7

Cold War Politics and Beyond

International politics had undergone dramatic changes after the end of the Second World War. The domination of Europe in international politics had diminished, and new non-European powers emerged. Until the Second World War, several European states such as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Netherlands determined and controlled events in international politics. But the Second World War changed everything. Europe was most affected, as the war was fought in that continent. The long war damaged the economy of most European nations, and when it finally ended in 1945, these nations were devastated politically and economically. Europe, the centre of attention and power in international politics for a long time, failed to retain its former glory after the war. Instead, two non-European powers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, emerged as the two most powerful nations in the world.

It could be argued here that both the United States and the Soviet Union had participated in the Second World War, and shared the pain, agony and, to some extent, devastation of the war with the European nations. How did they, then, emerge as centres of power after the war? It should be noted here that the United States entered the war against Germany in 1942, three years after it had started. The United States was not hit hard by the war. On the contrary, with a very strong economy, it pumped up large sums of money and arms in support of the Allied Powers during the war. It also shed its long-held isolationism, practised to avoid active engagement in world politics, to participate in the Second World War in favour of the Allied powers. Since, unlike Europe, the United States was not severely affected by the war, it could emerge as a superpower after the war with its very strong industrial, economic and military bases. It was the world’s first nuclear power and also the first to use nuclear weapons during the war in 1945.

Soviet Union, on the other hand, was hit hard by the Second World War. Hitler attacked Soviet Union in 1941, and heavy war broke out in the Soviet territory. Millions of people died there, and the economy was also affected. But how did the Soviet Union overcome damages inflicted by the war and emerge as a superpower after the war? A few points could be cited as reasons behind this turnaround. First, the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world with a huge territory. The attack by Hitler could not shake the entire country. It was limited mainly to the European parts. Other areas of this vast country remained unaffected by this attack. Although Hitler’s attack gave a jolt to the Soviet economy, it could not paralyse the industrial and economic infrastructure of this vast land, as it did to many small European nations. Second, under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union emerged as an industrialized state, with particular emphasis on heavy industries. A sound industrial base helped the country emerge as a military power as well, which, in turn, paved the way towards its becoming a superpower. Third, in 1949, within four years of the end of the Second World War, Soviet Union became a nuclear power, the second in the world after the United States. The possession of nuclear weapons certainly allowed it to gain superpower status. Finally, the weakness of Europe as a whole, and the division of Germany after the war, also helped Soviet Union emerge as a superpower in international politics.

The world thus witnessed the emergence of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, after the Second World War. Their possession of nuclear weapons made them more powerful than the earlier European states, which were only major powers with conventional weapons. During the course of the war, they helped each other. But when the war was over, they began to oppose each other in order to gain supremacy in world politics. Their rivalry during the next four and a half decades gave birth to the Cold War in international politics.

Origin of the Cold War

The two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, started to contradict each other over the issue of reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War. The United States chalked out a grandiose plan to revive the Western part of a shattered Europe. Immediately after the war, the US President Harry S. Truman sought the approval of the US Congress for providing an assistance of $400 million to Greece and Turkey. The foreign policy objective of the Truman administration, however, was to contain the spread of communism in West Europe. This objective was known as the Truman Doctrine. Under the $400 million package intended originally for Greece and Turkey, other nations of West Europe were also covered gradually. The Truman Doctrine paid special assistance to Italy and France, as they had a long history of socialist inclination, to prevent them from falling to communism. If the Truman Doctrine was a grand but indirect foreign policy strategy to contain a communist Soviet Union, the Marshall Plan, unveiled by Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall, was more direct and open in its aspirations. It wanted to bring the whole of West Europe under American influence through the means of economic diplomacy. The Soviet Union became apprehensive both about the Truman Doctrine and the ‘Marshall Plan’. The Soviet leaders found in these plans the American design to make West Europe a satellite of the United States. To counter the US design, the Soviet Union started to give huge aids to the eastern part of Europe, which was geographically closer to the Soviet Union, to bring it into the Soviet fold. Germany, which was divided into four zones (under French, British, American and Soviet occupation) after the Second World War by the Potsdam Agreement, was also influenced by the two superpowers, and was ultimately divided into two parts—the Federal Republic of Germany (or West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (or East Germany). Gradually, the whole of Europe became ‘divided’ into an East bloc, controlled by the Soviet Union, and a West bloc, controlled by the United States. This ‘division’ of Europe was known as the East–West Divide. Each of the two superpowers exercised enormous economic and political influence over their blocs in Europe and tried to prevent the other from gaining any foothold there. The Cold War originated.

Apart from political rivalry for establishing supremacy in world politics, the two superpowers had pronounced ideological differences. The Soviet Union, which was officially known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was born after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. It was the first socialist country in the world which adopted the socialist principles of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in its state system and economy. On the other hand, the United States of America followed liberal democratic principles in its state policy and economy. These two ideologies (Marxist socialism and liberal democratic) are contradictory to each other. When both the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as superpowers after the Second World War, they began to suspect each other of ideological expansionism. The United States had the fear that the Soviets would spread socialism, which had become quite popular in the world, to attract other nations to its bloc. The Soviets doubted American designs of providing economic aid to different countries as ploys to bring them to the US camp. While the Soviet Union labelled the United States as a ‘neocolonial power’ trying to dominate others through the ‘politics of aid’ and the appealing ideals of liberal democracy, the Americans described the Soviets as ‘social imperialists’ trying to dominate the world through the attractive and popular ideology of socialism. Thus, the cold war of mud-slinging and psychological conflicts between the two superpowers owed their origin to ideological differences as well.

The Cold War was no real war between the superpowers, although tensions and war-like situations always engulfed the United States and the Soviet Union. Every political, economic, diplomatic and propaganda initiative of one superpower was matched with a similar or more powerful initiative by the other. As a consequence, the two superpowers and their satellites were always tense and on high alert. The Cold War was riddled with the possibilities of a real war, although that did not happen during its span of four and a half decades, from 1945 to 1990. With the beginning of the war, the Balance of Power system, that existed in international politics for three centuries, also came to an end. Instead of five or six major powers controlling international politics under this system, now only two superpowers began to exercise their control in world politics. The East–West divide, created by superpower rivalry, made international politics clearly bipolar from 1945. This bipolarity co-existed with the Cold War in international relations until 1990.

Evolution of the Cold War

The Cold War originated immediately after the Second World War in Europe. Gradually, it spread over to other continents. For a better and convenient understanding of the evolution of Cold War, a decade-wise analysis may be helpful.

