COURSE CODE: POL 202

COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

COURSE LECTURER: AMAECHI NWADOR (Ph.D)

Objectives:

At the end of the course, the students should be able to:

1. Appreciate the need for interactions between states and other actors in the international
system;

2. Explain the importance of national interest as major determinants of global interactions and
politics; 3. Establish the linkage between domestic and foreign policies;

4. Highlight the theories explaining various forms of interactions in the international system;

5. Explain reasons for and types of coalitions and alliances in the international system;

6. Appreciate the quest by states to maintain equilibrium in global power politics; and

7. Evaluate the reasons for different classifications of states such as developed, developing, less
developed and Third World countries.

COURSE OUTLINE:

Meaning, Nature and Scope of International Relations

 Meaning of International Relations

 Nature of International Relations
 Scope of International Relations
 Origin and Development of International Relations
 Structure of the International System

Paradigms and Theories in International Relations

  Nature and Importance of Theories in International Relations
 Linkage politics and theories of Coalitions and Alliances in International Relations
 Cold War and Post-cold War Alliance system
Issues in the Arms race, SALT I, SALT II etc.
 Idealism
 Realism
 Balance of Power:
 Power Theory
 Game Theory: Game theory provides a strategic perspective on coalition
formation, treating international relations as a series of strategic interactions.
States form coalitions based on rational calculations of costs and benefits, and
understanding these dynamics requires analyzing the incentives and disincentives
that shape state behavior.
 Decision Making theory:
 Functional Theory:
 System Theory:

Basic Concepts in International Relations and Diplomacy

 Foreign Policy
 National Interest
 Non-Alignment
 North-South Divide (The periphery and the core):

Development of International Relations

The roots of international relations can be found in the diplomacy of ancient civilizations.
Historical evidence suggests that Mesopotamian city-states engaged in diplomatic relations as
early as the 3rd millennium BCE. The Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known legal
codes, included provisions for international treaties and alliances.
Ancient Greece also played a crucial role in shaping early diplomatic practices. Thucydides'
"History of the Peloponnesian War" provides insights into the dynamics of power, alliances, and
conflict resolution among Greek city-states. Other civilizations and relations included the Ethio-
Egyptian relations, the Roman Empires, the Byzantine Empire and Chinese civilization as some
of the pre-Westphalia Treaty international relations known to history.

However the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked a significant turning point in the development
of modern diplomacy, establishing the principle of state sovereignty and the Westphalian system.
That means with the Westphalia Treaty of 1648 international relations assumed a new character
ushering in the concept of “territorial sovereignty” and birth of “independent nation-state.”

Note*The Treaty of Westphalia refers to a series of treaties signed in 1648 in the Westphalian
cities of Osnabrück and Münster, concluding the Thirty Years' War in the Holy Roman Empire
and the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the Dutch Republic. The treaties are often
considered a turning point in the development of the modern state system and have significant
implications for the field of International Relations. Here are some key aspects of the Treaty of
Westphalia and its significance:

State Sovereignty:

One of the most significant contributions of the Treaty of Westphalia is the principle of state
sovereignty. The treaties recognized the sovereignty of individual states and established the idea
that each state has the right to govern its own internal affairs without interference from external
powers. This notion laid the foundation for the modern state system.

Territorial Integrity:

The treaties established the principle of territorial integrity, emphasizing that the borders of states
were to be respected. This concept reinforced the idea that states have control over their own
territory and that invasions or territorial expansion by external actors would be seen as a
violation of international law.

Religious Tolerance:

The Peace of Westphalia also addressed religious conflicts that played a significant role in the
Thirty Years' War. That is by renewing the peace of Augsburg granting the German State the
right to determine its own religion. This was by recognizing the principle of cuius regio, eius
religio, (Whose Land, His religion) meaning that the ruler of a region had the authority to
determine its religion. Additionally, the treaties granted tolerance to other religious
denominations, contributing to the idea of religious pluralism within states.

Emergence of the Nation-State:

The Treaty of Westphalia is often associated with the emergence of the nation-state as the
primary actor in international relations. The treaties contributed to the development of a system
where states, as distinct political entities with defined borders and sovereign authority, became
the primary actors in the international arena.

Balance of Power:

The treaties also introduced the concept of the balance of power, as major European powers
sought to prevent the dominance of any single state. This idea would play a crucial role in
shaping European politics in the centuries that followed, influencing strategies and alliances
among states.

Impact on International Law:

The Treaty of Westphalia is considered a landmark in the development of modern international

law. The principles established in the treaties, such as state sovereignty and territorial integrity,
became foundational elements of the Westphalian system and continue to shape the framework
of international relations today.

Overall, the Treaty of Westphalia marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of the international
system, laying the groundwork for key principles that continue to influence the conduct of states
and the structure of the international order.

Further exploration of the development of International Relations (IR) especially as an academic

field commenced after the First World War, marked by the establishment of chairs at prominent
English and American universities. This initiative aimed to comprehend and elucidate the
unfolding of international political dynamics. The creation of the League of Nations played a
pivotal role in catalyzing this academic movement. Influential figures like Austen Chamberlain,
Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann, and Frank B. Kellogg actively worked towards international
peace and security through the League of Nations.

Simultaneously, scholars such as Sir Alfred Zimmern, Philip Noel-Baker, J.T. Shotwell, and P.T.
Moon authored extensive works on the theme of international peace and security, earning them
the label of "idealists." However, the landscape of IR studies shifted in 1930, as Japan, followed
by Italy and Germany, undertook aggressive actions. Consequently, in the late 1930s and
throughout the 1940s, scholars like Reinhold Niebuhr, N.J. Spykman, H.J. Morgenthau, Quincy
Wright, F.L. Schuman, G.F. Kennan, Arnold Wolfers, and Kenneth Thompson significantly
contributed to the evolution of IR. These scholars, known as "realists," redefined politics as a
"struggle for power" and emphasized the paramount importance of "national interest" in
understanding and defining this struggle.

A pivotal moment in the evolution of the International Relations (IR) discipline however
occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, marked by a cohort of scholars embracing "behavioural
studies." Influenced by social theorists like Talcott Parsons, Easton, and Almond formulated the
"system theory" model to examine national and international politics. M.A. Kaplan applied this
model specifically to scrutinize the international system and its processes. These scholars strictly
adhered to empiricism, with later figures such as Karl Deutsch, J. David Singer, Richard Snyder,
H.W. Bruck, B. Sapin, and others introducing novel empirical methods, tools, techniques, and
paradigms to comprehend and elucidate international political realities. They abandoned
normative considerations, focusing on studying international politics scientifically, earning them
the label "behaviouralists." In the 1970s, recognizing the limitations of behaviouralism, a new
generation of scholars emerged known as "post-behaviouralists."

