Dissertation | Jan 20, 1996

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of M Phil at the College of Combat, Mhow (MP).

January 1996





“The Twentieth Century has been one of indiscriminate violence. But when people look back at it five hundred years from now, they will remember that it marked the first exploration of space and the invention of the microchip. They will not remember Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt.”

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.



Appendix:- Bibliography.




Millions of people all over the world looked on with incredulity as the East Germans brought down the Berlin Wall brick by brick in November 1990. When the gates of Checkpoint Charlie were finally thrown open, the world press was there in strength to record the tears of joy which flowed as the East and West Berliners were reunited after over four decades of bitterness and strife. People of the world witnessed live on their television screens a defining moment in history — the Iron Curtain had fallen.
On 21 November 1990, 22 Heads of State from NATO and Warsaw Pact countries met in Paris to sign treaties which would result in the destruction of large stocks of tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. A little later, the Soviet armies stationed in former Warsaw Pact countries withdrew to Russia, leaving behind newly independent and newly democratic East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. The unexpected collapse and breakup of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, as a large number of its 15 constituent republics demanded independence or autonomy, and its consequent loss of power and prestige, finally marked the end of the undeclared but furiously fought Cold War.
The euphoria which swept the world as the great Communist empire collapsed was understandable. For 45 years the world had been worried about war, which at times seemed imminent, as during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Hundreds of millions of people, especially in Europe and North America, had grown up in fear of f nuclear holocaust. Now the world was once again in the throes of change. President George Bush proclaimed the beginning of a net era, “Free from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace, an era in which the nations of the world can prosper and live in harmony.”
Many politicians, diplomats and academics felt that, as only one superpower remained, there could be no major conflict in the Suddenly, nuclear weapons were perceived as extravagantly redundant, since a major war now appeared to be out of question. A call was raised for the dismantling of NATO. Some scholars even predicted that war itself would soon be out of date. However, so far, it has not quite turned out like that. Events which have unfolded since then have belied these hopes. In the words of James Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, “We confront Woolsey, a deeply troubled and conflict prone world, which is more complicated, more volatile and much less predictable.” Today, local conflagrations .across the globe continue to threaten world peace and have considerably eroded the “peace dividend” which was expected to be the positive fallout of the end of the Cold War. The end of superpower rivalry appears to have made the world more unstable, not less, and more prone to violent confrontation.

Statement of the Problem 

The Twentieth Century has all along been a period of accelerating change, but the pace of change, specially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has left many countries confused. Consequently, responses to the unfolding circumstances have not been optimal. With the end of the Cold War, the vision of a New World Order appears to have caught the imagination of quite a few, yet there is little consensus of what it really means. There is a need to examine the recent changes to determine the contours of the New World Order, the challenges and opportunities it provides and to predicate a suitable response to the changed environment.

Justification of the Study

The global system is caught up in revolutionary upheaval today. Mankind is witnessing the sudden eruption of a new civilization. The concept of the nation-state, the most basic building block of the global system, is itself changing. Approximately one-third of all the present members of the United Nations, are threatened by ethnic disharmony, rebel movements and insurgencies. National borders are becoming increasingly porous; currency rates are quickly going out of control of the central banks; imports and immigrants are moving freely across the world and terrorists, guns and drugs are threatening the sovereignty of nations. Out of this chaos, a new kind of political entity, being described as the “post-national” state, is emerging. It is imperative that the intricate nuances of the various aspects of the re changes taking place in the international order, and their repercussions on the political, socio-economic, cultural and ideological components of society are understood in the correct perspective, development, so as to formulate meaningful strategies for the future progress, well being and survival of mankind.


As the subject is vast and numerous diverse factors have both ;A direct and an indirect effect in moulding the contours of the merging New World Order, it is proposed to analyze and evaluate in detail primarily those factors which have a tangible and direct on it. It is also proposed to omit detailed presentation of the history of the world order prevailing prior to the end of the Cold War. Wherever relevant, it is proposed to analyze the impact of changes in the geo-political environment on India’s security concerns and peace and stability in Southern Asia.
Topical events having a bearing on the New World Order, have been incorporated up to 30 January 1996.


It is proposed to study the subject by analyzing and evaluating the following aspects :-

(a) Hypotheses on the New World Order.

(b) Contours of the Emerging World Order.

(c) Impact of European Security Environment.

(d) Paradigm Changes Affecting International Security.

(e) Relevance of the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement

(f) Nuclear Proliferation and Progress Towards Disarmament

(g) New International Economic Order.

(h) Emerging Security Environment in the Asia-Pacific Region : US Interests and India’s Security Concerns.

(j) Flashpoints and Pointers to the Future.

Sources of Data 

(a) Interview with Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, AVSM, VrC, VM,   Director, Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

(b) Interview with Major General Dipankar Banerjee, AVSM, Deputy Director,        Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses,  New Delhi.

(c) Library, College of Combat, Mhow.

(d) Library, Infantry School, Mhow.

(e) Library, Military College of Telecommunications Engineering, Mhow.

(f) Library, India International Centre, New Delhi.

Bibliography. Attached at Appendix.


The End of History. Many scholars and intellectuals have proffered visions of the emerging world order. Of all these, Francis Fukayama’s book entitled “The End of History and the Last Man” [1] and Samuel Huntington’s article entitled “The Clash of Civilizations”,[2]have become modern day classics in the genre of international security. Fukayama has theorized that the world is witnessing the end of the ideological conflict between democracy and totalitarianism and that the decisive defeat of totalitarianism will be the likely outcome. This, in turn, would bring about the end of conflict in the developed countries. However, the Third World would continue to suffer wars as it is “mired in history” and still in the process of resolving its ideological conflicts. Besides Fukayama, economic historian Robert L. Heilbroner has also pronounced the “end of history and the victory of capitalism”. Fukayama’s argument suffers from the fallacy of a single alternative, as the end of totalitarianism and communism does not necessarily mean the emergence of liberal democracy. Fukayama’s paradigms are limited in their applicability mainly to the Western world and tend to ignore the rest. With the emergence of many new forms of authoritarianism, ethnic nationalism and religious fundamentalism, it is extremely doubtful whether ideological and physical conflicts will end and the world will witness the “end of history”.
The Clash of Civilizations. Huntington’s hypothesis is that, “The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts in global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The (cultural)  fault lines  between  civilizations  will  be  the    battle lines of the future.”[3] He postulates that this will be the case because differences between civilizations are not only real, they are basic; the world is becoming a smaller place; the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities; the growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the 1st; cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and, hence, less easily compromised than political and economic ones and economic regionalism is increasing. Thus, Huntington challenges the geo-economic school, which sees trade conflict and global competition as the main source of political rivalries.
Nationalism Still a Dominant Force. Though nation-states have played a predominant role in global affairs for a few centuries, it is certainly true that the major civilizations have had a far greater part in the shaping of human history. However, it appears to be premature to downgrade the fervour of nationalism in moulding the future contours of the emerging political firmament. Major General Dipankar Banerjee, while commenting on Huntington’s hypothesis, states that, “The entire concept of civilization conflict, attractive though it may seem on the surface, does not fully address the many contradictions prevailing in the world today.”[4]
Concept of Globalism. While not disagreeing entirely with Huntington, Alvin and Heidi Toffler, of “Future Shock” and “Third Wave” fame, find his reliance on the traditional definition of civilization inadequate. In their new book entitled “War and Anti-war” they state, “We, too, believe civilizations will clash in the future. But not along the lines he (Huntington) suggests. An even larger potential collision lies ahead — a ‘master conflict’ within which his clash of civilizations could itself be subsumed. We might think of it as a collision of (industrial) ‘super civilizations’. “[5] The Tofflers use the word civilization to refer to First Wave agrarianism, Second Wave industrialism and to the emerging Third Wave globalism.[6] The Tofflers argue that to introduce a new civilization onto the planet and then expect peace and tranquility, is the height of strategic naivete. Each civilization has its own economic, and hence political and military, requirements.[7] They predict that the historic change from a bisected to a trisected world could well trigger the deepest power struggles on the planet as each country tries to position itself in the emerging three-tiered power structure. “The resulting collisions, reflecting the sharply differing needs of two radically different civilizations, could provoke some of the worst bloodshed in the years to come.”[8]
The End of Progressivism. In his essay entitled “The End of Progressivism”, Eisuke Sakakibara disagrees with the projections of both Fukayama and Huntington.[9] In his view, “The Cold War was nothing but a conflict between two extreme versions of progressivism — socialism and neoclassical capitalism.”[10] Sakakibara feels that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the hd of the Cold War, the rosy neoclassical dream of the “end of history” has been tarnished. He cites two main reasons for this : globalization and environmental constraints. He avers that, “The devise of socialism and the end of the Cold War released the world from a Western civil war over differing versions of progressivism to confront the more fundamental issues of environmental pollution and the peaceful coexistence of different civilizations.”[11] He reasons that the re-emergence of civilization consciousness is directly related to deep disillusionment with the ideology of progressivism. “Civilizations do indeed rise and fall and often clash with each other, but more important, they have interacted and coexisted throughout most of history.”[12] According to Sakakibara, the clash of civilizations is not the inevitable result of their coexistence but rather the result of their recent interaction with Western progressivism. He recommends that civilizations such as the West and Islam must practice tolerance and that, “The West must abandon sectarian progressivism in favour of respect for the environment and tolerance for other civilizations.”[13]
Critique. The disappearance of communism has not opened the door to a one world system. There appears to be no justification in clinging to the belief that the “end of history”, in Francis Fukayama’s misleading phrase, is at hand. It is clear that civilizations will continue to coexist and, if at all they do clash, it will only be sometime in the distant future. However, in the foreseeable future, conflicts will be more likely to occur between nation states to correct the aberrations of history even though the real competition among nations may be in the arena of trade and commerce. Ideological confrontation is fairly unlikely to lead to large scale wars, as the world has known them. Principles of tolerance and moderation are more likely to be practiced by nations as greater political maturity results consequent to increasing democratization. Environmental and ecological issues will undoubtedly play a major role in the interaction between nations and environmental constraints are more likely to influence, developmental activities. Non-adherence to the principles of tolerance in global politics will certainly lead to an escalation tensions between nations and, eventually, between civilizations.