Cold War in the 1940s

After the Second World War, differences escalated between the two superpowers over issues like the reconstruction of Europe, future of Germany and establishing supremacy in international politics. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan aimed at perpetuating American supremacy in Europe. The Soviet Union did not sit idle. To counter these plans, it extended financial and security assistance to East European countries to attract them to the Soviet lobby. Soon Europe was ‘divided’ into two blocs—one led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Union. By 1947, the Cold War had spread its roots in the continent of Europe. The US policy of containment of communism began in Europe with the Truman Doctrine, and was subsequently reinforced by the Marshall Plan. The Soviets devised their own strategy of expanding socialism to East Europe through financing and militarizing the East Bloc. The United States took a major initiative of providing a security ring for west European countries by the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. It was created to thwart any Soviet move to militarily dominate any Western Bloc country in Europe. It was agreed by the founding nations that all NATO-members would militarily help any member(s) attacked by an aggressor. In 1953, the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact to counter the NATO and provide security guarantee to East European countries. The Cold War had got firmly entrenched in Europe by the beginning of the next decade.

Cold War in the 1950s

The Cold War was not limited to Europe only. At the beginning of the new decade, with the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the Cold War spread to Asia. After the Second World War, Korea was divided into a North Korea under Soviet influence, and a South Korea under American patronage. Though the two superpowers established their influence over the two Koreas after the Second World War, they openly opposed each other over Korea during the Korean War. On 25 June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea. The United States demanded stern action against North Korea, the ‘aggressor’, and passed a resolution at the UN Security Council—in the absence of the Soviet Union—to initiate collective security measures against it. But when the Soviets returned to the council, the United States and its Western allies moved to the General Assembly and passed the Uniting for Peace Resolution to continue pressures on North Korea. They did it to avoid any Soviet veto in the Security Council. The Soviet Union opposed North Korea being identified as the ‘aggressor’ and promised to help its communist friend in the war. Another communist nation in Asia, the People’s Republic of China, joined the war for North Korea in November 1950, making the scenario more complicated. The UN-sponsored mechanism of collective security did not succeed in the Korean War (for details see Chapter 5), and the two superpowers issued threats and counter-threats to contain each other in the Korean War. Finally, a cease-fire was declared in 1953, but the Korean War had, by this time, brought to light the bitter rivalry between the two superpowers for control over international politics.

The Warsaw Pact was created in 1953, under the leadership of the Soviet Union, to provide security assistance to the East Bloc countries. It was mainly a security treaty that contained the provision that if any country signing the treaty was attacked by others, all nations under it would come to the rescue of the attacked country. Through the treaty, Soviet Union, in effect, extracted the right to send its military to other East Bloc countries, because the Soviets had the strongest military in the region. Soon the Soviets got the opportunity to send its military to Hungary in 1956 to crush the Hungarian uprising for more democratic rights. Trouble started in Hungary in the spring of 1956, when several thousand students and intellectuals demonstrated against repressive domestic policies and demanded more freedom. They wanted Imre Nagy, who was Prime Minister of Hungary from 1953 to 1955, to be appointed the head of a new government, because Nagy was pro-liberal. He was also supported by the United States. Soviet troops arrived in Hungary within hours after the trouble began, and opened fire on the demonstrators. But the movement for liberal policies gradually got popular support. Under public pressure, Nagy was appointed the Premier on 24 October 1956. But the next day, Janos Kadar, a Soviet-backed communist leader who opposed the movement, was appointed as the First Secretary—a powerful political post—of the Communist Party, to counterbalance the appointment of Nagy. By early November, Soviet troops had started suppressing the movement ruthlessly, and Premier Nagy appealed to the Security Council for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary. The United States and Britain supported his appeal, but the Council failed to act due to a Soviet veto. The US camp then took the matter to the General Assembly and appealed for a settlement under the Uniting for Peace Resolution. Soon after, massive attacks by the Soviet military on the supporters of liberal policies and Nagy followed, and Imre Nagy had to flee the country. Subsequently, Kadar was made the Head of the Government by the Soviet Union, and Nagy and his supporters were executed. The Hungarian uprising remained a history of bitter Cold War politics between the two superpowers.

The same year, the Cold War shifted to Africa with the Suez Canal crisis. On 26 July 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt, announced that his government would nationalize the Suez Canal Company. Britain and France protested this decision because they had a stake in the Suez Canal through their oil and shipping companies. Israel also warned that the proposed nationalization would violate the Jordan–Israel armistice demarcation line. A Suez Canal Users Association was formed in London, mainly at the initiative of Britain and France, to stall the plans of nationalization. Hectic diplomatic activities also started and Britain and France urged the Security Council to take up the matter. From late September that year, the council called several meetings, and the UN Secretary-General met British, French and Egyptian leaders to break the deadlock. But nothing substantial happened. When Nasser, backed by the Soviet Union, stuck to his plans, Britain and France started air attack on Egypt in late October. The Council accepted a Yugoslav proposal, mooted at the behest of Soviet Union, to call an emergency meeting of the General Assembly, under the Uniting for Peace Resolution, to restrain Britain and France. On 15 November 1956, a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was sent to Egypt. By that time, a cease-fire was achieved, mainly at the initiative of the United States. But the Suez Canal could not be reopened for commercial ships before late April 1957, because Egypt and UN authorities were working on the future control over the Canal. In accordance with an Egyptian government declaration on 24 April 1957, individual users of the Canal had to work out arrangements with Egypt for right to passage in the Canal, which, however, was denied to Israeli ships. Tension persisted in the region and the UNEF stayed back in Egypt. The superpowers were seriously involved in the crisis. It was again the issue of the West Bloc versus the East Bloc in the Suez Canal crisis.

The superpower rivalry did not remain limited to planet earth only; it reached outer space in the late 1950s. Both the United States and the Soviet Union launched ambitious space programmes during this period, which included spy satellites for monitoring enemy activities. Satellite-controlled missiles were also developed by the Soviets in 1957. This alarmed the United States, who developed similar weapons a year later. The advanced missile programmes of the two nuclear superpowers escalated the Cold War tensions. At large, the 1950s witnessed more intense rivalry between the superpowers in different parts of the world.

Cold War in the 1960s

The decade began with serious crises over issues like shooting down of a US spy aircraft by the Soviet Union and problems in Congo. In 1960, the Soviets shot down an American spy aircraft called U-2 flying over the Soviet territory. A huge uproar was made by the United States over the issue, and a summit meeting between the Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev and the American President Dwight Eisenhower was cancelled mid-way. The issue further embittered the relationship between the two superpowers. The same year, Congo in Africa faced a sudden political crisis when the Belgians, the colonizers of Congo, finally handed over power to the Congolese on 30 June 1960. On 11 July 1960, Katanga, the richest province in Congo, declared secession. This led to a civil war in Congo, and Belgium rushed back its troops to protect its citizens living in Congo. The situation turned worse when South Kasai, another Congolese province, declared its intention to secede from Congo. Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba appealed for military help from Soviet Union, China, as also from Ghana, a neighbouring country. The Soviet Union was eager to help, promptimg the United States to support anti-Lumumba forces within Congo. President Kasavubu of Congo appealed to the United Nations (UN) for help, and the UN Secretary-General took special initiative to send a peacekeeping team—the United Nations Operations in Congo (UNUC)—to the troubled country. President Kasavubu and Premier Lumumba gradually fell out over the issue of bringing peace to Congo, as Lumumba was dismissed by Kasavubu. The civil war continued and the ONUC could hardly restore peace in the country. When the news of Lumumba’s murder, allegedly by rival ethnic forces backed by the United States, arrived in January 1961, the civil war reached its peak. The ONUC had increased its forces with substantial contribution from the Indian military. The UN also sent a large number of civilians to negotiate peace. Gradually, the situation in Congo improved, and in August 1961, a Government of National Unity was formed under UN supervision. The ONUC continued its presence in Congo. The Congo crisis once again brought to light the severe political antagonism between the two superpowers.

