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a recommendation
by member states constituting just eight percent of the world's population, would be adhered to
by the remaining ninety-two percent of the population, should they object. (See List of countries
by population.)
Security Council
The Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among countries. While
other organs of the United Nations can only make 'recommendations' to member governments,
the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member governments have
agreed to carry out, under the terms of Charter Article 25.[7] The decisions of the Council are
known as United Nations Security Council resolutions.
The Security Council is made up of 15 member states, consisting of 5 permanent members–
China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States–and 10 non-permanent
members, currently Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico,
Nigeria, Turkey, and Uganda. The five permanent members hold veto power over substantive but
not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent member to block adoption but not to block the
debate of a resolution unacceptable to it. The ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms
with member states voted in by the General Assembly on a regional basis. The presidency of the
Security Council is rotated alphabetically each month,[8] and is held by Uganda for the month of
October 2010.[9]
Secretariat
The United Nations Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General, assisted by a staff of
international civil servants worldwide. It provides studies, information, and facilities needed by
United Nations bodies for their meetings. It also carries out tasks as directed by the UN Security
Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Economic and Social Council, and other UN bodies.
The United Nations Charter provides that the staff be chosen by application of the "highest
standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity," with due regard for the importance of
recruiting on a wide geographical basis.
The Charter provides that the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any authority other
than the UN. Each UN member country is enjoined to respect the international character of the
Secretariat and not seek to influence its staff. The Secretary-General alone is responsible for staff
selection.
The Secretary-General's duties include helping resolve international disputes, administering
peacekeeping operations, organizing international conferences, gathering information on the
implementation of Security Council decisions, and consulting with member governments
regarding various initiatives. Key Secretariat offices in this area include the Office of the
Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The
Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter that, in his or her
opinion, may threaten international peace and security.
Secretary-General
The Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General, who acts as the de facto spokesman and
leader of the UN. The current Secretary-General is Ban Ki-moon, who took over from Kofi
Annan in 2007 and will be eligible for reappointment when his first term expires in 2011.[10]
Envisioned by Franklin D. Roosevelt as a "world moderator", the position is defined in the UN
Charter as the organization's "chief administrative officer",[11] but the Charter also states that the
Secretary-General can bring to the Security Council's attention "any matter which in his opinion
may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security",[12] giving the position greater
scope for action on the world stage. The position has evolved into a dual role of an administrator
of the UN organization, and a diplomat and mediator addressing disputes between member states
and finding consensus to global issues.[10]
The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, after being recommended by the
Security Council, any member of which can veto,[13] and the General Assembly can theoretically
override the Security Council's recommendation if a majority vote is not achieved, although this
has not happened so far.[14] There are no specific criteria for the post, but over the years it has
become accepted that the post shall be held for one or two terms of five years, that the post shall
be appointed on the basis of geographical rotation, and that the Secretary-General shall not
originate from one of the five permanent Security Council member states.[14]
No.
Name
1
Trygve Lie
2
Dag
Hammarskjöld
3
U Thant
4
Kurt Waldheim
5
6
Javier Pérez de
Cuéllar
Boutros BoutrosGhali
7
Kofi Annan
8
Ban Ki-moon
Secretaries-General of the United Nations[15]
Country of
Took office
Left office
Note
origin
2 February
10 November Resigned; First SecretaryNorway
1946
1952
General from Scandinavia
18 September
10 April 1953
Died while in office
Sweden
1961
30 November 1 January
First Secretary-General from
Burma
1961
1972
Asia
1 January
1 January
Austria
1972
1982
1 January
1 January
First Secretary-General from
Peru
1982
1992
America
1 January
1 January
First Secretary-General from
Egypt
1992
1997
Africa
1 January
1 January
Ghana
1997
2007
1 January
South
Incumbent
2007
Korea
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in The Hague, Netherlands, is the primary
judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter, the
Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The
Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main
constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court.[16]
It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, sharing the building with the Hague
Academy of International Law, a private centre for the study of international law. Several of the
Court's current judges are either alumni or former faculty members of the Academy. Its purpose
is to adjudicate disputes among states. The court has heard cases related to war crimes, illegal
state interference and ethnic cleansing, among others, and continues to hear cases.[17]
A related court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), began operating in 2002 through
international discussions initiated by the General Assembly. It is the first permanent international
court charged with trying those who commit the most serious crimes under international law,
including war crimes and genocide. The ICC is functionally independent of the UN in terms of
personnel and financing, but some meetings of the ICC governing body, the Assembly of States
Parties to the Rome Statute, are held at the UN. There is a "relationship agreement" between the
ICC and the UN that governs how the two institutions regard each other legally.[18]
Economic and Social Council
Main article: United Nations Economic and Social Council
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) assists the General Assembly in promoting
international economic and social cooperation and development. ECOSOC has 54 members, all
of which are elected by the General Assembly for a three-year term. The president is elected for
a one-year term and chosen amongst the small or middle powers represented on ECOSOC.
ECOSOC meets once a year in July for a four-week session. Since 1998, it has held another
meeting each April with finance ministers heading key committees of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). Viewed separate from the specialized bodies it coordinates,
ECOSOC's functions include information gathering, advising member nations, and making
recommendations. In addition, ECOSOC is well-positioned to provide policy coherence and
coordinate the overlapping functions of the UN’s subsidiary bodies and it is in these roles that it
is most active.
Specialized institutions
Main article: List of specialized agencies of the United Nations
There are many UN organizations and agencies that function to work on particular issues. Some
of the most well-known agencies are the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and
Agriculture Organization, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization), the World Bank and the World Health Organization.
It is through these agencies that the UN performs most of its humanitarian work. Examples
include mass vaccination programmes (through the WHO), the avoidance of famine and
malnutrition (through the work of the WFP) and the protection of vulnerable and displaced
people (for example, by the UNHCR).
The United Nations Charter stipulates that each primary organ of the UN can establish various
specialized agencies to fulfil its duties.
Specialized agencies of the United Nations
No. Acronyms Flag
1
FAO
2
IAEA
3
ICAO
4
IFAD
5
ILO
6
IMO
7
IMF
8
ITU
9
UNESCO
10 UNIDO
Agency
Headquarters
Food and Agriculture
Rome, Italy
Organization
International Atomic Energy
Vienna,
Agency
Austria
Montreal,
International Civil Aviation
Canada
Organization
International Fund for
Rome, Italy
Agricultural Development
International Labour
Organization
Head
Established
in
Jacques Diouf 1945
Yukiya
Amano
Raymond
Benjamin
Kanayo F.
Nwanze
1957
1947
1977
Geneva,
Switzerland
London,
International Maritime
United Kingdom
Organization
Washington,
International Monetary Fund
D.C., USA
Efthimios E.
1948
Mitropoulos
Dominique
Strauss-Kahn
1945 (1944)
International
Telecommunication Union
Hamadoun
Touré
1947 (1865)
Geneva,
Switzerland
United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural
Paris, France
Organization
United Nations Industrial
Vienna,
Development Organization Austria
Bern,
Switzerland
Washington,
D.C, USA
11 UPU
Universal Postal Union
12 WB
World Bank
13 WFP
World Food Programme
14 WHO
World Health Organization
Geneva,
Switzerland
15 WIPO
World Intellectual Property
Organization
Geneva,
Switzerland
16 WMO
World Meteorological
Rome, Italy
Geneva,
Juan Somavía 1946 (1919)
Irina Bokova 1946
Kandeh
Yumkella
1967
Edouard
Dayan
1947 (1874)
Robert B.
Zoellick
Josette
Sheeran
Margaret
Chan
1945 (1944)
1963
1948
Francis Gurry 1974
Alexander
1950 (1873)
17 UNWTO
Switzerland
Bedritsky
Organization
Taleb Rifai
World Tourism Organization
Madrid, Spain
1974
Membership
With the addition of Montenegro on 28 June 2006, there are currently 192 United Nations
member states, including all fully recognized independent states[19] apart from Vatican City (the
Holy See, which holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City, is a permanent observer).[20]
The United Nations Charter outlines the rules for membership:
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which
accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the
Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be
effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the
Security Council.
—United Nations Charter, Chapter 2, Article 4, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Group of 77
The Group of 77 at the UN is a loose coalition of developing nations, designed to promote its
members' collective economic interests and create an enhanced joint negotiating capacity in the
United Nations. There were 77 founding members of the organization, but the organization has
since expanded to 130 member countries. The group was founded on 15 June 1964 by the "Joint
Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries" issued at the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD). The first major meeting was in Algiers in 1967, where the
Charter of Algiers was adopted and the basis for permanent institutional structures was begun.[21]
Stated objectives
Peacekeeping and security
The UN, after approval by the Security Council, sends peacekeepers to regions where armed
conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to
discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its own
military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states of the UN. The forces,
also called the "Blue Helmets", who enforce UN accords are awarded United Nations Medals,
which are considered international decorations instead of military decorations. The peacekeeping
force as a whole received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.
The founders of the UN had envisaged that the organization would act to prevent conflicts
between nations and make future wars impossible, however the outbreak of the Cold War made
peacekeeping agreements extremely difficult because of the division of the world into hostile
camps. Following the end of the Cold War, there were renewed calls for the UN to become the
agency for achieving world peace, as there are several dozen ongoing conflicts that continue to
rage around the globe.
A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping
efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that
seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as compared with four out of eight US cases at
peace.[22] Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars,
genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit
circumstantial, that international activism—mostly spearheaded by the UN—has been the main
cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.[23] Situations where the UN
has not only acted to keep the peace but also occasionally intervened include the Korean War
(1950–1953), and the authorization of intervention in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
The UN has also drawn criticism for perceived failures. In many cases, member states have
shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions, an issue that stems from the
UN's intergovernmental nature—seen by some as simply an association of 192 member states
who must reach consensus, not an independent organization. Disagreements in the Security
Council about military action and intervention are seen as having failed to prevent the 1994
Rwandan Genocide,[24] failed to provide humanitarian aid and intervene in the Second Congo
War, failed to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and protect a refugee haven by
authorizing peacekeepers to use force, failure to deliver food to starving people in Somalia,
failure to implement provisions of Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and continuing failure to prevent genocide or provide assistance in Darfur. UN
peacekeepers have also been accused of child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during
various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in the Congo,[25] Haiti,[26][27] Liberia,[28]
Sudan,[29] Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire.[30] In 2004, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold
criticized what it called the organization's moral relativism in the face of (and occasional support
of)[31] genocide and terrorism that occurred between the moral clarity of its founding period and
the present day. Gold specifically mentions Yasser Arafat's 1988 invitation to address the
General Assembly as a low point in the UN's history.[32]
In addition to peacekeeping, the UN is also active in encouraging disarmament. Regulation of
armaments was included in the writing of the UN Charter in 1945 and was envisioned as a way
of limiting the use of human and economic resources for the creation of them.[33] However, the
advent of nuclear weapons came only weeks after the signing of the charter and immediately
halted concepts of arms limitation and disarmament, resulting in the first resolution of the first
ever General Assembly meeting calling for specific proposals for "the elimination from national
armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction".[34]
The principal forums for disarmament issues are the General Assembly First Committee, the UN
Disarmament Commission, and the Conference on Disarmament, and considerations have been
made of the merits of a ban on testing nuclear weapons, outer space arms control, the banning of
chemical weapons and land mines, nuclear and conventional disarmament, nuclear-weapon-free
zones, the reduction of military budgets, and measures to strengthen international security.
The UN is one of the official supporters of the World Security Forum, a major international
conference on the effects of global catastrophes and disasters, taking place in the United Arab
Emirates, in October 2008.
Human rights and humanitarian assistance
The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities
and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any
similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering
and acting on complaints about human rights violations. The UN Charter obliges all member
nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint
and separate action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though not legally
binding, was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement
for all. The Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues.
The UN and its agencies are central in upholding and implementing the principles enshrined in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A case in point is support by the UN for countries in
transition to democracy. Technical assistance in providing free and fair elections, improving
judicial structures, drafting constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed
movements into political parties have contributed significantly to democratization worldwide.
The UN has helped run elections in countries with little or no democratic history, including
recently in Afghanistan and East Timor. The UN is also a forum to support the right of women to
participate fully in the political, economic, and social life of their countries. The UN contributes
to raising consciousness of the concept of human rights through its covenants and its attention to
specific abuses through its General Assembly, Security Council resolutions, or International
Court of Justice rulings.
The purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council, established in 2006,[35] is to address
human rights violations. The Council is the successor to the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, which was often criticised for the high-profile positions it gave to member states
that did not guarantee the human rights of their own citizens.[36] The council has 47 members
distributed by region, which each serve three year terms, and may not serve three consecutive
terms.[37] A candidate to the body must be approved by a majority of the General Assembly. In
addition, the council has strict rules for membership, including a universal human rights review.
While some members with questionable human rights records have been elected, it is fewer than
before with the increased focus on each member state's human rights record.[38]
The rights of some 370 million indigenous peoples around the world is also a focus for the UN,
with a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples being approved by the General Assembly
in 2007.[39] The declaration outlines the individual and collective rights to culture, language,
education, identity, employment and health, thereby addressing post-colonial issues which had
confronted indigenous peoples for centuries. The declaration aims to maintain, strengthen and
encourage the growth of indigenous institutions, cultures and traditions. It also prohibits
discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their active participation in matters
which concern their past, present and future.[39]
In conjunction with other organizations such as the Red Cross, the UN provides food, drinking
water, shelter and other humanitarian services to populaces suffering from famine, displaced by
war, or afflicted by other disasters. Major humanitarian branches of the UN are the World Food
Programme (which helps feed more than 100 million people a year in 80 countries), the office of
the High Commissioner for Refugees with projects in over 116 countries, as well as
peacekeeping projects in over 24 countries.
Social and economic development
Millennium Development Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
achieve universal primary education;
promote gender equality and empower women;
reduce child mortality;
improve maternal health;
combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;
ensure environmental sustainability; and
develop a global partnership for development.
The UN is involved in supporting development, e.g. by the formulation of the Millennium
Development Goals. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) is the largest multilateral source
of grant technical assistance in the world. Organizations like the World Health Organization
(WHO), UNAIDS, and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are leading
institutions in the battle against diseases around the world, especially in poor countries. The UN
Population Fund is a major provider of reproductive services.
The UN also promotes human development through various related agencies. The World Bank
Group and International Monetary Fund (IMF), for example, are independent, specialized
agencies and observers within the UN framework, according to a 1947 agreement. They were
initially formed as separate from the UN through the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944.[40]
The UN annually publishes the Human Development Index (HDI), a comparative measure
ranking countries by poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, and other factors.
The Millennium Development Goals are eight goals that all 192 United Nations member states
have agreed to try to achieve by the year 2015.[41] This was declared in the United Nations
Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000.
Mandates
See also: Category:United Nations Security Council mandates
From time to time the different bodies of the United Nations pass resolutions which contain
operating paragraphs that begin with the words "requests", "calls upon", or "encourages", which
the Secretary-General interprets as a mandate to set up a temporary organization or do
something. These mandates can be as little as researching and publishing a written report, or
mounting a full scale peace-keeping operation (usually the exclusive domain of the Security
Council).
Although the specialized institutions, such as the WHO, were originally set up by this means,
they are not the same as mandates because they are permanent organizations that exist
independently of the UN with their own membership structure. One could say that original
mandate was simply to cover the process of setting up the institution, and has therefore long
expired. Most mandates expire after a limited time period and require renewal from the body
which set them up.
One of the outcomes of the 2005 World Summit was a mandate (labelled id 17171) for the
Secretary-General to "review all mandates older than five years originating from resolutions of
the General Assembly and other organs". To facilitate this review and to finally bring coherence
to the organization, the Secretariat has produced an on-line registry of mandates to draw together
the reports relating to each one and create an overall picture.[42]
Other
Over the lifetime of the UN, over 80 colonies have attained independence.[43] The General
Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples in 1960 with no votes against but abstentions from all major colonial powers. Through
the UN Committee on Decolonization,[44] created in 1962, the UN has focused considerable
attention on decolonization. It has also supported the new states that have arisen as a result of
self-determination initiatives. The committee has overseen the decolonization of every country
larger than 20,000 km² and removed them from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing
Territories, besides Western Sahara, a country larger than the UK only relinquished by Spain in
1975.
The UN declares and coordinates international observances, periods of time to observe some
issue of international interest or concern. Using the symbolism of the UN, a specially designed
logo for the year, and the infrastructure of the United Nations System, various days and years
have become catalysts to advancing key issues of concern on a global scale. For example, World
Tuberculosis Day, Earth Day and International Year of Deserts and Desertification.
Funding
Top 10 donators to the UN budget, 2009[45]
Member state
Contribution
(% of UN budget)
United States
22.00%
Japan
16.624%
Germany
8.577%
United Kingdom
6.642%
France
6.301%
Italy
5.079%
Canada
2.977%
Spain
2.968%
China
2.667%
Mexico
2.257%
Other member states
23.908%
The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular
two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. The General
Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is
broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their Gross
National Income (GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income.[46]
The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any
one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a 'ceiling' rate, setting the maximum amount
any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the Assembly revised the
scale of assessments to reflect current global circumstances. As part of that revision, the regular
budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 22%. The U.S. is the only member that has met the
ceiling. In addition to a ceiling rate, the minimum amount assessed to any member nation (or
'floor' rate) is set at 0.001% of the UN budget. Also, for the least developed countries (LDC), a
ceiling rate of 0.01% is applied.[46]
The current operating budget is estimated at $4.19 billion for the 2-year (biennial)period of 2008
to 2009, or a little over 2 billion dollars a year[46] (refer to table for major contributors).
A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The
peacekeeping budget for the 2005–2006 fiscal year is approximately $5 billion (compared to
approximately $1.5 billion for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000
troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[47] UN peace operations are funded by
assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale, but including a weighted
surcharge for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping
operations. This surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less
developed countries. As of 1 January 2008, the top 10 providers of assessed financial
contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations were: the United States, Japan,
Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain, and the Republic of
Korea.[48]
Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP and
UNDP) are financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments. Most of this is
financial contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted
populations.
Because their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe shortages during
economic recessions. In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced
to cut services because of insufficient funding.[49] It has received barely a quarter of the total it
needs for the 09/10 financial year.
Personnel policy
The UN and its agencies are immune to the laws of the countries where they operate,
safeguarding UN's impartiality with regard to the host and member countries.[50]
Despite their independence in matters of human resources policy, the UN and its agencies
voluntarily apply the laws of member states regarding same-sex marriages, allowing decisions
about the status of employees in a same-sex partnership to be based on nationality. The UN and
its agencies recognize same-sex marriages only if the employees are citizens of countries that
recognize the marriage. This practice is not specific to the recognition of same-sex marriage but
reflects a common practice of the UN for a number of human resources matters. It has to be
noted though that some agencies provide limited benefits to domestic partners of their staff and
that some agencies do not recognise same-sex marriage or domestic partnership of their
staff.[citation needed]
Reform
Since its founding, there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations, although little
consensus on how to do so. Some want the UN to play a greater or more effective role in world
affairs, while others want its role reduced to humanitarian work.[51] There have also been
numerous calls for the UN Security Council's membership to be increased, for different ways of
electing the UN's Secretary-General, and for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.
The UN has also been accused of bureaucratic inefficiency and waste. During the 1990s the
United States withheld dues citing inefficiency, and only started repayment on the condition that
a major reforms initiative was introduced. In 1994, the Office of Internal Oversight Services
(OIOS) was established by the General Assembly to serve as an efficiency watchdog.[52]
An official reform programme was begun by Kofi Annan in 1997. Reforms mentioned include
changing the permanent membership of the Security Council (which currently reflects the power
relations of 1945), making the bureaucracy more transparent, accountable and efficient, making
the UN more democratic, and imposing an international tariff on arms manufacturers
worldwide.[citation needed]
In September 2005, the UN convened a World Summit that brought together the heads of most
member states, calling the summit "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take bold decisions in
the areas of development, security, human rights and reform of the United Nations."[53] Kofi
Annan had proposed that the summit agree on a global "grand bargain" to reform the UN,
renewing the organisation's focus on peace, security, human rights and development, and to
make it better equipped at facing 21st century issues. The World Summit Outcome Document
delineated the conclusions of the meeting, including: the creation of a Peacebuilding
Commission, to help countries emerging from conflict; a Human Rights Council and a
democracy fund; a clear and unambiguous condemnation of terrorism "in all its forms and
manifestations"; agreements to devote more resources to the Office of Internal Oversight
Services; agreements to spend billions more on achieving the Millennium Development Goals;
the dissolution of the Trusteeship Council, because of the completion of its mission; and, the
agreement that individual states, with the assistance of the international community, have the
"responsibility to protect" populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity- with the understanding that the international community is prepared to act
"collectively" in a “timely and decisive manner” to protect vulnerable civilians should a state
"manifestly fail" in fulfilling its responsibility.[54]
The Office of Internal Oversight Services is being restructured to more clearly define its scope
and mandate, and will receive more resources. In addition, to improve the oversight and auditing
capabilities of the General Assembly, an Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC) is
being created. In June 2007, the Fifth Committee created a draft resolution for the terms of
reference of this committee.[55][56] An ethics office was established in 2006, responsible for
administering new financial disclosure and whistleblower protection policies. Working with the
OIOS, the ethics office also plans to implement a policy to avoid fraud and corruption.[57] The
Secretariat is in the process of reviewing all UN mandates that are more than five years old. The
review is intended to determine which duplicative or unnecessary programmes should be
eliminated. Not all member states are in agreement as to which of the over 7000 mandates should
be reviewed. The dispute centres on whether mandates that have been renewed should be
examined.[58] Indeed, the obstacles identified – in particular, the lack of information on the
resource implications of each mandate – constituted sufficient justification for the General
Assembly to discontinue the mandate review in September 2008. In the meantime, the General
Assembly launched a number of new loosely related reform initiatives in April 2007, covering
international environmental governance, ‘Delivering as One’ at the country level to enhance the
consolidation of UN programme activities and a unified gender organization. Whereas little was
achieved on the first two issues, the General Assembly approved in September 2010 the
establishment of ‘UN Women’ as the new UN organization for gender equality and the
empowerment of women. UN Women was established by unifying the resources and mandates
of four small entities for greater impact and its first head is Ms. Michelle Bachelet, former
President of Chile
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an organization of South Asian
nations, founded in 1985 and dedicated to economic, technological, social, and cultural development
emphasizing collective self-reliance. Its seven founding members are Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan joined the organization in 2007. Meetings of heads
of state are usually scheduled annually; meetings of foreign secretaries, twice annually. Headquarters
are in Kathmandu, Nepal.
History
The concept of SAARC was first adopted by Bangladesh. In the late 2000s, Indian President
proposed the creation of a trade bloc consisting of South Asian countries. The idea of regional
cooperation in South Asia was again mooted in May 2001. The foreign secretaries of the seven
countries met for the first time in Colombo in April 2002. The Committee of the Whole, which
met in Colombo in August 2002, identified five broad areas for regional cooperation. New areas
of cooperation were added in the following years.[1]
The objectives of the Association as defined in the Charter are:[2]