The above demonstrates that the field of International Relations (IR) has evidently undergone
various developmental phases. According to Kenneth Thompson, the evolution of the study of IR
can be delineated into four stages:

1. The initial stage, predating the First World War in the 1920s, primarily focused on
diplomatic history and contemporary affairs, with dominance by diplomatic historians.
2. The second stage emerged in the aftermath of the First World War during the 1930s,
characterized by a shift towards studying international institutions, particularly those
associated with the League of Nations.
 3. The third stage, extending from the post-First World War era into the interwar period and
beyond the 1940s, saw a gradual transition towards a greater emphasis on the study of
international laws and organizations.
4. The fourth stage corresponds to the onset of the Second World War, marking a
significant shift in the focus of IR studies. The emphasis had been on forces and
influences which shape and condition the behaviour of the conduct of foreign relations
and mode of resolution of international conflicts. This period saw the emergence of
realists school of IR.

The Structure of the International System

The structure examines the distribution of power and influence in the system, particularly the
forms of dominant and subordinate relationships. The structural paradigm reveals the great or
major powers in each system, the nature of their dominance, and their relationship with other
political units. It also reveals the degree of stratification within the system, the major subsystems,
the most important rivalries, issues, alliances, blocs, or international organisations. In some
cases, the most powerful actors will define the structure of the international system. In that
respect, according to Waltz (1979), international politics is like economics where the structure of
a market is defined by the number of firms that compete. For example, sometimes, in the history
of the African nations such as Western Sudan demonstrated that power was concentrated
disproportionately in one state, as it was in Ghana Empire, Mali Empire, Oyo Empire or the
Asante Kingdom, etc.

Another example is the contemporary international system in which, following the demise of the
Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the only Superpower, the most powerful state in the
world, with a preponderance of power incomparable to that of any other state, or a group of
states for that matter. Such a system is described structurally as a unipolar.

In other historic international systems, such as in Europe from the 17th to the 19th centuries,
power is distributed equally among a large number of states in such a way that none is capable of
dominating or leading the others for any length of time. This typified a multipolar structure
system. Sometimes, the structure of the international system appeared to be as bipolar oner. The
system is structured into two or more antagonistic blocs of states, each led by a state of superior
strength. This had been the structure of the international system during the Cold War; thus, after
World War II and before the collapse of the Soviet Union (from about 1947 to 1990). The two
blocs were the United State and its NATO allies in the West, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw
Pact satellites in the East.

Mortan Kaplan (1984) summarizes the structure of the contemporary international system into
six structural characteristics, viz:

i. The hierarchically-structured system with the concentration of power and influence in

a single unit of authority. The superpowers are found in the pyramid and they try to
prevent other power that attempts to challenge their hegemony.
ii. Diffuse or universal structure of the international system where power and authority
are widely distributed among the interacting states under the capability of each state.
iii. A structure similar to the United Nations (UN), there exist diffuse power blocs as
there are two opposing blocs interspaced between them. These are the aligned
countries (superpowers) and the non-aligned nations (the Third World).
iv. The Bi-polar structure that emerged after the Second World War, the world was
divided into two ideological military blocs, one representing the east and the other
west.
v. The multi-polar structure that leads to the formation of alliance and coalitions. The
UN is a semblance of a multi-polar system
vi. The unipolar structure which was the emerging phenomenon after the end of the Cold
War where the United States was seen to dominate international politics.

Further explanation on the type of international system is provided below: (See Daniela
Alina as shared)

The unipolar system - The distinctive feature of this system is the main actor, which absorbs the
others, eliminating potential international agents. A classic example is the Roman Empire where
political units were conquered and thus becoming part of the imperial system, with a higher
degree of dependence, but which are accountable to the same hegemonic authority. In the
twentieth century, the international system was unipolar between 1945- 1950, and the late
twentieth and early twenty-first century, more precisely the years 1991-2011 were dominated by
the existence of a single world superpower that will not reach in terms of system development to
a historical multicentre. In the period 1991- 2011, the United States, in its position as a
superpower, will not be able to win any war even if globally it will benefit from the
characterization of a military oversizing.

The bipolar system - In this system two powers dominate their rivals until each of them will be at
the center of a coalition, thus being forced as secondary actors to be in a relationship according
to the blocs. The objective of the main actors is not to be at the mercy of the rival in order for
him never to acquire superior means over him (Leyde, 2014). Thus, we are witnessing the
realization of permanent alliances within which each party will receive both rewards and
constraints. Some theorists will consider the bipolar balance to be the most effective (Leyde,
2014), as happened during the Cold War from 1960 to 1991. Although the existence of various
important actors in the global international system tried during this period to model in one way
or another the international scene. Through various actions, the relevant polycentric character
will remain the Soviet-American bipolarity.

The multipolar system - The peculiarity of this system is that the main actors are more than three,
and their forces are not equal enough. Within this system we can observe a forecast of the
unfolding of events by reducing the possibility of the outbreak of the conflict as a result of
diplomatic actions, which will characterize the pre-war period in order to maintain a balance in
the international system. A concrete example in the history of international relations is the
Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries. In the twentieth century, the international system was
multipolar, between 1929 and1945, thus covering the period of World War II. The alternative of
a multipolar international system with autonomous decision centers would be the incorporation
of a union of states / countries, both from the south and from the north, in the development
process of the world economy. This configuration of international forces has implications that go
far beyond international economic barriers. In such a situation no state has preponderance over
the international system, which is why the need for a union of centers of power would be able to
make decisions on the various and complex issues of international politics. If we refer to the
multipolarity in the southern part of the globe, we can talk about a pluripolarity of international
relations, where we will encounter a diverse configuration of geopolitical forces, with different
cultural identities, heterogeneous with a much changed political ideology. In what the Latin
American states are concerned, the existence of a new mentality regarding the modeling of some
power poles could form an international pluripolar system (Leyde, 2014)
IDEALISM

Idealism in international relations theory has its intellectual roots in the older political
philosophy of scholars like Immanuel Kant. It tries to explain how peace and cooperation are
possible. Indeed, from the beginning of the 20th century up to 1939, there was academic
hegemony in the West. The most renowned scholars were the idealists. They believe that states
could develop organisations and rules to facilitate cooperation by forming a world federation.

Idealism is a metaphysical term; however, we are concerned here with moral and political
idealism. In international relations theory, idealists are often contrasted with realists. Generally,
Idealists see international relations in terms of moral precepts, justice, trust and obligation.

The approach of this theory of international relations was law, so it was both legalistic and
historical. It merely describes international events at the time under review. For example, it
describes a phenomenon thus, “England breached a treaty with France and then there was war.”

Essentially, the idealists became very worried about the events that led to World War I. They
preferred a more peaceful international system and a just system.

They perceived the post-world-War I, an international system as unjust and turbulent; therefore,
they sought a change in the system through a gradual approach. It regards the power politics as
the passing phase of history and presents the picture of a future international society based on the
notion reformed international system free from power politics, immorality and violence. It aims
at bringing about a better world with the help of education and internal organisation.

The aim is to achieve a just system: • Spread democracy all over the world to get peace. • States
should observe international law. • States should use their power for peaceful purposes. States
should not use power (war) with weaker states - military, economic, diplomatic. • People should
be educated and reforms made.