In 1962, tensions escalated again over the Cuban Missile issue. In Cuba, a South American country geographically close to the United States, a communist government under the leadership of Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. A communist country next door irked the United States, while Castro remained apprehensive about an American attack. Therefore, relations between the two countries were hostile from the very beginning. In the summer of 1962, the Castro-government allowed the Soviet Union to install military bases on Cuban soil with medium-range ballistic missiles. An alarmed United States protested and complained that the ballistic missiles were targeted at the United States. The Americans also called for withdrawal of Soviet military bases from Cuba. US President John F. Kennedy warned the Soviets in October 1962 for launching offensive missiles in Cuba. Soviet President Kruschev denied that the purpose of the missiles was to attack the United States. As a security measure, the United States announced that it would search all westward-bound vessels within 800 miles of Cuba. The US Ambassador to the UN showed the Security Council photographic proofs of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Kruschev sent positive messages to the Americans in late October, stating his intentions to withdraw military bases from Cuba. The American President reduced the 800-miles embargo to 500 miles. President Kruschev repeated his promise to withdraw but wanted an assurance from the United States that it would not attack Cuba in future. The Soviets also wanted the removal of American missiles from Turkey installed in the late 1950s. President Kennedy agreed to both the Soviet demands after repeated negotiations between Soviet and American leaders and able mediation by the UN Secretary-General U Thant. President Kruschev withdrew all Soviet weapons by the end of 1962, and the United States removed its weapons from Turkey by April 1963. An imminent clash between the superpowers could be avoided.

In 1963–64, the United States became militarily engaged in South Vietnam, trying to prevent a takeover by the communists from North Vietnam. The American involvement in Vietnam actually started in 1961, when President Kennedy sent an ‘observer’ team to report what was happening there. One of the ‘reporters’ in a White Paper of 1961 asked for more military and financial aid to South Vietnam to prevent a takeover of the whole Vietnam by the Viet Cong, the communists. North Vietnam wanted to unite the two Vietnams under a communist rule. The Americans disliked this design and sent troops to prevent a military takeover. In early 1965, situations in Vietnam worsened with troops from the allegedly Soviet-backed North Vietnam crossing the 17th parallel and attacking South Vietnam. American President Johnson ordered the continuous bombing of military installations in North Vietnam. The American actions led to heavy civilian casualties. The United States decided to retain its troops in Vietnam due to the persistent fear of a communist takeover of the entire country. But the American leaders had to ultimately withdraw troops from Vietnam amidst severe domestic and international pressures. But it was engaged in Vietnam throughout the 1960s. During the 1960s, Vietnam witnessed a tense Cold War between the two superpowers.

It must be noted here that threats and counter-threats were used by both superpowers during the Cold War period as deterrent techniques to serve their purposes. The Cuban Missile Crisis remained a good example of this deterrent technique used by the superpowers. The Soviets threatened the United States with missiles in Cuba, to extract a promise from the Americans that they would not attack Cuba in future. This threat served the Soviet purpose. The United States, on the other hand, warned the Soviets of dire consequences for its ‘adventures’ in Cuba, to secure the withdrawal of Soviet military bases from Cuba. Threats, counter-threats, appeals, diplomatic negotiations—all methods were in fact applied by the superpowers as per the demands of the situation, during the Cold War. They also talked about reduction of arms. After the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, the United States and the Soviet Union signed, in 1963, a Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) to put a moratorium on nuclear tests. Although the LTBT was not successful in reducing Cold War tensions, it was nevertheless a timely attempt to achieve peace.

A Hungarian-type uprising for democratic rights emerged in Czechoslovakia, a Warsaw Pact state, in 1968. This time, the Soviet military took no chance and crushed the uprising at the outset. The United States and its Western allies condemned the Soviet military action in Czechoslovakia and called the Soviets ‘social imperialists’. For some time in 1968 and thereafter, Czechoslovakia remained the hot spot of Cold War rivalry between superpowers.

Cold War in the 1970s

The United States, it appeared, fell behind the Soviet Union in the Cold War at the beginning of the 1970s. The Arab countries, backed by the latter, stopped supply of petroleum to the United States in 1973 because of America’s support to Israel on the Palestine issue. As a result, the US economy became a bit shaky. In 1975, a US-backed government collapsed in South Vietnam, allegedly due to Soviet manipulations. Further, the collapse of the Shah government in Iran, which was actively patronized by the United States, put the Americans in an uncomfortable position in the Cold War. Encouraged by these American setbacks, Soviet Union decided to send its military to Afghanistan in 1979 to install a Moscow-backed government there. Although Soviet Union was initially successful in its mission, sending troops to Afghanistan proved to be disastrous for it later. In its Cold War political calculations, the country deemed it wise to control Afghanistan in order to effectively influence South and South-West Asia. It brought down the Hafizullah Amin government and installed the Babrak Karmal government in Afghanistan in accordance with its plans. The United States and the Western Bloc were alarmed by the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. They made the presence of the Soviet Army there an issue to corner the Soviets in almost all international bodies. Moreover, the Americans began to help anti-Soviet dissident groups in Afghanistan with money and arms with a view to topple the Babrak Karmal government. The Talibans were among the dissident groups that allegedly received American help at that time.

The Soviet Union had to sustain its army in Afghanistan in order to maintain its lead in the Cold War. But it was beyond the calculations of Soviet leaders that they would have to sustain Soviet army in Afghanistan for a prolonged period. The initial plan was to install a Moscowbacked government in Afghanistan and gradually withdraw troops. But, as events turned out, several rebel groups opposing Soviet presence surfaced throughout Afghanistan and, backed by the United States, got engaged in armed insurgencies against the Soviet army. Now, Soviet Union was caught in an unenviable situation. An early withdrawal of troops would mean the fall of the Karmal government and the victory of the rebel groups supported by the United States. This would be detrimental to Soviet interests in the Cold War. Therefore, Soviet leaders decided to retain their army in Afghanistan. But it proved to be a very costly decision, both in material and in political terms. Maintaining a large army in Afghanistan was a huge burden on the Soviet exchequer. Moreover, as the stay became longer, the morale of the army kept sinking all the more, because many soldiers were being killed by the rebel groups. Politically, it became an embarrassment for the Soviet Union to patronize its troops in an independent sovereign country for a long period. Therefore, the Soviet plan to send its army to Afghanistan in 1979 was indeed a costly mistake. The Soviet Union finally withdrew its military from Afghanistan in 1989, ten years after it was sent. But by that time, the stay had drained the Soviet economy, the confidence of the army and the charisma of the Soviet Union as a superpower.