to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and to improve their quality of life;
to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region
and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full
potential;
to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia;
to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another's problems;
to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural,
technical and scientific fields;
to strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;
to strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of
common interest; and
to cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes.
Afghanistan was added to the regional grouping at the behest of India on 13 November 2005,[3]
and became a member on 3 April 2007.[4] With the addition of Afghanistan, the total number of
member states were raised to eight (8). In April 2006, the United States of America and South
Korea made formal requests to be granted observer status. The European Union has also
indicated interest in being given observer status, and made a formal request for the same to the
SAARC Council of Ministers meeting in July 2006.[5][6] On 2 August 2006 the foreign ministers
of the SAARC countries agreed in principle to grant observer status to the US, South Korea and
the European Union.[6] On 4 March 2008, Iran requested observer status.[7] Followed shortly by
the entrance of Mauritius.
Secretariat
The SAARC Secretariat was established in Kathmandu on 16 January 1987 and was inaugurated
by Late King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah of Nepal.
It is headed by a Secretary General appointed by the Council of Ministers from Member
Countries in alphabetical order for a three-year term. He is assisted by the Professional and the
General Services Staff, and also an appropriate number of functional units called Divisions
assigned to Directors on deputation from Member States.[8] The Secretariat coordinates and
monitors implementation of activities, prepares for and services meetings, and serves as a
channel of communication between the Association and its Member States as well as other
regional organizations.[8]
The Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of the Secretariat[8] which was signed
by Foreign Ministers of member countries on 17 November 1986 at Bangalore, India contains
various clauses concerning the role, structure and administration of the SAARC Secretariat as
well as the powers of the Secretary-General.
In several recent meetings the heads of state or government of member states of SAARC have
taken some important decisions and bold initiatives to strengthen the organisation and to widen
and deepen regional co-operation.
The SAARC Secretariat and Member States observe 8 December as the SAARC Charter Day1.
Political issues
SAARC has intentionally laid more stress on "core issues" mentioned above rather than more
decisive political issues like the Kashmir dispute and the Sri Lankan civil war. However,
political dialogue is often conducted on the margins of SAARC meetings. SAARC has also
refrained itself from interfering in the internal matters of its member states. During the 12th and
13th SAARC summits, extreme emphasis was laid upon greater cooperation between the
SAARC members to fight terrorism.
Free trade agreement
Over the years, the SAARC members have expressed their unwillingness on signing a free trade
agreement. Though India has several trade pacts with Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka,
similar trade agreements with Pakistan and Bangladesh have been stalled due to political and
economic concerns on both sides. India has been constructing a barrier across its borders with
Bangladesh and Pakistan. In 1993, SAARC countries signed an agreement to gradually lower
tariffs within the region, in Dhaka. Eleven years later, at the 12th SAARC Summit at Islamabad,
SAARC countries devised the South Asia Free Trade Agreement which created a framework for
the establishment of a free trade area covering 1.4 billion people. This agreement went into force
on January 1, 2008. Under this agreement, SAARC members will bring their duties down to 20
per cent by 2009.
Dhaka 2009 Summit
The summit accorded observer status to People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea and
United States of America. The nations also agreed to organize development funds under a single
financial institution with a permanent secretariat, that would cover all SAARC programs and also
ranging from social, to infrastructure, to economic ones.
Membership
Current members (alphabetically)








Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Observers







Australia[9]
China
Burma
European Union[10]
Iran[11]
Japan[10]
Mauritius [12]


South Korea
United States of America
Future membership


The People's Republic of China has shown its interest in joining SAARC.[13] While
Pakistan and Bangladesh support China's candidature, India is against the prospect of
Chinese membership. China's entry in to SAARC will likely balance India's overbearing
presence there.[14] However, during the 2005 Dhaka summit, India agreed on granting
observer status to the PRC along with Japan. During the 14th summit, Nepal along with
Pakistan and Bangladesh, announced their support for the membership of China.[15][16][17]
China seeks greater involvement in SAARC, however, finds it too early to apply for full
membership.[18]
Indonesia intends to become an observer as well, and is supported by Sri Lanka.[19]




Iran, a state with borders to two SAARC members, has traditionally enjoyed strong
cultural, economic and political relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan and has
expressed its desire to become a member of the South Asian organization. On 22
February 2005, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi, indicated Iran's interest in
joining SAARC by saying that his country could provide the region with "East-West
connectivity".[20] On 3 March 2007, Iran asked to join the SAARC as an observer.
SAARC Secretary-General Lyonpo Chenkyab Dorji responded by saying that Iran's
request for observer status would be taken up during a meeting of ministers of foreign
affairs of SAARC member countries in the 3 April summit in New Delhi.[17][21]
Russia intends to become an observer as well, and is supported by India.[22][23]
Myanmar has expressed an interest in joining as a full member, even though it is
already a member of the ASEAN. If done so, Myanmar will become the ninth member in
the group. India is currently backing Myanmar.[24][25] Myanmar’s military regime
officially applied for full SAARC membership in May 2008. However, the application is
still being considered and the government is currently restricted to observer status.[26]
South Africa has participated in meetings.[27]
Secretaries General
Abul Ahsan
Kant Kishore Bhargava
Ibrahim Hussain Zaki
Yadav Kant Silwal
Naeem U. Hasan
Nihal Rodrigo
Q.A.M.A. Rahim
Lyonpo Chenkyab Dorji
Sheel Kant Sharma
January 16, 1987 to 15 October 1989
October 17, 1989 to December 31, 1991
January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1993
January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995
January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998
January 1, 1999 to January 10, 2002
January 11, 2002 to February 28, 2005
March 1, 2005 to February 29, 2008
March 1, 2008 to present
SAARC summits
Main article: List of SAARC summits
No. Location
Date
1st Dhaka
7-8 December 1985
2nd Bangalore 16-17 November 1986
3rd Kathmandu 2-4 November 1987
4th Islamabad 29-31 December 1988
5th Malé
21-23 November 1990
6th Colombo
21 December 1991
7th Dhaka
10-11 April 1993
8th New Delhi 2-4 May 1995
9th Malé
12-14 May 1997
10th Colombo
29-31 July 1998
11th Kathmandu 4-6 January 2002
12th Islamabad 2-6 January 2004
13th Dhaka
12-13 November 2005
14th New Delhi 3-4 April 2007
15th Colombo
1-3 August 2008
16th Thimphu
28-29 April 2010
SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement
The Agreement on SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA)[28] was signed on 11
April 1993 and entered into force on 7 December 1995, with the desire of the Member States of
SAARC (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Maldives) to promote
and sustain mutual trade and economic cooperation within the SAARC region through the
exchange of concessions.
The establishment of an Inter-Governmental Group (IGG) to formulate an agreement to establish
a SAPTA by 1997 was approved in the Sixth Summit of SAARC held in Colombo in December
1991.
The basic principles underlying SAPTA are:
1. overall reciprocity and mutuality of advantages so as to benefit equitably all Contracting
States, taking into account their respective level of economic and industrial development,
the pattern of their external trade, and trade and tariff policies and systems;
2. negotiation of tariff reform step by step, improved and extended in successive stages
through periodic reviews;
3. recognition of the special needs of the Least Developed Contracting States and agreement
on concrete preferential measures in their favour;
4. inclusion of all products, manufactures and commodities in their raw, semi-processed and
processed forms.
So far, four rounds of trade negotiations have been concluded under SAPTA covering over 5000
commodities.
South Asian Free Trade Area
The Agreement on the South Asian Free Trade Area is an agreement reached at the 12th SAARC
summit at Islamabad, capital of Pakistan on 6 January 2004. It creates a framework for the
creation of a free trade area covering 1.4 billion people in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Maldives.The seven foreign ministers of the region signed a
framework agreement on SAFTA with zero customs duty on the trade of practically all products
in the region by end 2016. The new agreement i.e. SAFTA, came into being on 1 January 2006
and will be operational following the ratification of the agreement by the seven governments.
SAFTA requires the developing countries in South Asia, that is, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to
bring their duties down to 20 percent in the first phase of the two year period ending in 2007. In
the final five year phase ending 2012, the 20 percent duty will be reduced to zero in a series of
annual cuts. The least developed nations in South Asia consisting of Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh
and Maldives have an additional three years to reduce tariffs to zero. India and Pakistan have
signed but not ratified the treaty.
Balance of power in international relations
In international relations, a balance of power exists when there is parity or stability between
competing forces. The concept "describes a state of affairs in the international system and
explains the behaviour of states in that system" (Fry, Goldstein & Langhorn, 2004).[1] As a term
in international law for a 'just equilibrium' between the members of the family of nations, it
expresses the doctrine intended to prevent any one nation from becoming sufficiently strong so
as to enable it to enforce its will upon the rest.
"BoP" is a central concept in neorealist theory. Within a balance of power system, a state may
choose to engage in either balancing or bandwagoning behavior. In a time of war, the decision to
balance or to bandwagon may well determine the survival of the state.
Kenneth Waltz, a major contributor to neorealism, expressed in his book, "Theory of
International Politics" that "if there is any distinctively political theory of international politics,
balance-of-power theory is it."[2]. However, this assertion has come under criticism from other
schools of thought within the international relations field, such as the constructivists and the
political economists
A doctrine of equilibrium
The basic principle involved in a balancing of political power, as Charles Davenant pointed out
in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was familiar to the ancients both
as political theorists and as practical statesmen. In its essence it is no more than a precept of
common sense, born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation.
More precisely, the theory of Balance of Power has certain key aspects that have been agreed
upon throughout the literature on the subject. First of all, the main objective of states, according
to the Balance of Power theory is to secure their own safety, consistent with political realism or
the realist world-view. Secondly, states reach an equilibrium because of this objective of selfpreservation. States, by trying to avoid the dominance of one particular state, will ally
themselves with other states until an equilibrium is reached.[5]
As Professor L. Oppenheim (Internal. Law, i. 73) points out, an equilibrium between the various
powers which form the family of nations is, in fact, essential to the very existence of any
international law. In the absence of any central authority, the only sanction behind the code of
rules established by custom or defined in treaties, known as 'international law', is the capacity of
the powers to hold each other in check. If this system fails, nothing prevents any state
sufficiently powerful from ignoring the law and acting solely according to its convenience and its
interests.
Historical perspective
Preserving the balance of power as a conscious goal of foreign policy, though certainly known in
the ancient world, resurfaced in post-medieval Europe among the Italian city states in the 15th
century. Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, was the first ruler to actively pursue such a policy,
though historians have generally (and incorrectly) attributed the innovation to the Medici rulers
of Florence whose praises were sung by the well-known Florentine writers Niccolò Machiavelli
and Francesco Guicciardini.
Universalism, which was the dominant direction of European international relations prior to the
Peace of Westphalia, gave way to the doctrine of the balance of power. The term gained
significance after the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, where it was specifically mentioned.
It was not until the beginning of the 17th century, when the science of international law assumed
the discipline of structure, in the hands of Grotius and his successors, that the theory of the
balance of power was formulated as a fundamental principle of diplomacy. In accordance with
this new discipline, the European states formed a sort of federal community, the fundamental
condition of which was the preservation of a 'balance of power, i.e. such a disposition of things
that no one state, or potentate, should be able absolutely to predominate and prescribe laws to the
rest. And, since all were equally interested in this settlement, it was held to be the interest, the
right, and the duty of every power to interfere, even by force of arms, when any of the conditions
of this settlement were infringed upon, or assailed by, any other member of the community.
This 'balance of power' principle, once formulated, became an axiom of political science.
Fénelon, in his Instructions, impressed the axiom upon the young Louis, duc de Bourgogne.
Frederick the Great, in his Anti-Machiavel, proclaimed the 'balance of power' principle to the
world. In 1806, Friedrich von Gentz re-stated it with admirable clarity, in Fragments on the
Balance of Power. The principle formed the basis of the coalitions against Louis XIV and
Napoleon, and the occasion, or the excuse, for most of the wars which Europe experienced
between the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and the Congress of Vienna (1814), especially from the
British vantage point (including, in part, World War I).
During the greater part of the 19th century, the series of national upheavals which remodelled the
map of Europe obscured the balance of power. Yet, it underlay all the efforts of diplomacy to
stay, or to direct, the elemental forces let loose by the French Revolution. In the revolution's
aftermath, with the restoration of comparative calm, the principle once more emerged as the
operative motive for the various political alliances, of which the ostensible object was the
preservation of peace.
England
It has been argued by historians that in the sixteenth century England came to pursue a foreign
policy which would preserve the equilibrium between Spain and France, which evolved into a
balance-of-power policy:
The continental policy of England [after 1525] was fixed. It was to be pacific, mediating,
favourable to a balance which should prevent any power from having a hegemony on the
continent or controlling the Channel coasts. The naval security of England and the balance of
power in Europe were the two great political principles which appeared in the reign of Henry
VIII and which, pursued unwaveringly, were to create the greatness of England.[6]
In 1579 the first English translation of Guicciardini's Storia d'Italia or History of Italy
popularised Italian balance of power theory in England. This translation was dedicated to
Elizabeth I of England and claimed that "God has put into your hand the balance of power and
justice, to poise and counterpoise at your will the actions and counsels of all the Christian kings
of your time".[7]
Sir Esme Howard wrote that England adopted the balance of power as "a corner-stone of English
policy, unconsciously during the sixteenth, subconsciously during the seventeenth, and
consciously during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, because for England it
represented the only plan of preserving her own independence, political and economic"
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The
treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five
of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United
Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council).
Four non-parties to the treaty are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan
and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while Israel
has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to
the treaty, violated it, and in 2003 withdrew from it.
The treaty was proposed by Ireland and Finland, and they were the first to sign.[citation needed]
The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" is not
expressed anywhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as a three-pillar
system, with an implicit balance among them:
1. non-proliferation,
2. disarmament, and
3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[1]
The treaty is reviewed every five years in meetings called Review Conferences of the Parties to
the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In addition, Sessions of the Preparatory
Committee for the Review Conference take place on the intermediate years. Simultaneously,
many events organized by independent institutions, groups of experts, think tanks and NGO's
take place worldwide in order to provide reports and recommendations that complement the
Preparatory Committees.[2]
Even though the treaty was originally conceived with a limited duration of 25 years, the signing
parties decided, by consensus, to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions during the
Review Conference in New York City on May 11, 1995.
The most recent Review Conference was held in May, 2010
Treaty "pillars"
The NPT is commonly described as having three main "pillars": non-proliferation, disarmament,
and peaceful use.[4] This "pillars" concept has been questioned by some who believe that the
NPT is, as its name suggests, principally about nonproliferation, and who worry that "three
pillars" language misleadingly implies that the three elements have equivalent importance.[5]
First pillar: non-proliferation
Five states are recognized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty as nuclear weapon states (NWS):
China (signed 1992), France (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now
assumed by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968)
(The United States, UK, and the Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such
weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970). These five
nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five
NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any
way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear
weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or
"acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear
weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from
peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).
The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a nonNWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a
Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into
the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads
targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom
Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use
of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".[6] In
January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored
terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue
state's" power centers.[7][8]
Second pillar: disarmament
The NPT's preamble contains language affirming the desire of treaty signatories to ease
international tension and strengthen international trust so as to create someday the conditions for
a halt to the production of nuclear weapons, and treaty on general and complete disarmament that
liquidates, in particular, nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles from national arsenals.
The wording of the NPT's Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT
signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, "Each of
the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on
a treaty on general and complete disarmament."[9] Under this interpretation, Article VI does not
strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires
them "to negotiate in good faith."[10]
On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the
Non-Aligned Movement, have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. In
their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized
nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have
failed to meet their obligation. Some government delegations to the Conference on Disarmament
have put forth proposals for a complete and universal disarmament, but no disarmament treaty
has emerged from these proposals.[citation needed] Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon
states sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon
states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post-Cold War era, has angered
some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides
justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own
nuclear arsenals.
Other observers have suggested that the linkage between proliferation and disarmament may also
work the other way, i.e., that the failure to resolve proliferation threats in Iran and North Korea,
for instance, will cripple the prospects for disarmament.[citation needed] No current nuclear weapons
state, the argument goes, would seriously consider eliminating its last nuclear weapons without
high confidence that other countries would not acquire them. Some observers have even
suggested that the very progress of disarmament by the superpowers—which has led to the
elimination of thousands of weapons and delivery systems[11]—could eventually make the
possession of nuclear weapons more attractive by increasing the perceived strategic value of a
small arsenal. As one U.S. official and NPT expert warned in 2007, "logic suggests that as the
number of nuclear weapons decreases, the 'marginal utility' of a nuclear weapon as an instrument
of military power increases. At the extreme, which it is precisely disarmament’s hope to create,
the strategic utility of even one or two nuclear weapons would be huge."[12]
Third pillar: peaceful use of nuclear energy
The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to
NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those
countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the
development of nuclear weapons.
Since very few of the states with nuclear energy programs are willing to abandon the use of
nuclear energy, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the
possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear
weapons.
The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I
and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As
the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it
follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international
market. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has
called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles' heel" of the nuclear
nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.[13] Because the
availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal obstacle to, and "pacing
element" for, a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis
of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium
reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology.[14] Countries possessing ENR capabilities, it is feared,
have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons
use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program.
The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its
potentially grave proliferation implications, therefore, is at the cutting edge of policy and legal
debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the
Treaty.
Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status
have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA
with punitive sanctions enacted against it by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT
safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards
agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations,[15] and later withdrew from the NPT and
tested multiple nuclear devices; Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards
obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over
an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program;[16][17] and Libya pursued
a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991
Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA
reported this non-compliance to the Security Council for information only. In some regions, the
fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual
states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have
peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as
designed.
In 2004, Mohamed ElBaradei, the then Director General of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge
to develop nuclear weapons.[18]
Key articles
Article I:[19] Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient,
nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon
state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or
other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not
to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the
application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities
and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all
the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the
fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information
for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the
further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the
territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs
of the developing areas of the world.
Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and
towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international
control".
Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also
establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).
History
The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon
states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States
and Soviet Union was fragile. More nuclear players reduced security for all, multiplying the risks
of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions,
nuclear conflict.
The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. It
was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign. By 1992 all five thendeclared nuclear powers had signed the treaty, and the treaty was renewed in 1995 (and followed
by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996). Several NPT signatories have given up nuclear
weapons or nuclear weapons programs. South Africa undertook a nuclear weapons program,
allegedly with the assistance of Israel in the 1970s, and may have conducted a nuclear test in the
Indian Ocean in 1979, but has since renounced its nuclear program and signed the treaty in 1991
after destroying its small nuclear arsenal. Several former Soviet Republics destroyed or
transferred to Russia the nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.
United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing
At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing
agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored
in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the
treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO
states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a
decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is
no breach of the NPT. These agreements were disclosed to a few of the states, including the
Soviet Union, negotiating the treaty, but most of the states that signed the NPT in 1968 would
not have known about these agreements and interpretations at that time.[20]
As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear
bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO
agreements.[21] Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I
and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements. They
point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and
delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S.
nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons
information. NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war
prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political".[22] NATO officials also point out
that no nuclear weapons have ever been given over to non-U.S. control by the United States, so
therefore there cannot have been a violation of Article I (which prohibits transferring "nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices")
or Article II (which bars "receiv[ing] the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive
devices").
U.S. nuclear sharing policies were originally designed to help prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons—not least by persuading the then West Germany not to develop an independent nuclear
capability by assuring it that West Germany would be able, in the event of war with the Warsaw
Pact, to wield (U.S.) nuclear weapons in self-defense. (Until that point of all-out war, however,
the weapons themselves would remain "safely" in U.S. hands.) The point was to limit the spread
of countries having their own nuclear weapons programs, helping ensure that NATO allies would
not choose to go down the proliferation route.[23] (West Germany was discussed in U.S.
intelligence estimates for a number of years as being a country with the potential to develop
nuclear weapons capabilities of its own if officials in Bonn were not convinced that their defense
against the Soviet Union and its allies could otherwise be met.[24])
India, Israel and Pakistan
Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—have declined to sign the treaty. India and Pakistan are
confirmed nuclear powers, and Israel has a long-standing policy of deliberate ambiguity (see List
of countries with nuclear weapons). These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of
"nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of
nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on
what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.
India and Pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated
nuclear devices in tests, India having first done so in 1974 and Pakistan following suit in 1998 in
response to another Indian test. India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than
150 warheads.[25] Pakistan reportedly has between 80 and 120 warheads according to the former
head of its strategic arms division.[26] India is one of the few countries to have a no first use
policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear
weapons.[27] The main reason India cites for not signing the NPT and for possessing nuclear
weapons is that China is one of the "nuclear haves."[citation needed]India's External Affairs Minister
Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not
because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a
flawed treaty and it did not recognise the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and
treatment."[28]
According to leaked intelligence, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site
in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that
Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from
Dimona. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons,
although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician
Mordechai Vanunu—subsequently abducted and sentenced for treason by Israel—published
evidence about the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986.
In early March 2006, India and the United States finalized an agreement, in the face of criticism
in both countries, to provide India with US civilian nuclear technology. Under the deal India has
committed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants as being for civilian use and to place
them under IAEA safeguards. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA,
welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime."[29]
In December 2006, United States Congress approved the United States-India Peaceful Atomic
Energy Cooperation Act that was cemented during President Bush's visit to India earlier in the
year. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India. Despite its status
outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India was granted these transactions on the basis of
its clean non-proliferation record, and India's unusually high need for energy fueled by its rapid
industrialization and a billion-plus population.[30]
On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the India Safeguards Agreement[31] and on September 6,
2008, India was granted the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in
Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria,
Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country, which
has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).[32][33] While India
could commence nuclear trade with other willing countries.[34] The U.S. Congress approved this
agreement and the President signed it on 8 October 2008.[35]
The NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to Pakistan and
Israel, with very narrow exceptions, since neither has full-scope IAEA safeguards (i.e.
safeguards on all its nuclear activities). Attempts by Pakistan to reach a similar agreement have
been rebuffed by the United States and other NSG members. The argument put forth is that not
only does Pakistan lack the same energy requirements but that the track record of Pakistan as a
nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near
future.[36]
On September 18, 2009 the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency
called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the nonproliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities," which passed by a
narrow margin of 49-45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not
co-operate in any matter with this resolution."[37]
North Korea
North Korea ratified the treaty on December 12, 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the
treaty on January 10, 2003 following U.S. allegations that it had started an illegal enriched
uranium weapons program, and the U.S. subsequently stopping fuel oil shipments under the
Agreed Framework[38] which had resolved plutonium weapons issues in 1994.[39] The withdrawal
became effective April 10, 2003 making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the
treaty.[40] North Korea had once before announced withdrawal, on March 12, 1993, but
suspended that notice before it came into effect.[41]
On February 10, 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and
pulled out of the six-party talks hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. "We
had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and
have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's
evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of
Korea]," a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue.[42] Six-party talks
resumed in July 2005.
On September 19, 2005, North Korea announced that it would agree to a preliminary accord.
Under the accord, North Korea would scrap all of its existing nuclear weapons and nuclear
production facilities, rejoin the NPT, and readmit IAEA inspectors. The difficult issue of the
supply of light water reactors to replace North Korea's indigenous nuclear power plant program,
as per the 1994 Agreed Framework, was left to be resolved in future discussions.[43] On the next
day North Korea reiterated its known view that until it is supplied with a light water reactor it
will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal or rejoin the NPT.[44]
On October 2, 2006, the North Korean foreign minister announced that his country was planning
to conduct a nuclear test "in the future", although it did not state when.[45] On Monday, October
9, 2006 at 01:35:27 (UTC) the United States Geological Survey detected a magnitude 4.2 seismic
event 70 km (45 miles) north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test. The North
Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed a successful
underground test of a nuclear fission device.
In 2007, reports from Washington suggested that the 2002 CIA reports stating that North Korea
was developing an enriched uranium weapons program, which led to North Korea leaving the
NPT, had overstated or misread the intelligence.[46][47][48][49] On the other hand, even apart from
these press allegations—which some critics worry could have been planted in order to justify the
United States giving up trying to verify the dismantlement of Pyongyang's uranium program in
the face of North Korean intransigence—there remains some information in the public record
indicating the existence of a uranium effort. Quite apart from the fact that North Korean First
Vice Minister Kang Sok Ju at one point admitted the existence of a uranium enrichment
program, Pakistan's then-President Musharraf revealed that the A.Q. Khan proliferation network
had provided North Korea with a number of gas centrifuges designed for uranium enrichment.
Additionally, press reports have cited U.S. officials to the effect that evidence obtained in
dismantling Libya’s WMD programs points toward North Korea as the source for Libya's
uranium hexafluoride (UF6) -- which, if true, would mean that North Korea has a uranium
conversion facility for producing feedstock for centrifuge enrichment.[50]
Iran
Main articles: Iran and weapons of mass destruction and Nuclear program of Iran
Iran is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement
and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period
failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment
program.[16] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily
suspending its enrichment program,[51] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C
of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these
failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[17] This was reported
to the UN Security Council in 2006,[52] after which the Security Council passed a resolution
demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[53] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[54]
The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is
continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities.[55] In February 2008, the
IAEA also reported that it was working to address "alleged studies" of weaponization, based on
documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran.
Iran rejected the allegations as "baseless" and the documents as "fabrications."[56] In June 2009,
the IAEA reported that Iran had not “cooperated with the Agency in connection with the
remaining issues ... which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to
Iran’s nuclear program.”[57]
The United States concluded that Iran violated its Article III NPT safeguards obligations, and
further argued based on circumstantial evidence that Iran's enrichment program was for weapons
purposes and therefore violated Iran's Article II nonproliferation obligations.[58] The November
2007 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) later concluded that Iran had halted an active
nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 and that it had remained halted as of mid-2007. The
NIE's "Key Judgments," however, also made clear that what Iran had actually stopped in 2003
was only "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversionrelated and uranium enrichment-related work"-namely, those aspects of Iran's nuclear weapons
effort that had not by that point already been leaked to the press and become the subject of IAEA
investigations.[59] Since Iran's uranium enrichment program at Natanz—and its continuing work
on a heavy water reactor at Arak that would be ideal for plutonium production—began secretly
years before in conjunction with the very weaponization work the NIE discussed and for the
purpose of developing nuclear weapons, many observers find Iran's continued development of
fissile material production capabilities distinctly worrying. Particularly because fissile material
availability has long been understood to be the principal obstacle to nuclear weapons
development and the primary "pacing element" for a weapons program, the fact that Iran has
reportedly suspended weaponization work may not mean very much.[60] As U.S. Director of
National Intelligence Mike McConnell has put it, the aspects of its work that Iran allegedly
suspended were thus "probably the least significant part of the program."[61]
Iran states it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT, and further
says that it "has constantly complied with its obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the
International Atomic Energy Agency".[62] Iran also states that its enrichment program is part of
its civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under Article IV of the NPT. The NonAligned Movement has welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and
reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.[63] UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon has welcomed the continued dialogue between Iran and the IAEA, and has called for a
peaceful resolution to the issue.[64]
In April 2010, Washington stepped up its efforts to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran over
its nuclear program. But key Asian powers such as India and China oppose the adoption of a new
round of sanctions against Tehran. Some think-tanks such as the CEE Council have argued that
the Iranian nuclear crisis could trigger a new arms race in Asia, fueled essentially by ideological
motives.[65]
South Africa
South Africa is the only country that developed nuclear weapons by itself and later dismantled
them – unlike the former Soviet states Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which inherited nuclear
weapons from the former USSR, and also acceded to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states.
During the days of apartheid, the white South African government developed a deep fear of both
a black uprising and the threat of communism. This led to the development of a secret nuclear
weapons program as an ultimate deterrent. South Africa has a large supply of uranium, which is
mined in the country's gold mines. The government built a nuclear research facility at Pelindaba
near Pretoria where uranium was enriched to fuel grade for the nuclear power plant at Koeberg
as well as weapon grade for bomb production.
In 1991, after international pressure and when a change of government was imminent, South
African Ambassador to the United States Harry Schwarz signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. In 1993, the then president Frederik Willem de Klerk openly admitted that the country
had developed a limited nuclear weapon capability. These weapons were subsequently
dismantled prior to accession to the NPT. South Africa then opened itself up to IAEA for
inspection. In 1994 the IAEA completed its work and declared that the country had fully
dismantled its nuclear weapons program.
Libya
Libya had signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was subject to IAEA
nuclear safeguards inspections, but undertook a secret nuclear weapons development program in
violation of its NPT obligations, using material and technology provided by the A.Q. Khan
proliferation network—including actual nuclear weapons designed allegedly originating in
China. Libya began secret negotiations with the United States and the United Kingdom in March
2003 over potentially eliminating its WMD programs. In October 2003, Libya was embarrassed
by the interdiction of a shipment of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts sent from Malaysia, also
as part of A. Q. Khan's proliferation ring. In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed
to eliminate all its WMD programs, and permitted U.S. and British teams (as well as IAEA
inspectors) into the country to assist this process and verify its completion. The nuclear weapons
designs, gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and other equipment—including prototypes for
improved SCUD ballistic missiles—were removed from Libya by the United States. (Libyan
chemical weapons stocks and chemical bombs were also destroyed on site with international
verification, with Libya joining the Chemical Weapons Convention.) Libya's noncompliance
with its IAEA safeguards was reported to the U.N. Security Council, but with no action taken, as
Libya's return to compliance with safeguards and Article II of the NPT was welcomed.[66]
Leaving the treaty
Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter
of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months'
(ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.
NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies,
effectively allowing the states involved to leave the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary
argument to support the NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy, but a troubling one for the logic
of the treaty. NATO's argument is based on the phrase "the consequent need to make every effort
to avert the danger of such a war" in the treaty preamble, inserted at the behest of U.S. diplomats,
arguing that the treaty would at that point have failed to fulfill its function of prohibiting a
general war and thus no longer be binding.[20] Many states do not accept this argument. See
United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing above.
North Korea has also caused an uproar by its use of this provision of the treaty. Article X.1 only
requires a state to give three months' notice in total, and does not provide for other states to
question a state's interpretation of "supreme interests of its country". In 1993, North Korea gave
notice to withdraw from the NPT. However, after 89 days, North Korea reached agreement with
the United States to freeze its nuclear program under the Agreed Framework and "suspended" its
withdrawal notice. In October 2002, the United States accused North Korea of violating the
Agreed Framework by pursuing a secret uranium enrichment program, and suspended shipments
of heavy fuel oil under that agreement. In response, North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors,
disabled IAEA equipment, and, on January 10, 2003, announced that it was ending the
suspension of its previous NPT withdrawal notification. North Korea said that only one more
day's notice was sufficient for withdrawal from the NPT, as it had given 89 days before.[67] The
IAEA Board of Governors rejected this interpretation.[68] Most countries held that a new threemonths withdrawal notice was required, and some questioned whether North Korea's notification
met the "extraordinary events" and "supreme interests" requirements of the Treaty. The Joint
Statement of September 19, 2005 at the end of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks called for
North Korea to "return" to the NPT, implicitly acknowledging that it had withdrawn.
Recent and coming events
The 2000 Review Conference had as main outcome the definition in practical terms of the
nuclear weapons states' disarmament obligations, summarized in the so called Thirteen Steps.
On 18 July 2005, US President George W. Bush had met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and declared that he would work to change US law and international rules to permit trade
in US civilian nuclear technology with India.[69] Some, such as British columnist George
Monbiot, argue that the U.S.-India nuclear deal, in combination with US attempts to deny Iran
(an NPT signatory) civilian nuclear fuel-making technology, may destroy the NPT regime,[70]
while others[who?] contend that such a move will likely bring India, an NPT non-signatory, under
closer international scrutiny.
At the Seventh Review Conference in May 2005, there were stark differences between the
United States, which wanted the conference to focus on non-proliferation, especially on its
allegations against Iran, and most other countries, who emphasized the lack of serious nuclear
disarmament by the nuclear powers. The non-aligned countries reiterated their position
emphasizing the need for nuclear disarmament[71]
The 2010 Review Conference was held in May 2010 in New York City, and adopted a final
document that included a summary by the Review Conference President, Ambassador Libran
Capactulan of the Philippines, and an Action Plan that was adopted by consensus.[72][73]
The "Global Summit on Nuclear Security" took place April 12–13, 2010. The summit was
proposed by President Obama in Prague and is intended to strengthen the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty in conjunction with the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global
Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.[74] Forty seven states and three international
organizations took part in the Summit, which issued a communiqué[75] and a work plan.[76]
Criticism and responses
Some argue that the NWS have not fully complied with their disarmament obligations under
Article VI of the NPT.
The United States responds to criticism of its disarmament record by pointing out that since the
end of the Cold War it has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and eliminated over 80% of
its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads deployed to NATO, in the
processing eliminating whole categories of warheads and delivery systems and reducing its
reliance on nuclear weapons.[citation needed] U.S. officials have also pointed out the ongoing U.S.
work to dismantle nuclear warheads. When current accelerated dismantlement efforts ordered by
President George W. Bush have been completed, the U.S. arsenal will be less than a quarter of its
size at the end of the Cold War, and smaller than it has been at any point since the Eisenhower
administration, well before the drafting of the NPT.[78] The United States has also purchased
many thousands of weapons' worth of uranium formerly in Soviet nuclear weapons for
conversion into reactor fuel.[79] (As a consequence of this latter effort, it has been estimated that
the equivalent of one lightbulb in every ten in the United States is powered by nuclear fuel
removed from warheads previously targeted at the United States and its allies during the Cold
War.[80]) The U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation agreed that
nonproliferation and disarmament are linked, noting that they can be mutually reinforcing but
also that growing proliferation risks create an environment that makes disarmament more
difficult.[81] The United Kingdom,[82] France [83] and Russia [84] likewise defend their nuclear
disarmament records, and the five NPT NWS issued a joint statement in 2008 reaffirming their
Article VI disarmament commitments.[85] As discussed above, the precise nature of nuclear
weapons state obligations, if any, under Article VI of the Treaty is sharply contested.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)