A world government was necessary - the idealist looked at an international organisation as a

nucleus for a world government. One of the chief advocates of the idealist school was Woodrow
Wilson, President of the United States during the First World War. An important development in
idealist thinking was the formation of the League of Nations at the end of World War I. The
above stated Wilsonian ideals (famously called the fourteen points) were embodied in Article 18
of the League of Nations’ Covenant and later in Article 102 of the United Nations (UN) Charter.
They provided a means for registering international agreements and, in the case of the UN, an
incentive to do so. Only registered agreements could be accorded legal status before any UN
affiliate, including the International Court of Justice. This mixture of legalism and idealism could
never abolish private understandings, but it did virtually eliminate secret treaties among
democratic states. Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to build a stable international order in the wake of
World War I failed spectacularly.

With the abysmal failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II, in 1939, it
became obvious that the theoretical foundations of idealism were collapsing. This created a
vacuum for the emergence of political realists who see international relations in power
perspectives. The post-1945 changes like international politics have necessitated a reappraisal of
the divergences between idealism and realism. The advance of science and technology has led to
the shrinkage of the world and has changed the character of war, thereby reminding us of the
urgency of peace.

REALISM

Realism is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power. Some
scholars refer to the exercise of power by states toward each other as realpolitik or power
politics. Like utopianism in international relations theory, realism has its intellectual roots in the
older political philosophy of the West and the writings of non-western ancient authors such as
Sun Tzu in China, Kautilya in India, as well as Thucydides in ancient Greece. Indeed, modern
realist theory developed in reaction to a liberal tradition that realists call idealism. As an
approach, idealism emphasises international law, morality, and international organisations, rather
than power alone as key influences on international relations. Idealists think that human nature is
good. They see the international system as one based on a community of states that have the
potential to work together to overcome mutual problems. Indeed, for idealists, the principles of
IR must flow from morality.

However, from the realists’ paradigm, states are rational actors whose decisions to maximise
power derive from rational calculations of risks and gains, and the shifts in the power balance in
the international system. The nature of the international system reflects this emphasis on power.
To be sure, a hand full of “great powers” and their military alliances define the world order. For
instance, two superpowers with their allies defined the system during the Cold War, from 1945
to 1990.

Against this background, realists ground themselves in a long tradition. Indeed, realists believe
that power politics is timeless and cross-cultural. For instance, the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu,
who lived 2,000 years ago, advised the rulers of states on how to survive in an era when war has
become a systematic instrument of power. According to Sun Tzu, moral reasoning is not very
useful to the state rulers who are surrounded by armed and dangerous neighbours. He showed
rulers how to use power to advance their interests and protect their survival

Similarly, the Greek historian, Thucydides captures the essence of relative power among the
Greek-City-States. In his book, History of the Peloponnesian War, he describes the causes of the
war in power terms, “What made the war inevitable was the growth in Athenian power and the
fear this caused in Sparta.” Today, statesmen like the leaders of Sparta, employ war as an
instrument of state strategy and policy on calculations of power. Indeed, today’s international
relations operate on the famous dictum by Thucydides, “the strong do what they have the power
to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. Indeed, his conception of the importance of
power, together with the propensity of states to form competing alliances places Thucydides well
within the realist school

Niccolo Machiavelli, like Thucydides, who developed an understanding of state behaviour from
his observation of relations between Athens and Sparta, Machiavelli, analysed interstate relations
in the Italian system of the 16th century. His emphasis on the ruler’s need to adopt moral
standards different from those of the individual to ensure the state’s survival, his concern with
power, his assumption that politics is characterised by a clash of interests, and his pessimistic
view of human nature puts him within the realist paradigm or school of international relations

In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes discussed the free-for-all that exists when the government is
absent and people seek their selfish interests. He called it the “state of nature” or “state of war”,
what we would call in today’s parlance the law of the jungle in contrast to the rule of law. Like
other modern realists, Hobbes concerned himself with the underlying forces of politics and with
the nature of power in political relationships. The realist theory has furnished an abundant basis
for the formation of what is termed a neorealist approach to international relations theory. It
explains patterns of international events in terms of the system structurethe international
distribution of power rather than in terms of the internal makeup of individual states. Waltz
argues for a neorealist approach based on patterned relationships among actors in an anarchical
international system.

After the Cold War, in his theory of offensive realism, Mearsheimer took realism to a higher
level when he argues that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous
business, and it is likely to remain that way. That, even though the intensity of the competition
waxes and wanes, great powers fear each other and always compete with each other for power.
In his view, the overriding goal of each state is to maximise its share of world power, which
means gaining power at the expense of other states. Offensive realism assumes that the
international system strongly shapes the behaviour of states. Structural factors such as anarchy
and the distribution of power are what matter most for explaining international politics.

Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Political Realism

In his celebrated work, Politics among Nations, (1948), Hans Morgenthau sets forth the
following six principles of realist theory:

Firstly, certain objective laws that have their roots in human nature govern politics. It maintains
that human nature has not changed since classical times. Therefore, to improve society, it is first
necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operations of these laws being
impervious to our performances, men will change them only at the risk of failure. For realism,
theory consists in ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason. It assumes that the
character of foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts
performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.

Secondly, Morgenthau posits that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power
and that historical evidence proves this assumption. This concept, central to Morgenthau's
realism, gives continuity and unity to the seemingly diverse foreign policies of the widely
separated nation-states. Moreover, the concept interest defined as power makes it possible to
evaluate the actions of political leaders at different points in history.

Thirdly, realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective
category, which is universally valid, but it does not endow the concept with a final meaning.
However, in a world in which sovereign nations vie for power, the foreign policies of all nations
must consider survival the minimum goal of foreign policy. Accordingly, all nations are
compelled to protect their physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by
other nations. Thus, national interest is identified with national survival

Fourthly, 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 requirement of successful
political action. Indeed, Morgenthau states 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.

Fifthly, 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. The knowledge that interest is defined in terms of
power saves from moral excesses and political folly. Indeed, knowing that international politics
is placed within a framework of defining interests in terms of power makes us able to judge other
nations as we judge our own.

Lastly, the difference between political realism and other schools of thought is not only real but
also profound. In Morgenthau’s view, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political
sphere just as the economists, the lawyer, and the moralist maintain theirs. He stresses the
autonomy of the political sphere. In his view, Political actions must be judged by political
criteria.
The Theory of Balance of Power

The balance of power theory is closely associated with realism, a school of thought in
international relations that emphasizes power, security, and self-interest. Realists argue that
states are rational actors driven by the pursuit of power and security, and the balance of power is
a natural outcome of this pursuit.