Cold War in the 1980s

The Cold War reached its peak at the beginning of the 1980s due to the presence of the Soviet army in Afghanistan. American President Ronald Reagan, who assumed office in 1981, decided to increase the US Defence budget hugely, so as to counter the activities of the Soviet Union in more effective ways. Reagan wanted to give a lead to the Americans in the Cold War. He launched the ‘star wars’ programme that aimed at augmenting the production and the deployment of satellite-guided ballistic missiles and other modern weapons. The United States was also engaged in providing support to the rebel groups in Afghanistan. The clandestine presence of the United States in Afghanistan through dollars and guns escalated the Cold War to a great extent. The Americans also extended support to dissident groups opposed to Soviet-installed governments in Angola and Nicaragua. The United States support to rebel groups in Angola and Nicaragua led to civil wars in these two countries. The Reagan administration took it as a mission to oppose Soviet-backed governments in every part of the world. As a consequence, Cold War tensions and rivalry intensified in the first half of the decade.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev assumed power in Soviet Union. He showed more interest in reviving a decaying Soviet economy and liberating the closed, party-controlled Soviet society, than in continuing the Cold War. Gorbachev had reasons to depart from his predecessors. When he assumed office, the Soviet economy was in very bad shape due to the over-zealous policies framed by former Soviet leaders to stay ahead of the United States in the Cold War. The heavy Soviet Defence budget was a huge burden on the economy. Added to it was the prolonged presence of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, which also cost the economy to a significant extent. Soviet Union, Gorbachev realized, was a military superpower, but not an economic one. The poor condition of the Soviet economy had its impact in the social sectors as well. People were getting restive, and demands for an open society and polity were gaining grounds. Consequently, Gorbachev concentrated more on economic and social reforms. He initiated Perestroika and Glasnost, two policies for economic and social rejuvenation. He also ordered the return of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, signaling his intention to end the Cold War. By 1985–86, signs of the end of the Cold War, because of Soviet disinterest to continue it, became apparent.

Therefore, if the first half of the 1980s witnessed escalated Cold War tensions, the second half was marked with the beginning of the end of the war. Gorbachev’s policies of Perestroika and Glasnost brought sweeping changes in Soviet Union. Although these were domestic policies, they had far-reaching impact on the East Bloc countries as well. Under the influences of these two policies, demands for an open economy and an open society gradually strengthened in East Europe. Perestroika paved the way for the introduction of an open, market-oriented economy, first in the Soviet Union, and later in other East Bloc countries. Glasnost allowed freedom of speech and expression, right to self-determination by all nationalities and accommodation of different kinds of views, communist or non-communist. Under its impact, demands for multi-party democracy and separate states for different ethnic communities emerged. As a consequence, the one-party system broke down in the Soviet Union and other parts of East and Central Europe. Nationalism based on ethnicity, dormant so far, also surfaced. Soviet Union disintegrated into fifteen new independent countries. Some other East Bloc countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia also disintegrated. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, there was no superpower to continue the Cold War, and the four and a half decade long Cold War finally came to an end in 1991.

Causes of the End of the Cold War

The Cold War continued in international politics for a long time due to the desire of both the superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—to establish ideological and political supremacy all over the world. But when the latter started showing its disinterest in continuing with it from the mid-1980s, the war lost its intensity. From 1985—this is when Gorbachev became the supreme leader of the country—Soviet Union concentrated more on domestic economic and political reforms than on continuing with war. As said earlier, Gorbachev initiated two policies after assuming power—the Glasnost and the Perestroika, which, in the long run, became instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War. ‘Glasnost’ means ‘open air’ in its nearest English translation. Gorbachev wanted to introduce this sense of openness into the Soviet society and politics, which were considered to be rigid and closed. So far, freedom of speech and expression were believed to be absent in the Soviet society. There was very little scope for constructive criticism, for opposing political views in a one-party system. The party bureaucracy exercised high degree of vigilance in every sphere of social and political life in order to silence criticism and to punish the ‘critics’. There was a sense of fear everywhere. The media in the Soviet Union was a puppet in the hands of the party bureaucracy. Under Glasnost, freedom of speech and expression, in the truest sense of the term, was allowed to the Soviet people. For the first time in Soviet history, people could speak out without fear. For the first time, a different political opinion was not considered a crime. Soviet media was also allowed, under Glasnost, to operate outside state-control. As a result, different news and views, other than those wished by the government, started to reach the Soviet society. The free media indulged in constructive criticism. With the permission given by the Gorbachev-administration for the use of satellite television in the country, the world reached the homes of the Soviet people. One could now easily feel an air of openness around them. Under the impact of the Glasnost, all kinds of change took place in the Soviet society. Free speech and free media allowed distressed voices, suppressed so far, to speak against party bureaucracy. Criticism was no longer drowned in fear. Different political groups started to emerge, and people started asserting their right to self-determination. Glasnost paved the way for the creation of a liberal society and a multi-party democracy, and the end of the one-party rule was imminent. It also allowed different ethnic communities living in the Soviet Union to express their demands. Nationalism based on ethnicity gained strength, and demands for separate states became very prominent. Non-Russian nationalities asserted their rights to self-determination and refused to be ruled by the Russians. As a result, Soviet Union disintegrated gradually and peacefully into fifteen independent states in 1991, twelve of which formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Like Glasnost, Perestroika too had a far-reaching impact . ‘Perestroika’, in the nearest English translation, means economic reforms, something which Gorbachev initiated to ‘open’ the Soviet economy. By the middle of the 1980s, when Gorbachev assumed office, the Soviet economy was in poor shape due to burdens of Cold War military and aid expenses to live up to a superpower status. But during the long period of the Cold War, the Soviet Union could not develop its industrial infrastructure in the modern sense of the term. Since the tenure of Stalin, almost all Soviet leaders concentrated mainly on heavy industries that could support weapons-related industries. So, modern industries like IT (information technology)-based sunrise industry, electronics or consumer goods industry did not develop much in the Soviet Union. The country also lagged behind in international trade. It had substantial trade relations with the East Bloc countries and some other ‘friendly’ countries like India. But these countries did not have sound economic bases. Moreover, it had practically no trade relation with the industrially and technologically developed West Bloc countries. Soviet earnings from international trade were, therefore, negligible. The ‘closed’ nature of the Soviet economy and absence of trade relations with the industrial world also contributed towards negligence of modern industrial infrastructures in the Soviet Union. Added to these were the burdens of maintaining a superpower status and the Cold War. Military expenses soared as the Soviet Union tried to maintain its superpower status through its very strong military power. But the Soviet economy was becoming increasingly unable to shoulder this burden. It was in disarray.