The CTBT bans "all nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion" and
establishes an extensive International Monitoring System and allows for short-notice onsite inspections.
The CTBT was negotiated in Geneva by the Conference on Disarmament and was
adopted by the General Assembly as a resolution (A/RES/50/245) on 10 September 1996
and opened for signature in September 1996.
Under the terms of the treaty, all forty-four countries with nuclear power plants must sign
and ratify before it becomes legally binding, or "enters into force" (EIF).








The Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty has been signed by 182 countries and ratified by
153. Out of the 44 Annex II States (nuclear capable states whose ratification is necessary
for the EIF), 35 have ratified. Three have not even signed. See the CTBT Organization
website for the latest signators and ratifiers.
Article XIV of the CTBT allows for a special conference on accelerating Entry-IntoForce if the treaty has not yet entered-into-force. The conference does not have the power
to amend the treaty.
In October 1999, the first such Conference on Facilitating the Entry-Into-Force of the
CTBT was held in Vienna. Ninety-two states unanimously adopted a Final Declaration at
that meeting hearing over fifty statements examining measures consistent with
international law to accelerate the Treaty's ratification.
Why is the CTBT important?
The CTBT bans all nuclear tests, anytime, anywhere and comprehensively. Without the
CTBT, states are not prohibited from conducting underground test explosions.
The Treaty is intended to stop the qualitative nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, the CTBT
does not prohibit research on nuclear weapons, including subcritical tests. But the
Treaty's stated objectives are disarmament and the prevention of further nuclear weapon
modernization and subsequent arms races.
If it enters into force, the CTBT will prevent further horrendous health and environmental
damage caused by nuclear test explosions.
The CTBTO (the organization of the CTBT and the Secretariat of the Conferences) is
already making great strides to establish a wide-ranging monitoring and verification
system, including an International Monitoring System and an International Data Centre,
which together with national technical means and ten of thousands of civilian monitoring
stations, will detect and deter would-be testers, and therefore, will build confidence
between all nations that nuclear testing has stopped.
What are the problems with CTBT entry into force
China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel,
Pakistan, and the United States are the nine states preventing the CTBT’s entry into force. Three
countries—India, Pakistan, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—have tested nuclear
explosive devices since the CTBT was negotiated. And since then, the United States has carried
out over 20 subcritical nuclear tests at its Nevada Test Site.
The excuses for not ratifying the Treaty vary between countries, though many suggest, or expect,
that US ratification would lead to a ricochet effect for other ratifications. The merits of this
analysis are debatable; regardless, all current Washington discourse indicates that the price of US
ratification will be high—too high.
A Congressional Research Service report from June 2009 explains that when the US Senate
ratified the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Joint Chiefs of Staff conditioned their support for the
Treaty on four safeguards: an aggressive nuclear test program; maintaining nuclear weapon
laboratories; maintaining the ability to resume atmospheric tests promptly; and improving
intelligence and nuclear explosion monitoring capabilities. The report emphasises that safeguards
were key to securing Senate ratification of the 1963 Treaty. The report goes on to explain that
updated safeguards have been part of CTBT ratification negotiations in the Senate. The report’s
author notes, “Safeguards could be updated, such as by adding Safeguards for the nuclear
weapon production plants and strategic forces, and could be augmented with implementation
measures” that enforce the updated safeguards and prevent any erosion of the anti-disarmament
scheme behind ratification.
Furthermore, as Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group argues, the opposition in the Senate
to ratifying the Treaty is not about preserving the United States’ ability to test a nuclear
weapon—it has no reason to ever test a nuclear weapon again and if there were such a
circumstance, it would be able to withdraw from the Treaty under its withdrawal clause. Mello
writes, “Any ratification deal would be aimed, in part, precisely at negating the Treaty’s
disarmament impact ... In this shifting and uncertain scene, the CTBT ratification process will be
viewed by many actors—defense ideologues, nuclear contractors, and pork-barrel politicians—as
a means to protect the U.S. nuclear establishment against the vicissitudes of time.”
Other governments and international civil society advocates need to be wary of the process
underway in the United States toward CTBT ratification and in their advocacy must emphasise
core value of the Treaty: that a ban on nuclear weapon testing is intended to prevent the design,
development, or modernision of nuclear weapons. Any deals given in trade for ratification will
only serve to undermine the Treaty and cannot be accepted.
CTBT Article XIV (Entry-Into-Force) Conferences
The Entry-Into-Force (EIF) Conference are opportunities for:








announcing ratifications and signatures;
calling on those states that have not yet signed or ratified the CTBT to join the
international consensus to end nuclear testing;
urging states with active nuclear weapon research programmes and test sites to take
actions that would reinforce the CTBT and support its goals, such as refraining from
activities at test sites that might be construed as CTBT violations, halting research,
development and production of nuclear warheads based on modifications of existing
designs, that give them new military capabilities;
examining ways and means of removing obstacles which delay Entry-Into-Force;
discussing and agreeing on specific measures to convince the last holdout states to
support the test ban;
support for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organisation in Vienna that has made
significant progress in setting up the International Monitoring System and International
Data Center, so that the CTBT's verification system is ready by the time the treaty enters
into force;
condemning any future testing; and,
calling upon governments, businesses and peoples to take decisive action in reaction to
any future testing.
What can NGOs do?





contact Reaching Critical Will, who will be coordinating an NGO statement to be
delivered to the CTBT States Parties at the Conference;
make an appointment to speak with a representative at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or
equivalent and encourage the Foreign Minister to attend the conference to publicly urge
the CTBT hold out states to promptly ratify the Treaty; to contact your government's
mission, see RCW's Governmental Database;
contact the CTBTO Secretariat and register your group to attend;
monitor the CTBT EIF progress through the Reaching Critical Will website and react to
what your government does or does not say; and,
publicize your views and your government's policies on the CTBT to the press in your
country.
2009 Article XIV Conference
24–25 September 2009, New York City










Draft Provisional Agenda
Draft Rules of Procedure
Information for NGOs
Aide Memoire for NGO participation (pdf)
Official CTBTO Website
Governmental Statements
WILPF Statement
NGO Statement to Conference
Official Documentation
WILPF Report
2007 Article XIV Conference
The fifth conference on facilitating the Entry Into Force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(Article XIV Conference) was held on 17-18 September 2007 at the Hofburg Congress Centre,
Heldenplatz, A-1014, Vienna, Austria.
The Treaty opened for signature eleven years ago and, with 177 signatures and 140 ratifications,
is close to universality. The Conference directed particular attention at the 44 so-called Annex 2
States whose ratification is a precondition for the Treaty’s entry into force. Only 34 of the 44
have already ratified the Treaty. The ten remaining States are: China, Colombia, the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel,
Pakistan and the United States of America. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India
and Pakistan have not yet signed the Treaty.



Draft Rules of Procedure
Draft Provisional Agenda
Aide Memoire for NGOs
Conference highlights:





UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's message for the conference, delivered by H.E.
Sergio Duarte, the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. Ban remarked that
the eleventh anniversay of the CTBT's opening for signature is a time not for celebration
but for "re-dedication to the noble work that lies ahead in achieving the Treaty's entry
into force. Persistent efforts on the part of States and civil society will be required to
achieve that historic goal."
CTBTO Executive Secretary Mr. Tibor Toth's statement. He noted that since the last
Article XIV conference, twenty more states have signed or ratified the CTBT, "bringing
it significantly closer to the level of ratifications of other WMD prohibition norms." In
addition, 76 more certified facilities of the verification regime have been built, up to 211
from 135 in 2005. He also mentioned the DPRK nuclear weapon test in October 2006,
which was "regrettable and disquieting" in its challenge to norm against nuclear testing,
but also validated the CTBTO's verification system, and it "served to refocus the attention
of the international community on the relevance of the CTBT as a key disarmament and
non-proliferation instrument." He also called upon the Annex II states who haven't signed
the Treaty to "consider the value of the CTBT for their national and international
security."
The statements from the Foreign Ministers of Austria and Costa Rica, H.E. Ursula
Plassnik and H.E. Bruno Stagno Ugarte, who share the presidency of the Conference.
Plassnik noted, "This shared presidency by two CTBT Member States representing two
different geographic regions symbolizes the global support for the Treaty." He
emphasized that the collection of international organizations in Vienna, including OPEC,
UNIDO, the IAEA, and the CTBT, provides a platform to promote new ideas on how to
address human security challenges. Meanwhile, Ugarte identified arguments for the
universalization of the CTBT, including that the CTBT, "as an important nonproliferation instrument . . . constrains the development and qualitative improvement of
new and more advanced nuclear weapons; it severely constrains the capacity of nonnuclear weapon states to develop new nuclear weapons and it prevents the proliferation
of materials, technologies and knowledge that can be used for nuclear weapons." He also
emphasized that the CTBT "not only contributes to international, regional and national
peace and security, it also helps prevent further devastation of human health and the
global environment," and that it "would greatly reduce the climate of distrust and
discontent which has been penetrating the field of disarmament, which distorts all
discussions and which makes it even more difficult to address some of today's key
challenges posed by the threats of nuclear proliferation."
The statement by Ambassador Jaap Ramaker, Special Representative to promote the
CTBT ratification process. Ramaker said, “the world needs a complete ban on nuclear
weapon test explosions. It needs the CTBT. This Treaty will cap the development of ever
more destructive weapons. It constitutes the last barrier against a nuclear programme
turning into a nuclear weapons programme.” In his capacity as Special Representative,
Ramaker had visited most of the Annex 2 non-ratifying countries. He pointed out their
primary concerns: the financial implications and lack of resources; the need to give
higher priority to the issue of nuclear non-proliferation; and, on the positive side, a
growing interest in the concrete benefits of the verification regime.
The NGO statement, read by Lilly Gundacker of the Women's Federation for World
Peace International.