The balance of power theory is a concept in international relations that suggests that stability and
peace are maintained when power is distributed among multiple actors in a way that prevents any
single actor or group of actors from dominating the others. Proponents of the balance of power
theory argue that this distribution of power helps to prevent aggression, maintain stability, and
deter potential aggressors. Here are some key proponents and ideas associated with the balance
of power theory:

There are no actual proponent of the theory, but overtime the doctrine became popularized by
scholars like Hans Morgenthau, a prominent figure in the field of international relations, who
argued that the balance of power is a fundamental principle of international politics. He believed
that states seek to balance power to prevent any one state from achieving hegemony and to
maintain stability in the international system (Morgethau, 1985). Another scholar who gave
notoriety to the theory is Kenneth Waltz, in his influential work "Theory of International
Politics," where he proposed the neorealist perspective and argued that a balance of power
naturally emerges in an anarchic international system as states seek to ensure their survival.
According to Waltz, the distribution of power among states is a stabilizing force (cited in Riley
& Bryan, 2017). In giving vent to this theory E. H. Carr: Carr, in his work " The Twenty Years'
Crisis," discussed the importance of power distribution to maintain international order. He
argued that an imbalance of power could lead to conflict, and the balance of power helps to
prevent the domination of weaker states by stronger ones (Carr, 1946)

Because of the multiplicity of participants in the international arena, understanding the

power arrangement of states in the international system is a difficult task. In international
relations, the balance of power theory is a philosophy that holds state power to be in perpetual
flux and dynamic. It considers state longevity in the international system to be essentially
decided by nations' continuous willingness to prevent one state's military supremacy over the
others. Palmer and Perkings (2006) attempted to define the idea by characterizing it as an
equilibrium of scales, where when the weights in the scales are equal, a balance ensues. They
maintained that, when applied to sovereign states in a global system devoid of an effective
supranational institution, the concept of balance of power would imply that, through shifting
alliances and countervailing forces, no single power or combination of powers would be allowed
to build such strength as to threaten the security and existence of other states. Morgenthau (1960)
referred to this as the universal principle. Whereas Schwarzenbeger (1951) defines international
system equilibrium as a condition of stability that may be achieved by a state alliance or other
ways in the international system. Morgenthau (1960) was to explain, however, that balance of
power may be stated in the following ways: as a policy targeted at a certain state of affairs; as an
existing state of affairs; as a nearly equal distribution of power; and as any distribution of power.
He deduces that in whatever context, it refers to a genuine distribution of power among nations
with close equality. All realist philosophers, according to Oguzlu (2020), have the following
characteristics:
States are constantly suspicious of each other’s intentions and do not trust each other
easily because human nature is essentially selfish and evil; there is no supreme
authority to control them and establish peace and order among them; the basic
structure of the system is anarchic, and in such an order, states must ensure their own
security; since survival is the primary precondition for achieving all other national
interests, states try to either maintain their power capacity or become stronger than
other states; it is impossible to establish order and cooperation among states on the
ground of common values and identity, and the international environment in which
the rules of the jungle apply cannot be easily transformed into a zoo in line with
liberal dreams or idealist utopias (Oguzlu, 2020: .2)

With roots in the ancient city-states of Greece, Egypt, India, and China, the balance of power is a
historical idea and one of the oldest theories of international relations. Greek philosophers like
Thucydides, Demosthenes, and Aristotle were supporters of the idea; and according to Zimmer's thesis,
the balance of power is the key Hindu formula for managing international coalitions and alliances
(Palmer and Perkins, 2006).

When NATO was founded by American leadership to guarantee a power balance in Europe
during the Cold War era, it was such balance that existed at the time. NATO's founding goals were to
keep the Soviet menace outside of Europe, to keep Germany under control there, and to keep the United
States actively involved in European power politics. By providing security to its European allies, the
U.S. was able to keep peace and order in Europe and allow those allies to focus their limited resources
on economic growth. Despite the fact that the post-cold war era brought about a unipolar order in the
global system, the contemporary international scene has already started to become more multipolar in a
variety of ways. States like China and Russia are boosting their military cooperation and coordinating
their foreign policy on several institutional platforms, if not explicitly creating an anti-American military
alliance. The BRICS partnership has grown into a potent coalition that now poses a threat to Western
economic hegemony. The shift from soft to hard balancing is anticipated to take place when the
multipolar nature of the existing global order solidifies with the daily irrevocable loss of American
preeminence.

The Games Theory

The games theory is conceptualized in this work to explain the justification for various acts and
decision-making tactics in the international system, particularly with regard to America-Russia
and America and Iran on the one hand. Each participant in this relationship aims to maximize
benefits or minimize losses. The games theory in the politics of international economic relations
is sometimes compared to a game where the rules are frequently modified while being openly
broken while being commonly recognized and seen. Games theory makes an effort to offer
frameworks for researching global political economy. The zero-sum game is a common variation
in which one party loses what the other wins. The multiparty non-zero sum game, which
acknowledges that some types of conflicts in the international system may only be resolved by
scenarios in which occasionally both sides may gain, is a more suitable model for international
economic interactions. Even though it is frequently ignored, this paradigm has clear applications
to international relations and the difficulties in modern international economic interactions.
 The games theory owes a great deal to Karl Deutsch's 1968 book Analysis of
International Relations as well as the seminar work of John von Neuman and Oskar
Morgenstern, whose theory of games and economic behaviour enlarged the mathematics of
probability and decision sequences. In political science, L.S. Shapley and M.S. Shubik as well as
William Ricker have used the games theory to examine issues of power in voting behaviour and
to explore political coalitions, respectively (Cited in Mbah, 2012). It is a body of thinking that
deals with rational decision-making techniques in conflict and competition, where each party
aims to maximize benefits or minimize losses, claims Schelling (1960). There are two main
categories for game theory. They are the non-zero sum game and the zero-sum game, as was
already mentioned. A wins what B loses in a zero sum game between A and B. Games like
chess, checkers, two-person poker, etc. are examples. The worth of "one" for the game relies on
the stakes or the size of the pot. In such a game, each player concludes with one player having a
score of plus one and the other minus one. This might specifically refer to a real-world scenario
like an election, a war or military operation, or even contemporary economic warfare. For
instance, at one point, the struggle over Kashmir between India and Pakistan devolved into a
zero-sum game in which Pakistan gained control at India's expense. The non-zero sum game is
the other kind, which can be played cooperatively or antagonistically. A cooperative game
allows for direct communication between the participants as well as the prior sharing of
information on their intended course of action. A non-cooperative game forbids overt
communication, yet after the play, each player's decision is clear to the other. The prisoner's
dilemma and the chicken dilemma are two of the Non-zero Sum Game NZSG's most well-known
variations. This idea has been used to explain state foreign policy actions, such as the distrust and
mistrust that characterized the cold war era, particularly between the US and the defunct USSR
in their disarmament negotiations (SALT 1, 11, and START). Even if both stand to economically
profit from cooperation through a decrease in weapons expenditure, neither is certain of the
other's long-term intentions. As a result, both followed the financially costly road of mutual
armament balancing for security reasons (Akpotor, 2012). According to Lindelauf (2021), the
fundamental presumptions of the games theory are as follows:

I. Firstly, is that players have the option to bargain and establish an alliance. That is a type
of game that combines cooperative and competitive play.
 II. Secondly, whether participants in the global system are fully aware of the game's payoffs
and other participants' tactics.
III. Thirdly, when players are aware of other players' courses of action, they must act
simultaneously or sequentially.
IV. Fourthly is that all participants share the same objectives (symmetric), making it solely
up to each player's strategy to determine whether they succeed or fail.
V. Fifthly is that whether or not every player has perfect knowledge of the game
VI. Lastly a player's loss affects other players' gains or losses. Meaning a zero-sum or non-
zero sum (Lindelauf, 2021)
One of the variants of the games theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma captures the kind of collective
goods problem common in IR. In this case rational players choose moves that produce an
outcome in which all players are worse off than under a different set of moves. They all could do
better, but as an individual rational actors they are unable to acieve this outcome. How?
The original story tells of two prisoners questioned separately by a prosecutor. The prosecutor
knows they committed a bank robbery but barely enough evidence to convict them of illegal
possession of a gun unless one of them confesses. The prosecutor tells each prisoner that if he
confesses and his partner doesn’t confess, he will go free. If his partner confesses and he doesn’t,
he will get a long prison term for bank robbery (while the partner go free). If they both confess,
they will get a somewhat reduced term. It neighter confesses, they will be convicted on the gun
vharge and serve a short sentence. The story assumes that neither prisoner will have a chance to
retaliate later, that only the immediate outcomes matter, and that each prisoner cares only about
himself. The game has a single solution: Both prisoners will confess. Each will reason as
follows: “if my partner is going to confess, then I should confess too, because I will get a slightly
shorter senteence that way. If my partner is not going to confess, then I should still confess
because I will go free that way instead of serving a short sentence”….the other prisoner will
reasone same way too. The dilemma is that by following their individual nratioal choices, both
prisoners end up serving a faily long sentence when they could have both served a short one by
cooperating (keeping their mouth shut)

POWER THEORY
Power theory offers a theoretical framework to explain the incidence of wars in the international
system. Throughout history, war has been a normal way of conducting disputes between political
groups. These wars do not start accidentally; they usually result from deliberate and calculated
acts of decision-makers in the belligerent states. As Clausewitz noted so graphically, reciprocity
and force are the two most important characteristics of war; “war is thus an act of force to
compel our enemy to do our will” (Clausewitz, 1976: 75). State agents make a conscious
decision to go to war based on their calculations or miscalculations of risks and benefits. They
choose war rather than dialogue because they believe that it offers greater rewards at acceptable
risk levels. War, as Michael Howard (1970: 41) asserts, “is simply the use of violence by states
for the enforcement, the protection or the extension of their political power.”

Power is the central organising principle of war causation. Since states wage war, and power is
so central to the existence, indeed, the very survival of states, it is simply logical that the causes
of war should be located on the correlation of power between them. States employ or threaten
physical force as the simplest means of asserting power or effecting desired control or changes in
the international system. In The Causes of War, Geoffrey Blainey (1977: 149-50) writes: All war
“aims are simply varieties of power.” Whether the war is driven by nationalism, the desire to
spread an ideology or religion, ethnic irredentism, the desire for territory, conflicting claims of
interest, etc; all these are in the main manifestations of power relationships.

Similarly, Quincy Wright (1941: 144) describes power as being essential “a function of state
politics.” Michael Howard and indeed most historians who have studied the subject agree with
Blainey that power theory provides the most adequate explanatory paradigm on the causes of
wars. From Thucydides to Machiavelli to Morgenthau; from Realpolitik statesmen like Frederick
the Great to Bismarck to Kissinger, the causes of war are at bottom conflicts of power.

The power model can well be illustrated by the work of Thucydides in his book, History of the
Peloponnesian War. Here, the Greek historian describes the cause of war in power terms: “What
made war inevitable was the growth in Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta.” As
the leaders of Sparta, statesmen employ war as an instrument of state policy on calculations of
power. Their decisions, their attitudes, their perceptions, and their calculations are based on the
fundamental issues of power. In essence, the power model argues that states go to war “to
acquire, to enhance or to preserve their capacity to function as independent actors in the
international system” (Howard, 1983: 1314)

SYSTEM THEORY

General System Theory (GST) was first formulated by Ludwig Von Bertalanfy as an explanatory
paradigm in Biology. It has since been applied in other sciences such as physics, chemistry,
ecological studies, and subsequently, to the behavioural and social sciences. GST approaches a
subject holistically, i.e. as a totality, a whole entity, or, to use international relations terminology,
a world view. It views its subject as an organism, an integrated unit rather than the sum of its
constituent parts. Various scholars using different theoretical formulations have succinctly
evaluated the systems theory as a tool of analysis. The scholars who have developed the systems
theory in international relations include Karl Deutsch, Morton Kaplan, David Singer, Charles
McClelland and Kenneth Boulding, others that have contributed immensely to the theoretical
development of systems analysis include a renowned political scientist, David Easton, and a
foremost Sociologist Talcott Parsons.

The systems theory also involves the study of relationships between variables. For instance, in
studying the state of an international system or of its subsystems variables such as the essential
rules of the system, the transformation rules, the actor classificatory variables, the capability
variables, and the information variables were found to be useful. The essential rules of the
system variables describe general relationships between the actors. They also assign role
functions to actors independent of the labelling of the actors. The transformation rules of a
system are those rules, which relate given sets of essential rules to given parameter values,
depending upon the previous state of the system. The actor classificatory variables specify the
structural characteristics of actors. These characteristics modify behaviour. For instance, “nation-
state” “alliance” and “international organisation” are actor categories whose behaviour will differ
as a consequence of structural characteristics. Similarly, a classification of nation-states as
democratic or authoritarian will have consequences for their behaviour. The capability variables
specify the physical capability of an actor to carry out given classes of actions in specified
settings. Various factors are used in determining capability: territory, population, industrial
capacity, skills, military forces, transport and communication facilities, political will, ability to
draw on the aid of others. Information Variables include knowledge of long-range aspirations as
well as immediate needs. Information also involves perception and misperception

FUNCTIONALISM

The functionalist theory was elaborated by David Mitrany in a series of books and articles
among which are: The Progress of International Government published in 1933; the article
“Functional Federalism” in the Journal Common Cause of November 1950 and particularly the
book A Working Peace System published in 1946. The theory asserts and justifies the
proposition that the development of international economic and social cooperation is a major
prerequisite for the ultimate solution of political conflicts and the elimination of war. As Mitrany
puts it, “the problem of our time is not how to keep the nations peacefully apart but how to bring
them actively together”. In other words, peace can be maintained, not by addressing the issues of
conflict but by promoting cooperation in areas of mutual interest. According to Mitrany,
functional development of special- purpose organisations will evolve their distinctive structural
patterns, procedures, and areas of competence under inherent requirements of their functional
missions.