Perestroika aimed at reviving the Soviet economy and putting it alongside the mainstream world economy. Gorbachev freed the Soviet economy from its ‘closed’ state and opened it up to the world. Private business was allowed, foreign companies permitted to enter the Soviet Union, and foreign investments welcomed. The ‘open’ economy attracted investments from American and Western European multinational corporations since the huge Soviet market had great investment potential. Gradually, Soviet economy was transformed from a closed socialist-type economy to an open market-oriented economy. The arrival of American and Western investments to the Soviet market in turn softened the political outlook of these countries towards the Soviet Union. Economic interests gradually helped to weaken Cold War political rivalry. Therefore, the introduction of liberal market economy in Soviet Union under the impact of Perestroika contributed significantly towards the end of the Cold War.

While it is generally agreed that Gorbachev’s policies, including Glasnost and Perestroika, were noteworthy factors behind the end of the Cold War, the answer to the most important question—‘Why Gorbachev showed his disinclination to continue the Cold War?’—would be manifold. First, the Soviet economy was in shambles during the mid-1980s, when Gorbachev assumed power and was in no way capable of continuing the Cold War. Gorbachev was quick to realize this and had to signal the end of the war. Second, it could be assumed that the ‘star wars’ strategy of American President Ronald Reagan had de-motivating effects on the Soviet Union. Reagan’s stupendous expenses on ‘star wars’ took the United States far ahead of the Soviet Union in the Cold War in the early 1980s. Gorbachev realized that it would be impossible to match American expenses on Cold War because of Soviet engagements in Afghanistan and the poor shape of the Soviet economy. So, he withdrew Soviet Union from the Cold War. Third, the closed, incapacitated Soviet economy would have in any case crumbled, with or without the onus of the Cold War. This desperate situation led Gorbachev to initiate Perestroika to instil life in the Soviet economy and discontinue the Cold War. After the end of the Cold War, a tendency towards unipolarity in international politics could be observed.

Ethnicity and Nationalism in East Europe

Under the influence of Glasnost and Perestroika, winds of change started to blow in East Europe before the end of the Cold War. The right to self-determination of the people, suppressed so far under a closed political system, began to receive political support. Demands from different ethnic communities for a separate state started to emerge consequently. The whole of East Europe witnessed ethnic nationalism immediately before and after the Cold War. Under the impact of people’s demands for a separate statehood, several new states were created in East and Central Europe, and the map of Europe changed. Nationalistic movements in East and Central Europe were noteworthy developments in the post–Cold War politics of Europe. This section will analyse ethnic nationalism in different parts of Europe after the Cold War.

Ethnic Nationalism in Former Czechoslovakia

After the Second World War, Czechoslovakia emerged as a socialist state and signed the Warsaw Pact under the influence of the Soviet Union. Like other East Bloc countries, Czechoslovakia too followed Soviet political and economic models based on socialist principles. But, under the impact of Glasnost and Perestroika, winds of change also arrived in Czechoslovakia. From the early 1980s, resentment against one-party rule started to grow. Although similar resentment had been witnessed earlier, in 1968, when movements for democratic rights were scuttled by the Soviet military, the situation was different during the 1980s, due to the pervasive influence of the two policies. By 1989, when there were clear indications that the Cold War was nearing an end, the two principal ethnic groups in Czechoslovakia, the Czechs and the Slovaks, had started raising demands for the end of the one-party rule. This demand gradually gained strength and the movement for ending one-party rule spread throughout the country. Sensing the popular mood, the communist government in Czechoslovakia decided to hand over power to a non-communist government in a peaceful manner and resigned.

During the movement for democracy—and for an end to one-party rule—a Civic Forum was formed in the Czech-dominated northern part, under the leadership of Vaclav Havel, a noted writer, political activist and supporter of reforms in Czechoslovakia. In the Slovak-dominated south, another political organization, Public Against Violence (PAV) was formed. In December 1989, the Czechoslovak Parliament declared Havel as the new president of the country. He became the first non-communist president since the Second World War. The transformation from a communist to a non-communist government in Czechoslovakia was smooth and without any bloodshed. This peaceful transition later came to be known as the Velvet Revolution—a testimony of higher levels of political consciousness among the people of Czechoslovakia.

General elections were held in Czechoslovakia in June 1990. The Civic Forum in the northern part and the PAV in the southern part won the elections with huge margins. In July the same year, the Parliament of Czechoslovakia re-elected Havel as the president. Havel appointed Marian Calfa, a former communist leader, as the prime minister. The new government initiated economic reform programmes in the country. From a state-controlled economy, Czechoslovakia rapidly moved towards privatization. But this rapid transition created many economic and social problems. Poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, inflation escalated to unprecedented levels. In 1991, the rate of inflation reached an astronomical 58 per cent. As a consequence, social unrest also grew. The Slovak ethnic community blamed the Czech leadership for maintaining a huge economic disparity between the Czechs and the Slovaks.

In a multi-ethnic Czechoslovakia, the two principal ethnic communities were the Czechs and the Slovaks. They comprised 67 per cent of the total population. Between the two, the Czechs were a huge majority with 51 per cent of the total population. The Slovaks made 16 per cent of the population and the remaining 33 per cent comprised many nationalities like the Germans, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Bohemians. However, due to their numerical superiority, the Czechs were the dominant ethnic community with an overwhelming presence in the social, economic and political sectors. The Slovaks were always resentful of the Czech domination, and they expressed it on several occasions. However, Czechoslovakia survived as a nation on the basis of reconciliation between the two principal ethnic communities under the communist regime.

After the elections in 1990, poverty and unemployment rose sharply in the Slovak region. In 1991, unemployment reached 13 per cent in the Slovak region, but at the same time it was 2.7 per cent in the Czech region. This resulted in increased frustration and resentment against the Czechs among the Slovak people. The Slovaks alleged that the rich and developed Czech region was enjoying all the benefits of economic reforms. To remove this economic disparity, they demanded a separate state for themselves. Thus, ethnic nationalism in the Slovak region concentrated mainly around economic issues. President Havel tried his best to meet the demands of the Slovaks within the constitutional framework of Czechoslovakia. But the growing Slovak nationalism did not relent from its demand for a separate state. The Czechoslovak Parliament gradually agreed on the demand for a separate state for the Slovaks.

Another general election took place in Czechoslovakia in June 1992, this time mainly on the issue of two separate states for the Czechs and the Slovaks. In the Czech region, the conservative Civil Democratic Party (CDP) won the elections. Vaclav Klaus, the leader of the CDP, was a staunch supporter of market economy. In the Slovak region, Vladimir Meciar’s Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (MDS) won convincingly. President Havel called Klaus and Meciar after the elections to decide the future of Czechoslovakia. Meciar, a hard-core Slovak nationalist, stuck to the demand of a separate state for the Slovak people, a demand that also helped him win the election. In July 1992, the Slovak National Assembly, the regional Legislature of the Slovaks, declared sovereign existence for the Slovak area. In the National Parliament, Slovak parliamentarians opposed another term for President Havel, who was a Czech. Havel failed to muster sufficient majority for another term as president and resigned from office.