The Final Declaration and Measures to Promote the Entry Into Force of the CTBT, in
which states "affirmed the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications without
delay to achieve early entry into force of the Treaty as one of the practical steps for the
systematic and progressive efforts towards nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation". They also called upon all states to sustain the voluntary moratorium on
nuclear explosions, and to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose
of the Treaty. In addition, the document outlines eleven practical measures to promote the
Treaty's entry into force.
Statements:



NGO Statement
WILPF Statement
All governmental and organizational statements to the Conference are on the CTBTO
website.
Side Events:
Monday - Tuesday, 17-18 September 2007
PTS Exhibition:
"Verifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban"
Experts from the CTBTO's technical divisions will demonstrate how a seismic station works,
how data is processed, and how an on-site inspection is conducted. The 2007 re-release of the
CTBTO Movie "CTBT: For a Safer and More Secure World", which includes CTBTO findings
with regards to the announced nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in
October 2006, will also be shown in the exhibition area.
Time and Place: all day, Dachfoyer, Hofburg Congress Centre
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
VERTIC and ACA Seminar
"The CTBT Achievements, challenges and opportunities"
The Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) and the Arms Control
Association (ACA) will be holding a seminar on political and verification challenges and
opportunities for the Treaty and its verification system.
Time and place: 13:00 - 15:00, Kleiner Redoutensaal, Hofburg Congress Centre
Relevant Publications:
CTBTO Press Releases



17 September 2007: Summary of statements from the first day of the Conference
18 September 2007: Summary of the Final Declaration from the second day of the
Conference
18 September 2007: Feature article on conclusion of conference
CTBTO Spectrum: 2007 Article XIV Conference Special Edition




"Renewed opportunities to bring the CTBT into force," by Dr. Rebecca Johnson
"CTBT: going the last mile to banish nuclear weapon testing," by Dr. Hans Blix
"2007 Article XIV Conference: sending powerful signals for CTBT's entry into force," by
Ambassador Jaap Rapmaker
"History and mechanism of the Article XIV Conferences," by Dr. Andrea Wurm
2005 Article XIV Conference
21-23 September 2005
New York, NY, USA
Parties to the Comprehensive nuclear Test-Ban Treaty gathered in New York City for the fourth
Entry-Into-Force (Article XIV) Conference from 21 to 23 September 2005. These conferences
are held every two years so signatories to and ratifiers of the CTBT can strategize about how to
facilitate the CTBT's early entry-into force. Although the conference this year took place at a
time when the CTBT appears particularly embattled, it was clear that slow progress on the
Treaty's entry into force is being made. A few states, lead by the United States, continue to
refuse to ratify, but the CTBT is gradually gaining momentum and becoming an international
legal norm, through its 176 signatures and 125 ratifications as well as its increasingly operational
verification system, two-thirds of which has now been built.
The Conference's highlights include:





Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement to the conference. Annan told the conference
that although the treaty is an effective measure of disarmament and non-proliferation, the
delay of its entry into force heightens the risk that "someone, somewhere, will test
nuclear weapons." He also advised the group to take heart, because "progress on difficult
nuclear issues is possible." [see the UN press coverage of Annan's statement here]
Ambassador Jaap Ramaker's Report on his activities as Special Representative to
promote the ratification process, including his impressions of the status of those Annex II
states that have not signed or ratified. He said he thought Vietnam's ratification could be
expected in the not too distant future. Despite Indian Prime Minister Singh's declaration
that India seeks to live up to the same nonproliferation standards that the five original
nuclear weapon states are expected to observe, Ramaker was given to understand that in
his promotional visits he "was not welcome in India."
Ambassador Tibor Toth's statement as the new Executive Secretary of the Prepatory
Commission for the CTBT Organization (CTBTO). He reported that 217 of 321
monitoring stations have been built, 115 of which were built in the last two years. The
information flow over the last two years has also nearly tripled, from five to 14 gigabytes
of data per day. Executive Secretary Ambassador Toth replaced Wolfgang Hoffman who
stepped down after 10 years of commendable service.
Antigua and Barbuda's announcement of its ratification of the CTBT. Antigua and
Barbuda informed the conference that its instrument of ratification was being deposited
during the conference proceedings.
Haiti's announcement of its intended ratification of the CTBT. Haiti will soon be publicly
announcing a Haitian law required for them to ratify, and will deposit their ratification as


soon as the law has been made public. The connection between disarmament and
development, with arms spenditures diverting needed money from development, and the
CTBTO's potential contributions to warning small states about seismic disasters were
both important factors in Haiti's decision to ratify.
the United States being a no-show at the Conference, despite being a signatory. The NGO
statement advised the conference that the one nation should not be allowed to determine
whether the entire world will continue to face nuclear annihilation.
the NGO Statement to the Conference. The NGO statement, endorsed by 33 NGOs, was
delivered by Daryl Kimball to a rapt audience, and can be viewed on video here.
All governmental statements to the conference are available on the CTBTO website and the
Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) website. The Conference agreed to continue to
work towards the early entry-into force of the treaty, and that Ambassador Ramaker should
continue to assist the Coordinator (Australia) as the Special Representative to promote the
ratification process of the CTBT. The Conference once again agreed to consider establishing a
trust fund to assist with this work, although nothing came of this recommendation when it was
made in 2003. See the Final Declaration of the Conference for a full report on who attended and
decisions taken.
In addition to the official proceedings, NGOs attending the conference shared the following:
 NGO Side Events
 NGO Press Conference : See Media Coverage in Global Security Newswire
 WILPF Statement
2003 Article XIV Conference
3-5 September 2003
Vienna, Austria
Press Release
NGO Statement, including list of NGO sign-ons
WILPF Statement
WILPF Press Statement
Final Document
Report from Monterrey Institute for International Studies
All official statements are posted by the CTBTO.
2001 Article XIV Conference
11-13 November 2001
New York, NY, USA
List of Speakers
Draft Declaration
Final Declaration in English, in French, in Spanish
Secretary General's opening speech at the CTBT Conference, November 11, 2001
CTBT Media Release from Australian Foreign Minister, November 15, 2001
NGO Statement delivered to the CTBT Conference, November 13, 2001
Letter to CTBT Signers and CTBT Hold-outs from Non-Governmental Organizations
Invitation to NGOs to attend the Second Conference on Facilitating the Entry-Into-Force of the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
High Level CTBT Meeting "Successful" despite US Boycott
b y Rebecca Johnson, the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
CTBT Ministerial Meetings
Fifth Ministerial Meeting
23 September 2010, New York City
On the eve of the anniversary of the opening for signature of the CTBT, Australia, Canada,
Finland, France, Japan, Morocco, and the Netherlands are convening a meeting for foreign
ministers of states party to the Treaty to promote its entry into force.



Joint ministerial statement
Statements
CTBTO press release
Non-governmental organization
A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted organization created by
natural or legal persons that operates independently from any government and a term usually
used by governments to refer to entities that have no government status. In the cases in which
NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental
status by excluding government representatives from membership in the organization. The term
is usually applied only to organizations that pursue some wider social aim that has political
aspects, but that are not overtly political organizations such as political parties. Unlike the term
"intergovernmental organization", the term "non-governmental organization" has no generally
agreed legal definition. In many jurisdictions, these types of organization are called "civil society
organizations" or referred to by other names.
The number of internationally operating NGOs is estimated at 40,000.[1] National numbers are
even higher: Russia has 277,000 NGOs;[2] India is estimated to have around 1.2 million NGOs.
History
International non-governmental organizations have a history dating back to at least 1839.[4]
Rotary, later Rotary International, was founded in 1905. It has been estimated that by 1914 there
were 1083 NGOs.[5] International NGOs were important in the anti-slavery movement and the
movement for women's suffrage, and reached a peak at the time of the World Disarmament
Conference.[6] However, the phrase "non-governmental organization" only came into popular use
with the establishment of the United Nations Organization in 1945 with provisions in Article 71
of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter[7] for a consultative role for organizations which are
neither governments nor member states—see Consultative Status. The definition of
"international NGO" (INGO) is first given in resolution 288 (X) of ECOSOC on February 27,
1950: it is defined as "any international organization that is not founded by an international
treaty". The vital role of NGOs and other "major groups" in sustainable development was
recognized in Chapter 27[8] of Agenda 21, leading to intense arrangements for a consultative
relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.[9]
Rapid development of the non-governmental sector occurred in western countries as a result of
the processes of restructuring of the welfare state. Further globalization of that process occurred
after the fall of the communist system and was an important part of the Washington
consensus.[10]
Globalization during the 20th century gave rise to the importance of NGOs. Many problems
could not be solved within a nation. International treaties and international organizations such as
the World Trade Organization were perceived[by whom?] as being too centred on the interests of
capitalist enterprises. Some[who?] argued that in an attempt to counterbalance this trend, NGOs
have developed to emphasize humanitarian issues, developmental aid and sustainable
development. A prominent example of this is the World Social Forum, which is a rival
convention to the World Economic Forum held annually in January in Davos, Switzerland. The
fifth World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2005 was attended by
representatives from more than 1,000 NGOs.[citation needed] Some have argued that in forums like
these, NGOs take the place of what should belong to popular movements of the poor. Others
argue that NGOs are often imperialist[11] in nature, that they sometimes operate in a racialized
manner in dominant countries, and that they fulfil a similar function to that of the clergy during
the high colonial era. The philosopher Peter Hallward argues that they are an aristocratic form of
politics.[12] Whatever the case, NGO transnational networking is now extensive.[13]
Types of NGOs
NGO type can be understood by orientation and level of co-operation.
NGO type by orientation




Charitable orientation;
Service orientation;
Participatory orientation;
Empowering orientation;
NGO type by level of co-operation




Community- Based Organization;
City Wide Organization;
National NGOs;
International NGOs;
Apart from "NGO", often alternative terms are used as for example: independent sector,
volunteer sector, civil society, grassroots organizations, transnational social movement
organizations, private voluntary organizations, self-help organizations and non-state actors
(NSA's).
Non-governmental organizations are a heterogeneous group. A long list of acronyms has
developed around the term "NGO".
These include:












BINGO, short for business-friendly international NGO or big international NGO;
CITS, helping scientific community by motivating young talent towards research &
development
CSO, short for civil society organization;
DONGO: Donor Organized NGO;
ENGO: short for environmental NGO, such as Greenpeace and WWF
GONGOs are government-operated NGOs, which may have been set up by governments
to look like NGOs in order to qualify for outside aid or promote the interests of the
government in question;
INGO stands for international NGO; Oxfam is an international NGO;
QUANGOs are quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations, such as the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (The ISO is actually not purely an
NGO, since its membership is by nation, and each nation is represented by what the ISO
Council determines to be the 'most broadly representative' standardization body of a
nation. That body might itself be a nongovernmental organization; for example, the
United States is represented in ISO by the American National Standards Institute, which
is independent of the federal government. However, other countries can be represented by
national governmental agencies; this is the trend in Europe.)
TANGO: short for technical assistance NGO;
GSO: Grassroots Support Organization
MANGO: short for market advocacy NGO
CHARDS:Community Health and Rural Development Society
There are also numerous classifications of NGOs. The typology the World Bank uses divides
them into Operational and Advocacy:[14]
The primary purpose of an operational NGO is the design and implementation of developmentrelated projects. One frequently used categorization is the division into relief-oriented versus
development-oriented organizations; they can also be classified according to whether they stress
service delivery or participation; or whether they are religious or secular; and whether they are
more public or private-oriented. Operational NGOs can be community-based, national or
international.
The primary purpose of an Advocacy NGO is to defend or promote a specific cause. As opposed
to operational project management, these organizations typically try to raise awareness,
acceptance and knowledge by lobbying, press work and activist events.
USAID refers to NGOs as private voluntary organisations. However many scholars have argued
that this definition is highly problematic as many NGOs are in fact state and corporate funded
and managed projects with professional staff.[citation needed]
NGOs exist for a variety of reasons, usually to further the political or social goals of their
members or funders. Examples include improving the state of the natural environment,
encouraging the observance of human rights, improving the welfare of the disadvantaged, or
representing a corporate agenda. However, there are a huge number of such organizations and
their goals cover a broad range of political and philosophical positions. This can also easily be
applied to private schools and athletic organizations.
The number of internationally operating NGOs is estimated at 40,000. National numbers are
even higher: Russia has 277,000 NGOs. India is estimated to have between 1 million and 2
million NGOs.(Data collected from http://www.infongo.com/, which is the director Ekhtiar
Hassan Shabuj)
Methods
NGOs vary in their methods. Some act primarily as lobbyists, while others primarily conduct
programs and activities. For instance, an NGO such as Oxfam, concerned with poverty
alleviation, might provide needy people with the equipment and skills to find food and clean
drinking water, whereas an NGO like the FFDA helps through investigation and documentation
of human rights violations and provides legal assistance to victims of human rights abuses.
Others, such as Afghanistan Information Management Services, provide specialized technical
products and services to support development activities implemented on the ground by other
organizations.
Public relations
Non-governmental organisations need healthy relationships with the public to meet their goals.
Foundations and charities use sophisticated public relations campaigns to raise funds and employ
standard lobbying techniques with governments. Interest groups may be of political importance
because of their ability to influence social and political outcomes. A code of ethics [15] was
established in 2002 by The World Association of Non Governmental NGOs.
Consulting
Project management
There is an increasing awareness that management techniques are crucial to project success in
non-governmental organizations.[16] Generally, non-governmental organizations that are private
have either a community or environmental focus. They address varieties of issues such as
religion, emergency aid, or humanitarian affairs. They mobilize public support and voluntary
contributions for aid; they often have strong links with community groups in developing
countries, and they often work in areas where government-to-government aid is not possible.
NGOs are accepted as a part of the international relations landscape, and while they influence
national and multilateral policy-making, increasingly they are more directly involved in local
action.
Staffing
Not all people working for non-governmental organizations are volunteers.
There is some dispute as to whether expatriates should be sent to developing countries.
Frequently this type of personnel is employed to satisfy a donor who wants to see the supported
project managed by someone from an industrialized country. However, the expertise these
employees or volunteers may be counterbalanced by a number of factors: the cost of foreigners is
typically higher, they have no grassroot connections in the country they are sent to, and local
expertise is often undervalued.[14]
The NGO sector is an important employer in terms of numbers.[citation needed] For example, by the
end of 1995, CONCERN worldwide, an international Northern NGO working against poverty,
employed 174 expatriates and just over 5,000 national staff working in ten developing countries
in Africa and Asia, and in Haiti.
Funding
Large NGOs may have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. For
instance, the budget of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) was over US$540
million in 1999.[17] Funding such large budgets demands significant fundraising efforts on the
part of most NGOs. Major sources of NGO funding are membership dues, the sale of goods and
services, grants from international institutions or national governments, and private donations.
Several EU-grants provide funds accessible to NGOs.
Even though the term "non-governmental organization" implies independence from
governments, most NGOs depend heavily on governments for their funding.[10] A quarter of the
US$162 million income in 1998 of the famine-relief organization Oxfam was donated by the
British government and the EU. The Christian relief and development organization World Vision
collected US$55 million worth of goods in 1998 from the American government. Nobel Prize
winner Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (known in the USA as Doctors Without Borders) gets
46% of its income from government sources.[18]
Government funding of NGOs is controversial, since, according to David Rieff, writing in The
New Republic, "the whole point of humanitarian intervention was precisely that NGOs and civil
society had both a right and an obligation to respond with acts of aid and solidarity to people in
need or being subjected to repression or want by the forces that controlled them, whatever the
governments concerned might think about the matter."[19] Some NGOs, such as Greenpeace do
not accept funding from governments or intergovernmental organizations.[20][21]
Monitoring and control
In a March 2000 report on United Nations Reform priorities, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi
Annan wrote in favor of international humanitarian intervention, arguing that the international
community has a "right to protect" citizens of the world against ethnic cleansing, genocide, and
crimes against humanity. On the heels of the report, the Canadian government launched the
Responsibility to Protect R2PPDF (434 KiB) project, outlining the issue of humanitarian
intervention. While the R2P doctrine has wide applications, among the more controversial has
been the Canadian government's use of R2P to justify its intervention and support of the coup in
Haiti.[citation needed]
Years after R2P, the World Federalist Movement, an organization which supports "the creation
of democratic global structures accountable to the citizens of the world and call for the division
of international authority among separate agencies", has launched Responsibility to Protect Engaging Civil Society (R2PCS). A collaboration between the WFM and the Canadian
government, this project aims to bring NGOs into lockstep with the principles outlined under the
original R2P project.
The governments of the countries an NGO works or is registered in may require reporting or
other monitoring and oversight. Funders generally require reporting and assessment, such
information is not necessarily publicly available. There may also be associations and watchdog
organizations that research and publish details on the actions of NGOs working in particular
geographic or program areas.[citation needed]
In recent years, many large corporations have increased their corporate social responsibility
departments in an attempt to preempt NGO campaigns against certain corporate practices. As the
logic goes, if corporations work with NGOs, NGOs will not work against corporations.
In December 2007, The United States Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Health Affairs) S. Ward Casscells established an International Health Division under Force
Health Protection & Readiness.[22] Part of International Health's mission is to communicate with
NGOs in areas of mutual interest. Department of Defense Directive 3000.05,[23] in 2005, requires
DoD to regard stability-enhancing activities as a mission of importance equal to warfighting. In
compliance with international law, DoD has necessarily built a capacity to improve essential
services in areas of conflict such as Iraq, where the customary lead agencies (State Department
and USAID) find it difficult to operate. Unlike the "co-option" strategy described for
corporations, the OASD(HA) recognizes the neutrality of health as an essential service.
International Health cultivates collaborative relationships with NGOs, albeit at arms-length,
recognizing their traditional independence, expertise and honest broker status. While the goals of
DoD and NGOs may seem incongruent, the DoD's emphasis on stability and security to reduce
and prevent conflict suggests, on careful analysis, important mutual interests.
Legal status
The legal form of NGOs is diverse and depends upon homegrown variations in each country's
laws and practices. However, four main family groups of NGOs can be found worldwide:[24]