Post-Cold War World

Ambiguity and Turbulence. It is difficult to qualify exactly what has happened since the momentous events of 1989. Although the United States (US) claimed victory at the end of the Cold War, Germany and Japan appear to be the real victors as they stand to gain the most. The bipolar, military alliance-based block system of maintaining the balance of power, has lost its relevance. With the transformation and breakup of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the East-West ideological confrontation has come to an end. In a Europe struggling for unity and further integration, unified Germany is emerging as a major power centre. The massive Japanese trade surplus continues to threaten the economies of the remaining G-15 countries. Many Cold War-linked regional conflicts are winding down. However, ethnic conflicts, such as the ongoing Bosnian Muslim-Serb-Croat imbroglio, are a destabilizing influence on regional peace. Arms control, conventional weapons and nuclear disarmament, Islamic fundamentalism, human rights, anti-narcotics measures and a host of other pressing issues, are high on the international agenda. Only one thing appears certain — that turbulence lies ahead. Much of it could be avoided if the world is prepared to learn from the Cold War experience and adapt itself to the post-Cold War realities. In this context, it is important to first understand the emerging contours of the New World Order.

Unipolar or Multipolar/Polycentric World

Unipolar Present Status. In the early years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the impression that the world had become unipolar had gained currency. Renowned syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer was the first off the blocks to expound the concept of a unipolar world. He wrote, “The most striking feature of the post-Cold War world is its unipolarity…….. In perhaps another generation or so there will be great powers coequal with the United States and the world will, in structure, resemble the pre-World War I era. But we are not there yet, nor will we for decades. Now is the unipolar moment.”[14]  The US exulted in its “unipolar moment” when, under its leadership, the Coalition Forces inflicted a crushing defeat on Saddam Hussein’s occupation forces in Kuwait in 1991 and compelled their withdrawal. The US will was given legal sanction by being endorsed by a resolution of the United Nations (UN) Security Council. In subsequent years also, the US domination of the UN apparatus has continued. Interventions in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia-Herzegovina, were brokered by the U.S.A. to suit her own national interests. There were fears in the Third World of a new economic Cold War between the industrialized North, under the leadership of the US, and the developing countries of the South.[15] The pressure tactics on the renewal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in mid-1995, further incensed many countries of the Third World. However, it is clear that gradually the accent in international relations is veering towards economic ties and trade. In the decades ahead, economic power is likely to assume greater significance than purely military power and the present unchallenged domination of the world scene by the US will slowly fade away as new economic powers rise in Asia, South America and Africa.

Emerging multpolar/ Polycentric world. The likely diffusion of power of the US, will ultimately result in the emergence of a multi-polar or polycentric world. The Asia-Pacific region is likely to emerge as the epicentre of the evolving multi-polar world. The Twenty first Century is being projected as the Asian Century. According to K. Subrahmanyam, “There is reasonable expectation that in the next 25 years, Asia will become the centre of gravity of the globe in the economic, strategic and political fields.”[16] The growing economic clout of the Asian nations will give them a larger number of security options and increased freedom of alignment. It will also make them less dependent on the Western security umbrella and guarantees. The emerging multi-polar primary centres of power will be the US, Russia, Japan, Germany(as the core of the European Union), India and China. France, Brazil, Nigeria and Korea, subject to successful re-unification, will be the secondary powers. Australia, South Africa, Israel, Indonesia and Malaysia are likely to be in the outer orbit of the international power equation. Due to the diversity of power centres, the New World Order will be complex and fragile. The overall focus is likely to be on economic inter-dependence to a very large extent. The power equation will be mainly in trade and economic terms and the dynamics of interaction in terms of political and diplomatic influence. Non-military threats to security and stability will overtake military threats.

Emerging Trends in the Strategic Environment

Security and Development. Even though authoritarianism is progressively waning, the advance of democracy will be slow and marked by many interruptions. Successful new patches of pluralism will gradually take root alongside stubbornly resistant strains of the old authoritarian order, such as in China and Cuba. State ,structures in the developing world will take time to be consolidated. Meanwhile, there will be growing competition for regional dominance and, consequently, increase in regional tensions. The undercurrents of regional economic unification which are gathering strength, will take concrete shape in the decades ahead. The European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA) i are already in various stages of implementation. These are likely to be soon joined by several other trade pacts in the South American and African continents. Fissiparous tendencies on ethnic lines will threaten the stability of a number of nations. Communal separatism in general and Islamic revivalism in particular, will endanger international security. International terrorism, including nuclear terrorism, and narco-terrorism constitute major transnational challenges. The info-tech fusion of the world into a global village is spawning a “revolution of rising expectations”. These expectations are unlikely to be easily fulfilled and may lead to a mass uprising and class wars between the haves and the have-nots.
Developments Likely to Cause Major Instability.

The following developments are likely to cause major instability:-

(a)       Failure of the world community to prevent the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction.

(b)       China’s attempts to acquire super power status and to establish  regional hegemony, while continuing to suppress the democratic aspirations        of its own people.

(c)        The re-armament of Japan, ostensibly to ward off the threat from a nuclear-armed North Korea or a belligerent China.

(d)       Reversion by Russia to anti-Western policies, possibly prompted by  the return to power of a Communist-backed regime, popularly known as the Second Coming of Communism.


Power Vacuum in Europe 

Importance of Europe in International Security. Since the end of World War II, major international security concerns have tended to be Eurocentric. It was in Europe that a nuclear Armageddon was expected to begin and to result in the ultimate annihilation of all mankind. Though the end of the Cold War and the unification of Germany have drastically altered the situation in Europe, its place in international security scenario remains an important one. It is, thus, necessary to analyze the European security environment and its impact on future international security.

Elimination of the Warsaw Pact Threat. From 1945 onwards, the US had  guaranteed the survival of Europe against a threat from the Warsaw pact. That threat no longer exists. Hence, from America’s point of view, the situation in Europe no longer warrants a major American presence. The US is committed to a phased reduction in the force levels deployed in Europe as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Some of the European nations were also never convinced that they were being treated as equal partners by the Americans. The relationship was perceived with a flavour of NATO been viewed as, “A reluctant North American arm around the condescension on one side and resentment on the other. Western shoulder of Europe”[17]. With the threat of invasion from the East having receded, the European nations are finding it difficult to convince America, the American Congress in particular, that the continued presence of American troops on European soil remains critical for the security of Europe.

Franco-German Rivalry. In the early years the European Commission (EC) revolved around the Franco-German axis. German economic power was balanced by French military power. Now Germany is the dominant partner. The growing political and economic influence of Germany, and its burgeoning friendship with the US, has served to marginalize France within the European Union(EU). Sanjaya Baru states that, “The heart of EU is no longer in Brussels, the headquarters of the EU, which is symbolically halfway between Bonn and Paris, but has moved eastwards into the Rhine valley.”[18]

A New European Alliance 

Global Thinking, French Disagreement. In 1992, European thoughts about the future security strategy were centred around the concept of a new alliance which would overcome the weaknesses of NATO and include not only the US but also Japan. “The new alliance would be global in scope and would recognize that its members all needed each other — not necessarily in the same way and to the same degree, but enough for their interdependence to be reflected in the  rules   by which they agreed to operate.”[19] This view was not shared by France, in consonance with the independent line which France had adopted throughout the Cold War. At an international colloquium on the “New Strategic Debate” hosted by him at Paris From 29 September to 01 October 1992, the French Defence Minister, Pierre Joxe, “made it clear that France could not conceive of   integrating substantial elements of its defence into a wider ensemble, ensemble, without the assurance in return of a Europe endowed with a political will of its own.”[20] Ruling out the return of France to the integrated military structures of NATO, the French Defence Minister offered increased participation in politico-military discussions of NATO.

US Leadership Through Partnership. The US Deputy Under Secretary of Defence (Policy), Lewis Libby, asserted that, “The US vision of the future European security architecture was not of competing structures but of interlocking institutions each with its own role to play, providing a range of options to prevent, manage or respond to crisis or aggression.”[21] He also declared that, “Effective multilateral action was most likely to come about in response to US leadership and not as an alternative to it.”[22] The major differences in the US and French approach were highlighted. The prevailing German view was also in favour of converting US leadership to partnership. The French also believed in continuing the legitimacy of nuclear deterrence. “The French …. are of the view that a dominant Germany can be controlled only by embedding it in a united Western European security framework and by balancing the German economic and technological dominance with the French and British nuclear capabilities.”[23]

Potential for Future Conflict. The European security risks continue to be highly varied and all too real. Ethnic and religious tensions abound; nuclear smuggling raises the spectre of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands and the continuing tragedy in the Balkans underscores the reality of regional instabilities and the potential for even more serious conflict.

Partnership for Peace

Restructuring of NATO to Suit New Realities. The disagreements among the leading European nations are bound to have a considerable impact on international politics and security. In spite of the Maastricht Treaty, there has been no real progress towards making the European Union an autonomous centre in international decision making. The US dominance over Europe has led to a desire on the part of insecure Eastern European states to join NATO. After the 1994 Brussels summit, the 16 nations comprising NATO streamlined their military structures and launched a “Partnership for Peace” (PfP) Initiative to admit new members, mainly from the Eastern European states, to form an enlarged common security framework while retaining the original character of NATO. The pfp Initiative has the following aims:- [24]

(a)       Facilitate transparency in national planning and budgeting processes.

(b)       Ensure democratic control of defence forces.

(c)        Maintain the capability and readiness to contribute to operations     under the authority of the United Nations or the Conference on Security and           Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

(d)       Develop cooperative mutual relations with Europe for the purposes of        joint planning, training and exercises, thereby strengthening the partners’   abilities to undertake humanitarian, peacekeeping and search and rescue    tasks.

(e)       Develop, over the longer term, forces better able to operate with NATO organizations.