Meanwhile, after several rounds of discussion, Klaus and Meciar decided that Czechoslovakia would be split into two states. On 31 December 1992, two separate states were born out of the former Czechoslovakia—the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Ethno-nationalism, generated by economic disparity, was the reason behind the birth of two new nations in East Europe. But the disintegration of Czechoslovakia was unique in the sense that it was totally based on discussions and consensus, without any bloodshed. In Czechoslovakia, the aims and aspirations of two principal nationalities were met successfully through peaceful negotiations. This showed the extremely advanced political culture of the people of former Czechoslovakia. The two new nations, Czech Republic and Slovakia, have now joined the European mainstream and are striving for increased economic developments. They are also engaged in constructive cooperation among themselves.

Ethnic Nationalism in Former Yugoslavia

Unlike Czechoslovakia, ethnic nationalist movements in former Yugoslavia were not at all peaceful. Different ethnic communities in Yugoslavia were engaged in bloody civil wars after the breakdown of the socialist regime. However, ethnic problems in Yugoslavia started much earlier, mainly after the death of Josip Broz Tito. In order to understand ethnic problems in Yugoslavia, it is necessary to know the demographic and socio-economic characters of this former socialist country. After the Second World War, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was created with six republics: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Under Serbia, there were two autonomous regions: Vojvodina and Kosovo. Before and during the early periods of the Second World War, from 1918 to 1941, Yugoslavia was under a monarchical system. During 1941–42, Yugoslavia was under Nazi control; a royal government in exile was created in early 1943. The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, proclaimed by Josip Broz Tito and recognized by the Allied powers, came into being in mid-1943, during the Second World War. After the war was over in 1945, Tito established his authority, and the FRY was finally proclaimed. The FRY initially followed the Soviet model and became a socialist state. Tito was first the Prime Minister, and later the President of the FRY. He was the supreme leader of Yugoslavia for thirty-five years, from 1945 to 1980. Under him, rapid industrialization and urbanization took place in Yugoslavia, and it became a prosperous country. Tito also joined the NAM later, although he never deviated from the official path of socialism. Tito was a very able and pragmatic leader, and under his long rule, separatist ethno-nationalism remained strictly under control. In fact, ethno-nationalism could hardly be observed in FRY during his tenure.

A unique feature in Yugoslavia’s social life was the presence of different ethnic communities which were mixed and scattered all over the country. It was unique in the sense that in FRY no particular ethnic community resided in a particular place, like in many other European countries. They were highly intermingled and scattered all over. As per the 1991 Census—the first after the Cold War—8.5 million Serbians lived outside Serbia, in Bosnia and Croatia. Likewise, 20 per cent of the Croats lived outside Croatia, mainly in Bosnia and Vojvodina. Therefore, in Yugoslavia, ethnic communities lived in a mixed form, and, as in former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, they did not particularly live in their ‘own’ states. For this reason, separatist nationalism became very violent in Yugoslavia, as different ethnic and religious communities took up arms against one another within a particular state. The mixed demographic character of the FRY could be ascertained from another instance, taken from the 1991 Census. In Bosnia, as per the Census, 44 per cent identified themselves as Muslims, 31 per cent called themselves Serbs, 17 per cent called themselves Croats and only 5 per cent identified themselves as Yugoslavs. Owing to this highly intermingled population, the civil war in Bosnia took an ugly and violent turn.

Ethnic communities in FRY were separated from one another on the basis of language and religion. From the beginning of the Second World War to its disintegration, FRY had three official languages—Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian. The Serbs, the Croats and the Montenegrins used the Cyrillic alphabet for the Serbo-Croatian language, while the Muslim Slavs wrote the same language in the Latin alphabet. Those who used the Cyrillic alphabet considered themselves superior to others and took special pride in their script. Language was thus a source of ethnic differences in former Yugoslavia. Religion also created differences among ethnic groups. For instance, Serbs, Macedonian Slavs and Montenegrins were orthodox Christians; while Croats and Slovenians were Roman Catholics. There were also divisions among Muslims. Albanians and Muslim Slavs were ‘Sunnis’, while the rest identified them as ‘Shias’. Religion also played a role in the use of alphabets in former Yugoslavia. For example, the orthodox Christians used the Cyrillic alphabet, and the rest used the Latin. All these differences created divisive senses among the people of former Yugoslavia.

Separatism could not, however, raise its ugly head during the tenure of Josip Broz Tito, mainly because of his able leadership, the one-party system under socialism, and satisfactory levels of economic development in FRY. However, after the death of Tito in 1980, there was a serious crisis of leadership in the country. The successors of Tito were not only inefficient, they were highly partial as well. They were extremely loyal to their own ethnic communities, a dangerous trend in a multi-ethnic country like Yugoslavia. In the absence of efficient leadership, the rate of economic growth declined, developmental projects suffered and the leaders of the six republics blamed one another for the decay. This had never happened during Tito’s tenure. As a fallout of economic decline, all kinds of social unrest began to surface. Slovenia and Croatia, the two economically advanced provinces, alleged that other underdeveloped provinces of the South were burdening their economies. In 1988, Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb nationalist leader, started a movement for an independent state. He suspended the autonomous status for Vojvodina and Kosovo and pressurized the Albanian majority living in Kosovo to accept Serb supremacy. Milosevic’s policies created tremendous panic among the non-Serbs living in former Yugoslavia, and they tried to resist his desire to bring the whole of Yugoslavia under Serb domination. This led to the beginning of fierce and bloody ethnic conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia and other regions of former Yugoslavia.

The Communist Party in Yugoslavia was formally dismantled in January 1990. After the end of the one-party rule, leaders of different provinces began to foment ethnic nationalism. Milosevic’s extreme Serb nationalism created severe resentment in economically prosperous Slovenia and Croatia. People as well as leaders of these two provinces felt that extreme Serb nationalism would be detrimental for their economic and ethnic interests. Afraid and resentful of Serb domination over Yugoslavia, the republics of Croatia and Slovenia declared independence on 25 June 1991. Earlier, they had conducted a referendum for separate statehood, which was overwhelmingly supported by Slovenians and Croats. In 1992, the European Community (EC) recognized the independence of these two states. Two other republics, Bosnia and Macedonia, also declared independence at the end of 1991 and appealed for recognition from the EC. When the EC and the United States recognized Bosnia and Macedonia in April 1992, fierce ethnic wars started in these two republics. In Bosnia, Serbs, Croats and Muslims targeted one another in a bloody civil war seldom witnessed before. Each community had its agenda of ethnic cleansing in this civil war. Millions died and millions were displaced in Bosnia due to this civil war. The fierce civil war continued from 1992 to 1995. Finally, peace was restored in Bosnia in December 1995, when leaders from the United States, the NATO, Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia signed the Dayton Peace Accord to end the civil war in Bosnia. Hatred based on ethnicity, and the desire of all ethnic groups to annex territory, made the civil war in Bosnia bloody and violent.