Unincorporated and voluntary association
Trusts, charities and foundations
Companies not just for profit
Entities formed or registered under special NGO or nonprofit laws
NGOs are not subjects of international law, as states are. An exception is the International
Committee of the Red Cross, which is subject to certain specific matters, mainly relating to the
Geneva Convention.
The Council of Europe in Strasbourg drafted the European Convention on the Recognition of the
Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organizations in 1986, which sets a
common legal basis for the existence and work of NGOs in Europe. Article 11 of the European
Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of association, which is also a
fundamental norm for NGOs.
Citizen and social benefit organizations
There is a growing movement within the “non-profit organization" and “non”-government sector
to define itself in a more constructive, accurate way. The "non-profit" designation is seen to be
particularly dysfunctional because of at least three reasons: 1) It says nothing about the purpose
of the organization, only what it is not; 2) It focuses the mind on "profit" which is the opposite of
its purpose and 3) It implies the organization has few financial resources which increases the
likelihood that they will. imply Instead of being defined by “non” words, organizations are
suggesting new terminology to describe the sector. The term "social benefit organization" (SBO)
is being adopted by some organizations. This defines them in terms of their positive mission. The
term “civil society organization” (CSO) has also been used by a growing number of
organizations, such as the Center for the Study of Global Governance.[25] The term “citizen
sector organization” (CSO) has also been advocated to describe the sector — as one of citizens,
for citizens.[26] These labels, SBO and CSO, position the sector as its own entity, without relying
on language used for the government or business sectors. However some have argued that CSO
is not particularly helpful given that most NGOs are in fact funded by governments and business
and that some NGOs are clearly hostile to independently organized people's organizations.[10][27]
The term "social benefit organization" seems to avoid that problem since it does not assume any
particular structure but rather focuses on the organization's mission.
Steps in establishing NGOs
The first step in the establishment of the NGO is to identify the area of peculiar needs of the
society, such as health, HIV/AIDS, Maternal Mortality, Polio, food, shelter,education, civil
liberty and poverty alleviation among others.
The second step is to identify people of similar minds; there must be a unity of purpose. The
third step is to engage the services of a qualified legal practitioner for guidance for the
Registration process. Some NGOs can be registered with the regional or central government and
that depends on the scope of the operations of the proposed NGO. The next important step also is
to identify the internal or external partners with a clearly stated objectives and plan of actions.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was created in 1949. NATO was seen
as being a viable military deterrent against the military might of the Soviet Union. In
response to NATO admitting the membership of West Germany, the Soviet Union was
to gather all its client states in Eastern Europe into the Warsaw Pact in May 1955. The
heart of NATO beat around the military and financial muscle of the United States.
However, because the post-war Soviet threat was perceived to be against Western
Europe, the headquarters of NATO was based in Brussels, Belgium.
The original members of NATO were USA, UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg,
France, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Greece and Turkey
joined in 1952.
The principal part of NATO membership states:
“The parties of NATO agree that an armed attack against one of more of them in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all of them.
Consequently, they agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them in exercise
of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the party or parties being
attacked, individually and in concert with other parties, such action as it deems
necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the
North Atlantic area.”
This agreement did not tie a member state down to a military response but a response
as “deemed necessary” was expected.
In 1952 at the Lisbon Conference, member states discussed expanding NATO to 96
divisions – this was in response to the perceived threat of communism after the North
Korean invasion of South Korea and the subsequent Korean War. However, in 1953, it
was agreed to limit NATO to 35 divisions but with a greater reliability on nuclear
weapons.
For many years, only America provided the nuclear weaponry for NATO, though both
the United Kingdom and France were eventually to produce their own nuclear capability.
France, angered by what they saw as the dominance of America in NATO, effectively
withdrew in 1959 and developed her own independent nuclear force. Charles de Gaulle
made it clear that only the French government would determine when and if such
weaponry would be used. He ordered the withdrawal of the French Mediterranean
Naval Fleet from NATO command and in the same year banned all foreign nuclear
weapons from French soil. In 1966 all French military forces were withdrawn from
NATO’s command. France remained a member of NATO but had its armed forces
under the control of the French government. However, in secret talks, plans were made
to put French forces back under NATO command in the event of an invasion of Western
Europe by Warsaw Pact states.
In the immediate aftermath of World War Two, Western Europe relied on American
support and power to defend itself against the Soviet threat. However, as Western
Europe found its feet after World War Two, a more independent streak was identified
that deemed America to be too dominant in NATO and West European affairs – hence
the move by France to make herself an independent nuclear state. In the UK something
similar occurred – though the UK was less openly critical of America’s dominance of
NATO – and an independent nuclear capability was developed based around the V
Force (Vulcan, Victor and Valiant bombers) and the Blue Streak missile development.
Both France and the UK developed an independent nuclear submarine capability as
well – though the UK purchased US missiles, thus empathising America’s importance to
Western Europe and NATO.
To defend the heart of Europe, NATO based a huge land and air force in West
Germany. This was a clear response to the Soviet Army that dominated the Warsaw
Pact. In 1979, in response to a build-up of Warsaw Pact military strength, NATO agreed
to deploy American Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe. In 1983-84,
when the Warsaw Pact deployed SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe, NATO responded
by deploying more modern Pershing missiles. Combined with her nuclear capability,
NATO could also call on a formidable conventional force.
In 1983, NATO claimed to have within Western Europe:
1,986,000 ground force troops
90 divisions
20,722 main battle tanks
2,080 anti-tank guided weapon launchers
182 submarines
385 anti-submarine submarines
314 capital ships (carriers, cruisers etc)
821 Other naval craft
4,338 fighter aircraft
6869 anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.
With such a military capacity, NATO and Western governments were in a strong
position to negotiate with Moscow an arms reduction. It was generally considered that
the USSR had major financial troubles and could not compete with NATO in the
modernisation of its weaponry. This dual approach – reducing weapons while at the
same time maintaining a very strong military force - reaped dividends in the era of
Gorbachev and Reagan and helped to end the Cold War.
Disarmament
Disarmament is the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons. Disarmament generally
refers to a country's military or specific type of weaponry. Disarmament is often taken to mean
total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear arms. General and Complete
Disarmament refers to the removal of all weaponry, including conventional arms.
Disarmament can be contrasted with arms control, which essentially refers to the act of
controlling arms rather than eliminating them. A distinction can also be made between
disarmament as a process (the process of eliminating weapons), and disarmament as an end state
(the absence of weapons). Disarmament has also come to be associated with two things:

Nuclear disarmament, which does not address civilian weapons and military systems
whose firepower and extent of damage can be considerable. The war in Iraq has led to the
deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. In the Korean War, hundreds of thousands have

died. In so-called "New Wars" in Africa, millions have died. In none of these cases were
nuclear weapons used; yet there have been many civilian and military deaths, surpassing
the damage caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World
War Two.
Unilateral disarmament, which seeks to reduce weapons systems in either an ad hoc
fashion or based on initiatives within one nation. This approach fails to leverage
reductions in one country for reductions in another, or series of countries. Furthermore,
unilateral disarmament, as was advocated in the United Kingdom, fails to assuage the
concerns of "realists" about the dangers of weapons systems and power projection by
other countries.[citation needed]
Philosophically, disarmament may be viewed as a form of demilitarization; part of an economic,
political, technical, and military process to reduce and eliminate weapons systems. Thus,
disarmament is part of a set of other strategies, like economic conversion, which aim to reduce
the power of war making institutions and associated constituencies. Disarmament need not be a
"utopian" project in the sense of being misguided or naive. Rather, various strategies can be used
to promote the political, economic, and media power necessary for demilitarization.
History
An example on the feasibility of the elimination of weapons is the policy of gradual reduction of
guns in Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate. In two centuries, Japan passed from being the
country with more guns per capita to producing (or importing) none.[citation needed]
Disarmament conferences and treaties
Conferences






1899: Hague Conferences
1932-34: World Disarmament Conference
1960: Ten Nation Disarmament Committee
1962-1968: Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee
1969-1978: Conference of the Committee on Disarmament
1979-present: Conference on Disarmament (CD)[2]
Naval
Main article: Naval conference





1908–1909: London Naval Conference
1921–1922: Washington Naval Conference
1927: Geneva Naval Conference
1930: London Naval Conference leading to the London Naval Treaty
1935: London Naval Conference leading to the Second London Naval Treaty
Nuclear disarmament
The United Nations has worked for nuclear disarmament ever since its first resolution in 1946
entitled "The Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery
of Atomic Energy." In 1954, India became the first country to seek a complete nuclear test ban[3]
There are three types of nuclear disarmament:

General Disarmament: allows nations to keep minimum necessary police force.[citation
needed]


Quantitative and Qualitative Disarmament: involves overall reduction and abolition of
only certain types of armaments.
Total Disarmament: the complete elimination of armaments.
Disarmament barriers
The political and economic barriers to disarmament are considerable, mostly based on the
concentrated power of those supporting militaristic approaches to foreign policy. One key barrier
is ideological. Many foundations and universities have failed to support research in disarmament,
instead favoring more ad hoc and limited approaches like arms control, conflict resolution, and
limits on weapons systems in specific countries. Part of this may be pragmatism, but often it is
the result of a limited understanding of the history of disarmament (see References below).[citation
needed]
Attempts to restrict nuclear proliferation are of course a necessity. Bolstering these efforts
would be assisted by checking the link between military intervention and nuclear proliferation.
Many countries fearful of being invaded, particularly by the U.S., have tried to secure or develop
nuclear weapons. As a result, policies to limit military interventions may be part of a larger
demilitarization program.
Misconceptions about disarmament
In his definition of "disarmament", David Carlton writes in the Oxford University Press Political
dictionary, "But confidence in such measures of arms control, especially when unaccompanied
by extensive means of verification, has not been strengthened by the revelation that the Soviet
Union in its last years successfully concealed consistent and systematic cheating on its
obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention." He also notes, "Now a freeze or a
mutually agreed increase is not strictly speaking disarmament at all. And such measures may not
even be intended to be a first step towards any kind of reduction or abolition. For the aim may
simply be to promote stability in force structures. Hence a new term to cover such cases has
become fashionable since the 1960s, namely, arms control."[4]
The problem with this line of thought is that it gives the appearance of confusing arms control
with disarmament, even though it acknowledges some difference. Disarmament by definition
involves inspection and verification procedures.[citation needed] Thus, the book by Seymour Melman,
Inspection for Disarmament, addresses various problems related to the problem of inspection for
disarmament, evasion teams, and capabilities and limitations of aerial inspection. Gradually, as
the idea of arms control displaced the idea of disarmament, the weaknesses of the present arms
control paradigm have created problems for the idea of disarmament itself. Weak inspection
procedures lead to cheating. Cheating discredits comprehensive disarmament, rather than the
more superficial arms control regime. This kind of "guilt by association" is rather unfortunate
and reflects a weakness in the academia in the understanding, teaching, and awareness of what
disarmament really is.[citation needed]
What Is Globalization?
Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different
nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process
has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on
human physical well-being in societies around the world.
Globalization is not new, though. For thousands of years, people—and, later, corporations—have been buying from
and selling to each other in lands at great distances, such as through the famed Silk Road across Central Asia that
connected China and Europe during the Middle Ages. Likewise, for centuries, people and corporations have
invested in enterprises in other countries. In fact, many of the features of the current wave of globalization are
similar to those prevailing before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.
But policy and technological developments of the past few decades have spurred increases in cross-border trade,
investment, and migration so large that many observers believe the world has entered a qualitatively new phase in its
economic development. Since 1950, for example, the volume of world trade has increased by 20 times, and from
just 1997 to 1999 flows of foreign investment nearly doubled, from $468 billion to $827 billion. Distinguishing this
current wave of globalization from earlier ones, author Thomas Friedman has said that today globalization is
“farther, faster, cheaper, and deeper.”
This current wave of globalization has been driven by policies that have opened economies domestically and
internationally. In the years since the Second World War, and especially during the past two decades, many
governments have adopted free-market economic systems, vastly increasing their own productive potential and
creating myriad new opportunities for international trade and investment. Governments also have negotiated
dramatic reductions in barriers to commerce and have established international agreements to promote trade in
goods, services, and investment. Taking advantage of new opportunities in foreign markets, corporations have built
foreign factories and established production and marketing arrangements with foreign partners. A defining feature of
globalization, therefore, is an international industrial and financial business structure.
Technology has been the other principal driver of globalization. Advances in information technology, in particular,
have dramatically transformed economic life. Information technologies have given all sorts of individual economic
actors—consumers, investors, businesses—valuable new tools for identifying and pursuing economic opportunities,
including faster and more informed analyses of economic trends around the world, easy transfers of assets, and
collaboration with far-flung partners.
Globalization is deeply controversial, however. Proponents of globalization argue that it allows poor countries and
their citizens to develop economically and raise their standards of living, while opponents of globalization claim that
the creation of an unfettered international free market has benefited multinational corporations in the Western world
at the expense of local enterprises, local cultures, and common people. Resistance to globalization has therefore
taken shape both at a popular and at a governmental level as people and governments try to manage the flow of
capital, labor, goods, and ideas that constitute the current wave of globalization.
To find the right balance between benefits and costs associated with globalization, citizens of all nations need to
understand how globalization works and the policy choices facing them and their societies. Globalization101.org
tries to provide an accurate analysis of the issues and controversies regarding globalization, especially to highschool and college students, without the slogans or ideological biases generally found in discussions of the topics.
Globalization (or globalisation) describes the process by which regional economies, societies,
and cultures have become integrated through a global network of communication, transportation,
and trade. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the
integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct
investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.[1] However, globalization is
usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural,
political, and biological factors.[2] The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of
ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.
Definitions
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'globalization' was first employed in 1930,
to denote a holistic view of human experience in education.[3] An early description of
globalization was penned by the American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell
who coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897,[4] although it was not until the 1960s that the term
began to be widely used by economists and other social scientists. The term has since then
achieved widespread use in the mainstream press by the later half of the 1980s. Since its
inception, the concept of globalization has inspired numerous competing definitions and
interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire across
Asia and the Indian Ocean from the 15th century onwards.[5]
The United Nations ESCWA says globalization "is a widely-used term that can be defined in a
number of different ways. When used in an economic context, it refers to the reduction and
removal of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of goods, capital,
services and labor... although considerable barriers remain to the flow of labor... Globalization is
not a new phenomenon. It began in the late nineteenth century, but it slowed down during the
period from the start of the First World War until the third quarter of the twentieth century. This
slowdown can be attributed to the inward-looking policies pursued by a number of countries in
order to protect their respective industries... however, the pace of globalization picked up rapidly
during the fourth quarter of the twentieth century..."[6]
Saskia Sassen writes that "a good part of globalization consists of an enormous variety of microprocesses that begin to denationalize what had been constructed as national — whether policies,
capital, political subjectivity, urban spaces, temporal frames, or any other of a variety of
dynamics and domains."[7]
Tom J. Palmer of the Cato Institute defines globalization as "the diminution or elimination of
state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and
complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result."[11]
Thomas L. Friedman has examined the impact of the "flattening" of the world, and argues that
globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces have changed the world
permanently, for both better and worse. He also argues that the pace of globalization is
quickening and will continue to have a growing impact on business organization and practice.[12]
Noam Chomsky argues that the word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense, to describe
the neoliberal form of economic globalization.[13]
Herman E. Daly argues that sometimes the terms internationalization and globalization are used
interchangeably but there is a significant formal difference. The term "internationalization" (or
internationalisation) refers to the importance of international trade, relations, treaties etc. owing
to the (hypothetical) immobility of labor and capital between or among nations.[citation needed]
Finally, Takis Fotopoulos argues that globalization is the result of systemic trends manifesting
the market economy's grow-or-die dynamic, following the rapid expansion of transnational
corporations. Because these trends have not been offset effectively by counter-tendencies that
could have emanated from trade-union action and other forms of political activity, the outcome
has been globalization. This is a multi-faceted and irreversible phenomenon within the system of
the market economy and it is expressed as: economic globalization, namely, the opening and
deregulation of commodity, capital and labour markets which led to the present form of
neoliberal globalization; political globalization, i.e., the emergence of a transnational elite and
the phasing out of the all powerful-nation state of the statist period; cultural globalization, i.e.,
the worldwide homogenisation of culture; ideological globalization; technological globalization;
social globalization.[14]
Effects
Globalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways


Industrial - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of
foreign products for consumers and companies. Particularly movement of material and
goods between and within national boundaries. International trade in manufactured goods
increased more than 100 times (from $95 billion to $12 trillion) in the 50 years since
1955.[15] China's trade with Africa rose sevenfold during 2000-07 alone.[16][17]
Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external
financing for borrowers. By the early part of the 21st century more than $1.5 trillion in
national currencies were traded daily to support the expanded levels of trade and
investment.[18] As these worldwide structures grew more quickly than any transnational
regulatory regime, the instability of the global financial infrastructure dramatically
increased, as evidenced by the Financial crisis of 2007–2010.[19]
Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods
and capital.[23] The interconnectedness of these markets, however, meant that an economic
collapse in one area could impact other areas.[citation needed] With globalization, companies can
produce goods and services in the lowest cost location. This may cause jobs to be moved to
locations that have the lowest wages, least worker protection and lowest health benefits. For
Industrial activities this may cause production to move to areas with the least pollution
regulations or worker safety regulations.






Health Policy - On the global scale, health becomes a commodity. In developing nations
under the demands of Structural Adjustment Programs, health systems are fragmented
and privatized. Global health policy makers have shifted during the 1990s from United
Nations players to financial institutions. The result of this power transition is an increase
in privatization in the health sector. This privatization fragments health policy by
crowding it with many players with many private interests. These fragmented policy
players emphasize partnerships and specific interventions to combat specific problems (as
opposed to comprehensive health strategies). Influenced by global trade and global
economy, health policy is directed by technological advances and innovative medical
trade. Global priorities, in this situation, are sometimes at odds with national priorities
where increased health infrastructure and basic primary care are of more value to the
public than privatized care for the wealthy.[26]
Political - some use "globalization" to mean the creation of a world government which
regulates the relationships among governments and guarantees the rights arising from
social and economic globalization.[27] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position
of power among the world powers, in part because of its strong and wealthy economy.
With the influence of globalization and with the help of The United States’ own
economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth
within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then
it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power
among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to
rival the United States for the position of leading world power.[28]
Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations.
Arguably this is a technological change with the advent of fibre optic communications,
satellites, and increased availability of telephone and Internet.
Language - the most popular first language is Mandarin (845 million speakers) followed
by Spanish (329 million speakers) and English (328 million speakers).[29] However the
most popular second language is undoubtedly English, the "lingua franca" of
globalization:
o About 35% of the world's mail, telexes, and cables are in English.
o Approximately 40% of the world's radio programs are in English.
o About 50% of all Internet traffic uses English.[30]
Competition - Survival in the new global business market calls for improved productivity
and increased competition. Due to the market becoming worldwide, companies in various
industries have to upgrade their products and use technology skillfully in order to face
increased competition.[31]
Ecological - the advent of global environmental challenges that might be solved with
international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution,
over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Since many factories are
built in developing countries with less environmental regulation, globalism and free trade
may increase pollution and impact on precious fresh water resources (Hoekstra and
Chapagain 2008).[32] On the other hand, economic development historically required a
"dirty" industrial stage, and it is argued that developing countries should not, via
regulation, be prohibited from increasing their standard of living.
Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and
identities which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to increase one's standard of living and
enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a
"world culture".[34] Some bemoan the resulting consumerism and loss of languages. Also see
Transformation of culture.





Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g.
through the export of Hollywood). Some consider such "imported" culture a danger, since
it may supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity or even assimilation.
Others consider multiculturalism to promote peace and understanding between people. A
third position that gained popularity is the notion that multiculturalism to a new form of
monoculture in which no distinctions exist and everyone just shift between various
lifestyles in terms of music, cloth and other aspects once more firmly attached to a single
culture. Thus not mere cultural assimilation as mentioned above but the obliteration of
culture as we know it today.[35][36] In reality, as it happens in countries like the United
Kingdom, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, people who always lived in their native
countries maintain their cultures without feeling forced by any reason to accept another
and are proud of it even when they're acceptive of immigrants, while people who are
newly arrived simply keep their own culture or part of it despite some minimum amount
of assimilation, although aspects of their culture often become a curiosity and a daily
aspect of the lives of the people of the welcoming countries.
Greater international travel and tourism. WHO estimates that up to 500,000 people are on
planes at any one time.[citation needed][37] In 2008, there were over 922 million international
tourist arrivals, with a growth of 1.9% as compared to 2007.[38]
Greater immigration,[39] including illegal immigration.[40] The IOM estimates there are
more than 200 million migrants around the world today.[41] Newly available data show
that remittance flows to developing countries reached $328 billion in 2008.[42]
Spread of local consumer products (e.g., food) to other countries (often adapted to their
culture).
Worldwide fads and pop culture such as Pokémon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami, Idol
series, YouTube, Orkut, Facebook, and MySpace; accessible only to those who have
Internet or Television, leaving out a substantial portion of the Earth's population.

o
o


Worldwide sporting events such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games.
Incorporation of multinational corporations into new media. As the sponsors of
the All-Blacks rugby team, Adidas had created a parallel website with a
downloadable interactive rugby game for its fans to play and compete.[43]
Social - development of the system of non-governmental organisations as main agents of
global public policy, including humanitarian aid and developmental efforts.[44]
Technical
o