It is conceived that International peace can be maintained by solving economic and social
problems through agencies covering the problem areas. The problems which are crucial to
maintaining international peace are bigger in scope than nation-states. Hence, the mission of
functionalism is to make peace possible by organising the particular layers of human social life
under their particular requirements

DECISION MAKING THEORY

Scholars have devised various paradigms for analysing decision making in foreign policy.
Decision-Making Theory was first developed by scholars such as H.A. Simon, Harold Lasswell,
Harold Sprout, Richard Snyder and others. The theory seeks to analyse political processes in
terms of decisions. Its major ingredient lies in the fact that every political act reflects a decision
and so tacitly does inaction. Every actor is a decision-maker. Decision-making theory was
popularised in international relations by Richard Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin Snyder
and Colleagues proceed with the assumption that the key to political action lies in the way in
which decision-makers as actors define their situations and that their image of the situation is
built around the protected action as well as reasons for their action. State action is regarded as the
action taken by those acting in the name of the state.

POLITCIS OF ALLIANCE, COALITION AND THE COLD WAR

THE COLD WAR, 1945-1990

In the post-World War II era, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the dominant
superpowers, each driven by its distinct ideological mission (capitalist democracy versus
communism), alliances, and nuclear arsenals.

This peculiar relationship between the two camps was termed the Cold War, a phrase coined by
Joseph Frankel to describe "a war fought without firing a single shot." Throughout this period,
the two blocs engaged in ideological conflicts, fueled by an intense arms race encompassing both
conventional and nuclear weapons. Europe was divided, with the U.S and NATO forces on one
side and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies on the other. Germany was also split, with
the majority under Western occupation and the rest, including East Berlin, under Soviet control.
Tensions in Berlin in 1947-1948 and 1961 led to armed confrontations, and the construction of
the Berlin Wall in 1961 symbolized the division of Europe.

Despite East-West hostilities, a stable framework of relations developed, preventing all-out war
among major states. The Yalta Conference in 1945 acknowledged Soviet influence in Eastern
Europe, and though the Soviet bloc stayed out of Western economic institutions, global
participation in the United Nations remained widespread.

During the Cold War, the West was concerned about Soviet control in Western Europe, leading
to initiatives like the Marshall Plan and the formation of NATO. The fear was that the entire
Eurasian industrial base could fall under Soviet influence. Half of the world's military spending
focused on the European standoff, and a nuclear arms race escalated between the superpowers.

The U.S implemented a containment policy in the late 1940s to curb Soviet influence globally,
utilizing military, political, ideological, and economic means. The Chinese communist revolution
in 1949 initially led to a Sino-Soviet alliance, but China pursued independence in the 1960s. The
Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s saw China opposing both superpowers, but by the 1970s,
China aligned with the U.S, marking a shift in Cold War dynamics.

The Korean War erupted in 1950 when North Korea attacked South Korea. The U.S and its
allies, with UN authority, counterattacked, leading to Chinese intervention. The war ended in a
truce in 1953, intensifying East-West tensions.

Stalin's death in 1953 marked a shift in Cold War dynamics, with the first summit of superpower
leaders in Geneva in 1955. While agreements were reached on reconstituting Austria, the Soviets
maintained dominance in the East, suppressing uprisings in Hungary and launching the Sputnik
missile program in 1957. The U-2 incident in 1960 disrupted a summit between Khrushchev and
Eisenhower, and simultaneous events like the Bay of Pigs invasion highlighted the complex
geopolitical landscape during this period.

Those hostilities culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the Soviet Union installed
medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Soviet aims to reduce the Soviet Union’s strategic
nuclear inferiority, to counter the development of U.S missiles on Soviet borders in Turkey, and
to deter another U.S invasion of Cuba. U.S leaders however consider this development as
threatening and highly provocative. Although the some nuclear weapons were already
operational John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade to force their removal. The Soviet Union
backed down on the missiles, and the United States promised not to invade Cuba in the future.
These developments led to the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, prohibiting
atmospheric nuclear tests.

PROXY WAR

Proxy wars were a prominent feature of the Cold War era, which spanned roughly from the end
of World War II in 1945 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The term "proxy war"
refers to conflicts in which major powers, such as the United States and the Soviet Union,
supported opposing sides indirectly rather than engaging in direct military confrontation. These
conflicts often occurred in regions where strategic interests of the superpowers intersected, but
direct engagement was deemed too risky due to the fear of nuclear escalation.

Several proxy wars took place during the Cold War era, with notable examples including:

Korean War (1950-1953): The Korean War was one of the first major conflicts of the Cold War.
The Soviet Union supported North Korea, while the United States and its allies backed South
Korea. The war ended in an armistice, with the Korean Peninsula remaining divided along the
38th parallel.

Vietnam War (1955-1975): The Vietnam War was a protracted conflict between North Vietnam,
supported by the Soviet Union and China, and South Vietnam, supported by the United States
and its allies. The war had devastating consequences for the region and became a symbol of the
ideological and geopolitical struggle between the two superpowers.

Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989): The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to support the
communist government, facing resistance from Afghan mujahideen factions. The United States,
along with other Western and regional powers, supported the Afghan resistance by providing
financial, military, and logistical aid. This conflict played a role in the eventual collapse of the
Soviet Union.

Angolan Civil War (1975-2002): The Angolan Civil War was marked by the involvement of
various external powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union. The MPLA (Popular
Movement for the Liberation of Angola), backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, fought against
other factions supported by the U.S. and its allies.

Nicaraguan Contra War (1981-1990): The Sandinista government in Nicaragua, aligned with the
Soviet Union, faced opposition from Contra rebels supported by the United States. The conflict
was part of the broader struggle for influence in Central America.

These proxy wars were characterized by the indirect involvement of superpowers, often through
the provision of military aid, training, and financial support to their respective allies or client
states. The consequences of these conflicts were significant, contributing to the geopolitical
landscape of the Cold War era and shaping the post-Cold War world order.
ARMS RACE

The arms race during the Cold War refers to the intense competition between the United States
and the Soviet Union to build up and stockpile nuclear weapons and conventional military
capabilities. This competition, which lasted from the late 1940s until the collapse of the Soviet
Union in the early 1990s, was a central aspect of the broader Cold War conflict. The arms race
had profound implications for global security, diplomatic relations, and the balance of power
between the two superpowers.

Key aspects of the arms race during the Cold War include:

Nuclear Weapons Buildup:

Both the United States and the Soviet Union developed and expanded their nuclear arsenals. The
development of the atomic bomb by the U.S. during World War II had already set the stage for
the nuclear arms race. The Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb in 1949,
breaking the American monopoly on nuclear weapons.

Hydrogen Bomb Development:

The development of the hydrogen bomb, or thermonuclear bomb, marked a significant escalation
in the arms race. The United States detonated the first hydrogen bomb in 1952, followed by the
Soviet Union in 1953. These weapons were much more powerful than atomic bombs, leading to
an even greater level of destructive capability.

Delivery Systems:

Both superpowers invested heavily in developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs),

long-range bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to deliver nuclear
warheads. The ability to strike the opponent's homeland with nuclear weapons added a new
dimension to the strategic balance.

Strategic Doctrine:

The arms race influenced military strategies and doctrines. The concept of mutually assured
destruction (MAD) emerged, wherein both superpowers understood that a nuclear war would be
catastrophic for both sides. This understanding served as a deterrent, as each side knew that any
aggressive move could lead to devastating consequences.