On 27 April 1992, Serbian leader Milosevic declared that Serbia and Montenegro would hence-forth be known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). With this announcement, Milosevic tried to fulfill two wishes—first, to make Serbia and Montenegro the legal heir of former Yugoslavia; second, to accept, legally, the disintegration of Yugoslavia. But the UN, the EC and several states refused to accept Serbia as the inheritor of Yugoslavia. Following this, FRY was renamed Serbia and Montenegro in February 2003. Therefore, former Yugoslavia was initially split into five states due to ethnic nationalism. These five states are Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia-Montenegro. It may be noted in this context that Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008. Although Kosovo’s independence was recognized by several countries, several others, including Serbia and Russia, refused such recognition. Russia threatened to veto Kosovo’s membership of the UN. So Kosovo has very little chance to become a UN-member in the near future as its independent status remains controversial at present.

Many reasons could be cited for the disintegration of Yugoslavia. These are: (1) extreme form of nationalism; (2) ethnic hatred; (3) crisis of leadership (after Tito’s death); (4) non-uniform economic development (northern provinces like Slovenia and Croatia were more developed than the southern provinces) and (5) the unwillingness of different ethnic communities to live in a united Yugoslavia. All these factors led to severe ethnic conflicts in different parts of Yugoslavia. In all, four civil wars took place on the basis of ethno-nationalism in Yugoslavia. The first of these civil wars took place in Slovenia. It lasted only for ten days during June–July 1991, and there was very little casualty. The second one happened in Croatia, during the periods July–December 1991 and May–June 1995. The rate of casualty in the second war was more than Slovenia; thousands died and thousands were rendered homeless. But the third civil war in Bosnia was more violent. Millions died and about 2.5 million people were rendered homeless. Kosovo witnessed the fourth civil war from March to June 1999. Milosevic’s repressive policies towards the Albanians and his desire to establish Serb supremacy gave the civil war horrific proportions. Kosovo attracted the attention of the whole world, and to resist Milosevic’s Serb army, the NATO resorted to massive bombing in Kosovo. To safeguard the Albanians from Serb militia, the NATO called its mission in Kosovo a ‘humanitarian intervention’. Kosovo created quite a stir in international politics in 1999.

Ethnic Problem in the Russian Federation

Ethnic nationalism, mainly spearheaded by the Chechen people, has remained an irritant for the Russian Federation (henceforth, only Russia) for some time. At present, Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of territory. As per the 1999 Census, the Russian population is 14.6 crores, comprising over a hundred ethnic communities. The Russians constitute the largest ethnic community with 82 per cent of the total population of the country. The second largest ethnic community, as per the 1999 census, is Tatar, constituting 4 per cent. Among other ethnic communities, notable in terms of population are Ukrainians, Chuvashes, Germans, Buryats, Jews, Yakuts and Chechens. Russia has twenty-one autonomous republics (henceforth ‘provinces’, for easy understanding) and some of these provinces are named after the principal ethnic community living there. For example, in the Tatar province, the Tatars; in Yakut, the Yaukuts, and in Buryat, the Buryats are principal ethnic communities. But the Russians, numerically far superior to other ethnic groups, have a sizeable presence in all provinces. In fact, they are the majority ethnic community in several provinces, and have occupied important positions in the political and economic sectors. Other ethnic communities are resentful of this Russian domination.

In Chechnya, however, the Russians are not a majority; and the Chechens outnumber the Russians to be the majority ethnic community. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chechnya became one of the twenty-one autonomous republics of Russia. Under former Soviet Union, Chechnya was in the autonomous republic of Chechen-Ingush. When Soviet Union was being split into fifteen independent states, Chechnya reiterated its demand for a separate statehood. In 1991, within months after the formation of the Russian Federation, Chechnya declared its independence. But the Russian government under President Boris Yeltsin—the first post–Cold War government in Russia—rejected this declaration and urged Chechen leaders to stay within Russia. It considered the Chechen demand for a separate statehood dangerous because such demands could incite separatist movements in other provinces as well, especially in non-Russian majority provinces like Tatar, Chuvash, Buryat or Yakut. Historically, Chechnya could never identify itself with the Russian culture, because its religion, language, social practices, all were different from those of the Russians. The Chechen language originated from the Nakh language group of the Caucasus region. The Chechens, for this reason, also identify themselves as ‘nokh-chiis’. For long, the Arabic script was used to write in the Chechen language. In 1920, the Latin script replaced the Arabic and is now used to write the language. The Russian language, on the other hand, is a part of the broader Indo-European language group, and originated from its Slav branch. The Chechens are thus linguistically different from the Russians. Their religions are different too. The Chechens are Muslims, mainly Sunnis. For a long time, religion had helped the Chechens maintain an identity separate from that of the ‘Christian’ Russians. Due to differences in language and religion, the Chechens considered themselves culturally different from the majority Russians in former Soviet Union.

The Chechens never accepted Russian domination lying down. In 1944, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin accused the Chechens of conspiring with Nazi Germany to topple the Soviet government. As a punitive measure, Stalin sent the Chechen leaders to exile in Central Asia. The autonomous status of the Chechen-Ingush region was also scrapped at that time. However, in 1957, this status was restored. The Chechens and the Russians shared a history of antagonism for long. After the disintegration of Soviet Union, their rivalry reached its peak. At the beginning of 1991, when the split of Soviet Union became imminent, Dzhokhar Dudayev, the Army Chief of Chechnya, demanded the end of Soviet rule in Chechnya and ‘expelled’ the Soviet army and the government officials from there. In October 1991, Dudayev won the election in Chechnya and became the President. Chechnya declared its independence before the ‘official’ disintegration of the Soviet Union in November 1991; but Dudayev was unable to obtain recognition for an independent Chechnya from other countries. The new Yeltsin-government of Russia urged the Chechen leaders to abandon demands for a separate statehood, and promised greater autonomy for Chechnya within the Russian Federation. Negotiations continued throughout 1992 and 1993 for providing greater autonomy to Chechnya, but the Chechen leaders never deviated from their demand for a separate state. As a consequence, talks between the Yeltsin- and the Dudayev-government failed. With the problem of ethnic nationalism becoming too serious in Chechnya in 1994, the Russian military was sent to tackle the situation. In a battle between the Russian and the Chechen armies, more than 40,000 people died. In February 1995, the Russian army captured Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. Dudayev fled, but terrorist activities continued. Dudayev was ultimately killed in 1996 in a rocket attack launched by the Russian army.

In May 1996, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Chechen leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev signed a cease-fire. But this cease-fire failed to bring peace in Chechnya as the Russian army and the Chechen rebels continued to fight among themselves. Grozny was devastated and 300,000 Chechens took shelter in other parts of Russia. Russia reiterated its plans to give more autonomy to Chechnya. But the Chechen leaders rejected the offer and continued their fight. In August 1996, the Chechen rebels ‘liberated’ Grozny from the Russian army. In late August, a peace accord was signed between Aleksandr Lebed, Security Adviser to the Russian President, and the Chechen rebel leaders. By this accord, both sides accepted to postpone the question of Chechen statehood till 2001. It was decided that Chechnya would enjoy extreme autonomy till 2001, but the issue of separate statehood would be decided after that year. As per the peace accord, Russia withdrew its troops from Chechnya in December 1996.