Continued US Dominance. The PfP Initiative has dramatically altered the very character of the NATO alliance. The 38-state North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the 53-state CSCE have been instrumental in building a cohesive security and consultative apparatus in Western Europe. However, the US influence continues to loon large over Europe, as evidenced by the developments in Bosnia which have exposed the inability of the West European nations to act unitedly. K. Subrahmanyam has expressed the view that, “The US policy in Bosnia prevented Western European nations from succeeding in solving the Bosnian issue and led to an American sponsored solution being imposed with only minimal participation of the Western European nations in decision making.” [25] This does not augur well for the further integration and consolidation of the European Union which has the potential to act as, “A countervailing factor against the overwhelming dominance of the US in international affairs.”[26]


Wars of Conscience and Wars of Interest

Wars of Interest. Even though most countries of the world no 10 longer have serious differences of opinion with each other about politics and economics and ideological confrontation is no longer – relevant, many of them continue to be inimical to their neighbours. “Countries have long quarrelled and will continue to quarrel, about ii many things besides ideology.”[27] The advance of democracy will be slow, patchy and prone to interruptions. Economic pluralism does not automatically guarantee political maturity and balance. Hence, the world’s democracies will have to be vigilant and prepared to respond to threatening situations before they can develop into serious eruptions with a potential for causing major damage. Far-flung and weak members of the democratic club will need to be protected. Continuous raw material supplies will need to be ensured to keep the economies running smoothly. Threatened interruptions in vital resources like oil are likely to lead to war, such as the Gulf War in 1990-91. If rogue regimes or nations seize control of strategic areas or vital resources, it would call for a swift response through a coalition of forces to restore the situation. Conflicts of this type are being termed as “wars of interest’. Two obvious areas fall under this category. One is the Korean peninsula where North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could endanger world peace. The other is the Islamic crescent, running through Southwest Asia and North Africa, “With its powerful combination of oil, Islam and a long history of anti-Western resentment.”[28] Wars of Conscience. In the age of heightened human rights consciousness, democracies of the world may also have to be ready to fight a different kind of war not directly related to the immediate vital interests of a participating country. Large scale human rights violations by a dictatorial regime, civil wars leading to genocide, natural or man-made calamities and the systematic extermination of minorities by fanatical despots, are likely to anger the world community enough to initially impose economic and military sanctions and, in case of failure to stem the rot, to eventually go to war to find a solution to the problem. Future conflicts of this type are being termed as “wars of conscience”. The recent interventions in Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda could be said to be in this category, though the level of military commitment remained short of actual fighting.

Erosion of the Nation-State

Factors Influencing Shape of the Nation-State. The cohesive nature and autonomy of the nation-state is being progressively eroded by the changes taking place in the socio-political and socio-economic environment. The following three forces are directly influencing the shape of the nation-state of the near future:-[29]

(a)       In economics, the growing ease and reduced cost of moving goods from one place to another. Also, the speed and ease with which money can be transferred electronically across the continents.

(b)       In military matters, the availability of means for imposing defeat from the air, with the minimum loss of life of own troops.

(c)        The technology-based challenge to the old picture of the nation-state in the form of the information revolution.

Unpredictability About the Future of the Nation-State. Though these three challenges to the survival of the nation-state are quite powerful, the nation-state is likely to have greater durability than is being imagined at present. In a perceptive essay entitled “The Shape of the World”, The Economist states that, “The idea that nation-states, wishing to belong to something bigger, will gather together into big, new entities, each speaking for the culture or civilizations of its component parts, is a long way off from being realized.”[30] Only in Western Europe is there any seriously conceived plan to dissolve existing nation-states into something bigger and, “Even this European experiment may now be running into the sands. The world does not, in short, seem to be heading for that fearful ‘clash of civilizations’.”[31]However, retired Foreign Secretary and diplomatic observer J.N.Dixit echoes a different view. Quoting Jean Marie Guehenno, a senior French diplomat, Dixit states that nation-states are becoming irrelevant. “A new imperial age is in the making where power and influence will accrue to entities and communities with advanced technologies and information capabilities. These ….. will transcend existing geo-political boundaries and, regardless of their size and strength, existing nation-states will have to cope with this transition.”[32] Thus, the future of the nation-state is unpredictable at present.

Inevitability of Change. Though there is a clear lack of agreement among scholars, diplomats and analysts regarding the shape of the nation-state in the coming millennium, what is clear is that change is inevitable. Any socio-political crystal-gazing must take into account not only the post-Cold War power equations and economic globalization, but also the challenges of economic want, terrorism, mass migration and trans-national crime.

Ideological Confrontation

Inter-state to Intra-state Conflict. The end of the East-West ideological confrontation has brought to the fore various problems which impinge on international security, but were simmering under the surface for quite sometime. The foremost among these is that the world is moving away from inter-state to intra-state conflict, often encouraged and actively abetted by external powers with vested interests. In Major General Banerjee’s words, “Force is projected through proxy wars, state terrorism or the like, often exploiting an internal weakness. It is the latter that allows an external intervention to be successful.”[33] Such conflicts undermine the cohesion of the nation-state.
The Rise of Ethnic Nationalism. Events in the last decade of the present millennium have highlighted the dangers of the re-emergence of ethnic nationalism. Due to the contradictions of history, ethnic nationalism has always been a latent force — a dormant volcano with the potential to explode without warning. According to Major General Banerjee, “Ethnic populations have always straddled international boundaries. The Cold War somehow succeeded in suppressing ethnicity and kept a lid on its separatist tendencies.”[34] The rising flames of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans, Chechnya, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Caucasus, among others, and the racial turbulence in South Africa, are threatening international security with daily doses of mindless violence. However, Mr. Rashid Talib feels that, “Any international recognition of ethnic nationalism now would produce violent disorder and human misery on a mind-boggling scale, even assuming it was somehow possible to uproot large masses of people or transfer them from one country to another.”[35]
Islamic Resurgence. The late Ayatollah Khomeini’s passionate encouragement of Islamic fundamentalism in the 1980s and the subsequent Islamic resurgence, have added a new dimension to and vitiated the already fragile international security environment. Quoting M.J. Akbar, an eminent Indian author and editor, Prof. Huntington observes that, “The West’s next confrontation is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is in the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Maghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin.”[36] The crescent-shaped Islamic block, from the bulge of Africa through central Asia up to Malaysia and Indonesia, has “bloody borders”. The politicization of Islam and its use as a tool for revolution causes universal concern. Another recent development which is a cause for anxiety is the emerging nexus between China and some of the Islamic countries. In Huntington’s words, “A Confucian-Islamic military connection has come into being, designed to promote acquisition by its members of the weapons and weapons technologies needed to counter the military power of the West.”[37]
The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism. The vigorous Islamic revival is giving rise to fundamentalist tendencies in other religious groups too. “The historic clash between Muslim and Hindu in the (Indian) Sub-continent manifests itself now not only in the rivalry between Pakistan and India but also in intensifying religious strife within India between increasingly militant Hindu groups and India’s substantial Muslim minority.”[38] Islamic revivalism and its repercussions pose serious challenges to international security. More and more states are falling prey to the strident march of Islam. The integrity of Algeria is under substantial threat and Egypt, in spite of her long civilization, appears to be next on the “green” hit list. A serious conflagration in any of these areas would doubtlessly invite an international multilateral intervention to restore the situation.

Evolving Doctrine of Interventionism

Recent History of Interventionism. There have been numerous undeclared wars and interventions in the post-World War II era. Most of the interventions were without sufficient cause and without the moral sanction of the international community or the UN. They were also mostly unsuccessful. America’s bitter defeat in Vietnam, the Soviet Union’s ruthless march across Hungary and Czechoslovakia and, later, her long adventure and ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan, China’s unprovoked aggression against Vietnam, Vietnam’s justifiable but unsuccessful foray into Cambodia and India’s unfortunate excursion into Sri Lanka, are some of the major examples. However, it is no longer possible for individual nations to attempt to impose their will by force on any other nation, no matter how small. Iraq learnt this lesson about attempting to subjugate the international will at great cost to her own survival, consequent to her ill-advised sally into Kuwait in 1990.
Current Doctrine of Interventionism. The current doctrine of interventionism is configured around the ability of the international community, mainly the US-led Western alliance, to Impose its collective will in order to restore a deteriorating situation or to prevent a nascent conflict from burgeoning into full blown war with wider ramifications. This “right to interfere” may manifest itself in many ways. It may begin with a warning through a UN Security Council resolution. A military embargo and economic sanctions may follow. Where applicable, a naval blockade may be enforced. Failing all other means, the international community may sanction the use of military force, possibly through UN security Council resolution. Invariably, a multilateral coalition Force with widespread representation is likely to be assembled. Even then the emphasis will be on the minimum use of force. Maximum use will be made of surgically precise air power to achieve the desired aim. Ground forces action is likely to be limited to achieve strictly military objectives. Emphasis will be laid on preventing collateral damage, with particular reference to civilian casualties and property. The following justifications of the right to interfere are finding increasing acceptance:- [39]

(a)       Defence of democracy and the prevention of the excessive   curtailment of a people’s right to participate in decision making.

(b)       Prevention of severe violation of human rights of a people by a totalitarian regime.

(c)        Protection of minority groups from severe repression.

(d)       Prevention of acute environmental degradation.

(e)       Prevention of possible attempts to acquire or develop weapons of   mass destruction. The acquisition of excessive armaments and unjustifiable military expenditure, would also fall in this category.

Additional Justification for Intervention. In addition to the above mentioned situations justifying intervention, the following happenings may warrant an international response in the future:-

(a)       The persecution of a people due to religious affiliation.

(b)       Aiding and abetting of terrorists, narcotics smugglers and crime gangs by rogue regimes.

(c)        The willful repeated violation of World Trade Organization (WTO)    quotas and undercutting of tariffs through unfair trade practices.

(d)       Excessive interference with the production facilities, movement and  sale of goods and the transfer of funds by Trans National Corporations   (TNCs).

(e)       Plausible threat to paralyse or interfere with international   communications, navigation, remote sensing and surveillance satellites and ground control facilities.

(f)        Interference with the Internet and attempts to infect its software with a  subversive design in view.

(g)       Malicious intervention in and manipulation of the international banking system.


The First Fifty Years of the United Nation

Fulfillment of Role Specified in the UN Charter. If longevity and survival are criteria of success, the United Nations organization has succeeded admirably. On 26 June 1995, the UN celebrated its 50th anniversary. In contrast, the League of Nations had disintegrated after only 20 years. The UN was established to fulfil a deep longing for peace amongst the people of the world, determination on the part of states to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”[40] and a firm commitment to create a world order in which fundamental human rights and dignity and the worth of the human person were respected.

Peacekeeping Role. The results achieved by a large number of UN organizations in many diverse fields of human endeavour, such as UNDP, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNHCR, the World Food Programme and UNCTAD, have been undoubtedly noteworthy. However, the principle purpose for setting up the United Nations was the maintenance of peace. On this front, the record of the UN has varied from spectacular success in some missions to blameworthy failure in many others. Writing on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the UN, eminent constitutional expert Soli J. Sorabjee takes a dim view of the peacekeeping achievements of the UN. He says that, “It is generally believed that the UN peacekeeping has played a highly constructive role in maintaining international peace and security, as evidenced by the award in 1988 of the Nobel Peace Prize to UN peacekeeping forces. It is difficult to subscribe to this assessment, especially after its failure in Bosnia Herzegovina, Somalia and Rwanda.”[41]40 However, it would be inappropriate to mention only a few recent failures and ignore many signal successes including those in Namibia, Cambodia/Kampuchea, South Africa, Nicaragua, Mozambique and Kuwait.