Economic Strain:

The arms race imposed a significant economic burden on both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
The massive expenditures on military programs strained national budgets and diverted resources
away from social and economic development. This economic strain contributed to the eventual
decline of the Soviet Union

Arms Control Agreements:

Despite the intense competition, the superpowers engaged in several arms control negotiations to
manage the arms race and reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war. Key agreements include the
Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963), the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) agreements, and the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

The SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) and SALT II agreements were pivotal attempts
by the United States and the Soviet Union to control and limit the arms race during the Cold
War. These negotiations aimed to prevent an unrestrained and potentially destabilizing buildup
of nuclear weapons, particularly intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic
bombers. The agreements were significant steps in the pursuit of arms control and reducing the
risk of a catastrophic nuclear conflict.

SALT I (1972):

The SALT I talks began in November 1969 between the U.S. President Richard Nixon and the
Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. The negotiations resulted in the signing of the
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) on May 26, 1972.

Key provisions of SALT I included limits on the number of ballistic missile launchers (land-
based and submarine-based) and the establishment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
The ABM Treaty restricted the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems, aiming to prevent a
strategic advantage that could undermine the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

SALT I also included an agreement on limiting the number of multiple independently targetable
reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). This was an attempt to
curb the potentially destabilizing effects of MIRVs, which could make a first strike more
tempting.

SALT II (1979):

The SALT II negotiations began during the Carter administration and culminated in the signing
of the SALT II treaty on June 18, 1979. However, the treaty was not ratified by the U.S. Senate
due to geopolitical tensions, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

SALT II aimed to build on the achievements of SALT I by placing additional limits on strategic
arsenals. The treaty proposed numerical limits on various categories of delivery vehicles,
including ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers. It also sought to limit the total number of
warheads and launchers.

Despite being signed, the SALT II treaty faced controversy and political opposition in the United
States. Critics argued that the treaty did not adequately address Soviet advantages in certain areas
and that the Soviet Union was not fully complying with existing arms control agreements.

It's important to note that while SALT I and SALT II did contribute to some degree of stability
and predictability in the U.S.-Soviet nuclear relationship, they did not eliminate the nuclear arms
race entirely. The subsequent START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) negotiations, which
began in the 1980s and continued into the 1990s, aimed to further reduce nuclear arsenals.

START I AND START II

The START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) agreements were arms control treaties between
the United States and the Soviet Union (later Russia) aimed at reducing the number of strategic
nuclear weapons possessed by both countries during the Cold War. There were two main
agreements in this series, START I and START II.

START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I): START I was signed on July 31, 1991, by U.S.
President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, just a few months before
the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Key Provisions:
START I focused on reducing the number of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (such as
intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers) and
the number of warheads they carried. The treaty set a limit of 6,000 accountable warheads for
each side and established a detailed counting rule to determine the actual number of warheads. It
also included provisions for on-site inspections and data exchanges to verify compliance.

START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II): START II was signed on January 3, 1993, by
U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

Key Provisions:

START II aimed to further reduce strategic nuclear arsenals by eliminating all MIRVed
(Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle) land-based intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs). The treaty set a limit of 3,000-3,500 warheads for each side. START II also
addressed heavy ICBMs and included provisions for converting or eliminating them.

Challenges and Issues:

The ratification process of START II faced challenges in both the U.S. and Russia. The U.S.
Senate ratified the treaty in 1996, but the Russian Duma delayed its approval until 2000.

The ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty, a separate agreement, posed a challenge as the
deployment of a national missile defense system by the United States was inconsistent with the
provisions of START II.

Status:

START II was never fully implemented. In 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from
the ABM Treaty, which, in turn, led Russia to announce its withdrawal from START II.

While START I played a crucial role in reducing strategic nuclear arsenals during a time of
significant geopolitical changes, START II faced challenges and ultimately did not enter into
force.

ALLIANCES

An alliance refers to a group of states collaborating to achieve a common goal. Typically

established through formal written agreements, alliances primarily focus on addressing shared
threats and international security concerns. They often endure over time and span various issues.
Short-term collaborations, like the U.S-led forces in Iraq, are sometimes referred to as coalitions,
though these terms can be ambiguous. It's worth noting that formal alliances don't guarantee
friendly relations; for example, the Soviet Union and China in the 1960s or NATO members
Greece and Turkey had formal alliances despite being bitter enemies. The main purpose of
alliances is to enhance the collective power of their members by combining capabilities, allowing
them to exert greater influence in negotiations with other states.

Warsaw Pact Alliance

The Warsaw Pact was a political and military alliance formed in 1955 among the Soviet Union
and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe during the Cold
War. The member states included the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania (until 1968).

The Warsaw Pact was created in response to the establishment of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) by Western powers in 1949. The goal was to counterbalance NATO's military
presence in Europe and serve as a collective defense against potential aggression from the West.
The treaty was signed on May 14, 1955, in Warsaw, Poland.

The primary function of the Warsaw Pact was military cooperation. Member states pledged to
provide mutual assistance in case of an armed attack on any of them. The Soviet Union played a
dominant role in the alliance, providing military leadership and maintaining a significant
presence in the armed forces of member countries. The Warsaw Pact also served as a means for
the Soviet Union to exercise political control over its Eastern Bloc allies. The Soviet leadership
expected loyalty and adherence to socialist principles from member states.

The alliance faced internal tensions, notably during the 1968 Prague Spring when Warsaw Pact
troops, led by the Soviet Union, invaded Czechoslovakia to suppress political liberalization
efforts. Albania withdrew from the pact in 1968 due to ideological differences with the Soviet
Union, and Romania distanced itself from the alliance in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Warsaw Pact and NATO created a divided Europe during the Cold War, with the Iron
Curtain serving as a symbolic and physical separation between the communist states of the East
and the capitalist democracies of the West.
With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the geopolitical
landscape changed dramatically. The Warsaw Pact formally disbanded on July 1, 1991.The end
of the alliance symbolized the easing of tensions between East and West and the beginning of a
new era in European geopolitics.

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is a political and military alliance established
on April 4, 1949, with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty. The organization was created in
response to the geopolitical challenges and security concerns in the aftermath of World War II.
NATO's primary purpose is to ensure the collective defense of its member states against
aggression, with the principle that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

Key aspects of the NATO alliance include:

Collective Defense: The cornerstone of NATO is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which
states that an armed attack against one or more of its members shall be considered an attack
against them all. This commitment to collective defense underscores the unity and mutual
support among NATO member countries.

Membership: NATO started with 12 founding members and has expanded over the years. As of
my last knowledge update in January 2022, NATO had 30 member countries. Each member is
committed to democratic principles, the rule of law, and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Military Cooperation: NATO is not only a political alliance but also a military alliance. Member
states contribute to a combined defense effort through various means, including military forces,
capabilities, and resources. NATO's military structure facilitates coordination and
interoperability among member forces.