The Chechen people and a section of the Chechen rebels could not accept the peace accord, as they found it insulting to Chechen nationalism. In the elections held in January 1997, Yandarbiyev was defeated and Army Chief Aslan Maskhadov elected the new President of Chechnya. In May the same year, Maskhadov signed another treaty with Yeltsin. But this new treaty actually retained the provisions of the treaty of August 1996. This resulted in Maskhadov being termed a traitor by the Chechen rebels and losing his authority, although he could not be removed from presidency immediately. Violent nationalism returned to Chechnya in mid-1997, and the province witnessed frequent and continuous armed battles. In 1999, the rebels captured Dagestan, and declared Chechen-Dagestan an Islamic state. Moscow sent troops and ‘liberated’ Dagestan, but terrorist activities continued. During August–September 1999, Chechen rebels bombarded Moscow and two other cities of Russia. In retaliation, Russian troops entered Chechnya again and captured Grozny in December 1999. Thereafter, once again fierce battle ensued between the Chechen rebels and the Russian army.

In May 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Chechnya was an integral part of Russia, and all federal laws would be implemented in the autonomous republic of Chechnya. Putin decided to remove Maskhadov from Chechen presidency and install Akhmad Kadyrov as the new President. Maskhadov did not agree and began to openly instigate the rebels. Putin’s declaration that Chechnya was an integral part of Russia violated the provisions of the August 1996 and May 1997 peace accords which decided to postpone the issue of Chechen statehood till 2001. Under the circumstances, rebels fighting for the cause of a Chechen state escalated their activities with Maskhadov as their new mentor. In October 2002, Chechen rebels forcibly captured a theatre in Moscow and detained 800 Russian people, including women and children. They threatened to blow up the theatre along with all the detainees if their demand for a separate Chechen state was not accepted. A special task force of the Russian military eventually rescued people trapped inside the hall by transmitting gas inside the hall, although 129 people—this included rebels as well—were killed in this operation. In November 2002, the Putin-government announced that a referendum would be held in Chechnya for the proposed Chechen Constitution which prescribed increased autonomy for Chechnya within the Russian federal system. The referendum was held in March 2003. Moscow declared it as being very successful while the Chechen rebels saw it as a great failure. Normalcy suffered between claims and counter-claims, and peace could not be restored in Chechnya. In September 2004, Chechen rebels captured a school in Beslan near Moscow and detained nearly a thousand people, including children and teachers. They demanded withdrawal of all Russian troops from Chechnya. The Russian army entered the school and recaptured it from the rebels, but not before a total of 350 persons, including rebels, were killed. This incident of Beslan was later compared with the ‘9/11’ terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001.

Chechnya continues to remain an irritant for the federal government in Russia, which prefers to include Chechnya as part of the federation. Chechens, on the other hand, consider Russian domination over Chechnya as forced and without popular support. They continue to consider themselves a separate ethnic community with little similarity with the Russians; they continue to struggle for an identity separate from that of the Russians. Ethno-nationalism inspired the Chechens to voice their demand for a separate state for Chechnya, which the Russians rejected for fear of more such demands from other non-Russian nationalities. Ethno-nationalism, which remained dormant under socialist regimes, dominated the political scenario of East and Central Europe after the Cold War.

Post–Cold War World Order

The four and a half decade long Cold War (1945–90) marked an important phase in recent international politics. This war was responsible for the bipolar nature of world politics, in which the two superpowers behaved like separate poles and contradicted each other on almost every issue and in every part of the world. The ideological and political differences between the Soviet Union and the United States acted towards sustaining bipolarity in international politics during this period. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cold War ended and bipolarity in world politics also ceased to exist. International politics had undergone remarkable changes after the end of the war. The Russian Federation was acknowledged as the successor of the former Soviet Union by the international community. It was given a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, in place of the Soviet Union. Russia also retained nearly 85 per cent of the nuclear capability of the former Soviet Union. With Cold War political calculations disappearing, Russia and the United States started effective cooperation between themselves in the economic, political and security spheres.

Other notable developments in world politics that took place after the Cold War were the unification of Germany, the creation of the CIS, and the divisions of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Bipolarity and Bloc politics there being no more, East and West Germany got united into one Germany, and the Berlin Wall—it divided the city of Berlin and symbolized the onset of the Cold War—was demolished to mark the end of the war. Among the fifteen sovereign states created out of the Soviet Union, twelve formed the CIS, marking the beginning of a new era of cooperation and friendship. As noted earlier, Yugoslavia was initially split into five independent states amidst ethnic violence, and Czechoslovakia was divided into two sovereign states peacefully. This shows that the internal map of Europe was altered after the Cold War. In other parts of the world, countries were adjusting to their roles in a new world order which was markedly different from that of the previous four and a half decades. The days of bipolarity were over; political calculations on the basis of bipolarity had to be changed.

What was the nature of this new world order? In the absence of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the only superpower with formidable economic, military and political clouts. It appeared that there was no nation that could successfully counter the might of the United States. Therefore, the new international order immediately after the Cold War was described by scholars as a unipolar world, with the United States as the remaining superpower (Russia no longer remained a superpower), exercising unobtrusive control over world politics. Thus, bipolarity was replaced by unipolarity after the end of the Cold War.

At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the question regarding the unipolar nature of the present international order may be re-examined. Is the world strictly unipolar today? Today, there are some powers in the international order which can pose a challenge to the superiority of the United States. China is believed by many to be one such power. It has a very strong military, the second strongest in the world. China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a nuclear-weapon state. Besides, China has achieved spectacular economic growth during the last two decades. If this rate of economic growth is sustained by China, it may emerge as a counter-balancing force to the United States in the near future. The European Union (EU) is also surging ahead despite different odds. A united Europe, as history has proved, could be a force to reckon with. This regional organization has one of the most powerful economies in the world at present. So, the EU is most likely to figure in any future power calculations, Russia has inherited most of the military might of former Soviet Union. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, it has retained almost 85 per cent of the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union, as well as the permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Russia is now an emerging economy, and if it can continue with its current economic growth rate, this largest country on earth would certainly emerge as a great power. Finally, a united Germany has the potential to be a power to notice. It is one of the most industrially developed nations in the world and a major contender for a permanent seat in a revamped UN Security Council. In future, Germany too may play a crucial role in international politics. Considering the rise of these forces, a situation of bipolarity—United States versus China or United States versus Russia—or balance of power may once again emerge in world politics in the near future.

International politics is ever-changing; it is dynamic. It had never accepted any particular order as permanent. Before the Second World War, the balance of power system existed for a long period. After the war, there was change in this balance and a new bipolar world order set in. After the Cold War, the bipolar system made way for a unipolar one in world politics. At present, the United States is the sole superpower and the pivot around which this unipolar world politics revolves. But there are some powers, as has been just mentioned, which can pose a threat to the US supremacy. All this makes the current international order loaded with multipolar characteristics, where more than one power may exercise influence in world politics. Bipolarity or another balance of power system may mark international politics once again in the future. Considering all this, it would not be unwise to describe the present international order as ‘unipolar with multipolar tendencies’.