Reasons for Inadequate Response

Disagreements Over Chain of Command. A fundamental problem which has dogged UN peacekeeping operations has been the continuing disagreement over the allocation of authority under the UN Charter among the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat, represented by the Secretary General. It is imperative that a proposed UN peacekeeping mission has clear objectives, ensures voluntary and willing participation, has a workable chain of command, is based on a realistic assessment of what it will cost, has an assured list of contributors and enjoys popular support and media backing. The non-assurance or infringement of one or more of these basic ingredients has resulted in the failure of many a mission. The UN Security Council is essentially a political body and its decisions have largely been swayed by political considerations in several cases. The five permanent members of the Security Council have often exercised their veto power to prevent any enforcement action of which they disapprove.

Inadequacy of Resources. Another major problem has been one of the perpetual inadequacy of resources to implement urgent peace-enforcement resolutions of the Security Council. As rightly pointed out by President Bill Clinton of the US, “We have too often asked our peacekeepers to work miracles while denying them the military and political support required and the modern command and control systems they need to do their job as safely effectively as possible.”[42]  The increasing demands being made upon the UN are not matched by resources to execute various missions. Unless the G-7 countries are more forthcoming in contributing to ongoing and future UN peacekeeping missions and in liquidating their dues to the UN, the veracity of peacekeeping missions will continue to be seriously undermined.

Restructuring for Future Challenges 

Permanent UN Security Force. The UN can be a peacekeeper or a peacemaker only when the major powers agree on the desirability of putting a UN label on their common will, as was witnessed in the Coalition Forces joint action against Iraq in the 1990-91 Gulf War. Unless there is a basic re-thinking on the evolution of a polycentric world order, where war is not likely to be a viable instrument of policy, the UN cannot be an effective peacekeeper. There are over 50,000 Blue Berets in the service of peace in various parts of the world today. The annual cost of UN peacekeeping operations is approximately US $ 3,000 million. Sometime ago the UN Secretary General, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, had proposed the creation of a 5,000 strong permanent UN Security Force with additional guaranteed standby contributions from the member states to enable the UN to respond to emerging situations in a reasonable time frame. However, the idea did not find ready acceptance among the major powers who would be expected to Contribute significantly both monetarily and materially to the creation of such a force.
Increase in Permanent Membership of Security Council. In the absence of a standing apparatus g UN army, the Security Council decision making needs to be urgently re-vamped. There appears to be an inescapable need to increase the number of permanent member of the UN Security Council. Germany, Japan and India are obvious candidates. The inclusion of Nigeria and Brazil also needs to be considered so as to grant representation to the African and South American continents, respectively. As one of the most populous countries in the world, Indonesia can also stake a deserving claim to permanent membership of the Security Council. This would “further strengthen its capacity and effectiveness and enhance its representative character.”[43] The UN Declaration, adopted by 185 countries during the 50th anniversary special commemorative session of the UN from 22 to 24 October 1995, calls for such restructuring of the UN to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Right to Sovereign Status. The document also focuses on development, peace and equality and clarifies that the principle of self-determination is not to be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair — totally or in part — the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states, particularly those that conduct themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and provide a government that represents all without any distinction. The declaration calls on the international community to act in concert to defeat common threats such as terrorism in all its forms, transnational organized crime, illicit trade in arms and the production, consumption and trafficking of narcotics.
Indispensability of UN in New World Order. It emerges quite clearly that in the New World Order, the UN is indispensable. If it did not exist, there would be a need to invent it. However, it is a human institution, managed and manipulated by human beings and cannot, therefore, ever be perfect. Concerted effort, tolerance and respect for human dignity can decisively overcome the systemic shortcomings and ensure the peaceful coexistence of all the people of the world.

Relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement

Changed Foreign Policy Objectives. In order to adjust to the post-Cold War power equations and economic globalization, most of the Non-Aligned countries, including India, have had to change both the ideological and the operational terms of reference of their foreign policies over the last five years. The challenges of economic want, terrorism, mass migrations and crime — all equally permeating global phenomena, unrestrained by national boundaries or governments — have also affected foreign policy choices. Consequently, the Non-Aligned Movement, declared immoral by a US Secretary of State in the 1960s, is fast losing its raison d’etre. In an article entitled “A Year in the Doldrums”, Mr. J. N. Dixit writes that, “Multilateral fora like the Non-Aligned Movement and G-15 have become progressively irrelevant.”[44]
Collective Voice of Third World. The 11th Non-Aligned Summit was held at Cartagena, in Columbia, from 18 to 20 October 1995. It was attended by the heads of state or government from 113 Countries. In its concluding document, the summit called for al and universal disarmament. The summit was severely critical of economic conditions being imposed on developing countries, opposed interventionism and called for a joint fight against racism and xenophobia, which have marginalized the Third World. The summit also endorsed the proposal for the expansion of the UN Security Council, The Non-Aligned Movement continues to act as the conscience-keeper of the world and undeniably enjoys a major clout in the UN and other international for a as the collective voice of the Third World. In as much as this, the movement is definitely relevant.


Nuclear Biological and Chemical Weapons Disarmament

Recent Progress Towards Disarmament. Encouraging developments in 1995 have brought the world closer towards limiting nuclear proliferation, arms control and eventual universal disarmament. At Its summit meeting in January 1992, the UN Security Council had declared that the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international security. Since then non-proliferation has been on the top of the international security agenda. Substantial progress has been made towards lasting peace by the signing of the following treaties and conventions:-

(a)       Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The 174 NPT members unconditionally and indefinitely extended the NPT in May 1995, giving only five nations the right to pursue their nuclear programmes. These are the  five declared nuclear weapon states (NWS). India, Israel and Pakistan, “deemed in the western semantic to be ‘threshold states’ with nuclear capability, are the major non-signatories to the NPT.”[45]  They held out under immense international pressure. India’s principled stand is that the NPT is discriminatory as it divides the world into nuclear haves and have-nots. Pran Chopra of the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, states that India’s overriding concern must be its own security, not the priorities of other countries.”[46] The hypocrisy of the nuclear states became clear almost as soon as the NPT was signed — both China and France resumed their nuclear tests, inviting global outrage.

(b)       Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). 157 member countries of the UN signed the CWC at Paris in January 1993. However, it still awaits ratification.

(c)        Biological Weapons Convention(BWC). 131 member countries of the UN have signed the BWC in 1972. Efforts are underway to improve implementation of this convention which has been impeded by the international of effective verification machinery which can guarantee international supervision of compliance by all parties.

Conference on Disarmament

Treaties Being Negotiated. The UN Conference on Disarmament is making steady progress in achieving transparency in the transfer of technology with military applications and openness in relation to weapons of mass destruction. The UN Register of Conventional Arms is intended as a cooperative exercise in confidence building. The following treaties and conventions are at present in various stages of negotiations:-

(a)       Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Negotiations on a CTBT are moving forward at a reasonable pace. Despite the highly complex nature of some aspects of the draft, there are no indications of a major stumbling block that could endanger the prospect of the successful conclusion of the CTBT by end-1996.

(b)       Ban on the Production of Fissile Materials. There is widespread consensus on the advisability of imposing a ban on the production of fissile materials without any further delay. However, doubts remain on the scope   of the future convention,  given  that  the  existing  stockpiles  of  commercial plutonium exceed the known requirements for the production of energy for domestic and industrial consumption.

Conventional Disarmament. Conventional disarmament has so far received little attention from international negotiating bodies. The treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) has demonstrated how much can be achieved given the necessary political will. “Advanced producers of armaments are currently developing various types of conventional weapons which, because of their precision, range, destructive power and un-detestability, are so dangerous that they may be compared to weapons of mass destruction.[47]It is imperative that negotiations are initiated at the earliest to progressively eliminate conventional weapons from the inventories of all nations, particularly those which are extremely destabilizing.

Ultimate Universal Disarmament. Universal disarmament shall remain a primary task of the international community for a long time to come. In addition to ridding the world of the weapons of mass destruction, the objectives of disarmament will shift to the less spectacular, but potentially as destabilizing, areas of proliferation, technology transfers and conventional disarmament. “These areas call for the consideration of a whole range of measures, from full-fledged multilaterally agreed norms to less formal arrangements such as the Missile Technology Control Regime(MTCR) as well as specific mechanisms of preventive diplomacy, such as confidence building measures.”[48]



Economic Interdependence. The end of the Cold War has profoundly altered the character of inter-state relations. It is widely believed that the basic considerations that underpinned friendships in the bi-polar world are no longer relevant. Adherence to common principles rather than pursuit of the same strategic goals and economic interests rather than political ones, are today more likely to be factors in relations between states. According to Adrian Berry, “Politics will become an increasingly insignificant human activity.”[49] Economic interdependence is now the hallmark of foreign relations in the free market economic policies environment. Competition for markets rather than for spheres of influence now dominates strategic planning and national policies. Trade is the new instrument of power and Trade Wars rather than Cold Wars are likely to gain currency in the future.[50] However, not everyone agrees that economic power will be the dominant element of power in the coming decades. Charles Krauthmmer is firm in his belief that, “The notion that economic power inevitably translates into geopolitical influence is a materialist illusion. Economic power is a necessary condition for at power status. But it certainly is not sufficient.” [51] One Thing that is indisputable is that commerce and trade can grow and only in a stable and peaceful international security flours environment. As such, while the new international economic order is positively shaping the New World Order, it is at the same time conforming with the New World Order and adapting to it.

The Bretton Woods Agreement. The economic contours of the post-World War II era were set by a system devised at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1994. In Major General Banerjee’s words, “It created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World The system of fixed exchange rates based on the gold standard and a world economic system dominated by the USA was part of this design. It lasted over a quarter of a century but got eroded by the early 1970s.”[52]  The rise of Germany and Japan as economic powers, the oil crises of the 1970s, the economic recession of the 1980s, the balance of payments crisis, the rise to eminence of the Asian “Tiger” economies, the emergence of the Information Revolution and a host of other factors contributed to the disintegration of the prevailing economic order.