Strategic Commands: NATO has two strategic commands—one in Norfolk, Virginia, USA
(Supreme Allied Commander Transformation) and another in Mons, Belgium (Supreme Allied
Commander Europe). These commands are responsible for planning, coordinating, and executing
military operations.
Partnerships: NATO has developed partnerships with non-member countries and international
organizations. These partnerships aim to enhance international security, promote stability, and
contribute to crisis management and cooperative security efforts.

Adaptation and Modernization: NATO has undergone numerous transformations to adapt to

changing geopolitical landscapes and security challenges. This includes adjusting its strategic
concept, developing new capabilities, and addressing emerging threats such as cyber warfare and
terrorism.

Political Consultation: NATO provides a forum for political consultation among member
countries. The North Atlantic Council (NAC), composed of ambassadors from each member
state, is the principal political decision-making body within the alliance.

Crisis Management and Peacekeeping: NATO has been involved in crisis management and
peacekeeping operations in various regions, including the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya.
These operations aim to stabilize conflict zones and promote peace and security.

Nuclear Deterrence: NATO maintains a nuclear deterrent as part of its overall defense posture.
This involves the integration of nuclear weapons into the alliance's strategy to deter potential
adversaries.

BASIC CONCEPTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

George Modelski defines foreign policy as “the system of activities evolved by communities for
changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their activities to the international
environment.” Foreign policy also refers to the goals that the state officials seek to obtain abroad,
the values that give rise to those objectives, and the means or instruments through which they are
pursued. The foreign policies of governments are reflected in the external behaviour of nation-
states. In general, the objectives and actions of others set an agenda of foreign policy problems
between two or more governments. The type of response will largely be similar to the stimulus,
hence the notion that foreign policy actions are often reciprocal.

Foreign Policy Objectives

Core Values or Objectives: These are the values and interests to which nations and
governments commit their very existence. Core values must be preserved or extended at all
times. They are the kind of goals for which most people are willing to make the ultimate
sacrifice. They are usually stated in the form of basic principles of foreign policy and become
articles of faith that societies accept uncritically. Core values relate to the self-preservation of a
political unit

Middle-Range Objectives: There are numerous varieties of middlerange foreign policy

objectives. Virtually all policy thrusts in pursuit of social and economic development fall within
this category. These objectives cannot be achieved by dependence on internal sources only.
These sources are in any case limited. Consequently, states formulate foreign policies on trade,
foreign aid, access to foreign markets as a means of promoting social and economic
development.

Long-Range Goals: Long-range goals deal with plans, visions, and dreams concerning the
ultimate political or ideological organisation of the international system or subsystem. States
make universal demands to realise their long-range goals. For instance, under Lenin, the Soviet
Union pursued world communism. The United States and its western allies pursue a long-range
objective aimed at making the world safe for democracy

NATIONAL INTEREST

The concept of national interest is very vague and carries a meaning according to the context in
which it is used. As a result, it is not possible to give any universally acceptable interpretation of
this concept. Hans Morgenthau who has dealt with the concept in his various writings also used
the term ‘national interest’ in different ways and assigned a variety of meanings. The use of
terms like common interest and conflicting interest, primary and secondary interest, inchoate
interest, the community of interests, identical and complementary interests, vital interests,
material interests, etc. by Morgenthau in his writings further add to this confusion. However,
National interest" refers to the set of objectives, goals, and principles that a nation prioritizes and
seeks to advance or protect in its interactions with other countries and within its own borders.
This concept is fundamental in international relations and foreign policy, guiding a nation's
decisions and actions on the global stage. The meaning of national interest can vary depending
on a country's historical context, geographic location, political system, economic circumstances,
and cultural values. However, there are several common elements that contribute to the
understanding of national interest: Security which is ensuring the safety and defense of the nation
and its citizens as a primary component of national interest. This includes protectiion against
military threats, terrorism, cyber attacks, and other forms of aggression; Sovereignty, which
means preserving the autonomy and independence of the nation as essential to its national
interest. This includes safeguarding territorial integrity, defending against external interference,
and upholding the rule of law; Ideological or Cultural Values that involves protecting and
promoting the values, beliefs, and identity of the nation is also considered part of its national
interest. This may include advocating for human rights, democracy, and freedom of expression,
as well as preserving cultural heritage and promoting national unity.

It's important to note that national interest is not always static and can evolve over time in
response to changing circumstances, such as shifts in the geopolitical landscape, advancements
in technology, economic trends, or changes in public opinion. Additionally, different actors
within a nation, such as government officials, interest groups, and the general public, may have
differing interpretations of what constitutes the national interest and how it should be pursued.
As a result, defining and pursuing national interest often involves complex and dynamic
decision-making processes.

POWER

Pwer is one of the most crucial factor in considering foreign policy. In fact, Hans Morgenthau, a
leading realist, asserts in his book Politics among Nations that "International politics, like all
politics, is a power struggle." Power is without doubt the most crucial of all concepts in the study
of International Politics. Without discussing other ingredients of power it is noteworthy to
emphasize that power is categorized here based on the analysis of Joseph Nye and Ernest J.
Wilson, into three types; namely, Hard Power, Soft Power and Smart Power.

INDICES OF POWER

The indices of national power are factors that could as well influence the formulation of a
nation’s foreign policy and national interest aspirations. Some of such factors include:

Geography: According to Morgenthau, the most stable factor upon which the power of a nation
depends is geography. As an indication of the strategic importance of a state's geographic
location to its aggregate power, he gives the example of the continental United States that is
separated from other continents by 3000 miles of the Atlantic Ocean to the east and over 6000
miles of the Pacific to the west.

Natural Resources: Possession of natural resources is a major factor in a nation’s international

power. This factor is significant although not decisive. It is not the mere possession of raw
materials that determines a nation's power, it is the ability to use the resources that counts. For
instance, even though the Arab states have grown very rich from their oil resources, none of
them can be described as a powerful nation. A state's ability to use its resources is dependent on
the level of its economic and industrial development. Japan has little raw materials yet its
technology has transformed it into an economic giant and thus a powerful nation.

Population: A nation's population is a major element of its power. Its significance is however
dependent on other considerations as well. In the 1950s, neither China nor India, both populous
nations was considered a powerful nation. The population is potential power. Hence, nations
with large populations could be weak although it is impossible for nations without large
populations to be powerful. China, whose population endowed it with potential power, was
granted great power status in the UN Security Council in the late forties for that very reason even
though it was at the time, not a powerful state. What makes the population a significant and
decisive index of power is again industrialisation. Industrialisation leads to an increase in
population, which in turn may generate further industrialisation. Thus, a highly industrialised
China has the potential with its huge population to become one of the most powerful nations on
earth.

Ideology: Ideology's peculiar function is to justify power and transform it into authority.
Ideology reduces the amount of power that a government needs to deploy to achieve compliance
from and control over its citisens. As a source of power, ideology is largely a phenomenon of
totalitarian states. Whereas democracy accommodates disagreements on substantive national
goals and is therefore devoid of ideology, a totalitarian state like communist China promotes one
ideology with all its associated fanaticism and uniformity to compel compliance among its
citisens.