Development of a Global Information System, global telecommunications
infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the
Internet, communication satellites, submarine fiber optic cable, and wireless
telephones
o Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g., copyright laws, patents
and world trade agreements.
Legal/Ethical
o The creation of the international criminal court and international justice
movements.
o Crime importation and raising awareness of global crime-fighting efforts and
cooperation.
o The emergence of Global administrative law.
Religious
o The spread and increased interrelations of various religious groups, ideas, and
practices and their ideas of the meanings and values of particular spaces.[45]
Cultural effects
"Culture" is defined as patterns of human activity and the symbols that give these activities
significance. Culture is what people eat, how they dress, the beliefs they hold, and the activities
they practice. Globalization has joined different cultures and made it into something different.[46]
Take food for example. Someone in America can be eating Japanese noodles for lunch while
someone in Sydney, Australia is eating classic Italian meatballs. India is known for its curry and
exotic spices. France is known for its cheeses. North America is known for its burgers and fries.
McDonald's is a North American company which is now a global enterprise with 31,000
locations worldwide. This company is just one example of food causing cultural influence on the
global scale.
Another common practice brought about by globalization is the usage of Chinese characters in
tattoos. These tattoos are popular with today's youth despite the lack of social acceptance of
tattoos in China.[47] Also, there is a lack of comprehension in the meaning of Chinese characters
that people get,[48] making this an example of cultural appropriation.
The internet breaks down cultural boundaries across the world by enabling easy, nearinstantaneous communication between people anywhere in a variety of digital forms and media.
The Internet is associated with the process of cultural globalization because it allows interaction
and communication between people with very different lifestyles and from very different
cultures. Photo sharing websites allow interaction even where language would otherwise be a
barrier.
Negative effects
Globalization has generated significant international opposition over concerns that it has
increased inequality and environmental degradation.[49] In the Midwestern United States,
globalization has eaten away at its competitive edge in industry and agriculture, lowering the
quality of life.[50]
Some also view the effect of globalization on culture as a rising concern. Along with
globalization of economies and trade, culture is being imported and exported as well. The
concern is that the stronger, bigger countries such as the United States, may overrun the other,
smaller countries' cultures, leading to those customs and values fading away. This process is also
sometimes referred to as Americanization or McDonaldization. [51]
[edit] Sweatshops
In many poorer nations globalization is the result of foreign businesses utilizing workers in a
country to take advantage of the lower wage rates.
One example used by anti-globalization protestors is the use of sweatshops by manufacturers.
According to Global Exchange these "Sweat Shops" are widely used by sports shoe
manufacturers and mentions one company in particular – Nike.[52] There are factories set up in
the poor countries where employees agree to work for low wages. Then if labour laws alter in
those countries and stricter rules govern the manufacturing process the factories are closed down
and relocated to other nations with more business favorable policies.[citation needed]
There are several agencies that have been set up worldwide specifically designed to focus on
anti-sweatshop campaigns and education of such. In the USA, the National Labor Committee has
proposed a number of bills as part of The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act,
which have thus far failed in Congress. The legislation would legally require companies to
respect human and worker rights by prohibiting the import, sale, or export of sweatshop
goods.[53]
Specifically, these core standards include no child labor, no forced labor, freedom of association,
right to organize and bargain collectively, as well as the right to decent working conditions.[54]
There are also concerns about the emergence of "electronic sweatshops." Shehzad Nadeem
writes that the outsourcing of service work, such as customer service and Information
Technology work, to India has resulted in “longer work hours, an intense work pace, and
temporal displacement manifested in health problems and alienation from family and friends.”[55]
Negative effects of economic liberalization
The world today is so interconnected that the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the
U.S. has led to a global financial crisis and recession on a scale not seen since the Great
Depression.[56] Government deregulation and failed regulation of Wall Street's investment banks
were important contributors to the subprime mortgage crisis.[57][58]
A flood of consumer goods such as televisions, radios, bicycles, and textiles into the United
States, Europe, and Japan has helped fuel the economic expansion of Asian tiger economies in
recent decades.[59] However, Chinese textile and clothing exports have recently encountered
criticism from Europe, the United States and some African countries.[60][61] In South Africa, some
300,000 textile workers have lost their jobs due to the influx of Chinese goods.[62] The increasing
U.S. trade deficit with China has cost 2.4 million American jobs between 2001 and 2008,
according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).[63] A total of 3.2 million – one in six
U.S. factory jobs – have disappeared between 2000 and 2007.[64]
Brain drain
Opportunities in richer countries drives talent away from poorer countries, leading to brain
drains. Brain drain has cost the African continent over $4.1 billion in the employment of 150,000
expatriate professionals annually.[65] Indian students going abroad for their higher studies costs
India a foreign exchange outflow of $10 billion annually.[66]
[edit] Environmental degradation
The Worldwatch Institute said the booming economies of China and India are planetary powers
that are shaping the global biosphere. In 2007, China overtook the United States as the world's
biggest producer of CO2.[68] Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city inhabitants (2007)
breathe air deemed safe by the European Union. At present rates, tropical rainforests in Indonesia
would be logged out in 10 years, Papua New Guinea in 13 to 16 years.[69] A major source of
deforestation is the logging industry, driven spectacularly by China and Japan.[70] China and
India are quickly becoming large oil consumers.[71][72] China has seen oil consumption grow by
8% yearly since 2002, doubling from 1996–2006.[73] State of the World 2006 report said the two
countries' high economic growth hid a reality of severe pollution. The report states:
The world's ecological capacity is simply insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India,
Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the rest of the world in a
sustainable way[74]
Without more recycling, zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium could run out
by 2017, and terbium could be gone before 2012.[75] It is said that if China and India were to
consume as much resources per capita as United States or Japan in 2030 together they would
require a full planet Earth to meet their needs.[76] In the longterm these effects can lead to
increased conflict over dwindling resources[77] and in the worst case a Malthusian catastrophe.
[edit] Food security
The head of the International Food Policy Research Institute, stated in 2008 that the gradual
change in diet among newly prosperous populations is the most important factor underpinning
the rise in global food prices.[78] From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed
agriculture around the world, grain production increased by over 250%.[79] The world population
has grown by about 4 billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and most believe that,
without the Revolution, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently
documents (approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in
2005).[80][81]
It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain food security in a world beset by a confluence of
"peak" phenomena, namely peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorus, peak grain and peak fish.
Growing populations, falling energy sources and food shortages will create the "perfect storm"
by 2030, according to the UK government chief scientist. He said food reserves are at a 50-year
low but the world requires 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.[82][83] The world will have
to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people and as incomes
rise, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) warned.[84] Social scientists
have warned of the possibility that global civilization is due for a period of contraction and
economic re-localization, due to the decline in fossil fuels and resulting crisis in transportation
and food production.[85][86][87] One paper even suggested that the future might even bring about a
restoration of sustainable local economic activities based on hunting and gathering, shifting
horticulture, and pastoralism.[88]
The journal Science published a four-year study in November 2006, which predicted that, at
prevailing trends, the world would run out of wild-caught seafood in 2048.[89]
Disease
Globalization has also helped to spread some of the deadliest infectious diseases known to
humans.[90] Starting in Asia, the Black Death killed at least one-third of Europe's population in
the 14th century.[91] Even worse devastation was inflicted on the American supercontinent by
European arrivals. 90% of the populations of the civilizations of the "New World" such as the
Aztec, Maya, and Inca were killed by small pox brought by European colonization. Modern
modes of transportation allow more people and products to travel around the world at a faster
pace, but they also open the airways to the transcontinental movement of infectious disease
vectors.[92] One example of this occurring is AIDS/HIV.[93] Due to immigration, approximately
500,000 people in the United States are believed to be infected with Chagas disease.[94] In 2006,
the tuberculosis (TB) rate among foreign-born persons in the United States was 9.5 times that of
U.S.-born persons.[95]
Drug and illicit goods trade
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) issued a report that the global drug
trade generates more than $320 billion a year in revenues.[96] Worldwide, the UN estimates there
are more than 50 million regular users of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drugs.[97] The
international trade of endangered species is second only to drug trafficking.[98] Traditional
Chinese medicine often incorporates ingredients from all parts of plants, the leaf, stem, flower,
root, and also ingredients from animals and minerals. The use of parts of endangered species
(such as seahorses, rhinoceros horns, saiga antelope horns, and tiger bones and claws) has
created controversy and resulted in a black market of poachers who hunt restricted
animals.[99][100] In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse.[101]
Advocates
Supporters of free trade claim that it increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity,
especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient
allocation of resources. Economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads
to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In
general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of
living for those in developing countries.[102][103]
Dr. Francesco Stipo, Director of the USA Club of Rome suggests that "the world government
should reflect the political and economic balances of world nations. A world confederation
would not supersede the authority of the State governments but rather complement it, as both the
States and the world authority would have power within their sphere of competence".[104]
Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism, and some libertarians, say that higher degrees of political
and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are ends
in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the
beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism.[102]
Supporters of democratic globalization are sometimes called pro-globalists. They believe that the
first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be followed by a phase of
building global political institutions representing the will of world citizens. The difference from
other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orient this will, but would
leave it to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process.[citation needed]
Some, such as former Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., simply view globalization as
inevitable and advocate creating institutions such as a directly elected United Nations
Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.
Critics
"Anti-globalization" can involve the process or actions taken by a state or its people in order to
demonstrate its sovereignty and practice democratic decision-making. Anti-globalization may
occur in order to maintain barriers to the international transfer of people, goods and beliefs,
particularly free market deregulation, encouraged by business organizations and organizations
such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization. Moreover, as Naomi
Klein argues in her book No Logo, anti-globalism can denote either a single social movement or
an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements[105] such as
nationalists and socialists. In either case, participants stand in opposition to the unregulated
political power of large, multi-national corporations, as the corporations exercise power through
leveraging trade agreements which in some instances create unemployment, and damage the
democratic rights of citizens[citation needed], the environment particularly air quality index and rain
forests[citation needed], as well as national government's sovereignty to determine labor rights,[citation
needed]
including the right to form a union, and health and safety legislation, or laws as they may
otherwise infringe on cultural practices and traditions of developing countries.[citation needed]
Some people who are labeled "anti-globalist" or "sceptics" (Hirst and Thompson)[106] consider
the term to be too vague and inaccurate.[107][108] Podobnik states that "the vast majority of groups
that participate in these protests draw on international networks of support, and they generally
call for forms of globalization that enhance democratic representation, human rights, and
egalitarianism."
Joseph Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton write:[109]
“
The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of
globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer, since the group
represents a wide range of interests and issues and many of the people involved in the antiglobalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of
the world through, for example, aid, assistance for refugees, and global environmental issues.
”
Some members aligned with this viewpoint prefer instead to describe themselves as the "Global
Justice Movement", the "Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement", the "Movement of
Movements" (a popular term in Italy), the "Alter-globalization" movement (popular in France),
the "Counter-Globalization" movement, and a number of other terms.
Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the
planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the
perceived human costs, such as poverty, inequality, miscegenation, injustice and the erosion of
traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic
transformations related to globalization. They challenge directly the metrics, such as GDP, used
to measure progress promulgated by institutions such as the World Bank, and look to other
measures, such as the Happy Planet Index,[110] created by the New Economics Foundation.[111]
They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences–social disintegration, a
breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread
of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[112] which they claim are the unintended but
very real consequences of globalization.
The terms globalization and anti-globalization are used in various ways. Noam Chomsky
believes that[113][114]
“
The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of
international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people
incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free
trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates
of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately,
even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with
ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely
not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international
solidarity — that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private
power systems.
”
The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the
specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the
rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage,
those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of
human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "antiSoviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but
idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system –
which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF
is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all
over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely
narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are
called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from
Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes.
“
”
Critics argue that globalization results in:





Poorer countries suffering disadvantages: While it is true that globalization encourages free
trade among countries, there are also negative consequences because some countries try to
save their national markets. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods.
Larger countries often subsidise their farmers (like the EU Common Agricultural Policy), which
lowers the market price for the poor farmer's crops compared to what it would be under free
trade.[115]
The exploitation of foreign impoverished workers: The deterioration of protections for weaker
nations by stronger industrialized powers has resulted in the exploitation of the people in those
nations to become cheap labor. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful
industrialized nations are able to offer workers enough salary to entice them to endure
extremely long hours and unsafe working conditions, though economists question if consenting
workers in a competitive employers' market can be decried as "exploited". It is true that the
workers are free to leave their jobs, but in many poorer countries, this would mean starvation
for the worker, and possible even his/her family if their previous jobs were unavailable.[116]
The shift to outsourcing: Globalization has allowed corporations to move manufacturing and
service jobs from high cost locations to locations with the lowest wages and worker benefits.
This results in loss of jobs in the high cost locations.[citation needed] This has contributed to the
deterioration of the middle class[citation needed] which is a major factor in the increasing economic
inequality in the United States .[citation needed] Families that were once part of the middle class are
forced into lower positions by massive layoffs and outsourcing to another country. This also
means that people in the lower class have a much harder time climbing out of poverty because
of the absence of the middle class as a stepping stone.[117]
Weak labor unions: The surplus in cheap labor coupled with an ever growing number of
companies in transition has caused a weakening of labor unions in the United States. Unions
lose their effectiveness when their membership begins to decline. As a result unions hold less
power over corporations that are able to easily replace workers, often for lower wages, and
have the option to not offer unionized jobs anymore.[115]
An increase in exploitation of child labor: for example, a country that experiencing increases in
labor demand because of globalization and an increase the demand for goods produced by
children, will experience greater a demand for child labor. This can be "hazardous" or
"exploitive", e.g., quarrying, salvage, cash cropping but also includes the trafficking of children,
children in bondage or forced labor, prostitution, pornography and other illicit activities.[118]
In December 2007, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic has called much previous
empirical research on global poverty and inequality into question because, according to him,
improved estimates of purchasing power parity indicate that developing countries are worse off
than previously believed. Milanovic remarks that "literally hundreds of scholarly papers on
convergence or divergence of countries’ incomes have been published in the last decade based
on what we know now were faulty numbers." With the new data, possibly economists will revise
calculations, and he also believed that there are considerable implications estimates of global
inequality and poverty levels. Global inequality was estimated at around 65 Gini points, whereas
the new numbers indicate global inequality to be at 70 on the Gini scale.[119]
The critics of globalization typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated
according to corporate interests, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global
institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working
classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.[120]
The movement is very broad[citation needed], including church groups, national liberation factions,
peasant unionists, intellectuals, artists, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of
relocalization and others. Some are reformist, (arguing for a more moderate form of capitalism)
while others are more revolutionary (arguing for what they believe is a more humane system
than capitalism) and others are reactionary, believing globalization destroys national industry and
jobs.
One of the key points made by critics of recent economic globalization is that income inequality,
both between and within nations, is increasing as a result of these processes. One article from
2001 found that significantly, in 7 out of 8 metrics, income inequality has increased in the twenty
years ending 2001. Also, "incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have
probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s". Furthermore, the World Bank's figures on absolute
poverty were challenged. The article was skeptical of the World Bank's claim that the number of
people living on less than $1 a day has held steady at 1.2 billion from 1987 to 1998, because of
biased methodology.[121]
A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called
'champagne glass' effect,[122] was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program
Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20%
of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.[123]
Distribution of world GDP, 1989
Quintile of Population Income
Richest 20%
82.7%
Second 20%
11.7%
Third 20%
2.3%
Fourth 20%
2.4%
Poorest 20%
0.2%
Source: United Nations Development Program. 1992 Human Development Report[124]
Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with
more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.[125]
Americanization related to a period of high political American clout and of significant growth of
America's shops, markets and object being brought into other countries. So globalization, a much
more diversified phenomenon, relates to a multilateral political world and to the increase of
objects, markets and so on into each others countries.
Critics of globalization talk of Westernization. A 2005 UNESCO report[126] showed that cultural
exchange is becoming more frequent from Eastern Asia but Western countries are still the main
exporters of cultural goods. In 2002, China was the third largest exporter of cultural goods, after
the UK and US. Between 1994 and 2002, both North America's and the European Union's shares
of cultural exports declined, while Asia's cultural exports grew to surpass North America.
Related factors are the fact that Asia's population and area are several times that of North
America.
Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist
interests.[127] They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities
shapes the political policy of countries.[128][129]
History
The historical origins of globalization are the subject of on-going debate. Though some scholars
situate the origins of globalization in the modern era, others regard it as a phenomenon with a
long history.
Perhaps the most extreme proponent of a deep historical origin for globalization was Andre
Gunder Frank, an economist associated with dependency theory. Frank argued that a form of
globalization has been in existence since the rise of trade links between Sumer and the Indus
Valley Civilization in the third millennium B.C.[130] Critics of this idea point out that it rests upon
an over-broad definition of globalization.
An early form of globalized economics and culture existed during the Hellenistic Age, when
commercialized urban centers were focused around the axis of Greek culture over a wide range
that stretched from India to Spain, with such cities as Alexandria, Athens, and Antioch at its
center. Trade was widespread during that period, and it is the first time the idea of a
cosmopolitan culture (from Greek "Cosmopolis", meaning "world city") emerged. Others have
perceived an early form of globalization in the trade links between the Roman Empire, the
Parthian Empire, and the Han Dynasty. The increasing articulation of commercial links between
these powers inspired the development of the Silk Road, which started in western China, reached
the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued onwards towards Rome.[131] With 300
Greek ships a year sailing between the Greco-Roman world and India, the annual trade may have
reached 300,000 tons.[132]
The Islamic Golden Age was also an important early stage of globalization, when Jewish and
Muslim traders and explorers established a sustained economy across the Old World resulting in
a globalization of crops, trade, knowledge and technology. Globally significant crops such as
sugar and cotton became widely cultivated across the Muslim world in this period, while the
necessity of learning Arabic and completing the Hajj created a cosmopolitan culture.[133]
The advent of the Mongol Empire, though destabilizing to the commercial centers of the Middle
East and China, greatly facilitated travel along the Silk Road. This permitted travelers and
missionaries such as Marco Polo to journey successfully (and profitably) from one end of
Eurasia to the other. The so-called Pax Mongolica of the thirteenth century had several other
notable globalizing effects. It witnessed the creation of the first international postal service, as
well as the rapid transmission of epidemic diseases such as bubonic plague across the newly
unified regions of Central Asia.[134] These pre-modern phases of global or hemispheric exchange
are sometimes known as archaic globalization. Up to the sixteenth century, however, even the
largest systems of international exchange were limited to the Old World.
The Age of Discovery brought a broad change in globalization, being the first period in which
Eurasia and Africa engaged in substantial cultural, material and biologic exchange with the New
World.[135] It began in the late 15th century, when the two Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula Portugal and Castile - sent the first exploratory voyages[136] around the Horn of Africa and to the
Americas, "discovered" in 1492 by Christopher Columbus. Shortly before the turn of the 16th
century, Portuguese started establishing trading posts (factories) from Africa to Asia and Brazil,
to deal with the trade of local products like gold, spices and timber, introducing an international
business center under a royal monopoly, the House of India.[137]
Global integration continued with the European colonization of the Americas initiating the
Columbian Exchange,[138] the enormous widespread exchange of plants, animals, foods, human
populations (including slaves), communicable diseases, and culture between the Eastern and
Western hemispheres. It was one of the most significant global events concerning ecology,
agriculture, and culture in history. New crops that had come from the Americas via the European
seafarers in the 16th century significantly contributed to the world's population growth.[139]
This phase is sometimes known as proto-globalization. It was characterized by the rise of
maritime European empires, in the 16th and 17th centuries, first the Portuguese and Spanish
Empires, and later the Dutch and British Empires. In the 17th century, globalization became also
a private business phenomenon when chartered companies like British East India Company
(founded in 1600), often described as the first multinational corporation, as well as the Dutch
East India Company (founded in 1602) were established. Because of the large investment and
financing needs and high risks involved in international trade, the British East India Company
became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership of companies
through the issuance of shares of stock: an important driver for globalization.
The 19th century witnessed the advent of globalization approaching its modern form.
Industrialization allowed cheap production of household items using economies of scale, while
rapid population growth created sustained demand for commodities. Globalization in this period
was decisively shaped by nineteenth-century imperialism. After the Opium Wars and the
completion of British conquest of India, vast populations of these regions became ready
consumers of European exports. It was in this period that areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the
Pacific islands were incorporated into the world system. Meanwhile, the conquest of new parts of
the globe, notably sub-Saharan Africa, by Europeans yielded valuable natural resources such as
rubber, diamonds and coal and helped fuel trade and investment between the European imperial
powers, their colonies, and the United States.[citation needed] Said John Maynard Keynes,[140]
“
The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea, the
various products of the whole earth, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his
doorstep. Militarism and imperialism of racial and cultural rivalries were little more
than the amusements of his daily newspaper. What an extraordinary episode in the
economic progress of man was that age which came to an end in August 1914.
”
The first phase of "modern globalization" began to break down at the beginning of the 20th
century, with the first world war. The novelist VM Yeates criticised the financial forces of
globalization as a factor in creating World War I.[141] The final death knell for this phase came
during the gold standard crisis and Great Depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s.[citation
needed]
In the middle decades of the twentieth century globalization was largely driven by the global
expansion of multinational corporations based in the United States and Europe, and worldwide
exchange of new developments in science, technology and products, with most significant
inventions of this time having their origins in the Western world according to Encyclopedia
Britannica.[142] Worldwide export of western culture went through the new mass media: film,
radio and television and recorded music. Development and growth of international transport and
telecommunication played a decisive role in modern globalization.
In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into a deep recession.[143] Some analysts
say the world is going through a period of deglobalization after years of increasing economic
integration.[144][145] China has recently become the world's largest exporter surpassing
Germany.[146]
Post-World War II
Globalization, since World War II, is largely the result of planning by politicians to break down
borders hampering trade. Their work led to the Bretton Woods conference, an agreement by the
world's leading politicians to lay down the framework for international commerce and finance,
and the founding of several international institutions intended to oversee the processes of
globalization.
These institutions include the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the
World Bank), and the International Monetary Fund. Globalization has been facilitated by
advances in technology which have reduced the costs of trade, and trade negotiation rounds,
originally under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which led
to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on free trade.
Since World War II, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered through
international agreements — GATT. Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the
World Trade Organization (WTO), for which GATT is the foundation, have included:

Promotion of free trade:
o elimination of tariffs; creation of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
o Reduced transportation costs, especially resulting from development of
containerization for ocean shipping.
o Reduction or elimination of capital controls
o Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
o Creation of subsidies for global corporations
o Harmonization of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with
more restrictions
o Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted
by China would be recognized in the United States)
Cultural globalization, driven by communication technology and the worldwide marketing of
Western cultural industries, was understood at first as a process of homogenization, as the global
domination of American culture at the expense of traditional diversity. However, a contrasting
trend soon became evident in the emergence of movements protesting against globalization and
giving new momentum to the defense of local uniqueness, individuality, and identity.[147]
The Uruguay Round (1986 to 1994)[148] led to a treaty to create the WTO to mediate trade
disputes and set up a uniform platform of trading. Other bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and
barriers to trade.
World exports rose from 8.5% in 1970, to 16.2% of total gross world product in 2001.[149]
In the 1990s, the growth of low cost communication networks allowed work done using a
computer to be moved to low wage locations for many job types. This included accounting,
software development, and engineering design.
Measurement
Economic globalization can be measured in different ways. These center around the four main
economic flows that characterize globalization:




Goods and services, e.g., exports plus imports as a proportion of national income or per
capita of population
Labor/people, e.g., net migration rates; inward or outward migration flows, weighted by
population
Capital, e.g., inward or outward direct investment as a proportion of national income or
per head of population
Technology, e.g., international research & development flows; proportion of populations
(and rates of change thereof) using particular inventions (especially 'factor-neutral'
technological advances such as the telephone, motorcar, broadband)
As globalization is not only an economic phenomenon, a multivariate approach to measuring
globalization is the recent index calculated by the Swiss think tank KOF. The index measures the
three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political. In addition to three
indices measuring these dimensions, an overall index of globalization and sub-indices referring
to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information
flows, and data on cultural proximity is calculated. Data is available on a yearly basis for 122
countries, as detailed in Dreher, Gaston and Martens (2008).[150] According to the index, the
world's most globalized country is Belgium, followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands. The least globalized countries according to the KOF-index are Haiti,
Myanmar, the Central African Republic and Burundi.[151]
A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine jointly publish another Globalization Index.
According to the 2006 index, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and
Denmark are the most globalized, while Indonesia, India and Iran are the least globalized among
countries listed.
International social fora
See also: European Social Forum, Asian Social Forum, and World Social Forum
The first World Social Forum in 2001 was an initiative of the administration of Porto Alegre,
Brazil. The slogan of was "Another World Is Possible". It was here that the WSF's Charter of
Principles was adopted to provide a framework for the fora.
The WSF became a periodic meeting: in 2002 and 2003 it was held again in Porto Alegre and
became a rallying point for worldwide protest against the American invasion of Iraq. In 2004 it
was moved to Mumbai, India, to make it more accessible to the populations of Asia and Africa.
This last appointment saw the participation of 75,000 delegates.
Regional fora took place following the example of the WSF, adopting its Charter of Principles.
The first European Social Forum was held in November 2002 in Florence. The slogan was
"Against the war, against racism and against neo-liberalism". It saw the participation of 60,000
delegates and ended with a huge demonstration against the war of 1,000,000 people according to
the organizers. The other two ESFs took place in Paris and London, in 2003 and 2004
respectively.
Recently there has been some discussion behind the movement about the role of the social
forums. Some see them as a "popular university", an occasion to make many people aware of the
problems of globalization. Others would prefer that delegates concentrate their efforts on the
coordination and organization of the movement and on the planning of new campaigns. However
it has often been argued that in the dominated countries (most of the world) the WSF is little
more than an 'NGO fair' driven by Northern NGOs and donors most of which are hostile to
popular movements of the poor.[152]
Relation to Americanization
In the past, the argument that globalization could be equated in actuality to the spreading of
American culture was made.[153] The thorough spreading of American culture throughout the
world was apparent. For example, there were cola products shipped and sold in nearly every
country in the world. American fashion also seemed to be trending in most other countries. The
United States was known as a hyperpower due to its economic and military dominance at the
time; the relative power of the US waned as other developing nations such as the BRIC nations
grew in strength, decreasing the forcefulness of the argument that current globalization is simply
Americanization.
Human rights
Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled".[1] Proponents of the
concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of
being human.[2] Human rights are thus conceived in a universalist and egalitarian fashion. Such
entitlements can exist as shared norms of actual human moralities, as justified moral norms or
natural rights supported by strong reasons, or as legal rights either at a national level or within
international law.[3] However, there is no consensus as to the precise nature of what in particular
should or should not be regarded as a human right in any of the preceding senses, and the
abstract concept of human rights has been a subject of intense philosophical debate and criticism.
The modern conception of human rights developed in the aftermath of the Second World War, in
part as a response to the Holocaust, culminating in its adoption by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. However, while the phrase
"human rights" is relatively modern the intellectual foundations of the modern concept can be
traced through the history of philosophy and the concepts of natural law rights and liberties as far
back as the city states of Classical Greece and the development of Roman Law. The true
forerunner of human rights discourse was the enlightenment concept of natural rights developed
by figures such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant and through the political realm in the United
States Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Although ideas of rights and liberty have existed for much of human history, it is unclear to what
degree such concepts can be described as "human rights" in the modern sense. The concept of
rights certainly existed in pre-modern cultures; ancient philosophers such as Aristotle wrote
extensively on the rights (to dikaion in ancient Greek, roughly a 'just claim') of citizens to
property and participation in public affairs. However, neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any
concept of universal human rights; slavery, for instance, was justified both in ancient and modern
times as a natural condition.[5] Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were
not charters of human rights, let alone general charters of rights: they instead constituted a form
of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of
Magna Carta later being mythologised in the course of early modern debates about rights.[6]
The basis of most modern legal interpretations of human rights can be traced back to recent
European history. The Twelve Articles (1525) are considered to be the first record of human
rights in Europe. They were part of the peasants' demands raised towards the Swabian League in
the German Peasants' War in Germany. In Britain in 1683, the English Bill of Rights (or "An Act
Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown") and
the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions. Two
major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France
(1789), leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence and the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which established
certain legal rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a
number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.
“
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
”
—United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
These were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such as
Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and G. W. F. Hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. The term
human rights probably came into use sometime between Paine's The Rights of Man and William
Lloyd Garrison's 1831 writings in The Liberator saying he was trying to enlist his readers in "the
great cause of human rights"[7]
In the 19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery. A number
of reformers such as William Wilberforce in Britain, worked towards the abolition of slavery.
This was achieved in the British Empire by the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition
Act 1833. In the United States, many northern states abolished their institution of slavery by the
mid 19th century, although southern states were still very much economically dependent on slave
labour. Conflict and debates over the expansion of slavery to new territories culminated in the
southern states' secession and the American Civil War. During the reconstruction period
immediately following the war, several amendments to the United States Constitution were
made. These included the 13th amendment, banning slavery, 14th amendment, assuring full
citizenship and civil rights to all people born in the United States, and the 15th amendment,
guaranteeing African Americans the right to vote.
Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course
of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour
unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work
conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's rights movement succeeded in
gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries
succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's
movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and
religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the African American
Civil Rights Movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of
women and minorities in the United States.
The establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and
the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International humanitarian
law, to be further developed following the two World Wars.
The World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that took place
during them were a driving force behind the development of modern human rights instruments.
The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles
following the end of World War I. The League's goals included disarmament, preventing war
through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy
and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its charter was a mandate to promote many of the
rights that were later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the
League's role; this body was to be the United Nations. The United Nations has played an
important role in international human-rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars,
the United Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law that
now make up international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
International law
Modern international conceptions of human rights can be traced to the aftermath of World War II
and the foundation of the United Nations. Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter set out one
of the purposes of the UN is to: "[t]o achieve international cooperation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion".[8] The rights espoused in the UN charter would be codified in
the International Bill of Human Rights, composing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly[10] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the
UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to have acquired the force of
international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and
other judiciaries.[11] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil,
economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice
and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the
behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rightsduty duality.
“
...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world
”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The
members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and
whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and
accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[12] Canadian law professor
John Humphrey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national
research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration
were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by
Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two
articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation
to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; economic, social and cultural
rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties
and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.[12] Humphrey and Cassin
intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in
the third clause of the preamble:[12]
“
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last
resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be
protected by the rule of law.
”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on
human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing
on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.[13][14] The inclusion of civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights[12][15] was predicated on the assumption that basic human
rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This
principle was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously,
with the abstention of the Eastern Bloc, Apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia), however this
principle was later subject to significant challenges.[15]
The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into two distinct and different covenants, a Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and a second Covenant on social, economic, and cultural rights due
to questions about the relevance and propriety of economic and social provisions in covenants on
human rights. Both covenants begin with the right of people to self-determination and to
sovereignty over their natural resources. This debate over whether human rights are more
fundamental than economic has continued to this day.[16]
The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included
only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were also proposed. The
disagreement over which rights were basic human rights resulted in there being two covenants.
The debate was whether economic and social rights are aspirational, as contrasted with basic
human right which all people possess purely by being human, because economic and social
rights depend on wealth and the availability of resources. In addition, which social and economic
rights should be recognised depends on ideology or economic theories, in contrast to basic
human rights which are defined purely by the nature (mental and physical abilities) of human
beings. It was debated whether economic rights were appropriate subjects for binding obligations
and whether the lack of consensus over such rights would dilute the strength of political-civil
rights. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or
induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for
civil-political rights.[17]
This debate and the desire for the greatest number of signatories to human rights law led to the
two covenants. The Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries had argued for the
inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity Resolution. The two covenants allowed states to adopt
some rights and derogate others.[citation needed] Those in favor of having economic and social rights
included with basic human rights could not gain sufficient consensus, despite their belief that all
categories of rights should be linked.[18][19]
Treaties
In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United
Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have
signed this treaty, creating human rights law.
Since then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international
level. They are generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant,
referred to (with ICCPR and ICESCR) as "the seven core treaties", are:






Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted
1966, entry into force: 1969) [20]
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) (entry into force: 1981) [21]
United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force:
1984) [22]
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) [7]
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (adopted 2006, entry into
force: 2008) [23]
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families (ICRMW or more often MWC) (adopted 1990, entry into
force: 2003)
Humanitarian Law
The Geneva Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a result of efforts by
Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The conventions
safeguard the human rights of individuals involved in armed conflict, and build on the 1899 and
1907 Hague Conventions, the international community's first attempt to formalize the laws of
war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law. The conventions were
revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international community in 1949.
Universal Jurisdiction
Universal jurisdiction is a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim
criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries
of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with
the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is
considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish. The concept of universal
jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omnes,
or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens.[24]
International organizations
United Nations
The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted
international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation.[25] Human rights are primarily
governed by the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council,
and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding
different human rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN with regard to human rights is
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The United Nations has an international
mandate to:
...achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, language, or
religion.
“
”
—Article 1–3 of the United Nations Charter
Human Rights Council
The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit to replace the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate violations of human
rights.[26] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly[27] and
reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the
interpretation of the United Nations Charter.[28] Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-one
member states sit on the council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United
Nations General Assembly. Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their
membership suspended for gross human rights abuses. The Council is based in Geneva, and
meets three times a year; with additional meetings to respond to urgent situations.[29]
Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council to investigate alleged human
rights abuses and to provide the Council with reports.
The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council take action when human rights
violations occur. This action may be direct actions, may involve sanctions, and the Security
Council may also refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being
referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[30]
Security Council
The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can authorize the use of
force (including in the context of peace-keeping operations), or override member nations
sovereignty by issuing binding Security Council resolutions. Created by the UN Charter, it is
classed as a Charter Body of the United Nations. The UN Charter gives the Security Council the
power to:



Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well
as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and

Enforce its decisions militarily if necessary.
The Security Council hears reports from all organs of the United Nations, and can take action
over any issue which it feels threatens peace and security, including human rights issues. It has at
times been criticised for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including the
Darfur crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide.[citation needed]
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes the Security Council as having
the power to refer cases to the Court, where the Court could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction.
On April 28, 2006 the Security Council adopted resolution 1674 that "Reaffirm[ed] the
provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding
the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity" and committed the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed
conflict.[31][32]
Other UN Treaty Bodies
A modern interpretation of the original Declaration of Human Rights was made in the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in
1993. The degree of unanimity over these conventions, in terms of how many and which
countries have ratified them varies, as does the degree to which they are respected by various
states. The UN has set up a number of treaty-based bodies to monitor and study human rights, to
be supported by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). The bodies are
committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of the core international human
rights treaties. They are created by the treaty that they monitor, except CESCR.

The Human Rights Committee promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The
eighteen members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make
judgements on individual complaints against countries which have ratified an Optional Protocol
to the treaty. The judgements, termed "views", are not legally binding.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the ICESCR and makes general
comments on ratifying countries performance. It will have the power to receive complaints
against the countries that opted into the Optional Protocol once it has come into force.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitors the CERD and conducts
regular reviews of countries' performance. It can make judgements on complaints against
member states allowing it, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to attempt to
prevent serious contraventions of the convention.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors the CEDAW. It
receives states' reports on their performance and comments on them, and can make
judgements on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999 Optional Protocol.

The Committee Against Torture monitors the CAT and receives states' reports on their
performance every four years and comments on them. Its subcommittee may visit and inspect
countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC and makes comments on reports
submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive complaints.

The Committee on Migrant Workers was established in 2004 and monitors the ICRMW and
makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will have the power to
receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states allow it.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was established in 2008 to monitor the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has the power to receive complaints
against the countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.
Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Human Rights Council and Treaties
Division of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except
CEDAW, which is supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW
formerly held all its sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently
meets at the United Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The
Human Rights Committee usually holds its March session in New York City.
Nongovernmental Organizations
International Nongovernmental human rights organizations such as Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch and FIDH promote and monitor human rights around the world. Human
Rights organizations ""translate complex international issues into activities to be undertaken by
concerned citizens in their own community"[33] Human rights organisations frequently engage in
lobbying and advocacy in an effort to convince the united nations, supranational bodies and
national governments to respect human rights. Many Human rights organisations have observer
status at the various united nations bodies tasked with protecting human rights.The most
prominent nongovernmental human rights conference is the Oslo Freedom Forum, a gathering
described by The Economist as "on its way to becoming a human-rights equivalent of the Davos
economic forum."[34]
There is criticism of human rights organizations who use their status but move away from their
stated goals. For example, Gerald M. Steinberg claims NGOs take advantage of a "halo effect"
and are "given the status of impartial moral watchdogs" by governments and the media.[35] It can
be seen at various governmental levels including when humans rights groups testify before
investigation committees[36] and the like.
Regional human rights
The three principal regional human rights instruments are the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights (the Americas) and the European
Convention on Human Rights.
See also: List of human rights articles by country and National human rights institutions
Africa
The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-three African states.[37]
Established in 2001, the AU's purpose is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a
sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an
effective common market.[38]
The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights is the region's principal human rights
instrument and emerged under the aegis of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) (since
replaced by the African Union). The intention to draw up the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights was announced in 1979 and the Charter was unanimously approved at the OAU's
1981 Assembly. Pursuant to its Article 63 (whereby it was to "come into force three months after
the reception by the Secretary General of the instruments of ratification or adherence of a simple
majority" of the OAU's member states), the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights came
into effect on 21 October 1986 – in honour of which 21st of October was declared "African
Human Rights Day".[39]
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-judicial organ of
the African Union tasked with promoting and protecting human rights and collective (peoples')
rights throughout the African continent as well as interpreting the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights and considering individual complaints of violations of the Charter. The
Commission has three broad areas of responsibility:[40]



Promoting human and peoples' rights
Protecting human and peoples' rights
Interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
In pursuit of these goals, the Commission is mandated to "collect documents, undertake studies
and researches on African problems in the field of human and peoples, rights, organise seminars,
symposia and conferences, disseminate information, encourage national and local institutions
concerned with human and peoples' rights and, should the case arise, give its views or make
recommendations to governments" (Charter, Art. 45).[40]
With the creation of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (under a protocol to the
Charter which was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in January 2004), the Commission will
have the additional task of preparing cases for submission to the Court's jurisdiction.[41] In a July
2004 decision, the AU Assembly resolved that the future Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
would be integrated with the African Court of Justice.
The Court of Justice of the African Union is intended to be the "principal judicial organ of the
Union" (Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union, Article 2.2).[42] Although it has
not yet been established, it is intended to take over the duties of the African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights, as well as act as the supreme court of the African Union,
interpreting all necessary laws and treaties. The Protocol establishing the African Court on
Human and Peoples' Rights entered into force in January 2004[43] but its merging with the Court
of Justice has delayed its establishment. The Protocol establishing the Court of Justice will come
into force when ratified by 15 countries.[44]
There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the international
community and NGOs.[45]
Americas
The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization, headquartered in
Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the
Americas. Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy
in Latin America[citation needed], and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to
reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:[46]






Strengthening democracy
Working for peace
Protecting human rights
Combating corruption
The rights of Indigenous Peoples
Promoting sustainable development
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the IACHR) is an autonomous organ of the
Organization of American States, also based in Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, it is one of the bodies that comprise the
inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights.[47] The IACHR is a
permanent body which meets in regular and special sessions several times a year to examine
allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. Its human rights duties stem from three
documents:[48]



the OAS Charter
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
the American Convention on Human Rights
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established in 1979 with the purpose of
enforcing and interpreting the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two
main functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the
specific cases of human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on
matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.[49]
Many countries in the Americas, such as Colombia, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, The United States,
and Venezuela have been accused of human rights violations.
Asia
There are no Asia-wide organisations or conventions to promote or protect human rights.
Countries vary widely in their approach to human rights and their record of human rights
protection.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)[50] is a geo-political and economic
organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed in 1967 by Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.[51] The organisation now also includes
Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.[50] Its aims include the acceleration of
economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, and the promotion
of regional peace.[50] ASEAN established in 2009–10 an Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an economic and political
organization of eight countries in Southern Asia, representing almost 1.5 billion people. It was
established in 1985 by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan. In
April 2007, at the Association's 14th summit, Afghanistan became its eighth member.[52]
The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) is a trade bloc involving the
seven Arab states of the Persian Gulf, with many economic and social objectives. Created in
1981, the Council comprises the Persian Gulf states of Yemen Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.[53]
The Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) is a body created in 2002 to promote Asian cooperation
at a continental level, helping to integrate the previously separate regional organizations of
political or economical cooperation. The main objectives of the ACD are as follows:[54]



To promote interdependence among Asian countries in all areas of cooperation by
identifying Asia's common strengths and opportunities which will help reduce poverty
and improve the quality of life for Asian people whilst developing a knowledge-based
society within Asia and enhancing community and people empowerment;
To expand the trade and financial market within Asia and increase the bargaining power
of Asian countries in lieu of competition and, in turn, enhance Asia's economic
competitiveness in the global market;
To serve as the missing link in Asian cooperation by building upon Asia's potentials and
strengths through supplementing and complementing existing cooperative frameworks so
as to become a viable partner for other regions;

To ultimately transform the Asian continent into an Asian Community, capable of
interacting with the rest of the world on a more equal footing and contributing more
positively towards mutual peace and prosperity.
None of the above organisations have a specific mandate to promote or protect human rights, but
each has some human rights related economic, social and cultural objectives.[54][55]
A number of Asian countries are accused of serious human rights abuses by the international
community and human rights organisations.[56]
Europe
The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, is the oldest organisation working for European
integration. It is an international organisation with legal personality recognised under public
international law and has observer status with the United Nations. The seat of the Council of
Europe is in Strasbourg in France. The Council of Europe is responsible for both the European
Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.[57] These institutions
bind the Council's members to a code of human rights which, though strict, are more lenient than
those of the United Nations charter on human rights.[citation needed] The Council promotes the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the European Social Charter.[58]
Membership is open to all European states which seek European integration, accept the principle
of the rule of law and are able and willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights
and freedoms.[59]
The Council of Europe is separate from the European Union, but the latter is expected to accede
to the European Convention and potentially the Council itself.[citation needed] The EU also has a
separate human rights document; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[60]
The European Convention on Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950 human rights and
fundamental freedoms in Europe.[61] All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed
this Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg.[61] In order to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the
Convention), the Committee for the Prevention of Torture was established.[62]
The European Court of Human Rights is the only international court with jurisdiction to deal
with cases brought by individuals (rather than states).[61] In early 2010 the court had a backlog of
over 120,000 cases and a multi-year waiting list.[63] [64] [65] About 1 out of every 20 cases
submitted to the court is considered admissible.[66] In 2007 the court issued 1,503 verdicts. At the
current rate of proceedings, it would take 46 years for the backlog to clear.[67]
Oceania
There are no regional approaches or agreements on human rights for Oceania, but most countries
have a well-regarded human rights record. However, incorporated into the 2005 Pacific Plan, is
the commitment to a plan of "defence and promotion of human rights" in the region. The idea of
an institutionalized regional human rights framework is ongoing, with an objective to establish
an ombudsman and security structures that goes beyond the Pacific Islands Forum.[8][68]
Australia is the only western democracy with no constitutional or legislative bill of rights, but a
number of laws have been enacted to protect human rights and the Constitution of Australia has
been found to contain certain implied rights by the High Court. However, Australia has been
criticised at various times for its immigration policies, treatment of asylum seekers, treatment of
its indigenous population, and foreign policy.
Philosophies
Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights
become part of social expectations.
One of the oldest Western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a natural
law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds.
Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product
developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with Hume). Human rights
are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law
and the work of Weber). These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept
rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls) –
a social contract.
Natural rights
Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural" moral, religious or even biological order
that is independent of transitory human laws or traditions.
Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or
natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often
said to be the father of natural law,[69] although evidence for this is due largely to the
interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas.[70]
The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to
the Stoics.[71]
Some of the early Church Fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural
law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas
Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von
Pufendorf, and John Locke.
In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism beginning
from the principal that man in the state of nature, which is to say without a "commonwealth" (a
state) is in a state of constant war one with the other and thus in fear of his life and possessions
(there being no property nor right without a sovereign to define it). Hobbes asserted natural law
as was how a rational human, seeking to survive and prosper, would act; the first principle of
natural law being to seek peace, in which is self-preservation. Natural law (which Hobbes
accepted was a misnomer, there being no law without a commonwealth) was discovered by
considering humankind's natural interests, whereas previous philosophers had said that natural
rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural
law could prevail was for men to agree to create a commonwealth by submitting to the command
of a sovereign, whether a man or an assembly of men. In this lay the foundations of the theory of
a social contract between the governed and the governor.
Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the
will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its
objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does
not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous
argument etiamsi daremus (non esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on
theology.
John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two
Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went
against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably
overthrow the existing state and create a new one.
The Belgian philosopher of law Frank Van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a
secular conception[72] of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular
forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal
human dignity.[73]
The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights
are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.[74] But in actual fact,
the campaigning for the legal recognition of new "human rights" (such as a right to practise a
homosexual lifestyle, or euthanasia) must necessarily be based on the assumption that some kind
of "Natural Law" commands the recognition of those "rights". The debate on human rights
remains thus a debate around the correct interpretation of Natural Law, and human rights
themselves a positive, but reductionist, expression thereof[75]
Social contract
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested the existence of a hypothetical social
contract where a group of free individuals agree for the sake of preservation to form institutions
to govern them. They give up their natural complete liberty in exchange for protection from the
Sovereign. This led to John Locke's theory that a failure of the government to secure rights is a
failure which justifies the removal of the government, and was mirrored in later postulation by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his "Du Contrat Social" (The Social Contract).
International equity expert Paul Finn has echoed this view:
“
the most fundamental fiduciary relationship in our society is manifestly that which
exists between the community (the people) and the state, its agencies and officials.
”
—Paul Finn[76]
The relationship between government and the governed in countries which follow the English
law tradition is a fiduciary one. In equity law, a politician's fiduciary obligations are not only the
duties of good faith and loyalty, but also include duties of skill and competence in managing a
country and its people. Originating from within the Courts of Equity, the fiduciary concept exists
to prevent those holding positions of power from abusing their authority. The fiduciary
relationship between government and the governed arises from the governments ability to control
people with the exercise of its power. In effect, if a government has the power to abolish any
rights, it is equally burdened with the fiduciary duty to protect such an interest because it would
benefit from the exercise of its own discretion to extinguish rights which it alone had the power
to dispose of.[76]
Reciprocity
The Golden Rule, or the ethic of reciprocity states that one must do unto others as one would be
treated themselves; the principle being that reciprocal recognition and respect of rights ensures
that one's own rights will be protected. This principle can be found in all the world's major
religions in only slightly differing forms, and was enshrined in the "Declaration Toward a Global
Ethic" by the Parliament of the World's Religions in 1993.
Soviet concept of human rights
Soviet concept of human rights was different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According
to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to
be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law declared that state is the source of
human rights.[77][78] Therefore, Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts
as agencies of the government.[79] Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet
secret police agencies. The regime abolished Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of
law and guarantees of property.[80][81] According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist
courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle".[79]
Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the
Soviet state and society. For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counterrevolutionary activity punishable by death.[79] The liquidation and deportation of millions
peasants in 1928–31 was carried out within the terms of Soviet Civil Code.[79] Some Soviet legal
scholars even asserted that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt.".[79]
Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka explained: "Do not look in the file of incriminating
evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask
him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession.
These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and
essence of the Red Terror."[82]
The purpose of public trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime – that
was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities – but to provide yet another forum for
political agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry (see Moscow Trials for
example). Defense lawyers, who had to be party members, were required to take their client's
guilt for granted..."[79]
Other theories of human rights
The philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their
instrumental value in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being.[83][84] Interest
theories highlight the duty to respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of self-interest:
“
Human rights law, applied to a State's own citizens serves the interest of states, by, for
example, minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest and by keeping the level
of dissatisfaction with the government manageable
”
—Niraj Nathwani in Rethinking refugee law[85]
The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social
behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection.[86][87][88]
Main article: Human security
Human security is an emerging school of thought which challenges the traditional, state-based
conception of security and argues that a people-focused approach to security is more appropriate
in the modern interdependent world and would be more effective in advancing the security of
individuals and societies across the globe.
Critiques of human rights
Philosophers who have criticized the concept of human rights include Jeremy Bentham, Edmund
Burke, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx[citation needed]. A recent critique has been advanced by
Charles Blattberg in his essay "The Ironic Tragedy of Human Rights." Blattberg argues that
rights talk, being abstract, demotivates people from upholding the values that rights are meant to
assert.[89] In his book After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre claimed the concept that all human beings
have certain rights simply by virtue of being human was illogical, stated "the best reason for
asserting so bluntly that there are no such rights is indeed of precisely the same type as the best
reason which we possess for asserting that there are no witches and the best reason which we
possess for asserting that there are no unicorns: every attempt to give good reasons for believing
there are such rights has failed."[90]
Marxist Critique of Human Rights
In On the Jewish Question, Karl Marx criticized Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen as bourgeois ideology:
Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l'homme as
distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society
– i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the
community. ... according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791:
"Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others."
Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within
which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the
boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post.
and that:
Security is the supreme social concept of bourgeois society, the concept of the police, the
whole society exists only to ensure each of its members the preservation of his person, his
rights and his property.
Thus for Marx, liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs
protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to
protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference.
What this view denies is the possibility — according to Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to
be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not
in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which
undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation.
Marxist critical theorist Slavoj Žižek argued that: "liberal attitudes towards the other are
characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment.
In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really
the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other
effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in
short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly
emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be 'harassed',
that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others." and "universal human rights are effectively the
right of white, male property-owners to exchange freely on the market, exploit workers and
women, and exert political domination."[91]
Concepts in human rights
Indivisibility and categorization
The most common categorization of human rights is to split them into civil and political rights,
and economic, social and cultural rights.
Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Indivisibility
The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights
because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in
combination:
“
The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom
from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone
may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural
rights
”
—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and
Cultural Rights, 1966
This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their
economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the
public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis).
The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:
“
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The
international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal
manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis
”
—Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993
This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).
Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to
the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and
political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work,
to education, health and housing. For example, in the United States there is no universal access
to healthcare free at the point of use.[92] That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked
these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this).
Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to
economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.
Categorization
Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights
are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different
approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to be:[93]








positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as
opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)
resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide
progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement
vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately
provided or not is difficult to judge
ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and
shouldn't be provided as a right
socialist, as opposed to capitalist
non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a
court of law
aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights
Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:








negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action
cost-free
immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to
precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure
non-ideological/non-political
capitalist
justiciable
real 'legal' rights
In The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both
civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights it is easy to find examples
which do not fit into the above categorisation. Amongst several others, they highlight the fact
that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process
before the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive,
progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justiciable and can be a real
'legal' right.[94]
Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human
rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), secondgeneration economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation
solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third
generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation
is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without
others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity.
Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:
“
If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then
nothing will be treated as though it is truly important.
—Philip Alston[95]
He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:
”
“
...the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be
ignored.
”
—Philip Alston[95]
“
Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable
attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality
and participation.
”
—Olivia Ball, Paul Gready[96]
Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable
rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power,
and cannot be surrendered."
[edit] Universalism vs. cultural relativism
The UDHR enshrines universal rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical
location, state, race or culture they belong to.
Proponents of cultural relativism argue for acceptance of different cultures, which may have
practices conflicting with human rights.
For example female genital mutilation occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South
America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is
considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and
is outlawed in some countries.
Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In
particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a
politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North
America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere.
For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani,
articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by
saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which
could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[97] The former Prime
Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad both claimed
in the 1990s that Asian values were significantly different from western values and included a
sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity,
and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is
countered by Mahathir's former deputy:
“
To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our
forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.
—A Ibrabim in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia, 2 December 1994
”
and by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who states that it is racist to assert that
Asians do not want human rights.[98][99]
An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human-rights thinkers, such as John Locke
and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running
of Empires themselves.[100][101]
Cultural relativism is a self-detonating position; if cultural relativism is true, then universalism
must also be true. Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are
new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for
the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions,
including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a
representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such
as Mahatma Gandhi.[15]
Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by
those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose
human rights are compromised are the powerless.[102] This reflects the fact that the difficulty in
judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture.
Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an
academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that
human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international
community's adherence to this principle:
“
The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.
”
State and non-state actors
Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and individuals are known as non-State
actors. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not generally subject to
human rights law other than under International Humanitarian Law, which applies to
individuals.[citation needed] Also, certain national instruments such as the Human Rights Act 1998
(UK), impose human rights obligations on certain entities which are not traditionally considered
as part of government ("public authorities").[citation needed]
Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a
large number of human rights abuses.[103] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding
the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational
companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary
responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may
be larger than the economies of some the states within which they operate, and can wield
significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the
behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean
Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated
in a report in 2003:
“
the growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through
privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now
time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards
and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.
”
—Jean Ziegler[104]
In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational
corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[105] These were
considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on
corporations and are not monitored.[106]
Theory of value and property
Henry of Ghent articulated the theory that every person has a property interest in their own
body.[107] John Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense,
it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material
goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour.[108] In addition,
property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects
arbitrarily." To deny valid property rights according to Locke is to deny human rights. The
British philosopher had significant impacts upon the development of the Government of the UK
and was central to the fundamental founding philosophy of the United States. Karl Marx later
critiqued Locke's theory of property in his Theories of Surplus Value, seeing the beginnings of a
theory of surplus value in Locke's works. In Locke's Second Treatise he argued that the right to
own private property was unlimited as long as nobody took more than they could use without
allowing any of their property to go to waste and that there were enough common resources of
comparable quality available for others to create their own property. Locke did believe that some
would be more "industrious and rational" than others and would amass more property, but
believed this would not cause shortages. Though this system could work before the introduction
of money, Marx argued in Theories of Surplus Value that Locke's system would break down and
claimed money was a contradiction of the law of nature on which private property was
founded.[109]
Legal issues
Human rights vs. national security
With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to
life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free
from retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable),[110] the UN recognises that human
rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency – although
“
the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the
very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort
and a temporary measure
”
—United Nations. The Resource[110]
Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known
as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such United Nations Charter obligations are binding on all
states and cannot be modified by treaty.
Examples of national security being used to justify human rights violations include the Japanese
American internment during World War II,[111] Stalin's Great Purge,[112] and the actual and
alleged modern-day abuses of terror suspects rights by some western countries, often in the name
Aung San Suu Kyi is a prisoner of conscience and pro-democracy campaigner in Myanmar
See also: Genocides in history
Human rights violations occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any part of the
UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law. In regard to human rights
violations of United Nations laws. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN
Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human
rights violations.
Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and
governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty
International, International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, World
Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange
and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and documentation of
alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws.
Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to
Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands,
Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in the
opinion of Amnesty International) violate at least some human rights significantly.[115]
There are a wide variety of databases available which attempt to measure, in a rigorous fashion,
exactly what violations governments commit against those within their territorial
jurisdiction.[citation needed] An example of this is the list created and maintained by Prof. Christian
Davenport at the Kroc Institute – University of Notre Dame.[116]
Wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, are breaches
of International humanitarian law and represent the most serious of human rights violations.
When a government closes a geographical region to journalists, it raises suspicions of human
rights violations. Seven regions are currently closed to foreign journalists:







Chechnya, Russia [117]
Myanmar (Burma)
North Korea
Papua, Indonesia [118]
Peshawar, Pakistan [119]
Jaffna Peninsula, Srilanka [120]
Eritrea [9]
Currently debated rights
Events and new possibilities can affect existing rights or require new ones. Advances of
technology, medicine, and philosophy constantly challenge the status quo of human rights
thinking.
Environmental rights
There are two basic conceptions of environmental human rights in the current human rights
system. The first is that the right to a healthy or adequate environment is itself a human right (as
seen in both Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and Article 11 of
the San Salvador Protocol to the American Charter of Human Rights).[121][122] The second
conception is the idea that environmental human rights can be derived from other human rights,
usually – the right to life, the right to health, the right to private family life and the right to
property (among many others). This second theory enjoys much more widespread use in human
rights courts around the world, as those rights are contained in many human rights documents.
The onset of various environmental issues, especially climate change, has created potential
conflicts between different human rights. Human rights ultimately require a working ecosystem
and healthy environment, but the granting of certain rights to individuals may damage these.
Such as the conflict between right to decide number of offspring and the common need for a
healthy environment, as noted in the tragedy of the commons.[123] In the area of environmental
rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so far relatively unaddressed by human
rights legislation, is of paramount consideration.[citation needed]
Environmental Rights revolve largely around the idea of a right to a livable environment both for
the present and the future generations.
Future generations
In 1997 UNESCO adopted the Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation
Towards the Future Generation. The Declaration opens with the words:
“
Mindful of the will of the peoples, set out solemnly in the Charter of the United
Nations, to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' and to safeguard the
values and principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and all
other relevant instruments of international law.
”
—Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation
Article 1 of the declaration states "the present generations have the responsibility of ensuring that
the needs and interests of present and future generations are fully safeguarded." The preamble to
the declaration states that "at this point in history, the very existence of humankind and its
environment are threatened" and the declaration covers a variety of issues including protection of
the environment, the human genome, biodiversity, cultural heritage, peace, development, and
education. The preamble recalls that the responsibilities of the present generations towards future
generations has been referred to in various international instruments, including the Convention
for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972), the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN Conference
on Environment and Development, 1992), the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
(World Conference on Human Rights, 1993) and a number of UN General Assembly resolutions
relating to the protection of the global climate for present and future generations adopted since
1990.[124]
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights
LGBT rights are rights that relate to sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
In 77 countries, homosexuality remains a criminal offense, punishable by execution in seven
countries.[125] The decriminalization of private, consensual, adult sexual relations, especially in
countries where corporal or capital punishment is involved, remains one of the primary concerns
of LGBT human rights advocates.[126] Other issues include but are not limited to: government
recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual orientation and military service,
immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws regarding violence against
LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and equal age of consent for same-sex
activity.[127][128][129][130][131][132]
A global charter for LGBT rights has been proposed in the form of the 'Yogyakarta Principles', a
set of 29 principles whose authors say apply International Human Rights Law statutes and
precedent to situations relevant to LGBT people's experience.[133] The principles were presented
at a United Nations event in New York on November 7, 2007, co-sponsored by Argentina, Brazil
and Uruguay.
The principles have been acknowledged with influencing the French proposed UN declaration on
sexual orientation and gender identity, which focuses on ending violence, criminalization and
capital punishment and does not include dialogue about same-sex marriage or right to start a
family.[134][135] The proposal was supported by 67 of the United Nations' 192 member countries,
including all EU nations and the United States. An alternative statement opposing the proposal
was initiated by Syria and signed by 57 member nations, including all 27 nations of the Arab
League as well as Iran and North Korea.[136][137]
Trade
Although both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasize the importance of a right to work, neither of
these documents explicitly mention trade as a mechanism for ensuring this fundamental right.
And yet trade plays a key role in providing jobs.[138]
Some experts argue that trade is inherent to human nature and that when governments inhibit
international trade they directly inhibit the right to work and the other indirect benefits, like the
right to education, that increased work and investment help accrue.[139] Others have argued that
the ability to trade does not affect everyone equally—often groups like the rural poor, indigenous
groups and women are less likely to access the benefits of increased trade.[140]
On the other hand, others think that it is no longer primarily individuals but companies that trade,
and therefore it cannot be guaranteed as a human right.[citation needed] Additionally, trying to fit too
many concepts under the umbrella of what qualifies as a human right has the potential to dilute
their importance. Finally, it is difficult to define a right to trade as either "fair"[141] or "just" in
that the current trade regime produces winners and losers but its reform is likely to produce
(different) winners and losers.[142]
See also: The Recognition of Labour Standards within the World Trade Organisation and
Investor state dispute settlement
Water
There is no current universal human right to water, binding or not, enshrined by the United
Nations or any other multilateral body. In November 2002, the United Nations Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a non-binding comment affirming that access to
water was a human right:
“
the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a
prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.
”
—United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
This principle was reaffirmed at the 3rd and 4th World Water Councils in 2003 and 2006. This
marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000,
which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.[143] There are calls
from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not
as a commodity.[144]
Crime and Punishment
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the "right to life".[145]
According to many Human Rights activists, the death penalty violates these rights.[146] The
United Nations also called on retentionist states to establish a moratorium on Capital Punishment
with a view to abolition.[147] States which do not face considerable moral and political pressure.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, and
degrading punishment. Countries have argued that "enhanced interrogation methods", which
amount to torture, are needed for national security. Human rights activists have also criticized
some methods used to punish criminal offenders. For example, Corporal Punishment is also an
issue. One example is Caning, used in Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore is considered to be cruel,
inhuman, and degrading punishment.[148] In Mexico, Life Imprisonment without parole is also
considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. Other issues, such as Police Brutality and
impunity for Human Rights violators[149] are also serious issues.
Fetal rights
Fetal rights are the legal or ethical rights of human fetuses. The term is used most often in the
context of the abortion debate, as the basis for an argument in support of the pro-life stance.
Reproductive rights
Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[150] The World
Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:
“
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and
individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their
children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the
highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to
make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
”
—World Health Organisation[57]
Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968
International Conference on Human Rights.[151] The sixteenth article of the resulting
Proclamation of Teheran states, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and
responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."[151][152]
The exact meaning of the term "reproductive rights" is the subject of heated debate. While some
argue that they include the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to quality
reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access[153]or even a right to abortion[154],
others contend that a subjective right to have acces to abortion does not exist even in countries
where abortion is legal.[155]
Reproductive rights may also be understood to include education about contraception and
sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception,
protection from gender-based practices such as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital
mutilation (MGM).[150][151][153][156]
Children's Rights
The severe abuse of children has been described as a deprivation of human rights
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks refers to two rounds of bilateral talks and corresponding
international treaties involving the United States and the Soviet Union - the Cold War
superpowers - on the issue of armament control. There were two rounds of talks and agreements:
SALT I and SALT II.
Negotiations commenced in Helsinki, Finland, in 1969. SALT I led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty and an interim agreement between the two powers. Although SALT II resulted in an
agreement in 1979, the United States chose not to ratify the treaty in response to the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan, which took place later that year. The US eventually withdrew from
SALT II in 1986.
The treaties then led to START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which consisted of START I
(a 1991 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union) and START II (a 1993
agreement between the United States and Russia). These placed specific caps on each side's
number of nuclear weapons.
SALT I
SALT I is the common name for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement, also known as
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. SALT I froze the number of strategic ballistic missile
launchers at existing levels, and provided for the addition of new submarine-launched ballistic
missile (SLBM) launchers only after the same number of older intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) and SLBM launchers had been dismantled.
The strategic nuclear forces niche of the Soviet Union and the United States were changing in
character in 1968. The U.S.'s total number of missiles had been static since 1967 at 1,054 ICBMs
and 656 SLBMs, but there was an increasing number of missiles with multiple independently
targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads being deployed. MIRV's carried multiple nuclear
warheads, often with dummies, to confuse ABM systems, making MIRV defense by ABM
systems increasingly difficult and expensive. One clause of the treaty required both countries to
limit the number of sites protected by an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system to two each. The
Soviet Union had deployed such a system around Moscow in 1966 and the United States
announced an ABM program to protect twelve ICBM sites in 1967. A modified two-tier Moscow
ABM system is still used. The U.S. built only one ABM site to protect Minuteman base in North
Dakota where the "Safeguard Program" was deployed. Due to the system's expense and limited
effectiveness, the Pentagon disbanded "Safeguard" in 1975.
Negotiations lasted from November 17, 1969 until May 1972 in a series of meetings beginning in
Helsinki, with the U.S. delegation headed by Gerard C. Smith, director of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency. Subsequent sessions alternated between Vienna and Helsinki. After a long
deadlock, the first results of SALT I came in May 1971, when an agreement was reached over
ABM systems. Further discussion brought the negotiations to an end on May 26, 1972 in
Moscow when Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and
the Interim Agreement Between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on Certain Measures With Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. "A
number of agreed statements were also made. This helped improve relations between the USA
and the USSR.
SALT II
Salt II was a controversial experiment of negotiations between Jimmy Carter and Leonid
Brezhnev from 1977 to 1979 between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which sought to curtail the
manufacture of strategic nuclear weapons. It was a continuation of the progress made during the
SALT I talks. SALT II was the first nuclear arms treaty which assumed real reductions in
strategic forces to 2,250 of all categories of delivery vehicles on both sides. SALT II helped the
U.S. to discourage the Soviets from arming their third generation ICBMs of SS-17, SS-19 and
SS-18 types with many more MIRVs. In the late 1970s the USSR's missile design bureaus had
developed experimental versions of these missiles equipped with anywhere from 10 to 38
thermonuclear warheads each. Additionally, the Soviets secretly agreed to reduce Tu-22M
production to thirty aircraft per year and not to give them an intercontinental range. It was
particularly important for the US to limit Soviet efforts in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) rearmament area. The SALT II Treaty banned new missile programs (a new missile
defined as one with any key parameter 5% better than in currently deployed missiles), so both
sides were forced to limit their new strategic missile types development although US preserved
their most essential programs like Trident and cruise missiles, which President Carter wished to
use as his main defensive weapon as they were too slow to have first strike capability. In return,
the USSR could exclusively retain 308 of its so-called "heavy ICBM" launchers of the SS-18
type.
An agreement to limit strategic launchers was reached in Vienna on June 18, 1979, and was
signed by Leonid Brezhnev and President of the United States Jimmy Carter. In response to the
refusal of the U.S. Congress to ratify the treaty, a young member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, met with the Soviet Foreign Minister Andrey
Gromyko, "educated him about American concerns and interests" and secured several changes
that neither the U.S. Secretary of State nor President Jimmy Carter could obtain.
Six months after the signing, the Soviet Union deployed troops to Afghanistan, and in September
of the same year senators including Henry M. Jackson and Frank Church discovered the socalled "Soviet brigade" on Cuba[citation needed]. In light of these developments, the treaty was never
formally ratified by the United States Senate. Its terms were, nonetheless, honored by both sides
until 1986 when the Reagan Administration withdrew from SALT II after accusing the Soviets of
violating the pact.
Subsequent discussions took place under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
USA And USSR/RF arms limitation treaties













Partial or Limited Test Ban Treaty (PTBT/LTBT): 1963. Also put forth by Kennedy;
banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. However, neither
France nor China (both Nuclear Weapon States) signed.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): 1968. Established the U.S., USSR, UK, France,
and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States". Non-Nuclear Weapon states were prohibited
from (among other things) possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or
other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of
(eventual) nuclear disarmament.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM): 1972. Entered into between the U.S. and USSR to
limit the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missiledelivered nuclear weapons; ended by the US in 2002.
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties I & II (SALT I & II): 1972 / 1979. Limited the growth
of US and Soviet missile arsenals.
Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement: 1973. Committed the U.S. and USSR to consult
with one another during conditions of nuclear confrontation.
Threshold Test Ban Treaty: 1974. Capped Nuclear tests at 150 kilotons.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): 1987. Eliminated nuclear and
conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges,
defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles)
Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty I (START I): 1991. This was signed by George H. W.
Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev; reduced the numbers of U.S. and Soviet long-range
missiles and nuclear warheads from 10,000 per side to 6,000 per side.
Mutual Detargeting Treaty (MDT): 1994. U.S. and Russian missiles no longer
automatically target the other country; nuclear forces are no longer operated in a manner
that presumes that the two nations are adversaries.
Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty II (START II): 1993. Will reduce the numbers of U.S.
and Russian long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 6,000 per side to 3,5003,000 per side. (START III proposed for 2007).
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996. Prohibits all nuclear test explosions in all
environments; signed by 180 states, and ratified by 148. The United States has signed,
but not ratified, the CTBT.
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT/Moscow Treaty (2002)). Established
bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions and a new "strategic nuclear framework"; also
invited all countries to adopt non-proliferation principles aimed at preventing terrorists,
or those that harbored them, from acquiring or developing all types of WMD's and related
materials, equipment, and technology.
New START (follow-up to START I): Signed at Prague in 2010, the treaty would cut the
arsenals of the US and Russia to ~1550 warheads each. Treaty yet to be ratified by the
US Senate and the Duma.