Information Revolution

All-encompassing Impact of Information Technology. Spectacular advances in information technology over the last decade are changing the whole nature of political governance and its relation to commerce. Indeed, commerce itself has been materially affected by the arrival of the information superhighway, Internet, the impact of multi-media on marketing and direct sales and the far-reaching advances in telecommunications technology which has turned the world into a global village virtually overnight. Writing in Business World, Gajendra Upadhyay declares that 1996 is the year of Internet.[53] Pawan K. Ruia writes that, “The nation-state is about to become a casualty of the Information Revolution. At present, there is a worldwide crisis of confidence in social, political and economic institutions.”[54] In a speech at a global conference on trade and investment, held at Bombay on 16-17 January 1996, Dr. Manmohan Singh, India’s Finance Minister, echoed a similar sentiment when he stated that, “The world around us is changing rapidly with revolutions in transport, communication and information technology helping create a New World Order where 2tional frontiers are becoming less and less a barrier to the movement of goods and investment.”[55]

Revolution of Rising Expectations. The Information Revolution is also spawning what Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, the Director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, calls the “Revolution of Rising Expectations”. This implies that the media revolution and ready access to information will generate immense expectations among the poorer people. These expectations will not be easy to satisfy and will, in turn, lead to anarchy and chaos as a result of the snowballing effect of frustration among the youth. This will have a potentially destabilizing influence the world over.[56]

Emerging Economic Environment

Globalization of Economics. Capital has become truly international and can now move across continents with amazing alacrity in search of the best avenues of future profits. “Global investments are growing phenomenally and are driving domestic structural changes.”[57] Major General Banerjee has identified three characteristics in the international economic environment which in his view have acquired primary importance. “First, the centrality of economics and economic management in domestic politics. Second, a recognition that international trade is essential to national economic development. Lastly, simultaneous with attempting to find global solutions to trade problems, are efforts at safeguarding national economic interests.”[58]

Free Market Reforms. Government policies the world over have been affected by the winds of change sweeping across the oceans of trade and commerce. The urgency of economic development, dictated by the need to meet the growing aspirations of the people, is dominating government policy making efforts. Even the centrally controlled economies of the erstwhile communist states are succumbing to the pressures of the marketplace. Public sector undertakings, which once occupied the commanding heights of the economy in many countries, are being privatized faster than the market can absorb them. Globalization, liberalization and free market economic reforms are the new buzzwords. Government interference in money markets and foreign exchange regulation is being criticized. “Less is more” is the prevailing catchphrase. Dr Manmohan Singh also feels that, “The role of the state needs to be re-defined to limit its efforts to social responsibilities, leaving entrepreneurial decisions to the boardrooms subject to supervision. In the next five years, industrial licensing in the country will cease to exist and gradually the consumer goods sector will have to be opened up.”[59]

New Business Paradigms. Although still in a nascent stage, some of the new business paradigms can be clearly identified to be some of the general trend. These are as under:-

(a)       Large Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are relocating their and warehousing facilities to places where skilled labour and   land are cheaply available and regulation is the least.

(b)       Global companies are setting themselves up within virtual enterprises, at the hub of loosely knit alliances of local companies, all linked together by  global networks, both electronic and human.[60]

(c)        Ruia quotes management guru Peter Drucker to state that, “Humanity  is polarizing into two employment categories; the intellectual, cultural and business elite (the mobile and independent knowledge workers), and the rest  (the immobile and dependent service workers).”[61]

(d)       The slow redistribution of wealth which has taken place over the last few centuries, is now being rapidly reversed with the emergence of a new wealthy elite.

(e)       With the advent of networked computers, the workplace of knowledge workers, such as software programmers, media persons and financial   analysts, is shifting to home offices. The concept of “small office/home office” is fast gaining currency.

(f)        There is an increasing shift away from manufacturing to service industries in employment generation as manufacturing processes become more and more robotics-intensive.

Regional Economic Groupings

Interdependence. The changes in economic policy are closely linked with the changes which took place in the political scenario during the 1980s and the early 1990s. From Thatcher’s freemarket Policies and Reagan’s supply side economics in the West to Deng Xiaopinq’s “socialist market economy” in the East, deregulation has transformed the world’s economy.[62] There is an increasing trend towards forming regional economic and trade groupings, as evidenced by the European Union, NAFTA in North America, ASEAN in South East Asia, SAPTA in South Asia, APEC for the Pacific rim countries and the Indian ocean Rim Block (IORB), the proposed economic group for the Indian Ocean rim countries in Asia and Africa. These groupings the based on preferential trade agreements and mutually agreed tariffs and are leading to an unprecedented increase in regional trade. Obviously, the exclusion of other countries and groups will eventually result in heightened trade tensions in the future.

Region States. Regional economic groupings are likely to have a profound long term impact on the future of the nation-state. Some thinkers are of the view that the future belongs to “region states” based on economic rather than political borders. Kenichi Ohmae, a Japanese scholar and management consultant, expresses the view “Traditional nation-states have become unnatural, even that, business units in a global economy. ‘Region states’ are mere relevant. What defines them is not the location of their political borders but the fact that they are the right size and scale to be true, natural business units in today’s global economy. ‘theirs are the borders — and connections — that matter in a borderless world.”[63] In an interview with George Skaria of Business Today, Kenichi Ohmae attributes his conviction about a borderless future world to the free movement of four essentials. “What is happening now — in particular over the last ten years, when the new industrial society called the networked society has taken root — is that the four great forces of corporations, capital, communication and citizens, can all freely criss-cross national borders.”[64] The greatest weakness in Ohmae’s argument about the reality of a borderless global economy is that he assumes an identity of interests between what he terms are the four Is (investment, industry, information technology and the individual consumer). Such an identity of interests is increasingly under pressure from protectionist trade policies and calls for fair trade. Ashok Upadhyay, writing in Business India, calls Ohmae’s hypothesis “deeply flawed” and dubs it a “rhetoric of hope more than the delineation of reality.”[65]

From GATT to WTO

Increase in Growth Rates Expected. On 1 January 1995, the 47- old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the global trade watchdog which was both an agreement and an organization, slipped into history and was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO). 125 countries had agreed to the setting up of WTO at the Marrakesh conference in April 1994. The WTO envisages a one-third general reduction in tariffs to enable the multilateral opening up of markets of the member countries. A substantial, possibly nine to 10 percent, growth in world trade is visualized over the next 10 years. The world community anticipates an additional global income gain of approximately US $ 500 billion annually. The low income developing countries are expected to gain relatively more than the rich countries.[66]65 However, many member countries are likely to continue to set up barriers to the entry of foreign goods and services, defeating the very purpose of the establishment of the WTO. The dramatic recent stand-off between the US and Japan, regarding Japanese protection for its automobile industry, is a case in point.

Impact of Free Trade and De-regulation

Risk Inherent in De-regulation. The free flow of funds, combined with deregulation and minimum governmental intervention and controls, is likely to encourage misuse and violation of laid down norms. The factor of excessive risk in money markets and the resultant financial meltdown which may occur, will also have to be contended with. Some of these problems have become apparent in the Mexican balance of payments crisis and the subsequent US sponsored recovery, the Barings Bank collapse engineered by a rogue trader and the loss of US $ 1.1 billion by Daiwa Bank of Japan in speculative bonds trading, all in 1995. Clearly, the world is in for more such shocks on the financial front.


Asia – Pacific Region : A 21st Century Behemoth

Economic Dynamism. The Asia-Pacific and Southeast Asian regions are currently the most economically dynamic regions in the Asia’s recent growth rates have outpaced those of the rest of the world. Asia is rapidly heading towards economic leadership status in the 21st century. “By all accounts, the 21st century must Surely be that of the Asia-Pacific.”[67] John Naisbitt, of “Megatrends” fame, has concluded that, “Sooner than anyone suspects, Asia will emerge as the new locomotive of the world for markets as well as ideas.”[68] Asia is also an area of uncertainty, tension and immense concentrations of military power. Many of the largest armies of the world belong to nations of the Asia-Pacific region. These include two nuclear powers and a few nuclear-capable threshold states. The regional security environment is plagued by long-standing boundary and ideological disputes. In order to sustain further economic growth, it is imperative that a stable political and security environment continues to prevail in the area.

US Security Interests in the Asia-Pacific Region

The US: A Pre-eminent Pacific Power. The US has been the pre-eminent Pacific power since World War II. History, geography and demography make the US an integral part of the region. The US has a stake in maintaining the alliance structure in Asia as a foundation of regional stability and for promoting American influence on key issues. US trade with the Asia-Pacific region totalled over US $ 374 billion in 1993. An increasing number of Americans trace their ancestry to this region. The long history of close American cultural, economic and security ties to the Asia-Pacific region reflects fundamental US interests. The US sees its role as a force for regional security as central to the stability of the region. However, this perception is not shared by many Asian nations. Many analysts are also questioning the legitimacy of declared US interests and its capability to sustain these in Asia. Quoting a report entitled “A US Strategy for the Asia-Pacific” published in “The Adelphi Paper” by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, on 25 January 1996, Edith M. Lederer writes, “Sometime in the not too distant future the United States will no longer be in a position to guarantee the stability of the Asia-pacific by its unilateral actions and forward military presence. The Asian region is becoming too powerful to be either contained controlled by the United States.”[69]
US Security Strategy. During the Cold War, the policy of containing the Soviet Union and communism had driven almost every aspect of US security thinking, planning and actions. In the post cold war era, the US National Security Strategy focuses on new threats and new opportunities. Its central goals are to enhance security by maintaining a strong defence capability and promoting cooperative security measures; to open foreign markets and spur economic growth and to promote democracy abroad. Within this broad strategic context, specific US security objectives in the Asia-Pacific region are as under :- [70]

(a)       Strengthen bilateral partnership with Japan to promote regional and global security.

(b)       Maintain a strong defence commitment to and ties with South Korea, in order to deter aggression and preserve peace on the Korean Peninsula.

(c)        Work closely with Australia to pursue mutual security objectives.

(d)       Engage China and support its constructive integration into the international community.

(e)       Work with Russia to develop mutually advantageous approaches that  enhance regional stability.

(f)        Contribute to maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait.

(g)       Work with ASEAN to explore new cooperative security approaches  through the ASEAN Regional Forum.

(h)       Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and work to halt the flow of narcotics.

US Military Strategy. The US expects to meet its security objectives in the region by a three-cornered military strategy of forward presence, power projection and force reconstitution. In the Indian Ocean region, too, the US has similar security concerns and interests. In the words of Dr. William Perry, the US Secretary of Defence, “We share an interest in the security and stability of the Indian Ocean region. We also share an interest in the stability of Persian Gulf region. And we share an economic and a political interest in a stable and economically open Southeast Asia and Western Pacific region.”[71]

Security Environment in Southeast Asia

Importance of India as a Regional Power. Like that of the rim countries, the economy of some of the South Asian and ASEAN nations is also growing by leaps and bounds. The geo-strategic importance of the Indian Ocean, with a major international shipping lane passing through the Malacca Straits, is well known. The Spratly Islands dispute in the South China Sea is a recent destabilizing flashpoint. Many of the countries in the region have been historically politically unstable. The rise of ethnic aspirations is also adding to the regional tensions. In such a security scenario, Australia and India are the only two nations which are capable of providing long-term stability and ensuring peace in the region. India, with a GDP of US $ 1.17 trillion, now has the sixth largest economy in the world. This is expected to grow in a few years to the fourth largest.[72] Though not a part of Southeast Asia, India shares a maritime neighbourhood with it and has a considerable stake in the economic and strategic environment in the region.
Unfounded Suspicions. Till a few years ago, India was viewed with suspicion by most of the ASEAN countries. However, this is no longer so. J. N. Mak, a research fellow at the Malaysian Institute for Maritime Affairs, Kuala Lumpur, writes, “While ASEAN was worried about the expansion of the Indian Navy in the mid-1990s, that fear has receded with the realization that New Delhi’s strategic preoccupations lie to the West and North of the sub-continent, particularly after the breakup of the Soviet Union. There is general realization in Southeast Asia that India’s “India Doctrine” ends where the Malacca Straits begin.”[73]
Australian Perception of India’s Influence. With a growing understanding of mutual security needs and economic interests, Australian perceptions of India’s influence have undergone a change in recent years. The Australian Foreign Minister, Mr. Gareth Evans writes, “India’s capacity to project power into Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean is considerable. But that should be understood as  a function of the assets needed to protect a 7,500  kilometre coastline and to guard against possible threats from the North, rather than being perceived as a direct security threat to the neighbours. To the extent that the Southeast Asian nations sometimes express concern about India’s capability, they also do about Japan and China.” [74]

India : A Full Dialogue Partner of ASEAN. In mid-December “95, I d’ la was accepted as a “full dialogue partner” by ASEAN, a significant upgrade from its previous position as a “sectoral partner”. It would perhaps not be premature to state that the next logical step for India is to seek “observer” status, prior to its application for full membership of ASEAN. This will lead to a greater understanding of mutual security perceptions while facilitating a quantum jump in trade for India’s growing economy. According to Mr. K.N. Daruwalla, “The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Pater Holds institutionalized dialogue with a dozen other countries, including consultative partners and observers.”[75] Closer ties with ASEAN (which in the words of Mr. Ajit Singh, its Secretary General, “is, with its growing dynamism, turning into a force to be reckoned with,”[76]) are an economic investment for India and a positive development for the security and stability of region.

Security Environment in Southern Asia

Indo-Pakistan Imbroglio. The security environment in the Southern Asian region continues to be unstable. Infect, this area is often described as the oldest flashpoint in post World War II history. While the Kashmir issue is central to vitiated Indo-Pakistan relations, the nuclear capability of both the countries and their unwillingness to sign the NPT and the CTBT are causing international concern. The Brown Waiver to the Pressler Amendment, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on 27 January 1996, has further vitiated the atmosphere for peace and is bound to lead to a new arms race on the Indian Sub-continent. With Karachi on the boil, fissiparous tendencies are coming to the fore in Pakistan. India is not too far behind with no solution in sight to the insurgency in Kashmir and the Northeastern states, ethnic movements in Assam, the hill districts of Uttar Pradesh, the Jharkhand region Telangana Bihar and a Peoples’ War Group Naxalite-type militancy in the disturbances region of Andhra Pradesh simmering for sometime. Communal disturbances have acquired a stubborn permanence and political parties are ever willing to exploit religion for myopic electoral gains.
Tensions Among the Neighbours. There are seething undercurrents of tension in Tibet due to China’s strong arm democracy The military junta in Myanmar continues to throttle “democracy and is facing a potent military threat from the Karen rebels. The Sri Lanka government has won a short-term reprieve in its ongoing campaign against stubborn resistance from LTTE, the Tamil militant organization. Bangladesh is in the throes of a see-saw electoral battle between two seemingly irreconcilable lines of approach. Nepal has yet to find political maturity in its transition to a democracy. Bhutan is saddled with a refugee problem which may snowball into a rebellion. India needs to pay more attention to its immediate neighbourhood and should endeavour to play a more benevolent role within SAARC if it wishes to overcome. The suspicions of its smaller neighbours.[77]76 Further West, the situation in Afghanistan continues to be grim, even as the Taliban is making major gains in its strident march towards the ultimate capture of Kabul. Iran is still to recover fully from its long brush with Islamic fundamentalism. The Central Asian Republics, still in the process of consolidating their new found freedom, are currently stable. However, with Islamic fundamentalism knocking at their doorstep, this stability may not be long lasting.

Framework for Dealing with Emerging Situations

Need for National Security Council. Under the prevailing security circumstances, it is of the utmost importance that viable confidence building measures are instituted immediately to prevent the breakout of another war in Southern Asia. An institutionalized framework for the analysis of threats, the formulation of strategy, the identification of diplomatic and military objectives and crisis management, needs to be evolved, tested in the crucible of reality and refined for long-term utilization. A strong National Security Council, with both advisory and policy making roles, is likely to meet the requirement. It will need to have an inter-disciplinary organization and approach and will have to be given the necessary infrastructure and political backing.


Flashpoints Across the World

Major ongoing Conflicts. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in many local conflicts. Breakaway Abkhazia threatened Georgia, there was immense tension in Estonia, Tajikistan was embroiled in a civil war, Maldova formed its own army and there were clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The National Defence the Foundation, a private American group, has estimated that the world suffered a record 71 “little wars” in 1995.[78] The list states, conflicts with, “High levels of organized violence between states, or between contending groups within a state or with high levels of political or societal tension likely to erupt into-violence.”[79] The foundation has added 12 countries to its list of “flashpoints” across the world and dropped eight at the end of While several major conflicts, including those in Bosnia, Angola, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland and Cambodia subsided somewhat in 1995, many others continued to rage relentlessly. Among these are conflicts in Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, in Pakistan and Kashmir in India.
Peace Remains Elusive. It is virtually impossible to maintain authentic records of the number of dead from the numerous civil wars, ethnic rivalries, terrorist strikes, border, drug violence, lingering insurgencies and other scattered conflicts. Clearly, the world is a long way off from even a semblance of lasting peace. Strife and conflict are likely to persist in the years ahead and may worsen in scale and quantity if adequate measures are not instituted to check the unbridled proliferation of potentially explosive situations.

Pointers to the Future

Major Dangers. The major dangers emerging in the post-Cold War era and threatening global security, are as under:-

(a)       The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical and biological (NBC) weapons. Some of these are likely to fall into the hands of terrorist groups and rogue governments.

(b)       The rise of religious fundamentalism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism. “Strategists of US foreign policy believe that, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of international communism, Islamic fundamentalism remains the sole adversary of Western democratic values.”[80]

(c)        Spreading violence related to ethnic nationalism, racial disparities,  militant trade unionism and food riots in famine affected countries. The     recent violence in the Balkans, with all its atrocities, mass rapes and  Nazi-   like ‘ethnic cleansing’, is a possible model for other such conflicts still  to erupt.

(d)       Organized crime, including trans-national crime and the  criminalization of politics.

(e)       Terrorism, including state-sponsored terrorism. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons consequent to the break up of the Soviet Union, even nuclear terrorism looms large on the world’s security horizon.

(f)        The free availability and the unchecked spread of light weapons, including small arms such as Klashnikov rifles, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs ) , shoulder-fired Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMs) like the Stinger and SAM-7 and RDX-type explosives. Reportedly, 55 million Klashnikovs have so far been sold in the open market.[81]

(g)       The unprecedented proliferation of “landmines”. As per a UN report,           there are approximately 110 million land mines in 69 countries.[82]

(h)       Human rights violations. The international community will no longer  accept state-sponsored violation of human rights. According to Charles H. Norchi, executive director of the New York-based International League for       Human Rights, “We are entering a phase of the psycho-social evolution of   our species in which human rights must be viewed as being at stake in every      interaction and decision.”[83]

(j)         Narco-terrorism and the nexus between drug lords and politicians. The drug barons have proved their ability to conduct their own private wars   in the Central American republics and to run their own de facto governments.            Their activities are potentially a major destabilizing influence.

(k)        Environmental degradation and the willful neglect of and damage to  sensitive ecological systems.

(l)         The scarcity of essential resources such as oil and water. A future oil         crisis is likely to lead to trade and economic sanctions and even general war.  According to a report of the World Bank, the scarcity of water is likely to be a   major cause of the wars of the 21st century due to a manifold increase in the     demand for this finite resource.[84]

Making Peace in the New Global System

Monopoly of Violence. While nation-states are losing their “Monopoly of violence”, some military units, such as in Russia, broken free of central government control and have reportedly come under the de facto control of local business interests.[85] Others, as in the drug regions, “May sell out to criminal syndicates, work for ethnic or religious movements or operate independently of any external authority.[86] It is obvious that innovative peace-forms are required to deal with the new threats. “With a world fast dividing itself into First, Second and Third Wave civilizations, three distinctly different forms of warfare need to be averted or limited. Each may require a different set of responses from peacemakers or peacekeepers”[87] Strategies for Peace. The following measures are recommended to avert and limit the possibility of future conflict from threatening international peace and security:-

(a)       As the foremost threat to world peace is from the proliferation of the            weapons of mass destruction, the overall strategy for future peace must be         “denying, disarming and defending”.[88] There is no alternative to denying           high technology to rogue states, confronting and deterring them from        producing or acquiring weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary,  disarming those that brandish or use such weapons. A new consensus    would have to emerge for collective decision making and concerted action    among the leading world powers. The ideal forum for such action is the UN    Security Council which would need to be enlarged, strengthened and given  additional powers for the enforcement of its decisions. Since a permanent          UN peacekeeping force appears to be unacceptable to the major powers, a specified force could be earmarked within each member country and the   Security Council could have a lien on it.

(b)       The UN dinosaur must transform itself from its present bureaucratic            organization to a more responsive and flexible organization, capable of            representing nation-states as well as various other centres of global power      such as business conglomerates and non-profit  non-governmental                       organizations (NGOs).

(c)        The handling of the ongoing Balkans conflict and ethnic crisis has   highlighted major lessons for the international community. The present US imposed peace is at best tenuous and does not have the backing of   participation by consent of many of the members of the European Union.     Such conflict termination agreements should be best negotiated on a   regional basis and all the warring parties must be willing Participants. Their participation can be ensured only if the negotiations are preceded by viable confidence building measures being instituted well in advance so that the     negotiations carry a reasonable degree of credibility. Also, the least common   denominator for a lasting resolution of the problem can be found only if the regional neighbours forsake their short term peripheral interests for the long   term gains of peace and stability.

(d)       Among the coherent knowledge strategies for peace is the concept of        transparency. The open availability of military information would reduce  suspicion and give all sides ample warning of threatening developments.        This ‘Open Skies’ proposal was first made by US President Dwight Eisenhower to soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev at a summit meeting on 21         July 1955. Rejected outright at that time, it is an idea whose time has come.      “The exchange of data, information and knowledge in a world increasingly   marked by regional arms races, is clearly a Third Wave tool for peace.”[89]

(e)       There is a need to officially track arms exports and transfers across  the world. The UN Register of Conventional Arms is a proposal that further  indicates that due recognition is now being given to the importance of gathering information in an organized manner for the maintenance of peace,  even though the most dangerous arms transfers are the ones least likely to be reported. A case can be made out for the imposition of trade sanctions   against and a cut in International aid to rogue nations which do not report  arms transfers to the UN.

(f)        The disintegration of Yugoslavia, it is now commonly accepted, began as a media war orchestrated by vested interests. There is an inescapable      need to devise media strategies to counter campaigns of hatred in the future to prevent them from escalating to full blown conflicts. This is a responsibility       which all member states of the UN must share and finance.

(g)       Poverty is no friend of peace and wide access to information, technology and communications is a precondition for sustained economic     development. In the interest of global security and in their own long term          economic interest, it is imperative for the developed nations of the West to    provide this access to people in the underdeveloped nations, lest large      numbers of them become “immigrants, refugees or Pensioners of the    West”.[90]

(h)       A large number of transnational NGOs, such as Greenpeace, are    springing up every year. They play an increasingly active role in the management of the world system and include a host of  transnational   political movements as well. A concerted endeavour needs to be made to  marshall the political clout, goodwill and the vast resources of these NGOs   for the cause of world peace and stability. The present policy of most   government of keeping the NGOs at arms length or treating them as being of   nuisance value, to be suffered silently, ‘will , only result in making them even     more rabidly anti-establishment.

(j)         Organized transnational crime; drug trafficking; terrorism, including   nuclear, religious and narco-terrorism; burgeoning industrial and information espionage; large-scale financial frauds and the growing flesh and  pornography trade, all of them potentially destabilizing influences, require,   sophisticated international policing, access to real-time intelligence  and the  maintenance of voluminous records. There is an immediate need to  establish an international police infrastructure, on the lines of Interpol, but  with the freedom to operate across national borders and the authority to investigate suspicious circumstances and activities in  conjunction with the local police forces.


Graham Greene once wrote that there always comes a moment in time a door opens and lets the future in. The end of the Cold war has opened such a door. The future that comes in could be a future of continuing conflict or it could be one of peaceful co-existence and lasting international stability where mankind could develop and flourish to reach a higher and as yet unattainable plane of existence.
The French writer Alain Minc, in his book on what he calls “The New Middle Ages”, suggests that if the First Millennium is characterized as the time of the Great Fear of the Last Judgement, as foretold in the Book of Revelation, the Second Millennium is likely to be that of the Great Disorder, as the iron disciplines of the Cold War fade from memory and the danse macabre of long-suppressed nationalisms takes their place. It is difficult to exactly qualify the type of transition that is taking place from the post-World War II era to the present post-Cold War world. A period dominated by one overriding threat, but no real risk, has been by one full of risks, but without any commanding threat.
Numerous scholars, diplomats, politicians, journalists, generals, admirals and marshals, management gurus, economists and philosophers have attempted to come to grips with the emerging contours of the New World Order. Many hypotheses and postulations have been advanced, analyzed, commented upon and criticised. While Fukayama has called it the “End of History”, Huntington foresees a “Clash of Civilizations”. Krauthammer revels in the “Unipolar Moment”. Sakakibara terms it the “End of Progressivism”. Ohmae prefers to see it as the “End of the Nation-State” and the Tofflers argue that it is the “End of Equilibrium (Not History)”. They classify the world into three distinct and potentially clashing super-civilizations — First Wave agrarianism, Second Wave industrialism and the emerging Third Wave post-modern civilization.

As the world stands poised at the brink of a millennium, the geo-political, geo-strategic and geo-economic reality is too complex to be explained with any one overriding premise. Ohmae, the dreamer, fails to explain the world of Bosnia, Rwanda or even present day Russia. Huntington and Fukayama have no rational explanation for the phenomenal rise of the “Asian Tiger” economies, actively guided and supported by their governments. Clearly there are forces at work that are knocking down borders, creating a truly are marketplace, governed purely by market-driven needs and the profit motive and not by ideology or culture. Economic might is increasingly becoming the foremost determinant of global power.
The dead weight of the past and the misery of the present are formidable obstacles to arriving at rational conclusions for the future. The unexciting, but probably justifiable conclusion, would be that while the nation-state will remain the dominant political force for the foreseeable future, regional integration and rapid economic development are the best means of calming the explosive tendencies towards ethnic nationalisms which are threatening to rip the fabric of international security.

1995 has been the best year for peace since the end of the Cold War. It saw the conclusion of an apparently durable peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, supported by many of the Arab countries. A settlement between the Syrians and the Israelis also appears to be within sight. The IRA and the Sinn Fein decided to forsake violence and negotiate a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Serb-Muslim-Croat imbroglio in Bosnia Herzegovina also reached the stage of a negotiated truce, although none of the warring factions appeared to be particularly satisfied with the terms of the accord. The Korean re-unification talks also made tangible progress. Russia was admitted to the Council of Europe. The stand-off between China and Taiwan initially rose to an alarming level of tension but, subsequently, subsided. The NPT was endorsed unconditionally and extended indefinitely. Substantial progress was made on the CTBT which is expected to be approved by the world community in 1996. The WTO came into being and quickly asserted its authority to act in the interest of resolving thorny issues afflicting world trade.

The major achievements of 1995 are indicative of the maturity and resolve of the world community to act collectively for the common good of maintaining international peace and stability. Massive diplomatic exercises are currently underway to institute confidence building measures for the ultimate resolution of the pending conflict situations. Comprehensive collective security arrangements are being sponsored on a regional basis. However, nations are still to rise above partisan political considerations and narrow trade and economic goals. Many countries continue to support and actively encourage insurgencies and terrorism across their borders and overlook drug mafias operating under their benevolent patronage.
For the present moment the US remains the sole superpower and is at the centre of a unipolar world. This situation is likely to obtain for at least another ten years. Hence, the US view of the world will continue to remain significant, even though it may not be entirely palatable. The US continues to view the geo-strategic environment in terms of “the West and the Rest”. Instead of Piling up armaments against unspecified contingencies, the US needs to move psychologically out of the Cold War syndrome. Otherwise, any New World Order it may wish to proclaim, will remain fatally flawed. The West’s next confrontation may come from the Islamic world. Challenges to its unbridled economic power will, in all probability, come from the Asian countries, in general, and Japan and the Tiger economies, in particular.

As India stands at the threshold of a new century, it has embarked on a path which will secure for all its citizens a bright and honourable future, secure “politically, economically and even ideologically.” India’s effort to usher in “economic and social change within a pluralistic and democratic framework, is an unprecedented and audacious experiment.” There is no reason why India should not be at the forefront of the coming “Asian Century”.
The world is transiting through a fantastic moment of history. British historian G.M. Trevelyan’s maxim that the “law of the universe is progress, evolution and perpetual change”, appears to be holding true. Hidden behind the fashionable gloom are several tremendously positive and humanizing changes on the planet. The economic miracle in the offing is likely to raise approximately a billion people from the pit of poverty to a reasonable level of existence. Even though 50,000 to 60,000 nuclear warheads have been produced since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some basic human survival instinct has “repeatedly stayed the finger that might have pushed the button.” A complex new global system, “made up of regions, corporations, NGOs and political movements, all contending, all with different interests, all reflecting degrees of inter-activity”, is emerging. The prognosis for the future is hope, rather than despair and the triumph of mankind rather than holocaust or disaster. Matthew Arnold’s famous cry of hopelessness that, “We are wandering between two worlds/One dead, the other unable to be born,” appears to be too pessimistic and out of tune with mankind’s instinct for survival. Clearly, Armageddon is still many centuries away.




(13,500 words approximately)





(Refers to Paragraph

Number 11)



PERIODICAL :           Banerjee, Major General Dipankar, “An Emerging World Order”, U.S.I. Journal, January-March 1994.
BOOK : Berry, Adrian, The next 500 years… Life in the coming   Millennium, Headline Book Publishing, London,1995.
BOOK : Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self Defence,  Grotius Publications Limited, New York, 1994.
PERIODICAL        :           Dixit, J.N., “A Year in the Doldrums”, Outlook, 3 January   96.
PERIODICAL : Evans, Gareth, “Security in the Asia-Pacific region”,  Defence ’95, (an International Defence Review annual   publication)
BOOK : Fukayama, Francis, The End of History and the Last   Man, Penguin Books, London, 1989.
PERIODICAL : Gupta, Shekhar, “India Redefines its Role”, Adelphi    Paper 293, Oxford University Press, London, 1995.
PERIODICAL : Guehenno, Jean Marie, “La Finde La Democratic (End   of the Nation State)”, quoted by Dixit, J.N., in “A Year in   the Doldrums”, Outlook, 3 January 96.
BOOK : Halle, Louis J., The Cold War as History, Harper Collins    Publishers, New York, 1991.
PERIODICAL : Huntington, Samuel P., “The Clash o Civilizations?”,     Foreign Affairs, Summd 1993.
PERIODICAL : Khanna, 0.P., ed., “From Cold Wars to. Trade Wars”,     The Competition Master, Chandigarh, September 1995.
PERIODICAL : Khanna, 0.P., ed., “Next Wars will be Over Water”, The  Competition Master, Chandigarh, October 1995.
PERIODICAL : Krauthammer, Charles, “The Unipolar Moment”, Foreign  Affairs, Summer 1991.
BOOK : Lewis, Jordan D., Partnership for Profit, The Free Press, New York, 1990.
PERIODICAL : Mak, J.N. “ASEAN Maritime Insecurity: Contingency  Planning in an Uncertain World”, Defence ’95, (an  International Defence Review annual publication).
BOOK : Naisbitt, John, Megatrends: The Eight  Asian Megatrends that are Changing the  World, Nicholas Brealy Publishing, New York, 1995.
PERIODICAL : Norchi, Charles H., “Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era”, Span, New Delhi, September 1995.
BOOK : Ohmae, Kenichi, The End of the Nation  State — The Rise of Regional Economics, Harper Collins, London,  1995.
PERIODICAL : Pedraza, Jorge Morales, “Disarmament After Bipolarism  A Programme for the 1990s”, Strategic Digest, August        1995.
PERIODICAL : Perry, Dr. William J., “US Perceptions of Global   Security”, U.S.I. Journal, January-March 1995.
PERIODICAL : Pfirter, Rogelio F., “Disarmament Still a Primary Task of the International Community”, Strategic Digest, August  1995.
PERIODICAL : Sakakibara, Eisuke, “The End of Progressivism — A    Search for New Goals”, Foreign Affairs,    September/October 1995.
PERIODICAL : Skaria, George, “We are not Interested in India”,  Business Today, New Delhi, 22 November-6 December   1995.
BOOK : Solomon, Robert, The Transformation of  the World  Economy , Macmillan Press, Limited, London, 1995.
PERIODICAL : Sorabjee, Soli J., “The United Nations at 50”, Span, September 1995.
BOOK :           Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, War and Anti-War : Survival at  the Dawn of the 21st  Century, Warner Books, London,  1994.
PERIODICAL : Upadhyay, Ashok, “Things Fall Apart but the Centre is   Holding”, Business India, Bombay, 23 October-5  November 1995.
PERIODICAL : Upadhyay, Gajendra, “Will 1996 be the Year of  Internet?”, Business World, New Delhi, 24 January –  6 February 1996.
PERIODICAL : Untitled, “Security in the 21st Century”, The Economist, London, (Reprinted in the Economic Times, Bombay, 12  & 13 October 1992).
PERIODICAL : Untitled, “The Shape of the World”, The  Economist,  London, 23 December 1995-5 January 1996.
PERIODICAL : Untitled, United States Security Strategy_ for the Asia-Pacific Region, Department of Defence, Washington, February 1995.
PERIODICAL : Velloor, Ravi, “New Kid on the Regional Block”, Business World, New Delhi, 10-23 January 1996.

[1]           Fukayama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man, (Penguin Books,          London, 1989).

[2]              Huntington, Samuel P., “The Clash Egr.P.112Attaas, Summer 1993.

of Civilizations?”, Foreign Affair, Summer 1993.

[3]              Huntington, Op Cit. p. 22.

[4]              Banerjee, Major General Dipankar, “An Emerging World Order”, U.S.I.        Journal, January-March 1994, p. 42.

[5]              Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, War and Anti-war : Survival  at the Dawn of the 21st        Century,Warner Books, London, 1994, pp. 338-339.

[6]              Ibid., pp. 339-340.


[7]              Ibid., p. 25.

[8]               Ibid., p. 29


[9]              Sakakibara, Eisuke, “The End of Progressivism – A Search for New Goals”,           Foreign Affairs, September/October 1995, pp. 8-14.

[10]             Ibid.

[11]             Ibid.

[12]             Ibid.

[13]             Ibid

[14]             Krauthammer, Charles, “The Unipolar Moment”, foreign Affairs, Summer   1991, pp. 23-24.

[15]             Subrahmanyam, K., “India and the World : Stability, Security and     Development”, The Times of India, Bombay, 27 December 1995.

[16]             Ibid

[17]             “Security in the 21st Century – II” (From an article in The Economist, London,       reprinted in The Economic Times,  Bombay, 13 October 1992).

[18]             Baru, Sanjaya, “Notes from Europe — German Ascendence and French     Isolation”, The Times of India, Bombay, 16 October 1995.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Subrahmanyam, K., “Security in the 21st Century – III”, The Economic Times, Bombay, 14 October 1992.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Subrahmanyam, K., “Security in the 21st Century – IV”, The Economic Times Bombay, 15 October 1992.

[24]             Defence 95 (An annual Publication of International  Defence Review)

[25]             Subrahmanyam, K., “Europe in Flux : Centrifugal Forces Still at Work”, The Times of India Bombey, 21 December 95.

[26]             Ibid.

[27]             “The Shape of the World”, The Economist, London, 23 December 95 – 5    January 96

[28]              “Security in the 21st Century”, (From The Economist, London, reprinted in   The Economic Times, Bombay, 12 October 92).

[29]             “The Shape of the World”, The Economist, London, 23 December 95 – 5    January 96.

[30]             Ibid.

[31]             Ibid.

[32]             Guehenno, Jean Marie, “La Fin de la Democrative (End of the Nation State),        quoted by Dixit, J.N. in “A Year in the Doldrums”, Outlook, January 96.

[33]             Banerjee, Op Cit., p. 45.

[34]             Banerjee, Op Cit., p. 42.

[35]             Talib, Rashid, “Nationalism Redefined”, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi,           20 July 1995

[36]             Huntington, Op Cit., p. 32.

[37]             Huntington, Op Cit., p. 47.

[38]             Huntington, Op Cit., pp. 33-34.

[39]             Banerjee, Op Cit., p. 43.

[40]             From the Preamble to the United Nations Charter.

[41]             Sorabjee, Soli J., “The United Nations at 50”, span, September 1995.

[42]             From a speech by President Bill Clinton of the US during his address to the         UN General Assembly on the occasion of the 50th anniversary celebrations       of the UN in June 1995.

[43]             Subrahmanyam, K., “Bury the Past With the UN Declaration”, The Times of          India, Bombay, 2 November 1995.

[44]             Dixit, J.N., “A Year in the Doldrums”, Outlook, 3 January 96.

[45]             Bhaskar, Uday C., “India’s Nuclear Yeti”, The Times of India, Bombay,    24 December 1995.

[46]             Chopra, Pran, “India and the Bomb”, The Times 9f India, Bangalore,  19 January 1996.

[47]             Pedraza, Jorge Morales, “Disarmament After Bipolarism; A Programme for  the 1990s”, Strategic Digest, August 1995, p. 1049.

[48]             Pfirter, Rogelio F., “Disarmament : Still a Primary Task of the International   Community”, Strategic Digest, August 1995, p. 1043.

[49]             Berry, Adrian, “The Next 500 Years — Life in the Coming Millennium”,   (Headline Book Publishing, London, 1995), p. 253.

[50]             Khanna, 0.P., Ed., “From Cold Wars to Trade Wars”, The Competition  Master, Chandigarh, September 1995.

[51]             Krauthammer, Loc Cit.

[52]             Banerjee, Op Cit., p. 41.

[53]             Upadhyay, Gajendra, “Will 1996 be the Year of Internet?”, Business World,  New Delhi, 24 January – 6 February 1996, p. 144-145.

[54]             Ruia, Pawan K., “The Globalisation Paradox”, The Economic Times,  Bombay, 25 September 1995.

[55]             Press Trust of India report entitled “FM Rules Out Capital Account   Convertibility”, The Times of India, Bangalore, 17 January 1996.

[56]             Singh, Air Commodore Jasjit, during a lecture on the “New World Order” to           the Higher Command Course at the College of Combat, Mhow, in    August           1995.

[57]             Banerjee, Op Cit., p. 46.

[58]             Banerjee, Loc Cit.

[59]             Press Trust of India report, Loc Cit.

[60]             Ruia, Loc Cit.

[61]             Ibid.

[62]             Solomon, Robert, The Transformation of the World Economy, 1980-93, (Macmillan Press Ltd., London, 1995).

[63]             Ohmae, Kenichi, “The End of the Nation State — The Rise of Regional       Economics”, (Harper Collins, London, 1995), p. 5.

[64]             Skaria, George, interview with Kenichi Ohmae entitled “We Are Not  Interested in India”, Business Today, New Delhi, 22 November-6 December  1995, pp. 86-91.

[65]             Upadhyay, Ashok, “Things Fall Apart But The Centre Is Holding”, Business          India, Bombay, 23 October-5 November 1995, pp.54-56.

[66]             Khanna, 0.P., Ed., “General Studies”, The Competition Master, Chandigarh,  November 1995.

[67]             Banerjee, Op Cit., p. 46.

[68]             Naisbitt, John, Megatrends : The Eight Asian Megatrends that are Changing        the World, (Nicholas Brealy Publishing, New York, 1995).

[69]             Lederer, Edith M., “Asia Becoming Too Powerful to be Controlled by US : Report”, The Times of India, Bombay, 28 January 1996.

[70]             “United States Security Strategy for the East Asia-Pacific Region”, Department of Defence, Washington, February 1995, pp. 1-7.


[71]             Perry, Dr. William J., “U.S. Perceptions of Global Security”, U.S.I. Journal,             January-March 1995, p. 4.


[72]             Parasuram, T.V., “India 6th Largest Economy”, The Times of India, New     Delhi, 3 January 1996.


[73]             Mak, J. N., “ASEAN Maritime Insecurity : Contingency Planning in an        Uncertain World”, Defence ’95,(an Inter-national Defence Review annual         publication), p. 61.

[74]             Evans, Gareth, “Security in the Asia-Pacific Region”, Defence ’95, (an       International Defence Review annual publication), pp. 53-54.

[75]             Daruwalla, K.N., “Eastward Ho!”, The Economic Times, Bombay, 5 August  1995.

[76]             Velloor, Ravi, “New Kid on the Regional Block”, Business  World, New Delhi,  10-23 January 1996, p.116.

[77]             Gupta, Shekhar, “India Redefines its Role’, Adelphi  Paper 293, Oxford      University Press, London, 1995, p.64.

[78]             Briscoe, David, “1995 Witnessed 71 ‘Little Wars'”, The Times of India, New Delhi, 3 January 1996.

[79]             Ibid.

[80]             Hussain, M. Basheer, “Myth and Reality of Islamic Fundamentalism”, Deccan   Herald, Hyderabad, 15 January 1996.

[81]             Kumar, Dinesh, “Light Weapons are Taking a Heavy Toll”, The Times of    India, Bombay, 7 January 1996.

[82]             Press Trust of India report entitled “Death Lurks Underneath for UN            Peacekeepers”, Indian Express, Bangalore, 19 January 1996.

[83]             Norchi Charles H. “Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era”, Span, New Delhi, September 1995.

[84]             Khanna, O.P., ed., “Next Wars Will be Over Water”, The Competition Master,         Chandigarh, October 1995

[85]             Toffler, Op Cit., p. 299.

[86]             Ibid.

[87]             Ibid. p. 300.

[88]             Krauthammer, Op cit., p. 32.

[89]             Ibid P. 306.

[90]             Ibid. , pp. 316-317.